This document provides a comparison of the treatment of Anglo-Indian relations in E.M. Forster's A Passage to India and George Orwell's Burmese Days. It discusses how both authors portray the complex relationship between the British colonists and Indian people during the colonial era. Key places like the British Club and Marabar Caves are used symbolically. Character types like the "outsider" Englishmen Flory and Fielding and sympathetic Indians Aziz and Veraswami represent different perspectives. Overall, both novels convey the failure of human relations and cultural understanding between the British rulers and Indian population under the colonial system.

1. Jeh Gagrat
English Personal Investigation on Anglo-Indian relations- Winchester College- June 2013.
‘I wantto see the real India’(AdelaQuestedin A Passageto India).Compare the treatmentOf Anglo-
Indian relations in A Passage to India and Burmese Days.
Forsterand Orwell deal withthe treatmentof Anglo-Indianrelationsinvaried ways.Inmydiscussion
of Anglo-Indianrelations,Iamexaminingthe relationshipthat existed between the English and the
Indiansinthe era of colonialism. Forsterconveys asense of initial optimism as to the existence of a
relationshipbetweenthe Englishandthe Indianswhicheventually breaks down due to the absence
of trust and severe cultural differences. With Orwell we find his sense of despondency at the
thoughtof Anglo-Indianrelations describing the Raj as a form of “Despotism”. (Orwell, 2009, p. 68)
Orwell expresseshisinterestincolonialismandas Caldernoted:“ColonialismfirstrevealedtoOrwell
the extent of what social injustice could mean, and it also provided the subject of his first novel,
Burmese Days.” (Calder, 1968, p. 82) This idea is clearly portrayed to us in the description of the
colonial Indian servant, Mattu: “Old Mattu, the Hindu Durwan who looked after the European
Church,was standinginthe sunlightbelow the veranda.He wasan oldfever-strickencreature,more
like a grasshopper than a human being.” (Orwell, 2009, p. 42) The suggestions of squalidity and
dearthinthe descriptionof the Indian servantare suggestive of the social injustice meted out to the
Indian community at large. Forster comes to a similar conclusion in A Passage to India since the
relationship between Aziz and Fielding which had started with so much hope and promise is torn
apart by the end of the novel because of cultural differences, the failure of colonialism and the
failure of human relations. We find Aziz and Fielding can no longer be friends, Mrs. Moore has
passed away dying in her search for ‘more’ and Adela Quested has failed in her ‘quest’ to find the
“Real India” (Forster E. M., 2005, p. 21) returning to England as a lonely spinster.
Furthermore; the authors offer a fresh perspective into the nature of Anglo-Indian relations by
portrayingideasthroughthe perspective of the Indianand the English. A common perspective they
offer is of the English woman-the burra memsahib who consistently bears a grudge against the
Indian. In dealing with the theme of Anglo-Indian Relations we find the writers’ thematic use of
place; their art of characterisation- the use of perspectives to suggest temperamental differences
and the use of stylisticdevicessuchasthe interiormonologues,the use of dialogue and symbolism.
Thematic Significance of Place.
Place is an important element used by both the authors as a tool in plot development. It is also
symbolicof the nature of Anglo-Indianrelationsinthe novels. The BritishClub is a recurring motif in
boththe novelsand itissymbolicof the ideaof Britishpride andexclusiveness- aplace free fromthe
irritationof the Indian. Orwell’s ironicdescriptionof the clubasthe “spiritual citadel” (Orwell, 2009,
p. 14) is an apt one.We findthe same sort of snobberyinthe British Club in Forster’s description. A
similar account of attempts to preserve British superiority can be seen when the “windows were
barred” (Forster E. M., 2005, p. 21) during a play performance at the British Club. We find this
humorousaccountrecollected similarly throughthe wry,authorial commentwhichimplied that this
act of secrecy was carried out lest the native servants might spy on their Mistresses.
Withinthe Club bothauthorsdepictthe Britishina depreciative light. Theirexcessive drinkingand
the criticismsthattheylevel againstthe Indian isevidenceof thisfact.Ellis’sconstantrevulsionat
the thoughtof the nativescallingthem“greasylittle babus”(Orwell,2009, p. 69) is to be matched
withMary Turton’s emphaticassertion: “Irefuse toshake handswithanyof the men.”(ForsterE.

2. JehGagrat
2
M., 2005, p. 37) The condescendingmannerinwhichshe referstothe Indiangentlemenonly
heightensthe effectof suchhypocrisy. Atthe same time we learnwhatitis like towork inthe
Colonial Servicesparticularlyin BurmeseDays.Flory underlines the factthatthese sahibs donot
enjoytheirjob;theybeginwithsuchhope only toendindespondency.The observationthatthey
are victimsof circumstance makestheiractsof abuse and theirlicentiousbehaviourslightlymore
acceptable. The transformationwhilelivinginthe BritishRaj isseeninthe characterof Elizabeth
Lackersteen.We notice herinitial caution;she feels sorryforthe treatmentmetedouttothe
Indians,butbythe endof the novel we notice thatshe herself hasbeentransformed intoacold
pukka memsahib.She feelsnoqualmsindealingwiththe Indiansinahighhandedmanner.This
transformationisskilfullydisplayedtousthrough Orwell’skeendescriptionof her innerpsychology-
herinitial hopelessnessatherpovertyandalienationcontrastedwithher eventual strengthand
confidence atbeingapukka memsahib.The ideaof the pukka memsahib isaninterestingone andas
Fieldingasserts:“itispossible tokeepin withIndiansandEnglishmen,buthe whowouldalsokeep
inwithEnglishwomenmustalsodrop the Indians.”(ForsterE. M., 2005, p.57) Withthe pukka
memsahibs we alsosee theircharacterflaws –theirinherentruthlessnessandhigh-handedattitudes
insettingstandardswhilstinthe companyof the Indiangentry. Thisexperience remindsusof Lionel
Trilling’s commentinE.M.Forster:a Study:“Forwant of a smile anempire isto be lost.”(Trilling,
1959, p.129)-the unfriendlinessof the Britishrulersandtheirhighhandednesscost themtheir
empire.
The housesof the twomain English Protagonists have a thematic significance that is very similar in
the two novels.Flory’shouse islocated “at the top of the maidan.” (Orwell, 2009, p. 14) Its location
which is distant from the British town seems apt given that his inner thoughts reveal his isolation
from the rest of the English in Kyauktada. His constant longing for a companion is conveyed to us
throughthe author’s skilful use of the narrative technique: “to find someone who would share his
life in Burma, but really share it, share his inner, secret life, carry away from Burma the same
memories as he carried.” (Orwell, 2009, pp. 72,73) Mr. Fielding’s house is described as a “garden
house”(ForsterE.M., 2005, p. 58) inthe college atChandrapore.Thislocationisplacedbetweenthe
Britishandthe Indianpartsof the town,whichseemsveryaptgivenhissymbolicrole inthe novel as
a man whowas nevercompletely given to the British regime. “As a rule no Englishwoman entered
the college exceptforofficial functions,andif he invitedMrs. Moore and Miss Quested to tea it was
because they were newcomers who would view everything with an equal if superficial eye, and
wouldnotturn on a special voice whenspeakingtohisotherguests.” (ForsterE. M., 2005, p. 58)-this
ideaof Fielding’s alienationfromthe British memsahibs isasimilarone toFlory’salienationfromthe
English community in Burma.
The Marabar Caves are the most significant use of place in Forster’s novels. The Marabar caves
conveythe anialismandthe emptinessthat one findsinIndiainthe novel,their role is symbolic of a
pivotal episode that destroys any vestige of Anglo-Indian relations because of cultural differences
and misunderstandings. They are set out in the wilderness and they are the abode of the raw and
uncivilised elements of life. Forster skilfully conveys this powerful motif through the reactions of
Mrs. Moore and Adela Quested. Mrs. Moore’s sudden suffocation at the caves is not simply a
physical one, but also a spiritual one. The constant “echo” (Forster E. M., 2005, p. 137) that we are
constantlyreminded of when the narrator relates her state of mind expresses the extent to which
thiseventhasscarred her.Her lackof spiritual sustenance andthe conceptsof goodand evil thatare
highlighted are evidence of this idea. She leaves India in a state of delirium that eventually

3. JehGagrat
3
culminates in her death because she has come into contact with alien ideas that shatter her
Christian faith: “But suddenly, at the edge of her mind, Religion appeared, poor little talkative
Christianity, and she knew that all its divine words from ‘Let there be light’ to ‘It is finished’ only
amounted to ‘boum’.” (Forster E. M., 2005, p. 139)
Similarly Adela’smental state whenenteringthe caves is a tender one at the time and the reality of
the cavesacts as a pointthat tipsoverherstate of mindleadingtoherdeliriumasbeingrapedinthe
caves. In India there are no tidy solutions to complex problems. This adds to the Englishman’s
frustration. Itisthe complexityof Indiaandherpeople thatthe English find so hard to accept: “How
can the mind take hold of such a country? Generations of Invaders have tried, but they remain in
exile.”(ForsterE.M., 2005, p. 127) AdelaandMrs. Moore arrive in searchof the “real India” (Forster
E. M., 2005, p. 21), but they leave disjointed and more confused than ever. Forster describes the
journey of Mrs. Moore in the caves as an eerie one: “‘Pathos, piety, courage-they exist, but are
identical,andsoisfilth.Everythingexists,nothinghasvalue.’” (Forster E. M., 2005, p. 139) The caves
for her were symbolic of a spiritual aridity and filled her existence with doubt. In trying to grasp
India’s culture she is left prey to the nature of her existence and her relations. It is this idea of the
complexityof acountrythat leavespeople (even Forster for that matter) at a loss in describing this
country.In tryingto absorbthiscountryone receives a culture shock and several sahibs have fallen
apart from their contemporaries in trying to integrate themselves into Indian culture.
Aziz and Dr. Veraswami live in homes in the Indian quarters of town. Aziz lives in a “bungalow”
(ForsterE. M., 2005, p.104) whilstDr.Veraswami lives in “a long bungalow…. with a large unkempt
garden which adjoined that of the club.” (Orwell, 2009, p. 34) The detail of being adjoined to the
clubis quite significanton the partof Orwell giventhe nature of Veraswami’s beliefs. We notice his
admiration of the British rule in India and physically for his house to be placed next to the club is
symbolicof hismental thoughtalliedto Britishrule.Orwell’sdescription of his house is a humorous
one and is shown to us through Flory’s point of view. The contrast we find in the manner the
women of the family seemtobe scampering around the house and his possession of English liquor
bringsout the humorouscontrastina man torn betweenpatrioticandEnglishfeeling. The character
of Veraswami cannot help but remind us of Aziz, a man who is engaged in a similar medical
profession.
Art of Characterisation
The authors make use of their key characters in establishing the complexities of Anglo-Indian
relations, whilst the other characters and their relations tend to be symbolic of the whole class in
general.Thisassertioncanbe demonstratedinthe mannerthat the vast majority of English women
barring Adela and Mrs. Moore all display the same haughtiness and sense of superiority in dealing
with the Indians.
The characters of FloryandFielding- the ‘Englishoutsider’ figure in the novels are very pertinent in
describingIndo-Britishrelations.Fieldingpossessesasense of the difficulty of relations and this can
be seen in the manner in which his reported thought is presented to us in the novel: “Useless to
blame eitherparty, uselesstoblame themfor blaming one another.” (Forster E. M., 2005, p. 58) We
findhissense of anguishathischoice of occupationandhissocial circle: “He hadfoundit convenient
and pleasanttoassociate withIndiansandhe must pay the price.” (Forster E. M., 2005, p. 58) This is
to be matched with Flory’s assertion: “‘You hear your Oriental friends called ‘greasy little babus’.”

4. JehGagrat
4
(Orwell, 2009, p. 69) The manner in which this statement is related as a part of Flory’s reported
thought is important given that his thoughts expose his inability to challenge the British Raj and
deviate fromit,a riskthat raisesthe question: “Whatshall itprofitaman if he save his own soul and
lose the whole world?” (Orwell, 2009, p. 80)
Orwell’sassertionastothe strict code of the sahiblog isone we findinhisaccount at the deathof an
elephantin‘Shooting an Elephant’. His failure to express any opinion at the despotic nature of the
Raj is a product of his motive to conform something that is vital to his sanity and existence in the
service of the Colonial Raj. The precepts of the sahiblog dictate: “With Indians there must be no
loyalty,noreal friendship”(Orwell,2009, p.80) and “alliance,partisanship never!” (Orwell, 2009, p.
80)
The characters of Aziz and Veraswami- ‘The English sympathiser’ figure in both novels give us an
unusual Indianperspectiveon the sahibs. Muggeridge’s assertion as to the character of Veraswami
seems to reinforce this idea: “torn, as he is between his loathing of the sahibs and a fawning
admirationforthemanddesire tobe like them.Here one isinevitably reminded of E. M. Forster’s A
Passage to India, in which the same sort of situation arises, and which greatly impressed Orwell.”
(Muggeridge, 1962, p. viii) Forster’s influence on Orwell is a credible reason for their somewhat
similarpresentationof Anglo-Indianrelations. Veraswami shares Aziz’s support for the British rule,
but itseventual deteriorationislesspronouncedinthe case of the former. NiradChaudhuri sharesin
thisdiscontentmentashe notesthe erosion of Indian values and the presence of new English ones
inThe Autobiographyof an Unknown Indian.Thiscanbe seeninhiscommentsas a youngman being
schooledinCalcutta:“we were asked to right any number of essays….on such extremely un-Indian
virtues…. and un-Indian conceptions”. (Chaudhuri, 1999, p. 219) The manner in which Chaudhuri
notesthe changeswiththe newEnglishreformrobbingthe Indiansof their culture can also be seen
in his talk on religion as an older man in the time leading up to Independence: “Within prose, all
literaryforms- the novel,essay,shortstory,history,biography,weretakenoverfromEnglish….What
is even more striking is that even the Hindu counter-reformation took over Western modes of
religious discipline and propagation.” (Chaudhuri, 1999, p. 486) The manner in which Chaudhuri
relatesitthroughhisshockat the lackof Indian culture canbe seen in his eventual reconciliation to
Indianvaluesasbeingsuperiortothose of the Britishones. This can also be seen in the character of
Azizwhohas a somewhatsimilar attitude. Azizis seen as a complete rebel towards the close of the
novel and has lost his faith in Fielding; he views the Independence of India as a necessary evil.
Veraswami seems hopelessly resigned to his fate (something that we find in Flory as well in
comparisontothat of AzizandFieldingin A Passageto India.): “the doctor was reverted to the rank
of Assistant surgeon and transferred to Mandalay General Hospital. He is still there and is likely to
remain”. (Orwell, 2009, p. 296) The sense of utter hopelessness and the failure of the relation
between Flory and Veraswami are succinctly portrayed through an impersonal narrator. Its
impersonality and its banal tone highlight the effect of their relationships failure.
The relationships of characters barring those of the main ones are of significance in portraying the
more general ideas as to Anglo-Indian relations. We find the presentation of the differences of
temperamentbetweenthe Indiansandthe English as being responsible for the misunderstandings
at everystage inthe novel. The difference of outlookinthe novel is very important in the manner it
suggests the fact that the initial naivety of the British at their arrival is soon corrupted by the
presence of the British sahibs.The influence that they exert on the newly arrived British cannot be

5. JehGagrat
5
deniedasseeninthe transformationof Ms.Lackersteen. Ronny’scommentonhisexperience witha
pleaderisevidence of the idea of miscommunication and differences in ethical standards: “I asked
one of the pleaderstohave a smoke withme-onlya cigarette, mind. I found afterwards that he had
senttoutsall overthe bazar to announce the fact–told all the litigants,‘Ohyou’dbettercome to my
Vakil -Mahmoud Ali- he’s in with the city magistrate.’” (Forster E. M., 2005, p. 25) This experience
highlightsthe extenttowhichcultural differences play a role in the inability of the English to relate
to the Indians; such a self-serving action on the part of the Indian lawyer, embarrassing for the
Britishjudge isrelatedtous in an extremely impatient, even bitter tone and suggestive of Ronny’s
justified disillusionmentwith Indians. This idea is further expressed in his harsh comment to Adela
and Mrs. Moore: “You neither of you understand what work is, or you’d never talk such eyewash. I
hate talking like this, but one must occasionally.” (Forster E. M., 2005, p. 45) His displeasure is
sardonically conveyed in this narrative. Again there are differences between Aziz and Fielding
because of cultural prioritiesFieldingfeelsthatMissQuestedbyproclaimingAziz’sinnocence during
the trial had behaved honourably towards him and therefore should not be sued for defamation:
“‘Your emotions never seem in proportion to their objects, Aziz’” (Forster E. M., 2005, p. 238) to
whichwe have Aziz’srevealingobservation: “‘Is emotion a sack of potatoes, so much the pound, to
be measuredout?’”(ForsterE.M., 2005, p. 238)Misunderstandingsoccurat every stage:“A pause in
the wrong place andintonationmisunderstoodand awhole conversationwentawry.”(ForsterE.M.,
2005, p. 258)
The Bhattacharya’s are anotherincidentwhere we findculturaldifferences playing a role in causing
the failure of Anglo-Indian relations. The Bhattacharya’s willingly consented to Mrs. Moore and
Adelacallingonthemon a day when the couple were to be in Calcutta. They promise to send their
carriage to bring the English ladies to their house, but when the day arrived no carriage was
forthcoming. This surprised the English ladies who did not realise that invitations to Indian homes
are readily forthcoming but mean nothing: “Mrs. Bhattacharya seemed not to know either. Her
gesture impliedthatshe had known, since Thursdays began, that English ladies would come to see
her on one of them and so she always stayed in. Everything pleases her nothing surprised. She
added, ‘We leave for Calcutta today.’” (Forster E. M., 2005, p. 39) The tone in which Forster relates
this account humorously conveys the difficulty of such relationships. In such a light, the Indian
temperament lacks the sincerity of the English one. Indians tend to take such invitations as mere
niceties of polite conversation. This baffles the English who are more literal in what they say and
mean.This idea is the main cause of such misunderstandings as is also seen when Aziz first invites
the Englishladiestohishouse,butconveniently forgets to follow up the plan till he is reminded by
his servant of the disappointment expressed by the women.
Stylistic Devices (Interior Monologues, Dialogue, Narration and Symbolism.)
Stylistic devices used by both the authors in dealing with the theme of Anglo-Indian relations
skilfully convey the finer points of such relationships by subtly hinting at the underlying struggles
between characters.
The use of the interior monologue is of particular pertinence in Orwell as it gives the reader an
insightintoFlory’stroubledstate of mindandreflectsthe complexityof this multifaceted character.
Floryisconstantlyseenmusingoverthe nature of the British Raj and the extent to which the native
countrieswere being plundered at the hands of the British Raj: “The Indian Empire is a despotism-

6. JehGagrat
6
benevolent, no doubt, but still a despotism with theft as its final object.” (Orwell, 2009, p. 68) The
personal tone in which it is expressed suggests Orwell’s thoughts on the British Raj and its rather
serious tone is suggestive of the nature of this exploitative relation.
The use of the Interiormonologue isalsousedinA Passageto India as for instance in the manner in
whichFieldingisfirstdescribedtousthrougha personal voice.Hisanecdote of ameetingatthe Club
revealstous the shallow attitude of those atthe Club: “he didnot realise that‘white’hasnomore to
do with a colour than ‘God save the King’, with a god, and that it is the height of impropriety to
considerwhatit does connote.” (Forster E. M., 2005, p. 57) His slight remark of the English as being
“pinko-gray” (Forster E. M., 2005, p. 57) created such a stir that it reveals the sahibs deep seated
insecurity.The mannerinwhichthe author relates these anecdotes exposes the pathetic nature of
assumed Britishsupremacy whichForstereffectivelysatirises.This idea of the difficulty of relations
that we findhighlightedmanyatime in the two texts is significant of the fact that relationships are
essentially fragmented and would not come to fruition.
The exchange of dialogue isindicative astothe nature of Anglo-Indianrelations:InOrwell the use of
dialogue ismuchmore straightforwardandelucidatesOrwell’sartof characterisation. We findFlory
and Veraswami deep in discussion as to the nature of the British Raj and the sahiblog. Flory’s
conversation reveals the hypocrisy of the sahibs and their idea of the Indians as being “the slimy
white man’sburden.”(Orwell,2009, p. 37) “The lie thatwe’re here toupliftthe poor” (Orwell, 2009,
p. 37)- thisline exposesthe true nature of the British Raj and although we find it through the use of
directspeechwe cannothelpfeelingthisisOrwell’strue voice.Incontrastto thiswe findVeraswami
patrioticallydefendingthe Britishsahibs asif they were his own: “consider how noble a type iss the
English gentleman! Their glorious loyalty to one another!” (Orwell, 2009, p. 36) The patriotic tone
and its high praise of the sahibs seem ironic coming from Orwell heightened by the nature of
Veraswami torn as he is between the Indian and the English. The conversation culminates in an
interesting quotation on the part of Flory: “We shall never agree”. (Orwell, 2009, p. 41) This in a
nutshell highlights Orwell’s view of Anglo-Indian relations and coming from the mouth of Flory
(Orwell himself) heightens the importance of this exchange of dialogue.
FieldingandAziz share several conversations, but the most important conversation is the one that
theyshare at the endof the novel.Forster’srepresentationof theirrelationship as one that initially
seems extremely natural and affectionate offers some initial hope as regards such relations- its
eventual destruction and unresolved nature is seen as a complete breakdown. Aziz’s statement
suggests this relation: “‘Clear out, all you Turtons and Burtons. We wanted to know you ten years
back- now it’s too late.’” (Forster E. M., 2005, p. 305) The conversation nostalgically concludes in
“‘Why can’twe be friends now?’” said the other, holding him affectionately. “‘It’s what I want. It’s
what you want.’” (Forster E. M., 2005, p. 306) This powerful image of Fielding trying to hold Aziz
back and placate him cannot help; it is a relationship that has now ended. The description of the
landscape that ensues highlights this idea. The ideas of independence and self-actualisation that
emerged in this post-colonial setting can be seen in the change in the landscape around Forster’s
protagonists.Fosteraptlycharacterises the vigour and strength that emerges in the landscape. We
see the harsh use of verbs and powerful images such as the “sending up of rocks” (Forster E. M.,
2005, p.306) to describe the discordintheirrelation.The powerful arrayof imagesculminatesinthe
rumble of the landscape: “No not yet.” (Forster E. M., 2005, p. 306) The revolt of the landscape is

7. JehGagrat
7
symbolic of the voices of Indians who arose in defiance of this Raj and the end of Anglo-Indian
relations as we know it.
Forster makes effective use of the constant change in voice and an instance of this can be seen in
the Court Case episode inthe novel:“‘Hervisionwasof several caves… ‘I am not-’ Speech was more
difficult than vision. ‘I am not quite sure.’’’ (Forster E. M., 2005, p. 215) The manner Forster delves
into her inner thoughts and its presentation in its reported sense adds to the atmosphere of
uncertainty surrounded by these lines. We notice the manner in which the transition to direct
speechaddsto the tensionanddistilsthe moment.The use of punctuationandgrammar such as the
hyphen add to the dramatic tension of the moment. It is the paused slurring that conveys her
uncertaintyasto the guiltof Mr. Azizand insome wayssymbolisesthe victoryof the Indian over the
sahib.Thiscan be juxtaposedwiththe general attitude of the otherEnglish memsahibs whoconsider
the Indians with scorn and regard them as an inexplicable menace. Adela Quested is not one of
these British women. With her generosity she gives Aziz the benefit of the doubt, a doubt that
causes her to call off her marriage with Ronny as she did not want to be transformed into a cold,
unforgivingmemsahib bybecomingpartof the system. The attitude of the Englishasto the certainty
of herrape can be seenin McBryde’sassertionashe:“remarkedthat the darker races are physically
attracted by the fairer, but not vice versa.” (Forster E. M., 2005, p. 206) Even in the face of such
certainty on the part of the English as to her rape, Adela chooses to speak in favour of the Indian,
Aziz and thus makes herself a social outcast with both the English and the Indians.
In the case of Burmese Days we find the use of narration and a change in voice to highlight the
tensionina situation andalsotohighlightthe corruptionin native andEnglishvalues.Aninstance of
such transitioncanbe seeninthe marriage episode in Burmese Days. The manner in which we find
Ma Hla May exposingherrole as his mistress at Flory’s strongest moment in the novel is described
to us through a constant change of narrative voice: ‘‘‘Look at this body that you have kissed a
thousandtimes-look-look---’ She began actually to tear her clothes open- the last insult of a base-
born Burmese Woman.”(Orwell,2009, p.285) The sheerimpactof the linesonthe readercannotbe
expressed in the changed voice alone; the build-up of tension culminates in this moment. The
sudden change in voice, the constant use of the hyphen slow the pace of her statement and
emphasise Flory’s ultimate state of guilt. This exposition at Flory’s finest moment leads to his
decision to take his life and thereby destroy Veraswami’s life as well.
One notices the presence of reported thought in the novels which is extremely important in
conveyingthe intricaciesof the main characters’ thoughtsasto Anglo-Indianrelations. Forster’suse
of reported thought adds to the richness of his work while with Orwell we find the exposition of
deepercorruptioninthe BritishRaj.Thismotif of corruptionisone thatwe findbothinthe Native as
well as in the sahib and can be seen throughout the novel: U Po Kyin’s ascension to his place of
authority iscontrastedwiththe drunkenaffairsof Mr. LackersteenandFlory’smistress- MaHla May.
Orwell effectivelydefinessucheventsthroughthe use of narration interjecting through Flory’s own
voice.Hisnarrationfurtherservesinhisart of characterisationwhichwe findinhisdescriptions of U
Po Kyin; Veraswami and Flory himself for that matter. Forster on the other hand uses reported
thoughtas a tool in furtheringhisownthoughtsonphilosophy, the keen description of his dazzling
images such as the Caves and the description of Chandrapore. Thus, he finds the right sort of
balance indefiningthe use of reportedthoughtandusesitas a tool to add to the breath of ideas he
discusses in the novel.

8. JehGagrat
8
The theme of Anglo-Indian relations is one that can be presented from a variety of angles. The
reader’sinterpretation of such events and the author’s personal bias could potentially affect their
presentation.Orwell’sscornat the time of writing the novel when he was with the Indian Imperial
Police in Burma is seen in his presentation of Anglo-Indian relations whereas Forster’s cause for
optimism emerges from his fascination with India working as the secretary of the Maharaja of
Chotadevas as seen in a compilation of several letters to his mother in ‘The Hill of Devi’: “I call the
adventure ‘typical’ because it is even more difficult here than in England to get at the rights of a
matter. Everything that happens is said to be one thing and proves to be another.” (Forster E. M.,
1965, pp. 59,60) Both the authors presentation is offered from a variety of angles and essentially
their presentations of the English memsahibs seem to be the greatest cause of concern in both
novels.The attitude of Mrs.Turton and Mrs. Calendarin A Passageto India emphasisesthisbrutality
and in Burmese Days Elisabeth Lackersteen becomes “a copy of the other European wives: petty,
narrow minded and vicious.” (Calder, 1968, p. 84) Both authors express their presence as a
corruptingone;although we findmen to be abusive, rash and angry they have a sense of humanity
that women lack. In this light, English women can be presented as an important cause of Anglo-
Indian misunderstandings.
Bibliography
Orwell,G.(2009). BurmeseDays (7thed.).London:PenguinModernClassics.
Calder,J.(1968). Chroniclesof conscience:a study of George Orwell and ArthurKoestler (1st ed.).
London:SeckerandWarburg.
Forster,E. M. (2005). A Passageto India (5thed.).London:PenguinClassics.
Muggeridge,M.(1962). BurmeseDays (3rd Americaned.).New York:A SignetClassic.
Chaudhuri,N.C.(1999). The Autobiography of an Unknown Indian (2nded.).Londonand
Basingstoke:Picador.
Forster,E. M. (1965). The Hill of Devi (2nd ed.).London,Reading andFakenham:PenguinBooks.
Trilling,L.(1959). E.M.Forster:a Study (2nd ed.).London:HogarthPress.