Skip to main content

Limbale's last-minute-sex-change novel

Just finished reading a 2003-4 novel by Sharankumar Limbale, called Hindu. It is a dalit novel and, being such, it is novel of collectives and is interestingly mostly about public space events. It is about how dalits are forced by multiple powers to accommodate within the Hindu (and often Hindutva) order even years after the Ambedkar's struggles and the help of some legislation and federal institutions. The plot starts with the murder of a dalit leader and ends with the judicial acquittal of the savarna's perpetrators. In the meantime there are two elections, a lynching of a dalit women by savarna villagers, some episodes of betrayal and loads of soul-searching of dalit groups mostly around the convenience and efficacy of converting out of hinduism. The novel revolves around Gopichand and Manikchand, two brothers who act like one and appear as a double - two but acting as one, savarnas close to Hindutva and at the same time hanging out with dalits and providing money for their campaign, electing dalits and making they play the establishment (or the Hindutva) game etc. They make money out of the savarna-avarna conflict - as they say, dalits have to revolt, there is no reason for them to stop the conflict. The conflict is, for the duo, the source of their living and, at the same time, what give them prestige. Also the story is narrated both in third person and my Milind Kamble who is part of the dalit movement but takes part of the night adventures of Gopichand and Manikchand that often involve raping and abusing dalit women. It is a portray of the dead end dalit situation involving most ingredients of their state of affairs: Hindutva, conversion, Ambedkar, avarna women, money and Indian election politics, the lot.

However, up to the very end there are no appearances of hijras (eunuchs, in the English translation). Hijras live like avarnas and are the worse of from the outcast community. In the very end of the book, Milind, the narrator, is inside a car with a woman, Gopichand and Manikchand as they meet the hijras who ask for money and kiss Gopichand's hands (or was Manikchand's?). Then Milind undergoes a sex change. As the narrator, he feels humiliated as his body becomes different piece by piece and comments that he lost his masculinity because he left the dalit movement - gradually seduced by Gopichand and Manikchand's way of life. Confronted with the sudden sex change, the brothers and Shaila Satpute, the woman in the car, laugh at Milind. Then comes the last phrase of the novel: "I held Manikchand's hand, kissing it loyally".

What is this about? Maybe it is about castes really, and women are sometimes portrayed in the book as almost an outcast even when they come from a savarna background. Maybe it is about the domineering role figures like the brothers have, they have money and power and that make them hypermales that feminize whatever touch them. In a desperate novel, though, it is a final touch of desperate misogyny: the sex change makes Milind even more subservient to the double powers that be.


Popular posts from this blog

My responses to (some) talks in the Book Symposium

Indexicalism is out: l   The book symposium took place two weeks ago with talks by Sofya Gevorkyan/Carlos Segovia, Paul Livingston, Gerson Brea, Steven Shaviro, Chris RayAlexander, Janina Moninska, Germán Prosperi, Gabriela Lafetá, Andrea Vidal, Elzahrã Osman, Graham Harman, Charles Johns, Jon Cogburn, Otavio Maciel, Aha Else, JP Caron, Michel Weber and John Bova. My very preliminary response to some of their talks about the book follows. (Texts will appear in a special issue of Cosmos & History soon). RESPONSES : ON SAYING PARADOXICAL THINGS Hilan Bensusan First of all, I want to thank everyone for their contributions. You all created a network of discussions that made the book worth publishing. Thanks. Response to Shaviro: To engage in a general account of how things are is to risk paradox. Totality, with its different figures including the impersonal one that enables a symmetrical view from nowhere

Hunky, Gunky and Junky - all Funky Metaphysics

Been reading Bohn's recent papers on the possibility of junky worlds (and therefore of hunky worlds as hunky worlds are those that are gunky and junky - quite funky, as I said in the other post). He cites Whitehead (process philosophy tends to go hunky) but also Leibniz in his company - he wouldn't take up gunk as he believed in monads but would accept junky worlds (where everything that exists is a part of something). Bohn quotes Leibniz in On Nature Itself «For, although there are atoms of substance, namely monads, which lack parts, there are no atoms of bulk, that is, atoms of the least possible extension, nor are there any ultimate elements, since a continuum cannot be composed out of points. In just the same way, there is nothing greatest in bulk nor infinite in extension, even if there is always something bigger than anything else, though there is a being greatest in the intensity of its perfection, that is, a being infinite in power.» And New Essays: ... for there is ne

Necropolitics and Neocameralism

It is perhaps just wishful thinking that the alt-right seemingly innovative and intrepid ideas will disappear from the scene as Trump's reign comes to an end. They have their own dynamics, but certainly the experiences of the last years, including those in the pandemics, do help to wear off their bright and attractiveness. Neocameralism, what Mencius Moldbug and Nick Land with him ushered in as a model of post-democracy that relinquish important ingredients of the human security system, is one of these projects that is proving to be too grounded in the past to have any capacity to foretell anything bright beyond the democratic rusting institutions. It is little more than necropolitics - which is itself a current post-democratic alternative. Achile Mbembe finds necropolitics in the regimes were warlords take over the state-like institutions (or mimick them)  to rule on the grounds of local security having no troubles killing or letting die whoever is in their path. Neocameralism pos