Understanding Biopolitics with Reference to Salman Rushdie’s Midnight Children and Mahasweta Devi’s Mother of 1084
Dr. Shilpi Bhattacharya,
Professor, Department of English, Kalinga University, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Abstract
Biopolitics refers to the methods and techniques that are used to manage and regulate human life processes under governing regimes. Michel Foucault's work on human regulation through power creation serves as a starting point for biopolitical research. Giorgio Agamben, on the other hand, investigates the hidden and overt existence of biopolitical violence in society. Because of its extensive and clear representation of violence and rebels, Salman Rushdie's Midnight Children and Mahasweta Devi's Mother of 1084 allow scholars to participate in a critical forum on biopolitical practice. Regardless, these works are well-known for their ideals. These works exist on the periphery of literary criticism as well. This study investigates how biopolitics coerces populations within the present socio-political environment by interacting with a textual portrayal of the stories through Foucauldian and Agambenian critical perspectives. The approach suggests the possibility of a deeper understanding of biopolitical logic and resistance to its coercive strategies. It contributes to the existing corpus of literature on biopolitics by providing a specific account of life-politics as defined in postcolonial literature, as well as a supplementary perspective to the discussion on biopolitical subordination.
Key words: periphery; biopolitics; Agamben; Foucault; violence; coercion
Michel Foucault recognized a period in modernity when the state began to take on the responsibility of caring for and regulating biological, human existence. The emergence of what Foucault refers to as "biopower" in the 17th century, is "a regularizing technology of power that distributes the living in the sphere of value and utility." For Foucault, biopower is distinct from sovereign power. ‘Rather of displaying itself in its homicidal glory, this new technology of power has to classify, quantify, appraise, and hierarchize,' he contends. As a result, the origins of biopolitics can be traced back to the advent of biopower in modernity. However, Agamben presents a counterpoint to Foucault's theory: sovereign authority is already biopolitical, as it is built on the constitution of bare life as the threshold of the political order. The emergence of biopower technology, according to Agamben, does not signal a break in the history of Western politics, but rather the expansion of the state's existing biopolitical imperative, as bare life moves from the margins to the center of the state's concerns, entering modernity as the exception, increasingly becomes the rule, placing biological life at the center of the political order. This proposes a secret tie uniting power and bare life.
Rushdie draws one’s attention towards the Indian nation's pluralist, egalitarian ideal in Midnight Children. As the story progresses, India becomes a place where a vast number of disparate social groups racialize and are racialized in turn. As a result, the chances of India becoming an inclusive community that accepts various groups' differences are dwindling. Early in Midnight Children, Rushdie investigates how colonial biopower shaped Indian civilian racism. He portrays a post- independence Indian socio-economic elite that still values whiteness and habits associated with their erstwhile British rulers. The novel's final chapters concentrate on how the central
government's increasingly racializing tactics after independence harmed India's communities' potential. Rushdie fictionalizes the progressive collapse of the pluralist ideas of Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first post-independence Prime Minister, within the nation's politics. ‘The mass of the Indian people, in all their unfathomable diversity and yet their astonishing togetherness,' Nehru wrote. He argued for "equal possibilities for all" with "no political, economic, or social impediments standing in the way of any individual or group." Nehru equated national worth and stability with a pluralist embrace of variety, a politics that Saleem Sinai shares in Midnight. Rushdie draws parallels between Nehru's stint as Prime Minister and that of his daughter Indira Gandhi, particularly during the era of 'Emergency' between 1975 and 1977, when democratic standards such as elections and habeas corpus were abolished. By portraying her government's biopolitical sterilization program during this time as a focused endeavor to eliminate perceived threats to India, Rushdie claims that in the post-independence era, India's central government has grown increasingly distinguished by the despotism, racism, and biopower technologies that typified British colonial control. He establishes Saleem and his diverse collective of magical children as emblems of an ideal pluralist India, so presenting the potential of an inclusive nation.
Midnight Children, underlines the pervasiveness of racially othering ideas and behaviors in India.
Rushdie emphasizes the persistence of colonial-influenced phenotypic racism, and by describing how Indira Gandhi's government uses biopower discourses and technologies to racialize, persecute, and sterilize the children in the novel, he implies that the post-independence Indian nation-state has rejected pluralism and tolerance. The sterilization of Saleem Sinai and his fellow magical children near the end of Midnight is the novel's most graphic depiction of the racializing biopolitics that Rushdie claims has become more prevalent in Indian central government since Nehru's death. Midnight, on the other hand, illustrates the pervasiveness of race-thinking outside of state institutions in twentieth-century India in its early chapters. Rushdie portrays racism as a relic of British colonialism among ordinary Indians.
Many of Rushdie's Indian characters are similar to the late-nineteenth-century biologists whose work offered a foundation for colonial expansion and biopolitical management not only in terms of race but in terms of phenotypical hierarchies. Members of Saleem's family freely discuss the appeal of white skin. After independence, his father, Ahmed Sinai, becomes a member of a socio- economic elite that aspires to emulate British practises and not only values but also achieves whiteness. To evoke the difficulty of eradicating colonial race-thinking and racial hierarchies that associate whiteness with success, beauty, and power from post-independence Indian society, Rushdie employs the literary device of imagining a supernatural post-independence India in which gaining wealth turns people white.
The British colonized India using a combination of biopolitical technologies and a system of discursive racism. One such technology was the British-controlled education system, which was designed to help India's colonial authority run smoothly rather than for altruistic motives, as is typical of the optimizes of life that biopolitical nations implement. Because of the behavioral continuity between old and new elites in Midnight, colonial Eurocentrism and racialization ideas
persist in India after independence. Rushdie employs allegory to argue that the conditions for Indian self-rule, which were set by a British colonial machine marked by discursive racism, biopolitical technology, and economic neoliberalism, resulted in the creation of a post- independence nation that runs along similar lines. By depicting miraculous phenotypical transmogrifications, Rushdie depicts the inflexibility of discursive linkages of whiteness with political and economic power. In Midnight, a number of characters' phenotypes go from dark to white. These modifications refute Macaulay's claim that a body can be classified as "Indian in blood and color," as well as nineteenth-century claims to the same effect in racializing biologists.
Rushdie proposes that phenotype is determined by the environment rather than innate biological features, as epigeneticists found in the late twentieth century. However, because the novel's phenotypical modifications of India's post-independence socio-economic elite occur as a result of their growing power and money, they maintain white superiority discourses. Ahmed, like the rest of his family, links whiteness with power, riches, and superiority, claiming that "all the best individuals are white beneath the skin."
In Midnight, Rushdie argues that whiteness's continued discursive and economic power is neither the single nor the most severe hindrance to post-independence Indian communities. In the novel's imaginary version of India, race thinking is psychologically and discursively common among the emerging socioeconomic elite. However, after Nehru, it pervades the (bio)politics of the nation's administration, which has far more power than ordinary citizens to influence the lives of built subraces. Rushdie creates a path in which Nehru's pluralist, inclusive politics give way to his daughter Indira Gandhi's extremely biopolitical rule. Saleem's multiple, diverse collective, which tries to defy state biopower, is subjected to a biopolitical sterilization campaign, in which the state establishes control over their bodies and numbers. Rushdie demonstrates the validity of Foucault's claim that state biopower's strength stems from its ability to build race according to whatever criteria it chooses, and to utilise these racializing discourses to animate powerful biopolitical technology.
Mother of 1084 is the most blatant picture of the Indian government's atrocities as it staged death, torture, and violence in response to the resistance that arose during the Naxalite rebellion in West Bengal in the 1970s. Mother of 1084 is well-known for its references to feminist ideology in a patriarchal society and the process of a mother's identification of her son and his political commitment, in contrast to the dramaturgical and conceptual significance of brutality onstage as a direct reference to the state's biopolitical apparatus. Women's roles in Naxalbari have been the subject of recent historiography. The play is set during the climatic period of the urban Naxalites' suppression, and it focuses on the young Naxalites—young people from disadvantaged backgrounds who live in cities, as well as educated youths from the middle and upper middle classes who joined the movement to speak up for the oppressed. Despite the fact that the events in Mother of 1084 take place over a two-year period, they all take place on the same day—January 17, 1972—and follow the experiences of a middle-class woman named Sujata Chatterjee. This is
the day of the Chatterjee family's youngest daughter's engagement celebration. Brati, the family's younger son, is a college student who was slain because of his ties to the Naxalite movement:
Brati's body was given the number "1084" by the police, and his death anniversary, as well as his birthday, is January 17th.
Through Nandini, Brati's lover, and Somu's mother's narration, the novel reveals Sujata's voyage into the world of the Naxalites and Brati's involvement in it. Nandini makes the Naxalite ideology and the state's repression completely transparent. Nandini's narrativization with Sujata at a public café reveals the Naxalite movement's goals and causes, as well as the current state of the movement, denotes the play's symbolic publicity given to the Naxalite movement. First, emulating Gandhi's government, which offered a ransom to non-loyal members in exchange for assistance in identifying Naxalites by security personnel. “Money, employment, and power meant nothing to us,” Nandini adds. Those who had joined us only to betray us were tempted by these temptations.”
It demonstrates Naxalite subjectivity to the state's betrayal campaign. Nandini also emphasizes media betrayal: "the worst reactionaries offer apologies for their sympathies, but they "damage"
Naxalites' "public image."
The media's portrayal, which denies Naxalites the opportunity to articulate their grievances and the reasons for the movement's growth, is reversed, as she asserts that the Naxalites' cause is not motivated by hatred for the state, but by love for the country. Nandini also points out politicians' ignorance about Naxalites while focusing on their own interests in order to comply with India's central government. Naxalites are imprisoned as a result of the state's betrayal: "the prison walls climb higher, new watch towers shoot up, there are so many young guys still in the jails.". Her actions throughout the disclosure show that she is willing to reveal something hidden, something that could disrupt the authoritarian state. As a result, she is being watched by herself. This public self-incarceration represents the kind of torture a living Naxalite may face in the 1970s. While remembering Foucault's ideas on self-surveillance—"he who is subjected to a field of visibility, and who knows it becomes the principle of his own subjection"—Nandini's awareness of her position under the state's surveillance leads to self-scrutiny: she becomes complicit in her subjugation. . Nandini is susceptible to self-monitoring: this is not to avoid the colonizers’ or internal rulers' denunciatory gaze, nor to hide her Naxalite identity, but to avoid the state's biopolitical surveillance. The scene in the restaurant is interrupted by a flashback showing Nandini and Pal, the police officer, engaging in a cross-inquiry in the police station. “Nandini fidgets from time to time, helplessly attempting to raise to her feet and revealing that her hands and feet are tethered to the chair.”
The act of tethering Nandini to a chair relates to animal tethering, and the image of Nandini as an untamable beast exemplifies how detainees are brutalized and dehumanized. Nandini's situation is an important example of a legal halt, because she has been subjected to police assault prior to any legal edict. Pal also ignores her extreme reluctance to seeing photographs of dead bodies, including Brati's body: "despite angrily turning her head away, Saroj Pal insistently holds the picture up in front of her eyes." Pal also "bends closer to Nandini, lights a cigarette, and places the lit cigarette
on Nandini's cheek." She screams angrily. He puffs on his cigarette before pressing it against Nandini's cheek once more. Nandini cries angrily. The pattern and the questions continue.” ”.
Nandini's right eye, which is "blind from the glare of the thousand-watt lighting," is "on medical leave." This gives on-stage evidence to the scope of the state's torture while also figuratively representing the state's efforts to squash the Naxalite movement, because torture is employed as a tactic of repression and deterrence against rebellion and the Naxalite movement when used indiscriminately.
Basic rights of the accused, such as the right to a trial and the right to summon witnesses in their defence, are normally guaranteed by legal systems: Before being convicted, a defendant is likewise protected against harsh treatment or punishment. Thousands of young men and women, however, are arrested and denied their basic human rights, according to Nandini. They are imprisoned before formal convictions are made: they are neither detainees nor prisoners according to regular legal systems. Similarly, Naxalite members imprisoned "without trial" are "unclassifiable beings" who are exposed to the state's wrath. They are held indefinitely and subjected to psychological and physical torture by interrogators.
Nandini develops authority during her narrativization; her speech expresses opposition and power over Pal, as evidenced by her refusal to speak despite his relentless efforts to collect information from her. Nandini's expressions during Pal's interrogation, such as "I don't know them," "I won't say a word," and "I don't believe you," show her as an active subject rather than a passive victim.
Through her shout, her animosity for Pal is amplified. Despite the fact that the scream is prompted by bodily agony, it strengthens Pal's objection: her voice adds to the scene, inferring her dominance over him.
Her second on-stage scream also serves as a metaphor for defiance: In response to Sujata's remark,
"it's all silent now," Nandini "screams" loudly, scaring the crowd, and her authoritative voice power reaches a new high. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no It was never quiet, and it still isn't. There has been no change. Thousands of men are left to fester in cells without trial, without political status, and yet you claim that everything is back to normal? Torture is becoming more sophisticated and secretive, and you claim it's all quiet? Is it completely silent? What do you need to convince yourself that there is no silence? Nandini is able to freely express her criticism of the government in the play. It's worth noting that fiction is frequently used to express alternate historical narratives, horrific experiences, and the voices of the voiceless. When Naxalites are brutalised, she asks a rhetorical question: "How can you be arrogant and complacent?" Her rebelliousness and self-determination to grow "sharp like a dissectors' knife" add to this. Nandini's claim—"someday you'll learn that I've been arrested again"—implies the Naxalite movement's unbroken ideology and confrontation in the aftermath of the authorities' cruelty. This is a reversal of the state's authority, as well as an affirmation of marginalised and silenced voices in the face of modern biopolitics.
Thus, despite aspirations to establish the country via democracy and fairness, both Salman Rushdie's Midnight Children and Mahasweta Devi's Mother of 1084 expose the country's illegal internal politics. The characters' life experiences Saleem Sinai and Nandini exemplify the country's use of biopolitics centred on the insurgent's body, including verbal and physical harassment. “In every case, the state of exception represents a threshold at which logic and praxis blend together,”
Agamben explains. The Naxalites' experiences demonstrate how the extended state of exception deprives them of their human rights while also placing them on a precipice between human and inhuman status. Rushdie criticises racialization, enacted on the basis of phenotype, gender, nation, and region by India's people and its biopolitical nation-state alike, in Midnight's Children, according to Foucault's theory, which he claims has increasingly prevented this ideal from animating India's daily life and politics since independence in 1947. This complicates the rebels' acts on the one hand, and biopolitical stratagems emerging in the modern world on the other, and creates a key place for meaningful reflection on biopolitics and resistance on the other.
References
1. Banerjee, Ashish. 1992. ‘Comparative Curfew’: Changing Dimensions of Communal Politics in India. In Veena Das, ed., Mirrors of Violence: Communities, Riots, and Survivors in South Asia, 37-68. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
2. Beer, Dan. 2002. Michel Foucault: Form and Power. Oxford: Legend.
3. Behera, Navnita Chadha. 2006. Demystifying Kashmir. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
4. Bhabha, Homi K. 1994. The Location of Culture. London and New York: Routledge.
5. Blank, Robert H. and Samuel M. Hines, Jr. 2001. Biology and Political Science. New York:
Routledge. Blum, Lawrence. 2002. ‘I’m Not Racist, But…’: The Moral Quandary of Race.
Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
6. Brass, Paul R. 1994. The Politics of India since Independence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Wiegele, Thomas C. 1979. Biopolitics: Search for a More Human Political Science.
Boulder: Westview.
8. Young, Robert J. C. 1994. Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Theory, Culture and Race.
London: Routledge.
9. Soja, Edward W. 2010. Postmetropolis: Critical Studies of Cities and Regions. Oxford:
Blackwell.
10. Patel, Sujata and Alice Thorner, eds. 1995. Bombay: Metaphor for Modern India. Delhi:
Oxford University Press.
11. Pandey, Gyanendra. 2001. Remembering Partition: Violence, Nationalism and History in India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Fanon, F. (1967/2008). Black skin, white masks (C. L. Markmann, Trans.). London: Pluto Press.
13. Foucault, M. (1997/2003). Society must be defended: Lectures at the College De France 1975-76 (D. Macey, Trans., and M. Bertani & A. Fontana, Eds.). New York: Picador.
14. Foucault, M. (2008) The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the College De France 1978-79 (G. Burchell, Trans., and M. Senellart, Ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
15. Iyer, N. S. (2007). Musings on Indian writing in English: Volume III (Drama). New Delhi:
Sarup and Sons. Kennedy, J., & Purushotham, S. (2012). Beyond Naxalbari: A comparative
analysis of Maoist insurgency and counterinsurgency in independent India. In Comparative Studies in Society and History, 54(4), 832-862.
16. Mishra, R. K. (2011). Naxalite-Maoist insurgency. Jaipur (India): Y. King Books.
17. Sinha, A., & Vaishnav, M. (2012). The Naxalite insurgency in India. Washington, D.C.
Retrieved from http:// carnegieendowment.org/2012/11/14/Naxalite-insurgence- inindia/edss [Accessed on 19th June 2021].
