Saturday, November 30, 2013

An Eddy in the Maze: Subaltern Subject in Pandey's Ular by Komal Prasad Phuyal

by  Komal Prasad Phuyal

Abstract
Nayan Raj Pandey'sUlar (1998) presents a typical Nepali subject, Prem Lalwa, inquest of his rightful position that he believes guarantees him with real bliss in life. Thepursuit for happiness encounters many puzzling circumstances through which to observe thefunctioning of society, whereby enriching his life with experience of divergent dimensions of human nature at three levels: local, regional, and national. He passes through all the layers of society like an eddy in the maze of politics in democratic Nepal of the 1990s. Unlike GayatriChakravorty Spivak (1998) who postulates that the subaltern cannot speak, the paper arguesthat the subaltern speech carries symbolic codes and significance in that the pursuit of theeddy in the maze enables him with power of decision, resulting in realization of the missedcourse in life. In other words, the eddy in the subaltern subjectivity turns into a boldpersonality, having adequately acquainted with the maze of local, regional, and nationalpolitics.
Eddy
Ular (1998) presents a Tonga man, Prem Lalwa, as a typical Nepali subaltern subject,whose journey unfolds the happenings in the novella. The defeat of his patron in electionbegins his quest for rightful position. He suffers from ignorance and goes on to accept thingsas they happen, whereby presenting himself a weak subject controlled by circumstances andouter forces that result in a state of flux in him. The unrest of mind directly corresponds to thesocio-political atmosphere of the liberal politics of the 1990s in Nepal. The new wave of change, since it is not well-adopted, produces an eddy in Prem, positioning himself in thelabyrinth of local, regional, and national politics; yet, unlike Spivakian postcolonial subject,he explores a meaningful approach to assert himself after gaining adequate experience of ways of the world.The subaltern in Prem appears in the novel as a political subject as well in that heattempts to shape a new reality, albeit with limited resources. He whole heartedly supportsRajendra Raj in election (Pandey 10), for the latter has provided the former with patronage inthe society: Rajendra Raj assisted him to acquire citizenship certificate and driving licenseafter both his parents died. Illiterate Prem is quite impressed by his benefactor for his abilityto speak English. However, he never questions the political patron even when he sells land tothe party for the first time and gets cheated. The ignorance in Prem further adds to the state of vagueness: he fails to recognize and accept the doubtful play of Rajendra Raj in local andregional politics even when he is told that Shanti Raja –Rajendra Raj’s opponent in theelection – won the election with Rajendra Raj’s support. In fact, he appears really like aSpivakian subject screened at multiple layers in the maze (Spivak 298).The contentment that accompanies Prem in the pursuit is seen in Draupadi. Sherepresents the whole Badi Community that practices prostitution as a means of livelihood.Her deaf father and ASI Bishne treat her body as object, for she is exploited for survival and
1MLA Citation: Phuyal, Komal Prasad. “An Eddy in the Maze: Subaltern Subject in Pandey’s
Ular.” Literary Studies
26 (March 2012): 63-66.
 The author currently teaches at Lalitkala Campus, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal. He cannot reachedat komalprasadphuyal@gmail.com
http://htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/9lq8a0fvk02cbh4a/images/1-8d26c42138.jpg


pleasure respectively. Nevertheless, Pandey sees purity in these people: “Draupadi does notknow her mother’s name. However, when Draupadi asked her, ‘Is your name Sita?,’ hermother replied with surprise, ‘How did you know?'” (21). Every Draupadi is born Sita. Thepotential of remaining ‘pure’ is lost in the society where the subaltern subject encounters theignorance of the state. Yet, certain fundamental values like shame still continue with them:Draupadi feels ashamed to “stand naked in front of Prem” (27). Both of them celebrate moralvalues as they are put into practice elsewhere in the elite society.

Deferral in the Maze
Prem enters the maze of local politics by accepting guardianship of Rajendra Raj. Thedefeat in election hits him profoundly in that his campaign could not succeed. Besides, thecircumstances force him to participate in opponent candidate Shanti Raja’s procession whereto “encounterular 2”(31). In other words, the state of directionlessness results in his life after the ular since Basanti, the Tonga horse, dies in it. The ular symbolizes state of the nation thathas lost its internal dynamics in the 1990s. Ironically, Pandey’s subaltern subject pursueshuman essence of togetherness in this society so as to attain the fulfillment in life.Furthermore, the subject enters into the labyrinth of larger domain of politics with the ular.

Prem’s hope and trust in Rajendra Raj generate additional confusion. On the onehand, he harbors shock after Rajendra Raj’s defeat in election; on the other, he comes toknow that Shanti Raja could not have won the election without Rajendra Raj’s consent andassistance. Prem can never believe political rivals lending a hand to each other! Trapped inthe communal violence resulting in “local Hindu-Muslim riot” (36), he falls prey of localpolitics. The climax of such foul play occurs when his Basanti –the only source for his living–dies. Very aptly, the author weaves tangles of questions at this point:

For a moment, Prem Lalwa stood dead-still, confused. Who died?
Basanti or he?
He or Basanti?
At last, Prem Lalwa realized it was Basanti that died.(37)

With a hope of overcoming the unexpected circumstance, Prem travels further into the web of local politics that just pushes him into deeper flux. Rajendra Raj writes a note to Shanti Raja,asking to “provide some financial aid to Prem” (42): morally, Shanti Raja has to compensatethe death of Basanti in that the Tonga horse dies in Shanti Raja’s victory procession. On thecontrary, Shanti Raja’s “Come tomorrow” (44) and “Come to Kathmandu” (47) completelythrow him into the center of illusory entrapment of national politics. Moving from margin tothe center, he arrives at Kathmandu in search of the lost horse, but just to be “tired of thinking” (54) and rejected by/in Kathmandu. The eddy journeys in the core section of labyrinth: he moves in the inner passage of Buspark-Pulchwok-Singha Durbar-Baluwatar-Party Office-Pulchwok-Ministry of Transportation section of national politics (56-8). It is inthis web where his quest is deferred.

The deferral of object sought leaves Prem empty: he is left without any answer. Back home, the house is ruined in the rain; and the Tonga, stolen. Nevertheless, he possesses onemore thing: will to live. Strengthened by the observation of politics at various levels fromlocal to national, he is rewarded with realization that he has got to break free from the chains of assumed patronage of Rajendra Raj. The eddy paves a road for a politicallyaware and bold subjectivity, capable of understanding the process of marginalization (78). Infact, he fails to speak and act as long as he is afraid of the society that is full of RajendraRajs, aiming at robbing from him his land. Selling the land, he regains all he lost during his journey in the maze: horse, Tonga, and house. For one thing, he is further pushed to themargin from his central location at the bazaar since he buys house and land away from hisprevious place. For the other, he is rewarded with the power of decision: he makes decisionon his own now. Hence, he accepts and declares Draupadi his wife. Having been adequatelyacquainted with the world, he takes a bold decision by rejecting Rajendra Raj as hisbenefactor.



2Imbalance due to the load only in the back part of tonga or cart.
http://htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/9lq8a0fvk02cbh4a/images/2-207c2d5d8e.jpg


Subaltern Subject

Spivakian subaltern subject is basically situated in the discourses as produced in themetropolitan academia of the West so far as she seeks to locate the representation of thesubaltern in the discourses of the West. For her, the subaltern speech turns meaningful,provided it is well-represented in said discourses; besides, her problems lie with the layers of screening the subaltern is surrounded with. She illustrates a case of  Sati in India: it is knownin the west through English and in India through the discourse of dominant Hindu men(Spivak 298). In this sense, whatever sati means emerges as the produce filtered throughthese discourses. Similarly, Spivakian subject must be dealt with “the position of reader/writer vis-à-vis the subaltern and the dominant discourse” (Maggio 425-6). The broadcivilization differences and the position of the subaltern subject in the western academicdiscourses help to deny the voice of the subject because of issues relating to therepresentation and translation.

Originally, Gramsci made use of the term “‘subaltern’ with regard to social class”(Green 2). Reading Marx through Derridian post structuralism and following Saidianintellectual frame of civilization differences in representing the ‘Other,’ Spaak’s subalternfails to emerge as a social class, but as a civilization group dominated and depicted in thediscourses of the colonizers. She also notes that “the subaltern as female cannot be heard orread” (308). On the one hand, she emphasizes on extensive civilizational categories like thecolonizer and colonized; on the other, she seeks to scrutinize the social class on the ground of gender alone. Furthermore, Maggio states that “the production of the postcolonial subject isdependent on the intellectual creation of the West as a subject of study, as well as Said’sOrient” (425). Thus, the subaltern’s voice is measured on the scale of how the westunderstands it: the failure of representation of the subaltern for Spivak turns silencing of theentire social class. In fact, she assumes a very elitist position to deny a specific social classtheir voice when the western discourses –she attempts to build her methodology on thefoundation of her Derridian reading of Marx –utterly fail to represent the subaltern. Also, thelimit of the western discourses cannot be measure of subaltern in every society.

 Nayan Raj Pandey’s subaltern subject in Ular does not succeed to assert what hewants as long as he does not fully observe the functioning of social phenomena. Thedominant group as represented by Rajendra Raj and Shanti Raja (later minister) always wantsto put people like Prem Lalwa at their service and continuously exploit them. UnlikeSpivakian discourse of the subaltern that denies them with power of agency (299), Green  notes, “Subaltern groups have to become conscious of their social position, organize, andstruggle to transform their social positions, since organization and representation alone willnot transform the relations of subordination” (19). Prem Lalwa also possesses potentialagency to bring about transformation in his life. The journey to Kathmandu in quest of thelost horse is not a mere act of a patient: it has vigor of gaining his rightful position though itends in realization that he has to act for his happiness. The eddy’s search in socio-politicallabyrinth results in the bold speech in that unlike Spivakian subject with its deaf Eurocentricaudience, Prem Lalwa, as a typical Nepali subaltern, speaks very meaningfully in his owncontext: he accepts Draupadi as his wife and rejects Rajendra Raj’s patronage, wherebyenabling himself to make decision on his own.
Works Cited
Green, Marcus. “Gramsci Cannot Speak: Presentations and Interpretations of Gramsci’sConcept of the Subaltern.”
 Rethinking Marxism
14.3 (Fall 2002): 1-24.Maggio, J. “‘Can the Subaltern be Heard?: Political Theory, Translation, Representation, andGayatri Chakravorty Spivak.”
 Alternatives
32 (2007): 419-43.Pandey, Nayan Raj.Ular.
Kathmandu: Fine Prints, 1998.Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Can the Subaltern Speak?”
 Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture
. Eds. Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg.Urbana,IL:University of IIIinois Press,1998:271-331.





No comments:

Post a Comment