Dr. Krishna Kant Singh

Professor of English

P. G. Dept. of English

Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara

Abstract: 

This paper aims to study the dual role of the imperialism during colonial period in different parts of the world. P. H. Newby who is highly critical of the role of the British empire, tries to show the lack of responsibility and accountability as well as mindset of the rulers busy in exploiting innocent people of the colonized country. His novel Something to Answer For seems to be the real embodiment of such critical expression dealing with his motive to explore various dimension in this regard.

Keywords: Imperialism, Colonialism, Colonial, Colonized, Expression, Dimension Accountability, Responsibility 

 Percy Howard Newby (1918 – 1997) was an English novelist and broadcasting administrator. He was the first winner of the Booker Prize for his novel Something to Answer For in 1969, also the year of the beginning of the Booker Prize. He was a voluminous writer during his long span of time. He wrote more than twenty novels during his career. His novels do not increase only volumes but have the wonderful quality of creativity the novelist has tried to maintain all the time. In all his novels, P. H. Newby has presented human life with some hidden truth combined with literary beauty and grace. At the same time, he has also raised some of the important issues of the modern world related to international relations and the impact of two World Wars. His wonderful way of creativity enables him to see the world in different perspectives. 

            Something to Answer For is a wonderful novel by P. H. Newby in which he has beautifully and remarkably presented the emotional breakdown of the widow who is in search of the heritage of her husband Elie Khoury and did not take pain to travel a distant land to know something about him. In her search, she met with several persons and came across with different incidents which are full of emotions and passions. About the wonderful quality of narration in this novel, a critic rightly observes in Times Literary Supplement in these words:

An absorbing feat of narrative ingenuity, a study of psychological disorientation which traces its plot – line with immense skill and resource through the mist of the mental confusion which besets its main character. The book is brilliantly resourceful entertainment. 

            The plot of the novel is well – knit and the story – line is not so much complicated because the setting of the novel which is quite universal in nature. There is a wonderful correspondence between the title and the plot because the question of responsibility as well as accountability has been incorporated with great perfection. The novel puts the basic question that everyone must be accountable for his or her action and one should not deny at all his or her accountability. If anyone belongs to the particular nation, he must be influenced by the deeds as well actions of the rulers of the particular country. Newby, in this wonderful book, does not hesitate to discover the relationship between the colonizer and the colonized, and above all he seems to be criticizing the English rulers for their nature of exploitation. He seems to be the bold writer. About his this quality, a critic writes in Paris Review in these words:

“Graham Greene called him a fine writer who has never had the full recognition that he deserves, “and that is as true now as it was in Newby’s lifetime. ‘Something to Answer For’ boasts a wonderful sense of place.”

            In this novel, P. H. Newby beautifully incorporated the events after the Second World War which affected the world politics. The novel is set in Egypt in 1956, during the Suez Crisis. The problems occurred after the Second World War had changed the entire scenario of the world. The novel would like to unfold some of the hidden truths related to world politics. In the novel, the nationalization of Suez Canal by President Nasser forms the major issue. President Nasser nationalized the canal and Egypt took control of an extremely important asset from the British and French. The Egyptians offered compensation but the British and French suspected the move which would reduce their influence in the region, while the Egyptians did like the thought that western countries wished to continue colonialism. Israel attacked Egypt after secret talks with England and France, perceiving Egypt as a possible threat, and England and France also invaded. America, concerned that Russia would take sides with Egypt, pressured England and France into a ceasefire and pursued a resolution through the United Nations.

            The narrative of the novel is full of thrills because of the travelling of the memory of the characters all the time. Here, past and present run simultaneously with sudden stroke. Mrs. K. has her own agenda to know about the death of her husband while Townrow has his own agenda. However, things do not quite go according to the plan for Townrow. In a stopover in Italy on his way to Egypt he meets an Israeli reporter who asks him why the British did not warn the Jews against getting on the German trains in World War II. In effect, the reporter blames the English for the magnitude of the Holocaust. Townrow cannot accept that this is true but is nevertheless bothered by the implication that England is a country without higher ideals. He has critical opinion regarding the attitude of the English people for not behaving rightly at many times. He says in these words:

   In the U. K. you trusted people. In the main you took it for granted people acted decently. You made an assumption about the man who sat next to you on the tube. You did not know for sure. You just assumed. Well, if you did not make assumptions like that how could you trust in the government? Townrow wanted to tell Mrs. K. that trust is big things started with personal relations. (p. 43)

            In the character of Townrow, Newby puts so many things altogether. His character gives opportunity to the novelist to make his own opinion on several issues altogether. His character has everything – thrill, fascination, imagination, confusion, contrast, controversy, dilemma, etc. And all these characteristics make him quite unique also. But at many times. Townrow is not able to control the narrative and it happens due to disorientation in his personality.

            Apart from the conversation between Townrow and Mrs K., the book is full of other remarks also which throw light on the contemporary situation of European politics. After the Second World War, some new assumptions came into existence because of the division of opinions the controlling power of time. All these external remarks are also centred around the approach of Townrow and Mrs. K.

            But at many places in the novel, Townrow’s expressions give the true impression of contemporary politics. He often talks about the expression of Churchill who believes that Egyptians were an inferior race and their attitude finds casual expression in the novel. Similarly at one place, the novelist writes about the same view in these words: 

The Egyptians and the Irish have a fellow feeling. They are both victims of British imperialism and one and once your estate is in my name they’d no more think of sequestrating it than the rock of Cashel itself, assuming it was on Egyptian territory and occupied by the Irish Ambassador. It makes no difference at all that there is no Irish Embassy in Cairo. A citizen of the Irish Republic always gets a welcome at the American Embassy, you know. (p. 67)

            Right from the beginning of the story, Townrow’s character is full of confusion and contrast. Sometime, he is himself responsible for making confusing remarks and putting himself in that danger. Very early in the story, he is beaten up, suffering a head injury. While this might explain at the plot why Townrow confuses many matters, it does not explain the importance of Townrow’s difficulties for what the novel has to say about personal as well as nation morality at many times. The novelist writes about Townrow’s problems in these words: 

Townrow was not at his best talking to Mrs K. He was not at his best talking to any women. There were so many unsaid things to remember. Nowadays people talked a lot of cant about the equality of men and women. The fact was though, that Mrs. K. had been dispossessed of her flat because she was a woman and he was a man. (p. 71)

            The novel seems to be a typical modern text in which various thematic perceptions are assigned to decode modern life in the context of modern assumptions. The novel seems to be a post – colonial text in which modern problems related to human existence have been analysed with and contrast. This aspect of the novel reminded us of Kafka and the pointlessness of, for example, trying to explain exactly what Joseph K. may have been arrested for, or the labyrinthine machinations of the legal system which holds him. The whole point is to be confused as he is, surely. We wondered whether Newby, himself may have been influenced by Kafka or not, that is the big question. But the impression which has been created by the implication in the character of Townrow seems to remind Kafka’s philosophy of absurdity. 

            Apart from the post-colonial textual quality as well as post-modern textual impressions, the novel throws lights on the shifting morality and assumptions from one era to another. Moral questioning arises from having one’s narratives challenged and arriving at uncertainty. For example, when Britain’s integrity is challenged by the reporter, Townrow finds it difficult to reconcile his conception of a country he believes is a moral leader with one that might act improperly. There is a direct correlation between the moral culpability of an individual. Townrow has rationalized his own actions for so long believing, for instance, that the fund he milks is of none to anyone, which only a step away from the grifting of people like Mrs. K. by more direct means. All these sense of morality is visible in the case of England’s attitude after the nationalization of the canal by the Egypt. The people of the Egypt believed that this thing is not tolerated by the British people at all. The novelist writes at this juncture in these words:

The assumption the British were nasty enough to start a war was what annoyed Townrow. Anybody would think Amin and that Israeli at Rome Airport had been putting their heads together. (p. 76)

            Like so many people, the novelist deals with the role of colonial rule in the countries. There is an utter sense of confusion and contrast regarding role of the colonizers in different parts of the world. Townrow holds the same view when he says:

There is no need. This country is lucky the European power it has had most to do with is England and not Germany, or Russia, or even France. They are fine people. I say that as an Irishman. They are fine people, except when they are in Ireland. I’d say the devil had gone out of them nowadays. (p. 77)

            Townrow’s remarks are full of considerations. All his words cannot be taken in the manner of confusion rather his words tell the reality of contemporary politics as well as contemporary world relations. He seems to be quite straight forward in his remarks. At another place, he says in these words:

In a way yet to be determined you were concerned with the violent death of an Egyptian citizen. What I am immediately interested in is the reason for your being in Egypt at the hottest time of the year… As a foreigners you are under obligation to keep the police informed of your movements. Is this to be your address while staying in the Republic. (p. 77)

            Townrow would like to get the property Mrs. K. anyhow. According to the critics, Townrow’s personality shows the chaos and anarchy in the time after the Second World War. When people have to live in such devastative condition, there is no question of any kind of morality at all. There is no question of law and order in such situations. Townrow seems to be the typical fellow living in the era after the devastative condition visible after the Second World War. Townrow’s lust for the property of Mrs. K. is the real example of the disorientation visible in human personality. Townrow says in these words:

The conventional thing would to be say I was a crook … but as long as you do not hurt anybody, all the rest is red tape, technicalities. Jobs for the lawyers. Take Mrs. K.’s property. If she does not give it to me the Egyptians are going to confiscate it, are not they? There are two kinds of law, book law and real law. Breaking book law is like blood sports. What annoys people is not that you are breaking it but that you are doing a bit of good for yourself, enjoying yourself if you like. I never broke any real law. But I know enough of the matter to know that the real law is God’s law. I’ d never break that. I don’t think I could. It isn’t in my nature, except when I lose my temper. (p. 137)

            The conversation between Townrow and David Abravanel. Their correspondence is quite symbolic in many reasons altogether. Their talks raise many inevitable questions regarding her issues pertinent during that period. For instance, in one of his letters, David Abravanel writes to Townrow in these words:

Dear Mr. Townrow, [the writing was a debased copper – plate in purple ink, like a menu in a French restaurant]. The Egyptian Government will soon nationalise all property of British and French nationals and it is to her advantage for Mrs. Khoury to transfer all her property to an Egyptian national, myself. She will not listen to me. Will you please persuade her? (p. 152)

            The reply of Townrow is quite objective. He would like to bring truth before the readers regarding the racial discrimination and prejudices. According to the critics, this might be one of the thematic perceptions in the novel. The Second World War produced such devastative effects as far as racial discrimination is being concerned. The reply of Townrow may be taken in this direction because it evokes many things altogether: 

Certainly not, [Townrow wrote the same sheet of paper] I am an Irish citizen and neutral. Property in my name would not be touched. You are Jewish. Mrs. K. seems to know a thing or two. How do you know you won’t be stripped as an Israeli sympathiser? Worse things have happened. (p. 153)

            The problem related to racial discriminations forms the major part in the novel. Townrow and David Abravanel discuss this issue with more curiosity. Abravanel was amazed as well as surprised by Townrow’s decision to stay in Egypt. The novelist writes about these things at this juncture in these conflicting words:

I wonder you stay in this country. There is no future for Jews here. Now look, you’re Jewish, you do not believe the British could have done more than they did to save European Jews during the war… your own common sense should tell you, shouldn’t it? There are a lot of Jews in England. You don’t think they’d have stood for it if they thought the government was not doing everything. Don’t you agree? (p. 154)

            Townrow was worried about the property of Elie who was the husband of Mrs. K. His lust for materialistic upliftment is quite suggestive and at the same time it also evokes many hidden issues the novelist would like to highlight. Townrow tells Abravanel in these words:

If you think there is going to be a British invasion why worry about Elie’s property being nationalised. It would only be for about a fortnight. (p. 155)

            Townrow’s strategy evokes many questions before the readers. His adventures are quite ambiguous in nature. About his morality, the policeman rightly says:

This is not the question of sexual morality. Under the revolution we shall have high standards, in public life, private life, everywhere. But first we have to destroy the imperialist aggressions. (p. 161)

            There seems to strong contrast between Mrs. K. and Townrow. Townrow seems to be highly productive while Mrs. K. has strong sense of sensitiveness and her this attitude comes on surface when she talks about her husband and her relationship with him. Still the memory of her husband haunts her every time. She would like to do everything to make enquiry about his disappearance or murder. There seems to be strong sense of bonding between them and that is why she is much interested in him even after his death. She is not able to leave his association with her. She tells about her emotional bonding with Elie in these words: 

He was a man with his limitations. I don’t deny that, all to do with his nationality and his country. I am not a Roman Catholic, you know. My father was C. of E. It had something to do with his command, conducting religious services on board, marrying people and burying them at sea. You could say it was professional. My first husband was a congregationalist. I do not believe in God, but I do have this feeling of obligation and duty to my husband, and that is not easy for some of us to understand. (p. 189)

            Unlike Townrow, Mrs. K. seems to be a character with strong will and determination. She has strong moral sense which does not allow her to anything wrong. There seems to be a perfect correspondence between her words and action. She does not become panic at all at any juncture. About the politics going on that time, she has a strong sense of observations in her mind. In her discussion with Leah about the question of morality, Mrs K. tells her in strong words:

Everybody has done something wrong you know the English expression, a skeleton in the cupboard. We have all done bad things. It is only natural. Let him that is without sin cast the first stone. And you know what happened? Nobody moved. Now, you being Jewish, you would know that story. (p. 191)

            The last part of the novel has much pace and the narrative goes in hustle. All the characters Leah, Mrs. K. Townrow, etc have become much closed to each other for different reasons altogether. Their conversation shows a strong sense of contradictions in their approach towards life and some other things also. Specially, the in the conversation between Townrow and Mrs. K. does not support the adventures of European army in Egypt. She tells:

I am not afraid for my father any more. When there is a European army here the Jews will be all right. Did I tell you my husband was sick? He needs more than my father. A woman has to choose. (p. 222)

            Something to Answer For is not only about the thrills, fascinations, drama and melodrama occur during Mrs. K.’s enquiry about her husband, but the central motive of the novelist seems to familiarize the common belief of the oppression of the Jews in the hands of European army, the dominance of the white world over others, racial discrimination, etc. Townrow, Leah and Mrs. K. are very vibrant in their expression regarding all these issues. Even though Towrow was very much obsessed with Leah, but even in the conversation between Leah and Townrow, we notice same kind of thematic perceptions. John. H. Bright rightly remarks in this direction:

The central motive of the novelist in ‘Something to Answer For’ is display the contemporary politics with some ironical display of narration which includes many things altogether. There is emotion, passion, drama, melodrama, thrill, fascination and expression in the book, but every time, the novel deals with the contemporary politics which seems to be in the centre of the book. Objectivity and subjectivity run in this book simultaneously. (Adventures and Politics in Contemporary Birtish Fiction, p. 113)

            So, internal as well as external conflict in the novel goes simultaneously. Sometime there is description of sex and such pleasure and the next moment, there is description of bombardment. But the imaginative flight of the novelist is so excellent that he is able to capture the attention without any much pain. For instance, at one place, he describes about such bombardment in these words:

The town rocked. This was no ordinary bombardment. The pale sky balanced and broke out in a worried penciling of little clouds. The sun pushed up out of Asin to meet this jerky incandescence from the west Townrow wanted to rush up to the roof as he was, naked, dragging Leah with blood. (p. 225)

            The last part of the novel is full of drama. Some sudden and inevitable incidents bring a note of conflict and contrast. This is what makes the ending of the novel interesting. The exhumation of Elie’s coffin to bury it at sea becomes farcical. It is also a desperate attempt by Townrow to reconcile his competing moral obligations to Mrs. K. who will not leave Egypt where her husband is buried and to Leah whom he desired to accompany if he can, so that he might be judged a moral man. But there is ultimately a futility in Townrow’s morality laid bare by the presence of the British fleet.

            The mystery of some incidents brings the inevitable twist in the plot as well as story in the novel without any doubt. Even if the reader is left to wonder what has happened, what it all means, this is an entertaining yet unsettling novel. A novel which had merely retold the Suez crisis through a bland narrative could not have achieved what this novel does. It is aimed at a western audience naturally, predominantly British. But the unsettling as well as dissonant narrative is enough to challenge entrenched attitudes and a national sense of entitlement. The Suez crisis is said to mark the end of British dominance and its empire, and this novel challenges the moral assumptions that sustained that empire. About the multiple suggestiveness in the plot, Boris Mayer rightly remarks in these words:

There is an extreme sense of multiple depiction in the book which denotes a sense of decoding through proper documentation. Newby seems to put many questions before the readers which must be answered. (Boris Mayer, Creativity in Post – Colonial Era, p. 147)

            The last part of the novel are full of moving notes. The writer finds an opportunity to dive deep into human emotions and passions. The funeral of Elie has been described with much gravity and with philosophical notes. There are so many deaths in the novel which provoke the sense of seriousness in the narrative. The description which contains such kind of gravity and seriousness are abundance in the book. For instance, at one place, the novelist writes in these words:

The first funeral had found him thinking exactly the opposite. Life and sanity depended on giving the woman up. The second funeral made it seem life and sanity depended on grabbing her. He realised his desires were running in opposite directions. He had not changed. The explanation was not that the first funeral came before the second. (p. 249)

            Among all the characters, Mrs. K. seems to be more pathetic as well as compassionate. Her suffering which is more emotional in nature, evokes the bare truth the novel would like to evoke. The novel seems to be about those who create only problem, havoc and commotion, but do not come forward to take any kind of responsibility. The writer tells about her problem:

It was not true Mrs. K. had insisted on brining Elie with her. She had been all for staying in port said, even when the Connel and an officer our of movement control called and said all British nationals, French nationals, united states citizens, in fact pretty well everybody. Without Egyptians papers, were being evacuated. They accepted no responsibility for her safety. (p. 259)

            Mrs. K. does not want to leave the place of her husband’s ‘Karmabhumi.’ Her decision is quite remarkable as well as convincing. It adds many dimensions to her character also. She has strong faith and belief in the country in which her husband lived for a longer period. There seems to be a kind of emotional connectivity with that place. Even though the Britishers leave Egypt after Suez crisis, but some people like Mrs. K. does not want to leave rather would like to live in spite of unrest and discomfort. Mrs. K. tells about her obligations towards this place and her connectivity with her husband in these words: 

I am not leaving this town. I am not afraid of the Egyptians. This building is my husband’s property. Was his property. He’s buried in this town. I’m too old to quit. Ten years ago I might have quit. There’s nothing for me anywhere else. I am comfortable here. I cannot start again. It’s come all too late. Elie is in this town and I’ll stay with him. (p. 259)

            Certainly, the title of the novel is quite apt and appropriate for many reasons altogether. Mrs. K. realises the fact that the Britishers are quite responsible for this mishaps and problems notice during this crisis. Townrow still persists Mrs. K. to leave Egypt because of inevitable danger, unrest and discomfort. On the other hand, she does not mind all these things and insists on living in the country where her husband is buried. She tells Townrow these words which are full of meaning and significance: 

I am ashamed of being British. Why start an invasion if you do not mean to go through with it? Why stop when you have got as far as this? I will tell you what, we British have lost our nurve. People of my father’s generation would not have lost their nurve. Thank God he’s dead and spared the shame. It was bad enough for him me marrying a foreigner but he’d have been really upset at the thought of British troops giving way to the United Nations, black Africans most of them, or yellow men, though I know that for the sake of appearances they sent mostly white troops. But they are Indians. Did you see the Yugoslavs? Now, there is a people I admire, not their politics, but they are independent, you see, and they have got this pride. I was a nurse in Montenegro in the First war and I know. They had just give up, those Balkan people. But there as a lot of tipping. I some ways they had no self – respect. You tipped shop assistants. But they’d never have quit like the British. So that’s one reason why I’m staying. (p. 260)

                        At the end of the novel, though it was uncertain how much of what was related actually took place or how much was a fever or drunken dream, Townrow also, like Mrs. K. comes to believe that a citizen is not responsible for the morality of his government and has only himself and his own actions to answer for. Both things are quite apparent here. An individual is also not responsible for the events take place on behalf of the government and vice – versa, the government is also not responsible for an individual’s action. The question of morality is quite esoteric and varies from person to person and nation to nation. So, a person should not be accountable for the decisions taken by the government and on the other hand, the government should also not be blamed for the anything done by the individual. So, the title directly corresponds with the plot, and the book throws light on some of the international issues of discussion and importance. Politics, drama, emotions, passions, thrills, charm and fascinations are enough in the book. All these things make this book quite unique and significant.

Works Cited:

1. Bright, John H. Adventures and Politics in Contemporary British Fiction Newman, London, 1971.
2. Mayor, Boris, Creativity in Post – Colonial Era, Hoggard, London, 1984.
3. Newby, P. H., Something to Answer For, Faber and Faber, London, 1968.
4. Paris Review
5. Something to Answer For http://www. faber.co.uk.
6. Times Literary Supplement.