The History Book Club discussion
This topic is about
The Day of the Scorpion
HISTORY OF SOUTHERN ASIA
>
WE ARE OPEN - WEEK TWO~THE DAY OF THE SCORPION~June 23-June 29~PART TWO - A History (43-72) No Spoilers
date
newest »
newest »
We do not have to do citations regarding the book or the author being discussed during the book discussion on these discussion threads - nor do we have to cite any personage in the book being discussed while on the discussion threads related to this book.However if we discuss folks outside the scope of the book or another book is cited which is not the book and author discussed then we do have to do that citation according to our citation rules. That makes it easier to not disrupt the discussion.
Chapter Overview and SummaryPART TWO ~ A History
We again meet Lady Manners, the late Daphne's aunt who now has responsibility for Daphne's child. Parvati. She is moving with the season back to Pindit. She ponders her years with her old servant Suleim who has been with her many years before she was widowed. He worshiped Sir Henry, Lady Manner's late husband, but will not acknowledge Daphne's bi-racial child or the memory of Daphne. She also knows that she will not be very socially acceptable to her British friends in Pindit because of the child. She knows she will be welcome by her Indian friend Lady Lili Chitterjee, who we also met in the first book.
A young woman named Sarah Layton does visit just prior to the seasonal move but Lady Manners thinks it was strictly for the reason of viewing the child, Parvata. Other members of the Layton family chose not to pay a call.
We get a feel for the town of Pankot, which is the cool weather station for part of the British Army and a recruiting station for the Army. The history of the Laytons is described, one based on military service in India. We learn that they are acquainted with Mr. Kasim who was a law student at the time.
Susan, Sarah's sisters remembers their first house in Pankot when she saw a scorpion, when surrounded by a ring of fire created by one of the servants, sting itself to death. She remembered it as the day of the scorpion, thus the name of the book.
We have opened up a day early, so here's to a good week of reading.
Question:Knowing that she would be shunned by her English friends, why do you think that Lady Manners kept the child, Parvata, when the baby could easily have been placed in an orphanage? Having a child of mixed blood was "just not done" and was anathema to the British.
And, seemingly, anathema to the Indians as well, if we can judge by Kasim's reactions in the previous chapter and Suleiman's in this one. Lady Manners seems to have genuinely cared for Daphne and is saddened by her loss. Keeping Parvata is a way of extending Daphne's presence in her life and showing her love. Also, being older and having outlived her husband and niece, LM has become very reflective at this point in her life. She has always made the safe and acceptable choices, the ones that none of her friends would have been surprised by. A nice metaphor was the scarf-buying incident. She settles for buying a conservative scarf that would "offend no one" over the more exciting one that she wonders if she would ever wear and yet is somewhat disappointed by her final choice. "...she regretted buying something that would give her neither pleasure nor pain, and wondered at the marvel of losing an opportunity to make a gesture others and she herself could have described later as out of character" (p. 537). So, maybe keeping Parvata is a way of showing a little rebellion against the conservative standards that have governed her life. It is a risky choice but one that has the potential of providing both "pleasure and pain" - placing her squarely in the land of the living. And she knows that she has at least one ally in her friend Lady Chatterjee. And often in life, one good friend is all we really need.
I'm fascinated by Lady Manners' choice of names for the child (or did Daphne choose the name?). Here are some of Wikipedia's notes on the complicated subject of the Hindu Goddess, Parvati: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parvati Parvati is a form of the mother Goddess. She is the second consort of Shiva, the Hindu God of destruction and rejuvenation. Among her 108 names, Parvati is addressed as the fair one, Gauri, as well as the dark one, Kali. The twin opposite colors, white and black represent the two opposing natures of the Goddess.
Parvata is one of the Sanskrit words for "mountain"; "Parvati" translates to "She of the mountains" and refers to Parvati being born the daughter of Himavan, lord of the mountains and the personification of the Himalayas. Parvati's name is also sometimes considered a form of 'pavitra', meaning 'sinless' or 'holy' in Sanskrit.
Did Lady Manners know this? Surely yes. I think Sarah Layton reads Lady Manners correctly when she says, enviously, "What a lot you know."
Donna wrote: "And, seemingly, anathema to the Indians as well, if we can judge by Kasim's reactions in the previous chapter and Suleiman's in this one. Lady Manners seems to have genuinely cared for Daphne an..."
Donna.....we may be long lost twins!!! I framed that first question based on the scarf incident and her fear of offending others by something a little more exotic. And even though she thought later that she should have made the other choice, because of her ingrained attitude of "what is done", she did not buy it. But yet she kept Daphne's child and the repercussions of that would be much more extreme. Your comments are interesting and it may be that she wanted a part of Daphne in her life and took her chances regarding social reaction.
Hana wrote: "I'm fascinated by Lady Manners' choice of names for the child (or did Daphne choose the name?). Here are some of Wikipedia's notes on the complicated subject of the Hindu Goddess, Parvati: http://e..."I may have to go back to the first book to ascertain who named the child but I'm not sure that it was mentioned. Regardless of who did, the name is rather symbolic, especially in the context of the black and white represented by Parvati as the fair one and Kali as the dark one. As well, the name represents "sinless" which the child is even though she was conceived in "sin" as far as the British are concerned Thanks so much for that information on the history of the name.
Question:Why do you think that Sarah Layton was the only person who visited Lady Manners? Was it just curiosity to see Parvata or was it embarrassment that no one else would make a social call?
On the question of who named Parvati in The Jewel in the Crown, it was Lady Manners. "I intend to bring her up as an Indian, which is one of the reasons I have called her Parvati. The other reason is that I believe this is a name Daphne would like. Parvati. Parvati Manners. Later she may decide to change that surname." This is in the "Appendix to Part Seven" in a letter from Lady Manners to Lady Chatterjee.I tend to agree with Hana. I think that Lady Manners knew the meaning behind the name Parvati, and Sarah's comment tends to confirm that; her comment is "I didn't mean that I meant know as distinct from remember". So I took that as she felt LM was smart/educated and knew a lot of information.
Sarah seemed to me to be visiting because no one else in the family had visited. Her family didn't know how to converse with her without bringing Daphne up. Although I do think a little bit of her wanted to see Parvati.
by
Paul Scott
I definitely think it was out of sympathy for Daphne. She seems to be a lot like Daphne - brave, kind, and not caring what other people think.
From what we've seen so far, Sarah seems to be very observant and a pragmatic, independent thinker. I agree that she was curious about LM, who was no doubt the "talk of the town", and Sarah decidedly would not let social protocol stand in the way of satisfying her curiosity, as the rest of her family apparently would do.And I echo the thanks to Hana for the good info about Parvati's name.
Teri wrote: "On the question of who named Parvati in The Jewel in the Crown, it was Lady Manners. "I intend to bring her up as an Indian, which is one of the reasons I have called her Parvati. The other reaso..."Thanks, Teri. I just couldn't remember who chose that beautiful name.
I found it extremely interesting that the mountain men around Pankot who went there to enlist in the Army were disgraced if they were not accepted. And how it tied to their polytheist beliefs. Your thoughts?
I loved that detail, Jill! p. 50-51: "It was from the hills and valleys around Pankot that the regiment recruited its men: sturdy agriculturalists who had a martial tradition going back (it was said) to pre-Moghul times. Somewhere around the sixteenth century the hill people turned their backs on the old hill gods, embraced Islam and intermarried with their country's Moghul conquerors."Except that they didn't really turn their backs on the old gods; the old ways, including the martial tradition, seem to have been very deeply rooted.
"Many of the boys who made the trek from their village to Pankot to offer themselves as soldiers...were unable to distinguish between the mosque, the Kali temple, and the Protestant and Catholic churches....To the boys coming in from the Pankot hills these places were all seats of mystery and authority. And of them all Recruiting Officer Sahib's Daftar was...the most important in practical as well as mystical terms."
Very poignant since Pankot (Pathankot?) appears to be in the Punjab, the land later torn apart in the division between Hindus and Muslims; Scott seems to view that distinction as largely artificial, and not at all the natural way of the ordinary people.
It seems to be a dichotomy.......people who were awakening to revolution and freedom from colonization but yet had their lives ruined if not accepted into the military. It probably is the mystical aspect since even though there was a martial tradition among some of the people, I wonder if it was strong enough to wreck lives if they were rejected for military service.
Hana wrote: "I loved that detail, Jill! p. 50-51: "It was from the hills and valleys around Pankot that the regiment recruited its men: sturdy agriculturalists who had a martial tradition going back (it was sai..."Excellent! Dukha, dukha, dukha, all the time, everywhere.
In Lear, Bill offers the notion of enduring our going hence, even as we're coming hither, and it seems to me that's what's going on here in a more universal sense. Isn't that what history is about? The stories of our pain in our coming hence, even as we go hither.
On the subject of myths, they only live when they are not intellectualized. Once they are grasped intellectually, they are throttled. And, maybe, that's what we're seeing here.
Warrior cultures (see the Mahabarata) are nothing new to India. It's just that the myth, to remain viable, has to morph from the old stories to the new to remain alive, or so it seems.
Thanks folks for the great comments. I like your King Lear quote, Martin, which does seem to fit pretty well with the actions here. Myth has a strong hold on people of every culture but it is especially strong in the Eastern religions........and myths live on generation from generation,accepted in part or as a whole. The duty to serve militarily appears to be part of the myth and those who were crushed by rejection, were not thinking in terms of India vs Britain.
by
William Shakespeare
The duty to serve was also ingrained in the British. On page 59, we see Sarah Layton's father faced with a question from his father..."What will it be,John....the administration or the army?" Of course, he chose the army and hoped to go to India.Question
What do you think made India so alluring to young British soldiers?
Well, I have a simple mind. I was thinking that the young Indian men, leaving their small, isolated villages, saw acceptance into the Pankot Rifles as a rite of passage into manhood - a source of pride - and, as stated in the passage quoted in message #16, a chance to become part of a long tradition. The duty to serve was also ingrained in the British. Was it ingrained in all British young men or just especially in those from families with independent means and a long history of military participation?
Off the top of my head, I would think India was alluring to young British soldiers because it represented an opportunity for adventure and possibly rapid promotions in an exotic location.
Scott definitely addresses the motivations of the Brits in India, especially toward the end of the quartet. From top officials in England to the likes of Merrick and lower. Merrick especially comes in for...never mind. Don't want spoiler handcuffs slapped on me.
Donna wrote: "Well, I have a simple mind. I was thinking that the young Indian men, leaving their small, isolated villages, saw acceptance into the Pankot Rifles as a rite of passage into manhood - a source of ..."I think the military history and wealth of a family had much to do with "the duty to serve." In order to be an officer during the late 19th and early 20th century, the position had to be purchased and the young man had to provide funds to purchase the uniform(s) and all the accoutrements. By the time of WWII, the purchase system was long gone and the "common" man could become an officer. I think in the inter-war years, military service was a viable choice for young men to serve their country. The British seem to be fervently patriotic.
Speaking of mythology and the motivation to serve, there may also be a little white man's burden woven in there, at least for the upper crust Brits. Something else to take into account is what would some of these people be doing if they lived in their jolly old England? Would they be circulating in exclusive clubs at home, or would they themselves be on the outside looking in?
I think a lot had to do with the "white man's burden", Martin. (For more information on that topic, check post #21 in our Glossary). It certainly ties into the allure of India for the common soldier......he would be "superior" to the native population, a position he would not attain if he was in England.
I agree with Jill. I know we discussed that in length in the discussion for The Jewel in The Crown.
QuestionWere you surprised (I was) at the attitude of Mabel, John Layton's step-mother, to the collection of money for General Dyer who had slaughtered innocent civilians at Armistar and was put on half-pay and disgraced?
There's a lot more to the white man's burden than the superiority issue. There's a feeling of obligation that goes with it, to lift our little brown brothers up after teaching them to be exemplary sons of the empire, Gunga Din my son.I think Mabel is marvelous, as was Daphne, and as is Miss Manners. All in the same sorority of questioning, seeing clearly through the illusion of the Raj, and willing to stand up to the authorities and conventional wisdom.
Didn't you love her? I really thought this quote, from page 64 is very telling. ".....when we took the country over and got the idea that we did so for its own sake instead of ours". Mabel is a very wise lady.
A couple of thoughts while I finish Saturday a.m. coffee:One of my favorite passages in the entire quartet is on p.48, during Sarah's visit to Lady Manners. In terms of physical presence in the story, Lady Manners has a small role. But just as the key is a small presence to the door, so she is important in my mind in being one of the keys to a broader and deeper understanding of the quartet.
After Sarah remarks "What a lot you know," Manners writes "I laughed and said it was one of the few advantages of old age, to be a repository of bits and pieces of casual information that sometimes come in useful. But she said she didn't really mean that, she meant know as distinct from remember. She couldn't properly explain it..."
After Sarah leaves, Manners writes: "I have been thinking it over what she said about knowing as distinct from remembering. Perhaps all it amounts to is that as we talked and I trotted out these little bits of information I gave the impression, common in elderly people, not only of having a long full life behind me that I could dip into more or less at random for the benefit of a younger listener, but also of being undisturbed by any doubts about the meaning and value of that life and the opinions I'd formed while leading it; although that suggests knowingness, and when she said, 'what a lot you know' she made it sound like a state of grace, one that she envied me in the mistaken belief that I was in it, while she was not..."
Obviously, Lady Manners, despite her protestations, does understand this thing westerners call grace. The eastern equivalent might be wisdom, which is defined in some eastern philosophies as the understanding of the nature of phenomena.
We've already seen Lady Manners grace, or wisdom, in the naming and care of Parvati, it seems to me anyway; and even in her reaction to her countrymen's standoffishness, if not outright rejection. She remains unaffected, unruffled, unswayed by negative emotions that a lesser person might be.
There's a metaphor in eastern philosophy that this world's existence is like a sea. To be tossed about on the surface is to be under the control of superficial phenomena, without understanding their true nature. But to be calm, as if beneath the surface, is a superior state of mind, which I think aptly describes Lady Manners.
One of the most challenging things to know in that lot of things to know is impermanence. There is no thing of two parts or more that is not impermanent. Lady Manners, I think, gets it, as evidenced by this concluding observation in her description of Sarah's visit:
"I was touched by the flowers [that Sarah sent after the visit] - and by the fact that they have not lasted and will be dead by the time I leave and go down to Pindi."
Speaking of impermanence and understanding the true nature of phenomena, the second scene in this week's selection that stands out in my mind begins on p.62 with Sir Ahmed Akbar addressing his son over Mabel's check to the orphan and widow fund set up after the massacre of unarmed people at Armritsar/Jallianwallah.The father points out that the son is wrong to think that Jallianwallah was new, or that the Congress could do anything about it. The son is letting his emotions obscure his vision. He is being tossed about on that sea of samsara (see previous post).
"You think Jallianwallah proves that the British are lying, talking freedom but acting tyrannically and dealing destruction? Again you are wrong. Jallianwallah could never have happened if the British who talk freedom were not sincere. It happened because they are sincere. They have frightened their opponents with their sincerity. I do not mean us. We are not their opponents. Their opponents, the ones that matter but who will matter less and less, are also British. They are the men like General Dyer. Why do you call that man a monster? He believed God had charged him with a duty to save the empire. He believed this sincerely, just as he believed sincerely that in Amritsar there was to be found an invidious threat to that empire."
To demonstrate to the son Mohammad Ali what he means, the father waves Mabel's check: "Perhaps you think this smells a bit of hypocrisy. To me it smells only of sincerity. It is a straw in the wind which proves to me that for a long time I have been correct in my forecast of which way the wind would blow."
The father also offers this as the exchange progresses: "...the Jallianwalla Bagh was also the scene of a suicide. There will be other such scenes. It takes a long time for a new nation to be born, and a long time for an old nation to die by its own hand. You will hasten nothing by failing to distinguish between the English who really rule us and the English who interpret and administer that rule. Haven't you yet understood that we are part and parcel of the Englishmen's own continual state of social and political evolvement and that to share the fruits we must share the labour and abide by the rules they abide by?"
What the son doesn't get is that the futures of England and India aren't just linked. It goes beyond that: their future is one and the same.
Thanks again, Martin for your interesting observations. The exchange between Sir Ahmed Akbar and his son was particularly informative as it showed "both sides of the coin" of the struggle for independence......the young and impetuous who are champing at the bit and the older and wiser who know "which way the wind will blow". Independence would come but cannot be forced, especially while WWII was raging. Britain needed India more than India needed Britain during this time. The reward would come in the form of freedom.
I also admired Sir Ahmed's distinction between 'the English who really rule us and the English who interpret and administer that rule' Once Atlee and the Labour Party ousted Churchill, Indian independence was a given.
You hit the nail on the head, Hana. Churchill was a strong supporter of Empire, didn't like Gandhi, and felt that India must be kept in a colonial status. He was somewhat of an anachronism in an age when countries were beginning to demand independence from outside rule. He could not reconcile the colonial age with the new age of independence.
Until I started this Exotic India reading kick I didn't appreciate how Atlee's government was truly revolutionary in its own right. He brought so many changes to Britain (and her colonies) that he practically makes FDR look timid. I'm going to have to dig deeper into that chapter in UK history.
I think Atlee was very far-sighted in the area of colonialism......he was one of a newer breed of English who realized that the day of "the empire on which the sun never sets" was over and Britain was no longer the strongest nation on earth.
Still trying to catch up. I do love Mabel. I think she has a lot of gumption. What a great stepmother she was.
That is so true, Francie.
Jill wrote: "I think Atlee was very far-sighted in the area of colonialism...."I've got a biography of Clement Attlee on my TBR short list, Attlee: A Life in Politics I had no idea who he was until I read Freedom at Midnight.
by Larry Collins
by Nicklaus Thomas-Symonds, no image
Good choice Hana. Attlee often doesn't get the credit due to him.You are doing great with the citations. BTW, it isn't necessary to put the link to the book in your text since you have done it at the bottom of the post. And put the author's picture before his link as such. If the author's picture is missing, just put the link, which you did, followed by (no photo).
by
Larry Collins
by Nicklaus Thomas-Symonds(no photo)Just a tip to maintain continuity.
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Attlee (other topics)Freedom At Midnight (other topics)
Attlee: A Life in Politics (other topics)
Freedom At Midnight (other topics)
King Lear (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Nicklaus Thomas-Symonds (other topics)Larry Collins (other topics)
Larry Collins (other topics)
Nicklaus Thomas-Symonds (other topics)
William Shakespeare (other topics)
More...
For the weeks of June 23rdth - June 29th, we are reading PART TWO - A History - The Day of the Scorpion - Book Two of the Raj Quartet.
The second week's reading assignment is:
WEEK TWO- June 23rd - June 29th ~ PART TWO - A History (43-72)
We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.
This book was kicked off on June 16th.
We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, local bookstore or on your Kindle. Make sure to pre-order now if you haven't already. This weekly thread will be opened up on June 23rd.
There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.
Jill will be leading this discussion and back-up will be Bentley.
Welcome,
~Bentley
TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL
REMEMBER NO SPOILERS ON THE WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREADS - ON EACH WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREAD - WE ONLY DISCUSS THE PAGES ASSIGNED OR THE PAGES WHICH WERE COVERED IN PREVIOUS WEEKS. IF YOU GO AHEAD OR WANT TO ENGAGE IN MORE EXPANSIVE DISCUSSION - POST THOSE COMMENTS IN ONE OF THE SPOILER THREADS. THESE CHAPTERS HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION SO WHEN IN DOUBT CHECK WITH THE CHAPTER OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY TO RECALL WHETHER YOUR COMMENTS ARE ASSIGNMENT SPECIFIC. EXAMPLES OF SPOILER THREADS ARE THE GLOSSARY, THE BIBLIOGRAPHY, THE INTRODUCTION AND THE BOOK AS A WHOLE THREADS.
Notes:
It is always a tremendous help when you quote specifically from the book itself and reference the chapter and page numbers when responding. The text itself helps folks know what you are referencing and makes things clear.
Citations:
If an author or book is mentioned other than the book and author being discussed, citations must be included according to our guidelines. Also, when citing other sources, please provide credit where credit is due and/or the link. There is no need to re-cite the author and the book we are discussing however.
If you need help - here is a thread called the Mechanics of the Board which will show you how to cite books:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2...
Introduction Thread:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
Table of Contents and Syllabus
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
Glossary
Remember there is a glossary thread where ancillary information is placed by the moderator. This is also a thread where additional information can be placed by the group members regarding the subject matter being discussed.
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
Bibliography
There is a Bibliography where books cited in the text are posted with proper citations and reviews. We also post the books that the author used in his research or in his notes. Please also feel free to add to the Bibliography thread any related books, etc with proper citations. No self promotion, please.
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
Book as a Whole and Final Thoughts - SPOILER THREAD
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...