The Jewel in the Crown is India

Often, when we, from the United States, begin to talk about colonial imperialism, the topic presents a conundrum not easily sorted out.  Examples from Franciphone Africa, China and its occupied territories, the mess left in South Africa, Brits in India, and (if we are brave enough to talk about it honestly) British in the US resulting in the genocide of Native Americans.  The topic overflows with examples of brutality, racism, oppression, servantry, power, control, and economic development.  If we're lucky, the discussion doesn't stop at the floodgates of guilt that quickly bubble up depending on how much one has thought about the topic of one's social identity and come to terms with these dynamics.  Isn't it?

One of the books (or sets of books) the students can choose to read before coming to India is the Raj Quartet by Paul M. Scott.  Jewel in the Crown is the first, but also the title of the miniseries that has been called the best miniseries of its time. 

Literary works of art - novels of the best storytelling and intrigue.  What makes a good story?  Lots of characters that you can identify with - characters with tragic flaws, ones that you fall in love with along with the storyline, ones that you hate because you see them one dimensionally until the secret behind them is revealed, and even then, you hate them a little bit for their cruelty.  Historical fiction works in this way - giving context of the time period (In JITC's case, 1942 - 1947 in India) by following characters along their journeys.  Characters that may or may not have actually existed at the time, but it doesn't matter.  The characters are telling the story of the history. 

Themes: Social commentary - Brits in India, or the history of Brits in India juxtaposed with India's own history, or the powerlessness to interact with it - power dynmaics and how they play out - WWII - Independence - Muslim/Hindu conflict -privilege - 'home' - graciousness/manners - drinking - love and how quickly or slowly the interaction takes place - taboos of sexuality -trust -...

I noticed how the characters never call each other out on their shit.  They just kind of bear it, sometimes to 'vent' to someone else about the behavior or decide what to do about it, but never to their faces.  (Example, Merrick, Susan's insanity)  Misunderstandings frustrate the viewer.

Colonialism is like a bad marriage - filled with frustration, angst, abuse, exploitation, joy, and sometimes love. 
Most of the Indians portrayed in the series are servants, sometimes cunning and stealing, sometimes supporting their Memsahibs perfectly.  Lady Chatterjee, Nawab and his family, and Hari Kumar have substantial roles.  It is quite skillful of the writer/director to spend such a time with Hari and Daphne creating an intense connection with them, then tragedy strikes.  They are not in the series physically for the rest of the episodes, but they hover in the storyline as a reminder of the ambiguity of disaster, unfortunate events, questions of identity and love; they ARE the main storyline, even though we finish with the Laytons and Ahmed's fate.  Hari and Daphne are the ominous bookends to the story, reminding the viewer that complications and dissapointment are the themes of the work.

Each episode includes actual wartime footage from WWII telling the story from the Indian/British perspective of the time.  Sarah, Merrick, Guy, and other characters are fully engaged in the security forces at different levels.  The footage brings reality to the stories of the characters and helps the viewer understand what the context is for their lives during each episode.  Another technique used is the ambiguity of the ending of each episode, sometimes in flames, sometimes just quietly ending without fanfare sneaking up on the viewer creating a feeling in me of expectation, tragic anticipation, or frustration at times.  There is no happy ending.  This solidifies the view that colonialism is like a bad marriage.

Pandit Baba, Gandhi/Nehru,

First Draft.

Today I learned...

that Gandhi and Nehru could have agitated the British further during the beginning of WWII potentially executing their campaign for home-rule while attentions were distracted with fascist regimes in Europe.  Not the case - They decided, along with the Bengali intellectual contingent (Tagore, Coomaraswamy and Nandalal Bose) that the fight against fascist regeimes was more important at the time than independence. 

Others such as Subhas Chandra Bose did not agree.  He wanted to take advantage of the weakened British state to gain independence.  He spent time with Hitler looking to connect on the "aryan" thing - meaning the Aryans origninated in the Indus river valley civilization, thus Bose saw himself as an Aryan, yet, Hitler didn't know what to do with him - he had dark skin and didn't fit the bill.  Hitler sent him to Japan.  Japanese didn't know what to do with him, so they sent him in to Burma to fight the Brits.  That lasted for a bit and then he was killed (more info needed).  There are some that think he is still out there in a cave somewhere waiting until the time is right when he will emerge as a messianic figure to lead India on to global domination.

The dangers of developing a national identity - seems Gandhi and the Bengalis had their feet on the ground and were able to balance their inspiration from the Russian and European idealist identity writers (Hegel, Tolstoy...) with the understanding of human empathy and Truth.  Bose missed the boat on that one. 

One can draw an argument here from looking at the development of the nation-state theology in the late 18th c. and take Hitler's third reich as an example of how destructive (yet mesmerizing) developing national identity can be.  The other example are the Indian nationalists in the middle of the 20th c. 

hm.