HAPTER 3- SPEECH ACTS IN ^^UNTOUCHABLE"
3.1 Preliminaries The present chapter, in the beginning, will highlight the significance of the application of the speech act theory to a novel as a form of literature. Then it will briefly account for the underlying principle and the relevance of this theory to be applied to the sociological novel, 'Untouchable' by Mulk Raj Anand. The chapter is mainly devoted to the analysis of the selected speech acts from the novel 'Untouchable'. The thrust of the argument is that there are abuses and diminutives galore in the novel 'Untouchable', which need to be interpreted in the context in which they occur. The context is that in Indian pre- independence era the untouchables were ostracized, stripped and stunted in their own land by the then Caste Hindus. An attempt is being made in this chapter to study power semantics (humility, humbleness, arrogance etc) and solidarity semantics. The selected speech acts will be analyzed thoroughly against the Indian social realities prevailing at that time.
3.11 Speech Act Theory and Fictional Discourse Speech act theory is erected on the solid foundation laid by Wittgenstein and Austin. Wittgenstein put forward a line of thought called 'ordinary language philosophy'. According to him, the meaning of language depends on how we in reality use it. He holds that language, we use in our day-today communication, is a language game mainly because it consists of some definite rules. Austin also
120 considers that language is used for the most part to do things by following rules. However, according to Searle, language is intentional behaviour and therefore, one must understand the intention of the speaker in order to understand the language. He further says that language is to be treated like a form of action. He calls it speech act. The speech act is the basic unit of language, which expresses meaning. He refers to statements as speech acts. However, the speech act can be a word or phrase if it follows the rules necessary to accomplish the intention of the speaker. Therefore, it becomes obligatory to understand the speaker's intention to comprehend the meaning. The linguistic realization of the speech act is decided by scores of factors such as interpersonal relationship, the subject of the topic, shared knowledge, social taboos, linguistic sources available etc. The conversational moves are mostly influenced by the relationship between the two interactants. Since the interlocutors are the members of the society, they cannot remain disconnected from the social reality.
The characters of a novel are the fictional figures that move through the plot. They are invented by the novelist and are made of words rather than of flesh and blood. Therefore, they cannot be expected to have all the attributes of real human beings. Nevertheless, novelists do try to create fictional people whose speech situations affect the reader as the situations of real people do. A social novel focuses on the behavior of characters. It also emphasizes how their actions reflect or contradict the values of their society. The social novel includes two major types: the novel of manners and the chronicle novel. The novel
121 of manners focuses on a small segment of society. The chronicle novel paints a broad survey of society as a whole.
In the 1920s and 1930s the novels of Anand described the situation of India's poor and dispossessed. Mulk Raj Anand is considered as one of the founding fathers of Indian-English novel. M. K. Naik (2006) comments: "The strength of Anand's fiction lies in the vast range, its wealth of living characters, its ruthless realism, its deeply felt indignation at social wrongs, and its strong humanitarian compassion. His style, at its best, is redolent of the Indian soil, as a result of his bold importation into English of words, phrases, expletives, turns of expressions and proverbs drawn from his native Punjabi and Hindi" (p. 160)
3. Ill Making of Anand Born in Peshawar as son of a coppersmith and soldier, Anand attended the Khalsa College in Amritsar, and entered the University of Punjab in 1921, He got his first degree in the year 1924. Thereafter, Anand did his additional studies at Cambridge and at London University, receiving his PhD in 1929. He studied and later lectured at League of Nations School of Intellectual Cooperation in Geneva. Anand also lectured on and off between 1932 and 1945, at Workers Educational Association in London. In 1930s and 1940s, Anand divided his time between literary London and Gandhi's India, joining the struggle for independence. He also fought with the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. During World War II, he worked as a broadcaster and
122 scriptwriter in the film division of the BBC in London. After the war, Anand returned permanently to India and made Bombay his hometown and the centre of his activities.
Mulk Raj Anand has left us with an unbelievable gift of his priceless works such as, 'Untouchable', 'Coolie', 'Two Leaves and a Bud', 'The Village', 'Across the Black Waters', 'The Sword and the Sickle', and the much-admired 'Private Life of an Indian Prince'. His autobiographical novels are 'Seven Summers', and 'Morning Face' that won the National Academy Award, 'Confession of a Lover' and 'The Bubble' are less admired.
3. IV 'Untouchable'- A Social Novel His first novel 'Untouchable' earned him name and fame not only in India but also in the Western world. The opening line of the preface written by E. M. Forster, a well-known critic, speaks volumes about the novel. He says, "This remarkable novel describes a day in the life of a sweeper in an Indian city with every realistic circumstance ". The language Anand uses is loaded with meaning and vibrantly transports the reader to the grief and filth surrounding the life of an Untouchable, through Bakha, the protagonist of the novel. One comes to know how Hindu society had stooped in its treatment of lower caste people who worked in ignominious, polluting, and unclean occupations. It is unfortunate and irksome that Hindus caused such misery, humiliation, and injustices to the untouchables in pre-independence era. The fact
123 that within his own caste system there were further sub divisions, which made Baicha's Ufe extra hard.
The action of the novel takes place in Bulandshahr, a town in the Punjab Province of the Indian Subcontinent. It depicts the inhuman experiences faced by an eighteen-year sweeper-boy named Bakha in the course of a single day. In the novel 'Untouchable', the center of attention is the sweeper-community. However, the novel also depicts the lives of the certain other lower caste communities such as leather- workers and washer- men. Anand vividly describes the squalor, the wretchedness and the miserable conditions making the lives of the downtrodden more difficult. Bakha has been a typical symbolic representation of the oppressed class of the downtrodden. However, Bakha, as an individual, evokes pity in the minds of the readers as he has been portrayed as a pitiable, abject and oppressed individual in the novel. Nevertheless, he does not subjugate himself. On the contrary, he shows a lot of self-respect due to which he looks more dignified.
In the beginning of the novel Bakha, the protagonist is described as a quick, honest and efficient sweeper boy. To describe Bakha one would use the phrase 'a dexterous workman" to indicate that he is agile and very quick in doing the job of scrubbing and cleaning the public latrines in Bulandshahr. Anand develops the character of Bakha in such a way that the entire picture of the contemporary reality of the social life of the downtrodden communities is brought out skillfully. A day in the life of Bakha is full of experiences of inhumanity, humiliation, surprises, pity, and a desire to change the world.
124 Towards the end of the novel, the poet, when discussing a speech by Gandhi explains how caste has undergone structural changes because of "the legal and sociological basis" of caste having been broken down by the British-Indian penal code, which recognizes the rights of every man before a court, caste is now mainly governed by profession. When the sweepers change their profession, they will no longer remain 'Untouchables'. However, this is a challenge that cannot easily be met despite the fact that India constitutionally abolished the practice of "untouchablility" in 1950, it continues until today. In some cases, these people are violently abused and A humiliated. In 1989 India enacted the Schedule$ Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to prevent and punish either state or private abuses against Dalits (the proper caste name but previously only known as "untouchables"), to establish special courts for the trial of such offences, and to provide for the rehabilitation and relief of the victims. Human Rights organizations have observed that without a serious and sustained commitment to implementing these constitutional safeguards and other national and international legal protections, human rights abuses in their most degrading forms will continue against scheduled-caste community members.
The sad part is that prejudice, feelings of inferiority and superiority, are absorbed, and shared by all Hindus, including the Untouchables. This is evident by Bakha's description of the clothes he chose to wear; a sign of his own status, distinguishing himself from his peers, wanting to emulate the British Tommies. Bakha could choose salvation through Christianity, Gandhi or Modernization. The
25 reference to emancipation through sanitation makes this a truly public health novel.
Extensive use of speech acts helps Anand poignantly develop his themes and sub-themes. In addition, the speech acts authenticate the characters and create cultural reality par excellance. There are many types of speech acts working like living characters in this novel. Terms of address, honorifics, speech acts reflecting humility as well as arrogance are galore in this great novel. However, the most dominant and effective speech acts are abuses and diminutives.
3. V Abuses An abuse can be defined as a sudden expression of anger, displeasure or some kind of frustration on the part of a speaker. It is also known as profanity. In short, an abuse is an offensive or obscene word or phrase. Irritation, hot temperament, failure, disappointment, dissatisfaction, etc. sometimes result in verbal outburst. The abuses are directed towards animate objects rather than inanimate objects.
It is noticed that a speech event involving an abusive expression requires close proximity between the addresser and the addressee. The main purpose of abusive or offensive language is to insult the addresser deliberately. If the speaker and hearer share more or less equal status, there may be reciprocity. If the addressee comes from the upper strata of the society and the hearer from, the lower class category, the question of reciprocity does not occur.
!2o The nature of abuses depends on both cultural and interpersonal context. The interpersonal context does play a very important role in deciding an abusive expression. In India, the use of offensive words and phrases is caste and class bound. Some abusive expressions are freely uttered by certain sections of society (slum dwellers). In this case, they are likely to lose their abusive force. The abuses such as 'bahenchod', 'chutiya', 'gandu' etc. have almost become expletives in the peer groups. Generally, abuses provide the speaker a power, a feeling of superiority. Abuses, unlike expletives are directed to inflict torture to the hearer.
The abuses can be roughly grouped as follows: 1. Address terms making some phonological change (Brahmin becomes 'bamana', 'Bakha' becomes 'Bakhya', 'Munoo' becomes 'Mundu') 2. Metaphorical abuses concerning kinship terms ('sala' in Hindi becomes 'brother-in-law' in English) 3. Abuses in the names of birds and animals ( owl, monkey, donkey, swine, bitch) 4. Abuses of illegitimate associations or abnormal sexual relationship (son of a bitch, mother-fucker, sister -fucker) 5. Abuses in the name of fictitious creatures (saltan, devil, bhut) 6. Abuses in the name of caste/class (scoundrel of sweeper's son, bhangi, coolie) The novel 'Untouchable' is replete with abuses and the belittling terms. We come across different types of abuses in the novel. For
127 instance, in the beginning of the novel we come across a pile of worst abuses by the very father of Bakha:
'Get up, oheyou Bakhya, ohe son of a pig!' (p. 17)
In the above example, there are two abuses. The first abuse is the address term making some phonological change i.e. Bakhya. The second abuse is based on abnormal sexual relationship 'ohe son of a pig'. The addressee and the addresser share father-son relationship.
Bakha's father utters these words while he himself is still asleep in the early morning. The phrase 'son of a pig' has been borrowed from the Hindi expression 'suwar ka baccha', which is synonymous with the above expression. Such abuses were/are very common amongst the working classes especially in India. The phrase 'son of a pig' has a perlocutionary effect on Bakha. He was annoyed at the abuse. As the result of his father's use of abusive language Bakha half opens his eyes and tries to lift his head. Bakha's father looks irritated and flings abuses like stones aimed at Bakha. Lakha says:
'Are you up? Get up, you illegally begotten! '(p. 19)
The utterance creates ripples of emotions in the mind of Bakha. His father shouts again and stirs the boy to a feeling of despair. Bakha just shook himself and turned his back to his father as he heard the abusive expressions of his father. Lakha wants to awaken Bakha so that he gets ready for the work of scavenging as a part of his morning duty of cleaning the latrines of the Tommies residing in the different localit>' specially designed for them. As Bakha, the protagonist of the novel
128 "Untouchable" is so tired that he was not able to get up from his sweet morning sleep. He is still in bed, his legs gathered under the thin folds of his blanket. He buried his legs into his arms, as it was extremely cold. As soon as he dozed off again, he heard the shrill shouts of abuses in his name:
'ONE, Bakhya! Ohe, Bakhya! Ohe, scoundrel of a sweeper's son! Come and clean a latrine for me!' (p.20)
This is a directive speech act involving an abuse. The speaker of this utterance is Havildar Charat Singh, the famous hockey player of the 38"^ Dogras regiment, who has come to Bakha's house, which is located in the filthy outcastes' colony outside the town and the cantonment. He wants Bakha, the sweeper boy to come to his locality and clean the latrines immediately. Bakha's father is the Jemadar of all the sweepers in the town and the cantonment. He is officially in charge of the three rows of public latrines, which are in the extreme end of the colony. Bakha, a young boy of eighteen years is entrusted with the duty of cleaning the latrines regularly in the wee hours of the morning. As Bakha hears the voice of the Havildar, he flings the blanket off his body, stretches his legs and arms in order to shake off his half sleep. He gets up abruptly yawning and rubbing his eyes. What he sees in front of him was a man who was half-naked with a small brass jug in his hand, picks up his brush and basket kept in front of the wall of the house. The abusive language used by Havildar Charat Singh is a military abuse or slang expression used to threaten somebody lower in the rank. The above speech act is considered as the emotional abuse or psychological abuse. It is a kind of speech act
129 where one person makes use of emotional or psychological coercion to compel another to do some thing despite the hearer's interest. In fact, the hearer does not want to do the thing willingly because it is not in his/her best interest. Here, a person manipulates another's emotional or psychological state for his/her own ends or commits psychological aggression using ostensibly non-violent methods to inflict mental or emotional violence or pain on another. Emotional abuse refers to a long-term situation in which one person uses his or her power or influence to adversely affect the mental well-being of another. Emotional abuse can appear in a variety of forms, including rejection, isolation, exploitation, and terror. Humiliation of one person by another is often used as a way of asserting power over others, and is a common form of oppression or abuse. This is what exactly happens in the case of Bakha, the protagonist of the novel 'Untouchable'. Here, Havildar Charat Singh asserts power over Bakha who is an untouchable. Bakha, being a low caste boy has to please and obey every body. He has to obey the order of the Hawildar because of his low status in the hierarchical Hindu Society. The utterance of the Hawildar, "OHE, Bakhya! Ohe, Bakhya!" is a derogatory and belittling address term aimed at the boy and is humiliating in the real sense of the term. The relation between Bakha and Charat Singh is of master and servant. The servant is supposed to please his master as and when the latter gives an order. In the case of Bakha, his master summons him to clean the latrines but at the same time, he uses filthy language and thus looks down upon the socially segregated community in which Bakha is placed. The whites especially the
130 Tommies very often abused the natives in British India. Following expression was Tommies' familiar abuse of the natives:
'Kala admi zamin par hagne wala' (black man, you who relieve himself on the ground) (p. 2 3)
Code-mixing heightens the effect of the speech act. Code-mixing is the embedding of different linguistic units such as words, phrases and clauses. The Tommies often abused the hidians for relieving their stools on the open ground. The Tommies disliked the Indian way of performing ablutions especially gargling and spitting. It was and is the familiar sight of all those Hindu men and women who could be seen squatting in the open, outside the city every morning for relieving their stools. It is because of this that the whites called them, 'Kala admi zamin par hagne wala'.
The untouchables were not only looked down upon but they were stripped and stunted in their own land. For instance, the upper caste Hindus in the thirties and forties did not allow the low caste people even to draw water from the community well in the village or the town. Sohini, Bakha's sister is a case in point. The outcastes were not allowed to mount the platform surrounding the well. If they were ever to draw water from the community well, the Hindus of the three upper castes namely the Brahmins, Kshatrias and the Vaisyas would consider the water polluted. It is authentically learnt that the purificatory ceremony had to be performed in case the water of the well or the drinking water lake was polluted by the touch of the low caste people. It was also a commonly known fact that the
131 untouchables neither were allowed access to the nearby brook nor were permitted to drink water from the sources of public drinking water tanks. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar the liberator and emancipator of the downtrodden had to launch an agitation to exercise the right of free access to the Chowdar Water Tank at Mahad in Maharashtra State of India.
The untouchables had no well of their own in the Bulandshahr town because of their utter poverty. They had to depend on the mercy and bounty of their superiors to pour water into their pitchers. The outcastes had to wait on the outskirts of the premises of the well expecting some kind and generous Hindu to come to the well. They often throng around the well in the morning, noon and night. They had to join their hands in servile modesty. When Sohini reached the well there were countable untouchables waiting for a caste Hindu to approach the well and demonstrate generosity towards the outcastes. The other outcaste people included Gulabo, the washerwoman, Waziro, the weaver's wife. Gulabo happened to pass a derogatory remark about the immodest dressing style of Sohini, "This sweeper girl goes about without an apron over her head all day in town and in the cantonment". This comment was directed towards Waziro. Sohini was amused at the expressions on the face of Waziro and started laughing that made Gulabo utter the following abuses:
'Think of it! Think of it! Bitch! Prostitute! Wanton! And your mother hardly dead. Think of laughing in my face, laughing at me who am old enough to be your mother. Bitch!' (P-30)
132 Gulabo, the washerwoman abuses Sohini at the foot of the caste Hindu's well. The washerwoman thinks superior to every other outcaste. There are mainly two reasons for her being rude to Sohini. The first reason is that she claims a high place in the hierarchy of the castes among the low castes. The second reason is that a well-known Hindu gentleman in the town had been her lover in her youth and was still kind to her in her middle age.
In fact, Gulabo is also from lower strata of the Hindu society but higher in rank in comparison to the caste which Sohini belongs to. Gulabo is a very infamous woman with aggressive behavior. She thinks herself superior to other sub-castes of Hindu society. She is a middle-aged woman and has a fair complexion. Therefore, she thinks that she is more beautiful than Sohini is. Thinking that Sohini is a potential rival, Gulabo hates the girl and thus on seeing her begins to abuse profusely. She calles Sohini a bitch, prostitute and even wanton. Sohini still laughs at the outrageous comments of Gulabo making the latter angrier. Gulabo further scolds using language that is more abusive. The latter repeatedly calls her 'bitch' and 'prostitute', the derogatory forms of expression taken from Hindi or Punjabi language.
Gulabo's speech acts bring out the stratification within the lower caste people. Sohini, being a 'Bhangi' occupies the lowest position, whereas, Gulabo being a 'washerwoman' occupies a higher position among the downtrodden. Gulabo is thus socially powerful and abuses as a matter of right. The following conversation throws sufficient light
133 on the interpersonal relations of the two females belonging to two different lower castes:
* 'Bitch, why don 't you speak! Prostitute, why don't you answer me? ' (Gulabo insisted)(P-31)
* 'Please don't abuse me', the girl said, 'I haven't said anything to you'. (Sohini to Gulabo)(P-31)
* 'You annoy me with your silence. Eater of dung and drinker of urine! Bitch of a sweeper woman! I will show you how to insult one old enough to be your mother' (and she rose with upraised arm and rushed at Sohini) (p-31)
Gulabo abuses Sohini in the name of bitch and prostitute. These are the sex abuses/are aimed at defaming Sohini and reducing her to the status of prostitute. On the contrary, Sohini remains tolerant and simply requests Gulabo not to abuse her. Gulabo seems to violate both the cooperative principle and the politeness principle. She seems to be unfriendly and uncooperative. The words, 'Eater of dung and drinker of urine' are more likely to be used by females than males in the Indian context. This expression is an example of switching of code and is commonly used in most of the Indian languages. The taboo words that Gulabo uses for showing her anger for Sohini are representative abuses derived from the mother tongue. Mulk Raj Anand must have observed that the women from low castes are more prone to abusive expressions, which are unmentionable or socially prohibited at the public places as it happens in the case of Gulabo, the
134 washerwoman. Social norms indicate that the elderly people are allowed to use direct speech acts whereas younger people are supposed to use indirect speech acts. In the case of Gulabo we see that she uses offensive language too easily and openly. The words she uses to describe Sohini are taboo. It seems that Sohini is able to bear the abuses to a certain extent. When Gulabo goes to the extreme, Sohini just says, 'Please don't abuse me', the girl said, 7 haven't said anything to you'. The girl seems to be very modest in using the language. Here, the social norms do not allow her to use 'tit for tat' approach. She prefers to be accommodative. There are mainly two reasons for Sohini not to use offensive language First, she is an adolescent person and secondly she belongs to a lower rank in the hierarchy of caste system. She cannot use abusive language in order to express her anger even though she is very annoyed. On the contrary, Gulabo being older in age and higher in the rank of caste hierarchy goes to the extreme and raises her hand with the intention of slapping Sohini without any rhyme or reason.
In another significant incident, Bakha, the brother of Sohini, is abused and humiliated in such a way that he begins to feel that his very existence has no meaning. He curses himself for the plight in which he is placed by the destiny. He receives maltreatment at the hands of the high caste Hindus because his very touch defiles them. Bakha was on the way to the city, when he stumbled upon the unwanted incident. His father Lakha being ill, he was supposed to sweep the city roads. He was visiting the city nearly a month because he did not get time out of his job of cleaning the latrines of the Tommies. He was excited
133 by the idea of experiencing the sights and the sounds of the city life. He started looicing at the multi-coloured beautifully arranged shops. He even purchased jalebis worth four annas and was in high spirit. It was amazing for the boy to walk along looking at the colourful shops and eating the jalebis. As soon as he was engrossed in his own mirthful world, he suddenly heard someone shouting at him using abusive language. The man said that he had been polluted by the unexpected touch of the sweeper boy. He began to rebuke Bakha for not announcing the latter's arrival. The following speech act of Lallaji involves abusive expressions as well as diminutive:
"Keep to the side of the road, ohe low-caste vermin! 'Why don 't you call, you swine, and announce your approach! Do you know you have touched me and defded me, cock-eyed son of a bow-legged scorpion! Now I will have to go and take a bath to purify myself And it was a new dhoti and shirt I put this morning! "(P. 54-55)
The speech act of Lalaji consists of a variety of abusive words. He calls the sweeper boy low caste vermin and even goes to the extreme calling him a swine. The high caste Hindu also calls him the son of a scorpion. The man further said that he would then have to go back to his house to take a purificatory bath because he had been defiled by the touch of the sweeper boy.
On hearing this utterance of the High caste Hindu, Bakha stood flabbergasted. He became deaf and dumb. His senses were paralyzed. Fear, humility, and servitude gripped his mind. Here, he was taken unaware". The man continued abusing Bakha as he was boiling with anger. In fact, his anger knew no bounds because the sweeper boy had touched him causing him defilement. He, nonstop, uses the abusive expressions, 'swine', 'dog', 'brute', 'son of a bitch', 'offspring of a pig'. Lalla ji shouted as he met Bakha's eyes:
'Swine, dog, why don't you shout, and warn me of your approach!' Don't you know, you brute, that you must not touch me!' (p.55)
Bakha was terribly nervous. Though his mouth was open, he could not utter a single word. He was about to tender an apology. He had already joined his hands instinctively. He mumbled something bending his forehead. He was too confused to speak coherently and audibly in the tense atmosphere which surrounded him. To his horror, he saw a crowd around him. A few people wanted to know the very cause of the quarrel. They formed a circle around Bakha but at the safe distance. He began to feel extremely nervous and instinctively wanted to take to his heels realizing that the onlookers were totally unsympathetic and heartless to him. Bakha was mutely standing folding his hands with thfe view to show that he felt sorry about his misdemeanor. Nevertheless, he could not escape from the abusive words of the defiled person. The man said:
"Dirty dog! Son of a bitch! Offspring of a pig!' 'I...I'll have to go-o-o...and take washed-d-d...I...I was going to business and now... now, on account of you, I'll be late. "(P.55)
137 Lalla ji was not satisfied with dumb humility of Bakha. The aggrieved man still was abusing Bakha profusely:
"This dirty dog bumped right into me. So unmindfully, do these sons of bitches walk in the streets! He was walking along without the slightest effort at announcing his approach, the swine!" (p.56)
The above expression is not a direct attack on Bakha but is intended to humiliate or bring disgrace on him. This expression adds insult to Bakha's injury. He stands still with his hands joined. He dared to lift his forehead, perspiring. There was hopeless and fijtile expression of meekness on his face. The abuses used in the above expression mean that even the sweepers in the city have become disrespectful to the superior castes in the Hindu society. The following expression of a spectator in the crowd clearly indicates that the attitude of the upper caste people towards the untouchables. The untouchables are not only looked down upon but they are also the target of exploitation. They are maltreated and exploited by the caste Hindus. A little old man says:
"Don't know what the world is coming to! These swine are getting more and more uppish,' 'One of his brethren who cleans the lavatory of my house, announced the other day that he wanted ten rupees a month instead of five rupees, and the food that he gets from us daily ". (P. 56-57)
138 The man who utters these expressions is from the upper strata of the Hindu society. It is quite clear from the above speech act that the caste Hindus do not pay reasonable amount for the dirty jobs the untouchables have to do. The scavengers, it seems, are not allowed to demand more money. In those days, they were just paid five rupees a month. In order to supplement, the caste Hindus would offer them stale food. This makes it amply clear that the untouchables were exploited and marginalized in their own land by their own people. Nowhere in the history of human civilization did the untouchables exist except in India. The notion of defilement was only confined to India. It is unfortunate that despite constitutional provisions the practice of unsociability is still prevalent in some pats of India. The untouchables are dehumanized and despised reducing their status to inhuman degradation as it happens in the case of Bakha. The defiled man in the novel 'Untouchable' continuously humiliates him:
'You have touched me; I will have to bath now and purify myself anyhow. Well, take this for your damned impudence, son of a swine' (p. 59)
The defiled man slapped Bakha on the face. It is the symbolic slap on the outcastes who have been denied the social equality and justice. This slap was on humanity. The slap was so stingy that Bakha's turban fell off and the jalebis in the paper bag in his hand were scattered in the dust. He stood motionless and aghast. The tears welled up his eyes and rolled down his cheeks.
139 When the tonga-wallah consoled him, Bakha tried to recover from the shock and bent down to gather his fallen turban. He wiped the tears from his cheerless face and resumed his walking but this time cautiously to avoid the further beating. After walking a little distance he began to shout, 'posh, posh, sweeper coming' so that the caste Hindus should move away from him not causing them defilement. Bakha became aware of his position that he was a low caste boy. The inner chambers of his mind were illuminated by the thought that he was an untouchable. At one point in the novel, he says to himself, T am an Untouchable'. The feeling of being untouchable was in his heart while the warning shout of his arrival was on his lips. He suddenly becomes conscious of the fact that people were looking at him. He imbibes the servitude out of necessity.
In another incident, Bakha is abused for none of his fault. After molesting Sohini the face-saving of the priest takes an aggressive form (an advantage given to the upper castes) and crowds at the temple see Bakha on the steps:
"Ge/ off the steps, scavenger! Off with you! You have defiled our whole service! You have defiled our temple! Now we will have to pay for the purificatory ceremony. Get down, get away, dog!" {V.11)
One of the crowds struck out an individual note on seeing Bakha on the temple steps. The man abuses Bakha in the name of lower caste. He calls Bakha first; a scavenger, which is an insulting remark, intended to humiliate him in addition to showing his social position.
140 Then he hurls the abuse in the name of dog that is at the mercy of his /her master.
It is interesting to note that the community of scavengers in India is the product of British Colonialism. The scavengers in the pre- independence India cleaned the latrines for the army officers as well as for the upper castes especially the Brahmins. They had to do the job of sanitation manually with the help of broom and the bucket-the broom for the sweeping and the bucket for carrying the filth or human excrement. The scavengers were looked down upon and received maltreatment at the hands of the caste Hindus. They were the target of oppression and exploitation. Even they were denied the temple entry lest they would pollute the sacred place meant for the Brahmins, Kshatriyas and even the Vaisays. The Shudras, according to Manusmurti, were banned to perform puja at the Hindu temples. The age-old rigid caste system was the root cause of their plight. Therefore, on seeing Bakha, an untouchable boy, the man is infuriated as the result of which he starts hurling the abuses at him. In fact, Bakha had come there to sweep the temple steps but unfortunately, he became the target of abhorrence. The man directly accuses Bakha for having polluted the temple because he was running down the steps of the temple with fear gripping his mind.
The speech situation is that a large crowd of worshipers rushed out of the temple and stood watching a tamasha or the spectacle of Sohini being harassed by the lean, dwarfish priest with up-raised hands in the direction of the modest sweeper girl who was Bakha's sister. Bakha could not see the entire figure of a woman but be could sense that it
141 was his sister Sohini who became the target of abuses. Immediately Bakha realized that something had gone wrong. He had two impulses: one, the fear for himself, for the crime he knew he had committed. Second, the fear for his sister, for the crime she may have committed, since Sohini stood there speechless. The priest continued his accusation that he had been defiled by contact whereas other people had been polluted from a distance. In this respect, the remark made by the crowd is worth examining:
'A temple can be polluted according to the Holy Books by a low-caste man coming within six-nine yards of it, and here he was actually on the steps, at the door. We are ruined. We will need to have a sacrificial fire in order to purify ourselves and our shrine' (p. 72)
The above comment makes us aware of the fact that even the sight of a low-caste person is objectionable to the Brahmins. The crowd was sympathetic to the priest because they thought that he had suffered most badly. They did not even ask the priest as to how he had been polluted. It was when Sohini told her brother that she had been physically abused by the priest, Bakha realized that the man tried to molest his sister.
Abuses are not only prerogative of the upper castes. Even among the lower caste people use of filthy words is common. Surprisingly, mother or father abusing son or vice versa is not uncommon. This is perhaps an indication of the fact that the blood relations father/mother-son for the lower castes are secondary compared to the
142 role and function assigned to them in the overall social structure. Devaluation of human beings and corresponding abuses seemi to be the order of the day. Use of animals, particularly, the animals associated with gutter, dirt, and immorality, in abuses is rampant. Look at the following examples:
/. *Shut up bitch!' (Ram Charan to his mother) (p. 105)
2. * 'Pigl Dog! You ran away! You have been away all the afternoon and now you come back! Illegally begotten! Have you become a nawab that you go wandering about when you know that there is work here for you to do? The sepoys have been shouting!' (Lakha to Bakha)(p. 133)
3."^'Son of a pig! You have no care for your old father'(Lakha toBakha) (p. 133)
In the first example. Ram Charan, a washer-boy and the friend of Bakha uses an animal abuse 'bitch'. The utterance of Ram Charan 'Shut up hitch!' indicates his impatience and stubbornness. One is not supposed to use filthy language while addressing one's own mother but in the case of Ram Charan this does not happen. The cause of the little boy to get angry is that his mother hurls swear words at him in the presence of his friends on seeing that he was running away to play with the dirty sweeper boy (Bakha) and leather-worker (Chota) on the very day of his sister's marriage. She also calls him 'little dog'. It is interesting to observe that the mother calls her son 'little dog' while, the son replies his mother using the insulting word 'bitch'.
143 In the second example, it is the father who abuses his son in the name of 'pig', and 'dog'. However, in this case the son does not retort using the unpleasant expression as it happens in the case of Ram Charan. Bakha's father thinks that his son was whiHng away his time instead of doing the work in store for him. Bakha does not show any disrespect to his father. On the contrary, he is cool in the face of unanticipated welcome. He mutely stands there because he had often withstood the worst of his misery accepting his fate.
In the third example, Lakha again uses foul language to describe his son Bakha calling him the 'son of a pig' that again is an abuse in the name of animal. He persistently abuses his son for no fault at all. He is an old man in his late seventies and expects his son Bakha to work hard and support his father. Lakha says:
'Get away, swine, run away from my presence,' 'Don't touch that broom or I shall kill you. Go away! Get out of my house. And don't come back! Don't let me see your face again!' (p. 134)
The above speech act can be put in the category of directive because it is an order. However, the command is immediately followed by a swear word 'swine' which has the strong illocutionary force indicating the intensity of his anger. The first utterance is a positive command whereas the second one is a negative command threatening Bakha with severe consequences. Lakha, in the literal sense of the term does not want to kill his son. The connotative meaning of the expression ""or I shall kill you' is that he is terribly upset to see that Baldia v/hiled
144 away his time playing with his friends. Bakha knows that, his father is in the habit of nagging him doggedly, without taking a gulp of air. The perlocutionary effect on Bakha is that he takes the broom and bucket in his hand and instantly goes for cleaning the latrine. He is so angry that he even does not look back. All the fiery words of Lakha are indented to create a perlocutionary effect on Bakha.
As Kidman (1993) points out that, there is general principle of a 'hierarchy of obscenity' and the difference in degree includes both qualitative and quantitative aspects. It must be also taken into account that taboo areas change with time and social mores. During the above- mentioned period the swear words were more widespread than today.
The abusive use of vocabulary is deliberately used by Mulk Raj Anand to highlight the social and cultural reality of the epoch when the novel 'Untouchable' was being written. There are plenty of abusive expressions in the concerned novel but from the point of view of the speech acts, only selected examples have been analyzed.
3. VI Diminutives
According to Wikipedia Encyclopedia, a 'diminutive' is a formation of a word used to convey a slight degree of the root meaning, smallness of the object quantity named, encapsulation, intimacy, or endearment. In most of the languages, diminutives are treated as nouns; however, there are quite a few languages in which they are treated as adjectives. They are produced from a variety of parts of speech though the most frequent class employed here is that of nouns.
145 The main purpose of the diminutives is to communicate the idea of smallness or tininess. The denotative meaning of smailness depends on the context, the attitude of the participants in the speech event and the speech act itself. They may be also used to express a variety of emotions such as kindness, warmth, compassion or contempt. Diminutives are the utterances, which affect the force of the whole utterance. They can be used in either declarative sentences, interrogative sentences or imperative sentences.
Diminutives are typically used with inferiors or equals such as children, servants, close friends, relatives etc. We often address a person by using his/her nickname or pet name. For instance, a man is addressed 'Samuel' by his close acquaintances, 'Sam' by his friends and 'Sammy' by his parents. Similarly, a girl named Alice may be addressed by using different nicknames like Alicia, Ally, Allie, Elsie or Ailie (Scottish). Nicknames are extensively used to show warmth, friendliness and tenderness. Here, it is important to point out that diminutives are formed by demeaning, shortening, or changing the real name of a person into something different. Following are some of the glaring examples in English: 1. Thomas becomes Tom, Tommy, Tam, Tammie 2. Andrew becomes Andy 3. Anthony becomes Tony, Anthy 4. Elizabeth becomes Bess, Bessie, Beth, Betty, Elsie 5. Francis becomes Frank, Frankie, Francie 6. Joseph becomes Joe, Joey 7. Margaret becomes Maggie, Mag, Meg, Margie, Marjory
146 8. Nancy may be called as Nan, Nance, Nina 9. Richard may be called as Dick, Dickie, Dickon, Ric 10. Susan is likely to be referred as Sue, Suke, Suky, Susy, Sucie
It is interesting to observe that the native speakers of a language interpret diminutives as a friendly gesture. The diminutive expressions are associated with in-group language where cooperation is expected from the addressee. They are often used for showing affection as in the case of pet names. They are widely used while addressing small children. On the contrary, adult people or grown-ups are seen rarely using diminutives when they tend to express tender feelings showing familiarity or intimacy indicating closeness. Both, children as well as adults use diminutives in the following speech situations: (i) in request (ii) in irony (iii) in a jocular speech (iv) in a familiar atmosphere.
However, such qualifications are not merely distinctiveness of the speech situations but they also amount to represent a strategy of speech act. Therefore, the speakers in a natural language or the characters in a fictional world use diminutives as a strategic means to generate a pragmatic effect.
The study of diminutives as a strategic means of producing a pragmatic effect helps in the overall analysis of the relationship of the
147 characters involved in the linguistic communication. The terms and modes of address play a pivotal role in interpreting the fictional discourse. The use of modes of address basically depend on various factors such as class, caste, age and gender of an individual in any speech situation, speech event and the speech act itself. Through the study of the terms and modes of address, one comes to know the real identification of a person or character. Koul (1989) points: "A study of forms of address in any language plays a very important role in socio- linguistic research. They are determined by certain factors, namely social structure, cultural pattern, and geographical setting. The role of human beings varies in a particular society according to the requirements of that society. The modes of address are determined by socio-economic status, literacy level, caste, age and sex ".
It is being observed that the selection of modes of address is subjective depending on what kind of relationship the interactants share. In the beginning of the novel 'Untouchable', we come across an example of diminutive in which Lakha, the father of Bakha addresses his son as follows: 'Get up, ohe you Bakhya '(p. 17)
The term of address 'Ohe you Bakhya' is to be understood in the socio-economic as well as cultural context. The context is very much Indian. The son is addressed by the father using a peculiar expression, it indicates that the son is always small before the father. Through the above expression, one comes to know the nature of relation between father and son. Here, the father seems to be annoyed on seeing that
148 his son is still asleep and that he should have gone for cleaning the latrines of the Tommies in the town. As it is stated earlier that the terms or the modes of address basically depend on the various factors such as class, caste, age and gender. Here, Bakha is a male character and is lesser adult. Therefore, his father is more inclined to use the term of address as stated above. The slight deviation in the name is attributed to the cultural aspect. A father addressing a son using his nickname is very common in all the cultures of the world.
The diminutive used in the above example is expressed through the imperative sentence. In a way, the speech act in the said example is directive speech act. This class of speech act mostly includes order or command, suggestion or request. The order given to Bakha by his father in the example under consideration is a directive speech act because his father wants his son to get up early and set for the work of cleaning the latrines as a part of his duty for which the entire family receives food in return. Bakha is addressed in a similar fashion by Havildar Charat Singh. Look at the following example:
'OHE, Bakhyal Ohe, Bakhyal Ohe, scoundrel of a sweeper's son! Come and clean a latrine for me! (P.20)
The locutionary force of the utterance indicates that it was a loud shout. Havildar Charat Singh did not utter the words in a normal circumstance. It was an extraordinary situation demanding immediate attention followed by the act of performing something. The illocutionary force of the utterance points out the intention of the
149 speaker. The objective of the speaker is to summon the hearer to come to his place and clean the latrine. The name of Bakha is uttered twice, which has a strong illocutionary force. In addition to this, the abusive address "Ohe, scoundrel of a sweeper's son!" indicates the boy's low social status. The perlocutionary effect is so powerful that Bakha flings the blanket off his body, gets up abruptly and hurries to the door. He was flabbergasted to see Havildar Charat Singh, the famous hockey player of the 38* Dogras regiment standing outside with a small brass of jug in his left hand. The utterance of address of Havildar Charat Singh is sarcastic gesture and not intended to harm Bakha. Havildar Charat Singh is superior to Bakha and he can jokingly use filthy language to describe Bakha.
The white people often treated the caste Hindus as well as the outcastes in India with contempt. Their derision resulted in the use of the diminutives such as: 'Kala admi zamin par hagne wala '(p. 23)
It means a black man, who relieves himself on the ground. This expression is Tommies' familiar abuse of the natives. It is an example of code switching. The expression is written in Hindi language using the English alphabet^. It emphasizes the fact that the natives of India were despicable to the Whites who often addressed them in such a way that their inferior social status was made public. The Whites used western types of toilets and latrines whereas the Indians would relieve their stools on the open grounds. Therefore, the above term of address
150 is derogatory and shows the disheartening relations between the natives and the British officers Hving in the towns side by side.
In another incident, we come across a different form of address where a friend is regarded as a brother in law:
'Come, brother-in-law', (p.42)
Brother-in-law normally means the brother of wife. The brother-in- law (particularly younger) does the work of errand running and is a subject of fun and amusement. This traditional role is reflected in the diminutive undertone of the address term 'brother-in-law'.
The speech situation is that Bakha began to walk through the lane leading to the outcastes' street. As soon as he left the street he saw that he was being observed by his friends Ram Charan and Chota. His brother Rakha accompanied them. They often ridiculed him for his strong and stout physical features and his outward appearance. They also mocked at his style of walking because he had heavy buttocks and walked like an elephant. Ram Charan was a son of a washerwoman named Gulabo who had picked up a quarrel with Sohini earlier in the day. He greeted Bakha in the name of a brother- in-law. The term of address 'brother-in-law' is the literal translation of the Hindi expression 'saala' that means 'brother-in-law' in English. This is a mild abusive phrase uttered in a mocking manner. When Ram Charan addressed Bakha as a 'brother-in-law', he (Bakha)
151 replied that he would be content to become one. It is further learnt that Bakha was known to be an admirer of Ram Charan's sister.
Here, it is interesting to note that in India especially among friends it is common to address one another as 'ye, salya', which means sardonically 'brother-in-law' in English.
There are several ways in which people greet. The social customs and the cultural aspects influence the ways of greeting. In India, it is the adolescent boys who tend to use the mode of address as 'brother-in- law '. It is an example of code switching. The words 'brother-in-law' can be interpreted in the cultural context. Here, the cultural context is very much Indian. The linguistic exchange between Ram Charan and Bakha evoked a quiet smile on the face of Chota. It is common among the peer groups, especially the males in India to make teasing remarks while speaking to each other in a playful way. It is also observed that the vulgar woman may address a man of her close acquaintance as a 'brother-in-law' a literal translation of the Hindi word 'saala'. It is used diminutively to address a person, particularly a male in a close circle of friendship in India. The word 'saali' is used in the case of a woman. Both the words are deprecatory and create a perlocutionary effect on the hearer. This form of address is used to show kinship relation but not in the sense of real relations. This is a gender related diminutive. There are also diminutives, which are caste related.
The historical fact is that in pre-independence India, low caste people were addressed in the name of caste to show their low social status.
152 The caste Hindus normally would address a person from the lower communities in the name of his respective caste. Following is the glaring example from the novel 'Untouchable':
'Bhangi! Bhangi!' (p. 94)
The above diminutive expression is the utterance of Hakim Bhagawan Das and is used to address Lakha, the father of Bakha. It is important here at this juncture to refer to the speech situation in which the words, 'Bhangi! Bhangi!' are uttered. It is also significant to understand the addressee addressor relationship and the implicature of the very utterance in the social and cultural context.
Lakha, at one point in the novel, gives an account of an incident, which took place when Bakha was a mere toddler. One day Bakha fell seriously ill. On seeing the worsening condition of the child, the father decided to go to Hakim Bhagwan Das to get some medicine for the cure. He went to his house in the same town and began to shout at the Hakim's house but there was no reply from inside the house. Then Lakha had to make a request to the passers by to convey his message to the Hakim that his son had fallen seriously ill and he needed some medicine. However, the babu turned down his request. He came back without the medicine. The child's condition was delirious and he was on the verge of dying. There was no money either to purchase the medicine. Thinking that, he again went to the Hakim hurriedly. At this time, the office of the Hakim was open and there were several people waiting to get medicine. On seeing Lakha all people shouted, 'Bhangi! Bhangi!' The Hakim came there hearing the uproar of the
153 people. He also reprimanded Lakha for entering his house and polluting it. Lakha was ashamed of himself, he came back home without medicine. He was in utter despair. The Hakim gave a surprise visit to Lakha's house and prescribed some medicine. The child's life, thus, was saved.
The above diminutive expression denotes the caste of a person to whom the terms are addressed. Here, in this case the person is Lakha, from the sweeper's community. The addressers are the high caste people and the illocutionary force of their utterance is that they wanted to disparage the social status of the addressee. This idiom is also an abusive use of language in the name of caste. In those days, untouchability was practised in India on a large scale and openly without retribution. The voice of the untouchables was suppressed in such a way that they were not even allowed to utter a single word against the caste Hindus. The speech act can be understood only in the historical context. Therefore, it is necessary to know the customs and traditions of that period. In fact, one should know the cultural context of the concerned speech act to arrive at an authentic interpretation. No one, for instance, can explain the conversational pieces without understanding the tradition, customs, religious beliefs, superstitions etc. Similarly, no one can interpret the terms related to the diminutives without knowing the cultural background and the social realities of the period. The writer's intention to use such terms during the course of the novel makes the novel an authentic social document. The reader is able to interpret the novel in an authentic way by applying the theory of speech act. Diminutives are the integral part of the speech acts. In
154 the novel 'Untouchable' we come across a number of expressions involving diminutives. Following is one such peculiar expression in which the diminutive is used:
"Chandal! By whose orders have you come here? And you join hands and hold my feet and say you will become my slave for ever. You have polluted hundreds of rupees worth of medicine. Will you pay for it? " (p. 94)
The term of address 'chandal' is used by Hakim to indicate the low social status of Lakha, the traditional sweeper. When Lakha came to the Hakim's house, he directly went into the office of the Hakim, caught the Hakim's feet, and implored him to save his child's life for which he would remain slave all his life, Lakha came to the Hakim's house leaving the child in a delirious condition. Some people believed that the child would die soon and they would put the child on the floor. The Hindus do not allow a person to die in bed. They usually bring the dying to rest as near the earth as possible; the idea being that from the earth we come, to the earth we return. Lakha ran to the house of the Hakim and touched his feet. The Hakim was terribly angry and shouted at the pitch of his voice indicating that the person was bom to a low caste woman out of illicit relations. The extended meaning of the word 'chandal' is despicable person who is a persona-non-grata. The implicature of the expression is that Lakh^'s action of touching the feet of the Hakim is unacceptable if we take into account the social mores of that historical era.
155 Here, the addresser is from the upper caste while the addressee is from the lower caste. Therefore, one comes to know the hierarchal relation between the speaker and the hearer. The perlocutionary effect is felt on the hearer. He begins to weep and apologizes for the grave mistake he has committed. He folds his hands entreating the high caste Hindu promising him to serve him throughout his life for giving medicine to the ailing child and saving his life.
At another point in the novel Bakha addresses his younger brother as 'wild animal':
'At least wash your hands, ohe wild animal!' (p.97)
Rakha, the younger brother of Bakha was coming home with a basket of food on his head. As he came home, he deposited his load of food in front of Sohini. He sat down in the filth and began to explore the pieces of bread in the basket. He started eating big morsel. Bakha was extremely angry to see his brother eating without washing his dirty hands. He addressed him in the name of animal to belittle his position in the house. The implicature of Bakha's utterance can be understood very easily. It implies that Rakha's hands are dirty and it does not matter to him when it comes to eating of food. It also implies that Bakha observes cleanliness in his day today life. The term 'wild animal' also indicates that Rakha has no etiquettes and is devoid of table manners. It is ironical that Bakha is also addressed by his cronies in the name of some animal. Following is one of the glaring examples:
' Come, O elephant' (p. 105)
156 The above expression is a direct speech act involving a diminutive. Ram Charan is a very close friend of Bakha. He comes out of his house with a dozen of sugarplums, which he brings in the pockets of his shorts and the large handkerchief on his sister's marriage. He asks Bakha and Chota to follow him quickly so that they can soon get to the hill top. His mind is gripped with fear that his mother would come after him. Chota runs fast whereas Bakha lags behind. On seeing Bakha's slothful action of walking, Ram Charan addresses him mockingly as 'elephant'. The mode of address is funny though, it is aimed at ridiculing Bakha. The perlocutionary effect on Bakha is that he dismisses the impudence of his crony's joke with a mumble and follows quietly. Bakha's coldness and dull walking is reflected in the above speech act.
When the three friends (Ram Charan, Chota and Bakha) were walking through the tall grass on the slopes of Bulandshahr hills, Bakha's mind remained unresponsive and insensitive to tjie nature's bounty. He was engrossed in his own world. He felt lonely thinking about his early days when he would come to the hills with his other friends. He lay down on the bank of the pool and watched the valley detached. The incidents of the morning had cast a shadow over him and there seemed something wrong with him. He was not in his usual mood. On noticing that there was no spontaneous laughter on his face, Chota said:
'What is the matter with you brother-in-law? ' (p. 109)
157 The term of address 'brother in law' is the literal translation of the J.. -••'• Hindi term 'Saala', this means the sister's husband. It is common among the teenagers especially the boys in the Hindi speaking states of India to address one another jokingly in the name of 'brother in law'.
When Bakha came to the quarters where Charat Singh lived, he was nervous and feeling guilty. He wanted a hockey stick from Havildar Charat Singh. Earlier he told Chota that the Havildarji had already promised to present him with a hockey stick if he went and met him at the barracks. Bakha, accordingly, thinks that he would get one but he had no courage to ask anyone whether the Havildarji was at home. Normally, an ordinary person would either give a shout or knock at the door and meet him but this would not happen in the case of Bakha because he belonged to the lower community and he did not want to go within a defiling distance of the house of Charat Singh. He simply began to walk back and forth outside the house of his master thinking that some one would come out of the house and notice him. Bakha's thoughts began to drift from the bitter memories to sweet reminiscences. He was engrossed in his own world full of imagination. As soon as he saw Charat Singh coming out of his house, he saluted him most respectfully saying 'Salaam Havildar ji'. Charat Singh, forgetting that he had scolded Bakha in the morning, asked him in a playful way as to why he had not been attending the regimental hockey matches. It seems that Charat Singh was very friendly to him and that he was benevolent. Bakha feels so happy that his master shows interest in him. The perlocutionary effect is felt on Bakha and
158 he thinks that Charat Singh is a broad-minded person. Charat Singh asks him to go to his kitchen and fetch two pieces of burning coals so that he can light his hookah. Charat Singh is so kind to Baidia that he offers him tea in the small container. At first, the boy very politely declines the offer but on insistence of Charat Singh he accepts it. Bakha is addressed as son:
'Drink it, Drink it, my son. ' (P. 123)
It is very common in Indian English to address the younger fellow as 'my son'. This form of address is also employed by the high caste Hindus for the members of the lower castes in India. Here, in Bakha's case the speaker applies both the strategies. The repetition of the words 'Drink it' emphasizes the fact that the addresser is really interested in offering tea to the addressee. The immediate effect of this offer creates in Bakha a feeling of deep gratitude for Charat Singh. He feels extremely indebted to his master for the generosity.
Charat Singh treats Bakha with sympathy and gives him a brand new hockey stick saying:
'Conceal it under your coat and don 't tell anyone. Go, my lad. ' (P. 124)
Charat Singh offers Bakha with a hockey stick that is brand new and asks him to disappear from his house unnoticed. He is very generous to the untouchables. The speaker uses the term of address, 'Go, my lad' to show kindness. Actually, Bakha is not the real son or lad of Charat Singh but the form of address establishes the real bond
159 between the speaker and the hearer. Here, one can say that Charat Singh is a fatherly figure for Bakha. Even though he belongs to the superior caste, he does not hesitate to allow Bakha to go to his kitchen. It is worth mentioning that the untouchables are not allowed to go into the kitchens of the caste Hindus lest they would cause the defilement. They are treated as outsiders in their own land. In other words, they are alienated from the society for no fault of their own. The kinship term of address used by Charat Singh indicates that he does not believe in caste hierarchy as such.
After Bakha gets a new hockey stick from Charat Singh, he is very eager to show it to Babu's two sons. On the way, he met his friends and they decided to play hockey. All the boys started playing hockey including Bakha. The little child of Babu was not allowed to play the game because Chota commented that it was a match with the big boys. The Babu's son was entrusted with the duty of looking after the clothes while the match was being played. At this point, Bakha addresses Babu's little son as little brother to show closeness in relation.
Thus, we can understand the novel in a much better way if we study the diminutives taking into account the Indian historical, social and cultural context. It is the context that determines the meaning of the speech acts. In fact, there are several factors that come in the way of interpretation. The reader of a novel has to interpret the written discourse against the socio-cultural realities and the overall context of the utterances.
160 3. VII Honorifics, Humbleness
(Humility), Arrogance, Power and Solidarity Semantics
According to Pandharipande (1981), a society is an organized group of persons functioning in the background of different socio-cultural environments. The socio-cultural environment includes customs, traditions, religious beliefs, tastes and preferences, social institutions etc. As a product of social reality, language reflects the socio-cultural behaviour of a community who speaks it. In other words, language reflects the thoughts, opinions, attitudes and culture of its users.
Mulk Raj Anand has effectively made use of the socio-cultural aspects in his novel 'Untouchable' through the loan words borrowed from Hindi and Punjabi languages. With the help of his unique linguistic experiment, he has successfully unfolded the plight of the underprivileged class of the Indian society in the nineteen thirties and forties. The pragmatic analysis of power semantics- humility, humbleness, honorifics, arrogance offer authenticity to the interpretation of the novel under consideration.
The word 'humility" is derived from the Latin words ' humilis' (i.e. lowly, humble, or literally on the ground) and 'humus' (i.e. earth). Therefore, humility can be interpreted as having negative characteristic features. Nevertheless, some positive connotations can be attributed to this term. The person who is down to earth and is an open minded is considered as a humble person. An individual who is unassuming mostly gives respect to other people who may be equal or older to him. Humble people are always willing to admit imperfections and likely to exhibit a lack of self-identity.
It is generally observed that the persons bom and grown in socially and culturally deprived environments tend to display modesty in not only their own appearance but they also show humbleness in their social behaviour and judgment of their abilities.
One can define humility as a psychological quality marked by humbleness or open-mindedness showing politeness through certain linguistic expressions peculiar to one's own socio-cultural milieu. Since the word 'humility' is associated with socio-cultural milieu, the interpretation of the utterances embedded in the structural design is to be put in the contexts both social and cultural. People who want to be perceived by others as humble deliberately control the linguistic behavoiur. By doing so, they possess more humility as it happens in the case of Bakha, the protagonist of the novel 'Untouchable'.
There are people in the society who occasionally want other people to have a high regard for them. In addition, it is the hierarchical social order that compels an individual to take or give respect. The humility- arrogance can be clustered in the implicit social cognition. The person who is self-effacing frequently associates modesty-connected concepts with the self more quickly than arrogance related terms.
162 The concepts of honorifics, humbleness and arrogance are culture specific and are dependent on interpersonal relations governed by socio-cultural factors. The character of Bakha as depicted by the writer is humbled by the existing social circumstances. It is the social environment that restricts the linguistic behaviour of Bakha, Lakha, Rakha, Sohini and similar other characters who come from the socially disadvantaged castes. The protagonist of the novel 'Untouchable' cannot afford to break the customs and traditions of the Hindu society and behave the way he likes. Centuries of servitude had made him lowly, humble, and self-effacing. The present novel offers a scope to study the power semantics. It is interesting as well as revealing to thoroughly examine and analyze the speech acts in which humbleness, humility, or modesty, honorifics etc. are expressed. 'Honorifics' is an expression that conveys good opinion or reverence. It is typically used while addressing a person or referring to a person. Honorifics may refer roughly to the style of language or particular words used to convey honour to one perceived as a social superior. They are usually placed immediately before or after the name of the subject. An honorific may be used to denote occupation, such as priest, doctor, teacher, lawyer, minister. Some honorifics can act as complete replacements for name as in 'sir', 'mom'. It the subordinates who often make use of honorific terms while addressing a person belonging to a superior class/caste. Ashok Thorat (2002) rightly says: "The interpersonal relationship between the addresser and the addressee is governed by the two important principles of solidarity and power. The conversational patterns may be on good terms or bad terms or their relationship may be
163 characterized by neutrality. In other words, the interactants may he friends, enemies, or strangers. The intimacy or distance in terms of relationship influences their conversational moves. Moreover, the addresser and the addressee are not like islands. They live in a speech community and internalize the rules and regulations of the language that their speech community uses. As language is inseparable from the social realities, which bind the interlocutors, they cannot lose sight of what is regarded as decent and indecent, pleasant and unpleasant, acceptable and unacceptable, appropriate and inappropriate, within the bounds of the speech community. There are socially acceptable ways of saying things as there are socially prohibited ways of doing so", (p. 4 2)
The existing social hierarchal system makes the member of a particular society to use the linguistic expression to show either respect or humbleness or arrogance. All over India, we come across the ranking system where persons are graded according to their wealth and power. For instance, the terms 'bade log' and 'chhote log' stand for 'big people' and 'small people' respectively. The big people have a social status due to the material prosperity they possess whereas small people are seen visiting them for some favour. The poor men and women come to the rich and affluent people to make requests. Within families, also there are distinctions of hierarchy. Men are seen outranking women of the same age. Younger siblings usually do not address the older ones by name. They rather tend to use respectful
164 terms while addressing their elder brothers or sisters. However, the older people address the younger siblings by names. Some fictive kinship relations are set up to show respect in the academic or business field. For instance, a younger colleague in the office might address an older person respectfiilly by using the terms as masterji, 'chacahji', 'sirji', 'hawaldarji' etc. Similarly, status differences are expressed in terms of purity and defilement. The novel 'Untouchable' offers ample scope to study and analyze such expressions applying the theory of speech acts. The notions of purity and pollution are practicied on large scale in India in the name of religion and caste. Generally, high status is associated with purity whereas low status is related to the pollution.
In the light of what has been stated above, let us scrutinize and evaluate the selected utterances from the concerned novel from the point of view of pragmatics. The titles of respect are indicated by the use of the words like 'jee/jee. For example, Bakha utters the following expression: 'All right, Havildar ji, I will get one ready for you at once', (p.20)
In the above example, the addresser is a person from the lower strata of society who has been made humble by the norms of the social linguistic behaviour. On the other hand, the addresser is a person who happens to be the British soldier with Indian openness. He is superior to the addresser in terms of his social status. Therefore, Bakha, the addresser of the above utterance has to use the honorific term
165 'Havildarji' to obliquely point out his low social status. It is stated earlier that 'honorifics' is an expression that conveys good opinion or reverence. It is typically used while addressing a person or referring to a person perceived as a social superior. Following is the speech situation of the utterance in the context.
On seeing the unclean latrines, Havidar Charat Singh sets for the house where Bakha lives and starts abusing him holding him responsible for ?iis piles. He says, 'Why aren't the latrines clean, ohe rogue of a Bakha? There is not one fit to go near." He attributes the cause of his piles for the dirty latrines. In reply to this linguistic expression, Bakha utters the above sentence that shows his low social status. He uses the polite language to show that he must obey the Tommy. The use of the suffix 'ji' indicates that Bakha has a deep respect for the Tommy and that he is very obedient. Bakha was very cautious in uttering the words. He immediately goes to the front of the house and picks up the brush and basket with the intention of cleaning the latrines for Charat Singh.
In another incident, Bakha uses the typical honorific 'Huzoor' while replying the question asked by Charat Singh:
'Huzoor, it is all your blessing' (p.2l)
When Charat Singh emerges from his painful half an hour in the latrine, he suddenly catches sight of Bakha in his dirt free dress. He compliments Bakha for wearing exotic dress forgetting his caste superiority. He asks Bakha, 'Where did you get that uniform'? This
166 question evokes a very humble response from Bakha. He uses the honorific 'Huzoor' for showing his reverence for Havildar Charat Singh. Bakha becomes introvert, knows he has no right to indulge in luxury. He mumbles the above expression in such a way that it indicates his humbleness. In fact, humbleness and honorifics are the two sides of the same coin. He uses the modesty maxim, which states: 'minimize the expression of praise of self: maximize the expression of dispraise of self.
Bakha always presents himself as the humble boy. He makes use of certain honorifics to demonstrate that he has regards for the people who he thinks are superior to him in terms of caste hierarchy. For example:
'Maharaj' (p.25)
Bakha utters this expression bowing with joined hands to Ramanand, the peevish old bania to indicate that he is humble enough to obey his order. The above honorific is the result of perlocutionary effect on Bakha's mind. The indirect speech act, "There is not a latrine clean. You must work for the pay you receive", uttered by Ramanand has an illocutionary force in it. The implicature of the utterance makes Bakha to act. The action taken by Bakha is that he runs towards the latrine and engages himself in the work of cleaning the latrines. The body language of the boy is indicative of the fact that he is extremely sorry for not keeping the latrines clean. He was completely oblivious of his surroundings for nearly half an hour.
167 Bakha is not only the person who is humbled by the social circumstances but his sister is also the victim of the social stratification. Sohini has to suffer the injustice mutely owing to her low social status. Although Gulabo, the washerwoman, abuses Sohini calling her a dirty bitch, she does not show indignation nor does she pay the abuser in the same coin. On the contrary, she uses polite linguistic expressions to show her modesty, Sohini says:
'Please don't abuse me'; 'I haven't said anything to you'. (P.31)
Sohini is forced by the heinous caste hierarchical system to become tolerant; therefore, she does not react to the abuses being flung at her by the washerwoman. In fact, she simply says, 'Please don't abuse me'. The use of the word, 'please' indicates the humbleness of the girl in the face of adversity.
The people from the lower social strata of society are subjected to humiliation and torture at the hands of the so-called upper caste people. In the nineteen thirties and forties, low caste people had to go to the public wells and beg for water to be poured into their pitchers. They were not allowed to draw water from these wells. They had to wait for someone belonging to the higher caste to come to the well so that they could get some water needed for the purpose. They had to use honorifics to beg for water:
168 'Oh, Maharaj! Maharaj! Won't you draw us some water, please? We beg you. We have been waiting here a long time, we will be grateful', (p. 32)
The womenfolk belonging to lower communities were compelled to request the high caste passerby to come to the well and draw water for them. The above utterance was addressed to a belated caste Hindu visitor to the latrines when passing by. The low caste women were shouting the chorus of voices at the well- bending and joining their palms in beggary- servile appeal and abject humility. The repetition of the word, Maharaj' indicates the intensity of their begging and urgency of getting water. The womenfolk from the low caste communities had been waiting at the site of the well for a long time.
In another incident Bakha uses honorific term for addressing a high caste boy. Look at the following utterance:
'Salam, babuji'(p.40)
The above utterance of Bakha makes it clear that even the young boys from the upper castes are to be greeted with honorifics. Bakha being a sweeper boy becomes humble and greets everyone with respect. He is humbled by the social circumstances in which he is placed. The term 'babuji' is a very respectful form of addressing a person who comes from the upper strata of the Hindu society. The suffix 'ji' is used to indicate the respect. The word 'salam' is a form of greeting in India. Here, Bakha addresses the white-clad delicate young boys. He greets them by raising his right hand to his forehead.
169 The speech situation is the hockey match. The boys from different castes decide to play the hockey match with the boys from the 31^' Punjabis. It is surprising to note that the boys do not make the caste distinctions when it comes to playing games. On the other social or religious occasions, they would make the distinction on the basis of caste. The caste factor becomes insignificant for the adolescent boys while playing the outdoor games.
It is customary to use the address term 'Babuji' for an elderly Hindu person whereas a Mohammedan is greeted by using the word 'Mian ji'. The following linguistic utterance of Bakha is worth studying. Bakha appeals to a Muhammadan in order to light the newly bought cigarette:
'Mianji, will you oblige me with a piece of coal from your clay fire-pot? ' (p. 50)
Bakha being duty conscious is on the way to his work of sweeping the public places. On his way near the gate of the town, he notices a number of shops where fuel for burning the dead was sold. He could see the funeral procession stopping at the shop for the purchase of the wooden fuel. He could also see the body on the open stretcher. He happens to pass by the betel-leaf shop. He could see various brands of cigarettes, which were arranged for sale along with the bidis. Bakha had a strong desire to buy a packet of Red Lamp Cigarettes. He was initially reluctant to ask for the cigarettes. He drew an anna from his
170 pocket and placed it on the board as suggested by the owner of the pan-stall. Bakha felt elated as he got the packet of cigarettes and started walking along the road. He opened the packet and took out a cigarette of his coveted brand. Since he did not have the box of matches, he started looking for the passersby who could help him in lighting the cigarette. He knew that it was unbecoming on his part to smoke in the presence of a number of people. He wanted to be less seen by others. It was considered a presumption on the part of the poor to smoke like rich people. He felt that he should smoke unobserved while he was carrying his broom and basket. He came across a Muhammadan who was puffing at a big hubble-bubble, a device for smoking tobacco at one of the many open-air barbers' stalls in the street.
The above expression indicates Bakha's respect for the barber. He did not want to take liberties with the person from Muslim community whom the Hindus would consider outcastes. Therefore, Bakha felt much nearer and was obliged to light his cigarette only after he sought consent from the barber who said, "Bend down to it and light your cigarette, if that is what you want to do with the piece of coal. " Bakha's polite request has a perlocutionary effect on the barber. He uses the positive politeness strategy to do the things with words. Bakha is always humble and decent in his linguistic behaviour. He is seen throughout the novel being humble. His humbleness is expressed through his speech acts. Study the following example:
171 'Nahin, Lalla ji, it is not true that I beat this child, it is not true', I have erred now. I forgot to call. I beg your forgiveness. It won't happen again'. (P.57)
Bakha has not done anything to the child. The allegation of the Lalla makes Bakha feel disturbed. However, he is polite and gives the truthful account of his actions. The form of address he uses is peculiar as far as Indian English is concerned. He uses the words 'Lalla ji' to indicate that he has deep respect for the person. The suffix 'ji' is commonly used in the Indian context to suggest reverence. Bakha being remorseful pleads his case before the touched man. The crowd simply pressed round him, staring, pulling, grimaces, jeering and leering. They felt no pity for this lad of India. They were taking a sort of sadistic delight in watching him cower under the abuses and curses. Bakha's apologies went unheeded. For him it was endless epoch of woe and suffering. There was a queer stirring in his heart. His legs trembled in fear. He stood still while the onlookers fumed and sneered in fury. Bakha is the victim of social segregation and therefore he has to use the language, which is socially acceptable. He is made to beg, ask forgiveness, obey all, despise none, respect the Caste Hindus, and live on the mercy of his masters. Following are some of the speech acts that show his humbleness:
1. 'Bread for the sweeper, mother. Bread for the sweeper, mother'! The sweeper has come for the bread'. (Bakha shouts his call in the alley) page-78
172 2. 'Forgive me, mother. I shouted for bread, but you were busy and didn 't hear me. I was tired and sat down'. (Bakha begs pardon to the lady'.) page-83
3. "Maharaj, I forgot. Your shoe on my head. I am not in my senses. Maharaj, you are my father-mother. I can't compenset • for the medicines. I can only serve you. Will you come and give some medicine to my child? He is on his death-bed!" ( Lakha to Hakimji) page-94
4. 'Why did Yessuh Messih sacrifice Himself Huzoor?' (Bakha to The padre) page-146
5. 'Salam, Sahib' (Bakha said this to the Colonel putting his hand to his forehead as he got up) page-140
6. 'Mehrbani' (Bakha said it to the cook in Charat Siingh's kitchen room) page-122
The words 'mother', 'maharaj', 'huzoor', 'sahib', 'mehrbani' in the above examples show the addresser's strategy of poHteness. In each case, the addresser is an outcaste who uses the face saving strategy to respect the addressee.
However, the caste Hindus use the face threatening strategy for displaying arrogance. Following are some of the glaring examples from the novel under consideration:
/. 'They are getting more and more uppish', (the lady to herself page-85
173 2. 'Vey, eater of your masters, Vay dirty sweeper!' 'What have you done to my son? ' Page-]31
3. 'You sweepers have lifted your heads to the sky, nowadays'. (a high caste lady to Bakha) Page-83
The child's mother on seeing Bakha face to face utters the words, which are diminutives in themselves making Bakha suffer the humiliation for no fault of his own. The use of power semantics makes it obvious that the fate of the untouchable is in the hands of the caste Hindus. The caste Hindus treat Bakha with indignity and inflict humiliation on him by using the expressions containing abusive terms borrowed from both Hindi and Punjabi languages.
The speech situation is the hockey match. The boys while playing hockey happened to pick up a quarrel and started throwing stones to each other's enemies. One stone hurled by Ram Charan had caught the child a rap on the skull. The child was seriously hurt. He gave a sharp, piercing shriek and fell unconscious. The blood was profusely pouring from the back of his head. It was Bakha who picked the child in his arms and took him to the hall of his house. It is unfortunate that Bakha is abused for no rhyme or reason. The expressions 'they are getting more and more uppish', 'eater of your masters', and 'You sweepers have lifted your heads to the sky, nowadays' show the attitude of the upper caste people towards low caste people.
174 3. VIII Conclusion In the beginning of this chapter, it has been stated that the appHcation of the speech act theory helps the reader to understand the novel. It highhghts the significance of the application of the speech act theory to a novel as a form of literature. The chapter is mainly devoted to the analysis of the selected speech acts from the novel 'Untouchable'. The middle part of this chapter focuses on the interpretation of the selected abusive expressions, diminutives, the terms of humility or humbleness and arrogance. They are interpreted against the social as well as cultural realities. The social realities of the nineteen thirties and forties were such that the downtrodden had no voice of their own and had to suffer humiliation at the hands of the caste Hindus in India. The novel 'Untouchable' is the reflection of the man made discrimination on the basis of caste. The caste inequity existed in India at the time when Mulk Raj Anand^ writing this novel. The writer has taken the theme from the prevailing social circumstances. The selected speech acts especially the abuses, diminutives, humbleness, arrogance have been analyzed taking into account social, psychological, historical and cultural factors to arrive at appropriate interpretation. The speech situation, speech event and the actual speech act; all contribute in the interpretation of a novel. The present study thoroughly examines and interprets the selected speech acts taken out from the novel 'Untouchable' and arrives at authentic interpretation. The authenticity of interpreting the written discourse largely depends on the contextual utterances to which we call speech acts. The speech act theory of J. L. Austin and Searle is highly useful in the interpretation of the sociological novel 'Untouchable'.
175