What or who is really to blame?
“Punishment” by Rabindranath Tagore is an intriguing short story revolving an emotionally driven murder and the lies it becomes nested in. He writes the story with exquisite clarity through the effective use of foreshadowing and metaphors and an omniscient point of view. Through his talents, he was able to weave a piece of literature rich in social commentary— men are favored in the eyes of the law, every person is essentially self-interested, and that women are naturally trapped in almost all aspects of life, leaving them to find other outlets to release emotion, pride, and aggression.
The murder itself was not surprising. From the beginning, Tagore paints a setting so miserable and eerie that such an event seems only forthcoming. A motif of tears keeps popping up as the women, “weep buckets,” the child, “wails in terror,” and Dukhiram eventually, “burst[s] into tears like a helpless child”. He uses metaphors that allude to the loss of life such as, “There was not a breath of wind,” and, “like helpless hands clawing at the air for a last fingerhold” (893). Descriptions such as these thicken the reader’s air and contribute to the building suspense of the murder and despair of the situation.
Tagore also builds suspense and clearly progresses the story by first introducing that an, “uncanny silence,” carries a “great threat of unpredictable doom”. In this way, whenever a silence occurs, the reader can foreshadow something negative to happen. Tagore then continues to describe an uncanny silence when the brothers arrive at the house (there is no quarrelling or crying). Soon after, the murder happens. He applies this sequence again when he writes of another silence. He writes, “Outside there was complete quiet.” It was after that second silence that the plot of the story truly unfolds as lies are woven from almost every character in the story. It can even be applied to when Chandara keeps silent when interrogated by the police. Her refusal to use her husband’s story leads to the brothers’ panic and her death.
As for the social commentary, it can be argued that Tagore believes that men are prioritized over women in the eyes of the law. The judgment that Chandara was the guilty one and that the brothers falsely confessed only to save her follows the premise that women are subordinate and are traditionally protected by men. The judges do not even question the reason that Dukhiram confesses to the crime. Why would the victim’s husband try to protect the murderer if he was the one who lost a wife? It just doesn’t make sense. But, the judges are so eager to condemn the woman seeing as she was overly cooperative in the first place. This shows something to be said over the judicial system of the time as well. Instead of fully considering a case, the system chooses the easy way out.
Another argument that could be made is that people are essentially self-interested. Chandara only confesses to the crime to escape her husband and not to save her brother in law. Chidam lies to the village pillar in order for him to keep his brother and wife. The village pillar manipulates his statement to the court to portray him as innocent meanwhile he was the one to suggest stories and to falsify evidence to help Chidam. The other people waiting for their cases to be heard at the courts were convinced that, “nothing, at present, was more important,” than their own respective cases.
Lastly, an argument could be made that women were repressed to a point where they could only pour out their emotions within themselves. Women arguing and quarrelling was said to be a, “natural” sound. Men were expected to, “restrain” their wives. Although Chandara tries to leave her husband, the only way out for her was essentially death.
Tagore impressively captures the compelling issues of the time with such a short story and leaves his readers with ideas to dwell on. How can two people give honest but false accounts? Why would Chandara choose death over her married life? Why were laborers driven to such miserable ways of life? Why were they repaid with insults and maltreatment? What does that say about society at the time? How can a character so innocent commit a crime? What motives do people have in the actions they perform?
“Punishment” is such a short work yet it leaves so much to be considered. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
One response so far
It is interesting to explore how Tagore’s story is a commentary on society. It is true that the innocent Chandara is convicted and executed for the horrid crime of her brother-in-law, quite possibly because she is a woman. However, all throughout the trial, she proves to be a massive symbol of resistance to her husband’s wishes. This makes me, as a reader, wonder whether her behavior and choices raise her out of an inferior place and give her some kind of agency, perhaps for the first time in her life.
The first instance of Chandara going boldly against her husband’s wishes can be seen during her initial questioning. Tagore writes, “Chandara would not accept that she had been attacked in any way by her sister-in law…Such fierce, passionate pride!”(897). At this point in time, the reader is made to wonder why the young woman does not abide with her husband’s plan and plead innocence. It seems here that she does not want to soil Radha’s name by placing blame on the deceased woman for starting a quarrel. However, this is only speculation.
Again, Chandara refuses to yield to Chidam’s invented defense in the later stages of the trial, even when lawyers come to her assistance. Tagore writes, “Two barristers did their utmost to save her from the death-sentence, but in the end were defeated by her” (898). The author’s word choice here is very interesting. By including the word “defeated”, it makes it seem as if there was a battle between the lawyers and Chandara, in which Chandara was victorious. Thinking along these lines, it is possible to say that the whole trial was a war that Chandara won, as peculiar as that may sound. She was determined the entire time to prove her guilt and was very resolute in this process.
The question that remains is why Chandara chose the fate that she did. It’s hard to imagine why anybody would prefer to die rather than live. Perhaps, she was desperate to escape her husband. Another theory may be that, after being accused and given a trial, Chandara made the decision that appearing as a villain in the eyes of the people was better than looking like a victim, who killed for self-defense. Such an alibi might have saved her. Yet at the same time, it may have reassigned the socially-inferior label that she had been striving to escape.