The Theme of Marital Disharmony in “The

THE THEME OF MARITAL
DISHARMONY IN ‘THE SERPENT AND
THE ROPE’ AND ‘THE GUIDE’

Indian writing in English is the product of the tradition - loving East coming into contact with the modernised West. It is quite natural that Indian writers writing in English should choose to deal with the theme of East-West encounter in the context of human relationships. Husband wife relationship being the most intimate as well as the most complex of all relationships, the conflict between tradition and modernity finds itself projected in the context of marriage.

Indian women’s concept of traditional values and marital relationship is different from that of the western woman. Longing for self-­fulfillment and self-expression are western concepts. Modern Indian woman who belongs to the transition period from tradition to modernity imbibes the western ideas and seeks to strive towards individual happiness even at the cost of marital harmony. Husband­ wife alienation and the consequent break-up seems to be inevitable when these women fail to build-up a relationship based on companionship, communication and equality. If the marriage is between two sharply contrasted individuals - one steeped in Indian tradition and the other a representative of European culture ­such marriage naturally is charged with potential for marital discord and husband-wife estrangement. Writers like Kamala Markandaya (Possession), Nayantara Sahgal (Rich Like us), Anita Desai (Bye, Bye Black bird) and Ruth Prawer Jhabvala (Esmond in India) have dealt with this aspect and depicted the conflicts and frustrations with insight and understanding.

Even if the marriage is between two persons with the same cultural and traditional ground, difference in temperaments and attitudes might lead to alienation and estrangement. The trait of individuation, especially in women, might lead to clash of personalities and breaking up of the age-old institution of marriage. For example Nayantara Sahgal’s The Day in Shadow, Kamala Markandaya’s Coffer Dams, Ruth Prawer Jhabvala’s Get Ready For Battle and Raji Narasimhan’s For ever Free deal with the attitudinal differences leading to clash of personalities and final disintegration of marriage.

It makes an interesting exercise to attempt a comparative study of the themes of husband-wife alienation and the resulting marital discord as it is dealt with in Raja Rao’s The Serpent And the Rope and R. K. Narayan’s The Guide.

Raja Rao, himself a product of two cultures of the East and the West, explores the theme of marital discord in the context of marriage between an Indian Brahmin and a French lady in The Serpent And The Rope. Their marriage is charged with potential for marital discord because of the cultural disparities and sharply contrasted traditional values. R. K. Narayan chooses to deal with the theme of estrangement between husband and wife in the context of temperamental incompatibility and attitudinal difference.

The symbolism suggested at the level of the Title in Raja Rao’s The Serpent And The Rope is extended to the relationship between Rama Swamy and Madelaine too. The difference between expectation and reality proves too much for the two highly intellectual individuals. When the hoped for marital harmony and happiness appear to be an illusion; their separation becomes inevitable. One can observe that Marco and Rosie in R.K. Narayan’s The Guide get estranged because of temperamental incompatibility where as Rama Swamy and Madeleine in Raja Rao’s The Serpent And The Rope withdraw from each other because of cultural disparity. Raja Rao’s novel studies the disillusionment of Rama Swamy and his final perception of non-duality of existence through Sankara’s Advaita Philosophy. R. K. Narayan’s novel traces the progress of Raju from tourist guide to spiritual guide.

The alienation between Rama Swamy and Madeleine and Marco and Rosie seems to be the result of unequal equation between the couples. Madeleine is highly individualistic and is confined to herself - endorsed world of intellectualism. Her inability to get involved in Rama Swamy’s sense of values leads to the estrangement between them. Inspite of her professed love for India she ‘cannot achieve consonance with the Indian spirit all the way’. Rama Swamy’s concept of marriage is entirely different from that of Madeleine. For him marriage is not something concerned with only two individuals. The bond should be strengthened by family traditions and, spiritual and cultural ethos. As M. K. Naik observed “what destroys the marriage is not ‘incompatibilite de temperaments’ but un-bridgeable gulf between two cultural ethoses²”.

Rama Swamy thought that their marriage would bring the best of the European culture into contact with the best of Indian culture. But his trip to India first when his father was ill and later, on the occasion of his sister’s marriage makes him realize that the cultural gulf between them is unbridgeable. His home-coming brings out the latent longing for Indian culture. The sad realization that she cannot share his sense of values makes him, withdraw from her. His hopes that Madeleine would be a ‘Maitreyi’ for him in whom he could seek his ownself are shattered. He observes that Madeleine had never participated in “my superstition though I had in hers”. Sexual attraction fails to provide the required sustenance to strengthen the bond.

Rosie-Marco relationship in R. K. Narayan’s The Guide is strained because they live on different planes. Rosie is devoted to the art of dancing while Marco looks at it as mere street acrobatics. He is obsessed with his archaeological surveys and studies. He is stern, self-centred and self-righteous. Rosie’s longing for sharing of ideas and ambitions is dismissed by Marco as a foolish woman’s sentiments. He is more interested in the carvings on the walls, stone figures and caves but neglects the throbbing, pulsating heart of his wife. Marco’s passion is to be correct in everything - be it in paying the bills for which he would not forget demanding vouchers even at the crucial moment of his discovery of Rosie’s infidelity or in acknowledging the debt to Raju for the help rendered in bringing out the book. Raju wonders how Marco could be uninterested in a woman like Rosie. He observes “dead and decaying things seem to un-loosen his tongue and fire his imagination rather than things that lived and moved and swung their limbs”.

He could not understand her. If Rosie yields to Raju, it is not just to satisfy her physical passion. She feels suffocated in her life with Marco. The longing for companionship and communication brings her close to Raju. She is starved of affection and yearns for recognition and acknowledgement of her artistic talent. Her first obsession is dancing. Raja wins her by appreciating her art, by praising her talent and by encouraging her.

Inspite of Marco’s indifference and cold behaviour Rosie tries to be a dutiful wife. She becomes all the more solicitous towards her husband after her new intimacy with Raju. That she is pricked by guilty conscience is evident in her frequent mention of her duty to her husband. Rosie is not a woman given to deception and cheating. With the least effort, Marco could extract the whole truth from her. Like a truant child confessing its mistake, she confesses her guilt and begs his pardon. She never thinks of leaving Marco but “followed him day after day like a dog waiting on his grace” At the cost of her pride and self-respect she tries to make amends for her folly.

Rama Swamy and Madeleine fall apart because they get enmeshed in their own intellectual rigmaroles and philosophical argument and lose touch with the outer reality and with each other. Their separation results from their irreconcilable egos. Madeleine is a typical Westerner with her intellectual exclusiveness, individualism and determinism of culture. For Rama Swamy, life is a pilgrimage and a quest for self-realization. He does not believe in death and says “I do not believe death is”. He accepts Pierre’s as well as the second child’s death as a part of the whole scheme. Madeleine is unable to come out of this personal tragedy. She withdraws into her own world where Rama Swamy has no entry. Rama Swamy feels that what Madeleine cares for is a disinterested devotion to any cause and she loved him partly because she felt India had been wronged by the British and because by marrying him she would know and identify herself with great people. The irony is that though she believes that all good things come to her from India, it is India which separates her from Rama Swamy. She asks in bewilderment.

“What is it that separated us Rama?”
“India”

“India? But I am a Buddhist” “That is why Buddhism left India”

“But one can become a Buddhist?”

“Yes, and a Christian and a Muslim as well.”

“Then?”

“One can never be converted to Hinduism.”

It is this belief of Ramaswamy that stands as an iron curtain between them. He fails to see that Madeleine has turned to Buddhism hoping that with its compassion and pity it would provide her solace and refuge.

Rosie, who hails from a family devoted to dancing is a misfit in the world of Marco. She is pulled by opposite forces of loyalty and duty to her husband on one side and the much longed–for companionship and encouragement she gets from Raju on the other side. This psychological conflict continues till the end. She reflects “I may be mistaken in my own judgement of him - After all he had been kind to me”. Her all-consuming passion compels her to find an outlet and Raju conveniently uses it for his own benefit by acting as connoisseur of art.

One may find Raju’s portrayal of Marco as different from Rosie’s assessment of him. Raju looks at him as a hard-hearted boor. But Rosie never makes such pronouncements against her husband. Her disappointment with her husband gets reflected only through her indirect comments. When Raju asks her what is it that interests her, she answers “anything except cold, old stone walls”. This statement amply underscores the polarity of their ideas and aspirations. Even when she shows interest in his work and says that she would bring out an innovative place of dance with the help of his findings, she is snubbed at and dismissed contemptuously. Her observation “I’d have preferred any kind of mother-in-law if it had meant one real, loving husband”, explains the gulf between them. Though R. K. Narayan does not probe deep into the psychological turmoil of Rosie, he succeeds in presenting her dilemma in all intensity.

Marco is not portrayed as the villain of the novel. Even Raju, who dislikes him for obvious reasons at times speaks good of him: “he was a good man completely preoccupied, probably a man with an abnormal capacity for trust.” Rosie’s observation confirms Raju’s observation of him. Rosie wonders “what husband in the world would let his wife go and live in a hotel room by herself a hundred miles away”. Ironically these are the two factors - his pre-occupation and his capacity for trust that have contributed to the separation between Marco and Rosie. What leads to the estrangement between the husband and wife is the polarity of attitudes towards life.

For Marco, life is nothing but a serious intellectual pursuit. He fails to perceive Rosie’s passionate attachment to the art of dancing. He is totally prosaic in his approach to life. Like Raman in Anita Dasai’s Where shall we go this Summer he is practical to the core. His appreciation of the butler Joseph shows his attitude to life. He says that, “Joseph is a wonderful man, I don’t see him, I don’t hear him but he does everything for me at right time. That’s how I want things to be, you know”. This attitude of Marco has a stifling effect on Rosie. It is at this time, chance brings her the companionship of Raju. Raju “comes to symbolize for her the warm flow of life that ministered to the vital human needs which had been starved.”

In course of time she comes to see Raju in his true colours. As Raju becomes more and more obsessed with money and the power that money brings, she begins to be less and less interested in him, and even in giving dance performances for the sake of money. Time and again her thoughts go to her husband. As C. D. Narasimhaiah observes “the refrain ‘after all he is my husband’ runs through her mind during all the years of her separation from him. It is true that Raju “stifles Rosie more callously than Marco had. If Marco’s attempt to send her jewels to her is in keeping with his nature, so is Rosie’s guilty feeling with her nature. The same honesty and sincerity which make her think of her folly again and again also prompt her to do her best to free Raju from the forgery case against him.

Madeleine and Rama Swamy are more complex characters in the sense that their personal dilemmas lead them to existential predicament where they begin to question the very meaning of life. They are self-alienated beings, cut off from their traditional moorings. Both Ramaswamy and Madeleine get bogged down in their own pursuit of the metaphysical reality. The tragedy is that the reality is coloured by their subjective viewpoint. Madeleine’s fascination for India does not last long because she comes in touch with it only tangentially and never tries to get at the core of it. Rama Swamy is alienated from her due to his feeling that she is not the woman of his life.

In her search for identity Madeleine drifts aimlessly from one meaningless abstraction to another only to embrace Buddhism, and renounces her ties with her husband. Rama Swamy is conscious of his ego and realizes marriage cannot be a true bond until the ego is dead. He knows that Madeleine has a horror for crossing bridges and hence the bridge would never be crossed. She knows him at the intellectual level but fails to gain entry into his deeper self. Madeleine is sore that he is more interested in the sonship of his son than in his being her son and ascribes it to the Indian habit of treating the feminine as an accessory. She declares “You will never understand us the French”.

Madeleine would be ready to be tortured and be his slave but what Rama Swamy looks for in a wife is not a slave but a companion of pilgrimage which she never can be. He feels that maternity has given Madelaine an otherness which makes her seceretive, whole and incommunicable. He  finds the woman of his life in Savitri. Madeleine seeks to alleviate her disappointment by torturing her body through self-imposed discipline of Buddhism. While she attempts to submerge her ego in Buddhism, Rama Swamy realizes that a ‘Guru’ alone can solve for him the riddle of the serpent and the rope - illusion and reality.

One can see Indian ethos at work in the portrayal of the characters. In the portrayal of Rosie, R. K. Narayan takes care to show that Rosie’s spirit is not tainted inspite of her infidelity to her husband. Rama Swamy’s metaphysical quest for the ultimate truth is akin to Indian ethos. He seeks to escape the cycle of birth and death through self­-realization and knowledge of the Absolute;

It may be observed that the entire novel is presented from Rama Swamy’s­ point of view. The autobiographical tone goes well with the subjective vision, of the world around and Rama Swamy’s relations with others are perceived from his own personal and at times highly defensive, point of view. The readers come to know of Rama Swamy’s dilemma and disillusionment as the slow process of the disintegration of the marriage process to culminate in separation. They get only a faint glimpse of Madelaine’s fears and frustrations, ideals and anguish. What they finally come to know of Madeleine is filtered through the consciousness of Rama Swamy. One wonders what it would have been had Madeleine been given a chance to narrate the story in the first person and her ownself, as the central consciousness. Even as matters stand, one gets puzzled over Rama Swamy’s relationship with women, which is guided by his very personal concept of the feminine principle. Uma Parameswaran attributes the failure of their marriage to Rama Swamy’s inability to interact and says “Rama lives within his illusory realm, a snake - charmer, piping tunes to serpents that dance as and when he wills them to. Madeleine is the only rope, the only reality that comes into his insular world “because of her intellectualism, her individuality and her religious determinism. He too seems to have failed her with his refusal to step out of his self-endorsed subjective view-point regarding the role of a woman in man’s life which leads to the final separation.

In the case of Marco - Rosie relationship too, one gets a feeling that Marco is not given fair treatment. It is either through the eyes of Rosie or Raju the reader views and understands Marco. His creator did not give him an identity. It is Raju who nick names him Marcopolo. It is true Marco fails to live upto Rosie’s expectation and desires. But one wonders why Rosie should complain after having walked into marriage with her eyes open.

Both Raja Rao’s Rama Swamy and R. K. Narayan’s Rosie seem to enjoy the patronizing attitude of their creators while Madeleine and Marco do not. In both the novels the theme of husband­-wife alienation serves the artistic purpose of sustaining the interest of the reader by providing human interest.

REFERENCES

1. K. R. Rao, The Fiction or Raja Rao (Aurangabad: Perimel Prakashan, 1980) P. 73.
2. M. K. Naik, Critical Essays on Indian Writing in English (New Delhi: Macmillan, 1977) P. 273.
3. C. D. Narasimhaiah, R. K. Narayan’s “The Guide” in Aspects of Indian Writing in English, ed M. K. Naik, (New Delhi, Macmillan, 1979) P. 185.