Negotiating Patriarchal Power and Cultural Identity: Resistance and Agency in Amulya Malladi’s The Mango Season and Anita Rau Badami’s The Hero’s Walk
Dr. Nipun Chaudhary
Abstract
This paper critically engages with the cultural construction of patriarchy as a hegemonic ideological system that naturalises gender hierarchies and institutionalises male dominance within both familial and societal frameworks. Through a close textual analysis of The Mango Season by Amulya Malladi and The Hero’s Walk by Anita Rau Badami, the study examines how women’s identities, voices, and bodies are culturally inscribed, regulated, and resisted within patriarchal structures. These novels do not merely depict women as passive victims of gendered oppression but foreground them as complex agents navigating intersecting forces of tradition, power, and resistance.
Drawing from feminist theory and cultural studies, the paper interrogates how autonomy, subjectivity, and agency are negotiated by female characters in contexts shaped by conventional social expectations and diasporic pressures. Acts of resistance—whether expressed through silence, dissent, or the redefinition of roles—are read as politically and culturally significant interventions that challenge the normative binaries of male authority and female submission. The study also considers how cultural identity and gender performance intersect, particularly in transnational and immigrant settings, where women renegotiate their roles in both the private and public spheres.
By foregrounding alternative representations of womanhood, the analysis destabilises essentialist notions of femininity and masculinity. Ultimately, the paper reveals how literary narratives can serve as sites of cultural critique, offering space for reimagining gendered identities beyond the constraints of patriarchal discourse in South Asian societies and their diasporas.
Keywords: patriarchy, cultural identity, gender roles, resistance, female agency, South Asian literature
Introduction
Patriarchy is a social system wherein females are considered submissive in different ways. Prejudice, disdain, abuse, oppression, enslavement, violence and subjugation – in the family, at work, and in the community – are all types of subordination that we experience daily, regardless of our social status. Gender disparity, injustice against girls, and the strain of domestic tasks on females are just a few examples of a certain sort of discrimination and a specific characteristic of patriarchy.
The modern theory of feminism begins with Beauvoir’s notion that since males see females as essentially distinct from them, females are degraded to the rank of the second sex and thus become powerless (Beauvoir 1974). Under patriarchal dominance, women constitute a subordinated gender, according to Kate Millet’s notion of subordination. Millet’s Sexual Politics (1970) presents the reader with “conceptual and practical insights on the biological, social, anthropological, class, economic, and other roots of patriarchy” (Millet 563). “The interiorization of patriarchy,” an effect on both sexes’ psychology, is one of patriarchy’s effects (Millet 575).
Typical gender duties assigned to both males and females (mis)represent males as intellectual, authoritative, powerful, and protective, while women are perceived as the extreme opposite of these attributes. Moreover, society expects and accepts that careers and occupations requiring high levels of physical fitness and mental aptitude are more suitable for males than for females. As a by-product of these ingrained, ubiquitous patriarchal behaviours and mindsets across the globe, we find a far greater proportion of men than women among researchers, administrators, and political figures. Women, on the other hand, rarely engage in pursuits that require a lot of physical power. As a result, women are conditioned to accept a patriarchal mentality that effectively excludes them from participation in and access to various occupations and activities. Women are ‘conditioned’ to believe that patriarchal beliefs are acceptable.
It also indicates women’s deliberate stepping away from the prior boundaries imposed by male dominance, recognising their subordinated position within patriarchal culture and ideals. These theorists of feminism have worked to deconstruct such customs to reform and recreate them; by bringing underprivileged women into the heart of society, they have contradicted old practices of male domination. Hence M. H. Abrams analyses: “The often-asserted goal of feminist critics has been to enlarge and reorder, or in radical instances entirely to displace, the literary canon- that is, the set of works which, by a cumulative consensus, have come to be considered ‘Major’ and to serve as the chief subjects of literary history, criticism, scholarship and teaching” (Abrams 91,92). Feminist practices, with their rebellious tendency against mainstream culture, social expectations, and organisations, attempt to replace prior canons of oppressed women. Whatever feminists argue about, they all care about equality, gender and women’s independence. Feminism aims to overthrow the patriarchal system that has oppressed and subjugated women for centuries. Females are not obliged to be ‘others’, feminist opponents argue. It also highlights its negative consequences for women in all of its forms. However, when they become intolerable, eventually, rebellion occurs.
Elaine Showalter’s work A Literature of Their Own has been widely cited urges women to develop their autonomous ideology in order to get rid of male domination. Showalter’s reconstruction of Victorian women writers brings new pieces to the wall that resist the prevailing male hegemony in writing. Her three-phase classification of female writers aims to deconstruct women’s roles in modern society. Feminism is simply a political phenomenon that awoke women to demand societal change to address women’s issues of autonomy, equality, ownership, and literacy, among other things. Women’s conditions improved as a result of this female empowerment initiative. Women were bound by culture and values in a patriarchal society. Female awareness campaigns, on the other hand, urged women to question what it meant to be a woman in a patriarchal culture. It attempted to deconstruct traditional gender roles and replace them with non-sexist versions. Feminists have used concerns like identities, consciousness, and autonomy to analyse this research paper.
As a feminist critic, Showalter has demonstrated how women’s literature has evolved into a tradition distinct from hegemonic authorship. Previously, male-centric texts traditionally dominated, with women’s hardships and accomplishments being overlooked. It was just the man who was exalted or sympathised with. In the third phase “Women reject both imitation and protest – two forms of dependency – and turn instead to female experience as the source of an autonomous art, extending the feminist analysis of culture to the forms and techniques of literature” (“Elaine Showalter Quotes,” 4). She further adds, “Now we are free to come and go as we please, not in sorrow but laughter” (“Elaine Showalter Quotes,” 2021). This implies that in this phase they have adopted ‘voice’ as a tool and refuse to tolerate ‘silence’.
Similarly, Audrey Lorde in her article “Transformation of Silence into Language and Action” proposes that every woman resist tyranny and violence by raising her voice and making her presence known, rather than remaining quiet because of fear of being judged or hostility, Audrey tells everyone from the oppressed section of society and not just women, to be open enough as to make them known and be an active member of society by taking a stand to atrocities and confronting them by refusing to accept silence over voice. In their writings, modern women writers depict feminism and female identity; of course, the writers’ activism, their tactics, and their works can help the contemporary world comprehend women’s difficulties and feminine conceptions in various contexts and phases of their existence. As a result, the goal of this paper is to look at how Amulya Malladi and Anita Rau Badami portrayed oppression in their works, highlighted patriarchal society’s issues, and subsequently attempted to offer a voice to their heroines.
Both Malladi and Badami belong to the subsequent generation of Indian women diasporic authors. These two authors enwrap a peculiar position in the oeuvre of Indian Diaspora literature, as they talk over the cultures of emigrants in the latter part of the twentieth century. The ordinary contents of their novels are like a cultural struggle, the search for self-identity, gender imbalance, ethnic distinction, multiculturalism and ethnic awareness. Most of their works deal with the troubles of females and their battle for individuality.
Amulya Malladi’s novel The Mango Season interpreted the kind of oppression toward Indian females and male domination in Indian patriarchal culture. It shows that oppression of Indian females occurred because of masculine supremacy, which strikes females in the insurgency. It’s projected from the rigid patriarchal regulations that enact a distinguishable life for women and men in India. It explains how male domination and oppression are endured by Indian females.
The Hero’s Walk by Anita Rau Badami is a citation of everyday and unique pictures of courage and strength in day-to-day situations. This tale is about orthodox Brahmin people who, at the turn of the 20th century, made their way into Hindu tradition. They must change and re-evaluate their decisions about what is important in life, despite their faith in conventional viewpoints and the fact that they are confronted with modern issues. In this work, Badami discusses topical issues such as expatriate culture, feminism, and the struggle for individuality in modern society.
Gendered Agency and Cultural Resistance in Amulya Malladi’s The Mango Season
The novel The Mango Season by Malladi describes how Indian females are dejected due to the influence of masculine supremacy. Females are dejected in multiple forms and treated differently, not as beneficent as males in day-to-day society and thus in numerous other ways which lead to their revolutionary temperament. The novel revolves around the subjects of cultural conflict, the clash between convention and novelty and the conflicted state of emigrants.
The protagonist, Priya Rao, flees the planned marriage by moving to the United States, and she finds work in Silicon Valley. She doesn’t wish to come to India, so she makes many excuses for seven years. Priya, who was raised in an orthodox Hindu family, claims to be a rebel against several typical traditions of the family, she says:
Even though I was raised in a society where arranged marriage was the norm, I always thought it was barbaric to expect a girl of maybe twenty-one years to marry a man she knew even less than the milkman who, for the past decade, had been mixing water with the milk he sold her family (Malladi 1).
She feels foreign in her own country and finds it problematic to adhere to the conventional customs of her family. She’s treated like a castaway when she reveals her clandestine affection with Nick Collins, a black American boy. Priya, who’s thus sentimental, longs for her parents’ care and thinks they to approve of her affection for Nick. She dangles between two worlds. When she realises that she cannot hold up any longer, she travels to India to see her parents and tell them about Nick. She says:
I didn’t want to go because as soon as I got there, my family would descend on me like vultures on a fresh carcass, demanding explanations, reasons and trying to force me into marital harmony with some nice Indian boy. I had to go because I had to tell them that I was marrying a nice American man (Malladi 3).
Though she dares to have a secret relationship, she has no courage to marry Nick without permission from her family. The sense of matrimony is thus deeply embedded in patriarchy and gender inequality, so that, in the present day, it doesn’t seem intended for an adolescent girl to marry unless she has a person ready to refuse all customary practices of matrimony. The notion of a ‘love marriage’ is fairly recent, and is regarded as taboo in numerous parts of the world, like in multiple developing countries. Her mother is a typical traditional mother who grants her child, Natarajan, all the freedom, but wants her daughter Priya to adhere to her beliefs. Natrajan is a man, thus he simply gets away from home by claiming various reasons. Ramya Niranjani rightly points out that, however, things are a bit contrasting for a woman in a country like India, even if she has returned from America.
Females constitute around half of the population of India, but their status is grievous. For many years, they’ve been intentionally denied the room for growth in the light of devotion and social-cultural customs. In the socio-political field, females endured the rejection of liberty in their households, too.
But she sooner or later uncovered the things about her relationship. In her house, people should be married to someone in their class, rank, and creed. And the boyfriend she cherished isn’t all of that on the list. He’s American, Christian, and above all, dark. Yet, she, with her brevity, tells the truth about her relationship with her family. Indeed, though it means she rose above the conventions. As the minor person in the line, she exactly follows the custom. But she chooses to reveal to everyone that she’ll govern her lifestyle.
Ma, these things happen. I’m sorry that you don’t approve, that you feel I’ve betrayed you, but this is my life, and I have to live my life; you can’t live it for me. I have to be happy, and I can’t let you be happy for me. And for me to be happy, I need to marry Nick. It’s that simple (Malladi 146).
Astuti aptly states that, although in India, women are even now treated as inferiors, some of them don’t like their lifestyle administered by another. They wish to abide by their lifestyles and live contentedly. Framing an association with people who come from a distinct nation, who have a distinct creed and mother tongue, isn’t a crime. A daughter wants to make her parents satisfied, but she likewise wants to find contentment by marrying someone she adores. It doesn’t show that she is contrary, like what other people perceive of her; she exactly wants to bring about her gladness: “Then it will be a risk I must take, I said bravely and got up. ¯Do you want me to leave your house now?” (Malladi146)
Some of the conventional Indian people are opposing the match with an outsider. As the eldest man in the lineage, the grandfather would be ferocious if he knew that his granddaughter was involved with an American. It’s tough for the granddaughter to oppose her grandfather who’s dominant and has conventional thinking: “Hadn’t I told him time and again that my family was a conservative as he was liberal and that he would be lynched and I would be burned alive for bringing him, a foreigner, my lover, to my parent’s home?” (Malladi Prologue)
Eventually, Priya opens up about her affair with Nick. Her father, who has complete faith in her, feels very frightened by her reality. She speaks to her mom: “I’m sorry that you don’t approve, that you feel I’ve betrayed you, but this is my life and I have to live my life, you can’t live it for me. I have to be happy, and I can’t let you be happy for me. And for me to be happy, I need to marry Nick. It’s that simple” (Malladi 169).
Her parents convince her by stating that her life will become miserable if she marries an outsider. Priya, as an intelligent and strong woman, has opposed it: “All relationship has problems. That’s a fact of life” (Malladi 169). Ultimately, she’s blazing. She allows her wrath to come out as the consequence of being speechless, for living the downtrodden life. Anyhow, Priya lets her father know that she loves him the most. Her father agrees to her match with Nick. Lata indeed admires Priya for her strength. She has not married Nick like Anand married Neelima. Lata asserts, “I wish more women would stand up for what they want” (Malladi 217).
At last, the novel closes with her wedding to Nick after her family’s permission. Today we again find a new, undaunted woman who’s dejected in the house stands on herself against the dominant one. She unquestionably says that she’ll not apologise if she thinks she has not done anything immoral.
It’s likewise through another character, Sowmya, that Malladi has beautifully depicted the condition of females in India who possess no physical beauty or are academically competent. Although Sowmya is depicted as a lady possessing a kindly soul, who loves everyone, she simply becomes a useless thing in the house, as no family member is willing to associate with her. Priya states: “Sowmya could not get a job equivalent to her social status because she was not academically qualified, just as she couldn’t get the life partner she fantasised about because she was not physically qualified” (Malladi 35).
This implies that the traditional society, in a country like India, requires either bodily charms or financial outcomes from a lady. Priya comments: “Sixty-four matches and not one worked out...she told me during my current visit” (Malladi 36). Sowmya develops as a steady female as a result of Priya’s accuracy in views and judgements. Sowmya, who was once a young girl, has evolved into a modern girl by asserting her interests.
Gender, Identity, and Cultural Representation in Anita Rau Badami’s The Hero’s Walk
Anita Rau Badami depicts the notion of gender discrimination and the rise of the modern female in an Indian house effectively. As N. Karthick points out that Badami accurately depicts how the community views the males and females of the family, particularly in a conventional South Indian Brahmin household. She is genuine in her decision to choose a Brahmin house instead of a distinctive social class as the Brahmins rigorously followed Hindu tradition in the 20th century. They would never have the multinational and global contemporary humanity that we have today. She wonderfully portrays a tale of the conflict for self-identity of Nirmala in the conventional Brahmin house.
The tale is set in a fictitious street of Brahmins in South India, Toturpuram. Sripathi is an old man who serves as the Head of House and works as a copywriter, a job he detests. Sripathi Rao’s typical Brahmin wife Nirmala, fights for autonomy in the form of esteem within her husband’s lineage. Her orthodox mother-in-law Ammayya, her unmarried sister Putti, her unemployed son Arun, and her daughter Maya, who is currently residing in Vancouver. Nirmala becomes a tolerant victim in this discomforting atmosphere.
Nirmala hasn’t revolted against her conventional functions as a wife or her household tasks. She has constantly admired the judgments of her husband, though sometimes she doesn’t confirm them, and she has no way questioned his power even when he determined to reject his daughter for the wedding against his conscience. For her, the house is her everything- life and spirit. She always takes great care of her house, makes it beautiful, endures all blame for her family members, and satisfies the conditions of sociable culture. She guided her only son when he rebuked his father: “Don’t say things like that about your father” (Badami 45).
In a patriarchal community, it’s the female’s responsibility to make everyone contented and take charge of her children. Her conjugal life once was replete with of laugh uprisen from affection. nonetheless, their pleasure is brief.
Maya, Nirmala’s daughter, is named after her role in the house. Maya also serves as a metaphor for her namesake; after Maya’s death, the illusion imposed by society on Raos’ life starts to fade—the illusion of being influenced by society’s ideals. She becomes an ideal, successful, bright, independent woman who follows her heart and takes a bold step against the customs of her orthodox family. Maya departed for University in Vancouver, Canada, rejecting an intended marriage and further humiliating her family. Maya had a daughter , Nandana, with Alan Baker, a White man. Maya has died in an accident just before the novel begins, and her tragedy sets the stage for her family’s total transformation. Although her death is painful and brings grief to the family, it also brings transparency. Maya’s rejection of a planned marriage and her decision to marry according to her personal choice will appeal to the Rao’s, especially Sripathi. Another feature of societal pressures that affect the Rao’s family is their culture’s expectation of arranged, conventional marriages, and society will evaluate Sripathi as a parent and guardian based on his approval of Maya’s Western marriage. Sripathi’s orthodox ideas on marriage have created a substantial gap in their relationship.
After Maya walked out of her life, Nirmala’s life changed drastically. Her affection for Sripathi converts into outrage when she comes to know the news of Maya’s demise. Nirmala is filled with dread as a result of this news. She holds her Sripathi responsible for Maya’s demise: “Your fault, your fault, your fault! You killed my daughter. You drove her away from me! You! You! You!” (Badami 35).
She indeed hits her husband, which means a lot in a patriarchal society. Sripathi desires to comfort her by requesting an apology. Nevertheless, he maintains his self-respect, noticing that he is becoming irritated by her. He wonders how daring it is for her to raise her hands in front of him. Sripathi was offended and told her not to cry. She’s furious because she asked him: “You hit me?” she said, astonished, “you killed my child, and now you are hitting me also? Evil man” (Badami36). It compels Sripathi to decay within because he slams her in front of his relatives and servant.
The unfortunate demise of Maya altered Nirmala into a powerful lady. Naturally, a female tries to discard the obstacles that she confronted and inhibits her from playing a part in the pursuit of the external universe; it has not taken her long to prove her capability to do alike. In multiple endeavours, females aren’t exactly as accurate as boys are, but better. Nirmala was inexplicably forced to join the modern human species. She does not want to exist as a subordinate lady anymore. She challenges Sripathi to bring Nandana (daughter of Maya) to their house. Indeed, she turns into a revolutionist for her survival; nonetheless, she maintains serenity in the house.
Nandana’s arrival in India changes Nirmala into a typical caring and loving grandmother for her daughter’s child. Her understanding correspondingly causes an inner conversion in herself. She believes she really shouldn’t have blindly followed Sripathi and should have insisted that Maya be allowed to visit her home in India.
The novelist portrays a revolutionary Hindu woman in a conventional Brahmin house. Nirmala battles for emancipation not simply for her but also for her next generations. Her patience in the spleen of all her questions and explanations addressed a task of a perfect adoring caring woman and a decent mom, a concerned grandma to Nandana, and an explorer for Putti, her sister–in–law. The loss torments her from inside and explodes out to blaze both Nirmala and her husband. From Maya’s demise and before Nandana entered her house, she was quite afraid of Sripathi’s wrath, who was not unintended to force strife of any sort.
When her daughter dies, her adaptability and pliancy make her a warrior as well as a pragmatist (when she instigates the matrimony of Gopala and Putti and dismisses all class controversies). Her granddaughter makes her a non-conformist or a rebel, and her daughter’s death makes her a warrior. Her ancestors instilled in her the values of submissiveness, respect for elders, and subservience. These are female attributes that the culture’s architects insist on fostering in them. Nirmala creates an order of courage to challenge Sripathi and his orthodox mother, Ammayya. She discovers that since her daughter’s death, she has begun to perceive things in a new light:
In losing her child, first because of Sripathi’s ego and then to Lord Yama himself, Nirmala had taken more than she could bear. For all the years of being a good wife, daughter-in-law and mother, this was how she was rewarded? They have repaid her honest devotion with a kick in the face. Now she no longer cared about obeying Sripathi without question or hurting Ammayya. Now she dared to lock her steel cupboard to lock her saris, the few pieces of jewellery that she had collected for Maya, photographs, school reports, curls of hair, baby booties and tiny dresses—all memories of her children, of those more innocent times when happiness lay in the sound of their young voices and in the smile of appreciation that Sripathi sent her way when her cooking was exceptionally good (Badami 29).
She broke out of her passive confinement. Her revolutionary exercises were blatantly comprehended by Sripathi. Her alteration causes a type of anxiety in her family. As Amira Fawzi states, formerly, for Sripathi, Nirmala is a conventional, weak and submissive woman, but right now she isn’t the same.
This self-exploration converts Nirmala’s point of view towards her household. She begins to demand her rights, and it is the first time that she tries to stop Ammayya from plundering her things, a practice she has suffered since day one of her wedding.
She disapproved of Sripathi’s class distinction; she makes cordiality with the low-class neighbour Munnuswami’s house. She protests: “…Then I will go, I am fed up with always listening to your nonsense. This is not right, that is not okay, what will people say? You have ruined my life because of all this nonsense... I will ask our neighbour for help” (Badami 294).
She is also prepared to knock down the caste barriers erected by the older generation of traditional Brahmins. She did not consult Sripathi or Ammayya before deciding on her sister-in-law Putti’s marriage to a low caste Gopala. She makes an impromptu choice, resolute that Putti will not have to follow Maya’s footsteps. She merely wanted her husband and son’s support and not their approval. She rejected patriarchal authority. Generally, a woman lives her life as if she were a candle, giving her life to illuminate the lives of others. Nirmala makes use of her sorrow to bring light into the lives of a spinster, Putti. Nirmala succeeds in saving the lives of two more people after trying to save the life of her daughter. She has no desire to be a subservient woman in a patriarchal society. Nirmala lives for the sake of the future of her succeeding generation, and she triumphs without losing her relationship.
From the beginning of the story, Nirmala is portrayed as a traditional, obedient housewife, but as the novel progresses, she learns psychological emancipation. After her marriage to Sripathi, Nirmala has been held captive by Ammayya’s authoritarian regime, and she has been unable to express herself or pursue her dreams. Also, her dance teachings to the children of the neighbourhood are objected to by Ammayya’s boos. “I am tired of behaving myself!” Nirmala cries in annoyance during an argument with Sripathi initially in the novel. Nirmala starts to accept responsibility as Nandana’s guardian and to prefer herself over others (specifically Ammayya) throughout the narrative. She learns that Nirmala’s mediocre life was caused by her primarily adhering to society and its demands. By the end of the novel, Nirmala has shifted away from ‘behaving herself’- she seems not the passive housewife without her own decisions anymore, but rather an active and confident married woman who now knows her priorities. ‘Behaving yourself’ is a societal term; therefore, being able to challenge the established norm could be regarded as not behaving yourself.
Conclusion
Amulya Malladi and Anita Rau Badami, through their nuanced portrayals of female protagonists, engage deeply with the cultural politics of gender, identity, and power. Both writers foreground women who challenge dominant patriarchal ideologies not through overt revolution alone but through everyday acts of resistance, negotiation, and self-assertion. Characters like Nirmala and Priya navigate the complex intersections of tradition, familial obligation, and personal autonomy, thereby exposing the contradictions embedded in cultural narratives about womanhood. Rather than depicting women as mere victims of patriarchy, Malladi and Badami reimagine them as active agents who reconfigure their subjectivities within and against oppressive systems. Nirmala’s transformation from a traditionally confined woman to a figure of resilience and assertion becomes a metaphor for the shifting dynamics of gendered identity in contemporary South Asian contexts. Priya’s refusal to conform to inherited roles and her pursuit of self-defined happiness mark a critical rupture from prescribed femininities. The texts also interrogate the immigrant experience not just as a geographic relocation, but as a cultural and psychological space where identities are constantly negotiated. In this sense, both Malladi and Badami use migration as a narrative device to unsettle fixed gender roles and reveal the fluidity of selfhood. Their female characters do not merely assimilate or resist but strategically reinvent themselves in response to changing socio-cultural conditions. Ultimately, the novels contribute to a broader cultural critique of patriarchy by illustrating how women construct meaning, claim voice, and assert agency within structures designed to silence them. By offering representations of female empowerment that are culturally rooted yet forward-looking, Malladi and Badami participate in the redefinition of South Asian womanhood in both local and diasporic contexts.
References
Astuti, R. D. (2020). Women rebellion as impact of male domination and oppression in India represented in Malladi’s The Mango Season (M.A. project, Universitas Negeri Semarang).
Badami, A. R. (2001). The hero’s walk. Clays Limited.
Elaine Showalter quotes. (2021). AamBoli Media Inc. https://www.aamboli.com/quotes/book/a-literature-of-their-own-british-women-novelists-from-bront%C3%AB-to-lessing
Fawzi, A. (2018). Home, domesticity and women in Anita Rau Badami’s novels The Hero’s Walk and Tell It To The Trees. IKNITO Journals, 7(1).
Karthick, N., & Karthikkumar, S. (2015). Struggle for equality in Anita Rau Badami’s The Hero’s Walk. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Approach and Studies, 2(3). https://doi.org/ISSN2348-537X
Lorde, A. (1978). The transformation of silence into language and action. In Sister outsider (pp. 40–44). Sinister Wisdom. https://electricliterature.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/silenceintoaction.pdf
Malladi, A. (2003). The mango season. Ballantine Books.
Millet, K. (1970). Sexual politics. Doubleday and Co.
Ramya Niranjani, S. (2017). Cultural conflict and empowerment in Amulya Malladi’s The Mango Season. International Journal of Trend in Research and Development, Special Issue. https://doi.org/ISSN2394-9333