☛ We are inviting submission in the field of literature and literary theory in the form of article, book review, poem, short story, travelogue and interview for our regular April issue (Vol. 6, No. 2). The last date for submission is 31 March, 2025.

Exploring Intersectionality and Patriarchy in the Male Characters of Dina Mehta’s ‘Brides Are Not for Burning’ - Dhivya S R

 


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.