Why Arundhati Roy’s Criticism of Marxism still Fails Caste in The God of Small Things

Introduction

“They were a family of Anglophiles. Pointed in the wrong direction, trapped outside their own history and unable to retrace their steps because their footprints had been swept away” (Roy 51). In The God of Small Things, Arundhati Roy builds her characters, surroundings, and their ties, with precision. Her language at times is strongly indicative, and at others, is constructed with a depth that expands beyond what the pages could ever carry. It invites strong opinions and readings. One such criticism (and appreciation) it attracts is from Aijaz Ahmad. Ahmad writes “The relatively more serious failing is in the way the book panders to the prevailing anti-Communist sentiment, which damages it both ideologically and formally,” and that “It is perhaps the settled ideological hostility which leads to an inherent incapacity to affectively imagine what she so passionately despises” (Ahmad 112). Ahmad leaves no space for doubt that Roy’s novel is actively working against the Communist ideology and its sentiment. It becomes important, at this point, to understand and ask whether Roy is critiquing the Communist ideology or the practices of the upper-caste people who call themselves Comrades. Examination of this question is significant in giving validation to Roy’s criticism of Communism in the novel as the politics of class is tightly laced with caste. Thus, it is pertinent to ask how the critique of Communism affects the caste discourse in the novel. As we will see, the two are inseparable.

I begin by stating another quote on the effects of Marxism in relation to Roy’s novel from an article by Ajay Sekher on the novel that allows for more space for deliberation than Ahmad’s quote does. We will focus on the key difference that this quote allows for: the ideology vs. practice critique. I will then illustrate two instances from The God of Small Things to show how Roy’s criticism of the practices of communism led by upper-caste individuals aligns with Ambedkar’s views. This adds validity to her criticism, during which we will come back to Ahmad’s quote stated in the introductory paragraph. Then we will return to the question of why despite the valid critique, there exists a space to question Roy’s criticism for whether it extends to the ideology. I illustrate how Roy brings a divide between caste and class through her novel despite the well-grounded criticisms she offers. And finally, we tie the questions of her criticism and the divide together.

1

In his article ‘Older than the Church’, Ajay Sekher is a little more accommodative than Ahmad when stating the role of Marxism in Kerela: “The text prompts the suggestion that even Christianity has not deceived Keralaites as Marxism did, or at least its savarna leadership did” (Sekher 3448). The latter half of the quote leaves space for doubt and deliberation for whether Roy is attacking the practice or the ideology. The mention of savarna leadership ties to the larger discourse of class-caste conflict that has been strong since Ambedkar. Marxists in India, who think caste is a different matter, oftentimes remain from the upper-caste background, and thus, regardless of how seemingly opposing the Communists’ and the Brahmins’ goals are, their interests inevitably overlap.

However, that does not erase the intricacies of how class and caste are laced together otherwise. It only shows the systemic failures of savarna-led Communist groups who have restricted major movements that could have had progressive impacts in terms of both caste and class. Anand Teltumbde, too, writes “(Ambedkar’s) bitterness with the communists was more of a local than international origin and was due more to practice than theory” (Teltumbde 30). Ambedkar himself had said that at a point, everyone is definitively a member of a class, the class can vary: it may be economic, social, or intellectual (Teltumbde 17). Thus, we can see that Ambedkar was not against the principles of communism, at least at its core. So, why is it important that we distinguish the two criticisms, and mark out which one Roy had meant in her novel? And how can it benefit or limit the caste discourse?

2.1

Arundhati Roy’s criticism of Comrades in The God of Small Things focuses on very valid problems. Her mockery of the practices is clear through Chacko and Pillai’s characters. “Just a case of a spoiled princeling playing Comrade! Comrade!” (Roy 63), notes Ammu. Ammu’s thoughts here perfectly summarize these two upper-caste Touchable men’s roles in the political practice.

Chacko, the self-proclaimed Marxist (Roy 62), took over Mammachi’s Paradise Pickles and Preserves, which Mammachi ran “like a large kitchen” (Roy 55). It was small but there were profits coming their way. When Chacko arrived in Ayemenem, he registered Mammachi’s enterprise formally, as a partnership, and turned it into a factory. “Almost immediately, the financial slide began,” (Roy 56). It is a mockery towards the comrade tag that both Chacko and K. N. M. Pillai wear. Chacko the comrade turned it into a factory, and K. N. M. Pillai the comrade made labels for the factory’s products. And the financial gains started declining. When Ahmad boldly states that the character of K. N. M. Pillai borders on burlesque, because a communist leader would not be complicit in the assault of a card-holding member (Ahmad 113), Ahmad may be right about the latter half. Perhaps communist leaders would not betray their own. But K. N. M. Pillai depicts the corruptions in the system, he depicts the upper-caste leadership of the Communist Party in Ayemenem who does not care about Velutha — a Paravan; and it sends the message of a savarna-led Communist group having next to no priorities of caste engagement. Roy’s character K. N. M. Pillai is not the well-meaning communist leader that Ahmad is talking about or perhaps claiming all communist leaders to be like.

Roy’s criticism here perfectly aligns with Ambedkar and Teltumbde’s when they criticize eastern-Marxism being mapped onto India’s political state by upper-caste Communist groups. “Puritanical fidelity to the written word was what characterized the Brahmanic culture and it reflected in their practice vis-à-vis Marxism” (Teltumbde 34): because of Brahminical leadership of communist groups, they stayed committed to the written theory, not actively engaging in molding the system according to India’s needs. The priorities of Eastern and Indian Marxism had to be different because of the widely different social groupings and hierarchies present in India. Mapping of written-Marxism onto India’s system meant that only a special type of Industrial workers would be given the benefits, the type that did not include Velutha the untouchable. Going back to the quote I began my essay with, the savarna-Communists had lost the foundation because they ignored their own history.

2.2

K. N. M. Pillai the comrade and the patriarch, who printed labels for Paradise Pickles and Preserves the factory, the factory whose workers he taught revolution to, needs money. This is not a mockery as such. As Althusser points out, ‘in the last instance, the economic was determinant’ (Teltumbde 43). About the Inspector Thomas Matthew (of Congress) and Comrade Pillai, Roy writes, “They looked out at the world and never wondered how it worked, because they knew. They worked it. They were mechanics who serviced different parts of the same machine” (Roy 248). The machine that she’s referring to, I would say, is the social hierarchy, and not the economic hierarchy in isolation. The most dominant social hierarchy in India, caste, united them. They could understand each other’s intentions and points of stress without communication because they knew what was the most important consideration.

Here too Roy’s criticism of the practice and the intricacies of caste is extremely well positioned with the earlier mentioned criticisms of Ambedkar and Teltumbde. Communist advances fall short in protecting workers if caste is not a base they’re willing to actively acknowledge to accommodate and work for.

3.1

Why, then, does it still matter to question Roy’s depiction of communists in the novel, given her valid criticisms, and to see whether it is practice or the ideology? It is still unclear if The God of Small Things is just critiquing the practice. When Velutha is beaten up, Roy writes “Their Work, abandoned by God and History, by Marx, by Man, by Woman and (in the hours to come) by Children, lay folded on the floor” (Roy 294). It is rather unclear why Roy is bringing forth and asking Marx to be a rescuer here. It is as if Marx’s philosophy, ideology, learnings, and ideas are also directly complicit in the heinous crime that was committed against Velutha. This makes the divide between the caste and class problem more critical and severe.

In the chapter Pappachi’s Moth, when the car has to wait on the road, and a Communist demonstration passes through, the occupants inside the car are mocked by the Comrades in the demonstration. The demands of the Marxist Labour Union marchers also had anti-caste demands. The occupants of the car are inconvenienced and the women inside are clearly scared, regardless of what the reason for the fear is. The marchers in the demonstration are not given any character or personality-descriptive attention in the book except for the group that inconveniences and makes the car members feel threatened. Baby Kochamma tells the others in the car that eye contact is what really provokes them (Roy 63), and then one of the marchers opens the car and asks “Feeling hot, baby?” to Rahel kindly. Roy then writes “Then, unkindly, ‘Ask your daddy to buy you an Air Condition!’” (Roy 76). The fearful atmosphere that is present in the car at that moment travels to the reader very smoothly with Roy’s exceptional writing in this scene.

Almost like they represent the rest of the members who are rallying, their portrayal is one that spreads panic. Baby Kochamma’s fears about the Labour Union Marchers proved to be right this time, and it matters that they feel threatened because the passive violence is masking the political sentiment, and the reader is torn about the support that should be given to the marchers in the face of this. Velutha is a part of the demonstration going on outside. This scene is critical because we see that caste is a consideration of the union. However, the fear that is felt by the occupants of the car dilutes the scene. The hostility still manages to emerge, and in consequence, so does the divide.

3.2

Marx was one of the first thinkers who had commented on the power of caste in India, something that could affect and possibly restrict the country’s progress. And Ambedkar too was certainly cognizant and appreciative of class politics. The first labour party in India was founded by Ambedkar, the Independent Labour Party (ILP) and he’s stated “A Caste is an Enclosed Class” believing that a society is always made up of different classes (Teltumbde 17). Thus, neither was Marx blind towards caste and nor was Ambedkar against class. They both rather believed that caste and class are inseparable when it comes to making a change in India. What Roy is doing in this novel, as illustrated in the previous paragraphs, is making the divide stronger, despite validly criticizing the practice of savarna-Comrades. This, I believe, is a serious fracture to her extraordinary novel.

It is certainly not the case that labour divisions and caste are completely absent from the novel. The industry, portrayed through Paradise Pickles and Preserves, and Velutha’s caste clearly demarcate the labour division too. When Velutha is introduced, one of the first things said is that he wasn’t supposed to be a carpenter, and that his father was a toddy tapper (Roy 70). Kochu Maria, too, desired to be seen as a touchable “despite her lowly cook’s job” (Roy 162). Here, she managed to not only portray the divisions of ‘untouchables’ and ‘touchables’ as low and upper castes, but also the hierarchies that exist between lower and upper caste in the touchable ‘upper caste’ community, while defining it through the labour division. But this only means that there is no isolation of caste and class in the novel in the process of separating the two.

“The duality of caste and class that was uncritically used by everyone, and which has been the chief bane of radical politics in India, is born of this folly of early communists, and arguably cost us the Indian revolution for now” (Teltumbde 36). If Ahmad is right in saying that Roy is critiquing the ideology of Communists, then she too is falling under the trap created by the early communists — of the fallacy of ‘class’ and pitting class against caste. However, she does seem to be extremely conscious of, as Sekher has pointed out, the savarna-leadership of Communist parties and their corruption in practices. Nonetheless, Marx is called upon as a traitor when Velutha dies. The overlap of these ideas creates a complexity that does not let us answer whether Arundhati Roy is attacking the practice or the ideology. Perhaps for her they are bleeding into one and another. But what I believe this is certainly doing, as illustrated earlier, is that it is creating a divide between caste and class in The God of Small Things.

Conclusion

The very fact that castes still survive indicates the failure of those who ignored the necessity of integrating struggles against socio-cultural oppression of the caste system and economic exploitation that seamlessly manifest through it to combine with the capitalist processes.

(Teltumbde 21)

Arundhati Roy’s novel, despite having very valid criticisms of the method of application of Communism, fails the caste discourse. The contributing factors include the obscurity and vagueness that arise due to not being able to point out whether the criticisms of communism limit themselves to the practice or extend to ideology as well. Because if they do extend to ideology, they create a divide between caste and class, which is detrimental to the discourse on both the issues.

I have shown the same through Ahmad and Sekher’s quotes: one of which concretely states the novel as an ideological hostility, and the other that allows space for a doubt that Roy is in fact critiquing the savarna leadership of Communist parties. The interlacing of caste and class makes this discussion more important than ever, and we see the valid criticisms Roy is making through Chacko and K. N. M. Pillai’s characters. Chacko takes over and converts Mammachi’s Paradise Pickles and Preserves into a factory, and K. N. M. Pillai’s actions show his awareness of what comes first in consideration for him: the Paravan identity of Velutha, or that he’s a card holding member of the party. These only show the novel’s consciousness of the precedence of caste for upper-caste comrades. The fact that Roy mentions the absence of Marx as a rescuer when Velutha is beaten up to unconsciousness makes Marx a partner in the caste-based crime. I illustrate how there is thus a divide on caste and class in her novel, why it matters, and more importantly, how it impedes the progress of the caste and class discourse in the country.

Ahmad uses the word ‘burlesque’ when speaking of Roy’s depiction of comrades in the novel. Although I disagree with him, the reason illustrated in the section 2.1, I find it interesting that he states Roy’s depiction of communists “has nothing to do with artistic license” (Ahmad 113). In my essay, I have emphasized the point that there seem to be a lot of contradictions, and it is the unclarity of a decisive stance that affects the arguments the most for me, and not the fact that Roy is conclusively against the ideology. I wonder even if Roy had assuredly been against the ideology, the word ‘burlesque’ would be appropriate or not.

Coming back to the quote I started the essay with, it seems almost comically fitting to mention it as a descriptor not just for Pillai, and Chacko, but for the novel itself as well.

Works Cited

Ahmed, Aijaz. “Reading Arundhati Roy Politically.” Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things, Routledge, 2007, pp. 110–119.

Ambedkar, B. R., and Anand Teltumbde. India and Communism. LeftWord, 2017.

Guru, Gopal. “Introducing How to Read ‘Annihilation of Caste’ as a Text.” Celebrating Ambedkar: The Relevance of “Annihilation of Caste” Today. Hyderabad.

Roy, Arundhati. The God of Small Things. Penguin Random House, 1997.

Sekher, Ajay. “Older than the Church.” JSTOR, 16 Aug. 2003, https://www.jstor.org/stable/4413900.

Tickell, Alex. Arundhati Roy’s “The God of Small Things”. Routledge, 2007.

Williams, Raymond. Marxism and Literature. Oxford University Press, 1977.

Wilson, Kalpana. “Arundhati Roy and the Left: For Reclaiming ‘Small Things’.” Arundhati Roy and the Left: For Reclaiming ‘Small Things,’ 1998, http://archive.cpiml.org/liberation/year_1998/january/books.htm.