Categories: Postcolonial Literature

Forbidden Desires, Love and Social Taboos in The God of Small Things

Forbidden Desires, Love and Social Taboos

Contents hide

1 Social Taboos in The God of Small Things

1.1 1. Ammu’s Defiance: A Woman Against Society

1.2 2. Inter-Caste Love: The Tragedy of Ammu and Velutha

1.3 3. Cultural Restrictions and Social Taboos

1.4 4. Love and Loss: The Aftermath of Forbidden Desires

Social Taboos in The God of Small Things

Below is the account of how Arundhati Roy portrays Forbidden Desires, Love and Social Taboos in The God of Small Things.

Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things (1997) explores love as a transgressive force, highlighting how cultural restrictions, caste hierarchies, and patriarchal norms dictate human relationships. The novel portrays love in various forms—maternal love, sibling bonds, romantic passion, and forbidden desires—all of which are shaped by rigid social taboos. Ammu’s defiance, her inter-caste love affair, and the consequences of breaking societal rules form the emotional and thematic core of the story.

1. Ammu’s Defiance: A Woman Against Society

Ammu, the mother of Rahel and Estha, is a tragic figure caught between personal desires and societal expectations. She is a woman who dares to challenge patriarchy and refuses to conform to the rigid norms imposed on women in her society.

Marriage and Divorce: Ammu’s decision to marry a Bengali Hindu man against her family’s wishes is the first act of defiance. However, when the marriage turns abusive, she leaves her husband—an act that brings her shame and social isolation. As a divorced woman with children, she is treated as an outcast within her own family.
Love as Rebellion: Her love affair with Velutha, an Untouchable (Dalit) man, is a direct violation of caste and social norms. Unlike other relationships in the novel, this love is equal, based on mutual desire and respect, rather than hierarchy or duty.
Punishment for Desire: Society refuses to accept Ammu’s choices. She is humiliated, locked in a room, separated from her children, and ultimately dies alone, rejected by her family. Her story highlights how women who defy social norms are punished—not for their actions, but for daring to desire.

2. Inter-Caste Love: The Tragedy of Ammu and Velutha

Ammu and Velutha’s love affair is at the heart of the novel’s exploration of forbidden desires. Their relationship is not just about passion; it is a political act, challenging the centuries-old caste system.

Velutha as the “Untouchable” Lover: Velutha is a Paravan, an Untouchable. Despite being talented and educated, his caste determines his fate. His love for Ammu is seen as an act of rebellion, a threat to the upper-caste order.
Love Beyond Barriers: Their affair represents love that defies oppression. It is one of the few relationships in the novel free from power imbalances, making it a symbol of both freedom and destruction.
Social Retribution: When their relationship is discovered, Ammu is shamed, and Velutha is falsely accused, brutally beaten, and killed by the police. Their love, which briefly transcends social divisions, is crushed by the caste system’s brutality.

3. Cultural Restrictions and Social Taboos

The novel portrays a society where love is dictated by rigid rules, and any attempt to cross these boundaries leads to violence, shame, and exile.

The Love Laws: Roy repeatedly refers to the “Love Laws”—unwritten social rules that dictate “who should be loved, and how. And how much.” These laws do not allow:

Women to desire openly.
Lower-caste men to love upper-caste women.
Sibling bonds that challenge authority (as seen in Rahel and Estha’s relationship).
Punishment for Love: Every character who challenges these laws suffers. Ammu and Velutha are destroyed. Even Rahel and Estha, who share an intense, emotionally charged sibling bond, are marked as social misfits.

4. Love and Loss: The Aftermath of Forbidden Desires

The tragic consequences of Ammu and Velutha’s love extend beyond their own lives. Their story leaves deep emotional scars on Rahel and Estha, who grow up haunted by loss, guilt, and trauma.

Rahel and Estha’s Silence: The twins, once inseparable, are broken apart by their mother’s tragic fate. Estha becomes mute, and Rahel drifts through life, unable to form meaningful connections.
Reunion in Grief: When they reunite as adults, their silent intimacy reflects the lasting pain of their childhood. Their relationship becomes a metaphor for love that is both necessary and forbidden, shaped by trauma and exile.

Conclusion

In The God of Small Things, love is never free. It is controlled, punished, and ultimately destroyed by caste, class, and gender norms. Ammu and Velutha’s love, though fleeting, represents a moment of defiance in a rigid world, but society ensures that their story ends in tragedy. Through this, Roy exposes how social taboos turn love into a crime, making personal desires a battleground for political and cultural oppression.

#Social Taboos in The God of Small Things #Social Taboos in The God of Small Things #Social Taboos in The God of Small Things #Social Taboos in The God of Small Things #Social Taboos in The God of Small Things #Social Taboos in The God of Small Things #Social Taboos in The God of Small Things #Social Taboos in The God of Small Things #Social Taboos in The God of Small Things #Social Taboos in The God of Small Things #Social Taboos in The God of Small Things #Social Taboos in The God of Small Things

Exam Questions

How does Arundhati Roy explore the theme of forbidden love and social taboos in The God of Small Things?
In what ways do cultural restrictions and caste hierarchies shape the characters’ relationships in the novel?
Discuss how The God of Small Things portrays the consequences of breaking societal norms regarding love, gender, and caste.
What role does Ammu’s relationship with Velutha play in challenging caste boundaries in the novel?
Explain how the ‘Love Laws’ function as a form of social control in The God of Small Things.
What are the emotional consequences faced by Rahel and Estha as a result of their mother’s defiance?