A Passage to India 451nationaliSm in A Passage to India
An understanding of nationalism allows us to ana-
lyze the relationship between the Indian residents
and the British rulers in Chandrapore, gain a better
understanding of the Indian desire for freedom,
and see who the proponents for freedom are in the
novel. The complicated relationships expose the
complicated sense of nationalism in a country yearn-
ing for freedom. Forster’s portrayal of nationalism
illuminates the relationships and ideologies between
two opposing groups and their concepts of political
control in India.
For much of the novel, the British espouse the
most nationalistic beliefs to avoid the Indian sub-
jects who surround them, while the Indians quietly
go along. After Adela Quested and Mrs. Moore
intimate the desire to meet some Indian subjects,
the memsahibs reluctantly throw a bridge party and
invite some of the middle-class Indians. This gath-
ering, however, is not successful. As Mrs. Moore and
Adela observe the uncomfortable tension between
the Indians and the British, Ronny Heaslop explains
to them that “The educated Indians will be no good
to us if there’s a row, it’s simply not worth while
conciliating them, that’s why they don’t matter. Most
of the people you see are seditious at heart. Ronny’s
remarks illustrate both the Indians’ and the Britons’
nationalist beliefs. Few of the Indians invited “mat-
tered,” and many were not of the highest caste in
Chandrapore. Rather, those invited dressed in a
manner similar to the Britons, and they were more
likely to be loyal to the British than other Indians.
The Indians who would “be no good” to the Brit-
ish are instead loyal to the Indian cause as Indian
nationalists. As with the bridge party, the British
exert their control over the middle-class Pathans
in India by inviting them to gatherings and by
placating them to increase the possibility that these
Pathans will relinquish any nationalist tendencies
and support the British regardless of the Indian
nationalism surrounding them.
Furthermore, Ronny’s anxiety regarding a “row”
relates to the growing tensions between the Indians
and their British colonizers and exposes the differ-
ent ways that nationalism plays a role in the Britons’
use of the Indians. Because so many of the educated,
high-caste Hindus favor freedom, they are perceived
not only as nationalist but also as dangerous to the
empire. In essence, Ronny’s sense of nationalism—
his pride in Britain, his pride in colonialism’s role,
and his pride in his job—encourage him to see the
real Indians as only those people who would support
the Britons. Furthermore, Ronny’s pride indicates a
British nationalism that bolsters the imperial power
and prestige of Britain.
While Ronny’s comments at the bridge party
demonstrate his beliefs about nationalism—or
lack of nationalism—in the Indian mind, the
atmosphere at Aziz’s trial reveals the power of
Indian passion and Cyril Fielding’s sedition.
Aziz’s imprisonment causes Chandrapore workers
to strike, specifically the sweepers, and even Mus-
lim women declare a hunger strike. These actions
demonstrate both support of Aziz and anti-
British sentiments. Though the women’s hunger
strike has no effect because they are concealed in
harems, the sweepers’ strike is detrimental to the
health of the city. By striking, the Indians dem-
onstrate their desire to control the atmosphere
and the judicial system—in essence, the desire
to control their country. The Indians, who “did
not matter” at the bridge party, suddenly do. The
narrator describes the Britons’ anger at Fielding:
“he [Fielding] encouraged the Boy Scout move-
ment for seditious reasons; he received letters
with foreign stamps on them, and was probably a
Japanese spy. This morning’s verdict would break
the renegade, but he had done his country and
the Empire incalculable disservice” (238). Just as
Ronny suspects the Indians’ ability to be “sedi-
tious” to the Indian cause, the Britons feel that
Fielding shows the same sedition to the Empire.
Forster illuminates the different ways in which
nationalism can play out between different ethnic
and social hierarchies.
For Forster, the nationalism lies either with
the British Empire or with free India, and it is
revealed not only by those who ethnically belong to
the group, but also by those who support it. Thus,
middle-class Indians who thrive under the raj sup-
port the British, while Britons who oppose the raj
can align themselves with the Indian populace.
Nationalism, however, is not simply between the
Indians and Britons, as indicated by the role that