INDIAN WRITING IN ENGLISH

Q. Discuss the representation of dalit characters in Premchand’s “The Shroud”.

Premchand (1880-1936) was writing during the first half of the twentieth century when India
was facing colonialism, imperialism and National Liberation Movement. He wrote on a
variety of subjects touching almost each and every aspect of the contemporary Indian social
and political life. “THE SHROUD” was written in 1936, the year Premchand died and is the
most famous as well as controversial story. The story narrates life of a Dalit family (Ghisu,
his son, Madhav and daughter-in-law, Budhia) who are devastated by poverty. The whole
plot is embedded in the rural society where this family is the poorest one.
Dalits were made practically invisible from the main stream art and literature. Wherever
they appear, they are shown in poor light They are projected as they are born to be doomed,
damned, thrash, and crush. They are shown as just a thing of utility which is to be used when
required to be discarded and ultimately. They are shown as thing of pity, like the dumb
animal who cannot utter a word. Sometimes they are presented mere as a thing of ridicule
to make a thing of fun as Ghisu and Madhav are portrayed in the short story in The Shroud.
Both are poor and belong to the community of Chamar [an untouchable community] and are
lethargic, slothful, workshy and notorious. The Shroud records the extreme poverty and
pitiable condition of Dalits during 1930‟s. They were unable get enough food for living and
enough clothes to cover their bodies. It portrays Dalits in negative colours. Negative images
are associated with them. To begin with, Ghisu and Madhav are described from the upper
caste point of view and branded as useless fellows. The Dalit characters are shown in poor
light but, it has been tried to project them as stereotype or representative of whole
community. The caste is deliberately imposed on character. It is being tried to portray that
being from cobbler community, it explains that they are lethargic, slothful, workshy, and
notorious. In his words, “It was the community of cobblers [chamar] and notorious in whole
village.” Secondly, their poverty is shown as self-inflicted rather than situational or
otherwise. It is not that he (author) is not sympathetic towards poverty. He was quite
sympathetic towards poverty of other castes, if they happen from Non-Dalit Caste. The
poverty is portrayed according to caste. On one side poverty is thing of ridicule as in case of
Ghisu and Madhav, On the other hand poor of other caste are shown with sympathy and
dignity. He can be raise from poverty and earn his livelihood comfortably if he belongs to
higher caste. Thirdly, both father and son duos are portrayed very indifferent towards
Budhiya. This can be accepted both are very lethargic, slothful, workshy and indifferent
towards Budhiya. But it is very improbable they will eat and slept at hut’s doorstep and
Budhiya was moaning and groaning in labour pain inside, until and unless they were drunk.
It seems biased in portraying them. He even not spared the death in childbirth, to make butt
of fun. He did not portray any of his non-Dalit characters like this. In his words, “They both
ate potatoes, drink water, covered themselves with their Dhotis (loincloth) and slept like
crocodiles. Budhiya was still moaning and groaning.” It is quite obvious that portrayal of
Dalit characters is lopsided and biased. Nowhere so injustice had been done portrayal of
characters. It makes the story artificial and unnatural characterization. it has been pointed
out that portrayal of Dalit in mainstream literature is hardly justified. Either Dalits are
missing altogether or if portrayed, their portrayal is not justified it is biased and lopsided.
Premchand is no exception to it. He has portrayed Ghisu and Madhav both Dalit characters
(including whole community) in a very poor light. It has been tried to portrayed that being
Dalit itself implied that they are lethargic, slothful, workshy and notorious. Not only both are
individually but whole community is portrayed as stereotype. All these characters could be
at one time accepted, but portraying them (father and son) indifferent when Budhia is in
labour pain is very painful. On to that he (Madhav) wishes her to die soon so they could
sleep freely. The reason for not going to see her as his father will devour major share of
potatoes is inhuman and pitiable. Having slept carelessly at hut’s doorstep of after having
potatoes and their daughter in law and wife (Budhiya) moaning in labour pain inside is
highly improbable. Drinking liquor from the money collected for shroud is inhuman and
portrayal of such situation shows the prejudice of author. The story has some technical flaws
y. First that there was no one in community and neighbour in assisting Budhiya in her labour
pain, but when she dies all came to consoles father and son. Secondly after collecting
money, both men left buying shroud leaving dead body with neighbours.
So it can be said that characterization of Dalit by Premchand is not justified, as in the line of
mainstream literature. It is more painful that story like ‘The Shroud’ is from the pen of a
literary figure that cannot be classified in a class, who is a class by himself.
Dalit writers like Shyoraj Singh 'Bechain' consider that Kafan is far from the realism and
"completely an imaginative story to prove that Dalits are not humane ... and the purpose of
this story is to portray a totally distorted picture of the Dalit community." Kanwal Bharati, in
another article, reiterates, "The Shroud is an anti-Dalit story because it has made a mockery
of the Dalits through its characters who have been portrayed insensitive and inhumane.”
Premchand writes, “The peasants called the duo only when they were desperate and had no
option.” This shows that the relatively better off class was helpless in the face of Ghisu and
Madhav’s indifference. Ghisu and Madhav who are chamar by caste, landless labourers who
observe that back-breaking toil can’t even ensure a full stomach, which is why they are lazy
and shiftless. “Shirking and uselessness does not define their character. It is their strategy, a
maneuver to escape the trap of exploitation. Their defiance manifests itself in laziness. They
succeed in getting double the amount of wages which would otherwise be given to only one
person. Ghisu and Madhav’s “dalit consciousness” rejects these premises of the varna
system which have perpetuated the tyranny of the upper castes. It is a developed “dalit
consciousness” which refuses them to become part of the process of hegemony”
Premchand went far in portrayal and give extreme negatives regarding Dalits. This portrayal
suggests that Dalits are inhuman. They don’t have family bondage and love care for other
family members. They are presenting as opportunists who won’t let event go exploited, even
the death of their relatives. Premchand, here fails to sympathise his readers. This portrayal
creates a feeling of disgust towards Dalits. There isn’t any heroic fight by Dalits against
oddities and we can’t blame poverty alone. It makes readers to blame Ghisu and Madhav
and gives impression that Dalits are without human feelings. To conclude, it can be said that
Premchand has associated Dalits with negative qualities and images. It seems that he tried
to get his readers sympathetic with Dalits. But here, he has failed to show the heroic fight of
Dalits to get that sympathy. Instead he portrayed them in negative colours and tried to show
poverty as an affecting factor for all this. But he went too far to reduce Dalits to inhuman
qualities where they feel the burden of others and wait for their death.

NAME: RIYA

ROLL NO. : 4064/18