'Complicity and resistance: Women in Arundhati Roy's The - JPCS

Journal of Postcolonial Cultures and Societies
ISSN No. 1948-1845 (Print); 1948-1853 (Electronic)
Her acquiescence in many patriarchal mores and values are a defensive gesture rather
than an honest agreement with hegemonic powers. As resistance can be passive or active,
public or subterranean, unequivocal or ambivalent, she should be allowed the status of
being in the circle of resistance. The following words of Anuradha Dingwaney Needham
rings true to us in the case of both Mammachi and Baby Kochamma: “In Small Things,
then, Roy does not present subordination as a stable, unproblematic condition from which
resistance, necessarily, proceeds. Instead, in mapping varying degrees of rebellion and
defiance against, and collusion with the dominant, she seems to be on the side of those
critics of subaltern studies, who complain that because „subaltern mentalit‟e‟ is
recuperated as „the mentalit‟e of the subaltern at the time of opposition, at the moment of
their action against domination‟ (Masselos 2001:192), the „dialectics of collaboration and
acquiescence on the part of the subalterns and the wide range of attitudes between
resignation and revolt have been underplayed‟ in this mode of historiography (Das Gupta
2001:110)”. (2005)
Baby Kochamma is the daughter of Reverend John Ipe and is in love with the Roman
Catholic priest, Father Mulligan. To win over him Baby Kochamma converts to the
Roman Catholic faith. However, she does not dare to challenge the traditional ideas of
love and marriage prevalent in post-colonial India. Baby Kochamma does not run away
to fulfil her dreams and upholds very reactionary ideas. Amitabh Roy comments
succinctly: “It is a pity that she submits in the name of decency and honour to the very
sexist, casteist and communal prejudices that have stood in her way and denied fulfilment
to her.”(2005, p.62) She hates the Hindus, does not think that a married or divorced
daughter has any position in her parent‟s home and is vehemently against inter-
community marriage. In the case of Ammu, she thinks that sexual promiscuity can only
be allowed to a man like Chacko as he has his “Men‟s Needs”. Baby Kochamma is a
hypocrite to a great extent but is she totally complicit in the patriarchal, casteist, classist,
and sexist social order of Kerala? Is her desire for Father Mulligan, “an elitist
indulgence”?
‘Complicity and resistance: Women in Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things,’ Golam Gaus Al-
Quaderi and Muhammad Saiful Islam
JPCS Vol 2 No 4, December 2011
69