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.
Let him who’s never checked his weekly astrological forecast cast the fist stone.
Um, no. it is only illegal to extract dowry. You can require whatever you want from prospective partners including particular castes, just cant force them to pay dowry (legally); though we all know dowry happens in practice.
also, denomination = sub-caste.
Perhaps it does, and that’s why there are so many divorces in some countries. Who knows?
“He chose the banana tree because it was a South Indian species of banana which is no longer than four inches, so as to cause the minimum discomfort to its bride at the time of consummation. “
Errr…is this symbolic or…
No part of hinduism is organized. There is no Indian Association of Pandits nor is there a regulatory body of any sort. At the most you have really large temples but even those are miniscule by international standards in terms of money and clout.
The vedas have something called jyotish which is astronomy and not astrology and deals solely with the calculation of planetary movements. This knowledge was used to determine the best time to do rituals and how to position their temples etc. It never had any predictive application. Current “vedic” astrology is based on something called the Surya Siddhanta which is a hindu version of Greek astrology and dates back to BC and because of its antiquity seems a part of the original package. If you notice the zodiac signs have the same names in both eastern/western traditions. But the names of the planets, the galaxy etc. which came from the original vedic texts are named entirely differently. Of course the hindus took to the predictive mumbo jumbo with the utmost zest and have only themselves to blame. But since we do not call predictive astrology a part of Christianity even though it is widely used by xtians, we must apply the same standard and not regard it as hinduism.
Back in the days, girl applicants had to pay more for match-makers’ services. That shit still goes on? I am referring to the “personal touch” school of pro match-makers.
Since we’re discussing marrying trees, let him who never married a tree cast the first stone.
This isn’t a setback for Feminism, it’s a setback for Arborism. How many remember Arbor’s day? Exactly. So they replenish C02 with O2 all day long, keep us alive, and now these trees are responsible for fending off bad marriages (celebrity ones at that) too?
Seriously though, to me it shows the ingrained status the marriage-astrology complex has in Indian society, that even people with so much power and a combined income of a bajillion gazillion dollars must succumb to it. In India, the fundamental unit of society isn’t the individual (no matter how many multinational IT companies set up shop in Bangalore) it’s the couple.
Thanks for the insight Divya.
Also, which branch of “hinduism” requires a “belief in predictive astrology” as a foundational tenent of conversion into the faith (diksha – initiation)? None.
Oh its all connected my friend. Astrology is the reason behind the tree ceremony.
Arguably this particular superstition is based on the organised part of Hinduism, since it’s pandits who are supposed to do your horoscope
Not all astrology is done by brahmins, in Tamil Nadu there is a community of Nadi astrologers known as Valluvars who do both jyotish and siddha medicine – they are scheduled castes, and are fierce-proud of their traditions.
Stand in line…I am ready to throw the stone! I don’t check my horoscope (western or otherwise) and sure as hell didn’t marry a tree. The splinters…ouch!
Does anyone know anyone who did these things and still had bad luck?
Hinduism is interesting. On one hand you have astrology and tree marrying and on the other, you have karma. My maternal uncle was considered manglik and yet, he passed away during a car crash while his wife survived. My mom’s side is SUPER superstitious so I am sure that all necessary precautions were taken.
suede:
A excellent point that has been ignored in the discussion…
This is the thing though, for arguments sake…if homosexual life isn’t even recognized in a traditional Indian setting should a gay couple show more concern at the fact that they are below the level of urns/trees/snakes? I see the validity of your argument but not sure if in the context it works.
Well its a religion, what do you expect. Though I personally can’t see the problem with a ritual marrying a tree. I mean, there are much worse things done in the name of religion: I just can’t get worked up over this one. Maybe its cos my parents are not into astrology and stuff, I don’t know about the problems it creates.
I’m actually kind of confused by this. So Manglik means that the bride is likely to get married again, i.e. that she’ll either get divorced or widowed, right?
Why is that so surprising or bad? I think every female in my parents generation or my grandparents generation outlived their mate. Women tend to live longer than men do, and men tend to marry younger women, so if you combine those two factors, you would expect most women to get widowed, right?
I guess I’m selfish. I’d rather outlast my wife than the other way around. And if she wants to get married after I’m gone, then more power to her. At that point, I’m gone, so I could hardly be offended.
I really don’t see what the problem is, but then the first I ever heard of this whole thing was w.r.t Aish. I’ve never encountered it IRL before …
Divya – fair enough. Since Hinduism doesn’t have foundational tenets per se, predictive astrology can’t really be tied to it; but as a lived, practised religion today (and we’re big on orthopraxy) it’s the jyotishes and pandits who tell you what day to get married on, and that sort of thing, so I think for a lot of Hindus predictive astrology is effectively tied to the religious hierarchy. I’d be surprised, for example, if Aishwarya figured out the tree thing herself and knew what mantras to say. At the end of the day, though, it is sad when this is what passes for religion.
As for the clout of religious establishments, they ain’t centralised, but the Tirupati temple and some of the bigger maths are huuuuuge and Tirupati is really wealthy. But that’s a side point.
Ennis – manglik brides are usually associated with “bad luck” for a non-Manglik husband, i.e. he’ll die first. Two mangliks marrying each other – no problem.
Ennis Manglik in a gist actually means that if the girl were Manglik she would be the CAUSE of her husbands UNTIMELY death and not the natural course of life you mentioned.
would you all be so dismissive if you interpreted astrology as an art rather than a science? and stop caring about what ramvilas does in india. let him enjoy life. besides, you need to worry about the splinters when you pull the pole out.
My point is that he almost always dies first anyway. Furthermore, that isn’t bad luck to me. Bad luck is my hypothetical wife dying first. I’m a selfish bastard, I’d rather not outlive my spouse. That kind of grief I really don’t need. So if somebody has to go first, I would rather it was me.
Shubh-shubh bolo, beta – everyone wants a long life 😉 And the poor Manglik woman who outlives her husband is seen as a curse.
“At the end of the day, though, it is sad when this is what passes for religion.”
so what exactly should pass for religion? what about everyone here who got married and participated in various rituals – whatever the religion – accompanied by various incantations from the presiding interpreter of mumbo jumbo – dutifully and blindly doing everything he/she tells us to do to prove that we are “married” to someone else? why do we need to endure a ceremony based on blind superstitions to connect us to another for a lifetime (or a couple of months?) why do we participate in some birth, marriage and death rites with such solemnity and accord them respect but laugh at other practices, even though they all seem rather inexplicable and based on blind superstition? it all seems rather arbitrary. why is it laughable to marry a tree but ok to get some hocus-pocus guy to come and bless your new house, religious institution (inanimate objects), new baby or to sit and focus your attentions on something/someone whose existence has not been proved? at least you can see the sun, moon, stars, trees and the planets.
I agree with every word of that. I think humans naturally overestimate their own rationality, and underestimate that of others.
Whose God Is It Anyways – excellent point. I generally have little use for religion of any kind (don’t sit through the rituals – refuse to do a religious wedding), but at some level have enough of the classic reformist/Nehruvian indoctrination to think that religion at the philosophical plane is “better” – but it’s all arbitrary anyway, so might as well go to town and have the tree-wedding, I suppose.
as usual, you have the token hindu fundamentalist comment in reaction to the word “feminist” in the New America article title –
Dilip on Feb 05, 2007 at 20:33:21 said:
Feminism today is a Western Idea, and as all Western ideas this is best applied to the West. India has its own traditions and Indian Goddesses represent the feminine quite well. These goddesses give strength to the Indian women. This is why Indian women are ahead of women in Muslim countries.
A woman like Aishwarya marrying a tree in a symbolic gesture is empowering to all Indian women. Aish is successful, assertive, her own person and a true feminist in every way. For her to marry a tree is in keeping with the Indian tradition, and this act should be considered as an act of free will.
If the constitution bans such a wedding, then the constitution must be changed as it limits the freedom of Indian women
more proof that we are indeed macaca.
As for Hindus, they stand on a rock solid foundation but the edifice is as rotten as rotten can be, and then some.
What would that be? I must have missed that.
And yet, that would mean that almost all women are cursed.
If somebody wants to give me a “blessing” it would be a simple one – may you never see any of your loved ones die, or at least, may you never have to see anybody younger than you die.
I think the mentality behind Karva Chauth is far more offensive and potentially degrading to women than marrying trees if you’re manglik.
why is it laughable to marry a tree but ok to get some hocus-pocus guy to come and bless your new house, religious institution (inanimate objects), new baby or to sit and focus your attentions on something/someone whose existence has not been proved? at least you can see the sun, moon, stars, trees and the planets.
If there is no social harm, then there is no foul, you are right.
One reason: The implied normative religion is Western Protestantism, internalized by the so-called Hindu reformers. Thus its ok to be an “enlightened,” philosophical Hindu who “believes” in the ineffable Brahman-who-is-apparently-God; you might even be something of a mystic; but you cannot participate in “animistic” practices like tree weddings.
I think the mentality behind Karva Chauth
Explain please.
Karva Chauth is the day when wives fast till moon sighting for the longevity of their husbands.
There is no equivalant fast that husbands do for their wives, as far as I’m aware.
“but at some level have enough of the classic reformist/Nehruvian indoctrination to think that religion at the philosophical plane is “better” – but it’s all arbitrary anyway, so might as well go to town and have the tree-wedding, I suppose.”
SP, this is what i referred to earlier when I mentioned the “tyranny” of the self-appointed “higher” religions or “higher” elements within a religion. i know what you mean about the philosophical plane being more attractive to people of a certain temperament (me included at times) – it appears more open to skepticism and real inquiry rather than blind acceptance of a superior entity controlling us all, but in the end, to me, the person on a mountain philosophizing about the intricacies of the Vedas and the person sincerely performing their daily rituals in a humble hut or in a forest before a tree/river/snake without any knowledge of the Vedas amounts to the same thing – one person doesn’t have some sort of greater access to God than another or a more sophisticated understanding of God than the other. in the end, both are putting trust in something – just choosing different ways to go about it.
i personally like most harmless religious rituals – “high, low, in-between” – they add interest, color and emotion and life to a culture. it would be a bland world if we did away with all rituals (those who don’t want to do them, that’s fine too, but i don’t like this blind condemnation of rituals or those who perform them as being simplistic beings who cannot understand the complexities of the universe, especially by those who otherwise indulge in a host of other self-approved rituals themselves). the world needs both the austere and the vibrant forms of worship – it’s great that people can pick and choose and move between the two if it so suits them. without the ritual impulse we wouldn’t have had some of the greatest architectural and artistic wonders of the world or music.
i think humans need rituals – whether it be your daily routine or whatever. even atheists have rituals. instead of religious words and acts during a wedding or a funeral they make up their own rituals – poetry readings etc. they’re merely replacing one set of rituals with another, and that’s fine. we may do away with traditional rituals, but we usually replace them with something equally ritualistic.
“If the constitution bans such a wedding, then the constitution must be changed as it limits the freedom of Indian women”
you may not like the source or intent, but there’s an element of truth in this. aishwarya is doing this presumably of her own free will. these sorts of practices are very common in tribal communities (whom many would consider deprived minorities). are we going to deprive them of their cultural identity and ancient, essentially harmless (and often having beneficial consequences) practices because tree marrying is anathema to us progressive, enlightened ones? what about religions that don’t allow women in certain positions of authority within their religious hierarchy? isnt’ that discrimination and a blow to feminism? yet that is allowed under “freedom of religion”. filing a PIL against that would be a more worthy use of the lawyer’s time. there’s no doubt that there are some truly harmful traditions still left in all religions/cultures, “high” or “low”, but is this really one of them? (although i do see how any ritual can become harmful in the wrong hands).
Carib Queen,
Apparently your knowledge of Karva Chauth is minimal at best.
Here is the history of Karva Chauth……..like many things in life has a strong social component to it.
I guess when a baseball or a football player has his superstitions, then it is all cho chweet. I think Bachchans and Ash have all right to obey traditions, and pre-empt any bad omens (real or imaginary). It is their life, not yours
One of my friends who recently got married was ‘requested’ by her mother-in-law to keep the karva chauth cos she loved that stupid karva chauth sequence from DDLJ, though there was no such tradition in their community.
Ah, the power of Bollywood.
SP – Nobody is bound to go to the pandits to tell them on what day to get married. Some people on this board have commented that they disregard such stuff altogether. As for the religious hierarchy, there is no-one more pathetic or worse off than the pandits, so let’s not get into the religious hierarchy thing. The so-called lower castes have their own priests. The so-called upper castes don’t care two hoots about pandits but do give a damn about their grandmothers and that’s how they end up consulting pandits about 5 times in their lives. That’s the sum total of influence a pandit has on an average hindu life. That does not make a religion.
Whose God – There are certain events in a human life that are worth making a big deal about. They totally need to be solemenized and ritualized. This cannot be considered religion but is based on human experience. Religion is something that makes truth claims. It is neither true nor false to claim that birthdays must be celebrated. It is, however, either true or false to say that there is a God in heaven. Since hinduism is passed on through stories and rituals, these are things that you cannot apply any true/false valuses to. I agree superstition can be as binding as religion and that is the problem.
AlM Sorry, scratch that. Let’s change the word Hindu to Buddhist. Hindus are just rotten through and through. You couldn’t have missed that I’m sure.
Yes my knowledge of Karva Chauth is minimal. When I asked several women why they do it, the answer, for the longevity and well-being of my husband, was what I had to go on. When asked if husbands are fasting for them, and getting a “no” as an answer, I felt an imbalance of the gender scales.
Some comments here remind me of The Artist Formerly Known as PG. I could be wrong.
Damn ShoMAN must be the Marathi thing because I was thinking it and reading down and bam there you said it.
Neither the above nor anything else I read on the link provided by Kush explains what is the purpose behind women fasting on this day.
It seems to be a “folk” tradition, without even a Puranic story for it’s origins.
That would then explain why none of the women I speak to about it can explain anything beyond “longevity” for husband either.
Wiki says otherwise. Not that wiki is the end all and be all. It’s just worth noting.
It has it’s own website
http://www.karwachauth.com
I guess when a baseball or a football player has his superstitions, then it is all cho chweet. I think Bachchans and Ash have all right to obey traditions, and pre-empt any bad omens (real or imaginary). It is their life, not yours
They do have the right to marry trees or walls or whoever else they fancy. However we also have the right to laugh our collective asses off!
If there is no social harm, then there is no foul, you are right.
An irrational society where silly superstitions are tolerated and where people dont care about scientific evidence or the lack of it should certainly result in some social harm to all the members of the society. Perpetuating irrational nonsense in a society is not a victimless crime.
I haven’t really been following the comment thread here, but I think I’ll jump in with my two cents. There are a handful of western/Christian marriage traditions that women still follow today that could be considered a “backward” step. I’m thinking primarily of the tradition of the bride being given away by her father and then of taking her husband’s name. Both of these traditions are rooted in the outdated concept that women are chattel and the marriage ceremony is, in part, a transfer of property. The name change is to signify who the woman belongs to: her father, or her husband. There are several women that follow these traditions today but still lead lives that involve successful careers, financial independance, etc. For some, it is merely a tradition or a symbol, not an indication their way of life. Also there is the (harmless, in my opinion) tradition of the bride not letting the groom see her in her wedding dress before the ceremony because it is bad luck. Marriage is a big deal for alot of people, regardless of thier relative success or indepedance. Alot of people like to celebrate by incorporating traditions in this one moment in their lives withoug worrying about how congruous it is with the rest of the things that they do.
I don’t know about the untouchability implications, but if Aish and her family want to incorporate these traditions into celebrating her wedding, then I don’t see any reason to criticize. I think that social progression is really implicated in the way that people conduct their day to day lives, rather than their decision to adhere to some traditions. Besides, marrying a couple of trees doesn’t cause her any harm or anything, and maybe it’s kind of fun. 🙂
Another Hindu bashing post by Amardeep. No surprises here. by the by, Prof. – what makes your superstition [the growing of hair and beard, the carrying of a dagger ] so superior?
An irrational society where silly superstitions are tolerated and where people dont care about scientific evidence or the lack of it should certainly result in some social harm to all the members of the society. Perpetuating irrational nonsense in a society is not a victimless crime.
This is the richest advanced industrial society the world has yet seen, and yer 50% of Americans believe in “angelic” beings, another third believe the world’s end is imminent, virtually every newspaper has horoscope pages, there is a multi-billion dollar new age industry, and our beloved commander-in-chief talks to God before making his decisions, besides which, an atheist cannot get elected dog-catcher here.
What is superstition in one eye, is “religion”, “dharma” even “common sense” in another.
And vice versa.
What do you call for? A nationwide ban on marriage to trees?
These are old folk traditions that have survived perhaps milleniums.
We are in the age of celebrating diversity, not crushing it.
Would you suggest the Masai of Africa give up their traditions? Then one of the oldest living tribes on the face of the Earth would be wiped out (culturally) and then what would anthropologists have to research and what would we then have to watch on Discovery channel?
With the survival of old traditions we as modern people gain insight into the psyche of our ancestors.
By that logic every church, temple, mosque, synagogue, should be boarded up, razed, and turned into a parking lot. Science bless you.
Are you actually serious??!!? He was just opening up a forum for conversation/discussion. That’s why we are all here. There is no reason to be mean.