Sholem Aleichem, a famous author and playwright, once said, “Life is a comedy for the rich and a tragedy for the poor”. Clearly, such a powerful message has not only been said, but has been observed by the vast majority of the people around the world who have lived this reality in the past and the present. Unfortunately, alienation and exploitation are the prevailing resultants as the caste system and social classes constantly divide the population, especially in developing countries. Ergo, the same rule of thumb applies to India, especially from 1975 to 1977 when a state of emergency was declared by the Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi. Accordingly, the “Emergency” was placed by Indira Gandhi “in order to avoid the political consequences of being …show more content…
Hence, such a tragic way of living leads to them to becoming accustomed to accepting the predicament they are in, perceiving defiance as a lost cause and an amicable life as unobtainable. Dina, a stubborn, yet ardent woman in her twenties, finds herself in an agonizing position when her husband passes away early in their marriage. Unfortunately, she loses her significant other and has no choice but to move back in with her abusive elder brother, Nusswan since he possesses an abundant amount of money. Despite “a month [passing], Dina [settles] into her old routine, assuming her former place in the household. The servant [is] let go. Dina [does] not mind, as it gives her something to do with her long, empty days” (Mistry 54). Evidently, Nusswan gets rid of the maid entirely so that he may misuse his relationship with Dina to get a servant free of charge. Since his status is that of a bourgeoisie, he believes he has the right to exploit someone who is bonded to him by blood. In essence, this demonstrates Nusswan’s calculated motive as he fully comprehends that Dina is desperate because she does not have any money of her own. So, if Dina does not have the means to provide for herself, her desperation is what allows her to put a noose around her neck because she will not protest against her brother’s wishes. As a result, Dina’s environment turns …show more content…
In order to acquire help and capital for herself, she hires two tailors, Omprakash and Ishvar. Easily enough, the three men become an extremely tight-knit group of friends, exposed to different perspectives from the eyes of the other. Resultantly, Maneck forms an emotional and spiritual connection with the tailors, considering them to be family. Nonetheless, a series of unfortunate events lead to Om being castrated and Ishvar’s legs being amputated all the while Dina is being evicted from her home. All of these problems prove to be too much for Maneck as he spends his days in a constant state of trauma. Thus, when visiting a train station, he “[steps] off the platform and onto the gleaming silver tracks”, committing suicide without even speaking to Om or Ishvar (Mistry 710). Ergo, Maneck’s suicide proves to be the epitome of what an unethical government driven by monetary values and complete authority looks like. Naturally, he is not the only individual to commit suicide as suicide rates spiked in 1986 to 7.1 deaths per 100 000 people (Lester). This was a record high since the “Emergency” had ended a decade ago, demonstrating how drastic the effects of such a horrific siege are. Consequently, the sheer criminality of the ruling class is exhibited through dialectical materialism as rich individuals used the tense