Saturday, April 9, 2011
Gandhi's Absence in Midnight's Children
I am intrigued by Gandhi's pronounced absence from Book I of Midnight's Children, which covers the years and events leading to Indian Independence in 1947. Throughout the world, Gandhi has become a symbol of tolerance and nonviolent protest; he was the hero of India's independence. Therefore, it makes no sense that Rushdie would leave out such an important and beloved character without specific reasons to do so. It is possible that Rushdie simply didn't see the use in celebrating an individual whose reputation was already so spotless. Perhaps Rushdie didn't feel the need to put effort into retelling such a popular story. However, I think that a large deal of Gandhi's absence must be attributed to Saleem himself. After all, Saleem is telling us his story; within this metafictional construction, the omission is truly Saleem's, rather than Rushdie's. Perhaps Saleem sees himself as a competitor or potential replacement for Gandhi. Saleem holds hundreds of millions of people together, just as Gandhi managed to do in the midst of a colonial crisis. Now, after independence and with Gandhi killed, the stage is set for Saleem and the rest of the Midnight's Children to take the reins and serve as models for the character and society of India. The implication that Saleem is focused on himself reinforces that concept of the postmodern anti-hero who has ulterior motives and cannot be trusted as a narrator.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Very intreresting Collin. Although, while reading Midnight's Children, I never noticed any direct references to Ghandi, I did notice references to what could be Ghandi's wife, Indira . At one point in the novel, Saleem actually says, "India is Indira and Indira is India". I believe Saleem perceives Indira as a sort of mother figure for India. Saleem uses Indira to personify India because he believes she encapsulates everything India represents.
Collin, I was also perplexed by Gandhi's absence from the novel. I've been trying to figure out Rushdie's rationale for evading Gandhi's legacy of peace and nonviolence but have not been able to reach a decision on my own. However, I completely agree with your suggestion. Saleem most likely does consider himself a figure comparable to Gandhi due to his own promotion of tolerance and diversity.
I actually noticed that Rushdie does mention Gandhi at one point in the novel. While recounting his story to Padma, Saleem notes that Gandhi's assasination was announced at the premiere of his Uncle Hanif's new film. However, later in course of his narration, Saleem discovers an error in chronology. He realizes that Gandhi's assasination did not really occur on the day that he originally recorded. Thus, Rushdie suggests that not only does Saleem avoid the topic of Gandhi, but he also intentionally provides the incorrect date of his assasination and fails to provide the proper one, which trivializes the hero even further.
Collin, you make a super interesting point by suggesting that Saleem might feel like he is in competition with Gandhi. It actually makes me think of Oskar in The Tin Drum when he compares himself to Jesus. They are both untrustworthy narrators that think of themselves as higher beings.
I had the same thoughts, Collin. I think Saleem sees Gandhi as almost a competitor. He is an incredibly famous man and everyone knows his importance to India's Independence. However, in Saleem's eyes, he (along with the other Midnight's Children) are the most important. He is an egocentric character so it is possible that Saleem excluded Gandhi from Book I to keep the focus on himself.
Post a Comment