On Tuesday 10 Mar 2009 1:39:56 pm Mahesh Murthy wrote:

<snip>
> realities. Traditional Christian or Western (and Islamic) marriage rituals
> have held that fidelity is key to a marriage - and one oft-proven reason
> for the high incidence of divorce in traditional Christian cultures like
> the US is the inability for a spouse to maintain this desired state of
> being.

<snip>

>
> The increasing rate of divorce in modern India is perhaps more due to the
> prevalence of the (western) infidelity-intolerant mindset among Indian men
> and women

Er it really should be Indian infidelity and not "Western" infdelity shouldn't 
it?

Be that as it may, the divorce rates in the West are not necessarily high 
merely because of infidelity are they? They are high because divorce laws are 
liberal and allow divorce on various gounds other than infidelity. 
Incompatibility, cruelty and other factors can lead to divorce. Many Western 
societies are far more secular than Indian society and allow these divorce 
laws to operate without interference from religious and other pressure 
groups, unlike India.

There is pressure not to divorce in Indian society and the increasing rates of 
divorce are probably not so much related to fidelity as the fact that divorce 
is now possible without shaming the woman forever.

The other point is that fidelity is indeed demanded in Hindu marriages - from 
the woman. What the man should do is not clearly mentioned. Clearly here is 
an instance in which fidelity must be demanded from the man as well. 
but "traditionalists" who do not want to touch Hindu rituals will be shocked 
at such an Idea. However the traditionalists have already lost ground. "Hindu 
laws" usually meant that a married daughter is excluded from inhertitance of 
her paternal ancestral property. This silly law has now been overturned. 
Married women get an equal share of ancestral property.

I think that for India:
1) The institution of marriage must be protected but not if it is clearly 
harmful to man or woman
2) The woman must be protected against cruelty, forced marriage and bondage
3) Fidelity must be expected of the man as well as the woman

All this looks so easy and simple - one can say that Indian laws ensure 
exactly these three points. But in reality i believe that Hindu society is 
still living in the past.

What happened in the past that does not happen now?

Well - a man would get married and have 11 children.7 would die and after a 
while his wife would die too- naturally. That meant that the man could marry 
again. If the man died - you know what became of the widow. Hindutva still 
does not accept that bias against women is built into Hindu attitudes. The 
woman must change and accommodate, not the man. Everything about the Hindu 
past is considered so fine and so glorious and yet is considered to have been 
raped and misrepresented so badly (By the British and Muslims) that:

a) Nobody will countenance a molocule of change
b) Nobody wants to hear a single word of criticism.

What really loads the dice against women in india is what is happening in the 
West - in which the decadence of the West is being (rightly or wrongly) 
linked to all the freedoms that people have - with female freedom being seen 
as a fundamntal factor leading to the demise of the family and dissolution of 
society. Bondage, modesty, self effacement, fidelity and servitude of women 
in India is portrayed as "good and righteous" - being beneficial to society.

Hindutva finds it easy to laugh mockingly at Islam's admittedly ludicrous 
claim to respect women. But no Hindutva supporter has accepted any of the 
arguments I make to show that Hindu treatment of women is the pits. This 
insight just does not exist. I am accused of saying such things because "my 
mind has been twisted" by Westernization. 

But it is difficult not to accept that the West too had botched things badly 
and that is the biggest boost that both Islamists and Hindutvadis get when 
you use the West as comparison in terms of womens rights and freedoms.

The future IMO will mean not copying the West. But things must not remain the 
same either.

shiv






Reply via email to