Idea Of Government Essay Example For Students

Idea Of Government Essay Government in Kamala Markandayas, Nectar in a SieveOnemight think of government as a bunch of sly politicians running the country froma little office in the White House. Or perhaps he or she pictures a mighty kingsitting on the throne of his country, telling his loyal subjects and servantswhat to do. Even though both of these are very common descriptions ofgovernment, neither of them fit the governmental system in the small village ofGopalpur in South India. The book, Nectar in a Sieve, by Kamala Markandayadescribes such a village, as well as the governmental system within it. Thecharacters in the book are used to a government that is quite different fromthose in the United States or Western Europe. In Gopalpur, the rich rule societywhile the poor are left to fend for themselves. And, in addition, the rich donot care about the well-being of the poor villagers. There is no setgovernmental system; it is simply understood that the rich hold all theauthority. The rich posses the money, a nd therefore, the power to make the rulesby which everyone else must follow. The structure of the village was this: therich owned all the land. They would hire tenants to farm the land for them,since they owned such vast amounts that they could not work it themselves. However, there were so many tenants hired, that the owner could not keep trackof them all. So he hired overseers to manage the village. Each of theseoverseers were assigned their own districts, which they would manage for theowner of the land in return for a small percentage of the rent. And this systemwas accepted as government in the eyes of the villagers. It was just the waythings were. In her book, Markandaya tells the story of one of these tenantfarmers, Nathan. His wife was called Rukmani, the main character of this novel,and the two of them lived with their family in a small mud hut Nathan hadconstructed for them when they were wed. The mud hut was not at all extravagant,they did not wear nice clothes, and they had only the basics to eat, for theycould not afford any more on the salary they were getting from the owner of theland. But Nathan and his wife were very content. Rukmani describes the system ofland ownership as this: In all the years of our tenancy we never saw theZem indar who owned our land. Sivaji acted for him, and being a kindly, humaneman we counted ourselves lucky. Unlike some, he did not extract payment in kindto the last grain; he allowed us to keep the gleanings; he did not demand fromus bribes of food or money; nor did he claim for himself the dung from thefields, which he might easily have done. (35) Sivaji was the overseer ofRukmanis district. As stated, there were many overseers who did not careabout the condition of the tenants. They would take every last penny even if itmeant starvation for the tenants family. Fortunately, Sivaji was different. He too had a family, and cared about the well-being of the other families in hisdistrict. One year, however, the harvest had not been as good as expected. Therehad not been enough crops to sell in order to pay the rent, and Nathan and hisfamily were barely surviving. Sivaji came to collect the rent money. Thereis nothing this year, Nathan said to him. Not even gleanings, forthe grain was but little advanced. You have had the land,Sivaji said, for which you have contracted to pay: so much money, so muchrice. These are just dues, I must have them. Would you have me returnempty-handed? What would you have me do? The last harvest wasmeager; we have nothing saved. Sivaji looked away, I do not know. Itis your concern. I must do as I am bid. (77) The family obviously did nothave enough money, so Nathan and Rukmani gathered up whatever valuablepossessions they could find and sold them to the highest bidder. They sold pots,a trunk, shirts that belonged to their sons, food, and the saris Rukma ni hadworn to her and her daughters weddings. Nathan even had to sell the seed forthe next years crop in hopes that they would eventually be able to buy more. Rather these should go, said Nathan, than that the land shouldbe taken from us. We can do without these, but if the land is gone, ourlivelihood is gone. (78) Because Sivaji answered to a higher authority the wealthy land owner he collected all of the familys money, plus theirearnings from the items that had been sold. The family was left with nothing. Yet, they understood that Sivaji had a family of his own, and that he was onlydoing his job, so they did not hold a grudge. But times were still hard and theystill had no food. Later on in the novel, Sivaji came to Nathan and Rukmani andannounced that they were going to have to move. The owner was selling the landto the village tannery, and could no longer employ the tenants. The deal wasdone, the papers were signed, and Nathan and Rukmani had two weeks to leave. Taming Of The Shrew Inside EssayThis hut with all its memories was to be taken from us, for it stood on a landthat belonged to another. And the land itself by which we lived. It is a cruelthing, I thought. They do not know what they do to us. (137) Theethnography proposes that the land be taken away from the rich Gaudas in orderto better distribute the wealth. But without the land, the villagers would notknow how to survive. This is clearly illustrated in Markandayas novel. Perhaps history can learn a lesson from fiction in this case. The governmentalstructure in Gopalpur is this: The rich landowners and white men have the powerand the money to govern the village, while the poor commoners such asRukmanis family must suffer the hardships of life, and oppression from thelandowners. This is evident in Kamala Markandayas novel, Nectar in a Sieve,and the ethnography by Alan R. Beals, Gopalpur: A South Indian Village. The richdo not care about the well-being of their poorer tenants or workers. They areconcerned only with how much work the villagers are able to do; and how muchthey are going to profit from their labors. The picture is not a pretty one, yetwithout this structure, the villagers would not know what to do with themselves. They have lived this way all their lives, and change is a hard thing. Thegovernmental structure they have now is familiar to them; traditional. Anythingelse would cause trouble.