INTRODUCTION 2
Makers of Meaning 3
Introducing Orientalism 6
Summary of Analysis 9
CHAPTER 1:
Detecting Orientalist Representations in The Indian Detective 12
Introduction 12
Meritocracy and The Indian Detective 13
Indian Despotism in Colonial Discourse 16
Locating Meritocracy and Colonial Discourse in The Indian Detective 21
The Indian Detective as Orientalism 26
CHAPTER 2:
The Essentialization and Commodification of Spirituality in
The Darjeeling Limited 31
Introduction 31
Synopsis of the Film 34
Grounding the Discussion in Colonial Discourse 35
Content Analysis 38
Narrative Analysis 40
Orientalism in The Darjeeling Limited 47
CHAPTER THREE:
British Orientalism and American Orientalism 50
Introduction 50
India as Site, Not Subject 52
The Subaltern in American Orientalism 53
The Subaltern, the Immigrant, and the New Brown Savior 54
American Orientalism as Transforming the Foreign to Familiar 56
Conclusion 60
CONCLUSION 61
INTRODUCTION
If you have never personally traveled to India, which images come to your mind when
prompted with the word “India?” Perhaps you immediately imagine a cow, a blue god, or a
village. Likely you conceptualize India as a place with mud huts, poverty, pollution, red light
districts, and overcrowded trains. You might know that India has billions of people, spicy food,
and arranged marriages. If you have never personally traveled to India, what constructed this
conceptualization of India in your mind? For many Americans who have never spent time in
India, their understanding of India and Indian identity is largely constructed and shaped by
representations of India in the media, especially the mediums of film and television.
As a white identified Christian woman who was born and raised in the American South, it
seems necessary to confess that my positionality on the topic of representations of India is an
admittedly biased position, shaped initially by mediated representations, but recently informed
by direct experience and personal relationships with people in Madhya Pradesh, India. During
my most recent trip to India, an Indian friend of mine asked me, “Before you came to India for
the first time, what came to mind when someone said ‘India’? What did you think India was
like? What did you think we were like?” In response, I admitted that I was embarrassed to share
with her my preconceived conceptualization of the country. The mentioning of India connoted
essentialized, stereotypical, and ignorant ideas of religion, culture, and society. India seemed so
disparate from my suburban context in America. Movies like The Jungle Book,Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and Slumdog Millionaire showed me that India was uniformly a place of exoticism, adventure, and even danger. To me, everything that America was, India was not. I
visiting and engaging with the complexity of the country provided a much more nuanced
understanding of the geopolitical space. That understanding informs this thesis.
Makers of Meaning
Although they are commonly regarded as entertainment, films and television shows offer
mediated visual information to the audience about distant places and people. Following the
post-war period, media and communication technologies brought faraway events and identities to
the American living room (Ramasubramanian, 2005). Through images and narratives, the
American viewer was exposed to knowledge about places and people they might have never
engaged with personally. Even now, as transportation and communication technologies have
spawned globalization and have produced a more interconnected world, media representations
have persisted as a primary lens through which American viewers observe foreign nations,
cultures, and peoples. For example, in 2009, more people had viewed Slumdog Millionaire (2008), a film about a boy from the Mumbai slums, than had visited India in the same year (Mitu
Sengupta, as quoted in Privitera 2015, p. 276). Members of an American audience may never
travel to India, but India can travel to their living room through films and television.
While multiple social forces actively work to shape our perceptions of others, mass media
representations are especially influential due to their pervasive presence in our society, their wide
accessibility, and their ability to be viewed multiple times across various platforms (Mitra, 1999
& Ramasubramanian, 2005). Through the combination of audio and visual information, films
and television shows have the ability “to create a realistic presentation of real-world
experiences” (Ramasubramanian, 2005, p. 245). As a consequence, the lives and experiences of
perceives other places and peoples are constructed, and stereotypes about other cultures are
produced and maintained.
Films and television shows are not benign forms of entertainment as many may think, but
are imbued with power as makers of meaning. Meaning is communicated to the audience
through representations. Orgad (2012) defines representations as “images, descriptions,
explanations and frames for understanding what the world is and why and how it works in
particular ways” (p. 17). The act of representing, therefore, is the process of producing meaning
through representations.
We give things meaning by how we represent them - the words we use about them, the stories we tell about them, the images of them we produce, the emotions we associate with them, the ways we classify and conceptualize them, the value we place on them. (Stuart Hall, as quoted in Orgad 2012, p. 21, emphasis in original)
For Americans who have never traveled to India, their conceptualization of India is largely
constructed through words associated with India, through narratives situated in India, through
images of various spaces in India, and through emotions elicited from viewing representations of
India. Many of these ideas have their roots in colonial ideologies that have been reproduced and
circulated through various media such as literature, historical records, print journalism, and art.
According to Ferdinand de Saussure (1974), these words, narratives, images, and emotions
operate as signs because they communicate meaning about an object to an audience.
Saussure’s (1974) work on semiotics and structuralism identifies meaning through signs
in the way we understand the world. Signs can be words, images, or objects that do not have any
intrinsic meaning, but are endowed with meaning through the concepts it is associated with. A
sign contains both a signifier and a signified meaning. The signifier is a single word, image, or
object. The act of representing India in film and television forms mental images of India in the
national consciousness of America. It is through the process of representing that images of
poverty, mysticism, and tribalism (the signified) become mentally associated with India and
Indians (the signifiers). As India is represented in film and television, meaning and identity are
ascribed to the geographic place, the culture, and the people.
In order for the ascribed meaning in mediated representations to be understood by the
audience, it must be communicated through messages in the process of encoding and decoding.
In his 1993 work “Encoding, Decoding” Stuart Hall outlines the production and circulation
process of a media text. Just as language communicates meaning, meaning is communicated
visually through the deployment of signs in film and television. Hall (1993) refers to the sign as
the “object” within the production process. In the production of the object, the producer ascribes
meaning to the sign. The producer has an intended and desired meaning for the audience to
receive. Therefore, the producer serves as the encoder, making specific decisions in the
production of the object in order to communicate a certain message to the audience—the
decoder. The reception and consumption of the object by the audience is a critical part of the
production of a message because it leads to the circulation of that message. “Before this message
can have an ‘effect’, satisfy a ‘need’ or be put to a ‘use’, it must first be appropriated as a
meaningful discourse and meaningfully decoded” (Hall, 1993, p. 509). Without the decoding of
meaning by the audience, the meaning cannot be enacted into social practice or public
consciousness. The power of representations to influence, entertain, inform, or persuade comes
from the encoding of meaning by the producer of the object and the decoding of the same
Representations gain their power from their ability to circulate particular ideologies in the
form of discourse. Discourse is defined as knowledge that is regarded as true and meaningful
because of history, political conditions, social relations, and institutions (Orgad, 2012). The
encoded messages within the production process are comprised of, reflect, and reproduce
knowledge. This knowledge is shaped by the socio-cultural and political context in which it
exists (Hall, 1993). As the producer engages in the act of representing, the ideology of the
producer determines the knowledge that is encoded in the message. The socio-cultural and
political context, along with the ideology of the producer, functions as discourse that is then
communicated and reflected in the representation. Consequently, “power relations are encoded in
media representations, and media representations in turn produce and reproduce power relations
by constructing knowledge, values, conceptions, and beliefs” (Orgad, 2012). Therefore,
representations serve as exertions of the power of the producer. Representations of India in films
and television shows produced in the West circulate a particular knowledge about India from a
largely white, Western, and “Orientalist” perspective.
Introducing Orientalism
In his seminal 1978 publication Orientalism, Edward Said introduces his multi-faceted theory of Orientalism. Said (1978) introduces this theory by asserting that “the relationship
between Occident and Orient is a relationship of power, of domination, of varying degrees of a
complex hegemony” (p. 13). The term “Orient” designates formerly colonized spaces in Asia,
the Middle East, and North Africa “geographically, morally, and culturally” while “Occident”
designates Europe, or former colonial powers (Said, 1978, p. 39). While the titles of “the Orient”
binary where the “Orient” is distinguished from the “Occident” persists as a dominant
framework for understanding international relations, development theory, and knowledge about
distant places and people. The world is still understood in binary terms, as reflected in the
contemporary labels of “East and West” or “The Global South and The Global North”. The
characteristics that distinguish the “Orient” from the “Occident”, East from West, or South from
North, become the very foundation for Orientalism.
Said (1978) offers multiple definitions of Orientalism, with the first definition as “the
teaching, writing, or researching of the Orient” (p. 2). The knowledge produced about colonial
subjects by colonial powers resulted in the construction of the “Orient” “politically,
sociologically, militarily, ideologically, scientifically, and imaginatively” through discourse
(Said, 1978, p. 3). Colonial powers were able to define what the “Orient” was and who the
people living in those spaces were for a Western audience. Consider the example given in
Orientalism of the construction of Egypt by Britain, its colonizing power:
England knows Egypt; Egypt is what England knows; England knows that Egypt cannot have self-government; England confirms that by occupying Egypt; for the Egyptians, Egypt is what England has occupied and now governs; foreign occupation therefore becomes ‘the very basis’ of contemporary Egyptian civilization; Egypt requires, indeed insists upon, British occupation. (Said, 1978, p. 42)
From this example, the relationship between power, knowledge, and identity is apparent. Britain
exerted power over Egypt in producing knowledge about Egypt. Once Egyptian identity was
constructed through that knowledge production, Britain was able to represent Egypt on the basis
of the knowledge acquired. This method of knowing and this style of dominating was employed
knowledge about India that effectively otherized and demoralized India in an effort to secure
authority over India.
Said (1978) offers a second definition of Orientalism as “a style of thought based on
distinctions between the Orient and the Occident” (p. 2). Since colonial times, points of
difference have been constructed between India and the West in an effort to situate India as a
geographic and cultural “Other.” These distinctions draw on stereotypes of India as despotic,
India as savage, India as mystical, and India as impoverished. According to Said (1978), it is
these distinctions that become the starting point for narratives, theories, social descriptions, and
political accounts in which India is implicated. Certainly, these distinctions are not only evident,
but critical to the construction of narratives set in India in both film and television. In order for a
representation of India or Indians to be perceived as a reflection of reality, the utilization of these
stereotypical distinctions are necessary. Viewing an image of one of Mumbai’s many shopping
malls as a signifier might not reliably signal to the viewer that the narrative is situated in India
because images of prosperity and modernity have not historically been associated with India. The
construction of difference between the “Orient” and the “Occident” must nullify any semblance
of similarity between the East and the West in order to effectively maintain Western hegemonic
power over the East.
Orientalism is not only a type of knowledge production and a style of thought based on
distinctions between “Orient” and “Occident” but is also a “Western style for dominating,
restructuring, and having authority over the Orient” (Said, 1978, p. 3). By effectively contrasting
the East from the West through discourse, the West is able to assert its superiority over the East
an individualistic society. The “Orient” is despotic while the politically superior “Occident” is
democratic. As the economically superior West progresses towards modernity, the East is
trapped in its timelessness. The secularism of West allows it to be morally superior over a
spiritual East. As a consequence, the East is infantilized and constructed as a space in need of
Western intervention in order to attain modernity and be saved from its own moral depravity.
Specifically, this research focuses on how U.S.-produced media employs these stereotypical
distinctions in an effort to juxtapose India with the United States in a narrative where America is
everything that India is not.
Summary of Analysis
There are two approaches to the study of media representations. The first is identified as
the reflectionist approach. This approach operates on the idea that all representations are accurate
reflections of reality, therefore truth could be discerned from representation. In opposition stands
the constructionist approach. This approach regards representations as constructions of meaning
(Orgad, 2012). Therefore, truth cannot be reliably discerned from representation as
representations deliver partial truths contingent on the positionality of the producer and the
viewer. The following research adheres to a constructionist approach, acknowledging that
representations of India in film and television capture some elements of reality, but do so in ways
that are disproportionate to the actual lived experiences of people in India. Consequently,
representations reproduce relationships of power in which Indians are “otherized,” demonized,
and marginalized. In their efforts to capture reality, representations are inevitably constructions
This research explores how contemporary films and television shows containing a
narrative situated in India serve as a manifestation of Said’s Orientalism. For this research, I
focused on two media texts: The Indian Detective (2017) and The Darjeeling Limited (2007). Both of the media texts were produced in the United States, with the exception of The Indian Detective which was produced in Canada but available for streaming in the United States on Netflix services. The narratives in these media texts are set in India and involve Indian
characters.
In the following pages, I will identify stereotypical representations of India in these
contemporary films and television shows and demonstrate how these representations are
“Orientalist” in nature. First, I will focus on The Indian Detective with a discussion on contrasting narratives of wealth acquisition in the United States and India. In the series, the American Dream serves as the esteemed antithesis to socio-economic practices in India. The
American ideology of meritocracy asserts that upward mobility has a linear relationship with
work ethic and ability. However, upward mobility in India is represented as a unprincipled
pursuit involving the buying and selling of drugs, sex workers, and children. Consequently,
criminality is essentialized as inherent to Indian identity. This then allows the American audience
to mitigate the threat brown bodies pose to a White, Christian American identity through the
otherization and disparaging of Indian identity.
In the second chapter, I will discuss how the representation of India as an overtly spiritual
space in the film The Darjeeling Limited situates India as a site for consumption by an American audience. The narrative of the film follows three American brothers as they travel throughout
that the brothers encounter become the means through which they are able to reconcile and heal.
Therefore, India exists solely as the backdrop for a narrative about Americans protagonists.
Through analyses of both content and narrative, the second chapter concludes that the film
distinguishes India from the United States as an overtly spiritual space and situates India as an
object for consumption by Americans in pursuit of spiritual exploration, healing, and
self-discovery. Through analyses of The Indian Detective and The Darjeeling Limited, I will demonstrate how contemporary film and television reproduce colonial discourse by
essentializing Indian identity and distinguishing that identity from an American identity in a way
CHAPTER 1:
Detecting Orientalist Representations in
The Indian Detective
Introduction
In the 2017 Netflix series The Indian Detective, a Toronto constable, Doug D’Mello (Russell Peters) finds himself involved in a transnational drug and money laundering scheme
during his time in Mumbai visiting his father. As such itcontains representations of Indians that juxtapose Indian identity with American identity, producing an essentialist Indian identity, as
immoral and brutish, that is antithetical to an essentialized American identity that is morally
pure. D’Mello, a Canadian of South Asian descent, travels to Mumbai to visit his father after he
is suspended over a failed drug bust. The senior D’Mello moved back to Mumbai five years prior
to the events in the series. Shortly after arriving in Mumbai, Doug D’Mello finds himself
involved in a murder investigation with the local Mumbai police. While the investigation serves
as an opportunity for D’Mello to regain his integrity as a constable, D’Mello’s involvement in
the investigation exposes a transnational drug scheme involving a notorious Mumbai crime boss
and a wealthy white businessman. The series follows D’Mello as he navigates the investigation
in Mumbai, represented as a corrupt and alien land, and in Toronto, a place of order and
familiarity. In doing so, stereotypical, “Orientalist” narratives are reproduced that situate India in
contrast with the West.
Focusing on The Indian Detective, this chapter argues that contemporary representations of India in Western television programming construct an essentialist conceptualization of Indian
identity within the American consciousness that allows America to have control over India. In
ideology of meritocracy that is prevalent in the series and then explore how this ideology allows
an American audience to distinguish India from the United States. First, I will define the
ideology of meritocracy and situate the chapter within colonial discourse about India. Then, I
will identify the articulation of meritocracy and colonial discourse in The Indian Detective through an analysis of the characters Gopal Chandekar and David Marlowe in order to
demonstrate how media representations operate as contemporary manifestations of Edward
Said’s (1978) “Orientalism.”
Meritocracy and The Indian Detective
According to Race and Racism in the United States: An Encyclopedia of the American Mosaic, meritocracy is defined as “a system in which advancement of social position, resources, and other social goods are distributed based on individual talent, ability, and ingenuity” (Lippard
& Gallagher, 2014, p. 776). Meritocracy asserts that upward mobility and individual success
have a linear relationship with work ethic and ability. Closely related, the ideology of
egalitarianism grants legitimacy to meritocracy (Seymour, 1996). Egalitarianism holds that all
people are created equally, and therefore have equal endowments of talent, ability, and ingenuity.
Differences in social position, resources, and social goods are therefore associated with
differences in skill and effort (Lippard & Gallagher, 2014). However, both this system of
meritocracy and the ideology of egalitarianism neglect to acknowledge the influence that race,
class, gender, and other categories of identity have on the accessibility of resources, the
application of talent, and the allocation of social goods. The consequences of such neglect will
Detective. Prior to this analysis, it is helpful to identify the origin of meritocracy in the United States and its relevance to the construction of an American identity.
A dominant ideology in the United States, meritocracy dates back to the founding of the
country. The origin of meritocracy lies in the initial formation of America as a settler colony and
in the early formation of a national identity (Seymour, 1996). With its war of independence
against Britain, the inception of the United States from a former settler colony is exceptional
compared to that of most other nation-states (Seymour, 1996). The creation of a new nation by
Europeans on non-European soil allowed the nation’s newest citizens to determine which
ideologies it would adhere to. Among these founding ideologies is egalitarianism. Egalitarianism
was claimed as a defining ideology of the new America in the very document that declared its
independence from its colonial master. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are
created equal…” (U.S. Declaration of Independence, Paragraph 2, 1776). With the issuing of this
declaration and the subsequent creation of a new nation, equality became—and continues to be—
a beacon to the world of what America stands for. Thus, the establishment of egalitarianism as a
foundational ideology granted legitimacy to the ideology of meritocracy, asserting that all people
have equal endowments of talent and ability as well as equal opportunity to translate their
endowment to upward mobility.
Meritocracy and the American Dream explain one’s failure to achieve social mobility as
a result of some internal quality inherent to the individual (Seymour, 1996). Again, the extent to
which socioeconomic and political systems oppress individuals of various categories of identity,
limit the availability of resources, and deny opportunity for social advancement is wholly
American Dream “leads naturally to the subsidiary theme that success or failure are results
wholly of personal qualities, that he who fails has only himself to blame…” (Robert Merton, as
quoted in Seymour, 1996, p. 47). This theme is articulated in The Indian Detective through the juxtaposition of the characters Gopal Chandekar and David Marlowe—a theme further explored
later in the chapter.
The American ideology of meritocracy is evident in The Indian Detective despite the show’s production in Canada. While The Indian Detective is a Canadian-produced television show, it is distributed to an American audience on the American streaming platform Netflix. The
representation of this ideology in the show will resonate with the American audience it was
intended for. In the production and consumption of narratives, both the author and the audience
possess an ideological framework that informs how meaning is created and concluded from the
narrative. Anandra Mitra (2016) identifies this framework as an “ideological position,” or “a set
of material practices that determine the worldview of a person” (p. 10). Material practices are
commonplace, routine practices of an individual that are shaped by one’s culture. Thus, the
ideologies of a culture shape the practices of the individual and consequently determine their
worldview. Through their worldview, an author encodes meaning into a narrative and an
audience decodes meaning from that narrative (Hall, 1993). In viewing The Indian Detective, the American audience will engage with the show through their ideological position. Due to the
centrality of the ideology of meritocracy in American culture and identity, the American
audience is able to apprehend the ideology of meritocracy in the show. Not only is meritocracy
Indian Despotism in Colonial Discourse
Contemporary representations of India and Indians in film and television reinforce and
reinscribe colonial discourse that distinguished India from Europe. Lata Mani, feminist historian
and author of Contentious Traditions, (1987) defines colonial discourse as “a mode of understanding Indian society that emerged alongside colonial rule” (p. 122). In Contentious Traditions, Mani (1987) analyzes how colonial discourse shaped debates surrounding the
practice of sati, or widow immolation, in colonial India. During the colonial era, colonial powers secured their domination and authority over their colonial subjects through means of knowledge
production. In the relationship between the colonizer and the colonized, power resided in the one
who was able to describe and define the other. In his discussion on knowledge and domination in
Orientalism, Said (1978) identifies knowledge production as a Western style of control over colonized spaces. The power the West exerted over its colonies did not come from moral or
economic superiority, but from creating forms of knowledge that excluded native knowledge and
privileged Western ways of knowing. Consequently, the colonized subject is denied its autonomy
and the power to represent itself. In the Western consciousness, the identity of the colonized
subject was constructed through the knowledge produced about the colonial subjects.
Both general stereotypes about the “Orient” and specific stereotypes about Indians were
influential in shaping the conceptualization of India in the Western consciousness. Despite the
variety of cultures, languages, and religions that comprised the “Orient,” colonial discourse
primarily regarded the “Orient” as a homogenized space with essential characteristics. Lord
Cromer, secretary in India from 1872-1876 and England’s Controller-General and
the colonial period. In Modern Egypt, a two-volume work detailing his experience and observations as an appointed General, Cromer (1908) asserts many problematic conclusions
about all “Orientals.” Cromer claims that, “Orientals are inveterate liars, they are ‘lethargic and
suspicious,’ and in everything oppose the clarity, directness, and nobility of the Anglo-Saxon
race” (Said, 1978, p. 39). In other colonial documentation, Cromer describes Europeans as
rational, virtuous, mature, and normal with the “Orient” as irrational, depraved, childlike, and
different (Said, 1978). Through anthropological, medical, and religious forms of discourse,
Britain consistently represented liberty, equality, progress, change, and dynamism while India
was consistently represented as ahistorical, unchanging, static, and paralyzed by tradition
(Ramasubramanian, 2005).
One of the earliest colonial stereotypes about India that presupposes the contemporary
caricature of the inherently evil Indian is of India as despotic. Despotism is defined as “a country
or political system where the ruler holds absolute power” (Oxford English Dictionary Online,
2019). Despotic rulers who were brutish, unreasonable, and malevolent, ruling with an iron fist,
was how the British colonizers described the characterization of the political structure in India
prior to the arrival of the British East India Company. This characterization became justification
for a “kinder” colonial rule. To the British, India’s despotism reflected the natives’ innate
disposition towards evil while India’s unchanging nature made modernism, progress, and
enlightenment unattainable. Therefore, colonization by the British was propagated as a noble
endeavor to save the “backwards” Indians from their own depravity. Initially, this stereotype
effectively denied the reality of the dynamic, complex, and organized political structure of the
India Company. Over time however, this stereotype became grounds for the characterization of
the Indian as “the embodiment of evil” (Mitra, 1999, p. 138).
A second, seemingly less problematic yet equally vilifying, colonial stereotype about
India is the enervated Indian. By this I mean the construction of Indian identity as weak, devoid
of energy, and lacking vitality. In A History of Military Transactions of the British Nation in Indostan, British soldier Robert Orme (1763) provides a description of Indians that is indicative of the British perspective on the natives:
An abhorrence to the shedding of blood, derived from his religion, and seconded by the great temperance of a life which is passed by most of them in a very sparing use of animal food, and a total abstinence from intoxicating liquors; the influence of the most regular of climates, in which the great heat of the sun and the great fertility of the soil lessen most of the wants to which the human species is subject in austerer regions, and supply the rest without the exertion of much labour; these causes, with various
derivations and consequences from them, have all together contributed to render the Indian the most enervated inhabitant of the globe (303).
Orme not only identifies Indians as the weakest type of human, he also attributes that weakness
to religious principles, eating practices, as well as the climate of the Indian subcontinent. This
representation posits Indians as the absolute antithesis to European identity. Indians are bound by
an Eastern religious tradition while the British subscribe to Enlightenment ideals. Everything
from the consumption of animals and liquor to the climate in India differ from that in Britain and
contribute to the disparity. Around 150 years later, Lord Cromer (1908) would issue a
corroborating claim that the “Oriental” “generally acts, speaks, and thinks in a manner exactly
opposite to the European.” The characterization of Indians as weak was essential to “the idea of
European identity as a superior one in comparison with all non-European peoples and cultures”
the representations of Indians, allowing for the juxtaposition of Gopal Chandekar and David
Marlowe.
Lastly, Indians were routinely characterized as savage and violent throughout the colonial
era. Both the alleged event, “The Black Hole of Calcutta,” and the idea of “Criminal Tribes” are
emblematic of how India was represented in the British imagination. “The Black Hole of
Calcutta” was a sensationalized event in 1756 in which 146 British prisoners were locked in a
cramped dungeon, resulting in the death of 123 people from suffocation and heat exhaustion
(Bayon, 1944). John Holwell, employee of the British East India Company and self-proclaimed
survivor of “The Black Hole,” offered an account of his experience in the dungeon following his
release. While there is no account of the event having occurred from Indian, Dutch, or French
soldiers and civilians, the supposed event led to Indians being viewed as vengeful, malicious,
and threatening.
Similarly, the idea of “Criminal Tribes” instilled within the British imagination an
Indian’s propensity for violence. “Criminal Tribes” are groups of Indians believed by the British
to have practiced crimes as a hereditary profession (Kapadia, 1952). These “Criminal Tribes”
were believed to adhere to a coherent set of violent practices passed down from father to son.
Therefore, the British government considered all persons born into the caste of “Criminal Tribes”
criminals upon birth (Kapadia, 1952). However, similar to “The Black Hole of Calcutta,”
“Criminal Tribes” were a sensationalized idea within the British imagination. In actuality, the
“Criminal Tribes” were much smaller in number did not constitute an entire caste, and did not
Both “The Black Hole of Calcutta” and “Criminal Tribes” reveal the extent to which
criminality, violence, and barbarity were associated with Indian identity. In attributing these
qualities to Indians, a particular “identity narrative” was produced about Indians (Mitra, 2016).
While these attributions were not entirely accurate, they could be perceived as authentic. When
there is no competing reality to the portrayed reality, the narrative within the portrayed reality is
regarded as truth. This leads to the essentialization of those attributes with the corresponding
Indian identity. In the process of essentialization, a single characteristic or quality is identified as
a fundamental and intrinsic trait of a culture, space, or people. Therefore, with the repeated and
consistent attribution of criminality, violence, and barbarity to Indian identity throughout the
colonial period, those qualities came to be understood as innate and essential to all Indians.
Even though the United States never had any direct colonial relationship with India,
Americans have been exposed to an essentialized Indian identity and participate in the
circulation of that identity. Literature, history books, travel accounts, news sources, films, and
television shows have preserved this “Orientalist” construction of Indian identity within the
Western consciousness since the end of the colonial period. This process of essentialization
continues today, laying the foundation for the character Gopal Chandekar in The Indian Detective. In the following paragraphs, I will identify the articulation of the ideology of
Locating Meritocracy and Colonial Discourse in The Indian Detective
The relationship between the characters Gopal Chandekar, the Mumbai crime boss, and
David Marlowe, the wealthy white businessman, serves as a juxtaposition between Indian
identity and American identity. Gopal Chandekar is Mumbai’s young, notorious, and elusive
crime boss. Born in the slums of Mumbai, Chandekar attempts to attain legitimacy as a wealthy
and powerful individual by eradicating any affiliation he has with his impoverished upbringing.
To accomplish this goal, Chandekar, with the help of David Marlowe and Chandekar’s twin
brother Amal, participates in a transnational drug industry to finance the demolition of the
Annapuri slums in which he was born, and erect a towering skyscraper in its place. In a
conversation with David Marlowe, Chandekar speaks of the slums saying, “That skyscraper will
destroy this place once and for all and give me the one thing that you have that I don’t:
legitimacy.” Despite Chandekar’s best efforts, the Toronto constable Doug D’Mello disrupts
Chandekar’s plans at every point along the way, leading to the ultimate arrest of the Chandekar
twins.
The ways in which Gopal Chandekar and David Marlowe contrast with each other
illuminate the ideology of meritocracy and establish Indian identity in direct opposition to
American identity. As a white billionaire, David Marlowe exemplifies the American Dream.
Closely related to the ideology of meritocracy, the American Dream claims that upward
mobility, power, and wealth are equally available to all and are gained through “hard work,
responsibility, and individual talent” (Lippard & Gallagher, 2014, p. 777). An American
American Dream. In a conversation from episode two, Marlowe and Chandekar briefly relate
their humble beginnings.
Chandekar: I left this place 20 years ago and still can’t seem to scrub off the humiliation. Marlowe: Being poor is nothing to be ashamed of, Chandekar.
Chandekar: Easy for you to say, you’re rich. Marlowe: Wasn’t always.
Chandekar: Yeah, but you were never this poor. You didn’t have to do what I had to get ahead.
Marlowe: You have no idea what I had to do.
In this dialogue, Marlowe suggests that he had an equal starting point as Chandekar and therefore
is able to sympathize with Chandekar’s ambitions to disassociate himself from an impoverished
upbringing. While it is not clearly stated what Marlowe had to endure to attain his status of
wealth and power, his comments indicate that he had to strive to succeed. This reinforces both
the ideology of meritocracy, where upward mobility is an opportunity made equally available to
all, and the notion of the American Dream, where upward mobility is achieved through hard
work and responsibility. In the system of meritocracy, anyone is capable of living the American
Dream.
Similarly to Marlowe, Chandekar emerges from poverty to acquire wealth and power.
But Chandekar, rather than working honestly for his wealth and power, steals, murders, and
breaks the law. According to the ideology of meritocracy, David Marlowe and Gopal Chandekar
had equal social position, equal access to resources, and equal allotments of social goods. In
order for Chandekar to reach the same degree of social influence and capital that Marlowe
enjoyed, he could have exhibited the same hard work and application of individual talent as
Marlowe exercised. Instead, Chandekar attempts to gain wealth and power through criminal
demonstrated by his involvement in Chandekar’s transnational drug scheme, Marlowe is not
vilified in the same way as Chandekar. Marlowe’s corrupt actions are easily dismissed according
to the ideology of meritocracy. The audience is able to overlook his offense because his actions
are justified as a means to achieving the American Dream. While he may be exhibiting criminal
behavior, Marlowe does not bear the consequences of his criminal activity in the show. In direct
contrast, Chandekar’s actions are seen as a reflection of his inherently corrupt state. In viewing
Chandekar’s behavior through the lens of colonial discourse, his criminal behavior is attributable
to a criminality inherent to Indian identity.
The series ends with the arrest of the Chandekar twins, further reinforcing the
relationship between criminality and Indian identity. When the transnational drug scheme is
exposed by D’Mello, Chandekar is sent to prison while Marlowe is able to walk away unscathed.
Through his manipulation and extortion of the Toronto police, Marlowe successfully covers his
tracks and denies any allegations of his implication in the crime. Marlowe’s immunity augments
the ideology of meritocracy because it suggests that Chandekar’s failure in achieving the wealth
and power that Marlowe enjoys is due to a depravation of his character. Marlowe not only
attained wealth and power, but he is also able to protect it while participating in corrupt
practices. Chandekar’s corrupt practices are not what led to his failure, since Marlowe was not
punished for his corroboration, but it is an internal, innate disposition towards corruption that
prevented Chandekar from achieving the success that was equally afforded to both him and
Marlowe. To an American audience, the representation of Indians as immoral and corrupt will
and Indian identity is a reproduction of the colonial discourse that allowed for European
domination over India (Said, 1978).
Gopal Chandekar reaffirms to an American audience the stereotypes of Indians as
despotic, enervated, and savage. In his scheme to destroy the Annapuri slums and assert his
power, Chandekar appears to have absolute authority over every individual involved in the plot,
harkening back to the stereotype of India as despotic. Chandekar secures the complicity of the
commissioner of the Mumbai police department in exchange for monetary contributions to the
commissioner's family. Chandekar advances towards his goal through the use of henchmen, but
is quick to cut ties when his colluders fail to serve their purpose—as evidenced when Chandekar
murders his nephew for betraying him. Even Gopal’s twin brother, Amal, in Toronto seems to be
subservient to Gopal. Amal Chandekar takes orders from Gopal but does not express similar
ambitions as Gopal for the eradication of any trace of his impoverished roots. Throughout the
series, the only people that challenge Gopal’s power and authority are David Marlowe and Doug
D’Mello, two Westerners. This reinforces the idea that India is not only immoral compared to the
Enlightened West, but stands in opposition to the West.
In The Indian Detective, the ideology of meritocracy and colonial discourse are tools employed in the construction and imposition of a particular identity onto an Indian character for
the subordination of Indian identity to American identity. In order for Chandekar to be
juxtaposed with Marlowe as the antithesis to the American Dream, Chandekar must be
represented as enervated and savage. Operating on the principle of egalitarianism, meritocracy
would confer equal opportunity, resources, and power to both Marlowe and Chandekar.
and his violent means to that end must be an outward displayal of his internal disposition.
Chandekar’s decision to engage in illegal and immoral acts then serves as evidence of his innate
weakness. According to the ideology of meritocracy, his weakness makes him unable and
unwilling to demonstrate the same hard work, responsibility, and application of individual talent
as Marlowe exercised in the advancement of his social position. Therefore, Chandekar does not
merely resort to violent measures as an alternative to an honest work ethic, his violent actions are
both a reflection and result of his violent nature. Violence is all he knows. As the American
sociologist Robert Merton points out, “the stress on success, on getting ahead, presses the
unsuccessful or those without means to win out legitimately—the poor and oppressed minorities
—to violate the rules of the game” (Seymour, 1996, p. 26). In combination with meritocracy, the
stereotypes of Indians as despotic, enervated, and savage take Merton’s assessment one step
further by demonstrating the violation of the rules as inherent to Indian identity, and therefore the
only way they know how to play the game.
Since colonial times, these stereotypes of India have been reproduced over and over,
leading to the naturalization of these representations for a Western audience. In the
representation of foreign cultures in film and television, the producer intentionally chooses every
cultural practice, every character, and every element of the landscape. Once these components
are decided upon, their inclusion in the media text can make those practices, characters, and
landscapes seem natural to that culture (Mitra, 1999). The naturalization of these singular
representations become essentializations - the dominant view of that culture, space, and people.
Consequently, colonial stereotypes about India have become contemporary stereotypes about
effeminacy, and savagery. Ferdinand de Saussure’s (1974) work on signs can be applied here.
The qualities of despotism, effeminacy, and savagery have become signifiers of Indian identity
over time through representations. When an audience is repeatedly exposed to these signifiers,
Indian identity becomes the mental image associated with those qualities. Therefore, an
American audience is able to recognize these signifiers in The Indian Detective because they have been disciplined through previous representations to expect this singular caricature of
Indian identity (Mitra, 1999).
The Indian Detective as Orientalism
As a result of a repeated representation of Indians over time, the construction of
Chandekar’s character follows a singular narrative for normative Indian behavior and morality.
The Indian male has become “the embodiment of evil” in contemporary Western film and
television (Mitra, 1999, p. 138). In India Through the Western Lens: Creating National Images in Film, Ananda Mitra (1999) explains that the “color of skin, virtue and the role of the various protagonists in the narrative conflate together to produce an image that portrays the Eastern/dark
person as the repository of evil” (p. 139). All bad Indian characters are really bad, lacking any
redeeming characteristic, because everything they do must exemplify their inherent evilness.
Consider the Indian men in Slumdog Millionaire (2008)and Lion (2016), two widely-acclaimed films produced in the United States. In these films, Indian men are shown stealing children,
pimping out little girls, and gouging out the eyes of little boys so they will earn more money
from empathetic passerbys. Just like David Marlowe, these men are seeking wealth and power.
However, because they are Indian like Gopal Chandekar, their propensity for evil naturally
in The Indian Detective distinguishes India from the United States, allowing an American audience to assert its dominance and superiority over India in a contemporary manifestation of
Edward Said’s (1978) Orientalism.
In addition to Orientalism as the “teaching, writing, or researching of the Orient,” Said
defines Orientalism as “a style of thought based on distinctions between the Orient and the
Occident” and as “a Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the
Orient” (Said, 1978, p. 2-3). In distinguishing itself from the “Orient,” white Europeans were
able to reproduce and retain their authority over the “Orient” because they were able to
demonstrate their moral, political, and economic superiority through means of comparison.
Social comparison theory claims that “there exists, in the human organism, a drive to evaluate
his opinions and abilities” (Festinger, 1954). This evaluation is conducted through comparison.
Therefore, in the evaluation and production of European identity, an “other” was needed. By
distinguishing themselves from the “Orient,” Europe was able to define who they were through
contrast with who they were not—the “Orient” (Orgad, 2012). Where the “Orient” was depraved,
Europe was virtuous. Where the “Orient” was inhibited by spiritual tradition, Europe was
emancipated by enlightened ideals. Where the “Orient” was primitive, Europe was industrial.
This “style of thought based on distinctions” was not only employed during the colonial period;
contemporary media representations allow an American audience to distinguish themselves from
the Indians on the screen in the same way (Said, 1978, p. 2).
Representations of Indians in film and television provide a visual point of reference for
an American audience upon which they can distinguish themselves and construct their own
formation, Shani Orgad (2012) explains, “People, at least in the global north, increasingly are
evaluating and constructing their selves, bodies and relationships on the basis of, and in relation
to, images and stories that appear in the media” (p. 157). Operating as “symbolic resources,” the
American audience is able to use images and stories of India in the media to form their own
identity (Orgad, 2012). Furthermore, the process of differentiation allows the American audience
to render Indian identity an incomparable and clearly inferior identity to the superior American
identity (Festinger, 1954). According to Orgad’s explanation, Said’s (1978) “style of thought
based on distinctions” was not only employed by colonial powers to govern the “Orient” (p. 2).
The United States currently employs this style of thought in the protection and promotion of its
perceived superiority by distinguishing itself from other nations and identities.
In the creation of American identity, perhaps the most recent and relevant “symbolic
resources” have been the images and stories that emerged from 9/11. Following 9/11, an
“American way of life” was identified through the creation of a dichotomy between America and
the Middle East (Silva, 2016, p. 28). As a result, the ideal American citizen was constructed as
white and Christian, while brown bodies became seen as deviant, antithetical forces threatening
core American beliefs. Even though India lacked any involvement in the events of 9/11, brown
bodies became a catch-all category for deviance. This conflation of Middle Eastern and South
Asian identity in the United States following 9/11 was aided by centuries of “Orientalist”
discourse that grouped the varied geographic and cultural spaces of North Africa, the Middle
neo-nationalism” (p. 29). With India continuing to grow in power as a political and economic
player in the current global system, brown Indian bodies become a threat to American hegemony
in need of containing.
Stereotypical representations of Indians, such as that of Gopal Chandekar, allow the
American audience to mitigate the threat brown bodies pose through the otherization of Indian
identity and the subsequent disparaging of that identity. Silva (2016) goes on to explain that, in
the containing of deviant brown bodies, “it is also important to construct that threat as
containable and controllable, because such containment is imperative to reinforcing this
particular nationalist discourse” (p. 30). Where representations of Indians as depraved, primitive,
and mystical distinguish the United States as morally superior, representations of Indians as
enervated, effeminate, and impoverished present India as an inferior, containable and
controllable opponent.
In conclusion, the underlying ideology of meritocracy in The Indian Detective, along with the representation of Gopal Chandekar as essentially evil, allows an American audience to
distinguish themselves from Indians and claim superiority over India. Chandekar’s attempts to
gain wealth and power through criminal means, and his subsequent failure, are attributed to the
inherent depravity of Indian identity. This proposed correlation between depravity and Indian
identity reproduces colonial discourse that characterized Indians as despotic, enervated, and
savage. Those qualities have become essentialized markers of Indian identity in the American
consciousness. An American audience then forms their self-identity through the viewing of
representations of other peoples and cultures. Consequently, Indian identity is juxtaposed with
superiority and claim authority over India. This process of knowing, distinguishing, and
dominating India by an American audience through media representations serves as a
CHAPTER 2:
The Essentialization and Commodification of Spirituality in
The Darjeeling Limited
Introduction
While the previous chapter engaged in a primarily narrative analysis of The Indian Detective in order to illustrate one example of cultural stereotyping in Western television programming, this chapter will utilize narrative and content analyses of the film The Darjeeling Limited in order to identify another problematic variety of cultural stereotyping in Western film. Both, in their own ways, work to discipline Indian bodies, subordinate India to the West, and
essentialize Indian identity. In a narrative analysis of a media text, the focus of the analysis is on
character development, dialogue, and plot (Mitra, 1999). On the other hand, a content analysis
evaluates the technical representation of specific spaces, landscapes, and cultural practices
(Ramasubramanian, 2005). The encoded meaning in a representation is derived not only from the
actions that occur within the scene, but also from the physical and technical makeup of the scene.
It is important to recognize the power that both a conversation held between two characters and
the context in which that conversation occurs have on the construction of the identity of those
characters. For example, if two men are having a conversation inside of a commercial bank about
the access codes to a bank safe while wearing business suits, the viewer may assume that both
men work for the bank and their conversation is benign and mundane. However, if the same two
men were having a conversation inside of a commercial bank about the access codes to a bank
safe while wearing stereotypical black ski masks, the viewer might assume these two men are
demonstrate the relevance of content analysis in surveying the relationship between media
representation and identity formation. This chapter will draw on both a narrative analysis and a
content analysis of The Darjeeling Limited to demonstrate that this film contains “Orientalist” representations of India.
This chapter will rely heavily on Srividya Ramasubramanian’s (2005) work as a model of
content analysis. In “A Content Analysis of the Portrayal of India in Films Produced in the
West” Ramasubramanian (2005) conducted a content analysis of 24 randomly selected films,
which contained representations of India and Indians, produced in the United States or in the
United Kingdom between 1930 and 2000 in an effort to “examine the social construction of
‘Indian-ness’” (p. 243). For the analysis, Ramasubramanian (2005) created two categories of
“coding variables”—environmental and socio-cultural. Then, she documented the frequency with
which those variables were present in the 1,016 scenes and 421 characters included in the study.
Environmental variables included the type of climate, pollution, scene-locales, transportation,
and animals that were shown in the film. Socio-cultural variables included the depiction of
religion, leisure activities, architecture, women and children, and poverty. Lastly, she performed
a character analysis of the types of occupations and dwelling places that the Indian characters
possessed. In conducting a content analysis of these 24 films, Ramasubramanian (2005) found a
Environmental Variables: Climate: hot and sunny Pollution: dirty streets, overcrowded places, unclean water
Scene-locales: jungles, temples, caves, train stations, huts
Transportation: animal carts, hand-rickshaws, trains Animals: elephants, snakes, tigers, buffaloes, cows, rats, insects
Socio-Cultural Variables:
Religion: nature worship, magic, witchcraft
Leisure Activities: sword-swallowing, snake-charming, henna painting, cricket, pot painting Architecture: minarets, Hindu temples
Women and Children: sati, arranged marriage, child sacrifice, child labor, rape Poverty: beggars, manual laborers, prostitutes, famine-stricken people, homeless people Character Analysis: Occupation: unemployed, hunter-gatherers, farmers, priest, pimp, gangster, skilled and unskilled laborers Dwelling Place: streets, huts, temporary dwellings, jungles, caves, temples, palaces
Secondly, this chapter will implement a narrative analysis of the film The Darjeeling Limited with specific consideration for the motivation of the narrative. Within a narrative analysis, “motivation” can be defined as “the way in which a particular place or a person
provides the reason why the narrative moves on” (Mitra, 1999, p. 50). In an effort to understand
the trajectory of the narrative, it is illuminatory to identify the place or person that motivates the
sequence of events, the interactions between characters, and the ultimate resolution of the
conflict in the film. A defining feature of the narrative in The Darjeeling Limited is that the plot revolves around American protagonists in India. The centrality of a white Western character to
the plot carries significant implications for the motivation of the narrative. Ramasubramanian’s
2005 content analysis proves useful once again for understanding these implications. Of the 24
films she analyzed, Ramasubramanian found that, when the plot of a movie was situated in India,
the center of the plot while Indians played a supporting or inconsequential role. In this chapter, I
apply Ramasubramanian’s (2005) findings to the film The Darjeeling Limited.
Through analyses of content and narrative, this chapter asserts that the representation of
India in The Darjeeling Limited constructs an essentialized identity of India as a spiritual site and, therefore, commodifies India as an object for consumption by Americans in pursuit of
healing, transformation, and self-actualization. Furthermore, the relationship between the
essentialization of Indian identity and the commodification of India demonstrates that
U.S.-produced films are contemporary manifestations of Orientalism. By providing for an
American audience a particular knowledge about India that distinguishes India from the United
States, these representations situate India as a site for American consumption. This
essentialization of Indian identity through stereotyping is evident in films like Gunga Din (1939) with the effeminate, deferential Indian; Lion (2016) with the impoverished child from the slums; or Eat Pray Love (2010) with India as a site for spiritual regeneration. Deconstructing the dynamism of Indian identity into an essentialized form through representation allows the United
States to then reconstruct Indian identity in a manner that accommodates the purposes of
Americans. This subordination of Indian identity to the motivations of Americans is clearly
displayed in The Darjeeling Limited. Synopsis of the Film
The Darjeeling Limited follows three white, American protagonists, the Whitman brothers, in their journey to India in pursuit of healing and spiritual direction. Combining
elements of adventure and drama, the film’s plot revolves around three estranged brothers,
with one another. Each of the brothers carries some burden into the trip. Francis, the oldest of the
brothers, initiated the reunion following his survival of a nearly fatal car accident. The second
brother, Peter, is anxiously expecting the birth of his first child while the youngest brother, Jack,
is recovering from a difficult breakup. Aboard the train “Darjeeling Limited,” the brothers travel
throughout India and learn to trust one another again through the various Indian locales and
people they encounter along their way. Thus, in The Darjeeling Limited, India serves as the backdrop for the narrative with India as a conduit for the self-exploration and healing of the
white, Western male protagonists.
Grounding the Discussion in Colonial Discourse
The representation of India in the film draws on historical stereotypes of India as an
overtly religious and mystical space. Religion, specifically the religions of Hinduism and Islam,
is a primary lens through which India is viewed both historically and currently (Mitra, 2016). As
I documented in the previous chapter, this contemporary construction of India as religious and
mystical is grounded in colonial discourse. During the colonial era, the British governed India
through the creation of a religious binary where Indians were either Hindu or Muslim. In
addition to this binary, the British conflated religious identity with Indian identity as a means of
validating and securing colonial rule for the British.
In the recording of India’s colonial history by British scholars, many critical events were
documented through the lens of religion. In the British description of the Mughal Empire, the
governing power at the time of the arrival of the British East India Company, the British
characterized the period of Mughal rule as a time of religious strife. In actuality, the Mughals
2012). Similarly, the British misattributed the Indian Rebellion of 1857 to religion despite the
fact that several non-religious factors led to the uprising. Otherwise referred to as the First War
of Indian Independence and the Great Rebellion, the events in 1875 were executed by Indian
soldiers in the British army as a contestation of British rule in India. However, the British
documented the rebellion as a product of religious grievances. Days before the mutiny, new rifles
with cartridges covered in pig and cow grease were given to the Indian soldiers. In order to load
the rifle, the soldiers would have to bite open the cartridge, thus requiring Muslims and Hindus
to have contact with pigs and cows. The day before the rebellion, 85 Indian soldiers were
imprisoned for their refusal to use the cartridges (Metcalf & Metcalf, 2012). From a British
colonial perspective, the history of India was a religious history. Therefore, Britain began
governing India through the lens of religion because they had falsely constructed religion as
essential to Indian identity.
Furthermore, the British misrepresented the character of religion in India as a justification
for the colonization of India by Britain. The juxtaposition of British development and Indian
primitivism operated as an underlying assumption in the construction of Indian identity in
colonial period. During an 1875 lecture at the University of Cambridge, British historian Henry
Maine explained that India was trapped in a state of “barbarism” despite having similar Aryan
institutions, customs, laws, and beliefs as the British (Metcalf & Metcalf, 2012). Citing the
despotism, feudal kingdoms, and village republics during the Mughal Empire, British scholars
identified India as “Europe’s past.” As emblems of British antiquity, these institutions were
associated with preserving the backwardness and primitivity of India. This framing of India
prevented them from implementing modern, industrial institutions. Specifically, Hinduism was
seen as “a stage on the upward road from barbarism to science” (Hawley, 1991, p. 30). In the
eyes of the British, primitivism and religion rendered Indians incompetent for self-rule.
However, the British regarded themselves as the means through which India could transcend
religion and reach modernity. The 1858 Government of India Act stated, “...the foreign ruler
alone peacefully contained the cultural, societal, and religious diversity of India” (Metcalf &
Metcalf, 2012). Thus, the British essentialized religious identity as inherent to Indian identity and
then justified colonial rule on the grounds of religious liberation and modernization.
Contemporary representations of India as mystical, spiritual, and religious are both
products and reproductions of colonial discourse surrounding Indian identity. The persistent
nature of this discourse is partly due to another stereotypical representation of India as timeless
(Mitra, 1999). While religion was seen as an impediment to Indian civilization during colonial
times, today religion is seen as requisite to Indian civilization. The age of India is connoted with
the religions of India to the extent that discourse about one reinforces discourse about the other.
In viewing India as timeless, ancient practices are considered uninterrupted while religion is
maintained as a defining aspect of Indian existence and identity. Just as Ananda Mitra (1999)
argues that “the exotic needs to be produced as the ‘natural’ description of the space” of India in
India Through the Western Lens: Creating National Images in Film, it can be said that the spiritualism of India is also produced as the “natural” description of India in film and television
(p. 157). In producing spiritualism as the “natural” description of India, The Darjeeling Limited operates as a contemporary manifestation of Edward Said’s (1972) Orientalism because it
the secular, rational United States, allowing for the consumption of India as a spiritual space by
Americans in their pursuit of healing and transformation.
Content Analysis
To examine the presence of stereotypical, “Orientalist” representations in The Darjeeling Limited, it is helpful to begin with a content analysis of the environmental variables,
socio-cultural variables, and characters portrayed in the films. Many of the “coding variables”
that Ramasubramanian (2005) analyzed in her study are included in this media text. The following is a list of the variables present in The Darjeeling Limited.
Environmental Variables: Climate: hot and sunny Pollution: dirty streets, overcrowded places
Scene-locales: temples, train stations, huts
Transportation: animal carts, trains
Animals: snakes, tigers, buffaloes, cows
Socio-Cultural Variables:
Religion:
Leisure Activities: cricket Architecture: Hindu temples Women and Children: child labor
Poverty: manual laborers, famine-stricken people, homeless people
Character Analysis:
Occupation: farmers, priest, skilled and unskilled laborers Dwelling Place: huts,
temporary dwellings
The inclusion of these images is not accidental, but reflects both accepted and expected norms of
the representation of India. Images of huts, Hindu temples, and manual laborers in India have
been deployed several times by various filmmakers in the West to signal to the viewer that the
plot is situated in India. Over time, the use of these images in establishing a particular “Indian”
context in film has resulted in the association of these stereotypical images with India, producing
the “social construction of Indian-ness” that Ramasubramanian (2005) examines in her study (p.
243). Huts, temples, and manual laborers have become signifiers that evoke a mental image of
India as the signified location associated with these images (Saussure, 1974). Consequently,
