Week 3, Feb 1: On Being Unfit to Rule: Colonialism and Knowledge/Power.
SCREENING: The Chess Players [ Shatranj Ke Khilari ] (dir: Satyajit Ray, 1977. 129 min.) Online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddPt2DLyCBM [turn on English subs!]
Reading:
1. Vinay Lal, “Sexual Moves, Colonial Maneuvres, and an Indian Game: Masculinity and Femininity in The Chess Players.” Manushi: A Journal of Women and Society, nos. 92-93 (Jan.-April 1996): 41-50. Lal’s piece is in the Reader and also at :
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/British/Chess.html
2. Loomba, 42-62
3. Recommended : Loomba, 91-107, 128-45.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND INFO: (just FYI— not absolutely necessary to know to understand the movie……)
The game of chess was brought to India by the Mughals, who originally came from Persia or what we now know as Iran. They ruled India for several hundred years, from 1526 until the late 19th Century. They were not a modern form of colonialism─ they actually settled and
assimilated themselves into India─ it is closer to the Mongol/Manchu governance in China, only even more so. They assimilated culturally and sought to blend native Hindu and “Indian” culture and society with their own. They rules as kings/emperors and not as a foreign colonial power who merely transferred money and wealth back to Iran. In short they were what we would now call “Indian” emperors.
King Wajid and the kingdom of Oudh are by this time of the film independent kingdoms─ not part of the Mughal dynasty any longer (split off earlier in 1800s). You can read more here if you wish but it is not required: http://4dw.net/royalark/India4/oudh.htm All you need to know is that Oudh is a wealthy Muslim state (and a former part of the Mughal dynasty) and formally or legally independent of the British—they had some treaties in place to allow Wajid to rule as King and they didn’t annex the territory until later (in 1856). So the independence was a bit fake really—kind of a “Cantonment.” Oudh fell in 1856 when the Brits annexed it.
Bonus historical info: In response to this take-over, as well as to British cruelties and other interventions, in 1857-8, the “1857 Indian Mutiny” took place. Please note the word “mutiny” here, as it is a Brit coinage. the 1857 event could really be called the 1857 War of Independence
or at least 1857 Rebellion. Anyway the relevance for the film is that it provides a sort of
backdrop for the director Ray. It doesn’t happen in the film but does in the next year, if the film were a real world (and it based on historical events). In short, the fact of the 1857 War means that Wajid does seem like a bit of a weakling or non-warrior in comparison. If not a traitor. Or is it? The Rebellion was crushed after all.
Wajid was especially reviled by the British as the worst specimen of the Oriental Despot, more interested in women, frivolous amusements -- kite-flying, cock-fighting, and the like -- and sheer indolence rather than the difficult task of governance. As the Brits annexed more and more territories in the 19th C., they justified this on the grounds that the native rulers were corrupt, inept, and notoriously indifferent about the welfare of their subjects, or that since the native ruler had failed to produce a direct, biological male heir to the throne, the territory was bound to "lapse" into British India upon the death of the ruler. Wajid was allegedly the worst in this regard. A/c to one colonial bureaucrat of the time: "The king, Wajid Ali Shah, was an apathetic person who took little part in the government of the country, and much evil resulted. There can be no doubt that the people were oppressed by the exactions of his revenue collectors."
But of course, the Brit rationalizations were just that: a bunch of lies, and “mere” orientalist discourse that has since become received wisdom, esp. in the West.
PART I lecture materials.
Want to foreground one issue that is common to both Achebe and Ray, that is, to colonialism as a cultural and social project or reality…
Colonial Discourse or “knowledge”: the question of knowledge in colonialism. This is also part of a related term/aspect of colonialism: hegemony. The essential point here is simply that “knowledge” is central to the development of colonialism. It is used to rule and to justify it. It even helps prepare the ground for colonialism/conquest…. Additionally,
Let's begin with some clips.
>>treaty politics… King Wajid asks, “Why don’t my subjects revolt if I am so poor a king?” A very good question!
>> Weston says of the King: EFFEMINATE man and therefore unfit to rule: not
manly/masculine/rational. Weston is also a prude and disturbed by Wajid’s sexuality, if not also his ‘artsy’ quality.
Perverted, depraved or hyper-sexual too: note how contradictory this is, and how prudish and moralistic Outram is. The idea that “orientals” are sexually depraved and/or effeminate is an old cliché of orientalist or colonial discourse. Also he says he is an inept king “with no business in ruling”? Unfit because.... why exactly?
Weston the “the crown” offer: A political theory/justification for colonialism? Here is where the colonizers lay out how/why the natives are unfit to rule themselves and therefore need to Brits to do so.
>>Conclusion of the movie: cowardice? Or is there a wisdom to this? What could these guys do anyway? Is it better to just accept and resign yourself, even to embrace a sort of passivity in regard to fate? There is an ambiguity here, as with all of the Indian characters. And perhaps of the British too.
**************************************
Part II lecture materials.
Some keywords and issues that come out of this film and our readings to date:
A. Difference and colonialism: difference as negative and something to be eliminated or controlled? Or difference as a fetish, a positive but othering aspect of the colony.
INTOLERANCE towards difference— Outram hates it, finds Wajid effeminate and unfit to rule. ….”A Bad king with no business to rule.” Rationalizations of deposing him and colonizing Oudh. Its highly gendered. Wajid is too girly. The business of rule and politics is about business (money) and about being interested in the affairs of the state. An artistic, spiritual or visionary type like Wajid has no place. And so on.
Difference: attitudes and ways of seeing it and dealing with it —
1. fear and loathing and “anti-” views, anxiety, hatred, contempt
2. attraction to it─ desire for difference, the exotic,….. affirmations of difference and heterogeneity. But these can also be problematic.
Weston: like #2 above. clearly likes and admires Wajid and his culture. Knows it quite well. But agrees with Outram in the end. Sells out Wajid and betrays his conscience. He too embodies the type of mentality and mind necessary for colonial rule—for that type of injustice and for being a good soldier in the Western or modern sense. Colonialism affects the colonizer too—they too end up with a colonial mentality.
B. Rationality and/or Reason. What are these? Are there different types? Can we compare the way of thinking of both the colonists and the king Wajid? And then how about Mir and Mirza? How do they think> Logical? Practical? More “deep” or spiritual? How about hedonistic? Self-interested and/or selfish? Narcissistic and/or inward-directed?
Rationality of colonialism. Rationality of their justifications.
A Western or Mughal or “Indian” rationality? Can rationality or reason be non-Western?
C. Work: Duty: Productivity: Manliness: Godliness/Morality.
D. Pleasure and Hedonism. Sensuality. Is this admirable in a way or kind of like
Mir/Mirza/Wajid being lazy or “couch-potatoes”? Which world would you rather live in─ Mir’s and Wajid’s or Outram’s?
E. Gender and colonialism. As with many other aspects of history and society, gender (gendered/natural “roles”/ masculinity/femininity/sexuality) and colonialism are linked
homophobic sense of being “secretly gay” or are they just “odd”? Go to top of page 3 of the Lal essay in the course pack….
F. Colonial Discourse: Knowledge/power. Colonial discourse = orientalism. Orientalism is a type of colonial discourse. Place of knowledge in colonialism: it is important to get this: it’s a way of knowing and not just loosely held ideas or beliefs or feelings. Colonialism and
knowledge and/or colonial discourse: not just about money but about production of knowledge about the other/oriental/Indian/savage. Will to knowledge. Need to do this to justify and
rationalize colonial rule; need to do this to further develop and run/administer the colonies. . Yet it also pre-exists modern colonialism and in effect prepares the ground for modern colonialism in advance. Point: knowledge is not an objective or non=-political thing but is deeply political, is about power, and is worldly or a product of human society and history.
>>>> RAY relies and draws on such scholarship to make Wajid et all look “queer” and feminine….
• 1. in a nutshell Chess Players is a valuable film in part because it is a great illustration of colonial discourse and how this clashes with native/local realities. How knowledge is used and produced to install colonialism and keep it going.
• 2. More generally: as with Achebe’s book, this is a great example of culture clash/conflict. The differences between new and old worlds and new and old civilizations/cultures/peoples as the world clashes.
G. Political theory of/FOR colonialism: Unfit to rule. Not ready for freedom/democracy/self-rule. Wajid is Artsy/literary/spiritual and therefore unfit to freedom/democracy/self-rule. Not a real man and not a man of action and leadership and active governance. Doesn’t do anything for – or to – his people. Unfit to rule and therefore must go. This has long been a “theory” lying behind colonialism and more recently imperial/Western/American imperialism.
H. Modernity: Another big topic that we can get to later on. But we might introduce the term today. Part of it is this: the so-called protestant ethic/work/no-fun rule or infinite delay of pleasure and gratification. Another part is strict heterosexuality or reproductive sexuality. Clear, demarcated gender rules.
A. Can we reframe or re-describe what Outram and maybe the film itself see as “effeminateness” and a lack of masculinity? Can it equally as well be seen as
intelligence, education, refinement, hedonism, aestheticism? Aren’t Wajid and even M&M pretty smart and cultured fellows? Can you imagine Outram writing a poem?!
B. Lal's argument is that the film shows us that heterosexuality and standard/traditional/ Western masculinity are at the heart of the modern state and modern society or world. The film is about the transition of pre-modern India into modern/colonial India.
alternative or less binary (either/or) concepts and practices of gender are unfathomable and intolerable to the colonizers and to the modern world (perhaps the contemporary, “postmodern” world is different.?) Wajid and even Mir/Mirza represent the difference of the non- western or pre-modern world of gender and sexuality. Although the film itself is ambivalent about this and also wants to criticize the two friends in particular for being effeminate.
1. MIR and MIRZA: Ray the director seems to agree with the colonial way of looking at them: they too are quite unmanly and are closely bonded or “homo-social”. No interest in women, in sex, in money or whatever else besides chess and being together too. The film suggests they are unmanly and not simply cowardly or weak or stupid or whatever.
2. MY POINT: The difference that these three male characters represents simply is not tolerated by either the British
characters or by the director/film. We see in this, and in the doomed nature of Wajid a passage to modernity for India—to be not just politically and economically subjugated but to be transformed culturally and socially. The type of men and interests of these three – which are also quite peaceful and harmless and even profound for Wajid – are doomed.
****************************************************** PART III Lecture materials....
Vinay LAL (Coursepack) goes on to do a reading of the masculinity and colonialism dialectic as seen in CP. As said b/f what was lost with Oudh/independent India was not just territory and resources, but a different way of life and “being”– in place of “hedonism” or “culturalism” (not really a good word) and a different sense of time/temporality – cf the original, long-running version of chess with the sped-up Brit one that M&M eventually adopt – India received colonial modernity and under-development. Don’t need to define this last, or to call Oudh/Wajid as “utopian” but emphasize that there was a shift/enforced rupture and change from one way of life and history to another. Now one can – should – map this change/break onto the problematic of gender/masculinity.
not). But Lal says this is the point of the film, and that it shows that modernity and the nation-state are by definition masculine/masculinist. Not a bad argument regardless of Ray’s intention in CP.
What is more, what we should interrogate/question here are the very terms of masculine or feminine. Why call “feminine” those qualities of Wajid and M&M? Given how men have rather dominated official history, colonialism, war, etc can see why “masculine” works, but could interrogate this too I suppose. What other words can we use to describe what is allegedly “feminine” about them? And might they not be feminine at all but masculine/strongly male and sexist? Etc.
LAL: ….”Henceforth, in what constitutes one of colonialism's most lasting triumphs, the heterosexual couple may well entrench itself as the principal nexus of human relationships in India. Secondly, if one recalls Mir's despondent remark, "If we can't cope with our wives, how can we cope with the British army?", the other inference must perforce be that, henceforth, our two jagirdars will be better able to cope with their wives. The masculinity of the colonizer would appear to have triumphed, and the feminine-like Krishna of the rasa lila, the Krishna whose role Wajid Ali is shown enacting in the prologue of the film, has yielded place to the other Krishna of Indian traditions, the Krishna who admonishes Arjuna to fight like a man. As The Chess Players tantalizingly suggests, masculinity may well be born with modernity and the nation-state.”
***************************************************************
Part IV lecture materials....
Shatranj Ke Khiladi (1977) – aka THE CHESS PLAYERS
characters: cast
Mirza Sajjad Ali: Sanjeev Kumar Khurshid, Mirza's wife: Shabana Azmi Mir (Meer) Roshan Ali: Saeed Jaffrey Nafeesa, Mir’s wife: Farida Jalal
Wajid Ali Shah, Nawab (king): Amjad Khan General Outram: Sir Richard Attenborough
Ali Naqi Khan, the prime minister: Victor Bannerjee
The chess games b/w Mirza and Meer mirror the chess game between Wajid and Outram/ Brits.
capitalism’s need for continuous profit and expansion. Chess Players of course shows this economic motivation of colonialism as well.
Ray himself has said of CP that he was "portraying two negative forces, feudalism and
colonialism. You had to condemn both Wajid and Dalhousie. This was the challenge. I wanted to make this condemnation interesting by bringing in certain plus points of both the sides. You have to read this film between the lines."
Discussion Q’s here: to what extent is Wajid positive sympathetic? Are we supposed to see Wajid/Oudh in this way?
On one hand, the film is about two apolitical chess-players happily oblivious to their erupting world, unable to find peace at home, and their escape when they do realize the times are out of joint─ i.e. that the larger, outside world is in chaos.. On the other hand, Wajid Ali Shah, the last Nawab of Oudh, a weak ruler who gave in to the British without a fight, and General Outram determined to implement Dalhousie's annexation policy - the last two characters received what many critics/intellectuals perceived to be an overly sympathetic treatment. Dalhousie and the Brits are not criticized or condemned harshly enough for some viewers/critics, and for others Wajid is shown too sympathetically.
What I will try and argue about the film is that both such reactions are deeply flawed and miss the point of the film,
1. The Brits are indeed harshly condemned and criticized but in a deep and not
nationalist/patriotic but humanist or philosophical way. They are bringing a way of life that is alien to the native society and culture. They are also brutal and just taking over India for economic/greed motives.
2. Wajid is a weak king by British…which is to say by Modern or Western standards. But are these fair or even good standards? How does the film characterize him? I would say as primarily different. Not weak but something like a poet-king of a very different society. He may be weak in the sense of being pacifist or not militaristic. He does not fight back. He tries to reason but this doesn’t work. Which in turn says a lot about the type of reason and rationality of the colonizers.
economically (as compared to later British control and other feudal rulers), and did command loyalty among his feudal elite/cadres. That there was a huge, violent rebellion in Oudh and Lucknow does suggest this. And regardless, the film itself – esp. Wajid’s speeches – do show his admirable qualities.
