1 The notion of untouchability and caste are notions which for centuries have been engrained in Hindu and

Indian culture within the South Asian continent. However the centuries old Caste system has recently been opposed on the grounds that it is an abusive system which serves only to denigrate a specific group of people. One significant strand that has been influential in awareness of the situation faced by untouchables within India has been literature. Two significant novels which deal specifically with the issues of caste and untouchability are Arundhati Roys The God of Small Things and Omprakash Valmikis Joothan. Both novels explore the world of untouchability and the harsh discrimination faced by these exploited peoples in a time when this very notion was being challenged. Both novels also involve the interaction between high-caste and low-caste individuals and their respective acceptance and rejection of the caste system. However Arun Mukherjees statements within the introduction to the novel Joothan show that these novels differ quite markedly in their representation of an untouchable. She characterizes literature written about untouchables by high-caste writers as portraying dalits as tragic figures and objects of pity, incapable of talking back or feeling enraged and argues that they are written with a voice that contains, rather then expresses the Dalit experience1.

In this essay we will discuss the differing representations of an untouchable in The God of Small Things and Joothan using the framework outlined by Arun Mukherjee. We shall do this by exploring central characters within each of the novels and showing the differing representation of an an untouchable in each of the respective works. In order to do this we shall first, briefly examine the role of untouchables in each novel.

2 Second, we shall examine the characters Velutha and Omprakash Valmiki and discuss their differing representation of an untouchable. Thirdly we will discuss Omprakash Valmikis father Pitani and Veluthas father Velya Paapen and show the differing representation of an untouchable as illustrated by these two characters.

We shall begin by briefly explaining the role that untouchability plays within each novel respectively, as this is important in establishing and understanding the complex role that Untouchables play in society. Within Roys The God of Small Things untouchability is seen in terms of the low caste Paravan family composed of Velutha, his father and his brother. The main form of caste within the novel is expressed through the complex relationship between this Paravan family and the upper-caste Syrian Christian family. The novel Joothan is the life story of an untouchable, Omprakash Valmiki, and his journey to break out of the rigid caste system into which he was born.

We shall begin by examining Velutha within the God of Small Things and contrasting him to Omprakash Valmiki within Joothan. Like most members of Indian society caste and caste-based discrimination is an intrinsic part of their lives. The characters both live in regions where the social and economic stratification between highcaste and low caste is noticeable and extensive. However we can see important differences between these seminal characters in their respective representations of an untouchable. These differences can be seen from a very early age; Velutha as a young boy adhered to the caste system and his role within as seen in his offering Ammu the toys he made holding them out on his palm so she wouldnt have to touch them to take

3 them2 and accepts a job within the pickle factory working for Mammachis family even though he is paid less. Omprakash on the other hand from an early age deeply opposed and resented the caste system. We can see this in his fight to attend school and his unwillingness to beg for money during his friends wedding. Velutha in his interaction with Mammachis family very much follows the roles ascribed to him, publicly submitting to his role within the caste hierarchy and following the rules that govern his interaction with higher caste individuals. While Velutha shows several different personalities depending on who surrounds him. Valmiki in contrast is constant whether he is around high-caste or low-caste individuals and does not wish to be involved with those who discriminate on caste basis with his disgust of this system made quite apparent. Thus we can see that Velutha is a tragic and mute figure while Valmiki is able to express the Dalit experience and act against the rigid caste system.

We can also see the differing representation in the forms of romantic relationships created and maintained by Velutha and Valmiki within the respective novels. This serves as a significant aspect in displaying the differing representation of the untouchable. Within the God of Small Things Velutha dares to engage in an illicit and secret relationship with Ammu. The very fact that Velutha keeps the relationship secret shows that he functions within the traditional caste framework and remains silent even though he clearly loves Ammu. Valmiki in contrast refuses to work within the Caste framework sharply asking a romantic interest whose family practices caste based discrimination, do you think this discrimination is right 3. Thus we can see that Valmiki even when given the chance to be part of the high-caste world stringently refuses.

We can see that Velutha truly represents a mute character unable to speak about his oppression. This can be seen when he is verbally abused by Mammachi when she learns of the affair. During this ordeal he simply stands Through the whole of Mammachis outburst he remained restrained and strangely composed4 only managing to say quietly well see about that5. This stands in stark contrast to Valmiki who illustrates the actual voice that an untouchable has. Thus we can see that while Valmiki challenges the caste system at almost every available instance Velutha works within the overall caste framework not challenging the notions and norms of caste. We can see how Velutha appears as a man without a voice.

Though we can see the differing representations of caste between Velutha and Omprakash the differences within representation become even more striking in respect to each of their fathers. We shall begin by exploring the mentality of Veluthas father, Velya Paapen whose gratitude to Mammachi and her family for all that they had done was as wide and deep as a river in spate 6. Thus we can clearly see that while he was treated as an untouchable and was given no respect he accepted his caste and the caste system as a whole. More then mere acceptance however we see that Velya Paapen was a man who had complete loyalty to Mammachi and her family. His loyalty and thus his acceptability of his place within the caste system comes to a head after he learns of Veluthas relationship with Ammu and offers to kill his son for his transgressions. Veluthas father feared Velutha because of the way he walked, the way he held his head. The quiet way he offered suggestions without being asked. Or the quiet way in which he disregarded

5 suggestions without appearing to rebel 7. We see that Velya Paapen deeply feared his son and wished that he would rightly accept his place within society. Working within Arun Mukherjees framework we can clearly see that Velya Paapen is a tragic figures and an object of pity and functions within the caste-framework gladly accepting his role in society.

Omprakashs father, Pitaji, does not believe in the Caste system and wishes his son to escape the discrimination and social stigmas attached to caste. Valmikis father believes that his son can escape caste through education and works hard to ensure that his son gains an education. We can also see the representation of a family who does not want the pity of others as demonstrated by Omprakashs mother when she rejects the Joothan of an upper-caste family within the village. Thus Valmikis family functions within the system because of need and not a sense of loyalty as is seen through Veluthas father. While Veluthas father may see the things that the upper caste give as gifts for which he feels forever grateful Valmikis family sees them for what they are articles of pity and degradation. In addition Pitaji is also quite vocal in caste discrimination, heatedly arguing with the school principal when his son was made to sweep the floor for 3 days8. Veluthas father also warns him about keeping his place within society and watching his tongue while Valmikis family encourage him to do the opposite and question the oppressive bonds under which he lives his life. Indeed Velya Paapens only rage occurs when he learns of his sons actions and not in regard to the oppressive system under which he is forced to live. Thus the respective representations of an untouchable differs quite markedly in terms of Pitaji and Velya Paapen.

6 Thus in conclusion we can see that the representations of an untouchable within each novel differs according to the framework outlined by Arun Mukherjee. We can see that Roys untouchables are tragic figures and objects of pity, incapable of talking back or feeling enraged9, clearly seen through the actions of Velutha and his father. Within Joothan the representation of an untouchable is quite different with the characters active in their attempts to break out of the oppressive caste system and vocal in their condemnation of the system often through rage. Within Valmikis novel we can truly see the pain of the untouchable and the untouchable who works to change his status and place within society. This stands in stark contrast to the portrayals of untouchables in Roys God of Small Things which are largely silent.

1 2

Arundhati Roy , God of Small Things (New York: Flamingo Pubs, 1997), pg. x. Roy, 72. 3 Omprakash Valmiki and Arun Mukherjee, Joothan (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003), pg. 112 4 Roy, 269. 5 Roy, 269. 6 Roy, 73. 7 Roy, 73. 8 Valmiki, 12. 9 Roy, x.