What does the reference to Chappals in Lost Spring tells us about the economic condition of the rag pickers?
Please give me the answer the answer relating to some examples with the text book elaborately.
THanks For sparing your time.... :)
Dear Student,
When the narrator asks one of the children as to why he doesn't wear chappals, he replies that his mother did not bring them down from the shelf. It's not that they dont want shoes, in their state shoes are a luxury they can't afford. Travelling across the country the narrator has seen children walking barefoot, in cities, on village roads. One of the reasons they give is that it is a tradition to stay barefoot. But the narrator feels that it is only an excuse to explain away a perpetual state of poverty. Later she narrates a story which was told to her by an Udipi man. As a young boy he would go to school past an old temple, where his father was a priest. He would stop briefly at the temple and pray for a pair of shoes. Thirty years later the narrator visited his town and the temple, which was now drowned in an air of desolation. In the backyard, where lived the new priest, a young boy dressed in a grey uniform, wearing socks and shoes, arrived panting and threw his school bag on a folding bed. Looking at the boy, she remembered the prayer another boy had made to the goddess when he had finally got a pair of shoes, “Let me never lose them.” The goddess had granted his prayer. Young boys like the son of the priest now wore shoes. But many others like the ragpickers in her neighbourhood remain shoeless.
When we read the mention of shoes in this narrative, we understand that even thirty years later, some children are still shoeless. They cant afford it and remain barefoot. Shoes as a commodity is a luxury for them. Owing shoes shows once economic standing.
Regards.
Regards.
When the narrator asks one of the children as to why he doesn't wear chappals, he replies that his mother did not bring them down from the shelf. It's not that they dont want shoes, in their state shoes are a luxury they can't afford. Travelling across the country the narrator has seen children walking barefoot, in cities, on village roads. One of the reasons they give is that it is a tradition to stay barefoot. But the narrator feels that it is only an excuse to explain away a perpetual state of poverty. Later she narrates a story which was told to her by an Udipi man. As a young boy he would go to school past an old temple, where his father was a priest. He would stop briefly at the temple and pray for a pair of shoes. Thirty years later the narrator visited his town and the temple, which was now drowned in an air of desolation. In the backyard, where lived the new priest, a young boy dressed in a grey uniform, wearing socks and shoes, arrived panting and threw his school bag on a folding bed. Looking at the boy, she remembered the prayer another boy had made to the goddess when he had finally got a pair of shoes, “Let me never lose them.” The goddess had granted his prayer. Young boys like the son of the priest now wore shoes. But many others like the ragpickers in her neighbourhood remain shoeless.
When we read the mention of shoes in this narrative, we understand that even thirty years later, some children are still shoeless. They cant afford it and remain barefoot. Shoes as a commodity is a luxury for them. Owing shoes shows once economic standing.
Regards.
Regards.