Initial thoughts on Cracking India

I have read through a bit of Cracking India and I thought it has been a very funny, thought provoking novel which chronicled a very light and dark moment in India's history.

I was struck immediately by the contrasts in paragraphs, and even within some sentences themselves. On page 12, Bapsi Sidwa writes a quote which states, "He smiles down on me, his brown eyes screaming intolerance." Normally, one would think of smiling as a kind, nice gesture. Certainly someone that is four years old would think this. However, he seems to be smiling out of deceipt and maybe through refined thinking she would be able to think this. Another, more obvious example of a contrast is when she writes on page 13, "The bond that ties her strength to my weakness, my fierce demands to her nuturing, my trust to her capacity to contain that trust-and my lonliness to her compassion- is stronger than the bond of motherhood." I'm very interested in what the significance of this sentence is. Perhaps she is comparing India to England, or India to Pakistan, yet I can't shake the feeling that it is a metaphor that stands out for something, some aspect of independence. Finally, the last comparison that I have is a brief one, back on page 12, when the Englishman is dissappointed that his orders are not being obeyed by Lenny, "...the Englishmen quietly dissolves up the driveway from which he had enthusiastically sprung". This seems to be an obvious metaphor for the departure of the British. They had arrived in India, so enthusiastically, intent on continuing to build their large area and left in the mid-20th century as a wounded, dejected region.

Another topic that I found very interesting in the novel was the relations between men and women in this novel, particularly with respect to age. It seemed as if men were able to get away with more actions than females were able to. "Adi can swear and its a big joke. Rosy can curse and look cute. Papoo can let fly a string of invective sounds like a lullaby, and manages to appear roguish. And I cannot say a damned thing without being told it does not suit me (57)!" Though there is another female described in this paragraph, I believe the distinctions are quite clear. Lenny is not able to get away with the same actions that the rest of the characters, a large reason may be because of her gender and her "battle" with polio. This interaction was followed by brief bit about Imam Din. "Imam Din is tolerated because of his bristles in his closely cropped hair." Finally there was an incidence of domestic violence which caught my eye. They noted in a form of foreshadowing that, "Handling a woman not related to them [Muccho] would be an impropriety(54)." She proceeded to commit several acts of violence. Predictably, nobody intervened. This is probably a more modified form of violence, since women in other nations were allowed to be oppressed.

There is also excellent imagery that occurs in this novel. On page 12, Sidwa notes that, "The covetous glances Ayah draws educates me. Up and down, they look at her. Stub-handed twisted beggars and dusty old beggars on crutches drop their poses and stare at her with hard, alert eyes. Holy men, masked in piety, shove aside their pretenses to ogle her with lust. Hawkers, cart-drivers, cooks, coolies, and cyclists turn their heads as she passes, pushing my pram with the unconcern of the Hindu goddess she worships." There are a few implications that I believe may arise from this quote. One, is that ayah represented hope for the beggars; hope that they could find themselves in a better social situation in upcoming years. It also may be why thy suspend their pretenses; they would sacrifice their feelings in order to help themselves. I was also trying to figure out what the mention of a hindu goddess meant in the course of the novel. This is all for now. Over the course of the novel, I definitely will have more to say.

When is Ireland? Where is Ireland?

When is Ireland:

This film was made in 2006. While the film is as far as I know historically accurate (prisoners really did show their hands in photos in order to document missing fingers), it reconstructs the past to project Ireland and Northern Ireland's future. This is something I didn't notice the first time I viewed this film. For example, when the protagonists are captured and taken to prison Damien requests to be treated as a political prisoner. This recalls the hunger strikes of IRA members in the 80's, a call for legitimization.

When one cell of prisoners get left behind, I couldn't help but think of partition and Northern Ireland. At this moment in the film, after seeing Teddy get tortured, my emotional response was, "He held important information, the whole group could have been caught, they should have left them." By this response I justified the partition, or at least made sense of it. Similarly, the court scene, reflects Ireland's struggle separating itself from Britain. Like the allotment of the basket of groceries, Ireland hoped to be a welfare state. In this scene, there is a direct disagreement between classes, and maybe even between the rural and the urban. These are continual issues in Irish politics.

To me this film showed justification for each side of the argument. I wouldn't call the film neutral though, it pulls the viewer beyond this. In the end, I understood why Damien felt he couldn't betray the men, especially since he killed Chris Reilly, but I didn't like him for it. I left the film with vicarious regret. To me, because I was attached to Sinead, I found family to be more important than nationalistic violence. This film is about nationalism, and it uses Irish history to apply a specific theoretical take. The film largely ignores the civil rights issues that caused the Irish to organize, instead, each new member is converted by witnessing an act of violence. This frames the issue on human emotions, and not causation.

Where is Ireland:

Ulster is tricky. The Brits have been there a long time. Is Northern Irish a category in itself? Can a protestant be Northern Irish?

I am fascinated by the train conductor and his inclusion in this story. The rail lines cross the whole island, and would be bisected by partition.

In contrast, the house is stationary. There is a lineage connection with the land. The grandmother refuses to leave. The funeral is the first time we see inside the house. If Ireland is represented by the home, what does this say about the revolution? Later the house burns. At the end of the film, Teddy leaves the space of the house and Sinead weeps there. This is a division. From the beginning of the film, I never felt safe at the house, and the first violent act occurs there.

In "Space and the Irish Cultural Imagination," Smyth discusses Foucault's argument of dwelling in terms of functionality. (p. 7) This home does not function as a home normally would: as sanctuary, rest, of household, of family. It is dual leveled: psychically, and culturally/mentally/emotionally. The house is host to some of the most emotional moments in the film (Sinead at the end, the beginning killing, the house burning, the grandmother insisting on staying, etc.). Ireland is dual leveled. For rural farmers there is an especially strong connect between the land and sustenance, but there is also the notion of "Home Rule" and for fun let's play with "Dwelling Rule." Government functioning in reassurance, self-representation, reflecting cultural values. With little critique of the feudal system, I think the film exists mostly in this "functioning" space.

(The picture is of Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness. Some people have responded to consociational democracy negatively, hence the "Chuckle Brothers" nickname)