The Glass Palace and Burmese Days Comparison - Essay Example

?Is Amitav Ghosh’s The Glass Palace a novel that rewrites colonial narratives about Burma such as George Orwell’s Burmese Days? Why? Why not? Make your case using relevant theoretical sources and textual material from both novels. (2000 words)  When talking about Amitav Ghosh’s “The Glass Palace as a rewrite upon the colonial narrative among the late 19th century narratives, Ghosh’s very own words comment on “This is how power is eclipsed; in a moment of vivid realism, between the waning of one fantasy of governance and its replacement by the next, in an instant when the world springs free from its moorings of dreams and reveals itself to be girdled in the pathways of survival and self-preservation”. “The Glass Palace” is one of the Gosh’s ambitious novels which are set on Burma, India and Malaya. Being a part of the land which was ruled by Britain’s for over a 100 year, Ghosh very forcefully focuses on the issues given birth by the colonial phase of the state. It unbeatably talks about the national impulses faced by Indian soldiers serving in British army (Ghosh, 2002). This is a woven tapestry of the concerned issues of colonial approach like mutiny and special rule for women. One is never away from the astray of being caught up by the strong grip of the colonial narrative found in the novel. The novel is the verdict of the fact that the imperialism engulfs the narrative so of the land being ruled over and gives and portrays it with its very own language (Ghosh, 2002). George Orwell’s “Burmese Days” is very much parallel to the voice of the narrative represented in “the Glass Palace”. The thing is not of being smarter or cleverer but this is about how the real native or the speaker is given secondary importance when given light upon by the white writers of colonial era. Post colonial approach has brought a new stream of consciousness which enabled people to peep through the real narratives of the land which were high jacked either by the foreign rule or through the socio-political pressure of the century. Thus Amitav is very much right in saying that a moment of power is eclipsed by the fantasy of the next one. When Britain’s hold the pen power, everything said and written about the brown people was on their ignorance, maltreatment ways and the poor conduct. No matter how rich and how provocative the culture of the land is, this is still unacceptable to these white people as it constitutes the theme of the “Burmese Days” as well where we find Dr. Veraswami attempting to pave way for being the member of British Club at Burma (Orwell, 1934). This creates a discomfort to U Po Kyin that a non white member is trying to be a part of the White Community. This makes “Glass Palace” very familiar to the post colonial writers’ school of thought like Edward Saeed has talked about in “Culture and Imperialism” (Ashcroft et. al., 2002). The Glass Palace like Burmese Days is reflective of cultural conversations and ethnic unions which is one of the big acquired traits of the colonial narratives. In “Burmese Days” Flory has eager hunger for talking on the critique of Raj and admiring and condemning the British rule simultaneously. His very words “the lie that we are here to uplift our poor black brothers instead of to rob them” are an open comment upon the masked intentions of British establishments which is familiar to the oil mining stimulus in Burma represented in “The Glass Palace”. The role of Rajkumar bringing his recruiters from the distant land to the Burmese trade is also a drawback which these colonized lands have always been attacked with. The imperialism being the biggest form of the capitalism did not leave much space and never showed generosity for the natives to grow with their own economy prevailing in their ethnic and cultural circles (Ashcroft et. al., 2002). The history cannot be alienated when woven in a discourse. This is the voice of the narrative that leads the readers to identify the shreds of history from the fiction which is hardly possible. Therefore the colonization narratives being very tricky do not let the native voices to grow up and speak for their own selves which in result give a maximum support to the imperialistic narrative being perceived by the colonized (Spivak, 2007). This fear of other is reckoned as being Xenophobic in Edward Saied’s Culture and Imperialism where he reinforces that the colonized ultimately become dumb as are not bring heard by the world hence; the space is created for the ruling elements who apparently speak for the natives but dig their own interests by giving a misled portray of the native beings. This voice is subsequently identified as the foreign if not being supported by the local and partial speakers of the land (Spivak, 2007). George Orwell has favored the colonized souls through the character of Flory in his novel “Burmese Days” where he desires to marry a culturally rich Burmese woman but knows that his soul cannot be satisfied but by marrying a White English woman. This is the dilemma not only of the “Burmese Days “but of the time of colonization where will and personal wishes were veiled by the economic pressures and social taboos. Rajkumar’s search for Dolly is indeed a symbolic journey of the present powers to the economic resources hidden in these far and distant lands. Dolly’s character is the marked parameter between two cultures and two ethnic value resources where one embodies the success through the adopted ways and the other symbolizes the dazzling and true form of the rich native culture and land (Spivak, 2007). We find a common sense of resistance almost in all the colonial narratives and impeccably prominent in “The Glass Palace” where the new Collector is unwelcomed and not revered from heart. This is a natural individual, social and national phenomenon identified by many in colonial discourses. The fear of being not lost keeps the natives to strive and go in self defense as was done by the people of Ratnagiri (Said, 1993). The resistance gave birth to a mutual resentment towards the British regime and brought the fictional invention to lessen it. Here the wife of the Collector is the fictional character whose friendly attitude somehow won the trust of Ratnagiri people. It’s a debate to call it fictional because such characters are not historically present in every narrative speaking for the colonial lands (Ashcroft et. al., 2002). Here the thin line of history and the fiction is blurred by Amitav and is repeated many times through several instances. Partnership of Rajkumar with the Japanese Saya John and turning of immature dream builder Rajlkumar into a rich mature individual is also the fictional creation of the author’s mind and does not stand for historical evidences (Ashcroft et. al., 2002). One of the major themes or the drawbacks which is dealt by all the colonial narrative is of the lost identity which gives birth to the hybrid off springs. Hybrid identity is the one of the biggest fears confronted by the multiethnic families and couples. We find this phenomenon being present in both the novels, I mean in “the Glass Palace” and in “Burmese Days”. The hybrid identity is one of the racial crises faced and raised through the post colonial narratives. The union of two cultures belonging to different past dwelling upon the different traditions will surely bring the identity issue in the weave where one has to give up and the other has to prevail for getting engrossed in the vast sea of recognition (Ashcroft et. al., 2002). Hybrid identity comes where two races are united. Ironically this union is the prime base for many conflicts of the coming time. This keeps one submissive and to go back in the shell of one’s self where he is always frightened that his true recognition may not be grabbed away. This keeps him nurturing his hidden worship of his origin and silently obeying the prevailing and relatively more accepted belonging (Said, 1993). As far as the question “how does manufacture resent”? is concerned, “The Glass Palace” and “Burmese Days” both support the answer. When your economy is authorized by the foreign and the elements of the other land, your land’s timber constitutes other’s market, your land’s rich oil reservoirs make you poor as others take it away either by force or through trade, you are left with no other option but with the two; either to rebel courageously or to consent stealthily (Said, 1993). This resent sometimes leads to the former form and may be concentrated when you are treated as a contagious disliking and are deprived from the blessings of your own home and its resources because others are not only resting but are controlling your destiny, it surely gives birth to a sharp and the lasting movement among colonized nations which could have brought revolutions along with if become successful. When the native discourse is made silent by the prevailing political factors, the voice of the time dies for having another birth at another time. This brings agony and may upset the set and the assumed notions of colonization (Spivak, 2007). Amitav has deliberately chosen these characters to show the history of time at these moments for their relevance to the issue, their historical background associated with the colonized land and their fear of losing identity which make them a part of pure colonial narrative. The character of Thibaw Min is the representative of the descendants of the royal family. He reflects the royal festivities and the reverence enjoyed by the family in the public. His exile is also somewhat resembled with the banished life of the last king who died with heart attack (Ashcroft et. al., 2002). The shifting of power from a centered monopoly to an open and dynamic regime is constituted and shown through the chosen characters. This shift of power has a historical importance if one can alienate it from the fiction of the time. Bhabha is very true in stating and making his prophecies in “Cultural Diversity and Cultural Difference” that the dying of one is in fact the birth of the other. These cultural differences have historic perspective and are spoken for these natives specifically when ever are talked about through the colonial vision (Said, 1993). The individual characters like Dolly in “the Glass Palace” are significant as they represent and support the evidence of the shifting of the power. Dolly stands for the journey and the long yards from being subaltern to being autonomous. This in fact is the finishing story of the repression towards liberation. Between the two strands of these political norms i.e. repression and the liberation takes place the story of “The Glass Place” which makes its character a show case for not only representing the social fears but also the political redemptions which make the novel very special in its features and give it a distinctive position among all the narrative discourses of colonization (Spivak, 2007). “The Glass Palace” is embodiment of English treatment of Burmese coming in the way of their tread. This gives a new vision to see history through the glass of fiction. His special feature is his move in the eastern lands exploring the economic pleasures which brought Britain on this very land and kept them attacking the natives to strengthen their market and trade. Amitav’s special Indian background enables him to portray the falling legacy on the canvass of the colonial landscapes. He is very successful in portraying the dilemma of the poor Indians who were shipped to the Far East and more to it the dilemma of the Indian soldiers serving in British army confronting with the Indians fighting for their national freedom (Said, 1993). Burmese exploitation is very typical and a part of the fate of every colonized people with the long history of restoration which still marks them subaltern when compared with their ex white masters. The colonized lands share a mutual crisis and hence are reckoned as a collective discourse which vents a way to the suppressed voices of the poor souls. This narrative shifts and brings a new enterprise for those who believe only in the echoing voices (Ashcroft et. al., 2002). References: Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin, The Empire Writes Back: Theory and Practice in Post Colonial Literatures. London: Routledge. 2002. Print. Chakravorty Spivak, Gayatri, Can the Subaltern Speak? Turia and Kant. 2007. Print. Ghosh, Amitav, The Glass Palace: A Novel. Random House Trade Paperbacks. 2002. Print. Orwell, George, Burmese Days: A Novel. Harper. 1934. Print. Said, Edward W. Culture and Imperialism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 1993. Print. Read More