A passage to India is an extremely political movie in my point of view, as it discusses the main aspects of politics starting with imperialism, economics, religion and the relationship between Indians and British most of all. The film deals with each of the aspects individually but at the end it reaches the point the director wants the viewer to understand which is politics.
The first dimension being criticized in the film is Imperialism. British are convinced that they are capable of leading India, and protect it from any troubles especially between Muslims and Hindus, which is ironic, because British fail to understand Indian religion and culture; they even refuse to mix up with Indians to at least get to know their way of thinking in order to know what they need and want. For example, when Mrs. Moore visited the mosque, and was obviously quite impressed or at least touched by the place and the fact that God was there as she said she felt so. When she got back and told her son about god and religion, he told her that she was sick, and that was probably why she thought and talked that way, and that is the way most British think of religion.
British acts most like it is their home country they are living in, and sometimes even more. They live in houses which are similar to theirs; they have almost the same sort of life which Indians are of course excluded from. They treat Indians like they are nothing, their existence is not important to them, and that is showed in one of their conversations they had in the club, where a Dr. said: "the best thing you can do to a sick "native" is to let him die". This parallels the way British look at Indians, British are the leaders of this country, and Indians are only natives being led by them.
British believe that their presence in India is a must; or else, Indians would be in a mess. Contradictory, is when some Indians asked Mr. Fielding, why do you think that your presence, you British, is important to us? We have a lot of Indians who are capable of leading India and to be in positions you are taking now. There he couldn't answer; he couldn't justify his presence in India where there are better Indians who deserve to be in their position more than anybody else. This applies on most of British in India, they can't justify their existence there, yet, they can't admit that their presence there is unimportant especially to Indians, who think that it is best for them for Englishmen to leave.
On the other hand, the film hints to the economic consequences of British imperialism in India. British claim to be in India for the good of Indians, whereas in fact, they are there to increase their own wealth from India's resources, because, as we know, India is a loaded country, Indian's are not able to exploit it because the lack of ability and freedom as they are led by the British, so British are taking advantage of being there to suck every other thing that is worthy to them from Indian's land.
The relationship between Indians and British is political to some extend as well. Indians cannot accept British as friends because of the fact that they have taken their land. Likewise, the Englishmen cannot accept Indians as friends because they tend to be in a higher class and the fact that they are the leaders of this country and they can't be friends with the "Natives" as they regard all Indians as their inferior. An example of this is when the Indians got the invitation from the British to go to their club for the bridge party, the way the sat and talked seriously about this matter, as if they were going to start a war, showed how sensitive and awkward it is to receive an invitation from British to Indians.
In conclusion, I think that no matter was the relationship between eastern and westerns, there still would be those boundaries which each cannot step out of, and the reason is that those two nations cannot cross the lines which are drawn by politics. The westerns minds would still be of colonialism and imperialism, and the eastern would still not accept the fact of being led by a foreign country.
The first dimension being criticized in the film is Imperialism. British are convinced that they are capable of leading India, and protect it from any troubles especially between Muslims and Hindus, which is ironic, because British fail to understand Indian religion and culture; they even refuse to mix up with Indians to at least get to know their way of thinking in order to know what they need and want. For example, when Mrs. Moore visited the mosque, and was obviously quite impressed or at least touched by the place and the fact that God was there as she said she felt so. When she got back and told her son about god and religion, he told her that she was sick, and that was probably why she thought and talked that way, and that is the way most British think of religion.
British acts most like it is their home country they are living in, and sometimes even more. They live in houses which are similar to theirs; they have almost the same sort of life which Indians are of course excluded from. They treat Indians like they are nothing, their existence is not important to them, and that is showed in one of their conversations they had in the club, where a Dr. said: "the best thing you can do to a sick "native" is to let him die". This parallels the way British look at Indians, British are the leaders of this country, and Indians are only natives being led by them.
British believe that their presence in India is a must; or else, Indians would be in a mess. Contradictory, is when some Indians asked Mr. Fielding, why do you think that your presence, you British, is important to us? We have a lot of Indians who are capable of leading India and to be in positions you are taking now. There he couldn't answer; he couldn't justify his presence in India where there are better Indians who deserve to be in their position more than anybody else. This applies on most of British in India, they can't justify their existence there, yet, they can't admit that their presence there is unimportant especially to Indians, who think that it is best for them for Englishmen to leave.
On the other hand, the film hints to the economic consequences of British imperialism in India. British claim to be in India for the good of Indians, whereas in fact, they are there to increase their own wealth from India's resources, because, as we know, India is a loaded country, Indian's are not able to exploit it because the lack of ability and freedom as they are led by the British, so British are taking advantage of being there to suck every other thing that is worthy to them from Indian's land.
The relationship between Indians and British is political to some extend as well. Indians cannot accept British as friends because of the fact that they have taken their land. Likewise, the Englishmen cannot accept Indians as friends because they tend to be in a higher class and the fact that they are the leaders of this country and they can't be friends with the "Natives" as they regard all Indians as their inferior. An example of this is when the Indians got the invitation from the British to go to their club for the bridge party, the way the sat and talked seriously about this matter, as if they were going to start a war, showed how sensitive and awkward it is to receive an invitation from British to Indians.
In conclusion, I think that no matter was the relationship between eastern and westerns, there still would be those boundaries which each cannot step out of, and the reason is that those two nations cannot cross the lines which are drawn by politics. The westerns minds would still be of colonialism and imperialism, and the eastern would still not accept the fact of being led by a foreign country.