“About a Burning Girl” by DaniyalMueenuddin,Depiction of class dominance

Critical discourse analysis of the short story “About a Burning Girl” by DaniyalMueenuddin,

              Depiction of class dominance

The narrator of the story is a session judge in Lahore high court. The narrator says that though he is a judge but he don’t believe in justice. He mentions that all the decisions he renders are not on merit. But are based on the pressure of the influential people which he cannot bear. While talking about his households he says that there are three people working as servants in his house. They are a cook, a waitress and a bearer. All of them have humble and meek expression of servants in the household. According to the narrator the cook and the waitress has romantic affairs with each other, despite the fact that the cook is having a wife and children. Apart from the cook and waitress khadim is described as a boy of twenty years who is from abbotabad having no personality. Who usually wash the dishes; look after the children and waters plants of the house.

            It is said Khadim is given seven days’ vacation every year which he spends in his home town Abbotabad. The narrator says that one day Khadim told him that “he must go home”. For justification he told the narrator that his mother isn’t well. After all he was given the permission to go home. After two days the narrator received a phone call from the boys brother who told him that “ Khadim is in Abbotabad jail for the murder of my wife”. Khadim’sbrother, father and family members insisted that the girl has committed suicide. Apart from it they accused her for stealing money. In fact the girl was neither a thief nor committed suicide. Basically it was khadim and his brother who after stealing their father’s money killed the girl.

            Critical Discourse Analysis is an analytical research that primarily studies the way how the social dominance is created and resisted through text and talk. According to VanDijk’s socio cognitive model a critical discourse analyst must identify how the group domination is created or resisted by text and talk `` A burning Girl`` by ‘DanialMuenudeen’ is an explicit example of class domination, how this domination is created I have discussed as follows

The story in general describes the complex structure of Pakistani society. Moreover it exposes the dark and hidden side of Pakistani society. The story depicts both the explicit and implicit ills of Pakistani class divided society. Next it tells the reader the ways through which class dominance is perpetuated through discourse.

Daniyalmueenudin’s short story “About a Burning Girl” is a beautiful portrayal of Pakistani society. The story unveils the social structure and class dominance which is still in its prime age. The very tinge of the discussion is class dominance i-e dominance of the elite’s over the poor and down trodden people. Apart from it class dominance also contributes a lot to the plot of the story.

                 The general setting of the story is Lahore and Abbotabad. Though the plot of the story also mentions Kohat and Islamabad but they have very little or no significance in the general context of the story. The narrator of the story is a session judge in Lahore high court. While narrating the story he creates a discourse. Later on through which dominance is created. The whole discourse ofDaniyal’s story “About A Burning Girl” is full of class dominance. According to critical discourse analysis dominance is created through euphemism, voice and identity. All of which are exploited in the story for creating dominance one way or the other.

             The focus of the research project is to find all the explicit and implicit ways/tools through which dominance is created in the story. Moreover it aims to expose all of the hidden views/ideologies and question all that has never questioned. For example in a class dominated society no one among the down trodden class questions the other class’s dominance. As it seem that they are consented to accept someone else domination. But CDA never let such views/ideologies go unquestioned.

          The narrator of the story who is a judge very skillfully creates dominance through discourse. He exploits all those tools through which dominance can be created like, voice, euphemism and identity. Whereas the narrator himself creates the discourse, obviously those who create the discourse have dominance over others. Specially those who are given negative identity and denied voice.

             While talking about the servants he says that he has a cook, a waitress and a Khadim in his house. Later on he creates their identity in discourse, as he says that “all three have mute expression of servants in a modest household as mine”. Here in the given passage the identity of others is created. Though all of the three have different professions still they are given the collective identity of servants. Further the cook is described to have unlawful affairs with the waitress without any detail; similarly Khadim is described as a boy of twenty years having no personality. It is crystal clear that a negative identity of servants is created through discourse. Despite ascribing them negative identity of servants they are also denied voice. As it is fact that denying voice gives power. They have no say in the creation of discourse; the session judge is the sole creator of the discourse which makes him dominant over others.

         Like his own servants the narrator does the same with his assistant Mian-sarkar. About Mian-sarkar he says that “Miansarkar wore a cheap three piece suit and a pair of slightly tinted spectacles of an already out-moded design on the day that he emerged from his mother’s womb”. Here the words like cheap, tinted and outmoded are used just to show the negative aspects of Miansarkar’s   personality. Apart from itMiansarkar’s nose is described as a “fleshy tubular object gorged with blood, expecting him to honk like bus. Miansakar is denied voice we cannot hear a word from Miansarkar about himself. As Mian sahib has no voice due to which he has no power. Like voice it is the negative identity which deprives people of power. Throughout the story Miansarkar and the servants are attributed negative qualities and are deprived of voice. These in contrast give power to the narrator and make him dominant over Miansarkar and the servants.

           In the very same discourse through which others are represented full of flaws and powerless the narrator makes himself dominant. The narrator as creator of the discourse says about himself that “shaved and showered, glistening as I like to think of myself, I paid respect to my wife, who lies in bed each morning, sipping tea and planning operations for the day ahead and then proceed out into the verandah where the car stood in the cool gloom”. This passage shows the dominancy and class of the narrator. Poor and ordinary people cannot support to have shower and glisten every day. Moreover he speaks very highly of his house especially of verandah where his car stood in the cool gloom. The narrator creates the identity of us for himself and his family to which he attributes all the best qualities. The narrator’s own created discourse suggests that he is living the life of the gentle man. Next the narrator like gentleman undermines others as it is shown in the discourse. The narrator has manipulated different ways for underestimating others. Basically in the discourse others are described as physically and emotionally inferior. It is clear from the description of Miansarkar and khadim which is described above. Further the narrator says about himself that “I gave my hand with a loose wrist, as if expecting him to kiss it and stood on one cocked heel”. Now if we compare this description of his own self with his description of others then we shall find an utter contrast. All this is just to show others inferior and create his own dominance which he has created successfully.

           Others are shown inferior, lazy, physically and mentally retarded. While presents himself as a perfect and distinguished man. Basically it is the presentation which makes him so; others are denied voice and are attributed negative qualities. Due to which dominance is created over them.

            In the same way he exploits various tools like euphemism, voice and identity to create male dominance over women. The story is a beautiful and vivid reflection of Pakistani class dominant society. It holds a mirror to the class dominant society of Pakistan and genuinely depicts its ills. Others especially those from the lower strata of the society are generally depicted as meek, weak, docile, fragile, sentimental and witless. In the story Khadim and his family who presents the lower class of society are depicted as looters and thieves. Apart from presenting them as looters they are also portrayed as killers and savages. It is discourse through which the identity of looters, killers and savages are given to the people of the subservient class of which Khadim his brother and cook are the mouthpieces. Basically the narrator of the story who is judge and a member of the elite class is the creator of the discourse. As usual others are presented in the very same manners as he has presented them in the story. The others along with their women are portrayed as senseless, witless and criminals. While on the other hand through the very same discourse he presents himself and his class a perfect model of decency, kindness and humanity.

    In the story others are denied voice and are given the negative identity of thieves. They are depicted mean and cunning. They are depicted the worst of human beings.It is the discourse through which others (Khadim and his brother) are described the looters of their own father. Whereas most notably as the murderers of a girl. Basically it is the appropriate selection of words through which discourse is created. Again it is discourse through which dominance is created. Dominance is created by denying voice, euphemism, and identity through discourse. The narrator of the story is the sole creator and crafter of discourse which makes him powerful. It is the narrator’s power of discourse that others are denied power and are attributed negative identities due to which class dominance is created.It is more convenient to say that only one side of the picture is presented or we can say that the text is based upon the views of the elites. The others are voiceless and have no say in discourse due to which their condition is miserable and heart breaking. Had they been given the voice their situation would have different?

        Despite giving poor the identity of others they are deprived the voice as well due to which they have no word to say on their behalf.In the dominant discourse they are accused and stigmatized by the dominant view. Most importantly it is worth to be mentioned that they are not given even a single chance to present their stance and point of view. CDA questions such blind dominance and ask for the voice of the voiceless oppressed individuals and groups.

             In a class dominated society poor being the others and voiceless are always the sufferers and victim of elite’s dominance. The people of subservient class (others) are described as weak, witless and thieves, ignorant and silly. The question arises that where is their point of view? Despite describing their negative qualities we have nothing to hear from them. This has resulted to the lack of their voice and class/elite dominance in the story. It is the job of a CD critic/analyst to find dominance and hegemony and dominance in discourse. According to CDA no discourse is free of bias and dominance. Further dominance is always found in discourse one way or the other way. It may be in the form of male dominance, class dominance or in any other form. The function of CDA is simply to unveil all those hidden aspects of the text/discourse which creates dominance. Next it is the job of a CDA analyst to take the side of the oppressed.

            Being a critical discourse analyst my job is to determine how the class domination is created by neglecting the voice of the other ( servants ) , the sole narrator of the discourse is Judge who belongs to a privilege class, and attributes all the negative qualities to poor servants , including moral depravity, lust for money and robbing others. Critical Discourse Analysis rejects a discourse in which the point of view of the dominated is ignored and challenges the dominant point of view. Through above discussion I have analyzed that ‘DanialMuinudeen’ unveils the brutality of privilege classes and their bias against poor servants.

Work Cited

MueenuddinDaniyal “In Other Rooms, Other Wonders”India Random Publisher house published in 2010