EXPLORING INTERSECTIONALITY AND PATRIARCHY IN THE MALE CHARACTERS OF DINA MEHTA’S ‘BRIDES ARE NOT FOR BURNING’
Dhivya S R
Department of English
Dr. N.G.P. Arts and Science College
Coimbatore, India
Abstract:
Feminism
has been one of the most crucial realms of discussion in post-colonial India.
Indian Literature has encountered the rise of several Feminist writers, and one
of such writers is Dina Mehta. Her play, ‘Brides Are Not for Burning’, raises
voice against dowry and domestic violence in its most realistic approach. While
mentioning its realism, the intersectionality employed in its characters is
worth exploring. Since its female characters are often examined and
appreciated, this paper discusses its male characters which are the
replications of diversified men under the patriarchal society. The characters
are explored through Intersectional theory and the concept of Patriarchy,
elucidating the fact that the play is more than just a feminist work. The work
and this research aims to discern that patriarchy is not just about gender, but
the intersection of a plethora of factors which determine the nature and
lifestyle of an individual in the society, as well as to study how Dina Mehta
depicts the same through her male characters in the play which is most commonly
known for its female characters and feminist ideology.
Keywords:
Intersectionality, Patriarchy, Diversity, Feminism, Characterisation
Introduction:
‘Brides Are Not for Burning’
By Dina Mehta has procured a prolonged impact in the realm of Feminist studies.
The work serves as a voice against domestic violence, patriarchy and especially
the burning of brides to claim insurance, which was one of the most burning
issues in post-colonial India. It is a two-act play that has won British
Broadcasting Corporation’s international playwriting competition in 1979, and
was first published in 1993. The play, apart from being a feminist work, argues
against various social issues such as unemployment, capitalism, lack of sex
education, child labour etc., through the course of the plot both explicitly
and implicitly. Though the book says “To / All the angry women / who can be
whatever they choose to be” (5), the
above notion regarding numerous issues proves that the play is more than just a
feminist work. Thus, it becomes vital to explore the other aspects that can be
drawn with an intricate approach towards the text.
Dina Mehta, an Indian
Icon’:
Dina
Mehta is one of the most prominent writers in India, and is classified as a
stay-at-home writer, belonging to the Parsi Community. Similar to many other
Parsi writers, she has perpetuated her ethnicity with creative writing as a
tool. She is studied mainly for her plays such as ‘Brides Are Not for Burning’, ‘Tiger,
and Tiger ’, ‘The Myth Makers’. She is also demarcated for her novel ‘And Some Take A Lover’, in which she has
infused several significant historical and national events, with a punch of
societal issues in concurrence with her purpose and style of writing. (Dina Mehta, IndiaNetZone)
Intersectionality
and Patriarchy:
Intersectionality,
in social theory, the interaction and cumulative effects of multiple forms of
discrimination affecting the daily lives of individuals. Though originally
began with the Second Wave of Feminism in 1970s questioning the rights of women
of color by Kimberlé Crenshaw, a
black feminist in her impactful paper, the phenomenon has grown as a theory
that examines the cause and effect of the combination of societal, economical,
sexual, educational, biological and numerous other factors in the lifestyle and
position of an individual, who is nothing but a social animal. (“intersectionality”,
Britanicca)
This
theory is observed in the play ‘Brides
Are Not for Burning’ in a plethora of ways. It illustrates the nature,
thoughts and actions of an individual as a part of the society, in which he/she
is driven by the combination of various factors. The theory, in the realm of
patriarchy, vividly postulates that gender alone does not make men more
powerful and dominating, infact, it is the combination of numerous factors such
as age, race, class, ethnicity, caste that drives them to the state. The same
logic applies to every social relationship that humans share. Thus, in this
particular play, the theory of intersectionality is incorporated well enough,
adding to the realism and relatability of the play that makes the play an
impactful work to be studied and analyzed. In Spite of being a feminist work,
the play is well crafted with a diverse and realistic set of male characters. A
vivid examination in the portrayal of the male characters by Dina Mehta in the
play ‘Brides Are Not for Burning’ has
the capacity to elucidate the application of the theory of Intersectionality in
a precise way.
Patriarchy
means the domination of men in general. It is defined as the system where “the father or a male elder has absolute
authority over the family group; by extension, one or more men (as in a
council) exert absolute authority over the community as a whole”. (“patriarchy”, Britannica)
This
proper definition has an inclination towards Intersectionality theory in
itself, owing to the usage of the terms ‘‘male elder”, “one or more men”. The
above definition implies that patriarchy does not mean the domination of all
men over the world, though it is the most common deceptive sense derived by
people. The play supports the mentioned assertion in several ways through the
male characters.
Discussing Dina Mehta’ Men
and Intersectionality:
Anil:
Being
the only son of the family, Anil’s character is sketched to be a responsible,
ambitious man, who believes in education as a tool of change and aims to put an
end to numerous social issues. He is a moderate history teacher. His denial of
the offer made by Sanjay pictures his ethical spirit and lack of craze towards
wealth. Anil's protective attitude towards his sister reflects his role as the
man of the family, especially in the case of her relationship with Roy and
Sanjay. However, being a part of the patriarchal society, he is a victim. This
phenomenon is shown in Act 1, Scene 2 where
he is often ridiculed by his father for no fair reason, stating that he does
not pay attention. Similarly, as the man of the family, he is expected to be
earning more by characters like Malini, Professor Palkar.
“you
turned down a job with a four-figure salary? Why, Father could have paid up all
debts incurred for Laxmi’s wedding and used his pension as pocket money. And I
could have lived in a style I’m so unused to” - Malini (Act 1, Scene 1, p.21)
“Rubbish.
You cannot teach the new because you cannot dislodge the old.” - Professor
Palkar (Act 1, Scene 3, p.35)
Though
he is initially ready to accept the bygone i.e the death of Laxmi and the
verdict of accident on the same, he soon realizes the truth and takes steps to
attain justice, thanks to the words Palkar and especially Malini. This shows he
is a man who is ready to listen to a man.
Thus,
the intersection of the factors namely education, age, ideology overlooks the
factor of gender in the character sketch of Anil, despite being a part of the
patriarchal society. Simultaneously, his financial status plays a pivotal role
in the other characters' indifference and offence towards his ideologies. If he
had belonged to an aristocratic background, he would have been certainly lauded
for such ideals. However, his potential to bring the change is overlooked, and
also becomes ambiguous due to his initial tendency to accept the fate in his
sister's case.
Professor Palkar:
Professor
Palkar has a minor part in the play, leaving no interpretation regarding his
attitude towards patriarchy. He is a professor who is concerned about his
students, and he is the one who warns Anil regarding Malini’s relationship with
Roy. He also advises him that his dreams for the society are impractical,
subsequent to his conversation about Laxmi’s death. Thus, he is portrayed as an
experienced and practical man. Speaking of his attitude towards gender, he does
not seem to show any discrimination towards his male and female students.
Father :
The
character sketch of the father could be firmly mentioned as the real root of
patriarchy in every family, and as the symbol of domestic violence. His own
daughter Malini states that he had never heard of contraceptives, which
indicates his lack of education. His in-between mumblings under an illusion,
having sex with his second wife, especially his command “Lie still” (18,19), is
the playwright's best element to portray the marital rape. The first wife, Sujata,
has been sent to her home, breaking the marriage, owing to her perpetual
miscarriages. It is also identified in the play that he tries to pass the same
to his son. Though patriarchal society gives him power and influence in his
family, the patriarchal society makes him a victim as well. The moment where he
mentions that he “swallowed even that insult” (13), while talking about the
marriage of Laxmi, it may seem that he suffers as the father of a girl, but the
cause goes deep. He is insulted not only because he belongs to the bride’s
side, but also he is not able to provide the expected dowry, although he works
as a government clerk who could fill his pockets out of corruption. Being a
fearful and honest employee, he fails to meet the societal expectations of the
period. Thus, his poverty, job position, integrity, superstitious beliefs such
as naming the first child Laxmi to ensure flourishment, children, lack of
education intersect along with his gender, determining his stand as an
individual in his family as well as the society.
Vinodh:
Vinodh,
Laxmi’s wife, is portrayed as a son who perpetuates the patriarchal ideas.
Though his nature is implied as a part of patriarchy, it is also a result of a
man’s reluctance to accept his flaws or weaknesses, and feeling ashamed to
mention his impotence. Laxmi is blamed and subjected to several ‘rows’, stating
that she is sterile which would be the outcome of her past sins. Right from the
initial stage of marriage, she has been taunted for not bringing enough dowry. It
is nowhere directly mentioned in the text that Vinodh taunts her. However, his
silence towards his mother’s taunts is vividly visible. Apart from these, it is
his financial status and asset value that enables him to possess an upper hand
over several issues and moments. The same helps him in hiding the fact behind
Laxmi’s death, portraying it as an accident, and how he along with his family
has deliberately let her die, instead of saving her.
Despite
these interpretations, the dialogue of Kalu: “Like mother, like son” (77), and
the attitude of his mother kindle the suspicion towards the family as a
matriarchal one, still upholding patriarchal deceptions. After all his mother
is a typical patriarchal supporter who believes that a man is the one who
controls his wife, and a typical mother who wants to hide her son’s flaws.
At
the end of the day, these ambiguities do not halt the readers from certainly
perceiving the Marfatia family as a patriarchal element in the play, in which
Vinodh is hailed to be the head. Being the eldest son of an aristocratic
family, his patriarchal influence and power is supported by the intersection of
his gender, age, wealth, and especially the way he has been brought up. The
role of age could be well analysed and highlighted in reference to the state of
his younger brother, Arjun.
Arjun & Kalu :
Arjun
is a character that is able to be interpreted as partially innocent,
subjugated, overlooked, and he becomes the real truth revealer in the play.
Being obese, he is perpetually ridiculed and pressured by his family members
under the name of diet, especially Vinodh and his mother. He is the crystal
clear example of men being subjugated by other men. Fortunately, he raises his
voice against it and the voice becomes a kind of eye-opener in numerous
aspects, especially about Vinodh’s impotence. Unlike other characters in the
play, his physiological state intersects his stand as a man in the patriarchal
society. Being the younger one, his obesity and innocence overthrows his state
as a man and member of an aristocratic family.
Similarly,
the character of Kalu is depicted as a poor, struggling, grumbling servant to
the Marfatia family. Though he is a man, he is at the stage to be plundered,
laboured and made voiceless by the aristocrats.
“Who
does the cooking? Who does anything in this house? Everything went regular as a
clock when she was here and now- they expect me to do all the work alone”
“What's
ten rupees more for all the extra work I do?” - Kalu (Act 2, Scene 4, p.76, 77)
Despite his comments over Arjun, the
ill-treatment that he is provided with is identifiable. Being a man from the
village, the intersection of his roots, poverty and naivety with his gender
undoubtedly determine his position in the society.
Sanjay:
The
evil sexual and romantic side of patriarchy is shown in the play through the
character of Sanjay. Apart from the sexual desires, his indifference and
discouragement to Malini’s resolutions and Anil’s ideals reflect his avaricious
attitude in business, concerned only with profit and labouring his labourers
mercilessly. His product itself symbolises his nature i.e pesticide, which is
meant to kill insects but in turn affects humans. The businessman who is
supposed to serve the society is ruining it instead. His deceiving words and
love-bombing lose their power in making Malini unquestioning in Act 1, Scene 3’s end. Realising his
disinterest in marrying her, she forcibly gets involved in sex with him as an
act of purification and punishment. Here, rather than his wealth, his profit-motive
plays a significant role in defining his character, especially towards women.
Thus, the intersection of his wealth, profit-motive, ideology, familial
background and gender shapes his character sketch as an individual in the
society.
Roy:
Being
an anarchist, Roy's character is established as an extreme, revolutionary,
clear-headed, at the same time a bit patriarchal. He acts against the
inefficiency of the education system, unemployment, capitalism, corruption, in
nutshell, working for human welfare. Irrespective of his unconventional
activism and ideologies, he remains patriarchal in a way or the other. His
wife, Gita’s forced abortion without her consent marks the best illustration to
prove his patriarchal attitude. At the
end of the play, Malini realises that following his footsteps is nothing but
“exchange one servitude for another” (94). Though he is a social reformer by
other means, he lacks this inclination in abolishing patriarchy. The character
description states that he is a lover of mankind, but this may imply that he
loses in the attempt to include womankind. This particular character portrays
how gender intersects and affects one’s revolutionary ideologies, making them
questionable and uncertain. Through him, Dina Mehta shows the other perspective
and elucidates how powerful gender can be in the intersection of an
individual’s plethora of factors. Thus, his lifestyle is the intersection of
his societal status, extremism, education, struggles and gender.
Conclusion:
Dina
Mehta has done a phenomenal job in exploring various perspectives of patriarchy
and its impact, instead of sticking on to stereotypes and prototypes of the
society. Her portrayal of the female characters is often quoted and studied.
However, her depiction of male characters is also to be examined to illustrate
her character writing and treatment of the society as a collective unit of
diverse individuals. Her characters do vary from each other, reflecting the
uniqueness of every individual and the nature of the society. As for her, the
society is driven by diverse characters who lead to the best as well as to the
worst. Hence it is psychologically, sociologically proved that the playwright
craftily utilizes the theory of intersectionality, taking the reader into a realistic
and reflective experience. In the advent of writing a feminist work, she does
not typically portray every man as a man of dominance, as a man with knife and
narcissism, as the upholders of patriarchy. Instead, she showcases the reality
of patriarchy and the effects of factors that determine the same. She has not
failed in drawing the struggles and victimisation of men, in addition to women,
which makes her work a mirror of the society of that time.
If every writer sticks to such realistic
norms and standards, every work will obtain the potential to convey messages to
the society in an effective way. Dina Mehta ensures relatability and empathy
towards the characters on the part of the readers. The intersectional theory in
her work encapsulates the fact that not every man is of power when one means
the term ‘Patriarchy’.
Works Cited
Mehta,
Dina, Brides Are Not for Burning, New
Delhi, Rupa and Co. 1993
Britannica,
The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "patriarchy”. Encyclopedia Britannica,
11 Nov. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/topic/patriarchy .
Accessed 29 December 2024.
Samie,
August. “intersectionality”. Encyclopedia
Britannica, 20 Dec. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/topic/intersectionality .
Accessed 29 December 2024.
Devika,
S. “The Voice of Protest: Burning Issues in Dina Mehta’s Brides Are Not for
Burning”. Journal of Literature and Art
Studies, Vol. 2, No. 2, February 2012, 302-308.
Rosha,
K.V. “Exhibiting Resistance: In Dina
Mehta’s Plays, Brides Are Not for Burning and Getting Away With Murder”. International Journal of Multidisciplinary
Research and Modern Education, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2015.
Ananda
Kirdat, Pandurang. “Patriarchy in Dina Mehta’s Brides Are Not for Burning”. Online International Interdisciplinary
Research Journal, Volume-VI, Issue-III, May-June 2016, 139-144
IndiaNetzone.
Dina Mehta. IndiaNetzone, https://www.indianetzone.com/dina_mehta .
Accessed 27 December 2024.