Aishwarya Rai, who has been in the news lately because of her engagement to Abhishek Bachchan, has apparently been ritually married to not one but two trees before her real marriage (thanks, Antahkarana). The aim is to counter the astrological effects of being born a Manglik:
But Ash is reportedly blighted with what in astrological terms is described as “manglik dosh,” which means that the planet Mars (mangla) and possibly even the planet Saturn are in the seventh house. People with manglik dosh are prone to multiple marriages, according to San Francisco Bay Area Vedic astrologer Pandit Parashar. That means Ash’s marriage to Abhishek could either end in divorce or his death.
In Hindu tradition, in order to offset the evil influence of manglik dosh, a woman should marry a peepal or banana tree before she ties the knot with her fiancé. Or she could even marry a clay urn, which should be broken soon after the nuptial ceremonies, signifying that the bride has become a widow, and the manglik dosh problem has been solved.
ItÂ’s not known if Ash has married, or plans to marry, an urn, but she reportedly has married a peepal tree in the holy city of Varanasi, and a banana tree in the southern Indian city of Bangalore. (link)
The Indian media is reporting that a case has been filed against the Bachchan family by lawyer Shruti Singh to the effect that these types of practices promote untouchability. She has also suggested that it’s offensive to women.
There has been some discussion of this event on the blog Feministing, and one commenter there points out that the practice of marrying a tree can also be recommended for men, though I haven’t been able to confirm that. (If true, that would definitely weaken the case that this is a misogynistic ritual.) Other commenters have suggested that this is probably pretty harmless in the big scheme of things — especially since honor killings, dowry killings, child marriages, and forced marriages are still problems in Indian society.
What do readers think? Is this “backward” practice part of a slippery slope (only one step away from things that are much more problematic), or something basically harmless? What do you think of Shruti Singh’s claim that this practice promotes untouchability? I must admit I don’t know very much about Hindu astrology, and so can’t say what role caste plays in these practices in general.
“Even if Aish is doing as she thinks fit how must she be feeling about it?
that’s just it. no one knows how she’s feeling about it. but we presume that she must be feeling badly about it. maybe she really believes it and has no problem doing it out of her love for her fiancee and doesnt’ feel badly about it at all and wonders what all the fuss is about? we may think she’s misguided, but that’s her choice. and my idea of what needs to be fought against certainly differs from someone else’s idea of what needs to be fought against. some of the things that i think need to be fought against are dearly held and cherished beliefs of other people who see them as a positive force, even though i find them detrimental to humanity as a whole, and probably vice versa.
“Why have a creepy doubt placed in your head that you’ll be the cause of someone’s death?”
aishwarya’s doing a preventative superstition to avoid an unwelcome outcome in this life, a life which is very real and very tangible to her, which she can feel, see, taste, touch, experience emotion, sorrow, pain in etc.. we undergo superstitious death rites to protect us in the unknown and stave off unwelcome outcomes in the hereafter or to ensure other outcomes, even though we have no idea whether it exists or not or whether we can feel anything in it or will experience sorrow, happiness, peace, angst. what’s the difference? in fact, her actions, if it gives her peace of mind in a lifetime she can actually experience for sure, may be more worthwhile than actions for the dead who probably don’t go anywhere but into the ground and consumed by fire etc. and whose fate we know nothing about. yet it gives us peace to do all this superstition for them and afford them some imagined protection in the nebulous afterlife. indeed the fear of death and what happens to us in the afterlife is used as a weapon or a tool to control our behaviour in this life. certain people are indeed excluded from proper funeral rites because of certain transgressions in this life – why no PIL against that method of making someone feel less worthy? isn’t that creating a class of outcaste dead and making their families feel awful about it?
what about barren women who visit various temples, tombs, mosques, churches, saints etc. praying for children? isn’t that demeaning to them? are they less of women because they can’t have children? why no PIL against that superstitious practice? what about referring to God as a he? what message does that send to young girls? perhaps that should be banned too.
My heart is totally with you on this Shankar, but my head would like to ask – since we know gravitation is incompletely understood, being not yet reconciled with quantum mechanics – what if there were things we didn’t know – couldn’t know – that were needed for this reconciliation? Such as spooky stuff and action-at-distance, and other things I know nothing about? I mean, even within the mainstream paradigm, people predict black holes coming into and out of existence, space bending itself in a dozen dimensions, and time travel! Now, this is one of the roles religion plays, to provide a basis to cover yourself from unknowable unknowns. If we could totally explain everything in terms of ‘science’, why, then, the more ritual the better, since it would be good entertainment in a fully-understood world. So the basis for rejecting certain rituals is not scientific understanding but egalitarian values – one could object to certain rituals if they are not gender-neutral, for example.
RC, i never said some superstitions didn’t have negative consequences, or that the concept of mangalik was a cheery one. i merely argued that separating superstition from religion from tradition is more of an optical illusion. i was arguing about the semantics of it. words are weapons. as i said, astrology is no more of a superstition than religion is. both can have bad and good consequences. i just don’t understand people who say they don’t indulge in astrology to determine anything because it is all unscientific and superstitious, but then happily indulge in equally unscientific and superstitious religious ceremonies and traditions and practices and core beliefs, many of which have had and continue to have negative consequences. you said we cannot allow unscientific and supersitious practices. but what is the scientific basis for religion and most traditions? how does the latter make society more scientifically minded than “superstition”?
i don’t believe in child sacrifice to appease God. but i also don’t believe in animal sacrifice to appease God, yet this is perfectly fine for some people (and it doesn’t matter to me if people eat it afterwards, poor or not. you’re still sanctioning the killing of a creature to satiate the spiritual appetite of God). to me it’s just as silly a superstition as they find astrology to be. whether it’s done in an abbatoir or by a religious appointee in praise of some God or revered person’s birthday, the end result is the same. there’s no scientific proof that offering God the blood/flesh of an animal or offering it in God’s name (or indeed any food or fruits or vegetables) does anything for you or that God will be displeased if you don’t. that’s what i mean by arbitrary – i find animal sacrifice much more egregious than offering fruits and vegetables, even though both serve the same purpose. yet if i filed a PIL against animal sacrifice in the name of religion, i would probably be accused of religious discrimination or of imposing my beliefs on someone else even though the animal suffered more than aishwarya ever will for marrying a tree. again, it’s all arbitrary – we all have different values and fight for different things.
What an assumption on your part that those who dont believe in astrology believe in religious rituals !! Some rituals and traditions such as greeting someone with a “hello” or smile (in the west) is a tradition and a ritual that has nothing to do with a religion or any kind of superstition, but is a tradition none the less.
actually, dude,
shaking hands is a superstition. the belief was that people hid daggers up their sleeves. it\’s a pat down. basically you\’re insinuating that the other person is a liar and a potential murderer when you shake his hand, which 999 times out of a 1000 will be wrong. that\’s western culture for you. it\’s quite superstitious to indians who salute the divine in the other person, when greeting them with a naamaskaar.
when you shake hands, you\’re perpetuating hate and superstition.
“What an assumption on your part that those who dont believe in astrology believe in religious rituals !! Some rituals and traditions such as greeting someone with a “hello” or smile (in the west) is a tradition and a ritual that has nothing to do with a religion or any kind of superstition, but is a tradition none the less.”
umm, i believe there are many religious people who condemn astrology, so it’s hardly an assumption. it’s hardly an assumption when i know people who have no time for astrology but who had fancy wedding ceremonies nonetheless rooted in hindu and other religious tradition/superstitious beliefs:) and who will subject their children and their homes to unscientific religious rituals, who will hold unscientific, superstitious religious celebrations in their homes. what happens to most people when they die? do they not have some sort of religious ceremony, even if they don’t believe in astrology? i’m sure some of the people who responded here who have no time for astrology still believe/participate in equally inexplicable religious rituals, or did all the non-astrology people here who got married have a wedding totally devoid of religious (superstitious) aspects?
and who is talking about hellos or smiles here (although as dark lord pointed out, superstition is never far away from many things we do unconsciously) this whole discussion stemmed from a PIL against a religious/superstitious/tradition-rooted-in-religion-or-superstition (take your pick of word), so naturally when i talk about tradition and ritual, i’m talking about those strongly rooted in religion/superstition, like wedding/birth/death/coming of age ceremonies. if you reject astrology on the basis of it being superstition and unscientific, then you are inconsistent if you then hold up “religion” as some sort of superior thing to astrology, in my view, since the latter is unscientific by present-day standards and quite rooted in superstition. if you find astrology and “religion” to both be superstitious and unscientific, then that is a more consistent point of view.
what’s that?
Smiling is more of an innate human behavior (and I think possibly a generalised primate social behavior) rather than simply a cultural tradition (although its application is modified by various cultural forces).
“Dark Lord,” earlier in this thread you were posting as “Part Animal,” according to your IP.
Don’t change your alias in the course of a single thread — it’s considered troll-like behavior.
Whose God –
All of your conceptual problems will go away if you stop equating rituals with belief. Rituals are simply performed for the sake of performing them. It has nothing to do with belief. Sure there’s an explanation given if you ask for it. Usually it will be in the form of some story or the other. They will even tell you water signifies this and rice signifies that and the red kumkum signifies the other. All of this is completely irrelevant. The only thing of significance is the performance of the ritual itself.
Unfortunately this over-education of ours has led us to think in exactly the same terms as the western world thinks. Everything must have an explanation and must be made intelligible. The hindu mindset on the other hand was more performance-oriented. The minute you start explaining things you only end up making the practitioners look ridiculous. There was a wonderful example of the rain dance that I once read about. Anthropologists have given all kinds of elaborate intellectual explanations of how the American Indians “believe” that it will rain if they perform this dance. The minute you bring the word “belief” into it, this beautiful, communal, harmonious practice is instantly rendered ridiculous. This is exactly how the Indian traditions have been treated by the west. If you read about Hinduism, it is full of all kinds of beliefs and explanations. Even hindus describe their religion in terms of beliefs now. But how did we make the jump from ritual and philosophy to belief? Do you seriously think people are such idiots that they think it will rain if you dance or a goddess will enter the house if they draw a little rangoli? On the other hand, the JC traditions have been founded on irrational beliefs. They don’t bat an eyelid attributing irrational beliefs to others as well. Since the last 200 years or so hindus started representing their culture and traditions in exactly the same way that the west described them. We are completely out of touch with our own experience and do not have the wherewithal to articulate any objections. All we can do is sit back and feel a vague sense of discomfort that the explanation does not sound right.
Now please don’t come up with a million examples of how many dumb things hindus believe in. Firstly, there will always be a section of society that is not too bright. But more importanly, our culture is in a massive state of decay and that is the reason for this all-round superstition. Otherwise, from the traditional point of view, belief is of minimal importance. That is why it is necessary to discriminate between superstition and tradition. The way things are now, hinduism is one giant mass of supersition. It is up to us to unravel the mess and not keep perpetuating the nonsense about beliefs. The manglik thing is definitely a superstitious belief. Performing of the ritual to get rid of it is the upholding of family dharma and is therefore okay.
I’ve a lot to say about this one, but I’m a little late to the party so I’ll keep it short…
part_animal asks:
Because the ideology is based on the Other. This behaviour is exhibited by secular liberals as well. To see a subtle display of this you need to go back to AMFD’s message #143 where he says:
Step 1: Divide the world into binary: US and Them Step 2: Analyse everything they do. Step 3: Judge their behaviour even when it does not affect you Step 4: Assert the right to laugh at their perceived stupid practices Step 5: File frivlous lawsuits that you assert are just to educate and alleviate those poor bastards Step 6: Pass some laws to “eradicate” casteism, dowry etc etc Step 7: Emphasise that conversion will get rid of all problems Step 8: Overtly/forcibly convert. Invade foreign lands to implement democracy or Christianty or any “ism” that’s fashionable. Step 9: Find a new “Other” and go to step 1
Because that’s against the nature of Hinduism. You put it very well when you said that Hinduism teaches indifference to anything that does not affect you. Hence, in Hindu temple discourses you will not find any references (derogatory or praise) against other religions. In contrast, Churches routinely talk about heathens and pagans, Mosques routinely talk about kafirs, Synagogues routinely talk about those “unchosen” people, Buddhists talk about dirty Hindu practices that Buddha condemned, and even nowadays some Gurudwaras have started sneaking in some derogatory reference or another against Hindus (especially Brahmins).
Hinduism follows the ideal that a true liberal is one who is tolerant of conservative traditions and a true conservative is one who is open to liberal ideas.
Divya,
I agree with most of your posts, except one comment that I find intriguing.
Why be judgemental against other’s private practices, as long as they are not coerced into it? I don’t believe in such stuff either, but I can understand people who believe in this. They are not taking any chances with their son’s life – how many of us would? Ash’s great-grand children can believe all they want: astrology, kundly, doshas. I’ll just continue to believe in dosas!!
Heck, day in day out I see superstition on Wall Street. Don’t buy a stock more than 8% high from its 50-day moving average. Always take 50% of your money off the table when a stock has appreciated 43.5%. Don’t buy a stock that’s below its 200 day moving average. It’s all junk and superstition – there is no science behind all this. But people, with Phd’s and all, follow this stuff because they don’t want to take chances with their money.
Isn’t a son more precious than money?
Earlier when other posters made these allegations against Ennis/Amardeep, I would roll my eyes. But I’m having second thoughts now.
M. Nam
C’mon guys, this is getting ridiculous. Why are so many people behaving like touchy adolescents? What did Amardeep say that hurt so many feelings? And whatever happened to the famed hindu tolerance? There certainly isn’t much evidence of that here.
sakshi writes: >>What did Amardeep say that hurt so many feelings? And whatever happened to the famed hindu tolerance?
It’s not what’s said – it’s the nature of issues that are repeatedly brought forth for discussion. There’s too much of a in-your-face pattern here that cannot be missed.
M. Nam
divya, i think we’re talking past each other now. i actually don’t disagree with a lot of what you’re saying, although i don’t have such a dire view about hinduism being a mass of superstition. i think labelling things superstition, witchcraft, magic is arbitrary and imposes an “alien” language’s concepts on something it cannot easily be applied to. much like calling someone a pagan or a polytheist, those terms are meaningless to the people being called that. i don’t think i have any conceptual problems (:)) , nor do i think everything has to have a meaningful “meaning” , but i think we have been so conditioned by language and other influences to have these problems.
Inside our North Dakota bunker I’m rolling my eyes at you right now (and thats how to keep it short when you are on your way to a party).
A blog about Indians is bound to discuss issues about Indian social problems. Given that India is over 80% hindu, and social problems have a religious component, it is inevitable that hinduism shall come in for criticism.
And there’s enough bashing of other religions on this blog too. You just bashed christianity and islam (#261) and no one protested. Feel free to continue to do so, but then don’t cry discrimination when someone targets your religion.
Quick. Gimme a link to a blog on SM that’s bashing a belief/ritual in Sikhism. Or Buddhism. Or Jainism. Or Indian Christian/Islamic practices.
Just one. One itsy bitsy teeny tiny link. And I’ll take back my allegation.
M. Nam
Thank you Moornam you great defender of Hinduism. 1000s of children sleep well at night because of your efforts.