Nighat Gandhi’s Rakhi Sawant of Sind: An insight into the Tribulations and Social Exclusion of Transgenders.

Ruchi Raj Thakur
Assistant Professor of English
Himachal Pradesh National Law
University, Shimla.

Ruchi Raj Thakur

Abstract

                       

This paper endeavours to focus on the struggles and adversities experienced by Transgenders. It depicts the voice of a transgender who marks the woes of her community by narrating their experiences of humiliation. This research highlights the pain of this community which goes unheard or unattended. It covers the duality of society and further deliberates upon the outlook of the society towards them. It also underscores the diverse ways they are ridiculed. The dichotomy in their real relations and in the newly found relationships has also been dealt in this work.

Key words: Humiliation, new found relationships, ridiculed, women-like.

 Introduction

“We are God’s creation we didn’t create ourselves so why are we blamed to be like this? “We wish we would have a separate world to live, this world of males and females don’t want to see us and we don’t want to see them either.” -Ume Sughra.

This was the comment, Ume heard while interviewing a transgender community at Bari Imam Islamabad, Pakistan. The deplorable conditions of transgenders are not confined to a particular nation but are universal. Discussion on transgender is not new but has become more popular after the decriminalization of 377 of Indian Penal Code by the Supreme Court of India. Of course, this legal gesture has invited diverse responses. The young segment of society welcomes the decision, while the conventional chunk reacts pejoratively. This article aims to delve deep into the duality of society, extreme agonies of transgenders and the challenges met by them.

The transgenders are popularly known as khusras, kinners, hijras. The marks of Hijra community can be traced to more than 4000 years. They are mentioned in Hindi scriptures as well as Holy Quran. In Hindu mythology, transgenderism existed and acknowledged. In Mughal Rule, transgenders played a significant role in the courts. The coming of the British rule questioned the popularity of Transgenders and since then they have been relegated to the position of nothingness. Humaira Jami “Coway (2002) tried to trace the prevalence of hijras in India and gave rough estimates around 1,000,000 among over a billion people. While, much is known and written about hijras in India; very little is documented about them in Pakistan” (3)

Transgender communities have seen negligible visibility in our society which has resulted in very little visibility in literature too. Literature recognises all the sections of the society irrespective of caste, class, colour or any other peculiarity which divides the society into various segments. So this community has gained popularity in literary writings. Though socially only the binary of male and female genders have been recognized, yet literature tries to throw light on all gender deviances. “ Anybody who deviates from any of the normative beliefs about sex/ gender is considered to be a deviant (Sharma, 2000; see Winter, 2002).

 It gives voice to the cornered minority which is coping stress due to their sexual orientation, injustice, social and cultural prohibition, etc. Literary writings bring all cornered populace in the center and instill consciousness for the forgotten people by exploring their plights and challenges. Such writings demonstrate that how the already oppressed community is subjected to unending stigmatization. This paper aims to give an insight of the experiences of transgenders through Nighat Gandhi’s depiction of Nisho in ‘Rakhi Sawant of Sind’ in Alternative Realities.

There is very little research on transgenders as most of the studies on such population underscores the medical aspects of gender identity. A little has been done to secure them economically, socially or politically. They are socially and emotionally attacked. Their illiteracy keeps them unaware about their rights. The social construct further suppresses them. Nighat Gandhi narrates the doleful condition of this community by saying, “ People keep talking about rights. But who gives you your right? Nobody. Our small town has many Khawaja Sara and they have small minds. They’re not clever like educated, city people. And they’re afraid of harassment, so they keep to themselves. They‘ll never give an interview or talk to an outsider. They don’t trust people, they don’t like people asking them questions about their lives. They’re always worried about consequences” (220).

The duality of our society is evident from the social demeanour and the conventional perception. The transgenders are considered to be harbingers of festivity and good-omen. Whether a baby takes birth or two different souls tie in the nuptial bond, the presence of transgenders make the surrounding gleeful with their shower of blessings. The mundane ceremony of sons in Indian families remains an insipid affair if the blessings are not conferred on them. Otherwise they are detested by the straight people. Does our society ever try to find that those who make our gatherings joyful are themselves happy or not? Their gloominess remains hidden under the loud clapping. Nisho expresses her anguish against those who make fun of them. She asserts, “ But outside my mohalla, where people don’t know me, they taunt and tease me, they call me names-chakka, hijra, zenna. They make fun of me by trying to imitate the khadra’s clap. But you know, we don’t go clapping all the time. To clap for no reason is completely against the behavior code of our community. But for most people, a khadra’s trade mark is their clap, so whenever they see us, they clap to imitate us. In our community, we clap only to signal disagreements among us, or when we want to end an argument. Or if we go for badhai to a house where there’s been a birth, then we clap” (222).

They are a marginalized and stigmatized community. Besides, their social deprivation and harassments, the development society has not intended to do much for them. Infact, if they tend to live happily then also society does not let them. It is scornful that transgenders are thrown out of their own houses by their parents because having produced transgender babies make them feel embarrassed in the social circles. Most of them look like men, but they prefer to be accepted as female. Their inclination to lead a life of women becomes an issue of humiliation for the parents who fail to appreciate the third gender as only two genders have been accepted in our society. Nisho says, “I don’t know why the world thinks of us as immoral. The world’s full of hardcore criminals, alcoholics, drug addicts, adulters, gamblers, murderers, terrorists. Do we plant bombs? Are we murdering people? Do we take bribes?  What kind of threat do we pose to society? We keep to ourselves. Then why does the world shun us? Treat us like criminals? Some call us dozakhi (destined to go to hell)…” (220).

Nighat Gandhi’s Nisho tells her that, “ We have two names. One that our parents give us and one which we are given when we enter this field. The names our parents give us are boys’ names. But we live like women after leaving home, so we can’t have masculine names. You are given a feminine name by your guru, a name that goes with your personality. So I chose to call myself Nisho…” (214).

By birth, Hijras are physiologically males but in flesh are fascinated by feminine gender identity. So they get into feminine gender roles and wear women's clothing. The social conduct fails to understand their mentality and sexuality. Nisho narrates her experience, “…I always liked being a girl. I dressed like a girl. I never played cricket or football or gulli danda- all those are boys’ games. I played with dolls and kho-kho. I used to watch my sisters and from them I learned to cook. My brothers used to love me until my father passed away….”(224).

Kessler and McKenaa remarks, “Gender is an anchor and once people decide what you are they interpret everything you do in light of that” (6). While, sex is the biological component, gender is the psychological and social component. However, there are certain conditions in which the biological aspects are in contradiction with the social and psychological aspects of gender. These conditions override the biology in determining gender identity and influencing gender role (6).

Transgenders choose their own relation after parting their ways from their families, forcefully or preferably. When families do not come to support them, they are supported by the new found relations. They find mother, sister, dadi, etc. whom they consider their own. They are different because they do not wish to lament over their dead relations. Even though the worldly affairs make their living miserable, yet they try their best to meander their way through difficulties.  Nisho says, “We are like faqirs-we are happy within ourselves. We don’t involve ourselves in the affairs of the world. We just live, accepting the way Allah has made us. Probably Allah didn’t want us to get embroiled in the intrigues and corruption of the world so He spared us all that by making us different” (225).

Transgenders can develop their families within their communities but if they drift towards the straight world then it plays havoc in the social construction.
Society does not accept such unison which is not productive. For them man loving a man and woman loving the same sex are unappreciable. Similarly, a transgender loving a man is repugnant. Nisho loves a man but knows that her love is not so strong to break the social norms. She even knows if she dares to smash them then also her love will remain unfulfilled. One has to muster courage to swim across the tide and pose a threat to the social perception.

Nisho’s boyfriend fails to break the social bindings and marry her. Nisho’s love will never be understood by the people around her. Her emotions will be viewed as dissolute and anti-social. Nisho says, “ Who hasn’t been in love? At least once in their lifetime? I mean, if you haven’t loved, life is absolutely worthless. There’s no point in living without love. We’d just come to life, live like animals and die. People think only a man and a woman can make a couple. They say that is how nature intended it. But, the truth is, anybody can fall in love with anybody. A man can fall in love with a man, a woman can fall in love with a woman. But society doesn’t accept such love” (215).

Nisho meets her boyfriend seven or eight years ago in a dance performance. His macho look attracts her and she falls in love with him. She even narrates her embarrassment for being what God made her because she knew this relationship will be received by others contemptuously. She even narrates that till that time she had never considered her existence a curse because he made her feel like a complete woman. She says, “ Is there any difference between us and real women? No, it’s just that we aren’t accepted as women by society. If I were a real woman, I could’ve gotten married, had kids, made some man happy. But this way, the way I am, I can’t. I don’t fit into any role”. (215)

In the social context, a man and a woman complete the photo frame. If man and man, who dress up like woman, are captured together in the frame of husband and wife, the society spews poison in retaliation. Usually such relationships end because to flout social norms one should have the nerve to invite and combat social acrimony.

Nisho is completely committed to her boyfriend even though he marries off another woman while being involved with her. For Nisho having affair with some other man will be the biggest sin. She does not care whether her lover is married because all that matters to her is the quality time she spends with him. She says, “It would be sinful if I were to cheat on my lover, if I got into another relationship behind his back. But I follow my heart’s bidding, and love him, where’s the sin in that? I’ve always listened to my heart” (216).

Society makes fun of hijras for what they are. They are laughed at for their peculiar style of dressing up. The way they drape their sarees on their masculine bodies is made fun of. Their style of speaking and clapping followed by words are enough to ridicule them. Nobody wishes to travel with them in public conveyance nor do they feel comfortable in conversing or associating with them. In such apathetic world it also seems astounding that they can ever be loved by normal men. It is difficult to even accept the relationship of Nisho and her lover, not simply because they should not share any relationship but because of the dilemma that whether it is love or lust which compels a normal married man to continue his relationship with a transgender. Nisho could foresee her future, yet she loves him. She says, “ I know this love isn’t going to last. He’ll grow tired of me. He’ll become preoccupied with his family responsibilities. In a few years he’ll have two or three kids, and when they grow up, he’ll be even more tied down, worrying about their education, their marriage. He’ll forget me by and by” (218).

Nisho respects her lover’s limitation by allowing him to come to her according his convenience. She would fight with him and would accuse him of being a henpecked husband because of coming late to her. Her mild teasing would be dealt by him either with a slap or abuses. Nisho surrenders herself completely to her lover without demanding for reciprocation. She remarks, “Sometimes he also gets mad at me and sometimes he even slaps me when I talk back to him. He hits me to bring me back to my senses. If somebody else uses abusive language, or gives me a gaali, I can’t take it. But my lover can curse me hundreds of times, and I can say a hundred mean things to him, but afterwards, when we make up, I forget all that”(216).

The social exclusion and degradation make the transgenders vulnerable. They too accept their fate and accept marginality in all spheres of life. Gandhi’s Nisho does not look for commitment from her lover because she understands that she will not be welcomed in her lover’s family. She says, “ But his family used insulting words like hijra for me. He belongs to a very prominent, respectful family so our relationship was kept all hushed up by his family. And now he has a wife and a five-month-old son” (217).

Had it been love, then Nisho’s lover would have certainly reacted against his family’s decision but he does not do so. He continues to have a secret association with Nisho. How can one so easily overcome the grief of not getting married to his love and get sexually involved with his new wife. Sadly, Nisho withdraws herself from this relationship by saying, “I can’t marry him. I can’t marry a man and give him children….I knew he wouldn’t marry me. And yet it was so painful for me…”(217).

 Once transgenders are forced to part their ways from their families, they are forced to fend for themselves. Under the training of Gurus they learn dancing, singing and all other skills which enable them to earn. Sustenance becomes the principle of their life. Nisho too manages her living by dancing and singing. With increasing modernity, the practice of dancing and singing on the such occasions like birth or wedding is declining and so to earn more money transgenders are getting into sex trade. In the story, it is not mentioned whether Nisho earned her living only by dancing or singing or by serving men sexually but her loyalty to her lover has been discussed with utmost certainty. Nisho also shares her insecuries and anxieties with Nighat Gandhi. She says, “ But in the end, our lives end badly. There’s nobody for us once those who have put aside savings, can hope to have a somewhat comfortable old age. But those who don’t have any savings, they get kicked about in old age” (218).

A true love is unconditional. One accepts the other partner without a change in his or her physical appearance. If someone is embarrassed of the looks of his partner then undeniably it is not love.  To get love, Nisho even gets ready for experimenting with her looks. Nisho could do anything for her love. She knows that his love for her will not last long, yet she keeps a good care of her. She believes that by keeping herself in shape she will have his love for a little more time and her market value will also not go down. She says, “For him I need to keep myself in shape. I went on a diet and lost four kilos in one month. I had to. I was getting heavy. In our profession, you need to maintain your figure. My paunch was beginning to show. People don’t like it if a dancer is flabby. I started taking this powder with green tea to kill my hunger. I’m a big chatori, a glutton.  I like to eat whatever takes my fancy. If the dahibada wala goes calling, I send some children with money and ask him to bring me dahibada. Now I’ve stopped eating like that. You can’t dance well if you put on too much weight” (218).

Hijras have similar feelings like any other human beings. They wish to be loved and cared. They feel jealous too. Nisho knows that she cannot get herself in the life of her lover, but she knew that feeling jealous of his wife was within her capacity. A society does not object to one’s yearning. Nighat Gandhi brings to fore a very serious issue that not only transgenders are exploited but women live the same humiliation. Nisho’s boyfriend was exploiting both of them. His wife was somehow tolerating Nisho in her husband’s life as she had discovered her husband’s hidden association with a transgender. But what other choice a woman has? Can she object to anything? The patriarchal society does not allow women to defy the social norms. Nisho asserts, “ I hate her most of the time. But I also feel sorry for her because she puts up with my presence in his life. I wouldn’t have been as generous if I’d been his wife. I wouldn’t let him go to another woman…” (219).

It is not wide off the mark to say that had Nisho been born as a woman, her condition would have been no different. As a transgender she is suffering and as a woman too she would have suffered. She herself narrates the miseries of married women of her mohalla and expresses her surprise for their doleful situation even after having the power of productiveness.  She even expresses happiness for being free from the marital bindings. She says, “…Then I thank God that there’s no husband or mother-in-law shouting orders at me like a blood-sucking vampire or the angel of death threatening to strangulate me. Those married women can’t do much of what they wish to, they can’t follow the desires of their hearts. I suppose our life isn’t much better than theirs…” (219).

This community is gaining recognition with time but that is a gradual process. National Identity Cards have been issued to them, but of very little help to them.  They are often confused while filling forms because there are only two options on the form for male and female. The third category is not mentioned in application forms. So the help is partial because it leaves this community in being the victim of social duality. When left with no option, then they lament their creation by the God when they feel helpless. Nisho remarks, “Some of us would say we’re women, some would say we’re men. But if we want to say we’re women, shouldn’t we have the rights that belong to women? Like the right to marry? And if we say we’re male, shouldn’t we get the rights that belong to men? But we’ll get neither the rights of men or women. They‘ll just create a Khwaja Sara category for us but give us no respect or rights” (221).

Through this writing, Nighat Gandhi brings to surface the subjugation of Hijras, with a mild intention to speak about the predicaments of women in general too. After a conversation with Nisho, the dark reality comes to fore front that like other human beings, transgenders too long for respect and self-esteem. The writer voices the pain of this cornered community through the heart-rending narrative of Nisho. Nisho represents the travails of her community as a whole. The narrative will certainly leave the readers to delve deep into the dark world of transgenderism. She states, “More than anything else, I want respect.  I want the world to accept me, and respect me for who I am. That’s all. Other than that life is fine. God provides for all his beings, even a worm living under rocks finds food and shelter, and I’m a human being…Sensitive people  treat us well but the insensitive ones, they don’t realize how their taunts hurts us and how we go home and sob, remembering their insensitivity. Sometimes, I ask Allah, why have you given us this kind of life? Why is it that we aren’t valued like other people in this world? Even if I work hard all my life to build a respectable image of myself, I don’t  think I can succeed” (222).   

This paper depicts the multiple forms of subjugation encountered by Hijras. They recurrently experience sexual, emotional hostility from society. The paper speaks about the absence of a supportive and congenial environment for Hijras. Hijras fail to understand that why their community could never win love, respect and appreciation of the society, though they have God’s approval. Our attitude towards hijras is certainly driven by conventional perceptions and myths. If we question such myths, our outlook on such cornered community will change. If we try to read their lives minutely we would not only know their situations and challenges but also understand their psychological sufferings. The poignancy of transgenders reveals through Nisho’s dialogue, “You can offer any man on the street for twenty or even thirty thousand rupees, and ask him if he’ll agree to wearing sandals like these and a flowery shalwar-kameez, and put on lipstrick, and go on dancing thumak-thumak  in a bazaar. Do you think he’d agree to do it? Why is it that people don’t understand why we live the way we do? Do they think we adopt this lifestyle for fun, or because it makes us rich?” (222)

Works Cited

Gandhi, Nighat M. Alternative Realities. New Delhi: Thomson Press Limited, 2012. Print.

Kessler, M., & McKenna, W. (1978). Gender: An ethnomethodological approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Sharma, S. K. (2000). Hijras: The labelled deviance.  New Delhi: Gyan Publishing House.

Jami H. Condition and Status of Hijras (Transgender, Transvesties etc.) in Pakistan. Islamabad, Pakistan: National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam University; 2005.

Coway, L. (2002). How Frequently Does Transsexualism Occur? Retrieved  Oct 24, 2004 from http://www.lynnconway.com/

Agoramoorthy Govindasamy and J. Hsu, Minna. Living on the Societal Edge: India's Transgender Realities. Journal of Religion and Health. Vol. 54, No. 4 (August 2015), pp. 1451-1459 (9 pages). published by: Springer http://www.jstor.org.elibraryhpnlu.remotexs.in/stable/24485502?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=transgender&searchText=and&searchText

Ume Sughra1*, M Imran2Transgender: Stigma, Discrimination and Social Exclusion, Asian Pac. J. Health Sci., 2016; 3(4S):100-101 e-ISSN: 2349-0659, p-ISSN: 2350-0964. https://www.apjhs.com/pdf/15-Transgender-Stigma-Discrimination-and-Social-Exclusion.pdf. Ume Sughra and M Imran ASIAN PACIFIC JOURNAL OF HEALTH SCIENCES, 2016; 3(4S):100-101

Sibsankar, Mal. The Hijras of India: A marginal community with paradox sexual identity. Department of Geography, SSM College, Keshpur, West Bengal, India. http://www.indjsp.org/article.asp?issn=0971-9962;year=2018;volume=34;issue=1;spage=79;epage=85;aulast=Mal

Setu, August 2019

Ruchi Raj Thakur

Assistant Professor of English, HPNLU, Shimla.

Dr. Ruchi Raj Thakur is working as Assistant Professor of English at Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla since October 2016. She is a former student of Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla from where she pursued M.A. English and M.Phil. Her M.Phil.is on the topic, “STORIES BY EXPATRIATE WOMEN WRITERS: PATTERNS OF ASSIMILATION AND ASSERTION, DISPLACEMENT AND OVERLAPPING PERSPECTIVES”. Her Ph.D., also from Himachal Pradesh University, is on HISTORY, CULTURE AND SOCIAL COMMITMENT IN YASHPAL’S SELECTED WORKS.  Diaspora, Expatriate Writings and social issues pertaining to the underprivileged, disregarded and oppressed sections of society have been her area of research. She is also exploring newly-founded synthesis such as Literature and History, New Historicism and Literature, Literature and Law. Currently, she is writing a paper on Human Right Activism and Literature.

She has to her credit many research papers published in National online and offline Journals.  She has also presented papers in several national and international seminars/conferences organised in India. She has worked as Assistant Professor in the School of Basic Sciences and Language, Department of Communications Skills, at Bahra University where she taught at both undergraduate and postgraduate level for five years. At Bahra University, she got an opportunity to teach various subjects such as Communication skills (mba), workshop on business communication (bba), technical english (b.pharma), cs/gd (bca), english-i (ballb), technical communication (b.tech).  She was a member of the Finishing School established by Bahra University with an objective to groom the overall personality of the students and to prepare them for job interviews. She has also worked as the Counsellor at IGNOU for FEG and MEG programs offered by from September 2010 to June 2012.   

Authors A-Z

Woman and Society: Combatting the Gender stereotyping and dismantling the power Structures

Ruchi Raj Thakur

ABSTRACT

The status of women or gender issues has become a common subject of discussion in social, literary, legal and academic circles. This concept has found a place of significance not only in verbal discourse but also in writings. In fact, Gender inequality has gained a universal recognition but the degree to which the discussion takes place differs. Gender inequality is a concept which etymologically refers to the disparity between the two different sexes which is the result of the social and cultural beliefs and assumptions. This paper aims to voice those social inequalities which are experienced more by women, because they are women. It interrogates those beliefs which are responsible for the miserable condition of woman. This paper portrays John Galsworthy’s and Vijay Tendulkar’s women characters who attempt to smash the obdurate social norms and to live on their terms and conditions. Though they become victims of the patriarchal structure, yet they do not lose hope and continue to fight against the system by dealing with it in their own ways. This paper also highlights the duality of Indian society which does not allow them to denounce these conventionalist styles of living. It investigates the wretched condition of women and their relegation to an insignificant position by the society. It further touches upon themes like alienation, loneliness, oppression, unprecedented violence against women, lack of autonomy, dependence, etc.

Key words: Autonomy, Alienation, Conventionalist styles, Patriarchal, Duality.

“It is not important to not just make art but also ensure it creates an impact”-says Vibha Gandotra

A literary writer studies the ethos, social mores, beliefs, philosophies, social outlook, or opinions, biases of a particular culture or society. So, literature, in other words, is a reflection of the society. Whether the piece of literary art is shaped by a Hindi writer or English or Australian or American literature etc., the writers remain committed to the sole purpose of mirroring reality. An article ‘Art for cause’s sake’ in The Tribune Trends reads that, “Art is no more religious propaganda or for visual pleasure alone. It is increasingly moving into the space of activism”. Writers, irrespective of their origin, enunciate their experiences and observations in their writings. They bring to fore all the practices, virtues and vices of the social milieu to which they belong. They objectively paint the injustices meted out by the marginalised and the silenced in the social edifice. In the same newspaper article Nonika Singh says, “An artist’s voice must be heard too.”

Many writers of the times have depicted the issues of gender discrimination, inequality and violence against the women as themes of their writings. The present paper discusses the endeavours of John Galsworthy and Vijay Tendulkar to have an insight into the social upheavals responsible for the deplorable conditions of women. It further discusses that the conditions of women remain the same irrespective of the times and the periphery to which the literary works belong. This paper mulls upon the condition of women as depicted in John Galsworthy’s Justice and Vijay Tendulkar’s Silence! The court is in session.

John Galsworthy and Tendulkar are crusaders of humanity and compassion which is noticeable in their literary writings. Both the writers try to underscore the deplorable state of women through their thought provoking writings, stridently enunciating the state of contemporary society, its values and norms. Their writings have a social purpose which is to reform the social edifice by purging off evils and worn out traditions from the social establishment. Justice is a portrayal of the unhealthy prison life and the evil of solitary confinement affecting the mental conditions of the prisoners enduring the pain of solitude. It revolves around the pitiable state of the prisoners but in passivity it also speaks about the condition of women in those times.

 Ruth Honey Will is introduced in the play as a victim of societal pressures and social obligations. Ruth’s atrocious marriage compels her to walk out of her failed married life. She decides to shun her relationship because her drunkard husband would often beat her and one day even tries to strangle her to death. Ruth Honey Will’s decision to call off her marriage wins criticism in the society. She becomes the victim of the stereotype social mentality because she dares to transgress the thresholds of autonomy and attempts to break the tyrannical marital bond to rearticulate the meaning of her life. But her attempt to smash the glass ceiling of the age old norms is highly condemned in the social circles.

If the so called social system is wrecked by men, the society remains stoic because such freedom automatically comes to them from their existence.  On the contrary, women ought to acquiesce to the social norms and obligations. If she fails to concede then she has to face the social ferocity. Society plays the role of a sadist who finds pleasure in one’s discomfiture. The unfortunate truth about such situation is that no one comes forward to defend a person. Hence, she becomes a so-called ‘accused’ in the eyes of society. Today’s woman prefers to speak rather than to observe meekly. Yashpal, says C.M.Yohanan, believed that:

In the changing circumstances, to achieve parity with men in society, women have to protest against the current social system. If women do not take such an initiative then they will never gain their individuality and self-respect. (Translation mine 133-134)

The utter mental anguish of Ruth Honey Will becomes clear when she informs Mr. Cokeson of the urgency to meet Falder as she says, “It’s a matter of life and death!”(4). On meeting Falder, she narrates her husband’s uncouth behaviour of beating her insensitively. This meeting informs the readers about the plans of the two lovers to run away to South America so as to start a life afresh. Unfortunately, the day they plan to leave, Mr. James How discovers Falder’s involvement in a fraud of altering a cheque by adding a nought to 9 and ‘ty’ to nine. Falder’s confession reveals his relationship with Ruth Honeywill and the reasons for the commission of the crime which are disdainfully condemned by his colleagues and his employer, Mr. James How. James might have given Falder another chance to prove his loyalty but his involvement with a married woman makes him more rigid in his approach. He considers him promiscuous in his ways. James remarks, “If it had been a straightforward case I’d give him another chance. It’s far from that. He has dissolute habits”(20).

In the court room, Hector Frome tries to convince the court that the misery of Ruth Honey Will stimulated Falder to commit the crime. He says, “…She saw a way out of her misery by going with him to a new country, where they would both be unknown, and might pass as husband and wife. This was a desperate and, as my friend Mr. Cleaver will no doubt call it, an immoral resolution; but, as a fact, the minds of both of them were constantly turned towards it.…  whatever opinion you form of the right of these two young people under such circumstances to take the law into their own hands­-the fact remains that this young woman in her distress, and this young man, little more than a boy, who was so devotedly attached to her, did conceive this…”(28).

Falder also confirms Frome’s statement that Ruth was in a dreadful condition and needed immediate help and so he could not think of the implication of his deed before committing it. He says, “I was having my breakfast when she came. Her dress was all torn, and she was gasping and couldn’t seem to get her breath at all; there were the marks of his fingers round her throat; her arm was bruised, and the blood had got into her wyes dreadfully. It frightened me, and then when she told me, I felt-I felt-well –it was too much for me! [Hardening suddenly] If you’d seen it, having the feelings for her that I had, you’d have felt the same, I know”(41).

The court including the counsel for the crown and the Judge consider Ruth’s reference in the case as nothing but a romantic and an emotional fascination to the case. The counsel for the crown says, “Divested of the romantic glamour which my friend is casting over the case, is this anything but an ordinary forgery?”(43). The Judge too turns down Frome’s plea to show mercy to Falder for the very reason that he committed the crime with an intention to help Ruth. He says, “The story has been told here to-day of your relations with this-er-Mrs. Honeywill; on that story both the defense and the plea for mercy were in effect based. Now what is that story? Is it that you, a young man, and she, a young woman, unhappily married, had formed an attachment, which you both admit was about to result in such relationship. Your counsel has made an attempt to palliate this, on the ground that the woman is in what he describes, I think, as, “a hopeless position.”…She is a married woman, and the fact is patent that you committed this crime with the view of furthering an immoral design….Your counsel has made an attempt to trace your offence back to what he seems to suggest is a defect in the marriage law; he has made an attempt also to show that to punish you with further imprisonment would be unjust….”(58).

Women are expected to compromise at every step and also understand that to make a marriage work comes under her social responsibilities. Ruth’s husband is absolved from the stigma of a bad husband and also his habit of consuming alcohol heavily. John Galsworthy, indirectly, dwells on the condition of women in the then times. The women characters have been discussed mildly but as a reader one feels the mental anguish of women due to the social mores. A hapless victim of male-chauvinism, Ruth Honey Will, is left alone to fend for herself and her children because Falder goes to imprisonment for three years and she breaks her marital strings, she was tied to. The major cause of women’s suffering is their economic dependence. It makes them more vulnerable in the society. Their fragile economic condition curbs their control over themselves completely and compels them to succumb to the social hierarchy. Ruth Honey Will does not accede to such social and cultural pressure and fights against the social structure and values her freedom from the unwanted relationship, a colossal of patriarchy. Jane Freeman remarks:

…The liberation of women thus depends on freeing women from this social construct of the ‘eternal feminine’, which has reduced them to a position of social and economic inferiority… (14)

Kate Millett defines patriarchy as a political discourse in that it involves ‘power-structured relationships, arrangements whereby one group of persons is controlled by another’ (67). Kate also believes that oppression is ingrained in the gender system of patriarchy. As it is embedded in the very foundation of the system so society considers it intrinsic part of women’s life. If some women fail to bear male oppression, they are ostracized by the society. It has no solution to a woman’s problem. Falder’s admission of defeat leaves Ruth weeping and thumping her chest. But the inerrant society does not come to comfort her.

The play also discusses the relationship of a husband and wife as that of an oppressor and oppressed. Falder’s sister is not permitted to meet her brother, Falder, in captivity. She requests Mr. Cokeson to meet her brother. This speaks about those times when women were nettled in the web of tyranny and patriarchy. If a woman gains strength to challenge the social and cultural structures she is trapped in, then she is labeled as a ‘bad woman’. Nighat says, “…Roles are well-defined and a good life means performing those roles…”(130). Patriarchy, conditions the minds of people to such an extent that they refuse to recognise women’s suffering because this is something which is part of the circumstance of their being. As such, silencing and marginalisation of women cannot be judged as something unusual vis-à-vis the fact of their existence. Vijay Tendulkar too challenges social malpractices which deter the prosperity of women’s lives. Being tied to traditions, their predicament shapes their destiny. The play is a mouthpiece of feminism because does not speak about the supremacy of one gender over another. It simply speaks about the human like treatment to be given to woman if man enjoys it. It seriously mulls on the question of social duality as it weighs both the sexes differently. The play emphasizes the role of society in fanning such practices which widens the cavity between the two.

Silence! The court is in Session depicts the struggle of an unwed woman who gets pregnant against the society. Mr. Kashikar, Mrs. Kashikar, Bhole Rokde, Sukhatma, Karnik, Ponkshe and Samant play the role of society. They pounce on Leela and assassinate her character. Leela Benare, in Silence! The court is in Session, emerges as partially a ‘new woman’ because she tries to live in the world of her desires to choose her own ways and prefers no change in the self but the other side of her personality stops her because she fears the adversities.

An autonomous woman is the biggest social irregularity because she can articulate herself fearlessly. The fearlessness of woman is alarming for a man, who is an intrinsic part of the hegemonic power structure. Leela is introduced as a fun- loving character. Leela Benare’s character has different hues. She is lively and frank. Her frankness offends her co-actors. She makes her appearance in the first scene with Samant, a local resident. Leela seems to be an assertive, successful and economically independent woman. But as the conversation progresses, it seems Leela tries to confide in Samant a dark truth of her life. She says, “…Just because of one bit of slander, what can they do to me? Throw me out? Let them! I haven’t hurt anyone. Anyone at all! If I’ve hurt anybody, it’s been myself…Who are these people to say what I can or can’t do? My life is my own- I haven’t sold it to anyone for a job! My will is my own. My wishes are my own. No one can kill those - no one! I’lldo what I like with myself and my life! I’ll decide…”(7).

Initially the truth remains a mystery for the readers because Samant shows his disinterestedness in her life. Samant tries to digress from the issue and says, “Shall I go and see why the others haven’t arrived yet?” (7). This shows that either Samant was too pretentious in his behaviour or absolutely naïve. Because he even fails to notice Leela’s hand that unconsciously rests_­ on her stomach.

Leela is self-sufficient but somewhat feeble. She tells him not to leave her alone because “ I feel scared when I am alone, you know”(7). She is a member of an acting team of theatre actors who perform on social themes in order to bring reformation in the social set up and the mentality of the people. This further speaks about the duality and hypocrisy of the society which practices exactly contrary to what it preaches. Silence! The court is in Session is a play within a play. One play is didactic while the other blurs the line between the real and the make believe world. The former revolves around Benare and reveals the real face of the society. To bid time, the actors decide to act a mock trial. They decide to choose Benare as an accused of infanticide. She objects repeatedly but her pleas go unheard. It seems that the co-actors were head bound to carry the trial on the mentioned charge because such charges are more enticing. Kashikar says, “…The question of infanticide is one of great social significance. That’s why I deliberately picked it. We consider society’s best interests in all we do…” (36).

The trial scene begins but Bhalu’s witness which dwindles the line between the real and the imaginary. His testimony makes the personal life of Leela public. Her relationship with Prof. Damle is exposed. Rokde, who was offended with Benare, looks at Benare triumphantly and says, “ Now laugh! Make fun of me! This lady was there. Damle and this –Miss Benare!” (54). Benare warns them not to drag her personal life into the play. But the other actors do not wish to end it as the play was becoming more captivating. Samant’s witness brings a turning point in the case because he mixes the action of the pornographic novel, he was reading sometime before, with the play of which Benare was the protagonist. He narrates the imaginary conversation between Prof. Damle and Benare and tells the court that he overheard Benare saying, “If you abandon me in this condition, where shall I go?” and Prof. Damle (imaginary) replies, “Where you should go is entirely your problem. I feel great sympathy for you. But I can do nothing. I must protect my reputation” (64).

Indian culture is known for its chivalrous foundation. But it is offensive to see that on the same soil, woman is either oppressed or left abandoned to face the cruel world on the pretext of taking one step against the super imposed boundaries of society. The moment she is spotted by the society, she is dogged by denigration and dishonor.

Leela’s wretchedness continues. She is tormented to see the brazen talking of her co-actors, particularly Ponkshe and Karnik. Ponkshe shamelessly tells the court that she had tried to persuade him to marry her, which he had out rightly denied. Karnik too testifies her as a lady with easy virtue by telling the court about her childhood affair with her maternal uncle and her failed attempt to end her life. An article ‘A Bulwark for Unwed Mothers’ in The Hindu reads:

The plight of many unwed mothers in India who

 became second class citizens simply because they

had sex without marriage, with or without their

consent and were loving and responsible enough

 not to abandon their children. They ended up

economically and socially marginalised.

Leela patiently embroils in a long-drawn court battle. But to see her personal life at stake, she ultimately breaks down and confesses in a soliloquy that she was seduced by her uncle when her youth was blooming. He made her realise about her womanhood, which brought her closer to him. But the coward man took advantage of her innocence and deserted her when she needed him the most. She was punished by her mother, while her uncle got away with his sin, unpunished. She sings an English song,

Oh, I’ve got a sweatheart

Who carries all my books,

                                      He plays in my dollhouse.

And says he likes my looks,

I’ll tell you a secret-

He wants to marry me,

But mummy says, I’m too little

To have such thoughts as these. (7)

Benare was too innocent to understand that her uncle tramples on her doll house and her mummy will never be able to see that with her coerced blindness. She says that when she fell in love for the second time with Prof. Damle, whom she considered a God of knowledge, she thought that she has found her true love. But he too devoided her of her chastity in the name of love. She confesses that Damle was another vulture who was attracted to her flesh and body. Nighat Gandhi, “Is that love? Pyaar ka matlab hai matlab ka pyaar. The meaning of love is selfishness”(248). She also fearlessly accepts that motherhood took her to Ponkshe so that her child outside marriage could get a legal identity.

It is disappointing to see that our society does not allow a woman to convey herself freely Subservience is appreciated as the prime characteristic of ‘good woman’ while assertion of freedom shows pervicaciousness in her. Society tries to snap her confidence and convince her that woman’s submissiveness is men’s command.

Some women are also encouraging patriarchy because they readily accept the age-old social norms. They cannot think of breaking the glass ceiling of sore social ties. They prefer being subdued and silent because they cannot offend the society by demanding liberty. Mrs. Kashikar is incapable of challenging the rigid patriarchy. Hence, drags the unnecessary burden of social norms and sore relationships. She is controlled by her husband but she mutely accepts it. In a patriarchal set-up, an ideal woman is one who would always need a man for security in her life; one who would always need a male protection and cannot take a step further without a man’s consent. It seems the women who cannot resist the rigidity of the society take vengeance on other women, who do not yield to the system. Mrs. Kashikar expects Benare to bow down to the set-pattern of society and not to dismantle the traditionally approved model of the Indian women. Simon de Beauvoir holds that the patriarchal conditioning of the society makes the concept of sex and gender convoluted. Society considers sex and gender synonymous, which is an incorrect notion. Sex is a biological aspect while gender is a social theory. Simon de Beauvoir once said, “One is not born, but rather becomes a woman” (496).

Mrs. Kashikar spews poison against the women who do not get married at the so-called tender age. She utters, “…That’s what happens these days when you get everything without marrying. They just want comfort. They couldn’t care less about responsibility! Let me tell you- in my time, even if a girl was snub-nosed, sallow, hunchbacked, or anything whatever, she could still get married! It’s the sly fashion of women earning that makes everything go wrong. That’s how promiscuity has spread throughout our society” (76).

It is not only woman against woman but also patriarchy against woman. Except Samant and Shanta Gokhle. All other men present consider Benare coquettish and pounces on her as a preyer pounces on its prey. This is not the end but beginning of her predicaments. An economically independent woman is deprived off her school job. She is removed from the school because of an apprehension that she would defile the environment of the school and influence the school kids who might go astray under her influence. Nanasaheb Shinde of Bombay, a famous leader, too refutes the idea of an unwed mother. He says, “It is a sin to be pregnant before marriage. It would be still more immoral to let such a woman teach in such condition! There is no alternative – this woman must be dismissed’ (97). Benare is economically better placed than the rest of her theatre comrades. Her economic sufficiency was enough to give encounter the very existence of patriarchy.

Sukhatme rests his case as a prosecutor says, “…Her conduct has blackened all social and moral values. The accused is public enemy number one. If such socially destructive tendencies are encouraged to flourish, this country and its culture will be totally destroyed. Therefore, I say the court must take a very stern, inexorable view of the prisoner’s crime, without being trapped in any sentiment. The charge against the accused is one of infanticide. But the accused has committed a far more serious crime. I mean unmarried motherhood. Motherhood without marriage has always been considered a very great sin by our religion and our traditions. Moreover, if the accused’s intention of bringing up the offspring of this unlawful maternity is carried to completion, I have a dreadful fear that the very existence of society will be in danger….A woman bears the grave responsibility of building up the high values of society. Na stri swatantryamarhati. ‘Woman is not fit for independence.’…’Miss Benare is not fit for independence’ (101).

Prof. Damle is a married man with five children but the responsibility of the well-being of nation lies merely on woman. Not even once it is mentioned in the play that Prof. Damle is at fault. Leela Benare, who is advanced and to some extent emancipated, breaks away from the traditional role of a wed mother unconsciously because she is deceived by Prof. Damle. Prof. will undoubtedly be supported by the society but such women are never accepted by society. Kashikar, Judge of the mock trial, shows his utter biasness when he says, “The crime you have committed are most terrible. There is no forgiveness for them. Your sin must be expiated. Irresponsibility must be chained down. Social customs, after all, are of supreme importance. Marriage is the very foundation of our society stability…Criminals and sinners should know their place…Moreover, the future of posterity was entrusted to you. This is a very dreadful thing. The morality, which you have shown through your conduct, was the morality you were planning to impart to the youth of tomorrow. This court has not an iota of doubt about it. Hence, not only today’s, but tomorrow’s society would have been endangered by your misconduct. It must said that the school officials have done a work of merit in deciding to remove you from your job…No memento of your sin should remain for future generations. Therefore this court hereby sentences that you shall live. But the child in your womb shall be destroyed” (108).

Benare sobs and then become silent, but her silence yells her protest. She had only one true relation of a mother and her baby, besides fake and unnatural relationships. She remains tongue tied because of her contrived and coerced docility to get absorbed into the ‘tradition-encrusted chadar of her culture’ to borrow Nighat’s phrase.

It deliberates upon the dualism of the society and also shows its concern for those the established norms of social behavior are only for women and not men. No restriction is imposed on men. Are the norms only for woman and the penalty of spurning the limitation is also to be borne only by her? Or freedom is only men’s undeniable right, while women have to constantly live in the ‘unable to act’ in “atmosphere of discrimination and suppression” to borrow Ahmed Salim’s phrase. Social change is certainly the credo of these writings. The most painful thing to observe is that in Indian society the male is never considered wrong, his actions seem justified and the blame of everything falls on the woman. While pointing to the essential differences of attitudes, priorities and cultural conditioning of men and women, RajiSeth says that, “Man is accepted, a woman fights to be accepted”(qtd. by Chandra Nisha37). And women chose to fight the biases.

Works Cited

Primary Sources

Tendulkar, Vijay.  Silence! The Court is in session. Translated by Priya Adakar. New Delhi: OUP, 2017.

.

Galsworthy, John. Justice.New York: The New Public Library:1910.

Secondary Sources

Altekar, A.S. The Position of Women in Hindu Civilisation: From Prehistoric Times. Banaras: Culture Publication House, 2005. Print.

Antahpur, Agrahayan, 1962. Print.

Freeman, Jane. Feminism: Concepts in the Social Sciences. Philadelpheia: OUP, 2001. Print.

Gandhi, Nighat M. Alternative Realities. New Delhi: Thomson Press Limited, 2012. Print.

Pandya, Rameshwari. Women in India Issues, Perspectives and Solutions. New Delhi: New Century Publications, 2007. Print.

Plato, Republic. ed. F.M.Cornford. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1941.Print.Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, Emile, trans. Barbara Foxley London, Melbourne and Toronto: Everyman, 1911. Print.

 _________. The Social Contract and Discourses, trans. G.D.H. Cole London: Everyman, 1913. Print

Saswati Sengupta, Shampa Roy, Sharmila Purkayastha. Towards Freedom Critical Essays On Rabindranath Tagore’s Ghare Baire/ The Home And The World. Orient Longman Private Limited, 2007. Print.

Singh, Chandra Nisha. Radical Feminism and Women’s Writings. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers, 2007. Print.

Sharma, Aradhika, “Woman, thy name is grit”. The Sunday Tribune Spectrum. March 3, 2019.

Nonika, Singh, “Art for Cause’s Sake”. The Tribune Trends. March 30, 2019.

Setu, April 2019