Caste, Gender,
and Anti‑Humanist Critique in Meena Kandasamy’s Poetry
Basabi
Pal,
Assistant
Professor in English,
Rabindra
Mahavidyalaya,
Champadanga,
Hooghly,
West Bengal,
India.
Abstract: To address issues such as caste, capitalism,
patriarchy, dehumanization, and gender inequality, Kandasamy uses language as a
weapon against oppression. This paper examines how Meena Kandasamy’s poetry exposes
the normalization of sexual violence and caste oppression in poems such as
“Apologies for Living On,” “Mascara,” and “Mohandas Karamchand.” Her work
critiques the caste system, revealing how caste oppression is cloaked by
religion, nationalism, and humanism, while restoring the humanity of women
marginalized by caste and patriarchy. Kandasamy rejects dehumanized portrayals,
instead spotlighting the inner lives, rage, and creativity of Dalit and
marginalized women. Her poetry asserts humanism as a political claim to dignity
and complexity for those demeaned as less than fully human, presenting a
practical humanism grounded in the body, memory, and resistance. Through these
themes, she establishes herself as a genuinely humanistic poet who advocates for
the Dalit community’s struggles. This paper is an attempt to look back at her
works where she attempts to give voice to the marginalized and advocate for
love, equality, and social liberation.
Keywords: Caste,
Gender, Humanism, Dalit poetry, Equality
Though 'humanism' lacks a single definition, it
generally conveys love, compassion, and fellow feeling. This paper contends
humanism—particularly in literary contexts—should be seen as an active ethic
that recognises and asserts the dignity and agency of marginalised individuals.
Building on this, over time, 'humanism' has evolved into various
forms—Literary, Renaissance, Religious, Secular, Modern, and Cultural—each
prioritizing human dignity and value, emphasizing reason and rationality over
stereotypes and superstitions. Human beings hold a central place in every
sphere of the world.
To trace its historical emergence, Renaissance
scholars first coined ‘humanism’ to highlight the dignity and intelligence of
man, initially emphasizing its emergence as a European phenomenon. Today,
humanists are associated with viewing humanity as the crown of creation—a
perspective captured in Hamlet:
What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how
infinite in faculties! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action
how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god! the beauty of the world!
the paragon of animals! (77-78)
In this intellectual climate, humanists valued
learning and intellect, associating humanism with welfare, enlightenment, and
progress for the benefit of humanity. J.A. Cuddon observes:
“…humanism helped to civilize man, to make him realize
his potential powers and gifts, and to reduce the discrepancy between
potentiality and attainment. It was a movement that was at once a product of
and a counteraction to a certain prevalent scepticism; a way of dealing with
the disequilibrium created by the conflict between belief and doubt. Humanism
turned out to be a form of philosophy which concentrated on the perfection of a
worldly life, rather than on the preparation for an eternal and spiritual
life.” (p. 403)
Extending this idea, humanism puts the mind at the
centre of meaning and action. It favors reason over divine authority. As Peter
Brooker notes in AGlossaryofCulturalTheory:
This was
theorized most famously prior to its full realization in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries in Rene Descartes’ theory of the cognito (‘I think
therefore I am’). This unequivocal confirmation of individual human
CONSCIOUSNESS as the guarantee of existence and IDENTITY, when translated into
‘I can be what I want’, fuelled the triumph of the middle class in nineteenth
century industrial societies. As a result, what is most often meant by humanism
is the compound of individualism and class interests known as ‘liberal
humanism’. (125)
Despite these roots, humanism is a notoriously
unstable term, spanning Renaissance, Enlightenment, and modern notions of
humanity. In response to this complexity, this paper focuses on recent,
politicized efforts to redefine humanism as an ethic grounded in real
historical conditions, resisting abstract ideas of 'Man' and reaffirming the
dignity and lived experience of those marginalized by power.
In the context of literary studies, humanism refers to
prioritizing the value, agency, and ethical claims of human beings. Building
from this, this paper contends that Kandasamy's poetry embodies a situated and
resistant humanism by foregrounding the interior lives and creativity of Dalit
and marginalized women. Instead of merely including them within the traditional
category of the human, Kandasamy’s poems represent the two aspects of
marginalisation by focusing on issues of sexual harassment and casteism. This
article attempts to highlight the urgency and transformative potential of
reimagining humanism in literary contexts by foregrounding these marginalized
experiences.
Meena Kandasamy is a people’s poet who reflects social
consciousness and a powerful sense of justice through her poetry, by
maintaining a distinct rhythm and emotional depth. She describes her creative
process as an organic flow—her poems come alive with the freshness and pain of
lived experience. This paper
argues that members of dominant institutions and social groups shape and
control discourses in society, determining who can participate in communicative
acts and influencing the structure and content of these acts. The ideologies of
these dominant groups, particularly patriarchal ones, are embedded in and
perpetuated by educational systems and other institutional contexts.
Dalit women’s
marginalized status is depicted in Meena Kandasamy’s Touch. Many poems
illustrate the stark reality faced by Dalit women in India, who are denied
basic familial roles and even their children, often facing forced abortion.
Only recent class mobilization has challenged the ongoing rape and abuse of
Dalit women, many of whom are exploited as landless laborers, despite formal
constitutional protections. The text highlights that upper caste men can
exploit lower caste women, demonstrating the persistent inequity. The lower
caste woman recognizes that an upper caste man’s willingness to marry her is
not egalitarianism, but rather an assertion of power.
In Meena Kandasamy’s
poem “Aftermath” (Touch,120), the poet examines how patriarchal ideas of
femininity can constrain a girl and foster submissiveness. The poem “Apologies
for Living On” (Touch, p. 122) further describes that this world is not
welcoming to girls. This poem, appearing as a sequel to “Aftermath,” explores
modern forms of gender ideologies. The title suggests girls must accept
apologies to survive in this world. “Aftermath” illustrates how society compels
a girl to conform to social norms by making her say ‘yes,’ while “Apologies for
Living On” shows the girl’s need to apologize in order to persist. The speaker
in the latter poem is a girl who narrates her adolescence, revealing her
preference for safety over confronting challenges. She attempts to escape the
sexist world marked by experiences such as “bottom patting and breast pinching”
(p. 122). Describing herself as helpless, she seeks an unsexist world, saying
that nowhere is as safe as the mother’s womb for a girl. The poem asserts that
the entire world is unsafe for women, reducing them to objects of pleasure. It
critiques popular childhood stories of romance that depict men as saviors,
trapping girls in passive states as they wait for Prince Charming. The lines,
“a terrified princess waiting / for-death-and-not any-brave-prince” (p. 122),
directly respond to the recurring narrative girls are told.
The speaker in
“Apologies for Living On” is acutely aware that no such charming prince exists;
instead, the idea terrifies her. She reveals, “I ran away in the darkness/
nothing beaconed me more than the/ prospect-of
solitude-and-the-caress-of-a-million-stars/ I ran into the arms of the
ravishing night/ nothing pulled me back: not even the memories of love/
I-had-once-known- &-stolen-kisses savoured-for-so-long./ I ran until terror
stopped my tracks/ for, trembling, I turned and saw that the moon was/
another-immodest-ogler-and lecherous-stalker” (Touch, p. 122). She is drawn to
the darkness of the night, taking comfort in the starry sky. The contrast
between light and darkness suggests hope amid difficulty. Although the starry
night offers solace, she fears the gaze of the moon, describing it as “another
immodest ogler” (p. 122). The other oglers are the men of patriarchal society
who objectify women. The poem presents a female protagonist subjected to the
invasive, even violent, male gaze—a critique of gender ideologies and a
reflection of the speaker’s voice of rebellion as she seeks space and
recognition in a gender-biased society.
In the poem
“Mascara,” a minute detail of a prostitute’s agonies goes unheard, highlighting
her inner dilemma as the central subject. While prostitution is generally
projected as apparent consensual sexual intercourse, the poem presents a
starkly contrasting image. For example, before she gets ready to die/ once
more, of violation, / she applies the mascara (128). These lines depict the
sordid nature of the physical and mental pain that a prostitute may suffer in
her mind. Additionally, they suggest that each time a prostitute adorns her
eyes with mascara, she prepares herself for the metaphorical death of her body
and soul. By titling the poem ‘Mascara’, Kandasamy makes the entire work a
metaphor for the silent black tears of a prostitute — tears unnoticed because
of the mascara on her eyes. In this context, Mascara symbolizes a prostitute’s
attempt to veil her indignation and cringing self before clients and a society
indifferent to her suffering.
The origin of this
practice traces back to the devadasi system, where daughters of devadasis
became temple prostitutes and outcasts, exploited without caste protection.
Lower caste women have also faced exploitation under Sati, dowry, child
marriage, and the devadasi system. Over time, devadasis became prostitutes
subject to upper caste men's desires, treated as common property. Deepa B.
Suvarna Suni’s article quotes former devadasis on the stigma, lack of
protection, and barriers to other work. This system legitimized sexual violence
and left devadasis without legal recourse or caste identity. Such practices
erode Dalit self-respect and preserve their underprivileged status. Ratan Lal
Bansal’s article notes that the priesthood stalled progress, with Puranas
describing priests exploiting women from any clan when overtaken by sexual
impulses.
Mascara hides the
prostitute’s “long buried / hazy dreams / of a virgin soul(128).” By calling
the prostitute a ‘virgin soul,’ Kandasamy separates sex from love, emphasizing
that, though used and isolated, her soul remains untouched. Traditional texts
support the outcast status of temple prostitutes. In Kandasamy’s “Backstreet
girls” (Ms Militancy p. 14), the poem reiterates, “We are not the ones you will
choose for wives. / We are not the ones you can sentence for life.” This is
echoed by, “Sex clings to her devadasi skin, / Assumed superficialities don’t
wear off” (128). The poem concludes that prostitutes are perpetual outcasts,
denied lifelong companionship and true solace. Consolations only temporarily
soothe violated bodies.
This poem captures
the angst and despondency felt by a prostitute. The poem “Mascara” depicts the
experience of fear and dilemma that a prostitute undergoes. ‘Body’ is a
recurring metaphor in the poems of Kandasamy. Exploitation of women’s bodies in
the patriarchal society is a major theme in many of her poems. The prostitute
in the poem desperately prays to the Gods for liberation, but her helplessness
elicits no response from them. As her prayers remain perennially unheard, she
changes the role of body and mind. Kandasamy here views cosmetics as
“war paints” (128), reminding us that the warrior goddess Kali wears mascara
too. By referring to Kali, she evokes the image of violence and death. Like
Kali, she wants to be a strong mother-figure and wants to take revenge of the
most obnoxious practices like Devadasi. She uses mascara as a tool of
resistance against social injustices and evil practices on the lower caste
women. Her determination and mental strength help her to gain a space, voice
and identity in the caste-based Indian society.
By giving the sex
worker, a genealogy and a reflective voice, the poem refuses the stereotype of
the anonymous “fallen” woman. Instead, it restores depth, memory, and context
to her life. The poem thus envisions her confronting the men and structures
responsible for her suffering. This reimagining of the prostituted Dalit woman
rejects sentimental humanism in favor of affirming her right to rage as part of
her humanity. The anger of the prostitute is seen as an ethical response rather
than deviance. Therefore, “Mascara” humanises the Dalit sex worker by
highlighting her capacities for critical thought, historical memory, and
resistance, in addition to her suffering.
In a society
fractured by caste, class, religion, gender, race, and dietary or belief
differences, inequality and inhumanity persist everywhere. Untouchability,
religious hierarchies, and economic divisions show that human beings endlessly
subdivide themselves. As Dalits and as women, they are doubly marginalized and
this marginalization has inculcated in them a sense of subversion and
rebellion. This subversion takes place in different forms, like challenging the
popular and prevalent myths and beliefs and reinterpreting them. This is the
challenging of the ideology. These writers question and challenge the
pertaining ideology which perpetuates and normalizes their subjugation. In a
very bold and rebellious way, the Dalit Women Writers have reacted to the atrocious
patriarchy and caste discrimination, which has reduced them to a mere physical
existence. The boldest and most striking of the selected poems is “Mohandas
Karamchand”.
The very title of the
poem gives us an idea about its tone. The poet deliberately avoids using both
the words ‘Mahatma’ and ‘Gandhi’, as they carry an aura. The poet quotes Albert
Einstein’s most celebrated quotation about Mahatma Gandhi and straightly
declines to call him ‘Mahatma’ (54). She calls the principles of truth and
non-violence as taboo words and obsolete. The poet states that Gandhiji and his
glorification need a ‘thorough review (54)’. The relentless sufferings of
the underprivileged are also deftly manifested through the delineation of their
health diseases for consuming the tax-free salt produced in indigenous ways
under the supervision of Gandhi. But the people from the elite sections of
society don’t turn out to be the victims of this unhygienic product, since they
are privileged enough to evade this hostile situation, though they are the ones
to lead and enjoy the privileges of nationalism and its consequences.
Kandasamy’s critique
of Gandhi is also evident in her reference to the story of Mahatma Gandhi and
his mother, Putlibai Gandhi. Once, the mother was fasting, and she let it be
known that she would break the fast only when she heard the cuckoo's song. She
waited a long time, but, alas, the cuckoo did not sing. Gandhi Ji was a small
child then, and he felt very sad that his mom would not take a morsel of food. A
brilliant idea crossed the mind of the adoring child. He rushed to the back
garden and imitated the cuckoo's song. Referring to this story, Meena’s sarcasm
calls Gandhi as ‘Gone half-cuckoo’ (54).
Meena Kandasamy
alleges Gandhi classified the people from lower castes and the underprivileged
sections of the society as ‘Harijans’ (54)., which according to Gandhi
signifies the children of God. But according to Dalit intellectuals, the term
‘Harijan’ is derogatory, whose ontology can be traced back to the pre-colonial
era, when people from upper castes and elite sections of society used to visit
courtesans and ‘devdasis’ to gratify themselves. But later, they used to shirk
all their responsibilities toward impregnating the courtesans. The
Supreme Court of India, in a ruling termed it abusive, which the Dalits have
been reiterating for decades. In the present times, the word is considered
insulting. Further, the poet warns Gandhiji not to act as a holy saint as his
impurities can be seen through. She charges him with a great deal of injustice
against his wife. According to her, it is the books written by his followers
and admirers that have taken him to such heights that he does not deserve. He
knew well that caste would not go from India, and still showed that he was
working for caste eradication. The poet calls him a sadist and writes- “Bapu,
Bapu you big fraud, we hate you” (55). This line reminds us of the last line of
Sylvia Plath’s famous poem “Daddy”. The poet questions the greatness of Mahatma
Gandhi, who is considered a legendary personality of the millennium by the
whole world, thus displaying the inclination to scrutinize even the popular and
to re-interpret it. In this poem, Kandasamy displays a spirit of rebellion
against whatever is unjustifiable and inhumane in society. Her poems clearly
indicate that, unable to accept the conformist attitude, she raises objections
to discrimination based on class, caste, and gender and expects equal, humane
treatment for all.
Poems like “Mohandas
Karamchand” expose how Gandhi’s so‑called humanism masks caste violence.
Kandasamy mocks the “Harijan” label and the worshipful image of Mahatma that
erases Dalit experiences. Here she attacks both Gandhi’s caste politics and his
patriarchal behaviour (for example, towards his wife), reading his life and
myth as symptoms of a Brahminical, male‑centred “universal humanism” that never
truly includes Dalit women. Gandhi’s “Harijan” politics and caste‑reformism
appear less as genuine inclusion than as a paternalistic strategy that keeps
Dalits within a Hindu order that continues to dehumanize them.
Meena Kandasamy’s
poetry reveals the oppressive dimensions of society- the passive acceptance
imposed on women and the persistence of untouchability. Consistently, Kandasamy
advocates for the intrinsic worth of every individual. From a humanist
discourse, she directly challenges systemic dehumanisation. Authentic social
transformation, she maintains, demands both moral awareness and compassion; she
urges society to embrace these qualities to create lasting change.
Works Cited
Brooker, Peter. A
Glossary of Cultural Theory. 2nd ed., Arnold, 2003.
Cuddon, J.A. A
Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory. 5th ed., Wiley-Blackwell,
2013.
Deepa, B., and D. Suvarna Suni. “Devadasi System:
Forced Prostitution by Dalit Women on the Name of Religion.” IMPACT: International Journal of Research in
Humanities, Arts and Literature, vol. 4, no. 2, Feb. 2016, pp. 63-70.
Kandasamy, Meena. Ms
Militancy. Zubaan Books, 2010.
Kandasamy, Meena. Touch.
Navayana Publishing, 2006.
Plath, Sylvia. “Daddy.” Ariel, Harper & Row, 1968.
Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Edited by Ann Thompson and Neil Taylor, Arden Shakespeare,
2006. Act 2, scene 2, lines 77-78.