Essay “Between Peshawar and Lahore” by Aldous Harley

About Author

Aldous Huxley was born in 1894 in Godalming, England. He was a famous British writer known for his book “Brave New World,” published in 1932. It’s a famous science fiction story. Besides that, he wrote many other books and essays about society, people, and spirituality. People still like reading his work today because it makes them think about important issues. Huxley died on November 22, 1963, but his writing legacy lives on as one of the most influential of the 20th century.

He wrote lots of books, almost 50, including novels, non-fiction works, essays, narratives, and poems. He earned an undergraduate degree in English literature from Balliol College, Oxford. People thought he was very smart, and he got nominated for a big writing award, the Nobel Prize in Literature, nine times! He also got a special title from the Royal Society of Literature in 1962.

Huxley was interested in ideas about the meaning of life and different ways of thinking. He wrote about these things in books like “The Perennial Philosophy” and “The Doors of Perception.” In his famous novel “Brave New World,” he imagined a strange future world, and in “Island,” he dreamed up a beautiful, peaceful place.

Summary

The essay starts with the author describing a train journey in India during a financial crisis. They opt for second-class travel but end up sharing their compartment with a peculiar holy man and his followers. This experience leads them to reflect on various topics, including cleanliness, societal prejudices, and the role of religion in society.

The author discusses Tolstoy’s belief that cleanliness is often associated with class and critiques the societal repugnances that arise from differing hygiene standards. They argue that overcoming such prejudices is challenging, especially for those raised with certain hygiene norms.

Moving on, the author examines the simplistic views of anti-clericalism, which suggest that religion is solely negative and should be eradicated. They counter this argument by acknowledging that religion has both positive and negative impacts on society. While it can promote altruism and social cohesion, it can also perpetuate ignorance and servility.

Finally, the author reflects on the complexities of societal progress and the ambiguous nature of religion. They suggest that societal advancement relies on organized structures, including religion, to foster cooperation and preserve knowledge. However, they caution against blindly accepting religious teachings, as they can also propagate harmful beliefs and hinder progress.

In summary, the essay explores the nuances of societal beliefs, prejudices, and the multifaceted role of religion in shaping human behavior and progress. It emphasizes the importance of critically evaluating religious influences while acknowledging their contributions to societal organization and development.

Short Summary

The author Huxley recounts a train journey in India where they initially opt for second-class travel to save money but find themselves sharing a compartment with a repulsive holy man and his devotees. This experience prompts reflections on cleanliness, societal prejudices, and the role of religion in society.

They discuss Tolstoy’s views on cleanliness and class prejudices, highlighting the challenges of overcoming societal repugnances. The author then critiques simplistic anti-clericalism, arguing that religion has both positive and negative influences on society.

Finally, they reflect on the complexities of societal progress and the dual nature of religion as both a promoter of altruism and a source of ignorance and servility.

In essence, the essay explores the complexities of societal beliefs, prejudices, and the dual nature of religion in shaping human behavior and progress.

Breakdown of Summary

“Between Peshawar and Lahore” चै एउटा travel essay हो मतलव यस essay मा writer or narrator i.e. Aldous Harley ले चै presentगरेको छन्आफ्नो personal experience, observations and reflection (reflection मतलव केहि incident देखिसकेपछि or भोगेपछि आउने चिन्तन meaning deep thought or consideration about one’s experiences, feelings, or ideas.)

Narrator (Aldous Harley) as a tourist आको हुन्छन and Essay start हुन्छ from Peshawar जहाँ हुदा उनीहरुलाइ (writer and his friends) financial crisis (i.e. पैसा को कमि / अभाब ) हुन पुग्छ | Harley ले भन्छन कि उसको as a tourist पैसा एकै छिन् मा सकिने गर्छ, प्राये जसो तत्कालै गाडीमा चड्दा तिर्नु पर्ने ठूलो भाडामा (transportation cost) र अत्यधिक दुरीमा (long travelling distance)हुने भएर | Narrator Harley भन्छन कि India को कुनै पनि ठाउँ 300 miles (लगभग 482 km) भन्दा त थोरै नै लाग्दैन, अनि त्यो travel distance को लागि धेरै गाडीमै पैसा खर्च हुनु पनि ठिकै हो |
तेही पैसा धेरै लाग्छ भनेर narrator Harley र उसको साथीहरु trainमा 1st compartment बाट 2nd compartmentमा जाने हुन्छन, जसले गर्दा थोरै पैसा लाग्छ र पैसा जोगिन्छ पनि |

सुरुमा एक दुइ घण्टा travel गरिसक्दा त writer Harley हरु ओहो 2nd compartmentभए पनि सबै ठिक छ, अब अरु पाली पनि 1st compartmentमा धेरै पैसा तिरेर जानु भन्दा त 2nd compartmentमै थोरै पैसा तिरेर जादा नि हुने रैछ भन्दै कुरा गर्छन | तर Campbellpur stationआइपुग्ने बितिकै एक्कासी मान्छे हरु को घुइचो / भिड आइपुग्छ, त्यसपछि त मान्छे र तिनीहरुको luggageले अगि सम्म भएको एक्लै हुदा को सुख सान्ति एकै छिन् मा भताभुङ्घ बनाइदिन्छ | र तेतिका ठुलो भिड देख्दा writer Harley ले मनमनै सोच्चन “ओहो कति धेरै किसिम को मानव र मानवताको कस्तो विचित्र नमूना” | तेही Compartment को भिड मध्हे writer Harley को आखा / नजर एउटा विशेष middle-aged चरित्रमा / मानिस पुग्छ who was wearing a yellow robe and, a kind of quilted bonnet with hanging ear-flaps on his head (पहेलो ओढ्ने बेरेको, टाउकोमा टोपी लगाएको जसमा डोरी जस्तो झुन्निएको थियो र chrysanthemums i.e. गोदावरी फूल को माला लगाएको i.e. nearly same like in picture shown below). उसलाई हेर्दा फाट्ट फुत्त एक दुइ जना बाहेक फूल बोक्ने प्रशंसकहरू र भक्तहरूको ठूलो भीडले उसलाई पछ्याएको थियो | र writer Harley tourist भएका ले, त्यस माथि पनि भाषा नबुझने भएर त्यो उच्च व्यक्ति को हुन सक्छ भनेर ठ्याक्कै एकिन कोसाथ पत्ता लगाउन सक्दैनन् | तर एसो हेर्दा, सबैजनाले उसलाई दिएको सम्मान अनि बेवारले स्पष्ट रूपमा, कुनै धर्म गुरु / पण्डित वा धार्मिक बेक्तित्व भएको अनुमान लाग्दछन् | र त्यो मान्छे / पण्डित धेरै नै popular रहेको होलान किनभने हरेक station मा मान्छेहरु हात मा फूल बोकेर उसको खुट्टै छोएर / चुमेर आशीर्वाद लिन तछाड मछाड गर्दै हुन्छन तर पण्डित अल्छि गरे जस्तो गरेर खासै वास्ता समेत गरेको थिएन | Station guard र ticket collector र station master पनि आफ्नो श्रद्धापूर्वक अभिनंदन गर्न आएका थिए | एकजना ticket collector को excitement यति ठूलो थियो कि उसले writer Harley भएको पहिले नै खचाखच भरिएको compartment (डिब्बामा ) लगभग 30 mile travel गर्छ, just to be near that holy person i.e. priest.

त्यतिन्जेल, that holy person / priest passed the time by counting his money, which was contained in a large brass-bound box (पीतलको बाकस), by loudly eating and, पछि निदाएर.  Even at the stations he did not take the trouble to rouse (जाग्नु) himself, but stay with closed eyes along his seat, and passively permitted the faithful to kiss his feet. र writer Harley सोच्छन कि जब एकजना स्पष्ट रूपमा पवित्र हुन्छ भने, आफ्नो उपस्थिति कायम राख्न, सभ्य व्यवहार गर्न वा आफ्नो अनुयायीहरू (i.e. followers’)को लागि केहि गर्न पनि अनावश्यक i.e. useless छ। वंशानुगत सम्मानले (hereditary honor or respect) व्यक्तिगत योग्यता (i.e. personal qualities, actions, etc) जत्तिकै विश्वास गर्ने व्यक्तिको सम्मानको दाबी गर्दछ।

उपस्थिति द्वारा न्याय गर्दै, जुन प्रायः deceptive (भ्रामक हुन्छन्), narrator Harley ले सोच्चन कि त्यो विशेष पवित्र व्यक्तिको (मतलब पण्डितको ) एक धेरै महान पद बाहेक कुनै व्यक्तिगत योग्यता थिएन। उसको अनुहार, जसमा राम्रो र शक्तिशाली अनुहारको तत्वहरू थिए, एक घमण्डी आत्म-भोगको प्रभावमा खण्डित र बोसोमा दौडिएजस्तो देखिन्थ्यो। Narrator Harley says “त्यो व्यक्ति (पण्डित) पक्कै पनि ले देखेको सबैभन्दा घृणित / मन नपर्ने मानवहरू मध्ये एक थियो, उ विशेष पवित्र व्यक्ति संत र तपस्वी होलान या नहोलान र अझै ऊः एक प्रचारक र गीतामा लिखित नैतिक सिद्धान्तहरूको अभ्यासकर्ता हुन पनि सक्छन या नहुन पनि त्यो ले भन्न सक्ने गरि थिएन तर त्यहाँ जे देखिरहेको थियो, त्यो हेर्दा येति चै पक्का थियो कि पण्डित अप्रिय देखिन्थियो र निस्सन्देह फोहोरी पनि थियो; यो पनि कि उनी र उनका प्रशंसकहरूले लामो समयसम्म नधोइएका कपडाको अमिलो गन्ध पनि गनाएको महसुस गरिरको थिए ।”

Writer Huxley ले अर्को writer named Tolstoy [Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy commonly known as “Leo Tolstoy” is an Russian Writer who has written popular novels like “War and Peace (1869)” and “Anna Karenina” ] ले भनेको कुरा सापटी लिदै “धेरै सफा हुनु भनेको गरिब वर्गको मान्छेहरुको बिल्ला हो भन्ने आधारमा धनिहरुले गर्ने धेरै सरसफाई को बिरोद गर्छन | धनीहरूले मात्र आफ्नो शरीर धुन र बारम्बार कपडा फेर्न समय र पैसा खर्च गर्न सक्छन्। आफ्नो जीविकोपार्जनको लागि पसिना बगाउने मजदुर, जसको घरमा बाथरुम छैन, जसको wardrobeमा अनावश्यक वा भनम धेरै शर्ट छैन, उनि गरिबहरु बाध्यताले नै दुर्गन्धित / फोहोरी हुनुपर्छ।

टोलस्टोयले धेरै सफा हुनु धनको चिन्ह हो भन्ने विश्वास गर्थे, किनकि धनीहरूले मात्र बारम्बार धुने र लुगा फेर्न सक्ने क्षमता राख्छन्। बाँच्नका लागि पसिना बगाउने र bathroom जस्ता सुविधा नभएका मजदुर वर्गलाई normal रूपमा दुर्गन्ध (i.e. smell) आउँछ र काम प्रार्थना (i.e. prayer) जस्तै भएकाले यो acceptable हुने उनको तर्क (i.e. opinion) छ । त्यसकारण, उसले गन्धलाई प्रार्थनाको रूपमा देख्यो। टोलस्टोयले गन्धबाट बच्न र आफ्ना बच्चाहरूलाई सबै गन्धहरू मन नपराउन सिकाएकोमा धनीहरूको आलोचना गरे, जसलाई उनले वर्ग-आधारित पूर्वाग्रह (i.e. discrimination on basis of caste like high class, middle class, and lower class) ठान्थे।

In simple English form, writer Huxley refers to another writer Tolstoy who believed that being overly clean was a sign of wealth, as only the rich could afford frequent washing and changing of clothes. Tolstoy argued that the working class or poor people, who sweat for their living and lack facilities like bathrooms, naturally smell, and this is acceptable because work is similar to prayer. Therefore, he saw smelling as a form of prayer. Tolstoy criticized the wealthy (rich people) for avoiding smells and teaching their children to dislike all odors, which he considered a class-based prejudice (discrimination).

हाम्रो पालनपोषणले कतिपय गन्ध र जीवनयापनका लागि हाम्रो सहिष्णुतालाई कसरी असर गर्छ भन्ने कुरा औंल्याउन लेखकका अनुसार टोलस्टोय सही थिए। सरसफाइ र ताजा हावाको साथ हुर्केकाहरूले भीडभाड ठाउँको प्राकृतिक गन्ध स्वीकार गर्न संघर्ष गर्छन्। यदि कसैले समानता (i.e. equality)मा विश्वास गर्छ भने, तिनीहरूको पालनपोषणले उनीहरूलाई फरक रूपमा बस्नेहरूसँग सहज रूपमा communication or interaction गर्न गाह्रो बनाउन सक्छ। टोलस्टोयले सबैले प्राकृतिक गन्धलाई अँगाल्नुपर्छ भनी सुझाव दिए, तर लेखकले आर्थिक रूपमा सरसफाइलाई सबैको पहुँचयोग्य बनाउने विचारलाई प्राथमिकता दिन्छन्।

In simple English, Tolstoy was correct, according to the writer, in pointing out how our upbringing / future generations affects our tolerance for certain smells and living conditions. Those raised with cleanliness and fresh air struggle to accept the natural odors of crowded places. Even if someone believes in equality, their upbringing might make it difficult for them to comfortably interact with those living differently. Tolstoy suggested that everyone should embrace the natural smell, but the writer prefers the idea of making cleanliness more accessible to everyone economically.

Now from here, read it as writer point of view:

As more people crowded into our train compartment and the day grew hotter, a holy man woke up and began spitting everywhere. By the time we reached Rawal Pindi, we decided that saving twenty-two rupees wasn’t worth enduring seven more hours with our second-class companions. We upgraded to first class, where only an English official from Kashmir was present. He may have been unremarkable, but at least his clothes were clean, and he wasn’t spitting everywhere like the holy man.

During the rest of the journey, I reflected on my anti-clerical beliefs. My Indian friends assured me that the influence of priests was diminishing rapidly, which I hoped was true and wished for further acceleration of this process, not only in India but elsewhere as well. I found there was still too much reverence for religious symbols like amethyst rings and the kissing of feet, whether in the West or the East. The presence of clergy in black coats or orange robes still seemed excessive to me. In that moment, my traveling companion had turned me into a dedicated skeptic (i.e. skeptic is a person who has doubting nature ) related to Voltaire.

Having an “anti-clerical” belief means being against the power and influence of religious leaders. Voltaire was a famous thinker who criticized organized religion and supported freedom of thought. So, when the speaker says they became a “thorough-going Voltairian,” they mean they started to share Voltaire’s skeptical views about religion and religious authority.

Voltairianism is a straightforward belief system. Its simplicity makes it appealing and contributed to its popularity, but it also leads to its flaws. In the complex world we live in, something as simple as Voltairianism can’t possibly be entirely true or effective.

The anti-clerical belief is that if we got rid of religious authority and embraced pure rationalism, everything would be fine. But it’s too simplistic. Not all religious influence is bad, just like not all insects are harmful. And even though rationalism sounds good, it might not always lead to the best outcomes. Plus, most people aren’t really into pure reason, and it’s not always the best way to understand life. So, in our messy world, this simple idea doesn’t quite fit.

Human progress relies on society’s ability to organize itself. When people are protected by society, freed from basic survival tasks like hunting and farming, they can fully use their talents. A well-organized society preserves their achievements for future generations. Religion has historically encouraged social and altruistic behavior while discouraging selfishness. Some might say religion helps the “Life Force” in its evolutionary goals, but it can also promote negative traits like ignorance and servility. The speaker believes their fellow traveler encouraged both positive and negative traits through religion, but hopes the positive outweighed the negative in the end.

Important Questions

1. How does the reference to Leo Tolstoy and Voltaire contribute to the satire, irony and humor found in the text?
   → The references to Leo Tolstoy and Voltaire in Aldous Harley’s essay contribute to the satire, irony, and humor found in the text by providing contrasting viewpoints on cleanliness, societal norms, and religion.
   
   a. Satire: Tolstoy’s perspective on cleanliness as a class-based prejudice is satirized in the context of the holy man’s unkempt appearance and behavior. By juxtaposing Tolstoy’s ideal of embracing natural odors with the unpleasant reality of sharing a compartment with a dirty and inconsiderate individual, Harley highlights the absurdity of romanticizing poverty and uncleanliness. This satirical portrayal serves to critique idealistic notions about social equality and challenges simplistic solutions to complex societal issues.
   
   b. Irony: The irony lies in the discrepancy between the holy man’s outward appearance of sanctity and the repulsive reality of his behavior. Despite being revered by his followers, the holy man is depicted as lazy, self-indulgent, and indifferent to the needs of others. This ironic contrast underscores the theme of hypocrisy within religious institutions and the gap between professed beliefs and actual conduct.
   
   c. Humor: The humor in referencing Voltaire lies in the portrayal of the narrator’s temporary embrace of Voltairian skepticism and anti-clericalism. The simplicity and absolutism of the narrator’s newfound creed are exaggerated for comedic effect, highlighting the naivety of expecting rationalism to solve all societal problems. The humorous tone serves to lighten the critique of religious dogma and encourages readers to question their own beliefs and assumptions.
   
   Overall, the references to Tolstoy and Voltaire add depth to the satire, irony, and humor in the text by presenting contrasting perspectives on cleanliness, religion, and societal norms, while also inviting readers to reflect on the complexities of human behavior and belief systems.
2. What are Huxley’s views on religion? Objective or biased?
   → Aldous Huxley’s views on religion can be interpreted as a combination of objective analysis and personal bias, as is often the case with any individual’s perspective on such a complex topic.
   
   Huxley was known for his critical examination of religion, particularly organized religion, in his writings. He often explored themes related to spirituality, existentialism, and the human condition. While he acknowledged the historical and cultural significance of religion in shaping societies and providing moral guidance, he also questioned its authority and relevance in modern life.
   
   Huxley’s criticisms of religion were influenced by his own philosophical beliefs, including his interest in mysticism and Eastern spirituality. He believed in the potential for personal enlightenment and transcendence through spiritual practices, which sometimes clashed with traditional religious doctrines.
   
   While some may view Huxley’s perspectives on religion as biased due to his personal beliefs and philosophical leanings, others see them as an objective critique of institutionalized religion and its impact on individuals and societies. Ultimately, whether one considers Huxley’s views as objective or biased depends on their own interpretation and evaluation of his writings and ideas.
   
   (OR, In short)
   
   Huxley’s views on religion can be seen as a mix of objective analysis and personal opinion. He looked at religion critically, especially organized religion, but also recognized its importance in shaping societies. His own beliefs, like his interest in mysticism, influenced how he viewed religion. Some might think his views are biased because of his personal beliefs, but others see them as fair criticisms of religion’s impact on people and society. Whether you see his views as objective or biased depends on how you interpret his writings and ideas.
3. What connection is established by Huxley between society and man’s potential?
   → In Aldous Huxley’s essay, a connection is established between society and man’s potential through the concept that organized societies create the conditions necessary for individuals to fully realize their capacities and talents. Huxley argues that it is within the framework of a well-organized society, which provides protection from aggression and frees individuals from the constant struggle for survival, that human potential can be fully expressed.
   
   He suggests that when society alleviates the immediate pressures of survival, individuals can focus on developing their talents and contributing to the collective good. Huxley implies that society serves as a platform for human progress, allowing for the preservation and transmission of knowledge and achievements across generations.
   
   Thus, the connection between society and man’s potential lies in the idea that societal organization creates the environment in which individuals can thrive intellectually, creatively, and socially, leading to the advancement of humanity as a whole.
   
   (OR)
   
   Aldous Huxley wrote about how societies affect people’s ability to reach their full potential. In his book “Brave New World,” he showed a world where everyone acts the same, and personal growth and uniqueness are suppressed. Huxley was saying that when societies control people too much, it stops them from being themselves and reaching their full potential.
   
   He warned that societies that focus too much on staying stable or advancing technologically can end up hurting individuals. When everyone is expected to act the same, people can’t express themselves fully or grow as individuals. Huxley wanted people to think about how society’s rules and structures can affect their ability to be themselves and grow. He believed it’s important to find a balance between keeping society orderly and letting people be themselves. When societies become too controlling, they can stop people from reaching their full potential, and Huxley wanted to remind us of that.
4. Show how the physical age and the mind’s eye are both at work in this travel essay?
   → In “Between Peshawar and Lahore,” Aldous Huxley intricately weaves together the physical age of the landscape and the perceptions of the travelers, demonstrating how both aspects contribute to the richness of the travel experience.
   
   Physical Age:
   a. Huxley vividly describes the physical landscape, including ancient ruins, the flowing Indus River, and the enduring traditions of the local people. These descriptions evoke a sense of the landscape’s historical depth and cultural heritage.
   
   b. By highlighting the ancient ruins and timeless features of the landscape, Huxley emphasizes its physical age and historical significance. This aspect of the journey provides readers with a tangible connection to the past and a deeper appreciation for the region’s heritage.
   
   Mind’s Eye:
   a. In addition to portraying the physical landscape, Huxley delves into the subjective perceptions and interpretations of the travelers. He explores how their individual backgrounds, expectations, and emotions shape their experiences of the journey.
   
   b. Through the travelers’ eyes, readers witness the landscape being filtered through layers of imagination, nostalgia, and personal reflection. Some travelers may see the landscape as a reflection of their own inner thoughts and feelings, while others may interpret it through the lens of cultural or spiritual beliefs.
   
   c. The travelers’ subjective perceptions add depth and complexity to the journey, enriching the narrative with their unique perspectives and experiences.
   
   Integration:
   a. Huxley seamlessly integrates the physical age of the landscape with the mind’s eye of the travelers, acknowledging the interplay between objective reality and subjective interpretation.
   
   b. By juxtaposing descriptions of the physical landscape with the perceptions of the travelers, Huxley creates a multifaceted portrayal of the journey that encompasses both its historical significance and its personal meaning to the travelers.
   
   c. This integration of the physical and subjective aspects of the journey enhances the narrative, offering readers a comprehensive and immersive experience that captures the essence of the travel experience.

5. How does the Author describes the Holy man?
   → In “Between Peshawar and Lahore,” the author, Aldous Huxley, describes the holy man encountered during the train journey in vivid detail. The holy man is portrayed as a middle-aged figure wearing a yellow robe and a quilted bonnet with hanging ear-flaps. He is adorned with yellow chrysanthemums and surrounded by a crowd of devotees and admirers. Despite his outward appearance of reverence and holiness, the author provides a critical assessment of the holy man’s character.
   
   Huxley’s description emphasizes the physical attributes of the holy man, noting his obesity and suggesting a lack of personal hygiene. The author observes that the holy man appears unpleasant and dirty, with a disintegrated face that reflects a life of hoggish self-indulgence. Despite his outward display of religious devotion, the holy man’s behavior, such as lazily eating and dozing, suggests a lack of genuine spiritual enlightenment.
   
   Overall, Huxley’s portrayal of the holy man combines physical description with critical commentary, highlighting the contrast between outward appearances and inner character. Through this depiction, the author offers a nuanced exploration of religious figures and the complexities of spiritual devotion.
6. Who invaded the compartment at Campbellpur, and what was the leader of the party like?
   → The compartment was invaded by a group of people, and the leader of this party was described as a middle-aged man wearing a yellow robe and a quilted bonnet with hanging ear-flaps. He was adorned with yellow chrysanthemums and appeared to be some kind of high priest or Hindu pope. Despite his appearance, the narrator found him repulsive, both physically and in demeanor.
7. What is Tolstoy’s perspective on cleanliness and stench, as mentioned in the essay?
   → Tolstoy argues against excessive cleanliness, seeing it as a class-based prejudice. He suggests that the laborer, who sweats for a living and lacks amenities like bathrooms and extra shirts, is justified in having a natural odor. Tolstoy connects work with prayer and asserts that stench can be considered a form of prayer. He criticizes the rich for their aversion to natural odors and advocates for greater acceptance of diverse hygiene practices.
8. How does the narrator reflect on his anti-clericalism during the journey?
   → The narrator contemplates his anti-clerical beliefs during the journey, influenced by the encounter with the holy man and his followers. He expresses hope for the decline of religious influence, both in India and beyond. However, he acknowledges the complexities of human beliefs and society, recognizing that simplistic anti-clericalism may not adequately address the multifaceted nature of human existence.
9. What are the narrator’s views on religion’s role in society, as expressed in the essay?
   → The narrator acknowledges religion as a force that has historically influenced human behavior and societal organization. He recognizes both its potential for promoting altruism and humanitarian values, as well as its capacity for fostering ignorance and servility. While acknowledging religion’s potential benefits in fostering social cohesion and altruism, he also criticizes its role in perpetuating superstition and hindering the acquisition of knowledge. He suggests that religion can serve both evolutionary and detrimental purposes in human society.