Analysing maternal roles in A Suitable Boy from a psychoanalytic lens

Maternal love has always been explored as both a nurturing force, and a force that upholds cultural norms. In Vikram Seth’s, A Suitable Boy, Mrs. Rupa Mehra epitomizes this duality as she seeks to find a suitable boy for her daughter, Lata, and navigates the tensions between tradition, societal norms, and her own emotional labour. While her actions stem from love and concern for her daughter, they reflect an underlying sense of gendered expectations and emotional burden often imposed on and by mothers in patriarchal societies. Maternal roles, depicted in A Suitable Boy and in broader contexts, are shaped by many social and patriarchal pressures. These pressures demand that a careful balance be achieved between the preservation of tradition and the promoting of personal desires, showing how they can either reinforce social standards or, in some cases, challenge them. By contrasting Mrs. Mehra with other maternal figures, such as Saeeda Bai and Malati’s mother, the paper argues that maternal roles are rarely rigid; instead, they negotiate a balance between tradition and agency.

Rupa Mehra’s relentless efforts to find a match for Lata illustrates the maternal role as a guardian of tradition. Her idea of a suitable boy—right caste, religion and financial security—reflect how social expectations outweigh Lata’s personal desires. With her disapproval of Kabir, a Muslim, and preference for Haresh, a Khatri, Mrs. Mehra prioritizes community values over Lata’s happiness. Her well-meaning actions reinforce patriarchal systems—creating a conflict between love and control. Nancy Chodorow’s psychoanalytic theory in The Reproduction of Mothering sheds light on this. Chodorow argues that mothers, conditioned by societal norms, unconsciously pass on patriarchal values, including gender roles, to their children (Heenan 5-9). Mrs. Mehra epitomises this process—evident in her insistence on finding a “suitable boy” for Lata. By asserting that “one crucial point in Haresh’s favour was him being a khatri”, she highlights her preference for maintaining caste purity (Seth 603). Her disapproval of Kabir because of his religion is clear when she says “Even marrying a non-khatri Hindu was bad enough. But this was unspeakable. It was one thing to mix socially with Muslims, entirely another to dream of polluting one’s blood and sacrificing one’s daughter.” (Seth 197). She further adds that she has nothing against Mohommedans. It is only Lata’s future that she is concerned about, showcasing how societal biases about caste and religious purity shape her ideas.

Furthermore, her expectations for her son, Arun, contrast greatly from those for Lata. While Lata is urged to prioritize community values, Arun faces no pressure to conform to the family’s expectations. His disregard for the family’s matters and Mrs. Mehra’s emotional needs are hardly ever challenged. Social Learning Theory explains this by stating that children develop their gender identities through reinforcement. For instance, parents often reward children for conforming to these gender stereotypes—complimenting boys for being assertive, and praising girls for being compliant. Mrs. Mehra enforces patriarchal norms differently for her children based on gender, thus reinforcing hierarchies. This highlights the paradoxical role of mothers as both enforcers and victims of societal pressures.

In A Suitable Boy, Mrs. Mehra’s preoccupation with Lata’s marriage reflects not only societal norms but also the emotional labor that patriarchy demands of mothers. Her being a widow increases this toll, as she bears the burden of securing her children’s future while struggling with her own vulnerability. Her frequent letters filled with advice and concerns showcase her constant effort to stay connected and maintain control over their lives. Adrienne Rich’s in Of Woman Born argues that in patriarchal societies, mothers are often burdened with the responsibility of family stability, leaving little room for personal agency (“Of Woman Born Summary”).

Widows, like Mrs. Rupa Mehra, face immense pressures, as they lack the support of a husband to share the responsibilities of parenting. As Rich argues, patriarchal systems demand self-sacrifice from mothers, thus consuming their own identities in the process. Mrs. Mehra’s identity is closely tied to her role as a mother and as a wife, allowing little space for personal freedom. It is interesting to note that she constantly calls upon her dead husband’s spirit when faced with dilemmas. For instance, when she finds out about Kabir, she exclaims: “Oh God! What would her father have said if he had been alive?” (Seth 194). By invoking her dead husband’s authority, she controls her family. This creates a paradox in which she steps into a position of power, typically held by men, while also upholding traditional norms. This act of invoking Mr. Mehra also acts as a shield from criticism, as this decision appears to align with his imagined will rather than her own agency.

Studies of such communities reveal the ways in which mothers navigate pressures– some conform, others quietly resist. For example, some mothers in these communities challenge these norms by encouraging their daughters to pursue education and delay marriage. These contrasting archetypes reveal how maternal influence can either strengthen oppressive systems or spark change.

Seth brings in Saeeda Bai’s character—a courtesan who defies social expectations that women should rely on men for financial security, granting her a level of freedom that women in society usually lack. She raises Tasneem, her daughter, by shielding her from the outside world and the stigma associated with her profession. However, despite living a life that society deems improper, she commands respect in her own sphere, challenging the idea that women must conform to patriarchal expectations to earn respect. But at the same time, while Saeeda Bai resists, she ends up oppressing Tasneem by prisoning her in the confines of their house. Despite being different from Mrs. Mehra, the outcome is more or less the same—oppression. This showcases that even resistance to patriarchal norms, might sometimes lead to women getting oppressed.

In contrast, Malati’s mother is more vocal about her resistance. After the death of Malati’s father, her mother entered a state of depression, but the burden and realisation of taking care of her family—can be linked to emotional burden theory—got her back on track. She gave her daughters the best possible education. She paid no heed to the neighbour’s disapproval and focussed on making her kids independent—learn music, dance and languages, and let them go out in the dark—even if it meant defying social norms. And most importantly, they had the right to choose whom they wanted to marry.

These above examples suggest that maternal roles are rarely rigid or one-dimensional; they are shaped by both societal pressures and personal circumstances. Lata’s decision to marry Haresh, despite her feelings for Kabir, represents the complexities of maternal influence. It reflects a negotiation between personal desires and societal expectations mediated by maternal guidance.

While Mrs. Mehra’s influence is undeniable, Lata’s decision reflects her personal agency. Throughout her journey, she has been surrounded by voices trying to influence her—her mother’s approval of Haresh whereas Arun’s disapproval of Haresh. But Lata uses her own agency and ends up choosing Haresh as her suitable boy. By weighing out her options, she carves a path that is uniquely hers. She opts for emotional stability and understanding, realising that her journey is not only about romantic love, but also about building a stable future for herself.

The exploration of maternal love, tradition, and personal agency in A Suitable Boy, hints at a deeper question: what does it truly mean to nurture someone within a society bound by rigid norms? The maternal figures explored above demonstrate that maternal roles are influenced both by affection and the burdensome expectations of society. These interactions urge us to look at how far we have come—and how far we have to go—in knocking down frameworks that prioritize conformity over autonomy. By situating these struggles in these contexts, it urges us to imagine a future where mothers uplift rather than restrict their children within conventional societal norms.