Indra Sinha’s Animal's People the main character is named Animal and for as long as he can remember he has walked on all fours. His back is twisted due to a chemical leak in the Kampani’s Factory. Sinha based this novel on the Bhopal incident but decided to change the names in order to help make this book more universal and relatable to other cities who have also suffered from a natural or chemical disaster. The title Animal’s People is used in order to help identify unification of people that typically happens after a large disaster. This chemical leak caused many deaths and anyone who did survive has suffered from diseases. The chemical poisoning continues because it has seeped into the water and soil and nothing has been done to clean up
…show more content…
“It was a job for a skilled man with plenty of guts and a steady hand and my father was proud of it” (Sinha 201). She was trying to relate to being poor and growing up without privileges but still people have a hard time trusting her. She is an American and they feel it is the American company’s fault that this happened to them; so why should they believe that she is really here to aid them? Animal’s People is also denoting to the differences in approaches and behaviors between Elli and the people of Khaufpur. She cannot understand why these people don’t want help. They complain of their suffering but when offered help they don’t want it. This frustrates her into screaming, “HEY ANIMAL’S PEOPLE! I DON’T UNDERTAND YOU” (Sinha 183)! She came to Khaufpur with only a mere idea of how the people had suffered (humanitarianism). Elli knew that people were sick and it was her job as a doctor to help them become healthy again, sadly that will be the only connection she will ever have with these people. Elli will never be able to fully understand the pain and suffering that was caused to the people of Khaufpur. She won’t ever be able to empathize with these people, the most she can do is sympathize and try to help with the aftermath. She also is completely unaware as to why the people of Khaufpur were having issues trusting …show more content…
He states, “You talk of rights, law, and justice. Those words sound the same in my mouth as in yours but they don’t mean the same” (Sinha 3). Animal is trying to relay the message that those laws sound the same but they don’t apply to everyone in the same way. Even though the Indian government has fought for these peoples’ rights, it still is not the same as when the American government fights for their peoples’ rights. Animal has a beautiful quote about how humans feel the need to separate themselves. “I have found it at last, this is the deep time when there was no difference between anything when separation did not exist when all things were together, one and whole before humans set themselves apart”(Sinha 352). Even though there are human rights, and everyone should have them because they are simply human it just does not work that way. Humans have constantly tried to separate themselves from one another instead of working together. Even though people like to believe in human rights, that doesn’t mean that they fight for them or do anything to help the rightless gain rights. As Animal concludes his story he states, “All things pass, but the poor remain. We are the people of the Apokalis. Tomorrow there will be more of us” (Sinha 366). No matter what anyone does the poor will always be rights less. The poor, which there will always be, will never have the
“It was a job for a skilled man with plenty of guts and a steady hand and my father was proud of it” (Sinha 201). She was trying to relate to being poor and growing up without privileges but still people have a hard time trusting her. She is an American and they feel it is the American company’s fault that this happened to them; so why should they believe that she is really here to aid them? Animal’s People is also denoting to the differences in approaches and behaviors between Elli and the people of Khaufpur. She cannot understand why these people don’t want help. They complain of their suffering but when offered help they don’t want it. This frustrates her into screaming, “HEY ANIMAL’S PEOPLE! I DON’T UNDERTAND YOU” (Sinha 183)! She came to Khaufpur with only a mere idea of how the people had suffered (humanitarianism). Elli knew that people were sick and it was her job as a doctor to help them become healthy again, sadly that will be the only connection she will ever have with these people. Elli will never be able to fully understand the pain and suffering that was caused to the people of Khaufpur. She won’t ever be able to empathize with these people, the most she can do is sympathize and try to help with the aftermath. She also is completely unaware as to why the people of Khaufpur were having issues trusting …show more content…
He states, “You talk of rights, law, and justice. Those words sound the same in my mouth as in yours but they don’t mean the same” (Sinha 3). Animal is trying to relay the message that those laws sound the same but they don’t apply to everyone in the same way. Even though the Indian government has fought for these peoples’ rights, it still is not the same as when the American government fights for their peoples’ rights. Animal has a beautiful quote about how humans feel the need to separate themselves. “I have found it at last, this is the deep time when there was no difference between anything when separation did not exist when all things were together, one and whole before humans set themselves apart”(Sinha 352). Even though there are human rights, and everyone should have them because they are simply human it just does not work that way. Humans have constantly tried to separate themselves from one another instead of working together. Even though people like to believe in human rights, that doesn’t mean that they fight for them or do anything to help the rightless gain rights. As Animal concludes his story he states, “All things pass, but the poor remain. We are the people of the Apokalis. Tomorrow there will be more of us” (Sinha 366). No matter what anyone does the poor will always be rights less. The poor, which there will always be, will never have the