- Sharbari
Ghosh
Abstract: The paper aims at understanding
the inter and intra texts’ animal imageries to not be limited to the age-old negative
aspects of the human race but rather to be an ‘extension’ of the human
experience. Since both the short stories, Sarat Chandra
Chattopadhyay’s Mahesh and Premchand’s Sawa Sehr Gehun have been penned during the
oppressive British rule, the paper also tries to locate the voiceless pain in
the animal world keeping it at close quarters with the socio-cultural trauma of
the contemporary human world. With the help of textual references and by
implementing the various approaches of eco-criticism, the paper will thus,
reflect upon the need to perceive the supposed (dis)harmony in the two worlds
bringing together intellectuality and strength from either sphere.
Humans
make sense in the world as they differentiate or identify themselves from or
with other beings. This necessarily does not undermine the rest of the
ecosystem rather pulls together the other units to create sense at two distinct
levels, of the tribe and the individual. Using the eco-critical approach, the
simultaneous power relations of the two worlds (human and animal), will be
studied herein. Tracing out bestiality through animal imageries is a down to
top mechanism to conceive the human world with greater depth. The animals in
the society and thus, in the literature, more often than not have been
sidelined for mere economic deals or as beasts of burdens. This paper, however,
brings in two heart-wrenching vernacular short stories, Sarat Chandra
Chattopadhyay’s Mahesh and Premchand’s Sawa Sehr Gehun written
around the same decade, in British India. To unearth the gory and tragic
situations of both humans and animals alike while being fettered during the
British rule, the short stories, former one in Bengali and the latter in Hindi,
tries to unanimously paint a picture of pain (and not a fa├зade of mere pity!)
The use
of animal imageries in the literary domain is neither mere ornamentation nor a
coincidence. The animal imageries can primarily be bifurcated into the
vernacular and the metaphorical animal imageries (DeWit 7). The first type
connects more with the immediate social background and derives its meaning from
the local language. The vernacular animal imagery provides a limited vision
into a literary piece. The second kind of animal imagery or the metaphorical
one is more widely used and can transcend the local virtues of a text to a
universalised platform. Likewise, the abundance of apt animal imageries used by
Fakir Mohan Senapati in his remarkable novel, Chha Maana Atha Guntha in the Oriya
language is a brilliant example of highlighting various hidden aspects of the
human self in particular and the society on the larger canvas. Fakir Mohan
through a series of “kaduakhumphi birds”, “kingfishers”, “kite” and “Hindu
cranes” (Senapati
103), dexterously brings to his readers the hierarchy of mistreatment and
extensive exploitation rampant at all levels in the society. However, it is
very important to note, the animal imageries used here direct the readers more
towards the beastly face of the humans rather than expanding the idea of the human
as a ‘species’ and as an integral part of nature. The two short stories herein,
Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay’s Mahesh and Premchand’s Sawa Sehr Gehun try
to uphold the mesh of relations shared by the humans, non-humans, and their
immediate as well as the universal nature.
Sarat
Chandra Chattopadhyay (1876-1938) holds an irreplaceable
position in Bengali literature; particularly owing to his magnum opus,
Devdas. The short story, Mahesh brings to flesh and blood, the sagas
of the marginalised clan of the society. With great precision, the story brings
to the foray that the invisible communities comprise not only of religious
minorities like Gafur Jola, a Muslim and the protagonist but also of the
wordless creatures like his beloved bullock, Mahesh. Herein, the cow transcends
the mere purpose of utility and becomes more of a symbol - of trauma and
violence owing to the fatal existence of abject penury. With the scorching heat
and the consequential drought during the Jaishth (the second month of the
Bengali calendar and along with Baisakh month, which comprises the exhausting
summer season) month, the burden of feeding the bellies becomes all the more
problematic but empathy remains as rare as the raindrops! It is in this state
of palpable chaos that the silent teardrops of Mahesh speak galore.
The pain of starvation and physical degradation doubles up when Mahesh
being a mere animal remains deprived of even the proper channels of word and
speech to relay the same. Herein, Mahesh does not stand merely as a ribbed
creature of four limbs but an element of contestation. The ribbed body of the
cow reveals the pathetic state of humanity at large. When on one hand, Tarkaratna,
the priest feeds himself with extra ounces of fruits and rice, yet spares not a
single grain either to Gafur or to his beloved, Mahesh whom he cared for as his
son. Thereby, carefully placing the humans in the same plane of cognition as
that of the animals, Sarat Chandra reveals the depth of dark inhumanity rampant
in the human souls. The Darwinian struggle of survival trespasses the boundary
between humans and animals. So to say, desperation at the hour of hunger and
thirst (both for the tangible food and for the intangible identity)
effortlessly superimpose the traits of humans and beasts.
The misery of the characters reflects the unrestrained exploitation of
nature and the non-human beings in the hands of the deadly consumerist society
identified by Tarkaratna and by the wealthy Brahmin Zamindar heading the
village of Kashipur. Resonating with the words of Raymond Williams’ The
Country and the City (Nayar 329), Sarat Chandra too does not aim at
glorifying the green nature of the rural world rather brings in the
helplessness associated with wretched poverty, the defunct societal structure
and the harsh seasons. Through every inch of this literary piece at hand, there
is a constant persuasion to re-construct a healthy bio-social cont(r)act.
In the closing lines of the short story, when Gafur being caught in an
unfortunate misunderstanding, puts an end to his dearest bullock and his
metaphorical son, Mahesh, the story as if comes alive with the scientific term that
all humans belong ‘only and only’ to the kingdom of Animalia. Though a
mute spectator, the untimely death of Mahesh provides a psychological
revelation of the human world wherein, the latter’s choice and cognition come
to fruition only by manifesting ‘humanhood’ which entails supporting and caring
for one another in the tribe. Alas! Most of the humans being caught in the mesh
of circumstantial agony brewed by the consumerist world, never truly transcend
the state of bestiality to humanity!
Through the lenses of eco-feminism, it is instrumental to look into the
binary opposites of male and female in the context of this short story. Throughout
the literary piece, Amina (Gafur’s young daughter) hardly gets a say just like
Mahesh. The only difference being, even though Amina has the privilege of
word-formation yet never gets the right ‘event’ to voice out the same and
Mahesh, on the other side, neither has the words nor has the capacity to relay
his thoughts. In other words, Amina is an ‘extended version’ of Mahesh. Both
doubly ostracised; once by the society and next up by the superior other, the (hu)man.
In this surreal integration of women and nature (along with the non-human
beings), it is key to note that not only do men exercise their will and action
on the lesser ones by sheer force but also by hegemonizing them by false
deification. Attaching vital elements of nurturing, caring and loyalty to the
women and nature, the lot at large slowly gets pushed out of the culture and
society (which steadily gets masculinized).
Additionally, owing to the violence and the brewed apathy in the
environment, it becomes a major necessity to depict the sad state of affairs of
the poor animals' side by side with their equally wretched masters. In cases of
crisis, humans as we are, we often empathize with our clan at first before
turning to help the animals. However, one needs to understand that the animals
or the non-human beings are as much vulnerable as the humans are during the
traumatic hours; in this context, drought and starvation. In these lines, it is
important to underline the fact that the act of anthropocentrism highlighted
here, ironically does not portray the humans as the cynosure rather cajoles the
same to widen its arena of existence and thereby, the discourse to involve the
other participants of the eco-system. This dialectical relation between nature
and humans foregrounds the various levels of inequalities and exploitation. To
march forward to a healthy environment, the sudden accidents of role reversals
wherein the humans acting as brutes and vice versa, need to be uprooted once
and for all. By scraping away the boundaries of anthropocentrism, the
realisation of sensitivity is sure to dawn upon! It is through this inclusivity
factor that the humans will get subsumed into nature and thus, will not attempt
to exploit the same, either by alienation or by being a part of it.
The animal imageries need to be studied not merely on the literary level
but also on the linguistic level. Gafur being a Muslim gets penalised by
derogatory words by the priest, Tarkaratna. The priest verbally abuses; calling
Gafur, “mlecch├б” (Chattopadhyay 1). The word taken from Vedic
Sanskrit literally means barbarians. In this context of bitter social relation,
Gafur gets reduced to a beast, an outcast and hence, gets shooed away from the
basic amenities of human society just because he was born a Muslim in a Hindu
dominated society. The Muslims therein were considered as ‘untouchables’ as
well, thereby, making them an invisible part of the ‘civilised’ society. This
binary of savage and civilised comes strikingly clearer when Tarkaratna once
again hurls down offensive words like “pashondo” (Chattopadhyay 1). The etymological
meaning of the word “pashondo” (Chattopadhyay 1) is one who is an atheist.
However, the meaning twists into a derogatory notion by contextualising the
same within the time frame of exploitation wherein words like these were being
used in the colloquial language to determine humans who acted like brutes. This
likening to brutes does not always refer to the inherent layers of bestiality
in humans rather highlight the communities who were considered ‘lesser’ to the
predominant higher classes. Thus, anyone lower to the privileged classes was
considered nothing more than animals, who could be used for eternal labour
hours, with no individual rights, and at the end, begging for the scraps of
food left over by the upper classes. This extension of the human world into the
animals and vice versa is not only traumatic but also alarming at the same
time. The minute readings bring to question “the struggle of
spiritual, political, and community values that are unique to the human animal”
(Levy 66).
The feudal’s and the Zamindars’ exploitative measures did not get
restricted only in Sarat Chandra’s Bengal rather stretched even to his
contemporary, Premchand’s land. Premchand (1880-1936), the legendary ‘kathasamrat’
stands tall as one of the strongest pillars of Hindi literature, known widely
for his heart-wrenching novel, Godaan. His writings subjectively and
emotionally align much with Sarat Chandra’s; both delving deep into the
intricacies of the human self by contextualising them within the current frame
of oppression under the British colonisers in particular and within the
existing world of all beings in general. Through animals and humans alike, Premchand
like Sarat Chandra too brings in the ragged episodes of the rural life with the
degenerative daily lives of the landless tenants and at large the
dysconnectivity between nature and the humans. His short story, Sawa Sehr Gehun
flags the human face of the shortcomings, pain and tyranny bolstered by the
economic and socio-cultural greed through his protagonist, Shankar.
Shankar, a petty landless peasant, “a kurmi farmer - Collective name for
the Hindu agricultural caste(s)” (Premchand 129) deprived of even two meals a
day, gets caught up in a debt to a Brahman, who in the years has elevated from
the position of a priest to a tactful and cunning Zamindar. Shankar like Sarat
Chandra’s Gafur too has a bullock which happens to be his sole source of income
as it helped him in the ‘agricultural activities’.
Out of the
five bighas, only half remained along with a bullock on his side. How was it
possible to be a peasant now? At last, cultivation became a mere instrument of
preserving the family honour for Shankar for livelihood rested now entirely on
the daily wage earning (Premchand 132).
Shankar’s menial amount of borrowing from the Zamindar along
the seven years had turned a “mountain
out of a molehill” (Premchand
133), converting a
“quarter ser of wheat” (Premchand 133) into “five
and half a mun” (Premchand 133). The politics
of the narrative further problematises when seen through the ideologies of the
Marxist environmentalists. The helplessness of Shankar and his dead-beaten
starved bullock (who is nameless here in) voices out the pain and ignominy the
wealth accumulators can put the ‘have-nots’ to; in silence and in vain. The
namelessness of the bullock bellows at recollecting the universal trail of
exploitation. It is imperative to perceive the present stand that exploitation
did not begin with the tyrannical Zamindari system but began right from the
birth of the human race.
According to Marxist environmentalism (Nayar 338), nature no more gets
revered as a space for integration of all aspects of life rather gets
denominated as a mere ‘commodity’ or even worse, simply as a ‘production
sector’. Here, it becomes crucial to see that along with nature, the non-human
beings and the lowest strata of the societal hierarchy, an exclusion navigates
through; stealthily, first at the social level and next, at the environmental
level. The hoarding of commodities and the excess avarice of the rich Brahmins
to extract more and more from the vulnerable lesser beings and the non-humans
depicts exploitation at multiple levels (both horizontally and vertically). The
traditional hierarchy or the Indian varna system showcases the stultified and
the decadent forms of the society, with the rich getting richer by accepting
donations and the poor keep slipping into a deeper level of poverty even after
selling their bodies for labour. The poor herein does not simply bracket
Shankar but also his bullock. Either of them toils hard in the burning “Jeth
sun” (Premchand 132), only to be thrown into a never-ending cycle of piling
debts and humiliation. Even in the earlier short story, Sarat Chandra’s Mahesh,
when Gafur along with his daughter, Amina leave their agricultural base behind
hoping to live anew by working in the jute mills, this further portrays the
introduction of the vicious industrialised and capitalistic parasite feeding
onto innocent lives. The death of Mahesh just before Gafur’s withdrawal from
his village also marks out the territory that capitalism and the much-loved
modernity does not hold any space for animals. Consequentially, under the garb
of better lives in an industrialised society, the people get deprived of their
humanistic virtues even more. Thus, the constant contestation between the
bourgeois and the proletariats get outlined herein with greater finesse.
The animal imageries through a domestic animal also extend to the fact
that humans at large are also being domesticated, being enslaved and are being
‘used’ until they are reduced to their bare corporeal frames without an ounce
of emotion, conscience and vigour. To drive out the dark hovering debts from
his head, Shankar worked way more than he used to. With no food on the table
and no money even to cater to his hukka (an equipment for tobacco consumption),
the anxiety of clearing up the debts multiplied further on. The extensive work
hours with not much extra earnings reduced him into a mere skeleton with
nothing more than a rag. His body became bare like that of a brute; with no
clothing to cover the self-respect and the humane self. It is in these wretched
conditions; Shankar too subsumes into the identity of an animal. Particularly,
he gets caricatured as a stray animal who has neither any food to consume nor a
home for shelter. The contextual integration of Shankar to a beast of
deprivation and no self-worth assumes to be tragic rather than the peaceful
interconnectedness hailed by the idea of ‘deep ecology’.
Lawrence
Buell’s instrumental work, The Environmental Imagination (Nayar 337), “apocalypse
is the single most powerful metaphor that the contemporary environmental
imagination has at its disposal”. This painful realisation occurs at the
closing lines of Premchand’s Sawa Sehr Gehun. Shankar’s pile of debt
does not come to a close rather closes the insignificant life of Shankar and
introduces his son to yet another renewed cycle of slavery and captivity. Ironically,
though Shankar along with his family and the bullock undergo unfathomable
exploitation for no ‘proper’ reason yet they consider the same to be
‘pre-ordained’. It is in this naturalizing of the pain and brutality that the
situation of the ‘other’ in the bourgeoise world grow even more pathetic. Once
again through this latent acceptance, the meaning of Marxist ‘ideology’ comes
alive and thus, the redundant societal bliss.
In this
context, it is very evident that the eco-critical approach extends further into
third world environmentalism. Premchand’s Shankar lived in a rural nameless
village and on a daily basis, he was tormented. The pioneering idea of
eco-criticism began in the West and consequentially, in the blind imitation of
the West, our country too followed suit. The main problem however lies in the
fact that the ways to protect nature and the non-humans, the bourgeoise
perspective holds very paltry significance. It is the landless tenants like
Shankar who work endlessly to secure the worth of the land and not the
wealth-fed Zamindars. Thereby, Ramchandra Guha’s ‘environmentalism of the poor’
(Nayar 339) becomes an important point of discussion. Any malfunction in the
environment directly affects the poorer lot and may or may not at all affect
the Zamindars or the feudal lords. Even here, both Shankar and his innocent
bullock bear the brunt of the excessive profiteering market set up by the
priest turned Zamindar. Paradoxically, the voicelessness of the proletariats
speaks way more about the imbalance in the society than the cacophony of the
bourgeoisie!
When on
one hand, the eco-criticism eyes the integration of humans, the non-humans and
nature as a major factor in the progression of humans yet at the same time,
these elements might also reveal the various discrepancies in human
development. Likewise, be it Shankar or Gafur both exist within the framework
of nature yet their end is abysmal; a state of catastrophe. The prime question
arises why? Even though there is a string of harmony connecting Shankar, Gafur,
and nature (including the non-humans too), but there is discord in the
intra-human relations. It is the dissonance and friction between the various
human strata that the true universal harmony cannot be achieved.
Conclusively,
either of the short stories brought in here under scrutiny, beautifully
reflects that humans and non-humans are integral parts of nature, and
supposedly, cannot exist in isolation. The animal imageries (both literal and
linguistic ones) surfaces not just the integration of nature as a whole but
also the fault lines in the same which needs to be glued by acting responsibly
to one another. The animals in Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay’s Mahesh and
Premchand’s Sawa Sehr Gehun being connoted as the ‘extension’
of human development and experiences bring together a sense of recognition for
every individual’s share of contribution in building up the ecological
consciousness. Thereby, the short stories amidst the multiple layers of social
injustice try to highlight the need to restore sanity and rationality both in
human nature and in the universal nature at large.
Works Cited
Chattopadhyay, Sarat Chandra. Mahesh. BDeBooks, https://bdebooks.com/books/mahesh-by-sarat-chandra-chattopadhyay/.
Sinha, Arunava. “Translations.” 1 March 2016, https://arunavasinha.in/2016/03/01/mahesh-sarat-chandra-chattopadhyay/.
DeWit, David A. “The Joyce menagerie : animal imagery in the first three
novels.” University of Richmond, UR Scholarship Repository, 1967, p. 7.
Levy, Josephine. “Biological and Animal Imagery in John Steinbeck's
Migrant Agricultural Novels: A Re-evaluation.” Between the Species,
1994, pp. 66-70.
Nayar, Pramod K. Contemporary Literary and Cultural Theory: From
Structuralism to Ecocriticism. Pearson.
Premchand. The Bond of Slavery: Saw─Б Ser Gehun by Premchand in Hindi.
Translated by Umesh Kumar, vol. 12, Translation Today, 2018, https://www.ntm.org.in/download/ttvol/volume12-2/translation.pdf.
Senapati, Fakir Mohan. Six Acres and a Third. Translated by Rabi
Shankar Mishra, et al., University of California Press, 2005.
***
Bio:
Sharbari Ghosh is currently pursuing post-graduation in English from Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi. Her research interests
include Refugee and Migration Studies, Translation studies, Partition
Literature, and Holocaust Studies. Her analytical approach to the usage of
animal imageries traced in Fakir Mohan Senapati’s legendary translated novel,
Six Acres and a Third, will be released by Muse India. On the most recent note,
she has been selected (from an international pool of competitors) to
participate with a cohort of 500
participants from 108 countries
in the course, Global Compact for Migration by Global Research Forum on
Diaspora and Transnationalism.
Email:
sgmg9698[AT]gmail[DOT]com
