What Does Chacko’s Character Reveal About Privilege in The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy?
In The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy, Chacko represents the entrenchment of male, class, and colonial privilege in postcolonial India. Through his Western education, patriarchal authority, and hypocritical moral stance, Chacko embodies the contradictions of privilege—benefiting from both colonial legacy and traditional patriarchy while remaining complicit in the oppression of others. His character serves as a mirror reflecting how privilege operates invisibly to maintain inequality within families, communities, and nations (Roy, 1997).
Chacko as a Product of Colonial Legacy
Chacko’s character is deeply tied to the remnants of British colonialism in Kerala. Educated at Oxford, he embodies the postcolonial elite who inherit the intellectual and cultural capital of the British Empire while failing to challenge its ideological frameworks. His tendency to romanticize his Western experiences—particularly his time in England and his failed marriage to Margaret Kochamma—reveals his internalization of colonial superiority. He idolizes Western culture yet remains alienated within his own society, symbolizing the fragmented identity of the postcolonial subject (Tickell, 2007).
Arundhati Roy uses Chacko’s Western education to highlight the colonial hangover that defines India’s educated upper class. He exhibits what Homi Bhabha describes as “mimicry”—an imitation of colonial power that reinforces rather than dismantles it. Chacko’s pride in his Oxford degree and his self-styled intellectualism mask his dependency on inherited privilege. Despite his socialist ideals, he remains detached from the struggles of workers and marginalized castes, showing that his supposed progressivism is a veneer over systemic privilege (Bose, 2005).
Male Privilege and Patriarchal Power
Chacko’s dominance within the Ipe family reflects the patriarchal privilege that Roy critiques throughout the novel. As the only son, he automatically inherits control over the family’s business, Paradise Pickles and Preserves, while Ammu, his sister, is denied similar agency. Despite being financially unstable and emotionally immature, Chacko is regarded as the “Man of the House,” demonstrating how gender privilege, not merit, dictates authority within traditional households (Roy, 1997).
Chacko’s patriarchal power extends into his sexual entitlement. His self-professed “needs” for female company, which he fulfills through relationships with working-class women, expose the hypocrisy of his intellectual posturing. While he preaches equality, he exploits women from lower classes—an act that mirrors the social hierarchies he claims to oppose. Roy juxtaposes Chacko’s behavior with Ammu’s condemned relationship with Velutha to underline the gender double standard: men’s transgressions are normalized, while women’s desires are punished (Chacko, 2000).
Chacko’s Class Consciousness and Economic Privilege
Chacko’s attitudes toward labor and ownership further reveal the economic dimensions of privilege. Although he labels himself a “Marxist,” his actions contradict his ideology. He calls the factory workers his “comrades” but retains absolute control over their labor. This contradiction exposes how elite individuals use ideological language to mask exploitative behavior (Tickell, 2007).
Arundhati Roy constructs Chacko’s character as a critique of performative leftism among the privileged. His “Communism” functions as a form of intellectual self-fashioning rather than genuine solidarity with the oppressed. He treats the factory as a stage upon which he performs equality while benefiting from the systemic inequalities that oppress his workers, especially Velutha. Thus, Chacko’s privilege is not only social and gendered but also economic—a manifestation of the capitalist and caste-driven order that Roy exposes.
Chacko’s Relationship with Velutha: A Study in Hypocrisy
Chacko’s treatment of Velutha epitomizes the limits of his liberalism. While he acknowledges Velutha’s skill and intelligence, he never fully sees him as an equal. His paternalistic attitude toward Velutha reinforces the very caste hierarchies he claims to reject. Chacko’s failure to defend Velutha when the latter is accused of transgressing caste and sexual norms underscores his complicity in systemic oppression (Roy, 1997).
This relationship exemplifies the moral blindness of privilege. Chacko’s sympathy for the marginalized is intellectual rather than ethical—it ends where his social standing begins. By contrast, Velutha’s humanity exposes the emptiness of Chacko’s ideals. Roy uses this tension to critique how privilege perpetuates injustice through selective empathy. As scholars like Brinda Bose (2005) note, Chacko’s liberalism functions as a self-serving moral mask, allowing him to remain comfortable within structures of inequality while appearing enlightened.
Gender, Guilt, and Emotional Evasion
Chacko’s interactions with women—Ammu, Margaret, Sophie Mol, and the factory women—highlight his emotional detachment and moral evasion. His relationship with his ex-wife Margaret Kochamma reveals his inability to process rejection or accept emotional accountability. He romanticizes their past while ignoring his own failings as a husband and father. Similarly, his treatment of Ammu oscillates between protective brother and patriarchal oppressor, reinforcing how privilege sustains itself through emotional manipulation (Roy, 1997).
Roy uses Chacko’s guilt and passivity to illustrate the psychological comfort of privilege. He experiences guilt over Velutha’s death and the family’s dysfunction but never acts to correct the injustices he witnesses. His privilege allows him to intellectualize suffering rather than confront it. This emotional detachment mirrors the broader societal tendency to acknowledge inequality without disrupting it—making Chacko a microcosm of postcolonial India’s elite conscience (Tickell, 2007).
Chacko as a Symbol of Postcolonial Contradiction
Chacko’s significance extends beyond individual flaws—he represents the contradictions of India’s postcolonial condition. As an Oxford-educated intellectual who returns to a traditional, caste-bound society, he embodies the clash between modern ideals and inherited hierarchies. His simultaneous embrace of socialist rhetoric and patriarchal privilege mirrors India’s struggle to reconcile equality with entrenched social stratification (Spivak, 1988).
Roy’s depiction of Chacko underscores that privilege in postcolonial societies is multi-layered. It is not merely Western or economic but also gendered, caste-based, and emotional. Chacko’s inability to challenge these hierarchies demonstrates how deeply internalized privilege resists self-awareness. His character exposes how colonial ideology survives through cultural memory, class systems, and personal relationships—making him a tragic yet instructive figure in Roy’s social commentary (Bose, 2005).
Roy’s Critique of Intellectual and Moral Privilege
Through Chacko, Arundhati Roy critiques the moral complacency of those who wield intellectual privilege. His pseudo-intellectualism—filled with grand political statements but devoid of moral courage—stands in contrast to the authenticity of marginalized characters like Velutha. Chacko’s frequent use of academic jargon and his self-identification as a “student of Marx” are revealed as rhetorical tools that justify inaction rather than inspire change (Chacko, 2000).
Roy uses this irony to emphasize that privilege often masquerades as intellect. Chacko’s education and status grant him authority, but his inability to act ethically reveals that privilege devoid of empathy is hollow. He serves as an embodiment of the “Big Things” in the novel—the institutions of power, ideology, and hierarchy that overshadow the “Small Things” of love, justice, and humanity.
Conclusion: Chacko as the Embodiment of Privilege and Contradiction
In conclusion, Chacko’s character in The God of Small Things functions as a complex representation of privilege in its multiple forms—colonial, patriarchal, and class-based. Through him, Arundhati Roy exposes the pervasive and insidious nature of privilege that perpetuates inequality under the guise of intellect and morality. His contradictions—progressive in speech yet regressive in action—reveal how privilege thrives on hypocrisy and moral avoidance.
Chacko’s failure to confront his complicity underscores Roy’s broader critique of postcolonial society, where the elite sustain injustice through inaction and self-justification. Ultimately, Chacko’s story serves as a warning: privilege that refuses introspection inevitably perpetuates oppression. Roy’s portrayal invites readers to recognize the unseen mechanisms of privilege within themselves and society at large.
References
-
Bose, Brinda. Arundhati Roy: The Novelist Extraordinary. New Delhi: Katha, 2005.
-
Chacko, Mary. “Caste and Gender in Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things.” Indian Literature Studies, vol. 48, no. 2, 2000, pp. 23–37.
-
Roy, Arundhati. The God of Small Things. New Delhi: IndiaInk, 1997.
-
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” In Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, edited by Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg, University of Illinois Press, 1988.
-
Tickell, Alex. Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things: A Reader’s Guide. London: Routledge, 2007.