178 | P a g e

Limning the Codes of Assertion: Interpreting the

Trajectory of Contestation and Self-creation in Dalip

Kaur Tiwana’s Peele Patian Di Dastan

(A Tale of Yellow Leaves).

Dr Niharika

Department of English, Guru Nanak Dev University, (India)

Abstract

This paper is an attempt to examine the new forms of femininity that are achieved through the dynamics of

power and resistance. The novel taken up for the study is Dalip Kaur Tiwana’s Peele Patian Di Dastan where

the protagonist Usha represents a new form of femininity as she exceeds the normative gendered realities and

thus asserts a strong counter-hegemonic approach towards the slanted gender hierarchies.Usha manifests a

desire to transcend limits―limits that are gendered, physical, aesthetic, sexual and moral. Thus, she desires to

extend, exceed, or go beyond the margins of acceptability or normal performance. She represents a departure or

defiance that facilitates a new kind of female subjectivity.

Key Words: Femininity, Power, Resistance, Gender, Counter- Hegemony, Subjectivity.

Peele Patian Di Dastan/The Tale of Yellow Leaves (1980) is a literary masterpiece by Dalip

Kaur Tiwana as it takes a fresh thematic position vis-à-vis the earlier literary corpus of the

novelist. This paper attempts to establish that the novel presents a new form of femininity by

way of cutting through the oblique and slanted spaces of gender construction/stratification,

institutionalized and class-conscious role performances coupled up with resistance-laden role

reversals, and conformity/resistance to the hegemonizing socio-cultural practices/inscribed

socialization etc. The attempt is to highlight that Usha, the protagonist, represents a new form

of femininity as she exceeds the (normative) gendered realities and thus asserts a strong

counter-hegemonic approach towards the slanted gender hierarchies. It is under this

conceptual frame that the analysis relies on the Gramscian and Foucauldian tools for the

purpose of understanding: 1) hegemonic gender forms; 2) counter-hegemonic desire to

179 | P a g e

question the gender naturalization and 3) strategies of resistance/counter-hegemony for

subverting the hegemonic space to carve and fashion a new subjectivity.

In other words, the protagonist attempts to reconfigure the (hegemonic) configuration

of gender practice by way of exceeding the limits of „emphasized femininity‟―a counterpart

or “…subordinated Other to hegemonic masculinity focused around an internalized

subordination and subjugation in relation to dominant masculinity” (Paechter 122).

Peele Patian Di Dastan contains the poignant story of a simple and sensitive village

girl Usha who is married to Bhagirath (PCS officer) at a tender age. Notably, Bhagirath is

suffering from tuberculosis and therefore he requires a simple and obedient girl to nurse him

in the best possible manner. On the other hand, Usha‟s parents take pride in marrying off

their daughter to a PCS officer because it signifies social elevation for the whole family.

Subsequently, the protagonist is usually maltreated by Bhagirath as she doesn‟t match his

educational superiority, professional prowess and the self-styled cognitive maturity. Having

been inscribed in the gendered framework, she performs a unique obedience and docility as a

wife, daughter and sister. As a consequence, she is subjected to a lot of suffering and

humiliation at the hands of her God-like husband. However, such naturalization proves to be

a short-lived phenomenon and therefore she asserts to reconceive her slanted predicament.

She gradually begins to carve a perceptual transformation towards her Otherization and thus

manifests a desire to subvert the essentialist and stereotypical conception of her gender. In

other words, she asserts to destabilize the slanted relationship between masculinity and

femininity and thus refuses to conform to the unjust relation of male dominance and female

subordination. She decides to break herself free from the circumcision of the normative space

and therefore she leaves Bhagirath‟s house. After her exit from his house, she completes her

B.A. and goes to Delhi for her post-graduation. It is in Delhi that she starts interpreting

everything in novel terms. It is here that she turns out to be a rebel and thus forms a radical

perspective towards her own self, parents, Bhagirath and society. Now, she decides to snap

her ties with her parents, brothers, Bhabhi (Jagjit) and Bhagirath. When her husband later

proposes for reconciliation and compromise, she makes a strong refusal to return back to her

previous gendered cage. It is here that she learns how to smoke, drink and dance (striptease).

It is under the spell of intoxication that Usha is also raped by Peter. Subsequently, she gives

180 | P a g e

up her studies and starts working as a receptionist in a hotel. She doesn‟t maintain any

contact with her family and doesn‟t even attend the funeral of her father. She is venomous

towards her mother and Bhabhi as they try to bring her back from Delhi and sends them back

insultingly. This is how she moves out of the coded structures and thus represents a new form

of femininity that “…valorizes assertiveness, individuality and achievement” (Paechter 122).

As a corollary, she subverts an imaginary gender mould that discourages a full understanding

of the gendered conditions of existence and the ways in which people are socially constituted

within them.

Delving deeper, Usha‟s traumatized existence becomes the pivotal point that enables

her to question and destabilize the gendered framework so as to assert her individuality.

Notably, women are effortlessly forced and inserted into patriarchies and thus gender is

“…itself a set of hegemonic forms and ideologies which influence how people identify and

behave” (Paechter 123). Here, the Gramscian conceptualization of hegemony holds

importance to understand the notion of such effortless insertion into the dominant/hegemonic

forms/practices. Hegemony refers to “…the ways in which dominant classes [gender] are

enabled to maintain their ascendency by convincing oppressed members of society

[subaltern] that the established order is in latter‟s interest” (Paechter 123). Understood thus,

the circumferential and inscribed gender boundaries infuse limitations upon women.

Challenging such boundaries is also wrought with the possibility of causing a seismic

disturbance to the crust of gender fabric that ensures a neat division between the genders.

Wetherell and Edley argue:

Hegemonic ideologies preserve, legitimize and naturalize the interests of the

powerful―marginalizing and subordinating the claims of other groups. Hegemony is

not automatic, however, but involves contest and constant struggle (336).

It is in this sense that gender embodies an insistent contest and interplay of power and

resistance. The continual jolts to one‟s self are likely to shape a wild and resistive

subjectivity. Therefore, the submissive femininity is potentially capable of assuming a

counter-hegemonic route to contest its Otherization. It is in this wider context that Usha opts

for a radical position and thus proves to be a violator in order to challenge and transgress the

assigned gender roles. Accordingly, she turns out to be transgressing individual who is most

181 | P a g e

ready to confront and subvert the natural order of things. To transgress “…is to go beyond the

bounds or limits set by a commandment or law or convention, it is to violate or infringe.

Transgression is a deeply reflexive act of denial and affirmation. Analytically, then,

transgression serves as an extremely sensitive vector in assessing the scope, direction and

compass of any social activity” (Jenks 2). It is in this context that Usha‟s transgression is also

deeply reflexive act and thus manifests denial, defiance and affirmation. Jenks argues that:

Transgressivebehavior therefore does not deny limits or boundaries; rather it exceeds

them and thus completes them. Every rule, limit, boundary or edge carries with it its

own fracture, penetration or impulse to disobey. The transgression is a component of

the rule. Seen in this way, excess isn‟t an abhorration or a luxury, it is rather a

dynamic force in cultural reproduction―it prevents stagnation by breaking the rule.

We need to recognize the edges in order to transcend them. (7)

Usha is the eldest daughter among the three siblings. Her father is a schoolmaster in a

government school. She is a brilliant student and excels in all co-curricular activities like

sports, debates, theatre etc. Her father, being a nice person, displays a positive temperament

and he doesn‟t discriminate between Usha and her two brothers. He always considers Usha to

be a fortunate child. As she completes her tenth standard, the family receives a marriage

proposal from Bhagirath. Notably, the marriage proposal signifies a (potential) socio-

economic elevation for Master MadanLal and his family. Therefore, Usha‟s reluctance for

marriage at such tender age is denied by Master MadanLal. He argues: “What is the fun of

doing B.A. as you are lucky enough to get a proposal from a PCS officer? Soon he would be

promoted to the post of D.C. and you, being his wife, would rule over the whole town. Please

cater to our needs too if need be, don‟t just shoo us away” (Tiwana, Peele PatianDi Dastan

11, emphasis added). The textual extract highlights that Usha‟s desire for higher education

encounters a firm denial at the prospect of climbing the socio-economic ladder by way of

getting married to a PCS officer. It may also be interpreted as a key to the fact of his

normative justification of subordinating Usha‟s desires. Seen thus, Master MadanLal also

ignores the fact of perceptible age gap between Bhagirath and Usha and hence exercises the

„law of the father‟ to ensure their marriage. It is apt to quote Beauvoir here: “In the

patriarchal regime, woman is the property of her father, who marries her off to suit himself.

182 | P a g e

Thereafter, she is no more than her husband‟s chattel and the chattel of the clan into which

she has been put” (89). Contextually, the father marries her off to Bhagirath―a decisive act

that signifies the loss of her innocence, aspirations and vitality. Notably, Master MadanLal‟s

decision foregrounds that the socio-economic and class trajectory pierces the mind-set of a

middle-class father. Simultaneously, it is adequately explicit that the protagonist doesn‟t

perform any role to choose or reject the proposal of her marriage. Rather, the decision is

taken by the father/family and is meant for her compliance only. Seen thus, the vivacious

Usha is made to tread on a difficult existential path that also signifies the loss of her desires

as a human being. Thus, Usha‟s gendered predicament “…comes to be associated not merely

with a set of bifurcated characteristics that have been deeply engrained but with an entire

universe that has been divided into separate but unequal spheres [masculinity and

femininity]” (Chancer and Watkins 19). In other words, the normative socialization and

gendered subjectivity deny Usha the right to choose her life partner and thus pave the way for

her consequent objectification by Bhagirath.

Bhagirath displays a very casual attitude towards his marriage. Thus, he affirms marriage as a

contract considering the fact that their marriage has been decided by authorities that speak in

the name of the normative order and not by two equal and self-conscious individuals.

Accordingly, it is quite difficult to find any substantial evidence from the text that

foregrounds his zest for marriage. The whole process appears to be quite mechanical and it is

self-evident from his cold behaviour on their wedding night also. The protagonist is soon able

to realize that she has been brought to the house to serve and nurse an ailing person only. She

happens to be another commodity in her husband‟s house and thus lacks the interpersonal and

inter-subjective significance. Under such circumstances, she desires to go back to her original

home through the narrow lane that finds its origin in the garden of her new abode. Now, she

projects her desire to return to her past where she used to exist as a free individual having

vibrant human desires. Although the new house diplomatically elevates Usha to the stature of

a Devi, she is denied the right to live as a self-conscious human being. Further, Bhagirath

doesn‟t just give her a new name but also desires an ideal reincarnation of the protagonist as a

self-effacing committed wife. Therefore, the protagonist is denied the right to exercise

existential autonomy/flexibility. It turns out to be a mundane relationship as it lacks the

183 | P a g e

marital warmth. In this sense, the Devi-Usha/Usha-Devi dialectics are set into motion in

order to objectify the protagonist vis-à-vis the hegemonic slants of the normative order. It is

worth highlighting that it is through the working of such dialectics that Tiwana explores the

emotional world of the protagonist, revealing a rare imaginative awareness of various deep

forces at work, coupled with a profound understanding of the dynamics of counter-

hegemonic resistance. Seen thus, Bhagirath and Usha may be perceived as two poles who

behave like binary opposites signifying a dialectical contestation.

She is even denied the right of having extremely simple human emotions. On asking to go to

the cinema, she receives a strong reprimand from Bhagirath. He says: “How can you think of

going to cinema when your husband is lying sick at home. Can you think of any such wife

twenty years ago? Today‟s women are no more women” (Tiwana, Peele PatianDi Dastan

16). Having been humiliated to the core, she silences her desiring self and thus doesn‟t

demand anything thereafter. Beauvoir writes: “Husband imposes his domestic divinities upon

her [wife]…because she owns nothing, woman does not enjoy the dignity of being a person;

she herself forms a part of the patrimony of a man: first of her father, then of her husband”

(87-88). It is in this sense that Usha is also enmeshed in her assigned role. Now, she invests

her whole energy to take care of Bhagirath‟s health to the extent that she doesn‟t dare tell him

about her own minor ailments, if any. Having been objectified to such an extent, she now

begins to do things in an unusual manner. She prefers to wash clothes herself despite the fact

that she is not required to do so. She takes bath for somewhat longer durations and sprinkles

the boiling water on her body incomprehensibly. Sinking deep down in her thoughts, she

cooks for Bhagirath despite the fact that she has a cook for the purpose. Such actions signify

her disturbed state(s) of mind. In other words, it is also a kind of (un) conscious identification

with the role of being a nurse/servant. Therefore, she tries her level best to approximate to

such a role in order to seek a temporal satisfaction. However, such self-inflicted

objectification is occasioned with the seeds of a formative resistance towards her

Otherization. Accordingly, such self-effacing compliance also contains the element of a

potential rebellion to disrupt the gender hierarchies in the narrative. Perspectivized thus, she

is perhaps stretching her compliant self to an extreme conformity that is equally delicate to

stand the test of innate human emotions and aspirations.

184 | P a g e

It is quite clear that Bhagirath also wants to freeze Usha‟s subjectivity. Hence, he doesn‟t

appreciate her laughter and thus desires to regulate it by passing certain strictures thereupon.

He says bitterly: “I don‟t like when you annoy me without reason…what has happened to

you? Go to your parents if you want to harass me like this” (Tiwana, Peele Patian Di Dastan

19, emphasis added). Notably, her laughter is construed as harassment by him. Consequently,

Usha‟s face loses its laughter and turns expressionless and thus she is objectified further.

Such existential erasure and objectification torment the protagonist and this is why she is

perturbed to the core. Perhaps, she resists the idea of internalizing such objectification and

thus she begins to nurture the idea of a counter-hegemonic denial. The embryonic resistance

is evident in her intense and interrogating gaze towards Bhagirath. Under such circumstances,

such denials give way to the formation of choice on her part and thus also stimulate the

protagonist to demystify the slanted hierarchies/corollaries of the lived/imagined gender.

Bhagirath (with a tacit support of Master MadanLal) isolates and objectifies her further on the

eve of Diwali. Master MadanLal visits her home to extend greetings on this auspicious

occasion. However, Bhagirath remains quite indifferent towards him during the visit. On the

contrary, the father is under the spell of elation as his son-in-law is a PCS officer. It is under

such a spell that he fails to read through Bhagirath‟s indifferent attitude towards him. In

addition, the father also overlooks his daughter‟s expressionless face, perturbed state of mind

and a peevish silence. Consider the following textual extract here: “Master MadanLal felt

jubilant. A big officer touched his feet! A big officer is his relative! Son-in-law!” (Tiwana,

Peele Patian Di Dastan 21, emphasis added). It is worth reiterating here that the father is

extremely satisfied to ensure the desired social elevation through this conjugal alliance.

Accordingly, he is glued to the idea that his son-in-law is a PCS officer. However, he fails to

see his own daughter as a human being as she is perceived as the wife of an officer only. It is

as if she is treated as a commodity that has been exchanged for the purpose of confirming a

social altitude only. It is in this larger context that the father fails to see her as a daughter and

thus remains impervious to the fact of her emotional needs. The attitude of her father is

noteworthy in the sense that if he is admired and respected by the people of his guild, it is

because of a simple fact that he happens to be the proud father-in-law of a PCS officer.

Therefore, all other things (including Usha) stand eclipsed in the wake of such circumstances.

185 | P a g e

On finding her reading the newspaper one fine day, Bhagirath doesn‟t miss the opportunity

and stings her by saying: “Now Mem Sahib has started imitating educated women. You are

reading a newspaper leaving all household chores?” (Tiwana, Peele PatianDi Dastan 25,

emphasis added). It is quite evident that it is through this poisonous remark that he makes a

comparison between the educated (Asha; his ex-girlfriend) and uneducated women (Usha).

He is also quite sure that the uneducated women like Usha are meant for the household

chores only. Hence, he doesn‟t tolerate the very idea of a newspaper in her hands. He desires

that the protagonist must remain true to her assigned role only. Therefore, any attempt to

transcend/transgress the prescribed role is treated as defiance and thus warrants humiliation

through a structured reprimand for the same reason. Bhagirath‟s reaction suggests that if

women are allowed to develop their intellectual abilities (through education) to the full, they

may start understanding their plight in a better manner. In this context, the normative order

detests such aspirations on the part of women. Accordingly, Bhagirath is quick to humiliate

her for the same reason. On the other hand, Usha‟s act also depicts her counter-aspiration to

resist against the normative mould. Thus, she manifests a strong desire to reject/subvert the

received notion of femininity. Notably, she begins to realize that everything that is disruptive,

chaotic and subversive is seen as female, in contrast to the restrictive, ordering and defining

obsessions of maleness. In this sense, she is able to figure out her own objectification and

marginalization at the hands of the hegemonic order. Her pervasive silence signifies an

inward resistance to the pressures of the hegemonic order. Elaborating further, her intense

silence and stolid subservience are potent indicators to suggest her potential rebellion against

the normative ideological structures that obstruct and obfuscate the flow of her individuality

as a (free) human being.

Furthermore, Usha is also denied a fundamental emotion of being a mother. Bhagirath, while

being under treatment, doesn‟t want Usha to bear a child and thus he ensures to get her

pregnancies aborted. On the other hand, Usha literally craves for a child. However, such

cravings are strongly denied by Bhagirath as he asks her: “Do you feel more attached to the

unborn than me?” (Tiwana, Peele Patian Di Dastan 35). He fails to understand her feelings

when she tries to argue: “When something dies in me, I feel that some part of my being dies

with it too” (Tiwana, Peele Patian Di Dastan 35). Such denial highlights that he is a callous

186 | P a g e

and self-centred man and he doesn‟t bother about Usha‟s desire to be a mother. Such attitude

is evident through his inhuman decisions to get her pregnancies aborted―an act that torments

Usha to the core. Notably, it isn‟t just an unfortunate diffusion of pregnancies; rather, it

signifies the diffusion of her subservient/coherent self. In other words, such diffusion paves

the way for her consequent rebellion against her Otherization and dehumanization at the

hands of Bhagirath.

As Bhagirath is recovering fast from the disease, the contestation becomes more penetrative

and intense. Contextually, he turns out to be more acidic towards the protagonist denoting a

simultaneous realization of physical well-being. In other words, he takes pride at the prospect

of becoming hale and hearty. So, he snubs her over extremely trivial things as well. However,

he is simultaneously aware that Usha is unhappy with him. He says: “Devi, your sarcastic

remarks confuse me. Your laughter is not the same. Do you have any problem here? There is

nobody to interfere. No financial burden, no dearth of food. But still you look sad and forlorn.

Why? (Tiwana, Peele Patian Di Dastan 55). As Usha still remains quiet, he blurts out again:

“I don‟t like inauspicious women who keep on mourning without any reason. If you need

anything tell me…you want to share anything? Why don‟t you remain happy? What is the

problem with you?” (Tiwana, Peele Patian Di Dastan 55, emphasis added). However, Usha

has just one single answer to all of his questions and she answers all of his questions by

saying that “I don‟t feel at home” (Tiwana, Peele Patian DiDastan 55). It is important to

reiterate that Bhagirath desires Usha to remain happy within the limits of her inscribed

reality. He doesn‟t want her to spread her wings and thus he desires to restrict/delimit her

subjectivity. Therefore, he attempts to camouflage his real intentions by saying: “Don‟t feel

at home? If you have to work here like a servant, you won‟t find time for these useless things.

If you don‟t feel like living here, go to your parents‟ home” (Tiwana, Peele Patian Di Dastan

55). Suggestively, he threatens to abandon her in case she fails to conform to the prescribed

mode of living in the house. As the things are not working out according to his slanted wish-

pattern, he is frustrated to throw Usha out of his house. Thus, he usually asks her to leave his

house and go to her parents‟ place.

Usha‟s trial and tribulations do not end here as Bhagirath goes on to dehumanize/objectify

her in every possible way. On one of such occasions, he doesn‟t come back from office and

187 | P a g e

doesn‟t even bother to intimate her about the same. Having been distressed to the core, she is

left to wonder about his whereabouts the whole night. Understandly, it turns out to be one of

the most unfortunate nights for the protagonist. Quite the opposite, the heavily drunk

Bhagirath returns home around three o‟clock in the morning and asserts again: “Why have

you not slept? The doctor has confirmed my well-being, that‟s the reason of today‟s

celebration. You should go to sleep Devi, you are a Devi, but I am not a Devta. Even Devtas

used to have fun and frolic. Why are you staring at me? Am I your father‟s slave? I can have

some important work to do. Will there be a calamity if I don‟t come? I will come late…I will

come all the more late” (Tiwana, Peele Patian Di Dastan 60, emphasis added). Such

declarations signify the contestory master-slave dialectic in the narrative. An important

philosopher Hegel is of the view that in order to prove oneself to the other, the self-

consciousness ought to encounter the other in terms of a life and death battle. Since both the

self and the other engage themselves in such a contest; they engage in a battle to death.

However, such a contest annihilates one out of the two and thus causes failure to one of the

self-consciousnesses. In the subsequent encounter, one warrior is likely to abandon the

struggle and recognize the dominance of the other that finally results in the master-slave

dialectic. It is under such a conceptual framework that Bhagirath holds the view that he is the

master in this dialectic and thus he wants to ensure that the protagonist must exist as a slave

only. However, he fails to interpret the dialectical nature of such a relationship and hence he

is unable to acknowledge the subtle resistance of Usha. Seen thus, he is also insensitive to the

potential counter-hegemonic implications that dominate Usha‟s consciousness at this juncture

of the narrative. Notably, his hegemonic excesses play a pivotal role to consolidate the

counter-hegemonic resistance on the part of the protagonist. It is in this context that she vents

out her counter-hegemonic tendencies by way of formulating subtle verbal repartees that

startle Bhagirath severely.

As a result, he gets more poisonous towards her and remains ever-conscious to find faults in

her. As she fails to wake up in time on the very next day, he starts shouting at his highest

pitch and blurts out: “I have never-ever seen my mother in my life sleeping after we all are

awake” (Tiwana, Peele Patian Di Dastan 62). It is a significant comment in the sense that it

is here that he starts comparing his version of an ideal woman (mother) and the protagonist.

188 | P a g e

In other words, he exhibits his slanted understanding that is embedded in the normative

socio-cultural framework only. Accordingly, he doesn‟t want to understand a simple fact that

she couldn‟t get up in time on account of a sleepless night. In this sense, the protagonist is not

allowed to submit to her physical limitations even. Therefore, she is expected to wake up in

time as per the defined/set rules that “…outline a tacit set of norms about what men and

women are entitled to and how they ought to behave” (Geetha 71).

As Usha is constantly moving out of the inscribed codes of behaviour, Bhagirath is extremely

frustrated with her. Now, he begins to perceive her as a potential subject. It posits a threat to

his own subjectivity as it raises the possibility that he may become an object to the

subjectivity of her consciousness. Therefore, he is acutely pained to see her as an evolving

consciousness considering the fact that he is also afraid of being subjected to his own

objectification by another subject (Usha). Understood thus, he is utterly confused and thus

yearns to escape the subtle questions and intriguing gaze of the protagonist. It is in this sense

an extremely complex contestation is discernible as the protagonist exercises the idea of

opposing femininity vis-à-vis the slanted demands of the hegemonic order.

Usha has been sick for a long time now. However, she is so lost in looking after her husband

that she doesn‟t bother about her own health. Concurrently, her deteriorating health is also

concordant to an ever-increasing frustration of her husband since he doesn‟t have any valid

concern for her (physical) well-being. Instead of taking her for detailed medical

investigations/treatment, he chooses to become more frustrated with her and usually finds

reasons to hurt her in myriad possible ways. It becomes explicit in the context of their

subject-object encounter/intersectionality. As she attempts to ask the reasons(s) of his

unfounded irritation and anger, he shouts: “Won‟t I be irritated to see your ugly face? Go and

look in the mirror how monstrous you look. What is the problem with you? See how other

ladies remain cheerful and happy” (Tiwana, Peele Patian Di Dastan 63, emphasis added).

Notably, he doesn‟t want to understand that such ugly and monstrous face is an outcome of a

selfless and commitment towards her husband. It is significant to observe here that

Bhagirath‟s view about her monstrous/ugly face reflects a kind of unease for identifying a

strong counter-hegemonic orientation on her part. It leads to his vilification of Usha for

defying the assigned gender role. As a corollary, such difference/deviation or rejection of the

189 | P a g e

normative schema is viewed as being inherently monstrous by Bhagirath. In addition, it is

somewhat absurd to desire a cheerful and happy face from an ailing individual. However, the

protagonist attempts to deny such objectification by engaging herself in the domestic chores

that are otherwise meant for Shibu (the servant). On the other hand, Bhagirath doesn‟t like

this even and thus hurls out his verbal assault in the following manner:

You are living the life of a rat, moving from one corner of the house to another and

yet another, and at most from one house to another…neither you know

housekeeping…nor you have dressing sense…you are a typical rustic”. (Tiwana,

Peele Patian Di Dastan 64, emphasis added)

It is extremely important that he equates Usha‟s life with the life of a rat. Such

analogy is indeed extremely derogatory in the sense that it denigrates her as a human being. It

is important to consider here that rat is also sometimes held responsible for spreading

diseases. Understood thus, Bhagirath‟s analogy also implies his apprehension that he may not

get infected from the ailing Usha. In this sense, Usha‟s presence is somewhat hazardous to

his own health. Consequently, he raises the bar of her objectification and he goes an extra

mile to humiliate Usha by all possible means so as to get rid of her. Therefore, he is quick to

find faults with her housekeeping skills, dressing sense, illiteracy and the rustic background.

He also prefers to forget that she hasn‟t given any time/space to have worldly knowledge or a

big social circle. Contextually, it is extremely harsh to hold Usha responsible for such

unfounded lapses on her part. He doesn‟t have any gratitude for what she has done to save his

life. J.S Mill talks about this in The Subjection of Women:

Women lag behind men in their rational development as a result of customary and

prejudicial manner in which they are raised. The environment and the education of

women should be altered in order to advance them to the educated men…if women in

general are brought up equally then they will be to understand business, public affairs

and the higher matters of speculation with men in the same class of society. (qtd. in

Islam 7)

The above-extract highlights that there exists a clear gender slant that defines femininity in

the reductionist terms. Understood thus, the hegemonic order constructs the idea of a

190 | P a g e

transcendent order that embodies itself on the premise of having a subject position over the

subaltern. As a result, the subaltern femininity is envisioned as passive recipients of the

excesses of the hegemonic order by way of contributing to the creation of certain standard

cultural practices. Significantly, Bhagirath becomes the mouth-piece of such gender

transcendence that manifests itself in terms of sustaining the (polarized) gender framework in

his favour.

Usha‟s traumatized existence becomes the pivotal point that enables her to question and

destabilize the normative framework so as to assert her individuality. She opts for a radical

position and thus proves to be a violator in order to challenge and transgress the assigned

gender roles. She turns out to be transgressing individual who is most ready to confront and

subvert the natural order of things. Accordingly, she highlights her subtle and straight

resistance against the heteronormativity of the gendered realities in the novel. Perspectivized

thus, Usha represents a new woman for being a tough resistive voice and displays a strong

agency to challenge and subvert the curved and inscribed gendered experience on the part of

a woman. It is in this sense that Usha transcends limits―limits that are gendered, physical,

aesthetic, sexual and moral. Thus, she extends, exceeds, or goes beyond the margins of

acceptability or normal performance. Thus, she subverts the received notion of femininity as

she realizes that everything that is disruptive, chaotic and subversive is seen as female, in

contrast to the restrictive, ordering and defining obsessions of maleness.

In this sense, she figures out her own objectification and marginalization at the hands of the

hegemonic order. Her intense silence and subversive perception carve her rebellion against

the normative ideological structures that obstruct and obfuscate the flow of her individuality

as a (free) human being. Usha performs her rebellious and subversive understanding of her

gender, relations and society at large. She displays a broadened outlook towards the ways of

the world and thus skilfully decodes the slanted hierarches of gender stratification. It is

defiance against the socio-cultural norms by cultivating an instinctual internal acceptance to

survive in this gender-slanted world. It is in this sense that she enunciates her rebellion

against the hegemonic power. Seen thus, it is a struggle for self-consciousness that has a

distinct humanistic vision. She questions the whole process of socialization that advocates a

certain set of norms and values for femininity. In other words, she resists and deconstructs the

191 | P a g e

gender bias as it subsequently transforms itself into gender oppression for the purpose of

abusing and subordinating women. In this sense, the protagonist creates her own existential

space and thus resists hegemony so as to attain an existential autonomy. She highlights that

gender can be performatively re-inscribed in ways that accentuate its constructedness rather

than its facticity. Seen thus, her agency signifies the opportunities for subverting the norm to

radical ends.

REFERENCES

1. Tiwana, Dalip Kaur. Peele Patian Di Dastan. Delhi: Arsee Publications, 1980. Print.

2. Chancer, Lynn S. and B.X. Watkins. Gender, Race and Class: An Overview. UK: Blackwell

Publishing, 2006. Print.

3. Geetha, V. Patriarchy. Kolkata: Stree-Samya Books, 2009. Print.

4. Islam, Merina. Feminisms: Conceptual and Ethical Issues. New Delhi: Mittal Publications, 2013. Print.

5. Jenks, Chris. Transgression. London: Routledge, 2003. Print.

6. Paechter, Carrie. “Rethinking the possibilities for hegemonic femininity: Exploring a Gramcian

Framework”. Women Studies International Forum. 68, 2018, p.p. 121–128. Print.

7. Wetherell, M., &Edley, N. (1999). “Negotiating hegemonic masculinity: Imaginary positions and

psycho-discursive practices”. Feminism and Psychology. Vol. 9:3, 1999, p.p. 335–356. Print.