How Are Parent-Child Relationships Portrayed in Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things?
Arundhati Roy portrays parent-child relationships in The God of Small Things as fundamentally damaged, characterized by emotional distance, conditional love, and the transmission of trauma across generations. The novel presents a spectrum of dysfunctional parenting that ranges from outright abandonment and abuse to more subtle forms of emotional neglect and manipulation. Central to the narrative is Ammu’s deeply conflicted relationship with her twins Rahel and Estha, where fierce maternal love coexists with resentment, anger, and the inability to protect them from harm. Roy demonstrates how parent-child relationships are shaped by larger social forces including caste hierarchies, patriarchal structures, economic pressures, and colonial legacies that constrain parental capacity to nurture and protect children. The novel reveals that damaged parents who have themselves experienced abuse and neglect struggle to provide healthy attachment relationships, creating intergenerational cycles where children inherit their parents’ trauma. Through multiple parent-child dyads—Pappachi and Ammu, Mammachi and Chacko, Ammu and the twins, Margaret and Sophie Mol—Roy illustrates how social oppression, personal disappointment, and unresolved trauma prevent the formation of secure, loving relationships that children require for healthy development.
How Does Ammu’s Relationship with Her Children Reflect Her Own Trauma?
Ammu’s relationship with Rahel and Estha represents the novel’s most complex and emotionally charged parent-child dynamic, characterized by intense love contaminated by resentment, fear, and displaced anger. As a divorced woman with limited options in conservative Kerala society, Ammu experiences her children simultaneously as her greatest source of love and the primary obstacle to her freedom and happiness. Roy poignantly describes how Ammu sometimes looks at her children “as though she held them responsible for her grief,” revealing the psychological reality of how parents struggling with overwhelming circumstances can unconsciously blame children for their situation (Roy, 1997, p. 39). This emotional ambivalence creates confusion and insecurity for the twins, who sense their mother’s anger even as they desperately need her love. Ammu’s inability to consistently provide emotional stability stems directly from her own traumatic childhood, where she experienced her father’s rejection and her mother’s coldness, leaving her without models for healthy parenting or secure attachment.
The devastating moment when Ammu tells the twins “you’re the millstones round my neck” crystallizes the tragic dimension of their relationship and demonstrates how parental trauma can manifest as emotional abuse even in the context of genuine love (Roy, 1997, p. 242). This cruel statement, spoken in a moment of desperation and anger, haunts the children throughout their lives, becoming a core element of their traumatic memory. Research on attachment theory confirms that children require consistent emotional availability and responsiveness from caregivers to develop secure attachments, and that parental inconsistency—alternating between warmth and rejection—creates anxious, disorganized attachment patterns associated with lifelong psychological difficulties (Bowlby, 1988). Ammu’s emotional volatility, driven by her impossible circumstances and unresolved trauma, prevents her from providing the consistent nurturing that her children desperately need. The novel suggests that Ammu’s parenting failures result not from lack of love but from structural conditions—poverty, social ostracism, family rejection—that make adequate parenting impossible. Roy thus presents a nuanced portrait that refuses to simply blame individual mothers while acknowledging the real harm that children experience when parents cannot meet their emotional needs.
What Role Does Abandonment Play in Parent-Child Dynamics?
Abandonment emerges as a central theme in the novel’s portrayal of parent-child relationships, with multiple children experiencing physical or emotional desertion by parents who are unable or unwilling to fulfill parental responsibilities. The most dramatic abandonment occurs when the twins are separated after Sophie Mol’s death, with Estha being literally “returned” to his father like unwanted merchandise. Roy describes this separation with devastating simplicity, noting that Baby Kochamma “organized” Estha’s “Quietness and Emptiness” to be sent away, treating a traumatized child as a logistical problem to be solved rather than a suffering human requiring care (Roy, 1997, p. 310). This abandonment represents profound betrayal by the entire family, not just Ammu, as everyone conspires to remove Estha rather than help him heal. The fact that Ammu participates in sending her son away—albeit under coercion and impossible circumstances—illustrates how social and economic pressures can force parents to make choices that devastate their children.
Chacko’s relationship with Sophie Mol similarly involves abandonment, as he remains physically distant from his daughter who lives in England with her mother Margaret. His belated attempt to establish a relationship during Sophie Mol’s visit to India comes too late, and his daughter’s death forecloses any possibility of redemption. The novel suggests that Chacko’s absence from Sophie Mol’s daily life represents a failure of paternal responsibility, even if justified by geographical distance and divorce. Furthermore, Ammu’s father Pappachi emotionally abandoned her by refusing to fund her education or show her affection, treating his daughter as a burden rather than a valued family member. This multigenerational pattern of abandonment demonstrates how children who are rejected or neglected by their parents may struggle to provide consistent care to their own children, perpetuating cycles of emotional desertion. Roy’s portrayal reveals abandonment as not merely physical departure but also emotional unavailability, where parents remain physically present but fail to provide the attention, affection, and protection that constitute genuine care. The psychological impact of abandonment reverberates throughout characters’ lives, contributing to the twins’ adult dysfunction and their inability to form lasting attachments, demonstrating the lifelong consequences of parental desertion during critical developmental periods.
How Does Patriarchy Shape Father-Child Relationships?
Roy’s novel presents fathers as largely absent, abusive, or emotionally distant figures whose relationships with their children are mediated through patriarchal ideologies that privilege male authority while exempting men from nurturing responsibilities. Pappachi embodies toxic patriarchal fatherhood, where parental authority is expressed through violence, control, and favoritism based on gender. His differential treatment of his children—funding Chacko’s Oxford education while denying Ammu’s college aspirations—illustrates how patriarchal values create father-child relationships based on children’s perceived utility and gender rather than unconditional love. Pappachi’s emotional cruelty and systematic degradation of Ammu establish a pattern where daughters learn they are less valued than sons, creating psychological wounds that shape their entire lives. Roy demonstrates that patriarchal fatherhood emphasizes authority and control rather than emotional connection, producing relationships characterized by fear and resentment rather than love and trust.
Chacko represents a different but equally problematic manifestation of patriarchal fatherhood, where male privilege exempts him from accountability or consistent parenting. Despite his Oxford education and professed progressive politics, Chacko exercises patriarchal authority within the family, claiming ownership of the pickle business and treating his mother and sister as subordinates. His relationship with Sophie Mol is marked by absence and sentimentality rather than the daily work of caregiving and emotional labor that constitutes real parenting. Roy notes that Chacko’s “sense of injustice” about his failed marriage does not translate into meaningful involvement in his daughter’s life, revealing how patriarchal culture allows men to prioritize their own grievances while neglecting parental responsibilities (Roy, 1997, p. 57). The novel suggests that patriarchal family structures damage father-child relationships by emphasizing male authority and entitlement while devaluing the emotional labor and consistent presence that children require. Even Velutha, who is portrayed sympathetically and develops a warm relationship with the twins, cannot fully escape patriarchal conditioning, though his lower-caste status and marginalized position somewhat insulate him from patriarchal entitlements enjoyed by upper-caste men. Through these varied portrayals, Roy demonstrates that transforming father-child relationships requires dismantling patriarchal structures that define fatherhood through authority and breadwinning rather than emotional availability and nurturing care.
What Impact Does Social Class Have on Parenting?
Social class and economic circumstances profoundly shape parenting capacity in The God of Small Things, determining what resources parents can provide and what opportunities children can access. The novel contrasts the privileges available to upper-class children like Sophie Mol and Chacko with the constraints faced by working-class and lower-caste children whose parents lack economic security and social standing. Sophie Mol’s English accent, imported clothes, and educational advantages represent cultural capital unavailable to her Indian cousins, while Velutha’s children would face severely limited opportunities regardless of parental love or skill. Roy demonstrates how economic inequality translates directly into differential childhood experiences, with wealthy families able to buffer children from hardship while poor families struggle to meet basic needs. Ammu’s poverty following her divorce directly affects her ability to parent, as she lacks resources to provide security, stability, or opportunities for her children.
The intersection of class with caste creates particularly severe constraints on parenting for lower-caste families. Velutha’s father Vellya Paapen, despite his loyalty and hard work, cannot protect his son from caste violence or secure his economic future beyond the limited options available to Paravans. The novel illustrates how parents’ love and effort cannot overcome structural inequalities that determine children’s life chances based on birth. Furthermore, economic desperation drives certain parenting decisions that damage children, such as when Ammu’s husband attempts to prostitute her to his boss, valuing economic survival over family integrity or dignity. Roy’s portrayal reveals how poverty and economic insecurity create conditions where adequate parenting becomes impossible, as basic survival concerns overwhelm capacity for emotional nurturing. The novel thus critiques not only individual parenting failures but also social systems that create such extreme inequality that many parents cannot provide children with basic security, let alone opportunities for flourishing. This analysis suggests that improving parent-child relationships requires addressing economic injustice and creating social support systems that enable all parents to meet children’s needs regardless of class position.
How Does Mammachi’s Parenting Perpetuate Dysfunction?
Mammachi represents a tragic figure whose own victimization transforms into complicity in perpetuating family dysfunction, particularly through her enabling of her son Chacko and harsh treatment of her daughter Ammu. As a survivor of Pappachi’s prolonged physical and emotional abuse, Mammachi develops survival strategies that involve controlling what she can while tolerating what she cannot change. However, her coping mechanisms become destructive to her children and grandchildren, as she recreates oppressive dynamics in new forms. Her relationship with Chacko borders on emotional incest, with Mammachi defending him unconditionally regardless of his failures or inappropriate behavior while simultaneously blaming Ammu for every family problem. Roy describes how Mammachi “loved Chacko with a passion that bordered on obsession,” creating an unhealthy dynamic where maternal love becomes possessive and exclusionary (Roy, 1997, p. 169). This favoritism based on gender reflects internalized patriarchal values where sons are treasured while daughters are viewed as burdens.
Mammachi’s harsh treatment of Ammu represents displaced anger and frustration, as she punishes her daughter for transgressing social boundaries that Mammachi herself has spent a lifetime upholding at great personal cost. Rather than solidarity with another woman trapped by patriarchal constraints, Mammachi enforces rigid social hierarchies and punishes Ammu’s relationship with Velutha with particular venom. Her cruelty toward Ammu and her grandchildren demonstrates how trauma survivors can sometimes perpetuate harm even while remaining sympathetic figures themselves. The novel suggests that Mammachi’s parenting failures stem from never having processed or healed from her own trauma, leaving her unable to provide the emotional stability and unconditional love that healthy parenting requires. Her blindness—both literal and metaphorical—symbolizes her inability or unwillingness to see clearly the suffering of those around her, particularly when acknowledging that suffering would require confronting uncomfortable truths about family dynamics and social structures. Through Mammachi’s character, Roy illustrates the complex psychology of how abuse victims can become perpetrators, how survival strategies appropriate for violent circumstances become maladaptive in changed contexts, and how unresolved trauma perpetuates across generations through compromised parenting.
What Does the Novel Reveal About Maternal Ambivalence?
Roy’s portrayal of motherhood refuses sentimental idealization, instead presenting maternal ambivalence as a psychological reality that is rarely acknowledged but commonly experienced. Ammu’s conflicted feelings toward her children—simultaneously loving them fiercely and resenting them as obstacles to her freedom—represents honest acknowledgment of how parenthood, particularly for women trapped by limited options, can generate ambivalence and anger alongside love. The novel demonstrates that maternal ambivalence is not individual pathology but rather a reasonable response to impossible circumstances where women are denied autonomy, economic security, and social support while being held solely responsible for children’s wellbeing. Psychoanalytic theorist Rozsika Parker describes maternal ambivalence as the simultaneous experience of loving and hating feelings toward children, arguing that this ambivalence is normal and potentially productive if acknowledged rather than denied (Parker, 1995). Roy’s portrayal aligns with this understanding, showing Ammu’s ambivalence as understandable given her traumatic history and impossible present circumstances.
The novel also explores how children perceive and are damaged by maternal ambivalence, particularly when it manifests as inconsistency, emotional volatility, or verbal cruelty. The twins’ hypervigilance and anxiety reflect their need to constantly monitor their mother’s mood, never certain whether they will receive warmth or rejection. This unpredictability creates what attachment theorists call “disorganized attachment,” where children cannot develop coherent strategies for obtaining care and comfort from their primary caregiver (Main & Solomon, 1990). Roy’s sensitive portrayal acknowledges both the mother’s suffering and the children’s harm, refusing to resolve this tension by assigning simple blame or offering easy solutions. The novel suggests that maternal ambivalence becomes destructive primarily when women lack social support, economic security, and mental health resources to process their feelings without acting them out on children. By portraying maternal ambivalence honestly, Roy challenges cultural narratives that demand women experience only positive feelings toward children while denying the frustration, anger, and resentment that caregiving can generate, particularly under conditions of social oppression and economic desperation.
How Do Children’s Perspectives Reveal Parental Failures?
Roy’s narrative technique of presenting events partially through children’s perspectives creates powerful critique of adult behavior and parental inadequacy, as readers witness how parental actions affect children emotionally and psychologically. The twins’ confusion about adult motivations, their efforts to make sense of inconsistent or frightening behavior, and their attempts to protect themselves emotionally reveal the profound impact of parental failures on childhood consciousness. The children’s perspective emphasizes the arbitrariness and incomprehensibility of adult rules and anger, showing how discipline that seems reasonable to parents appears terrifying and unjust to children who lack context or power. Roy describes the twins’ constant state of vigilance and anxiety, their need to “Snuff out sparks” and “Tread Carefully,” revealing how parental unpredictability creates childhood experiences dominated by fear rather than security (Roy, 1997, p. 88).
The novel demonstrates how children internalize parental criticism and anger, transforming external attacks into self-blame and shame. When Ammu calls the twins millstones, they do not recognize this as her displaced anger about impossible circumstances but instead internalize it as truth about their worthlessness. This psychological dynamic illustrates how children are particularly vulnerable to parental emotional abuse because they lack the cognitive development to contextualize or defend against attacks on their self-worth. Furthermore, the children’s attempts to be “good” and earn love demonstrate their awareness that parental affection is conditional, dependent on behavior rather than unconditional acceptance of their being. The twins’ eventual silence and withdrawal—Estha’s literal muteness and Rahel’s emotional disconnection—represent traumatic responses to overwhelming childhood experiences where they lacked protection or consistent care. Through children’s perspectives, Roy creates visceral understanding of how parental failures affect young minds and bodies, generating sympathy for children’s suffering while illustrating the lifelong consequences of inadequate parenting during critical developmental periods when children form core beliefs about themselves, others, and the world.
What Role Does Guilt Play in Parent-Child Relationships?
Guilt permeates parent-child relationships throughout The God of Small Things, with both parents and children experiencing intense but often unproductive guilt about their failures, mistakes, and inability to protect or save each other. Ammu’s guilt about her parenting inadequacies, her inability to provide security for her children, and ultimately her participation in sending Estha away creates a psychological burden that contributes to her depression and early death. The novel suggests that Ammu dies partly from accumulated guilt and shame about her life choices and their impact on her children, illustrating how guilt can become psychologically destructive when it cannot be processed or resolved. However, Roy also demonstrates that Ammu’s guilt is largely misplaced, as her failures result primarily from structural constraints rather than individual inadequacy. The novel thus critiques how societies that fail to support parents, particularly single mothers, then blame them for resulting parental inadequacies, creating guilt that serves no productive purpose but only adds psychological suffering to material hardship.
The twins experience different but equally profound guilt related to their relationship with their mother and their role in family tragedies. They feel guilty for being burdens, for Ammu’s anger, and ultimately for the catastrophic events following Sophie Mol’s arrival. Estha’s guilt about falsely identifying Velutha becomes particularly crushing, as he must carry knowledge of his inadvertent participation in an innocent man’s murder. This guilt contributes to his muteness and emotional withdrawal, demonstrating how guilt that cannot be expressed or resolved becomes psychologically disabling. The novel reveals how parent-child relationships in dysfunctional families become saturated with guilt on both sides, with parents feeling guilty about their failures and children feeling guilty for needing care or somehow causing parental suffering. This mutual guilt prevents healthy communication and emotional connection, as both parents and children are too overwhelmed by their own shame to provide support to each other. Roy’s portrayal suggests that breaking these patterns requires not only individual psychological work but also social transformation that reduces the structural conditions—poverty, inequality, oppression—that make adequate parenting impossible for many families and then generate guilt about inevitable failures.
Conclusion
Arundhati Roy’s portrayal of parent-child relationships in The God of Small Things presents a devastating critique of how social oppression, economic inequality, and intergenerational trauma combine to damage the most fundamental human bonds. The novel refuses sentimental idealization of family life, instead depicting parent-child relationships as sites of intense conflict, ambivalence, and pain alongside genuine love and desperate attempts at connection. Through multiple parent-child dyads, Roy demonstrates how damaged adults who have themselves experienced abuse, abandonment, and social oppression struggle to provide the consistent nurturing and emotional security that children require for healthy development. The novel reveals that parenting failures cannot be understood in purely individual or psychological terms but must be analyzed within broader contexts of patriarchy, caste hierarchy, colonialism, and economic injustice that constrain parental capacity and create impossible circumstances.
The tragic outcomes for the novel’s children—Estha’s muteness, Rahel’s disconnection, Sophie Mol’s death—testify to the profound damage inflicted by inadequate parenting and family dysfunction. However, Roy’s nuanced portrayal maintains sympathy for struggling parents even while acknowledging the real harm children experience, refusing to simply blame individuals for failures that result largely from structural conditions. The novel ultimately argues that creating conditions where healthy parent-child relationships can flourish requires comprehensive social transformation including gender equality, economic security, dismantling of caste hierarchies, and creation of support systems that enable all parents to meet children’s needs regardless of class or social position. Through its unflinching examination of parent-child relationships, The God of Small Things challenges readers to recognize how social injustice damages the most intimate human bonds and to imagine forms of social organization that would support rather than undermine family relationships.
References
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. Basic Books.
Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1990). Procedures for identifying infants as disorganized/disoriented during the Ainsworth Strange Situation. In M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E. M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research, and intervention (pp. 121-160). University of Chicago Press.
Parker, R. (1995). Torn in two: The experience of maternal ambivalence. Virago Press.
Roy, A. (1997). The God of Small Things. Random House.