The Circle of Reason - Article Example

Critique analysis of The Circle of Reason. Religion in the lives of the characters in The Circle of Reason is important. This religious aspect affects the other important issues such as immigration, the partition between India and Pakistan and then of Pakistan and Bangladesh. Another issue the characters face is the extent that religious myth fuels extremism that spreads across the border after the partition. Other religious issues are the Indians treatment of the missionary’s Bible, the issue of marriage between Hindus and Muslims and the perceptions and biases in that, the role of myths and traditions in corrupting the true religion. Also, there will be a discussion about the difference between a true follower of a religion and someone who is trying to be more practical, the possibility of applying someone’s religion in another country with a different religion, and the difference between Hindus and Muslims in their beliefs as they are portrayed in the text. Also the Hindu portrayal of God and how that has changed throughout history needs to be explored in The Circle of Reason. Nationalism is another strong facet of Ghosh’s novel that is interesting. The instability created in the frontier regions as a result of independence generates the background in this book. The history of India especially after the partition with Pakistan and how the Indians characters in the novel show their nationalism differently are the backbone of this novel. Since Ghosh’s novel The Circle of Reason delves into religion and nationalism, this chapter will analyse religion first, then nationalism and lastly the effects both have on each other. Various religions are weaved into The Circle of Reason, mainly Hindu and Islam. Each character in this story has definite concepts about religion. Prayer is specifically mentioned in several quotes. For example, Balaram says, “Pray Bhudeb-babu, for I know you believe in prayer, pray that you may not be his first victim” (24). This is a direct quote from Balaram toward Bhudeb-babu, yet in another quote Ghosh shows a Hindu meeting where there are also prayers, “I propose, therefore, that we begin all our meetings hereafter with salutations and prayers to the Cosmic Atom” (47). Ghosh even shows the structure to Islamic prayers in The Circle of Reason: computerized system of loudspeakers that ran through the passages and corridors and punctually relayed the call to prayer five times a day (even at dawn, when the only people in Souq were a few soundly sleeping vagrants)” (194). These quotes show the different manners of prayer, depending on one’s beliefs. Even though different religions, or even different characters, pray in diverse manners, it does not mean one prayer is more important than another prayer. In India, prayer was a supplication used in politics. Prayer and petition was part of the political practice according to Sugata Bose and Avesha Jalal, “Its preferred method was the constitutional way of prayer and petition” (117). Bose and Jalal show that the in India before and after colonial rule, prayer was a part of the government for the Indians. In The Circle of Reason the term ‘God’ also has different meanings to the two primary religions. For Muslims ‘God’ is Allah. The following passage in The Circle of Reason, Ghosh shows how Zindi, a Muslim, believes in Allah: Then Zindi saw her, too: a short woman in a bright orange….Boss’s head to her cheek, and kissing him, she whispered: Allah! You’re saved now; saved in the middle of the desert. (356) Zindi believes the definition of ‘God’ is Allah. For Alu the definition of ‘God’ means more than one deity. Ghosh shows that Hindus believe in more than one ‘God’: “For example, it was certain that the pandits and brahmins had distorted the ancient Hindu idea of God, the Brahma, into their thousand deities and idols” (47). This quote shows that at one time Brahma meant ‘God’ to the Hindus, but over the years Hindu beliefs had splintered into many different directions. Ghosh delves into the tradition of both religions in this novel. Just one example is the Islam tradition of dress for women. In one excerpt Ghosh reveals, “Das looked around him at the robes and head cloths of the Ghaziri men, at the black masks of the women” (272). The black masks of the women in this quote are the result of Arabic tradition, not the Islamic faith. The Muslim faith does not require women to cover their faces, or to even wear masks. However, Islam does require modesty for women. Ghosh shows how an Indian woman covered her head even in Algeria by the following quote, “keeping her head covered when she went out into the streets of El Oued; it seemed appropriately modest somehow in that land of cavernous hoods” ( 354). These two quotes demonstrate how tradition subtly intertwines with religious beliefs. Some take religion to an extreme, like the women who wore the masks. Others are more realistic, like the ones which only cover their heads. Hindus also have tradition mixed in with their religious beliefs. An example is the ritual of sprinkling holy water. There are two instances from The Circle of Reason that stand out. One shows how Mrs. Verma depends on this ritual, even when being ridiculed, “I was just asking, he (Mishra) snapped, whether you’ve managed to connect your kitchen tap to the Ganges? Or do you keep your own stock of holy water for these occasions?” (Circle of Reason, 402) Another example is when Dr. Mishra says to Verma, “medieval superstition flaunting itself on a sand-dune. But, please, Mrs. Verma, you’re welcome to dance about on the sand scattering holy water on the palm dates, but don’t ask me to do it (402). These two citations show that Mrs. Verma takes the ritual to an extreme, while fellow Hindus take a more moderate approach about water rituals. The holy water has become more traditional than religious in these two examples. Ghosh does show Mrs. Verma softens in the end. G. J. V. Prasad writes, “it is then logical that towards the end of the novel, Mrs. Verma should use carbolic acid instead of the purificatory Ganga-jal. As Dr. Mishra puts it, “Carbolic acid has become holy water” (411) Another traditional mixed religious issue for Muslims and Hindu is the burial of the dead. About Muslims, when Mrs. Verma says to Dr. Mishra: “Haven’t you heard how during their war of independence the French used to blow up the bodies of the Algerian dead to demoralize the guerrillas, because they knew how important it is to Muslims to be buried with their bodies whole and undesecrated.” (413) The act of being buried with whole bodies and undesecrated is not necessarily a religious edict from the Qu’ran, but more of a tradition for Muslims. Hindus on the other hand cremate their dead. Ghosh points this out in this conversation: Verma: Don’t we owe her anything now; now that she’s dead? Mishra: We owe her nothing, he said sharply. We didn’t even know her…Mrs. Verma, when you said a ‘proper cremation’ what exactly did you mean? Verma: well, like we’ve seen it done to our fathers and mothers, I suppose. Mishra: Mrs. Verma, don’t be afraid. What you mean is a proper Hindu cremation. Verma: It does not matter what you call it.” (405) (my emphasis) Cremation has become traditional Hindu burial. Whereas both traditions started as religious rituals, over the years tradition took over both cultures. A case of superstition imposing on religion is the case of Sheikh Musa grave. Ghosh relates, “Ishma’il broke in: He’s Sheikh Musa of the Mawali. He was buried there and protects everybody that passes by” (235). The Muslims passing this grave felt a comfort, whether the superstition was true or untrue did not matter, the comfort felt by the Muslims that believed (or made themselves to believe) that it was a real emotion. Van Der Veer explains the Muslim’s point of view like this, “In the Muslim view, “the ‘facts’ of this glorious past stand squarely opposite to the ‘fictions’ of Hindu mythology” (9). Each religion believed in their facts, while thinking the other religion was based on myths. Instead of respecting each other beliefs, the Hindu and Muslims were divided by their fundamental differences. Christianity was also mentioned several times in A Circle of Reason. In this novel Christianity was seen from the Hindu and Muslim point of view. For example Ghosh wrote about Gopal and the rationalists, “He himself was studying not science but English literature. Their aim was the application of rational principles to everything around them - to their own lives, to society, to religion, to history" (46). This quote seems to convey the impression that the English need to have solid proof or “rational principals” to validate their whole lives. Whereas from the point of view of Hindus and Muslims the English, who are mainly Christians, lack a fundamental faith that Hindu and Muslims have. The other passage dealing with Christianity showed the missionaries futile attempts to convert Hindus and Muslims to Christianity. Ghosh relates what Shombhu Debnath says to Balaram, “Its like those missionaries Bibles, given away by the truckload and only good for firewood” (108). The Hindus and Muslims used the Bibles as firewood, because to them the Bible is not sacred. On the other hand, not many colonizers Christians respect Hindu beliefs or the Qu’ran. Robert Young points out during the early postcolonial years, England still tried to exert Imperialistic ideas in India and Pakistan. Young writes, “”early days of independence, often over-ambitious and even unnecessary industrial projects, as well as forms of cultural imperialism such as Christian evangelism” (47). Young’s quote shows that Christians even after Indian’s partition and independence tried to push their views off on the Indian people. When writing on the religious aspects of postcolonial India, many writers focus on Christianity. However, Ghosh related the religious aspects of India better than other writers. Instead of focusing on the colonial religion, Christianity, Hindu and Muslim issues were dealt with in the interweaving of Ghosh’s story. Although the Hindus and Muslims did not appreciate Christianity, it does not mean these two religions had always toleration for each other. Instead of the natives joining together, the Hindus and Muslims were divided amongst themselves also. In a discussion about the cremation of Mrs. Bose, Mrs. Verma says to Mishra who seems to be a Hindu as well, “your kind have destroyed everything - science, religion, socialism - with your rules and your orthodoxies. Thats the difference between us: you worry about rules and I worry about being human "(409). This quote shows how the people were divided by their own religion, which had a mentality of “us” against “them” and how orthodoxy might divide the followers of one religion. Peter Van Der Veer explains that this mentality exists even to this day, “the policies have resulted in large-scale violence, which in a number of cases (Ahmedabad in 1985, for example) escalated into Hindu-Muslim riots” (5). The differences between the followers of one religion are clear in the novel: “The novel, The circle of Reason, opens up in a village on what was about to become the border between India and Pakistan. Here the coming of the new ideas is represented by the conflict between the village capitalist, Bhudeb Roy, and the apostle of rationalism and “science”, Balaram” (James and Shepherd, 28). The aspects of of rationalism, science and money might be described as the enemies of religion. However, this is not always the case because religion is not only about pure belief. In the novel, Ghosh shows us the character, Balaram, believing in rationalism: “What else could you expect in the Age of Evil? But theyre wrong, said Balaram, telling Gopal the story on his veranda ...of course it has a meaning, but the meaning must he read rationally - not with the hocus-pocus of these Stone Age magicians. Balaram stopped and looked at Gopal with a hint of a challenge glinting" (87). Ghosh shows that some of his characters, while believing in their religion, have the capability to make choices within their culture and evolve from the teachings of the past, which is referenced in this quotation as the Stone Ages. There are several incidents showing the division between Hindu and Muslim. One was when Jeevanbhi’s family found out about his marriage to a Muslim girl. Ghosh relates about Jeevanbhi, "years ago, after his parents, in distant Durban in South Africa, discovered his secret marriage to a Bohra Muslim girl (and he a Gujarati Hindu!) and expelled him from their home and family" (220). The revulsion the Hindu’s had for the Muslim religion was so strong, Hindu parents would disown their own children for marrying a Muslim. The surprise of the Muslim character, Forid, marrying a Hindu woman caused ripples in the novel as well. Ghosh wrote, “Mian rose abruptly from his stool. It seems to me, Zindi, he said, that youre thinking about my marriage much more than I am” (294). The interfaith marriage seems to be taboo in both Muslim and Hindu cultures. The separation of Hindu and Muslim had roots in nationalism. When India was liberated from English rule, a formal government struggled to unite the country, but in the end, India was split into India and Pakistan. Edward Said supports Ghosh’s descriptions of the governments in postcolonial India. Said writes, “Recent work on India and Pakistan in particular (e.g., Subaltern Studies) has highlighted the complexities between postcolonial security state and the intellectual elite” (36). The partition of India created problems between the Hindu and Muslim majorities. While India created a secular government, Pakistan formed an Islamic state. In The Circle of Reason, Ghosh addressed the notion of nationalism during the partitioning of India from both a Hindu and Muslim perspective. The opening of The Circle of Reason is set in a town, Lalkupur, on what would become the border between India and Pakistan. The characters in this book are on a journey to find not only themselves, but a homeland. Refugees wander the pages of this book looking for a homeland. Balaram was from West Bengal. Ghosh relates: “It was a very new settlement, the young man explained. Most of the villagers were refugees from the east. His was the only family which owned land in the area. And where are you from, sir? he asked Balaram. Im from East Bengal, too, Balaram said. From Dhaka. I see, he said. A few of the villagers are from there as well.” (18) Because of the unrest due to the withdrawal of the English, and the new unstable governments the characters in this novel are wary of their situation. Many of these people are forced out of their homes, whether out of necessity or fear. Ghosh relates territorial changes with this quote, “the years after East Bengal became East Pakistan. Most of them had left everything but their dialect behind. It was a nasal sing-song Bengali, with who knew what” (27). During this upheaval, extremists arose on both sides of the border. Ghosh shows several examples of extremists, Hindu and Muslim. The Circle of Reason shows the human side of nationalism. For example, Ghosh relates what Bhudeb Roy says about Balaram, “a confused extremist. It took me many years to find out, and by that time it was too late. He was set in his dangerous ways. An extremist; no respect for order. A terribly confused extremist” (35). Because of all chaos happened during and after the Partition between India and Pakistan, men began fighting for justice. Balaram, a man of reason, was labelled an extremist. In reality, Balaram only wanted what was best for the people. Not all of the extremists were confused. Some knew exactly what they were doing. Ghosh wrote of some who were proud of their violent ways, “He could not help stiffening with pride. Theyre bombs, he said. Bombs. Bombs. they chorused. Yes, lie smiled, bombs. He looked anxiously at them” (39). These extremists showed their nationalism through violence that made money for personal gain. Another type of violence was the riots at the Dhaka University, Ghosh expressed, “Riots broke out in Dhaka University that year. A lecturers house in their own neighbourhood was attacked by a mob” (42). These riots were during the English colonial rule. There were other examples of violent resistance during the English colonial rule. Ghosh shows that resistance before England left India, “a date as many of his friends in college would have, to mark one of the many terrorist strikes against the British in Bengal. In distant Europe there was always the declaration of the First World War, and its assortment” (39). These men would be considered freedom fighters, not terrorists by their people. Most would only choose birthdates from the famous resistance dates, instead of partaking in the violence. Ghosh seems to define terrorists as the foreign extremists from across the border. One instance Ghosh narrates, “Extremists have money, said the Deputy Inspector- General, chewing cryptically. It comes across the border. Thats why theyre extremists” (84). Another example when Bhudeb Roy goes to the police station and says to officer Jyoti Das: “I was holding a public meeting in the village. They attacked me with all their foreign weapons and everything and tried to kill me, and they disrupted the whole meeting and wrecked the law" (129). It seems that according to Ghosh, terrorism comes from the outside world. Nationalism in this novel also was shown through politics. Yet not everyone with the same political beliefs agreed in The Circle of Reason. Ghosh shows the depth of his characters. One character, Charan Mishra, was a socialist, “Charan Mishra, it was old Hem Narain Mathur. For he was a real socialist, as true as the new- ploughed earth, and he had died in unsung obscurity while Murali Charan Mishra ... Mishra and the party theoreticians that people were not atoms to be dealt with in formulae. And while he was away, organizing that movement or this, at some conference or the other, the party was always splitting and splintering. At the centre of it all was Murali Charan.” (399) This quote shows that even people with the same views bickered and fought amongst themselves in the name of nationalism. Throughout this novel, Ghosh shows that people are connected to their country of birth and culture. It is very important to the characters in The Circle of Reason to be identified by their place of birth. An example of this importance comes with the baby born on the way to Al-Ghazira. Ghosh relates this incident: “It was madness to bring her on to a boat in this state. Shes just babbling, on and on. She says that she knows that the child wont be given a house or a car ... Maybe, Rakesh said, looking at his plate, maybe she wants a birth certificate. You really need a birth certificate nowadays: cant get into school without" (177) The mother’s fear can be dismissed as the delirium of labor, but these fears are very real. Some officials would turn a child born at sea back. Although al-Ghazira is a fictional Gulf state, every country requires some sort of birth certificate. This raises the issue about a child’s nationality. Do children automatically become the nationality of their parents? Or do children get hold of the nationality of the country in which they born? Ghosh does make one ponder these questions. Another issue Ghosh raises regarding nationalism and nationality is the perception on people’s attitude towards people who come from another country. An illustration of this point is the treatment of Kulfi. Ghosh narrates an incident in Al-Gazirah: “when the talk of dinner came up, she said: So you have someone to cook for you? The girls mother, wanting to impress her, said: Oh, yes. An Indian woman. At that the grandmother rose and said ...I am not going to eat food cooked by an Indian. Dont you remember how your uncle told us that these Indian women spit into the food” (204). (my emphasis) The grandmother did not even know Kulfi, but assumed that she had spit in her food. Because of this perception, “in the end the girls mother had to promise that she would never again have an Indian in the house, before the marriage could go ahead.” (205) The negative impression the grandmother conveyed made a whole family prejudiced against Indians. Ghosh does try to connect everyone by pointing out that the countries have similar needs. He points that out in the conversation between Gopal and Balaram, “and no machine has created man as much as the loom. It has created not separate worlds but one, for it has never permitted the division of the world. The loom recognizes no continents and no countries. It has tied the world together with its bloody ironies from the beginning of human time" (55). Ghosh is trying to show that no matter the prejudices between people, there are basic human needs that affect everyone. Also, Ghosh believes that what connects countries to each other is more than what separate them: All these centuries cloth in its richness and variety, bound the Mediternean to Asia, India to Africa, the Arab world to Europe, in equal, bountiful trade.(56) This citation indicates that the author believes that borders between countries are shadow and people and countries have been connected to each other throughout history. Ghosh tells a story with these elements in the background. Religion and nationalism are part of his novels, but unlike other writers, Ghosh tells his story like colonial and postcolonial India was normal. Homi Bhabha supports this statement, “Salman Rushdie, for instance, the examples of India and Pakistan are, above all, an opportunity to explore postcolonial responsibility. The story he tells is of an entire region slowly coming to think of itself as one, but a corollary of his story is disappointment” (63). Ghosh, unlike Rushdie, writes about India, Pakistan and Bangladesh without an obvious moral lesson. The Circle of Reason is a story set on a border town around the time colonial rule came to end. The characters react to the chaos, sorrow and ramifications of the English withdrawal, but in a very realistic way. Ghosh portrays a picture that is simple, but effective in this novel. This novel is above all a story that makes the reader think about religion and nationalism without an obvious agenda. Read More