Oppression of women is an ongoing conflict, especially in third world countries. Women there are given no value and no respect. They are suppressed by the empowerment given by men and do not have the ability to break society’s norms. If, by chance, they are able to break these barriers, then they are ridiculed, threatened, beaten, and abused for doing so, ultimately leading them back into suppression. They’re only escape from oppression is death. By experiencing death, these women achieve their freedom and independence. This claim is exemplified in the narration of, “Punishment”, where the brilliant author, Rabindranath Tagore, portrays the mass oppression and belittlement given to women and the manners in which they are perceived, stereotyped, and treated in a third world environment.
From the very beginning of the text, Tagore portrays one aspect of stereotypical behavior amongst women in local villages. He compares the “shrill screams” between two women to the “sun rising at dawn”. No one questions the rising of the sun and therefore no one would care to question the emotions of women. In other words, this behavior is apparent amongst women and so it was not a “violation of Nature’s rules” (893) because naturally, it is bound to happen. As mentioned earlier, women are suppressed by the empowerment of men in society. Men hold certain expectations against women. They seek for the women to have certain tasks accomplished and made ready. In one account of the story, Dukhiram was famished after a long days work and so was “expecting” his wife, Radha, to have made lunch ready. However, Radha was unable to provide for Dukhiram in that instant. The reason is not that Radha could careless for her husband. But, that her husband in fact did not provide the means for her to have made lunch ready. Additionally, in that same scenario, Radha tried to talk back. But, in this society, women do not have freedom of speech, they are unable to make their voice heard. They’re inability to project their voice is evident, and the moment they even try to speak back, it feels “like a spark on a sack of gunpowder” (894). That spark is their voice, which is denied in this society. That spark also signifies all of their emotions and overwhelming feelings that are bottled up inside. When they finally try to let their emotions out, the outcome becomes that “spark on a sack of gunpowder”. When they do talk back, it is viewed as disrespect, as a sign of rebellion. The moment they try to “rebel”, they become killed by men who are “raging with hunger” (894).
Tagore portrays another unjust attribution given to women. In the next claim, he shows women being used as scapegoats in society. “In their quarrel, Chotobau struck at Barobau’s head with a farm-knife” (894). The younger brother made a false claim in defending the real murderer, his older brother by putting the blame on his wife. He did not think for one second about this false accusation, and that this will get his innocent wife killed. He gave her up in a moment of a second. “A reply to Ramlochan’s question had come instantly to mind, and he had blurted it out” (894). An “instant” thought resulted into an “instant” blame and turned an innocent individual into an “instant” victim. This shows how undervalued these women are in society. They are deceived by even their “lover” in matters of misery and have no outlet from their own misery.
An ideal female figure emerged in Tagore’s, “Punishment”. She was the wife who was put on blame for the murder. Chandara was an ideal figure because although she was innocent, she took matters into her own hands and was able to stand her ground. “I shall give my youth to the gallows instead of to you. My final ties in this life will be with them” (897). Although many acts of reassurance were given by her husband, she knew that she had the ability to abolish herself from suppression. She knew that her husband’s words held no value. In accepting the blame, she performed an act of justice for herself. She was free from injustice, abuse, and suppression. She no longer had to cope with society norms and injustices. By accepting death, she became a “handful of mercury” (896) that was able to slip away from prejudice and blame given by society. The real punishment professed by Tagore was not the punishment given because of murder, but the punishment given to the women in society. Their abuse, mistreatment, and belittlement in society were what Tagore wanted to project in his work. The descriptions of Chandara were ideal to Tagore because that was how he wanted women to be perceived in society. Tagore also indicated in the passage, “The Deputy Magistrate…new rice-crop” (898), that these events and misdemeanors against women were an ongoing problem. Life must go on, but according to Tagore, life should go on in way that it should be equally blissful for people of the opposite sex.
I agree with your views and I believe you have narrowed the importance of these readings in a very nice way. Unfortunately women are still treated unfairly in those countries and are being punished everyday for being women. What was very impressive to me was how easily Chidam thought that could have replaced his wife “if I lose my wife I can get another, but if my brother is hanged, how can I replace him?”(895). He was referring to his wife like she was some sort of a toy that could be easily replaced. From that we can clearly see that she was not important to him even though he thought that she was his wife. Also, accusing his wife over a murder was the first thing they thought about. If he really wanted to save his brother he could sacrifice himself not sacrifice his wife without giving her the choice of choosing over her own life.
I’m with you on the revealing of women’s social status in “Punishment”. What was very ridiculous in the very first place was that Dukhiram killed his sister-in-law since she didn’t give him his food and she put sarcasm on him. How easily a life was ceased. After the murder, to save his brother from guilt, Chidam chose to put his wife as the scapegoat, saying “if I lose my wife I can get another, but if my brother is hanged, how can I replace him”. It means that a women, even as a man’s wife, can be replaced like a commodity. It costs so so little to sacrifice his innocent wife because he can get another one, while his brother, as the actual criminal, can escape. What’s more important is that “he had spoken without thought”, which means that he did this out of instinct. It showcases how severely the injustice between men and women had injected into people’s view of everything, even the basic standard of right and wrong.
Just a follow up on the greatly in-depth analysis that everyone has been doing. The court system is often called the ‘justice system’, meaning that the truth matters, no matter what. However, is it the case? Does the objective, unbiased truth really matter above all else? Or is everything, from witness testimonies to judicial verdicts, a product of human biases? For example, I wonder why Chandara, if she indeed wanted some ‘real’ justice and truth to her herself, why not tell the court exactly what happened, that Dukhiham killed his wife and that Chidam ordered her to confess to the crime she didn’t commit, why bother twisting the truth with more lies that would ultimately result in her own death? In finding the answer to this question, I realized that the truth, no matter how pivotal, is meaningless to the people who had been blinded by preexisting assumptions and biases. If Chandara had been telling the truth, would anyone have believed her? Or the overwhelming testimonies from the murderous Dukhiham, the misogynistic Chidam and the sexist Ramlochan were powerful enough to bring Chandara to the gallows? On top of it all, will the court listen to Chandara if she were to told them the exact truth, or would they have believed that of course the defendant would lie for her own sake. What Chandara decided to do was extraordinary, she insisted on having caused everything and wished for her own death. This is the turning point of the story that awoke a sense of guilt in both Dukhiham and Chidam, leading them to their confessions. I think this sense of guilt is the most significant ‘punishment’ in the story, not Chandara’s death sentence. However, the crux of the story, I believe, is that every else matters except for the objective truth and justice. The brothers, Chandara and the jury all pursue course of actions that either serve their own interests or thought to be most reflective of the situation. In the end, Chandara’s death sentence had nothing to do with ‘real’ justice and truth, but just an outcome of people’s personal interests. That brings us back to today when the topic of court system, or ‘justice system’, is still hotly debated. What is ‘fairness’, ‘justice’, or ‘truth’ when in court a jury or a judge listen but are so easily swayed by the arguments of prosecutors and lawyers whose complete conflicts of interest mostly prompt them to fling bitter arguments at each other for a personal victory rather than cooperate to bring about the fairest and justest verdict for the parties involved.