Tuesday, June 19, 2018

Ethics: A historical Perspective


Ethics: A historical Perspective
Dr. Ram Sharma , Associate Prof and Head , Dept of English , J.V. College , Baraut , Baghpat , U.P. 
Dr. ArchanaDurgesh
Albert Camus has rightly said, “A man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon this earth.”
Some years ago, sociologist Raymond Baumhart asked business people, “What do ethics mean to you?”Among their replies were the following:
·         “Ethics has to do with what my feelings tell me is right or wrong.
·         “Ethics has to do with my religious beliefs.”
·         “Being ethical is doing what the law requires.”
·         “Ethics consists of the standards of behavior our society accepts.”
·         “I don’t know what the word means.”
These replies might be typical of our own. The meaning of “ethics” is hard to pin down, and the views many people have about ethics are shaky.
Like Baumhart’s first respondent, many people tend to equate ethics with their feelings. But being ethical is clearly not a matter of following one’s feelings. A person following his or her feelings may recoil from doing what is right. In fact, feelings frequently deviate from what is ethical.
Nor should one identify ethics with religion. Most religions, of course, advocate high ethical standards. Yet if ethics were confined to religion, then ethics would apply only to religious people. But ethics applies as much to the behavior of the atheist as to that of the devout religious person. Religion can set high ethical standards and can provide intense motivations for ethical behavior. Ethics, however, cannot be confined to religion nor is it the same as religion.
Being ethical is also not the same as following the law. The law often incorporates ethical standards to which most citizens subscribe. But laws, like feelings, can deviate from what is ethical. Our own pre-Civil War slavery laws and the old apartheid laws of present-day South Africa are grotesquely obvious examples of laws that deviate from what is ethical.
Finally, being ethical is not the same as doing “whatever society accepts.” In any society, most people accept standards that are, in fact, ethical. But standards of behavior in society can deviate from what is ethical. An entire society can become ethically corrupt. Nazi Germany is a good example of a morally corrupt society.
Moreover, if being ethical were doing “whatever society accepts,” then to find out what is ethical, one would have to find out what society accepts. To decide what I should think about abortion, for example, I would have to take a survey of American society and then conform my beliefs to whatever society accepts. But no one ever tries to decide an ethical issue by doing a survey. Further, the lack of social consensus on many issues makes it impossible to equate ethics with whatever society accepts. Some people accept abortion but many others do not. If being ethical were doing whatever society accepts, one would have to find an agreement on issues which does not, in fact, exist.
What, then, is ethics? Ethics is two things. First, ethics refers to well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues. Ethics, for example, refers to those standards that impose the reasonable obligations to refrain from rape, stealing, murder, assault, slander, and fraud. Ethical standards also include those that enjoin virtues of honesty, compassion, and loyalty. And, ethical standards include standards relating to rights, such as the right to life, the right to freedom from injury, and the right to privacy. Such standards are adequate standards of ethics because they are supported by consistent and well-founded reasons.
Secondly, ethics refers to the study and development of one’s ethical standards. As mentioned above, feelings, laws, and social norms can deviate from what is ethical. So it is necessary to constantly examine one’s standards to ensure that they are reasonable and well-founded. Ethics also means, then, the continuous effort of studying our own moral beliefs and our moral conduct, and striving to ensure that we, and the institutions we help to shape, live up to standards that are reasonable and solidly-based.
Statistics reveal that children from poor / criminal / abusive / alcoholic families are prone to crime but of late we see even children from affluent families indulge in crime. There can be many reasons but the prime reason is that we are not imparting moral and ethical values to children right from their childhood. We are not equipping them with a positive and healthy frame of mind. Modern-day children are averse to reading good books which teach the ‘lessons of life,’ they are glued more to the idiot box and computer games. This is the crux of the problem. If books furnishing tales of Harshvardhana or Shivaji or Asoka are read at an early age, the young mind starts idolising those characters. They try and emulate the great men, who become role models for them. 
The epics can dissuade them from aiding and abetting crime; it would encourage them to stand up for their beliefs and values. When the young ones don’t have such heroes to worship and ape in real life, things go wrong and they don’t know how to differentiate between right and wrong.

This lack of moral and ethical values has made us spineless as well. Consider the Mumbai molestation case: Are only the molesters to blame? The bystanders are to be blamed as well because they let such a thing happen right under their nose, like cowards, without principles.

Parents are leaving their children behind because they are preoccupied with chasing their own dreams and lifestyle. The UNESCO International Commission on Education for the 21st century identified ‘learning to be’ and ‘learning to live together’ as two important bases of education. Education without value is an oxymoron. Our educational system is also at fault, affording, as it does, little scope for ‘moral education.’ Today’s generation may be very ‘environment and animal-friendly’ but it lacks the basic values of life. We should be alert to their needs, before it is too late.
The Ramayana  is not just an epic or a tale, but also an educational medium to demonstrate the importance of values such as loving and respecting our family, keeping our promises, protecting the weak and so on. By using the Magnum Opus of Hindu mythology, the Ramayana  as a medium, we can teach our children many life-skills and ethics.
The Ramayana  is one of the greatest epics of Hindu Mythology. Written by the Hindu sage Valmiki, the Ramayana  is not just a story, but also an educational medium used by the ancient sages to promote the importance of doing your dharma (duty) in relationships. The Ramayana  depicts characters that we should aspire to be like, such as the ideal father, ideal son, ideal brother, ideal leader, ideal wife, etc.
Important values and ethics can be taught to children by way of storytelling. The Ramayana  and Mahabharata especially, preach a lot of values that we would want our children to imbibe. Not for nothing, are they the most commonly taught epics since ancient times.
Instead of simply telling children to respect elders, examples from these epics would teach them the same with more emphasis.
Now, parents, teachers and care givers can use one of the greatest gems of Hindu Mythology, namely the Ramayana , to promote some of the most important moral values of life in children.
Differentiating between Good and Evil
Children can be inspired to choose right over wrong, even when wrong may feel more appropriate by giving them the example of Bharat, who was awarded the honour of ruling the mighty kingdom of Ayodhya. Bharat could have just ruled by becoming the king and thereby enjoying the absolute power and luxury that came with it, but his sense of justice would not permit him to do what most others would greedily do. Instead, upon learning that his mother Kaikeyi had unjustly managed to get Rama banished from Ayodhya, he immediately went into the forest to look for Rama and offer him his rightful position as the ruler of Ayodhya. So great was his devotion to his brother, and so strong was his desire to be fair and just, that when Rama refused to return to Ayodhya before completing his 14 years in exile, Bharat placed Rama’s footwear on the throne and ruled Ayodhya in the name of Rama – as Rama’s emissary until he returned to regain his rightful position.
This teaches our children that even if something is extremely desirable, it should only be accepted if attained in a right manner, without hurting or affecting anyone else in an unfair and unjust way.

 

The Importance of a Promise or Commitment

Kaikeyi, the queen of Ayodhya, and wife of King Dashrath had been granted two boons when she had saved his life on the battlefield. The day before Dashrath was to retire and crown his eldest son Rama as king, Kaikeyi demanded that Dashrath grant her the boons promised to her. Her first desire was that Rama should be exiled to the forest for fourteen years, and the second, that her son, Bharat, be crowned King instead. Dashrath was naturally heartbroken at the prospect of having to send his son into exile for fourteen years, but for this noble hearted clan, honouring one’s word is the highest duty. Even when Dashrath began to falter at the prospect of actually honouring that promise due to his love for his first born, and pleaded with Rama not to leave, Rama reminded his father of the value of a promise given and left Ayodhya to keep his father’s word. When Bharat begged Rama to return to Ayodhya, Rama once again reminded Bharat that he could not and would not dishonour his father by breaking the promise he had made to Kaikeyi.
Rama, a prince who had been brought up in the lap of luxury, and who stood to gain a position of absolute power and luxury if he disregarded his father’s promise willingly, chose to live a life of exile and hardship for 14 years in a forest. Now, what does it teach our children? It teaches them not to break the promise and commitment they have made to their teachers and parents.

Affection and Reverence for Parents

Rama willingly chose to spend 14 years in exile in a forest to protect his father’s much respected honour. Such was the honour he paid to his father. Dashrath too loved his child so deeply that when Rama left for the forest, Dashrath could not bear the thought of being away from his son for 14 years and breathed his last.
This demonstrates the insurmountable affection and reverence Rama had for his parents. He listened to every command his parents made, he honoured their promises and ensured that no one could accuse them of being unfair. He did not go against his parents’ wishes even though he was the rightful heir. He obeyed his parents and is immortalised for doing so. It also showcases the love parents have for their children. Hopefully, the fact that Dashrath died pining for his son will teach children all about the attachment parents have for them, and make them even more devoted.

Be Warned of Bad Advice

Kaikeyi, the youngest queen, was fundamentally a good woman and thus King Dashrath’s most favourite one. Unfortunately, she was manipulated to send Rama into exile and insist on her son Bharat being crowned king because of the venomous counsel of her maid servant whom she considered loyal and wise. Manthara, the evil one, not only poisoned Kaikeyi’s mind into demanding those two appalling boons, but also ruined her life. She not only lost her beloved husband but also her son Bharat, for whom she had asked for those very boons. Her own son, Bharath instead of praising her as she had thought, chastised her for the dreadful behaviour.
This is a very important lesson for our children. It teaches them to stay on guard against vicious advice and wrong company. It teaches to be vigilant in order to avoid being misled. It teaches them to be firm of mind, and not let better judgement get swayed easily by people. It teaches them to question their behaviour and think of the consequences of their actions before making any big or small decisions.

Defending the Weak

Jatayu, was my favourite character in the story. And I had spent many hours preening into the blue skies to find him when I was a child. Now, Jatayu, an aged demigod in the form of a vulture, had witnessed Ravana kidnapping Sita and taking her forcefully to Lanka. Paying no attention to his old age, Jatayu tried to save Sita by fighting Ravana valiantly, but failed miserably. Unfortunately, he also got fatally wounded in the massive fight. When Rama and Lakshman were looking for Sita, they came across Jatayuwhere he was lying, breathing his last. Jatayu informed Rama about Sita’s whereabouts and Ravana’s plans before breathing his last. Moved to tears by the courage and valor of the aged Jatayu, Rama performed the last rites as though Jatayu was his father.
This teaches our child that they must always stand up for the weak. The fact that Jatayu was so old and still tried to take on the powerful Ravana single-handedly, teaches our children to be courageous and be unafraid to take on any challenge that comes along the way, and accomplish it to the best of ability.
Thus, keeping so many invaluable ideals in mind that can be easily taught to our children, let us retell the Ramayana not just for its holiness, but also because this Magnum Opus is an important tool for instructing the future generations the code of right and ethical behavior. The Ramayana will enrich their lives and help us mould our children to be the leaders of tomorrow, imbibed with long lasting cultural and traditional foundation.
There is an apt incident I would like to add: It was a usual meeting. The Prophet (SAW) was in  his place  and his companions  gathered  around  him  to hear  the  words of wisdom and guidance. Suddenly a poor man in rags appeared, saluted the assembly: “SalamunAlaikum” and  finding  a vacant place, comfortably sat down.The Prophet (SAW) had taught them that  all Muslims were brothers andin an assembly one should sit wherever  one finds a place, regardless of any status. Now, it so happened that  this  poor man sat next to a very rich man. The rich man felt  disturbed and  tried to collect the edges of his dress around himself, so that the poor man did not touch them. The Prophet (SAW) observed  this and addressing the rich man he said:  “Perhaps you were afraid that his poverty would affect you?”  “No , O Messenger of Allah,” the rich man said. “Then perhaps you were apprehensive about some of your wealth flying away to him?” the Prophet (SAW) continued. “No, O Messenger of Allah.” the rich man replied. “Or you feared that your clothes would become dirty if he touched them?”  Prophet (SAW) said. “No, O Messenger of Allah.” the rich man answered again. “Then why did you draw yourself and your clothes away from him?”  the Prophet (SAW) finally said. The rich man  said: “I  admit  that  was the  most undesirable thing to do. It was an  error and I confess my guilt. Now to make amends for it, I  will  give  away half  of my wealth to this Muslim brother so that I may be forgiven.” Just as he said this, the poor man  rose and said: “O  Prophet of Allah, I do not accept his offer.” People present were all taken by surprise. They thought the poor man was a fool. But he explained: “O Prophet of Allah, I  refuse  to  accept his offer becouse I fear that I might then become arrogant  and  illtreat my Muslim brother the way he did to me.” Ethics and empathy are hard earned virtues.
            Potter Stewart has rightly remarked, “Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do.”
Works cited &reffered:
·         https://moralsandethics.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/poor-man-said/

No is a No: Pink


No is a No: Pink
Dr. Ram Sharma , Associate Prof and Head , Dept of English , J.V.College , Baraut , Baghpat , U.P.
                                                                                                                      Dr. Archana Durgesh

Simone de Beauvoir has rightly remarked, “One is not born, but rather becomes a woman.” (The Second Sex) In a society like ours it’s a crime to be a woman the movie Pink gives in some insight on a sensitive issue of a woman’s safety in man’s world. The movie begins with a jovial conversation running behind the star cast, but when the scene opens it has young men in big trouble as one of their friend is bleeding profusely. In a scene parallel there are three girls who are driven towards their house to safety. It’s in the middle of the night that this all is taking place. One of the girl Falak expresses her disgust, “kab se keh rahi the chalte  hai chalte hai.” The boy is gravely injured on the skull and there are glass shreds in his eyes. One is left to think what all happened did I missed something.
Rajveer the man in question is the man with links due to his political background. It’s worth mentioning this here because in a country like ours “links” is all that matters. The girls miraculously fall into the daily routine after the ordeal. But somewhere they are apprehensive about the ‘happening.’ In the sequence of events their landlord is contacted by Ankit Rajveer’s friend, first asking him to throw them out as they are, “vaisi type.” Instead of getting influenced he spoke to the girls straight and inquired, if they were safe or if they have landed in any kind of trouble? But they avoided the whole issue. But on his way back he had a planned minor accident and was warned, “bahar kardo un tino ladkiyon ko, acchi nahi hai wo. Rate ka dispute ho gaya tha mere doston ke saath, ek ne to almost mere dost ko murder hi kar diya tha.” How easily he defined the girl’s character as if he was speaking about a tasteless dish on menu.
Falak in a state of frenzy is narrowly saved by her neighbor (Mr. Amitabh Bachchan) he advises her, “you should be careful.” She goes to her boyfriend Javed’s place an elderly professor for solace but after knowing her plight he retorts, “I don’t believe this Falak…aap ne kuch nahi socha… socha hota to yun nahi jati unke saath akele kamre mein ,itna  kya enjoyment, Meenal ka to samajh mein aata hai, lekin….” He commits the same mistake unlike any other man he starts giving his opinion instead of doing a simple thing like holding her. Meenal is flamboyant and outgoing girl this is what makes her a woman of easy virtue and not worth discussion. Her friend Meenal is a free spirited girl which makes her an easy target for jibes and of course the tag ‘characterless’ a term any man uses for any woman so easily. Sometimes I really wonder if they actually know its meaning.
Rajveer instead of worrying about his injury is more worried about getting his dirty hands on Meenal and his friends instead of helping him realize his mistake his friends are more in getting him the girl who injured his ego more than his skull and eye. Another friend Mishaw though talked sense but everyone else challenged his manhood. They call up Meenal then and there telling her that she will have to pay for what she has done to Rajveer, “Start to tune hi kiya tha koi utha ke nahi laya tha tujhe, khud chalke ke aayi thin wahan tayyaar ho ke... Ab tera kaand ho ga maaze liye jaenge tere.” But to Ankit’s utter surprise she retorts, “phone pe kya dhamki de raha hai samne aa mere dekhti hoon main.”  They feel fueled and decide that they will make her pay their way. Andrea discusses the matter with her friend a young fellow who encourages her that her friends should make a bold move saying, “jab galti nahi hai to bhago mat, maafi mut mango.” He even advises them to make a police complaint which they should have made long back. Andrea received a video which makes her realize that they are being stalked. Later by their landlord, and her fellow performer Meenal is advised to make a police complaint. But the policeman instead of supporting her starts explaining her the pros and cons of making a police complaint, he further adds, “nashe mein thi madam…dhamki ka kya hai free ki cheez hai dene do…uss raat aap ko kuch nahi hua…ab na aap pe bahut gussa aaraha hai ji aap ke jaisi ‘achchi ladki’ aise ladkon ke saath jati hai ki kya…karte aap sab ho aur baad mein wo binde wali fauj toot padti hai humpe…ki aap safe nahi ho…decide karlo…phir to hum hai hi.” Though these girls mange to get a lot of help but there are the connections the miscreants have which she realizes later she shouldn’t have taken lightly.
Falak meets Mishaw who tries to convince her to ask Meenal to apologize he somewhere offends her by saying, “janti nahi ho tum well connected hai wo, tum  ladkiyaan ho… Baat badhegi to badnami kiski hogi?”  As if being a girl is a big crime and izzat to sirf ladkiyon ki hoti hai; men have nothing to do with honor. He convinces her for a compromise by saying sorry. Now the scene is almost clear Rajveer just wants an apology to satisfy his false manly ego. Even if the girls have not done anything wrong and he knows that they don’t have to feel sorry. It’s he who should be sorry.
Girls get into the debate of apologizing or to go along with the police complaint. Falak tries to explain the reason they all are there in Delhi away from their families is to make an earning and lead a “normal life” instead of getting into the vicious cycle of police complaint. Andrea is even apprehensive. Mishaw tries to convince Rajveer to accept the girls’ apology and let the matter rest but Ankit adds fuel to Rajveer’s temper saying, “beginning acchi hai end aur achcha hoga…main to bus traditions follow kar raha hoon  yaar bandiyon ki jo aukaat hai wo unhe batati rehna chahiye.”  On receiving Falak’s call Rajveer asks her to call Meenal on the line and apologize but his abusive language leads Falak to lose her temper and retort, “…mujhe tumse problem hai , tumhari language se, tumhare dimaag me bhare kude se, tumhe kya lagta hai hum tumse darr gaye hai iis liye tumhe phone kar rahe hai, Meenal ko tumhari ek nahi dono aakhen phod deni chahiye thi…. It is the next day at office that Falak realizes the heights of their contacts and lowness of their deeds when her immediate boss shows her a web page displaying her photo with a placard with her contact number and a statement-‘call me for happiness, I will satisfy you.’ Falak had to quit from her job though she has a lot of responsibilities back home with dependent parents and a specially challenged brother; whose treatment is lot expensive. Next morning Meenal is kidnapped advocate Sehgal is the eye witness he contacts the police but it is of no help. Meenal is crying out of fear and Ankit reminds that she has invited them herself, “aaja aaja karke.”  Meenal begs them to leave her and she will forget all this ever happened but they said, “we want you to remember this, tujhe pata hona chahiye tune kya kiya hai…” They molest her in the moving car and warn her, “kissi se kuch boliyo mut, ye sirf intro tha….” It’s too much for woman to endure let be a strong girl like Meenal. They are left with no other option but to leave the town.  Though police gets a complaint of molestation against the boys but next day police reaches the girls’ doorstep to arrest Meenal. It’s from here that the movie takes a turn.
The girls are flabbergasted when they come to know that a warrant has been issued against Meenal on the grounds of attempt to murder IPC 307. And they even add that they have been searching for her for the last seven days just to prove that she has been absconding because she was guilty. They keep on saying that it was they who made the complaint. It creates quite a public spectacle, someone from the crowd remarks, “yahi hoga jab ladkiyan akeli rahengi.” The SHO irrespective is a woman under political influence defends the boy and tells her father, “pesha karti hai wo pata hai ki nahi aapko.” Though her friends try to defend her, but to no avail. Deepak Sehgal who has been a successful lawyer knows at once where it’s leading to. He drops in to know what charges have they put; he reads out Section 320 with 324 causing serious injury, 307 attempt to murder, attempt to extort, and prostitution. They chose Friday to get her arrested so that she can’t manage a bail. But he tells them a way out; a session’s judge can be contacted for emergency bail and it’s applicable for women and minors. Andrea reads about Deepak Sehgal on internet. Meenal’s condition is pathetic it seems she has lost it completely. Seeing the girls so helpless he decides to help them out. Leaving out the legalities I would like to raise a few questions, how many victims lodge a complaint, how many have the knowledge and above all how many are given justice? Sometimes injustice goes to the extent that the victim is asked to marry the victimizer.
He gets her the bail but warns them that bail is not enough it’s a big fight ahead they have to prepare themselves for the trial. This case attracted a lot of media attention as it’s shown due to involvement of a politically well connected man. During the trial the prosecution opens by saying that in order to overcome repression of women there were many laws made regarding rapes, dowry and molestation, but it seems in this case and like such they are being misused. They met in a rock concert on March 1st and were invited graciously for dinner. He blames the girls of soliciting and providing sexual services in exchange of money. When Rajveer denied taking any such services and so does his friends she resorted to blackmail and later to physical injury which was entirely “unprovoked” and “vicious” and after attempt to murder they fled from the crime scene.
Defense opened the case with a simple but solid statement that police has no case against them; “it’s a case of vindictive litigation.” “Actually the case should be registered under Section 354; outraging the modesty of a woman…Section 503 to be read with section 506 criminal intimidation…” The men were stalking and threatening them. Then Section 304 wrongful confinement (in the car) by Ankit And Raunak (Dumpy) they with the help of two other men molested her. The SHO out rightly lied in the court blaming Meenal for what she didn’t do. Then the doctor who treated is called to the stand he even told that the injury was fatal. Then is called Mukesh Kuamar the waiter of the resort who spoke in a very low manner about the girls; “…subah hi jaengi aisi ladkiyan…nahi to ye ladkiyan ladko ke kamre mein jati hi kyon aap hi sochiyen na wahan bhi ek ek ladki ek ek ladke ko alag le ja rahi thi.”  Then the manager Rama Kant is called to the stand to tell what were Meenal and Rajveer talking about though he should be clueless due to so many customers still he adds, “wahi baatein jo ladke ladkiyan karte hai.” Prosecution actually prepared a character sketch of Meenal and her friends as girls of promiscuous character and that they are into soliciting. How easy it is for a man to call a woman wanton.
When called to take the stand Meenal pleaded not guilty. When Andrea is called to take the stand the prosecutor asked her from where did she belong (she is a north east girl) and added, “aap court ko batlaiye ki ye kaam aap kab se kar rahi hai?” The judge feeling her discomfort intervened and told her not to answer any question if she didn’t feel like it. Her whereabouts that night are questioned though she simply used Dumpy’s toilet. But her prolonged stay in the room is questionable and so is her closing the door behind her back. Andrea is the first person to be cross questioned by the defense; her belonging to Meghalaya is irrelevant because no one else who taken a stand was asked so she answers, “I feel as a north eastern girl I’m being harassed more than any other average Indian girl on the street.” Her closing the door was instinctive and her prolonged stay is explained by Dumpy’s planned devilish act; he switched off the lights and touched her inappropriately. Thus defense explained Andrea’s acts that night. Defense later talks of A Girl’s Safety Manual; it’s the soul of the case; Rule 1: “kisi bhi ladki ko kisi ke bhi saath akele nahi rehna chahiye, kisi resort ya toilet use karne ke lkiye to bilkul bhi nahi” because it shows their willingness and easy availability.
When Dumpy is called to the stand he accepts his sexual escapade with Andrea, he started overacting. Then Falak is called to the stand and in the similar way prosecution accused her of soliciting because of her financially weak background even her affair with the professor is portrayed as entirely professional and sexual.  Then Rajveer is called to the stand, in a very weird manner defense counsel asked to take his hands out of his pocket but later we realize he wanted to irritate him and actually prove to the court how insolent he could get. Prosecution asked him, “aap ko shaque nahi hua jab ye ladkiyaan itna ghul mil  kar baat kar rahi thi?” he answered, “…ladkiyaan todhi friendly si hai…jab hints diye…yahi ki chalo alag alag chalet hai…paiso ke badle mein hum inke saath enjoy kar sakte hai…I went with the flow…” But then he added that, ‘ye ladkiyan galat hai…mujhe iske saath kuch nahi karna…aapko paise dene padenge varna main chillaungi ki aap mera rape karne ki ki koshish kar rahe hai. (Meenal)…jo iske haath mein bottle thi use isne mujhpe attack kiya.” This whole fictitious episode is completely enthralling as the level to which this man stoops down is commendable. How many times without realizing men and women talk about somebody in a lowly manner? Without any knowledge and proof they portray a vicious and malign image of an innocent soul. When cross questioned he told, “bahut zyada frank ho rahi thi, smile vile de rahi thi touch kar rahi thi haath se baat karte waqt.’  Defense counsel says so that makes the Rule 2 of the manual: “kisi bhi ladki ko kisi bhi ladke ke saath hus hus ke usse touch karke baat nahi karni chaihiye kyonki wo usse hint samajh lega; haansi ko haan…uske chalu hone ka sabot ho sakta hai….” Does frank and outgoing person should be perceived as characterless or available? But ironically enough they are.
The girls’ neighbors came forward to testify against them to prove them promiscuous but they are dealt beautifully, “nahi mein magar ki gunjayash hai hi nahi…humare yahan ghadi ki sui character decide karti hai” the girls were never seen in indulging anything immoral but it’s our tendency to look down upon the girls with male friends, leave out the ones having boyfriends. Late nights for girls is a big no even if they are working and for boys its always ok even if they are molesting an innocent girl.
Meenal is asked if she has her own house in Delhi which she had so basically her living independently without her parents even puts a question mark on her character; “wo kaam aap vahan nahi kar sakti jo aap yahan karti hai…” It is later revealed that the girls knew one of the men Mishaw so basically they were not unknown to each other and girls had reason fair enough to trust them and feel “safe”. When asked why she hit him she narrated the whole incident, “Sir he grabbed me, chhodh hi nahi raha tha I don’t know what came over me can’t really explain but sir ek badi gandi feeling hoti hai jab koi iss tarike se choota hai…kisko achcha lagta hai ki koi chuye aise zabardasti….” Is there no difference at all between a civilized man and a street dog whose driven by animal desire?
The prosecution when given a chance to cross question Meenal and tells her that her going with them was a calculated move… “harmful nahi lage…seedhe type ke decent ladke…they might be interested, ye aap se dab jaenge aur paisa extort karna mein koi dikkat nahi aaegi…drinks kyon karne lag gai aap?...Rajveer ke liye khud inhone drink banaya taiyari room ke ander jane ke saath hi shuru ho gai hi…ek sexual act ka description de rahi thi…she was narrating a joke, what was the joke?...” Meenal totally feels uncomfortable, “I can’t say, private mein aur public mein joke sunane mein farak hota hai…” if her joke can’t be told publically then its gainsaid her accepting that she is characterless is out of question said the prosecutor. Her statement is too moving that he had held her and, “…agar ye dobara karega to dobara keech ke bottle marungi iske siir pe maarungi…sir maine nahi maange paise, maine koi paise nahi liye….” The hurt the pain is evident in her words as well as in her outstanding performance.
There is a wonderful twist when the SHO Sarala Prem Chand is called, she is addressed as a super woman later its explained; she reported Meenal was absconding but she was found in her own house, then she had written the report while at the time she wrote the report she was attending a marriage 10 kms away she came in just 10 mins to write the report which actually took 42 mins …. “ghatna itni badi thi aap goli ki speed se aayi, aur report aapne sirf do line mein likhi.” Though she wrote longer reports even it was proved as the same page contained report of a lost mobile. Actually she wrote the report in the space available in the back date. It’s the only entry she wrote in such an economic manner. It proved it was an afterthought; after Meenal reported the matter to the police. This is a hilarious part of this serious movie. And a big question mark on our system where this happens each and every day.
To wind up the case defense counsel raised a very weird question to Meenal, “Are you a virgin?” Even the judge felt if it was irrelevant but it was the most relevant question which brought the case to its denouement. She is given a option to answer in camera but she says, “maine kuch galat nahi kiya main open court mein answer karungi.” She tells that she lost her virginity at the age of 19 to her boyfriend Manish. She is asked if she was paid for it. She answered, “nahi hum ek dusre ko pasand karte the, we were attracted to each other so pay karne ka sawaal hi paida nahi hota.” The counsel said, “So he didn’t pay you. Did he force you?” she answered, “No he didn’t force me, he didn’t pay me we liked each other we did it because we wanted to.” She is further asked if she was sexually involved with any other person. She accepted she was. So the defense asked if it had happened many a times what if she had done it with Rajveer even was it a big deal? “Kya matlab,” “matlab ye ki pehli march ko Rajveer aur uske saathiyon ne bhi yahi socha hoga ki ye ek fairly promiscuous ladki hain aur agar ek baar aur ye ho jata hai to kya farak padta hai? Main samajh sakta hoon ki wo itne matured nahi the ki wo iss baat ko soch sake ki jab aapke saath pehle hua to aap ki marzi ke saath hua bina paise liye hua aur bina kisi dabaab ke hua, but the prosecution has proved that you are woman of questionable character…uss waqt aapne kya indication diya ki main abhi sex mein interested nahi hoon?” “Maine usko mana kiya tha...maine usko push kiya tha, bola leave me, don’t do this…I SAID NO NO, I SAID NO, I SAID NO NO.”
Meenal said no still this man touched her inappropriately, he humiliated her, she was just a bit drunk, a bit friendly, a bit smartly but appropriately dressed up was it a crime but it does makes Rule 4: “kisi ladki ko kisi ladke ke saath sharab nahi peeni chahiye kyon ki agar wo aisa karti hai toladke ko ye indicate hota  hai ki agar wo mere saath sharab pi sakti hai to uske saath sone se bhi katraie gi nahi.” Alcohol in our culture indicates low character for girls but it’s just a health hazard for boys. “…aaj tak hum sab ek galat direction mein effort karte rahe hai we should save our boys not our girls because if we save our boys then our girls will be safe, sheher mein ladkiyon ko alag nahi rehna chahiye…independent ladkiyaan ladko ko confuse kar deti hai, ladkiyon ko hus ke baat nahi karni chahiye…ladkiyon ko mobile mut dijiy eunka education mut kijiye…unki shaadi jaldi kardijiye etcetera etcetera etcetera.” Instead of telling our girls what to do and what not to do we should put in some efforts in teaching our boys some etiquettes and inculcate in them a feeling of respecting women.
In the movie her drunken state could have been perhaps the reason for her intense action but, “baar baar ek ladki ko inappropriately chuna,ek ladki kya karegi aise mauke pe, what do you expect her to do? Apne self defense mein ek kadam uthana not causing grievous injury or attempt to murder…not that at all.” But prosecution raised another question why didn’t Falak overreact? She is called on the stand and incessantly asked about her relationship with Prof. Javed their mutual fund transfers and even that why she demanded money? She loses her temper and patience and retorts that yes, she and Andrea demanded money but Meenal was not party to it, still Rajveer tried to outrage her modesty and touched her inappropriately. Thus, bringing an end to the whole money demanding business and giving prosecutor a run for his life. “aap hi baitaiye Sir by law by law bataiye Sir ki wo sahi tha ya yeh? The man Falak stood by along with his daughter left her when she needed him the most.
When Rajveer is questioned by the defense that how could he gather that Meenal was ready to get in bed with him he gave all the vile excuses he could to which the defense answered, “venue decide karta hai character aap ke liye.” “…in logon ki tarah mera bhi koi character nahi hai, yehi prove karna chahte hai aap?” “Ye prove karne ki zarurat nahi hai.par aap itna irritate kyon ho rahe hai….baar baar wahi baat kyon repeat kar rahe ho TUM.” Thus defense succeeded in irritating Rajveer and bringing out his true colors. He is asked him to admit that he randomly picks beautiful girls and invites them for dinner and drinks. He asks him, “kya aap ke ghar mein ladkiyan sharaab peeti hai…acche ghar ki aurtein sharab nahi peeti hai…family gatherings mein jati hai parties mein nahi.” So it’s proved that girls who drink and party are easily available and become, “his pushtaini haque.” Though ironically Rajveer’s sister is shown drinking and partying in a pic from a social networking site; he loses his cool, “baith ke peena aur kisi ke saath bhi chale jana ye aisi ladkiyan karti hai achche gharane ki ladkiyan nahi, in jaisi ladkiyon ke saath na aisa hi hota hai…aaram se aajae aur piye to koi bhi ladka yahi samhje ga na ki ye ladkiyaan tayaar hai, varna kyon aaengi, kyon piyengi….kya balatkaar yahan kisi se bhi pooch lo aisi ladkiyon ke saath aisa hi hota hai…asisi ladkiyon ko malum hai kis naam se bulaya jata hai raand.” This is what exactly that happened he took the girls too lightly and assessed them to be of promiscuous character.  And over this his male ego got hurt when he heard no for an answer that no was hard to digest especially coming from girls he thought them to be.
The women in today’s time go out for dinner and drinks but that doesn’t makes them available as some men who are still marred by feudal mentality may take them for women of easy virtue. Their outgoing attitude is not a welcome signboard yelling out a loud that I’m easily available for you. Prosecution’s persistence on the argument that the girls went with the boys to extort money there is simply no question of consent. But there is something Deepak Sehgal said which shook every viewer, “No, No your Honor, na sirf ek shabd nahi hai apne aap mein pura ek vaikya hai kisi tark spashtikaran, explaination yavyakya ki zaurat nahi hai na ka matlab na hi hota hai. My client said No your honor and these boys must realize ki no ka matlab no hota hai usse bolne wali ladki koi parichit ho, friend ho, girlfriend ho, koi sex worker hoya aap ki apni biwi hi kyon na ho. No means no and when someone says so you stop.” Does a woman’s no means nothing to a man or is he ignorant to her feelings, or does he think mood bun jaega is it that easy? Is she a human or a power switch that you can switch her on and off at your whims and fancies. Sex should always be consensual irrespective who she is. In a relationship respect should come before love.
This movie has made a beginning it has touched a sensitive issue. My topic was no is a no I had to cross such a long way to say what I intent to say. It’s my choice you can’t force me. I may be smart outgoing and bold but that doesn’t make me promiscuous and available. It has been aptly said, ‘When men are oppressed, it’s a tragedy. When women are oppressed, it’s a tradition.’

The art of rhythmical composition: A Study of Wordsworth’s “Lyrical Ballads”


The art of rhythmical composition: A Study of Wordsworth’s “Lyrical Ballads”

Dr. Ram Sharma
Associate Prof. & Head, Dept. of English, J.V.College, Baraut, Baghpat
Sukanya Goswami
Faculty,Dept.of English, MNC Girls' College, Nalbari, Assam.

“ Preface to the Lyrical Ballads” (1800)  is one of the heralding ‘Prefaces’ to initiate a good deal of novelty in English Criticism. Written by William Wordsworth, the ‘Preface’ aptly brings out Wordsworth’s critical creed, his conceptions of poetry, of a poet, of poetic diction and of the nature and the process of poetic creation. Herein, Wordsworth takes on the mantle of a critic and tries to usher in an entirely new kind of poetry which directly manifested a revolt against the poetry of the neo-classical and against the pseudo-classical theory of poetry.
           The ‘Preface’ forms the core of Wordsworth’s critical venture and it sustains many good qualities about it. It is here that the poet-critic, for the first time, advocates for naturalness in poetry, away from the obnoxious artificiality which characterized the poetry of the neo-classicists. It is, indeed, Wordsworth, the true Romantic who emphatically declares for the first time that “Poetry is the breath and finer spirit of all knowledge…….Poetry is the first and last of all knowledge – it is as immortal as the heart of man.” Such a higher estimation is to be found never before, neither in Aristotle, nor even in Sydney.
        In his ‘Preface’ (1800), Wordsworth mentions that poetry “takes its origin from emotions recollected in tranquility” and that it is the “spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings.” Poetry has more to do with the human heart than with his intellect, its subject matter being “a natural delineation of human passion, human characters and human incidents.” For Wordsworth, poetry has a noble purpose to give emotional delight, along with enlightening the reader, purifying him emotionally. Poetry cannot be composed, according to Wordsworth, by following an unnatural, mechanical process. It is possible for a poet to compose a poem only when he lets loose his long training in deep reflection upon a specified subject.
             Criticizing the over-standardization of the norms regarding poetic composition, which had been urban-oriented under the influence of the neo-classicists, Wordsworth advocates for naturalness and simplicity to be adopted in composing poetry. According to him, poetry is not poetry which used the artificial, stereotyped language of the people living in towns and cities, concerning with an artificial subject-matter like the ones we find in the poetry of the neo-classicists. Condemning the pseudo-classical concept of poetry, tinged with artificiality, Wordsworth opines that poetry must not be separated from men in real life; and according to him, ‘real’ men are those who live not in towns and cities, but in the heart of nature. Poetry originates from the natural human emotions and passions which can only be had in the rustics, in their crudest forms.
            The poet, Wordsworth believes, is a man of greater imagination and greater power of communication, so that he can comprehend truth which the commons remain blind to. Through his long training in deep reflection, the poet acquires the very essence of some phenomenon or incident. This process in the making of poetry begins in a state of calm in which the recollection of some past emotional experience can take place. Subsequently, emotional excitement in him gradually increases until the poet is almost relieving from this experience with a difference. The difference is that emotion has now modified by the thought. Thought and emotion, conscious and unconscious elements continue their intimate interaction until the spontaneous overflow begins and until these elements are ready to combine in a poet. Thus, poetry is emotion-centric and it comes into being only after the poet’s meditation in silence in the form of an overflow of his thoughts and emotions.
        Wordsworth seems to be more a poet than being a critic in defining poetry as the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings and as being emotions recollected in tranquility. His staunch as a critic reflects his standing as a poet. He can rightfully be termed as a true Romantic critic when he seems to propound his theory of poetry, when he ventures to bring out the true nature of poetic creation. But it was his contemporary and fellow poet-critic S.T. Coleridge, who is the first to raise objection against Wordsworth’s theory of poetry. Coleridge criticizes Wordsworth in terms of the technical apparatus used in poetry namely, diction, meter and treatment. T.S. Eliot criticizes Wordsworth for not applying his own theory in all his poems. According to Eliot, Wordsworth’s poems such as ‘Immortality Ode’, ‘Tintern Abbey’, ‘Ode to Duty’ etc do not follow Wordsworth’s prescription about the language. The diction used in these poems is richer and more sophisticated than those of the rustic people. They are not written in a selection of language really used by men. The fact that he had a Romantic conception of poetry is affirmed when we take into account the prevailing view of poetry steered in by the neo-classicists, who urbanized poetry and made it explicitly mechanical. It was because of this that Wordsworth tried to redefine poetry and the nature of the poetic process. But even then a minute observation of Wordsworth’s theory of poetry will reveal that emotions recollected in tranquility is a conscious mechanical process which Wordsworth himself tried to escape from, the very thing which is embodied in the first part of his definition of poetry to be a “spontaneous overflow.”     
Works Cited:
Abrams, M.H. ed., Wordsworth : A Collection of Critical Essays,1999.Print.
Cuddon, J.A., Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory, Penguin Books, 2000, ISBN -0-140-51363-9.Print.
Hill, John Spencer, The Romantic Imagination, A selection of Critical Essays,2000, The Macmillan Press Limited, ISBN-033321234(hc), 033212355(pbk), Print. 
Perkins, David, “ William Wordsworth”, English Romantic Writers, 2nd edition (Harcourt:1995),261.
Wordsworth, William: Lyrical Ballads, Macmillan Publication.1984, Print.  

Revenge is a dish best served cold: Chinua Achebe’s A Man of the People


Revenge is a dish best served cold: Chinua Achebe’s A Man of the People

Dr. Ram Sharma
Associate Professor & Head, Deptt. of English, J.V. College, Baraut, Baghpat, U.P.
Dr. Archana
Associate Professor, BBDGEI, Lucknow, U.P.

Chinua Achebe’s A Man of the People published in 1966 is far more pessimistic in tone than his earlier novels and casts a critical eye on the politics of newly independent West African country in the 1960s. It examines questions of power and leadership in the emergent nation state. The government of the country is nominally in the hands of the people but there is no responsible leadership. It deals with modern Nigerian society unrestrained by the traditional taboos and a rigid religious force and imperialism. Achebe portrays on a grand scale the infectious nature of corruption in Nigerian, political and civil life in – rural and urban parts as well. There is a measure of change in his novel A Man of the People.
The novel is his brilliant satirical farce and exposes the inadequacies and follies of his society and the cynical attitude of political opportunists to exploit their tradition for personal ends. The book has exposed the social and political maladies of young Nigeria of 1960’s. The people were becoming more and more selfish in their attitude. Corruption in every field was at its height though here were some weak forces, working against this. But corruption was very infectious and it was swallowing up the whole nation.
The novel opens in 1964 with the official visit of Chief the Honourable M.A. Nanga M.P. to Anata Grammar School where he himself was a teacher and where the narrator Odili is now teaching. The visit is seen through the sceptical eyes of Odili, who has been thoroughly disillusioned by the political events of the last few years. His disillusionment embraces both the politicians and the electorate who have cynically entered into a conspiracy of self-interest. The politicians safeguard their own interest by providing their local supporters with a slice of ‘the national cake’. Things have finally fallen apart in this general moral decay. The novel reads, “As I stood in one corner of that vast tumult waiting for the arrival of the Minister I felt intense bitterness welling up in my mouth. Here were silly, ignorant villagers dancing themselves lame and waiting to blow off their gunpowder in honour of one of those who had started the country off down the slopes of inflation. I wished for a miracle, for a voice of thunder, to hush this ridiculous festival and tell the poor contemptible people one or two truths. But of course it would be quite useless. They were not only ignorant but cynical. Tell them that this man had used his position to enrich himself and they would ask you – as my father did – if you thought that a sensible man would spit out the juicy morsel that good fortune placed in his mouth.” (A Man of the People, pp. 2, 3)
But the bustle and vitality of the scene, with women dancing, the hunter’s guild in full regalia, and old ‘Grammar - phone’ herself singing, make themselves heard about the narrator’s disapproval. His concern over economic inflation and political immorality pale into academic insignificance. Here is the tribal Chief making a triumphal return and this surely merits a local celebration. And yet, for Odili it is precisely the success of this attempt to turn a national politician into a clan leader which causes dismay and disillusionment. It means that national interest will always come second; the government resolves itself into a squabble of local loyalties and interests.
Consequently, Odili has opted out of politics, and he describes in a flashback how it occurred. His adolescent hero-worship of Nanga, dating from 1948, was finally destroyed by the 1960 economic crisis in which his hero first came to the public notice. On his first and last visit to Parliament he witnessed the political assassination of the minister of finance, ‘a first-rate economist with a Ph.D. in Public Finance’, by a government unwilling to face up to the stringent and unpopular measures he proposed. Nanga was well to the fore in hounding and condemning. But what was so disillusioning to Odili, an undergraduate at the same time, was the way in which the minister of finance was discredited, for being un-African, “decadent stooges versed in text-book economics and aping the white man’s mannerism and way of speaking.” The quotation from the official party organ continues, “We are proud to be Africans. Our true leaders are not those intoxicated with their Oxford, Cambridge or Harvard degrees but those who speak the language of the people. Away with the damnable and expensive university education which only alienates an African from his rich and ancient culture and puts him above his people ….” (p.4.)
Odili’s European political concepts of Parliamentary democracy could be irrelevant, even dangerous, and he, like the minister of finance, could be labelled a member of “the hybrid class of Western educated and snobbish intellectuals who will not hesitate to sell their mothers for a mess of potage.” (p. 6) And Odili is a hybrid who views with distaste not only the corruption but many other features of his society. His ambition is to take a postgraduate diploma in London and be accepted in a European society.
Odili’s political views are shown to be inseparable from his character. The personality which adheres to these high-minded yet disillusioned concepts is by nature cold-blooded, egocentric and alienated. The narrator, of course, does not describe himself in these terms. As far as he is concerned he is simply unwilling ‘to lick any ‘Big Man’s boots’, “In fact one reason why I took this teaching job in a bush, private school instead of a smart civil service job in the city with car, free housing, etc. was to give myself a certain amount of autonomy.” (p. 17) Autonomy in the political sphere may be admirable but when it is transferred to the local community and to personal relations it becomes alienation and selfishness.
He exemplifies his personal selfishness most clearly in his relations with his girl friend, Elsie. She is his proudest trophy, the biggest boost to his self-esteem. He admits that he is not usually lucky with women, but with her it was different. “Elsie was, and for the matter still is, the only girl I met and slept with the same day – in fact within an hour.” (p. 24) Elsie’s main attraction, apart from providing proof of his sexual powers, is her undemanding availability, “I can’t pretend that I ever thought of marriage . . . Elsie was such a beautiful, happy girl and she made no demands whatever.” (p. 25) This is what autonomy becomes in the world of Odili’s private affairs.
Two major clues to be uncovered about Odili's personal life are that his mother died at his birth and his father was a district interpreter (a powerful government post in those days). Both circumstances fostered the loneliness and alienation of the sensitive child. He was known as the ‘bad child that crunched his mother’s skull’, “Of course as soon as I grew old enough to understand a few simple proverbs. I realised that I should have died and let my mother live. Whenever my people go to console a woman whose baby had died at birth or soon after, they always tell her to dry her eyes because it is better the water is spilled than the pot broken. The idea being that a sound pot can always return to the stream.” (A Man of the People, p. 28)
The second clue means that Odili was the son of the most unpopular man in the district. In the days of his childhood, “The District officer was like the Supreme Deity, and the Interpreter the principal minor god who carried prayers and sacrifice to Him . . . so Interpreters in those days were powerful, very rich, widely known and hated.” (A Man of the People, p. 28) From the moment of his birth Odili grew up in a world full of enemies. Odili’s political views can be so immaculately high-minded, so uncontaminated by personal allegiance because his detachment from his fellow human beings is virtually complete.
Nanga’s values are equally ambiguous. At first sight he is a political opportunist whose only concerns are survival and self-interest. Without detachment of any kind he has no concept of political morality or of national good. As the narrator realises, his concerns are local and immediate. “People like Chief Nanga don’t care two hoots about the outside world. He is concerned with the inside world, with how to retain his hold on his constituency and there he is adept.” (A Man of the People, p. 23)
Nanga has an instinctive grasp of how to do this, and he is prepared to call to his assistance bribery, corruption and intimidation. Unlike the village where the unscrupulous Josiah is quickly and effectively outlawed, the country as a whole has no kind of political morality by which to judge and condemn a Nanga. His self-interest and false promises of share of a slice of the national cake to the people of his constituency results in recurrent political and economic crisis with which the events of the novel are punctuated. In the context of the local scene, however, Nanga assumes a vitality and stature which are very compelling. As we see him speaking and joking with the villagers in Pidgin English, sharing their values and expressing their political hopes, he becomes a man of the people in a less ironical sense. Nanga does speak ‘the language of the people’, and has not undergone “a university education which only alienates an African from his rich and ancient culture and puts him above his people.” (A Man of the People, p. 4)
The alienated Odili and his friend Andrew sneer at Nanga’s parochialism, “Just think of such a cultureless man going abroad and calling himself Minister of Culture. Ridiculous. This is why the outside world laughs at us.” (A Man of the People, p. 23)  But in his own vulgar, vital way he possesses more culture than the disinherited class to which they belong. It is through dance, gesture, dress and language that Nanga comes to life, for his culture is inseparable from his electric personality. He is welcomed back to his constituency like a Chief who will always safeguard the interest of his people,As soon as the Minister’s Cadillac arrived at the head of a long motorcade the hunters dashed this way and that and let off their last shots, throwing their guns about with frightening freedom. The dancers capered and stamped, filling the dry-season air with dust. Not even Grammar-phone’s voice could now be heard over the tumult. The Minister stepped out wearing damask and gold chains and acknowledging cheers with his ever-present fan of animal skin.” (A Man of the People, pp. 7,8) It is a triumph of style unaffected by the sneers of the narrator. Nanga becomes increasingly attractive as we move from his doubtful political ideals to his personality. Eventually Odili too begins to succumb to the infectious charm, “The man was still as handsome and youthful looking as ever – there was no doubt about that . . .  the Minister had a jovial word for everyone. You would never think – looking at him now – that his smile was anything but genuine. It seemed bloody-minded to be skeptical.” (A Man of the People, p. 8)
Odili is taken further aback when the Minister recognizes him from his school days and embraces him. For Nanga, this is where values and ideals come alive. Now Odili comments on current political corruption “A common saying in the country after Independence was that it didn’t matter what you knew but who you knew” (A Man of the People, p. 28) seems far less sinister in its implications. Odili and Nanga are two main characters of the novel. At public level, the self-interest of the political opportunist is contrasted with the ideals of the disillusioned narrator; at private level, the opportunist’s warmth and vitality are contrasted with the alienation and selfishness of the idealist. The rest of the novel plots the implications, the ironies and the resolution of the choice between idealism and detachment, and involvement.
At the first meeting of the two men their characteristic styles are contrasted. The narrator is disapproving and on the defensive. “I held out my hand somewhat stiffly. I did not have the slightest fear that he might remember me and had no intention of reminding him.” (A Man of the People, p. 8) When Nanga does recognize him his need for affection and popularity makes him secretly delighted. Nanga free from any hesitations slaps the narrator on the back and chides him for not having sought his help, “Don’t you know that Minister means servant? Busy or not busy he must see his master.” (A Man of the People, p. 9) Nanga quickly invites Odili to stay at his house in the capital, Bori, and offers assistance. The final comment reminds us that the novel as a whole is arranged in retrospect by the mature narrator who has had time to digest the significance of the events he is describing. In the uncertain world of the first-person novel the narrator’s comments upon his earlier self exercise the chief control on the trajectory of the novel as a whole. Odili has come under the influence of the Nanga charisma so that he now begins to explain sympathetically the temptations of the men of power, “A man who has just come in from the rain and dried his body and put on dry clothes is more reluctant to go out again than another who has been indoors all the time. The trouble with our new nation – as I saw it then lying on that bed – was that none of us had been indoors long enough to be able to say ‘to hell with it.’ We had all been in the rain together until yesterday. Then a handful of us – the smart and the lucky and hardly ever the best – had scrambled for the one shelter our former rulers left, and had taken it over and barricaded themselves in.” (A Man of the People, p. 37) The cook was seeking to preserve his self-respect by adopting superior European customs; the Englishman shows his superiority by adopting what he thinks are African criteria. When the other guests leave. Odili is alone with the American hostess, Jean. They dance of highlife together, and we are treated to a further variation of cultural misunderstanding, “I must say she had learnt to do the highlife well except that like many another foreign enthusiast of African rhythm she tended to overdo the waist wiggle. I don’t say I found it unpleasant – quite on contrary; I only make a general point, which I think is interesting. It all goes back to what others have come to associate us with. And let it be said that we are not entirely blameless in this. I remember how we were outraged at the University to see a film of breast - throwing, hip-jerking, young woman which a neighboring African state had made and was showing abroad as an African ballet. Jean probably saw it in America.” (A Man of the People, p. 52) Not only do we find it necessary to impose stereotypes on other people; they in turn strengthen the stereotypes by acting as we want them to act. An additional irony is when Odili tells us Jean’s husband is always on business, advising African government how to improve their public image in America. The permutations multiply. Jean wrongfully attributes sexual motives to Odili which he is delighted to acknowledge, and next we see them in bed together. But the chapter ends in complete misunderstanding. Jean takes him on a tour of the city as she drives him home, “She certainly knew the city well, from the fresh-smelling modern waterfront to the stinking, maggoty interior.” (A Man of the People, p. 54) Despite their intimacy, Odili begins to mistrust her motives was it simply for curiosity’s sake or was there “some secret reason, like wanting me to feel ashamed about my country’s capital city?” (A Man of the People, p. 55) He laughs uneasily at the signs of corruption and inequality in Bori, signs which he had enjoyed with unconcealed pleasure when alone. This sequence of incidents has two effects on the narrator. He now understands the difficulty of trying to interpret or judge any alien culture or area of experience in which one has not participated directly and intimately. And secondly, as he has sought to correct the most blatant errors of the Europeans, Odili has become increasingly protective and defensive about his own African society. On some occasion as the theme of this section of the novel is developed Odili seems to speak directly for the author. The trouble is we are not certain. The focus which the character of the narrator should provide is not sufficiently clear. Odili’s sympathy for Nanga and uncertainty about his own loyalties end abruptly when he takes his girl friend Elsie to stay at Nanga’s house. Characteristically, he has given the minister the impression that she is, “…simply a good-time girl, I suppose what happened was that Chief Nanga and I having already swopped many tales of conquest I felt somehow compelled to speak in derogatory terms about women in general.” (A Man of the People, p. 60) In the absence of his wife, Nanga doesn’t wait for niceties of definition to be cleared up. He is in Elsie’s bedroom before the narrator, “would muster up sufficient bravado to step into the sitting-room and up the stairs.” (A Man of the People, p. 70) Then, when he hears ‘as from a great distance Elsie deliriously screaming my name’, Odili suffers a crisis of inertia, “I find it difficult to retrospect to understand my inaction at that moment. A sort of paralysis had spread over my limbs, while an intense pressure was building up inside my chest. But before it reached raging point I felt it siphoned off, leaving me empty inside and out. I trudged up the stairs in the incredible delusion that Elsie was calling on me to come and save her from her ravisher. But when I got to the door a strong revulsion and hatred swept over me and I turned sharply away and went down the stairs for the last time.” (A Man of the People, p. 71) The politician has acted decisively; the fastidious intellectual has been outmaneuvered and now observes exactly the details of the scene. After the period of disclaim and sympathy with Nanga, comes this detachment. The later Odili comments in retrospect, “It was strange perhaps that a man who had so much on his mind should find time to pay attention to these small, inconsequential things; it was like the  man in the proverb who was carrying the carcass of an elephant on his head and searching with his toes for a grasshopper. But that was how it happened. It seems that no thought – no matter how great – had the power to exclude all others.” (A Man of the People, p. 72) Sex becomes a significant theme, here also, we can say it’s a sort of conflict as Chief Nanga was once Odili’s teacher, whom he so much respected and treated him like a father figure in his life. He now returns to confront and denounce Nanga in a characteristically half-hearted way, “What a country!” I said, “You call yourself Minister of Culture? God help us.” And I spat; not a full spit but a token, albeit unmistakable one.” (A Man of the People, p. 74) Nanga, understandably baffled by his reaction, offers Odili other girls in exchange for Elsie, but the break has now occurred and open hostility continues for the rest of the novel. Chief Nanga seduces Elsie; Odili’s girl friend thus igniting a bitter feud for ministers’ mistress. The rivalry between men spills into the nations politics and reaches its climax in a coup d’ etat. After the race for money and power, the theme of lust dominates the story. In my opinion sex is the dominant theme of the novel, as stealing of Elsie by Chief Nanga becomes the leitmotiv for revenge, all other themes are mere supporting factors. Odili is left hurt, he says, “... another man had wrenched my girl friend from my hand and led her to bed under my very eyes, and I had done nothing about itcould do nothing. And why? Because the man was a Minister bloated by the flatulence of ill gotten wealth, living in a big mansion built with public money, riding in a Cadillac and watched over by a one eyed hired thug.” (A Man of the People, p. 76) He further adds, “I was just flapping about like trapped bird when suddenly I saw the opening. I saw that Elsie did not matter in the least. What mattered was that a man had treated me as no man had a right to treat another not even if he was master and the other slave; and my manhood required that I make him pay for his insult in full measure. In flesh and blood terms I realized that I must go back, seek out Nanga’s intended parlour-wife and give her the works, good and proper.” (A Man of the People, p. 77) Theme of revenge dominates the novel till the end. Unexpectedly he gains support for his revenge from his friend in Bori, Max, who is about to form a new political party, the Common People’s Convention, to rescue their ‘hard–won freedom’ from corruption. Odili agrees to become a founder member, “It would add a second string to my bow when I came to deal with Nanga.” (A Man of the People, p. 79)  From here to the end of the novel the narrator’s public concern and his private vendetta intermingle in a double campaign against the minister. Apparently it is a failure at both levels, but it brings self-knowledge to the narrator. Both the planned seduction of Edna and the political campaign begin rather unsteadily. Odili first insults Edna’s father, who is delighted with the prospect of Nanga as a son-in-law, while in the political sphere the conspirators shed nostalgic tears over Max’s piece of poetry written “during the intoxicating months of high hope soon after independence.” (A Man of the People, pp. 81, 82) When they turn to political action one of the first things Odili discovers is that their new party is backed by a junior minister in the present government. He wonders why he does not resign,  ‘“Resign?” laughed Max. “Where do you think you are – Britain or something?”’ (A Man of the People, p. 83) Odili does not want to appear naive, and yet his early idealism persists as he thought it would have been better if he would have started a new party clean, with a different kind of philosophy. He now returns to the attack with Edna and also, to everyone’s amusement, announces that he is going to contest Nanga’s seat at the imminent election. Ominously at this point the outlawed Josiah comes to offer his services in the election campaign. He sees their positions as analogous, ‘they are both outlaws. The irony is, of course, that Josiah is outlawed because of his low principles in the village, Odili because of his excessively high principles in national politics.’ Odili turns him down gently, “I had no position to offer him.” (A Man of the People, p. 102) Even now Odili makes very little headway against Nanga’s private and public popularity. At the inaugural meeting of his constituency Nanga’s hirelings make a fool of him to the great delight of the crowd, and then he is threatened by Edna’s father first with a machet and then with an allegory, “My in-law is like a bull, and your challenge is like the challenge of a tick to a bull. The tick fills its belly with blood from the back of the bull and the bull doesn’t even know its there.” (A Man of the People, p. 107) In addition and in quick succession, he is sacked by his headmaster, abused by Mrs. Nanga and intimidated by Nanga’s supporters. He begins to see that the danger and insults he had been prepared to undergo in his pursuit of Edna are significant. And at that very moment I was suddenly confronted by a fact I had been dodging for some time. I knew then I wanted Edna now (if not all along) for her own sake first and foremost and only very remotely as part of a general scheme of revenge. (A Man of the People, p. 109) Odili has now moved from his defensive position and can acknowledge his love for Edna. He then turns to his political motives, ‘Having got that for in my self-analysis I had to ask myself one question. How important was my political activity in its own right?’ The answer to this isn’t clear, “It was difficult to say; things seemed so mixed up; my revenge, my new political ambition and the girl. And perhaps it was just as well that my motives should entangle and reinforce one another.” (A Man of the People, pp. 109, 110) His love for Edna has already been separated from his desire for revenge, and now his political ambition is at last recognised as a genuine desire to destroy Nanga and the corruption he represents, “Although I had little hope of winning Chief Nanga’s seat, it was necessary nonetheless to fight and expose him as much as possible . . . .” (A Man of the People, p. 110) Odili expresses this hope in terms of the proverb which is repeated so many times, “and maybe someone would get up and say; “No, Nanga has taken more than the owner could ignore!” But it was no more than a hope.” (A Man of the People, p. 110) Odili has thus begun to disentangle and purify his motives. As he does so the two halves of his character move closer toward reconciliation.
As he sets off on his political campaign, Odili looks back on the earlier stages of his career and sees them as a reflection of the changes in the country as a whole. ‘I could not help thinking also of the quick transformations that were such a feature of our country, and in particular of the changes of attitude in my own self.’ He recalls that on entering university his one ambition was to become, ‘a full member of the privileged class whose symbol was the car.’ After an “intellectual crisis” (A Man of the People, p. 110) he rejected this in favour of the disillusioned idealism he displays at the beginning of the novel, ‘Many of us vowed then never to be corrupted by bourgeois privileges of which the car was the most visible symbol in our country.’ Now as he drives off in his new car acquired through party funds he scrutinizes his present position, “And now here was I in this marvelous little affair eating the hills like yam – as Edna would have said. I hoped I was safe, for a man who avoids danger for years and then gets killed in the end has wasted his care.” (A Man of the People, p. 111) This does not represent a reversion to his earlier materialism, but rather a difficult attempt to synthesize the two earlier stages of his development.
It soon becomes apparent that it is going to be difficult to keep his idealism untarnished during the campaign. First, he must have bodyguards. Then reluctantly he agrees to their carrying weapons. Finally he has to provide money for bribing important officials. His objections are answered very firmly by his bodyguards, ‘Look my frien I done tell you say if you no wan serious for this business make you go rest for house. I done see say you want play too much gentleman for this manner . . . Dem tell you say na gentlemanity de give other people minister . . .?’ His father too, convinced as he is, “that the mainspring of political action was material gain”, (A Man of the People, p. 115) expects some material advantage from his son’s new career. He imagines the big opportunity has come when Nanga, who wants to be reelected unopposed, appears with ₤250 to bribe his son to stand down, “Take your money and take your scholarship and go and learn more books; the country needs experts like you. And leave the dirty game of politics to us who know how to play it . . . .(A Man of the People, p. 120)
The climax of the novel, Odili’s opportunity for the grand gesture, occurs at Nanga’s inaugural campaign meeting. There he sees Nanga in full regalia with his wife and Edna, and there he experiences again the desire to denounce this man of the people. The novel has come full circle, and we are back at the opening episode with the narrator’s angry fantasy, “What would happen if I were to push my way to the front and up the palm-leaf-festooned dais, wrench the microphone from the greasy hands of that blabbing buffoon and tell the whole people this vast contemptible crowd that the great man they had come to hear with their drums and dancing was an Honourable Thief. But of course they knew that already.” (A Man of the People, p. 139) And he is exercising his fantasy in this way; he is spotted despite his disguise, by Josiah now an ally of Nanga. He tries to escape but as he hears the cry ‘Stop Thief!’ he pauses, “I wanted to know who called me a thief.” (A Man of the People, p. 140) Nanga summons him to the dais and, surrounded by his supporters, ridicules the narrator whom he now sees as a ludicrous rather than a dangerous figure. Odili, his fastidious detachment a thing of the past, reacts unexpectedly, “My panic had now left me entirely and its place I found a rock-cold fearlessness that I had never before felt in my heart. I watched Nanga, microphone in one hand, reeling about the dais in drunken jubilation. I seemed to see him from a superior, impregnable position.” (A Man of the People, p. 140) At this final confrontation, they each recognize the other with complete clarity as the antagonist. Nanga begins with his own account of the events of the novel, “This is the boy who is thrusting his finger into my eye. He came to my house in Bori, ate my food, drank my water and wine and instead of saying thank you to me he set about plotting how to drive me out and take over my house.” (A Man of the People,p. 140) In this political turmoil, in the midst of which Nanga is arrested trying to escape disguised as a fisherman, Odili at last commits fully to his personal relations. Edna’s covert sympathy and support turn out to be an index of her true feelings, so that when he insists she succumbs and acknowledges she had never wished to marry Nanga. Public events come to his assistance. After Nanga’s convenient arrest, the opposition to the marriage from Edna’s father crumbles. Finally, politics provides the means of paying back all the money Nanga had spent on Edna’s education, “I had already decided privately to borrow the money from C.P.C. funds still in my hands. They were not likely to be needed soon, especially as the military regime had just abolished all political parties in the country . . . .” (A Man of the People, p. 148) Perhaps it is that amid the final welter of hypocrisy and selfishness. Odili knows that everything is subordinate to his love for Edna. Despite the military coup Odili knows that everything has remained the same. The fickle public has deserted the deposed leaders – “Chief Koko in particular became a thief and murderer” (A Man of the People, p. 149) and again switched allegiance in the service of self-interest. The murdered Max has become overnight a hero of the revolution. Odili visited Eunice in jail – “Max was avenged not by the people’s collective will but by one solitary woman who loved him. Had his spirit waited for the people to demand redress it would have been waiting still, in the sun?” (A Man of the People, p. 149) The narrator’s disillusioned political idealism and his private alienation have realigned themselves by the end of the novel. In his final sentences he draws the extreme contrast between public and private values. Against the background of self-interest created by political anarchy, any gesture of love or loyalty is of inestimable value. This is why the dead Max is ‘lucky’, “And I don’t mean it to shock or sound clever. For I do honestly believe that in the fat-dripping, gummy, eat-and-let-eat regime just endeda regime which inspired the common saying that a man could only be sure of what had put away safely in his gut, or in language ever more suited to the times, ‘you chop, me self I chop, palaver, finish,’ . . . in such a regime, I say, you died a good death if your life had inspired someone to come forward and shoot your murderer in the chest-with-out asking to be paid.” (A Man of the People, pp. 149, 150) In the final analysis, the story of Josiah the trader must been seen as a parable which anticipates the final destruction of a way of life which has been celebrated with pride, affection and concern. Josiah steals the blind man’s only support, his stick, to concoct a juju medicine which will turn his already exploited customers into, “blind buyers of his wares.” (A Man of the People, p. 87)He is stopped and punished by the villagers in one effective social gesture in the novel. But his national counterpart, Nanga, is rewarded for his crime. He has stolen from the constituency its traditional ethic, its only guide in the complexity of the modern state. He has turned this against the people by cynically corrupting it into the ethic of the national cake. Now they are completely dependent upon him, what was once their strength has become their weakness. The only language the villagers now understand is that of self-interest, and they assess their representative in his over terms, by the amount of loot he brings back to the constituency. In their apathy and cynicism the people have become the blind buyers of the politicians’ wares.
References:
1.    Chinua Achebe, A Man of the People, NewYork, Anchor Books, 1989.
2.    David Carroll, Chinua Achebe Novelist, Poet, Critic, London, Macmillan, 1980.
3.    Chinua Achebe, The Novelist as Teacher, New York, New Statesman, 29, January 1965.