THE MAN-EATER OF MALGUDI

 

An Analysis

 

A. S. RATNAM

 

The Title of the Novel

 

R. K. Narayan in an A. I. R. interview published in Writers Workshop Miscellany No.8 (1961) on page 50 says: “The Man-­Eater is a man, not a tiger, an ego-centred man for whom the objective world is non-existent, a modern Rakshasa, who wants to kill the elephant that belongs to the local temple.” The title pronounces the name of the town Malgudi where the main action takes place as in most of the other novels. The man-eater, as R. K. Narayan himself says, is a man; but he does not belong to Malgudi. Just as Mr. Sampath cannot be considered the only man character of the novel with the same title, the present novel cannot be considered as a novel treating H. Vasu who is the man-­eater as an exclusively main character, for it equally deals with the character of Nataraj, the printer. The title, thus, is mislead­ing at least to a certain extent.

 

Connections with the Earlier Novels

 

H. Vasu, in certain respects, is Mr. Sampath. Raju and Margayya of the earlier novels. Nataraj is Srinivas in another form. There is a striking resemblance between Nataraj and Srinivas. Both are closely associated with the printing business. The printing press appears in Mr. Sampath, The Financial Expert and the Man-Eater of Malgudi. There is a curtain in the Truth Printing Press in Mr. Sampath which shrouds a mystery. It is a purple-dotted curtain in The Man-Eater of Malgudi. The mystery of what lay behind the curtain is solved by Nataraj’s description of his own printing press. (“This seemed a golden chance to enter the great mystery,” says Mr. Sampath. Page 8). The press of Mr. Sampath is in Kabir Lane and that of Nataraj on the Market Road which is behind Kabir Lane in the topography of Malgudi. The “adjournment lawyer” of The Guide makes his appearance again in The Man-Eater of Malgudi. The novel under consideration uses one of the characters as the narrator, the technique which has been used in two of the earlier novels, with astounding success in The Guide and without success in The English Teacher. Once again, the main character becomes the narrator of the story.

 

The Significant Disparities

 

In all the previous novels, the man-wife (man-woman) relationship plays an important role or the father-son relationship forms an integral part of the structure of the novel. In The Man-­Eater of Malgudi, till the end, not much of the family life of Nataraj figures in the narrative. (This is attributable to the first person narrative technique adopted by R. K. Narayan and is in keeping with the modest and shy nature of Nataraj.) In the end Nataraj shows concern for the safety of his wife and his child who go to join the procession. His son appears in the beginning when Vasu is in the parlour and the giant of a man frightens the boy to run home. Srinivas and Nataraj are both passive onlookers with a difference. Srinivas never entertains the thought of severing his relations with Mr. Sampath. On the other hand he is a party to the film project. Nataraj is humane in his attitude to Vasu. His main worry is to save Kumar, the temple elephant.

 

The Theme of the Novel

 

            The theme of corruption by the outsiders is effectively developed once again in this novel, wherein H. Vasu the outsider, disrupts the normal life in Malgudi with his boisterousness and destructive genius. He leaves Malgudi and this world in the end to enable order and normalcy to prevail in Malgudi. Nataraj symbolises the peaceful life in Malgudi. The orderliness with which he runs his printing press gets a jerk with the arrival of Vasu. H. M. Williams in his Indo-Anglian Literature. 1800-1970. A Survey (Orient Longman, New Delhi, 1976) observes on page 61: “But the story is also a parody of the Agatha Christie type Mystery. When the giant is bashed to death, the police do not know who the murderer is.” Gentle Nataraj, who has worked, himself into a state of anger, is the chief suspect though he comes from a family which looks upon the killing of even a fly as a crime. Nataraj is cleared of the charge when a prostitute reveals that Vasu has killed himself warding off a mosquito which lands on his forehead.

 

Meenakshi Mukherjee in her book The Twice Born Fiction (Heinemann, New Delhi, 1971) on page 155 rightly says: “The Man-Eater of Malgudi (thus) has a clear Mythical design ( order – dislocation of order restoration of order) reiterated by references to the Puranic conflict between Sura and Asura.” This theme is implicit in what R. K. Narayan himself says in the radio interview cited earlier. Vasu is the modern version of a Rakshasa. Again it is made dear in the novel: Sastri, an orthodox-minded semi-­scholar of Sanskrit, who narrates a long series of anecdotes from the mythologies to Nataraj, refers to the story of Bhasmasura who brings doom on himself–and that is what Vasu really is (Pages 95-97). K. R. Srinivasa Iyengar in his magnum opus, Indian Writing in English (Asia Publishing House, Bombay, 1973) on page 383 remarks: ... ... in the Man-Eater evil is as it were anti-life, anti-nature, anti-faith.”

 

It is certainly the story of the eternal conflict between the Good and the Evil personified in the two characters pitted against each other in peculiar circumstances. The story of Vasu makes it clear that R. K. Narayan’s conception of life is essentially an Indian one in that he shows through his story, as in Indian classical writings, that “Dharma protects those who protect Dharma and Dharma destroys those who destroy Dharma” (A famous Sanskrit aphorism). The Rakshasa is edowed with enormous strength; but he uses it for destruction. He is invincible. The sins and crimes he commits have to accumulate to the optimum and then comes the end. God is always represented as weak and submissive in the face of overbearing evil and evil triumphs for a time. God in various shapes appears to punish the bad or the evil. Nataraj, who represents the good, maintains the love-hate relationship with Vasu as he is torn between his friendship for Vasu and his desperate dislike for Vasu.

 

Vasu has committed sins which horrify Nataraj. Vasu hits his teacher (Guru) and runs away from him. He attempts to improve upon nature by stuffing animals. In the end he is ready to commit the sacrilege of killing the temple elephant. In his last bid to save the elephant, Nataraj, the tolerant and non-violent person, decides to kill Vasu. But he is saved of committing this most un-Nataraj like act by Providence. Had he killed Vasu, the man-eater would have become, a martyr and this would have adversely affected the very fibre of the novel.

 

Nataraj and Vasa: A Study in Contrast

 

Nataraj is a typically self-effacing simple man whose words and deeds tend to create an impression that he is timid, shy and submissive. In the words of Vasu, Nataraj is “a spineless person.” (Pages 101-102) He is generous, helpful and co-operative. At Memphi, where he is dragged by Vasu, Nataraj gets involved in the affairs of the village and assures Muthu of printing the notices and helping Muthu in conveying and curing the temple elephant, Kumar. He helps the poet in getting the poems printed and takes a leading part in arranging the function in the temple. He is honest and generous. He waxes eloquent about the neigh­bouring Star Press, which owns an original Heidelberg machine, whenever he is unable to take up a difficult task of printing. He lets others bully him and never resists such attempts by other people because of his inherent weakness of not being able to say “no” to anyone. (Page 199) He is a law-abiding citizen.

 

Vasu, on the contrary, is a gigantic ex-circus “trong-man”, wild animal hunter and a taxidermist. Vasu is not interested in other people’s affairs. He is a secluded individual. He is aggres­sive in nature and not sensitive to subtler aspects of life. Taxidermy is his obsession. He is energetic and always on the move. His presence horrifies and fascinates Nataraj. He comes like a storm and sweeps Nataraj with a torrent of words. He is obliged by Nataraj for the attic; but behaves as if Nataraj is in debt to him. (Page 31) The pseudo-philosophy of Vasu is, we are civilized human beings, educated and cultured and it is up to us to prove our superiority to nature. Science conquers nature in a new way every day; why not in creation also? That’s my philosophy, Sir. (Page 20) Incidentally, he is an educated person unlike Mr. Sampath, Margayya and Raju; and he is endowed with intelligence. He tours extensively and drops names like Nagpur and Junagadh. He is self-willed and assertive. He cares neither for Nataraj nor for the forest officials. (The only instance cited in the novel to show Vasu as a supplicant is when he accompanies the officer to the press for the purpose of getting the book of golden thoughts published.) He is not a respecter of law. He goes hunting when he is not given a licence for big-game hunting. He kills animals which happen to come his way. He is thus an incarnation of evil trying to re-create while destroying life.

 

The use of Irony in the Novel

 

The end of the black man comes through a mosquito. The mosquito, a tiny and weak insect, happens to be the instrument for the death of Vasu. The mosquito is the one creature dreaded most by Vasu. (Page 30) Kumar, the elephant, is the cause of tension for both Nataraj, who is anxious to save and Vasu, who is eager to kill. Vasu, in the end, while waiting to kill a big and strong animal is killed because of an extremely tiny and weak creature.

 

All the references to the text are based on the Hind Pocket Book edition of THE MAN-EATER OF MALGUDI published in 1979.)

 

Back