The Reluctant Fundamentalist
“Some books are acts of courage. Hamid has done something extraordinary with this novel.”
I’m not sure what Hamid’s religious beliefs are but a Pakistani, supposedly Muslim man writing a novel about 9/11 in the way in which he did I’m sure caused a lot of controversy; especially the ending of the book. The idea of the man “reaching into his jacket” and Changez seeing the “glint of metal”. As we watched a movie in class that day, this ending can be interpreted in many different ways. I had some questions while I was watching a film.
- Did Changez kill the American man?
- Did the American man kill Changez?
- Did they both exchange business cards and part their ways in peace?
I feel as though during the time in which this movie I was watching, those who interpreted the ending as the American being killed by Changez would watch this movie as though it were anti-American, which I don’t think it is at all.
“I had a Pakistani Once”
Consciously or unconsciously she portrayed Changez Khan as Pakistani. This act gives the lens through which foreigners used to see Islamic identity. Rather to consider anyone as human being they are more interested in considering religious identity. This act of her also drives him angry and suddenly he breaks up with her.
There is also a scene come in which one person says that,
“This long beard also makes him fearful”
A very little line arises a lot of huge questions against the identity of Changez Khan. After all this happening,
Can Changez Khan be able to be what he really wants to be?
The reaction of Chagez Khan is said a lot without uttering a word when he came to know about the 7/11 attack. After hearing the news of the attack he is quite shocked but sooner and suddenly a smile comes out on his face which symbolizes his inner happiness also. This is only because of brutal treatment of foreigners towards him.
Hamid does a very good job at portraying what life was like as a Pakistani or a Muslim in the United States after 9/11. This amazing country that Changes came to from Pakistan to start a new life, to attend the school of his dreams had turned its back on him. understand what it’s like to go to a new country after being in Pakistan for a long time. In his most vivid memory of leaving Pakistan was when he was nine years old and my family decided to spend a few days in Singapore. He remember as a little kid looking around and thinking he was in heaven. Of course Singapore and the United States are two very different countries but the feeling of being in this new environment completely different from Pakistan was mutual.
It wasn’t fair the way Changez was treated, it wasn’t fair how all Muslims were treated in the United States and as sad as it is, things haven’t fully changed even now.
"Midnight’s Children"
Midnight’s children is a 2012 Canadian-British film adaption of Salman Rushdie’s 1981 novel with the same name. Directed by Oscar nominated director Deepa Mehta and based on the Booker Prize winning novel by Salman Rushdie. The movie unearths the history of Indian independence as well as of Indian partition by representing a pair of children who were born in Bombay at the stroke of midnight on 15th August, 1947, with the birth of a new country. High patriotism where Jawaharlal Nehru was leading the newly born independent country into an era of hope and grand possibilities.
Could the citizens of the country live in that era of striking hope?
or
Still there was darkness in the country?
The first frame of the movie unfolds in pre Independence Kashmir of 1937, Saleem Sinai the narrator of the story recounted the events where Dr.Aziz was treating Naseem and fell in love with her and also revealed about how his mother Amina’s married to to Ahmad Sinai which ultimately leaded destined him to born at midnight of partition in Bombay.
The narrator made a satire on the condition of India and on a political leader in a very humorous way. The film has richness in terms of narration which questions the meta-narrative of the past and also flows with magic realism as well as the use of symbolism played a vital role.
The story involves a struggle of four generations from grandfather of Saleem to the son of Saleem. The characters of Saleem and Shiva were portrayed as they were that magical telepathy power through it; they were able to call the children who were born the same as them at night if they were independent between zero hour. But the question is that,
Did magical children have a freedom to fly? And can we say that Would they be the birds of the cage?
The movie tries to answer this question throughout the movie. Here I mention some of the points from the movie which I found interesting and equally I try to answer the above mentioned question.
Idea of Marxism and hybridization
The very idea of Marxism which grew stronger and interestingly portrayed in the movie. A woman of a well settled family and a Vanita who belonged to a poor family gave birth to the child at midnight in hospital. Joseph D’Costa seemed as a great supporter of Marxist theory as he believed in,
'Rich becomes poor and poor becomes rich'
The nurse Mary Pereira switched the new born babies and played a vital role in writing the destiny of new born babies. It was a revolutionary act for her but she had no idea about how much it would be harmful for boys and their families as well as it also brought out the notion of hybridity in the life of Saleem Sinai and Shiva. The conflict between rich and poor was interestingly drafted in the movie.
Mixture of two cultures and religions was also portrayed in the movie. Saleem Sinai and Shiva were the representatives of hybrid identity. Saleem Sinai who was supposed to be the son of Vanita and Wee Willie Winkie but in actuality he was a son of Vanita and Britisher Methwold. Saleem Sinai and Shiva both characters presented religious hybridity.
The brutal image of Indira Gandhi who did not allow the poor to live peacefully even after partition also. After Independence she passed Emergency in 1975, because of it there were price increases and poor people were not able to satisfy their basic needs and died because of a shortage of basic needs. During this scene camera moved on the frame which said that,
“Zero years of independence”
It revealed that we were free from British colonies but still there was no hope. The revolutionary idea of Joseph D'Costa was challenged here, it did not allow the poor to be rich.The act of vasectomy was an order of the prime minister to overcome poverty but rather it was seen as an inhuman act.
Chutnification in the Midnight's Children
Chutnification is used many times in the movie. Chutney is a symbol of mixed identities of India as well Chutney also brought happiness in the life of Saleem Sinai. Mary used to make Chutney for him and also frequently told him I would make tasty Chutney for you. At the end of the movie, by testing the Chutney Saleem realized that it was made by Marry and he also went to Bombay to meet her. At last, Saleem addressed Marry as her mother as well as Mary, Saleem, his son and Picture Singh were presented as they were celebrating the birthday of Saleem on independence day.
Superstition in India
In the movie magical realism is shown as part of India. India was a country of snake charmer and magician and the height of this blind belief was that, when Indira Gandhi was presented as she was most interested in her horoscope.Parvati(known as witch) has that magical power and also a magical box through which she saved the life of Saleem and his child by disappearing it. The study of film through a postcolonial lens seems quite interesting. Salman Rushdie as a revolutionary critic also made a fun of Britishers, in between a movie a frame unfolded in which Saleem was studying, there was a picture of Lord Macaulay with the caption like
“This man brought civilization to savages”
Indians were considered as savages and Britishers were considered as civilized people.
The Black Prince
‘The Black Prince’ is an international historical drama film directed by Kavi Raz which was published in 2017 and casts Satindar Sartaj as a protagonist Duldeep Singh. The film is based on the mighty kingdom of Punjab, Duldeep Singh, the last Maharaja of Shikh Empire and his relation with queen Victoria. He was placed on throne at the age of five but was replaced by a British Resident.The entire film rests on Duleep Singh’s longing and liberation.
Everyone has that great pride for their native country, for their identity and for their regional language . Does there anything left to live if one can take away all these? The movie highlights this postcolonial idea through the protagonist character Duldeep Singh. He was born in India but was exiled from his own country and was raised in British.
Superiority and Inferiority
That very idea of superiority and inferiority is reflected through the title of the movie.The title of the movie is “The Black Prince'' which itself provides a lens(idea of racism fostered by Britishers) through which they used to see Indians as inferior because of their black skin color. In reality Duldeep was the king of Punjab but he was considered as prince by Queen Victoria.
Even his region was seized from him, in England he was baptized a Christian and lost his own identity as Sheikh as well as which kept him away from his mother. Almost he lost his identity as Shikh but as soon as he turned into 20s , he was haunted by the violence of his childhood which led him to meet his mother in India. She reminded him about his own Shikh identity but after knowing all reality,
How far was it possible or easy for Duldeep Singh to be the king of Punjab?
There were many obstacles which came into his path. Firstly his mind was entirely colonized; it was not easy for him to fight against Britishers. But as he did it, they started intrigue against him. They never allowed him to be the king of Punjab. How far the idea of colonization can be done psychological damage to a person is presented in the movie.
'He was neither entirely Sheikh noor Christain, neither entirely King nor Prince, neither entirely British nor Indian still his death in Paris'.
We can see Duldeep Singh who constantly seems to live with the dilemma of identity. Though he was free but not able to think independently. No doubt he started rebel against British Empire but
He was a king of Punjab than even on the other land he was voiceless, he was a subaltern who did not allow to raise his voice against authority.
Thank you...
No comments:
Post a Comment