होइन देवकोटा

 

Characterization and its functioning in Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men

Fiction

11 April 2018

Characterization and its functioning in Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men

This article attempts to shed light on how — traits, motives and psychology of characters complement to other elements of fiction so as to make a narrative function well. For characterization in a fiction cannot be studied in isolation, the relationship of characters to form, content and setting shall be taken into consideration than characterization alone. This write up centers on George and Lennine.

John Steinbeck, in his fiction Of Mice and Men, establishes two lead characters of unique and seemingly opposite temperaments that combine with pastoral life to make his narrative function well. Steinbeck unfolds story of two American drifters named George Milton and Lennie Small in the linear pattern. George and Lennie, two childhood friends with nothing in the world than each other and a dream of having some land of their own, possess their own unique temperaments. George is wise, bright, yet less muscular than Lennie. Unlike George, Linnie possesses childish conscience and he is large in physique. As narrative progresses, Lennie brings in frequent troubles due to his childish behaviors. One day, Lennie brings about significantly big trouble at the cost of his own life. George, regardless of being wise can no longer save his friend; rather he has no choice than killing Lennie.

Lennie’s temperaments appeal to pity and humor in many instances. He is fond of petting animals, but he pets so carelessly that he ends up killing most animals he pets. Firstly, Lennie kills a mouse while petting and he hides it in the pocket. Once George figures out dead mouse in the pocket, he replies to Lennie “…I wish I could put you in a cage with million mice and let you have fun.” George’s reply apparently appeals readers to humor, yet it reflects deep rooted ambivalent emotions aroused by Lennie’s childish temperament. Later, in the chapter five, during their stay in ranch, Lennie kills a pop by petting too hard. This petting habit subsequently leads to a catastrophe wherein Lennie is about to be lynched for accidently killing ranch owner’s daughter in law. Moreover, Lennie’s temperaments also contradict with protagonists’ goal. Two friends established in the novel want to accumulate some money so that they can have some land of their own. Yet, Lennie’s temperaments refrain from working on sustained basis as he causes troubles frequently — leaving them with no other choice than fleeing away from ranch.

 Unique yet seemingly opposite characters with differing temperaments portrayed in Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men is cherry on the top with regard to characterization in fiction and its role in craftmanship.

Works Cited

Steinbeck, John. Novels and Stories, 1932-1937. Library of America, 1994.

 

 

           

Theoretical Perspectives on "The Sick Rose"

The invisible worm that flies in howling storm under the cover of darkness has discovered rose's bed. And now, the rose is on the verge of decay by the virtue of worm‟s dark secret love.

Feminist Perspective:

Rose, a symbol for woman, is a voiceless and non-masculine social construct. In contrast, Worm, a symbol for man, dominant and masculine in nature exercises power over voiceless woman. In the poem, Rose does not demonstrate any opposition to actions of worm for it is touted inferior in patriarchal society. Additionally, when a man exercises power over woman by virtue of patriarchy; a woman is left with no choices other than unwillingly accepting coercions. „Secret Love‟ here refers to a man's lust, and Dark signifies evil for a man forcefully exploits woman in patriarchy. Furthermore, when a man forcefully exploits woman, her life becomes no less that of a dead, for she is compelled to be submissive.

Marxist Perspective:

William Blake (1757 – 1827) witnessed climax of industrial revolution which took place from 18th to 19th Century (A+E Network). Along with industrialization, society was partitioned into two groups: proletarian and bourgeois, on the basis of ownership over means of productions (Nardinelli).

Rose, a symbol of proletarian, is exploited by owners in capitalist economic system. „Worm‟, a symbol for bourgeois, who possess explicit control over resources, takes advantage of all means of productions including labor. On Marxist view, proletarian's life, which once used to be as beautiful as rose's crimson joy is now in the verge of death due to exploitation by the worm like bourgeois. Moreover, no opposition of Rose in the poem illustrates proletarian's submissiveness.

New Critical Perspective:

While examining any work of art from a new critical perspective, we do not look for the intentions of artist; rather we explore meaning out of the text that is self-sufficient in itself for interpretation (Delahoyde).

The Sick Rose is composed of two quatrains each having seventeen letters. All words in the poem are monosyllabic except five, namely “Invisible, Howling, Crimson, Secret and Destroy. The rhyming pattern of The Sick Rose is ABCB. The first stanza reveals that rose is sick. Additionally, the same stanza somehow reflects bad intention of worm. For worm flies in cover of night, we can assume that worm holds some bad intentions (Rocheleau).

Moving on to the second stanza, poet has illustrated cause of rose‟s sickness and the ultimate consequence. The sick rose is dying successively because of worm‟s dark secret love. An irony in the poem is that worm flies in the howling storm, but worm does not fly in reality, rather it crawls. Moreover, metaphors are widely used in this poem. „Rose‟ can be seen as a metaphor for woman, proletariat and many more. What „Rose might mean here is subjected to open interpretations. Likewise, „Worm‟ can be considered as metaphor for something or someone that deteriorates other‟s life.

Works Cited

A+E Network. HISTORY. 2009. 03 September 2017 <http://www.history.com/topics/industrial- revolution>.
Delahoyde, Michael. Critical Theory. n.d. 04 September 2017 <https://public.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/new.crit.html>.

Nardinelli, Clark. THE CONSCISE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ECONOMICS. n.d. 03 September 2017 <http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/IndustrialRevolutionandtheStandardofLiving.html>. Rocheleau, Allison. n.d. 04 September 2017 <http://people.umass.edu/acrochel/romanticpoetspaper.pdf>.

Chamar and Sino Bahiskar Aandolan: A Brief Account

 

Suraj Dhakal

Ujjwal Prasai

405.27 Social Movements and Writing

18 May 2018

Chamar and Sino Bahiskar Aandolan: A Brief Account

This paper attempts to shed light on why and how Chamar community fought against the tradition that pushed them into the swamp of inequality and social injustice.

Subjugation of Chamar: A Reflection

Chamar community — one of the most marginalized and discriminated Dalit communities of Nepal[1], and also known for its multiple surnames including Ram, Harijan, Mahara, Mochi and Rabidas (Krishna B. Bhattachan) — is placed at the most bottom position of social hierarchy for its traditional livelihood practice. (Paswan 226-227) Subjugation of Chamar was primarily rooted in landlessness and Balighare Pratha[2] wherein males were held responsible for dispose of cattle carcass and females worked as midwives. This traditional occupation was enforced in such a way that only Chamar were held responsible removal of carcass. Eventually, this very tradition turned out to be the sole reason for severe discrimination against them. Since most Chamar were landless, their only means of subsistence was sale of raw leather extracted form cattle carrion. Chamar, for generations, earned their livelihood at the cost extreme social injustice, and the vicious cycle of poverty made them stick to their traditional occupation. (Paswan 231-233)  

Photo Credit: Times of India

Sino Bahiskar Aandolan: A Brief Account

Sino Bahiskar Aandolan, a civil disobedience movement against a tradition that forced Chamar[3] to dispose cattle carcasses from higher caste households, grabbed a significant attention in national and international arena back in 1999. Regardless of its belated publicity in late 1990s, the foundation of the movement dates back to early 1950s when first institutionalized attempt to shun the tradition was made along with the establishment of community based organization named Nepal Harijan Sudhar Sangh (Paswan 224-225).

The first phase of the movement was active in improvisation of the tradition than its complete abandonment. Thus, by the end of April 1958, the movement managed to stop Chamar of Saptari, Siraha and Dhanusa from consuming carrion meat. Moreover, the first phase of movement also includes struggle against contractors of state-owned Bansbari Leather and Shoes Factory. Back then, Chamar were forced to sell raw leather to local contractors at scrap value notwithstanding higher value in Indian market[4]. Nepal Harijan Sudhar Sangh continuously fought against those contractors for more than two decades; and subsequently government decided to shut down leather contract system in 1982 (Paswan 229-230)

            The second phase of Sino Bahiskar Aandolan, often touted as a milestone in liberation of Chamar, took the movement one step further thereby not only shunning the carrion meat but also by completely shunning the tradition. It was spearheaded by social activist Baldev Ram, a recipient of Dr. Ambedkar International Prize. Baldev’s struggle against social injustice and inequality was profound. Back in 1964, Baldev initiated a campaign against unfair distribution of land demanding that poor Dalit tenants get the ownership of the land they sharecropped on. In the same year, Land Reform Act was passed, which opened legal-avenue for resolving landlessness of tenants.[5] Baldev’s involvement on land reform campaign established him as an opinion leader of the community; and his thus formed persona — combined with Chamar’s prolonged antagonism — contributed to the success of Sino Bahiskar Aandolan. A community gathering, called upon by Baldev Ram after seeing his relatives eat meat form carcasses, served as a cornerstone of the movement. Then, in the following months of July 1999, Baldev was active in raising awareness against consumption of carcass meat and also against dispose of animal carcasses without any pay. (Yadav) Subsequently, Baldev — in collaboration among several non-governmental development agencies including Action Aid and other so-called lower caste communities including Musahar and Dusadh — managed to completely shun animal carrion in his village Madhupatti, Saptari. Regardless of its constant disapproval from higher caste communities as well as that from state authority[6], the carcass boycott movement managed to stretche to other district of Saptari’s vicinity. Back then, the movement had grabbed notable attention in national and international arena for it was rigorously and regularly reported by country’s national dallies, particularly by Kantipur and The Kathmandu Post. (Jha)

Futile Oppositions to the Movement

Sino Bahiskar Movement, notwithstanding its subsequent success, on its initial phase was besieged by higher castes including Yadav and Chaudhary to a great extent. Higher caste members, in opposition to Chamar’s solidarity, organized together to form a Chamar Boycott Committee. Economic blockade, social boycott, termination from employment and prohibition in use of public properties like roads and forests were some of the tools higher castes used to make Chamar stop the movement. Once the news about economic blockade was reported rigorously by national dailies, attention of human right activists, Dalit right activists and that of government was drawn. Regardless of these oppositions, Sino Bahiskar Movement was already at a point of no return. Subsequently on 24 March 2000, after series of negotiations, a four-point’s agreement as of following was signed between Dalit right activists and Chamar Boycott Committee.

1.      No individual shall be forced to dispose carcass, and municipality office shall maintain alternative arrangements for it.

2.      Individuals willing to dispose carcass on their own shall not be stopped.

3.      Illegal and inhuman economic blockade imposed upon Chamar shall be withdrawn urgently.

4.      Aforementioned decisions shall apply to all. If violated, legal actions shall be taken. (Paswan 239-241)

Sino Bahiskar Movement, in the first hand, raised awareness among Chamar about inequality and social injustice associated with the traditional caste-based occupation they practiced without a second thought. Moreover, the movement helped Chamar get rid of mandatory responsibility imposed upon them to dispose cattle carcass. However, discrimination is still pervasive for most Chamar do not have any alternative means of livelihood other than working with cattle carcass.

Works Cited

Jha, Abadhesh Kumar. "Baldev Ram, who fought for Dalits and landless people, dies at 67." 02 August 2017. eKantipur. 12 March 2018 <http://kathmandupost.ekantipur.com/news/2017-08-02/baldev-ram-who-fought-for-dalits-and-landless-people-dies-at-67.html>.

Krishna B. Bhattachan, Tej B. Sunar, Yasso Kanti Bhattachan. Caste-based Discrimination in Nepal. Working Paper Series. New Delhi: Indian Institute of Dalit Studies, 2009.

Paswan, Bhola. "Carcass Boycott Struggle in Siraha and Saptari: Madhesi Dalit's Collectivism and Resistance." Protest against Subjucation: Struggle Stories of Nepalese Dalits. Kathmandu: Samata Foundation, 2013.

Rajendra Senchurey, Bhakta Nepali. "Unequal exchange." 24 November 2013. The Kathmandu Post. 15 May 2018 <http://kathmandupost.ekantipur.com/news/2013-11-24/unequal-exchange.html>.

Yadav, Mithilesh. "Social activist Baldev Ram dies at 74." 02 August 2017. myRepublica. 09 March 2018 <http://www.myrepublica.com/news/24903/>.

---

[1] Based on telephone interview with Saptari, Nepal based journalist Bhola Paswan

[2] Tradition wherein so-called lower castes (Dalits) serve so-called higher caste people with their traditional occupations and in return get food grains (bali) periodically from each harvest. (Rajendra Senchurey)

[3] Nepal’s one of the most marginalized so called low caste community

[4] Back then, the price of raw leather in Indian market was ten times than the amount paid by Nepalese contractors. (Paswan)

[5] Second chapter of Land Reform Act 1964 contains provisions for issuing land ownership certificate to tenants under the supervision of land reform officer.

[6] Chandra Kishor, op-ed columnist at Kathmandu based newspaper, writes that the movement was condemned in parliament back in 1999.

Theoretical Perspectives on Rohingya Crisis

 

Suraj Dhakal

Keshab Sigdel

425.22 Cultural Studies

December 3, 2017

Theoretical Perspectives on Rohingya Crisis 

This article is an attempt to shed light on – currently prevailing Rohingya[1] Crisis in Myanmar in relation to notions of hegemony put forward by Louis Althusser and Antonio Gramsci. Moreover, this paper also deals with power relationship and discourses that left Rohingya communities with no choice other than fleeing away. In addition, notions of identity and its subjectivity are also covered by this study.

This article takes into account news stories published by ALJAZEERA[2] at various points of time during the crisis as secondary data.

Background:

             According to some historians Rohingya are indigenous inhabitants, who have been living in Rakhine State of Myanmar since 15^th century. Additionally, there had been a significant labor migration to today’s Myanmar (formerly known as Burma) form today’s India and Pakistan during British colonial period that spanned over more than hundred years. This huge migration was viewed negatively by the majority of Burmese natives. The seed of this crisis was sown after the military coup took place in 1962.

Timeline of Incidents and Consequences:

Years	Events and Consequences
1939 -1945	Tensions between Buddhist Brumes population and Rohingya go back to the second world war, when each groups supported opposite sides. The Rohingya supported British side where as Buddhist population supported Japanese side.
1948	British colonial era ended
1962	Military coup took place in Myanmar. Like all dictators, this military regime forged a fierce nationalism based on Buddhist identity.
1978	“Operation Dragon King” was launched by military force.  About 200 thousands Rohingya fled to Bangladesh. During this operation, military deliberately used violence against Rohingya. Subsequently in following years, about 170 thousands Rohingya returned back to their land.
1982	Government of Myanmar passed a citizenship act recognizing 135 ethnic groups. Yet Rohingya, with population of about one million were not on the list, and became stateless people.
1992	Myanmar launched another campaign literally called Operation Clean and Beautiful Nation. This time, about 250 thousands had no choice other than fleeing away.
2012	Tensions between state authority and Rohingya rose in 2000s. Severe violent incidents spilled over when four Muslims were accused of raping a Buddhist woman. State backed Buddhist majority population started burning houses of Rohingya communities.
2016	In wake of fighting such severe oppression, a small rebel group of some Rohingya called Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) was formed.
August 25,2017	ARSA attacked state police, and killed about a dozen of police officers. Thus, sparked latest crisis against Rohingya civilians.

 

According to The Guardian[3], more than 300 thousands Rohingya fled to Bangladesh since outbreak of violence in August, 2017. Additionally, more than 210 houses have been burnt to the ground by state military, and death tool of Rohingya has reached more than three thousands. According to a recent report published by Reuters[4], Myanmar military forces have placed landmines near the border so as to refrain Rohingya form returning back. (Vox, 2017)

Figure 1: Number of Rohingya fled away to different countries

 

 

 

 

 Theoretical Analysis of Rohingya Crisis in Myanmar

Based on aforementioned facts and information, we can observe that government of Myanmar has been using Repressive State Apparatus (RSA) in governance. RSA refers to use of military, police, administration, and biased state policies to control over a certain population so as to rule. (Oswell, 2006, pp. 49-50) The use of violent military activities, which somehow resemble to ethnic cleansing, is a reflection of Repressive State Apparatus used by the government of Myanmar. On the other hand, aforementioned situation in Myanmar also calls for hegemony. Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, born out of prolonged state backed violence and persecution, was formed to fight against the state authority. This implies that Rohingya had had enough of dominations, and they had no other choice than carrying guns on their shoulders against state authority. However, in the long run an armed conflict cannot be a proper solution. Thus, long run demands negotiations, particularly ‘win-win’ one. In this regards, it would be better if government of Myanmar calls Rohingya leaders for table talks, which is the notion of hegemony, that is, ruling as per the consent of ruled.

This situation of Rohingya community can be seen in relation of subjectivity of identity, and discourses thus created.  Based on concepts of identity put forward by Stuart Hall, Homi Bhabha, and Judith Butler, we can shift the question of identity to identification. (Oswell, 2006, pp. 104-109) We can observe subjectivity of identity in Rohingya’s context. Rohingya are Muslim indigenous community living in Rakhine state of Myanmar, this is their identity. Their identity seems fixed, but their identity is fluid as outsiders behold them. Having said fluid identity, it implies that identity of Rohingya varies with the eyes of beholders; Buddhist majority living in Myanmar consider them only as labors migrated during British colonial regime, not as citizens of their land. In addition, identity of Rohingya is dependent on majority of population, for Buddhist natives consider them as mere criminal immigrants. Moreover, identity of Rohingya in the eyes of outsider: United Nations, and other international organization, is a reflection of fundamental notions of right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Moreover, international power centers, in particular, United States of America, China, and Russia, have been turning a blind eye in a sense that they are not raising as much voices as they should have raised against such humanitarian crisis. The reason behind this silence of international commercial elites could be their own self-interests. With the end of military rule and avenues of democracy, international power centers are looking forward to leap on the Myanmar’s economy, where seed of economic liberalization has been sown along with commencement of democracy.[5]

Given that, Rohingya have already formed a rebel group to fight against oppression of state authority, conflict is sure to escalate, and it will be more and more destructive, and it will divert resources from development sector to civil war. Thus, current approach to exercise of power by state – that is, use of Repressive State Apparatus is not going to let rulers indulge in power on sustainable basis. Having said this, hegemony seems inevitable. On the other hand, government of Myanmar ought not to prohibit Rohingya form citizenship, for it will create more disastrous situation in generations to come, thereby with outburst of hatred against state authority.  

                                                        Works Cited

Oswell, D. (2006). Hegemony, Ideolgoy and State. In Culture and Society: An Introduction to Cultural Studies (pp. 104-109). London: Sage Publication Ltd.

Vox. (2017, September 25). The ethnic cleansing of Myanmar's Rohingya Muslims explained. Retrieved November 30, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rohingya+crisis+explained

 

 

 

 

---

[1] The Rohingya are indigenous majority Muslim ethnic groups living in Rakhine State of Buddhist nation Myanmar

[2] Qatar based media house

[3] London based news agency

[4] London based news agency

[5] Reference taken from British Broadcasting Corporation’s archive

Friendship

चाहाना