Idea Of Government In Nectar In A Sieve Essays - Nectar In A Sieve

Idea Of Government In Nectar In A Sieve Essays - Nectar In A Sieve Idea Of Government In Nectar In A Sieve Government in Kamala Markandayas, Nectar in a Sieve One might think of government as a bunch of sly politicians running the country from a little office in the White House. Or perhaps he or she pictures a mighty king sitting on the throne of his country, telling his loyal subjects and servants what to do. Even though both of these are very common descriptions of government, neither of them fit the governmental system in the small village of Gopalpur in South India. The book, Nectar in a Sieve, by Kamala Markandaya describes such a village, as well as the governmental system within it. The characters in the book are used to a government that is quite different from those in the United States or Western Europe. In Gopalpur, the rich rule society while the poor are left to fend for themselves. And, in addition, the rich do not care about the well-being of the poor villagers. There is no set governmental system; it is simply understood that the rich hold all the authority. The rich posses the money, and therefore, the power to make the ru les by which everyone else must follow. The structure of the village was this: the rich 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 track of them all. So he hired overseers to manage the village. Each of these overseers were assigned their own districts, which they would manage for the owner of the land in return for a small percentage of the rent. And this system was accepted as government in the eyes of the villagers. It was just the way things were. In her book, Markandaya tells the story of one of these tenant farmers, 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 had constructed 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 they could not afford any more on the salary they were getting from the owner of the land. But Nathan and his wife were very content. Rukmani describes the system of land ownership as this: In all the years of our tenancy we never saw the Zemindar who owned our land. Sivaji acted for him, and being a kindly, humane man we counted ourselves lucky. Unlike some, he did not extract payment in kind to the last grain; he allowed us to keep the gleanings; he did not demand from us bribes of food or money; nor did he claim for himself the dung from the fields, which he might easily have done. (35) Sivaji was the overseer of Rukmanis district. As stated, there were many overseers who did not care about the condition of the tenants. They would take every last penny even if it meant 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 his district. One year, however, the harvest had not been as good as expected. There had not been enough crops to sell in order to pay the rent, and Nathan and his family were barely surviving. Sivaji came to collect the rent money. There is nothing this year, Nathan said to him. Not even gleanings, for the grain was but little advanced. You have had the land, Sivaji said, for which you have contracted to pay: so much money, so much rice. These are just dues, I must have them. Would you have me return empty-handed? What would you have me do? The last harvest was meager; we have nothing saved. Sivaji looked away, I do not know. It is your concern. I must do as I am bid. (77) The family obviously did not have enough money, so Nathan and Rukmani gathered up whatever valuable possessions they could find and sold them to the highest bidder.