The God of Small Things Recalling its impact

This year marks the twentieth year of the publication of The God of Small Things, a fiction written by Arundhati Roy. When it first came, it had taken the literary world by storm. A number of articles and edited books were written aftermath of it. Some seminars and symposia etc were held as well. What were the issues it had dealt with, if any? After twenty years, does it still inspire someone? The second question may not find a straightforward answer. The first question, however, might be easier to deal with in comparison with the second one. A close reading of the novel will give an impression that it deals with various issues like politics, women’s state, untouchability etc to name a few. R. K. Dhawan writes, “A cursory reading of the text gives us the impression that the novel is quite simple, but a close study reveals that it is a well-planned work and has a subtle and complex plot. It is composed of memories treated artistically by the author. Even though the reader knows the story right at the outset, he never loses interest in the long narrative, and finds its events absorbing and interesting”. In this novel the predicament of Indian women is studied in depth along with the plight of dalits (untouchables) and the people of lower class. Roy sees the resistance against gender oppression to be leading towards, if not instigating, resistance against caste, class oppression and spurring on anti-colonial thought and action. Roy seems to make headway from the basic assumption that the liberation of women necessitates the liberation of all human beings. Though sheer fiction, Roy picks up a living reality of men and women in close 1 R. K. Dhawan, Arundhati Roy: The novelist extraordinary Prestige Publications, 1999, p. 14. | Volume – 2 | Issue – 1 | Nov-Dec 2017 6470 | www.ijtsrd.com | Volume Journal of Trend in Scientific and Development (IJTSRD) International Open Access Journal The God of Small Things Recalling its impact Dr. A. Chandramouly Rashtrapita Mahatma Gandhi College, Saoli, Chandrapur, Maharashtra , New Delhi: conjunction with the political reality that shapes the day-to-day lives of the people. Aijaz Ahmad is very objective and sincere in his remarks as he observes, “A key strength of Arundhati Roy is that she has written novel that has learned all that there is to be learned from modernism, magic realism, cinematic cutting and montage and other such developments of narrative technique in the 20 century, but a novel that nevertheless remains Realist in all its essentia features”. Roy is genius enough to assimilate all the ingredients required of a realist fiction: “Love, grief, remembrance, the absolute indispensability of verisimilitude in depiction of time, place and character, so exact that we know it to be fiction read it as the closest possible kin of fact. She succeeds so long as she is telling the tale of private life in the form of what is basically a miniaturized family saga” 1.1 Crux of the point An English proverb says, “Catch the bull by not by its tail”. So without wasting many lines on periphery, let us hit the bull’s eye by posing a question what could be Roy’s intent behind writing a fiction that may reflect as though it is her own story? Amitabh Roy seems to have correctly comprehended the intent of Arundhati Roy as he observes, “One of the categories of “small things” Arundhati Roy cares for consists of women. There can be no gainsaying that despite all socio-economic developments during the last two 2 Aijaz Ahmad, “Reading Arundhati Roy Politically”, (ed.), Arundhati Roy, Critical perspectives 2006, p. 33. 3 Ibid. Page: 935 2 | Issue – 1

This year marks the twentieth year of the publication of fiction written by Arundhati Roy. When it first came, it had taken the literary world by storm. A number of articles and edited books were written aftermath of it. Some seminars and symposia etc were held as well. What were the issues it had dealt any? After twenty years, does it still inspire someone? The second question may not find a straightforward answer. The first question, however, might be easier to deal with in comparison with the second one. A close reading of the novel will give an ssion that it deals with various issues like politics, women's state, untouchability etc to name a few. R. K. Dhawan writes, "A cursory reading of the text gives us the impression that the novel is quite simple, but a close planned work and has a subtle and complex plot. It is composed of memories treated artistically by the author. Even though the reader knows the story right at the outset, he never loses interest in the long narrative, and finds its events . In this novel the predicament of Indian women is studied in depth along with the plight of dalits (untouchables) and the people of lower class. Roy sees the resistance against gender oppression to be leading towards, if not instigating, ance against caste, class oppression and spurring Roy seems to make headway from the basic assumption that the liberation of women necessitates the liberation of all human beings. Though sheer fiction, Roy picks iving reality of men and women in close Roy: The novelist extraordinary, New Delhi: conjunction with the political reality that shapes the day-to-day lives of the people. Aijaz Ahmad is very objective and sincere in his remarks as he observes, "A key strength of Arundhati Roy is that she has written novel that has learned all that there is to be learned from modernism, magic realism, cinematic cutting and montage and other such developments of narrative technique in the 20 th century, but a novel that nevertheless remains Realist in all its essentia features" 2 . Roy is genius enough to assimilate all the ingredients required of a realist fiction: "Love, grief, remembrance, the absolute indispensability of verisimilitude in depiction of time, place and character, so exact that we know it to be fiction read it as the closest possible kin of fact. She succeeds so long as she is telling the tale of private life in the form of what is basically a miniaturized family saga"

Crux of the point
An English proverb says, "Catch the bull by not by its tail". So without wasting many lines on periphery, let us hit the bull's eye by posing a question what could be Roy's intent behind writing a fiction that may reflect as though it is her own story? Amitabh Roy seems to have correctly comprehended the intent of Arundhati Roy as he observes, "One of the categories of "small things" Arundhati Roy cares for consists of women. There can be no gainsaying that despite all socio-economic developments during the last two 2  conjunction with the political reality that shapes the day lives of the people. Aijaz Ahmad is very objective and sincere in his remarks as he observes, "A key strength of Arundhati Roy is that she has written a novel that has learned all that there is to be learned from modernism, magic realism, cinematic cutting and montage and other such developments of narrative century, but a novel that nevertheless remains Realist in all its essential . Roy is genius enough to assimilate all the ingredients required of a realist fiction: "Love, grief, remembrance, the absolute indispensability of verisimilitude in depiction of time, place and character, so exact that we know it to be fiction can nevertheless read it as the closest possible kin of fact. She succeeds so long as she is telling the tale of private life in the form of what is basically a miniaturized family saga" 3 .
An English proverb says, "Catch the bull by its horn, not by its tail". So without wasting many lines on periphery, let us hit the bull's eye by posing a question what could be Roy's intent behind writing a fiction that may reflect as though it is her own story? Amitabh Roy comprehended the intent of Arundhati Roy as he observes, "One of the categories of "small things" Arundhati Roy cares for consists of women. There can be no gainsaying that despite all economic developments during the last two centuries, women do not occupy an enviable position in society. It is relevant, therefore, to look into the causes that have kept them in subordination and relegated them to the status of the second sex" 4 . In this line, like Amitabh Roy, Shirley D'Silva too argues maintaining that debate, study, research, etc on women is not something new although these have not produced desired results. In such case she opines that the matter of concern is the mentality. She writes: From immemorial times women have been the subject of study, research, debate and discussion. We always consider history to be treasure house of knowledge and information. Our motherland India the vast nation in the continent of Asia has always given the honoured place to her women in history. She motivates, inspires and instructs to her women readers the immense treasures of achievements of the past. Gearing them up to venture into the unknown future. Therefore it is inevitable that we come across the person of 'woman' during our search who has contributed her total potential to the well being of her family, neighbourhood and nation. Yet it is sorry picture many great women from ancient to present times have just sunk into the womb of history without even being understood, honoured and remembered 5 .
Virginia Saldanha believes, "With the universal declaration of human rights, and the recognition that women are equal to men in dignity and rights, women's role in society has begun to change. Laws have changed to accommodate this changing role of women. So in society women have risen to be heads of Nations and commercial Corporations, successful business entrepreneurs, politicians, bureaucrats and other professionals" 6 . Just as Roy, Saldanha advocates that women's contribution to all areas of life is necessary to bring a balance and wholeness. As such, training and empowerment of women must be integral part of the developmental plan on all levels. Virginia goes on to making her claims and convictions clear as she says that a society will not obtain the growth without the equal participation of its women. Her comments bear some truth in it because if Western countries have developed, it is precisely because the women and men have been given equal opportunities in every area. Roy has been abroad on several occasions before and after her award winning novel came on the scene. She might have keenly observed the women in those countries, their plights and boons, their misfortune and consolation as a result, through her novel, she pledges to propagate that the generations change, the outlooks change. Hence there should be some evolution in the life of Indian women too. There should be some signs of growth in understanding that men and women are inseparably connected and hence mutually and equally dependent for their existence and that both are equally responsible for overall growth. One cannot make a general statement claiming that the men are productive in every area whereas the women are destructive in all that they say, think and do. Is there any proof that men are progressive and women are regressive?

Evolving generation
The women in the novel are so delicately intertwined that they need to be unthreaded very carefully. There are six leading ladies recurringly and invariably mentioned: Mammachi, Baby Kochamma, Ammu, Rahel, Margret Kochamma and Kochu Maria. Of these, three of them (Mammachi, Ammu and Rahel) have been assigned protagonists' role while the other three have 'comparatively secondary' roles to play. At times it becomes rather difficult to argue who could be the main protagonist. Granted, as many consider, that Ammu has been assigned the central role in the novel but Rahel, Baby Kochamma and Mammachi have no insignificant part to play. The first three (for that matter Baby Kochamma as well) hail from the collateral line of the family, the same blood running into their veins. Why does the author propose three generations of women, that too in one and the same family? The issue is very intriguing and hence calls for a greater exploration and apprehension. Could it be as Amitabh Roy recalls, "Women began course of life as a member of an extended family which was a community in itself as it spanned several generations and comprised of the patriarch and his younger brothers with their families, married sons and their families, all the unmarried sons and daughters, and widowed and deserted daughters who returned to their parents home" 7 .
Amitabh Roy opines that Roy's novel further suggests that "There were gradations based on sex, age and degree of relationship with the head of the family. All the males born in the family inherited the ancestral wealth but the daughters were not entitled to a share. They were compensated at marriage with jewellery, clothes and household articles which was originally ..her visit beginning with this meeting seems to be a decisive moment. The family is, after all described as Anglophile, but the numerous allegiances of the family lead to complications" 9 .

Source of evolution
Concerning change, one must begin the enquiry from the beginning. Roy has Reverend E. John Ipe as the starting point when it comes to taking note of the generation. It calls for further scrutiny because he is supposed to be the blessed one. Where does the blessing consist in? Does the blessing consist in the fact that the stock of Rev E. John Ipe will become an epitome for Arundhati Roy to express her feminist slant? What does this Ipe family in the novel stand for? Does it particularly refer to a community, a society, any one of the Indian states or India as a nation? If the author has 'evolution' in the mind, then it might primarily refer to a society that is in gradual transition. Evolution here is comprehended in the context of the change of mentality and transition in outlook for better a society. A better society again might variously be expected by various people. In ordinary parlance, it may point to a state where there is harmonious coexistence with dignity, respect, equality, fraternity and justice as standard of equilibrium.
Mammachi, Baby Kochamma, Ammu, and Rahel all of them seem to present an era, an outlook in that generation in which they have themselves lived. Unwinding the externals, every woman mentioned in the novel, except for Ammu (and Kochu Maria as well) perhaps, had been abroad either on personal or professional ground. The time is rife that one is not confined to four walls, not even to a few square 8 Ibid. 9 Joel Kuortti, "Interrogating change: Arundhati Roy", in R. K. Dhawan ed., Arundhati Roy: The novelist extraordinary, New Delhi: Prestige Publishers, 1999, p. 179. kilometers within the state or the country but the parameter is the overseas, indeed the entire globe (Arundhati Roy, the author uses the globe very well. She has well blended North India and South India. She includes Europe and America. She has mentioned various professions). These might implicitly allude as though the whole world were a stage in which one could perform any sort of drama. There are various professions to choose and pursue. She shows that there is a case of extroversion; women are bold and daring, courageous and hopeful, creative and innovative, intelligent and imaginative, competent and able, efficient and effective. They are not wholly 'autonomous' but can fend for themselves without much ado.

Turns of evolution
What turn the evolution takes within proposed sphere? Is it a familial or a societal affair? Are autonomous and dependent compatible? Professionally, in The God of small Things, every woman had some or the other profession which is indicative of the fact that a woman is not necessarily dependent on another for her livelihood. She is not that weakling who has to depend on her father, husband, brother or someone else as the 'law of Manu' might propose. In truth, women are capable of something more and also deserve much more than the mere physical protection. Durga Dashan maintains, "We got our independence from the Britain long ago, but the Women are still living dependently in this male chauvinistic society. They are facing many untold difficulties in this society. For every human being protection is more crucial than anything. But protection of women is still a question mark (?) in our country" 10 . Without the desired and required protection from within and without, the question of evolution, growth, progress, development is not possible. If a community, society and a nation has to progress, the all round evolution of women is a must. For that education, emancipation and awareness of women is inevitable.
D. S. Prabha has made some significant studies on constitutional and personal laws and hence thinks that "Personal Laws generally aid women. They prevent any exploitation of women in various levels. But in reality the law enforcement lags behind. Knowledge of Law, good education and economic freedom would liberate women from all types of bondage. Women need to empower and unite themselves in order to fight against

Portrayal of Women characters
The portrayal of women characters in The God of Small Things carries on the discussion begun above in 1. resistance of what occurs on familial, societal, economic, religious and political levels. That might be the sole reason why she mentions, various professions, religions, political parties and other societal systems like caste and untouchability. Sidestepping mere resistance, Roy might have had in mind the propagation of human values such as courage, peace and tolerance which women certainly possess more than men. Roy brilliantly proposes continuity and 'break'. Mammachi, Baby Kochama and Kochu Maria represent continuation of patrilineal pattern of life but they do not give up without putting resistance. Ammu, Rahel and Margaret represent the progressive and indeed the postmodern type of women.

Woman is not an abla
Mammachi for example is quintessence of self sufficiency; clad with power and vision. Though fragile eyes towards the latter part of her years, she was never fragile mentally. She could manage the whole pickle factory with all its intricacies of trade and union in a locality where Communist party and its ideals reigned supreme. To run a small scaled business, one needs brilliance, if not super intelligent mind. In this case, the matter on the floor is a factory and the protagonist under discussion is a woman. One can easily fathom what it takes: first and foremost, the idea. Then, one needs the courage to materialize the idea. One must have the capital, both for investment and management and the art to dispense them. In all, manufacturing to marketing, managing to sustaining, Mammachi looks after every small detail efficiently and without much ado. She has the diplomacy, tactics and brain to run the whole show. Towards the twilight of her life, Chacko might have claimed to be the owner of the property but no leaf moves without the consent and knowledge of Mammachi. Whether it is a bigger or relatively smaller problem, Mammachi has the final say.
Baby Kochamma's role is rather complicated in that she had to change the faith and profession just as one changes the platform to catch trains going in different direction. She is Rev. E. Ipe John's daughter, Pappachi's sister and hence Chacko and Ammu's aunt, and Estha and Rahel's grandaunt. After her return from the convent, she was sent to USA for her studies, a sign that she was still part of the family and that she still had some 'right' to stay on within the family. She wasn't apparently 'dependent' on the family for her sustenance as she was a graduate in ornamental gardening and cultivated an elaborate garden around Ayemenem House. Its utility and income are not mentioned but the After presenting Mammachi and Baby Kochamma so strongly, portraying Ammu the way she has been stands at a stark difference. Mammachi and Baby Kochamma have better fortunes in some ways in that one had a husband (whatever way they lived is another question) while the other was a spinster. Ammu in herself is not a weakling but the situation has made her run from pillar to post. The secret and the irony, the strength and weakness of being a woman lie there. If Roy is considered a feminist, her slant rests there. This point must be viewed as the crux of her novel insofar as the resistance of women in her novel is concerned. The irony is that Chacko is preferred over Ammu not on the intellectual ground but precisely on the ground of gender inequality. Chacko is sent to Oxford not because he is a merit class student (Mammachi may consider him of Prime Ministerial stuff for whatever reason) but because his gender testifies him to be a male. Ammu, on the other hand, is discouraged; she is not openly and directly asked to discontinue her studies (not for her tantrums in the convent school) but she is discouraged to pursue her studies because she is a female (who will have 'no claim' over family property and familial matters; she will be given in marriage with dowry and hence in some measure 'sold' to boy's family who will have nothing to do with her parents insofar as it concerns looking after them).

Woman with profession
If Mammachi successfully ran the pickle factory, it goes on to vindicate that she was capable of choosing any profession she wanted. The question arises why then she did not pursue any profession as Pappachi her husband? Most probably, though proficient, she surrendered her autonomy to Pappachi, her 'Imperial Entomologist' husband. In religious terms her heroic act should have been called a sacrifice and hailed as martyrdom. What is remarkable (for some it might be pitiable) is her courage to be subservient to her husband. It calls for a virtue of temperance rather than cowardice to tolerate a jealous and temperamental man like Pappachi. For any woman, primitive, modern, contemporary or postmodern, it would have been easier (and perhaps ideal too) to walk out of the shadows of a man who was selfish and wrongly predominant. generation to follow. The team that engages itself in this task, in return, gets some remuneration for themselves hence they become breadwinners for their own families. They become earners, not beggars, not thieves, not cheats, not swindlers, not defrauds.
Thus, Mammachi and Baby Kochamma become employers who not only earn their own bread but become providers for someone else too. Mammachi and Baby Kochama can serve as examples who will inspire people to do transactions for the family and the society. Ammu and Rahel do not necessarily become providers of bread for others but themselves earn their own. They may not be employers but aren't dependent either. Rahel worked in a bullet proof cabin in America before returning to Ayemenem while Ammu is made to knock at every door in search of a job in order that she can manage her own household with her twin children. Rahel had her own guaranteed profession which she sacrificed for the sake of 'assisting and accompanying' his 'mute' brother. Ammu does not sit and brood over her (mis)fortune, but keeps on looking for job applications and interviews until death comes to free her from all her ailing once and for all.

Woman who needs to love and be loved
There may not be any dispute that one of the most fundamental basic needs for a human person is love. her, it was sheer violence. The reason with which he beat her should not serve as an excuse but rather termed as a criminal act. Rushila Rebello delineates the facts that tantamount to domestic or intimate partner violence in these words, "It is the verbal, emotional, physical and sexual abuse of one's partner. It is one of the most common crimes against women which are inextricably linked to the perpetuation of patriarchy. Domestic violence refers to violence against women not only in matrimonial homes but also in live-in relationship. Domestic violence is considered as the biggest block in the path of empowerment" 17 .
Baby Kochamma remained a spinster exactly for love's own sake. As a teenager she falls in love with a Jesuit priest, that too from a foreign land, and pursues him even to the extent of her conversion to Catholicism, a faith within Christian faith, and joining the convent. The ardency of Baby Kochamma's desire to love and to be loved can therewith be fathomed. There is a saying that Sant Kabeer, when forbidden to meet his wife due to some dispute and disagreement, in the wake of night held on to a snake hanging by the window to get into her room thinking that she had lower a rope for him to climb on. Baby Kochamma's act was somewhat similar in that it is not normal for an Orthodox Syrian to easily convert oneself to Catholicism. The tide of Baby Kochamma's love and affection was so gentle that Mulligan, an Irish Jesuit, too could not restrain himself reciprocating the tender love he received from a vibrant heart. However, he may not have imagined, not even in his wildest dream, the extent to which his young lover would go. All was well until she realized that her dream will remain a dream. She had followed a path that was like a railway track, goes parallel but never meets. In the case of these two, the same thing happened as well. Both were bound by the vow of chastity. If not for Catholicism, there was every possibility that the love and longing for each other would end up in holy wedlock. The inexistence and impossibility of matrimony within the consecrated life necessitated rechanging of platform. Sooner than later she realized that she was holding the air into her palm. She inferred how pathetic the reality might have been to pursue further on! She knew that she was hoping against hope for something extremely difficult, if not impossible. She had done everything for the sake of love. And that love had a finality-happiness. Through one way or another, everyone is seeking happiness. Howard Cutler recalls His Holiness the Dalai Lama's opening words to a large crowd in Arizona, "I believe that the very purpose of our life is to seek happiness. That is clear. Whether one believes in religion or not, whether one believes in this religion or that religion, we all are seeking something better in life. So, I think, the very motion of our life is towards happiness" 18 .

Woman with a feeling
Mammachi and Baby Kochamma are women full of emotions and sentiments although apparently seem to submit without any hesitation to patriarchal social norms as pointed out by Antonio Navarro-Tejero in her article titled, "Power Relationships in The God of Small Things. In it she contests that "The first generation of women in the novel give extreme importance to patriarchal social norms, indeed they succumb to them. When it is publically discovered, that Ammu, a respectable high-class woman, also has 'women's needs', the situation becomes unbearable to the traditional conservative sector of the community" 19 . Mammachi has been made to suffer both physically and psychologically, even economically. She is made to suppress her feelings though. She suppresses her feelings and emotions to such an extent so as to have a preferential option for Chacko. As mother and woman, it could have been expected that she stood by Ammu in some manner and degree but strangely enough, she neglected her daughter leave alone her grand children.
Baby Kochamma followed the path of Mammachi almost in every line. She complicit in the patriarchal, casteist, classist, sexist society of Kerala, manages her relationships with different characters in an apparently ambivalent kind of way. In stark contradiction to her personal subversion and transgression of patriarchy and oppressive structures, Baby Kochamma concurs in the repressive actions against Ammu. Whether for jealousy or whatever reason, she is responsible for poisoning the minds of Mammachi and Chacko, concoction of a false case against Velutha, tricking the children into betraying Velutha, advising Chacko to return Estha to his father and forcing Ammu to leave. She does all of it to secure her feelings. Baby Kochamma hates Estha and Rahel as they are half-Hindus born of a love marriage outside community. She hates Velutha because he is dalit. He, along with Ammu, violates the "Love laws" too. All these conniving isolate Baby Kochamma to a pathetic life where TV (used as the most successful machine in the spread of globalization) is her only companion 20 .
There are authors who opine that Roy brilliantly brings out the feeling aspect of a person, especially that of a woman. Brinda Bose in her article titled, "Eroticism as Politics in The God of Small Things" deals with the transgressive love of Ammu for Velutha and comments that sociological studies have repeatedly proven that the idea that love and desire are elitist indulgences is a myth. "It is, of course, an argument of long-standing that economics determines one's responses to such indulgences as love-or sexual desire: and that conterminously love and desire are indulgences when pursued by the elite but "political"/radical when sought by poor masses" 21 . Ammu is made to feel for her zygotic twins Estha and Rahel until death who are, in a way, subalterns in the sense of being rootless economically, financially, in terms of family, lineage and culture. Estha and Rahel are deprived of massive feelings right through the womb. In short, no wonder why Estha becomes speechless while Rahel comes back from bullet proof cabin only to provide all-round security to her brother. Being deprived of a "normal" nuclear family, fatherly love and a stable economic base, these two children have to fall back upon each other most of the time even to the extent of Rahel sacrificing her future and happiness in leaving USA and rejoining him after 23 years or so.
Amitabh Roy is right when he writes, "The novel can be viewed as a tale of "terror" that destroyed the lives of Velutha and Ammu, but also as a tale of how Estha and Rahel survived" 22 . Estha and Rahel do not come from poor background. They had a bourgeois background. But when their parents get divorced, they are subject to adversity. They, along with their mother, were unwanted in their grandmother's place. Despite this, they do acquire a good education. They have a battered childhood, because of their father's drunken violence followed by post-drunken badgering, when they were barely two. "When his bouts of violence began to include the children, and the war with Pakistan began, Ammu left her husband and returned, unwelcome to her parents in Ayemenem" 23  children and especially Rahel, as a girl, had a double stigma of mixed parentage attached to them, both "religious (because their father was Hindu and mother Syrian Christian) and ethnic (their father being a Bengali and mother, a Keralite)" 24 . Moreover, they were the children of divorced parents. Rahel was disliked by Baby Kochamma, Kochu Maria and even Chacko. Deprived of conventional parental love, Ammu is both father and mother to her. She also derives pleasure from the company and intimacy of her brother. Finally, she considers Velutha, to be a father figure on whose back she rides. Being disliked by her elderly relatives, she feels resentment against them. When her mother's liaison with Velutha is discovered, she is locked in the bedroom. Rahel, along with her twin brother, tries to find out the reason at the tender age of seven and their mother calls them "millstones round my neck" 25 . attempt at repossessing, renaming, renewing the world", but it "appears doomed from the very beginning because of the nature of the society where she has had to seek refuge with her twins after her divorce and also because of the incapacity of her kins (mother, great-aunt Kochamma) to provide an adequate model for redefining the Self" (Chanda 1997:40) 27 .

Woman indicating transition
Ammu is a victim of marriage that unfortunately did not work out in her case. On her return home, she found herself an outcast in her own family. It could have been, in some way, a defining moment in her life but she rebels against such social structures and challenges marriage that rather seems to be a disciplinary institution. Michael Foucault would have called it, "Working towards silencing and controlling the one who stands apart, as if a lunatic/non-conformist who needs to be imprisoned/reasoned. Foucault discussed how asylums were being put up, in the pretext to serve medical knowledge, to isolate and incarcerate dissidents in 17th century Europe-a time that saw the rise of the continents imperial ambitions" 28 . He further writes, "They did not introduce science, but a personality, whose powers borrowed from science only their disguise, or at most their justification. These powers, by their nature, were of a moral and social order; they took root in the madman's minority status, in the insanity of his person, not of his mind" 29 . Ammu, a personality, was locked up too. She was later exiled like a martyr where she died in a place away from home. But before her acceptance of such fate, in desperate attempts of self-realization, she becomes a symbolic personification of all subalterns, especially women, who challenge power structures of the social order as is also pointed out by Murari Prasad: At the heart of Roy's astounding book is the conflict between the characters excluded from institutional power and their hegemonic counterparts…Bose points out that Ammu's conscious decision to embrace Velutha is a forbidden cross-caste liaison of radical significance within the novel's given social imperatives… Bose links these violations to Roy's robust commitment to the autonomy of the self-the freedom of small things. Ammu's roles as a divorced woman, a single mother and as an educated woman denied of her rights of inheritance "She, as a daughter, has no claim to any property, no locus standi..." 31 . As a sexually sentient being she is deprived by the pre-colonial "Love laws", the freedom to choose her partner and is penalized for it; she stands on different issues side by side with other subalterns, whether of caste, class or gender. She is emblematic of them all in the scheme of things Arundhati Roy creates, more than Velutha, who is the protagonist or may be the "God" of The God of Small Things". Khurshid Alam in his article "Untouchables" in The God of Small Things" situates Ammu vis-à-vis Velutha and clarifies the role of Ammu. Golam and Saiful quote Khurshid Alam: Roy expresses her disillusionment with the social conditions of the postcolonial world in which the untouchables of the past still face a hostile society that does not let them live as free and independent individuals. Velutha, the God of small things, the outcast can never co-exist peacefully with the "touchable" communities for as long as the stigma of untouchability is attached to him and countless others like him. Ammu, another "untouchable" within the "touchable" cannot pursue happiness because doing so threatens the existing order, and the society takes every possible step to stop change 32 .

Conclusion
The God of Small Things is a novel that has for its theme family saga of love, grief, remembrance etc. Roy's novel apparently aims at pointing towards evolving generation in which women have a definitive and decisive role to play. So, it has been discussed that woman is not an abla, a weakling, a secondary sex. If need be, woman can fend for herself. She can run her own show just as Mammachi ran a pickle factory in order not to burden Pappachi her retired Imperial Entomologist husband. The point that the woman needs to love and to be loved has ironically been discussed so as to let the reader know that the woman is not a thing to be despised but a person to be loved within the family and the society at large. Just as the men have cravings for name, fame, prestige and honour etc. women too have feelings and sensations to be respected to and cared for. It also shows that the women of this generation are on transition; transition towards equality and justice in every sphere of life: familial, societal, political, cultural, economic and religious. If the 31 Navaro-Tejero, op. cit., p. 104 32 Golam and Muhammad, op. cit., p. 64. developed countries in Europe and America have achieved what they have achieved, it is because they have given the women their due. It is of course not a fairy tale that in said countries it all came automatically. Women fought for their rights as well as when civilizations grew, men came to realization that women are part and parcel of familial and societal life. Woman's dignity does not depend upon man; it is an intrinsic reality. The same is true of man. Man's dignity is independent of the other in question; it is innate, given at/by birth.