Physical Training for Women

The idea behind the girls’ exercises is explained in the first part of the story by a character called Trivenilal, who some time before the meeting visits the narrator and his wife in order to ask for a donation. He tells them that as secretary of the girls’ college, he has recently initiated a program of physical exercise and self-defence for the students. He addresses especially Ramesh's wife: ‘Please do come and see how we are changing women. Let scoundrels (gunde) have the nerve now to attack the ladies (devi) of our Hindu homes! Our viranganas will become the pride of the nation—thousands, hundreds of thousands, many millions of Lakshmibais will be created here’ (Varma Reference Varma1971: 89). In this quote, we find two types of virangana, because the political context of women fighting for ‘the nation’ and its freedom, represented by Lakshmibai,Footnote ² is combined here with the social one of women learning to defend themselves and their homes against male attackers. As Hansen (Reference Hansen1988: WS-28f) has observed, the two contexts of nationalism and the status of women are indeed linked—the nationalist movement paid attention to the social situation of women, too, because the British used the oppression of women in India as an argument in defending their rule over the country. The ideal of physical training here mentioned by Trivenilal inspired both men and women, in both contexts. From the early decades of the twentieth century, ‘wrestling, lathi [i.e. stick] and sword play, boxing, etc.’ were in Bengal and the United Provinces considered an essential training for the members of revolutionary societies (Guha Reference Guha1971: 93, cf. 84f, 308). In the same period, a leading member of the Arya Samaj developed a curriculum for female students in which fictional material about women physically defending their rights and their homes played an important role, and in at least one Arya Samaj college, girls actually engaged in physical exercise (Kishwar Reference Kishwar1986: WS-13, 17). It is not unlikely that in some Arya Samaj colleges they did indeed learn to defend themselves and others as is described in ‘Pata-banethi’. The Arya Samaj curriculum did not only concern physical training but also the entire attitude of women towards men. One of the ideals incorporated in it is that women should mix ‘freely and confidently’ with men (Kishwar Reference Kishwar1986: WS-13,: 13) and, one may assume, be capable of holding off aggressive men with words before using physical force. The way Mahamaya answers the narrator's friend illustrates this attitude.

The First Part of the Story

The story is divided into two parts (84–87 and 87–90), indicated in the text by the numbers 1 and 2, respectively, and the summary given above covers primarily its second part. Part 1 deals with events of the day, about a week before the meeting at the college, when Trivenilal comes to ask for a donation. Earlier that day, Ramesh had an argument with his wife, for a reason he says he cannot remember at the time of narrating, and hit her, ‘according to custom (prathā)’. His wife retired to her boudoir, and he knew he would not get tea but, more importantly to him, would not have money to go and see the final show of a certain film. That is because his wife takes all his money on the day he receives his salary and he has to ask her for any amount he needs—it is a ‘comfortable’ arrangement for him, he observes, because if he were to keep the money himself, friends would find ways of getting him to part with it within a few days. Now that his wife is in her boudoir, however, he cannot go and ask her for money to buy a cinema ticket. It is his friend Pandit Trivenilal who saves him. When he visits him and asks for a donation, Ramesh tells him about the situation and advises him to ask his wife for ten rupees, which they will then share equally among themselves. He is convinced Trivenilal will fail but is wrong. Initially, his wife refuses to donate money for the college meeting, arguing that women's education serves no purpose because even when educated, women will have to be men's slaves and suffer their excesses. Trivenilal supports her view in the sense that he refers to the sad state of women in India, who are attacked by scoundrels even in broad daylight. However, he explains that that situation is due to women's lack of physical strength, and that male excesses can be prevented when women become strong—this is precisely the reason why he has opened a gymnasium in the college, where the students are also trained in handling swords and sticks and, in the near future, if the government allows, will even learn to handle rifles. His words convince Ramesh's wife, and the first part of the story ends with Ramesh receiving his five rupees once the two men are out on the street. At that moment, Trivenilal asks him to come and give a speech at the meeting at the girls’ college—he does so, one assumes, because as a literary figure Ramesh would be the right person to give a speech. This is where the first part ends. The events of the second part, summarised above, take place about a week later.

Problems of Interpretation

According to Indu Shukla (Reference Shukla1989: 27f), ‘Pata-banethi’ is a story written in ironic style about two types of Indian woman—the uneducated type consciously accepting male intemperance, and the educated woman made rebellious or insolent (the word uddand has both meanings) by education. In the final paragraph of her discussion of the story, Shukla observes that the story presents the lack of balance between the two types (in other words, a woman should have a nature that lies somewhere in between these two types) and adds that educated women such as Mahamaya lose their gentleness (komaltā) and courtesy (śiṣṭāchār). According to Shukla, Varma suggests that women such as Mahamaya may abuse their education and make their own life miserable. Shukla finds irony (vyamgya) in the fact that a strong man such as the narrator's friend grows afraid when he has watched his future wife's skill in fighting, and possiblyFootnote ³ in the fact that men are not ashamed to beat up a gentle (man se komal) woman (she would refer to Ramesh's wife) and cannot accept a strong woman as their wife who would not put up with their behaviour—in order to maintain the credibility of their manhood men, she observes, cannot even imagine having a wife who would be able to defend herself. In Shukla's view, then, this short story shows, on the one hand, how men are ironically unable to accept a strong woman, while on the other hand, it demonstrates how Mahamaya herself spoils her social prospects by her insolent behaviour. Shukla generalizes the rather specific education Mahamaya follows and neglects the virangana context, but her observations strengthen the above inference that (in spite of its irony) readers of the story may well start to wonder whether the virangana fits in well with society. Her interpretation is, however, hardly supported by arguments, and ignores the essential role of the Trivenilal character.

Considering the story as a whole, one may well have the impression that the contents of part 1 are hardly relevant to those of part 2. Trivenilal's invitation to Ramesh in part 1 to give a speech at the college meeting could easily have been integrated into the second part of the story,Footnote ⁴ and at first sight, the other events of the first part bear little relevance to the second part, which contains the main plot of the young man refusing to marry a virangana. Yet, being about equal in size to the second part, the first is too elaborate to be considered a mere introduction, and that impression is strengthened by the fact that the narrative pace in the first part, which consists mainly of scene and pause (Bal Reference Bal1997: 99–111), is slow, and that its contents are therefore given full attention. Apart from some actions, those contents are mainly the narrator's thoughts, and conversations that illustrate the mutual relationships between Ramesh, his wife and Trivenilal. These elements suggest that the first part serves primarily the purpose of characterising these three characters through their views and their actions. As we see, these characterisations are essential to an alternative explanation of the story.

Characterisation

In discussing characterisation, one should remember that characters are presented either explicitly or implicitly. In the case of explicit characterisation, the narrator and figures in the text tell us what a character is like. This information may be subjective, and is sometimes demonstrably wrong because of internal inconsistencies. Especially, first-person narrators who have been actively involved in the narrated events (rather than being just a witness), such as Ramesh, may well be unreliable when they characterise themselves or others. When the characterisation is implicit, on the other hand, the reader draws conclusions about a character from, for example, his actions or words, or his thoughts. Here, interpretation may differ between readers.Footnote ⁵

A point of practical information about Ramesh is that he seems to be a creative writer, or at least someone active in literary circles, judging from the fact that he asserts that his young friend holds him ‘in high esteem because he [sc. the friend] has some interest in literature’ (Varma Reference Varma1971: 87). This qualification does not tell us much about his nature, but there are many indications that Ramesh is an aggressive man, and most of all a spineless man.

His aggressiveness comes to the fore when he tells how at the time the events took place, he hit his wife. From the phrase ‘according to [common] custom (pratha) I answered my wife's arguments with my hands’ (Varma Reference Varma1971: 84), it is not clear whether he still occasionally does so at the time of narrating.Footnote ⁶ However, the ‘general present’ tense ‘itch’ (khujli nahim hoti) in a sentence in the same paragraph: ‘I assure [you] that on these occasions it is not my hands that itch but my wife's cheeks’ suggests that he does and that it is a habit (also in view of the plural ‘these occasions’),Footnote ⁷ which he probably has had for some time already. It means that the story's events have not resulted in a change of heart, even though as narrator he avows to know that his ‘misdemeanour will be considered bad in civilised society’ (Varma Reference Varma1971: 84). He expresses hardly any regret about using physical force against his wife, whether as a character or as the narrator.Footnote ⁸ In fact, immediately after the incident he is found thinking quite superficially:

He seems, then, to dominate his wife physically without giving that attitude much thought even at the time of narrating, considering it a ‘custom’. His use of physical force has not had much effect, because at the time of the events his wife still argues with him and after his beatings retires to her boudoir, and in spite of his urgent wish to go and see a certain film, he feels unable to approach her for money. The narrator's observation that his habit is unacceptable in civilised society coupled with his clear refusal to give it much thought, and (in case one were to approve of this attitude) the ineffectiveness of his use of physical force present such aggressive violence as a negative quality.

Even though he behaves aggressively towards his wife, Ramesh always hands over his monthly salary to her, because otherwise friends would relieve him of it within a few days (Varma Reference Varma1971: 84f). And at this point, we may also notice the opposition between his wife's ‘arguments’ and his own ‘hands’ in the first sentence quoted above from page 84 of the text. These elements suggest that he is incapable of arguing, either with his wife or with his friends, and is easily persuaded—in other words, he lacks spine. He is in fact dominated by his wife and others, and his aggressiveness towards his wife would be rooted in a lack of mental strength.Footnote ⁹

For example, he feels he cannot approach his wife for money when he has hit her and she has retired to her boudoir.Footnote ¹⁰ And he does not argue against the advisability of Trivenilal's initiative to have female students trained physically, even though he is shocked about it: ‘A gymnasium—a gymnasium for women?!’, he asks with his ‘eyes wide open’ (Varma Reference Varma1971: 86). And later on, though he reprimands his young friend for the loudness with which the latter gives public approval for the students’ demonstration, he remains explicitly silent when during the meeting his friend praises the great progress made in India, and does not protest that in his view training women in self-defence can hardly count as progress.

Another example of Ramesh's attitude is the following. While he does not feel sorry about his violent outbursts, he expresses, in his narratorial capacity, regret that because of him, ‘a family in the making has split’, and ‘a world about to be set up has been demolished’ (Varma Reference Varma1971: 84). It refers to the fact that he has given in to his young friend's hints that he would like to go and watch the girl he is to marry, a forbearance that has led to the cancellation of the marriage.Footnote ¹¹ Once again, no mention is made of any discussion with the young man about his wish.

Finally, our view of Ramesh as being spineless is also inspired by his contacts with Trivenilal. Although the outcome of the first part of the story suggests that they are good friends, there is reason for doubt. As the narrator, Ramesh qualifies Trivenilal as a ‘politician and social reformer’ (Varma Reference Varma1971: 85), and adds that he ‘gets nervous from politicians and social reformers because they always try to get hold of one's mind and money’—he admits that he sometimes wants to hit them but, he says, manages to control himself with great effort. This self-characterisation contains a humorous note,Footnote ¹² but the similarity to Ramesh's attitude towards his wife (who does in fact take hold of his money)Footnote ¹³ suggests that it refers to a basic fear in him of being persuaded against his will—and as we see below, Trivenilal is good at arguing. Towards a man, however, Ramesh manages to ‘control himself’, as he observes—or, one might speculate in view of his own lack of mental strength, he is in fact frightened of other men's physical strength.Footnote ¹⁴

Since Ramesh narrates about himself, his account might in principle be unreliable. A few reservations have been formulated above, but on the whole, there is no reason to doubt his self-characterisation—revealing above all a lack of mental strength, it is not exactly flattering, and it does not show any internal contradictions, which might be a sign of untrustworthiness.

In contrast to Ramesh, Trivenilal does not allow himself to be easily persuaded and is good at convincing others with arguments, as demonstrated by the fact that in spite of the adverse circumstances he manages to persuade Ramesh's wife to donate money. This capacity of his may be partly due to his training as a lawyer but the success of such training is rooted in the student's mental strength.Footnote ¹⁵ Ramesh's wife is initially reluctant to leave her boudoir but Trivenilal calls out so persistently to her from the threshold of the house that she ‘wiped her tears, washed her face, changed her saree and came to the verandah’ (Varma Reference Varma1971: 86). Immediately, Trivenilal tells her he has come to invite especially her for next week's meeting, but she realizes that he wants money from her and refuses decidedly with an elaborate statement, partly quoted above. It characterizes her as a mentally strong woman who knows how to argue her view and is not afraid of speaking out in the company of men. Characteristically, Ramesh himself does not react to her words but Trivenilal does not give up and persuades her, without the narrator quoting any further words of his wife, not even at the moment she donates the money. He simply states that ‘Pandit Trivenilal's lecture had an effect [on her]’, and Trivenilal and he ‘left the house together’ (Varma Reference Varma1971: 87).

Another element of mental strength in Ramesh's wife is the fact that she protects her husband from greedy and cunning friends, as we have seen, and has convinced him that it is better for him to hand over his salary to her. She is unable to resist the lawyer's arguments, but that does not make her weak. The donation is after all for a good cause—and Ramesh's wife, like no other character in the story, is in an excellent position to judge that. She would be fully convinced that Trivenilal is right, and that is what differentiates her decision to give a donation from Ramesh's decision to hand over his money to her—it is his experience that tells him it is the best thing for him to do, but it is negatively inspired by his friends’ bad nature. In other words, she gives out of strength, whereas Ramesh hands over his money out of weakness.

Ramesh's wife and Trivenilal are largely characterised implicitly by the narrator, primarily through conversations that are quoted directly. There is no reason to doubt that the narrator has reported his wife's and Trivenilal's words faithfully, and the same goes for the reliability of his reports of their actions.Footnote ¹⁶

It appears, then, that the presence or absence of mental and physical strength is the main feature that characterises all three characters in part 1. In part 2 of the story, we have three important characters. There is Ramesh, the narrator, then his young friend, and finally Mahamaya, the young woman. The narrator tells us in an explicit characterisation that his young friend, whose name is not revealed to us, is good at sports, has a sturdy and trained body and is captain of a football team. The young man is also characterised implicitly by the fact that he has repeatedly failed his MA examination but his father, a rich farmer, does not mind. Furthermore, he expresses his positive reactions to the demonstration rather loudly, as observed above, and does not let himself be stopped by Ramesh's repeated reprimands. In addition, he does not hesitate to address a girl he has not met before, while his effort to save the situation when the girl turns out to be Mahamaya herself is not very strong, given the circumstances. He says her brother does not stop praising her, and therefore he wanted to see her, that is, he draws their meeting into an atmosphere of male-female attraction, whereas after the demonstrations, some positive reference to women's self-defence as a reason for meeting her would have been much more suitable. He is not strong in arguing, then, as his repeated failure in MA may also suggest.Footnote ¹⁷ Another character trait of his is revealed by his letter to the girl's father, in which he writes, in an explicit self-characterisation, that it is likely that he will occasionally have a row with his wife, and will then hit her according to his ‘habit’ (ādat), because he is quick-tempered and loose-handed. And since he does not want to be hurt at such a moment, as he is not trained in fighting with a stick, he does not want to marry Mahamaya. He writes this letter to her father immediately on coming back, without even consulting his parents. Together, these data suggest that he is a man of action rather than subtle discussion, acts impulsively and is spoilt. His fear from Mahamaya the moment he has witnessed her attitude and skills reveals likewise that he lacks mental strength—there is a striking irony, as Shukla has correctly observed, between this fear and the way he is characterised explicitly. He expresses no qualms about using violence, and only a slight awareness that society condemns such behaviour,Footnote ¹⁸ and his aggressive attitude is as negative as Ramesh's.

The narrator describes Mahamaya as a sturdy,Footnote ¹⁹ rather tall girl, with a ‘golden’ complexion, big eyes, and on her face ‘the red colour of full health’ (Varma Reference Varma1971: 88). In his letter, the young man calls her a ‘flawless beauty,’ and mentions her courage and vigour (Varma Reference Varma1971: 89). She is further characterised implicitly by her skill at handling a stick, and by the way she freely answers Ramesh's friend: ‘Yes—I am Mahamaya. I do not know you, tell me, what do you want from me?”’ (Varma Reference Varma1971: 89). She is a true virangana,Footnote ²⁰ who is able to use violence against the young man but controls herself—she sees through the young man's effort to save the situation, reprimands him openly and walks away, and her self-control reveals that besides physical power she possesses mental strength. Her at first sight insolent behaviour towards the young man is in fact a method of self-defence against male aggression, and as such another expression of her mental strength. As Shukla (Reference Shukla1989: 27) has observed, Mahamaya tightens her grasp on her stick the moment she is addressed by the young man—it emphasizes her capability of using violence, though she chooses to defend herself by means of words.

As in the characterisations of the other figures, there is no reason to distrust the narrator's above reports and descriptions regarding the young man and Mahamaya, or the young man's self-characterisation.Footnote ²¹

In the story as a whole, then, contrast between the characters is created by mental strength as against a readiness to use physical power. Adding the way the characters judge viranganas, we may present these features in a scheme of relevant semantic axes (cf. Bal Reference Bal1997: 126–129) as follows:

The scheme shows that Mahamaya, the virangana, is the most strongly marked character, whereas Ramesh's wife and Trivenilal on the one hand, and Ramesh and his young friend on the other are two pairs of synonymous characters. It also reveals that those characters who possess mental strength are positive towards viranganas, whereas those lacking such strength are negative. There is a nuance here, in the sense that Ramesh's friend seems enthusiastic about viranganas but just would not want to marry one—and because we are not informed whether or not Trivenilal would be happy to marry a virangana, the same conclusion might apply to him as well. However, the equation between Ramesh and his young friend as men tempted to aggressive violence on the one hand, and between Trivenilal and Ramesh's wife as relying on mental strength on the other, suggests that Trivenilal is really positive towards viranganas and not just superficially, like Ramesh's friend.