Burmese Days by George Orwell

I like Orwell's politics and vision. It is amazing to see how far he has gone in exposing 'untruths' and fighting 'injustices. Throughout his life, he remained steadfast in his politics. This makes him an admirable figure. It also seems to me that the world needs writers like him, even more, today, but I wonder if there is any scope for such a man especially in the First World countries where one does not know who Big Brothers and who Winstons are; maybe they have merged into one entity today making the world even more intriguing than it has ever been.

'Burmese Days' shows us the man who is fighting injustices in whatever form they appear. Here the setting is British Rule in the subcontinent, and its impact over natives. One  English man, John Flory, fights the English rule and its dubious practices as they surface in everyday matters. For instance, the English men at the club oppose an Indian doctor's membership to the club. Flory fights his colleagues.

So one sees two kinds of English men in colonies; the majority that exploits the 'natives' and a minuscule number of English men who defends the rights of the natives. Indeed, a perfect arrangement. I guess until we have people, groups, nations who are in a position to help 'others' we are in a terrible place because such a situation arises out of inequalities in the first place. For instances, in Nordic countries it is hardly seen a rich man is helping 50 others just out of pity and goodness (he will perhaps be examined by the state for having such an abundance of money in the first place); however, in primitive societies, such gestures of 'help' are often admired and respected.  Unfortunately, no one questions – or condemns – how such a helper has amassed wealth which put him in a superior financial position above the rest.

So while one admires people who try to bring injustices down, but very often they are more or less come from the same class. And no matter how honest they are, they are never wholly saintly, their own prejudices and complicity leak in unguarded moments. Flory, a friend of Indian doctor and great champion of equality and so forth, is once seen loathing his orderly who spoke to him in English. Here, we see his snobbery first hand; I am not sure, though, if this was intentional, or could this be Orwell himself, by default, showing his own prejudices. On one level, Flory's claims to righteousness are fundamentally problematic, after all, he works for the British Raj.

The second time I read this novel, I was not looking for how one good man is fighting for the rights of the others (an admirable thing, though, but an ideal society should not have scope for such a situation). I was actually studying the good man himself. What is it that makes him? How come he fights the system? Are the reasons often given only embedded in goodness? Or is it just a way of exerting power from the other end?

Each time I read about modern day activists, the so-called good guys, I always wonder would they still remain good if whatever they fight vanishes. Would an Indian Brahmin, who claims to fight caste in India, really be at ease in caste-less society? Would someone like Orwell, who fought against colonialism, be glad to love in today's world where England is not what it used to be? Or would he, then, resent 'democracy'? As a reader, I cannot help myself asking these questions.

Or Like many, would he also resent 'democracy' today. It is these questions I cannot help thinking while reading 'Burmese Days.'