CHAPTER I1

DYNAMICS OF POWER: POLITICS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

In hi> eminent study The American Polirical Novel, Harish Trivedi

examines the remarkable conceptual modifications that has come over the

term 'Polirrcs'

Over the last ten o r fifteen years, politics has been taken out

of government capitals and cabinets to inhabit not only clubs

and coffeehouses but even the kitchen and the bedroom. In a

spectacular semantic explosion the word politics has gathered

to itself an astonishing variety of new meanings and pervaded

each and every area of human activity. (11)

Trivedi attributes this change to Kate Millett's enormously influential

book Se,rutri Poiirics, where Milletr redefines politics as power structured

relationships and arrangements by which one group of persons is dominated

and controiled by another (23). In the sense described above and by

extensions. rhe word politics has slnce come to be used with increasing

frequency 1.r J I I kinds of hitherto unlikely contexts. Trivedi opines that, with

the crucial and radical expansion o i meaning, the term politics has now come

to mean "ur.; versa1 dominance and various power equations" (The American

P i c a V 1 1 . Mick~el F o u c ~ u l t also equates politics with power.

-. .-oucault re:-::irks . ' . . . Politicj addres>es itself to the control and maintenance

of power "(Beyot~d Post-modern Politics 86). Nayantara Sahgal also

identifies politics with power. According to her, a political novel deals with

power and its operation at varied levels. She obseives: "I think of politics

not as leading the country, but politics as the use of p ~ w e r and also the abuse

of power, as i t happens at so many Levels" (Nayantara Sahgal 186). Trivedi

concludes that a political novel is a work of prose fiction which deals with

"... the idea of dominanct: in any milieu" (The American Political Novel 13).

As political novelists both Sahgal and Alexander's fiction deals with power

and its universal manifestations like domination, violence, torture, tyranny,

totalitarianism etc.

According to M.K. Naik, the projection of a contrast between two

conflicting political ideologies and showing the preference for one over the

other is an obvious strategy for a political novel. (Politics and the Novel

in ltldia 15). Sahgal presents two types of politicians in her novels who

represent two opposing ideologies. On the one hand. she presents a group

of self-sacrificing compassionate politicians, who are modelled on the pre

independence examples marked by their Gandhian ideals and values. The

other group is the power hungry, self-seeking politicians who are patterned

on the contemporary personalities. Sahgal deals i t in terms of a series of

binaries, the victimiser~victim. the powerful/powerless, the ruthless/

compassionate. unscrupuious/'value based, Gandhianlnon Gandhian, idealists1

opportunists and rhe like. This dichotomy is seen not only at the physiological

level but also at ihe psychological and conceptual levels. As Marcia.P. Liu

rightly points out that r:? Sahgal novels, there is " ... the division of the world

into the assressors a n e the non aggressors, the active and thoughtful, those

whose maln interest i.- riches or power and those who care for justice and

moderation" (Cor~tinu?iv and Development 52 ) . In Alexander's novel too

there is 4 dichotomc;.is perception of the characters as the oppressor1

oppressed. Through cle:,er negotiations of power, the ruthless, power-hungry

politicians dominare and victimise their less powerful counterparts. In the

process they flout ah :noral and democratic norms. They even resort to

violence. Gyan Singh 17 Storm in Chandigarh, Kalyan Sinha in ThisTime of

Morning. Sumer Sings-, in The Da? in Shadow, the 'madam' in Rich Like Us

are examples o t this i., pe. The other group upholds Gandhian values and

ideals. They fight against injustice and evil, both political and personal.

Vishal Dtibey, Harpal Singh, Kailas Vrind, Usman Ali, Sonali all belong to

this group. This chap&- ~nvestigates how power is negotiated in the political

world presented in th-, i~ovels. chosen for study.

Power has .i central dynamic role in every political system.

Bernard Bailyn in h i s :.eminal work The ldeologicul Origins of the American

Revoluticrt. describes .he essential features of power. According to Baiiyn,

power meant dominie+- ". .. dominion of some men over others, the human

control of human life. ~ i t imate ly by force and compulsion" (The Ideological

/~riyins 35 1 , The esser4i;al characteristic of power is its " ... aggressiveness:

its endl~shi \ propu&i,..t.: tendency to expand itself beyond legitimate

boundarie? I t 1s every .$:>ere in public life and everywhere it is threatening ...

and too often i n the end i t destroys its benign-victim. ... its natural prey,

its necessary victim. is liberty or law, or right" (56-57). Bailyn is of the

opinion that the public world is divided into two distinct contrasting and

antagonistic spheres. the sphere of power and the sphere of liberty. "The one

was brutal. ceaselessly active and heedless, the other was delicate. passive

and sensitive. The one must be resisted, the other defended" (58). Bailyn

argues that power cannot be separated from such related concepts like

authority, control domination etc. He considers ambition of power as the

most predominant passion in men. It acts upon men like drink and "... is

known to be intoxicating in its nature ... and is liable to abuse" (60) .

The ereat social scientist Foucault also expresses similar views about

power. For Foucault all social relations are inevitably power relations:

A society without power relations can only be an abstraction ...

in human relations. whatever they are .... Power is always

present : I mean the relationship in which one wishes to direct

the behaviour of another. (The final Foucault 12)

But Foucault makes a distinction between modern power and sovereign

power. Modern power in Foucault's formulation differs from all other forms

of power. for i t is disciplinary and its goal is normalization and the production

of 'docile' and 'useful bodies'. I1 is insidious because its power relations

no longer operate openly as coming from a sovereign and demanding

obedience. I t is for Foucault " . . . a moving substrata of force relations which

by virtue of their inequality constantly engender states of power (History

of sexllczlirv 3 Foucault further elaborates this point. According to

Foucault "Power is anchored in the multiplicity of 'micro-practices', the

social practices which comprise everyday life in modem society" (quoted

in Beyond Post Modern Polititrs 87). Sahgal's and Alexander's novels

explore the micro. macro strategies of power in the political world.

Rich Like U s , which bagged the prestigious Sinclair Prize for fiction

in 1985, is about the nightmarish period of India's national emergency and

the assumption of absolute Power for almost twenty months by Mrs Indira

Gandhi. The democratic polity of India for the first time since independence

witnessed the application of brute physical force in the governance of human

affairs. Aided by a muzzled parliament and a choked press and surrounded

by a galaxy of sycophants Mrs Gandhi, ruled India with an iron hand.

Democratic and human values were trivialized and desecrated and the once

democratic India, relapsed again into tyranny and totalitarianism. Emergency

resulted i n the loss of freedom in many ways. Press censorship, erratic

arrest, prevention of public meetings, forced vasectomy, ruthless execution

of 'Madam's Twenty point programme by overzealous chief-ministers and

police officers, suppression of opposition, monopolization of power all

became the accepted order of the day. Sahgal in this novel examines the

chilling effect of collective terror that had gripped the individuals as a result

of the clamping of emergency. Sahgal here proves that power has a tendency

to become arbitrary and ruthless under dictatorship.

The action of the novel revolves round "...many little victims the

snapping jaws o f the emergency were claiming in the course of an ordinary

working day . . . and the big and small tyrants" (Rich 198), the emergency

created. Sonali, the Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Industry, becomes a

'victim' of the authoritarian regime of emergency. Thus the conscientious

IAS officer, finds her bright career as a civil servant is cut short for rejecting

the proposal of the 'Happyola Project'. She refused to give sanction because

"It was a preposterous proposal, requiring the import of more or less an

entire factory" 129). Son;ili was unaware of the secret deal between the

minister and a foreign business man and his Indian collaborator. Happyola,

the child of the Emergency, with a blanket import licence, intended to store

underground hidden wares of car manufacture, while machines produced a

fizzy drink above. Since Sonali refused to interpret the laws, according to

those who are in power, she was "...transferred, without warning ... had been

demoted, punished and humiliated " (32). She was transferred to Uttar

Pradesh, where she has to work in a junior post. It was a clear signal from

the authorities that those who did not support the government policy will

be punished and humiliated. Sahgal here examines the different strategies

adopted by the authoritarian regimes to engender discipline and subordination

among the subjects. I t resorts to psychological oppression, either to

'traumatise' the victim through extreme punishments or to degrade them

through humiliation. Honi Fern Haber, a noted feminist critic remarks that

humiliation is the worst form of cruelty one human being can inflict upon

another. I t is a good example of the cultural process of normalization and

discipline. To quote Honi Fern Haber "Fear of humiliation teaches one to

talk, act. dress and think: in ways consistent with the norms of bourgeois

society. ~ v i t h the ideal already in place" (Beyond Postmodern Politics 86 ) .

Being t a u ~ h t to fear hulniliation and punishment is one of the ways in which

an author~tai-ian government engenders discipline and subordination.

Sonali narrates her reac t~on. when she heard about the demotion:

I felt as shocked and shaken right through as if I had been

physically assaulted . . . until 1 realized that nothing new or

shattering had happened.. . No malign fate had singled me out

for punishment. T h e logic of June 26'h had simply caught up

with me. The same soundless nudge that landed me in the ditch,

had carted thousands off to jail, swept hundreds more out of

sight to distant 'colonies ' to live, herded as many to

sterilization centers. (Rich 32)

Foucault analyses how disciplinary power functions in modern

societies. Disciplinary power, according to Foucault is 'hierarchised' and

' cont inuous ' . I t is 'multiple ' , 'automatic' and anonymous. These

characteristics enable the disciplinary power to be "....absolutely discreet

for it functions permanently and largely in silence" (Discipline and Punish

176-77,. Sonali examiner; the impact of disciplinary power over the

administrative officials:

We were all taking part in a thinly disguised masquerade,

preparing the stage for. family rule. And we were all involved

In a conspiracy of silence. We knew we were up against a power

we couldn't handle, individually or collectively. (Rich 29)

Discipline reduces one's potential for insubordination. Sonali

analyses why the administrative service resorted to silence and evasion:

We knew we would survive the blasts outside only if we

pretended they weren't happening. So we pretended and went

on ~ n d up the stairs and into our offices without unnecessary

talk. ... No one wanted trouble. So long as i t didn't touch us,

we played along, pretending the Empress's new clothes were

beautiful. (29)

Sonali moans the degeneration and the erosion of moral values that

have come over the admlnisrrarive service. Political concerns now dominate

the administration She recollects

Once upon a time we had thought of the civil service as 'we'

and politicians 'they' ... We were bound by more than

discipline. We partook of a mystique. Our job was to stay free

of the political circus.. . The distinction between politics and

the service had become so blurred over the last few years ... it

had ail disappeared. The two sides were hopelessly mixed, with

pc~ii~icians ineddling in administration. (24)

Rich like l i s abounds in spectacular displays of power and violence

brutally implemented by the repressive state machinery. Sonali, the authorial

persona in the novel, describes the events. The government has curtailed even

' 6 the freedom of expression. It has declared: ... The ban on more than five

people getting together i n a public place" (27) Sonali adds:

1 had seen a :group of seven or eight broken up by the police

outside a coffee house in Connaught place and hustled towards

a waiting v a n One of the young men had flung the policeman's

hand off his shoulder and been kicked from behind for his

pains. As he .was dragged struggling and shouting to the van his

glasses had fallen off. (27)

Sonali reflects, ",with the unmistakable apparatus of modern

authoritarianism all a b o u ~ us ... it was certain that everything was not all

right" (Rich 27), as the government claimed. Sonali observes later that the

jails are full and overflowing with people who opposed emergency. Fifty

thousand to a lakh people .Ire under detention without trial. "there had been

hunger strikes and break out of political prisoners from Tihar Jail" (27).

Censorship was imposed and artificial discipline was maintained.

Sonali retlects

... the artificial silence start [s] exploding. The facts it is trying

to conceal shriek out to be noticed. Since June 261h officially

211 was wet:-out i t was impossible not to be aware of the

sullenness huilding up along New Delhi's heavily policed roads

and news travelled from the old city of rioting when tenements

were torn from under slum dwellers and they were packed off

out of sight to d~stant locations. (27)

In Disci~lirze and Pl~nisil, Michel Foucault describes a horrific scene

of public torture and execution in Paris in 1757. Boiling oil, molten lead

and sulfur are poured on to the body of the regicide Damiens as the royal

power wreaks its brutal revenge. Steel pincers pick at his flesh, horses pull

apart his half severed limps and slowly Damien dies (3-5). While tracing the

history of repression. Foucault remarks that such grisly spectacles of

physical punishments have disappeared from the modern society. The violent

expiation that once rained down upon the captive body is replaced by more

humane and less tormenting practices. But during emergency the repressive

state machinery resorted to brutal physical and psychological torture.

Kishori Lal describes the brutal punishment meted out to him in jail.

. . . KL's [Sic] back and legs felt the stinging slash of the corded

whip and he subsided, stupefied to the ground ... But the domain

of true torture lay ahead ... upside-down hangings, rods up

anuses. lighted cigarettes held to tender organs and more much

more. (Rich 207)

Kishorl Lal. a petty merchant is arrested for his suspected affiliation

with RSS. One day the police came to his shop.

One of them jerked Kishori up by the back of his neck and ...

handcuffed him. Another pulled out his desk drawers and turned

them up sicle down and the third did his blitzkrieg through the

shelves. . , Kishori L.al was pushed and prodded out on to the

pavement towards a waiting van ... Kishori La1 sat blankly inside

because he still wasn't believing it. (188)

Kishor~ 1,al's cellmate, a young Marxist student from Nehru University

describes his experience. He was arrested for his membership in the Marxist

Party. He describes the Traumatic experience:

The police had been through Nehru University with a sieve and

a tine tooth comb and taken vanfuls of Marxist prisoners. ...

when he thought they'd finished combing the campus, he had

returned to his hostel room and they pounced on him" (209).

Most of the time. Kishori La1 noticed that the boy was groaning and writhing

in pain. His legs were broken and was severely tortured.

Foucault a p e s that the powerlknowledge regimes have developed a

variety of macro strategies for dominating the individual body. He cites the

instance of 'bio-power'. Bio power concerns the management of the

production and reproduction of life in modern societies (History of

Sexuality. Vol. 1 . 140). It is by this strategy that the state controls population,

health, life and even sexuality. The rnass sterilization camps organized during

emergency are such strategies of domination. Sonali reflects the sight of

people who are forcibly taken to the vasectomy camps in vans.

It did not need much imagination to sense the hate and fear

inside the vans with iron barred windows, like the ones used for

collecting stray dogs tor drowning, that now roamed the streets

picking up citizens for vasectomy. (Rich 27)

The society ladies under the leadership of Nishi is hell bent on

implementing Madam's Twenty Point Program. They intend to congratulate

the Prime Minister, plant trees and prevent their servants from having

children. Leila with the security of menopause has " ... threatened the ayah

with dismissal . . i f she produces another child"(86).

Nishl, a great supporter of Emergency has rounded up all the servants

at home telling them "it was either vasectomy or dismissal" (89). She tries

to take Kumar. their very aged servant. Rose describes Nishi's attempt to

take the handless beggar to the vasectomy camp.

Nishi suddenly alighted on the beggar and pounced. A struggle

ensued ... the cook's crooked faced one eyed boy fought with

the truncated torso of the beggar and the beggar thrashed about

handless and crippled, cleverly flinging himself out of reach

each tlme the other thought he had him in a secure grip. (90)

111 Tile Birrll of rile. Clinic. Michel Foucault asserts that there is a clear

link between diseases 2nd the conditions of existence. He proclaims "the

struggle against disease must begin with a war against bad government. Man

will be tor211!, and definitively cured only if he is first liberated ... human

miseries have no other origin but [in] tyranny and slavery" (33). Foucault

further adds that a, society that was free a t last, in which inequalities

were reduced and in which concord r e i g n e d (33) , diseases will disappear.

Incidentally Sonali falls sick on the day of her demotion order. She had an

attack of hepatitis, a water-born disease. Sonali observes"1 felt feverish and

I knew 1 \\,as, quite literally i l l ... the doctor later told me was hepatitis, struck

on the same day" (Rich 33). The doctor attending her attributes it to the

administrative failure He warns Sonali that "...hepatitis this year is as

common ;is colds and coughs, with the sewage spill into the Jumna, making

Delhi's dirty u ater supply more dangerous than ever" and exclaims "God

knows why we survive at all" (Rich 33). He finds fault with the government's

bad administration. He directly asks Sonali, "Administration my dear girl,

administration. What's become of it? Why can ' t we keep the city's water

supply. clean'?" (34). The dictatorship was indifferent to the problems of the

citizens and even in the capital of the country. contaminated water was being

supplied.

Sahgal describes. how the state apparatus through overt and covert

propaganda, tries to naturalize official oppression and domination. The

welcome given to the Iridustries Minister, during the foundation laying

ceremony of the Happyola Project is one such instance.

Welcome arches had been erected for him along the route and

zchool chlldren carrylng banners saylng 'she stood between

order and chaos' had been brought in trucks from New Delhi

to sing a song in praise of the emergency. (47)

The foreign collaborator of the project Neuman had seen "huge posters of

the Prime Minister's stern, unsmiling face and hoardings, proclaiming the

nation's support for the emergency declared a month earlier" (10).

The rnin~ster in 'madam's cabinet begins his speech by glorifying

emergency. He spoke abollt india's bright future assured by Emergency. He

narrates how he started as an humble follower of Gandhiji who inspired him

to shed his profession, the law and the luxuries of life. " .. . the journey had

taken him from Mahatma to 'Madam'. He was but a speck of dust at her feet

as he had been of the other" (49). But in practice he was far removed from

Gandhi and his ideals. Emergency for him meant opportunity and money. For

the sanction of the Happyola project Dev had to deposit money in his foreign

bank account. Rose tells Sonali:

His daughter-in-law is the collector. Dev's been to her with a

suitcase full of i t ... she doesn't even count it. She knows

exactly h o ~ , much i t is by tossing it up and down in her hand.

The safe is in her hand. The safe is in her bed room and sitting

right there on her bed she threw those bundles of notes one by

one into her safe. (50)

Even though i t was the exacr amount she had asked for, she later told

Dev that " 1 1 isn't enough and the rest w ~ l l have to be put away abroad if

he wants Happyola" (50:1

Foucault speaks about new forms of social control. through practices

of discipline and surveillance. He is of the opinion that discipline and

training can reconstruct new gestures. actions, habits and skills and ultimately

new kinds o t people. Foucault remarks:

The human body was entering a machinery of power that

explores it . breaks i t down and rearranges it ... It defined how

one may have hold over other's bodies, not only so that they

may do what one wishes but ... may operate as one wishes, with

the technique. the speed and the efficiency that one determines.

Thus disciplr ne produces subjected and practiced bodies, docile

bodies. (Discipline und Punish 138)

Sahgal examines how Emergency has produced new kinds of people,

who 'behave' with the technique. the speed and the efficiency, determined

by the government. Dev. the beneficiary of emergency remarks :

T h ~ s emergency is just what we needed. The trouble makers are

In jail. An opposition is something we never needed. The way

the country's being run. with one person giving the orders, and

no one being allowed to make a fuss about it in the cabinet or

In parliament. means things can go full steam ahead without

Jelays and weighing pros and cons for ever. Strikes are banned.

. i f ' . ; . ~ o i n g to be verv good for business. (Rich 10)

Dev's new venture the Happyola project was ideal in the changed

political setup. " . .. With the main equipment coming lock, stock and barrel

from abroad, he would be saved all the big headaches. It would be almost

as simple as pressing a button" (17).

N i sh~ also has a positive view of emergency. "The country had been

in a mess, people screaming for more wages or bonus, or just screaming,

too many political parties. so humiliating to explain to foreigners" (81). The

idea of a single leader, someone to look up to, thrilled her. The emergency,

she felt was so popular. One could tell i t by:

The delegations of teachers, lawyers, school children and so on

and so forth who went every day to congratulate the Prime

Ministers for declaring it ... they all shared the mystical glow

of people doing the right patriotic thing, or pilgrims who had

journeyed far and hazardously to kiss the big toe already worn

our with pilgrim kisses. (81)

Ravi Kachru who replaces Sonali, feels that constitution "...had to

be changed but not t i l l a climate had been created for it which was what the

emergency was for" (78). He tells Nishi of the necessity of "....setting up

of lawyers'. teachers', entrepreneurs' forums to provide solid public support

for constitutional change to strengthen the Prime Minster's hands" (78).

Emersency produced large number of 'subjected' and 'docile' bodies.

An editol-, a typ~cui representative of the subservient press of the emergency

says "Madam had in good faith thought i t her constitutional duty to override

the Constitution" (94). The same editor appreciates the organisational talent

in madam'> son.

Madam's son had, vasectomizing the lower classes, blowing up

tenements ;and scattering slum-dwellers to beautify Delhi,

setting up youth camps with drop-outs in command, [with]

loafers and ruffians ... with his ill-wishers out of the way now,

a patriotic. hand-spun, hand-woven car, every nut and bolt of it

made in India, would soon be on road. Look at the way he'd

sprung full-blown. up and doing, into the power-structure, while

grandpa had had to spend years in jail and mummy had led doll

processions before making it to the executive suite. (91-92)

Sahgal takes exc:eption to the son succeeding the mother in a

democratic republic. Through Sonali, the authorial persona in the novel, she

asks the question brimming with irony. "what was wrong with a son succeeding

his mother in this particular republic? And which mother anywhere in the

world wouldn't move heaven and earth for her son?" (91). An eminent lawyer

gives his professional opinion that "the constitution would have to be

drastically amended, it ' not rewritten, to give Madam powers to fight

disruptive forces and crush vested interests, she had been battling against,

since infancy" 19.1).

<ah$al ~rl.origly feels that [he decline of moral values in the public

life will have its impact on personal lives too, because individuals and

politics influence each other. In Rich Like Us Sahgal presents a very

disturbing and dismal picture of a sick and degenerated society which is far

removed from Gandhian ideals and Nehru's idealism. Sudha Rai rightly

observes:

Rir:/l Like UJ gathers together realities and metaphors

pertaining to sickness and illness, the crisis of moral being the

country is i n the grip of. Sonali's hepatitis is a reaction to a

natlon gone wrong. Ram's paralysis speaks eloquently of the

state of Ram Kajya. Mona's cancer underlines the passive of

women i n ;I patriarchal structure. The handicapped beggar

communicates the marginalisation of the have-nots by their

economic overlords. Above all, the forced sterilizations which

were one of the most demeaning aspects of the emergency

proclaim the state's intent to throttle all possibilities of new

life and hence new alternatives. (Women's Writing: Text and

Cotzte.rr 1 97)

Rich Like Us offer:; a full length study of Power. Mini Nanda observes:

What we see in the novel is the play of power at various levels

- political. physical, social ... domestic. The forces of darkness

reflected in violence ... and the forces of light emerging in the

power of conviction of integrity and compassion. (Women's

U'ricirzg 180)

Like Sahgal's novel Rich Likr Us, Meena Alexander's novel Nampally

Road also is about the nightmarish period of India's national Emergency.

Here the canvas is slightly smaller as it deals with the events of a state. The

Chief Minister Limca Gowda was an ambitious man and wished to turn

himself inro an absoluti: ruler. Even though Hyderabad is a respectable

distance from the republic 's central seat of power, i t was still one country

and the iron fisted iady provided a clear model for Limca. She in turn

saw in him an ally she might well manipulate to consolidate her own rule"

( N a r n p a l l ~ 4). Like G y a n Singh and Kalyan Sinha, LimcaGowda also was a

power hungry person. T h e notion of unquestioned power vested in a single

man pleased hirn enormously. His party was voted into power four years ago

and 'Power' intoxicated him. Like a dictator he ruled the state with the help

of the Ever Ready Men and "dissent was strongly discouraged" (5).

Emergency through ruthless execution of power produced a large number

of 'victims'

Alexander examines, how the oppressive state apparatus withdrew

even the basic human rights. Alexander observes :

our Khadl-clad. iron-fisted prime Minister- she of the

immaculare lineage and Swiss schooling, who on her New York

trlps made -:mall type in the Times by buying her mascara from

Bzrgdorfs- abruptly withdrew all civil liberties and drafted anti

terrorism - , I is that could throw any citizen in jail without overt

reason. ( 3

Limca Gowda. with the help of secret police, carried out Madam's

programs, ruthlessly. In the opening chapter Alexander describes the

senseless violence unleashed on the defenseless civilians and establishes

that power becomes arbitrary during dictatorship. A peaceful demonstration

by the poor orange sellers against the latest tax rise was savagely interrupted

by Chief Minster Limca Gowda's henchmen. Mira and her friend Ramu watch

with horror as L~mca ' s Ever Ready men on motor cycles, pounce on the poor

orange sellers. suppressing the individual freedom.

The people started to march. But they had barely started when

the motorcycles appeared, bearing straight down on the orange

sellers . . . fifteen or sixteen of them, like a whole horde in

formation, crashing through the unarmed men and women. The

riders in their khaki uniforms were armed with lathis. They

wel-e Limca Gowda's special branch, the Ever Ready men. Each

had a torch i n his waistband. Each of the motorcycles had its

head lights on, the bulbs donated by the Union Carbide people

In return for favors received. The EverReady men leaped off

the11 machines and started beating the orange sellers, dragging

[hem to the pavements, kicking them. The orange sellers were

scrabbling free, their banner torn and bloodied, running as hard

as they could .... struggling for their lives, their arms and legs

d a n i a ~ e d by the blows falling from the iron-tipped lathis. ( 7)

Llke S ~ h z ; i l ' \ Rich Like Us. Alexander's Nampally Road also abounds

in spectacular displays of power and violence. Alexander describes the police

atrocities during Emergtlncy:

A young woman had come in from the mountains with her

husband. They had gone to see the celebrated 'Isak Katha' at

Sagar Talkies. It was late at night. Walking back to the home

of relatives. along the deserted road in Gowliguda, they fell

prey to a horde of drunken policemen. Rameeza was gang raped.

Her husband had his brains beaten out. His body was recovered

from a well behind the police station. (58)

Ironically, police who ought to be the custodians of law and order, themselves

resorted to vandalism.

Limca Gclwda was a corrupt unscrupulous man, interested only in

power and money. His company produced 'Limca Soda', a lime coloured

drink notorious in the region. Twice, due to the bad water used in the soda's

preparation. hundreds who had consumed it at a wedding were admitted in

the hospital with cramps and violent vomiting. Later it became the official

drink.

Like Gyan Singh In Storm in Chandigarh, Limca Gowda too was

engaged in slandering the reputation of his enemies. He was extremely

anxious of the great popularity of the previous chief-minister NGR, the idol

of the silver screen. Once NGR was dead, he spread rumours of huge secret

bank accounts. kickbacks to Scandinavian firms for contracts for the new

irrigation projects being developed with money from the World Bank. He

wanted to be as popular as his dead rival.

Limca wds an authoritarian ruler, who cannot stand criticism. He asked

the Vice-Chancellor to shut down the student newspaper which criticized his

authoritarian ways. I t criticized :

. . . . the way money was being spent on the grand archways and

glossy platforms that rose up, at enormous expense to the

taxpayers.. . . . around the railway station or airport any time the

Chief Min~ster was travelling. And since the ironfisted lady

often summoned h i m . . . for consultations, the swelling cost of

these erections never subsided. (39)

In Storm ill Char~dlgarh Sahgal presents two contrastive characters,

the violent, power hungry Chief Minister of Punjab Gyan Singh and the

humane, compassionate Chief Minister of Hariyana Harpal Singh. The victim/

victimizer dichotomy is clearly discernible in this work. The novel opens

with the Home Minister's crucial remark "Violence lies very close to the

surface i n the Punjab" (7). Home Minister adds "outbursts of brutal,

calculated violence had become a feature of the cities ... Violence had

become routine and expected" (8). The newly created states Punjab and

Hariyana, with Chandigarh as the common capital quarrel over boundaries,

water, electric power, which each claims exclusively its own. Gyan Singh,

the violent Chief Minister of Punjab. resorts to intimidation and elimination

of his political opponents by sheer brutal force. While the humane, broad-

minded Chief Minister of Hariyana believes in human values and freedom

Dubey, the centre's emissary understands that the clash between Harpal

Singh and Gyan Singh i s not a clash of personalities but they represent two

political philosophies, the cult of violence and the creed of non-violence.

As Jasbir J a n r~ghtly comments "Harpal is a crusader, Gyan is a manipulator"

(Nayantarci Sahgai 77).

Russell distinguishes two types of personalities, the submissive type

and the imperious type. 'The imperious type wants to be superior in every

situation (Power 13). Gyan Singh IS one such person. Gyan's strong sense

of self, his utter disregard for morality and his driving energy have made him

a very powerful man. His political careergraph is impressive. An uneducated

truck driver to begin w ~ t h , he has successfully played the role of a political

campaign-manager for Harpal Singh, then as the Industries Minister of the

old Punjab and now is the Chief Minister of Punjab. He is an end-oriented

person with a ruthless approach. Jasbir Jain rightly points out :

Gyan Singh had never wasted time on emotions and human

beings ... he had always displayed a ruthless attitude while

dealing with a situation and for him there is always a bargain

to be struck. %ot so with Harpal, who is more concerned with

human beings than w ~ t h bargains. (25)

Harp21 remembers 111s first meeting with Gyan. During the time of

partition, Harpal a clerk in a near by cement factory had come home to see

his parents. He was anxious about the rumours of trouble and wanted to

assure that his home and parents are safe. When he reached the place, he

found the locality where they lived all in flames. The horror of the sight was

beyond description. "It was more like the clock turned back to a primitive

century ' ' (Storm 32). He .with hundreds of others, ran wildly and hysterically

to the bus depot. to escape. There was only a single bus and a man about his

own age was there, in charge of the bus. He was a contrast to the surroundings.

Harpal remembers:

There was nothing in his appearance and manner to suggest that

the town behind him was death trap and the people surrounding

him fleeing for their lives. He might have been about to conduct

a sightseeing excursion. He did not seem to hear the pleas or

see the frantic fumbling fingers untying coins from corners of

orimy saris and dupattas, the creased rupee notes held out in C

worn hands. He was briskly selecting the better customers, the

merchants ivho had been able to rescue their money boxes from

the wreckage of their homes. (33)

Cyan admitted Harpal into the bus. He first "asked for his purse, noted

its contents. put them into his pocket" and said "All right get in" (33). This

incident is quite il1ustrat:ive of Gyan's character. He was a great opportunist

who fully exploited the helplessness of the people. Completely untouched

by the disaster around h ~ m , he had selected his customers in a business like

manner.

Harpal's second meeting with Gyan was after five years. Gyan was in

charge of Harpal's electic~n campaign. When Harpal reached the election

committee office Gyan came to receive him.

He [Gyanl gave an impression of overwhelming physical

strength ..... Gyan hardly showed his years except in an

accumulation of confidence. The partition had not so much as

grazed him. Harpal resented this immunity when he thought of

all that the experience had cost him in health and emotional

darnage. (39)

Bernard Bailyn observes that "... brutal power becomes an irresistible

argument for boundless right" (The ideological Origins 58). Gyan's

character justifies Bailyrl's remark. During the election campaign, Gyan

finds one of his boys is kidnapped. He goes to the suspect's house to rescue

the boy. Harpal ~~ecol lects the scene. When they reached the hutment the man

was eating his evening meal.

Gyan kicked away the brass plate. The man leapt to his feet .....

and they locked in a fierce struggle ... they were down on the

floor, Gyan ;astride the man. his hands in his hair, pounding his

head again and again on the ground in a repetition of carnal

savagery. He stopped suddenly as if emptied of the last drop

o f l u s t and grunted, replacrng the turban that had fallen off his

head. (43 )

Gyan found the boy, lying in a crumpled heap, picked him up, hung

him over his shoulder ant1 went out. The man was quite dead. Gyan believes

in the strong risht arm. the phys~cal elimination of the dissenter, while

Harpal finds i t difficult ti, tolerate violence or highhandedness of any kind.

Russell observes that " . .. bolder spirits are stimulated to such positions in

which they can inflict cruelties rather than suffer them (Power 17). Gyan

inflicts cruelties on those who disagree with him.

Russell speaks " . great leaders have an exceptional self-confidence

which is not only on the surface. but penetrates deep into the subconscious"

(15). At the first mee1:ing itself, Dubey realizes Gyan's exceptional

leadership qualities. Gyan takes Dubey to his cable-wire plant which he had

built when he was the Industries Minister. It was one of the few automated

factories in the state. which has an annual turnover of a crore. Gyan sets

impossible goals and achieves i t . Ilubey rightly assesses Gyan's personality:

He [Dubey j felt the crude, elemental attraction of the man, a

human being quite uncomplicated in his functioning, one who

would come to immediate grips with a situation and manipulate

i t suit himself. ... Cyan trod a path that involved no inner

struggle. .A careless Atlas carrying the world like a bundle that

ht: would riot think twice about dumping, if he felt like it.

( 7 3 - 7 6 )

A true leader should have " . . . boundless courage and self-confidence..

he must excel in the qualities that confer authority ... and sound judgement

at different moments" (Power 15). Along with all these requirements, Gyan

possessed one more quality, 'Charisma. Dubey observes " ... An enormous

handsome figure of a man ... and as Gyan took his place in front of the

microphone no one noticed others." (Storm 120). He was a great rhetorician

too. Gyan's talk interspersed with history and emotion produced instant

results. He convinced the audience that Bhakra was their effort and if the

centre makes any claim to i t ". . .We would demonstrate against it" (122)

Dubey left the ~neeting with an air of unreality. Dubey felt that he had been

listening to an "audacious inverted genius blazoning a fantastic l egend (122)

Gyan, Dubey concludes, is too formidable an enemy, a danger to democracy.

His argument sounded like "The Moon is mine, The milky way belongs to

me" (122). Dubey found that the audience were carried away by Gyan's

populist rhetoric. Dubey observes:

Men like Gyan usually won their game. Their narrowness gave

their argument a crude strength that no longer vision could ever

have. Between Gyan and Harpal, he now realized, there was more

than a political battle. It was a battle of philosophies. (122)

Like all despots, manipulating politicians, Gyan has a penchant for the

dramatic. In the meeting of the Journalists Association where he was cautious

of hostile recep~ion, he impresses them. He thrusts away the microphone

and steps to the cdge of ?he platform, his handsome personality and

dominating voice casting spell over the audience. Even to the very parochial

language issue he gives a patriotic flavour:

He described himself as a simple man, fired with a simple

purpose. to call his soil his own in the language of his

forefathers. He had no inheritance other than that. He had been

born in a village and grown up in the streets ... Gyan sensed the

prickle of guilt in his audience, guilt at opportunity, and comfort

and a desire to redeem that guilt. (143)

Gyan turns the tables and those journalists who came to question and

challenge, support and admire him. Even Dubey admits that there is a crude,

elemental attraction in him. His presence is too difficult to ignore. Two

leading journals selected him as the Man of the week. The journal commented

him:

A i iv~ng monument of the urban working class, a man who had

rlsen from the ranks yet remained one with them in his dizzy

r ~ s e to power In an age that was alive to the needs of the

common man. Gyan was its most distinguished representative

i n the country. (143

"There is a great difference between power desired as a means and

power des~red as an end in i tself ' (Power 180). In Gyan's case he wanted

Power, for Power's sake. He had - zone to Delhi, to argue for a state where

Punjabi 1angu;ige woulcr have the pride of place. The centre agreed and he

was given the leadership of Punjab. I t was a truncated Punjab, but his to rule.

His next official act would be to start religious instruction in the schools

and he had already mentioned it:, in a press gathering. Gyan reflects " ... Why

it should be considered strange. He had spent years ... listening to and

repeatin: [he Lord's prayer in Christian mission schools. No one had said.

"This is a Sikh boy. He should be exempt" (145). Harpal feels sick about

such developments. He asks "What would the next step be, an army and a

flag for the Punjab?" (117) .

Foucault remarks "Power is everywhere, not because it embraces

everything. but because ir comes from everywhere" (History of Sexuality,

Vol. 1. 931. Foucault feels that the Power of a body resides not 'in a certain

strength' fie are endowed with but in the fluctuating field of relations to

other bod~zs. [ n other wortis, the power of a body depends upon its differences

from other bodies and an individual is more or less powerful to the degree

that his or her capacities exceed those of others. Though Harpal and Gyan

are Chief Ministers face to face with Gyan, Harpal feels defeated in every

issue. Gyan loves power and manipulates it to his advantage. While Harpal

"...could not remember a time when he had wanted power" (Storm 44).

Harpal was against any further partition of Punjab. Himself a victim

of partition who lost h ~ s parents, home, Harpal tried his best to avert this

evil. For Punlab was more than a home for him. It was part of his achievement.

He had i\c,rked for its ret:onstruction. Above all he loved i t , he belonged to

! r . But the i~v i s~un i s t s shown no mercy. They under Gyan's leadership

had carried out thelr butchery taken the body of Punjab and split it again,

ostensibly in the Interest:; of the Punjabi language. Harpal comments:

. . there wa,s something sinister at the root of the Partition

mentality and those who upheld it. Mankind's journey was

towards integration. not the breaking up of what already existed.

Punjab1 would have flourished without partitioning the state

further. W h a ~ possessed men to stamp their name, their brand,

t h e ~ r ego on every bit of the God-given soil. (29-30)

In the conference at Delhi, Harpal spoke vehemently against the

division. His arguments were prec i~e and down to earth, and they were dull.

Economy, the strength anti security of a border region could not hold out

against the colour.ful emotional appeal of a mother tongue. Any government,

he had warned, that further divided the Punjab would reap the whirl wind. But

his arguments fell to deaf ears. Harpal feared that the seeds of Violence and

hatred sown bv Cyan will take root and will be passed from generation to

generation. He wanted to resign before he left the conference room in Delhi.

He openly tells Dubey "I don't belive in theatrical gestures, but I lack the

conviction to handle all this. I don't think I can serve this situation any more.

I am going to resign .... I just have no feel for this job any more" (148-49).

Harpal feels unhappy and upset, as the larger vision of India gradually

disintegrating, for short term personal gains. Harpal born and brought up in

Gandhian tradition is frustrated. He asks himself. "What motivated the men

in Politics today, rnerely power?" i 149).

There is ~3 clear division between the, powerful/powerless, ruthless1

compassionate, the Gandhianlnon Gandhian, in politics. Gyan uses violence

as a weapon. Harpal who represents the Gandhian ideology, strongly believes

in non-violence :ind in the purity of means. Gyan always displays a ruthless

attitude while dealing with situations. Harpal is careful in dealing with human

beings while Gyan hardly differentiates between the human and the non-

human. For Gyan there is always a bargain to be struck while Harpal is more

concerned with human beings than with bargains.

This Time of Morning deals with the post-independence situation,

where power has become a political reality. The victim/victimizer dichotomy

is clearly discernible in this novel too. Kalyan Sinha, the Minister without

Portfolio, is a power hungry, ruthless politician like Gyan Singh. Pitted

against him is K a ~ l a s Vrind. a Gandhian type of freedom fighter, and the head

of the U.N. delegation.

Like Gyati Singh. Kalyan Sinha also is an end-oriented person, with

a ruthless approach. Jasbir .lain aptly sums up Kalyan's character: "Kalyan's

character arouses both admiration and repulsion, a man of driving energy,

he has absolutel:y no scruples" (Nayantara Sahgal 71) The following

statement of Kalyan's is reflective of his character. He tells Celia the

inadequacy of so t t approaches in politics :

The t~n ly thing that matters is catching up fast. Nobody asks the

thircf seneration millionaire how his fortune was made. He

could have made i t selling human kidneys. Money and power

make for re:ipectability. (This Time 71)

Kalyan is interested only in power and he pursues it with a

monomaniacltl concentration. Kalyan was guided by his over-riding ambition.

He reflects: "There were two great motivating forces it was said, love and

hate. But he knew a third. the hunger for identity and in search for it he had

never been able to tolerate one that had challenged his own (132).

Russell observes "Love of power in its widest sense is the desire to

be able to produce intended effects upon the outer world" (Power 79).

Kalyan was ruthlessly efficient, and was able to produce the intended effect.

His work in .4merica bears testimony to this fact. Kalyan started the India

centre in 1935 with the object of steering public opinion in favour of India's

freedom.

When Kalyan first set this up, it was uphill work. He did

everything himself. He wrote pamphlets and bulletins and spoke

all over the country, almost in every place that invited him.

Some of thern were the tiniest little out- of- the- way places.

He didn't care .... He just pushed every thing almost by the

sheer momentum of his own energy. (57)

Barbara comments "I had never seen such a dynamo of a man" (57).

When Ka11as tells P M . . about Kalyans' undemocratic, impudent way

of functioning w e n the P.M supports Kalyan and says:

Men of Kalyan's type do not always function in the routine,

ponderous. bureaucratic manner. That is their value. They have

the ability to shed all non-essentials and go directly to the heart

of the matter and get things done. It is an irritating quality at

times. but il useful one ... he is a remarkable man ... others get

swamped under files and funds. He has a knack for sticking to

clear issues and dealing with them directly. (17-18)

Kalyan's dictatorial ternperament made dialogues impossible. Arjun

Mitra the senior ICS officer, advises Kalyan not to include a dubious character

like Hari ,Mohan in the Gandhi Memorial Committee. But "he [Kalyan]

sought neither advice nor consultation. He merely communicated decisions"

(88), Arjun Mitra felt Kalyan to be 'an exhibitionist' (88). Kalyan refused

to take a salary. Arjun Mitra reflects "...for a day's work an honest man took

a wage" (88). Moreover Kalyan dealt summarily with large sums of money,

not properly accounted. Arjun Mitra got on with every body. "he was

determined to get on with Kalyan. Only Kalyan made it difficult" (87).

Benard Bailyn observes that "Power always and every where had a

pernicious. corrupting effect upon men" (Ideological Origins 60). Kalyan,

being the Prime Minister's confidant knew how to exercise his power. Kalyan

sends a note to Arjun Rilitra. suggesting a reorganisation of the foreign

service in the lines of the Ammy. Kalyan recommended that in the Foreign

Service. like in the Army. promotion should go by merit and not on seniority.

Kalyan wanted lo scrap the rules and put his own mer: in important posts.

Kalyan, Mitra knew is delermined to ignore protocol and by pass routine.

Arjun felt toward Kalyan ". . .What he had trained himself never to feel in

the realm of his work - hostility" (This Time 90) Rakesh, the junior IAS

officer at his first meeting with Kalyan remarks about Kalyan "This was a

man who lived in revolt-against courtesy, against convention, against the very

possibility of happiness" ( 5 6 )

Kalyan has utter disregard for Gandhi, he remarks:

I would have disagreed with him on fundamentals. He believed

i n the power of suffering. He maintained i t could bring about

a catharsis of the spirit in one self and others. This is a lie and

one that all religions perpetuate. Suffering is evil. It must not

be endured or sanctified. It must be torn up by the roots brutally

i f need be. (71)

Kalyan Sinha reject:; the implied passivity of the long prison terms.

He goes into voluntary exile because of his disagreement with Ganahian

policies. Even when the country is free he is critical of the Gandhian stance.

He feels that i t is because c~f Gandhi, that the Indians are still a backward

people, without progress. He calls Gandhi. "an emasculator" (133). Kalyan

wryly remarks:

B u t for Gandhi there would have been a revolution like any

other ~f not w ~ t h guns, then with sticks and stones, teeth and

nails - and there would not have been anomalies to contend

with today, this oil-and-water regime that could command no

s~ngleness c ~ r unity of purpose. (133)

Kailas, i ~ n the other hand is a true follower of Gandhian ideals. In

Kailas' system of values, importance is given to the individual. "...We have

made the human being the unit and measure of progress, so we can never

at any stase abandon ou~r concern with him" (198) Kailas feels that social

change can be meaningful only when the human being is not by passed and

i t remains his ultimate concern. For him politics was not a road to personal

ambition. Accol-ding to him Gandhi has proved politics was not and need not

be a dirty game Kailas echoes Gandhi's sentiments. "Any game was a dirty

game when dirty people played it" (185). With more and more unscrupulous

men cornins to politics. Kailas is ousted from the UN delegation.

Kailas and Kalyan are opposites. Shyam M. Asnani rightly observes

that the conflict between Kailas and Kalyan is a conflict between ideologies:

Kailas. an idealist belongs to the generation that had succumbed

to the magic oi'Gandhi ... Kalyan on the other hand, is a shrewd

pragmatist ...g iven to unscrupulous manoeuverings and

corruption. (Contemporary Politics 110)

Kailas believes that the corrupt frame work of democracy can be redeemed

by the Gandhian path o f love of humanity, whereas Kalyan has a sort of

contempt for the individual human being.

R.F. Lambert in tht: article. ".\ Face in the Crowd" speaks about the

inhuman animalistic beh~viour of certain individuals. Lambert argues that

"..our deeds [are) extensions of ourselves. It is the violence in our minds

that flows into our actions" (The Hindu. XIII). Kalyan's violent temperament

is reflected in his inhuman treatment of all who associate with him. His

foster parents received only contempt for loving and educating him. He has

no love or cons~deration for Barbara and Celia who helped him to run the

India centre. As Krishna Rao aptly remarks "He [Kalyan] fights for humanity

without the grace of humanity or simply humanness" (Sahgal: A Study 28).

Barbara and Celia tell Rakesh, about Kalyan's inhuman, ruthless

approach. They are victims of his overriding ambition and selfishness.

Barbara explains to Rakesh how she was trapped by him. "I was nineteen then

and he crashed into my life like a hurricane" (60) Later he leaves Barbara

for Celia causing her great agony. She frankly confesses to Rakesh. " ... I

didn't want to believe it. I thought I could fill his life" (59). She elaborates

Kalyan's real nature. "he never really gives, but he is not even interested in

taking. He needs people b u t there's no tenderness in him. I don't think he

has ever loved anyone" (61).

Celia also has the same opinion of Kalyan. The relationship between

them was not one of reciprocal love. Celia Rand reflects on their relationship.

Love has never entered their relationship, but even their passion

had not brought them close together. Nothing he had ever said

o r done betrayed that he had a heart, feelings that could be hurt.

Encounters that left her bruised and shaken scarcely seemed to

have touched hlm at all (63)

Cel~a descr~bes her physical relationship with Kalyan, the image is

that of a w11d animal and its prey To quote:

He [Kalyan] was in her room before she had finished

undressing and though she had expected him, it gave her a small

bhock to see him standing in the doorway, the look of

unappeased hunger and endless wandering on his face, the look

that the most sumptuous meal, the most abandoned love making

did nothing to erase. His need for her d id not flatter her. It was

the way the panther stalked the deer o r any wild creature its

prey. There was no tenderness in the ugly hands, no appeal in

his eyes. He m ~ g h t have been a messenger of Death, out to

destroy her, and the moments when communication should have

been easiest between them were somehow the loneliest for her.

1661

Joyce Mitchell cook speaks about the various effects of psychological

oppression:

To be psychologically oppressed is to be weighed down in your

mind. It is to have a harsh dominion exercised over your self

esteem. The psychologically oppressed become their own

oppressors; they come to exercise harsh dominion over their

self esteem.. . . Psychological oppression can be regarded as

the internalisation ot intimations of inferiority. (paper

PI-e\ented at rhs Chicago circle No. 19.10)

Kalyan's treatment of Barbara and Celia support Mitchell's arguments. He

makes both women feel worthless and inferior.

Sahgal in This Time of Morning makes a clear distinction between

the Gandhian and non Gandhiari type. This distinction is made on the basis

of the nature of means adopted for the ends and also the place accorded to

the individual i n the sche~ne of things. Kailas Vrind represents the Gandhian

ideal of purposeful actlon coupled with proper means.

In The Day in sharlow, Sahgal presents two contrasting characters,

Sumer Singh. the Minister of State for Petroleum and Sardar Sahib, the

Cabinet Minister-. Surner Singh, is a youthful attractive person with a romantic

background. He is a Zarnindar turned servant of the people. Politics was an

accidental career for him. He did very poorly in the public school and later

in the college he studied. He had tried the foreign service and there also he

failed. He was thinking of entering into films when the Congress party

offered him a ticket and later he became a minister.

Hobbes speaks about the ~nclination of power in human beings.

According to him the pursuit of power itself becomes a "...general

inclination of all mank~nd, a perpetual and restless desire of power after

power" (cluoted in Nietzelte, Femin~sm and Political Theor?, 146). Hobbes

further argues :

This desire fur power itself gives to an inter subjective dynamic

wherebv individuals are constantly driven to increase their

power. the only way in which they can assure even their present

power IS to acquire more power. ... Human beings are both

subjects of power and subjects constantly driven to increase

their power. (46)

Sumer Singh as observed by Hobbes, is a great manipulator of power,

interested only i n preserving and acquiring more power. Power. Sumer felt

"...could become the liquid in one's veins. It could drive out every feeling

of inadequacy one ever had, reduce every relationship to a trifle. When

power possessed one everything was dispensable" (The Day 130).

Against him is Sardar Sahib. the Minister for Petfoleum. "...who had

not been to Harrow or Cambridge. He had been schooled mostly in hardship.. .

and till he was nearly adult and earning, he had seldom known the satisfaction

of a square meal" (115-16). Prime-Minister was keen that Sardar Sahib

should take up the oil portfolio because it is not an easy job. P.M. knew that

Sardar Sahib was tough and tenacious and will never give up. Sahib took the

Portfolio, set up an oil department. formulated oil policy and started search

for oil. Planning Commission objected to it saying it is ruinously expensive.

The Press and the planners were after him, like a pack of hounds baying for

his blood. He didn ' t give up. Instead he worked more intensely to realize

his dream, and to hand over [his to the future generation. And in Sumer Singh

in whom the future o t India depended, he had no confidence.

Sardar Sahib had rl-peatedlk warned Sumer Singh that the oil

exploration in the Jammu region should not be given to either Russia or the

United States, but to a neutral country. He told Sumer "...Neither Russia nor

America. Jammu is too near our border. It is a security risk. Both these

countries have heavily armed Pakistan and are continuing to. The Canadian

offer is the best one" (12.5). Inspite of Sardar Sahib's warnings Sumer very

coolly gave the offer to Russia. Sardar Sahib felt the unaccustomed sensation

of fear, hearing this he wept for India, for its future depended on people like

Sumer Singh. He regards that " ... a man of Sumer Singh's calibre in

government was an indication of how Sardar Sahib and his generation had

failed" ( 126).

Bernard Bailyn ob:ierves that "if weak or ignorant are entrusted with

power.. . there will be universal confusion" (Ideological Origins 60). Surner

Singh is an example. He actually did not want that Ministry. He had no head

for facts and figures and never did any home work. In the old minister's

overbearing presence Surner was "...feeling like a school boy under the stern

eye of a master who stoc~d no nonsense" (The Day 121)

Sardar Sahib. brought up in the strict Gandhian tradition, lived simple,

astute life. When he became sick he chose Willingdon Nursing Home. "The

Willingdon Nursing Home never looked clean. The entrance was not properly

swept and there was no crisp, starched antiseptic atmosphere." (115). Sumer

Singh, when he visited the bedridden Sardar Sahib "...carefully guarded his

disgust" ( 1 15). Contrast to Sardar Sahib, Sumer Singh stayed in the Inter

Continental Hotei. the most elegant. beautiful and the best run hotel in the

town which measured most glitterringly upto international standards. Sumer

is interested in nothing but himself. As Jasbir Jain Comments "Sumer Singh's

world is a narrow closed world, indifferent to the human being" (Nayanrara

S a l ~ g a l 27).

Sumer's anti-Gandhian stand is quite pronounced. He believes:

I t uas time.. . to throw away sentiment, the weak, worn-out

liberalism of'the past, time to bury Gandhi and write a new page

of Indian history. . the entire sentimental framework of

Parl~ament and constitution ... have to be scrapped. (The

Du\ 186)

Sumer Singh expects the foreign M~nistership in the coming reshuffle for

". . . the foreign Minister was a key figure on the world stage" (186).

In The Day in shndow~, the Gandhian attitude is represented by Raj

Garg, a young independent Member of Parliament who is aware of the threat

from the new leadership to democratic and moral values. Raj Garg was

against giving the oil exploration assignment to Russia. He knew it will be

detrimental to the interests of India. On the day of the debate in Parliament,

Raj Garg was watching Sumer Singh. Sumer Singh was trying to buy votes.

Raj observes:

Carlvassing is i n full swing in the Central Hall and the lobbies ...

The: Governmetlt, since the recent split in its own party, needed

e \ c r y vote i t c,uld get and the scene in the lobbies before a

major debate icould look like the Stock Exchange market day.

I t was anybody's guess how many would hold on to their

principles i n an auction where the stakes were high and

sometimes dazzling. (15 I )

To win the Issue Sumer spends 30,000 per vote. He offers Raj, a post

abroad, "...the plumiest assignment in the cushiest post" (156), to get rid

of opposition. Face to face with Sumer, Raj realizes that :

The world as he knew i t was slipping away. He and Sumer, he

realized, were not men of different political opinions,

supporting the same system. They belonged to different lines

of th~nking ant1 the future of Asia would depend on which line

won. 1155)

In A situation in New Delhi, Sahgal records the post Nehruvian India,

characterized by the erosion of moral values in political life. The great

popular Prime Minister Shivraj who dominated the political and national

scene for a full decade is dead and with his passing away, the country which

he had ruled well begins to fall apart. Shivraj's death marked an end of an

era of idealism. Michael Ca.lvert, Shivraj's biographer sums up :

One of God's remarkable creations ... a symbol of the fight

against colonial rule ... renouncing the gilded case to sleep on

prison planks. . . A man who took the people with him on

unchartered Journeys. on the frail, unbreakable. so very

unpolitical bond of trust. (6)

De\.i, his sister, now the Education Minister feels out of place both

in the pan) and in the cabinet. She was made the Education Minister, in the

emotional aftermath of Shivaraj's death. In the next Cabinet reshuffle, on

some pretext. they would dispense with her. When they had asked her to join

the Cabinet they hadn't known that " . . . .She [Devi] had a mind of her own and

in a position of authority she would use it" (15).

Devi knew that Shivraj's friends are "undoing what he had done" (28).

The well-groomed English :;peaking fashionable group of young politicians

represented the new political ideology of compromise. Devi feels that her

views are outdated and she doesn't belong to these pleasure seekers' and

position seekers' group. "I felt I didn't belong among these sheep and goats"

(131). She felt isolated in the party. "The party, the great sheltering party

under whose tutelage she hild grown, was now an entity outside her ... she

did not beiong with this new aristocracy" (129-30).

Sahgal in this book examines the new cult of violence which marked

the late sixties and early seventies. The student community indulges in

senseless violence. Rishad. Devi's son observes:

The cult of violence had to be clean, cold and disciplined,

unaided by mo~ive, by drugs or mental aberration. This was the

violence of the sane with a passion for justice. To build a new

i\.orlci. the old one had ;o be razed to the ground. The way to

do i t was thr8:)ugh the systematic creation of panic. Panic to

chaos to ruln And out of ruin open revolt and power. (205)

Devi and Kishad represent two different ways of life. Devi, believes

in the non-violent approach to problems while Rishad her son, representing

the younger generation believes in violence.

Violence has become a part of campus life. A girl is raped and when

the Vice Chancellor Usmarl takes action, he is hurt in the eye and his office

is invaded and ransacked. Usman is forced by the government to take back

the three students responsible for rape. Usman with his "stubborn,

uncornpromislng heart and mind" had taken the Vice-chancellorship to bring

about some fundamental changes in the field of Education. But he was forced

to take back the three suspected students who were involved in a rape case

in the campus, under political pressure. Usman then resigns in protest. He

"...didn't belong to the bretd that needed power, in order to do things" (83).

He shows the courage to resign, I:O disassociate himself from power and lead

a popular movement against the unscrupulous leaders. Usman Ali, with his

keen awareness to non-violence, is the most reminiscent of Gandhiji. In this

novel Sahgal contrasts the Pseudo-radicalism of the cabinet intellectuals

with the idealism of Shivaraj. Devi and Usman .

Excessive Power meets with resistance. According to Foucault

" . . .where there is Power. there is resistance" ( T h e History o f sexua l i t y 95).

He further elaborates this argument in Power/Knowledge. He remarks "there

are no relations of power without resistance, the latter are all the more real

and effective because they are formed right at the point where relations of

power are exercised" (142). Foucault believes that for every form in which

power is exercised and applied there exist corresponding forms of

resistance. Foucault feels that resistance is an inevitable consequence of

power and self-conscious subjects are the necessary catalyst for resistance.

Resistance results in the transformation and alteration in power-relations.

Both Sahgal's and Alexander's characters offer resistance to all unjust power.

They question and rebel anti fight valiantly against the repressive forces.

In Storrn rn Chandignrh Dubey asks Harpal not to yield to the strike

threat of Cyan. "Face i t . keep the works going. Appeal t o your loyal workers

and officers. enlist their support ..... Make a stand" (207) Dubey tells Harpal

the great need for resistanct, against Gyan's high handedness.

The prospect of the machinery of two stales running down at

the behest of one man, w~thout any kind of stand made against

him .... .And that a man who believes that he has only to call the

tune. There is no room for such men among us. Let us take the

risk. (208)

Together Dubey dnd Harpal offer resistance. The Home Minister too

supports them.

In Till\ Ttrrte oj Moi.nrng Ka~las decides to come back to active

p o l ~ t ~ c s He I \ ~ o r n r n ~ t t e d to erad~cate corruption. He offers strong

resistance to the unethical power politics of Kalyan Sinha. Usman and Devi

come out in the open after resigning their official posts to lead a popular

movement againsi unscrupulous leaders.

Sonali in R ~ c h Like Us refuses to change her views to the demand of

an authoritarian Government. She declares "I didn't want a career in the

crumbling unprofessionalism that bowed and scraped to the bogus

emergency" (36). In protest, she resigns and retains her integrity. Ravi

Kachru who rode the tide of popularity in the early days of emergency,

regrets for having supportecl i t . He questions Dev, now a cabinet Minister

in madam's government about his illegal transactions. Kishori La1 refuses

to get released from prison (:In the recommendation of his influential son-

in-law. His prison mate, the young Marxist student, plans to make a

revolution. Even the limbless beggar offers resistance. When Nishi's servants

try to drag him to the vasectomy camp, he thrashes out and flings himself

out of their reach. Ramu in ,Vampally Road, not only resists tyranny. but

physically eliminates the victimizer. Through a meticulously planned bomb

-blast, Ramu kills the tyrannical chief-minister Limca Gowda and his

henchmen. Instead of meekly submitting to the repressive power-structures,

Sahgal's and Alexander's characters. offer valiant resistance. As Sonali

observes "not all of us are passive before cruelty and depravity" (Rich 152).

Bhatnagar comments "In the fictional universe of Sahgal ... the villains

are generally professional politicians" I Political Consciousrzess 98). As a

woman writer. cnaracterised by her feminine sensibility, Sahgal presents

even her negative characters in a sympathetic light, focussing on the sin

rather than on the sinner. who is generally the inevitable product of a set

of circumstances. The political and personal manifestation of aggression,

contempt, ruthlessi~ess of Kalyan Sinha, Gyan Singh. 'Madam' etc can be

traced back to their tragic, unhappy childhood. Russell argues that

"aggressivenzss often has its roots in fear" (Power 14- 15). He remarks that

men who are filled with retrospective terror of their fathers or any childhood

experience have a tendency to become over aggressive. Sahgal. very

sympathetically examines the lonely miserable childhood days of Kalyan

Sinha, Gyan Singh etc ancl establishes that the outward manifestations of

their villainy is only an er.pression of the frustrations and insecurity they

experienced i n their boyhood days. This only points to the fact that the

political self of her characters is but an extension of the personal.

Kalyan is dehumanised owing to the traumatic suffering he had

experienced in his early days. Russell is of the view that:

The source c,f cruel impulses is usually to be found either in

an unfortunate childhood or in experiences such as those of

civil war. famine etc. in which suffering and death are frequently

seen and inflicted. (Power 182)

A n analysls of Kalyan Sinha's childhood days fully authenticates

Russell's observation. Knlyan tells Celia about his unhappy early days. He

[IKal>an/ did nor know his birth place, his parents, his real name or age. He

had grown up without the ordinary marks of identity. And from this terrifying

anonymity had emerged the most forceful individual" (This Time 74).

Kalyan's earllest childhood memory took him to a gutter in the street of

Patna. He narrates to Celia :

He had been found ... in a quiet street in Patna during the

summer of 1914. There was no way of knowing whetherhe had

come from a neighbouring village or a distant one. There had

been wide spread famine. . . and peasants had walked miles to

the crty in search of food ... he recalled a dim street light

showing inert bodies, some in a gutter with the slow trickle of

dirty water under them.. . grotesque was the word he associated

with i r . Near him on that street was a woman, still alive, holding

a baby. He remembered urging her to get up ... He remembered

calling her Ma . . . . The Woman he called Ma sat stiffly against

a lamppost, her legs., poked out like rods in front of her. (73)

He promised to get her some food but it was night and every door was

locked. But he managed to get some food and tried to feed his Ma "He broke

a bit of bread and put i t between her lips. It stayed between the slack parted

lips" (73). His fanatical intolerance of human values, his impatience, ruthless

approach all can be traced back to the hoary childhood experiences.

"Kalyan's contempt for non-violence is the outward manifestation of

the scars of non-violence he carries on his soul" (Political Consciolisness

99), remarks Bhatnagar. "C:ausht stealing once. every nerve in him had

screamed, strike me. but the man had given him a long scornful look and let

him." (This Tittle of Morning 77). The extreme poverty and starvation of his

early life, leading to his mother 's death of hunger, has made him impatient

for results, irrespective of the means adopted.

Kalyan openly admits to Celia his inability to love. to have lasting

human relationshrps:

I've survived ali sorts of famine - a famine of food and one of

feeling. Do ytru think human beings need these things to live.

Half of humanliry :lives without them. Without food, without

shelter . . . without love. (66)

Gyan Singh the power-.hungry Chief Minister of Punjab also was an

orphan. He had been brought up by his uncle, a man of rough morals. Gyan's

father had "killed a man in a fight and then was killed by his relative" (Storm

116). His mother was a whore who died an ignoble death. Gyan was brought

up by his uncle Dhan Singh. a driver of dubious morals. But Gyan was

fascinated by the "primitive zolourful reality of his uncle, the ruler of this

shabby domain ... before whom the children trembled. Dhan Singh was the

master of his environment"' i 116)

John Meadows, an Amerrcan missionary took Gyan, the neglected

street child and put him in the mission school and afterwards got him his

first job as a factory apprentice. John's effort to instil a sense of conscience

in Gyan. had Palled. Gyan hat:] been bred in turbulence where honour had more

meaning. According to Gyarr "Conscience was invisible, hidden under secret

layers of bafflement and doubt. Honour like prestige was public. It was a

badge" (119). M.K. Bhatnagar analysing Gyan's character comments "Gyan's

insensitivity to feelings and emotions, his violent impatience and narrow,

parochial, communal and populist policies seem the inevitable outcome of

such an upbrinzinz. (Politic.al Consciousness 99).

Russell speaks about a new form of power called 'technicological

power', usually found in men who control powerful mechanisms.

Those who have the habit of controlling powerful mechanisms

and through this control have acquired power over human

beings.. . will view human problems.. . in the impersonal manner

i n which they ,view machines ... Mechanical power tends to

generate a new mentality.. . The man who has vast mechanical

power at his command is likely, if uncontrolled, to feel himself

a sod. not a Christian God of love, but a Pagan Thor or Vulcan

(Power 22-23),

Gyan was interested in machines right from his childhood.

Excitement for him lay among the men who handled machines,

the truck and t:lxl drivers who plied between Delhi and the

Punjab. and the mechanics who had the servicing of these

machines. The miraculous world of machinery, of coils and

tubes ind cvlintlers and throbbing whining engines, of speed

along the highway, rose before his eyes. (Storm 114-115)

Gyan had great adm~ration for his uncle for his driving skill

Gyan had seen other drivers jerk their machines, tear a

performance from them, bruise and batter them in their

isnorance of their functioning. Dhan Singh understood every

bolt and nut that had gone into the making of his. His car obeyed

his l~ghtest touch, responding to it with spring and a panther's

fluid electric grace ... because he drove the car of a British

company boss he was the dean of drivers, and contemptuous of

lesser machines and men who had not mastered them. (117)

Gyan like his uncle "had a profound contempt.. . for any man who did

not know his job thoroughly and could not use his hands to get it done" (113).

Gyan was an excellent mechanic too. Once Gyan was going to a public

meeting at Chandigarh, when something told him the engine was not

'behaving'. The driver was a new one and unable to detect the fault. Gyan

reached the bonnet and pushed the driver aside, "five minutes of careful

investigation revealed the fault. He told the driver to get the bag of tools

and worked at the obstructron, then getting in, he tried the engine until it

produced the right whine" 1: 114).

Sahgal in one of her articles probes the reason for the dictatorial

tendencies of her cousin Mrs Gandhi. Sahgal argues that Indira Gandhi's

authori tar ian~m can be traced to the fact that her path to power began at the

top. Sahgai o h s e ~ - \ e \

In a country which has produced great leaders, she emerged as

a manufactured leader.. . consistently built up through media

and other channels, and relentlessly imposed on the Indian

mind through a campaign of emotional appeal and outcry

resorting to her father 's name. (Mrs GarldhiS political

style b j

In an article i n Solcrh Asian Review Sahgal relates Indira Gandhi's

childhood experierice to her political behaviour and outlines the development

of her policies i n an anti-liberal drrection. Mrs. Gandhi was elected to power

on the credentials of being Nehru's daughter and exploited Nehru image to

its maximum capacity. She often tried to function independently and rejected

the practice of collective decision making. She ruled mainly through political

manoeuvres and surprises. rather than discussion and legislation. (The

Makitzg of Mrs Gandhi 180).

Sahgal doesn't outrightly condemn her negative characters. Instead

she proves that their inhuman nature is a natural outcome of their loveless,

insecure childhood. As Dubey, the dramatis personae, in The Storm in

Chandigarh reflects, "Hardships would produce strongly delineated

characters, making issues black or white right or wrong good o r evil" (28)

M.K. Bhatnagar rightly points out that "Sahgal succeeds in humanizing the

demoniacal contours of most of her villains or negative heroes" (Political

Cunsciousr~ess 9 8 1 .

As a woman ivsiier rn~lrked by her feminine sensibility, Sahgal gives

family a significant place, i n her novels. The loveless, insecure atmosphere

of their childhood makes, Gyan Singh, Kalyan Sinha, Madam, and Sumer

Singh aggres s i~e and inhurrian. Sahgal herself being a member of a large,

close-knit famiiy gives family a prominent place. Her character Devi in

A Situatior~ in New Delhi echoes Sahgal's views about family. Devi is

unhappy and broods over the smallness of her family.

A frighteningly small unit. two people herself and Rishad going

in different ways ... No surrounding friendliness for either of

them to take cl~mfort in. A big family sometimes performed

thar funct~on, c~lshioned you against shocks, put ups and downs

Intd focus, ha:, slmply there, a broad soft bosom. (43)

Bhushan in itlistaketl Identit) also accords a significant place for

family. He remarks. "the shelter of an affluent home is like the extension

of Mother's womb" (139). In Sahgal's novels, we find a strong tradition of

family and she makes a strong plea for the preservation of it, by inviting both

men and women to involve themselves actively in it.

Bailyn in The Ideologicul Orgins of the American Revolution, opines:

"...the preservation of liberty rested on the ability of the people to maintain

effective checks on the wielders of power and hence in the last analysis

rested on the -,igilance and moral stamina of the people" (65). Post

independence Iildla witnessed a deterioration in the standards of public

behaviour and ;.: move t o ~ a r d s closed society. Both Sahgal and Alexander

feel that the breeding corruption in the public life is the direct consequence

of the non-concern and indifference of the intelligentia and the masses. They

point out that the in te l lec t~~als have a great responsibility in a democratic

society especially where the majority of the nation are uneducated and

unaware. Sahgal's and Alexander's characters are fully aware of their moral

responsibility and they resist all moves which curb individual freedom.

In Sahgal's and Alexander's political world there is a clear division

of the characters into the oppressor and the oppressed. The ruthless,

powerhungry politicians like Gyan Singh, Kalyan Sinha, Sumer Singh,

'madam'. Limca Gowda etc. through clever negotiation of power, try to

dominate and victimise t h e ~ r less powerful counterparts like Harpal Singh,

Kailas Vrind, Sonaii, Usman Ali, Ramu etc. But instead of meekly submitting

to the oppressive power structures, these characters fight valiantly against

all repressive forces. They offer resistance to all evil and injustice. They

are humane, compassionate and approach problems from a human angle.

Through their novels. both Sahgal and Alexander make a strong plea, for the

restoration of human values in politics.