SPM English Literature: Naukar

The rickshaw-wallah was treated differently by Julia and the Indians. Suggest reasons why this happens? (8m) The short story Naukar by Anya Sitaram reveals a facet of an India steeped in social prejudice and class differences. What is described as sinister undercurrents... beneath the fragile coexistence of rich and poor can be seen up close through the treatment of the rickshaw-wallah by Julia and the Indians respectively. Julia is first introduced to readers as an refined English lady seated in a rickety rickshaw, careening around corners in Calcutta. She is uncomfortable, her lanky frame being squeezed into a tight vehicle built for shorter beings but she is much more uncomfortable seeing the rickshaw-wallah labouring with the task of transporting a richer, fatter, more fortunate being to her destination. Having come from a highly developed country, namely England, Julia has a culture shock when she sees the poor people at Calcutta, their poor living conditions, and the poor treatment that they receive. This leads her to feel compassion towards the rickshaw-wallah. Also, having come from England, Julia has comparatively much more money to spare. This combination of compassion and relative wealth leads Julia to treat the rickshaw-wallah kindly. She offers aloo paratas, a mango, a bottle of chilled water and twenty rupees to him. Upon receiving much more than the five rupees he initially wanted, the rickshaw-wallah gives Julia a broad smile and thanks her repeatedly. The realisation that the slightest act of philanthropy reaps great gratitude in Calcutta likely bolsters Julias resolve to do more for the poor in India. This first incident paves the way for conflict in the story to build up. Eventually, the rickshaw-wallah returns to Julia and asks for a job. Julia decides to empower the man with a job and so employs the rickshaw-wallah as a bearer in her house. However, Nilkant is furious when he finds out what his wife has done. Although Nilkant had for some time worked in England, it is evident that he retains a quintessentially upper-class Indian view towards the rickshaw-wallah. The caste system in India dictates the worth of individuals the higher ones caste, the higher ones value; the lower ones caste, the
1

lower ones value. The rickshaw-wallah, in Nilkants eyes, is of no value. Nilkant goes as far as to draw a parallel between the puppy that gnawed at the furniture and the bearer who served the drinks. The Indian culture of dividing society into imp enetrable societal classes leads Nilkant to find every reason to prove to Julia that her bearer is a good for nothing, worthless rogue. Nilkant gets his break when Julias gold necklace her anniversary gift is stolen one day. The rickshaw-wallah is swiftly accused of committing the crime. In Nilkants own words, Of course hes guilty. Its obvious. Here, the writer introduces another group of Indians who mistreat the rickshaw-wallah these people are none other than the policemen. The policemen seem to carry out investigations just for the formality of doing so. Harbouring the traditional notion that members of the lower castes cannot be trusted, they quickly jump to the conclusion that the rickshaw-wallah is guilty. They take him away to be questioned, and for three days he refuses to admit to the crime. However, the policemen are more interested in making the innocent, unwitting rickshawwallah admit to the crime than in actually finding the real culprit, so they beat him. As the beatings become more persistent, the rickshaw-wallah admits to the crime he did not commit. The Indian policemens priorities that rest on looking important rather than upholding justice is a reason why the rickshaw-wallah is so poorly treated by them. In conclusion, cultural differences cause the rickshaw-wallah to be treated differently by Julia and the Indians. Julias upbringing in a culture that places importance on human rights greatly differs from the traditional Indian culture of class separation. However, all in all, it is important for us to be kind and compassionate towards other human beings.

It is said that fortune favours the rich. Do you agree with this statement? (12m) I agree with the statement that fortune favours the rich. In this warped society, money is an important key to unlock power, security and lifes luxuries. The absence of money, on the other hand, tends to deny an individual such things. In the short story Naukar,
2

Anya Sitaram reveals the vast disparity that exists between the rich and the poor in India. Julia is first introduced to readers as a refined English lady who relatively has much more wealth than the poor people in Calcutta. Her wealth stands out in stark contrast to the rickshaw-wallah who labours with the task of transporting a richer, fatter, more fortunate being to her destination Julia herself. Although she feels uncomfortable with her lanky frame packed tightly into a shabby rickshaw, the fact that Julia pays the rickshaw-wallah to take her to her destination is a reflection of the advantage that wealth affords the rich. Julia has the option of taking a ride in a rickshaw whenever she wants to. However, the rickshaw-wallah, being poor, has no option of avoiding the toil, the unrelenting heat, and the wet, pink sores his o ccupation brings him. Julia, being rich, can afford to be a housewife, have an easy life and rely solely on her husbands large pay packet. In contrast, the rickshaw-wallahs life has been fraught with hardships his buffalo died, his wife developed a cataract in her left eye, and he has a family of a wife and eight sons to feed. As he is poor and has no savings to rely on, he has to toil and endure the hardships of serving his rich customers each day to earn a meagre income. The fact that fortune favours the rich can also be seen in the general gap between the rich and the poor in Calcutta. The writer provides stunningly disparate descriptions of life in Calcutta. Among the poor, Calcutta is described as reeking of poverty, death and confusion; it is a seething, multi-mouthed volcano. Beggars litter the streets, and those who are too weak to beg collapse on the pavements. There are two outcomes to their unfortunate lives they are either fortunate enough to die or be scooped up by a Mother Teresa. Yet, great luxuries are to be had at the homes of those in the upper income bracket. Nilkant and Julia, who belong to such an income bracket, live in a comfortable house with servants at their disposal to do the dirty work for them. Nilkant can afford to enjoy a restorative gin and tonic each evening, before taking his wife out to the Tolley Club or the Oberoi-Grand for dinner. In effect, the fate and livelihoods of many poor people are at the mercy of the rich. Julia has the option of employing the

rickshaw-wallah or not, and when she does, Nilkant almost exerts his authority to sack the new bearer at once. He only relents because of his wifes persistence. The statement that fortune favours the rich is also supported by one tragic incident in Calcutta. One day, a street urchin was killed by an oncoming car. The sight of the limp, bleeding five-year old rendered lifeless by a more privileged being angered the crowd, which seized the driver and killed him in return. The next day, two deaths were reported in the Calcutta Statesman, one of the child and the other of the driver but all the poor in India were responsible. This incident clearly reflects the fact that there are less implications towards rich people who commit crimes, than towards poor people who commit the same crimes. Furthermore, the rich are generally the people who are in control over the media, the media in this case being the Calcutta Statesman. As such, they have the power to manipulate the way news is reported just like how millions of poor people were framed as responsible for the crime by the Calcutta Statesman. Fortune also favours the rich in the legal sense. The story is set in India, where the caste system pervades society. In general, the lower the caste group, the poorer the members of the caste. Also, the lower the caste, the more suspicious people are of its members.This works to the rickshaw-wallahs disadvantage when Julias priceless necklace goes missing. Seeing that the rickshaw-wallah is poor and despised, the policemen take advantage of him, implicating him in the crime. The policemen hardly care about finding the true culprit they are merely interested in declaring someone guilty to to look as if they have done a good job with the investigation. The fact that Nilkant already harbours the notion that the rickshaw-wallah is a worthless rogue makes it even easier for the policemen to accuse him of stealing the necklace. Initially, the rickshaw-wallah denies stealing the necklace, but as the policemens beatings become more persistent, the poor, innocent man declares that he is guilty. In conclusion, fortune certainly favours the rich, especially in instances when money can buy unethical solutions to a problem. However, wealth that we obtain should be shared with those who are less fortunate, as in the case of Julia, to give them a better chance at life.