The Liberal Colonial as Ruled by Contradictions: Mr. Fielding

There are several aspects of the way Forster portrays the figure of the liberal colonial but what strikes me the most is the inherent contradiction within the liberal colonial, particularly in the case of Fielding. Forster introduces Fielding to the audience as a humanist who feels “happy and secure out here” among Indians who, seemingly, trust him (261). With the progression of the novel, however, we discover that while the individualization of the character of Fielding sets it apart from the ordinary Anglo-Indian; embedded within this character is a deep sense of colonialism as he is highly cognizant of the cultural differences between the white and brown races. It is my contention, therefore, that the figure of the liberal colonial, through such a contradiction, can be said to represent a re-placing or reconstruction of the colonial discourse within 20^th century India.

We get hints of Fielding’s conceptions of the differences between the colonizer and the colonized throughout the novel, reaching their apex after his marriage with Stella whence he wonders if he could “defy all his own people for the sake of a stray Indian” (313). Throughout the novel, Fielding feels certain cultural barriers between himself and the native – expressed sometimes through a miscommunication due to language or at other times through different cultural norms. For instance, when Aziz expresses his concern to Fielding of his name entirely dying out without children, Fielding feels that his “indifference” is a barrier as it is something the “Oriental will never understand” (130). Despite being a humanist, Fielding’s realizations of the “gulf” between the natives and the colonized preserves the impregnable wall set up by the colonizer which divides the world of the ruled from the rulers.

While denouncing colonization, Fielding thoroughly benefits from it himself – taking up a job in India as the Principal of a renowned institution – a job which he knows he’s denying to Indians but takes, anyway. Fielding, thus, becomes a figure that refuses an ideology yet continues to live with and benefit from its reality – making him a figure whose life is ruled by an inherent contradiction. As a man opposed to colonization, one would imagine that Fielding would support the idea of India becoming free but he questions this possibility and even tries to convince Aziz that India is not Indian property – “it’s nobody’s India” (273). Fielding also asks Aziz “Who do you want instead of the English? The Japanese?” thereby implying that British rule, despite its flaws, is to be preferred to that of other imperial powers. Therefore, even though Fielding displays a stark difference with the archetypal Anglo-Indian, because of his desire towards befriending Indians; he still remains a figure deeply embedded within colonial discourse and could be said to represent a new strand of colonialism in the late colony – to the effect that Aziz exclaims at the end of the book that the two cannot be friends until India is set free.