Chosen book: The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy
“Estha and Rahel learned how history negotiates its terms and collects its dues from those who break its laws. They heard its sickening thud. They smelled its smell and never forgot it. History’s smell. Like old roses on a breeze. It would lurk forever in ordinary things. In coat hangers. Tomatoes. In the tar on roads. In certain colors. In the plates at a restaurant. In the absence of words. And the emptiness in eyes.” (p. 54)
In the first few chapters of The God of Small Things, Arundhati Roy lays out the bare fabric of the novel, exposing and tying together pieces of the foreshadowed aftermath through subtle free-indirect narration. The second chapter introduces the reader to the “History House,” a motif of historical alienation that manifests itself in Estha and Rahel’s past as the old abandoned house across the river. As the narrator reflects on the twins’ abrupt yet life-altering encounter with history on that house’s back verandah, the text describes history as a force that “negotiates its terms and collects its dues,” as a self-acting system that one can only examine from behind locked doors. However, unlike in other moments of the text, here “history” is uncapitalized. Here, Estha and Rahel experience and remember history as inextricably linked to the “ordinary things,” stripping it of its Bigness. A “sickening thud” and a scent “like old roses on a breeze” allude to the sound and smell of Velutha’s death, a casualty of a cruel caste system and an untold story—history’s half-truths. “The absence of words” encapsulates Estha’s traumatic sexual assault, its tragic occurrence a mere flap of wings in a system where one trivial move transforms an entire outcome—history’s butterfly effect. “The emptiness in eyes” expresses Rahel’s hollow optimism of believing her suffering will never compare to the vast swath of “Worse Things” that have happened across time, of never feeling big enough to matter—history’s apathetic exclusivity. As a synecdoche, the epigraph renders history as a dominating structure of laws entangled in the sensual lives of individuals, but also as a changing construct captured by individual experience. The epigraph illuminates the novel’s blurring dichotomy between the big and small, the political and the personal, the ostensible and the overlooked, as “ordinary things” capture far-reaching realities that form—and perhaps even define—a narrative as huge and ambiguous as history.
The epigraph and broader novel cast history as an independent, detached force that directs the actions of individuals who seem to be mere instruments through which history wields its control. On the back verandah, Estha and Rahel can only watch as some larger, predetermined order governs the fate of their Paravan friend Velutha with its “terms,” “dues,” and “laws.” To blame for his death, history was the oppressor, the inhibitor of agency, the institution against the individual. With all its “law” enforcement, History resembles a government—an authoritative one. The police who beat Velutha to death were “history’s henchmen…Impelled by feelings that were primal yet paradoxically wholly impersonal” (292). To have henchmen is to dictate; to impel is to control. The caste system, part of history, has inhibited humans’ innate ability to think for themselves. Every kick felt both “primal” and “impersonal,” reducing the policemen to actors with the impersonality of following a script, so engraved into consciousness that following it was automatic. Instilling nonchalance to the extent that performing murder was a mere act of “collecting the dues,” history assumes an overwhelming absence of concern for individual humanity swept along in history’s current or left behind on the shore. Chacko describes the effects of such impersonality as believing that “our sorrows will never be sad enough…Our lives never important enough. To matter” (52). In historical context, Chacko’s words point to Western colonizers’ repression of Indian lives, but also to Rahel’s “emptiness in eyes”: a manifestation of the “Worse Things have happened” mentality and an individual’s inability “to matter.” Marginalized historical perspectives become a part of “history’s smell” that renders individuals helpless, tortured by their supposed smallness and relative insignificance.
However, the history that “lurk[s] forever in ordinary things” does not suggest a history of comprehensive Bigness, but rather one that is vulnerably incomplete without the vividness of personal histories. Velutha’s murder will forever be viscerally etched into the twins’ history but lost to the current of broader History. The day before his death, when he crossed the river to the History House, Velutha “left no footprints in the sand, no ripples in water, no image in mirrors” (274). As the Big Thing that dominated Velutha’s life, the caste system erased his humanity with a single “Paravan” label, leaving him no legacy but the smell of “old roses on a breeze”—an invisible remnant of a sickly sweet death. Velutha’s story is a microcosm of India’s struggle to recover her cultural history and tell it in its entirety amid sweeping colonialism, a parallel to Indian families feeling “trapped outside their history and unable to retrace their steps because their footprints had been swept away” (51). These lost footprints are History’s lost stories, smaller histories concealed from public view, or distorted to fit a cleaner narrative. The homestead of lost individual and ancestral histories, the History House eventually gets painted over to become the “Heritage Hotel,” providing “toy histories for rich tourists to play in” (120). History is now a twisted narrative told by the privileged, beautified for better sales to an audience. The ugly historical truths, including Velutha’s death, are covered up and hidden behind a “tall wall to screen off the slum” (119). Despite the walls erected against history’s dirty underside, the “smell” of the tainted stories of forgotten individuals pervades, their presence in the form of silence lurking in a half-told historical narrative, lasting only in memory but existing nonetheless.
History’s lack of omniscience and truth reveals its susceptibility to unexpected human action, replaced by a reality where “ordinary things” hold more power than one realizes. History is the accumulation of expected performance by humans who follow a script, but it is also an outcome of willful human choice. In the novel, Velutha’s and Ammu’s love affair lies at the center of a historical shift, a collision between personal desires and history’s “Love Laws.” When Velutha and Ammu see each other for the first time, “centuries telescoped into one evanescent moment. History was wrong-footed, caught off guard” (167). One small glance sparks an event that sets ablaze a family’s fate, turns history upside down, and renders an entire system of social hierarchy at the hands of a man and woman who were once long-oppressed but are now possessors of astonishing agency. Their love affair is a revolutionary violation, an individual-instigated rewriting of history. Even when Velutha tries to hate Ammu, initially influenced by caste rules, he thinks of her “deep dimples,” and “Madness slunk in through a chink in History” (204). At that moment, he was not dependent on history to decide his fate—history became dependent on him. Once so stark, the divide between “History” and humans blurs as the love affair exemplifies how small self-made decisions determine historical outcomes. Velutha, the God of Small Things, remained faithful to the small things to the end. The affair’s only lasting remnant was Velutha’s spider, “Chappu Thamburan.” Together, Velutha and Ammu “linked their fates, their futures (their Love, their Madness, their Hope, their Infinnate Joy), to his” because “they knew that they had to put their faith in fragility” (321). Like the spider, these two offenders of history are frail, peripheral creatures with frail, peripheral fates. Yet there is hope that amid the bitterness and despair of the larger forces that overwhelm them, this tender moment, this marginally prominent matter of their own creation will prevail.
The God of Small Things does not strictly confine history to an unyielding inhibitor of agency or an all-encompassing narrative. History’s role in the characters’ lives is a multifaceted variable, a synthesis of life’s private and public realms dependent on its countless individuals to be sculpted, narrated, and set in motion. History may smell like loss, death, and brokenness experienced in our private ways, but it can’t smother the little moments of beauty, the miracles when things “so fragile, so unbearably tender had survived, had been allowed to exist” (14). Like Estha and Rahel, like Ammu and Velutha, perhaps we should seek out the secret friendships, the love affairs, the little spiders, the birds in flight and varnish on nails, and link our futures, fates, and histories to them. Perhaps we’ll find Love, Madness, Hope, Infinnate Joy. Occurring in the margins of our day-to-day lives and often escaping our notice, small things change, contain, and create history. Stifled emotion can create inertia; inchoate ideas can cause upheaval. A simple glance can bloom into a colossal passion; a few words can plant transformative thoughts. We forget too often that Bigness lies in smallness, that there is great truth in our perceptions of events and experiences in a society that we have the power to shape. In a world where things can change in a day, where little details and fleeting moments draw us in, where we look no further than tomorrow, ordinaryness is extraordinary.