Nadiya 1

Chapter 1

Introduction

“All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way”. At the
opening of his novel Anna Karenina the Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy writes, all happy
families resemble one another, but each unhappy family is unhappy in its own
way.(Tolstoy,1)

By this he seems to be suggesting that if a family is happy, there is nothing particularly

interesting or insightful to observe about them .On the other hand, families that fail to thrive
as a unit all have unique stories behind their struggles. He then goes on to illustrate this in his
novel. Implicit in this quotation lies something of the belief that happy families are simple and
really rather boring whereas the unhappiness of a family is a marker of complexity, depth and
therefore far more interesting. The family can be conceptualized in numerous ways;
underlying each is a fundamental idea about the structure of the family and its function in
society. Some define a family purely in terms of sharing a household, a collection of
individuals living together. Others define the family based on kinship. A family is a group of
people who share common ancestors or a basic social unit comprised of parents and their
children. Family can be a blended collection of individuals related by marriage, adoption,
partnership or friendship. And also family is the single most important influence in a child’s
life, children depend on parents and family to protect them and provide for their needs, also
they are a child’s first teachers.

Paolo Coelho says that “Culture makes people understand each other better. And if they
understand each other better in their soul, it is easier to overcome the economic and political
barriers. But first they have to understand that their neighbour, is in the end, just like them,
with the same the same questions “

With a diverse culture among western countries, each country has their own point of view
on family values. But we have to say, family value of most western people is individual
 Nadiya 2

oriented. Even Though family is important to them, they emphasis more on personal
development. Individualism is highly respected in western culture. Kids are expected to
express themselves openly, they could argue with their parents for different opinions, so that
they have more freedom to speak for themselves and make decisions on their own.

Whereas, In Eastern culture, elders are the leaders in the home, so children do what the
elders say without questioning them. Eastern and Western cultures have different perception
of power and power distance. Eastern cultures tend to have a very hierarchical structure,
where western cultures are more egalitarian. Western cultures value independence and tend to
provide individuals who are task orientated and individualistic. The population in Eastern
countries is more traditional than people in west. Eastern style of parenting favors family first.
They are emotionally connected and supported. The western style teaches kids to be
individualistic and open to the world.

This project aims at studying the destruction of families on the basis of cultural analysis.
Cultural Studies is a field of theoretically, politically and empirically engaged cultural
analysis that concentrates upon the political dynamics of contemporary culture. Cultural
studies generally investigate how cultural practices relate to wider systems of power
associated with or operating through social phenomena, such as ideology, class structures,
sexual orientation, gender and generations. Cultural studies views cultures not as fixed,
bounded, stable and discrete entities, but rather as constantly interacting and changing sets of
practices and processes. Cultural studies seeks to understand how meaning is generated,
disseminated, contested, bound up with systems of power and control and produced from the
social, political and economic spheres within a particular social formation or conjuncture. The
movement has generated important theories of cultural hegemony and agency. Its
practitioners attempt to explain and analyse the cultural forces related and processes of
globalization. Richard Hoggart, Stuart Hall and Raymond Williams are the proponents of
cultural studies. Cultural studies later became a well-established field in many academic
institutions and it has since had broad influence.

Anees Salim is an Indian author known for his books like vanity Bagh and The Blind
Lady’s Descendants. He is from the town of varkala and now lives in Kochi, Kerala. He won
the Sahitya Akademi Award for The blind lady’s descendants in 2018, becoming only the
fourth keralite in history to win the award for an English work. In 2015, he won Cross Book
Award in Indian Fiction for The blind lady’s Descendants.
 Nadiya 3

The Blind Lady’s Descendants is a darkly comic work with a bitter afterbite. The blind
lady of the title is Asma’s mother, who is physically blind. A metaphorical blindness is part of
most people’s lives. We fail to see many things and hence live partial lives. We make our
lives as well as those of others miserable with our blindness. Anees Salim’s novel, which won
the Raymond & Crossword award for fiction in 2014 explores the role played by blindness in
the lives of a few individuals most of whom belong to the family of Asma & Hamsa. The
novel is an autobiography of Amar written in first person narrative. The dark humor is the
ideal buffer for all the absurdity that underlies the lives of the characters, the absurdity of life
itself. The novel is a sweeping family saga that traces the daily struggles, apprehensions and
aspirations of an Indian Muslim family and its total decadence.

Leo Tolstoy was a Russian writer who is regarded as one of the greatest authors of all time.
He is best known for the novels War and peace (1869) and Anna Karenina (1878). He
received nominations for the Nobel Prize in Literature every year from 1902 to 1906 and for
the Nobel Peace Prize in 1901, 1902, and 1909.That he never won is a major controversy. He
was born to an aristocratic Russian family in 1828. In the 1870s, Tolstoy experienced a
profound moral crisis, followed by what he regarded as an equally profound spiritual
awakening, as outlined in his non-fiction work A Confession (1882).

Anna Karenina is a Russian family novel which portrayed the benefits and comforts of
family togetherness and domestic bliss, often in a much idealized way. The story centers on
an extramarital affair between Anna and dashing cavalry officer count Alexei Kirillovich
Vronsky that scandalizes the social circles of saint Petersburg and forces the young lovers to
flee to Italy in a search for happiness, but after they return to Russia, their lives further
unravel. Anna Karenina is a commonly thought to explores the themes of hypocrisy, jealousy,
fidelity, family, marriage, faith, society and passion.

This project focuses on the cross cultural analysis of destruction of families in both novels
with the help of cultural studies and analyzing the causes of destruction on the basis of
western and eastern culture and the period in which the novels are written.

The second chapter entitled Blindness of Blind Lady’s Descendants in Blind Lady’s
Descendants is focuses how the destruction of family happened, what are the reasons for the
desolate condition of the family, how cultural ideologies affects a family and does causes
 Nadiya 4

change according to time are going to be analyzed. The second chapter entitled Destruction of
Familial Life in Anna Karenina analyses how the cultural context of the novel affects its
family and how Anna’s tragedy occurred in the novel. The final chapter, Conclusion analyses
the major causes of a family’s destruction, does time and generation has any role and how the
both cultures plays its role in characters of the novels.
 Nadiya 5

Chapter 2
Blindness of Blind Lady’s Descendants in the Blind Lady’s
Descendants

Mahatma Gandhi says that “A nation’s culture resides in the heart and in the soul of its
people”. That is culture is the way that human beings learn to live with one another and their
environment. Culture is learnt and human beings are flexible enough to learn vastly different
ways of living. The word culture derives from a French term, which in turn derives from the
Latin “colere”, which means to tend to the earth and grow, or cultivation and nurture. It gives
meaning to practices and Institutions. Culture addresses the fundamental issues of family
power and death. It is the centre of society and without it no even society can exist. It is a
heritage transmitted from one generation to another generation and also it is the entire way of
life for a group of people. Every society has own culture and way of behaving. It is not
uniform. Every culture is unique in itself is a specific society. For example, values, customs,
beliefs, tradition, religion, are not uniform everywhere.

India is one of the most ethnically and religiously diverse countries in the world. The concept
of Indian culture is very complex and complicated matter. Indian citizens are divided into
various ethnic religious, caste, linguistic and regional groups making the realities of
“Indian’s” extremely complicated. This is why the conception of Indian identity poses certain
difficulties and presupposes a series of assumptions about what concisely the expression
“Indian” means. India has had a prevailing tradition of the joint family system. It is when
extended members of a family, parents, children, children’s spouses and their offspring etc.
live together. Usually, the oldest male member is the head of the joint family system. He
mostly makes all important decisions and rules and other family members are likely to abide
them. Earlier living in the joint family was with the purpose of creating love and concern for
the family members. However, now it’s a challenge to give time to each other as most of them
are out of survival needs. Families are in a constant state of transition as each member moves
through the cycles of life and the family itself moves from one stage of development to the
next.
 Nadiya 6

Marriages, births, divorces and deaths change the family constellation and in profound ways,
alter the family culture. Likewise, family is an important institution that plays a central role in
the lives of most Indians. If it’s not given much value, a family can be destroyed in many
ways. This project focuses on the destruction of the family and analysing the reasons for this
family’s destruction.

The Blind Lady’s Descendants is a truly family saga. The family saga is a genre of literature
which chronicles the lives and doings of a family or a number or related or interconnected
families over a period of time. In novels with a serious intent, this is often a thematic device
used to portray particular historical events, changes of social circumstances or ebb and flow
of fortunes from a multitude of perspectives. The word ‘saga’ comes from Old Norse, where
it meant what is said, utterance, oral account, notification and narrative story and was
originally borrowed into English from Old Norse by the scholars in the eighteenth century.
This novel is a true family saga where even the ghost of his uncle, his absent father or even
the family doctor all holds an important thread that weaves this story. The parents are stuck in
a loveless marriage, the siblings fight, some people get married, and some leave this world.
The family has seen many tragic events already. After all, bad luck is an invisible offspring of
the Hamsa Asma couple who have nothing in common but their children. His siblings the
vainglorious Jasira, the soon to become extremist Akmal, ill-fated Sofiya and the last who
departs instantly so that Amar can remain the youngest.

This novel is based on the Kerala context and it sorrounds on a Muslim family. The story is
the gradual unfolding of the crumbling state of the family. The novel begins by showing the
weak relationship between the protagonist’s parents and also about the bad luck, which they
became regarded as a family member.

Our mother would drive tiny nails into the front door to ward off bad luck. Bad
luck, then, must have come in through the back door, for, by the time I
considered myself grown up-thirteen or fourteen, at most, sixteen-I had started
to regard it as a family member(P.02).

There are other major elements of destruction that discussed in this novel and are going to be
analysed.
 Nadiya 7

As it said that the family has witnessed many tragic events already, among which Sophiya’s
death is the shocking incident. When someone dies, the whole family system is thrown off.
Grieving family members find themselves disinterested and or incapable of behaving in the
ways they used to. Not only do people have to cope with grief, but they also must deal with
the fact that a vital piece of the family is gone. Sophiya was the third child of Asma Hamsa
couple and also when compared to Jasira she was with her dark skin and blunt features. Only
because of her skin colour father gave her permission to go for study tours when Jasira got
denied.
Father did not mind fifty rupees as much as he feared the possibility of her
falling in love with someone, maybe a young teacher, perhaps with the lake
for a backdrop. Sophiya, with her dark skin and blunt features, readily
qualified for a trip to any romantic location (P.34).

She was two years older than the protagonist Amar and was very much in connection with
nature, she loves gardening and there were a lot of things to do in her wish list. “Her
obsession for gardening had left the most compulsive reminder, and it was a secret relief to
see the fruits of her labour quickly wilting away” (P.45). The study tour was the last trip in
her life because the tour had gifted her death by tilting the boat while breaking the water lilies,
except her all others was rescued from that accident and it was her fate. “It was only Sophiya,
he gulped. ‘ Everyone else was rescued’.I saw Sophiya reaching out to break a water lily and
the boat tilting to one side-just the way paper boats do when raindrops hit them”(P.42). This
incident paved the way for the family’s first reason for destruction then followed by many
others.

The first major element of destruction in the novel is dowry. The word ‘dowry’ means the
property and money that a bride brings to her husband’s house at the time of her marriage and
is one of the social evils. Jasira as mentioned in the novel is the eternal heart breaker, is the
first born of Hamsa and Asma. “Jasira, the eternal heartbreaker, is the first-born of Hamsa and
Asma” (P.7). Among their four children she is the most greediest and arrogant. After the
sudden demise of her sibling Sophiya, she became the only girl child in the family and also it
is a reward for her to bag others shares also. After becoming the only girl child in the family,
they were also forced to give all their wealth for her marriage in the form of dowry. Everyone
except Amar was ready to give their shares. Her arrogant behaviour and caring towards the
wealth and money made her attracting others hatred.
 Nadiya 8

Jasira was the one who got all attention and privileges, inside the Bungalow
and outside it. She simply knew how to. Sometimes she sobbed, sometimes she
sulked. And up her sleeve were more tricks, more carefully hatched plots to get
things done her way; at the first sign of a denial, she broke into a sob or
threatened to elope, and if nothing else worked, tugged at her long and lovely
hair and pretended to be schizophrenic, talking in strange voices to her
shadow. She did not even have to lift a finger to get the kind of attention she
was so completely obsessed with (P.5).

When professor Nasir came forward with a marriage proposal, actually the family were more
interested to tie the bond with them, But to know their demands they played a drama that
Jasira has a marriage proposal with her relative. “One of my nephews, an Engineer, has
shown interest in marrying my daughter. His mother has been bothering me about fixing the
date” (P.98). Even though the family was not in a state to give her the dowry they asked. They
sold the blind lady’s house and gave her one hundred and one sovereign, two lakh rupees and
half an acre of land. “Father gave you one hundred and one sovereigns, two lakh rupees and
half an acre of land” (P.159). She was not completely satisfied with what she got and
continues to question about her share and even in the case of cutting a tree. When, her father
cuts one of the trees for money, Jasira creates a scene for not asking her permission “You
should have asked my permission before touching that tree. It stands on my share of land”.
And also when father asked for a helping hand, she says like this, “Now don’t expect Nasir to
bear the expenses” (P.187). Jasira asked the woodcutter about the price of the tree “Uncle,
how much did you pay for that teak? From the wax jambu tree to the wall, it is my property.
And they did not seek my permission before selling it off. How much did you pay for it?”
(P.194). She was beautiful with her face but her heart and mind was ugly as none else. Her
real face was understood by her father, when he ask some money to save Akmal from the case
and warned professor Nasir not to bring her anymore to the house. Jasira in the novel is a
strong example for selfishness and greediness.

Amar says that, “I had no love left for her, but I felt sorry for our parents: one child
drowned, another gone missing. And a missing child meant more misery than a dead one”
(P.65). Father asks Professor Nasir’s family about their demands, “But before I do that, I
would like to know about the kind of demands you have in mind”. They replied that, “We are
not a greedy lot. We will not sell off our boy to any family for a bag of money”. Then they
put forwards their demands “All I am asking you to do is just find out how much a boy of
 Nadiya 9

Nasir’s stature would generally fetch through an alliance. We can settle for as much. Nothing
more” (P.99). After Nasir’s family left the home, Jasira argues about their demands and asks
them to obey their demands, “I am the only girl in the Bungalow and it is only apt that you
comply with their demands”. Jasira’s mother also supported her by telling, “Mother, Jasi is
the only girl in the house and I am willing to sacrifice my share for her. Give her whatever
you have plans to give me. I have no problems” (P.100). When all others engaged in
discussing about sharing the property to Jasira, Amar was the only one who talks about his
share “I want ten cents from the front plot. Or twenty cents from the back. The rest you can
give to Jasira” (P.101). Mother was worried that how they give the dowry the groom’s family
asked if the blind lady disagrees in selling her house “She briefed Uncle Kasim about Jasira’s
upcoming wedding, which was in danger of cancellation if their blind mother did not agree to
sell her house and fund the dowry” (P.104). Jasira is the tricky one who knows how to handle
every situation and how to get what she wanted,

Her tears, blessings, rushed pleasantries and the parting note of gratitude, all
cost her one hundred and twenty rupees. But she had bagged what she had
been begging for, and Jasira had got, once again, what she had asked for (P.
104).

Then mother told to the blind lady that, “Mother if you don’t like my daughter getting a
good life, I will ask Jasira’s father to buy back your house” (P.110). Later on, when everyone
realizes Jasira’s true face and her greediness towards money rather than loving her family, one
day mother told in a briefing way that, “Allah has punished me with such ungrateful children
that they want nothing but the money I have begged off people”. Jasira told to mother that
“And your brother doesn’t know his house is gone” (P.149). Her arrogant behaviour is
understood from her words, “But who will feed you when your father and I are gone? Not I or
the professor. That’s for sure” (P.166). “People turn mum when the question of money crops
up” and also “Anything taken without the owner’s consent is pain thieving”.

It was you who stole the good life from us. It was you who made me beg from
my brother. It was your wedding that left us struggling and starving. If there is
a thief in this family it was you (P.95)

Jasira says by pointing Amar and Akmal that, “When the men in the house don’t work, you
are bound to starve and struggle. None of my fault, Jasira said watching him go” (P.196).
 Nadiya 10

Father gets out Jasira and her husband Nasir from the Bungalow “Before leaving, she had
counted out every tree big enough for trade in her plot and declared from the portico steps that
she was never going to return” (P.208). When Akmal was caught by the police and in order to
get bail, father asks Nasir some money, “I want some money, Father said again. I will pay you
back in six months”. And the reply from Jasira was heart breaking, “Nasir will give you forty.
She held out four elegant fingers, two ringed two bare. If you register that piece of land in his
name” (P.285). Then the father asks them to leave the house and ordered Nasir to never bring
Jasira back to the Bungalow, “Never bring your wife back to my house. Never” (P.286).

Fanaticism is a belief or behaviour involving uncritical zeal or an obsessive enthusiasm.

Religious fanaticism is a pejorative designation used to indicate uncritical zeal or obsessive
enthusiasm which is related to one’s own, or one’s group’s devotion to a religion. The devout
elder brother, who soon to become extremist is the another major reason for the families
downfall. “Akmal, who refused to attend prayers for a fortnight after that fateful Friday,
turned a stauncher Muslim by the third week and returned to the mosque in a Kufi cap. At
first, he donned the Kufi cap only for Friday prayers. Then it became permanent on him, as
stupid as the head it sat on” (P.11). At the beginning he was not at all interested in attending
prayers but after one fateful Friday he turned to a stauncher Muslim and then regularly went
to mosque with a sudden transition, His appearance became completely changed and then he
started to grow long beard by shaving his thin moustache, He then addicted to tasbih and zam-
zam the holy water.. “He shaved off his developing moustache and let his beard grow” (P.12)
and
“He never grew sick of working his fingers on the beads of tasbih and
had a small measure of zam-zam water every night, like an appetizer,
until there was not a drop more to be had. The car hanging he gave to
Mother, who hung it above her bed, and it remained there for years,
untouched, indifferent” (P.12).

He was a worshipping person and went to mosque for offering his prayers “Akmal went to
mosque five times a day to say his namaaz” (P.45). Akmal was nearly a miscarriage and was
born as the second child of Hamsa and Asma. He was more interested in talking
contemporary issues like demolition of Babri masjid rather than usual family talks. “Babri
masjid was never a temple. And Hindus have no right over it” (P.102). Every afternoon after
returning from mosque he explained the realities and facts to the blind lady and to the mother
who were eager to listen to his words
 Nadiya 11

Akmal graphically explained to them about invasions and accessions,

conversions and betrayals, myths and realities, not just once, but at least a
dozen times on afternoons when he came in for a quick lunch after Friday
prayers. Then he gave up explaining, and concentrated merely on the
impending possibility of a demolition. (P.238)

Akmal was in an extreme level of hatred towards Hindus and he says by watching the news
that, ‘They will die the moment they raise a hand against the mosque’ he would say (P.238).
Amar’s brother Akmal who is driven first to religion and then to fundamentalism is an
amateur mechanic who puts together radio pieces. Akmal was in the front to wield the ‘black
flag’ from the minarets of the mosque, later followed by many riots. “It was a while before I
identified the man on the left minaret as Akmal, wielding a black flag to the clamp that held
the bell-shaped speakers in place” (P.239). His extra belief and extra faith paved him the way
to terrorism.

Akmal had left for work, which let me enter his room and have a look at the
lofty. There were several circuit boards, a small mound of batteries and a
length of electric wire coiled in the shape of an infinity sign, but the yellow
bag was missing. It was then, at that moment of final confirmation, that I felt a
coil of alarm starting to burn inside me (P.278)

Akmal’s attempt on bomb case was reported on the newspaper and the next day morning he
carefully reads the news, “The report on defusing the bomb was in the newspapers, and I
watched Akmal read it slowly, a finger moving along sentence after sentence” (P.278).

The two sons of Asma Hamsa couple followed different paths; the elder one followed
Fanaticism whereas the younger one followed Atheism. Amar the protagonist himself
declared as an Half Muslim. “By the time I was old enough to sense the discord, I could not
even ask God to intervene: I had already become an atheist” (P.54). He became an atheist in
his teenage “I embraced atheism at the age of thirteen and a bit” (P.7). Then he completely
became an atheist, “I started to consider myself as an atheist” (P.54). He was the youngest of
the family and also Sophiya’s sudden death again makes him the youngest. But it doesn’t give
him any favour.
 Nadiya 12

A sudden absence that made me the youngest of the family again.

Nothing much happened in the Bungalow’s labour room after that and I
remained the youngest of the family forever. It never helped me being
the youngest: I never earned an extra lollipop on that account (P.5).

After becoming an atheist he stopped believing in Allah and his religion Muslim, “I have
long stopped believing in Allah” (P.63). Amar was interested in writing and such art forms.
In the novel, it is clear that he has interest in publishing a book. Among his three siblings his
favourite was Sophiya. Amar is twenty-six when the book begins and he recounts both past
and present seemingly. At twenty-six he decides to narrate his story to his imaginary audience
and skeletons tumble out of every cupboard in the Bungalow. Amar was born on the same day
when his uncle Javi passed away so he decides to read the diary of his uncle. He resembles his
uncle in many ways. It turns out that Amar is a veritable echo to his deceased maternal uncle
Javi in both appearance and self-centric melancholia. Growing up in similar circumstances to
Javi in the eponymously named Bungalow in a small coastal town in India, Amar begins to
mature into a pre-existing mould. He fills out to resemble Javi, embraces atheism in the face
of his family’s traditionalism locks himself into his bedroom and obsesses over situations that
he does little to ameliorate until the time seems ripe for a particular type of ritualistic
hierarchy. Not the most likeable fictional character one may encounter, Amar is a passive-
obsessive who is wry and ironical narration gives the novel the kind of voice that trumps the
almost deadening monotony of his life.

Material Inheritance is an important theme for older persons and for families in later life and
it becomes increasingly significant as the family faces the loss of the older generation. It is a
process which involves the passing on of material property from one generation to another,
usually within the family, generally from older parents to their adult children, which is
completed after the death of the older generation. This transmission is regulated by law,
although the family takes it on as a task in the final phase of life, making use of transmission
strategies. It is a normative experience which all families face, regardless of their social and
cultural background and the economic value of their assets. Material inheritance in families
has mainly been approached from a legal and economic perspective. However, psychological
factors are gradually being taken into consideration, since it is recognised that they reveal
aspects of the relationship between donors and heirs.
 Nadiya 13

Inheritance has also a major role in Amar’s family’s destruction. The blind lady’s that is the
grandmother’s property is passed on to her children and later she became homeless and been
killed by her own daughter by giving overdose of sleeping pills in her meals. Her ancestral
home that is the Bungalow, land and other properties are partitioned among them. After Javi’s
death it was again partitioned among Asma and the uncle who was not in place. By taking
advantage on that Asma owned his share also. Asma is eager to give that share to her daughter
as dowry for her marriage. When she comes to know the sudden arrival of her brother, she
plays many drama’s to make him believe and tries to stop his homecoming.

Weak relationship between Asma and Hasma also has a major role in this family’s
destruction. They are trapped in an unhappy and loveless marriage and never used to spend
time by talking to each other. “The two people who should have shaken hands and parted
ways before they brought Sophiya, me and that bottle-sized girl into this world” (P.12). They
had never spent any family time together with their children and even have a proper
communication. Amar says that “We never went for an outing as a family. We never went out
together, for that matter, except when close relatives got married or passed away” (P.34). If
the base of anything is weak or not well concreted, then the thing itself will fall apart or get
destroyed. The basis of each and everything should be strong and perfect, otherwise soon it
will demolish. The relationship between father and mother determines every family’s basis, if
it is not strong, then the family will fall apart. “And I can see this house falling into pieces”
(P.64). Asma feeds sleeping pills to her own mother to kill her because of the situations which
lead the lady to this desperate action.” The blind lady had not died of old age; she had been
fed sleeping pills, at least thirty of them, to judge from the size of the crumbled foil”. Asma
says to her mother while feeding her, “This is your last spoon” (P.264).
 Nadiya 14

Chapter 3
Destruction of Familial Life in Anna Karenina

Vladimir Putin says, “Russian culture is multifaceted and diverse so if you want to
understand, to feel Russia, then of course you need to read books, Tolstoy and Chekhov and
Gogol and others. Listen to music, watch our classical ballet. But the most important thing is
that you need to talk with people”.

Culture is an umbrella term which encompasses the social behaviour and norms found in
human societies, as well as the knowledge, beliefs, arts, laws, customs, capabilities and habits
of the individuals in these groups. Russian culture has been formed by the nation’s history, Its
geographical location and its vast expanse, religious and social traditions, and western
influence. Russian writers and philosophers have played an important role in the development
of European thought. The Russians have also greatly influenced classical music, ballet, sport,
painting and cinema. The nation has also made pioneering contributions to science and
technology and space exploration. Russian literature is considered to be among the worlds
most influential and developed. It can be traced to the Middle Ages, when epics and
chronicles in old East Slavic were composed. The first Great Russian novelist was Nikolai
Gogo. Then came Leo Tolstoy, Ivan Goncharov, Nikolai Leskov, Anton Chekhov etc.
Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Judaism are Russia’s “historical heritage” in a law passed
in 1997. Russian orthodoxy is the dominant religion in Russia.

In western cultures, and particularly in European American culture, families typically

follow a nuclear model comprised of parents and their children. When important health care
related decisions must be made, it is usually the parent who decides, though children are
raised to think for themselves and are encouraged to act as age appropriate decision makers as
well. Upon reaching adulthood, when parental consent is no longer an issue, young American
adults may choose to exercise their right to privacy in health care matters. This is markedly
different from collectivist cultures that adhere to an extended family model.
In most western societies, Individualism, Independence and self-orientation are viewed as
important. Parents encourage their children to develop skills that support these values, such as
 Nadiya 15

assertiveness, self-confidence, self-expression and autonomy. They want their children to

develop a positive sense of self and personal worth. In more collectivist societies, often found
in the East, overall societal values tend to include group harmony, interpersonal cooperation
and responsibility. Western parents tend to be more patient than their Eastern counterparts,
using a “low power” strategy that involves explanation as well as listening to and trying to
communicate with children about their views and feelings.

The events in the novel take place against the backdrop of rapid transformations as a result
of the liberal reforms initiated by Emperor Alexander II of Russia, principal among these the
Emancipation reform, including a jury systems; military reforms, the introduction of elected
local governments, the fast development of railroads, banks, industry, telegraph, the rise of
new business elites and the decline of the old landed aristocracy the awakening of public
opinion, the pan-slavism movement, the women question etc. These contemporary
developments are hotly debated by the characters in the novel. The late 19 th century was a
time of crisis in Russia. Technologies and industry continued to develop rapidly, but lagged in
substantive ways to the progress being made in Western Europe. New markets, technologies
and theories developed on account of the dynamic powers emerging in an undeniably a
powerful presence on the global scene, but it was also a society marked by deep class
divisions, as Tolstoy underscores neatly in Anna Karenina. Urban dwellers like Dolly were
unaware of and uncomfortable with the struggles facing rural farmers, industrial expansion
threatened traditional agrarian lifestyles and political ferment was beginning among the
youthful, idealistic intelligentsia. This to put it simply was a time of great change and of great
opportunity in Russia.

During the 1870s, Russia’s economy was developing as the character of Levin recognizes
more slowly than the major European nations to its West. This development was hampered in
part by a population that was substantially larger than those of the more developed Western
countries. However, it’s a mistake to think that traditional values are abandoned. Societies
find ways to integrate new ideas with their more established beliefs. Every society is
becoming more diverse and having to accept a mix of parenting values. This seems to be just
as true for Western societies, which are also affected by globalisation, technological change,
population movement and new cultural communication, all of which can influence values and
ultimately parenting styles. More significantly, as Tolstoy points out was the fact that the vast
majority of this massive population still lived in rural communities and still engaged in
relatively primitive agriculture. As the experiences of Levin illuminate, control of this sector
 Nadiya 16

of the economy remained in the hands of former serfs and peasants. These two groups in fact,
constituted about eighty percent of the rural population.

Leo Tolstoy, in his novel, Anna Karenina, explores the concepts of passion and marriage and
illustrates how unbridled passion although sensual and revitalizing, tends to cause pain and
suffering, whereas marriage with effective communication and sensible passion, results in a
stable relationship that will lead to the growth of both individuals. Anna Karenina is
commonly thought to express the themes of hypocrisy, jealousy, faith, fidelity, family
marriage, society, progress, carnal desire and passion and the agrarian connection to land in
contrast to lifestyles of the city. Conflict between personal emotions and social conventions,
one of the central concerns of private passion and inner emotions and the social conventions
that are put in place to contain or control them. In such characters as Anna, readers recognize
lives being guided wholly by emotional responses and desires. Anna feels unloved by
Karenin, so she responds openly to feelings for Vronsky. When she finally confesses her
feelings for Vronsky, to her husband nothing really changes. Social conventions dictate that
Anna and her husband should maintain the social quo, which means that they must continue
to appear together as a married couple.

“All happy families are alike: each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way”, Beginning
with this famous opening line, Anna Karenina is an exploration of the complications of family
life. Early nineteenth century Russian novels often featured idealized portrayals of domestic
bliss. Family life and individual freedom might seem initially to be contrasting forces
throughout the novel, but even though characters may think they will have more freedom if
they reject all of the conventions of family life, these choices can ironically give them the
least amount of personal control and autonomy. Although Tolstoy has provided an exhaustive
discussion of historic casualty in war and peace, his concept of “historical necessity” informs
the destiny of characters in Anna Karenina. The form expresses the conditions in which
human consciousness operates. “Historical necessity” is illustrated in Anna Karenina
according to the personal destinies of the main characters as they react to changing
circumstances. Anna’s adultery, for example, provides the necessity that is, the structure in
which Anna, Vronsky, Karenin must retrench their values to overcome the crisis they face.
The nature of each one’s response to his particular challenge however is defined by the
heredity, education, environment which limits his nature. Historical necessity therefore is
merely a verbal construct in which human awareness operates. Anna Karenina, on a much
more intimate level, illustrates the forces which allow individuals to confront challenges.
 Nadiya 17

The opening sentence in Anna Karenina sets the tone for the unfolding of Anna’s tragedy.
“All happy families resemble one another, every unhappy family is unhappy after its own
fashion”. Anna Karenina consists of more than the story of Anna Karenina, a married
socialite, and her affair with the affluent count Vronsky though their relationship is a very
strong component. The story starts when she arrives in the midst of a family broken up by her
brother’s unbridled womanizing something that prefigure her own later situation though she
would experience less tolerance by others.

A bachelor, Vronsky is eager to marry Anna if she will agree to leave he husband Karenin a
senior government official, but she is vulnerable to the pressure of Russian norms, the moral
laws of the Russian orthodox church, her own insecurities, her love for her son and Karenin’s
indecision. Anna Karenina is a woman who yearns for some semblance of passion in her life.
She is the product of an arranged marriage to a man twenty years her elder with who she was
never truly in love. According to Raymond Williams, “she has become a wife and a mother
without ever having been a girl in love” (797). Anna’s marriage is dull, predictable and
devoid of romance. He husband methodically plans every fact of his life including intimacy,
which leaves little room for passion and causes Anna to seek excitement elsewhere.

Anna’s husband, Karenin is a cold, passionless person who is absorbed in his politics and
official duties all the time. They have a son, whom both of them adore but there is hardly any
love lost between the two even after eight years of marriage. Karenin is too cold and official
to be a loving husband. He is capable of loving and being loved by Anna. It is his head, his
mind that dominates his personality. He is true to his surname Karenin which is derived from
the Homeric Greek ‘Karenin’, meaning cold ratiocination. He possesses moral rectitude and
bureaucratic coldness. Karenin lost his parent while quite young and was brought up by an
uncle. He is widely respected, but seldom loved. He constantly thinks of his office. He
neglects his charming wife Anna, who is younger to him by twenty years. Tolstoy does not
paint Karenin very favourably, “He was a very healthy and very well-washed man and
nothing else. He was a gentleman that was true and Vronsky could not deny it. Anna’s
tragedy stems from her husband’s non-caring attitude. Karenin was not loved in his growing
years and therefore it is believed that he cannot love anybody. He is self-centred and loves
only himself. He chooses to tread the conventional path. As soon as Anna meets Vronsky at
the ball in a romantic and passionate settling, she falls desperately in love with him. Vronsky,
in sharp contrast to her husband is a man among men who could prove a caring lover. After
 Nadiya 18

she begins her illicit liaison with him, she comments on her husband “He is not a man, not a
human being, he is a doll”. Karenin does not undergo fits of jealousy. A stickler for property
and social decorum, he has objections to his wife’s going astray on four counts, defiance of
the society and public opinion, violation of the sanctity of marriage, repercussions of the
mother’s infidelity on her son and the impact of her conduct on herself.

Anna and Karenin have lived together for more than eight years. Yet they do not know each
other. They have nothing in common. Ambition in Karenin’s chief trait, while passion is
Anna’s dominant force. Karenin feels ashamed to be guided by his heart. Anna never bothers
about the head. Even in an involuntary expression of emotion is for Karenin a moral
aberration. When he comes to know the affair between his wife and Vronsky, He refuses to
divorce Anna to avoid public scandal. He writes a letter in French to Anna about the sanctity
of marriage.

Anna’s tragedy begins from her husband’s attitude towards her. As it said he was a man
who keeps social decorum and dignity above everything, he was refused to give divorce to his
wife and let her live with another man whom she loves. An exquisitely lovely and educated
woman, Anna Karenina, who had come to Moscow to settle a quarrel between her brother
Stephan Oblongsky and his wife Dolly, happened to meet a strikingly handsome young count
Vronsky, who was rumoured to be in love with Dolly’s younger sister kitty. It so happens that
Anna and Levin are called to Stephan Oblongsky’s house at the same time. Kitty considers
Vronsky to be much superior to Levin and therefore rejects the later. The rumour is baseless,
for Vronsky had no intention of marrying Kitty even if he has felt some weakness for her at
any cost. Anna develops a similar passion for him and permits him to follow her as returns
home to St. Petersburg, Anna and Vronsky are seen together at the ball, theatre, opera and
musical soirees. Their relationship becomes so intimate that people naturally take them to be a
loving couple, but the local society knows Anna to be the wife of Alexei Karenin. Hence, her
unseemly intimacy gives rise to gossip and scandal. A believer in social decorum, Alexei
Karenin is concerned and seeks to bring the Anna-Vronsky chapter to a close. He is not
jealous for jealousy is a passion and he is neither passionate nor emotional. He is not capable
of any strong feelings, cold and calculating, he knows which side his bread is buttered. He is
not bothered whether his beautiful wife has affairs with other men. What he is concerned with
is social decorum. Whatever dirt and filth might be outside, he cares only for maintaining an
excellent façade. One night he has a frank discussion with Anna about all that he has heard.
He asks her to be more careful about displaying her love for Vronsky. He categorically
 Nadiya 19

forbids her not to entertain her lover at home. He would not like people to call him a cuckold.
She might have affairs with others, but that would affect the future of their only son Seryozha.
Anna does not protest, nor does create a scene, meekly and quietly, she submits to her
husband’s admonition. This, however, gives rise to a terrible conflict in Anna’s mind. She is
not prepared to accept the fact that a married woman having a son should not get emotionally
involved with someone else than the son’s father. She stops meeting Vronsky for some time
but as soon as she hears that Vronsky has been injured in a race track accident she can no
longer control her. Her determination to avoid him melts. She betrays her feelings publicly
and Alexei Karenina is at the end of his tether. He now thinks of getting rid of her. He,
however, cannot decide upon a course of action. A duel with Vronsky, he thinks, could
redeem his honour. He also thinks of possibility of divorce. Ultimately, he abandons both the
ideas to keep Anna under his roof is the only thing he can do.

Anna now becomes more discreet and meets Vronsky secretly but regularly. Meanwhile,
Anna has a sexual union with Vronsky and is pregnant. Vronsky is ready to accept full
responsibility and advises Anna to seek divorce from Alexei Karenin so that they may be
legally married. If that comes about, they would live happily together. A stickler of social
decorum, Alexei Karenin tells his wife that he would accept Vronsky’s child as his own and
thus spare her the social disgrace and ignominy. He rules out the possibility of a divorce, for
that would be the height of folly and give rise to scandal in society. Anna is unmoved by his
pleas and insists on divorce. Alexei Karenin threatens her that if she insists on having her own
way, he would have no other alternative but to take away their son from her custody. Anna
loves Seryozha and cannot think of living away from him.

There is a cold war between Alexei and Anna; their relations become extremely strained
although they continue to live under the same roof. One night Alexei plans to go out. As he is
leaving, Vronsky on Anna’s invitation steps in. It is too much for Alexei Karenin. He tells
Anna that he must divorce her, a course he has so long avoided and keep Seryozha in his
exclusive custody. But on second reflection, he abandons the idea once again. The picture of
legal complications as well as public scandal looms large before him. He is simply dazed. He
must wait till the delivery of Anna’s child from Vronsky. In the meanwhile he has won an
important political position and leapt into eminence. If he divorces he would become the butt
of a public scandal and he would be in disrepute. Anna gives birth a child and is almost on her
deathbed. Vronsky as a guilty conscience, for he feels that his passion and indiscretion are
hastening his beloved’s death. He is so emotionally wrought that he thinks of committing
 Nadiya 20

suicide. Alexei Karenin now relents. His wife, once so dear, is on her deathbed. She only lives
for Vronsky. Whenever Vronsky calls, her pale face is lit with a faint smile. Alexei Karenin
no longer discouraged Vronsky from visiting Anna, who recovers at last; she accompanies
Vronsky to Italy along with her infant daughter. Anna’s husband Alexei has every reason,
every justification legal and moral to divorce her. Yet he does not. Society lays all the blame
at Anna’s door and looks upon Alexei Karenin as a man of integrity, unswerving honour and
unimpeachable loyalty to his wife who has so shockingly spurned his love and devotion.
Anna has never really loved her husband, but their son Seryozha is the apple of her eye.
Sometimes, she comes close to Alexei’s house to have a look at her son without being
detected by the husband or the neighbours. But she undergoes unbearable pangs and does not
know how to assuage her aching heart. She becomes increasingly demanding towards
Vronsky. The situation is odd and irritating to Vronsky. He now avoids her company as far as
possible. Anna cannot bring herself to love her baby daughter. The dreams of romance and
love are completely shattered. One day she goes to the railway station and buys a ticket. She
stands on the platform awaiting the arrival of the train and looks at railway tracks. A train is
approaching and its loud, almost deafening sound pierces her ears. Suddenly, she thinks of a
man run over the Moscow station on the day she had met Vronsky for the first time. The rail
tracks tempt her, the temptation is irresistible. She jumps in front of the oncoming train, thus
paying the penalty for her unlawful love and adultery. Vronsky now joins the army, not for
any military glory but death in action.

Anna and Vronsky have a torrid love affair, but this passion is not build on a solid
foundation; rather, it is constructed out of lies, deception and guilt. Tolstoy implies that no
lasting relationship can be born out of negative emotions and untruthful actions without
causing serious difficulties afterwards. At first, Anna and Vronsky feel no remorse when
lying to her husband and society; as time goes on, the deception begins to wear at their hearts.
From their first sexual encounter to the conception of their child, every action of theirs has to
be hidden and kept secret, which ultimately destroys the meaning and importance of their
most endearing moments. Anna’s guilt over the betrayal of her husband and the neglect of her
son causes her such sorrow and misery that she falls into a deep depression and thinks that
death during childbirth will be the only answer for her pain. After having a vision that
foreshadows this expected death, Anna says “I am very glad that I shall die” (Pg.329).
Vronsky, who was never affected by lying in the past and feels that it is acceptable to deceive
a woman’s husband, begins to disagree with all the deception and comes to see it as
“revolting to his nature” (Pg.168). Whenever the couple unites in secret, he is overcome with
 Nadiya 21

the awkward feelings caused by their dishonesty. The more that Anna declares her desire to
commit suicide, the more Vronsky is filled with unbearable guilt. As M.S Gromekha states,
“It is impossible to destroy a family without bringing about its unhappiness, and it is
impossible to build a new happiness on this old unhappiness” (768).

One of the only things revealed about Anna is that she desires the life of a tragic figure. At
the beginning of the novel, while Anna is reading a fictitious novel, she feels as if she is the
heroine of the story and wishes to live her life as such. Anna is above all a narcissist who, in
order to feel alive and significant, years for a life full of drama and excitement. Even when
Anna is offered a divorce, she denies it; not because she feels belittled by Karenin’s
generosity, but because she wants to attempt martyrdom. Anna’s sense of tragedy is also
shown in her attitude towards her children. If Anna loved her son as much as she claimed to,
she would stay with him despite her love for Vronsky. Anna abandons her son, but never
allows herself to stop suffering over her decision. She declares her undying love for him, but
states “I love those two beings only, and the one excludes the other” (P.580).

Anna and Vronsky never form a pattern of consistent, meaningful communication, which
severely damages their relationship. Throughout the novel, Anna pushes Vronsky away every
time he tries to speak to her about important issues. When Anna tells Vronsky about her
confession to Karenin, he wants to discuss it with her, but she replies “Don’t let us talk about
it” (P.289). Later on when Anna is in total despair over the loss of her son, she realizes “She
could not share it with Vronsky and did not wish to” (P.483). Eventually, Anna reproaches
Vronsky for leaving her alone in her misery, completely “forgetting that she herself had
hidden from him all that concerned her son” (P.490). The lack of communication causes Anna
to become jealous and manipulative toward Vronsky. Anna, forced to stay in the house and
away from society, begins to accuse Vronsky of infidelity and losing his love for her.
However, since Anna has never properly communicated to Vronsky her true feelings toward
him, he cannot understand why she creates so many false images of him. Here insecurity
causes Vronsky to become agitated with her, and he begins he begins to feel that her love is a
“dismal, burdensome love” (P.604). Anna’s pain, jealousy and insecurity ultimately lead to
her destruction.
 Nadiya 22

CHAPTER 4
Conclusion

Anees Salim’s and Leo Tolstoy’s novels focus on the family system and the factors that led
to the family’s destruction in many ways. Anees Salim’s novel The blind lady’s descendants
is based on Eastern culture and the background of the novel is set in the current century
known as the 21st century. Whereas Leo Tolstoy’s novel, Anna Karenina is based on Western
culture and the background of the novel is set in the 19 th century.

19th and 21st centuries are the most important centuries. The 19th century was an era of
rapidly accelerating scientific discovery and invention with significant developments in the
fields of mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, electricity and metallurgy that laid the
ground work for the technological advancement of the 20 th century. The 21st century is the
current century. The 21 st century spans 100 years. Currently, it encompasses the information
age, an era marked by rapid adoption of new technologies. This information age is being
fuelled by a knowledge economy that values problem solving and critical thinking over the
rote skills of the industrial era.

In both novels two different families are portrayed, but at the end both families are
destructed for their own reasons. The 19th century novel, Anna Karenina portrays an unhappy
family of Anna and Karenin and the major reasons that cause Anna’s family’s destruction. In
Anees Salim’s novel which is in the 21st century, it portrays a joint family system and its total
decadence. The novels are set in two different cultures. One is in the Western culture and the
other is in the Eastern culture. As they vary in cultural systems, certain differences are also
seen in the families. Different culture has different rules, like that some culture related issues
also leads to the destruction of the families. But also both have some common reasons.

By analysing two novels and their major reason for destruction, certain major elements of
destructions are examined. Some similar in both cultures and some are different due to the
change in cultures. From the first novel that is from The blind lady’s descendants the major
reasons found are Dowry, Terrorism, Death, Inheritance and Loveless marriage.
 Nadiya 23

One of the worst evils of Indian society is the dowry system. The word ‘dowry’ means the
property and money that a bride brings to her husband’s house at the time of her marriage. It
is a custom that is prevalent in all sections of our society in one form or the other. At the
beginning it was voluntary where parents gifted their daughters out of love and affection
while entering in a married life, but later on the social pressure was such that very few could
escape from it. Gradually it became a common never ending source of income for the
husband’s family whose burden was born by the brides. Dowry may happen in any families,
there’s no difference between rich, bourgeoisie, poor, educated or uneducated. When a
marriage is fixed no one is worry as to how clever, intellectual and homely the girl is, but all
that matters is how much money and luxuries will she get to the husband’s home. With the
passage of time dowry became a customary part in Indian society and became demanding
dowry as their right in order to marry a woman, and gradually the dowry became violence to
women when the groom’s family didn’t get enough dowry, leading to harassment or cruelty
of brides and also dowry deaths, especially in certain parts of India. Dowry demands affect
the lives of females socially, economically and culturally.

One of the major reasons for the destruction of the family in The blind lady’s descendants is
the dowry system. As it said that dowry system is prevalent in India, Anees Salim clearly
depicts it in his novel also. By the death of Sophiya she became the only girl child in the
family and they were forced to give the dowry the groom’s family asked. For that they sold
every property including the ancestral home which was to be given for their uncle Kasim.
Greediest Jasira isn’t satisfied with what she got and she continued to question her parents on
her share. When the family was in urgent need of some money and help, she disagreed to help
them. At the end, Jasira the eternal heartbreaker as mentioned in the novel went on her path
without helping her family and later they became nothing. The family’s destruction was fully
happened when they gave their properties as dowry, there are many such families in this
country who became zero after giving the dowry and many have attempted suicide because of
worrying about how they will marry their child without giving dowry.

The second major reason for the destruction of the family is the terrorist attitude of Akmal.
Akmal in the novel is transformed in to a terrorist in every form. His attitude, talking style,
behaviour etc. When he was arrested by the police for attempting a bomb blast, they struggle
for earning money to buy him bail. As they sold everything for Jasira’s marriage the only way
to get money is from her and her husband, so they had to ask for her help. So the father
 Nadiya 24

begged some money from them, but they were not ready to help him and also she even asked
to register the land in her husband’s name.

Although dowry and fanaticism are the major elements of destruction, death in the family is
the root cause for destruction. Uncle Javi’s and Sophiya’s death are one among them. Uncle
Javi died on the same day the protagonist Amar was born. Then Amar turns out to be a natural
descendant of his uncle sharing many characteristics with him. Even the story is the suicide
note of Amar. Their third child Sophiya died by tilting the boat while picking water lilies
from the lake. Her loss badly affected the family in many ways. Her sudden death makes
Jasira became the only girl child in the family, so that they were forced to give everything for
her marriage and became a big zero.

When the base of a family isn’t much strong then the whole family will be collapsed for one
or more reasons. In the novel, Asma and Hamsa couple are stuck in a loveless marriage. Their
relationship is weak and between them no love exists. They never attract instead they repel
each other as the like poles of a magnet. “As different as chalk and cheese-the cheese not
getting any harder nor the chalk any softer” (P.2). They never had a proper conversation or
family time. In the novel, Amar says that they had never gone for a family trip or never had a
family time together. There is nothing between them more than the parents of the four
children.

Inheritance also plays an important role in this family’s destruction. The passing of wealth
and property to the next generation is called Inheritance. Here the blind lady’s wealth are
passed on to her children and then to her grandchildren. There arouses some arguments and
greediness related to the sharing of property. The blind lady, who is Asma’s mother, is
physically blind but most other characters in the novel are metaphorically blind. These are
the major elements of destruction from the novel The blind lady’s descendants.

By analysing Leo Tolstoy’s novel Anna Karenina, Extra marital affair, loveless marriage are
the major elements of destruction. Anna, a married woman falls in love with Vronsky a
bachelor. They were eager to get married but her husband Karenin was not ready to give her
divorce. Without any love she was living with him for years. The only hope for her living is
her son. But when she falls in love with Vronsky she forgets her duties and had a sexual
relation with him and got pregnant. Her husband Karenin refused to give her divorce because
of his social status and he was ready to accept Vronsky’s child. Anna’s tragedy begins from
 Nadiya 25

her husband’s attitude towards her. He had no love for her; he was a man of dignity keeps
social decorum in everything. There were no husband and wife relation between them. Rather
than family he gives priority to his believes and thoughts. But Anna was a passionate and
loving woman. She loves to be with her family but when she didn’t get what she want, she
decided to be with other men who was loving and caring. She desires for love and a perfect
relationship but from Karenin she never got it, so she was trapped in an extra marital affair.
When she realized that she was neglected by both, she decided to end her life.

The blind lady’s descendants is a truly family saga in which Anees Salim portrays the
crumbling state of a family and its total decadence. By analysing the two novels, which are
written in different centuries, some elements of destruction in both are common. Many
changes are happened then and now but some reasons in both are same. From this it is clear
that, time may change but some social issues may always be the same. With the difference in
cultures, some culture related issues are also found. The social evils like dowry are found in
Eastern culture whereas extra marital affairs are found in the Western culture. Social evils like
dowry still exist and it is life threatening. Same like extra marital affair also have existence in
society which may leads to a family’s or the partner’s destruction. It is necessary to avoid
these from our society. Both this can be eliminated only by providing proper education to the
society as well as to the individuals and also through mutual understanding.