To what extent does Arundhati Roy elucidate the patriarchal Indian society with reference to Ammu’s life in her novel God of Small Things?

Arundhati Roy is an Indian author who raises her voice against the ‘patriarchal culture’ in post-colonial Indian society, through the main characters of her novel, God of Small Things. The work was published in 1997 and revolves around the story of different characters Ammu, Estha, and Rahel who strived in male-dominant Indian Culture. This essay will analyze the extent Roy, has, managed to elaborate upon patriarchal Indian society through themes including lack of woman's rights, harassment, and gender discrimination; using several stylistic devices such as metaphors, imagery, figurative language, and structure.

​

Firstly, in the theme ‘Lack of rights, Ammu did not get her basic education, and wanted to run away from her “father’s bitterness and her long-suffering mother”. Affected by male chauvinist society, Ammu was forced to believe that women should not complain about their rights when they face ill-treatment.

The writer elaborates that “every night he beat her with a brass flower vase. The beatings weren’t new. What was new was only the frequency with which they took place’’. This explains the huge impact of physical violence on Ammu's mind when her father, Pappachi, beat her mother Mamachi.

The pauses in parataxis and imagery to describe this event, helps the reader to imagine the painful emotions, Mamachi and Ammu felt, invoking pathos too. Also, Antanaclasis ‘new’ is used in two different ways, first, a verb to highlight ‘beating’ and secondly, an adverb when it demonstrates the ‘frequency’ of that beating.

This determines Pappachi’s inhumane behaviour towards Mamachi. In another event Ammu faced Pappachi’s violence, described through imagery and parenthesis, “he flogged her with his ivory-handled riding crop (the one that he had held across his lap in his studio photograph).” Readers can interpret that due to physical violence practised in Indian culture, Ammu is not able to raise a voice against it. It also paves its way to Neo-historicism, illustrated by Arundhati, while portraying the Western influence ‘post-colonial Indian patriarchal society' of the 1950s.

Here, cultural materialism elucidates men as having superior power and women as ones who should bow their heads down, in toxic male-dominant culture. Besides, stereotypes clearly portray gender roles, which can be witnessed when Pappachi after retirement did not help Mamachi in pickle making, considering it as an unsuitable job for a ‘‘…high ranking ex-government official…’’, “… he had always been a jealous man, so he greatly resented the attention his wife was suddenly getting”. This quotation makes the reader comprehend that Pappachi as a man is not able to bear his wife’s success and her acquired status, showing his dominance. Also, this transcends Ammu’s thoughts that men’s alpha nature subjugates women, and therefore they are not able to stop them from doing such emotional abuse.

Moreover, she too faced atrocities by her own husband when “suddenly he lunged at her, grabbed her hair, punched her…”. This Asyndeton listing advocates that Ammu witnessed violence in childhood and succumbed to it in her later life. Such tragedies reinforce the idea of the subservience of women in male-supremacist Indian society.

​

Furthermore, the writer presented the ‘theme of harassment’, when Velutha, whom Ammu and her children loved, was charged with Sophie Mol’s death. After her funeral, Ammu visits the police station to see Velutha and gives her statement to the inspector. The writer states “He stared at Ammu’s breast…” “Kottayam Police station does not take statements from Veshya or their illegitimate children” . Here, language borrowing from Hindi is employed, the word ‘Veshya’ and its imagery impact the reader, and makes them feel the insult inflicted on the character at that time. Policeman’s act to sexually and verbally abuse Ammu can be perceived as a fault of the law that does not allow them to raise their voice because it considers women an object for men to exert their power.

The metaphor used when the inspector tapped Ammu’s breast with his baton, is quoted as “…as he was selecting mangoes from a basket”. This reflects the vulnerable condition of women living in postcolonial India. The reader may interpret that when men disgrace women, their act is not considered shameful, rather society states it as a woman’s fault to argue with a man. Another example, when Mr Hollick (Emma’s husband’s boss) visited their house to dismiss Baba, a “full-blown alcoholic” from his job, verbally harassed Ammu, and asked her to visit his home, in exchange for Baba’s job and some money.

The writer uses words like “look after” to describe Mr Hollick’s mal-intentions in a subtle manner. Also, she used repetition and modifiers “an attractive wife” and “an extremely attractive wife” to symbolize a male character’s immoral attitude. This evokes the ethos, that due to male-chauvinist South Indian society; men adopt a materialistic approach to prefer money more than their spouse’s honour. Auranditi Roy explores the moral degradation and machismo of men in an Indian patriarchal society who enjoy all the liberties.

​

Lastly, Chacko, enjoys all the privileges offered by his family and society, whereas, Ammu, his sister, remains ignored and underprivileged; significantly portraying the theme of ‘gender discrimination’. Ammu was denied of her right to get an education as Pappachi stated that “college education is an unnecessary expense for a girl”, and sent Chacko abroad for studies.

The writer presented Pappachi’s gender-stereotypical thinking through his discriminatory attitude toward children. It also conveys to the reader that women’s choice does not matter. Additionally, Ammu worked for their factory but Chacko showed off “my factory, my property’’. This repetition presents and emphasizes Chacko’s traditional belief that only men have the right to family’s property. He stated, “legally, this was the case because Ammu, as a daughter, had no claim to property’’. 

Through this quotation, readers may observe Chacko’s confidence and power instilled in him by society to dominate and deny Ammu’s share in the property. In addition, Chacko sarcastically admires his dominance, and says to Ammu that “What’s yours is mine and what’s mine is also mine.”

Repetition of the word ‘mine’ emphasizes upon the unquestioned male authority exercised in society. It can be perceived that men with their inflexibility downplay women to usurp their legal rights while seizing their own.

Moreover, the writer propagates a contradiction in Mamachi’s indifferent behaviour towards her children. Anaphora used to explain her emotions towards Chacko’s divorce, quoted as “She hated Margaret Kochamma for being Chacko’s wife. She hated her for leaving him’’. Here Mamachi dislikes Margret because she left her son while she does not acknowledge that she left Chacko because of his extramarital affairs.

But, when Ammu moves to Aymenem after divorce, Mamachi shows resistance towards her own daughter as she felt ashamed of her being called a ‘divorced woman’. The reader infers the preferential attitude of Mamachi towards ‘Chacko’ and ‘Ammu’. She didn’t consider Chacko’s wrongdoings as foul and stated his extramarital affairs as “man’s need” when once questioned about the secret door entrance. Conversely, she wanted Ammu to restrain herself from having an affair after the divorce and spend time only with her children.

Readers construe that women living under patriarchy, gradually undermine their own rights and support males to become more dominant. Here, Neo-historicism describes social taboos of Indian society influenced by historical events in the Kottayam region, Kerala, where women unconsciously marginalized themselves18. Roy illustrates Ammu’s emotions using a simile, “she imagined her two children like a pair of small bewildered frogs engrossed in each other’s company, lolloping arm in arm down a highway full of hurtling traffic”. It is because, throughout her life, she had faced discrimination and violence in all the relationships, and presumes the same treatment by society for her children.

​

Conclusion: 

​

Conclusively, the deep-rooted patriarchy is propounded by Roy and its impact on Indian culture while affecting the lives of many, especially women, described through events and characters. Lack of rights conceptualizes Ammu’s withstand the violence she faces and urges her to conform to societal laws that support patriarchy. The theme of sexual harassment, highlighting Ammu’s misery, showcases men’s insensitivity to abuse women verbally and physically. Culminating the theme of gender discrimination portrays the root cause, where the inculcation of societal norms in families crystallizes dominance in males by crowning them from childhood and looking down upon females.