The Portrayal of Hunger and Human Degradation in Kamala Markandaya’s Novels: Nectar in a Sieve and a Handful of Rice

...

said tenderly, ‘unless you must.’ ‘It was a gentle passing,’ I said. ‘I will tell you later.” This dialogue shows Rukmani’s return to the village is overcast with uncertainties since her income was grabbed away with Nathan’s eviction from their land. Markandaya leaves the ending of Rukmani’s story untold to emphasize the never ending circle of poverty and highlight that a complex social issue such as poverty cannot be resolved easily.

Similarly, in A Handful of Rice Ravi acquiesces his beliefs of equality contrary to his earlier conviction that equality will ultimately reign. The last scene of the novel depicts a riot for the increase in rice prices:

‘We’ll get them,’…‘Your turn, brother!’ Ravi took aim, poising the jagged brick level at his shoulder. But suddenly he could not. The strength that had inflamed him, the strength of a suppressed, laminated anger, ebbed as quickly as it had risen. His hand dropped. ‘… What is the matter with you?’ ‘I don’t feel in the mood today,’ he answered, a great weariness settling upon him…

This quote shows Ravi’s defeat and surrender to poverty and social degradation and his passive acceptance of Fate. Initially, Ravi is portrayed as an active rebel of poverty who abhorred the idea fatalism. Prem Kumar claims that Ravi’s anger is “directed at the way ‘people accept their (life) and even [thank] God it was no worse.” Ravi’s rejection of fatalism is voiced in this quote: “strength that had inflamed him, the strength of a suppressed, laminated anger, ebbed as quickly as it had risen.” However, this anger is much more suppressed now and has turned into passive acceptance. Eventually, perpetual poverty defeats Ravi and his childish anger towards fatalism turns into his reality.

EXPLORATION OF FATALISM AMONGST POOR

Markandaya’s novels highlight the struggles of her characters to fight poverty and destiny despite knowing it is a losing battle. In Nectar in a Sieve, Rao opines that “it is implied in the rules of the game that [Rukmani] be the loser…” as “do what she may, she is destined to be defeated.”

Fatalism is evident in both the novels: the older generation’s passive acceptance of poverty and the younger generation’s active rebellion against poverty are juxtaposed in the two novels. Rukmani and Nathan from Nectar in a Sieve and Apu and Jayamma from A Handful of Rice portray the older generation while Rukmani’s sons and Ravi’s personalities reflect the younger generation. Interestingly, Markandaya’s writing draws light to the older generation’s passive acceptance of their Fate. Whereas, the younger generation is enraged by this perception and believes that destiny lies in their hands and they can change their Fate.

Acceptance of fatalism is highlighted in A Handful of Rice, as in the dialogue between Ravi and Nalini: “And our livelihood,’… that too rests in God’s hands.” Similarly, fatalism is mirrored in Nectar in a Sieve, with Rukmani’s expression: “We are all in God’s hands.” Contradicting this perception, Markandaya creates characters who battle against fatalism. As when Ravi strongly disagrees with Nalini’s fatalistic opinion that their future lies in the hands of God, “No,’ he said sharply, ‘it is not in God’s hands… It is in our hand, our hands.” Likewise, in Nectar in a Sieve, Rukmani’s sons share Ravi’s perspective when they ask Rukmani and Nathan, “you made no protest?” when Nathan’s land is evicted. These opinions demonstrate that many in poverty believe that their future lies in God’s hands and do nothing to fight it; nonetheless, others cling to the hope of escaping poverty. This juxtaposition is endorsed by Kumar’s opinion: “Rukmani’s attitude towards life stands in sharp contrast to that of the younger generation.”

The uniqueness of the two novels is determined through the narrative technique. In A Handful of Rice there is an omniscient narrator, whereas in Nectar in a Sieve Rukmani is the narrator. The omniscient narrator affords the readers with an objective perspective on the characters’ lives by being unbiased and emotionally detached. This quality of the omniscient narrator concretes Ravi’s views on fatalism: “But whose hands, actually? His?” Detachment from the life of the characters provides the omniscient narrator the power to look beyond and even challenge the opinions of the characters. Whereas in Nectar in a Sieve, this element is missing because Rukmani narrates her story making it hard to be unbiased and objective. Nonetheless, Markandaya employs these two narration writing styles to reinforce the juxtaposition of fatalism amongst the poor.

The irony of life in A Handful of Rice is portrayed when Nalini exclaims to Ravi that “the prices [of rice] go up and up… because of the bad harvest” This is an interesting projection because Ravi “thought he had cut clear of all that, very simply by walking out; now here was the slimy tentacle reaching out from the sodden paddy fields of endless abject villages to clutch him in the middle of a town.” When the narrator mentions that “he had cut clear of all that” he is referring to the poverty in villages. Several times in the beginning of the novel, Ravi reiterates that he migrated to the city to escape the poverty and hardships he had experienced in villages because of impoverished harvests. Ironically, even after moving to the city, Ravi is plagued by the poor harvests as this leads to the scarcity of rice and inflation of rice prices. The narrator employs the metaphor of a tentacle comparing it to the poverty of villages. Markandaya draws this comparison through the denotation of the word “tentacle” which is a flexible limb or appendage of an octopus. The comparison of village life to a tentacle implies that like a tentacle the poverty of village life is inflexible and suffocating in the sense that it chokes Ravi even after he migrates to the city. Because of the tentacle’s inflexibility, rural poverty follows Ravi into his urban life and comes to “clutch him in the middle of a town.”

Captivated with the thought of escape from hunger and sickness rooted in the village, Ravi migrates to the city. Ironically, the stubborn tentacle of rural hardships creeps upon Ravi in the city. This ironic incident illustrates the inescapable grasp of poverty on Ravi’s destiny. As noted by Kumar, “injustice and exploitation are not just spawned by geography.” Thus suggesting that simply leaving the village does not ensure riddance from poverty.

ROLE OF FATE THROUGH USE OF PERIPETEIA

Markandaya employs peripeteia to capture the impact of Fate in the lives of the characters. Unlike the traditional belief in Indian philosophy that