In Passage to India, the subaltern is mentioned twice, the 1st is in ch6, whereas he played polo with Aziz, the 2nd is in ch20 attacking Indians?my question is: in ch20 while he is attacking...

In Passage to India, the subaltern is mentioned twice, the 1st is in ch6, whereas he played polo with Aziz, the 2nd is in ch20 attacking Indians?

my question is: in ch20 while he is attacking Indians, he says:"...Angels...Exactly..." " Exactly what I said. The native's all right if you get him alone. Lesley! Lesley! You remember the one I had a Knock with on your maidan last month. Well, he was all right. Any native who plays polo is all right. What you've got to stamp on is these educated classes, and, mind, I do know what I'm talking about this time"

now, is he unawarely praising Aziz ?! I mean he does not know the identity of the convict and that he had played with him polo, and so he is unawarely praising the same convict?!(a kind of irony) and what does the sentence in bold italics mean?

Expert Answers
lynnebh eNotes educator| Certified Educator

I think this points more to the overall theme of the book, that cultural differences between the Indians and the British are so entrenched, that they may take a lifetime to change, if indeed they can be changed. The only hope for dealing with cultural clashes is on a personal level, when people come together as individuals. When Aziz and the soldier play polo, they are on the same level – they are both polo players. They are not “an Indian” and “an Englishman.” Later, in chapter 20, the soldier actually underscores this idea with his words when he says “the native is all right if you get him alone” and “any native who plays polo is all right.” The words in bold perhaps indicate that educated people place too much emphasis on cultural differences. Perhaps the more education one has, the more one focuses on the differences between people, not what should bring people together – things like games, fun, one-to-one relationships such as Aziz and Fielding, polo.

kareemo | Student

 ok, specifically, I am asking about if the subaltern is"unaware" that the polo player that he had played with (and he approves as an Indian) is the same accused Indian which is demonized now; the subaltern is unaware of this!  is that right?

frustratedawy | Student

I think the original poster is asking about if the subaltern is"unaware" that the polo player that he played with (and that he approves as an Indian) is the same accused Indian which is demonized now, the soldier is unaware of this!  is that right?