Friday, July 4, 2014

Absurdity called Caste System: A Study of Sharan kumar Limbale’s The Outcaste



Sharan Kumar Limbale’s  The outcaste (Akkarmashi, 2004 )   presents the anguish of a dalit youngster . He is  tossed between the oppressive caste  system and his ardent  desire for freedom. He is the representative dalits  who suffered numerous humiliations daily in the past as well as in the post-independence India .
  In the autobiography, one doesn’t find any fissure between thought and expression and the suffering is real whereas endless  queries, disturbing  thoughts and the words rarely fail in reaching the heart of the reader. No social taboo restricts his freedom of expression and the language seems at times simple and brutally frank.  The narration is racy and the reader      surely turns introspective  after reading the work. It’s life writing itself and the lava of anguish flows on breaking the banks of r art but the  reader doesn’t feel disappointed since the bios in the graphy is rich reminding one of Gorky’s autobiographical works such as The childhood, The Apprenticeship and My Universities. It shatters the complacency and the comfort zone of the readers and transforms them deeply. One begins to see things anew, recollects one’s own childhood in a village  and various forms of discrimination meted out to the dalits around the country but not realized by prisoners in the caste system  that   banishes humanity outside the village. The apparent normality of life poisons children, justifies internecine quarrels among them and develops alienation in the people that continues till the system is annihilated in toto.
  He was born to a Patil and Mahar woman out of wedlock and this has caused him a perpetual  anguish  regarding is identity. He was taken care of by a Muslim called Dada and Santamai,  his aunt. His ‘illegitimate’ birth  made him suffer not knowing whether he could call himself an upper caste man or a mahar since he was born to a Mahar woman , grown up in maharwada, made friends with mahars and suffered  the pangs of hunger   and humiliation under caste system. Hence he was in a state of confusion  not knowing  if he was a Hindu or Muslim.
  His autobiography was a flow of lava from the volcano of his oppressive situation. When he loved a girl called Shewanta , his  caretaker Santamai  warned him that he won’t be allowed by Mahars. He couldn’t get his scholarship from signed by the sarpanch, rent a house or find  a bride  easily. He became angry and asks his mother about his father . He throws a barrage of questions in the face of his plight and caste system that sees humans as incarnation of caste. When he helped a farmer’s wife , the farmer throws  a  chappal at him for doing so.
  He finds hunger as his universe, god and foundation stone of the edifice of constitution, parliament and civilization. He hates the system that uses the labour and bodies  of  dalits  cruelly. He writes how could the upper caste people  violate  the mothers, wives and girl children of  mahars and other oppressed castes without any regard .
  At school , the discrimination starts . Mahar boys and girls are forced to sit separately  under separate  trees. While Wani and Brahmin boys played kabbadi , Mahar boys- Sharan , Mallya, umbrya, Parshya used to play touch-and-go .  Arjya, a Mang sat separately. Sharan and his friends were asked to smear the floors and walls of the school with cowdung paste. Sharan     writes in a satirical fashion. The boy who wouldn’t do work at home was forced to do work.
“ The teacher had a particular admiration for me because I was an expert in gathering dung and smearing it evenly.” (4)
“We are the garbage the village throws out. There were so many caste factions in our school… we had grown up like aliens since our infancy. This sense of alienation increased over the years and to this day my awful childhood haunts me.”  (5)
  Sharan as a boy used to feel hungry and his mother used to scold him to find food for himself. She used pungent language  to express her  helplessness. Sharan and his friends waited for feasts in the village, given kheer, scolded when they wanted to take it for their family members, ate leftovers and quenched their hunger. But they had to satisfy their thirst only after going home.
“When I reached home Masamai was very angry. ‘Why didn’t you save some kheer and bring it home/’ she shouted. I stood like an unwashed plate” (10)  Sharan’s imagery directly comes from life and hits at your face. You are awakened and not allowed to pretend sleep any longer. He attacks the  life and system at its  most basic level. Starvation was their lot. His sisters were used to sleep away their hunger, mother survived on water and Dada on  beedis and only he ate something. His sister was beaten by   vendor for stealing a banana at the market and Sharan writes, “ My eyes flowed like a leaking roof.” (21)
 “The poor steal out of hunger. If they had enough to eat would they steal? Black-marketers become leaders, whereas those who are driven to steal by hunger are considered criminals.” (21) Sharan writes how the high caste people , with author sanctioned by scriptures  exploited dalits of their land, labour  and  honour.. He writes how his mother masamai was forcibly separated from her first husband and  her children, used by one Hanumant Patil and later by  another Yeshwantrao Sidramappa Patil to whom Sharan and his six siblings were born. His interrogation is rigorous. His paernal ancestors were lingayts and maternal ancestors were Mahars and brought up by his grand father Mahmood Dastagir Jamadar , a Muslim.
Then why can’t the jamadar affection claim me as Muslim? How can I be high caste when my mother is an untouchable? If  I am untouchable, what about my father who is high caste? I am like Jarasandh. Half of me belongs to the village, whereas the other half is excommunicated. Who am I? To whom is my umbilical cord connected? (39)
Sharan’s grandfather Dada and Santamai, his grand mother used to work as porter and sweeper at the bustop. He renders their pathetic life ridden with hunger, labour  and humanity in moving terms. He was like ‘a barren hen trying to hatch an egg’ or  ‘a woman nauseous from travelling on a bus’ (44) when there was no work. He  also writes how he helped his mother in selling liquor on the sly, police raids and the behavior of the drunkards who minded touching  water but not affairs with Mahar women.
He sees the caste system that separates  his  abode and  affection from his father who behaved lovingly when  in their hut but closed doors when he went to the latter’s mansion to see him. He thinks that Dada’s affection has no religion. When the sarpanch or the village chief refuses to sign freeship form of Sharan to enter the highschool on the pretext of not knowing the real parent of the boy.
But I too was a human being. What else  did I have except  a human body? But a man is recognized in this world by his religion, caste , or his father. I had neither a father’s name, nor any religion,  nor a caste. I had no  inherited identity at all.(59)
When the boy came home he  wept in  humiliation and his mother tried to console him .  He felt like karna of the Mahabharata  and asked about is father. He was elated when told to tell his teacher that his mother was ‘whore’ and he didn’t know its meaning. He   knew that  the real culprit was the system. He describes an incident in which his real father Hatnmanta  and the present partner of his mother come to his hut and the latter tried to persuade Masamai to sleep with Hanmanta patil who ruined her first marriage. Masamai threatened  to burn herself if they refused to leave.Sharan writes
“That night she hugged me as she slept and cried a lot. Her sobbing was like the explosion of a volcano. Her tears suggested that doomsday was close.” (61)
He later describes how Parshya’s father beat parshya and scolded both of them for entering the inside of the temple forgetting that they were untouchables. He writes:
 God discriminates between man and man. He makes one man rich and the other poor. One is high caste, the other untouchable. What kind of God is this that makes human beings hate each other? We are all supposed to be the children of God, then why are we considered untouchable? We don’t approve of this God , nor this religion, nor this country because they ostracize us. (62)
He wanted to go to his real father at Baslegaon and felt like an abandoned bird. He was angry with his mother and quarreled with Kaka and Dada. Describing his  situation , the author  laments why wasn’t he killed as foetus or strangled after his birth and why humiliation for being born as illegitimate and what was his crime and suffer for sins of parents.
    He feels  disgust with his condition, thinks indecently  of his mother but humanity makes him realize that Masamai and his foster mother Santamai sold themselves not for lust but out of the need to be  loved and cared by someone. He feels miserable on seeing his sisters’ plight and says would have married one of them at least make them happy. Here Sharan explodes the system that pushes the people beyond  limits and nothing is unthinkable in the hell of his existence. He  rues  over the loss of his mother’s love  and queries, “who wrenched my mother away from me ?” (65)
The answer is the cruel system of caste and  the village  lords who rule over  the lives of the  dalits. The caste system in India has changed its forms in many ways  like chameleon and divided people and it’s the main hindrance for national unity. It has also hindered the development of class consciousness among the working classes through creating hierarchy. It has divided people in eating, rituals, education, marriage, jobs  and even in funeral rites. It has created internal solidarity but excluded others  contaminating the unified consciousness. It has affected human dignity and morale of the  marginalized people on whose labour it depended on for its survival. While Gandhi aimed at the change of heart of the upper castes, Ambedkar aimed at abolition of caste system in which attempt he embraced Buddhism which he saw as more humane and more rational than Hinduism. Ambedkar writes, “The  want and poverty which has been their lot is nothing to them compared to the insult and indignity which they have to bear as a result of the vicious social order. Not bread but honour , is what they want.”(145)
 Industrialization dented caste consciousness to an extent but not completely as dalits faced hurdles in finding accommodation and employment even in cities.  Democratic Socialism in India has no meaning and future without being based on dalits and other backward castes. Nehruvian socialism aimed at industrialization whereas the struggle approach taken by the leftists made socialism merely a slogan and subservient to Indian  capitalism. While industrialist like Narayana Murthy talk about kind capitalism, some  advocate dalit capitalism. Although these approaches may work  as  relief measures to  the ruthless exploitation,  they can’t  restore the human dignity of dalits. Dalits can become stronger  in a new  order that empowers and serves the needs of the marginalized sections.
It’s in describing the satisfaction of hunger, Sharan lays bare the reality
We used to roam along the stream to reduce the fire of hunger in our stomachs. We caught crabs, fish, eggs, smashed a honeycomb, caught birds, cried like water-fowls, tied frogs  around our necks, searched for lizards, shot pebbles at kites with catapults, roasted squirrels and ate them.
Sharan  also describes his mother’s concern for her first husband Ithal Kamble, estranged children Suryakant and Dharma from her first husband. He describes his envy and comments on the separation among children from the same womb.
He relates how Parshya and he tried to teach a lesson to Shobhi who insulted them at school and outside. They waylay her and Parshya grips her hand and says,
 So you call us Mahars, don’t you? Your water gets impure if we touch it, if that’s so why doesn’t this river turn impure? If human being becomes impure by our mere touch then why didn’t your colour change to green or yellow, as it happens when someone is sick or poisoned? Why didn’t the food in your bundle rot? (71)     
Throughout Sharan was scared if anyone would find them insulting her. He relates an  incident which he heard that in a village when a young Mahar looked lasciviously at a woman belonging to the upper caste, all the men in meherwada were beaten and arrested and the women suffered molestation. Ambedkar writes as follows: 
“This division cannot easily be wiped out for the simple reason that it is not based upon rational, economic, or racial grounds” but on ‘religious dogma’ (98)  
Santamai has inspired him through telling many tales of atrocities against mahars  as Jijyamai inspired young Shivaji. He also relates how women suffered  physically, mentally and socially in the hands of the upper caste men and forced to collect garbage to satisfy their hunger. He says   how their hunger and themselves were  treated  lighter than garbage.
  He also tells how  Parshya and he complained against a tea stall vendor for showing discrimination drawing the ire of his foster father Kaka and the elders of Meherwada. They also had to quench their thirst from  well water secretively to avoid beating by the villagers. The well was in fact dug by Mahars. He questions, “What is so peculiar about our touch that it pollutes water, food, houses, clothes, graveyards, tea shops, God, religion, and even man?” (81)
  He also refers to troubles faced by him in getting educated and Santamai and he went to a money lender for money. The latter kept  lecherous looks at Santamai but refused money  filling the author with anger and wished to give the  same treatment to the mother or sister  of the moneylender. He compares himself and his people to “grains crushed in a stone grinder”(83)
  He writes how poverty has made them eat food from  the begging basket of  Mallya’s grandmother  Sonu. He shows undying humanity of Santamai and Dada who lovingly brought him up, the humiliation of being rejected as a suitable boy for Janabai’s niece due to his ‘illegitimate’ birth, his sorrow over not being able to give money to porter’s  children.He laments, can we know the fate that Satwai is supposed to write on our foreheads on the fifth day of our lives? Suppose we remove the skin and muscle from our foreheads can we find it written there? Or is it all a myth?” (87)
On the demand for cancellation of reservation he says he wants dalitstan in case of cancelation of facilities. He refers to the utter poverty and mental tension experienced by them on knowing atrocities against them. He writes,
Those who say that facilities must be cancelled should first face casteism themselves. They must share the life of the untouchables. Let them live outside the village, ostracized like us. They should experience what it means to study while your father is lying drunk beside you. They wouldn’t then protest against injustice. (90)
The autobiography runs on like an interior monologue. He appeals directly to the conscience of the reader to see, understand and sympathize with the plight of the dalits. His tone is not sentimental but appeals to the reasoning faculty and it makes one thoughtful. His inexhaustible arrows make anyone examine his own perspective, life and knowledge of the suffering of the marginalized. He touches the sleeping reasoning of the mainstream reader and no question of escape from this torrent of existential anguish.
The influence of Ambedkar method is there in the novel when the writer aims a series of arrows against the caste system that justifies oppression and expects the people remain silent. No system  based on irrationality and scriptural  authority survives endless questioning.
Sharan Limbale also brings out the fratricidal conflicts among the people. First he couldn’t find a bride since he was considered of impure blood. Then Maryappa Kambe who adopted  Buddhism agreed to give his daughter. But later on his parents in law didn’t  send his wife along with him for having  impure blood and Sharan had to  take away his wife forcibly. Later on when Sharan went to search for  his sister vani’s husband, he meets Parabatjya  provides hospitality.While giving him sendoff Parabatjya shows him a spot of butchery of Muslims in which he participated. This makes Sharan reflect on the religious feuds which are inhuman.
Hindus and Muslims are both born in this country. Both are human beings. The blood of both people is red. Only their religions are different…In the name of religion there is bloody carnage riots, and crusades. They don’t show any humanity to a human being from another religion. If you cut out religion a man is still a man. So why doesn’t a human being from one religion love a human being from another? (102)
Sharan doesn’t mince or hide matters and points out the evil of convention that  separates dalits from one another.
  He described how in Latur he had to hide his caste to find a house.  Behind his house  was a graveyard and when his daughter Asmitha ran high fever, he prostrated and  prayed. He was desperate for changing his house and the appearance of an angel and he was completely estranged form himself and felt like Siddhartha who left his palace at midnight.  He also refers to the short-lived marriages of his sisters when their parents in law came to know  that  Masamai, Sharan’s mother was a Mahar. He writes, “Marriages were broken up like a game of dolls.” (109)
  The autobiographer time and again points out the  pangs of separation felt by those trapped in convention. The work  written when he was twenty five ends on  rumination over what would happen to Dada, Masamai and Santamai after their deaths and who would attend their  funeral rites. He ends his work   saying, “Why this labyrinth of customs? Who has created such values of right and wrong, and what for? If they consider my birth illegitimate what values am I follow?”(113) 
  In an interview Limbale says, “My writing is a reaction against brutal and unhuman caste system. Equality, freedom, justice, democracy  are streams of my blood. I never tolerate injustice against common man irrespective of his caste. I want to see a  beautiful nation without exploitation, corruption and atrocities.” 1 He calls his book not “an autobiography of a person but a social document of dalits.”(465) He refers to Daya Pawar’s Baluta  and Laxman Mane’s Upara as the works which have influenced him and he has written it “for a social cause.”2   
While the autobiography of Nehru  reveals about the intertwining of the stories of  emergence of nation and the story of the protagonist,  Sharan Kumar’s work challenges elitist nationalism and is seen as the voice of the fragment of the nation that has been marginalized. It raises the basic questions regarding  whether Indian independence has really liberated the dalits who are  working classes of India. There is no room for  any sense of smugness on the part of the upper castes and classes regarding their brand of democracy.
In his own style Ambedkar raises a barrage of questions against Hinduism regarding its treatment of dalits and ends saying, “In Fine, does Hinduism universalize the value of life without distinction?”3 
 Rodrigues  shows that Ambedkar’s demanded universal  adult franchise in 1928 itself and steadfastly fought for the protection of the rights of dalits in the project of nationalism. He preferred moral revolution based on Buddhism rather than violent one espoused by Marxists. In his comparative study of Marxism and Buddhism, he concludes that man must grow materially as well as spiritually and  in reference to the ideals of  Fraternity, Liberty and Equality, humanity welcomed the French and Russian Revolutions. “Equality will be of no value without fraternity or liberty. It seems that the three can co-exist only If one allows the way of the Buddha. Communism can give one but not all.” (188)
Notes
 1 Nawale, M.Aravind, Ankita Khanna and T.N.Kolekar. Eds. Autobiographies, Biographies and
       Memoirs in  English. New Delhi;Gnosis,2013.P.464
2 Ibid.,P. 466.
3Rodrigues,Valerian.Ed. The Essential Writings of B.R.Ambedkar. New  Delhi:OUP,2004. P.228.

No comments:

Post a Comment