“If for a
moment the sense of communion in sorrow came to them, it passed. How indeed is
it possible for one human being to be sorry for all the sadness that meets him
on the face of the earth, for the pain that is endured not only by men, but by
animals and plants, and perhaps by the stones? The soul is tired in a moment,
and in fear of losing the little she does understand she retreats to the
permanent lines which habit or chance have dictated, and suffers there.” (232)
The idea of suffering has been employed by
many writers, in both theological and secular texts, as a means of reaching
spiritual rejuvenation or redemption for one’s sins and misgivings. Fyodor Dostoevsky,
for instance, uses this theme in countless novels (Crime & Punishment, The Gambler, Devils, The Idiot & The
Brothers Karamazov) to detail the spiritual cycles of his protagonists
where they use their individual sufferings to gain communion with the larger
condition of human suffering, and hence reach salvation.
The modernist rejection of this idea of
spiritual communion is made clear in Forster’s Passage to India where breakdowns of communication become
commonplace. Divided by their experiences, Dr. Aziz and Fielding constantly
attempt at forging an intimate relationship, but the failure finds its roots in
their inability to empathize- to understand the peculiar suffering that each
other has experienced. Despite moments of vulnerability (the bare nudity of
showing his dead wife’s picture to a White man), there is breakdown of
communication.
The novel takes us through distinct moments
of suffering for the protagonist- the loss of his wife, failure to embody the Mughal
emperor’s persona, the rape accusation and of course the failed homo-erotic
relationship- but Forster refuses to give his protagonist a deserving
resolution. This speaks highly of a larger modernist disillusionment with the
mechanization of everyday life, of suffering even- ‘Exploring hands encounter no defence’ (240) and other breakdowns
of communication in Elliot’s poem give further evidence to this claim.
Forster’s characters repeatedly voice this
indifference to suffering:
“Suffering is merely a matter for the
individual. If a young lady has sunstroke, that is a matter of no significance
to the universe.” (167).
Aziz, himself struggles with the ‘Oriental
Guide’ complex, glorifying the past fortunes of empire while simultaneously
suffering due to the misfortunes of his peculiar exile under colonial raj. In
the final chapter, Forster initially gives the illusion of Aziz’s resolution:
“Those words – he had said them to Mrs. Moore
in the mosque at the beginning of the cycle, from which, after so much suffering,
he had got free” (296).
But
then he ‘starts again’, evoking the same characteristic failure of
communication (of connection) which ends with an unbridgeable rift between the
two men- an incapability of understanding each other’s suffering.
No comments:
Post a Comment