Angl-Am - User contributions [en]

2009-10 AM Fictions of India - Expert Group on (Post-)Colonialism

2010-02-01T18:25:51Z

Hanna Nieber:

==Expert Group on (Post-)Colonialism==

'''Group: Representations of India'''

'''''Kim'''''

- Kim‘s journey with the lama starts in Lahore (which today belongs to Pakistan)
- Come as far as Benares
- Make an excursion into the Himalayas, to the very edge of India (quests reach a climax)
- Return to the plains => No borders that hinder Kim‘s travel

- Connection of places through the Grand Trunk Road and by the railway
“The Grand Trunk Road at this point [at Benares] was built on an embankment [...], so that one walked, as it were, a little above the country, along a stately corridor, seeing all India spread out to left and right.” (p. 63)
- The Grand Trunk Road (former Sadak-e-Azam (“great road”) was improved by the British during their colonial rule and renamed “Grand Trunk Road”, one of the major roads in India and Pakistan)
- The “te-rain” (railway introduced by the British) ->essential to ensure British colonial rule? – readable as “terrain”?
“[...] at every few kos is a police-station.” (p. 57)

Postcolonial readership creates its own perception of the Indian society as they tend to give equal opportunities for everyone to be mentioned and recognized:
Open questions: Should the Secret Service (Great Game) be on the same place as the other parts of society -> postcolonial reading?
Or should it be above everything else -> imperialistic reading?

'''''Untouchable'''''

- Portrayal of outcaste colony of an unnamed town in colonial India
- Creation of two worlds
- After Bakha‘s talk to Colonel Hutchinson he comes to see a mass of different people who want to attend a speech by Ghandi
-> Grand Trunk Road and railway mentioned
“It was the Grand Trunk Road near the railway station of Bulalash.” (p. 134)

- Only situation in the novel in which social harmony is explicitly stated
“Men, women and children of all the different races, colours, castes and creeds, were running towards the oval.” (p. 136)

- Symbolic meaning of the Grand Trunk Road? (>comparable to its function in Kim ?)

- No major focus of British colonial rule?

'''''Midnight's Children'''''

- Significance of mobility
- Saleem’s family moves house frequently
-> Acts of moving house linked to negative events
- From Kashmir to Amritzar: People are killed during a peaceful morning (p.62), the hummingbird is killed (p.50)
- To Pakistan: Saleem’s family is killed by a bombing raid
- To India: Magican ghetto is destroyed (p.599), midnight’s children are sterilized (p.612)

- As opposed to Kim and Untouchable, Midnight’s Children does not only covers India’s colonial period

- Various settings linked to historical events
- Illustration of separation of India
- Representation of India and Pakistan
- Saleem and Shiva as opponents in India in every respect

- Position of the British?

'''Group: Similarities and Contrats in Kim and Untouchable'''

'''How fare are the protagonists influenced by colonialism?'''

- Kim is a part of colonialism as he is a native born English and takes
part in the Great Game.

- Bakhas whole life is influenced by colonialism as he admires the British
and their lifestyle and tries to imitate them

Discussion result:

- Colonialism as a part of power structures

'''Some Ideas that were developed by combining the three novels''' by [[User:Hanna Nieber|Hanna Nieber]] 18:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Combining the three novels a much more refined picture of colonialism is drawn. Starting with the most recent novel, '''Midnight's Children''', we can see how Rushdie uses Saleem, the protagonist, to make a statement about Colonialism. Saleem says of himself, that his life represents independent India. Not only is his life linked to several historical events, not only does he feel responsible for these events, but also his nose, a physical feature that nobody can possibly miss, is linked to India in shape and through his telepathic talent (which is due to his nasal mucus) to a vast number of other representatives of India. Saleem is the biological child of an Englishman and would have faced a life in poverty, if he had not been deliberately swapped with another child. This other child is evil. His name is Shiva, meaning destruction, and is Saleem's counterpart throughout the whole novel. However, the biological father is not the only feature that is important when attempting to combine the upbringing of the character Saleem with the role of colonialism for independent India. Another feature is the care that was given to the baby independent India. From the first moment on, right after midnight, he was given a new family, that fed him, that cared for him in times of sickness, that helped him grow. Although his family was reluctant to accept him after they were informed that Saleem was not their biological child, most members of the extended family did accept him. Similarly Indians needed to embrace the history of their nation in order to move forward and create a future.

Anand, with his novel '''Untouchable''' already moves into the same direction. Bakha, the protagonist in Untouchable, is fascinated by British life style and tries to adopt as many features as possible. It may not always be practical (the normal Indian blankets would be much more suitable), but Bakha can accept this. The British have changed Southern Asia, they are present in the novel, and they are contributing to life even to an outcaste.

'''Kim''', a novel by Kipling written even earlier, also sees the colonizers as part of a diverse society. What kind of impact they have depends on the viewpoint. Kipling presents the reader with different possibilities, the viewpoint of the lama on the one extreme and the viewpoint of Lurgan Sahib on the other extreme. Starting with the latter, the reader could think of a subordinate Indian society and the colonizers as the puppeteers, using the Great Game to establish this order. However, the reader could also think of the spiritual journey of the lama as an ultimate solution to all world problems and all the other quests as earthly and therefore unworthy journeys.

In '''combination''' these novels trigger a range of thoughts about colonialism. Without colonialism, Kim could not have been part of the Great Game, without colonialism, Bakha would not question his status as an untouchable, without colonialism, what would Saleem (independent India) be?

2009-10 AM Fictions of India - Expert Group on Nation (India)

2010-02-01T17:20:36Z

Hanna Nieber:

''Italic text''==Expert Group on Nation (India)==

'''''Group: Representations of India'''''

'''''Kim'''''

- Crowded societies composed of very different ethnic and cultural groups that live in mixed communities or close proximity

- Less social tension between these groups than between single individuals (cf. Lurgan Sahib‘s hatred on Kim) or between different nations (cf. British vs. Russians in the Great Game)

- British colonial power ensuring harmony?

'''''Untouchable'''''

- High social tension between outcastes and upper castes

- Most prominent example: Bakha touches an upper caste member by accident (cf. p. 46)

- Outcastes forced to announce their approach when they leave their colony

- Social exclusion of other minorities apart from low-caste Hindus (e.g. Mohammedans)

- Injustice and discrimination exerted by upper castes

- Few exceptions (eg. the high-caste Hindu Charat Singh, cf. p. 105-110))

- Counter-movements (Only the Ghandian movement is portrayed in the novel!)

- Role of British colonial power in this conflict?

'''''Midnight's Children'''''

- Multiple ethnic and social groups

- At the beginning of the novel: relative peace between those groups

- Considerable change of this relative harmony as the plot unfolds

'''''Group: Similarities and Contrasts in Kim and Untouchable'''''

'''''Kim and Bakha are symbols for the ongoing national change (Modern India)'''''

- Kim is not in a caste and therefore behaves freely

- Bakha is trying to life like a British

Discussion result:

- are Kim and Bakha passive or active acting towards the national change?

- is their way of acting determined by the caste system?

Discussion result:

- The topic of Nation is closely connected to the term „Caste System“.

'''Mulk Raj Anand "Untouchable"''' ''(Group: Impersonal narration and the ideology of the text: The representation of India and of Bakha's consciousness)''

1.)

- '''India:''' Mother India

-''' Characters:''' Bakha's mother /Sohini (B.'s sister)

- '''Features:''' the essence of India; essentially good; knows what its men need; caring; vulnerable

- '''References:'''

→ p. 14 („Indian to the core […] so loving, so good, and withal generous,giving, always giving[...]kindness personified.“)

→ p. 23 („She had sensed with her deep woman's instinct the feeling in her brother's soul. He was tired. He was thirsty.“)

→ p. 31 („Her father was abusing her“)

2.)

- '''India:''' Father India = Old India

- '''Characters:''' Lakha (B.'s father)/ Rakha (B.'sbrother)/ Gulabo

- '''Features:''' fearfully obeying the British; hierarchical thinking (passed down the generations;sometimes distant from Hinduism (under colonialism)

- '''References:''':

→ p. 12 („he is afraid of the sepoys“); 13(„attend to the latrines, or the sepoys will be angry.“)

→ p. 17 („that trait of servility […] he had inherited from his forefathers, the weakness of the down-trodden“)

→ p. 85 („ They all ate from the same basket […] not apportioning the food in different plates as the Hindus do, for the original Hindu instinct for cleanliness had disappeared long ago.“)

3.)

- '''India:''' Empire in India

- ''' Characters:''' The „Tommies“ - patronizing India(ns)

- '''Features:''' influencing India; imposing a different worldview on India

- '''References:'''

→ p. 121 („of the band of Christian missionaries“)

→ p. 9 („The Tommies had treated him as a human being“)

→ p. 9 („he had learnt to think of himself as superior to his fellow-outcastes.“)

Christianity: Colonel Hutchinson

4.)

- '''India:''' Modern India

- '''Characters:''' Bakha / Chota / Ram Charan / Havildar Charat Singh / Babu's sons

- '''Features:''' admiration for the British; copying the British; slightly false in their demeanor; not living strictly after caste hierarchy

→ p. 9 („had been caught by the glamour of the ' white man's ' life“)

→ p. 10 („Bakha was a child of modern India.“)

→ p. 11 („he tried to copy them in everything“)

→ p. 96 („they were not altogether unconscious of the falseness of their istinct“)

→ p. 97 („among the trio they had banished all thought of distinction.“)

5.)

- '''India:''' Liberal India

- '''Characters:''' Gandhi / The poet / Barrister-at-Law

- '''Features:''' taking (positive) British influence back to India; humanitarian; educated; highly estimating fairness & equality; desire to revolutionize India

- '''References:'''

→ p. 155 („the flush system […] a casteless and classless society“)

→ p. 145 („The British Government sought to pursue a policy of divide and rule in giving to our brethren of the depressed classes seperate electorates“)

→ p. 147 („a sin to regard anyone bon in Hinduism as polluted“)

→ p. 141 („We are willing to do all we can

'''Representation of India in Untouchable as shown on our handout could also be interpreted as follows:'''

- Instead of the division into ''Mother India'' and ''Father India'', those two parts could function as one so-called ''Old India'', since Bakha's mother, father and his sister
Sohini all sort of stick to the traditional way of life in India.

- ''Modern India'' could possibly be called and seen as ''Young India'', since Bakha and his friends such as Chota and Ram Charan represent the new generation with modern views and the urge to be different

- Another way to interpret our so-called ''Liberal India'' is to rename it into ''Intellectual India''. Through persons like Gandhi and the poet the difference between educated and uneducated people in India is made even clearer. Bakha does not understand a lot of what they talk about, which results from low education.

- We also discussed the option to even put ''Modern/Young India'' and ''Liberal/Intellectual India'' together and understand it as the ''New India'', supported by the thought of education and bringing forward the country in several ways, such as religion, education, humanity etc.

- We even have the option to see ''Empire India'' and ''Modern India'' as one part called only ''Modern India'', whereas ''Liberal India'' stays as it is.

- The role of our so-called ''Empire in India'', namely the British, still remains unclear even after our discussion: Did they suppress the Indians in a way or hinder them in their way of life? Did they even bring forward the wish for change and innovation? Can it be seen as a connection between “Old India” and “Modern India”?

Of course: Depending on the person who makes the distinctions the interpretation of India in the novel “Untouchable” can differ from other points of view.

'''Some Ideas that Arise through the Combined Reading of all Three Novels''' by [[User:Hanna Nieber|Hanna Nieber]] 17:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

A nation is an "imagined political community" (Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities. 2nd Ed. London, 1991. p.6) Imagined, because the members will never know all of their fellow members. Political, because they share the goal of organizing themselves in correspondence to other nations.

If we apply this concept on the novels, that we have read, we find, that in '''Kim''' there are many people, who all share living at the same time in the same territory, who meet and interact with each other, but who do not share common political goals. The British think that they are responsible in "running" the country, however, the Indians do not seem to need such regulations. In Socio-psychology a "group" requires a sense of belonging and common goals. The people living in the territory of Southern Asia at the time that '''Kim''' is set do not even fulfill the requirements of a "group". Can they be considered to be a nation?

In '''Untouchable''', the sense of belonging has started to develop. Still there are different ideas of what direction society should take. Despite the caste system (which organizes society) we can talk about a group with a sense of belonging. Does this sense of belonging even stretch into society itself and is the reader made to question Indian society because this group does not yet share common goals?

'''"Midnight's Children"''' does not question the existence of the Indian nation. The people have fought for independence all together, they have their own political parties. If Saleem represents independent India and Saleem belongs to India (he grew up there, he returned to India later) as well as to Pakistan (his family migrates to Pakistan, as a Muslim he has every right to be in Pakistan) should the reader see this as Salman Rushdie's comment on partition?

Summing up these ideas I would like to pose one more question: Does the '''combination of the three novels''' suggest that the concept of nation only becomes important to South Asian people as they develop into independent groups that are recognized even by European philosophists/politicians as nations?

2009-10 AM Fictions of India - Expert Group on Nation (India)

2010-02-01T09:29:11Z

Hanna Nieber:

''Italic text''==Expert Group on Nation (India)==

'''''Group: Representations of India'''''

'''''Kim'''''

- Crowded societies composed of very different ethnic and cultural groups that live in mixed communities or close proximity

- Less social tension between these groups than between single individuals (cf. Lurgan Sahib‘s hatred on Kim) or between different nations (cf. British vs. Russians in the Great Game)

- British colonial power ensuring harmony?

'''''Untouchable'''''

- High social tension between outcastes and upper castes

- Most prominent example: Bakha touches an upper caste member by accident (cf. p. 46)

- Outcastes forced to announce their approach when they leave their colony

- Social exclusion of other minorities apart from low-caste Hindus (e.g. Mohammedans)

- Injustice and discrimination exerted by upper castes

- Few exceptions (eg. the high-caste Hindu Charat Singh, cf. p. 105-110))

- Counter-movements (Only the Ghandian movement is portrayed in the novel!)

- Role of British colonial power in this conflict?

'''''Midnight's Children'''''

- Multiple ethnic and social groups

- At the beginning of the novel: relative peace between those groups

- Considerable change of this relative harmony as the plot unfolds

'''''Group: Similarities and Contrasts in Kim and Untouchable'''''

'''''Kim and Bakha are symbols for the ongoing national change (Modern India)'''''

- Kim is not in a caste and therefore behaves freely

- Bakha is trying to life like a British

Discussion result:

- are Kim and Bakha passive or active acting towards the national change?

- is their way of acting determined by the caste system?

Discussion result:

- The topic of Nation is closely connected to the term „Caste System“.

'''Mulk Raj Anand "Untouchable"''' ''(Group: Impersonal narration and the ideology of the text: The representation of India and of Bakha's consciousness)''

1.)

- '''India:''' Mother India

-''' Characters:''' Bakha's mother /Sohini (B.'s sister)

- '''Features:''' the essence of India; essentially good; knows what its men need; caring; vulnerable

- '''References:'''

→ p. 14 („Indian to the core […] so loving, so good, and withal generous,giving, always giving[...]kindness personified.“)

→ p. 23 („She had sensed with her deep woman's instinct the feeling in her brother's soul. He was tired. He was thirsty.“)

→ p. 31 („Her father was abusing her“)

2.)

- '''India:''' Father India = Old India

- '''Characters:''' Lakha (B.'s father)/ Rakha (B.'sbrother)/ Gulabo

- '''Features:''' fearfully obeying the British; hierarchical thinking (passed down the generations;sometimes distant from Hinduism (under colonialism)

- '''References:''':

→ p. 12 („he is afraid of the sepoys“); 13(„attend to the latrines, or the sepoys will be angry.“)

→ p. 17 („that trait of servility […] he had inherited from his forefathers, the weakness of the down-trodden“)

→ p. 85 („ They all ate from the same basket […] not apportioning the food in different plates as the Hindus do, for the original Hindu instinct for cleanliness had disappeared long ago.“)

3.)

- '''India:''' Empire in India

- ''' Characters:''' The „Tommies“ - patronizing India(ns)

- '''Features:''' influencing India; imposing a different worldview on India

- '''References:'''

→ p. 121 („of the band of Christian missionaries“)

→ p. 9 („The Tommies had treated him as a human being“)

→ p. 9 („he had learnt to think of himself as superior to his fellow-outcastes.“)

Christianity: Colonel Hutchinson

4.)

- '''India:''' Modern India

- '''Characters:''' Bakha / Chota / Ram Charan / Havildar Charat Singh / Babu's sons

- '''Features:''' admiration for the British; copying the British; slightly false in their demeanor; not living strictly after caste hierarchy

→ p. 9 („had been caught by the glamour of the ' white man's ' life“)

→ p. 10 („Bakha was a child of modern India.“)

→ p. 11 („he tried to copy them in everything“)

→ p. 96 („they were not altogether unconscious of the falseness of their istinct“)

→ p. 97 („among the trio they had banished all thought of distinction.“)

5.)

- '''India:''' Liberal India

- '''Characters:''' Gandhi / The poet / Barrister-at-Law

- '''Features:''' taking (positive) British influence back to India; humanitarian; educated; highly estimating fairness & equality; desire to revolutionize India

- '''References:'''

→ p. 155 („the flush system […] a casteless and classless society“)

→ p. 145 („The British Government sought to pursue a policy of divide and rule in giving to our brethren of the depressed classes seperate electorates“)

→ p. 147 („a sin to regard anyone bon in Hinduism as polluted“)

→ p. 141 („We are willing to do all we can

'''Representation of India in Untouchable as shown on our handout could also be interpreted as follows:'''

- Instead of the division into ''Mother India'' and ''Father India'', those two parts could function as one so-called ''Old India'', since Bakha's mother, father and his sister
Sohini all sort of stick to the traditional way of life in India.

- ''Modern India'' could possibly be called and seen as ''Young India'', since Bakha and his friends such as Chota and Ram Charan represent the new generation with modern views and the urge to be different

- Another way to interpret our so-called ''Liberal India'' is to rename it into ''Intellectual India''. Through persons like Gandhi and the poet the difference between educated and uneducated people in India is made even clearer. Bakha does not understand a lot of what they talk about, which results from low education.

- We also discussed the option to even put ''Modern/Young India'' and ''Liberal/Intellectual India'' together and understand it as the ''New India'', supported by the thought of education and bringing forward the country in several ways, such as religion, education, humanity etc.

- We even have the option to see ''Empire India'' and ''Modern India'' as one part called only ''Modern India'', whereas ''Liberal India'' stays as it is.

- The role of our so-called ''Empire in India'', namely the British, still remains unclear even after our discussion: Did they suppress the Indians in a way or hinder them in their way of life? Did they even bring forward the wish for change and innovation? Can it be seen as a connection between “Old India” and “Modern India”?

Of course: Depending on the person who makes the distinctions the interpretation of India in the novel “Untouchable” can differ from other points of view.

'''Some Ideas that Arise through the Combined Reading of all Three Novels'''

A nation is an "imagined political community" (Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities. 2nd Ed. London, 1991. p.6) Imagined, because the members will never know all of their fellow members. Political, because they share the goal of organizing themselves in correspondence to other nations.

If we apply this concept on the novels, that we have read, we find, that in '''Kim''' there are many people, who all share living at the same time in the same territory, who meet and interact with each other, but who do not share common political goals. The British think that they are responsible in "running" the country, however, the Indians do not seem to need such regulations. In Socio-psychology a "group" requires a sense of belonging and common goals. The people living in the territory of Southern Asia at the time that '''Kim''' is set do not even fulfill the requirements of a "group". Can they be considered to be a nation?

In '''Untouchable''', the sense of belonging has started to develop. Still there are different ideas of what direction society should take. Despite the caste system (which organizes society) we can talk about a group with a sense of belonging. Does this sense of belonging even stretch into society itself and is the reader made to question Indian society because this group does not yet share common goals?

'''"Midnight's Children"''' does not question the existence of the Indian nation. The people have fought for independence all together, they have their own political parties. If Saleem represents independent India and Saleem belongs to India (he grew up there, he returned to India later) as well as to Pakistan (his family migrates to Pakistan, as a Muslim he has every right to be in Pakistan) should the reader see this as Salman Rushdie's comment on partition?

Summing up these ideas I would like to pose one more question: Does the '''combination of the three novels''' suggest that the concept of nation only becomes important to South Asian people as they develop into independent groups that are recognized even by European philosophists/politicians as nations?

2009-10 AM Fictions of India - Expert Group on Nation (India)

2010-02-01T09:27:23Z

Hanna Nieber:

''Italic text''==Expert Group on Nation (India)==

'''''Group: Representations of India'''''

'''''Kim'''''

- Crowded societies composed of very different ethnic and cultural groups that live in mixed communities or close proximity

- Less social tension between these groups than between single individuals (cf. Lurgan Sahib‘s hatred on Kim) or between different nations (cf. British vs. Russians in the Great Game)

- British colonial power ensuring harmony?

'''''Untouchable'''''

- High social tension between outcastes and upper castes

- Most prominent example: Bakha touches an upper caste member by accident (cf. p. 46)

- Outcastes forced to announce their approach when they leave their colony

- Social exclusion of other minorities apart from low-caste Hindus (e.g. Mohammedans)

- Injustice and discrimination exerted by upper castes

- Few exceptions (eg. the high-caste Hindu Charat Singh, cf. p. 105-110))

- Counter-movements (Only the Ghandian movement is portrayed in the novel!)

- Role of British colonial power in this conflict?

'''''Midnight's Children'''''

- Multiple ethnic and social groups

- At the beginning of the novel: relative peace between those groups

- Considerable change of this relative harmony as the plot unfolds

'''''Group: Similarities and Contrasts in Kim and Untouchable'''''

'''''Kim and Bakha are symbols for the ongoing national change (Modern India)'''''

- Kim is not in a caste and therefore behaves freely

- Bakha is trying to life like a British

Discussion result:

- are Kim and Bakha passive or active acting towards the national change?

- is their way of acting determined by the caste system?

Discussion result:

- The topic of Nation is closely connected to the term „Caste System“.

'''Mulk Raj Anand "Untouchable"''' ''(Group: Impersonal narration and the ideology of the text: The representation of India and of Bakha's consciousness)''

1.)

- '''India:''' Mother India

-''' Characters:''' Bakha's mother /Sohini (B.'s sister)

- '''Features:''' the essence of India; essentially good; knows what its men need; caring; vulnerable

- '''References:'''

→ p. 14 („Indian to the core […] so loving, so good, and withal generous,giving, always giving[...]kindness personified.“)

→ p. 23 („She had sensed with her deep woman's instinct the feeling in her brother's soul. He was tired. He was thirsty.“)

→ p. 31 („Her father was abusing her“)

2.)

- '''India:''' Father India = Old India

- '''Characters:''' Lakha (B.'s father)/ Rakha (B.'sbrother)/ Gulabo

- '''Features:''' fearfully obeying the British; hierarchical thinking (passed down the generations;sometimes distant from Hinduism (under colonialism)

- '''References:''':

→ p. 12 („he is afraid of the sepoys“); 13(„attend to the latrines, or the sepoys will be angry.“)

→ p. 17 („that trait of servility […] he had inherited from his forefathers, the weakness of the down-trodden“)

→ p. 85 („ They all ate from the same basket […] not apportioning the food in different plates as the Hindus do, for the original Hindu instinct for cleanliness had disappeared long ago.“)

3.)

- '''India:''' Empire in India

- ''' Characters:''' The „Tommies“ - patronizing India(ns)

- '''Features:''' influencing India; imposing a different worldview on India

- '''References:'''

→ p. 121 („of the band of Christian missionaries“)

→ p. 9 („The Tommies had treated him as a human being“)

→ p. 9 („he had learnt to think of himself as superior to his fellow-outcastes.“)

Christianity: Colonel Hutchinson

4.)

- '''India:''' Modern India

- '''Characters:''' Bakha / Chota / Ram Charan / Havildar Charat Singh / Babu's sons

- '''Features:''' admiration for the British; copying the British; slightly false in their demeanor; not living strictly after caste hierarchy

→ p. 9 („had been caught by the glamour of the ' white man's ' life“)

→ p. 10 („Bakha was a child of modern India.“)

→ p. 11 („he tried to copy them in everything“)

→ p. 96 („they were not altogether unconscious of the falseness of their istinct“)

→ p. 97 („among the trio they had banished all thought of distinction.“)

5.)

- '''India:''' Liberal India

- '''Characters:''' Gandhi / The poet / Barrister-at-Law

- '''Features:''' taking (positive) British influence back to India; humanitarian; educated; highly estimating fairness & equality; desire to revolutionize India

- '''References:'''

→ p. 155 („the flush system […] a casteless and classless society“)

→ p. 145 („The British Government sought to pursue a policy of divide and rule in giving to our brethren of the depressed classes seperate electorates“)

→ p. 147 („a sin to regard anyone bon in Hinduism as polluted“)

→ p. 141 („We are willing to do all we can

'''Representation of India in Untouchable as shown on our handout could also be interpreted as follows:'''

- Instead of the division into ''Mother India'' and ''Father India'', those two parts could function as one so-called ''Old India'', since Bakha's mother, father and his sister
Sohini all sort of stick to the traditional way of life in India.

- ''Modern India'' could possibly be called and seen as ''Young India'', since Bakha and his friends such as Chota and Ram Charan represent the new generation with modern views and the urge to be different

- Another way to interpret our so-called ''Liberal India'' is to rename it into ''Intellectual India''. Through persons like Gandhi and the poet the difference between educated and uneducated people in India is made even clearer. Bakha does not understand a lot of what they talk about, which results from low education.

- We also discussed the option to even put ''Modern/Young India'' and ''Liberal/Intellectual India'' together and understand it as the ''New India'', supported by the thought of education and bringing forward the country in several ways, such as religion, education, humanity etc.

- We even have the option to see ''Empire India'' and ''Modern India'' as one part called only ''Modern India'', whereas ''Liberal India'' stays as it is.

- The role of our so-called ''Empire in India'', namely the British, still remains unclear even after our discussion: Did they suppress the Indians in a way or hinder them in their way of life? Did they even bring forward the wish for change and innovation? Can it be seen as a connection between “Old India” and “Modern India”?

Of course: Depending on the person who makes the distinctions the interpretation of India in the novel “Untouchable” can differ from other points of view.

'''Some Ideas that Arise through the Combined Reading of all Three Novels'''

A nation is an "imagined political community" (Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities. 2nd Ed. London, 1991. p.6) Imagined, because the members will never know all of their fellow members. Political, because they have the same goal to organize themselves.

If we apply this concept on the novels, that we have read, we find, that in '''Kim''' there are many people, who all share living at the same time in the same territory, who meet and interact with each other, but who do not share common political goals. The British think that they are responsible in "running" the country, however, the Indians do not seem to need such regulations. In Socio-psychology a "group" requires a sense of belonging and common goals. The people living in the territory of Southern Asia at the time that '''Kim''' is set do not even fulfill the requirements of a "group". Can they be considered to be a nation?

In '''Untouchable''', the sense of belonging has started to develop. Still there are different ideas of what direction society should take. Despite the caste system (which organizes society) we can talk about a group with a sense of belonging. Does this sense of belonging even stretch into society itself and is the reader made to question Indian society because this group does not yet share common goals?

'''"Midnight's Children"''' does not question the existence of the Indian nation. The people have fought for independence all together, they have their own political parties. If Saleem represents independent India and Saleem belongs to India (he grew up there, he returned to India later) as well as to Pakistan (his family migrates to Pakistan, as a Muslim he has every right to be in Pakistan) should the reader see this as Salman Rushdie's comment on partition?

Summing up these ideas I would like to pose one more question: Does the '''combination of the three novels''' suggest that the concept of nation only becomes important to South Asian people as they develop into independent groups that are recognized even by European philosophists/politicians as nations?

2009-10 AM Fictions of India - Expert Group on Nation (India)

2010-02-01T09:25:44Z

Hanna Nieber:

''Italic text''==Expert Group on Nation (India)==

'''''Group: Representations of India'''''

'''''Kim'''''

- Crowded societies composed of very different ethnic and cultural groups that live in mixed communities or close proximity

- Less social tension between these groups than between single individuals (cf. Lurgan Sahib‘s hatred on Kim) or between different nations (cf. British vs. Russians in the Great Game)

- British colonial power ensuring harmony?

'''''Untouchable'''''

- High social tension between outcastes and upper castes

- Most prominent example: Bakha touches an upper caste member by accident (cf. p. 46)

- Outcastes forced to announce their approach when they leave their colony

- Social exclusion of other minorities apart from low-caste Hindus (e.g. Mohammedans)

- Injustice and discrimination exerted by upper castes

- Few exceptions (eg. the high-caste Hindu Charat Singh, cf. p. 105-110))

- Counter-movements (Only the Ghandian movement is portrayed in the novel!)

- Role of British colonial power in this conflict?

'''''Midnight's Children'''''

- Multiple ethnic and social groups

- At the beginning of the novel: relative peace between those groups

- Considerable change of this relative harmony as the plot unfolds

'''''Group: Similarities and Contrasts in Kim and Untouchable'''''

'''''Kim and Bakha are symbols for the ongoing national change (Modern India)'''''

- Kim is not in a caste and therefore behaves freely

- Bakha is trying to life like a British

Discussion result:

- are Kim and Bakha passive or active acting towards the national change?

- is their way of acting determined by the caste system?

Discussion result:

- The topic of Nation is closely connected to the term „Caste System“.

'''Mulk Raj Anand "Untouchable"''' ''(Group: Impersonal narration and the ideology of the text: The representation of India and of Bakha's consciousness)''

1.)

- '''India:''' Mother India

-''' Characters:''' Bakha's mother /Sohini (B.'s sister)

- '''Features:''' the essence of India; essentially good; knows what its men need; caring; vulnerable

- '''References:'''

→ p. 14 („Indian to the core […] so loving, so good, and withal generous,giving, always giving[...]kindness personified.“)

→ p. 23 („She had sensed with her deep woman's instinct the feeling in her brother's soul. He was tired. He was thirsty.“)

→ p. 31 („Her father was abusing her“)

2.)

- '''India:''' Father India = Old India

- '''Characters:''' Lakha (B.'s father)/ Rakha (B.'sbrother)/ Gulabo

- '''Features:''' fearfully obeying the British; hierarchical thinking (passed down the generations;sometimes distant from Hinduism (under colonialism)

- '''References:''':

→ p. 12 („he is afraid of the sepoys“); 13(„attend to the latrines, or the sepoys will be angry.“)

→ p. 17 („that trait of servility […] he had inherited from his forefathers, the weakness of the down-trodden“)

→ p. 85 („ They all ate from the same basket […] not apportioning the food in different plates as the Hindus do, for the original Hindu instinct for cleanliness had disappeared long ago.“)

3.)

- '''India:''' Empire in India

- ''' Characters:''' The „Tommies“ - patronizing India(ns)

- '''Features:''' influencing India; imposing a different worldview on India

- '''References:'''

→ p. 121 („of the band of Christian missionaries“)

→ p. 9 („The Tommies had treated him as a human being“)

→ p. 9 („he had learnt to think of himself as superior to his fellow-outcastes.“)

Christianity: Colonel Hutchinson

4.)

- '''India:''' Modern India

- '''Characters:''' Bakha / Chota / Ram Charan / Havildar Charat Singh / Babu's sons

- '''Features:''' admiration for the British; copying the British; slightly false in their demeanor; not living strictly after caste hierarchy

→ p. 9 („had been caught by the glamour of the ' white man's ' life“)

→ p. 10 („Bakha was a child of modern India.“)

→ p. 11 („he tried to copy them in everything“)

→ p. 96 („they were not altogether unconscious of the falseness of their istinct“)

→ p. 97 („among the trio they had banished all thought of distinction.“)

5.)

- '''India:''' Liberal India

- '''Characters:''' Gandhi / The poet / Barrister-at-Law

- '''Features:''' taking (positive) British influence back to India; humanitarian; educated; highly estimating fairness & equality; desire to revolutionize India

- '''References:'''

→ p. 155 („the flush system […] a casteless and classless society“)

→ p. 145 („The British Government sought to pursue a policy of divide and rule in giving to our brethren of the depressed classes seperate electorates“)

→ p. 147 („a sin to regard anyone bon in Hinduism as polluted“)

→ p. 141 („We are willing to do all we can

'''Representation of India in Untouchable as shown on our handout could also be interpreted as follows:'''

- Instead of the division into ''Mother India'' and ''Father India'', those two parts could function as one so-called ''Old India'', since Bakha's mother, father and his sister
Sohini all sort of stick to the traditional way of life in India.

- ''Modern India'' could possibly be called and seen as ''Young India'', since Bakha and his friends such as Chota and Ram Charan represent the new generation with modern views and the urge to be different

- Another way to interpret our so-called ''Liberal India'' is to rename it into ''Intellectual India''. Through persons like Gandhi and the poet the difference between educated and uneducated people in India is made even clearer. Bakha does not understand a lot of what they talk about, which results from low education.

- We also discussed the option to even put ''Modern/Young India'' and ''Liberal/Intellectual India'' together and understand it as the ''New India'', supported by the thought of education and bringing forward the country in several ways, such as religion, education, humanity etc.

- We even have the option to see ''Empire India'' and ''Modern India'' as one part called only ''Modern India'', whereas ''Liberal India'' stays as it is.

- The role of our so-called ''Empire in India'', namely the British, still remains unclear even after our discussion: Did they suppress the Indians in a way or hinder them in their way of life? Did they even bring forward the wish for change and innovation? Can it be seen as a connection between “Old India” and “Modern India”?

Of course: Depending on the person who makes the distinctions the interpretation of India in the novel “Untouchable” can differ from other points of view.

'''Some Ideas that Arise through the Combined Reading of all Three Novels'''

A nation is an "imagined political community" (Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities. 2nd Ed. London, 1991. p.6) Imagined, the members will never know all of their fellow members.

If we apply this concept on the novels, that we have read, we find, that in '''Kim''' there are many people, who all share living at the same time in the same territory, who meet and interact with each other, but who do not share common political goals. The British think that they are responsible in "running" the country, however, the Indians do not seem to need such regulations. In Socio-psychology a "group" requires a sense of belonging and common goals. The people living in the territory of Southern Asia at the time that '''Kim''' is set do not even fulfill the requirements of a "group". Can they be considered to be a nation?

In '''Untouchable''', the sense of belonging has started to develop. Still there are different ideas of what direction society should take. Despite the caste system (which organizes society) we can talk about a group with a sense of belonging. Does this sense of belonging even stretch into society itself and is the reader made to question Indian society because this group does not yet share common goals?

'''"Midnight's Children"''' does not question the existence of the Indian nation. The people have fought for independence all together, they have their own political parties. If Saleem represents independent India and Saleem belongs to India (he grew up there, he returned to India later) as well as to Pakistan (his family migrates to Pakistan, as a Muslim he has every right to be in Pakistan) should the reader see this as Salman Rushdie's comment on partition?

Summing up these ideas I would like to pose one more question: Does the '''combination of the three novels''' suggest that the concept of nation only becomes important to South Asian people as they develop into independent groups that are recognized even by European philosophists/politicians as nations?

2009-10 AM Fictions of India - Expert Group on Nation (India)

2010-02-01T09:24:57Z

Hanna Nieber:

''Italic text''==Expert Group on Nation (India)==

'''''Group: Representations of India'''''

'''''Kim'''''

- Crowded societies composed of very different ethnic and cultural groups that live in mixed communities or close proximity

- Less social tension between these groups than between single individuals (cf. Lurgan Sahib‘s hatred on Kim) or between different nations (cf. British vs. Russians in the Great Game)

- British colonial power ensuring harmony?

'''''Untouchable'''''

- High social tension between outcastes and upper castes

- Most prominent example: Bakha touches an upper caste member by accident (cf. p. 46)

- Outcastes forced to announce their approach when they leave their colony

- Social exclusion of other minorities apart from low-caste Hindus (e.g. Mohammedans)

- Injustice and discrimination exerted by upper castes

- Few exceptions (eg. the high-caste Hindu Charat Singh, cf. p. 105-110))

- Counter-movements (Only the Ghandian movement is portrayed in the novel!)

- Role of British colonial power in this conflict?

'''''Midnight's Children'''''

- Multiple ethnic and social groups

- At the beginning of the novel: relative peace between those groups

- Considerable change of this relative harmony as the plot unfolds

'''''Group: Similarities and Contrasts in Kim and Untouchable'''''

'''''Kim and Bakha are symbols for the ongoing national change (Modern India)'''''

- Kim is not in a caste and therefore behaves freely

- Bakha is trying to life like a British

Discussion result:

- are Kim and Bakha passive or active acting towards the national change?

- is their way of acting determined by the caste system?

Discussion result:

- The topic of Nation is closely connected to the term „Caste System“.

'''Mulk Raj Anand "Untouchable"''' ''(Group: Impersonal narration and the ideology of the text: The representation of India and of Bakha's consciousness)''

1.)

- '''India:''' Mother India

-''' Characters:''' Bakha's mother /Sohini (B.'s sister)

- '''Features:''' the essence of India; essentially good; knows what its men need; caring; vulnerable

- '''References:'''

→ p. 14 („Indian to the core […] so loving, so good, and withal generous,giving, always giving[...]kindness personified.“)

→ p. 23 („She had sensed with her deep woman's instinct the feeling in her brother's soul. He was tired. He was thirsty.“)

→ p. 31 („Her father was abusing her“)

2.)

- '''India:''' Father India = Old India

- '''Characters:''' Lakha (B.'s father)/ Rakha (B.'sbrother)/ Gulabo

- '''Features:''' fearfully obeying the British; hierarchical thinking (passed down the generations;sometimes distant from Hinduism (under colonialism)

- '''References:''':

→ p. 12 („he is afraid of the sepoys“); 13(„attend to the latrines, or the sepoys will be angry.“)

→ p. 17 („that trait of servility […] he had inherited from his forefathers, the weakness of the down-trodden“)

→ p. 85 („ They all ate from the same basket […] not apportioning the food in different plates as the Hindus do, for the original Hindu instinct for cleanliness had disappeared long ago.“)

3.)

- '''India:''' Empire in India

- ''' Characters:''' The „Tommies“ - patronizing India(ns)

- '''Features:''' influencing India; imposing a different worldview on India

- '''References:'''

→ p. 121 („of the band of Christian missionaries“)

→ p. 9 („The Tommies had treated him as a human being“)

→ p. 9 („he had learnt to think of himself as superior to his fellow-outcastes.“)

Christianity: Colonel Hutchinson

4.)

- '''India:''' Modern India

- '''Characters:''' Bakha / Chota / Ram Charan / Havildar Charat Singh / Babu's sons

- '''Features:''' admiration for the British; copying the British; slightly false in their demeanor; not living strictly after caste hierarchy

→ p. 9 („had been caught by the glamour of the ' white man's ' life“)

→ p. 10 („Bakha was a child of modern India.“)

→ p. 11 („he tried to copy them in everything“)

→ p. 96 („they were not altogether unconscious of the falseness of their istinct“)

→ p. 97 („among the trio they had banished all thought of distinction.“)

5.)

- '''India:''' Liberal India

- '''Characters:''' Gandhi / The poet / Barrister-at-Law

- '''Features:''' taking (positive) British influence back to India; humanitarian; educated; highly estimating fairness & equality; desire to revolutionize India

- '''References:'''

→ p. 155 („the flush system […] a casteless and classless society“)

→ p. 145 („The British Government sought to pursue a policy of divide and rule in giving to our brethren of the depressed classes seperate electorates“)

→ p. 147 („a sin to regard anyone bon in Hinduism as polluted“)

→ p. 141 („We are willing to do all we can

'''Representation of India in Untouchable as shown on our handout could also be interpreted as follows:'''

- Instead of the division into ''Mother India'' and ''Father India'', those two parts could function as one so-called ''Old India'', since Bakha's mother, father and his sister
Sohini all sort of stick to the traditional way of life in India.

- ''Modern India'' could possibly be called and seen as ''Young India'', since Bakha and his friends such as Chota and Ram Charan represent the new generation with modern views and the urge to be different

- Another way to interpret our so-called ''Liberal India'' is to rename it into ''Intellectual India''. Through persons like Gandhi and the poet the difference between educated and uneducated people in India is made even clearer. Bakha does not understand a lot of what they talk about, which results from low education.

- We also discussed the option to even put ''Modern/Young India'' and ''Liberal/Intellectual India'' together and understand it as the ''New India'', supported by the thought of education and bringing forward the country in several ways, such as religion, education, humanity etc.

- We even have the option to see ''Empire India'' and ''Modern India'' as one part called only ''Modern India'', whereas ''Liberal India'' stays as it is.

- The role of our so-called ''Empire in India'', namely the British, still remains unclear even after our discussion: Did they suppress the Indians in a way or hinder them in their way of life? Did they even bring forward the wish for change and innovation? Can it be seen as a connection between “Old India” and “Modern India”?

Of course: Depending on the person who makes the distinctions the interpretation of India in the novel “Untouchable” can differ from other points of view.

'''Some Ideas that arise through the combined reading of all three novels'''

A nation is an "imagined political community" (Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities. 2nd Ed. London, 1991. p.6) Imagined, the members will never know all of their fellow members.

If we apply this concept on the novels, that we have read, we find, that in '''Kim''' there are many people, who all share living at the same time in the same territory, who meet and interact with each other, but who do not share common political goals. The British think that they are responsible in "running" the country, however, the Indians do not seem to need such regulations. In Socio-psychology a "group" requires a sense of belonging and common goals. The people living in the territory of Southern Asia at the time that '''Kim''' is set do not even fulfill the requirements of a "group". Can they be considered to be a nation?

In '''Untouchable''', the sense of belonging has started to develop. Still there are different ideas of what direction society should take. Despite the caste system (which organizes society) we can talk about a group with a sense of belonging. Does this sense of belonging even stretch into society itself and is the reader made to question Indian society because this group does not yet share common goals?

'''"Midnight's Children"''' does not question the existence of the Indian nation. The people have fought for independence all together, they have their own political parties. If Saleem represents independent India and Saleem belongs to India (he grew up there, he returned to India later) as well as to Pakistan (his family migrates to Pakistan, as a Muslim he has every right to be in Pakistan) should the reader see this as Salman Rushdie's comment on partition?

Summing up these ideas I would like to pose one more question: Does the '''combination of the three novels''' suggest that the concept of nation only becomes important to South Asian people as they develop into independent groups that are recognized even by European philosophists/politicians as nations?

2009-10 AM Fictions of India - Expert Group on Nation (India)

2010-02-01T09:24:16Z

Hanna Nieber:

''Italic text''==Expert Group on Nation (India)==

'''''Group: Representations of India'''''

'''''Kim'''''

- Crowded societies composed of very different ethnic and cultural groups that live in mixed communities or close proximity

- Less social tension between these groups than between single individuals (cf. Lurgan Sahib‘s hatred on Kim) or between different nations (cf. British vs. Russians in the Great Game)

- British colonial power ensuring harmony?

'''''Untouchable'''''

- High social tension between outcastes and upper castes

- Most prominent example: Bakha touches an upper caste member by accident (cf. p. 46)

- Outcastes forced to announce their approach when they leave their colony

- Social exclusion of other minorities apart from low-caste Hindus (e.g. Mohammedans)

- Injustice and discrimination exerted by upper castes

- Few exceptions (eg. the high-caste Hindu Charat Singh, cf. p. 105-110))

- Counter-movements (Only the Ghandian movement is portrayed in the novel!)

- Role of British colonial power in this conflict?

'''''Midnight's Children'''''

- Multiple ethnic and social groups

- At the beginning of the novel: relative peace between those groups

- Considerable change of this relative harmony as the plot unfolds

'''''Group: Similarities and Contrasts in Kim and Untouchable'''''

'''''Kim and Bakha are symbols for the ongoing national change (Modern India)'''''

- Kim is not in a caste and therefore behaves freely

- Bakha is trying to life like a British

Discussion result:

- are Kim and Bakha passive or active acting towards the national change?

- is their way of acting determined by the caste system?

Discussion result:

- The topic of Nation is closely connected to the term „Caste System“.

'''Mulk Raj Anand "Untouchable"''' ''(Group: Impersonal narration and the ideology of the text: The representation of India and of Bakha's consciousness)''

1.)

- '''India:''' Mother India

-''' Characters:''' Bakha's mother /Sohini (B.'s sister)

- '''Features:''' the essence of India; essentially good; knows what its men need; caring; vulnerable

- '''References:'''

→ p. 14 („Indian to the core […] so loving, so good, and withal generous,giving, always giving[...]kindness personified.“)

→ p. 23 („She had sensed with her deep woman's instinct the feeling in her brother's soul. He was tired. He was thirsty.“)

→ p. 31 („Her father was abusing her“)

2.)

- '''India:''' Father India = Old India

- '''Characters:''' Lakha (B.'s father)/ Rakha (B.'sbrother)/ Gulabo

- '''Features:''' fearfully obeying the British; hierarchical thinking (passed down the generations;sometimes distant from Hinduism (under colonialism)

- '''References:''':

→ p. 12 („he is afraid of the sepoys“); 13(„attend to the latrines, or the sepoys will be angry.“)

→ p. 17 („that trait of servility […] he had inherited from his forefathers, the weakness of the down-trodden“)

→ p. 85 („ They all ate from the same basket […] not apportioning the food in different plates as the Hindus do, for the original Hindu instinct for cleanliness had disappeared long ago.“)

3.)

- '''India:''' Empire in India

- ''' Characters:''' The „Tommies“ - patronizing India(ns)

- '''Features:''' influencing India; imposing a different worldview on India

- '''References:'''

→ p. 121 („of the band of Christian missionaries“)

→ p. 9 („The Tommies had treated him as a human being“)

→ p. 9 („he had learnt to think of himself as superior to his fellow-outcastes.“)

Christianity: Colonel Hutchinson

4.)

- '''India:''' Modern India

- '''Characters:''' Bakha / Chota / Ram Charan / Havildar Charat Singh / Babu's sons

- '''Features:''' admiration for the British; copying the British; slightly false in their demeanor; not living strictly after caste hierarchy

→ p. 9 („had been caught by the glamour of the ' white man's ' life“)

→ p. 10 („Bakha was a child of modern India.“)

→ p. 11 („he tried to copy them in everything“)

→ p. 96 („they were not altogether unconscious of the falseness of their istinct“)

→ p. 97 („among the trio they had banished all thought of distinction.“)

5.)

- '''India:''' Liberal India

- '''Characters:''' Gandhi / The poet / Barrister-at-Law

- '''Features:''' taking (positive) British influence back to India; humanitarian; educated; highly estimating fairness & equality; desire to revolutionize India

- '''References:'''

→ p. 155 („the flush system […] a casteless and classless society“)

→ p. 145 („The British Government sought to pursue a policy of divide and rule in giving to our brethren of the depressed classes seperate electorates“)

→ p. 147 („a sin to regard anyone bon in Hinduism as polluted“)

→ p. 141 („We are willing to do all we can

'''Representation of India in Untouchable as shown on our handout could also be interpreted as follows:'''

- Instead of the division into ''Mother India'' and ''Father India'', those two parts could function as one so-called ''Old India'', since Bakha's mother, father and his sister
Sohini all sort of stick to the traditional way of life in India.

- ''Modern India'' could possibly be called and seen as ''Young India'', since Bakha and his friends such as Chota and Ram Charan represent the new generation with modern views and the urge to be different

- Another way to interpret our so-called ''Liberal India'' is to rename it into ''Intellectual India''. Through persons like Gandhi and the poet the difference between educated and uneducated people in India is made even clearer. Bakha does not understand a lot of what they talk about, which results from low education.

- We also discussed the option to even put ''Modern/Young India'' and ''Liberal/Intellectual India'' together and understand it as the ''New India'', supported by the thought of education and bringing forward the country in several ways, such as religion, education, humanity etc.

- We even have the option to see ''Empire India'' and ''Modern India'' as one part called only ''Modern India'', whereas ''Liberal India'' stays as it is.

- The role of our so-called ''Empire in India'', namely the British, still remains unclear even after our discussion: Did they suppress the Indians in a way or hinder them in their way of life? Did they even bring forward the wish for change and innovation? Can it be seen as a connection between “Old India” and “Modern India”?

Of course: Depending on the person who makes the distinctions the interpretation of India in the novel “Untouchable” can differ from other points of view.

'''Some Ideas that arise through the combined reading of all three novels'''

A nation is an "imagined political community" (Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities. 2nd Ed. London, 1991. p.6) Imagined, the members will never know all of their fellow members.
If we apply this concept on the novels, that we have read, we find, that in '''Kim''' there are many people, who all share living at the same time in the same territory, who meet and interact with each other, but who do not share common political goals. The British think that they are responsible in "running" the country, however, the Indians do not seem to need such regulations. In Socio-psychology a "group" requires a sense of belonging and common goals. The people living in the territory of Southern Asia at the time that '''Kim''' is set do not even fulfill the requirements of a "group". Can they be considered to be a nation?
In '''Untouchable''', the sense of belonging has started to develop. Still there are different ideas of what direction society should take. Despite the caste system (which organizes society) we can talk about a group with a sense of belonging. Does this sense of belonging even stretch into society itself and is the reader made to question Indian society because this group does not yet share common goals?
'''"Midnight's Children"''' does not question the existence of the Indian nation. The people have fought for independence all together, they have their own political parties. If Saleem represents independent India and Saleem belongs to India (he grew up there, he returned to India later) as well as to Pakistan (his family migrates to Pakistan, as a Muslim he has every right to be in Pakistan) should the reader see this as Salman Rushdie's comment on partition?
Summing up these ideas I would like to pose one more question: Does the '''combination of the three novels''' suggest that the concept of nation only becomes important to South Asian people as they develop into independent groups that are recognized even by European philosophists/politicians as nations?

2009-10 AM Fictions of India - Expert Group on Nation (India)

2010-02-01T09:22:59Z

Hanna Nieber:

''Italic text''==Expert Group on Nation (India)==

'''''Group: Representations of India'''''

'''''Kim'''''

- Crowded societies composed of very different ethnic and cultural groups that live in mixed communities or close proximity

- Less social tension between these groups than between single individuals (cf. Lurgan Sahib‘s hatred on Kim) or between different nations (cf. British vs. Russians in the Great Game)

- British colonial power ensuring harmony?

'''''Untouchable'''''

- High social tension between outcastes and upper castes

- Most prominent example: Bakha touches an upper caste member by accident (cf. p. 46)

- Outcastes forced to announce their approach when they leave their colony

- Social exclusion of other minorities apart from low-caste Hindus (e.g. Mohammedans)

- Injustice and discrimination exerted by upper castes

- Few exceptions (eg. the high-caste Hindu Charat Singh, cf. p. 105-110))

- Counter-movements (Only the Ghandian movement is portrayed in the novel!)

- Role of British colonial power in this conflict?

'''''Midnight's Children'''''

- Multiple ethnic and social groups

- At the beginning of the novel: relative peace between those groups

- Considerable change of this relative harmony as the plot unfolds

'''''Group: Similarities and Contrasts in Kim and Untouchable'''''

'''''Kim and Bakha are symbols for the ongoing national change (Modern India)'''''

- Kim is not in a caste and therefore behaves freely

- Bakha is trying to life like a British

Discussion result:

- are Kim and Bakha passive or active acting towards the national change?

- is their way of acting determined by the caste system?

Discussion result:

- The topic of Nation is closely connected to the term „Caste System“.

'''Mulk Raj Anand "Untouchable"''' ''(Group: Impersonal narration and the ideology of the text: The representation of India and of Bakha's consciousness)''

1.)

- '''India:''' Mother India

-''' Characters:''' Bakha's mother /Sohini (B.'s sister)

- '''Features:''' the essence of India; essentially good; knows what its men need; caring; vulnerable

- '''References:'''

→ p. 14 („Indian to the core […] so loving, so good, and withal generous,giving, always giving[...]kindness personified.“)

→ p. 23 („She had sensed with her deep woman's instinct the feeling in her brother's soul. He was tired. He was thirsty.“)

→ p. 31 („Her father was abusing her“)

2.)

- '''India:''' Father India = Old India

- '''Characters:''' Lakha (B.'s father)/ Rakha (B.'sbrother)/ Gulabo

- '''Features:''' fearfully obeying the British; hierarchical thinking (passed down the generations;sometimes distant from Hinduism (under colonialism)

- '''References:''':

→ p. 12 („he is afraid of the sepoys“); 13(„attend to the latrines, or the sepoys will be angry.“)

→ p. 17 („that trait of servility […] he had inherited from his forefathers, the weakness of the down-trodden“)

→ p. 85 („ They all ate from the same basket […] not apportioning the food in different plates as the Hindus do, for the original Hindu instinct for cleanliness had disappeared long ago.“)

3.)

- '''India:''' Empire in India

- ''' Characters:''' The „Tommies“ - patronizing India(ns)

- '''Features:''' influencing India; imposing a different worldview on India

- '''References:'''

→ p. 121 („of the band of Christian missionaries“)

→ p. 9 („The Tommies had treated him as a human being“)

→ p. 9 („he had learnt to think of himself as superior to his fellow-outcastes.“)

Christianity: Colonel Hutchinson

4.)

- '''India:''' Modern India

- '''Characters:''' Bakha / Chota / Ram Charan / Havildar Charat Singh / Babu's sons

- '''Features:''' admiration for the British; copying the British; slightly false in their demeanor; not living strictly after caste hierarchy

→ p. 9 („had been caught by the glamour of the ' white man's ' life“)

→ p. 10 („Bakha was a child of modern India.“)

→ p. 11 („he tried to copy them in everything“)

→ p. 96 („they were not altogether unconscious of the falseness of their istinct“)

→ p. 97 („among the trio they had banished all thought of distinction.“)

5.)

- '''India:''' Liberal India

- '''Characters:''' Gandhi / The poet / Barrister-at-Law

- '''Features:''' taking (positive) British influence back to India; humanitarian; educated; highly estimating fairness & equality; desire to revolutionize India

- '''References:'''

→ p. 155 („the flush system […] a casteless and classless society“)

→ p. 145 („The British Government sought to pursue a policy of divide and rule in giving to our brethren of the depressed classes seperate electorates“)

→ p. 147 („a sin to regard anyone bon in Hinduism as polluted“)

→ p. 141 („We are willing to do all we can

'''Representation of India in Untouchable as shown on our handout could also be interpreted as follows:'''

- Instead of the division into ''Mother India'' and ''Father India'', those two parts could function as one so-called ''Old India'', since Bakha's mother, father and his sister
Sohini all sort of stick to the traditional way of life in India.

- ''Modern India'' could possibly be called and seen as ''Young India'', since Bakha and his friends such as Chota and Ram Charan represent the new generation with modern views and the urge to be different

- Another way to interpret our so-called ''Liberal India'' is to rename it into ''Intellectual India''. Through persons like Gandhi and the poet the difference between educated and uneducated people in India is made even clearer. Bakha does not understand a lot of what they talk about, which results from low education.

- We also discussed the option to even put ''Modern/Young India'' and ''Liberal/Intellectual India'' together and understand it as the ''New India'', supported by the thought of education and bringing forward the country in several ways, such as religion, education, humanity etc.

- We even have the option to see ''Empire India'' and ''Modern India'' as one part called only ''Modern India'', whereas ''Liberal India'' stays as it is.

- The role of our so-called ''Empire in India'', namely the British, still remains unclear even after our discussion: Did they suppress the Indians in a way or hinder them in their way of life? Did they even bring forward the wish for change and innovation? Can it be seen as a connection between “Old India” and “Modern India”?

Of course: Depending on the person who makes the distinctions the interpretation of India in the novel “Untouchable” can differ from other points of view.

'''Some Ideas that arise through the combined reading of all three novels
A nation is an "imagined political community" (Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities. 2nd Ed. London, 1991. p.6) Imagined, the members will never know all of their fellow members.
If we apply this concept on the novels, that we have read, we find, that in '''Kim''' there are many people, who all share living at the same time in the same territory, who meet and interact with each other, but who do not share common political goals. The British think that they are responsible in "running" the country, however, the Indians do not seem to need such regulations. In Socio-psychology a "group" requires a sense of belonging and common goals. The people living in the territory of Southern Asia at the time that '''Kim''' is set do not even fulfill the requirements of a "group". Can they be considered to be a nation?
In '''Untouchable''', the sense of belonging has started to develop. Still there are different ideas of what direction society should take. Despite the caste system (which organizes society) we can talk about a group with a sense of belonging. Does this sense of belonging even stretch into society itself and is the reader made to question Indian society because this group does not yet share common goals?
"Midnight's Children" does not question the existence of the Indian nation. The people have fought for independence all together, they have their own political parties. If Saleem represents independent India and Saleem belongs to India (he grew up there, he returned to India later) as well as to Pakistan (his family migrates to Pakistan, as a Muslim he has every right to be in Pakistan) should the reader see this as Salman Rushdie's comment on partition?
Summing up these ideas I would like to pose one more question: Does the combination of the novels suggest that the concept of nation only becomes important to South Asian people as they develop into independent groups that are recognized even by European philosophists/politicians as nations?