A STUDY OF R .

K .

NARAYAN ’ S USE OF MYTH TO PRESENT MASCULINITIES IN COMPETING

T HE MAN EATER OF MALGUDI

-

Dr. LAKSHMI MUTHUKUMAR

-

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AND HEAD, DEPT. OF ENGLISH

-

SIES COLLEGE OF ARTS, SCIENCE AND COMMERCE,

-

SION WEST, MUMBAI - 22

R.

K

. N

ARAYAN

(1906-2001)

   Narayan’s fiction is imbued with a strong sense of place.

Keen observation and a steady accumulation of small details characterize his work.

Great moral imagination and a uniformly tolerant sense of human incongruity.

T

HE MASCULINITIES STUDIES

’

ANGLE  The central thesis of this presentation is that Narayan’s novel offers an interesting insight into the social organization of masculinities in middle class upper caste Southern India.

 His novel scrutinizes gender as social practice and especially looks at competing masculinities in mythic terms.

C

ONNELL

’

S DEFINITION OF MASCULINITY  The term ‘masculinity’ has been defined by Connell briefly as “simultaneously a place in gender relations, the practices through which men and women engage that place in gender, and the effects of these practices in bodily experience, personality and culture”.

C

ONNELL

’

S DEFINITION OF MASCULINITY CONTD

…

 The definition looks at masculinity as a patriarchal creation that has been intentionally projected as a pedestal worthy of aspiration.

Patriarchal forces have been continually re inventing ways and means of projecting it as a seat of power which can allow man access to the “patriarchal dividend”.

POINTS OF COMPARISON

NATARAJ

     Professionally white collared (a printer) Attitude to animals (non-violent) Culturally (relational and communitarian) Guilty of misplaced altruism Is not what he pretends to be

VASU

     Professionally unethical (a taxidermist) Attitude to animals (violent) Culturally (individualistic) A bully Is exactly what he tries to be

N ATARAJ – C OMPLICITOUSLY MASCULINE ?

 Modest, un-self confident, timid and nervous.

 Apparently, loyal and devoted to his wife but patriarchal and domineering.

 Pretends to be benevolent but actually demonstrates a strong business acumen.

 Projects an impression of not being money minded but quite petty at times.

 Rather spineless in comparison with Vasu but shows complicity with patriarchy.

THE MYTHIC PARALLEL

THE BHASMASURA MYTH

  Shiva is the blunderer in the original Hindu myth.

The Asura is a Rakshasha.

 Vishnu in the form of Mohini saves Shiva and the other Devas from destruction.

ITS MODERN RETELLING

   Here the central protagonist has been named Nataraj. He is portrayed as a blunderer too. Here this role is essayed by Vasu, a taxidermist.

Here it is the temple dancer, Rangi who indirectly causes Vasu’s destruction.

  “The Man-eater of Malgudi is at once a re-creation of the old Hindu myth of Bhasmasura in modern form and a presentation of two diametrically opposed attitudes to life” – -M.K. Naik.

Dimensions of Indian English Literature.

New Delhi: Sterling Publishers, 1984.

P

ERSPECTIVES ON

R.K.N

ARAYAN

’

S

M AN -E ATER OF M ALGUDI T HE

    A novel where character and plot are closely interwoven.

The work embodies a conflict between the insulated personality and the open and the vulnerable one.

Central to the novel is Narayan’s re-telling of the Bhasmasura myth in modern terms.

The characters of Nataraj and Vasu present interesting foils into which traces of Robert Connell’s categorization of the hegemonic and the complicit masculinities can be read.

C

ONNELL

’

S CATEGORIZATION

  Hegemonic masculinity as the embodiment of a strategy that is currently accepted by a dominant group that seeks access to the ‘patriarchal dividend’ (Connell 2004). (Embodied in Vasu’s character, however problematized by Narayan by using the mythic parallel ).

Complicit patriarchal dividend without running the risk of being ‘the frontline troops of patriarchy’. Men like Nataraj who respect their wives and mothers, are never violent towards women, bring home the family wage. Nataraj’s character however can be problematized in that it does not fit neatly into this category.

masculinity also realizes the

V

ASU AS THE PERFECT EMBODIMENT OF THE RAKSHASA

  Overweening pride, wrath, harshness of speech, insatiable desire and cruelty.

Superhuman strength, ugly and ferocious in appearance with cannibalistic propensities.

V

ASU AS THE TYPICAL RAKSHASA CONTD

…    Incapable of affection, gratitude, sympathy or regard for others.

A creature of the jungle, full of mystery, dirty and unclean in habits.

A completely amoral being, obeying no laws – of God or man.

V ASU AS THE TYPICAL RAKSHASA CONTD

…

However, the rakshasas are often skilled and learned in Hindu mythology and certainly not ignorant monsters. Vasu is also a learned taxidermist. Vasu has a ‘bull-neck’, a ‘tanned face’, ‘a hammer fist’, ‘large powerful eyes under thick eyebrows’, ‘a large forehead’, ‘a shock of unkempt hair like a black halo’, loud and gaudy clothes (red checked bush shirt and field grey trousers). Drives the jeep at breakneck speed and Nataraj describes him as ‘the prince of darkness’.

PROBLEMATIZING THE NOVEL

  The central characters Nataraj and his assistant, Sastri can be accused of being brahminical and therefore classist.

Nataraj is guilty of being unsympathetic towards the waste paper buyer or the poor Moslem raddiwalla whom he harasses.

  Nataraj also comes across as a patriarchal and chauvinistic traditional husband in his attitude towards his wife. She is never given much respect. Only placated with sarees on festive occasions. Put in place rudely otherwise.

He leers at Rangi, the temple dancer and other women who visit Vasu.

I

N CONCLUSION  Thus while Narayan cleverly uses the Bhasmasura myth and the contrasting personalities of Nataraj and Vasu to drive home the point that misplaced and imbalanced altruism will only lead to disaster, the novel ends up being an example of babu fiction that is prejudiced to say the least. Narayan’s location will always leave him open to the accusation of being classist and patriarchal.