Ecocriticism explores and analyzes texts on nature writing to add to the catalogue in literary and cultural studies, environmental awareness in literary texts, illu-stration of human and non-human relationship and socio-political framework which includes Marxist, Ecofeminist and other approaches for contextualizing cultural and literary works. However, the most impor-tant approach within ecocriticism and ecological acti-vism is that of the ecofeminists. In Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, ecofeminism is defined as “a philosophical and political theory and movement which combines ecological concerns with feminists ones regarding both as resulting from the male domi-nation of the society.” According to Websters New World Encyclopedia, “ecofeminism is a movement or theory that applies feminist principles and ideas to ecological issues.” it is one of the forms of feminism which has emanated through the amalgamation of feminism and environmentalism. The term ‘ecofemi-nism was coined by Francoise de Eaubonne in 1974. She used it “to call upon women to lead an ecological evolution to save the planet” (Merchant 184). Eco-feminist analysis examines the cultural, religious, literary, and iconographic ties between women and nature, as well as the parallels between the oppression of nature and the oppression of women. These parallels include, but are not limited to, perceiving women and nature as property, men as cultural curators and women as nature curators, and men dominating women and environment (Zein and Setiawan, 2019). Ecofemi-nists argue that patriarchal society makes ongoing use of women and environment as a source of productivity. Patriarchal society divides society into two gender-based public and private sectors. Men are seen to be totally integrated with the public realm, which is thought to be superior to the private sphere, whereas women are entirely interwoven with the private sphere.

The perception of equating women with nature ante-cedes to the times of archaic classical mythology. Nature is portrayed as a woman as her fundamental functions encompasses reproduction and nurture. Simi-larly, womens duties are contemplated as natural to her. Thus, the liaison of nature and women is best des-cribed by the phrase: Nature neutralizes women and women feminize nature. One approach to discuss the relationship between women and nature is to interpret the coextensive demeanor they have been wielded into in patriarchal society. Womens role has been to fulfill the demands and aspirations of men. Correspondingly, nature is to have an innate constitution of catering to human needs. Hence, both women and nature are exploited by men leading to a mutual association bet-ween oppression of women and deterioration of nature. There has recently been an increase in the connection between environmental and womens issues. Envi-ronmental and womens issues have improved at a breakneck pace in recent centuries. As a subset of eco-criticism, ecofeminism asserts that womens difficult-ties are inextricably linked to biological issues (Akter et al., 2019). It accepts that the oppression of women and the environment cannot be considered inversely.

Literature Review

Generally, The Man-Eater of Malgudi is interpreted as a story of two antagonists; two male characters, Nata-raj and Vasu. Alternatively it has different layers of meanings as Fakrul Alam sees The Man Eater of Mal-gudi as “a narrative of identification” in his article Plot and Characters in R.K. Narayans the Man Eater of Malgudi: a Reassessment. Alam finds women chara-cters are less important in this novel and they are only two in numbers: Rangi and Padma. Teresa Hubel identifies Rangi, the female character as “irresistible (Narayan 115), a “notorious character”, “a perfect female animal” (Narayan 82), “the woman to avoid” (Narayan 115) in his article titled Devadashi Defiance and the Man Eater of Malgudi. In an article titled Pat-terns of Myth and Reality U.P. Sinha compares Rangi to Goddes Kali from mythic dimension. Dr. S.P. Sars-wat in his article A portrayal of women characters in R.K. Narayans Novels: A Critical Study says that Rangi is portrayed negatively in this novel and she is seen from postcolonial views rather from religious perspectives. But she is the eco-friendly character as she does everything to save the temple elephant-Kumar. Md. Ali Rayhun Sarker in his article entitled Ecocritical Analysis of R. K. Narayans The Maneater of Malgudi sees Rangi as an eco-friendly character in The Man Eater of Malgudi who is a dependent woman on patriarchal society. She is dependent both econo-mically and physically. Vasu treats her as a sex-slave and no better way than an animal in cage. However, Rangi feels an inner connection between her femi-ninity and animal in nature. That is why she goes to Nataraj to take immediate initiatives to save Kumar, the elephant. Rangis passionate love for an animal reminds the quote of Kafka “Animals are closer to us than human beings. That is the bars of the cage. We find relations easier with animals than with men.” (Corngold, 1996)  

Theoretical Framework

As a branch of feminism, ecofeminism emphasizes a close relationship between women and nature. French writer Francoise dEaubonne first coined this term ‘Ecofeminism in her book Le FemisismeOu La Mort, (1974). This movement is a sum of from various social movements, specially, the feminist, the ecology and the peace movements from 1970s to 1980s. The Now, it has become an academic movement that analyses womens lack of power in male dominated society and finds a critical connection between the exploitation of women and the domination of nature. Ecofeminism is not only a combination of a feminist and an environ-mental theory. Rather, it covers some other ideas. Eco-feminism has given feminism a new light after exa-mining social and environmental problems. It add-resses both environmental and social subjects together. In this way, ecofeminism establishes a link between women and environment in religion, literature, Culture and iconography. It always advocates against the opp-ression of women and nature and demands the respect of women as well as nature. This theory asserts that patriarchal society is responsible for the oppression and domination of women, children, and people of color, the poor and all marginalized groups. It criti-cizes patriarchal society for exploiting natural reso-urces such as animals, land, air, water and so on. This theory can be used to discover the connection between nature and women in culture, literature and religion, and thus address and find out the matches between the oppressions of natural resources and the oppressions of female gender in society. Nature is feminized by men; as women are strictly connected with nature and nature possess the qualities of women. The movement of eco-feminism connects the philosophy of feminism with ecological movement (Faysal and Rahman, 2021). This philosophy shows women, though better than men as women are closely connected with nature, are abused and dominated by man. Women are very closer to the earth and Mother Nature as women go under the pro-cess of biological changes in their bodies like ovu-lation, pregnancy, giving birth menstruation, breast feeding and much more just like nature changes with the cycle of seasons. So, an Eco-feminist writer raises their voice against damage and social injustice against women. Numerous influential texts have been written on this tradition including Women and Nature (Susan Griffin, 1978), Gyn/Eco-logy (May Daly, 1978), the Death of Nature (Carolyn Merchant, 1980). The others writers who have raised their voice for  ecofeminism are Vandana Shiva, Rosemary Radford Ruether, Andy Smith, Susan Griffin, Alice Walker  and Karen J. War-ren. Ecofeminists evaluate the relationship between oppression of women and wildlife by aiming the hier-archies created by mind/body, nature/culture, male/ female and human/non-human binaries. 

The aim is to create a non-hierarchical and non-patri-archal world of eco-balance where both women and nature will be protected from the cruel interference of patriarchal society and they live harmoniously with respect and dignity.  Ecofeminism is the methodology which explores how woman and nature are presented and treated by society. It examines the interconnecti-vity between woman and nature in target literary works. 

The parallel marching of the oppression and depri-vation of women and the deterioration of nature is con-spicuously observed in the novel, The Man-Eater of Malgudi. There are only two female characters in actions. They are Rangi, the most relevant character, and the wife of Nataraj. Another female character is Padma, mother of Rangi. She does not come in action in the novel but we have a scanty account of her. The way in which nature is constructed by the culture and convention of the society is the same way that cons-tructs the idea of a woman. There are some social principles formulated by the male dominated society. These principles form what a woman is and what a woman should be and what a woman should not be. Nataraj constructs his idea regarding Rangi in his own way being influenced by Sastri, as well as by the social norms. According to Nataraj, Rangi is a notorious character of the town. Here he adds the adjective ‘notorious on the basis of the social construction of the idea of Rangi. Even Sastri informs Nataraj in the following manner- “All sorts of low-class women are wondering around this press now a day” (Narayan 84). Here Sastri never takes it in his consideration that these women are being used by the mean-minded male representative of the society. But those male repre-sentatives never become talk of the town. They dont become ‘notorious and ‘low-class in the eye of the society. This is parallelly true in respect of the envi-ronment and nature. We are using nature and its elements to the fullest extent. We are using them in whatever ways they are most useful to us. Even, we are destroying them at our sweet will. Still, we are impo-sing negative implication on them. An account of the origin of the Rangies can be relevant here to relate women and nature to the point. Rangi is the daughter of Padma, an old dancer of the temple of God Krishna. According to the narration of Nataraj, Padma is an exemplary, traditional and dedicated woman of the temple who could sing and dance. She is now old and has retired. For many years, Damodar, a wholesaler of grain, was keeping Padma and after this, Rangi was born. Damodar suspected Padmas fidelity and gave her up. But Padma threatened to go to court to prove that he was the father. Finally Damodar had to pay a lot of money to get out of her clutches. Padma is now retired. Being old, fat and frightening like the harem guards of Ravana, her daughter Rangi has succeeded her in the temple. Before that Rangi has studied in a school for a while, joined a drama troupe which toured the villages, and come back to the town after seducing all the men folk she had set eyes on. According to Sastri, she is the worst woman who has ever come back to Malgudi. This is how the emergence of Rangi has been narrated by Sastri and accepted and granted by Nataraj. There are some inconsistencies in the narration. The narration is totally biased as it is narrated by the male representatives of the society. Damodar kept Padma for many years without being married to her. Everybody knew it. Then, why Sastri cannot hold Damodar responsible for the same sin that Padma does to survive herself. Sastri of Nataraj does not add any negative adjective to Damodar while they do this in respect of Padma and Rangi. They add the adjectives “notorious”, “perfect female animal”, “worst” and “seductive” to Rangi. It is reported by Sastri that Damodar paid “a lot of money to get out of her clut-ches.” here the phrase “her clutches” has a negative connotation. Should it be “her clutches” or “his clut-ches”? So far, the history of the conventions and man-ners and customs of India is known, there is hardly any case that women dare to seduce men in the Indian subcontinent. Women of the Indian subcontinent have always been shy and reserved. But in the novel, it has been informed we that Rangi has seduced every man folk of the town have “set her eyes on”. Is it socially and culturally reliable? This is the representation of women in the male dominated society. This biased representation of women is parallel to the represent-tation of nature in the society. The human beings are continuously violating the virginity of nature for their own interest. They are threatening the natural environ-ment extensively. When nature sometimes avenge its loss of virginity, we stamped on it different negative connotation without the least thinking. ‘man-eater is such a representation of tiger. Tigers rarely come to the areas of human settlement. Rather people encroach upon the territory of tigers. When threatened in their territory, they resort to killing men. Then, we entitle them as men-eater and give them a “four-nought-five charge”. The representation of nature can be suitably exemplified in the talk between Vasu and the forestry officer in the press of Nataraj. “Seriously, he is on e of the best forest officers in India. How many times has he been attacked by a rogue elephant? ‘Eighteen times said the man statistically” (Narayan 9). Here, the forestry officer is an intruder in the forest. Still, he thinks that the elephant should not be there because he is more important than the elephant. This anthropo-centric view of the ranger induces him to call the ele-phant “rogue elephant” as Nataraj and Sastri adds different negative adjective to Rangi and Padma. Sometimes, it is seen that we oppress women and keep women under our command to beg trophies from the society. In the novel The Man-Eater of Malgudi, we find many instances of this. Vasu, while taking Nataraj forcefully to the Mempi Forest, opines in the following manner –

“Only fools marry, and they deserve all the trouble they get. I really dont know why people marry at all. If you like a woman, have her by all means. You dont have to won a coffee estate because you like a cup of coffee now and then” (Narayan 33).

His is how he evaluates marriage. This is how he advo-cates for his notions of marriage and women. He, in this way, supports the birth of women like Rangi and Padma to have them under his male domination throu-ghout their life. The same thing happens in respect of animals, nature and environment. We beg trophies and titles for our cruelties to nature and environment. While flattering the forestry officer, we find such things in the conversation between Vasu and the officer.

“And you just gave it a four-nought-five charge at point blank range?

‘Yes, what else could one do? asked the hero.

‘How many tigers has he tracked down on foot?

‘An average of at least one every half-year, he said.

‘And in thirty years you may guess how much he has done and seen,

Vasu said. He asked the hero, ‘what did you do with all those skins?

‘Oh, presented them here and there, said the man. ‘I dont fancy 

Keeping trophies” (Narayan 29).

A man who has killed at least sixty tigers at the rate of one each half-year is entitled as ‘hero by Nataraj. Jim Corbett, a well-known hunter, killed sixty tigers and we praise his as actions of velour. In Bangladesh, we have got Pochabdi Gazi who is famous for killing tigers. They become legend. Thus we praise the dest-royers of nature and environment by bestowing titles and trophies. Rangi is the first person that ex-presses her concern for the life of the elephant, Kumar. She informs Nataraj the plan of Vasu. She tells Nataraj everything in details. But Nataraj suspect her to be an opium eater. Being a woman of the temple, her information gets ruled out as nonsense. Rangi spells out her demeaned status as a woman in the society in an overt way.

“Sir, I am only a public woman, following what is my dharma. I maybe a sinner to you, but I do nothing worse than what some of the so-called family women are doing. I observe our rules. Whatever I may do I dont take opium” (Narayan 121).

As a woman, she wants to serve the society and the social causes in her own ways. But her services are questioned by the patriarchal society. She risks her life to save the elephant and as a reward, she gets the abusive phrase ‘female animal. In this phrase, the attitudes of the society toward the animal and female folk have become crystal clear to us. Here is the con-nection of the suppression and oppression of women in the society and the deterioration of the nature and environment by the male folk. Malecentrism and anth-ropocentrism goes together in our male dominated society. Rangi and Padma are the most ‘notorious character in the locality because they earn their living by selling their body and satisfying the demand of the male representatives like Damodar of the society. Rangi is a ‘low-class woman and the ‘worst woman in the society for being the victim of the lust of the male folk. Why should Damodar not be called ‘perfect male animal? People like Damodar are instrumental in getting those women in such professions. Even, Nata-raj who is thought to be a self-constrained man is none exception to this. When Rangi comes to inform him about the evil design of Vasu, Nataraj expresses his desire in the following way, “Although Rangi was black as cinders and looked rugged, there was an irresistible physical attraction about her, and I was afraid that I might succumb to her charms. But there was the safety of the grille between us” (Narayan 121). 

Nataraj and Damodar have got their lust, and lechery and profligacy are inherent to their instincts. Still they impose those things on the female folk. This is only because of the male centric attitude of the society that male folks are best and can in no way be termed with negative connotation for their activities. Anthropo-centrism is parallel to male centrism of the society. Anthropocentrism asserts the idea that human beings are the central creatures of this world. All other crea-tures are subordinate to them. All other creatures are created only for the welfare of the human being. Thats why Vasu declares his anthropocentric right in the following way- “After all we are civilized human beings, educated and cultured, and it is up to us to prove our superiority to nature” (Narayan 17). This anthropocentric mentality leads Vasu to the cruel acti-vities he has been carrying on in the Mempi forest. 

The women-nature connections presented in The Man Eater of Malgudi hold particular importance for cul-tural feminists are embedded in deep social and psy-chological structures, resurrection of pre-patriarchal religions and spiritual practices making womens way of knowing and moral reasoning better suited for sol-ving environmental problems. Gynocentric culture and politics are necessary but not sufficient condition for ecofeminism. Rangi shows how to react to the envi-ronmental crises. She plays the instrumental role in saving the elephant Kumar. Rangi strongly affirms the view that there is no hierarchical dualism between woman and nature rather both are interrelated and interconnected.

Id like to express my gratitude to Dr. Sheikh Mehedi Hasan, Associate Professor, Dept. of English Language and Literature, JKKNIU, for his helpful suggestions that greatly improved the manuscript.

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.