In an Antique Land; by Amitav Ghosh.

This work is partly autobiographical, describing as it does the writer's green years spent during his social sciences graduation in travels to and living in backwaters of Egypt, with a history of the region and the broader expanse of the region, that is to say, the whole area embracing Indian Ocean and its borders along with northern Africa, which once was the region that held world trade in its palm what with the proximity to two separate parts of the civilised world as it then was - India and Asia across the Indian Ocean and Europe across the Mediterraenean.

Silk Route now being researched was an overland route from China and Mongolia through Central Asia to West Asia to Europe, with a branch routed into India from Central Asia; the Spice Route on the other hand was mostly through shipping from Southeast Asia and India to Arab countries across Indian Ocean and then another shipping across the sea to north to Europe. And Arabic countries spread from Iraq to Algeria and Morrocco were the people that held this trade, migrated throughout the region temporarily or for life or generations in trading, and held the key to the trade of the world in their palms.

European colonisation of other continents with the rise of power of Europe put an end to this trade centred in Arab countries and smaller vessels and multiple trading houses, centralising the trade control in the few powers that used physical power to dominate most of the then known and too lesser known world, bringing a long era of exchange of culture and knowledge along with the trade of goods to an end and seeking to dominate, to impose, Europe's culture and values and world view everywhere.

That this was a success largely and most others if not outright extinguished were driven with attempts at embarrassment at their world, their culture and values is no secret. The fact is this book not only brings it out in description of others that the writer observed in his work for a degree at Oxford, it is brought out in his own reactions to various observations and encounters as well, in only a slightly subtler shade at that.

Few men would be less than outraged when faced with an accusation of sacrificing a wife, for sake of selfish interests of pleasing a boss or a bully, much less sacrificing the remotest possiblity of a life for a mother and that only for sake of gains even from a rich father, an abusive one at that who has been all too known to be responsible for not only abusing the mother of his son into being all but lifeless with consistent and heavy abuse of every possible sort but also blinding one dependent daughter with repeated physical abuse despite her taking care of his own home, and paying for public rape of yet another daughter who has had an escape and a semblance of an independence with consequent hopes of a better life for the rest of the family.

And while such an accusation might be either hotly denied, or even admitted but excused on basis of need of money for the son who consequently denies any help to the women thus abused by his father only so that his father's money is not willed to a cousin or an aunt who might be all to willing to take it away from the family, when the situation is related to not the nuclear family but an extended one, that of homeland, it is an even more easily excused and even usually publicly defended behaviour, since the ruler-subject relationship is now unencumbered by blood, and so is that of the majority of victims vis a vis those of the privileged few who benefit by siding with the rulers.

And while this goes on all the while everywhere - few have the strength to resist the pressure to give in to the demands of the powerful to protect their weak dependents or obligations of honour, and such a giving in is usually painted in convenient terms to be able to live with oneself, although it is obvious to anyone who would take blinkers off and look - it is nowhere more obvious than in the would be of a dominated colonised culture, even an ex-colonised one.

Partition of India into then two (- now three, what with the dissolution of the two piece nation into two separate parts now actively engaged in much terrorism against not only US, UK, other nations of Europe, but also, perhaps even majorly, the nation or part or centre of the once their own one nation, where the people of the two now separated parts nevertheless do migrate to, for economic reasons, by millions -), with one part unwilling to live with the mainstream breaking off, is now remembered by various people in terms other than the terrorism used to empty the two separated parts of the people who flocked as refugees to the central part. While Pakistan proudly proclaims "we took Pakistan with a smile and shall take India with a fight", although it was a bloodbath and not a smile, their eastern part (now Bangladesh) cloaks that same bloodbath as a struggle by the poor Muslims against the rich Hindu who were thrown out without a penny to go leave the then Pakistan, cloaking it in a revolutionary language and falsifying the millions of poor Hindus who were forced to leave as well in the same bloodbath.

And in a twist, the refugees who did leave - those that survived, that is - recall the land they left with great nostalgia and love, preferring to blank out the horrors of being forced to leave. But there is a difference in the longings of refugees that arrived from the two sides, a seemingly small but a rather key difference. Those that arrived from west and northwest prefer to merely go on thinking of their lost homeland with a rosy tint, and disdain the people of the land they now live in (where they have prospered) much as their ex-compatriots do, they do not fool themselves about the realities unveiled during the horrors; while quite often those from east, especially those that were well to do landowning class of yore, are sometimes a more deluded lot, with ascribing of far more blame to the centre for not accepting unilateral terms of a minority and insisting on a regime of democracy, of one-person-one-vote adult franchise.

And moreover they prefer even to overlook the post partition history of the three parts, the fact that much of the time the central part has been a democracy with hardly a two year blip that was defeated with resounding success, while the separated parts that broke away are ever since then not only ruled with a growing religious fanaticism but also with little democracy, and far more often with military dictatorship rule, with huge debts from abroad and far less indigenous enterprise. They merely long for their lost land of water as it was named - Jol Baanglaa - and blame the land where they found survival, with tears for the lost homeland blinding their minds. The delusion they carry is often that of a happy landowning rich life for themselves if only the whole nation were united as a military rule under a religious fanatic minority rule, which clearly is rather unlikely - such a possibility might have far more likely meant the same lack of freedoms and same dictatorship throughout the whole united nation as it has been in the parts separated away.

And in all this the ex colonial mindset of those that can afford to disdain their own and look up to others, ex rulers, helps, immensely, pretty much the way children in US often blame a divorced mother for letting go of or driving away the father - never doubting that the father really loved the kids, he does sometimes visit with a gift or two, never mind he is delinquent on child support and is in fact contesting it in every way possible. Such delusion of children are only possible due to the kind, compassionate mother who braces up to support them with hiding of the facts from them, for if they knew their father couldn't care less their little hearts would break.

And of course there is no penalty for blaming and railing against the mother who breaks herself to keep the child alive and in health and works to educate the children too, just as there is no penalty in blaming and disdaining the homeland that gives refuge and feeds and allows a survival and prosperity, while longing for the lost father or ex colonial ruler or ex homeland that revealed themselves as willing to allow one to perish, or even in massacring for that matter. A mindset of disdain for the mother or the homeland is the least of the possible casualties in the less than open eyed child of the mother or the nation.

Colonisers usually do not give up the attempts to dismember the culture, the values, the very life of an ex-colony when a power shortage forces the dominant to give up the "obligation" to rule and rob, any more than a feudal landlord forced to let go of extensive lands immediately accepts equality with the serfs. The serfs do not lack mind much less hearth or soul, it has merely been physical power that was in short supply which made them serfs.

Hence the theories of revolution, however futile and mistaken in their naivete of assuming it will solve human behaviour. Quest of being seen as not the low serf but in fact as bejewelled and perfumed as the erstwhile feudal lord leads the would be equal-on-their-terms serf to abandon his own, be ashamed of them and their life and history and culture and values, secretly perhaps aware that in this he is aiding and abetting the still continuing domination of colonisers, but unable to turn around and see his way to courage and a better perception.

Thus are the massacred victims forgotten while the guilty are forgiven for a grandiose perception of oneself as the forgiver of the guilty - the dead, the raped, the robbed cannot be helped, and if a man has to heap shame on the helpless or even let them die without lifting a finger to help them, in the process of helping his own upliftment towards a better status, even if it is only that of being acknowledged as being an ex serf that is almost albeit not quite nevertheless gentlefolk, so be it. Most men know this and hence would not name, far less expose, the whole process.

There are some graphic descriptions of human behaviour, with an irony in the lack of cosmopolitan understanding of other cultures in the very people that have a history of trading and migrating especially compared to the far more tolerant and cosmopolitan life in another land that has been far less of a migrating and far more of a self satisfied land and yet a culture that has been able to absorb and learn what is good from all that it came into contact with, through history - although rarely acknowledged much less appreciated for this.

With the description of a six year old surrounded by flames held by a mob intent on burning people taking refuge in one house, one begins to see how a frightened little boy grows up into being uncomfortable with any admission of intimacy with the tradition and culture that might put his life in jeopardy only because he was born in it, all this compounded due to the noble attitude sported by those that could have informed him that the mob and their mindset were plain wrong but instead were at pains to equalise the situations across a border created artificially only due to some people being unable to live with any "other"s.

The boy grew up to sojourn amongst others, in faraway lands, but only uncomfortable and squirming when questioned and pressed to change himself and his people in what they see as different and therefore wrong - never able to turn around and see that if he is unable to or unwilling to change it might just be because there is something of a better value there in more than one term, on more than one level. He instead is livid with those who are not embarrassed as he is with his - their - past, tradition, culture; and so they are the focused objects of his safely unleashed fury, for being not embarrassed about the very culture he is facing barrage of accusations and embarrassing queries about.

The writer performs a valuable service in describing the history - the lost and forgotten part - and the geography of the regions he is visiting in the quest of certain facts discovered during research through ancient papers for his graduation work. This wealth of ancient papers is yet another gift of a Judaic tradition that survived within the Arabic fold and kept knowledge alive for posterity while libraries were burned in Europe and knowledge persecuted with a distortion and subversion of values and the very meanings of words. And so the papers of Geniza of Cairo join the far more famous works made famous by Dan Brown, for example.

One small mistake, not really small but it is about one word and the difference of concepts that encompass the meanings in two different cultures, is that of translation really. The writer perhaps in tandem with convention translates as slave a word, perhaps two words in two separate languages and cultures, that in fact in one amount to merely worker and servant, not a bought-like-animal human. He does go on to clear the several interpretations of the word in the other language and culture which in fact did have slavery, while fails to clear up one that in its own history never did.

One fact the writer points at through much of the book and never explicitly draws the conclusion or mentions the connection in words, is about the loss of trade, a primary source of the wealth (- perhaps the only source until oil which kept the wealth in chosen few hands rather than the shipping trade which allowed many to rise according to talent and opportunity and courage -) and livelihood of many in the lands from west Asia to northwest Africa, on one hand; and the tremendous rise in animosity from the regions that lost this livelihood for many and poor to the rich powers of Europe (including the colonies settled from Europe that today do not count as colonies but have their natives wiped out or penned in corners or pushed into bonded labour or serf levels) resulting in what the dominating world view sees as a big surprise, the acts of inhuman sort against what the dominating powers construe as their own benevolence.

That this is akin to the French or Russian revolution on a world scale is too frightening to perceive, perhaps. But every time that there is more wealth for few due to better machines - whether with tractors in Punjab or Suez and better ships from Europe or even the mostly forgotten poor of Ireland, Scotland and even England that were forced to migrate to Australia or Canada in an effort to get rid of them so the land could be consolidated in a few hands - there are millions disfranchised, youth with no employment for present and no hope for the future, and on the whole a ripe situation fertile for fomenting such horrors as we see around the world.

Which is not to say progress should be halted in favour of poor although fact is progress IS often - very very often - halted in favour of rich profiting from status quo (green tech including solar power comes to mind, as does the lack of public transport across US, or the lack of a healthcare system in the rich nation with laws favouring profit over life in surprising ways including arrests of poor old people buying medicine from Canada where it is cheaper - whither free trade, whither individual rights and freedoms, whither indeed right to life?!!!!). It is rather to say, it is time to perhaps see really what progress is, what better values are, by an open eyed examination of perceived notions handed down from dominant.

It would be amusing, if it were not horrifying, as one begins to perceive that (with no mention of bathing) cliterodectomy, along with circumcision and shaving of all areas, is equated with cleanliness and in fact with purity, and anyone in the world is considered impure if not purified with the required surgical procedure (carried out in women's cases by female relatives, likely, not professionals, but those details are not given). Such dangerous and pointless practices stemming from baseless superstitions or a denial of pleasure of any sort to the gender considered slave have been exposed as regards to African culture, but not west Asian or north African.

It must be said, though, that women and girls don't seem to be living in fear as described by the writer, or tortured or even cowering or hapless - they are in fact living with a balance of power of sort, with merriment often even at expense of males, and some power too, including that of telling off as and when they see fit, and even leaving a husband and living apart. The incidents where the writer or the little boy are subjected to ridicule, or where it dawns on the writer that the flirtation with - or rather the torture of - the little boy was, in fact, open stealing of straw from his fields by the girls amusing themselves in the bargain.

The writer takes us through his discomfort, embarrassment, and finally an inarticulate rage as he is questioned on and on repeatedly by everyone almost on these and instructed to go back to his country and educate them into following practices that the locals consider "pure", and stop being impure; all this even as he time and again is invited to eat in intimate family settings with friendly and more welcome by the same people, while they eat from one plate (the writer keeps calling them trays, but that merely means they are large metal platters on which food is served directly unless it is fluid in which case presumably the container is one large bowl for everyone to dip into) however large as a family - or two, separating along gender lines - and including any guests and this is considered perfectly clean and hygienic.

The story is as often with this writer in two strands that alternate, one of his own research and living in or travelling to Egypt, India and US while the other is the subject of his research, a story of a merchant from northern Africa who traveled to Egypt, Aden, and India, spending several years there, being married, and arriving back in Aden with his children to then reconnect with his people.

Towards the end there is a sudden shock, even amongst the war one knows is looming around the region he revisits - more than one shock actually. One learns that Egyptian poor farmers and villagers have been travelling to Iraq for work for better money, are treated quite badly there and suffer it silently so they can send money home (same people, Arabic culture, same language, and religion too, one professing equality and brotherhood at that - so this comes as a surprise, that Iraq people were far from nice to Egyptians who were working there for several years); and this is from people, not officials either. Which is all the more shocking. Excellent exposé of economic world politic in the process too.

And then the final shock is of the writer being treated like a criminal for a wish to visit a famous and much worshipped saint's grave, grilled about why he would so wish, not allowed to visit it, questioned about if he is Jewish or Muslim or Christian (which he denies, puzzling them completely, but is unable to say what he is, perhaps puzzling them even more thereby) and then told to leave pronto. All the friendly life he had in Egypt is thereby sort of sullied, although he does not say so and goes on to try and keep in touch. One learns through his efforts that some of the characters have been able to return to safety of home before the gulf war of '90 began, and others are not known whereabouts of.

World indeed comprises of cultures and people that are poles apart although nobody in fact or hardly anyone even today lives at a pole, and certainly it is unlikely any culture arrived from the poles.