Spivak’s ‘Subaltern’ in A Passage to India (1984)

This paper was written in 2021

The colonised subject is integral to the historical narratives of both colonialism and postcolonialism, often standing in comparison to the unnamed European subject in order to promote imperialist ideologies. Colonial subjects are thereby alienated since their presence and value are defined by their capacity to liberate themselves within the framework of European domination. This concept is reminiscent of the ideas presented in Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak’s influential article ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’ which revolutionised the landscape of postcolonial theory. The notion of the subaltern theorises a figure belonging to a select group of marginalised individuals who act as intermediaries between the oppressor and the oppressed. Spivak’s concern with speech will be the focus of this essay, as it embodies the polarity between the elite and the colonised – an idea that will be extended to David Lean’s A Passage to India (1984). As a contribution to colonial discourse, Lean’s film depicts a subaltern character whose identity is defined by his capacity to fulfil the given role. Using Spivak’s theory as a lens allows us to decipher their capacity to speak and therefore the autonomy of colonised voices.

A Passage to India depicts the affairs of the British elite and colonised Indians, particularly that of Adela, a new arrival to India, and Aziz, an Indian Muslim physician. The interactions between the two amounts to a false accusation of rape by Adela against Aziz, the latter being the film’s central subaltern figure. However, in order to apply Spivak’s theory to the film, it would be most useful to firstly deconstruct a few of the key ideas presented alongside the social-historical context. Unlike Foucault and Deleuze, whose discussions on the subaltern remain both Eurocentric and logocentric, Spivak’s thinking urges a deconstruction of western thought. Writing from the vantage point of whiteness and privilege, Foucault and Deleuze’s ability to perceive the subaltern outside of a European context is limited. Lean’s endeavours in the film may be regarded similarly, since his positionality as a British filmmaker infers a tendency to produce a film made by and for the elite. In spite of this, the film’s Indian setting demonstrates an attempt to reject Eurocentrism by relocating the subaltern figure in his native land. The productivity of Lean’s efforts can be measured by returning to Spivak’s theory as she urges the importance of ‘seeking to learn to speak to (rather than listen to and speak for) the historically muted subject’.[1] Aziz exemplifies this, as he maintains the ability to communicate his beliefs and values whilst proving the merit of both his character and country to the European subjects.

Furthermore, Spivak notes that recognising epistemic violence in European colonialism is central to understanding the origin of the subaltern figure as it ensured the following; the categorisation of colonial subjects as Other and the prioritisation of imperial narratives as the most normative historical accounts. Spivak sites Thomas Babington Macaulay’s treatise ‘Minute on Indian Education’ (1835) as a precursor to the epistemic violence that redefined colonial practices, subsequently resulting in the reformulation of imperial history. “We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect… conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population.”[2] This sentiment epitomises the birth of Spivak’s subaltern figure, who must represent the masses by speaking both for and from the oppressed community whilst acting as a vehicle for the reproduction of colonial ideals. From here we can develop a greater understanding of Aziz as the subaltern whilst also adopting a more critical lens of Lean’s efforts. Although Aziz may speak for himself, he does so with the tools of the oppressor, continuously adopting a sense of Britishness in both language and values. Aziz’s first meeting with Richard Fielding exemplifies these facts as he dresses in a suit and adopts English phrases such as “jolly good”, both of which demonstrate his inclination to assimilate with European subjects. This assimilation is rooted in the desire to avoid disruption, to not overwhelm the European subject with foreign customs, and to not present Indians as lacking etiquette. Therefore, Aziz approaches Fielding’s home with great caution, arriving early, awaiting permission to enter, checking his appearance and observing the surroundings without causing disturbance. In other words, Aziz is welcome in Fielding’s house, so long as he stays within his place as a colonised subject. However it could be argued that this effort surpasses the desire to appear British and extends to a careful attempt of redefining the Indian subject. In doing so Aziz parts with his Indian identity to fulfil the role of the subaltern, whose primary venture is ‘to rewrite the development of the consciousness of the Indian nation.’[3] However this process of rewriting is attained through the suppression of Indian identity, which Aziz demonstrates throughout this scene. Aside from the physical indicators of culture and ethnicity, Aziz’s position as an Indian Muslim is scarcely addressed, and thereby rendered insignificant to both Fielding and the film’s narrative. Therefore, a tokenistic quality is established as the film ceases to truly speak to the historically muted subject but rather for the subject, thereby further alienating the subaltern figure and limiting his capacity to speak.

The film’s tokenism is heightened by Aziz’s subaltern tendency to act as an intermediary between the oppressor and the oppressed to satisfy the notion of the imagined colonial subject, as established by Macaulay. This issue becomes more prominent as the film progresses, particularly during the picnic scene with Aziz, Adela, Mrs Moore and Professor Godbole, where Spivak’s ideas on speech become more centralised. It should be noted, however, that Spivak’s definition of ‘speaking’ deviates from the act of physical speech or utterance, and instead emphasises ‘a transaction between the speaker and the listener’.[4] Although this analysis has established that the subaltern figure does not speak for himself but instead is spoken for, this section of my investigation will focus on the transactional quality of speech adopted by Aziz. This process of acting as an intermediary becomes heightened during the picnic scene as the subaltern uses speech once again to cater to colonial powers. However, this effort is not only rooted in assimilation but additionally in an attempt to serve European subjects, which is proposed through Aziz offering his home and labour to Adela and Mrs Moore. When the subaltern insists, “There will be no muddles when you come to visit me at my house”, he is continuing to redefine the Indian subject, proving his capacity to accommodate and serve Western visitors as well as their associated colonial ideologies. Aziz’s continued effort of exhibiting model behaviour illustrates that he ‘is not an untrustworthy, unpredictable native who does what natives do in colonialist narratives – rapes a white woman.’[5] In doing so the film alienates surrounding marginalised characters who fail to adhere to colonial ideologies – in other words, those who do not appreciate and maintain British values, are inept of acting in accordance to morality.

However, this moment is stilted by Aziz’s sudden realisation that his house is not presentable enough to appease the visitors’ expectations, which symbolises the inherent difference between the subaltern and elite European subjects. This is particularly interesting as it exposes the limitations of the subaltern experience, and demonstrates how efforts of assimilation and service are insufficient for the task of liberating marginalised subjects. This moment is followed by Aziz offering to host an excursion to the Marabar caves, which are “a wonder of India”. The intention here is to enrich Adela and Mrs Moore’s trip with the exoticism of the East, thereby illustrating the additional subaltern task of reproducing the imperialist account of history. The sense of Indian identity here is restricted for two reasons; firstly, it is only relevant when serving a matter of personal interest for the British, and secondly, it is defined by its difference from western culture. Spivak’s theory mirrors this concept as she writes that the subaltern ‘represent[s] the demographic difference between the total Indian population and all those whom we have described as “elite”.’[6] Once again this proves that by accommodating European subjects and their colonial ideologies the subaltern’s alienation is inadvertently heightened, thereby disallowing autonomy and in turn the capacity to speak.

This brief analysis illustrates the complexities in Lean’s construction of Aziz, which momentarily allows but significantly disallows liberation. Spivak’s theory allows this investigation to expose the limitations of the subaltern experience in A Passage to India; in striving to demystify the Indian subject the film certifies the subaltern’s capacity to adopt British values, which is used to prove his worth and credibility. By imposing western standards of etiquette, service and morality, the film promotes the ideals of the British Raj and subsequently silences Aziz’s values, behaviour and relationship to his country. By continuing to utilise an imperial framework, the film limits the subaltern’s Indian identity, ultimately rendering him unable to speak.

[1] (Chakravorty, Cary, and Lawrence 1988, 295)

[2] (Macaulay 1979)

[3] (Chakravorty, Cary, and Lawrence 1988, 285)

[4]  (Spivak 1996, 289)

[5] (Khair 2000, 8)

[6] (Chakravorty, Cary, and Lawrence 1988, 284)

Bibliography:

Chakravorty, Spivak Gayatri, Nelson Cary, and Grossberg Lawrence. "Can the Subaltern Speak?" Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture (1988): 271-313.

Khair, Tabish. "Can the Subaltern Shout (and Smash?)." Null 38, no. 2 (2000): 7-16. doi:10.1080/17449850008589324. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449850008589324.

Macaulay, Thomas Babington. "Speeches, with His Minute on Indian Education,(Ed.) GM Young." (1979).

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. The Spivak Reader: Selected Works of Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak Psychology Press, 1996.