Character versus identity

I was not inclined to pursue doctoral studies for a very long time. Over the years I had seen hordes of PhD scholars make a mockery of research work. Then my time came. I was certain that I would soon be given the Headship of my Department, and I knew that I had to lead by example. I searched and then found a guide and supervisor who let me have my way for my dissertation. I was venturing into relatively new territory, for I decided that my work would be a full-length study of the way the AngloIndian community was perceived, and written about, by novelists (foreign and Indian), by critics (foreign and Indian), and by the powers that be, in the world of academia. I gave my study the title “Black and White: the Anglo-Indian Character in Recent English Fiction”. I was fortunate in my choice of the word “character”, for it is a far easier way to study what others say—or assume, or deliberately falsify—about this or that person’s character—personality traits, skin colouration, language, sartorial tastes, spirituality or the lack of it, and umpteen other ways by which we bracket, label, stereotype, denigrate and dismiss this individual, that group, or even that community. What I discovered was a woeful litany of untruths, slander, insinuations and even downright condemnation. All because Kipling’s formula could not be wrong, and miscegenation is (supposedly) a cardinal sin. Even the village idiot knows that it always takes two to tango; therefore, to vilify (and continue to do so) the by-product of illicit passion begs the question—who committed the original sin?

Coming to “character”—that multi-dimensional, multi-layered, multi-understandable word. It sits comfortably with adjectives: good/bad, charming/ boring, and so many other binaries. Sometimes it does not even need an adjective; “His character is exemplary” serves as an example. However, with English being a nuanced language, as are most others, context becomes significant. When a man declares, of his friend, “He is no fool”, but the friend does not retort to the corollary “ He is no ordinary fool!” you must realise that the conversation has gone awry.

Character refers to an individual’s choices, actions and behaviour, especially over a period of time. These choices may be whimsical, these actions questionable, and different types of behaviour unacceptable or at least frowned upon. But when character is stereotyped, it’s just an easy way to paint everyone with the same tar-brush. This is what most writers on the AngloIndian theme do. The girl may be ravishingly beautiful, but her character is sullied. The man may be hefty, yet cowardly, because he cowers in front of authority, especially if that figure is white. Therefore, the wanton and the wastrel make a perfect fit, like the cigarette ad used to say: “Made for each other”. The buck does not stop there, however. Both, especially the woman, are also “ made for others”, for their supposed moral shallowness make them easy pickings for all comers.

British, American and Indian writers tend to give advice that they themselves don’t follow. In Malgonkar’s “Combat of Shadows”, he introduces us to a Ruby Miranda, a young, pretty Anglo-Indian girl, friendly with a fellow Anglo-Indian, the massive, hockey-playing Eddie Trevor. Ruby catches the eye of a Brit named Cockburn( a priceless marker of character , mind you), and he immediately equates her with the whores of Chandni Chowk, all because she wears shiny, brightly- coloured dresses. She, however becomes the mistress of Henry Winton, and then the binaries begin: Ruby is flashy, extroverted, wanton; his wife is staid, sober and cold. Winton himself is turned on only through Ruby’s sensual appeal, so he is constantly at war with his own passions. Ultimately he is destroyed by the fires of lust, and since the protagonist is consumed, the novel waters down to its mediocre conclusion.

Most of the writers on the AngloIndian theme care nothing for depth, for insight, for understanding. All they put down on paper is their own garish, vulgar, popular notions of propriety, pucca-ness and pride, and to hell with the rest. Not any more. The Empire started writing back a long time ago; it it now time to set the record straight. I, for one, reject all the falsehood, the innuendo, the calumny and the venom that has been thrown at the door of the AngloIndian.

Let us all show character— the kind that will make people sit up and take notice.

I will speak about “identity” in my blog next Friday. Until the , take heart.