Forward or back

The role of a woman in society has evolved and undergone what many may call radical change. In the developed world, although there are allegations of glass ceilings and male dominated board rooms, the woman as an individual in society is pretty much equal in the eyes of her society, in the eyes of the law and the constitution. Traditions which placed women at a disadvantage in some manner or those where the woman was referred to as an object for Men to hand over or exchange or play around with are non existent in the developed world. Sadly, that is not the case in many other countries, India being one of the foremost examples. Of course, Islamic countries have their own set of rules and laws but for the moment I will focus on how for over 4000 years, the Indian - Hindu woman has been manipulated in the name of religion, tradition, Hinduism and rituals.

I recently discussed the concept of kanya daan which comprises the woman being "given away" by her father to the bridegroom at the marriage ceremony. This ritual symbolises the superiority of the husband in the relationship; is meant to convey in no uncertain terms that the woman / daughter is a burden/gift and the father's greatest ever act of generosity is to give away his daughter to a suitable groom. Moreover, after some digging I learnt that in the Kanya Daan ceremony, the father (through of course the ubiquitous priests) requests the bridegroom to care for his daughter and hopes that he will treat her as an equal in the relationship. The operating word here of course is "hopes".

The concept of Kanya Daan is spoken about by none other than the big daddy of the Vedas. In the "Laws of Manu", written about 1500 BC, we are told to understand Kanya Daan. Of course Manu also goes on tell us about the caste system and how one would go to eternal hell if one were to kiss another belonging to a lower caste. Manu also tells us a lot more arrant nonsense and rubbish which any society with common sense, morals and a shred of liberty will reject completely. And indeed, I am proud to say that after hundreds of years of practices like "Sati'', polygamy, devdasis etc, many laws have been framed to weed out the more barbaric of Manu's suggestions or divine words whichever way you want to interpret it. We got rid of Sati mainly thanks to the Brits; we have laws which forbid the caste system mainly thanks to Ambedkar but we weren't able to get around ritualistic zealotry simply because religion in India is enshrined in a no man's land. A holy grail which neither legislators nor judiciary can tread on with too much authority.

But wait a minute, we aren't talking about laws to rid ourselves of symbols such as "kanya daan". Instead what one would hope for would be a larger public consciousness wherein people, young & old alike realise that humanity as a whole has progressed to a more evolved state of being and will accept that while some symbols are important, ones that involve blatant throwbacks to rituals dating 4000 years need to be re-examined. Follow symbols by all means but don't be unmindful of what they represent, their interpretations. Hindu rituals paint the woman / daughter as Goddess Lakshmi, but yet at the same time these rituals see it fit for the parents to wash the feet of the bridegroom and plead with him to look after their daughter. What can be the interpretation of this symbol? Where is room for equity and liberty?

I could go on but will end here. This is further validation of my opinion that the Geeta is in fact the foremost of Hindu scriptures. I am not sure if there was a point to this post, but sometimes catharsis follows strange paths. Much like sitting at the bottom of a dry well with a baseball bat. But that's a story for another day.

Bollywood 1 Economist 0

Most people who have some Indian connection would have either seen Lagaan or at the least, have heard some of the melodious tunes composed for the movie, not to mention the graceful dances only Bollywood can conjure.

VJ & I were discussing how, despite all the rhetoric, Indians are pretty oblivious to religion in most aspects of our pop culture. I then proceeded to name a remarkable list of "most favourites" in Bollywood & Cricket: actors, musicians & players. Inevitably, Lagaan came up as a name and here is where VJ pointed out something interesting:

One of my favourite songs in Lagaan is "Radha kaise na jale" which translated means "how can Radha not be jealous". The song is a reference to Radha, the consort of Krishna: one of the most famous figures in Hindu mythology and the central figure of the Hindus' most revered of books, the Bhagavad Gita. The song incorporates a well known and liked theme in Hindu mythology: Radha admonishing Krishna for his alleged flirtations with other girls (Krishna being somebody much in demand by the nubile nymphets in those days). In the song, Krishna goes onto rebuff these allegations by saying that, even when he meets attractive princesses, his heart only thinks of and sings for Radha. The point here of course is not to debate whether Krishna actually was telling the truth but to examine this song a little more. Its easily one of my favourite movies and one of my favourite Bollywood songs: as much for its melody as for the lyrics of the song and the fantastic choreography and dancing, all depicting a naughty Krishna and a besotted but angry Radha.

The credits for the song are as follows:

Depicting Krishna in the song: Aamir Khan
Choreographer: Saroj Khan
Music Composer: A. R Rahman
Lyricist: Javed Akhtar

Care to guess what they all have in common?

As much as the Economist blares its alarmist horn (and the magazine is becoming increasingly and irritatingly strident in recent times), India is still a free country and a place where religion only raises its (sometimes ugly) head when politicians or terrorists poke it the wrong way. And obscene generalizations like the ones made in this article "It is not known what role India's 150m Muslims, who include 40% of Hyderabad's population, play in the violence. Probably a supporting one at most. But that could change. India's Muslims have long suffered politically inspired communal violence and casual discrimination. Were they ever to become seriously riled, India would have a problem indeed" only serve to highlight how out of touch even this standard of journalism is with the reality on the ground.

Gujarat of course was a crime that can never be excused or explained but please let us not claim only Muslims are discriminated against or only Muslims are singled out for unfair treatment in India. I am dark skinned and I get discriminated against in this country. If I am a dalit I get discriminated. If I am a sub caste within a caste, I get discriminated. If I have a surname "Mehta" in Karnataka, I get discriminated against. But hey I haven't become a terrorist. Nor have the millions of dalits and shudras and the thousands of other "lower castes". So I'm not really sure wtf the Economist is trying to say here by fingering 150 million people as potential terrorists. Indian history and culture is replete with central figures who are Muslim. India wouldn't be half the country it is today if we were to take away some of the Indian Muslims from the landscape or if we were to show scant respect for Muslims outside our borders even. Can we even begin to contemplate cricket without Azhar or Saeed Anwar or Bollywood without Aamir Khan or music without Zakir Hussain?

Indian society today has intertwined people and religion to the nth degree, so much so that a Muslim prancing about as the Hindus' most revered and worshipped of Gods, mouthing a tune composed by 2 other Muslims is not just accepted but universally applauded and sung across the country. And it was important for me, as an Indian to refresh that particular discussion about "Radha kaise na jale" because therein lies the ultimate truth really.

With us or against us

Getting into work this morning I noticed a curious sticker on the back of a car. From a distance it appeared like the word "Jesus" emblazoned in the tricolours (Indian flag colours of green, white and saffron). On getting closer to the car, I saw two stickers on the back, one below the other:

" Exposure to the SON may prevent burning" - the word burning was in italics and in bold red

"There is no history without Jesus, AD or BC"

I guess for every 10 radical Islamists, for every 5 trident totting saffron clad "Hindus", there also has to be 1 hungover crusader too it would seem.

There are several things I can extrapolate from these 2 stickers: blind faith, forced conversions, fake evangelists (is there something like a real one?), rallies and crowds and congregations all of which pretty much add up to one big naught. Organized religion & its preachings lose meaning for me with each passing day.