Reading 1001 discussion

In the dialog and thoughts of his three primary characters, Tagore explored many issues and conflicts of social relationships and the stresses they bring. One of his three characters, Bimala, has not left the home estate for many years (but is to leave at the end of the novel). Nevertheless, she is strongly impacted by the larger world of Bengali India and becomes a character in others' lives. Her husband Nikhail struggles with the community and himself to break free of archaic mores of Indian society.
The antithesis of varying views of truth and of a woman's place in Indian society are primary themes.

Wonderful prose, but well heavy on the allegory. The Home is the microcosmos to the World, and the relationships between the characters mirror the forces of society.

Bimala is Bengal, the mother goddess, the wife, the mistress, the sister. She is all of womanhood, and her future is to be determined, but by whom? Her mother-in-law and sister-in-law represent tradition and resist all change. Her husband Nikhil is the conservative reformer who believes so strongly in Truth and freedom and spirituality that he will not actively fight to keep his wife; he will only hope that she chooses him. Their guest Sandip, on the other hand, is the revolution, but also a demagogue and a conman. He is more than willing to fight for, and take, everything he wants. In the middle of all of this is Bimala, and nothing in her life so far has equipped her to make the right choices. Caught up in the drama is also the young and idealistic Amulya, protege of Sandip, whom Bimala starts to regard like a younger brother who must be saved from his own fervor.

I found Sandip to be practically a caricature of a villain at times, whereas Nikhail was overly passive. Would it have hurt him to communicate with his wife a bit more? Letting her have the freedom to make her own choices is great and all, but she was stuck in the palace and only presented with Sandip's charismatic lies and flattery.

The book is one philosophical discussion after another, and if seems like every paragraph is allegorical. I was pleased and relieved that it didn't take a lurid physical turn, the battle for Bimala's affections is one for her soul, not her body. And as the battle raged, in the home and in the outside world, I kept hoping for everything to turn out alright. I wonder what Tagore would have thought of the Partition had he lived to see it. I think he would have wept.

As Leni calls out, this short novel is largely an allegorical tale that presents us with Bengal being torn apart by dual forces. There is the force of righteous revolution but with morally suspect means to accomplish the end goal, versus a calm intellectual and communal approach which would value the truth but may not get you free of the British. The country is represented by a devoted wife Bimala (without blemish) who has always practiced purdah, which was essentially the seclusion of the women from the world. She meets the fiery revolutionary Sandip and her eyes are opened to the distress of her country and the passion that she has lacked in her life. Nikhail, Bimala's husband, is our truth seeker but he is also a caring man who wants to give Bimala her freedom if that is what she wishes. The story is told in the voices of these three characters with some varying perspective giving the reader deeper insight into the situation.
The writing style is very florid in a Victorian meets Bollywood movie way and is full of a poetry that I did not wholly appreciate. However, Tagore won the Nobel prize for his innovations and modernity as well as his beautiful language use, so clearly this book was appreciated in 1915. The intellectual political conversations that the book is largely made up of also did not totally stand the test of time for me especially because the author had a clear preference for Nikhail over Sandip. I also found that my lack of background in the Indian culture made many of the references soar over my head.
I did appreciate being introduced to this classic book in the Indian canon.

I found this fascinating. Tagore presents his story in a way that is common now but wasn't at the time: different chapters from the three main characters' points of view. He begins with Bimala, a contented (in the beginning) childless wife living in the seclusion of purdah in a wealthy home in Bengal with her husband Nikhil and a sister-in-law, the widow of Nikhil's older brother. Nikhil introduces a friend, Sandip, into the home. Sandip is active in the movement for Bengali/Indian independence from colonial rule, and he wins Bimala over to this with the power of his personality. There is a suggestion of physical seduction that is never carried through.

There is also, as others have said, a sense in which Bimala stands for Bengal (or India) faced with a choice between passive and active resistance to colonial rule. There is a battle for Bimala's loyalty, but Nikhil never fights. His ideal is more religious and spiritual: Bimala will stay loyal to him if that's what the fates/gods decree. Sandip is treacherous and soon loses our sympathy. I was surprised to read that Tagore supported Indian independence because he seems to be behind Nikhil in the acceptance of the status quo; but perhaps he was against violence, or thought it was not yet the time. The book foresees the partition of Bengal 30 years before it happened.

I admit to skimming some of the more esoteric dialogues, but I really enjoyed it overall. 4 stars.