Chapter III

T H E IMAGINARY

IN NARAYAN'S NOVELS

CH APTER-III

The Imaginary in Narayan’s Novels

Man...simply is what he conceives o f him self to he. hut he is what he

wills, and... Man is nothing else hut that which he makes o f himself.

Sartre

In most o f the Narayan’s novels, one comes across such characters

and protagonists who generally spend a lot o f their time in craving

and thinking about themselves. They seem to be self-centered

developing their own ego and trying to win the place that they have

been craving for themselves over years in life. Each character has

“the se lf’ o f his or her own or a ‘self-identity ’ developed through the

interactions and struggle with others. His protagonists and many

other characters perform functions that have social and individual

significance. There are evident instances in his novels where the

critical focus is on the way his protagonists fulfill their obligations to

themselves and to others. The process o f realizing one’s se lf through

80

a network o f socio-cultural institutions is the staple reality that we

find in his fiction.1 Narayan him self says:

M y m ain co n cern is w ith the hum an character - a central character

from w h o se p oin t o f v ie w the w orld is seen and w h o tries to get o v er a

d ifficu lt s ituation or su ccu m b s to it or figh ts it in h is o w n setting."

In The Swami and Friends, Swami from the childhood starts

differentiating between the “Other” and “s e lf ’. Most often he is

involved in searching for his lost se lf (ego) even through dreams

and images. His methods o f introspection and behaviour enable

him to attain a permanent identity in the society and satiate his lost

ego. For example, he and Mann admire Rajam, the Police

Superintendent’s son because they find their Lacanian Other in

him. Swami voices his ‘inward’ in these assertions:

H e w a s the o n ly b oy in the c la ss w h o w o re so c k s and sh o es , fur cap

and tie , and a w on d erfu l coat and K nickers. H e ca m e to the sch o o l in a

3car.

1 For details See, Jayant K. Biswal. A C ritical Study o f the N ovels o f R. K. N arayan ,

New Delhi: N irm a l Publishers and Distributors, 1987, pp. 32 - 57; M .K .

Naik. The Ironic Vision: A Study o f the Fiction o f R. K. Narayan. New Delhi:

Sterling Publishers, 1983; Ramesh Dynte. The N ovels o f R.K. Narayan: A

T ypological study o f Characters. New Delhi: Prestige Books, 1996 and M .K .

Bhatnager. N ew Insights into the N ovels o f R. K. N arayan , New Delhi:

Atlantic Publishers and Distributors Pvt. Ltd., 2008.

2 See, Interview w ith BBC London, Third Programme, 1968.

81

These children are presented as human beings and not as

lifeless representatives o f their world. Their joys and sorrows are

real, their friendship and quarrels are genuine. In fact, Narayan

analyzes and depicts every nook and comer o f a child’s mind as he

presents the world o f children with minute and all possible details.

All the characters in the novel except Rajam are from the middle

class and Rajam who belongs to the higher class and thus Mani and

Swaminathan are searching for him in their dreams and find their

lost Other.4

Swami, the central figure, is found throughout the novel with

his friends viewing his images o f “unfractured world” or “S e lf’ in

them. Further, while being with them he, views in them his own

egoistic roles regarding himself. Even when he is at home, his mind

remains occupied with the thoughts o f his friends. He feels proud of

his friendship with Mani who is ‘Mighty Good-for-Nothing’ fellow.

It is Mani who enables him to gain his lost world. Rajam, a

newcomer, becomes M ani’s rival and Mani designates him as a

3 R.K. Narayan. Sw am i A nd F riends, Chennai. Indian Thought Publication, 1983.

p. 14. A ll subsequent references, given in parenthesis (as SF), are from this

edition unless otherwise stated.

4 Sadashiv Shrotriya. “Sw am i an d F riends”, Rajasthan Journal o f English Studies, 16

(1984), pp. 1 - 32; K.T.Sunitha. ‘‘The Theme o f Childhood in the C astle o f

M y Skin and Swam i and Friends'’, W orld L iterature in English, 27, 2 (1987),

pp. 291 - 296 and Feroza Jussawalla. “Teaching Narayan’s Sw am i and

F riends”, C ollege Literature, 19,3 (1992), pp. 219- 224

82

‘Menace to his position’ feeling upset when he realizes that Swami

appears taking more interest in him. This shows that Narayan

artistically highlights a child’s innate tendency o f possession which

in terms o f Lacanian perspective is an instance o f the imaginary

forcing:

S w am in ath an [to break] into loud protestations. D id M ani think that

S w a m i co u ld respect an yon e but h im , M ani the dear o ld friend and

gu id e? ... O h, there w as no com p arison b etw een R ajam and M ani (SF ,

15).

According to P.S. Sundaram:

T he ad ven t o f R ajam m arks a cr is is in S w a m i's life . H ere is so m eo n e

from the ou tsid e w orld , carrying w ith h im an aura o f a fflu en ce and

p ow er , in te llig en t, sm artly dressed , con n ected w ith the h igh and

m ig h ty o n e s o f the land, the g la ss o f fa sh ion and the m ou ld o f form ,

the o b serv ed o f all ob servers. S w am i fa lls in lo v e w ith the b o y . . /

Swami inwardly admires Rajam but has no courage to admit

it before Mani because Mani hates him to the point o f killing him.

The struggle o f the two is not presented as a class struggle but a

competition between two individuals:

T h is R ajam w a s a rival to M ani. . . . T here w ere su ch in d ica tio n s that

R ajam w a s the n e w p o w er in the c la ss. D ay by day as M ani lo o k ed on;

5 P. S. Sundaram. “/?. K. N arayan ’\ Indian W riters Series, Vol. 5, N ew Delhi: Arnold

- Heinemann India, 1973, p.32.

it w a s b eco m in g in creasin g ly c lear that a n ew m en a ce had appeared in

h is life (S F , 15).

However, once Rajam extends a hand o f friendship to Mani

and he accepts it and this way they are reconciled. ‘There was an

awkward pause. ‘If this is all the cause o f your anger, forget it. I

w on’t mind being friends. Nor I,’ said Mani (SF, 19).

There is no callous enmity between them. Rajam is

intelligent and has inborn qualities o f leadership. He acts with tact

and firmness and even brings about reconciliation between Swami

and his former friends - Shankar, Somu, and the Pea. When Mani

and Rajam are united ‘Swaminathan felt at perfect peace with the

world’.

Swami is more attached to his granny than to his parents. He

talks to her freely, opens his heart before her. He enjoys discussing

with his granny the adventures o f his friends. He cried ecstatically:

O h granny!, ‘Y o u d o n ’t k n o w w hat a great fe l lo w R ajam is .' H e told

her the story o f the first en m ity b etw een R ajam and M ani and the

su b seq u en t frien d sh ip (S F , 21).

Swami’s granny too, loves him very much and his evenings

happily pass with her. ‘He feels secure with his head on her lap and

nestles close to her; conceals nothing from her...She recalls the days

84

when her husband worked as a sub-Magistrate . . . \ 6 His innocence is

his characteristic feature. He acts upon the suggestions made by

others. He easily accepts the story o f the coachman who says that he

can easily turn twelve paisa into six rupees and so procure the hoop

for which he yearns. Thus, he is easily befooled and robbed.

Mimic tendency springs from innocence and children,

according to Lacan and Narayan, like to imitate their elders. When

Swami and Mani go to Rajam’s house he keeps them waiting. He

had known that his friends were waiting for him, but he liked to keep

them waiting for a few minutes, because he had seen his father doing

it. So, he stood for a few minutes in the adjoining room, biting his

nails. Again in front o f his friends he tries to display his authority by

scolding the cook. He appears as a case o f ‘ego - c r is is ' and very

evidently a case where the hero constitutes his identity “I” .

These illustrations clearly reveal the operation o f Lacanian

imaginary7 in Narayan’s treatment o f childhood behaviour and

nattitude with ‘se lf and ‘society’ . Swami and Mani are impressed

6 Neeraj Kumar. Women in The Novels o f R. K. Narayan , Delhi: Indian P ublishers’

Distributors, 2004, p. 35

7 For m ore details see , Herbert G old . " Swami and Friends", Hudson Review (Spring 1955),

pp. 184 - 185; K.T. Sunitha. " The T h em e o f C h ild hood in The Castle o f My Skin and

Swami and Friends” , World Literature in English, 27 . 2 ( 1 9 8 7 ) . pp. 291 - 296;

Cynthia V anden Driesen. "Sw am i and Friends: Chron ic le o f an Indian B oyhood " ,

A .L . M c L e o d (ed ) op. cil.. pp. 165 - 174 and R.K. Narayan. My Days. N e w Delhi:

Orient Paperback, 1 9 9 1.

85

very much by Rajam’s big room, the cupboard full o f toys and the

timepiece on his table. “Such a young fellow to own a timepiece! His

father seemed to be an extraordinary man” (SF, 26). Narayan

beautifully portrays the simple joys and sorrows o f these children.

Not only Swami and Mani but also other boys like Shankar,

Somu and Pea get disturbed by Rajam’s arrival because he seemed

different to them in all respects. These children while teasing Swami

call him ‘Rajam ’s tail’ in order to give vent to what Lacan would call

‘jealousy’ and ‘bruised consciousness’, a child inculcates or

develops in the imaginary phase of the development:

W e aren ’t g o o d en o u g h for you , I b e liev e . B ut h o w can ev ery o n e be a

so n o f a P o lic e Superin tendent? (SF , 31 )

These innocent little ones are not even free from the

fascination for glamour and want to show off just to impress their

friends. When Rajam promises to visit Swami’s house he and entire

family makes grand preparation to receive his high-class friend in a

middle class home. He requests his father to lend him his room for

receiving his friend, as his own room was not worth displaying.

Narayan clearly brings out the difference between the child’s attitude

and the response o f a grown up man in the response o f the father:

“ W ho is th is R ajam , such a b ig m an? H e is the P o lice S u p erin ten d en t's

son . H e is - he is not ord inary."(SF . 3 8 ) S w a m i w an ts to be very

86

p erfect as R ajam is a b ig m an 's son . H e te lls m other to prepare

so m eth in g very n ice , fin e and sw eet.

He further says:

D o n ’t m ak e the sort o f c o ffe e that you u su a lly g iv e m e. It m u st be very

g o o d and hot (S F , 3 7 ).

Swami is not content even with this. He orders his cook to

wear a clean, white dhoti and shirt. After the visit is over Swami is

happy that everything has gone off smoothly but he is sorry that the

cook has not changed his dhoti. Such instances in the novel reveal

how Lacanian Imaginary is at work, though unconsciously, in

Narayan delineation o f characters, particularly children. The two

important components in life, fantasy and reality, get mixed or even

fused in the child’s mind when the child is at the Imaginary stage.

However, for a grown up man, in the symbolic stage, they become

quite distinctive as can be inferred and understood by the mature

mind’s use o f language. In Swami’s world - the Imaginary world -

Fantasy becomes mixed with or part o f reality. ‘Swami establishes,

among other things, the restless truth - searching mind, the

oconscionability and the satvic temper’ ; he sincerely invokes Gods to

8 Ranga Rao. Makers o f Indian Literature: R. K. Narayan, New Delhi: Sahitya

Akademi, 2004, p. 58.

87

turn ‘two pebbles into two three-pie co in s ...’9 Narayan artistically

captures the glimpse o f Swami’s mind in his mixed feelings of

anger, disappointment and fear - “The indifference o f the Gods

infuriated him and brought tears to his eyes. He wanted to abuse the

Gods but was afraid to”(SF, 71).

The above cited passages reveal clearly that “I” becomes “I”

only when it stands in relation to the Other because “se lf’ is

perpetually inscribed by the Other and in the discourse o f the Other.

We know that the field of the Other is the place where a character

assumes a sense o f identity in relation to others. It comes to see

him self in the mirror o f others and thus its self-consciousness is

constantly constructed by the discourse o f language. We are aware

about the fact that the cultural features are internalized by Swami

only to construct self-identity. Thus, Swami him self is one o f the best

illustrations who searches for different identities in his society

throughout the novel. He seems a clear case o f ego- crises.

Narayan’s novels are also supreme instances of

psychological quest and his minute psychological observation

reminding us o f great psychologists like Adler and Freud. In the

novel, Mr Sampath, he presents the typical mentality o f an ideal

9 S. Krishnan. Malgudi Landscapes: The Best of R. K. Narayan , New Delhi: Penguin

Books, 1992, p. 19.

88

housewife, Srinavas’ wife, who prepares nice foodstuffs with all care

and expects admiration, like other housewives, from her husband.

She serves her preparations to him and wants appreciation which

reveals her search for “se lf’ or imaginary that constitutes ego. The

wife demands recognition and love that Srinivas hardly understands

as a result o f which she is hurt. She remarks:

H e ate h is d inner silen tly rum inating over it. H is w ife sto o p ed over h is

le a f to serve h im . S h e had fried potato ch ip s in g h e e for h im and som e

cu cu m b er soak ed in curd; sh e had spent the day in the ex c item en t o f

preparing th ese and w as n ow d isap p oin ted to see h im take so little

n o tice o f th e m .10

Narayan even presents a painful irony o f life in the novel

revealing that at times blood relations too are evaluated as per

status. Srinavas explains how her own daughter breaks her relation

because her status is not in keeping with his status:

I h a v e three so n s and tw o daughters; on e daughter is in th is to w n , the

other daughter is in Karachi; I'm not con cern ed w ith her, b ecau se her

husband is a cu stom o fficer , and she th inks it is not th in k in g w ith her

father and the rest o f us. It is over tw e lv e years s in ce sh e w rote (M S ,

56).

i0 R.K. Narayan. Mr. Samputh, Madras: Indian Thought Publication, 1990, p.47. All

subsequent references, given in parenthesis (as M S) are from this edition

unless otherwise stated.

89

In The Financial Expert, ‘a novel full o f ironies o f life’11,

Narayan directly and indirectly delineates Margayya who is

involved in diverse situations. For him, reality in the city lies in

offices, shops, insurances agencies, newspaper agencies, lawyer’s

chambers and hair-cutting saloons, to which hundreds of people

come and go every day in order to realize their dreams as the

Other.

M argayya’s Other is a manifestation o f money, riches and

wealth: he right from the beginning lives in the realm o f Lacanian

imaginary wearing the different garbs in order to earn an identity or

egoistic recognition in the society. His actions are tenaciously

oriented to the acquisition o f money that would make him rich and

later place him among the wealthy. But ‘incredible fluctuations o f

12fortune’ play their crucial role and drive home the point that the

goddess o f wealth is a very vacillating one. In this sense, Narayan’s

hero in this novel suffers, while attaining his goal, because he

believes that money is everything.

Margayya tells his wife:

11 Pramod Kumar. Five Contemporary Indian Novelists, Jaipur: Book Enclave, 2001,

p.84.

12 Jayant K. Biswal. A Critical Study o f the Novels o f R. K. Narayan: The Malgudi

Comedy, N ew Delhi: Nirmal Publishers & Distributors, 1987, p.88.

90

E ven y o u w ill learn to b eh ave w ith m e w h en I h a v e m o n e y 13

The narrator tells us:

A s he w en t through the tow n that day he w as o b se sse d w ith thoughts

o f m o n ey . H is m ind rang w ith the w ords he had said to the v illagers: ‘ I

am o n ly trying to help you to get out o f your m o n ey w orries.' H e

b egan to b e lie v e to it h im s e lf ’ (FE . 27 ).

It is very remarkable to note that when the priest o f the temple tells

Margayya to drink a tumbler o f milk, he replies:

1 d o n ’t lik e m ilk . . . I have n ever liked it (F E , 35 ).

The priest turns angry and informs Margayya:

M ilk is on e o f the form s o f G od d ess L akshm i, the G o d d ess o f W ealth .

W hen y o u reject it or treat it ind ifferen tly , it m ean s you reject her. She

is a G o d d ess w h o a lw a y s stays on her to es all the tim e, ev er ready to

turn and run aw ay . T here are w a y s o f w o o in g and k eep in g h e r ... (FE,

3 5 ).

Soon, “he reverently touched the tumbler and very

respectfully drank the milk, taking care not to spill even a drop”

(FE, 35). Now tells the priest:

I w ant to acquire w ealth . C an you sh o w m e a w ay? 1 w ill do an yth in g

y o u su g g e st (F E , 36).

13 R.K. Narayan. The Financial Expert, Chennai: Indian Thought Publication, 2008,

p.22.A l l subsequent references, given in parenthesis (as FE), are from this

edition unless otherwise stated.

91

Margayya no doubt acquires money, riches, and wealth

through the good offices o f Dr Pal, the author o f Domestic

Harmony, but paradoxically enough, it brings domestic disharmony

into his household. It creates a cleavage between father and his son,

between the wife and the husband, between the se lf and society.

In The Vendor o f Sweets, we come across Jagan whose only

son Mali calls his Lacanian Other. He wants his son to rise in his

life up and come to his expectations but Mali in turn is greatly

fascinated by American affluence and culture. He searches for his

own lost ‘Other’ in that country and culture, creating more

problems for Jagan by bringing from America a young woman

about whom Jagan has innumerable doubts. He introduces her to

his father thus:

T h is is G race. W e are m arried. G race, m y d a d 14

This brief introduction creates complete confusion in Jagan’s

mind. His uncertainty becomes more acute when Mali tells him

that he is interested in creating a story-writing machine, which

requires large capital, about fifty thousand dollars. Jagan says:

F ifty th ou san d dollars! W hatever its eq u iv a len t m igh t be, it w as a

sta g g er in g sum . I am a poor m an (T V S , 89).

14 R.K. Narayan. The Vendor o f Sweets, Chennai: Indian Thought Publication, 2004,

p. 58. A ll subsequent references, given in parenthesis (as T V S ) are from this

edition unless otherwise stated.

92

Jagan is entrapped in ‘a crisis’15 as he is fully conscious of

his efforts o f accumulating his wealth laboriously. Though Jagan is

aghast yet he helps his son in raising his position and status in the

society. Soon, he agrees and the reconciliation o f the scene

overwhelms him. However, his mental picture of him self -

standing like a ragged petitioner in presence o f Mali and the girl,

being sneered at for his business o f a lifetime, a business that had

provided the money for Mali to fly to America and do all sorts of

things there - itself justifies the existence o f the Lacanian ‘ Other’

in Jagan’s psyche that oscillates him between ‘action’ and

‘inaction’ or dream and reality.

In The Painter o f Signs, Raman, the hero, ‘is determined to

establish the Age o f Reason in the world.’16 His idealism sounds

Utopian . . . ’17 He declares his faith, saying:

I w an t a rational exp lan ation for e v e r y th in g ...O th e r w ise m y m ind

refu ses to accep t any s ta tem en t...I am a ration alist, and I don't do

18a n yth in g u n less 1 see so m e lo g ic in it .

15 Haydn Moore W illiam s. G alaxy o f Indian W ritings in E nglish, Delhi: Akshat

Publications, 1987,p.57.

16 R.K. Narayan. The P ainter o f Signs, Madras: Indian Thought Publication, 1993,

p.5. A l l subsequent references, given in parenthesis (as PS) are from this

edition unless otherwise stated.

17 Ranga Rao. M akers o f Indian Literature: R. K. Narayan, New Delhi: Sahitya

Akadem i, 2004, p.89.

93

A critical analysis o f the context in which these

assertions are made reveals that logic is not a monolithic

entity but a flexible tool that serves any number o f minds to

establish the rationality o f their schemes and plans and gain

their identity or ego}9 The lawyer who orders a signboard

wants Raman to employ slanting letters in writing the

signboard but Raman tells him:

S lan tin g letters are su itab le on ly for o il-m erch a n ts and so a p -se llers

(P S , 5).

He also adds:

T he letters on a law yer's board m ust a lw a y s stand up proudly (P S . 5).

He thinks that logic justifies his assertion and consequently it

takes him more time to realize it. He passes through a number of

dramatic situations before realizing the significance o f reality in his

routine life. Like Margayya's world, Raman's world is that o f hotel

managers, businessmen, bangle sellers, lawyers, doctors, and

others, whose minds are always preoccupied with cash. He too like

18 See, R . K. Narayan. The Painter o f Signs .Mysore: Indian Thought Publication,

1993. p.5. A l l subsequent references, given in parenthesis(as PS), are from

this edition unless otherwise stated.

19 See, Jacques Lacan. The Four Fundamentals Concepts o f Psychoanalysis, Jacques

- A lla in M ille r (ed), trans. A llan Sheridan, England: Penguin Books, 1994.

94

Margayya is searching for his “lost Other” or “S e lf’ and prostrates

before the image o f the goddess mumbling:

M ay D a isy b e m in e w ith ou t further delay? 1 can't liv e w ith ou t her (P S ,

77).

Raman’s Other is Daisy as it is obvious from his travel to

Malgudi in a bullock cart with her. The cart man thinks that they

are wife and husband but while Raman keeps quiet, Daisy says:

M ak e n o m istak e. W e are not m arried (P S , 99 ).

When they meet again, Daisy tells him that she comes from

a joint family where the household is like a hostel, consisting of

innumerable children and adults. When a prospective bridegroom

came to see her, she refused to appear before him. Though she

yielded to the pressures o f her family, she behaved in an erratic

fashion before the groom. When the members o f her family

scolded her for her behaviour, she escaped from the village in order

to search for her own recognition, identity or ego.

In the novel, The Painter o f Signs, we also come to know

about Raman’s experiences ‘to paint a signboard’ and his efforts to

find an “Objective - Correlative” for self-realization through the

process o f naming seldom find their appropriate objective correla­

tives. We have seen that sometimes illusion may take the form o f a

staple object for which there may be a signboard but signboards are

95

not significatory o f what is real. What is real is not easy to define

onor explicate; it is boardless.

Just as to Daisy spreading the message o f family planning

among people who are indifferent to it, is a means and not an end

in itself, to Rosie dancing is only a means to achieve the poise of

the self. However,, unlike Rosie, Daisy is a descent on Malgudi and

she searches her ‘lost Other’ in a life which believes ‘in the

21principle o f forget-and-forgive’ . She wants to serve the poor and

illiterate people which allow her to give priority to ‘work’ over

‘hom e’22: “A home, in Daisy’s view is only a retreat from sun and

rain and for sleeping, washing, and depositing one’s trunk” (PS,

167). Daisy believes that ‘her individuality’ is ‘lost in the mass

existence’23; she in no way wants to limit her freedom and advises

Raman “to let her seek life’s pattern as she likes” (PS, 156). She

confesses:

M arried life is not for m e. I have th ought it over. It fr igh ten s m e. I am

not cut for the life . . . It w o n ’t w ork (P S , 1 7 8 -1 7 9 ).

20See, Dany Nobus. Jacques Lacan and the Freudian P ractice o f P sychoanalysis ,

London: Routledge. 2000, pp.92.

21 Neeraj Kumar. Women in the Novels o f R. K. N arayan , Delhi: Indian Publishers'

Distributors, 2004, p. 121.

22 Ibid.

n Ibid, pp. 121-122.

96

Daisy is undoubtedly an unusual girl who informs Raman

that she did not choose the ordinary satisfactions o f life and

resented the great psychological demands made on her as daughter.

She ran away at thirteen, as she was wiser, maturer than her own

poor mother who was the usual humble cog in the wheels o f family

life.

We find Daisy’s ‘ego’ gaining ground in ‘bridal inspection

scene’ when the thirteen-year-old girl, who hated so much common

living, yearned for privacy and individuality amidst a mass

existence, is called aside and asked to prepare herself for inspection

,by a prospective groom and his parents. She feels her

“individuality was lost” (PS, 130) and reacts sharply saying:

I f it is not d on e, it is better that so m eo n e starts d o in g it n o w '. W hat is

the m atter w ith you , m y dear, w h y do you w ant to sp o il your ch an ce o f

se ttlin g d ow n in life? 1 had to exp la in that I w o u ld lik e to w ork , rather

than be a w ife" (P S , 130).

Though her parents get angry, her uncle persuades her to go

through the ceremony o f being viewed and assessed. Daisy’s own

words give a description of the scene:

T h ey d eck ed m e in all the jew e lry p ie c e s borrow ed from m y sister-in -

la w in the h o u se , d iam ond and go ld all o v er m y ears, n eck , n o se and

w rist and c lad m e in a h eavy sari crack lin g w ith go ld lace. I felt

su ffo ca ted w ith all that s tu ff over m e. I fe lt s ick and fe lt that I w as

lo o s in g m y identity . I hated the w h o le scen e . I w as se ized w ith a

97

fe e lin g that I w a s in a w rong w orld , and that I w as a stranger in their

m idst. I sa w m y m other's face b eam in g w ith sa tisfa c tio n and I w as

irritated at her s im p lic ity . A lth ou gh I w a s on ly th irteen, I had m y ow n

n o tio n s o f w h at w a s g o o d for lo o k into the m irror m y se lf . A nd then

th ey sea ted m e lik e a d o ll, and I had to w ait for the arrival o f the

em in en t p erso n a g e w ith h is p a ren ts ... (P S . 131).

Daisy does not succumb to traditional practice and, unlike

other heroines, refuses to yield societal pressure. She emerges as a

trendsetter and acts courageously by taking her life in her own

hands confronting reality. She does not act as a coy young girl

inspects rather than be inspected:

T h ey all lo o k ed a little shaken at the very sty le o f m y w alk . H is father

seem ed so taken aback he ceased to speak o f h is son 's a ch iev em en ts ,

m y m oth er sa id , 'M ake your o b e isa n ce , prostrate y o u r se lf on the

ground.' I sh ook m y head. 1 have a lw a y s hated the n o tion o f on e hum an

b e in g prostrating at the feet o f another (P S , 132).

She believes in the independence of the ‘se lf , the spirit or

the ego. She considers love as a voluntary action, not an act o f

necessity and the ceremony ends on a note o f anti-climax:

B efo re I co u ld do further dam age, they h u stled m e back to an inner

room and a hundred e y e s sco w led at m e. I th ou gh t they'd all strangle

m e. B ut th ey left m e a lon e. For days no on e sp o k e to m e, I had brought

d isgrace on the fam ily by m y u n seem ly b eh av iou r.... It w a s g o in g to be

d ifficu lt to find a bridegroom for m e any m ore or for the other girls in

the fa m ily as w e ll. I had dam aged the fam ily reputation (P S , 133).

98

Daisy emerges as an image o f social revolt. “She fights,

manages, endures but never sulks”" '. Her revolt and reaction

against convention, tradition and society is in fact a proper instance

o f Lacanian Imaginary where a subject searches for the different

lost roles and aspirations. The strength o f her own “se lf’ or “ego”

enables her to determine her own method o f revolt. She does not

hesitate to use self-protective dissimulation and cunning to get

along making use o f her strengths in a male dominated world. Soon

we see her climbing on to a tamarind tree quietly at night to escape

in search o f an independent world. Even when she decides to marry

she puts forward the following conditions:

O ne, that th ey sh ou ld have no ch ildren and tw o , i f by m isch a n ce , one

w a s born, sh e w o u ld g iv e the ch ild aw ay and k eep h e r se lf free to

pursue her so c ia l w ork. Ram an w as not to ob ject or m o d ify th is in any

m anner. S h e ex p la in ed , lo n g ago I broke a w ay from the routine o f a

w om an 's life . T here are m illio n s o f w o m en w h o go through it happily .

I am not on e o f them . I have planned for m y s e lf a d ifferen t kind o f life .

I h a v e a w e ll-d e f in e d purpose from w h ich I w ill not sw erv e . I g a v e m y

w ord to the R everen d that I w o u ld not ch a n g e m y id eas I f y o u w ant to

m arry m e, yo u m ust leave m e to m y o w n p lan s e v e n w h en I am a w ife .

O n any d ay y o u q u estion w h y or h o w , I w ill le a v e you . It w ill be an

unhappy th in g for m e, but I w ill leave y o u . . .(P S , 158 - 159).

Daisy does not succumb to love, that curious combination of

passion, romance, custom and convenience but struggles to earn

24 Ibid, p. 124.

99

autonomy and attain her goals in life. In her R. K. Narayan goes to

the farthest to delineate with the idea o f the S e lf the ego, an

important component o f Lacanian imaginary. He artistically

presents the dilemma o f a modem woman who doesn’t accept the

tradition, convention and stringent society notions but search for

her lost ‘Other or ego' ̂

It is important to state that R. K. Narayan at times appears

purely like a practicing psychoanalyst while dealing with the

different egoistic problems of his characters especially women. He

probes deep into their psyche and everyday incidents only to

expose the societal restrictions or conventions that harm, and

restrict the aspirations, freedom, and Lacanian ‘Other’ o f these

characters. These features prominently become evident in The

Dark Room , where Narayan portrays helpless sufferings o f a

woman having small loveable children. Savitri has hardly had taste

of freedom as a housewife because she is fully immersed in the

darkness o f the cheerless routine o f her life. In the eyes o f her

25 See, Shantha Krishnaswamy. The Woman in Indian F iction in English (1950 - 80),

New Delhi: Ashish Publishing House. 2001, pp. 83 159; D r Pramod Kumar

Singh. Five C ontem porary Indian N ovelists, Jaipur: Book Enclave, 2001, pp.

79 - 118; Neeraj Kumar. Women in the N ovels o f R. K. N arayan , Delhi:

Indian Publishers’ Distributors, 2004 and R. Bhagwan Singh. C yber

Literature: A Bi-annual Journal o f English Studies, Vo l. X V & X V I, NO. I

& II (Jan-Dee.2005), pp.53 - 74 & 89 - 1 13.

100

husband, she counts for nothing, and is not even able to prevent her

sick son from being sent to his school for a day:

H o w im portant sh e w as. she thought: she had not the s lig h test p ow er to

d o an yth in g at h om e, and that after fifteen years o f m arried life .26

She feels that she is in no way important. In fact, it appears

that Savitri has nothing else to do but to attend to the “miserable

business for the stomach” throughout the day. She according to

H.M. Williams is a “Woman o f strong and deep characters”27. Her

desires and potentialities remain unexpressed in the beginning but

ironically enough she expresses her resentment by sulking in a dark

room for a day or two, doing nothing and communicating with

none. This is actually the rumbling o f a more active revolt that

bursts with the appearance o f Shanta Bai on the scene and the signs

o f his sexual attraction towards her. She shows terrific force as a

woman as is clear from her liberating her hands (when he tried to

hold her) saying: “I am a human being,” she said, through her

heavy breathing:

26 R.K. Narayan. The Dark Room, Chennai: Indian Thought Publication, 2004, p.5.A ll

subsequent references, given in parenthesis (as DR) are from this edition

unless otherwise stated.

27 Haydon Moore. “W illiam s Studies in Modern Indian Fiction in English”, Vo l. 1.

Calcutta: W rite r's Workshop, 1973.

101

Y o u m en w ill n ever grant that. For you w e are p la y th in g s w h en you

fee l lik e h u g g in g and s la v e at other tim es. D on't th ink that you can

fo n d le us w h en you like and kick us w h en you c h o o se (D R , 85).

She is determined not to stay any longer in his house, nor

take with her anything which is not strictly her own, not even what

her father had given her for “they are also a man's gift” (DR, 88).

She feels that nothing is hers and virtually even her children are her

husband’s and not her own. She believes that women don’t possess

anything in the world:

W hat p o sse s s io n can a w om an call her o w n . . . that sh e has is her

fath er’s, h u sb an d 's or her so n 's . (D R . 88).

Her ego gets repeatedly hurt in the novel and she says:

“Didn’t I say that woman owns nothing” (DR, 88). She reacts and

revolts in order to assert her individuality. She goes to the extent o f

saying: “ I ’m a human being ... You men will never grant that. For

we are playthings when you feel like hugging...” (DR, 85). Soon,

we find her fed up with the environment around her and she

realizes that the main cause of women’s miserable plight is fear -

“fear, from the cradle to the funeral pyre .. .afraid o f one’s father ...

one’s husband, children and neighbours in later life” (DR, 91) -

which they have to forgo in order to uplift themselves and gain

identities which are otherwise deeply etched upon their souls.

102

Instead o f trying to live independently and earn the Lacanian lost

Other or ego , Savitri tries to commit suicide, but is saved by a

kind-hearted locksmith Mari whose wife Ponni, a foil to Savitri in

her dominant attitude towards her husband, persuades, almost

forces, Savitri to live with them. Then begins the second phase of

Savitri's life— her. effort to live independently away from her

husband and children. With the same dignity and self-respect

which had made her leave her husband, she refuses to live on

charity o f any kind, preferring to it the humble work o f cleaning a

temple on nominal wages. It shows her becoming a victim of

Lacanian Other, an independent life, which makes her happy. She

says:

T h is is n o b o d y ’s rice, m y ow n ; and I am not o b lig e d to an yon e for this.

T h is is n o b o d y ’s charity. She fe lt trium phant . . . sen se o f v ictory (D R ,

142 - 143).

Ultimately, as the novel reveals, Savitri discovers that three

facts about herself that she is too weak to stand by herself: “I am

like a bamboo pole which cannot stand without a wall to support it”

(DR, 146); that she feels homesick, pining for the comfortable life

o f her home: “When she shut the door and put out the lights, how

comfortable in bed she felt and how well one could sleep! Not this

103

terrible sleep” (DR, 146); and that she is worried about her children

whom she cannot cease to love.

H. M. William comments:

Savitri g e ts over her petu lan ce and fin d s that sh e can n ot ea s ily abandon

her o b lig a tio n s , h o w ev er , o d io u s her husband's behavior. T he c la im s o f

her ch ild ren , the n ecess ity to preside o v er the h o u seh o ld — these*) o

d u ties are m ore im portant than the assertion o f ind iv id u al pride" .

All this compels Savitri to return back and plunge into her

old routine. Though different forces pull her in opposite directions,

she continues living with her husband in spite o f realizing that her

marriage has failed. She does not call into her house the locksmith

Mari who had saved her life and had been o f so much help to her.

She also does not go to open the gate for her husband as she used

to do earlier. It is only for the love o f her small children, dependent

on her, and also perhaps for the unconscious impact o f the

traditional culture that she stays in her husband's house. But for

how long? Ramani is not likely to change and, as the children grow

and become independent, Savitri's desire to lead a life away from

her adulterous husband again becomes prominent. In the

concluding lines o f the novel, R.K. Narayan, with his character­

28 See, Haydon Moore W illiam s. “R. K.. Narayan: The Saga o f M algud i” , Studies in

Modern Indian Fiction in English, Vo l. 1, Calcutta: W rite r’s Workshop,

1973.

104

istics understatement, suggests that Savitri is not to be identified

with her home in which she feels that nothing belongs to her, and

even after she has allowed Mari to pass the street without calling

him to express her obligation to him, the pain o f it lingers on:

Sh e sat by the w in d o w , haunted by h is sh in in g hungry fa ce lo n g after

he w a s g o n e , and by h is “ L ock s repaired ,” lo n g after h is cry had faded

out in the d istan ce (D R , 162).

This ending o f the novel may perhaps have a sequel entirely

different. Savitri had returned to fulfil her obligations towards her

small children. But in the conceivable future when they are grown

up and settled, the members o f Savitri's resentment might

consciously break into another revolt and then she might think of

leaving her husband for good, or, if it is not possible, might think

o f suicide. Critics dub Savitri as a weak entity, an object o f pity

who is in search o f Lacanian Other or lost ego or identity and thus

is caught in the imaginary realm where she is not able to take a

definite stand.

It is important to mention here that R. K. Narayan remarks in

My D ays:

I w a s so m e h o w o b sessed w ith a p h ilo so p h y o f a w o m a n as o p p o sed to

m an, her con stan t oppressor. T his m ust h ave b een an early testam en t o f

w o m e n ’s lib m o v em en t. M an assig n ed her a secon d ary p la ce and kept

her there w ith such subtlety and cu n n in g that sh e h e r se lf b egan to lo se

105

all n o tio n o f her in d ep en d en ce, her in d iv id u a lity , stature and strength.

A w ife in orth od ox m ilieu o f Indian so c ie ty w a s a v ic tim o f such

29c ircu m sta n ces.

In The Guide, the most popular o f Narayan’s novels, the

Lacanian Imaginary is obvious at the outset when Marco ignores

the Lacanian Other o f his young and beautiful wife and forces her

to lead her own life, search for her lost Other and gradually fall in

love with her only companion, Raju, ‘a romantic’' . She realizes

her lost Other in Raju from whom ‘she receives’ all that, ‘what she

does not receive from M arco’31. In fact, it is Marco him self who

prompts Rosie to lead a life o f uninhibited self-assertion, in which,

with the help o f Raju, she becomes a professional dancer earning

huge wealth, most o f which Raju largely appropriates. The novelist

makes her both a lover o f Raju and one having a deep love and a

soft comer for her husband Marco, the awareness o f which leads to

Raju's deception and to ultimate imprisonment. Rosie's dilemma is

best expressed in her spending money for fighting Raju's case and

in her desire to enter into a joint suicide pact with Raju, though not

sure that he would keep his part o f the pact:

29 R. K. Narayan. My D ays, New Delhi: Orient Paperbacks, 1986, p. 1 19.

30 K. R. S. Iyengar: Indian Writing in English, N ew Delhi: Sterling, 1984, p.378.

31 Gajendra Kumar. Indian English Literature: A New Perspective . N ew Delhi: Sarup

& Sons, 2001, p.28.

106

W e co u ld sit and talk on e n ight, and sip our g la ss o f m ilk , and m ay be

w e sh o u ld a w a k e in a troub le-free w orld . I’d p ro p o se it th is very

m in u te i f I w ere sure y o u w ou ld k eep the pact, but I fear that I m ay goit

ahead and y o u m ay ch an ge your m in d at the last secon d .

After Raju's imprisonment, Rosie left to herself, undergoes a

process o f self-discovery, realizing the hidden facets o f her

personality and becoming a famous dancer in her own right. Raju

comments: “Neither Marco nor 1 had any place in her life, which

had its own sustaining vitality and which she had underestimated

all along” (TG, 223). Her freedom enables her to win her ‘se lf or

even ‘ego \ In fact, her intimacy and freedom irritates Raju’s

mother who leaves him to his fate. Living like a married couple to

all appearances, we understand that Rosie gains her ‘lost Other’ in

Raju, the Railway guide, who does everything for giving

recognition to Rosie’s demands. It is undoubtedly ‘Raju’s

obsession with the dancing girl’33 which enables Raju to remain

caught in Lacanian imaginary and the search for ‘Other’. He

forgets everything in order to make Rosie realise that he is her lost

‘Other’ - a replacement for her husband. She asks him point blank:

12 R.K. Narayan. The Guide, Chennai: Indian Thought Publication, 2004, pp.220 -

221.A l l subsequent references, given in parenthesis (as TG ) are from this

edition unless otherwise stated.

■V! Haydn Moore W illiam s. Galaxy o f Indian Writings in English, Delhi: Akshat

Publications, 1987, p.63.

107

“Can you show me a cobra — a king cobra it must be - which can

dance to the music o f a flute?” (TG, 64). He replied: “I can show

you a cobra ...She looked delighted”(TG, 66). Soon Raju took her

to the man who had a king cobra and he got ready to show Rosie

the Cobra dance. Here, Raju confesses that

The whole thing repelled me. but it seemed to fascinate the girl. She

watched it swaying with the raptest attention. She stretched out her arm

slightly and swayed it in imitation o f the movement; she swayed her

whole body to rhythm - for just a second, but that was sufficient to tell

me what she was. the greatest dancer o f the century(TG, 68).

After sometime she wanted to know from Raju:

Are you also like him ...D o you also hate to see me dance? (TG, 121)

Raju replied:

Not at all. What makes you think so? (TG, 121)

She further says:

At one time you spoke like a big lover o f art, but now you never give it

a thought. ... It was true. 1 said something in excuse, clasped her hands

in mine, and swore earnestly, ‘I will do anything for you. I will give

my life to see you dance. Tell me what to do. I will do it for you' (TG,

121- 122).

Raju acted wisely because he had seen Rosie imitating the

cobra dance and for Raju, “that was sufficient to tell me what she

was, the greatest dancer o f the century”(TG, 68). She ‘craves dance

108

and longs to express herself through dancing’' . Her husband

makes it clear to Rosie: “Don’t expect me to go with you. I can’t

stand the sight o f a snake; your interests are morbid” (TG, 64). But

far from encouragement, Marco compels her to give up dancing for

a respectable life. This way she suffers from a bruised inward life

and becomes a pure victim of her husband’s indifference, suffering

psychologically from mental anguish. Raju understands this fully

and enables Rosie to reach the heights o f her career. With his

assistance and concern, her life becomes meaningful. We find that

her fascinating dance performances turn her soon into celebrity and

she basks in the glory o f popularity’35. He makes her to dance and

thus realise her long cherished goal and lost Other. This fixes him

tightly to Rosie who too in return continues firmly with Raju, her

own Other (o f Lacanian brand) and acquires long cherished

recognition or status in the society. Thus, ‘Rosie successfully

wriggles out o f her psychological trauma, attains her cherished

ambition o f becoming an accomplished dancer, ending up

triumphant’36.

34 S. Raja Lakshmi. “Self-discovery, Growth & Attainment: The Rising Graph of

R osie in R. K. Narayan's The G u id e ”, Indian W riting in English, Mohit K.

Ray (ed). N ew Delhi: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors, 2003, p.28.

15Ibid.

ybIhid, p.29.

109

From the above analysis, it becomes clear that, like Raman

in The Painter o f Signs, Raju is a poor guide o f his se lf ‘the

archetypal drive o f realizing the true nature o f s e l f1'1. As the fame

and name o f Rosie spread far and wide, and her talent finds good

market, Raju feels that he has acquired some status in society.

Apart from this illusion he entertains, he says, “I resented anyone’s

wanting to make a direct approach to her. She was my property.

This idea was beginning to take root in my mind” (TG, 189).

Coupled with this passion to possess everything, he seems to

suffer from an inexplicable over-confidence in his capacity to

guide others. Raju wonders why she calls herself Rosie, as she is

not a foreigner but an Indian in Indian dress. Raju has enough

shrewdness to tickle her vanity by saying that as an orthodox

dancer, she fosters the Indian cultural tradition. Not only does he

assess the weakness in Rosie's character but sees through the

vulnerable personality o f her husband, whom he calls Marco,

without bothering to know his name. He says:

...This girl herself was a dreamer if ever there was one. She would

have greatly benefited by a husband who could care for her career; it

was here that a handy man like me proved invaluable. 1 nearly gave up

nearly all my routine jobs in order to be o f service to them (TG, 113).

37 Ashok Kumar Jha. R K Narayan: Myths an d A rchetypes in His N ovels, Delhi:

B.R .Publising Corporation, 2000, p. 124.

110

The above passage reveals Raju’s preoccupations. He is

searching for his other in Rosie, who becomes his sole professional

activity:

The only reality in my life and consciousness was Rosie. All my

mental powers were now turned to keep her within my reach, and keep

her smiling all the time (TG, 118).

However, he finds it difficult to understand the girl: “She

allowed me to make love to her, o f course, but she was also

beginning to show excessive consideration for her husband on the

hill. In the midst she would suddenly free herself and say, T ell

Gaffur to bring the car. I want to go and see him” (TG, 119).

Though at various stages Rosie narrates her story to Raju, this

helps her clarify to the se lf what it is and what it seeks. She realizes

that acquiring name, fame, and wealth as an artist is not an end in

itself; the se lf has not only aspirations but duties as well. It is in the

process o f actualizing her aspirations as an artist that she discovers

her obligations and duties. Raju helps her master the illusion, and,

in the course o f mastering it, discover the se lf Raju himself

discovers the se lf by passing through the illusion that he is serving

in the first instance a family and in the last instance society at large.

According to G.S. Aamur:

The Guide is an embodiment o f both the forms o f affirmation - self-o

recovery and self-transcendence in a single fictional movement .

Both Raju and Rosie are evident victims o f Lacanian Other

and pre-eminently engrossed in the search for se lf other and

identity - the main components o f Lacanian Imaginary - in the

sense that the se lf has to pass through a process o f learning and

unlearning, and self-evaluation has its own pain and its own

sweetness and light. Like Savitri o f The Dark Room, Rosie too

realizes her ‘self after becoming independent and goes on to cast

o ff her old mantle o f a frustrated young girl just trying to find

herself, first through love and later through her art, and finally

carves out a career o f a highly celebrated dancer — completely cut

o ff from both Marco and Raju.

A Tiger fo r Malgudi explicates how ‘the tiger realizes that

the deep within him is not different from human beings’39. It

dramatizes the harmony that is possible and the self-awareness that

could be visualized when the human and the animal worlds are

viewed as a simultaneous order. In his introduction to the novel,

Narayan says:

38 G.S.Amur: “A Saint for M algudi”, Perspectives on Indian W riting in E nglish , M.

K. Naik (ed). N ew Delhi: Abhinav, 1985, p.50.

39 / bid.

1 12

Man in his smugness never imagines for a moment that other creatures

may also possess ego , values, outlook, and the ability to communicate,40though they may be incapable o f audible speech .

Exposing the limited vision or ‘sm ugness’, the novel

attempts to present a broader perspective by fusing together

fact and fiction. As a fictional character, the tiger makes his

consciousness so transparent that the reader not only sees the

working o f his consciousness, but also participates in the

working o f that consciousness. It is clear from the following

passage:

... I am different from the tiger next door... 1 lack only the

faculty o f speech... if you could read my thoughts, you would

be welcome to come in and listen to the story o f my life. At

least, you could slip your arm through the bars and touch me

and I will hold out my forepaw to greet you...I don't blame

you. I don't know why God has chosen to give us this fierce

make-up, the same God who has created the parrot, the

peacock, and the deer, which inspire poets and painters. 1

would not blame you for keeping your distance— I myself

shuddered at my own reflection on the still surface o f a pond

while crouching for a drink o f water, not when I was really a

wild beast, but after 1 came under the influence o f my Master

and learnt to question , “Who am I?” Don't laugh within

yourself to hear me speak thus. I'll tell you about my Master

presently” (TM, 11-12).

40 R.K. Narayan. A Tiger for Malgudi, Chennai: Indian Thought Publication, 2004,

pp. 7-8 .All subsequent references, given in parenthesis (as TM) are from this

edition unless otherwise stated.

Here, the se lf seems to converge on the second person.

He says: “I don’t blame you. 1 don’t know why God has

chosen to give us this fierce make up”(TM, 12). One can

notice a slight allegory in the predicament o f the tiger

because if the ‘se lf could see an image o f itself even without

experiencing the kind o f awakening that a master can

generate, the image might be as horrifying as the image of a

tiger. When the master intervenes and guides the se lf the

realizing automatically comes. The narrative voice remarks:

Every creature in the jungle trembled when it sensed my

approach. "Let them tremble and understand who is the Master,

Lord o f this world,' I thought with pride (TM, 13).

The word “Master” acquires significance as the

narrative creates a thematic base that steadily evolves into an

articulation of the voice of the Master. The weaker sections

o f the animals exhibit their humility before the tiger, crying:

Here comes our Lord and Master. Keep his path clear (TM,

14) or

Among our jungle community, we had an understanding, which

was an acknowledgement o f my superiority, unquestioned,

undisputed. My Master, when I mentioned it, explained that it

was also true o f human beings in various degrees and versions

(TM, 14).

114

These illustrations suggest that the jungle community

is not entirely different from the human community at the

sub-conscious level at least because even human beings

often claim like tiger:

There is nothing wrong in it. and advises me not to curb it— it being

also a part o f my own life, indispensable and unshakable although I

have come a long way from it (TM, 15).

Words like “explain,”' “read,” “advice,” and their analogues

that punctuate the narrative indicate the various ways in which a

Master can guide the se lf through the vicissitudes o f life. The

jungle and the world are given metaphoric orientation, in the sense

that they symbolize unobtrusively the various ordeals that the se lf

may face before it earns an awareness o f itself.

From the above analysis it is clear that according to Narayan

the se lf is ever fragile, ever changing, ever deconstructing and ever

elusive entity in the sense that in Indian perspective man can’t be

identified with a particular individual ‘identity ’, ‘se lf' or 'other'.

All these seem to be illusions, delusions and obstructions

constructed by society for restraining a human being from attaining

what he /she desires. Consequently, every human being attempts to

overcome these restrictions, the other in Lacanian terminology, in

order to attain freedom or identity. Be it a male like Jagon,

Margayya or Raju or female characters such as Rosie, Daisy or

Savitri, the only ambition of these characters is to resist the social

obstructions in whatever form they come. Some o f these characters

may appear initially successful in achieving their mission but most

o f them — go through a delusion where in they fail to distinguish

between ‘dream’ and ‘realty’ or ‘fact’ or ‘fiction’. In the process,

they face a dilemma wherein they are not able to decide between

either / or and even when they take a decision it remains a private

one, devoid o f objectivity, and authenticity. This going through

some kind o f private and either / or delusion is what Lacan calls the

imaginary.

116