Descriptive Coda: But they survived

Guldhari’s theme, however, does not end with the women positioned as victims of the Girmit system, and authoritarian male brutality. Their hands cut, clean, and cook, and their eyes silently well with tears on an unnamed sugarcane plantation, sometime during the Girmit era. By describing the routine of their lives, Guldhari has described the life of other women Girmityas on other plantations:

kī admī loŋ khalī rahā

that man PL only AUX.PST

that the people were only able to survive

↑kā(.h) ↑sou↓da ↓sastā ↓rah

that grocery cheap AUX.PST

because the grocery was cheap

A: hā= hā AFM AFM A: yes, yes G:

to waihi=m thhorā thhorā thhorā thhorā

TOP in.that.LOC little little little litte

chalawe (.h)

make.do.IP

G:

they made do by rationing (everything) into small small small small amounts

>dwī=ānā=k= bārā= dibā < māchis

two pence.ACC twelve packet matches

rahā

AUX.PST

twelve packets of matches were for two pence

>nou siliŋ bāstā< ātā rahā

nine shilling sack flour AUX.PST

nine shillings was the price of one sack of flour

i sab rahā (.h)

3.PROX all AUX.PST

this is how it was

to wahi=m thorā thorā chalāwe

TOP in.that.LOC little little make.do.IP

they made do by rationing (everything) into small small amounts

While Guldhari has detailed the hardships endured by the women at the hands of the Sirdar and the Coolumbar, at level 3, she does this not to position the women as victims, but as survivors. She has situated these women in the early days of Girmit, fourteen years after its introduction to Fiji. This was before the room sizes were increased, and before the CSR Company sent out a circular, condemning the use of overtasking,

prevalent on many of its sugar plantations. In this narration, Guldhari acknowledges the tenacity, and resolve of women in adapting to the plantation environment, and, thereby, surviving Girmit.

7.7 Summary and Discussion

Guldhari emphasizes the pain, anguish and fear of the Girmityas in the storyworld. But there is no attempt at resistance on the part of the Girmityas, and their suffering is sustained, monotonously, throughout the chronicle. The rhythm of their suffering can be likened to the Girmityas’ actions on the plantation of waking, eating, working, and sleeping. Guldhari also describes how the Girmityas accomodated to this harsh environment, and in doing so, survived Girmit. This discussion of adaptation is in contrast to the climax of Gabriel's narration.

Guldhari presents her narration as a series of events. It is like watching scenes unfolding before us, as though we are witnesses to a slice of the women's lives, with Guldhari providing a commentary on the unfolding actions. At no time are we privy to the women's thoughts (Labov, 1997); rather, we infer their feeling of despair through their tears. Nor, at level 1, are we privy to Guldhari’s thoughts as Experiencing-I (Friedman, 1955, cited in Jahn, 2005: 3.3.3; Lanser, 1981: 161, cited in Jahn, 2005: 3.3.3;

Nieragden, 2002: 686). The evaluations that Guldhari-as-narrator provides, at level 2, are built on these factual actions, and appeal to the interlocutor's sense of right and wrong.

At level 1, Ghuldari begins as I-as-co-protagonist, but moves into I-as-witness position, which she maintains for the most part of her narration. Guldhari's movement, across the scale of the Experiencing-I, from most involved in the events of the storyworld,

establishing herself as having been there as the events unfolded, to less involved, bearing a witness account, also adds credibility to her narration, at level 2. At no point does she describe events that she did not witness first hand. This aspect of Guldhari’s narration can be contrasted with that of the master narrators, who rely on the

information of others, either Girmityas, or other academics who have themselves received their information from other sources.

Combined with this shift in the role of the Experiencing-I, at level 1, is Guldhari’s use of habitual narratives. For Guldhari, this increasing distance between herself-as-

character from the events of the storyworld, and the use of habitual narratives, allow her to encapsulate a wider range of protagonists and antagonists at level 1 of the analysis. This leads the analysis to Guldhari’s performativity of identity, at level 3, through her movement in her role as the focalizing character at level 1.

What is intriguing is that Guldhari’s entire narration is tied to the life of the women, and their experiences of Girmit. At no point does she describe events that do not

concentrate on these Girmityas. She is either a co-protagonist with the women Girmityas (Time and Dai’s Care), or, as in the most part of her narration, she is a witness to the women Girmityas’ experiences. Does this then indicate that she does not see herself as a Girmitya despite having experienced Girmit? By extension, this would imply that, for Guldhari, only those who signed the Agreement, and laboured on the plantations are Girmityas. This implication could explain her use of I-as-witness position through most of her narration.

In seeking to analyze Ghuldari’s narration at level 3, I also need to consider Ghuldari’s choice of protagonists, as compared to those typically seen in the master narratives. Ghuldari’s awareness of her own agency as a narrator is seen in her movement across the dimensions of first person narration, from I-as-co-protagonist to I-as-witness. For this reason, I consider it appropriate to contrast her as a narrator with the master narrator(s) of the 1970s and early 1980s, the time of the production and first broadcast of Ghuldari’s narration. This master narrator was usually a biologically male academic, who spoke of a typical Girmitya with the pronoun ‘he’, a mindset also reflected in the indenture passes the academic inserted into his work. In Guldhari’s narration, what is, effectively, the minority group in master narratives is given prominence. Hence, Guldhari is subverting this image of men’s Girmit.

When contrasted with the master narratives at level 3, Guldhari’s narration, therefore, reads as a critique on the treatment of women during Girmit. However, I believe that it is the very situated nature of the interaction, at level 2, that brings about a narration on women Girmityas (Butler, 1999). While she may not have premeditated to produce this

chronicle, the presence of a woman interlocutor may have had an impact on her choice of protagonists.

At level 2, consideration also needs to be given to the hearing of this chronicle, in a still biologically male oriented society. Would the interlocutors have noticed the

significance of the all-women plantation? Her interviewer, who is the perceived voice of the secondary interlocutors, and who has interviewed other men and women

Girmityas, does not question the absence of the typical. However, it is the woman interviewer’s lack of verbal articulations until the coda that contribute to the

construction of Guldhari’s, and her own identity, at level 3 of the analysis. Through her silence, we hear the interviewer indicating her acceptance, and encouragement, of the structure and focus of the chronicle, the assignment of praise to the women for their endurance and survival of the harsh Girmit climate, and the assignment of blame to the Sirdar and Coolumbar for their abuse of their positions of authority on the plantation.

I foresee some readers argue that Guldhari would, naturally, be talking about her mother’s Girmit. However, I counteract this argument with my own realization: If this chronicle were my introduction to Girmit, would I not believe that this is a women’s only plantation? In the master narratives, gender has been reduced to a binary opposition, proscribed at birth. I propose, that it is by manipulating this binary opposition (females versus males) of the master narratives, that Guldhari, and her woman interviewer, produce a chronicle on Girmit that decries the injustices endured by their women, and, in doing so, the site of the construction of the chronicle becomes a site for gender performativity, in answering ‘Who am I?’

8