Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology ISSN No : 1006-7930

Repudiation of Rights and Subalternity in GithaHariharan’s

The Ghosts of Vasu Master

*Dr S. Nair, Assistant Professor of English, SreeAyyappa College for Women,

Chunkankadai,Affiliated to ManonmaniamSundaranar University, Tirunelveli

*Dr. R. Janatha Kumari, Assistant Professor of English, SreeAyyappa College for Women,

Chunkankadai, Affiliated to ManonmaniamSundaranar University, Tirunelveli.

Abstract:

The culturally diverse country like India experiences a breach in establishing equality due to the prevalence of so many behavioural patterns, beliefs and ideologies both social and political. This results in the culmination of some culture attaining hegemony over others and discriminating the people of these cultural practices and suppressing them. This is an issue of high social concern which the eminent diaspora writer Githa Hariharan addresses in her fiction The Ghosts of Vasu Master. This paper looks at different factors that accelerate the repudiation of rights including physical deformity. Besides remonstrating such discriminatory factors, this paper strives to highlight the need to establish equality in the society which is inevitable for the humanity to thrive in this global world. Key Words: Diaspora; Culture; Human rights; Subalternity; Normalcy; Feminism.

Refutation of human rights is a global phenomenon which is increasing day by day

especially in developing counties like India. India being a pluralistic country is known for its

diverse cultural patterns. These cultural patterns are decided by different religions, languages,

castes, community, class and creed. These classifications divide the people of India into various

strata and there is constantly a cultural pull among the people belonging to these diverse groups.

With the advent of Marxism in the nineteenth century “people have come to think of culture as

being political. Culture is both a means of domination, of assuring the rule of one class or group

over another and a means of resistance to such domination, a way of articulating oppositional

points view to those in dominance” (Rivkin, Ryan 1025).There is a power play in which the

affluent people try to occupy the center and there is also a tendency to drive the ‘others’ to the

Volume XII, Issue V, 2020 Page No: 3142 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology ISSN No : 1006-7930

periphery. The limitation may be enforced on them in the name of class, creed, religion, gender,

economic disparity and so on. AsJamuna rightly avers,

Any multi-cultural mosaic, even in India, often fails miserably because of the anti-

accomodationist stance of the dominant community. Multiculturalism should be able to

negate exclusionism of minorities through acceptance and accommodation; instead the

dominant community often creates an ideology of power, thereby paving the way for the

inevitability of disarticulated subalternity within the nation. (121)

There are various factors that vie with one another in inflicting discrimination in the

Indian soil. Among them, the Caste system in India plays a major role in suppressing the people

and thereby denying them a dignified life which is their genuine right. People in India are

generally discriminated in the name of caste.Caste is a social evil which is practiced even today

in India and it has become a part of Indian culture. And “Caste is defined at birth” (Young

119).It is about two thousand years old.

This system which is an integral part of Hinduism, divides the population into four major

groups. The Brahmin (priestly caste) at the top, followed by the Kshatriya (warrior caste),

then the Vaishya (commoners, usually known as trading and artisan castes), and at the

bottom the Sudra (agricultural labourers) some of whom are beyond the pale of caste and

are known as untouchables. The caste system is not only structural, but has a cultural

dimension as well. (Khushu, Lahiri 112)

The caste system which was introduced in the Indian society, to carry out the smooth

running of its various institutions, slowly lost its motive, and used as a force to suppress the

weak. They are called untouchables, the term which is replaced with ‘Dalits’.

Volume XII, Issue V, 2020 Page No: 3143 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology ISSN No : 1006-7930

A quarter of the Indian population is made up of such Dalita, as they call themselves

(Dalit means ‘the oppressed” or ‘the broken’). They do the most menial jobs…. They

have little access to education or health care, and are forced to suffer daily the indignities

of being considered unclean and polluting the rest of the population…. At the same time,

the upper castes exploit them economically, materially, and sexually, and subject them to

constant mental and physical abuse. (Young 119)

This being the cultural practice seen widely in India and it has been transmitted

generation after generation socially committed writer Githa Hariharan remonstrates against this

cultural discrimination.

Hariharan registers in her novel The Ghosts of Vasu Master that people in India are

discriminated in the name of caste and it is conveyed through Ganesan, the neighbour of Vasu

Master’s father who sows the seeds of bigotry in the minds of other Brahmins. He avers, “with

all these other people all over the place, you know (he coughed delicately), we Brahmins must

keep together. Otherwise what’s the use of independence” (239). Hariharan announces her

protest against such inequity in the name of caste through Vasu Master’s father who condemns

such people which indeed gives a peep into the Indian society: “We live in a divided house and

you talk of a bigger, bloodier share. Go if you want- go spread some more of the poison that is

choking all of us” (239). And his questions, “who murdered Gandhi? Who is murdering his

child?” (239), are highly stimulating and thought provoking and these evocative questions

convey the bitter truth that such discriminations in the name of caste aggravate clashes and

creates havoc in the society

Hariharan teases the post-colonial Indian belief that oppressing others and denying them

their human dignity is the best means of survival through her character Venkatesan, the

Volume XII, Issue V, 2020 Page No: 3144 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology ISSN No : 1006-7930

colleague of the protagonist of The Ghosts of Vasu Master. It is unfortunate that divine

institutions like the educational systems that promote such discrimination. When Vasu Master

behaved very kindly towards his students, his colleague Vengatesan rebukes him by asking him

not to be so patient and kind with his boys for he feels that, “In a few years they will find out that

there is very little kindness or patience in the world outside”, and so the teachers must equip their

students to get accustomed to the behaviour. He continues that it “would be the kindest thing you

can do for them” (207).

Hariharan very artistically brings forth the truth that anything which goes below or above

the ordinary is reprimanded by the majority and looked down upon by them in this modern

world. As part of their eccentricity, they are renounced as minority and as a result, they become

weaker and their needs are marginalized. The chapter entitled “The Sling in the Scorpion’s Tail”

in the novel reveals symbolically how this weaker section of the society is crushed by the

suppressive evil forces which the author calls as scorpions. However, the little fly Diamond who

represents the weaker strata of society strives hard to eschew the evil effect of scorpions, but it

could not succeed. The singularity of existence is not welcomed by the majority and it is also

symbolically suggested through the hegemonic claim of the scorpion: “the astonishing variety of

insects in Heart of Forest was unnatural; that the different colours of their glow hurt their eyes;

that the forest had lived in perpetual darkness in its golden age a million years ago. Hariharan’s

scorpion stands for that part of society which keeps discrimination alive.

Hariharan too dabbles with the discrimination inflicted on individual in the name of

impoverishment in The Ghosts of Vasu Master. It is “Another great divide one observes in the

society [that creates]… the gulf between the rich and the poor or in the communistic terminology

the divide between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’. (Pinto 111). At the school in which Vasu

Volume XII, Issue V, 2020 Page No: 3145 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology ISSN No : 1006-7930

Master taught, the students are given three different grades of punishment. “The first and

mildest sort was reserved for the sons of the very rich” (46). Hariharan adds that usually it was

only the old rich families that would send their sons to the Convent and Bishop’s Boys School

and Vasu Master’s school “got the rich shop keepers’ sons” and “The teachers were not expected

to punish these boys”, they had to be sent only to the Head Master who “ would lecture to him on

how he was the pride of PG and if he did not behave like a model pupil, who would the other less

fortunate boys look up to” (46-47). The second degrees of the boys are put to work. They do

dusting books, sweeping and to polish the schools’ furniture. “The third and most dire grade of

punishment was reserved for… the poorest boys. Several of them were made to fail year after

year.” (47). Through such writings, Hariharan demonstrates her condemnation against the Indian

educational system which instead of enlightening and guiding the younger generation and

leading them in the path of equality, instils discrimination in the young minds and paves the seed

of marginalizing the weak. Her contempt gets revealed through Vasu Master: “I knew something

of Veera Naidu’s tactics, for example, of luring pupils with rich fathers and squeezing the last

few drops of blood from a poor boy’s family” (101). Hariharan also highlights how such blind

craving for money kindles one to transgress from the path of virtue. She derisively remarks that

Veera Naidu, the Headmaster who has preached “honesty is a pearl, simplicity an uncut

diamond” (152), accepts bribe to make Raman who failed in his examinations pass by accepting

bribe from his father.

Aged people in general are denied self-respect and their right is scampered to a larger

extent. Hariharan also records how aging can also be one of the factors of discrimination that

annihilates one’s identity. This is proven validly through The Ghosts of Vasu Master. It unfolds

how old age and retirement from job makes one like Vasu Master feel marginalized. He deems

Volume XII, Issue V, 2020 Page No: 3146 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology ISSN No : 1006-7930

as if he “was on the last page” (5) of his life. He begins to think himself as a lowly creature like a

crow or a mouse or a spider, sometimes even lower than these insects and animals as “they went

about their business” (6), whereas he has nothing to do. As a result, he begins to consider them

especially the mouse as his companion and “had arrived at an unspoken point of co-existence”

(7).

Vasu Master is afflicted with identity crisis that comes to many along with old age.

Hariharan insinuates this beautifully through an incident in which he looks at his wife’s mirror.

He appears a stranger to himself and describes that the stranger “had grey, thinning hair. His face

was scarred: pock marks, creases, a map of lines and grills” (40). The eyes are the most striking

one. They look as though “They were a [sick] hounded animals” (40), which verbalizes his lack

of self respect. It affects his career as a teacher also. His pupils also resent respecting him. All

these bitter experiences along with the physical weakness which makes him comment

pessimistically “I could see (and still see) how tempting the gods are. Luckily, I found it difficult

to succumb to this temptation. (They are all but stomachs, and we all but food: They eat us

hungrily and when they are full, they belch us)” (99). Generally, all human beings believe that

god is there to provide help and protect them, but the contrary view expressed by Vasu Master

explains how affected and marginalized he is. He laments over the fruitlessness of life. He

perceives life as a race. “The only way we know (and teach) is running an obstacle-race. You

jump over a hurdle only to find you are facing the next. Battle again; then yet another hurdle. To

overcome each, you need the password someone else made up” (119).

The intensity of marginalization that Vasu Master undergoes is beautifully articulated by

contrasting it with the resilience and confidence displayed by young Gopu, the brother of Mani.

Hariharan presents how Vasu Master’s timidity and lack of ambition drive him to the margin of

Volume XII, Issue V, 2020 Page No: 3147 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology ISSN No : 1006-7930

life whereas, ambitious people like Gopu get priority. And Vasu Master expresses his

vulnerability thus: “In spite of my nightly tussles with the ideas of guru and shishya, I became

Mani in the presence of Gopu. I faced a wall, not blank however, but inscribed with labels,

jargon, rhetoric” (162). Gopu’s presence always makes him uncomfortable. He “quavered at the

thought” of Gopu as of “a gun or a homemade bomb” (162). His anxiety is conveyed at her best

through the story of Bandicoot that the weak one will be haunted and destroyed by the strong.

The miserable life such weak ones lead in a society is illustrated thus: “… fear is the millstone

round every neck Venkatesan, Mani and I – and perhaps even Gopu…- are weighed down by

these private monsters. We live in a perpetual state of siege; or even open warfare” (181). This

fear crushes his spirit and undergoes total loss of identity and he laments pathetically “I – where

did I or Mani for that matter, fit in this battlefield” (189).

Hariharan shows how a little deviance from normalcy also deprives people of their self-

esteem and ushers in discrimination by the majority. The delineation of her character Mani

provides ample evidence for it. He is marginalized by everyone in the society just because he

looks a little different. His head is little different. It is a bit longer than the rest of the body. This

results in the reaping of humiliation by this simple soul. Hariharan tries hard to hide her anguish

against the inhuman attitudes of even the well educated people like the teachers and thus she

expresses her protest against this inhuman practice: as the result of Mani’s eccentricity “The

children in school (and let me add with anguish, even the teachers) made fun of him” (9). To

protect himself this Mani becomes violent. “…he used his big hard head like a charging bull and

butted anyone who spoke to him or came near him” (9). Thus, Mani becomes a subaltern just

because he is slow to pick up things. He is also expelled from several schools and is also beaten

continuously. “He was forgotten for days together. Caned, shouted at, ignored, tied up, he grew

Volume XII, Issue V, 2020 Page No: 3148 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology ISSN No : 1006-7930

into a restless, untrusting boy. He was wary of everyone, and almost never opened his mouth

except to eat” (9). Worst of all discriminations, “His father had learnt to forget about him,

turning his attention instead to his two other sons” (11).

How Mani is neglected and marginalized in his own home evokes pity. His parents do not

bother to give him the food that he likes. Hariharan unravels the negligence Mani experienced at

his home and it is emotively conveyed thus by Vasu Master: when Mani is hungry he prepares

food and “added large spoonfuls of sugar to everything. (As I watched him eat, I knew that I was

right. My poor boy, deprived of kind words and caresses, had a sweet tooth)” (227). The worst

kind of neglect that Mani receives at home is narrated by the author in saying how one day

everyone at his home forgets to take him home after his class and he sleeps with Vasu Master.

The next day Mani’s brother comes to fetch him and his behaviour surprises the master. The

brother “did not seem surprised that no one had come for Mani; nor did he ask why I had not

taken him home myself” (228). This explains how little Mani is cared at by his own family. This

sort of marginalization belittles Mani to the status of “a hounded animal, always on the alert,

might do when it identifies danger and prepares itself for escape” (13). He finds himself unable

to sit in a place and study. “He wandered around the small room, a strange captive animal” (13).

The physical deformity relegates Mani to the status of an animal that too hunted or captive

animal, easily vulnerable.

Hariharan suggests that Mani does not deserve such a bitter treatment. A little deed of

benevolence will help him acquire a normal life. This is implicated through Vasu Master whose

stories help Mani attain peace. When Vasu Master opens his mouth to tell a story, “All his

agitation was stilled; his restlessness vanished. He sat down, his mouth slipped open, and he took

off slowly, smoothly on some inward voyage I could make possible, flag off, but never share”

Volume XII, Issue V, 2020 Page No: 3149 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology ISSN No : 1006-7930

(94). However, the society is not ready to extend a helping hand to them and as a result people

like Mani suffers and the intensity of their sufferings is best communicated through the story of

Blue bottle narrated by Vasu Master. The deplorable plight of Mani to establish in the society is

best explained thus: “Before Blue bottle could discern in the natural course of things what being

blue meant, he had been named set apart. To make themselves feel better about it all, the other

flies began to pity him” (104). Even the “father fly said to another “what a responsibility”” (105).

“All civilized countries of the world have abolished slavery as inhuman. But what does

one do when one is born in slavery? Women are born in bondage and are therefore, bonded from

birth” (Chatterji 120). This is indeed true. From time immemorial, women have been relegated to

minority status and irrespective of the locale and time they live in, they are tried to be suppressed

and overpowered by men and rendered silent in this patriarchal social setup.

In the mouth of a man the epithet ‘female’ has the sound of an insult, yet he is not

ashamed of his animal nature; on the contrary, he is proud of someone says of him: ‘He is

a male!’ The term ‘female’ is derogatory not because it emphasizes woman’s animality,

but because it imprisons her in her sex; and …this sex seems to man to be contemptible

and inimical…. (Beauvoir 1)

“Marriage: It is a sanctified bond that is attributed with religious sanction and piety,

blessed with the charm of eternity” (Chatterji 121). However, marriage has been seen as a root

cause for female subjugation and deterioration. They go by the words of Engels who points out

in his The Origin of the Family “that the Latin word “Familia” means the total number of slaves

belonging to one man. Marriage, he says, is not a “reconciliation of man and woman”, but the

subjugation of the female in the interest of perpetuation of slavery and the private property”

(Swami 137). Quite interestingly and if analysed historically

Volume XII, Issue V, 2020 Page No: 3150 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology ISSN No : 1006-7930

Our Epics, Vedas and Puranas envisage marriage not as a mere social instrument, but also

as a moral weapon to both stabilize and elevate the moral stature of an individual. But

unfortunately, it is an irony of fate that in a post-modernistic world, such esteemed

institutions are currently subject to doubt, cynicism and erosion (Sarada 57).

However, “…. the institution of marriage occupies a prominent place in the social institution of

India” (Atlantic Review 86).

Hariharan meticulously points out that “If the elite women in a neo-colonial society are

subjugated, the subaltern women are double subjugated. They are designated to mere sex

objects” (Jamuna 191) and they are as Parry points out following Spivak that subaltern female

“is positioned on the boundary between human and animal” (39). It strengthens the view that

“Even the poorest Indian male is fortunate in having opportunities for releasing his impulse to

domination and the fury of his frustrated ego, because he always has a wife whom he can treat as

an inferior” (Swami 135).

If women ever show the audacity to come out of these suffocating relationships, they are

mercilessly crucified by the society which being patriarchal favours only men. Indian society

believes “dependency is feminine, submission is feminine, loyalty is feminine, helplessness is

feminine- and all these are the result of the age-old disease, that of male dominance inside the

family and in the society as whole” (Shankar 91).

Hariharan in her second creation The Ghosts of Vasu Master exhibits marriage as an

institution which denies women their right to a dignified life and brings in ignominy and reduce

them as mere shadows. Shakuntala, a cousin of Vasu Master came to his father for an ayurvedic

treatment. Hariharan describes her as “a frail twenty-year old who had been married a year back”

(15), who retched like anything. She also provides the reason for Shakuntala being so worn out.

Volume XII, Issue V, 2020 Page No: 3151 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology ISSN No : 1006-7930

Vasu Master’s grandmother told that it was because “the girl was put to work by her in-laws very

hardly. These words of the novelist very subtly point out that woman’s life is always put to

hardship and lack of concern at her husband’s house. Further she provides the proof by saying

that Shakuntala felt better after coming to Vasu Master’s house and adds that the reason is to be

found if “it was the food or … rasayanam or a chance to rest” (16), which had helped her to

overcome her disease. However, “she died about six months after she returned to her husband’s

family” (16). It implies that it is the lack of care and proper treatment that brought about her

death at this early age of her life.

Hariharan who has painted on her canvas so many causes for marginalizing human

beings continue to register the inabilities forcefully implemented by the society on the traditional

Indian women. She is mostly considered as an unwanted element, a recluse in a patriarchal

Indian family. The life of the protagonist Vasu Master’s mother depicts the social constraints

inflicted on women. A woman’s inability to give birth to a son is considered a crime by the

patriarchal setup. The parents dreaded the society and “they couldn’t bear the thought of people

laughing at them on witnessing their failure” (31) in giving birth to a son. The girl child who is

given birth to instead of the long-awaited boy also has her due share of affliction for no cause of

her own, which haunts the child’s mind till death and results in her deterioration. “According to

Alder, the sense of helplessness in child is exaggerated in two ways. (1) Unsuitable treatment

and unfortunate environment and (2) Organ inferiority. In the case of Vasu Master’s mother, it is

the unfortunate environment- ‘the sixth daughter’ and also unsuitable treatment by parents, the

husband and his kin that leads to the aggravated sense of inferiority” (qtd. in Shinde 123). This

treatment brings three kinds of responses. They are

“(1) Successful compensation

Volume XII, Issue V, 2020 Page No: 3152 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology ISSN No : 1006-7930

(2) Defeat or some form of retreat and

(3) Compromise.

Lakshmi failed to compensate for her feeling of inferiority and meekly accepted to succumb to

the pressures and environment. Githa Hariharan is critical of the immediate constraints on

woman’s individual development –the constraints of domestic life and dominating patriarchy”

(Shinde 123).

A woman in the Indian society is denied of an individual identity. Her identity is always

associated with a man who plays various roles in her life as father, husband and son. This is

proven beyond doubt by Hariharan through her character Lakshmi, the mother of Vasu Master.

She “did not have a name for almost a year because her parents did not want to spend money on

a naming ceremony for one more daughter. They also feared that people would laugh at them, for

not producing a son” (123). Finally, a name was supplied by the sweeper woman as Lakshmi,

that too with the hope that she would fill her husband’s house and life with prosperity. This

clearly proves Shashi Deshpande’s words that “Everything in a girl’s life was shaped to that

single purpose of pleasing a male” (The Dark Holds No Place 163) and every Indian “girl is

brought up to think that the least fulfillment out of life can be attained only through wifehood

and motherhood” (Chatterji 6).

Lakshmi was brought up as an unwanted thing in her family that entrenched in her mind

the seed of inferiority complex which took root as she grew up. Vasu Master recalls: “Her

ambitions were on a lower scale- escaping her husband’s unpredictable explosions of temper,

surviving her mother-in-law’s jealous rule of the household” (32) and keeping the house and its

members neat and tidy. “She had never exchanged more than six words” to her neighbours. They

always heard her but whispering: “Lower your voice shut the door. Bathe and change your

Volume XII, Issue V, 2020 Page No: 3153 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology ISSN No : 1006-7930

clothes before going out” (32). These were predominantly the words spoken by this lady in all

her life. Such restrictions imposed by the family as well as society ended up in the melting away

of Lakshmi “as a shadow and passed away when she had given her due to her husband”.

Hariharan ironically conveys through Vasu Master that “she lived just about long enough to give

my father his heir, and obviously even that was a shoddy job” (32). Her brought-up has declined

her growth and “she failed to compensate for her feeling of inferiority and meekly accepted to

succumb to the pressures of environment. In portraying the life of Lakshmi, Githa Hariharan

condemns the social constraints of Indian society which impede the growth of women and

reduces them as disabled creatures.

Mangala, Vasu Master’s wife is yet another woman who is reduced to the status of a

ghost, devoid of any identity. She is a submissive character whose presence is scarcely noticed

by her husband. The most unfortunate thing in a woman’s life is her inability to achieve

recognition from the husband, her so called better half. She would have devoted her whole life

for the sake of her husband and children. But no one appreciates her for this. And as Ortner says,

“The secondary status of women in society is one of the true universals, a pan-cultural fact” (qtd.

in Bharucha 94). Vasu Master lived with her for fifteen years, she gave him two sons and in

spite of that he confesses that she was to him “a cloudy memory than a person…. Pale and

insubstantial, a figure perennially on the retreat” (41). She was to him a mere provider of

physical comfort and never gave her any importance. He remembers how when he was laid on

bed with fever, “she would hover around my bed with strips of cloth dipped in cold water when I

lay groaning with a fever; on she would sit up, night after night mending the boy’s shorts and my

vests…” (123). Still she is not remembered by the unthankful husband. Though she has done so

much to him and his family, his “most vivid memory is her death” (122). Hariharan

Volume XII, Issue V, 2020 Page No: 3154 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology ISSN No : 1006-7930

unmistakably suggests that it is not because death is something that lingers in his mind. For she

illustrates that “Though I laid the log of fire on my father’s broad chest that would swell and

heave no longer, I rarely think of him as dead” (122). On the other hand his mother and wife who

devoted their life in his service were “unnoticeable; inconspicuous,… memorable only as an

absence” (123). Vasu Master has very vague idea about “what she actually was. But he in her

absence thinks about “what she might have been” (123). How Mangala lacked the very essential

quality of individuality and how deep her sense of loneliness is suggested by the author thus:

“She said very little about either her belief or her fears” (138). As days went by, she became

more passive. “She went about her daily tasks as wife and mother with a delicate, feministic

modesty. It was only after she had died,” that they “could not fill her place, even the three of us

put together” (138). But while alive Mangala is a ‘pale and insubstantial’, ‘a figure perennially

on the retreat’. (41). Vasu Master recalls how his wife seemed more a ghost than human to him

thus: “I always saw her in my mind against a seashore in the background, the monotonous slosh

and thud of waves against rock and sand drowning out all possibility of words” (41).

As a typical Indian husband, Vasu Master purposely ignores her individuality and so she

remains “the awful unknown, never bothering to know her real woman-being, always dismissing

her as an insignificant person” (Shinde 124). Vasu master reminisces: “She was unnoticeable,

inconspicuous; like my mother, memorable only as an absence. I knew my wife and my affection

for her only when I lived with her ghost. This ghost had a frail, vapour body; made more

insubstantial by my lapses of memory about what she actually was” (123). But he remembers

very well Jameela, the friend of his wife, whom he has very seldom seen. This has happened in

Mangala’s life just because she is so weak that she even fails to assert her personality as a wife

and mother just as any typical woman in India. This reduces her identity and self-respect and

Volume XII, Issue V, 2020 Page No: 3155 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology ISSN No : 1006-7930

drives her to the status of ghost whose presence is not at all recognized by the living and hence

ends up in mute suffering. This makes Virginia Woolf’s claim highly appreciable. She aptly

commented “that women as a class “are comparable to the humblest domestic servants…” and as

Virginia Woolf suggested “that women may be likened the lowliest, and most familiar subject

race of all” (qtd. in Saini 99).

It is this insignificance of her existence that makes Vasu Master spit out, “Jameela

slipped out of my life, so did Mangala as a vivid, tangible woman. Henceforth she would only be

an image- and a ghostly one at that” (70). Such sour remarks of the protagonist of Hariharan’s

text seem to register the resentment of the author against women who are meek enough to bear

anything and every thing and she avows that this attitude renounces them as handicaps. This

thought has been echoed by Shinde who opines that “Both Mangala and Vasu Master’s mother

Lakshmi were unable to assert their right to separateness of being and this led to their mute

suffering” (124). She also criticizes men’s strange love and consideration for women other than

their wives. To Vasu Master his wife is a mere shadow and thus easily dispensed with, whereas

her friend Jameela whom he has met very rarely lingered in his mind and he longs for the

warmth of her body. His mind longs for her “it cried aloud, where are you? Why are you

hiding?” (132). Through the portrayal of Vasu Master’s married life, Githa Hariharan suggests

that

man always struggles to make woman part of himself, the extension of his will. The

knowledge that she is other than himself is torture to him. He never tries to unravel the

mystery that she is and to know the reality of her and this consequently leads to the

distance in the relationship. What is needed is the acceptance of woman’s otherness.

(Shinde 124).

Volume XII, Issue V, 2020 Page No: 3156 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology ISSN No : 1006-7930

Hariharan also proves that man never loses any opportunity to exploit women by

adapting any tactics. The story of Eliamma explains this. An invisible man cheats her by

professing help in The Ghosts of Vasu Master. Here the insatiable quest for freedom for a woman

is beautifully represented by Eliamma who, fed up with restrictions comes forward to pledge her

body to a man believing his words that he would return the body if she demands it back after a

month. Eliamma too in her enthusiasm to travel far into the sea falls a prey before his sweet

coated words. She enjoys a few weeks but soon she realizes “why the stranger has been so

generous; so quick to part with his riches: to be completely invisible was to be lonely in a way

the living did not know” (130). ). And as has been rightly remarked by Shinde, “Eliamma’s story

points also to woman’s aspirations which are either totally ignored or deliberately suppressed by

the dominating man” (128). This story also has a hidden threat which suggests that the life of an

ambitious woman would be punished beyond redemption.

Hariharan through this novel The Ghosts of Vasu Master remonstrates the patriarchal

social set-up of India which restricts women and emerges herself as woman with feministic

disposition. She feels the immediate urge to fight against the atrocities done to her fellow sex.

Talking about it she has remarked: “I have considered myself part of the Indian Women’s

movement for the last twenty years…. To begin with as a student in the mid-seventies, my

political concerns more almost exclusively directed and shaped by feminism. Perhaps this was

because I was then a student, in America, and this was the time of passionate debate of ERA

(Equal Rights Amendment) and so forth. But once I returned to India in 1978, I saw that any real

participation in movements for social change had to come to terms with the big class-gender

issue” (Tejero 207).

Volume XII, Issue V, 2020 Page No: 3157 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology ISSN No : 1006-7930

Githa Hariharan, being a feminist does not seem to sympathize with this type of women

who willingly subjugate themselves to the whims and fancies of man. She seems to invoke the

message that a woman should aspire to become independent and assertive like the grandmother

of Vasu Master. She was a strong-willed woman, who had a definite concept of her own, never

yielding to the unjust dominance of her husband or her son. Vasu master recalls his grandmother

thus: “My grandmother was a thin, shriveled old woman whose flesh hung over her sharp-edged

bones. She was a formidable bully. Even when her knobby hands stroked my head in a rare

caress they poked and prodded, all knives and Knukkles” (34). She used food as medicine and

ate chilies as medicine and ate them raw. “She looked a little like chilly herself- thin, long and

sharp-nosed, with grasping hands, a stinging tongue and teeth that jutted out her mouth as if she

would swoop down on you any minute and bite” (35). Defying her husband’s protest she donated

her gold bangles to the freedom struggle. She also had the potential to flout the wrongs

committed by men and to take challenges. Above all, it is her view about a husband that reveals

her traits of a feministic self. She views that a husband is “Just a hungry stomach and a few other

things, never mind what. But all equally greedy, swallowing like a big red swollen mouth, then

chewing and belching” (174). This reveals her undaunted spirit, and this supplies uniqueness to

her character. As Sushila Singh asserts in “Recent Trends in Feminist Thought: A Tour de

Horizon” “Women have been able to carve out a separate space of their own” (31) Vasu Master’s

grandmother “does that even in domestic sphere” (130). The powerful portrayal of this bold and

spicy grandmother also suggests that Hariharan wants the women to proclaim their mettle in this

patriarchal set-up for which she is well equipped for. But very few women have the courage to

overcome their disabilities inflicted by the society as well as by their own traditional brought up.

Volume XII, Issue V, 2020 Page No: 3158 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology ISSN No : 1006-7930

The close analysis thus makes it evident that however one cries for gender equality and

identity “The Indian traditions do not support her at all during her struggle to redefine herself”.

(Mukesh 197). And it is no exaggeration to comment that:

the poor status of women, their oppression and exploitation, cannot be examined as an

isolated problem in Indian society. Although the status of women constitutes a problem in

the rigidly hierarchical and inequitable social structure which exist in India, the relative

inferiority superiority of various roles is much more clearly defined. The inequality and

subordination of women is an instrument or function of the social structure. (qtd. in

Khatri 96)

Yet she “has to work for her liberation without resigning herself to her destiny” (Mukesh 197).

Thus, a study on Hariharan’s novel The Ghosts of Vasu Master unveils number of factors

that deny equality to people, who eke out an existence of endless struggle to survive in the highly

discriminatory social scenario. In taking up the voice of the voiceless, Hariharan strongly

remonstrates the power ridden society, demanding it to display empathy for the subaltern and

thereby cry for tolerance and equalityto be established in the society making it a better abode for

every inhabitant.

Works Cited

Beauvoir, de Simone. The Second Sex. Trans. and ed. H.M.Parshley.

Random House, 1997.

Chatterji, A Shoma. The Indian Women’s Search for an Identity. Vikas Publishing, 1998.

Deshpande, Shashi. “Debating Spaces.” The Hindu Literary Review. 3rd ed. 1Feb.

2009.

Volume XII, Issue V, 2020 Page No: 3159 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology ISSN No : 1006-7930

Hariharan, Gita. The Ghosts of Vasu Master. Viking, 1994.

Jamuna B.S. “The Silenced Subaltern in Beo-colonial Discourse: Arundhati Roy’s

The God of Small Things.” Three Women Novelists: Essays in Criticism. Eds.

Ravi Nandan Sinha and Sujit Bose.Book Enclave, 2004, pp.188-93.

---. “Cultural Dissonance and Identity: the politics of Re-Presenting

Subalternity.” Journal of the School of Language, Literature and Culture

Studies 12 New Series (Aut. 2009): pp.120-27.

Mukesh, Sunanda. “The Agony of Discrimination in Arundhati Roy’s The God of

Small Things.” New Perspectives on Indian Writing. Ed. Malti Agarwal.

Atlantic, 2007, pp. 187-97.

Navarro, Antonia, and Tejero. “On Fundamentalism and Nationality: An Interview

with Githa Hariharan.” South Asian Review 25.2 (2004): pp. 201-11.

Pinto, Robert. “The Cultural Milieu of Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small

Things.” Recent Indian Literature in English. Ed. Mithilesh Pandey. Anmol Pub., 1999, pp.

103-29.

Rivkin, Julie, and Michael Ryan. “Introduction: The Politics of Culture.” Literary

Theory: An Anthology. Blackwell, 2001, pp.1025-27.

Saini, Bimaljit. “The God of Small Things-- A Feminist Analysis.” Feminist

English Literature. Atlantic. 2002, pp. 95-104.

Sarada, T. “Marriage A Boon or Bane? A Study of Bharati Mukerjee’sWife and

GithaHariharan’sThe Thousand Faces of Night.” Women’s Writing in India: New

Perspectivs. Ed. K. Surendra.Sarup,2007, pp.57-64.

Shinde, Jayaprakash A. “‘The Feminine Ghosts’ in GithaHariharan’sThe Ghosts

Volume XII, Issue V, 2020 Page No: 3160 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology ISSN No : 1006-7930

of Vasu Master.” Contemporary Indian Women Writers in English: A

Feminist Perspective. Ed. Surya Nath Pandey. Atlantic,1999, pp. 120- 131. Young, Robert

T.C. “Postcolonial feminism.” Postcolonialism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University

Press, 2003, pp. 93-120.

Volume XII, Issue V, 2020 Page No: 3161