Paper 2 - Analysis on Modern Indian Literature (So Very Far by G.M. Muktibodh)

Asian Literature (LIT 203)  November 27, 2014 Response Essay: Modern Indian Literature: So Very Far by Far by Gajanan Madhav Muktibodh (1917 — 64), 64), translated from the Hindi by Vishnu Khare and Adil Jussawalla So Very Far I am so very far from you people, My fires are so very different from yours, That what’s poison for you is food for me. Multitudes walk with me in my isolation; In my loneliness, friendly hands Of those you despise, but caught By my troubled soul and held precious there. And that’s why you rain you rain your blows on me In public and in private. (Leaves of our blood-stained epics fly In our fight.) I covered myself m yself with failure’s trash, Finding heaps on the spiral staircase Of corruption and cash, And though I’ve gone straight I’m still bitter in what in  what I do, hate The poison. For whatever one has one wants something better, To sweep the whole world clean you need a scavenger And I’m not him. And though someone inside me roars each day That no work is unclean if the man be true, The work’s still grim. grim. Beyond the world and its end-products: Refrigerators, vitamins, radiograms, There’s my famished daughter. In her intestines a gnawing nothing, In her lungs the shame of those who have nothing.

So Very Far is a free verse poem (at least the translation) separated into six stanzas. The first stanza depicts the general struggles of the narrator. The succeeding stanzas narrated elaborate on the sufferings of the narrator that have  been vaguely va guely described in the first stanza. The second stanza is about loneliness and  physical abuse, followed by the third stanza that tells the nature of the job of the abuser (and hereafter named the abuser ), ), the attitude of the narrator towards his own work and that of the  person abusing him, and an explanation of the poison, and internal struggles. The subsequent stanza portrays not just the narrators suffering but one of the many

Only suffering imprisoned by the nothings is true, All else is unreal, untrue, a delusion, deceit. The only truth is A sequence of grief. I am the split-eared, the underground wretch Correcting disorders. Under your Chevrolets and Dodges I stretch, Oil-covered, black, Bowed by your orders.

causes of it, which is the suffering of his th

or her child. The 5   stanza is an explanation of the result of the narrators suffering and view of life. Lastly, the final stanza reveals the identity of the narrator which ties the entire poem by

answering the ―who‖ or ―what‖ of this ambiguous narrator. The title is initially linked to the poem by the first line of the poem, ―I am so very far from you people‖. It is not clear yet who ―you people‖ is referring to, but this will be answered in the later part of the analysis. Afterwards the narrator states the suffering being experienced is different from ―yours‖. Although suffering is not ex plicitly mentioned the term ―fire‖ is used as a metaphor because it can also mean a severe trial (e.g. he went through fire and damnation or he went through hell last night). The next line elaborates on what this suffering is, which is that the narrator feeds off food that is not appropriate for the human body to digest. The food is not strictly speaking harmful to the biological functions of the body, but neither is it suitable to eat such as left overs or food for dogs. ―Poison‖ in this stanza is a metaphor for those foods the other dislikes, and the narrator, although knowing that is not healthy sees is it as food. The second stanza starts with a paradox: ―Multitudes walk with me in my isolation‖. This means that there are many others that walk by him or her but because the narrator is not close to any of them, the narrator still feels separated from everyone else despite the proximity with other human beings. This state of isolation is recognized by the narrator because the narrator knows that he or she is in a state of loneliness. Also, although there are people trying to help because there are ―friendly hands‖ these people are despised by ―you‖. Even though knowing that this

―you‖ despised those people helping him or her she took advantage of the situation and cherished it but the fact that ―you‖ did not like those helping the narrator, the mysterious ―you‖ physically abused the narrator in public and private places. This can be seen with the lines ―And that’s why you rain our blows on me/ In public and in private.‖ The last two lines of the second stanza qualify the measure of this physical abuse. Not only were these abuses extreme because of the many blows (―rain your blows on me‖), they were also long and bloody. The ―Leaves‖ here mean a sheet of any substance beaten or rolled until very thin. This refers to any kind of sheet that a person wears, and most times if one wears sheets, another does not see it as sheets but as rags. One can almost imagine that as the narrator is beaten, the strike of the rod, whip, or any such tool makes bloody pieces of cloth fly from the body, and more than that there would have  been much of that because these abusive episodes are characterized by being ―epic‖. An epic is an extremely long narrative poem and this ―blood-stained epic‖ probably lasted as long as how long it would take for one to read an epic. Furthermore, the usage of the word epic also adds to the disposition of the abuser, an epic other than being a long narrative poem, tells of a hero’s deeds. This abuser sees himself as a hero in the eyes of the narrator. The third stanza discusses the nature of the job of the abuser, and the narrator’s disposition towards it. The narrator first tells the reader that he or she covers himself or herself with ―failure’s trash‖. This latter part of the line ―failure’s‖ is a name given to the person abusing the narrator, and ―trash‖ is defined as worthless material. Why is it then ―failure’s trash‖? This is answered in the second and third line ―Finding heaps on the spiral staircase/ Of corruption and cash.‖ One should be clear that the ―heaps‖ of trash do not consist of ―corruption and cash‖, rather the ―corruption and cash‖ qualify the ―spiral staircase‖. In other words, the ―spiral staircase‖ possesses the qualities of ―corruption and cash‖. The entire phrase ―on the spiral

staircase of corruption and cash‖ may seem out odd but is actually a metaphor because a spiral staircase is a symbol mystery and disorientation. One may say that the first three lines can speak of the material objects (being trash) are worthless (not as monetary value but in work value)  because it lies on top of something disoriented or ―earned‖ in a not morally upright way such as corruption, but one may ask: what kind? This is answered: cash –  an implication of greed. After the characterization of the work of the abuser, which is of some corrupt and greedy nature. The narrator claims that ―although I’ve gone straight/ I’m still bitter in what I do‖. ―I’ve gone straight‖ is a metaphor for working justly and fairly, which is quite in contrast with the kind of work the abuser does. It can be assumed that when the narrator says ―what I do‖ the narrator is referring to work. This can be extracted from universal experiences when one asks ―so what is it you exactly do?‖ one more often than not mention’s one’s profession. However, although the narrator has worked in an honest and just way, he or she still has resentment about the work assigned. The narrator subsequently states ―hate the poison‖. This ―poison‖ is different from the one stated in the first stanza and refers to greed as it ties up with the previous and later lines of rd

the 3 stanza. This poison is later explained as being that condition when ―whatever one has one wants something better‖. This implies that one is never satisfied when one is greedy and will try to keep getting more to satisfy that hunger. Afterwards the narrator states that to ―sweep the whole world clean you need a scavenger.‖ Meaning if one wants to get everything, one  must collect things that have been discarded by others. Following that line the narrator claims ―And I’m not him‖. The nar rator claims that he or she is not a scavenger or greedy. The last part of the third stanza portrays a deplorable observation and inner experience of the narrator. The narrator claims that ―someone inside me roars each day/ That no work is unclean if  the man be true.‖ This means that there is an inner voice that tells the narrator that if a person is

honest (―if the man be true‖), then the work activity and product will be clean, but the narrator counteracts that by stating right after ―the work’s still grim‖. This means that despite a person’s honesty, the work activity and product can still be filled with despondency, melancholy, or be repellent, and whatever negative denotation ―grim‖ can give. Experientially, one can be honest with work and the work can still be horrific. For example, the Germans sending the Jews to the furnaces. They were very honest of their work, they knew what they were doing, but the work is still horrendous. The next stanza is about the daughter of the narrator. It starts with narrator stating that the daughter along with other material objects (―Beyond the world and its end-products: Refrigerators, vitamins, radiograms‖) is not within his or her reach. Although they may seem like a random set, they are all related to the daughter. This is because the following lines explain the condition of the daughter, she is ―famished‖, meaning to say extremely hungry. The next two lines are symptom of being extremely hungry: an empty digestive system (―intestines a gnawing nothing‖) and shame of having literally nothing (―In her lungs the shame of those who have nothing‖). Shame is defined as the painful emotion of a person aware of his or her inadequacy. The more inadequate a person is, the more the person is lacking something. If the person has nothing, the person is currently experiencing the superlative form of shame. In the poem these ―nothings‖ have already been mentioned: a place where food can be stored in low temperatures (refrigerators), which requires a proper home (which the daughter and the narrator-parent also do not have), nutrients (vitamins), and communication (radiogram). The daughter being somewhere is unable to communicate with the parent (narrator), and vice-versa. Both also cannot communicate with anyone. The narrator-parent cannot or else she will be physically abused, the

daughter cannot because she has nothing to communicate with or a person to communicate to. However, unlike the parent, the daughter has no food. After explaining the condition the daughter and partly the narrator itself, the narrator because of all the horrifying experiences, the narrator claims that the when one has nothing, one is imprisoned because to a certain degree, having something allows you to do what you are supposed to do or can do. These things of having are not just limited to material objects but go  beyond them such as identity. If one has no identity, one will not be able to act because one’s  purpose will be derived from one’s identity. Therefore it is true ―suffering imprisoned by nothings is true‖. However, the truth value changes when the narrator qualifies it by attaching ―only‖ to the entire phrase. When the narrator claims ―Only suffering imprisoned by the nothings is true,‖ the narrator is already creating a fallacy and is rejecting the other dimensions of suffering. Actually, the following lines show complete despair in the narrator stating that that kind of suffering of having nothing is the only thing that is true. Everything else outside of this suffering, even though it is still suffering is not real and is just a delusion. The narrator concludes and states that if what is real and true is this and only this form of suffering, then that which ensues from it is also the only thing that is real and true – grief (―The only truth is / A Sequence of grief‖). The kind of grief stated here is one that is momentary or brief but a sequence, one after the other, it will never stop –  the narrator has despaired. Lastly, the narrator reveals himself or herself. ―I am the split-eared, the underground wretch/ Correcting disorders‖, answers what the narrator is. The person is an Indian slave, who’s abuser is a Muslim. This is because the term ―split-eared‖ is the literal definition of the word ―Kanphata‖, which is a term used  for disrespect towards the yogi by the Muslims (Diken and Lausten, 2008, p. 114). They are called ―split-ears‖ because it pertains to the practice of

lengthening their ears. The Yogi in Hindu culture specifically refer to the Siddha’s –  people who  practices asceticism (White, 2012, p. 8). The fact the previous life of this Indian slave was one of asceticism is consistent with him not being greedy and at the same time not enjoying his line of work which as a slave is most probably servile. The last three lines of the poem show a glimpse of the kind of work done, ―Under your Chevrolets and Dodges I stretch, Oil-covered, black, Bowed by your orders.‖ This provides the image of a mechanic, one of the many servile tasks a slave is asked to do, but at the same time the phrase ―underground wretch‖ does not give so much the image of one who works in the sewers but one who has been classified as even lower than the earth and therefore someone one must feel pity for. The last line is actually the line that affirms the Indian is a slave ―Bowed by our orders‖. This means that the Indian yields to the other person’s request regardless.

Works Cited Diken, Bulent and Carsten Lausten. Yoga in the Modern World: Contemporary Perspectives .New York, NY: Routledge, 2008. PDF. White, Gordon. The Alchemical Body: Siddha Traditions in Medieval India. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012. PDF.