Essay by Sim Deol
Art by Margaret Xun
In her Bollywood-inspired Austen adaptation, Gurinder Chadha’s Bride and Prejudice reveals that even the most English of narratives can be transformed in order to celebrate cultures that have been affected by British colonization. Austen’s original text, Pride and Prejudice, is deeply entrenched in a colonial context, even though its acknowledgement of the world outside of England is scarce. In spite of this absence, Chadha’s adaptation is nevertheless able to articulate several post-colonial Indian concerns through her use of transpositional adaptation. As a result of this adaptive style, Chadha is able to fashion her characters to voice concerns about different areas of Indian post-coloniality: Mrs. Bakshi speaks to cultural by-products of colonialism, Darcy speaks to modern Orientalism and neocolonialism, and Kiran and Kohli speak to the effects of the Punjabi diaspora.
In undertaking the task of reconciling Austen’s Regency England with her own vision of twenty-first century Amritsar, Chadha employs strategies that draw on adaptation theory. As outlined in Adaptation and Appropriation, Julie Sanders explains that transpositional adaptations “relocat[e] their source texts not just generically but in cultural, geographic and temporal terms” (25). Furthermore, she adds that transposition often serves the function of “voicing what the text silences or marginalizes” (Sanders 23). While adaptations generally call attention to the alterations a creator implements, the changes typical of transpositional adaptation—those of culture, geography, or time frame—are ideal as tools for the articulation of post-colonial thought. Through temporal transposition, Chadha is able to realize a narrative that takes place in a world informed by education, technology, and globalization, which aids the adaptation’s ability to discuss colonial issues that take place on a global scale. Chadha’s adjustment of the narrative’s location calls attention to a place often silenced in the cycle of British imperial history, understanding India to be a nation inhibited and still suffering from the effects of colonialism. This shift also allows Chadha to celebrate Indian culture and critique aspects of Indian society through the same mode that Austen does with the English, and this is primarily achieved through the behaviours and personalities of the narrative’s principal characters. Once adjusted to fit their new cultural context, the transposed characters naturally raise and promote discussion of modern post-colonial concerns surrounding India.
Harnessing the dramatic nature of Austen’s Mrs. Bennet, Chadha provides cultural commentary through Mrs. Bakshi’s comic relief. However, by transposing her as an Indian matriarch as opposed to an English one, she stands as a cultural marker. Mrs. Bakshi serves to outline some of the flaws in the older generation’s mindset that are remnants of colonial influence and indirectly uphold white supremacy and Western superiority. While in Austen’s tale, Mrs. Bennet favours Bingley as a suitor for her daughters because he is “[a] single man of large fortune” (41), Mrs. Bakshi’s reasons are adjusted to her Indian context. Her impressed expression upon learning that Balraj’s “family live[s] in Windsor, near the Queen’s castle” (Bride and Prejudice 4:50-4:53) reveals that while status is awarded to Bingley based on his wealth, Balraj is awarded status based on his proximity to colonial authority. Mrs. Bakshi’s preference for Western association also prompts her endorsement of Kohli’s proposal, as he is another example of an immigrant with a Westernized lifestyle. Furthermore, Mrs. Bakshi makes a comment that signals another cultural by-product of colonial influence: eurocentric beauty standards. Chandra’s mother and Mrs. Bakshi compliment Kiran—Balraj’s sister—stating that she is beautiful because she is “so fair” (Bride and Prejudice 4:54-4:56). This comment illuminates that light skin is understood as synonymous with beauty as a result of eurocentric beauty standards, calling up another post-colonial critique of Indian culture present in Chadha’s Bride and Prejudice. Although Mrs. Bakshi provides laughs throughout the film’s duration, she nevertheless acts as a cultural marker through which Chadha critiques the modern cultural remnants of British colonial presence in India.
Darcy’s character, in both Austen’s and Chadha’s renditions of the narrative, is essential to their discussions of prejudice. In transposing Darcy from an English aristocrat in Hertfordshire to an American businessman visiting India, Chadha transforms Darcy’s Austenian representation of class prejudice into a portrayal of post-colonial threats: Orientalism and neocolonialism. Orientalism, which is articulated by Kasbekar as “the Western demotion of Asian culture to The Other as lowly, quaint, [and] inherently inferior,” (n.p.) is clearly demonstrated through Darcy’s behaviour and sense of superiority over India as a whole. Perhaps the most bold instance of his Eurocentrism is in his disapproval of Jaya—the transposed Jane—as a match for Balraj. Near the film’s beginning, his mind is made up as he asks Balraj why he does not “just hook up with some Indian girl from England, or even America,” on the premise that they would “[a]t least […] have something in common” (Bride and Prejudice 14:30-14:45). When met with resistance, his insistence that they are “in Hicksville, India” (Bride and Prejudice 15:05-15:12) cements that he sees Jaya’s country of origin as determinative of her character. While Darcy’s Orientalist views are a result of his transposed American background, his neocolonial views are a result of his transposed profession. Apart from considering that Darcy’s entire purpose for being present in India is owed to capitalistic ventures, the best demonstration of Darcy as a neo-colonizer is found in his conversation with Lalita in Goa. When challenged with her perception that Darcy “think[s] India [is] beneath [him],” he quickly retorts that “[i]f [he] really thought that” he would not “be thinking about buying” the hotel at which they are staying (Bride and Prejudice 27:50-28:05). In Darcy’s view, his economic interest in India remedies his prejudice; he inadvertently views his investment as being of service to India simply because of his Western background. Thus, he fails to recognize the position of power he holds in such investments, especially as someone supporting a neocolonial business: that of tourism targeted at Western travellers. In Lalita’s reaction to Darcy’s ignorance, she states that “what all tourists want” in India is “[f]ive star comfort with a little culture thrown in,” and that she does not want Darcy “turning India into a theme park” (Bride and Prejudice 28:05-28:24). Lalita’s words directly articulate a neocolonial concern around the gentrification of India for Western pleasure, and comprise Chadha’s keen articulation of the corrupt Western business interest in India. As explained by Sohinee Roy in “Beyond Crossover Films,” “[i]n the circuit of global capital, the postcolonial states are in the periphery, at the service of western capital interests” (988). The result of India’s lack of wealth—which is yet another consequence of its colonial history—is a need for foreign investment, and in order to receive it, a pressure to conform to the will of Western investors. Chadha’s film demonstrates this scenario clearly, where India must act as a locus for Western business activity that mostly benefits Westerners: although some jobs would be provided as a result of Darcy’s potential hotel, where would the money generated by his investment go, other than his own pockets? Darcy does not realize that his neo-colonial investment in India would serve to benefit no one apart from himself and his American family, and he is deluded to the point of feeling self-righteous for such a choice. The critique that the aforementioned scene articulates is one of strong anti-coloniality, calling out Western business interest that is eager to profit off of Indians but not hold them in equal regard. Ultimately, using the aforementioned strategies, Chadha’s characterization of Darcy articulates concerns that arise when Westerners come to India. However, as explored in the subsequent paragraphs, her characterizations of Kiran and Kohli critique the inverse: the attitudes of Indians that settle in the West.
Kiran and Kohli articulate a more modern aspect of post-coloniality: the Punjabi diaspora and its resulting effects on the relationship dynamics between immigrants and resident Indians. In Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, both Kiran and Kohli’s antecedent embodiments, Caroline Bingley and Mr. Collins, belong to a social group commonly termed as ‘new money’—defined by their climbing of the class ladder based on newly acquired wealth. Considering the context of Chadha’s adaptation—which is partly informed by globalization—as well as the adaptation’s post-colonial frame, the most logical equivalent to Austen’s ‘new money’ is immigrant status. The two share similarities in regards to positive effects on one’s reputation, and especially considering the sentiments around immigration to the West from characters like Mrs. Bakshi, the idea of the ‘American (or generally Western) Dream’ is still a hope that is clearly alive and well. Such a nuanced alteration of a core aspect of both Caroline and Collins’ characters demonstrates unequivocally the power of transpositional adaptations to voice different concerns from that of the source text.
First turning to Kiran, her character clearly displays a transposed version of Caroline Bingley, viewing herself as superior to others; only in Bride and Prejudice, it is not on the basis of class but rather her status as a non-resident Indian. Kiran’s character is jokingly accused of being “a coconut” (Bride and Prejudice 6:04-6:10), a metaphor that denotes one’s inner conformity with white culture despite being Indian, or generally of colour. The description is proved accurate, as Kiran soon retorts that “[t]he only thing India is good for is losing weight” (Bride and Prejudice 6:10-6:11). Chadha uses Kiran’s intensely assimilated character to articulate concerns around the superiority that is held in some Punjabi immigrant communities. As exhibited by the adapted Caroline, there is a feeling of being “above” traditional Indian customs that likely stems from a sense of shame as a result of growing up in Western society where one’s culture is a minority. Kohli, on the other hand, presents an exaggerated, ridiculous picture of the Indian immigrant—a caricature. Although he fundamentally shares many aspects of his immigrant identity with Kiran and Balraj, his more socially accepted counterparts, he is made to appear foolish based on the key differences between them. Kohli shares Kiran’s sense of superiority over his resident Indian relatives, instead identifying as an American “green card holder” (Bride and Prejudice 57:45), and distancing himself from his country of origin in attempts to inflate himself in the eyes of those with similar status. These characters to whom Kohli appeals—Kiran, Balraj, Darcy, and Catherine—are all associated with either immigrant status or the West in Bride and Prejudice, the equivalent of ‘new money’ or nobility in Pride and Prejudice. Furthermore, Kohli explains that “[t]here [is] only one problem with Amrika—[Indian] girls that are born there, they [have] totally lost their roots” (Bride and Prejudice 39:08-39:19). Despite his attempts to appear wholly American, he does not prefer the result of an Indian woman conditioned by Western assimilation. Thus, in many ways, Chadha’s film uses Kiran and Kohli to articulate the intricacies of immigrant identity and its interactions with resident Indian culture.
Overall, it can be observed that transposition as an adaptive strategy is an invaluable tool in the context of post-colonial adaptations. Gurinder Chadha’s use of transpositional adaptation for her take on Austen, Bride and Prejudice, allows her to articulate different sets of post-colonial Indian concerns, namely those of cultural by-products of colonialism, modern Orientalism and neocolonialism, and effects of the Punjabi diaspora. Chadha’s film speaks to the immeasurable value of post-colonial perspectives, and illustrates that there is not just one correct mode through which to discuss the realities that contemporary Indians face, for even Austen has proved useful for such purposes.
Works Cited
Austen, Jane, and Robert P. Irvine. Pride and Prejudice. Broadview Press, 2020.
Bride and Prejudice. Directed by Gurinder Chadha. Pathé, 2004.
Kasbekar, Veena P. “Bride and Prejudice: Austen Colonized? A Desi (Insider) Perspective”. Persuasions: the Jane Austen Journal Online, vol. 41, no. 2, 2021.
Sanders, Julie. Adaptation and Appropriation. Routledge, New York; London, 2016.
Roy, Sohinee. “Beyond Crossover Films: Bride and Prejudice and the Problems of Representing Postcolonial India in a Neoliberal World.” Journal of Popular Culture, vol. 49, no. 5, 2016, pp. 984-1002.