THE INFLUENCE OF MANU SMRITI ON WHY BY DR. STEPHEN GILL

Anuradha Sharma

The novel Why suggests that man can stoop to any level to subjugate women. He can blame them for every failure on his part. Women are viewed as mere bodies. The novel also suggests that men and women both can stoop to any level for sex. There may be justifications for Ruben Motard, protagonist’s behavior towards women. But more or less, he eyes every woman as a shop of sex and feels tension in the lower part of his body which is the only way to exhibit manliness for him. The novel insinuates that women will not feel safe if they come out of their house. Their peace, security and married life will be at stake because men like Ruben Motard, who notice their beauty only in lips, breasts and thighs move freely in the society. As soon as Ruben sees a woman, a bed began to dance in front of his eyes. The novel has more than 9 women characters. There is not even a single woman in the novel with whom he does not want to sleep. It is projected that there is no other purpose in the life of women, except sleeping with men. Ruben used Joan, Norma, Alice, Kathy, Dorothy, Lete and tried to use Denise, and Lucia.

This way of thinking reminds Manu whose views about women are often condemned because they are unfair. Ruben Motard, the protagonist of Why, is also unfair to women. Its creator, Dr. Stephen Gill, was born in India though he has been living

abroad for decades. He seems to be under the influence of the codes of Manu when he wrote his first novel Why. Ruben believes women to be Matter ( body, flesh) and his this idea is very close to Manu’s ideas which are translated by Dr. Das Bhagvan in the following way: Man and woman by the very nature of their respective beings, like primal Purusha and Prakrti, Spirit and Matter, cause excitement and disturbance to one another. (Das, Bhagvan, pp 489).

As she is only matter she does not have any divine spark. Man has it because he is spirit. This view is expressed in Panchtantra by Visnu Sarma. Though Manu and Ruben Motard belong to different epochs but carry certain similarities which need analytical probes to explain the views of Manu and behaviour of Ruben Motard.

Why was published by Vesta Publications Ltd. in Canada in 1976. The tone of the story set by the mother of Ruben Motard who elopes with a friend of his father, abandoning the child. When Ruben grows up, he fails to build up lasting and meaningful relations with any women. Most of the time, he falls in love with married women. The question is why? To some readers it may be based on his feelings of revenge and to some Ruben is belittling women on the basis of the laws of Manu.

About Manu and his book Manu Smriti it is said that Manava Dharmasastra (Manu Smriti) is one of the books ascribed to Manu who is also known as Sayambhu. Kulluka. Buhler G says:

The author says that Brahman first composed the law- book and that Manu condensed its contents in his own language and taught it in that form to his pupils. Date of these

ancient books to be very controversial. Oriental Scholars are of the view that manu- smriti belongs to a later stage of literary development than the Dharma-sutras. (Buhler, G. XV &XXXI).

It is also said,

From the earliest times the mythical Manu, the father of mankind, was considered as the founder of the social and moral order, and that he was considered to have first taught or revealed religious rites and legal maxims. (Buhler, G. XXXIV)

It is puzzling that a post colonial writer, known for his peace prayers across the world, exhibits patriarchal traits towards women through his seminal character Ruben Motard. The tone of the novel suggests that women are weak and they can break the moral law easily if left unguarded. The same attitude is propagated by Manu. The novel supports that The children, the housewives with their many cares and little time the unsophisticated, uneducated people in general, have not the trained intellect or the time to master the technicalities and details of the difficult sciences. (Das, Bhagvan. 443)

The protagonist of Why follows the path of Manu‘s Laws which depict women as the creature of low potential and dull intellect. Like Prufrock in T.S. Eliot’s poem, Ruben looks at feminine body with one purpose and that purpose is to satisfy the sexual lust. It is not correct to say that Ruben carries all the teachings of Manu in regard to women. It is however sure that he follows some of them strongly, viewing women as subordinate then companions. He never in the whole course of the story praises a woman for having brains. Both Ruben Motard and Manu view women’s body with biological point. Das Bhagvan quotes Keith: From the crown of her head to the sole of her foot woman’s body differs from man’s. She buttons her dress differently; she walks, speaks and breathes differently. (Keith, The Human Body. Pp 144)

There seems to be the great impact of the Manu’s Laws on the psyche of Ruben when he tries to exploit the intuitive nature of women. Being the man of mind, Ruben applies his theories to convince females to bring them to his bed. Elopement of Ruben’s mother with one of his father’s friend gives him feeling that woman is the being of the heart and so she can not judge the situation rationally. This is in line with the preaching of Manu:

To know, even though it be only instinctively, more in the way of feeling than of knowledge- to know the whence, the whither, the why, of individual life, the deathlessness of the soul, and the unerring action of the Law of Karma, to be full of faith in heaven, of love for the family, of unrepining resignation for the past, of hope for the future, of patience under suffering, of contentment in the present; to be able to help and soothe and comfort one’s fellow beings in their griefs and misfortunes; to be able to understand the heart of human problems intuitively- this is real soul education and more valuable than mere mind- information. And this is the birth right of woman more than that of man. She sees with the heart, he with the head. (Das, Bhagvan. 461-462)

There is an apprehension in Ruben’s mind like that of Prufrock of T.S. Eliot. Both the characters play down women torturing them with the language and with the mediocre intentions like Manu. Prufrock sings:

And the afternoon, the evening, sleeps so peacefully!
Smoothed by long fingers,
Asleep… tired…or it malingers,
Stretched on the floor, here beside you and me.
Should I, after tea and cakes and ices,
Have the strength to force the moment to its crisis? (Manju, 6)

In the above lines the persona disparages women by expressing them in the terms not fit for their stature. Ruben also wants to have the moments of crisis by playing tricks on Denise, the wife of his friend Jerry. To seduce Denise he even damages his bath room door when he comes to know that she is coming to have a bath in his bathroom. Ruben Motard in his treatment to women could not do away with the teachings of Manu. He does not actually believe in the Western individualism but believes in ‘the ancient Indian view is that the family, of man- woman- child, is the unit and that humanism is the ideal limit.’ (Das, Bhagvan. 461-462)

Ruben enjoys the security and care of the family but as soon as his mother leaves, his concept of a secure life shatters. He does not see the life of his mother from her point of view. He turns revengeful that shows his belief that a woman should not demand. She is to serve is the theory of Manu and her mother’s behaviour is in opposition to this theory. She goes in search of happiness but that is not the domain of a woman. She has to draw her happiness by pleasing others. With his wounded psyche he turns against all the married women and tries to shatter their concept of security and home by entering in their lives. After his mother‘s elopement he starts practicing Western individualism on the girls who come in close contact with him to set man against woman and woman against man as in the case of Norma, Alice and Denise. He prepares Alice against Norma to say, ’We love those whom we do not understand and we do not love those whom we know. (Why, 20)

It is painful to see how Ruben torments souls of others and also his inner self. More shocking is the fact that even after so much ado about love there is no glimpse of the true love from protagonist. Women enter his life and he wants to leave them after using them to his satisfaction. He does not like if a woman says ‘no’. He wants them to behave like ‘yes women’ of old patriarchy. He reflects the same as:

Her ‘yes’ is yes,
her ‘no’ is yes
her ‘silence’ is also
taken for yes.
Her speech is analyzed thus
her ‘no’ is taken from her tongue
without any social fuss. (Sharma, Anuradha. Unpublished poem).

At one place when Ruben places his hand on the thigh of Denise, his patriarchal thinking becomes evident. He just keeps his hand on her left thigh and then on her right

thigh, feeling good and she does not seem to mind. (Why, 83). Keeping quiet is not the sign of surrender. He wants them to say ‘yes’ to his every demand and when he finds that the woman will not give in easily, she recedes in back ground and eyes for another prey. He writes to Denise:

Dear Denise, our story will turn into a dream to be remembered when we are old. Time is a great healer. Somebody may emerge from somewhere to apply balm to my wounds. (Why, 127)

No where Ruben tries to come into meaningful relations with any female character. All the female characters are portrayed as puppets in his hands and discards the one that does not suit his purpose. He always carries a design about women. When he enters the house of his old girl friend he could not resist. He is attracted not only to Norma but also towards her sister- in –law Alice. He plans to be close to Alice and says:

I have been seeing her (Norma) for the last six years. I know that I can assure her of my love and once it is done the way will become smooth to convince her that my marriage with you (Alice) is in her own interest. (Why, 57).

Many times he reproaches himself for entering into illicit affairs but he gives some logic to clear his mind and nothing bothers his heart. He tells Norma:
Isn’t it deception that you call another man to your home in his absence.
……….
It is a sin …. A crime – something that our society has never approved of nor ever will approve“. (Why, 16).

He clears his conscience by saying: Norma you know that I am helpless in this matter. It is my heart that compels me to see you over and over again. (Why, 16)

He not only cheats women but also lies to have their sympathy or make them sleep with him. At one place he tells Alice that he loves her and also says the same thing to Norma. At one place he spends time with Alice as it is clear from the following lines:

Ruben withdrew a few feet, and leaning against the wall surveyed her body. “A celestial being”, he exclaimed. Saying this he turned to her to kiss from different angles, and for a complete consummation. When they regained their awareness, they stood up calmly and began to dress silently. (Why, 22).

It is a mystery that how he can utter the same words with the same emotional intensity to another woman and make her believe in his so- called love. He says to Norma: I love you even now as I did in the past. That is why I haven’t been able to form a meaningful relationship with another girl. (Why, 36).

The above romantic sentence is a total lie. When he utters the sentence “I love you” it seems he is mocking the soft emotion that reigns the woman heart. There are numerous paradigms where his anti feminist views are demonstrated as a follower of Manu. Once when Ruben and his friend go to buy a prostitute his friend touches their breast to judge their firmness as they are paying for an object. An employee undeniably has the right to choose. She has the right to see and judge the master she is going to serve. But no case is ever heard where she has rejected a man because of the derisory erection of his penis. See the following lines:

After formal greetings, his friend touched their breasts one by one as a jeweler would a diamond, or a farmer might examine a cow before buying it. He showed his dissatisfaction with the breasts and the car moved on once again. After a few minutes drive, his friend asked him again to stop. Again two girls proceeded towards them and he pressed their breasts in the same manner. (Why, 119) . In Indian culture women are compared to pet animal like cow. In the above lines the novelist also treats them in the same manner. Folk culture of the country believes that women are cow which can be given as a gift. Ruben is in the habit of praising beauty to the extent of obsequiousness. The words like he surveyed her body appear giving a sense like that of a trader who surveys a plot before buying it or a buyer who examines a bed sheet, thinking whether it would be comfortable under him. Alice tries to make him understand that this attraction is nothing but lust: Combing her hair she said, “No one loves anybody in this world. We actually love our lusts. I think love is nothing more than a self deception. (Why, 22). Ruben is never seen caring for any true emotion. He lies to Alice and says with confidence the words in which he himself does not believe: Alice, all I can say is I have never been an abstainer. But physical contact without unity in souls is not so pleasing. (Why, 22).

Above lines are filled with good words whereas in reality the protagonist is dying for any woman in sight. He is not searching for spiritual unity. He is looking for any opportunity to fool any woman who comes close to him. Every physical contact can not lead to spiritual unity and if it does, then it brings an end to all the sufferings. Spiritual unity brings in satisfaction, peace and harmony. If it fails in doing so it is then just the covetousness.

The protagonist of Why in some respect resembles the persona of Love Song by J. Alfred Prufrock, a modern poem by T. S. Eliot. Like Ruben, Prufrock asks his beloved to go out in the evening:

Let us go then, you and I,
When the evening is spread out against the sky
Like a patient etherized upon a table; (Manju Jain, 3)

Here evening is not to provide any comfort to the persona; it is rather as bothering as any evening is to Ruben when he is not able to satisfy his lust. There may be different reasons behind it and the novel gives the sense of murkiness that descends over Ruben with the looming darkness. He measured his life like Prufrock with coffee spoons (Manju, 5) and have known the evenings, mornings and afternoons (Manju, 5). Both the speakers remain dissatisfied for the reasons of their own even after meeting their lady love. Both were involved with their female partner only on one level and that is physical so they have to be careful when they move out. Manu says that woman can disturb the peace of any mind and heart.

Eliot writes:

Let us go, through certain half deserted streets,
The muttering retreats
Of restless nights in one--- night cheap hotels (Manju, 3)

Initially Ruben had the idea of Manu that family is the unit of the society and believes: The man is not the man alone, but the man, the woman, the child. The sages have declared that wife is the same as husband. The house is not the home; the housewife is the home. (Das, Bhagvan. 472).

Both the characters go forth with some ominous target which can be about the woman also. There is an under current of some unknown design in the plots which are not always clear to the readers: Streets that follow like a tedious argument/ Of insidious intent. (Manju, 3).

In Why this intent is very embryonic when he thinks about Norma: Then he thought of her husband and with that his heart began to beat fast. He dropped himself slowly to the green ground to let the gentle sun rays touch his body and soothe his troubled mind. (Why, 14).

Hesitation of Ruben in taking a decision is like that of Prufrock. The following lines explain the psyche of both:

Time for you and time for me,
And time yet for a hundred indecisions,
And for a hundred visions and revisions,
Before the taking of toast and tea. (Manju, 4).

Above lines give an appropriate understanding about the characters that they want to use the time and still there is vacillation in there relation with their partners. This hesitancy is because of their incapability to have faith in their lives as well as in love. They are digressed when close to their lady love. Here again persona belittles woman as Manu does. Eliot talks about them in deprecating terms. He does not address them by names but talks of them by mentioning their limbs. T. S. Eliot says:

And I have known the arms already, known them all-
Arms that are braceleted and white and bare
(But in the lamplight, downed with light brown hair!)
Is it perfume for a dress
That makes me so digress?

Arms that lie along a table, or wrap about a shawl. (Manju, 5)

In the same way, Ruben’s every association with every woman gives him a lasting pain because he is not sincere and honest in his love: His desire to see her (Norma) never decreased; it turned into a thirst which doubled with every visit to her, beginning with untold pleasure and ending with severe agonies and pains. (Why, 30).

Bewilderment of both the protagonists is manifested in these lines: And should I then presume?/ And how should I begin? (Manju, 5).

This puzzle is seen in the behavior of Ruben too. He also has trepidations about women and thinks before stepping to them: Then Ruben espied a girl sitting alone. He suggested to George that he ask her for a dance, but George was already discouraged with rejections. Ruben was reluctant to make another attempt. (Why, 148)

It is the mother who is behind the curtain of the mind to tell their sons how to feel and relate themselves with other women. Ruben Motard of Why, is denied this opportunity to cultivate his meaningful relations. It is his mother who creates this insecurity in his mind. He has the concept of mother which is explained by Manu: The mother is the incarnation of self sacrifice for the young generation. (Das, Bhagvan. I pp 484).

When this concept of Ruben is shattered by sudden elopement of his mother, he loses all the respect for women. He felt deceived by the daring ideals of his mother who for him should be the embodiment of love and sacrifice. She could have suffered all the tyrannies of her husband in the name of protecting her child then she could have been presented as an ideal mother. The home loses every meaning for him after his mother leaves. He decides to behave badly with any woman who comes to him. He has in his mind,

The Art of Making the Happy Home,

Is the Finest of all Fine Arts,

And in Life’s Drama, the mother’s Part,

Is the greatest of all Parts. (Das, Bhagvan. 478)

Ruben nurtures antagonistic views towards his mother. He wants to punish his mother for leaving him alone, but his devices for revenge are different according to the era to which he belongs. Whatever path he selects, he tries to let his mother suffer the extreme of the mental agony.

Ruben develops the “psychic inheritance”, the term used by Carl Jung in his theory in the later years of his life. He has some knowledge in his subconscious mind about the mother but that knowledge cannot be turned into conscious as the both the images are the poles apart because of the uncustomary steps taken by his mother. He was never directly conscious of the knowledge that he was bearing in his sub unconscious about mother figure which compels him to behave in unusual way.

Ruben thinks it is the duty of a mother to provide the household with peace. On the other hand, his mother goes in search for pleasure for herself that shatters his peace. He feels cheated by his mother and also by the ideals he adores. He behaves in a masked manner as Carl Jung puts it to leave the "good impression" that we all wish to present as we fill the roles which the society requires of us. But it can also be the "false impression" that we use to manipulate people's opinions and behaviors. And, at its worst, it can be mistaken, even by ourselves, for our true nature. ( Boeree, C. George. 2006.).

Ruben believes that his mother has failed in following the motherly ideals. She could not play her role properly. Consequently, he decides to teach women to play their role with selfless service and devotion. Ruben Motard in his agony and sorrow appears as a subject of psychoanalysis. The following lines suit the character of Ruben who brought chaos not only in his life but in the lives of women characters, whom he meets:

It is bad enough that men are selfish and vicious; but that women should also become selfish would abolish goodness from the world and bring about chaos. (Das, Bhagvan. Pp 485)

Ruben thinks that it is his mother who brought the chaos in his family by leaving him and his father alone. She shatters Manu’s Laws this way. To take revenge, Ruben tries to shatter the peace in the lives of married women. Ruben thinks of women to be an object of pleasure. Here man’s vicious activities are forgiven and woman is taught the ideals not to break any law.

Ruben plays dices on life by staking his mother. He is ready to lose the game. Winning as Sakuni, is a symbolic inner greed to satisfy desires. In any case, the aim of the game is not praiseworthy. Readers see whatever is presented to them but it appears like a study of Manu Smriti. He plays the game with the teachings of Manu and it appears that

The game is played at the higher level while readers take it as simple happening: Playing the game at higher level then you are aware of, it often feels like either some accident happened. (http:/www.cosmosandlogos.com).

Readers may think that women in Why like Yudhisthira in Mahabharta are the victims of the random chance, though Ruben like Sakuni plays the game on a different level to defeat them. The following lines spoken for someone else presents Ruben’s intensions: He knows how the dice will roll…. No chance, no uncertainty about how things will fall out…. (http:/www.cosmosandlogos.com)

There is an element of hypocrisy in Ruben. He punishes his mother for not individuating him properly. He is sure of his defeat at the end but does not accept it. He wants his mother to suffer. In the same way, in his subconscious mind Ruben wants to erase every memory of his mother by exploiting women and associating their degradation with the action of his mother. However, he does not succeed in doing so and ends up seeing an old man. Perhaps this old man with his slight hunchback was thinking about his son, whose wife had eloped with his friend. (Why, 154)

At the end, Ruben reveals that most of the women he loved resembled his mother in some way. (Why, 154). Ruben tries to posses his mother, who has deserted him and also his father to satisfy his Oedipus Complex. He does this by exploiting women sexually who resemble his mother. He does not want to marry any of them but wants to have a child from any of them. His last move depicts his anger towards his mother. For years he had not thought about her. Now this revelation makes him think. With a jerk he leaves the bench, looking at the full moon, emerging from a cloud. His fist began to close in determination, as he steps towards his room. (Why, 154).

Closed fist shows anger. It seems that he will go and tear the half done portrait of his mother but still there is a doubt whether he will stick to his determination. Before crossing the street, he pauses and looks back at the canal’s water. He feels as if its softening murmurs were asking him if he could persevere in his determination (Why, 154). The resemblance of the portrait with his mother shows that it is not easy to wipe out the impact of the mother from his life.

Bina Srinivasan rightly says and confirms the Laws of Manu,

Women are not seen as autonomous beings. They are perceived to be the property of the community, of men and therefore have to subscribe to the appropriate rules. This notion of women as property, upon whom depends the honour of the community and of man has a history… (Bina, 184)

Manu even says to let a woman in the protection of father, husband and son and thus leaves for her no better space then being the property of the family. This is the idea of Ruben too and he on being dissatisfied with this mother figure becomes psychic. Manu has said at many places that matter is woman and we all know an object has little to rebel. The uncustomary steps of the mother have made her son, Ruben, somewhat neurotic. Being a member of the dominant (male) group he decides to punish his mother in any way he can.

The fact is that a mother helps her son reach adulthood and enables him to compete with the authority of his father. But Ruben loses this opportunity as Ruben is deserted by his mother before reaching his adulthood. The protagonist misses the protection and love of mother and feels a void in self empowerment. He thus cannot forgive his mother. As a result, he behaves in somewhat mysterious way with the women in the novel Why. The novel certainly presents a deep study of the bruised male psyche but being a believer in the woman’s sacrificial role he nowhere bother’s about the boring life of his mother, and indifferent behaviour of his father towards his mother.

Ruben is deceived because his mother has not given him a chance of keeping her in his guard. He is the next after his father under whose protection mother should feel safe but his dream is broken when his mother elopes. With his life, he proves that he is an actual believer in the following lines of Manu: The father protects woman in her childhood, as something precious and delicate, easily injured; husband protects her in her youth; the son in old age; she should not be left to take care of herself. (Das, Bhagvan. 499).

Ruben feels cheated because he has not received the opportunity to protect his mother to satisfy his Oedipus Complex. This betrayal leads him to break into the security of other married women’s life. He feels that sacrifice and service are the issues of feminine personality and he feels that her mother could not play her role of sacrificial being. Therefore he wants to punish every woman who comes close to him. He has lost all the sympathy and concern for woman. Manu Smirti says that a devoted and pure wife can drag her husband back from the purgatory and take her to the gates of heaven. A woman should not leave her husband no matter how bad he is. On the other hand, he can leave his wife after taking all the ornaments he has given her on many accounts.

Believing this Ruben also has dual standards for man and woman. She in any condition should be pure and follow the ethics of life. Ruben acts in the light of the words of Vishnu Puran and Vishnu Bhagvata who say:

He is Vishnu, She is Shri, She is language, he is thought, He is meaning, she is word. She is knowledge, he is mind. He is theory, practice she. She is prudence, he is law, he is reason, she is sense, she is duty, he is right, he is author, she is work, she is heat, he is light, he is maker, she is world, she is fuel, he is fire, she is vacuum, plenum he, he is column, she is roof. (Das, Bhagvan , pp 1116)

These lines may be in the inner cave of Ruben’s mind. His beliefs in woman’s purity and service are shattered, ultimately making him neurotic. The impact of old Indian mythological scriptures leaves him bewildered. He emerges as the subject of intense psychological study because of the clash between old teachings and their importance in the contemporary times. Teachings professed by Manu have lost their significance in the modern times but we need to take help of modern psychology to study the impact of this clash on the inner self of Ruben Motard.

In Why a strange type of connection emerges between male and female characters. Women cleverly beat Ruben’s pragmatics with their reason. He carries Oedipal hostilities in his heart. His mother’s figure is presented as shadow but its all pervading influence is evident in the protagonist whose actions expose the dominance of negativity that he bears for his mother. She is present in every action of the hero. There is no love in the relation of mother and son. This fact impacts Ruben which is evident in his failures to establish any lasting relation and understanding with any of the female characters. Ruben has not been able to redeem his mother by relating her tale of woe at his father’s place. Ruben does not recognize her existence because she does not fit in the definition of mother--a sacrificial model. He does not like her because she tried to seek happiness outside the family. He wants to see the degradation of her mother in every woman he meets and leaves her afterwards giving his conscious good reasons for his behavior.

Mother does have a prominent role in the novel as Dr. Gill himself has said in one of his interviews. The mother of Ruben, the protagonist, had a central role in the novel but he does not elaborate it.

The behaviour of the hero is a masculine revolution against feminine desire. This strange behavior is the outcome of the complexities which can be examined under Freudian Psychology, a method to investigate the way one thinks and behaves. When applied to Ruben, it began to appear that on the surface he does not talk of his mother. This does not mean that he does not think of her. His behavior is the result of his repressive thoughts. He builds a fortress around himself confining his thoughts about his mother in a psychological cave. He does not allow anybody to enter and console him or to provide him with any solution. His father never cares that he is nurturing enmity for his mother. To let his feelings of resentment pass, Ruben goes to women to have sex without being involved in any kind of responsibility which is associated with marriage. To restore his damaged ego he abuses women on a different level-- on the surface which appears to be a mutual understanding between both but it is the outcome of a design. In the end when he draws a picture he finds that he has drawn a picture of his mother and it stamps clearly that he wants to have her. In the end, it becomes clear that he treats all pervading shadow of his mother as solid beings of flesh and bones. Ruben’s experience of separation from his mother gives birth to anxiety in his unconscious mind that coerces his yearnings.

Ruben feels a peculiar kind of joy while in love with married women, including Norma who marries Edgar, leaving him. He condemns himself for being in love with her but it is just to silence his ethical inner voice. He himself wants to meet Norma whenever possible:

It was four p.m. Deciding to wait until dark, he tries to lose himself in the gaiety of the men, women, boys and girls who were playing and laughing, caught in the grip of the

spring madness. Each girl that passed his way reminded him of Norma. (Why, 14).

Ruben does what he never approves for his mother. He bears her influence and he is aware of the crime (sin) she has committed by leaving her family for another man. He is confused and thinks of his mother. Then Ruben’s thoughts dwelt on his mother: he wondered if she could give her love to anyone, she had deserted her husband and her only child just to overcome boredom. (Why, 29).

Like the males in the age of Manu, a woman’s desires and dreams do not have any priority. Ruben like those males does not feel about the miserable life of his mother at his father’s place. Contrary to this, he becomes aware of the sin she commits by leaving the house in which she enters after taking the marital oaths. This neo initiative of his mother searching happiness outside her married life does not suit Ruben’s patriarchal thinking. In the course of time he tries to grow relations with married women or let them marry another man after sleeping with them to revenge upon his mother. One incident that supports this view is when he blames Norma for calling him in her husband’s absence.

Ruben believes that a virtuous wife should never go against her husband. When he feels a bit disturbed by the behaviour of Norma who was seeing him in the absence of her husband not only he questions her but also seems to believe in the Manu’s Law about women : A virtuous wife should never do anything displeasing to the husband who took her in marriage. (Subramanaim, Meenakshi, The Laws of Manu) Ruben feels that his mother has failed in carrying this ethics of life and thus she has brought shame to the whole family: He fails in establishing any meaningful relation with any woman because he does not want to carry responsibility. Every woman dies away in his memory as soon as she is out of his sight.

Also, Ruben never leaves any opportunity to belittle women. Mr. Cobb revenges upon his wife just because she turns down his marriage request earlier. Only Mrs. Cobb is shown as a woman with strong desire who leaves her husband when she gets a man of her choice. Patriarchal thinking of the author could not digest it and he shows her as the sole problem for the Cobb family by saying:

Once she was out of Mr. Cobb’s life, he became a better husband and father. After twenty years the children discovered that their mother was having an affair with bachelor, much younger than herself. (Why, 25). This is something like T.S. Eliot who demeans women by saying: In the room the women come and go / Talking of Michelangelo. (Manju, 4).

Like Manu and Ruben Motard, Eliot does not think that women have the capacity to discuss intellectual matters about the acclaimed painter. So he mocks them by saying that they discuss every serious matter lightly and bring triviality to the subject like Michelangelo by reducing it to the topic of dining table talk. According to Manu she is vacuum and so she does not have capacity to talk about any subject. She always needs a man to sustain her personality because she needs support. Manu has said that she is roof and it is evident that roof can not be suspended in the air. The roof does need a column and the male is the column. Here the creator of novel Why holds women responsible for Ruben’s life. No where the novelist makes Ruben reproach his father for the boredom his mother suffered in his house. Thought flew to his father, who had urged him to marry and settle down. For his father to be occupied was happiness. When his wife left him, he found pleasure in work. (Why, 29)

What Ruben thinks right for himself to eliminate his boredom or achieve peace does not endorse for his mother: Life was already converging on dullness, but he could rid himself of this boredom with occasional dates. (Why, 29). But when his thoughts dwell on his mother, he thinks as if he is not the same Ruben but someone else. He shows no sympathy for

his mothers boredom.

Ruben propagates all sorts of love--- motherly, sisterly, love of children, parental and also love of Antony and Cleopatra. It seems he talks of every kind of love shallowly-- he does not believe in purity and strength of true love. This is the reason why every woman who enters his life just remains like clothes to be changed in days, months and in years. He utterly fails in developing any lasting relation with any woman, nor does he find any sister or even sacred love of mother even in the love of elderly woman Dorothy.
The protagonist borrows the voice of his creator to voice his views about women. The persona is self conscious and hyper critical about women. There is a sense of insecurity witnessed in Ruben because he is left out of the circle of security by his mother.

In Why female characters are not fully developed and have no individual voice and choice. Ruben has doubts in his mind about the life of his mother as he believes that woman should be devoted to her husband and believes that A husband is a Hindu woman’s main support. (Wadley, 92). The story of Why is anti feminist as the writer does not depict any sympathetic view towards women.

Ruben’s mother’s elopement leaves indelible marks on Ruben’s psyche. It is said that She must not seek to separate herself from her father, husband, or sons; by leaving them she would make both (her own and her husband’s) families contemptible. (Buhler, G. 195). It is obvious that Ruben Motard carries the East Indian heritage of Manu and is aware of this patriarchal tradition which is stamped by Manu on the psyche of the whole nation of India. Manu Smrti and its impact are obvious in Ruben’s personal life. He believes in teachings of Manu unconsciously which goes: Men should never give any license to their wives in day and night; by keeping them engaged in commendable pursuits, they should keep them under their own control. (Nath Manmatha, 315). He feels that his father fails in controlling his wife and she is corrupted by outside influence. He believes:

Women should be especially protected from the slightest of corrupting influences (such as bad company etc.) since an unprotected woman aggrieves the two families. (i.e. those of her father and husband) (Nath Manmatha, 315)

What makes Ruben think that his mother was not right in leaving his father and the child is explained in the following line where Manu says a woman can not leave her husband. He should be worshiped like a god no matter how he behaves with his wife:

Though destitute of virtue, or seeking pleasure (elsewhere), or devoid of good qualities, (yet) a husband must be constantly worshipped as a god by his faithful wife. (Buhler, G. 196)

This kind of heritage make him feel that only his mother is wrong in leaving his father, not his father. Even Kumar does not deny that in practice The Laws of Manu have also caused the grave mistreatment of Hindu women as well. (Kumar, 213). In global village no one can say that any influence can remain confined to certain place or civilization for a long time. Today the influence of Manu Smirit can not be limited to any one tradition or culture because it has made its way to the world literature through variegated means and sources. Manu Smrti has been translated not only by Indian scholars but also scholars from UK and Germany like William Jones and G. Buhler. It is understandable that it has exercised its influence on the minds of creative writers and critic and it is possible that it has its marks on the writer who was at that time just trying to establish roots in the new atmosphere of new culture and new place. The thinking of the protagonist certainly gives the feeling of the Laws of Manu on his psyche. Manu prescribes in verses from 147 to 149 of chapter 5 every possible restriction on women by saying that they should not do any activity independently and also they should not try to separate themselves from male figure. The same practice is seen in the novel Why. The Laws of Manu are deeply entrenched in Hindu society. Its far reaching influence has been both beneficial and troublesome throughout History. (Rodrigues, Hillary). After his mother leaves, Ruben keeps on trying with every woman he meets just to feel the teaching of Manu that goes like, Women do not care for beauty, nor is their attention on age; they give themselves to the handsome as well as ugly just for the fact that he is a man. (women in world history)

The above mentioned reason for his mother’s elopement disturbs him and he develops antagonistic feelings for his mother and thinks that all the women are the same and their main concern is physical relation. He views every woman with that angle only. Ruben Motard leaves readers bewildered with many unanswered questions. The title of the novel itself leaves a question in the minds of readers. One justification for writing this type of novel may be the fact that the novelist was in the early stages of his writing and was still examining the focal point of his career. It may also be true to say that the protagonist of Why explores the possibilities of embracing peace in the flesh of women that he does not find anywhere else. In doing so, he certainly follows the theory of Manu. Being the product of Indian soil the novelist carries the Indian Mythological inheritance with him in the country that he has adopted as his home. Why, full of love making and graphics, fails to depict love as does Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, a dramatic monologue, without love.

References:

Boeree, C. George. 2006. http:/webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/jung.html

Buhler, G. trans. The Laws of Manu. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1964.

Das, Bhagvan. Trans. The science of Social Organisation or The Laws of Manu

in the Light of Atma-Vidya. India: The theosophical

Publishing House, 1935. Vol II. Ed. II

Das, Bhagvan trans. The Science of Social organisation or The Laws of Manu

in the Light of Atma-Vidya, Banaras India: Ananda Publishing

House, 1948, Vol. III, Ed. II

Eliot T. S. Selected Poems with A Critical Reading and Comprehensive Notes by

Manju Jain. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Gill, Stephen. Why. Canada: Vesta Publications, 1976.

http:/www.womeninworldhistory.com/TWR-05.html

Kumar, Sanjay. Manu: The Meaning of Svatantrya and its Implications for

Women’s Freedom. In The journal of Religious Studies. Vol. 34 207 to 223.

Pinkola, Clarissa Estes, Ph.D. Women Who Run With the Wolves: Myths and Stories

of the Wild Woman Archetype. New York: The Random House

Publishing Group, 1992

Rodrigues, Hillary. http:/www.mahavidya.ca/hindu-social-organization-and-values/

the-laws-of-manu-on-women/ 2008, 22^nd June.

Srinivasan, Bina. Negotiating Complexities: A Collection of Feminist Essays. New

Delhi, Promila & Co. Publishers. 2007

Subramaniam. Meenakshi. The Laws of Manu http:/www.suit101.com/article,cfm/women_in_India/81390

The Dharma Shastra or The Hindu Law Code. Trans. Nath Manmatha Dutta.

Kolkata: Essylium Press, N D Vol II.

Wadley, Susar. No Longer a Wife: Widows in Rural North India In The Margins of Hindu Marriage. Ed. Lindsey Harlan & Paul B. Cartwright. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

=================================================

Anuradha Sharma, a recipient of several honors, is a lecturer at Navjivan Arts and Commerce College, Dahod in Gujarat. She writes poetry in English and Hindi both. Her poems and research papers have appeared in many journals, anthologies and news papers in India and abroad. At present she is working on a Minor Research Project funded by UGC and has been selected for Associateship by IIAS, Shimla. She is editing a book on Stephen Gill and also translating his epical poem The Flame into Hindi. .