In modern society we are used to thinking that a person's identity is tied to his profession. In India, however, profession has never been merely a way of earning a living. Ideas of honour and dishonour, closeness and distance, equality and inequality have always clung to it, and their roots lie in the long history of caste. When Sudama Pandey "Dhoomil" (1936–1975) places a cobbler at the centre of his poem "Mochiram," he is asking more than how a labourer is treated. He is asking how society decides who a person is before that person has said a word.
The poem opens with a look. The eyes that rise from the rasp scan the man standing before the cobbler, and then, in a trusting tone, Mochiram says that in his eyes no one is small and no one is great. For him every man is a pair of shoes that stands before him for repair. The line is startling because it turns the usual relation between man and object upside down. Yet it carries an irony. Among the people who come to the shop, social differences remain, and the cobbler's equality is a professional one: he measures everyone by the same shoe. "No man is outside the measure of a shoe," he says, and the remark quietly points to a society that has fitted every person into a mould of class, caste, work or rank.
What keeps the poem from becoming mere satire is the voice that interrupts this metaphor. Between professional hands and torn shoes, Mochiram insists, there is somewhere a man on whom the stitches fall, who bears on his chest like a hammer the wound of the toe peeping from the shoe. The breakage of the shoe and the suffering of the person pass into each other. The cobbler stitches leather, but he also tries to stitch eyes in place of patches, to see the man the leather covers.
That seeing is never easy. When a customer with a face pecked by smallpox, wearing a shoe that is a bag of patches, smiles hopefully like a kite caught on a telephone pole, Mochiram wants to ask why he is spending money on this. His voice falters, and from within comes another voice: what kind of man are you, spitting on your own caste? The word "caste" is layered here. It points to occupational caste, and also to the wider structure from which a man cannot free himself. He lives by repairing the shoes of the very people whose condition he can see through, and his profession keeps drawing him back to his place.
The second customer shows how power works in everyday life. He wears a watch and is in great hurry, yet has nowhere to go. His air is that of Hitler's grandson, as the poem puts it. He orders the cobbler about, makes him a slave for an hour, and when it is time to pay he slips away, growling that these gentlemen are looting him. The moral inversion is complete: the man who avoids paying for another's labour calls the labourer a robber. Dhoomil's point is that power does not live only in parliament or government. It lives in a small transaction between a customer and a cobbler.
Sociologists would recognise the scene. Erving Goffman wrote of daily life as performance, in which command, gesture and expectation decide who is the authority and who the service-provider. Pierre Bourdieu showed that inequality also works through language, taste and recognition, through whose speech is accepted as naturally legitimate. In the poem, the customer's tone of command is treated as natural, and the humility expected of Mochiram is a socially learnt role. Large structures survive through small behaviours.
Caste complicates any purely economic reading. If money alone were decisive, the prestige of the profession would not matter so intensely. But caste has historically joined the division of labour with a division of social worth, so that some work earns respect and some contempt. The irony is that a society which wears shoes depends on the cobbler, yet the hand that repairs the shoe does not receive the respect given to the foot that wears it. Utility and dignity are separated. Dhoomil also leaves open whether modern markets dissolve this. Service can be bought with cash and castes can share a city, yet the prestige of labour does not become equal.
The poem then moves to livelihood and morality. If there is no right logic behind remaining alive, Mochiram says harshly, there is no difference between selling Ramnamis and pimping for prostitutes. He is not ranking professions but exposing the hollowness of a morality that judges the work of a hungry man by the standards of a secure one. Outside his profession, he adds, every man becomes a throbbing part of the crowd, which is cut by language and tormented by weather. Spring, which stretches the day like a bowstring, makes it hard even to hold the rasp. The eye goes one way, the hand another, the mind refuses like a sulking child. A labourer is not merely a producing body; he has the desire to look, to feel and to live otherwise.
At the heart of the poem is a challenge to a prejudice about thinking. When someone tells him, "Friend, you are not a cobbler, you are a poet," the compliment hides an assumption that deep thought cannot belong to a cobbler, so he must be lifted out of his identity to be believed. Dhoomil calls the speaker a victim of an interesting misunderstanding, one who thinks profession is a caste and that language belongs not to man but to some caste. Fire burns everyone, and truth passes through everyone. Mochiram's knowledge comes from his work, from reading the wear of shoes and the behaviour of customers. It is alternative knowledge, formed not at the centre of power but at its margin, from near people's feet.
The language carries the argument too. Mochiram speaks in a rough, colloquial idiom, in broken commands and local pronunciations that Dhoomil refuses to correct. The street, the market and the shop enter the poem, and with them a democracy of language. Here the form enacts the politics: a poem that demands equality of experience also extends equality to speech.
The ending is the most subtle part. Some people have already received words, the poem says, while others are blind before letters and silently endure injustice, fearing the fire of the belly. Yet Mochiram knows that a cry filled with refusal and an intelligent silence mean the same, and that in shaping the future each, in its own place, does its duty. This refuses a simple morality in which a loud protest is courage and silence is cowardice. Resistance is unequally available. For someone whose bread depends on his customer, speaking out carries a price the secure never pay. Silence may be a way of keeping disagreement safe until it can be spoken. Truth, too, has a class position: the secure can hold it as a principle, while the insecure must balance it against hunger. Amartya Sen's idea of capability helps here. Formal freedom to speak means little without the real capacity to be heard, and Mochiram has discernment but not power, a voice but not security.
The poem also invites a caution about its own act of speaking. To give a marginal person a voice in literature is not the same as letting him speak for himself. Mochiram is Dhoomil's creation, and the poet's choices of language, order and form shape what we hear. Gayatri Spivak's question about whether the subaltern can speak is relevant here. Dalit critics add a further challenge: if Mochiram stands for the "common man," his caste particularity may fade. Ambedkar's idea of graded inequality reminds us that labourers do not stand on equal ground even among themselves. The universality of "man" can be reached only by passing through, not around, the reality of caste. Literary visibility, likewise, is not social liberation. Mochiram remains in the same shop, with the same tools, at the same wage.
Still, the poem changes how a reader listens. We can no longer see him as merely a hand that mends shoes, and the customer's morality, not the cobbler's, comes under examination. Dhoomil's achievement is to make visible a crack in consciousness, a crack in the ready-made measure by which society defines people. The question that remains is the one the poem asks: why should work become the measure of a person's worth? While mending shoes, Mochiram begins to see that what needs mending is the way society measures man. The wound goes on aching even when the shoe has been repaired, because the man who wears it still feels the pain.
---
*Professor and former Head (Retd.), Department of Hindi, University of Hyderabad. This is the abridged version of the author's original paper
Comments