Devi's literary concerns are different though: the aftermath of Partition, the hypocrisy in a patriarchal society, the dilemma of having a religious identity by the circumstances of one's birth. The novel juxtaposes two narratives. The first talks of the pre-Partition riot that reduces men into "two sets of confused individuals". In the second intertwined narrative grows the character of Sutara, a young Hindu girl orphaned by Partition riots and sheltered by a Muslim family thereafter. Following Sutara's reunion with her family, her stint in a Muslim household leads to social ostracism. Besides a couple of compassionate relatives, the girl's odd act can only evoke expressions of contempt: "Goodness! Why are you doing this? You haven't touched the pitcher, I hope?"
This is unfortunate, since similarly 'culpable' men might have been excused because of the fact they were 'men'. Parading an insight ahead of her time, the writer talks of sexism with expressions unique to her period: "Perhaps, society has remained the same since the time of the Ramayana."
Translated extremely well by Enakshi Mukherjee, the work's beauty is heightened once Devi begins focussing on the neglect of women since history began. Today, almost five decades after the work was originally written, what is apparent is how a fact of those times holds a modern relevance worldwide. What else explains the birth of a backlash at a time when 'women's lib' has become an important sociological activity. To what do you attribute the success of a film like The Accused or the silent appreciation of Robert Bly? Nothing really, just as the writer thought in 1947.
