Character Analysis
Characters as Vehicles for Theme
In The Empress, Gupta creates characters who are both individual human beings and representatives of broader historical experiences. For the Edexcel exam, you need to analyse characters on both levels: what they are like as people (AO1) and what they represent about the Empire, race, and power (AO3). This lesson examines the play’s five most important characters and how Gupta uses each to develop her themes.
Rani — Hope, Vulnerability, and Resilience
Rani is the emotional heart of the play. She arrives in London full of optimism and curiosity, making her a sympathetic figure from the start. Gupta uses Rani’s journey to dramatise the cycle of hope, betrayal, and resilience that defined the experience of many Indian women in Victorian Britain.
What makes Rani a compelling character is that she does not remain a passive victim. After her abandonment, she develops awareness of the system that has exploited her and finds strength in solidarity with the other ayahs. Her character arc moves from individual hope to collective resistance. Gupta presents Rani as resourceful and intelligent — the system fails her, not the other way round.
Rani’s character arc — from hope through betrayal to resilience — is the play’s emotional spine. Gupta uses her journey to show that the Empire’s victims were not passive: they suffered, they endured, and they found ways to resist. Rani’s resilience is political as well as personal.
Abdul — Loyalty and Quiet Strength
Abdul Karim represents a quieter form of resistance. (Note: Abdul Karim is not Rani’s husband — he has a separate storyline as Queen Victoria’s Munshi. Rani’s romantic partner is Hari the lascar.). Where Hari is vocal and politically active, Abdul demonstrates quiet strength — holding his dignity while the court works to remove him. Gupta uses Abdul to show that resistance takes many forms, and that the everyday act of surviving in a hostile system is itself an act of courage.
Abdul also functions as a foil to Hari. Where Hari becomes increasingly angry and politicised, Abdul maintains a more pragmatic approach, focused on immediate survival. Gupta does not present either response as superior — both are understandable reactions to injustice.
The contrast between Abdul and Hari represents a real debate within colonised communities: is it better to work within the system or to challenge it directly? Abdul’s pragmatism wins him a place at Victoria’s side, but it does not change the system. Hari’s anger drives political awareness, but it also puts him at risk. Gupta presents both approaches with sympathy, so you can weigh them in your own response, which is what AO1 rewards. This dual response mirrors historical reality — Indian communities in Victorian Britain contained both moderates and radicals.
Hari — Anger and Political Voice
Hari is the play’s most politically vocal character. As a lascar facing brutal working conditions, he develops from a frustrated worker into an articulate critic of the Empire. Gupta uses Hari to give voice to the argument that Indian people deserve not charity but equal rights and justice.
Hari’s character serves an important structural function. He connects the personal stories of exploitation to the broader political argument. Without Hari, the play would be a story of individual suffering; with him, it becomes a critique of an entire system. His growing political consciousness mirrors the historical development of Indian political movements in Britain.
Hari transforms the play from personal stories into political theatre. His anger is not random — it grows directly from his experience of exploitation. Gupta uses him to show that political consciousness emerges from lived injustice, not abstract ideology.
Susan Matthews — Embodying Victorian Racism
Susan Matthews is the British character who most clearly embodies Victorian attitudes towards Indian servants. She is not a villain in the traditional sense — she does not set out to be cruel. Instead, her racism is casual, habitual, and built into her worldview. She believes she has behaved correctly when she dismisses Rani, even as she treats her as less than human.
Gupta’s most sophisticated choice with Susan Matthews is making her racism ordinary rather than extreme. Susan Matthews is not a cartoon villain — she is a recognisable type. Her condescension, her assumption of superiority, and her ability to discard Indian people without guilt are all presented as normal within Victorian society. This makes her more disturbing than an overtly cruel character would be, because it shows that racism does not require malice — it only requires a system that normalises inequality.
For your personal response (AO1), consider whether Susan Matthews is personally responsible for her attitudes, or whether she is simply a product of her society. Gupta seems to suggest both: Susan Matthews is shaped by the system, but she also has the choice to see Rani as a human being, and she fails to make that choice.
Dadabhai Naoroji — Working Within the System
Naoroji represents the possibility of using Britain’s own political system to challenge its injustices. His election as Britain’s first Asian MP in 1892 is the play’s most concrete symbol of hope. Gupta presents him as dignified, intelligent, and determined — a counter to the racist stereotypes applied to Indian people by characters like Susan Matthews and Lady Sarah.
However, Gupta does not present Naoroji as a simple hero. His success is limited — one MP cannot dismantle an empire — and the racist opposition he faces (including Lord Salisbury’s contempt) shows that political progress is slow and contested. Naoroji represents the hope that the system can be changed from within, but Gupta leaves open the question of whether this hope is justified.
Queen Victoria appears on stage throughout the play as a significant speaking character. She is central to scenes with Abdul Karim, discussing Hindi lessons, the Empire, and royal authority. Her on-stage presence allows Gupta to dramatise power dynamics directly. Her title gives the play its name; her proclamation is quoted back at the Empire; her rule creates the conditions that destroy the characters’ lives. Gupta’s decision to show Victoria on stage is a deliberate structural choice. It mirrors how power operates: the audience sees the queen served an egg in a golden egg cup, then sees Rani with nowhere to sleep. That contrast is itself a form of dramatic commentary.