Here is your third blog post question:
In the light of the class discussion, how do you think The Hungry Tide offers a reconnection between ecocritical and postcolonial theory?
The most remarkable point of view in terms of postcolonialism and ecocriticism that cannot be unnoticed is mostly expressed through the characters Piya and Fokir in The Hungry Tide. According to me, their inability to speak to one another is a necessary issue in the book because Amitav Ghosh wants his two important characters to represent ecocritical and postcolonial point of views separately. In the book, we can see this optimally when people corner the tiger with the intention of killing it. Piya’s and Fokir’s reactions to this represent two different point of views. According to Piya, it’s cruel to kill the tiger no matter what. Fokir, however, as a fisherman that “kills animals for a living”, helps the people that are trying to kill it. As people that came to a completely different land during the colonisation, they are trying to live their lives, trying to survive, just like Sir Daniel Hamilton who aimed to build a whole new society in the tide country. So, they have to kill the tiger in order to stay alive, which is exactly what the tiger is trying to do by attacking them. The tigers were already there, that’s the truth, but so were people until they were driven away because of natural disasters. So to whom the tide country belongs? People didn’t volunteer to go to the tide country, they had to go there. It all ends up in one unanswerable question: Who has the right to live in the tide country? According to an ecocritical point of view; the tiger can be seen as the “host” that feels threatened by all those two-legged creatures that try to make the tigers’ home theirs. According to a postcolonial point of view (and highly from Fokir’s perspective); people have to have a life there even if they don’t want to, so of course they will kill a tiger that is trying to kill them. Putting on masks to mislead the tigers and other humane solutions do not work, so they have to kill in order not to be killed. If postcolonial theory demands survival for people that try to have a new life in a highly dangerous territory, then from an ecocritical aspect we should ask an absurd question like this: who is the part of nature the most? Surely, it’s never okay to take no notice on the lives of newly settled people for the sake of animals to look nice to UN and it’s never okay to take no notice on animals at all, either. In fact, it’s absolutely never okay to take no notice on any living creature, for that matter. -Gökçe Demirdağ
In dichotomy of ecocritical and postcolonial theory, Amitav Ghosh does not approaches with a distinct solution, he only demonsrates the dangers and difficulties that people who are strictly in these two theoris have; differences between them and pros and cons of the theories in their strict versions, which he presents open lessons to be learned and reach a solution. By using very symbolic and distinct examples of postcolonial and ecocritical theories among his characters, beside showing the way the characters points of view work, he also leads readers to look at their lives from their own perspectives with their own problems, situations, dangers and difficulties and also from natural perspective as well which makes us rethink of conditions and try to bring functional and effective solutions between the two theories without judging any fellow or animal since Ghosh gives all the underlying truths, reasons beneath the actions such as killing animals for humans and attacking humans for animals symbolically for nature during the whole strory. Meanwhile, Amitov Ghosh contributes readers to improve solutions by giving some details such as placing torments, burning tigers alive into killing scenes. That is, they do not only kill animals just because they have to, they are torturing them and it is the most edge of the postcolonial view, in a way. While readers are thought that the postcolonial characters could be pretty right since they want to be alive and bengals are danger for them and ecocritical side of the story conserves the tigers and puts indigeneous people in danger for tigers benefits which may make readers rethink of those people's aggrieved situation by giving some stories of dead characters such as Kusum who was killed in a massacre and her father who died while foraging for firefood, implied by nature, in a way; Ghosh suddenly gives another perspective again in which we could understand ecocritical side too. According to me, both theories are shown as strict at some crucial points of the story. it gives solution Amitov Ghosh would like to set off but does not: there has to be a balance between postcolonial and ecocritical side if we are looking for a balance in nature. That is, they do not have to be that polar, which kind of offers the irritating idea like extinction of bengals or dying of people which are very polar just like these two theories. To me, Fokir's death supports the solution and the conclusion of what happens if the balance is not set up between postcolonial and ecocritical theories
In Hungry Tide, Tidal floods rise and surge over the land, because there are no borders to divide fresh water from salt and the land from water. In Sandarbans, it is an bad idea that people and animals live together. In this aspect, postcolonial theory and ecocriticsm conflict one another. Nilima is a postcolonial character and says that the government built up water resources in thedepth of the forest, even though people cannot find water. It is a postcolonial attitude for Nilima. Government maintain the Project of Tiger and allow that people are killed by tiger.Postcolonism is often seen as anthropocentric, and ecocriticism is often considered to be earth-centered and concerned with animal rights and environmental issues. In Hungry Tide, according to Ecocritism theory, people should not live in the habitat of tigers, whereas Postcolonial theory defend the people. Local people get killed because of the natural phenomenon, such as tiger and postcolonial theory is against this situation and the only important thing of the postcolonial theory is humanbeings and their circumstances in the nature. Ecocritism theory defends that humanbeing is a part of the nature as Leopold says. In Hungry Tide, ecocriticist think that humanbeing and animal are equal and animal rights should be protected from humanbeings. Human lives are valued somewhat lower than tigers. Community based conversation is a significant thing for both sides’ sake,(humanbeings and animals). If someone wants to prepeare the project, they should apply the indigenous people’s knowledge. Indigenous people are the only ones knowing the area very well. Community based conversation should be used in order to balance between ecocriticism theory and postcolonial theory.
There is a thin line between ecocritical and postcolonial theory. Maybe this line keeps them connected to each other. However, there is some differences which make these two theories tell apart. We can see the intersection of these two theories in The Hungry Tide by means of the representative characters, Piya and Fokir. Their worlds are different as they don’t speak the same language, don’t look through the same window. However, they have a connection which provides the two seperated theories relate to each other. For instance, Piya has a ecocritical point of view as she is a marine biologist who is searching for river dolphins. She is an outsider, therefore she is a strange to Fokir’s culture and his life style. On the other hand, Fokir has a postcolonial point of view arising from his culture and environment. He continues his life under hard living conditions, as a consequence, his perspective of how he sees world developes this way. We can see these differences in their reactions to the same situation. When tiger comes, Fokir helps people trying to kill it because he has to do it to survive. In contrast, Piya finds it so cruel to kill an animal, a living creature. She would be right if they were not under threat of death. Because she doesn’t live under these hard circumstances, she can’t understand their instinct to survive. Considering all the facts which environmental and cultural factors form, we should take these two theories as a whole not to break the cycle of nature.
Amitav Gosh, making the use of the work of The Hungry Tide creates an awareness to find a solution to the problem between ecocritical and postcolonial notions, staying on the grey side of the issue. The writer does not give a full command about this problem, however he tries to enlighten his readers by making some symbolic images. He underlines the identity problems and reconciles these with environmental problems. He underlines environmental studies which are made regardless of people’s lives in the area. He talks about the people who had to leave their own countries in postcolonial period and questions that is there a way of reconciliation between these two important notions. He tries to show the problem to his readers and wants them to decide who is right and wrong. He uses symbolic characters to harmonize the problem by using myths. He may want to find a solution to this problem by using the myth of dolphins as these animals have a conective history in old cultures. He also uses the character of Fokir who symbolizes the postcolonial indigenous people seeing himself as one of the natural community. Additionally, by using Piya character he wants to reflect that of western culture wants to embrace nature, to simplify Piya wants to protect nature. Alongside, Gosh mentions the influence of the postcolonial countries’ environmental problems as these countries are economically undeveloped. He makes the reader understand that The Project Tiger is a seemingly good study. With this study by despising people they want to protect the ecology. People are dying while tigers are put under protection. Living together with these animals is a problem to people. The book underlines, the study of project tiger is made to win India’s national approval and its rising profile and diplomatic strength without caring people living there. On one hand it looks very properly to save the tigers from extinction with an ecological project, but it is a danger to human life. According to Kaur, the book gestures a new kind of postcolonial ethics. It moves readers to nationalistic, ethic and radical binaries to embrace ecological perspective and foregrounds postcolonial modernity. Lastly, he also mentions the environmental situation of India and the rights of local people in favour of ecological way showing the struggle of the human life and saving the tiger.
The Hungry Tide is a postcolonial novel by Amitav Ghosh. In this novel, the author re-establishes a connection between the postcolonial and the ecocritical theories, especially through the characters he created. Piyali Roy, one of the protagonists of the novel, is a cosmopolitan marine biologist and is working on the Ganghetic dolphin and the Irrawady dolphin. It is obvious from her job that Piya has an ecocentric outlook. However, Fokir, since he is a postcolonial character, has an anthropocentric outlook; he has to kill the Bengali tigers in order to survive in the Tide Country. Piya is shocked when she sees Fokir kill an entrapped tiger, yet Fokir has to do it for his own life. If Fokir does not kill it, it will kill him. Bringing together two characters representing two opposite outlooks, Amitav Ghosh attempts a compromise between the postcolonial and the ecocritical theories. Piya can survive in the Tide Country thanks to Fokir. Piya is an outsider, whereas Fokir is an insider. Fokir helps her find the river dolphins in the area, while protecting her from perils. These two characters can understand each other very well, even though they do not know each other’s language. Piya furthers her studies thanks not only to Fokir, but also to the local knowledge of the fishermen in the Sundarbans. At the end of the book, in the scene of the tidal storm, Fokir rescues Piya at the cost of his own life. Fokir’s self-sacrifice can be an example of the compromising attitude between the postcolonial and the ecocritical theories.
The other indigenous characters in the book, Nilima and Kusum, are postcolonial characters like Fokir. Nilima mentions that at least two people are killed by the Bengali tigers every day, whereas Kusum is just another one of the people who died at the bloody massacre in Morichjhapi for the lives of the Bengali tigers. Morichjhapi belongs to The Project Tiger and that’s why people are not allowed to live here. However, according to Amitav Ghosh’s compromising attitude, through a community based on conversation and dialogue, a place where both species can live can be created. As Rajender Kaur says, “. . . we live, not in many, but in one world” and in this one and only world that exists a common place can be created for both species to survive. Zübeyde Şahin
In his novel, Amitav Gosh chooses an environmental situation which takes place in Sundurbans. In the scenario, there are two communities which play the main roles. Sundurbans’ wildlife and the people who migrate there to start a new beginning. These two communities also represent the two sides of the medallion. Sundurbans’ wildlife is discussed as the ecocritical section of the novel and the migrating people are held to stand for the post-colonial community. Gosh reflects the main issues of the novel by making these two communities clash throughout the novel and stands between these two communities to show the problematic cases of them both. In terms of ecocriticism, Gosh exhibits the tigers of the region. In some parts of the novel Gosh tries to make the reader feel an empathy with the tigers by showing them executed by the people unmercifully. He makes it especially by using the character Piya. Upon seeing Fokir while he tries to kill a tiger in the village, she expresses her feelings and thoughts as an environmentalist. On the other hand, the character of Nilima is the mirror of the people who tries to live in a wilderness under harsh circumstances. While telling about their precautions towards the attacks of tigers, she gains the sympathy of the reader and her memories push the reader to think about their desperation. Different people from different classes are stated in The Hungry Tide. Looking from different angles to the scenario brings different question to the mind but Gosh successes to create a big window for both post-colonial and ecocritical points.
Hungry Tide brings a light to the time of the Post-Colonial India, especially a place called Sundurbands. In post-colonial period, Indian people wanted to return to their past which was not vitiated. They devised a project called Project Tiger, but this is just an illusion to be seen as they were concerned about nature and the animals. They displaced people to create empty spaces for tigers, and they did not have any hesitation about killing indigenous people. Thus, this situation creates a confliction between ecocentric and post-colonial theory. Eco critics support the idea that man and nature should live in harmony by being respectful to each other. Yet, Indian government pays no attention what happens to people who live in that place. In this book, we see how people’s lives are there, how their trials to survive are, and how government’s attitude towards them. I think Ghosh wants to create a midway for this opposition by using two opposite characters. With Piya, who represent Culture and Fokir, who is the symbol of Nature, the author shows us these binary oppositions can live together and embrace each other. He also uses dolphin image to put them together in a same frame. Piya wants to make researches about Gangetic dolphins and wants to work with an indigenous called Fokir. Even if they do not understand what they are talking about because of the language problem, we see they start to communicate somehow. This is a message for us that nature is willing to understand and embrace culture and the ones who belong to culture if we try to communicate with due regard. Moreover, Ghosh indicates that Fokir’s lifestyle is rather simple when compared with people who live in the middle of the culture and who other the ones like Fokir but it is easy to realise that he knows many things than those people as he has a connection with nature. This thought brings us the idea of community based conservation which means to protect the nature by using the knowledge of the native people as they are closer to nature more than anybody and know what nature’s need is. I think the author tries to instil us this idea by creating Piya. Even if she is an outsider, she becomes a part of the nature gradually. She faces with the true life of people and the tigers and at the end Fokir sacrifices himself to save Piya. This is the moment nature embraces culture. This moment creates a tie between nature and civilization, which shows us harmony between them is possible and this book can be a kind of solution for the conflict between ecocentric and post-colonialist thoughts.
With the help of the characters, Amitav Ghosh makes a connection between ecocriticism and post-colonialism. Some characters represent acocriticism while the others represent post-colonialism. I think Sundurbans is a great place to link these concepts between themselves. We know from the book that it has a geography which can change everyday because of the hungry tides. It is ironic that its governmental people try to make its borders immutable. Nilima, Fokir and Kusum have had bad days because of the colonialism. Their land has been parted two by the colonial powers. We know that Sundurbans has a tropical climate. It has an extensive habitat. There are many different kinds of animals and one of them is the bengal tiger. Sundurbans is their home but it is also the home of the community. However, they cannot live together. They give harm to each other. So, the government makes a Tiger Project which exiles people from their homeland and kill them in order to make Bengal Tigers more free. For me, it is wrong. There should be more appopriate solutions for this situation. Nilima, Fokir and Kusum have been forced to exile. Kusum was killed by this project. They live in the middle of the wild nature but they love their homeland and they do not want to go anywhere. For me it is so natural. Their whole thing is their home, they have lots of memories, they have an established sytem over there. They gain their lifes from the nature. Fokir kills animals in order to make his life. However, of course Piya cannot understand them. She finds that people as savages. She has an ecocrtical mind that although the Bengal Tigers are a threat for the indians they should not kill them, so she is shocked when Fokir kills the tiger. Of course we have to learn live with the animals and we are not the only possessor of the world but for me the project is wrong. While people cannot find water for drink, the government put some fresh water sources for tiger in the jungle. At first we make a self awareness and then we help people to make them informed.
In The Hungry Tides Amitav Gosh can reflect the conflict between postcolonialism and ecocriticism. Postcolonialism defends the turning back to the first culture and revive the culture again. However ecocriticism defends the nature, purity and animals. In the novel Gosh reflects the conflict through the main characters. Piya is a representative of ecocriticism while Fokir represents postcolonialism. Piya symbolizes the knowledge, research, while Fokir symbolizes the nature. Amitav Gosh does not show a strict conflict between these two aspects. As representatives Piya and Fokir can communicate each other, even though Piya does not know their language. Piya as a outsider tries to orientate herself Fokir. She Therefore, it can be said that Amitav Gosh considers important both human and animals. She trusts Fokir and natives' ideas and also tries to understand them. It also shows that she also considers important the nature. Although postcolonialism depends on anthropocentric ideas and ecocriticism depends on nature-centered ideas, in the novel there is not a splitting border between them. It also reflects Leopold's point of view that nature is a community and humanbeings are a part of it. However the only point that ecocriticism conflict with postcolonialism is the displacement of tigers. In summary, there are some disagreements between them, they are also connected each other in terms of struggle of humans and caring about the lives of tigers.
The most remarkable point of view in terms of postcolonialism and ecocriticism that cannot be unnoticed is mostly expressed through the characters Piya and Fokir in The Hungry Tide. According to me, their inability to speak to one another is a necessary issue in the book because Amitav Ghosh wants his two important characters to represent ecocritical and postcolonial point of views separately. In the book, we can see this optimally when people corner the tiger with the intention of killing it. Piya’s and Fokir’s reactions to this represent two different point of views. According to Piya, it’s cruel to kill the tiger no matter what. Fokir, however, as a fisherman that “kills animals for a living”, helps the people that are trying to kill it. As people that came to a completely different land during the colonisation, they are trying to live their lives, trying to survive, just like Sir Daniel Hamilton who aimed to build a whole new society in the tide country. So, they have to kill the tiger in order to stay alive, which is exactly what the tiger is trying to do by attacking them. The tigers were already there, that’s the truth, but so were people until they were driven away because of natural disasters. So to whom the tide country belongs? People didn’t volunteer to go to the tide country, they had to go there. It all ends up in one unanswerable question: Who has the right to live in the tide country? According to an ecocritical point of view; the tiger can be seen as the “host” that feels threatened by all those two-legged creatures that try to make the tigers’ home theirs. According to a postcolonial point of view (and highly from Fokir’s perspective); people have to have a life there even if they don’t want to, so of course they will kill a tiger that is trying to kill them. Putting on masks to mislead the tigers and other humane solutions do not work, so they have to kill in order not to be killed. If postcolonial theory demands survival for people that try to have a new life in a highly dangerous territory, then from an ecocritical aspect we should ask an absurd question like this: who is the part of nature the most? Surely, it’s never okay to take no notice on the lives of newly settled people for the sake of animals to look nice to UN and it’s never okay to take no notice on animals at all, either. In fact, it’s absolutely never okay to take no notice on any living creature, for that matter.
ReplyDelete-Gökçe Demirdağ
In dichotomy of ecocritical and postcolonial theory, Amitav Ghosh does not approaches with a distinct solution, he only demonsrates the dangers and difficulties that people who are strictly in these two theoris have; differences between them and pros and cons of the theories in their strict versions, which he presents open lessons to be learned and reach a solution. By using very symbolic and distinct examples of postcolonial and ecocritical theories among his characters, beside showing the way the characters points of view work, he also leads readers to look at their lives from their own perspectives with their own problems, situations, dangers and difficulties and also from natural perspective as well which makes us rethink of conditions and try to bring functional and effective solutions between the two theories without judging any fellow or animal since Ghosh gives all the underlying truths, reasons beneath the actions such as killing animals for humans and attacking humans for animals symbolically for nature during the whole strory. Meanwhile, Amitov Ghosh contributes readers to improve solutions by giving some details such as placing torments, burning tigers alive into killing scenes. That is, they do not only kill animals just because they have to, they are torturing them and it is the most edge of the postcolonial view, in a way. While readers are thought that the postcolonial characters could be pretty right since they want to be alive and bengals are danger for them and ecocritical side of the story conserves the tigers and puts indigeneous people in danger for tigers benefits which may make readers rethink of those people's aggrieved situation by giving some stories of dead characters such as Kusum who was killed in a massacre and her father who died while foraging for firefood, implied by nature, in a way; Ghosh suddenly gives another perspective again in which we could understand ecocritical side too. According to me, both theories are shown as strict at some crucial points of the story. it gives solution Amitov Ghosh would like to set off but does not: there has to be a balance between postcolonial and ecocritical side if we are looking for a balance in nature. That is, they do not have to be that polar, which kind of offers the irritating idea like extinction of bengals or dying of people which are very polar just like these two theories. To me, Fokir's death supports the solution and the conclusion of what happens if the balance is not set up between postcolonial and ecocritical theories
ReplyDeleteIn Hungry Tide, Tidal floods rise and surge over the land, because there are no borders to divide fresh water from salt and the land from water. In Sandarbans, it is an bad idea that people and animals live together. In this aspect, postcolonial theory and ecocriticsm conflict one another. Nilima is a postcolonial character and says that the government built up water resources in thedepth of the forest, even though people cannot find water. It is a postcolonial attitude for Nilima. Government maintain the Project of Tiger and allow that people are killed by tiger.Postcolonism is often seen as anthropocentric, and ecocriticism is often considered to be earth-centered and concerned with animal rights and environmental issues. In Hungry Tide, according to Ecocritism theory, people should not live in the habitat of tigers, whereas Postcolonial theory defend the people. Local people get killed because of the natural phenomenon, such as tiger and postcolonial theory is against this situation and the only important thing of the postcolonial theory is humanbeings and their circumstances in the nature. Ecocritism theory defends that humanbeing is a part of the nature as Leopold says. In Hungry Tide, ecocriticist think that humanbeing and animal are equal and animal rights should be protected from humanbeings. Human lives are valued somewhat lower than tigers. Community based conversation is a significant thing for both sides’ sake,(humanbeings and animals). If someone wants to prepeare the project, they should apply the indigenous people’s knowledge. Indigenous people are the only ones knowing the area very well. Community based conversation should be used in order to balance between ecocriticism theory and postcolonial theory.
ReplyDeleteThere is a thin line between ecocritical and postcolonial theory. Maybe this line keeps them connected to each other. However, there is some differences which make these two theories tell apart. We can see the intersection of these two theories in The Hungry Tide by means of the representative characters, Piya and Fokir. Their worlds are different as they don’t speak the same language, don’t look through the same window. However, they have a connection which provides the two seperated theories relate to each other. For instance, Piya has a ecocritical point of view as she is a marine biologist who is searching for river dolphins. She is an outsider, therefore she is a strange to Fokir’s culture and his life style. On the other hand, Fokir has a postcolonial point of view arising from his culture and environment. He continues his life under hard living conditions, as a consequence, his perspective of how he sees world developes this way. We can see these differences in their reactions to the same situation. When tiger comes, Fokir helps people trying to kill it because he has to do it to survive. In contrast, Piya finds it so cruel to kill an animal, a living creature. She would be right if they were not under threat of death. Because she doesn’t live under these hard circumstances, she can’t understand their instinct to survive. Considering all the facts which environmental and cultural factors form, we should take these two theories as a whole not to break the cycle of nature.
ReplyDeleteAmitav Gosh, making the use of the work of The Hungry Tide creates an awareness to find a solution to the problem between ecocritical and postcolonial notions, staying on the grey side of the issue. The writer does not give a full command about this problem, however he tries to enlighten his readers by making some symbolic images. He underlines the identity problems and reconciles these with environmental problems. He underlines environmental studies which are made regardless of people’s lives in the area. He talks about the people who had to leave their own countries in postcolonial period and questions that is there a way of reconciliation between these two important notions. He tries to show the problem to his readers and wants them to decide who is right and wrong. He uses symbolic characters to harmonize the problem by using myths. He may want to find a solution to this problem by using the myth of dolphins as these animals have a conective history in old cultures. He also uses the character of Fokir who symbolizes the postcolonial indigenous people seeing himself as one of the natural community. Additionally, by using Piya character he wants to reflect that of western culture wants to embrace nature, to simplify Piya wants to protect nature. Alongside, Gosh mentions the influence of the postcolonial countries’ environmental problems as these countries are economically undeveloped. He makes the reader understand that The Project Tiger is a seemingly good study. With this study by despising people they want to protect the ecology. People are dying while tigers are put under protection. Living together with these animals is a problem to people. The book underlines, the study of project tiger is made to win India’s national approval and its rising profile and diplomatic strength without caring people living there. On one hand it looks very properly to save the tigers from extinction with an ecological project, but it is a danger to human life. According to Kaur, the book gestures a new kind of postcolonial ethics. It moves readers to nationalistic, ethic and radical binaries to embrace ecological perspective and foregrounds postcolonial modernity. Lastly, he also mentions the environmental situation of India and the rights of local people in favour of ecological way showing the struggle of the human life and saving the tiger.
ReplyDeleteThe Hungry Tide is a postcolonial novel by Amitav Ghosh. In this novel, the author re-establishes a connection between the postcolonial and the ecocritical theories, especially through the characters he created. Piyali Roy, one of the protagonists of the novel, is a cosmopolitan marine biologist and is working on the Ganghetic dolphin and the Irrawady dolphin. It is obvious from her job that Piya has an ecocentric outlook. However, Fokir, since he is a postcolonial character, has an anthropocentric outlook; he has to kill the Bengali tigers in order to survive in the Tide Country. Piya is shocked when she sees Fokir kill an entrapped tiger, yet Fokir has to do it for his own life. If Fokir does not kill it, it will kill him. Bringing together two characters representing two opposite outlooks, Amitav Ghosh attempts a compromise between the postcolonial and the ecocritical theories. Piya can survive in the Tide Country thanks to Fokir. Piya is an outsider, whereas Fokir is an insider. Fokir helps her find the river dolphins in the area, while protecting her from perils. These two characters can understand each other very well, even though they do not know each other’s language. Piya furthers her studies thanks not only to Fokir, but also to the local knowledge of the fishermen in the Sundarbans. At the end of the book, in the scene of the tidal storm, Fokir rescues Piya at the cost of his own life. Fokir’s self-sacrifice can be an example of the compromising attitude between the postcolonial and the ecocritical theories.
ReplyDeleteThe other indigenous characters in the book, Nilima and Kusum, are postcolonial characters like Fokir. Nilima mentions that at least two people are killed by the Bengali tigers every day, whereas Kusum is just another one of the people who died at the bloody massacre in Morichjhapi for the lives of the Bengali tigers. Morichjhapi belongs to The Project Tiger and that’s why people are not allowed to live here. However, according to Amitav Ghosh’s compromising attitude, through a community based on conversation and dialogue, a place where both species can live can be created. As Rajender Kaur says, “. . . we live, not in many, but in one world” and in this one and only world that exists a common place can be created for both species to survive.
Zübeyde Şahin
In his novel, Amitav Gosh chooses an environmental situation which takes place in Sundurbans. In the scenario, there are two communities which play the main roles. Sundurbans’ wildlife and the people who migrate there to start a new beginning. These two communities also represent the two sides of the medallion. Sundurbans’ wildlife is discussed as the ecocritical section of the novel and the migrating people are held to stand for the post-colonial community.
ReplyDeleteGosh reflects the main issues of the novel by making these two communities clash throughout the novel and stands between these two communities to show the problematic cases of them both. In terms of ecocriticism, Gosh exhibits the tigers of the region. In some parts of the novel Gosh tries to make the reader feel an empathy with the tigers by showing them executed by the people unmercifully. He makes it especially by using the character Piya. Upon seeing Fokir while he tries to kill a tiger in the village, she expresses her feelings and thoughts as an environmentalist. On the other hand, the character of Nilima is the mirror of the people who tries to live in a wilderness under harsh circumstances. While telling about their precautions towards the attacks of tigers, she gains the sympathy of the reader and her memories push the reader to think about their desperation.
Different people from different classes are stated in The Hungry Tide. Looking from different angles to the scenario brings different question to the mind but Gosh successes to create a big window for both post-colonial and ecocritical points.
Hungry Tide brings a light to the time of the Post-Colonial India, especially a place called Sundurbands. In post-colonial period, Indian people wanted to return to their past which was not vitiated. They devised a project called Project Tiger, but this is just an illusion to be seen as they were concerned about nature and the animals. They displaced people to create empty spaces for tigers, and they did not have any hesitation about killing indigenous people. Thus, this situation creates a confliction between ecocentric and post-colonial theory. Eco critics support the idea that man and nature should live in harmony by being respectful to each other. Yet, Indian government pays no attention what happens to people who live in that place. In this book, we see how people’s lives are there, how their trials to survive are, and how government’s attitude towards them. I think Ghosh wants to create a midway for this opposition by using two opposite characters. With Piya, who represent Culture and Fokir, who is the symbol of Nature, the author shows us these binary oppositions can live together and embrace each other. He also uses dolphin image to put them together in a same frame. Piya wants to make researches about Gangetic dolphins and wants to work with an indigenous called Fokir. Even if they do not understand what they are talking about because of the language problem, we see they start to communicate somehow. This is a message for us that nature is willing to understand and embrace culture and the ones who belong to culture if we try to communicate with due regard. Moreover, Ghosh indicates that Fokir’s lifestyle is rather simple when compared with people who live in the middle of the culture and who other the ones like Fokir but it is easy to realise that he knows many things than those people as he has a connection with nature. This thought brings us the idea of community based conservation which means to protect the nature by using the knowledge of the native people as they are closer to nature more than anybody and know what nature’s need is. I think the author tries to instil us this idea by creating Piya. Even if she is an outsider, she becomes a part of the nature gradually. She faces with the true life of people and the tigers and at the end Fokir sacrifices himself to save Piya. This is the moment nature embraces culture. This moment creates a tie between nature and civilization, which shows us harmony between them is possible and this book can be a kind of solution for the conflict between ecocentric and post-colonialist thoughts.
ReplyDeleteWith the help of the characters, Amitav Ghosh makes a connection between ecocriticism and post-colonialism. Some characters represent acocriticism while the others represent post-colonialism. I think Sundurbans is a great place to link these concepts between themselves. We know from the book that it has a geography which can change everyday because of the hungry tides. It is ironic that its governmental people try to make its borders immutable. Nilima, Fokir and Kusum have had bad days because of the colonialism. Their land has been parted two by the colonial powers. We know that Sundurbans has a tropical climate. It has an extensive habitat. There are many different kinds of animals and one of them is the bengal tiger. Sundurbans is their home but it is also the home of the community. However, they cannot live together. They give harm to each other. So, the government makes a Tiger Project which exiles people from their homeland and kill them in order to make Bengal Tigers more free. For me, it is wrong. There should be more appopriate solutions for this situation. Nilima, Fokir and Kusum have been forced to exile. Kusum was killed by this project. They live in the middle of the wild nature but they love their homeland and they do not want to go anywhere. For me it is so natural. Their whole thing is their home, they have lots of memories, they have an established sytem over there. They gain their lifes from the nature. Fokir kills animals in order to make his life. However, of course Piya cannot understand them. She finds that people as savages. She has an ecocrtical mind that although the Bengal Tigers are a threat for the indians they should not kill them, so she is shocked when Fokir kills the tiger. Of course we have to learn live with the animals and we are not the only possessor of the world but for me the project is wrong. While people cannot find water for drink, the government put some fresh water sources for tiger in the jungle. At first we make a self awareness and then we help people to make them informed.
ReplyDeleteIn The Hungry Tides Amitav Gosh can reflect the conflict between postcolonialism and ecocriticism. Postcolonialism defends the turning back to the first culture and revive the culture again. However ecocriticism defends the nature, purity and animals. In the novel Gosh reflects the conflict through the main characters. Piya is a representative of ecocriticism while Fokir represents postcolonialism. Piya symbolizes the knowledge, research, while Fokir symbolizes the nature. Amitav Gosh does not show a strict conflict between these two aspects. As representatives Piya and Fokir can communicate each other, even though Piya does not know their language. Piya as a outsider tries to orientate herself Fokir. She Therefore, it can be said that Amitav Gosh considers important both human and animals. She trusts Fokir and natives' ideas and also tries to understand them. It also shows that she also considers important the nature. Although postcolonialism depends on anthropocentric ideas and ecocriticism depends on nature-centered ideas, in the novel there is not a splitting border between them. It also reflects Leopold's point of view that nature is a community and humanbeings are a part of it. However the only point that ecocriticism conflict with postcolonialism is the displacement of tigers. In summary, there are some disagreements between them, they are also connected each other in terms of struggle of humans and caring about the lives of tigers.
ReplyDelete