7/29/2019 RPSample1

1/4

Name

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Professor X

HON 400

3 March 2012

Political Marriages

One very pronounced metaphor early inMidnights Children is the similarity between

marriages and political maneuvers. Mumtazs first and second marriages, to Nadir Kahn and

Ahmed Sinai, respectively, very much resemble a shift in political alliances; the first of these is

unfruitful and of short duration, and the latter both more productive and enduring. Mumtazs

marriages provide a sardonic look at the tentative and volatile alliances India flirted with while

coming of age.

Mumtazs first marriage to Nadir Kahn is both conceived and dissolved in secrecy, much

like a secretive political pact. Both witnesses to the marriage, a lawyer and a mullah, are

provided by a family friend and hailed for their utter discretion. The entire transaction is hushed;

Mumtaz was there in bridal finery, and beside her in a chair set in front of the radiogram was

the lank-haired, overweight, embarrassed figure of Nadir Kahn (60). Mumtaz is like a desirable

young country rich in resources; her bridal finery represents the attractions of tea, spices and

labor that India promised to outside powers. The radiogram is a symbol of modern technology in

a traditional household; the invasion of the western world, corresponding to this modern

invention that imports knowledge and foreign ideas, pervades traditional Indian culture in this

familys sitting room. Nadir Kahn, a notably larger body, seems to be lurking in the background

like an interested party who is overshadowed by the selfishness of his own intentions. This

1

7/29/2019 RPSample1

2/4

Name

marriage, like an unprestigious political alliance sure to attract resentment and animosity, has an

ominous beginning.

Mumtazs first marriage is neither successful nor fruitful. Consummated in secrecy,

Mumtaz Aziz began to lead a double life after her marriage (61). During the day she liv[ed]

chastely with her parents like a single girl, effectually denying to society that her marriage

existed. By night, however, Mumtaz descending through a trap-door, she entered a lamplit,

secluded marriage chamber . . . honoring her alliance under cover of the darkness (61). This is

oddly similar to the mutual protective alliances most European countries entered into on the

dawn of WWI. No public (or international) knowledge of these secret treaties surfaced until the

Austrian invasion of Serbia in 1914; only after hostilities broke out did the numerous, binding

alliances between various countries come to light, embroiling most continental inhabitants in The

Great War.

The symptoms of an unhealthy relationship emerge when Mumtaz, plagued by subtle

illness, tries to hide her ill health from her family. For days she tries to hide her physical state,

until her eyes became red-rimmed and she began to shake with fever . . . (63). Physical

examination reveals Mumtazs virginity as intact, which has several personal and political

implications. Although the young bride claims that she love[s] her husband and the other thing

would come to right in the end, (63) the marriage has not been consummated, implying that the

union of people and bodies has been in name only, and unsuccessful in the traditional sense.

Without a physical relationship, children are an impossibility for Mumtaz and Nadir.

Symbolically, without tangible issue from the alliance, the marriage (or pact) is unfulfilled.

Similarly, a protective country who fails to bring to harvest a younger (and implicitly feminine)

2

7/29/2019 RPSample1

3/4

Name

countrys potential, most specifically through a successful yielding of the smaller countrys

resources, has failed to help the weaker country to fulfillment and fruition.

Nadirs failure, once revealed to the family, compels him to abdicate his claim to

Mumtaz. Nadir issuing the Urdu, divorcing Mumtaz and releasing her from obligation to her first

husband, allows Mumtaz to reattach herself. Luring her sisters beau away, however

unconsciously, both creates animosity in Alia (which hints of future trouble) and redistributes

Mumtazs resources with the promise of a new start. Interestingly, however, her second marriage

is in several ways both more successful and more limiting than her first. Mumtaz does have

children, which implies that her potential as a woman and mother is fulfilled; at the same time,

however, this role is only assumed with the complete subversion of her identity and her past.

Mumtazs future is hereby to be determined solely by her new husband, Ahmed Sinai,

who promptly tells Mumtaz to change her name. He tells her that their marriage is Time for a

new start. Thrown Mumtaz and her Nadir Kahn out the window. Ill choose you a new name.

Amina. Amina Sinai: youd like that? To which Mumtaz replies, Whatever you say, husband

(68). Aminas new protector, Ahmed Sinai, more successfully imposes a lasting mark on his

bride. This renaming is similar to a division of territory or a redistribution of lands to appease

discontented nationalists. Another way of interpreting this renaming is a subversion of identity;

because Mumtaz has already been married, her former family name and first husbands name tie

her to her previous experience. By renaming his bride, Ahmed attempts to replace her identity,

culture and past with one of his own, or at least ensures that from their marriage onward, her

identity will be recognized solely under his own. This is very similar to imperialism, in which the

stronger power seeks to impose its own culture and identity (i.e. the British Empire) onto a land

with a preexisting history.

3

7/29/2019 RPSample1

4/4

Name

This imagery is reinforced as Amina is sent off to live with her new husband. Aadam

Aziz transfers his paternal authority over Amina to her new husband, not unlike one countrys

government turning over control to its successor. The transfer in power is physical as well as

mental; . . . Aadam Aziz lifted his daughter (with his own arms), passing her up after the dowry

into the care of this man who had renamed and so reinvented her, thus becoming in a sense her

father as well as her new husband (71). Ahmed is taking physical, financial and spiritual

possession of his new dependent; similarly, Britain as a colonial power had taken physical and

economic (via resources) control of India. Like Amina, though, India too had eyes and ears of

her own, and silently absorbed the injustices around her. Outwardly showing respect for

paternal/imposed authority, the receptive body maintains a strong sense of pre-marriage and pre-

occupation identity despite the attempt of the protective body to create a new one.

Aminas two marriages mirror the political maneuverings India made during the course

of its relationship with the British Empire. In both of Aminas cases, the husbands duty was

implicitly outlined by social duty; the first husband failed to consummate the union and make it

fruitful, and the second succeeded by imposing his own identity on the bride and fostering a

child. India too was involved in unproductive trade agreements that resulted in an abrupt

dissolution, and subsequently restructured by the British raj. Rushdies juxtaposition of these two

events is impressive, and the successful interchanging of reality for metaphor allows the reader a

wider interpretive context.

4