The threat of garbage overtaking everything looms large on Bombay’s horizon. More and more garbage is being thrown into the low-lying areas surrounding the metropolis and land is being constantly reclaimed from the sea. It is on this land that Bombay expands, thus standing on its own garbage. The poem “Meera” by Arun Kolatkar puts across this harsh reality through the use of certain stylistic devices. A stylistic analysis of this poem will bring about this interpretation, showing “. . . ‘how’ it comes to mean what it does” (Mc.Short6). Stylistics as a method of analysis and interpretation is explicit as it accepts meaning or meanings only with a detailed analysis of language. The theme of garbage becoming an all-pervasive reality in Bombay has been discovered through the poem’s use of foregrounding, an analysis of the foregrounded elements brought about as a result of repetition of lexical items, collocations and structures; striking parallels and ironic contrasts. It is these stylistic features, which help to differentiate between the poem’s overt and covert meanings. The final accomplishment is the inferred meaning-arrived at through an analysis of these features. The objective of the present enterprise is to illustrate how stylistics enables the reader to arrive at this interpretation of the text through a fairly detailed and systematic linguistic description.

Foregrounded features are the parts of the text, which the poem signals as crucial to our understanding of what s/he has written. They are highlighted or made prominent for specific effects against the (subordinated) background of the rest of the text. It is on this 'internal foregrounding' that critical attention is largely focused. (Wales 157). Such features can be categorized according to the various kinds of deviation or the repetitive elements in a text. Deviation can occur at the lexical, syntactic and semantic levels. Foregrounding can take place at the level of lexis either as a result of repetition of lexical items or unusual collocations and at the level of syntax there can be repetition of structures, parallelism or ironic contrasts. Parallelism prompts the reader to look for meaning relations between words and phrases, which do not exist in the language system as such (McShort 67).  At the semantic level, if there is incompatibility of meaning between certain words, phrases and structures, it is a case of semantic deviation. The use of metaphors and similes produces unexpected meanings forcing the reader to make "fresh realisations" (Wales 157). The strategy of linking together of foregrounded features or different parts of the text is known as cohesion of foregrounding (Leech 70). This paper endeavors to stylistically analyze those parts and elements of the text that surprise the reader, arousing his/her curiosity and their detailed analysis through stylistics leads to a coherent interpretation of the text.

In all the seven sections of the poem, it is garbage which is present either in the form of dead leaves and flowers, scraps of paper, egg-shells or cast-off condoms; to name a few of its ingredients. Its all-enveloping presence has made it an integral part of the life of the metropolis. It is foregrounded in all parts of the poem. Foregrounding being deviation from linguistic or other socially accepted norms, it “… invokes the analogy of a figure seen against a background. The artistic deviation ‘sticks out’ from its background, the automatic system, like a figure in the foreground of a visual field” (Leech 57). Here garbage is the figure, which ‘stands’ out against the (subordinated) background of the elitist Jehangir Art Gallery, considered as the hub of artists and art-critics. This foregrounding of garbage against the backdrop of this famous gallery indirectly indicates that art is now being overtaken by garbage.

Garbage in the contextual world of Kolatkar’s “Meera” is also the most repetitive lexical item as it is present in diverse forms in all the seven sections of the poem. It also has a wide range of collocations in the poem. In the first section, it is present in the form of ‘Dead Flowers’; in the second it is present as ‘errant scraps of paper’ and is in collocation with ‘the riffraff of dry leaves’ (see Appendix). This form of rubbish is found along the area leading to the Jehangir Art Gallery.  It is prominent in the third section of the poem where it is represented as “modest piles of rubbish” seen at a distance of fifteen paces all along the kerb of the Jehangir Art Gallery. This ‘modest’ pile has multifarious ingredients such as prawn shells, onionskins, potato peels, castoff condoms and dead flowers. Dry leaves and scraps of paper are also to be found in this garbage heap. This collocation of diverse items is to be read for its inferential meaning. The juxtaposition of ‘castoff’ with condoms leads to juxtaposing it with other items as well. The condoms are discarded in as casual a manner as the potato peels and onionskins are. These ‘castoff items’ are foregrounded against the background of the ‘installed’ pieces of art in the reputed gallery.

In the fourth section, garbage is represented as having more permanence than even art as art exhibitions are installed and uninstalled with monotonous regularity. Contrarily, the piles of rubbish are never-ending; as the seemingly last pile has to make way for another and yet another. In the fifth section of the poem, garbage-trolley is another collocation to be foregrounded. This is represented in various forms such as “that rickety looking rattletrap”, “the honey cart”, “that tireless fossil” etc. (see appendix).  The garbage dumped by it in the malarial swamps and salt marshes and creeks-all low-lying areas formerly under seawater; is leveled and given the title of “sweepings”. Sweepings functions as a synonym for all the discarded or cast-off items. The collocation “castoff condoms” is extremely significant as it becomes a part of the meaning of all discarded items, exemplifying the point made by John Lyons that sometimes collocations of a word or a lexeme become a part of its meaning (62).

It is in the sixth section of the poem that garbage is ‘deified’; the sweeper Meera worships all its cardinal points like Meerabai passionately indulged in worshipping Lord Krishna. The representation of   garbage as a deity surprises the reader who ponders about its ‘importance’ in the contextual world of the poem “Meera”. It also persuades the reader to contrast this representation with the ground reality of the impending danger of the growing mounds of garbage to the metropolis and look for the concealed irony. The representational mode of meaning is distinctive of poetry as “. . . it is the use of language to create its own conditions of relevance” and also its own internal and “potential context” (Widdowson 33). The parallel of Lord Krishna and garbage prompts the reader to look for the representational meaning in the parallel structures of the poem.

Garbage in all its varied forms is again emphasized in the seventh section where its diverse elements “exude the wine of worthlessness” but for the sweeper Meera they represent “an attar of thankfulness” (see appendix). The sweeper’s regarding this odorous and repulsive moisture as fragrant and an essential oil is not without ironic overtones. In this section there is again a collocation of all discarded and useless items such as “bread crumbs and condoms”, “chicken bones and potato peels”, “dry leaves and melon rinds”. This juxtaposition of varied ingredients in the garbage heap is suggestive of its growing size and also the number of such heaps.

In a metropolis overflowing with garbage, municipality workers and broomsticks are bound to be in great demand. Meera, the sweeper is pushed into the foreground in this world of ever-increasing garbage. In the background is the accepted representation of the woman saint Meerabai of the sixteenth century. She was a devotee of the god Krishna and led a wandering life singing and dancing with men of God (Futehally’s Introduction13). Meera the sweeper is represented in the first section as “Our Lady of Dead Flowers” and “the sad-eyed feminine half” of the municipality team. The oddity of a 'lady' who usually connotes royalty; being a sad-eyed sweeper and associated with dead flowers makes the reader search for ironic undertones. In the sixth section she is compared to Meerabai, bringing into the foreground the passion and devotion with which carries out her menial duties. In the seventh and last section of the poem, Meera is represented as a ‘vineyard wench’, bringing into the foreground the ease and familiarity with which she deftly handles the garbage. These comparisons are not to be understood for their surface meaning but for the covert irony underlying them.   

Along with the foregrounded image of Meera is the highlighting of a fallen coconut leaf functioning as a makeshift broomstick in the hands of the sweeper. This novel broomstick is thrust forward in the foreground against the usual representation of the conventional fantail type broomstick used by the male counterparts of the municipality. ‘The footloose coconut frond’ occupies a place in the forefront of section one, where it finds that in Bombay’s world of all-enveloping garbage; its only space is besides the municipality cleaner, Meera. In the second section, it’s over enthusiasm and aggressiveness in ‘attacking’ the undesired elements on the roadside is foregrounded with ironic undertones. Its comparison with Meerabai’s lute is brought to the center-stage in section six. Just as Meerabai used the lute for attaining her goal, Meera the sweeper makes use of the broomstick in accomplishing her aim. 

The garbage trolley arouses the reader’s consciousness as an entire section, i.e., section five of the poem is used for the linguistic description of its mission of “cleaning this city” which was a difficult task even in the best of times but is now impossible. The trolley becomes an object of endearment for the sweeper Meera who uses it day in and day out to transport garbage to the low-lying areas. It would also have been very ‘dear’ to the mathematician Euclid who would have admired it for its perfect mathematical designing. This eulogizing representation of the garbage trolley is ‘set off’ against its actual representation of being a very old, rusty and noisy implement. The representation of the foregrounded elements in varying tones, i.e., of praise and acclaim versus their actual representation in the world of garbage paves the way for ironic contrasts in the poem. Thus in the contextual world of Kolatkar’s “Meera”, the elements pushed into the foreground are Bombay’s all enveloping garbage, the sweeper Meera, the footloose coconut frond and the garbage trolley. 

A very significant case of foregrounding is ‘Bombay’, which occurs five times in the poem, making the reader infer that the focus is on the metropolis. In part three of the poem, which describes the installations, put up in the Jehangir Art Gallery, the art exhibits might be assigned repetitive titles such as

In these two repetitive structures, the titles given to these
paintings are the same, the only change being the change in numbers. All the pieces on canvas having a common title surprise the reader. The inference that can be drawn from the next two lines, i.e.,

is that ‘homage’ is ironical as Bombay is actually standing on its
own garbage and not worthy of any acclaim. In fact the two varying representations of Bombay, its being an object of admiration and the shocking reality of its very weak foundations lead the reader to infer the implicit irony that “Homage to Bombay, One” can be replaced by ‘Homage to Garbage, One’, two, three etc.

Besides repetition of lexical items and structures, parallelism constitutes “… one of the mechanisms which writers have at their disposal for controlling the associative connections which readers make” (Mc Short 65). A crucial case of parallelism occurs in section five of the poem as a result of the intermittent repetition of some lexical items. The semantic parallel invites the reader to look for meaning connections between the varied operations represented below,

This cryptic comment brings into focus the act of cleaning Bombay, which runs parallel to the expansion of Bombay. The operational activities denoted by the verb ‘clean’ and the infinitive ‘to clean’ are parallel at the semantic level as clearing Bombay’s garbage leads to constant reclamation of land from the sea and its expansion. The more is the garbage collected, the more is the land reclaimed, which was formerly under seawater leading to cleaning becoming an endless activity in the metropolis. This semantic relationship of "quasi-synonymy"(Mc. Short 67) between these two contrary activities is harmful for the metropolis. Low lying areas such as swamps, salt marshes and creeks-all formerly flooded by seawater are now garbage dumps where the mounds of garbage are thrown, leveled and concrete structures raised. All this has adversely affected Bombay’s coastline which is gradually receding. A further parallel can be inferred from the garbage trampled and leveled in the trolley by the sweeper, Meera and the leveled garbage in these low lying areas.

A very significant parallel pushed into the poem’s foreground is between Meerabai, the wandering saint poet and Meera the sweeper. This occurs in section six of the poem where the parallel inferentially unfolds the theme of the poem:

There is a parallel drawn between two Meeras. There was a certain Meerabai who danced and sang with her lute to become one with her beloved deity, Lord Krishna. She poured out her emotion on a figure “. . . who belongs neither to worldly time nor worldly space . . .” (Futehally’s Introduction 25) and is thus unattainable in worldly terms. There is a Meera, a commoner and municipality worker, who has a novel broomstick and dances with it on top of the garbage collected in the trolley. The sweeper's mission is to clear Bombay's garbage. Her actions are similar to those of Meerabai yet in an entirely different context. The use of the indefinite article ‘a’ with both Meeras is quite significant. The first ‘a Meera’ implies certain, i.e., the Meerabai with a lute. The second usage refers to the sweeper Meera, having many of the qualities of Meerabai. The indefinite article ‘a’ functioning along with a proper name becomes a common noun with the initial capital being usually retained. The common noun typifies a class of people by that name (Quirk and Greenbaum 443). This Meera in Bombay’s world of garbage belongs to the class of Meeras, having the passion and devotion of the archetype, Meerabai. The cleaner bends her knees to suppress the garbage like Meerabai lowered her body to worship Lord Krishna.  Meerabai adored the idol of Lord Krishna, loving it passionately. Meera regards the garbage as ‘her Lord’ and hence herself is represented as a lady, e.g., in the first section, she is represented as “Our Lady of Dead Flowers”.

This parallel between two immensely contrastive situations is not without a purpose. The semantic relationship is again that of "quasi-synonymy" with ironic overtones. Meerabai was obsessed with the illusion of attaining the unattainable; Meera - the municipality cleaner is zealously involved in offering “obeisance” to the ‘deity’ garbage but to no avail. No matter how skillful she is at her work, which she performs with ease; her goal of clearing Bombay’s garbage is a far cry, as Bombay will go on expanding on its own garbage. The sweeper has to bear the reality of the all-enveloping garbage and live with ‘the wine of worthlessness’ - the moisture oozing out of the garbage. She does not fret and fume at the nauseating odors emanating from it. This ‘lady’ regards the foul smelling moisture as a fragrant essential oil, which acts as a smear for the soles and arches of her feet. She dances on the garbage heap as Meerabai danced before Lord Krishna. This semantic parallel between the two Meeras leads the reader to infer that both were passionate to attain the ‘unattainable’ and were unsparing in their efforts. The foregrounded passion of the sweeper for her menial work is not without ironic undertones.

A significant parallel can also be inferred between ‘a dropout’ and ‘a Meera’. The fallen coconut leaf, represented as ‘a footloose coconut frond’, is free to do anything it wants. It has been bored with its purposeless life at the top of the tree and therefore ‘rebels’ against it. The phrase ‘a dropout’, used in apposition, best describes its nature (see appendix). It is like ‘a Meera’, who walked out of her marriage, rebelled against the prevalent customs and sought fulfillment in Lord Krishna.  Both are represented as dissatisfied with their present state of affairs, not conforming to social norms and looking for an alternative lifestyle. Like Meerabai, the coconut leaf wishes to be freed of its bondage and do something useful and interesting.

In the midst of Bombay's all enveloping garbage, it is trying to find a place and ultimately succeeds in befriending and becoming an aid in the hands of the municipality cleaner. So ‘overpowering’ is the garbage that the free coconut leaf can only find a place besides the person whose work is to clear away the piles of rubbish. It has to learn ‘new’ tricks or devise novel ways of clearing away the wastes of Bombay. It adopts numerous measures like ‘jumping’ and ‘dancing’ and indulges in various antics to sweep away the undesired elements. The poem ironically conveys the vigour displayed in its actions. The broomstick is compared with ‘a performing bear’, green in colour, because of its amusing acts. The over enthusiasm of the broomstick amuses the poet as the shocking reality is that Bombay's garbage can never be cleared completely.

Of the numerous parallels in the poem, the parallel between garbage and Lord Krishna is evocative of the massive increase in the quantity of garbage so as to be represented as a ‘deity’. This approval made apparent in the guise of eulogizing the garbage makes the reader look for the element of concealment, if any. Is there any element of disparagement beneath the surface or the overt meaning? It is the essence of irony “. . . that it should criticize or disparage under the guise of praise . . .” (Leech 172). Thus if the meaning inferred from the disguise of praise is incompatible with the context, there are ironic contrasts pervading the poem. The ‘deification’ of garbage is a direct contrast to the never-ending nauseating garbage on which Bombay expands. A striking contrast is also inferred from the representation of garbage as ‘the wine of worthlessness’ and ‘an attar of thankfulness’. The former refers to the bad smelling moisture oozing out of the garbage whereas the latter refers to perfumed oil. These two diverse representations of Bombay’s garbage persuade the reader to understand the irony in the poem.

The representation of the repulsive and odorous garbage as a ‘deity’ is the poem’s irony at its peak. The poem’s message is inferred as convincingly clear by the ‘deification of the garbage’ when contrasted with the bitter reality, “the more you clean Bombay, the more Bombay there is to clean” (section 5., Appendix). ‘Deification’ or representing the all-enveloping garbage, as a god from whom there is no escape whatsoever, is the overt or direct meaning whereas the ground reality is the disapproval behind the mask and thus the “covert meaning” (ibid 172).

Garbage, which represents the discarded, or the cast-off elements is more expressive and ‘permanent ’than the exhibits of ‘still’ life installed in the Jehangir Art Gallery. These art exhibits are also standing on garbage as the Jehangir Art Gallery in Colaba is a part of the newer or expanded part of Bombay. Thus any homage paid to Bombay is in fact paying ‘homage’ to garbage. Art has no audience except a few discerning crows and a kitten. This ironic contrast between garbage and art is to bring to the foreground the dangerous dimensions of Bombay’s garbage.

Irony is at work even in the representation of Meera and the coconut frond’s attitude to Bombay’s garbage. If Meera regards her work with the novel broomstick as ‘more lively, more fun’ and raises her free arm in the air as a joy she gets out of work; it is to be contrasted with the contextual reality of cleaning being an impossible task in Bombay. Thus Meera’s dance with her broomstick symbolizing joy and freedom are to be contrasted with Meera’s representation in the first section of the poem as ‘the sad-eyed feminine half of the municipality.’ Both Meera and Meerabai were after unattainable illusions and thus ‘sad-eyed’. The sweeper is sad because of the enormity of her task, Meerabai was sad because she could not merge herself in Lord Krishna. The representation of the over zealousness of the broomstick in the second section where it runs and circles around the sweeper is again with ironic overtones. Its aggressiveness in attacking ‘the errant scraps of paper’ and the dry leaves is an ironic contrast to the never-ending piles of garbage outside the Jehangir Art Gallery.

Praveen Sharda is a Reader in English, and has done his Ph.D. in Stylistics. He’s currently guiding research in both Stylistics and ELT, with a special interest in the pedagogical value of Stylistics.