Complicity and Resistance Women in Arunduti Roy The God of Small Things

Journal of Postcolonial Cultures and Societies ISSN No.
1948-1845 (Print); 1948-1853 (Electronic)
Complicity and resistance: Women in Arundhati Roys The God of Small Things
Golam Gaus Al-Quaderi and Muhammad Saiful Islam
Introduction:
The God of Small Things inaugurated a career of activism and resistance against local and global inequities in India by its Booker prize winning writer Arundhati Roy. In this novel the predicament of Indian women is studied in depth along with the plight of dalits (untouchables), lower class people, racial subalterns vis--vis global capitalism and neoimperialism masquerading as globalization. Reflecting the sentiments of Ranajit Guha of the Subaltern Studies group fame, Roy sees the resistance against gender oppression to be leading towards if not instigating resistance against caste, class oppression and spurring on anti-colonial thought and actioni. Such variants of resistant rebellion are articulated through the examination of the marital and inter-gender relations of Ammu, Mammachi, Baby Kochamma and Rahel. Transgressions of these characters, openly subversive or outside the boundaries of the institution of marriage as practiced in post-colonial India, and the Love laws that predate Western colonialism lead to a scathing interrogation of the basic values and structures of the post-colonial Indian society. Thus Roy shows a way for the Indian women for resisting local as well as global inequities.
Ammu is the most important female character in The God of Small Things. A middle class bourgeois woman, she is a divorcee with two children, Eshta and Rahel. Educated and articulate, Ammu is not welcome on her return to her fathers house. A kind of an elite leftist, her brother Chacko marginalizes her. She is also cornered by the family structure and inheritance laws customarily prevalent among the Syrian Christian
62
Complicity and resistance: Women in Arundhati Roys The God of Small Things, Golam Gaus AlQuaderi and Muhammad Saiful Islam JPCS Vol 2 No 4, December 2011
Journal of Postcolonial Cultures and Societies ISSN No. 1948-1845 (Print); 1948-1853 (Electronic)
community in Kerala. Ammu is enamoured of the untouchable labourer Velutha and violates the Love Laws which her community has inherited from, among other things, their Hindu past. Her transgression of the caste, class and religious boundaries mounts a rebellion of a kind against her marginalization as a woman. Aijaz Ahmad calls her a woman of great grit (Prasad, 2006, p. 39) and Murari Prasad comments thus about her attempt at self-realization which is not unconnected with the fate of other subalterns: Ammus rebellion against maternal and marital conventionality, and finally, her liaison with dark-skinned and untouchable Velutha (ironically meaning white) constitutes a violation against a determinate social order, sponsoring the immutable love laws. Her rebellion or her quest for self-identity, as Tirthankar Chanda points out is an attempt at repossessing, renaming, reknowing the world, but it appears doomed from the very beginning because of the nature of the society where she has had to seek refuge with her twins after her divorce and also because of the incapacity of her kin (mother, great-aunt Kochamma) to provide an adequate model for redefining the Self (Chanda 1997:40) (2006, p.16) Ammu is a victim of a marriage that does not work out. Her being treated as an outcast in her own family clearly defines her position in the society.
But she rebels against such social structures and challenges marriage that rather seems to be a disciplinary institution, as Michel Foucault would have called it, working towards silencing and controlling the one who stands apart, as if a lunatic/non-conformist who needs to be imprisoned/reasoned. Foucault discussed how asylums were being put up, in the pretext to serve medical knowledge, to isolate and incarcerate dissidents in 17th century Europea time that saw the rise of the continents imperial ambitions. They did not introduce science, but a personality, whose powers borrowed from science only their disguise, or at most their justification. These powers, by their nature, were of a moral and social order; they took root in the madmans minority status, in the insanity of his person, not of his mind (Rabinow, 1991, p.160). Ammu, a personality, has to be locked up too. She, afterwards, dies exiled. But before her acceptance of such fate, in desperate attempts
63
of self-realization, she becomes a symbolic personification of all subalterns, especially women, who challenge power structures of the social order as is also pointed out by Murari Prasad: At the heart of Roys astounding book is the conflict between the characters excluded from institutional power and their hegemonic counterpartsBose points out that Ammus conscious decision to embrace Velutha is a forbidden cross -caste liaison of radical significance within the novels given social imperatives Bose links these violations to Roys robust commitment to the autonomy of the self-the freedom of small things. Thus the feminist reconceptualization of politics in Roys novel, as Bose notes, is profoundly subversive.(2006, p.21) Ammus roles as a divorced woman, a single mother and as an educated woman denied of her rights of inheritance [She, as a daughter, has no claim to any property, no locus standi..(Navarro-Tejero,2006,p. 104)], as a sexually sentient being who is deprived by the pre-colonial Love laws the freedom to choose her partner and is penalized for it, stands on different issues side by side with other subalterns, whether of caste, class or gender. She is emblematic of them all in the schema of things Arundhati Roy creates , more than Velutha , who is the protagonist or may be the God of The God of Small Things(Surendran, 2000, p. 7). Khurshid Alam in his article Untouchables in The God of Small Things situates Ammu vis--vis Velutha and clarifies the role of Ammu: Roy expresses her disillusionment with the social conditions of the postcolonial world in which the untouchables of the past still face a hostile society that does not let them live as free and independent individuals. Velutha, the God of small things, the outcast can never co-exist peacefully with the touchable communities for as long as the stigma of untouchability is attached to him and countless others like him. Ammu, another untouchable within the touchable cannot pursue happiness because doing so threatens the existing order, and the society takes every possible step to stop change.
64
Ammu, craving to take control of her life that is so much suppressed by a social order, is faced against a system where her Marxist brother Chacko exploits the poor women labourers in his factory, both financially and sexually, and goes unchecked. She sees characters like Mammachi, being appropriated by patriarchy and be asphyxiated and distorted by it. She sees Velutha being accused of the accidental drowning of Sophie Mol. Ammus father is incredulous of the fact that her Bengali Hindu husband wanted to prostitute her in order to please his white boss. The colonial rulers authority is challenged by a subaltern woman in the novel who is economically and socially marginalized. Smothered by social injustice, Ammu rebels against the very social norms that constitute the Syrian Christian community in Kerala. This rebellion is an act of resistance against the very foundations of this society. Her most significant act of becoming sexually involved with the Untouchable, lower class Velutha, cannot be taken at its face value as an act of sexual transgression only. This is an act of resistance aimed at bringing about change in and around her. That is why she goes to the police station and argues against the detention of this lower caste, lower class subaltern, denying supposed womanly qualities typical of an Indian woman. This prefigures Roys proffered post-colonial Indian woman, who has regained her right to be an Indian woman, with the end of colonialism. Amitabh Roys words thus do have strong evidential basis: Ammu, on the other hand, is the rebel who represents the defiance of the present [neo-colonial] state of society from educated[though marginalized and proleterianized], passionate and thinking women. She stands for those women who are aspiring for freedom and equality. This section of women is challenging traditional [pre-colonial] ideas and conventions. The hopes for the [post-colonial] future lie with this section only.(2005, p.77-78) In short Ammu as a subaltern/woman resists oppressive and repressive social and political structures. She does not succeed in bringing about any tangible change but puts up a brave fight for realizing her dreams. Although she may not consciously have worked for other subalterns, her actions contribute to the emancipation of different kinds of subalterns and there lies her exceptionality.
65
The second most important female character is Mammachi who puts up a kind of resistance against patriarchal oppression and marginalizing apparatuses. Mother of Ammu and Chacko, Mammachi is also a physically and psychologically abused wife alike so many women in different societies who undergo torture and trauma and never speak out. Roy situates Mammachi in a strategically significant position between the caste, class and gender-subalterns and the feudal-capitalist patriarchal social structures that are inflicted with age-old complexities. She is not only a passive victim but is also the target of the jealousy of her entomologist husband. Amitabh Roy explains this issue. As Mammachis music teacher Launsky Tieffenthal makes the mistake of informing her husband that Mammachi was exceptionally talented and potentially concert class her music lessons stop abruptly. (Roy, 2005, p.67) Mammachi is also denied help from her husband, the supreme patriarch in the family, although she is practically blind. The work at the pickle factory is not a suitable job for a high-ranking ex-Government official. (Roy, 2005, p.67) She does not acquiesce in these acts of insolent marginalization and remains till the end of the novel a steadfast character even assimilating many of the features of an Indian patriarch. Binayak Roy in his article The Title of The God of Small Things: A Subversive Salvo comments on her thus: Mammachi is another Big Woman who deifies her son Chacko and despises her daughter Ammu. When Chacko stops Pappachis beating of Mammachi, his action has unexpected consequences: From then onwards he became the repository of all [Mammachis ] womanly feelings. Her Man. Her only Love (168) In the presence of Chackos British wife Margaret, Ammu perceives with womanly instinct the undercurrent of sexual jealousy that emanated from Mammachi (329) (2009) Mammachis strategy of utilizing patriarchal authority herself does not help her in the end in dealing with her son Chacko. He takes away the pickle-factory from her; as if as a kind of a consequential sequel to his saving Mammachi from her husbands beatings. Chacko replaces her and reclaims the role of the patriarch as it belongs only to the men in the family. Mammachi is made a sleeping partner. Chacko becomes a businessman, the
66
Marxist owner of the pickle factorya capitalist enterprise. Amitabh Roy comments: Thus, despite his professed Marxism, Chacko follows Manu and the tradition in asserting the sons domination over mother in old age. Mammachi submits to it as such ideas are so familiar to her.(2005, p.67) Mammchi becomes an instrument of patriarchal domination despite being a victim herself. As a post-colonial Indian woman she succumbs to the lures of pre-colonial caste rules and Love laws and at the same time tries to be in an interrogative mode regarding both the colonial past as well as the neocolonial present in her interactions with her daughter Ammu. In India, even today, evils of caste and class and patriarchal oppressions feed and depend on each other. Mammachis daughter Ammu resists patriarchy and caste and class bigotry in public and pays with her life. Obviously, the web of neo-imperialism masquerading as globalization supports such social structures in place. Chackos British wife is the colonial apparition who although allowed little space in the novels, contributes, coincidental as it may seem, to the demise of Velutha. Her half-Indian-half-British daughter drowns, releasing Chacko of all fatherly responsibilities. Although both her children are divorcees, Mammachi does not resist her tyrannical and manipulative son. She concedes to his Mens Needs as Chackos flirts with pretty women who worked in the factory (Roy, 2005, p. 57). Mammachi does not condone the mutually consensual relation between Ammu and Velutha. Her caste and class bias, though not openly expressed, plays a part. Mammachis complaint against Velutha assists his murder in the hands of the police, a colonial institution that plays the role of the state rouge. Velutha being the son of nature, being the subaltern meets death and becomes the god of small things. But Mammachis family faces disaster. The marriages do not work. Wedlocks, relationships with the Westerners never work out and probably understatedly show the novelists scepticism about and around marriages with the people from the West. But what about values that are imported: uncritically speaking, Chackos being the small world
67
Casanova and Rahels desire for her brother apparently seem Western borrowings. However, springing in the fertile nature of Ayemenem, these are local cravings that haunt a disciplinary society which only costs human happiness and penalizes in return. Ammu and Velutha (both subalterns in terms of class, caste, gender and social positions) are probably the only heroes/rebels/unconscious resistant activists that challenge such systems and accept death. Ammus mother Mammachi, however, is not totally complicit in social injustice. She continues to hold on to her dominating role falsifying the idea that women should only obey orders. As a post-colonial Indian woman she is riven by the pulls of pre-colonial tradition, the desire for freedom and equality born at least partially as a result of Indias encounter with the West and the neo-colonial present which connects the local inequalities of caste, class and gender with the global ones of an unequal and grossly unjust economic and political order epitomized on a micro-scale by a character like Chacko. Although, Mammachi succumbs to the pulls of these forces we retain sympathy for her for the depredations she had to suffer in life and the resilience of her character. O. P. Dwivedi in his article titled The Subaltern and the Text: Reading Arundhati Roys The God of Small Things, utilizes the concept of the subaltern by going back to Ranajit Guha: In the Preface to Subaltern Studies, Vol.1, Ranajit Guha propounded a working definition of subaltern. The word subaltern stands for the meaning as given in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, that, is of inferior rank. It will be used as a name for the general attitude of subordination in South Asian Society whether this is expressed in terms of class, caste, age, gender and office or in any other way. (2010) The question that arises in considering the case of Mammachi is whether she is a subaltern in sympathy with other subalterns in the novel? In losing her factory to her son, Mammachi is marginalized in terms of class and gender. A descendant of upper class Brahmins, she, however, is not a victim of caste prejudice. Marginalized by her son in old age and facing an economically disadvantaged position, Mammachi is a subaltern in more than one way.
68
Her acquiescence in many patriarchal mores and values are a defensive gesture rather than an honest agreement with hegemonic powers. As resistance can be passive or active, public or subterranean, unequivocal or ambivalent, she should be allowed the status of being in the circle of resistance. The following words of Anuradha Dingwaney Needham rings true to us in the case of both Mammachi and Baby Kochamma: In Small Things, then, Roy does not present subordination as a stable, unproblematic condition from which resistance, necessarily, proceeds. Instead, in mapping varying degrees of rebellion and defiance against, and collusion with the dominant, she seems to be on the side of those critics of subaltern studies, who complain that because subaltern mentalite is recuperated as the mentalite of the subaltern at the time of opposition, at the moment of their action against domination (Masselos 2001:192), the dia lectics of collaboration and acquiescence on the part of the subalterns and the wide range of attitudes between resignation and revolt have been underplayed in this mode of historiography (Das Gupta 2001:110). (2005) Baby Kochamma is the daughter of Reverend John Ipe and is in love with the Roman Catholic priest, Father Mulligan. To win over him Baby Kochamma converts to the Roman Catholic faith. However, she does not dare to challenge the traditional ideas of love and marriage prevalent in post-colonial India. Baby Kochamma does not run away to fulfil her dreams and upholds very reactionary ideas. Amitabh Roy comments succinctly: It is a pity that she submits in the name of decency and honour to the very sexist, casteist and communal prejudices that have stood in her way and denied fulfilment to her.(2005, p.62) She hates the Hindus, does not think that a married or divorced daughter has any position in her parents home and is vehemently against inter community marriage. In the case of Ammu, she thinks that sexual promiscuity can only be allowed to a man like Chacko as he has his Mens Needs. Baby Kochamma is a hypocrite to a great extent but is she totally complicit in the patriarchal, casteist, classist, and sexist social order of Kerala? Is her desire for Father Mulligan, an elitist indulgence?
69
Brinda Bose in her article titled, Eroticism as Politics in The God of Small Things deals with the transgressive love of Ammu for Velutha and comments that sociological studies have repeatedly proven that the idea that love and desire are elitist indulgences is a myth(2006,p. 97). While it is true that Baby Kochamma does not emblematize any kind of rebellion against the social order, her love for Father Mulligan does lead to definite changes in her life, many of which are subversive of the established social order. For example, despite her verbal and actual conformity she transgresses the borders of religion, community and caste. Her conversion to Roman Catholicism is not just a change of denomination but implies a rejection of her own history, the history of Syrian Christians. Her life changing admiration and love for Father Mulligan, continuing even after his death, implies a subversion of the Love laws coming down from pre -colonial times which prescribed marriage, and only marriage, for women. In this case we have to remember that celibacy for women was not an option for the Syrian Christian community, in contradistinction to the Roman Catholic community whose arrival in India was connected with the Western colonial endeavour in South Asia. These actions of Baby Kochamma, to a certain extent speak of a kind of ambivalent resistance against patriarchy and other indigenous repressive and oppressive social structures still intact in the postcolonial India of not so long ago. Mammachi and Baby Kochamma apparently seem to submit without any hesitation to patriarchal social norms as pointed out by Antonio Navarro-Tejero in her article titled, Power Relationships in The God of Small Things: The first generation of women in the novel give extreme importance to patriarchal social norms, indeed they succumb to them. (2006, p. 105). But if we probe beneath the surface and consider the actions of characters like Mammachi and Baby Kochamma in tandem with our knowledge that power is diffused and wherever there is power there is resistance a la Foucault we see that even woman characters like Mammachi and Baby Kochamma put up a kind of resistance against the iniquitous socio-political and economic order in post-colonial India. Baby Kochamma, complicit in the patriarchal, casteist, classist, sexist society of Kerala,
70
manages her relationships with different characters in an apparently ambivalent kind of way. Baby Kochamma does not overtly believe in the rights of women as well as subalterns and makes a distinction between her self-interest and those of other women. In stark contradiction to her personal subversion and transgression of patriarchy and oppressive structures, Baby Kochamma concurs in the repressive actions against Ammu. She is responsible for: poisoning the minds of Mammachi and Chacko, concoction of a false case against Velutha, tricking the children into betraying Velutha, advising Chacko to return Estha to his father and forcing Ammu to leave. Baby Kochamma hates Estha and Rahel as they are half-Hindus born of a love marriage outside community. She hates Velutha because he is dalit. He, along with Ammu, violates the Love laws too. All these connivings isolate Baby Kochamma to a pathetic life where TV (used as the most successful machine in the spread of globalization) is her only companion. As a subaltern, she can be said to be of the lower middle class, in terms of her power and has unstable class loyalty. Her actions of personal dissidence like abandoning the Syrian Christian community and joining the Roman Catholic community, for her love of Father Mulligan, and sticking with that faith even after Father Mulligans newly appropriated avatar of a Hindu Sadhu as well as her adoption of celibacy, speak of her interrogation of the postcolonial Indian social order as manifested in Kerala. Though, she is not an active resistant force against local and let alone global inequities , her actions do make her a kind of agent of change in the novel, who through not fully acquiescing to the existing iniquitous social, political and economic order also resists . This is so, especially if we remember the feminist dicta: The personal is political. The zygotic twins Estha and Rahel are subalterns in the sense of being rootless economically, financially, in terms of family, lineage and culture. Being deprived of a normal nuclear family, fatherly love and a stable economic base, these two children have to fall back upon each other most of the time. Amitabh Roy is right when he writes:
71
The novel can be viewed as a tale of terror that destroyed the lives of Velutha and Ammu, but also as a tale of how Estha and Rahel survived.( 2005, p. 90). Estha and Rahel do not come from poor background. They had a bourgeois background. But when their parents get divorced, they are subjected to adversity. They, along with their mother were unwanted in their grandmothers place. Despite this, they do acquire a good education. They have a battered childhood, because of their fathers drunken violence followed by post-drunken badgering, when they were barely two. When his bouts of violence began to include the children, and the war with Pakistan began, Ammu left her husband and returned, unwelcome to her parents in Ayemenem.( Roy, 1997, p. 42).The two children and especially Rahel, as a girl, had a double stigma of mixed parentage attached to them, both religious (because their father was Hindu and mother Syrian Christian) and ethnic(their father being a Bengali and mother, a Ker alite). (Roy, 1997, p. 91) Moreover, they were the children of divorced parents. Rahel was disliked by Baby Kochamma, Kochu Maria and even Chacko. Deprived of conventional parental love, Ammu is both father and mother to her. She also derives pleasure from the company and intimacy of her brother. Finally, she considers Velutha, to be a father figure on whose back she rides.(Roy, 1997,p. 73) Being disliked by her elderly relatives , she feels resentment against them. When her mothers liaison with Velutha is discovered, she is locked in the bedroom. Rahel, along with her twin brother, tries to find out the reason at the tender age of seven and their mother calls them: millstones round my neck. (Roy, 1997, p. 253) The twins plan to escape in a boat, accompanied by their cousin, Sophie Mol, who accidentally drowns. The police arrest Velutha and Rahel has to go to the police station with her brother Estha to identify Velutha as a criminal. Ammu is forced to leave the room in which she had locked herself and has to leave Ayemenem House and dies shortly afterwards. Estha is sent back to his father and the twins face the trauma of separation. The novelist puts it thus: While other children of their age learned other things, Estha and Rahel learned how history negotiates its terms and collects its dues from those who
72
break its laws. (Roy, 1997, p. 55) Rahel has a hard time in school and is expelled three times. The first time, she is caught outside her Headmistress garden gate decorating a knob of fresh cow dung with small flowers. Later, she is expelled from Nazareth Convent after repeated complaints from senior girls. The second time, she is expelled from school for smoking. She is expelled the third time for setting fire to her Headmistress false bun which, under duress, Rahel confessed to have stolen. (Roy, 1997, 17) Thus, Rahel refuses to be co-opted by the school as she refused to be co-opted by her relatives/family/society. Being, marginalized because of her religion/community, gender, class and age, she fits the category of the subaltern and her acts of non-conformity can be considered as acts of resistance through which she wants to bring about some kind of change. The most important act by Rahel is that of consummating her incestuous love for her twin brother, Estha, which though an act of personal self-assertion, is also deeply political, challenging indigenous /local inequalities in post-colonial India. So, Ammu, Mammachi, Baby Kochamma and Rahel, four women in The God of Small Things, interrogate pre-colonial/indigenous norms, customs, laws, values and structures connected with patriarchy, class, caste and feudal-capitalist economic structures. These women also interrogate, through all their actions, the Love laws. But, interestingly enough, these women do not advocate for the forces of global inequality masquerading as globalization. Ammu refuses to prostitute herself to the white boss of her husband. Mammachi feels threatened by whatever happens on the television. Baby Kochamma, though affected by globalization, does not accept every change in the identity of Father Mulligan. She accepts Roman Catholicism for his sake, but does not change over to Hinduism, when Father Mulligan, becomes a Hindu Sadhu, echoing the effects of movements like the ISKCON or Hare Krishna in the West. Rahel on her part awaits the arrival of her twin brother Estha and tries to heal him of his dumbness and fractured existence and consummates their childish but incestuous love transgressing along with the Love laws. This act is a total denial of the restrictive permissive sexuality of the West that ties sexuality with business, transaction and money. Thus, Rahel also seems to
73
interrogate the global inequalities and hegemony masquerading as global connectivity or globalization. In dealing with local and global inequalities, Arundhati Roy deals with the actions of Comrade Pillai and Chacko two card carrying members of the Communist Party. They are complicit in the marginalization of a subaltern like Velutha, who suffers because of his caste and class backgrounds. Comrade Pillai and Chacko, people without scruples, manipulate Velutha. However, when he gets emotionally and sexually involved with Ammu, in an act of personal rebellion against the restrictions of caste, class and gender, rather than one of personal aggrandizement, these two characters do not act according to the declared principles of Communist ideology. Chacko is furious about the loss of familial honour and Comrade Pillai refuses to stand by Velutha, a fellow comrade. Chacko does not consider class and caste backgrounds while sexually abusing picklefactory female labourers. This is significant as those female labourers are subalterns without position, helplessly available in the hands of a man with money. In terms of resisting global inequalities also, these two Communist party cadres, do not have the ability, sincerity or vision to challenge it through discerning the links between local and global inequalities. Both take advantage of the capitalist systems in place in Kerala. They do not empathise with any of the subalterns or women in the novel. Chacko attitude towards Rahel and Estha is also negative. Comrade Pillai, representing other communists in the state, does not advocate mounting a frontal attack against the hierarchical caste system, which is even an anomaly in a capitalist society and is oblivious to the oppression of women because of caste, class and gender. Ammu and the other women are victimized because of these so called communists. Communism, as represented by Roy, seems to fail as an adequate ideology in resisting inequalities. The author does not proffer any ideology of her own or communism. But O. P. Dwivedi thinks that Arundhati Roy has (un)consciously also extended the views of this [Subaltern Studies Collective] group by highlighting the pathetic condition of these subaltern in India. (2010) This leads us to the final section of our article dealing with the path of emancipation shown by Roy.
74
Roy, in The God of Small Things and her numerous non-fictional writings as intimated in the interviews in The Shape of the Beast(2009), deals with the fate of the subalterns, both local and global, including women. Generally considered a kind of a feminist, the author does not focus on the question of women severed from other subalterns. Roys treatment of the issues of women in her fiction, again, is different from her examination of the state of women in her non-fictional writings. In her novel the women are represented as subalterns at par with the untouchable Velutha and the children Rahel and Estha. In her non-fictional writings, Roy deals with specific issues and comments sparsely in a theoretical mode about their interrelationship. She seldom makes comments like these: Deep at the heart of the horror of whats going on lies the caste system: this layered, horizontally divided society with no vertical bolts, no glue, no intermarriage, no social mingling; no human-humane-interaction that holds the layers together. (2009, p. 6) The complexity of texture, allusiveness, Joycean stream of consciousness, and intertextuality make the novel a much more articulate though ambiguous document about the subalterns in post-colonial India, including its women than many of her non-fictional writings. But, being ambiguous, the novel does not provide or show any blueprint for the women to be emancipated from the three kinds of oppression of caste, class and gender. All women are also not equally affected by these three kinds of repressive regimes. While we do agree that there are definite similarities between the insights of the Subaltern Studies Project and the views of Arundhati Roy, we have to keep in mind that while the members of the Subaltern Studies Collective were/are theoretically informed historians, sociologists, and people of similar academic backgrounds; Roy is primarily a writer, writing for an inchoate readership, as well as a committed activist. Needhams words about Ranajit Guha in her article, (linking Guha and Roy) towards the end talks of the utopian desires in Guhas Small Voice of History and Roys The God of Small Things, and comments: Guhas utopian aspiration, in other words , is not only to achieve what Scwarz characterizes as the impossible ideal of allowing an unmediated subaltern voice to speak through and in the textual space (OHanlons words) his work wishes to
75
make available; his utopian aspiration is also, as OHanlon observes with considerable unease, to see this(wished for) work as coterminous with the struggles of the dispossessed, feeding directly unto them by making sense of them (OHanlon 2001[1988]:174).(2005) What Guha aspires for theoretically, Roy does not necessarily desire empirically all through her novel. Being speculative, one can envision similar kinds of desires in Roy and Guha and his group, but to say that Roy endorses the insights of the Subaltern Studies Project as a kind of ideology of emancipation for women in a postmodern India, is perhaps going too far. Roys The God of Small Things, presents women as subalterns, some of whom try to bring about change through resistance. But as subalterns they do not have the articulate voice that members of other groups in Indian society have. These women mount resistance against both local and global inequalities, though the first kind of resistance is perhaps stronger. Through their trajectories of personal involvement in different issues they interrogate the structures of caste, class and gender, implicitly and explicitly, unconsciously and consciously, partially or tangentially and wholeheartedly. These women are different and similar, complicit in oppressions as well as mounting frontal attacks against iniquitous social structures, customs and laws. All of the women discussed do not fit into the way things are in post-colonial India, plagued by indigenous kinds of injustice and neo-colonialism masquerading as global connectivity or globalization. The insights of the Subaltern Studies Project are useful in understanding the complexity of their conditions, but not fully. We do not see a one to one correspondence between those insights and the non-discursive intuitions of the novelist, Roy. A thorough consideration of Roys presentation of women in all her works, both fictional and non-fictional, in tandem with the works of multiple authors from the Subaltern Studies Project and its admirers and detractors can fully or adequately throw light on the four women characters we have dealt with and the question of what Roy considers the proper way for the emancipation of post-colonial Indian women.
76
Biographies Golam Gaus Al-Quaderi is an associate professor at the Department of English, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Muhammad Saiful Islam is a lecturer in the Department of English, King Khalid University, Abha, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Works Cited
Ahmad, Aijaz (2006). Reading Arundhati Roy politically. In Murari Prasad (edited). Arundhati Roy: Critical perspectives. New Delhi, India: Pencraft International. Alam, Khurshid (2001). Untouchables in The God of Sma ll Things.5.6.2007. Retrieved from http://www.usp.nus.edu.sg/post/india/roy/alum1.html. Bose, Brinda (2006). In desire and in death: Eroticism as politics in Arundhati Roys The God of Small Things. In Murari Prasad (edited). Arundhati Roy: Critical perspectives. New Delhi, India: Pencraft International. Dwivedi, O.P (2010). The Subaltern and the text: Arundhati Roys The God of Small Things. Journal of Asia Pacific Studies, 1(2), 387-394. Navarro-Tejero, Antonia (2006). Power Relationships in The God of Small Things. In Murari Prasad (edited). Arundhati Roy: Critical perspectives. New Delhi, India: Pencraft International. Needham, Anuradha Dingwaney (2005). The Small Voice of History in Arundhati Roys The God of Small Things. Interventions:International Journal of Postcolonial Studies, 7(3), 369-391.doi: 10.1080/13698010500268072.
77
Prasad, Murari (2006). Introduction. In Murari Prasad (edited). Arundhati Roy: Critical perspectives. New Delhi, India: Pencraft International. Rabinow, Paul (Edited)(1991). The Foucault Reader. London, Penguin Group. Roy, Amitabh (2005).The God of Small Things : A novel of social commitment. New Delhi, India: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors. Roy, Arundhati (1997). The God of Small Things. New Delhi, India: IndiaInk. Roy, Arundhati(2009). The Shape of the Beast: conversations with Arundhati Roy.New Delhi, India: Penguin . Roy, Binayak (2009). The Title of The God of Small Things: A subversive salvo. ANQ, 22(3), 56-63. Surendran, K.V (2000). The God of Small Things: A saga of lost dreams. New Delhi, India: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors.
Endnotes.
i
I feel, says Guha, that womens voice once it is heard , will activate and make available other small voices as well(1994:11)(Anuradha Dingwaney Needham 376)
78

Complicity and Resistance Women in Arunduti Roy The God of Small Things

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Complicity and Resistance Women in Arunduti Roy The God of Small Things

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Journal of Postcolonial Cultures and Societies ISSN No.

1948-1845 (Print); 1948-1853 (Electronic)

Anda mungkin juga menyukai