About Us | Editorial Board |Submission Guidelines |Call for Paper

Paper Submission | FAQ |Terms & Condition | More…….

IJELLH Volume V, Issue X, October 2017 881

Dr. G. Anand Binod Singh,

Senior Lecturer, Department of Basic Studies.

DMI-St. John The Baptist University,

Malawi

Email: anand2015english@gmail.com

A Postcolonial Discourse in Amitav Ghosh’s The Glass Palace

Abstract

This study examines the postcolonial and anti-colonial reading of representations which
exist in The Glass Palace written by Indian postcolonial writer Amitav Ghosh. The study also
examines Ghosh’s work according to the postcolonial theory and gives importance to the
premises of main theorist in this field. The novel The Glass Palace is a saga about three
generations of two closely linked families in Burma, India and Malaya from 1885 to 1956.It is
a historical novel about the British colonization of Burma. This novel is more than merely a
revisionary rewriting of a portion of the history of the British empire from the perspective of
the colonized subaltern. The article, therefore, aims to explore the overall structure of the novel
through postcolonial approach and provides examples from the novel regarding the application
of some postcolonial elements such as obscurity, memory, imagination, identity, essentialism,
otherness, ambivalence, nationalism, space/place, diaspora, hybridity, unbelonging,
independence…etc.

Key Words: Colonialism, Neocolonialism, Cultural and Social Implications, Colonial and
Postcolonial Images, Hybrid Identities.

Amitav Ghosh, a remarkable postcolonial writer in English much travelled and much awarded,
has gained a status in the literary world which is hard to beat. He was born in Calcutta on 11th
July 1956. His father was a diplomat and mother a home maker. As a result of his father’s
overseas service, he travelled and saw a great deal of the world. In course of his father’s
postings and assignments, Ghosh spent his youth in Sri Lanka, Iran and East Pakistan (now
Bangladesh). His uncle was a timber merchant in Burma and he drew a lot of ideas from this
IJELLH Volume V, Issue X, October 2017 882

branch of the family for his novel The Glass Palace. His encounter with colonized countries
helped him to gain a global vision in his assessment of the phenomena of colonialism.

Colonialism had cast a deleterious effect on the colonies that they still find it
difficult to free themselves from the hangover in spite of their self-rule and independence. Even
in the postcolonial era, they undergo the ramifications as the very fabrics of the countries were
irreparably damaged. Apart from the damage at the physical level, the psychological damage
is more serious and severe. While subjecting colonialism to an analysis, it is quite imperative
to take into account the study of postcolonialism as a reaction to this historical accident.
Postcolonial discourses make counter arguments to the false claims of colonialism.

Colonialism and Post colonialism are umbrella terms which cover a gamut of issues
and features under their fold. Both of them embody hybridity, crerolisation, mestizaje,
inbetweenness, diaspora, subalternity, identity etc. In this regard, AniaLoomba critiques
“Postcolonial studies have been preoccupied with the issues of hybridity, creolization,
mestizaje, in-betweeness, diaspora and liminality, with the mobility and cross-overs of ideas
and identities generated by colonialism” (171).

AmitavGhosh though considered both as postcolonial and postmodern writer

incorporates the theme of immigration and diaspora frequently and invariably. In all his
writings, he handles the subject vividly. Probably, it may be due to his own migration and
diasporic experiences. Anyhow, on close scrutiny one can discern the vestiges of colonialism
in his fictional oeuvre very easily.

When The Glass Palace was first published, it immediately gained recognition and
fame. It won the 2001 Frankfurt Book Award of 50000 dollars. It was also on the list as a
regional winner of the Commonwealth Writers prize. But AmitavGhosh withdrew from
competition because of the name Commonwealth Literature. One of the reasons for his refusal
was that he felt the word Commonwealth excluded many languages that sustained the cultural
and literary lives of these countries. Ghosh when he was awarded the Commonwealth prize for
The Glass Palace refused it with the following words.

As a grouping of nations collected from the remains of the British Empire, the
Commonwealth serves as an umbrella forum in global politics. As a literary or
cultural grouping however, it seems to me that “the Commonwealth” can only
be a misnomer so long as it excludes the many languages that sustain the cultural
and literary lives of these countries (it is surely inconceivable, for example, that
IJELLH Volume V, Issue X, October 2017 883

athletes would have to be fluent in English in order to qualify for the

Commonwealth Games).

So far as I can determine, The Glass Palace is eligible for the Commonwealth
Prize partly because it was written in English and partly because I happen to
belong to a region that was once conquered and ruled by Imperial Britain. Of
the many reasons why a book’s merits may be recognized these seem to me to
be the least persuasive. That the past engenders the present is of course
undeniable; it is equally undeniable that the reasons why I write in English are
ultimately rooted in my country’s history. Yet, the ways in which we remember
the past are not determined solely by the brute facts of time: they are also open
to choice, reflection and judgment. The issue of how the past is to be
remembered lies at the heart of The Glass Palace and I feel that I would be
betraying the spirit of my book if I were to allow it to be incorporated within
that particular memorialization of Empire that passes under the rubric of “the
Commonwealth”. I therefore ask that I be permitted to withdraw The Glass
Palace from your competition. (Ghosh, letter)

In his second novel The Shadow Lines, Ghosh deals with concepts of nationhood
and representations of history and concludes that all borders are imaginary. He interrogates
historical constructs and attempts a reconstruction of public history through personal
perceptions. The Glass Palace too has at its heart a narration of the histories of Burma, India,
Malaysia and the British Empire. History is a living present in most of Ghosh’s books. He
presents a perception of history from his own internationalist point of view. The Glass Palace
opens with the resonance of English canon as the British attack the Burmese on 14th November
1885 in which the Burmese army quickly surrenders to the British. The Burmese king and
queen are transported or exiled to Retnagiri in India. The Burmese Royal family initially resists
the alien culture but later on accepts and adapts to the circumstances. Queen Supalayat and
King Thebaw learn Hindustani and speak it better than the Bengalis. The queen tries to keep
her daughters aristocratic but they decide to marry common people. In course of the story, the
fate of other royal family members are also told. Thebaw dies and the second princess marries
and the family gradually fades and gets absorbed into the culture of India.

Forced migration of the royal family robs them of their dignity and degrades their
existence which finds expression in The Glass Palace. The manner in which the Royal Family
is escorted out of their palace makes them lose face in the eyes of their populace whom they
IJELLH Volume V, Issue X, October 2017 884

had once ruled with a lot of pomp. The description of their departure is a clear reflection of
how British colonialism divested indigenous people of their dignity.

Rajkumar is a central character in the novel whose personal history is entwined

with colonial history. He comes from Akyab, a place where Burma and Bengal meet. His entire
family is wiped out because of fever. His mother is the last to die while she is attempting to
travel back to their ancestral home in Chittagong. Rajkumar is left as an orphan on the boat and
works for his living on the boat. However in Mandalay, the Burmese royal capital the boat
owner dismisses him because the boat has to undergo extensive repairs. He comes for
employment to Ma-Cho and meets Saya John. Thus, he is on the spot when the British invade
and overthrow the Burmese monarchy. He begins his life as an explorer boy and becomes very
successful. He is told that the British have taken control of Burma for the sake of wood. He
senses wealth in teak and soon his professional competence impressively goes up. According
to Rakee Moral

The Postcolonial space that Rajkumar inhabits first by virtue of being a Kalaa, a
foreigner in alien territory, then by being subjugated to colonization of another more veracious
kind in participating in the great national upheaval that the British occupation of Burma entails,
followed by yet another turbulent experience in imperial India and his forays into the Malaya
forest resources, makes him a true transnational. (144)

Both Saya John and Rajkumar adapt to the new colonial situation in order to make
money. They adjust themselves to opportunities. The despoiling of the royal family itself is
seen through the eyes of Rajkumar. As Kanwar Dinesh Singh says:

. . . It examines analytically the reasons for deposing the monarch, dislocating

the native forcibly, disorganizing the indigenous public life etc. The author quite
deftly lays bare the commercial and imperialist aims of the Britons, for the
accomplishments of which they have waged unlawful, barbaric, evil and
inhumane wars, and exploited, pillaged, damaged, and destroyed the colonies.
They not only take away the booty, but also disturb the calm, culture, ecology
and polity of the colonized nation. (157)

In spite of all this Rajkumar and Saya John take advantage of British colonialism
in order to become rich. T. Vinoda points out that people like Uma are quick to see that the
wily nature of the British pits Indians against Burmese in order to safeguard their interest and
to fortify the empire. But people like Rajkumar, blinded by the pursuit of wealth, indulge in
IJELLH Volume V, Issue X, October 2017 885

self serving rationalizations like: “Don’t you see that it is not just the empire those soldiers are
protecting it’s also Dolly and me?” (THE GLASS PALACE 247).

Wherever the British established themselves, they made their subjects believe that
they were indispensible for the development of that particular nation. There were generations
of colonized people like Rajkumar and Collector Dey who felt that the economy would collapse
if the British were to leave. The subtle indoctrination of British colonialism is brought out
clearly through the psyche of Rajkumar and Collector Dey.

As far as Rajkumar is concerned, he becomes a victim of anti-Indian sentiment in

Burma and has to finally leave the country and return to Calcutta in a destitute condition
dependent on Uma’s generosity. In spite of his Indian origin he yearns for Burma and feels that
the Ganges is not a substitute for the Irrawady. He does not have the astuteness of Uma to
analyze the dispossession that colonialism has brought into his life. But Rajkumar is not
forcibly made a migrant by the British as they had made others. The British had transported
thousands of poor Indians to work as coolies, rickshaw pullers and latrine cleaners. This section
of the Indian population was brought in because the local people would not do these menial
jobs. In addition it is made clear in the novel that the British soldiers who were deployed against
the Royal Family were actually Indians trained by the British and part of the British troops.

Rajkumar is beaten up as a boy because the Burmese perceive that the soldier who
took away their king and queen were Indians. Later on, he becomes a victim to anti-Indian
sentiments and is forced to leave the country. This conflict between two communities was
created by British colonialist practices and people like Rajkumar are unable to examine the
effect of his actions and why things happened to him. He is in marked to contrast to Arjun
whose inner dialogues and inner misgivings reveal his realization of the evil tendencies that
colonization has created.

Arjun gets admission to the prestigious military academy in Dehradun where he

becomes the Second Lieutenant in the first Jat Light Infantry. He and his friend, Hardy
(Hardayal) are the first Indian officers of this elite regiment. At first he feels very proud and
feels that they are representing the whole of India because they are the first beneficiaries of the
colonizers.

He is initiated into British Military Culture and food habits and becomes
intoxicated with it. For him to become a modern Indian was actually to be westernized. He is
in a great hurry to discard his Indian past and take on every western habit of thought. He
IJELLH Volume V, Issue X, October 2017 886

becomes the perfect English man in his “mimicry” and Kishan Singh calls him the ”Angrez”
(THE GLASS PALACE 297). His euphoria receives the first dent when he goes to attend his
sister’s marriage. He is part of the British occupation troops in Burma. Some congressmen
accuse Arjun for serving in an army of occupation. Arjun replies that they were there to defend
them meaning the British troops had been placed in Burma as a protective force. The men ask
“From whom are you defending us? From ourselves? From other Indians?” (THE GLASS
PALACE 288). They tried to tell him that the country needs to be defended from the British
who are his masters. After this, he encounters the antiwar protest march taken out by
Congressmen when he, Dinu and Uma are returning home from shopping in Calcutta. Hardy,
Arjun’s friend is the first to quit the British army. He is sane and sensible in his choice. It is a
question of right and wrong. What is worth fighting for and what is not. Arjun realizes that the
British colonialists were using the Indian armies against the Burmese and it created in him a
sense of self alienation, protest and then defiance. His decision to defect from the British army
is very painful and he also has to face the accusation of his commanding officer of how disloyal
and unfaithful he is; “When the time comes you’ll be hunted down, Roy. When you‘re sitting
in front of a court martial I’ll be there. I’ll see you hang, Roy. I will. You should have not a
moment’s doubt of that” (THE GLASS PALACE 450). Arjun responds “On that day, if it
comes, you’ll have done your duty, sir, and I’ll have done mine. “We’ll look at each other as
honest men- for the first time” (THE GLASS PALACE 450). In this way, Arjun’s new
consciousness comes to the surface questioning the false colonialist moral ideas voiced by
colonel Buckland.

Rakee Moral calls Uma the conscience of the Indian nation. The antiwar protest
march taken out by the Congressmen in Calcutta initiates a debate among Dinu, Arjun and
Uma. The fact that the resistance movement in India is leaning towards Germany and Japan
which makes Dinu state that Hitler and Mussolini are the most tyrannical and destructive
leaders in all of human history. He feels that India and Burma would be worse off if British
rule is replaced by the Germans. He mentions the ruthless killing of the Jews by the Germans.
This is a British point of view and Dinu has been indoctrinated well. Uma counters his
argument by saying that the Germans and Japanese are only following the imperialist models
set up by the British. In other words, the British are not superior to the Germans or the Japanese.
She says that the British Empire killed tens of millions of people in its conquest of the world.
And the best thing is to demolish the model itself, in other words to demolish imperialism itself.
Dinu then talks about the evils like the caste system, untouchability, widow burning etc that
IJELLH Volume V, Issue X, October 2017 887

were present before the British Empire. Uma defends the Indian Position by saying that the
struggle for Independence is not separate from the struggle for reform. If the British came to
India with the idea of reform why then did they conquer Burma which had an egalitarian
society? The position of women in Burmese society was very high, in fact, higher than that of
the West. There was no poverty and universal literacy was prevalent. In this way, she points
out that the imperialists did not come to do good as they came because of their greed. Gosh
exposes the diabolic intention of the colonizers through the arguments of Uma and Dinu.

Dinu is the son of Rajkumar and Dolly. He evolves into an intellectual and he has been
taught in the schools and colleges set up by the British. When Burma and India achieved
Independence, his gratitude to the Britishers remains intact. The military regime that takes over
after the British leaves has created a sense of insecurity and fear. The purpose of driving out
the British was to create a democratic society. But this does not happen. Dinu praises the British
that they gave more freedom to common people. At least the common man was not subjected
to being spied upon.

The voices in The Glass Palace are that of the colonized. Ghosh explores various
aspects of the colonized psyche. Rajkumar and Saya John are not forced immigrants into
Burma. The course of their lives is involved in money making under the umbrella of the British
and it makes them collaborators in the process. Rajkumar like the British brings scores of
Indians to work in the oil rich mines of Burma. His son, Dinu too does not reject the British
completely. The sense of regret at the departure of the colonialist force is also an apt reflection
of the indoctrination that had become deeply embedded in the psyche of the colonized. The
debates and arguments in support of the colonizers and also against them reveal meaningful
insights into the historical moments of colonization and the ambivalence of the colonized.
Characters like Dinu praise the colonizers and follow their habits and customs. Yet they remain
basically rooted to the soil where they were born. Their straddling of the cultures of the East
and West simultaneously enforces their ambivalent attitude. It is one of the features of
postcolonial discourses.

Thus this paper made an attempt to explicate the various ways in which the novelist
depicts colonialism as being exploitative and destructive. The novelist also examines the
political phenomenon that emerged in native countries as a result of the imperialist colonial
impact. He suggests that neo colonialism still exists by examining processes of globalization.
He uses micro narratives to give powerful picture of the processes of colonialism that destroyed
colonized countries. His intention is also to go back to pre-colonial times in order to emphasize
IJELLH Volume V, Issue X, October 2017 888

the life of unity and integration that existed before the British and other Europeans took over
the colonies which resulted in the fragmentation and disintegration of those civilizations.
IJELLH Volume V, Issue X, October 2017 889

WORK CITED

Primary Sources

Ghosh, Amitav. The Glass Palace.Noida: HarperCollins, 2009. Print.

Secondary Sources

Loomba, Ania. Colonialism/Postcolonialism. New York: Routledge, 2015. 171. Print.

“Letter to the Administrators of Commonwealth Writers,” http://www.outlookindia

.com/article/the-conscientious-objector/211102.

Moral, Rakhee. “In Time of the Breaking of Nations: The Glass Palace as Postcolonial
Narrative.” Amitav Ghosh: Critical Perspectives. Ed. Bose, Brinda. Delhi: Pencraft
International, 2005, 139-54. Print.

Singh, Kanwar Dinesh. “Exile as Leitmotif in AmitavGhosh’s The Glass Palace.”The Fiction
of Amitav Ghosh: An Assessment. Dwivedi,OmPrakash. Jaipur: Book Enclave, 2010.
147-58. Print.

Vinoda,T. “A Tale of Three Countries: The Glass Palace as a Postcolonial Text.” Littcrit30. 2
(2004):7-24. Web. 16 Sept. 2014.