Her daily chores are described as being to stay at home to feed the cattle, cook food for her parents-in-law and handle all the other affairs to do with house work, as would a servant normally do. Traditionally the woman is seen as a slave who has no feelings and is just a dollop of flesh that cleans, cooks and produces babies as in this story, Manak didn’t think twice about going behind Guleri’s back and marrying another woman. I think this mentality amongst individuals is immoral and imposturous and must be brought to a halt if we are to move on from our old tribal views and customs. This sexist mentality is what has led to the woman in this story to slay herself as she as well as many other women who go through this sort of torment in life didn’t see life to be worthwhile much longer. And due to the blind following of a barbarous view in Indian culture, many women in the past and even till this day are burnt alive if divorced by their husbands or otherwise are silenced and disgraced in society. All of this, just due to the fact that she was divorced by her husband!! I think women must be respected and given further respect and status in society. It’s fine for the women to stay at home but this must be done as to avoid the wandering eyes of other men as to uphold her dignity in society. The mentioning of chores in this paragraph begins to make clear to the reader what sort of culture and traditions the girl and their families indulge in, whereby the wife is seen merely as a servant in the eyes of her husband. In lines 30- 32, the husband is described to have closed his eyes as Guleri came in front of him, as though he could not bear to see his wife! By Guleri not questioning his actions, it seems as though this was a normal thing for the husband to do, for, if she had asked why, it would have been clear that what the husband done was not normal.
The reference to the word ‘chillum’ makes the reader think along the lines of the Asian sub-continent. The writer further hints towards Indian culture, as the ‘flute’ (line 49) is also mentioned. The writer portrays a very negative image of Indian culture as a whole and seems very critical of its customs. Critical of the fact that women are treated with such hatred and are not treated as an equal to the husband, due to the dominance of culture over the common views held by the people particularly regarding women.
The writer, being feminist, exaggerates the plot and timescale of the story as well as making Guleri a symbol of the treatment of women. The writer purposely does not mention the mother and mother-in-law’s names, which is known as a distancing device, as to avoid sympathy for theses characters to be formed. This also makes the mother and mother-in-law seem as though they are rivals to Guleri and to Indian women as a whole.
The home is seen to be a maitriarcle society whereby the mother is the law of the house, as in line 109 the writer mentions that Manak’s mother was ‘true to her decision’ regarding his second wife and that the ultimate decision was not in his hands. Culture is portrayed as something that must be made dutiful towards. The mother seems to make all the decisions of the domestic issues. And the fact that it is ‘customary to settle the bride price’ (line 72) as though buying an animal from the market. The writer tries to make the reader understand that it is Indian culture that promotes the view of women being cheap. Observing the custom keeps the first wife uninformed of her husband’s second marriage and because of this Guleri beats the people to their job and douses herself with kerosene and lit herself on fire, as this would have been the custom of the people of the village to do instead of even considering to re-marry the woman. The fact that divorced women must be burnt alive according to past Indian customs is disgusting. The custom is made an obligation as though one had been sworn to it (religion) as to never question its ways. The Indian culture is inundated in a cloud of ignorance whereby no other view except for the customs’ goes where room for reasoning is very limited.
The culture of ‘Sati’, widow burning, is incomprehensible and I think is barbaric. Why is it not possible for divorced women to remarry? For what reason do they have to be burnt to death. And even if they aren’t burnt alive, still, the people of the village try disgrace them whereby their lives become full of anguish and commit suicide anyway. I certainly do not find any common sense in humiliating a woman for the basis that she has been divorced. The maitriarcle society plays a huge role in the adoption of this sati culture as it is the mother of the man who decides who he marries and who he divorces, as Manak’s mother had already decided the right timing to bring his new wife home, behind his other wife’s back. To show how little Manak’s mother felt towards the death of Guleri, the writer mentions how it was nine months after her painful death that Manak’s mother became so cheerful and excited about the new baby boy that she forgot about Guleri and what she had done to her. It was the mother’s dominance in the house; backed by their adoption of their culture that allowed her to fulfil her yearns of having a grandchild in which Manak’s barren wife stood in the way of. To prove this, the writer mentions at the end of the story that when his new wife gave birth she was ‘pleased with her new daughter-in-law’ (lines 47-48). No consideration had been taken of what was best for her son and his wife because the wife according to the traditions is no more and no less than a servant. It seems to me that the culture lacks emphasis of the rights of women over their husbands, as all that is encouraged is the submission to the rights of men over their wives, which I think is completely wrong.
BY ABBAS DHAMI
