Lalun's Exile: A Dichotomy of Separation and Belonging

Of the four main characters in "On the City Wall", the exile of three (Wali Dad, Khem Singh and the narrator) is fairly translucent. It is Lalun's exile which is problematic for mainly two reasons. Firstly, she entertains a wide variety of guests from all over the city in her "little white room" to "smoke and talk"(19) and thus operates as a locus in society which brings together people from different backgrounds. This allows her access to information - "Also she knew the hearts of men, and the heart of the city, and whose wives were faithful and whose untrue, and more of the secrets of the Government Offices than are good to be set down in this place" (21). Secondly, there is an allusion that she is protected by the society. Her maid, Nasiban, suggests that Lalun would get murdered by a thief for her wealth but Lalun says that "all the city would tear that thief limb from limb, and that he, whoever he was knew it" (21). This suggests that the city considers Lalun to be irreplaceable and the functions she serves are extremely significant. Lalun is also affiliated with a Nawab who gave her a "big pink and blue cut-glass chandelier" which she kept for "politeness' sake" (19). Therefore, she has strong connections with the city and is treasured by people. 

What, then, is the nature of her exile/separation/displacement?

The most prominent separation, in her case, is in terms of where she is physically placed in the city. Her house was "upon the east wall facing the river" and the City Ditch was dangerously close - "If you fell from the broad window seat you dropped thirty feet sheer into the City Ditch (15)." This suggests that she was right at the edge. Her husband, a jujube tree, was outside of the city walls. This suggests Lalun was exempt from matrimonial duties and domestic life. She exists solely in the public sphere as a public figure accessible to all that enter her little white room. Her house offers little privacy since it is the meeting point of so many individuals who seek her company. The fact that she never appears outside of her living quarters in the entire story augments the proposition that she was stuck in the public sphere with little or no hope for a private life. In stark contrast with other women in India, her house is open to the world. But the world isn't open to her. It is also interesting to note that the sort of people who visited her were also displaced and experiencing an exile of some kind. 

Her window allows her to see "all the cattle of the City being driven down to water, the students of the Government College playing cricket, the high grass and trees that fringed the river-bank... (15)" This all encompassing view was only there if "you stayed where you should and looked forth (15)." This suggests that Lalun was only able to perform her function in the City and in the story by existing at the border. The British weren't concerned about her because of the peripheral nature attached to her identity and she was able to help Khem Singh because of it. Hence, it is the periphery that is crucial in this story. One question I've had trouble dealing with is that if Lalun could best serve her function by existing in the periphery/border then isn't the periphery where she belongs? And if she truly belongs there, then she is not really in exile. She is right where she should be. Her exile, perhaps, has a dichotomy attached to it. She is displaced and right at home at the same time.