A Passage to India is most of all a story of a fragile friendship which carefully treads the cultural differences. Its a story of tiny misunderstandings and silly errors and their dramatic consequences. Adela Quested who arrives in colonial India with the best and purest intentions ends up causing irreparable damage to the reputation of an Indian doctor Dr Aziz, and in consequence ruins his friendship with Cyril Fielding, an English teacher. Adela is not so much a heroine but a catalyst of the events which due to unspoken feelings and wounded pride derail a friendship that almost succeed at bridging the gap between the two cultures but the structure is so delicate that the smallest things send massive ripples a pause in the wrong place, intonation, a meaningless clichéd phrase misunderstood, and the whole conversation is doomed. In the end Forsters conclusion is that redemption and any future friendship is only possible after the end of colonialism because the power imbalance would always get in the way of the noblest sentiments. The optimistic point Forster is trying to make (I think, although I might be wrong) is that it is not cultural incompatibility thats ruining it for everyone, its only the tension between the oppressors and the oppressed. Yes, people may misunderstand each others social cues if they are not culturally aware but without the colonial baggage and resentment this could be easily resolved.Clear out, you fellows, double quick, I say. We may hate one another, but we hate you most. If I don't make you go, Ahmed will, Karim will, if it's fifty-five hundred years we shall get rid of you, yes, we shall drive every blasted Englishman into the sea, and then "he rode against him furiously "and then," he concluded, half kissing him, "you and I shall be friends."Its one of the better books that speak against racism, but of course its not entirely free of racism itself. But I cant imagine how it could possibly be, especially considered when and by whom it was written. Even now its almost impossible to completely rid our thoughts of the concept of the Other. And accepting it and being aware of it is probably going to produce better results than the adorably naïve attitude like that of Mrs Moore who arrived in India, accompanying Adela, and thinking she could undo the damage of the entire socio-political structure of colonial India by simply being a nice human being. The same way she thought she could survive Indian heat but in the end it killed her., because the nature in A Passage to India is mostly oppressive and even hostile it puts up a fight against the British. I particularly liked the comedy of horrors that was the description of the absurd trial and how things spiralled out of control on both sides and Mrs Moore became a kind of pre-Internet meme as Esmis Esmoor, while Dr Aziz lost all his personal characteristics, even to the people that knew him well, and became the embodiment of the dark-skinned monster. Those stereotypes are never buried deep and can be excavated very quickly if need be. Immediately men in the novel start talking about women and children and once protect our women and children enters the stage all reason will be abandoned. Thats how these men mask their own fear and vulnerability. Were not afraid, of course, for we are strong men, but our women and children must protect women and children, most protect women and children. Some atavistic auto-pilot gets turned on and you can go on any senseless war, as long as youre protecting women and children.As expected, A Passage to India is beautifully written. I read it many months ago but I still remember the opening paragraph and the mixture of striking descriptions and gentle irony, so characteristic of Forsters style. On the first page you will find the phrase the temples ineffective in the description of Chandrapore and its lack of charm. Even these two words could be interpreted in different ways. Are the temples ineffective as a place of worship, because they have been of no help against the invasion of the British, or are they ineffective as landmarks from the British tourist-visitor point of view. Or this little sentence on the landscape of India:[] The boulders said, I am alive, the small stones answered, I am almost alive.Forster tries to be fair in his descriptions of the characters, both Indian and English and even if he ridicules them, he does so with some affection but its always clear that its the British who start off from the position thats simply morally wrong and thats refreshing for a book from that era. Its hard to write fair about the Other, some even question whether anyone should, whether we should leave those stories to the Others themselves to tell. And of course we should, but at the same time I think it is a brave thing to do to try to write from that different perspective and a great exercise in empathy as long as you accept you will never be absolutely 100% fair. Mrs Moores son, Ronny, who is a colonial official, like many before him, found a way to deal with the cognitive dissonance by completely redefining the reality of colonialism; in his narrative the British arrived in India to help people there, bring peace and order (and not to steal all the countrys riches). He seems to truly believe it. Forster doesnt portray him as evil, just lazy and conformist.Even the good Englishman, Cyril Fielding, is not free of the imperialistic mindset and he seems conform more and more as the book goes on. Was conformism the true villain of this novel?Its open to many readings and interpretations a whole PhD could be written on gender in A Passage to India. Race, imperialism, and all of it with the undertones of repressed sexuality, especially in the fantastic scene in the caves (that really should make anyone hot and bothered and filled with a mixture of fear and excitement if they know how to read all the symbols, that is). It looks on things from the personal point of view thats nonetheless immersed in the political. And thats my favourite kind of writing, when the personal is political and the political is personal. Zadie Smith, Forsters devoted fan, wrote lovingly about him in the New York review of books. You can read it here: http://novelssince1900.blogspot.co.uk... (or on the actual NYbooks website if you are a subscriber). I didnt love this novel when I read it. But now, months later, I think I do. And unlike boyfriends, its never too late to love a novel.

This book is a classic, but its motifs of culture clash and racialism strike an unfortunate chord in current times. *****The plot revolves around an Englishwoman who wrongly accuses a Muslim Indian doctor of attempting to assault her while they're visiting mystical Indian caves. Set in a time when the British controlled India, the book has several sub-themes. One is the condescending attitude and behavior of the Brits toward the Indian people and the consequent mistrust and dislike the Indians felt toward the Brits. Another is the vast cultural divide that made friendship almost impossible between the Indians and Brits at that time. My problem with the book is that many of the thoughts, emotions, and behaviors that E.M. Forster attributed to the Indian people don't ring true to me. It feels like the author's personal attitudes about India were foisted onto the native characters.....and not in a favorable way. Nevertheless, it's an interesting story, lyrically told, and gives little glimpses into the Hindu and Muslim customs of old India.You can follow my reviews at https://reviewsbybarbsaffer.blogspot....

So easy going - and then wham!Quentin Tarantino could learn a lot from E M Forster. He'd learn that there's no need to pile on the menace in the early stages. The shock, when it comes is much more effective if the reader/viewer has been led into thinking all is ordinary and relatively safe. Forster is a master story teller, and a true philosopher as well.