Brett Murphy

Literary and Religious Traditions of India

Final Paper Prompt 3
The Unnecessary Nature of Love Laws
In all humans is a capacity for love, and that love manifests itself in many different ways.
A nun loves a priest. A man loves a woman. A brother loves a sister. A twin loves a twin. A man
even loves a man, or a woman loves a woman. Currently, there are 37 states in the Unites States
of America who legalize gay marriage. Only 10 years ago, there would have been no states that
legalized gay marriage. This mere fact shows the progression in the Love Laws. Throughout
history, the concept of love and how it works has morphed and taken on different shapes, in that
those who love and are loved has changed and become more acceptable. In her novel The God of
Small Things, Arundhati Roy uses relationships between characters to evince the progressive
nature of the love laws. One such couple is that of Mammachi and Pappachi; a second, more
important relationship, is that between Ammu and Velutha.
The Love Laws, explicitly stated, are The laws that lay down who should be loved, and
how. And how much, (33). They dictate who can love who, how much love can be expressed,
how that love can change, and how the love is to be accepted by others. The Love Laws have
always existed, but their relationship to history is that they are ever-changing. As shown in The
God of Small Things, older people are more prone to adhere to the Love Laws than are younger
people. The relationship between Mammachi and Pappachi is an example of this. Pappachi is an
abusive husband who beats Mammachi regularly. When Chacko comes back one summer,
however, he found Pappachi beating Mammachi in the study. Chacko strode into the room,
caught Pappachis vase-hand and twisted it around his back. I never want this to happen again.
Ever, (47). Afterwards, Pappachi stops beating Mammachi, but he finds other ways to put her
down and humiliate her, such as create the impression that Mammachi neglected him, (47).

Nevertheless, upon Pappachis death, Mammachi still showed her devotion to him: At
Pappachis funeral, Mammachi cried and her contact lenses slid around in her eyes. Ammu told
the twins that Mammachi was crying more because she was used to him than because she loved
him, (49). Mammachi was not actually in love with Pappachi, but, as Ammu puts it, she was
used to him. This relationship resulted from her obedience to the Love Laws and their
prescriptions. Mammachi is an example of someone who allows for history to dictate her
acceptance of the Love Laws. There are others, however, who do not so stringently accept or
follow the Love Laws, namely Ammu and Velutha.
Velutha is an untouchable, and therefore it is, in the eyes of history, absolutely forbidden
that he and Ammu have any sort of physical relationship. At first, the relationship between
Velutha and Ammu is stagnant due to their adherence to the Love Laws which say that an
untouchable and a touchable cannot be together. Therefore, the scene where Sophie Mol first
arrives is arguably the most important moment in Velutha and Ammus relationship: Velutha
looked up and saw things that he hadnt seen before. Things that had been out of bounds so far,
obscured by historys blinkersFor instance, he saw that Rahels mother was a womanHe saw
too that he was not necessarily the only giver of gifts. That she had gifts to give him, too, (168).
Here, Velutha is seeing Ammu in an entirely new way. He has known her for so long, but his
vision has always been obscured by history and the Love Laws. Now, he is looking beyond that.
He is seeing Ammu as the person she isthe woman she isand he falls in love. He understand
that it is wrong, and so does Ammu: Ammu saw that he saw. She looked away. He did too.
Historys fiends returned to claim them. To re-wrap them in its old, scarred pelt and drag them
back to where they really lived. Where the Love Laws lay down who should be loved. And how.
And how much, (168). Historys clutches at this point in time are too strong to escape. Both

Ammu and Velutha are under its influence and cannot act on the feelings they have for each
other.
Later, Ammu has a dream in which she falls in love with a mysterious stranger. She
eventually realizes that this strangerthis God of Loss, the God of Small Things, (210)is
actually Velutha. Ammu says that in the dream she was happy, showing that in Velutha, Ammu
finds happiness, which is grounds for the last scene of the novel, which describes in detail Ammu
and Veluthas relationship. It is said that They knew that it was all they could ask of each other.
The only thing. Ever. They both knew that, (320). This is in reference to Ammu and Veluthas
sexual relationship. Both individuals understand that their relationship can be nothing more than
a sexual one, and this is a construct of history and the Love Laws. They could never have a
public, romantic relationship because of the pressures of history and their own observance of the
Love Laws, but the Love Laws in this case are being bent. In having sex, Velutha and Ammu are
going against history and what is perceived as normal. Roy chooses to end her novel with this
scene between Ammu and Velutha rather than the death of Sophie Mol and its aftermath, and the
word she chooses to end her novel with is Tomorrow, (321). This inspires a feeling of hope.
The feeling that a new day, a better day, is waiting. The Love Laws and history may be
exercising some control, but with this vision of hope comes a vision that these limitations on
who should be loved, and how. And how much, (33) will cease to exist. They will disappear
and people, young and old, will be free to love whomever they so choose. For this reason, I think
that the relationship between law and the values of mercy, compassion, and love should not exist.
That, like the Love Laws and historys influence, this relation between law and love must
disappear altogether because law cannot dictate how one loves someone else.

Throughout the novel, there are several instances where moral law, legal law, and
religious law interact with the values of mercy, compassion, and love. For example, Baby
Kochamma felt a strong love and compassion for Father Mulligan, but due to religious laws they
were not able to begin a relationship of any kind. She instead tried as hard as she could to be
close to him, becoming a nun to be nearer the man she loved. Ultimately, her efforts proved to be
in vain as their relationship could never have been due to the laws, which made Baby Kochamma
resentful towards other peoples love: Baby Kochamma resented Ammu, because she saw her
quarreling with a fate that she, Baby Kochamma herself, felt she had graciously accepted. The
fate of the wretched Man-less woman. The sad, Father Mulligan-less Baby Kochamma. She had
managed to persuade herself over the years that her unconsummated love for Father Mulligan
had been entirely due to her restraint and her determination to do the right thing, (44-45). Baby
Kochamma wants to believe that the laws had nothing to do with her failed relationship, which is
why she so condemns Ammus relationship with Velutha as despicable: her own forbidden
relationship never had a chance.
Another example appears in the relationship between Ammu, Estha, Rahel, and Velutha.
The three family members loved Velutha, each in his or her own way: the twins loved him as a
pseudo-father figure; Ammu loved Velutha as a lover. Either way, All three of them bonded by
the certain, separate knowledge that they had loved a man to death, (307). Estha, Rahel, and
Ammu blame themselves for Veluthas death, believing that had they not involved him, an
untouchable, in their lives, he would still be alive. Ammu, Estha, and Rahel all feel a moral
responsibility for Veluthas deaththey hold themselves accountable for what happened to the
man they all loved. None of them, though, is directly responsible for his death. This serves as an

example where moral law and love are incompatible. Estha and Rahel and Ammu loved Velutha,
but this does not mean that there is a moral or legal obligation to take the blame for his death.
Based on these two examples, the conclusion can be made that the relation between love
and law is a toxic one. The relation between law and love created in Baby Kochamma a feeling
of resentment that stuck with her for her whole life and made her a bitter, lethargic old woman;
the relation between law and love tore a family aparta loved man died, the mans lover was
devastated, a pair of twins were separated, all because of laws influence on love. If this
relationship did not exist, then no one would have ended up unhappy. Baby Kochamma could
have been with Father Mulligan and Ammu could have been with Velutha.
Everything in The God of Small Things points to the idea that love is something that has
to be completely independent. History can no longer be able to influence love, and neither can
law. The Love Laws lay out how love works, but love cannot be summarized in a strict, concise
set of rules because love comes in all different ways. It is notable that there is no such thing as
Hate Laws, which are arguably more important since hatred is a more unnatural emotion than is
love. History provides a strict interpretation of Love and what it is meant to be. For example, gay
relationships are seen as out of the question, but other types of discrimination, such as
xenophobia or racism, are normalized in the eyes of history. The reason for this is because there
are no rules on who to hate. Gay people are hated because homosexuality goes against the Love
Laws, but there are no Hate Laws that regulate who to hate, how to hate, and how much to hate.
Therefore, Love Laws, like Hate Laws, mustnt exist. Law must no longer have an impact on
love. Arundhati Roy shows a progressive view of the Love Laws, and this is true in reality.
This parallel can be seen in the number of places in the world legalizing gay marriage.
Years ago, homosexual relationships and marriages were seen as unnatural and disgusting.

Conversely, there is no way for love to be unnatural as all love is natural. The relation between
love and law is becoming less and less important, because love is starting to be seen as a
universal, natural thing that is different for everyone, and cannot be normalized.