Hawthorne’s Dimmesdale and Waliullah’s Majeed Are Not Charlatan: A Comparative Study in the Perspective of Destabilized Socio-Religious Psychology

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to discuss comparatively Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter and Waliullah’s Tree Without Roots to address the social and religious challenges behind the psychology of a man. Dimmesdale and Majeed are not hypocritical. Nathaniel Hawthorne is an important American novelist from the 19th century, while Syed Waliullah is a famous South Asian novelist from the 20th century. Despite being the authors of two different nations, there is a conformity between them in presenting the vulnerability of Dimmesdale and Majeed in their novels. Whether a religious practice or not, a faithful religion is a matter of a set conviction or a force of omnipotence. If a man of any class in an unfixed socio-religious environment finds that he is unable to survive financially or to fulfill his latent propensity, he subtly plays with that fixed belief. In The Scarlet Letter, the Puritan Church minister, Arthur Dimmesdale cannot publicly confess that he is also a co-sinner of Hester’s adultery in Salem. In Tree Without Roots, Majeed knows that the ‘Mazar of Saint Shah Sadeque’ is a lie to the ignorant people of Mahabbatpur. There is also a similarity, however, between Dimmesdale and Majeed. They understand the cruelty of man-made, unsettled social and religious verdicts against a man’s emotional and physical needs. So, despite suffering from inner torment against goodness and evil, they are not willing to reveal their truth of wrongdoing in public action to save their status as well to survive.