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.
“I think humans naturally overestimate their own rationality, and underestimate that of others.
Sakshi, as Twain said:) : “”The easy confidence with which I know another man’s religion (superstition) is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.”
“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.”
“However we also have the right to laugh our collective asses off!”
true. the goal is to get the collective a**es to be equal opportunity laughers (including at their own weirdo rituals) 🙂 otherwise, it’s discrimination and ms. singh might file a PIL against making some feel badly about their practices whilst condoning other equally laughable practices.
“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.”
so PILS should be filed against all religions (all perpetuate irrational nonsense), all representatives of said religions for perpetuating such nonsense, or against people who smoke (despite the evidence on its harmful effects on themselves and others) or who eat foods that are proven to be bad for you and burden the healthcare system or people who are too fat (forcing others to bear the medical and other costs) or people who drive gas guzzling cars producing more pollution than a person who drives a hybrid and thus harming the air quality for more members of society or people or against lawyers who cannot provide concrete scientific evidence that a certain practice will result in harm to all members of society but who nevertheless waste valuable time and money filing a court case? her action is not exactly victimless – perhaps the court’s time could have been spent on a case that was more worthy of attention by someone else’s standard.
To those of you in favor of tree marriages, what are your views on getting married to snakes or dogs?
Yeah! Stop bashing our balls! We’re being persecuted by this post! Shri youareafineonetotalk, you too have discovered the plot to destroy Hinduism using proxy for Wendy Doniger and other conspirators via this anti-national!
I massage your saffron sacks in congratulation.
YOU HAVE SAVED HINDUISM! Before it was too late! I bed over for you!
Death to Professor Amardeep!
Hail Mogambo!
That’s a nice quote.
Dogs are kinda cool. Snakes…well…
AMFD, I agree with you in principle. But rationalists should be careful about the battles they choose to fight, given there are so many potential ones. I am honestly kind of happy when religion is busy with stupid, kinda cute things such as tree marriages and the like. I have more problems when it moves into profounder domains such as the nature of life, creation and human existence and makes madly confident claims without a leg to stand on.
One Swami made a criticism in one of his speeches that was then trascribed into book form about how American women utilize their pets for sexual pleasure.
What is the difference between that and this? Other than one definetely gives a substantial result whereas the outcome of the other is unknown and un-verifiable.
But I agree that worrying about people marrying trees cannot compare to the much bigger and more dangerous things people are doing these days in the name of religion/god, and have done for centuries (war).
Divya – for many liberal Hindus living in the States or in certain urban strata in India, yes, there’s very little influence a pandit has on your life. For many folks living in parts of India where caste is an important part of everyday life and even for many urbanites who get unsolicited “this is the auspicious way/time to do this” advice for all sorts of life decisions, that’s not the case (and urban businessmen are quite into religious rituals and jyotishes for ‘luck’). I’d be hesitant to make claims for “the average Hindu” based on either your (presumably American) or my (very liberal urban Indian) upbringing. Yes, you can choose to disregard a religious point, but that doesn’t mean the religious sanction or practice doesn’t exist and isn’t recognised as religious by many others.
This may be a delicate issue, but I notice a greater inclination on the part of American desis, btw, to emphasise reformist ideas about how rational and enlightened Hinduism is, and to negate the less rational parts as without a real scriptural basis, and to downplay the social element, whereas I grew up hearing and reading about the evils of venal pandits and superstition, and politics at the time was saturated in caste and religious identity. It seems like Hinduism is much less ‘social’ and more (necessarily) ‘intellectual’ in the US. Not saying either one is “the real thing,” but just noticing.
semi desi masala – i am not being mean. just stating like it is – the growing of hair and beard serves no purpose in contemporary times, and yet, the prof. grows both. and, if i were to venture a gander, i would guess, he has been on the receiving end of many a cruel and ignorant barb…solely due to his superstition [yes, superstition]
a recent news item:
Religion News Service
CHENNAI, INDIA, January 26, 2007: More than 90 percent of Indians believe in God and more than half pray every day, according to a nationwide survey published in a leading Indian newspaper on January 25. The study found that urban, educated Indians are just as religious — if not more so — than their rural, illiterate compatriots. Conducted in January for the Hindustan Times and the CNN-IBN television channel by the Center for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) the study included 7,670 randomly selected respondents in 970 villages and urban locations across India. “The findings are bound to surprise you,” the Hindustan Times said. The survey included Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians and measured religiosity through a series of questions on belief, temple attendance, prayer and participation in religious functions. According to the survey, women are more religious than men, metropolitan women are far more religious than those from rural areas, and young Indians are less enthusiastic about religion.
Heck, if a woman can marry a tree, urn or a snake (another story), then people should stfu when 2 women decide to marry each other or two men do so. Its not just double standards, but kinda mocking the life of a gay couple when you tell them that they’re below the level of urns,trees and snakes.
Actually some on the American Right use these instances to undermine the moral legitimacy of gay marriage. When a white woman from England married a dolphin recently, Bill O’Reilly did just this.
90 percent? that is more than what i would have guessed. i thought indians were more evolved than that? sad news, indeed.
Religion poll story and results
Presents in
BlessingsOnly. Presents inOpening Weekend Box Office ReceiptsOnly. Presents in Neutralizing Manglik Dosha Only. (No Boxed Gifts)listen! i am just appalled at the misogyny at display here. if desi women want to do something, they will do it. dont be telling them what to do! purpose has nothing to do with it.
there.
This may be a delicate issue, but I notice a greater inclination on the part of American desis, btw, to emphasise reformist ideas about how rational and enlightened Hinduism is, and to negate the less rational parts as without a real scriptural basis, and to downplay the social element,
Thats probably true SP, but we grew up in a milieu where we are asked to explain and justify our beliefs and/or practices, right from the schoolyard. In India no one is ever required to do that, as its so imbricated in the socio-cultural landscape. The social element – I assume you mean caste – is obviously not as relevant, especially when it becomes clear that most will likely not marry within caste or even ethnicity.
I see greater cause-and-effect between the first and second parts. The advanced industrial society, when combined with a weak (secular)social safety net; with real, everyday risk to life, limb and body arising partly as a result of a weak safety net; with people feeling that they are losing control of their own lives partly as a result of an ‘imperialistic globalization’ – that is what makes people increasingly turn to belief in ‘angelic beings and higher powers’.
This is not to simplistically imply that Southern Baptism is a reaction to globalization, of course. But it increases the propensity for people to join groups like them, which increases the power of the more fundoo of their folks, and the prominence of religious discourses in the body politic. On the other hand, there is no way to disentangle its rise from the social conditions of the post-Civil War South – a time of major upheaval and everyday uncertainty for both blacks and poor whites.
As a counter-example, look at Canada, roughly at the same level of tech development as the US (though there is a bit of an argument there), people are nowhere near as ‘religious’ as in the US. The basic difference, I think, is the social safety net, which ‘liberates the mind’. Until the current PM just said it out of nowhere a few months ago, even the phrase ‘God bless Canada’ did not exist. Or Europe, though the noticeably different attitude to immigrants there seems to have increased the propensity of the second generation to turn to religion.
On the rituals issue, sure we need them, but we can still differentiate between those which have the effect of reinforcing existing gender role perceptions – or any arbitrary power hierarchies – and those that are neutral or egalitarian in content. I had never heard of this Manglik stuff in India – and I lived there as a youngster and teenager in major cities – Delhi and Bombay! Also, it is one thing not to poison the ‘tribals’ with grand extraneous theories of religion when they are happy with what they are doing, but it does bother me if more urban Indians start believing this stuff because of the media publicity and its greater reach in the new India, and acting on it, thanks to the greater affluence of the Indian middle classes.
BTW, hairy_d, the links you posted are not working. Were they real, or are you having a big laugh on us?
Risible – yes, often when I listen to American desis on religion, it does seem like they are (quite naturally) responding to an American narrative on religion, and perhaps “backward Hinduism” stereotypes.
Americans are among the most religious people in the world too, btw, check out any number of polls from Pew (here’s the latest one I have).
How interesting. I would think that shaving serves no purpose in contemporary times, now that people can actually wash regularly and stay clean.
There is nothing cruel or ignorant about the Prof’s barb, it’s a very well educated and kind barb indeed.
exactly, hairy_d who are we to judge ?
SP – There’s not much difference between ABDs and the english-speaking Indians in terms of how they view hinduism. It is viewed mainly in terms of caste as you yourself reveal in the first part of your post (#156). What does it mean to say caste is an important part of a village person’s life? According to a study being conducted in the villages of Karnataka, the members belonging to each of the jatis did not conceive of it that way at all. Their jati was the most trivial truth of their lives. It is like saying you have hands and legs. The only time caste came into play in their lives is during marriages and other rituals. They mix freely between all jatis and there is no systemic sense of hierarchy between jatis. Nevertheless, they are proud of their jati idenities. It is only ABD’s and english-speaking Indians who wish to get rid of caste among the poor villagers. Meanwhile, they wax eloquent about how great it is that SM has created a community for them, and participate in communal ritual drinking etc. etc. Double standards if ever there were any.
If it hurts nobody, then you don’t judge. However, this practice does hurt women by labeling some of them inherently bad and needing of exorcism before they can be permitted to marry a man. I’m not saying that the state should intervene, but it’s hardly a harmless practice.
I’m curious – has anybody ever crunched the census numbers to demonstrate that this superstition isn’t true? We should be able to look at the rate of premature death of husbands of manglik and non-manglik women without too much work …
now you get it, ennis what seems perfectly logical to you, seems silly superstition to me. and vice versa.
p.s. on a pure hygiene comparison, shaving is better than growing a beard. esp, a beard, which is not trimmed. think of all the poor sikhs in india, who do not have access to 24 hour running water.
There’s a huge difference between the two though. Firstly, I don’t make any empirical claims concerning the effect of my beard. Manglik superstition makes specific empirical claims about what happens to the husbands of manglik women. That is, manglik superstition can be empirically falsified.
Secondly, my beard wearing doesn’t create a class of people who are socially disadvantaged, whereas manglik superstition does.
Because Sikhs are so dirty that they need to bathe continuously, all 24 hours of the day?
Oh c’mon, Divya. What of caste discrimination and caste killings like the ones in Maharashtra recently? And the sickening caste based identity politics?
I’m not saying that the state should intervene, but it’s hardly a harmless practice.
I think it is a harmless practice because the harm ultimately does not make its way through all society. The fact that Aishwarya Rai gave in to superstition/dogma/whatchamacallit does not necessarily imply that all women with manglik dosh are required to do the same, or would even do the same. This is a case of relatively harmless private conduct being made out to be more than it is.
The influence a celebrity has over social constructs (like marriage, astrology, etc) is limited, IMO…even in India.
I would add that there are far more invidious forms of social discrimination against women in India that go largely unnoticed.
Ennis – Nothing pertaining to God or Religion can be empirically falsified or proven, for that matter. p.s.ALL religions, including Sikhism, creates socially disadvantage people.
“Secondly, my beard wearing doesn’t create a class of people who are socially disadvantaged, whereas manglik superstition does. “
but religion itself serves to define people and create “others” who don’t fit in and are chastized for defying tradition. when harbhajan singh recently did a tv ad for liquor with his hair out he was severely chastized by those who saw it as “abnormal.” he was forced to apologize. in what way did he harm the social good by flouting a superstition that he had to apologize? how many people’s lives were worsened because of his action?
“Secondly, my beard wearing doesn’t create a class of people who are socially disadvantaged, whereas manglik superstition does. “
Yes, but arguably it brings harm on those who uphold the practice. Aren’t Sikhs disproportionately victimized in hate crimes?
Stop dodging. Manglik superstition makes specific claims about women who are born at particular times, namely that unless they are ritually purified that their husbands will die prematurely. That both creates a class of disadvantaged women who are considered inherently damaged, and it makes specific claims that can be proven false.
This is very different from, for example, the question of whether angels exist. I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of angels, but I don’t really care. Angels don’t create socially pernicious categories the way this belief does.
Oh wow, is that all that was bugging you? So why not just say that in the first place, instead of attacking Amardeep in a stupid ass communalist manner in the first place?
I don’t see it as ‘private conduct’ – not when we’re discussing it right here on SM, and who knows how many others are doing the same on their chat boards, and every newspaper in India, and probably abroad too – I saw a piece in the IHT just now – are also discussing it. I said that I had simply never heard of the Manglik stuff in India, but were I growing up there right now, it’s hard to see how I could have avoided knowing about it, given how much publicity it is getting. For that matter ABJr and AR could have got married one day, and it needn’t have been anyone’s business. But it looks like they (someone, anyway) wanted to draw huge positive externalities and earnings streams out of the publicity. And now we have this as part of it. It’s hardly a private act in the circs.
There is no reason to assume that those killings are because of caste even if they are described that way. There are horrible atrocities commited against some people in India. However, the same type of atrocities are not described in caste terms anywhere else in the world. Only in India are they couched in those terms, and much more so in recent years. Nor can you conveniently overlook the fact that the low-caste and the high-caste mix freely most of the time. This nullifies the caste theory right away. The articles on caste are so uniform, it is pathetic. Notice how each one of them mentions how the battered caste has to clean latrines? The solution to that would be building better latrines, wouldn’t you say? Howcome all the earnest liberals haven’ been able to achieve even that much in 60 years? Most of the caste reporting is a huge sham. But this is way off topic so I think I should stop. But think of your life and of everyone you know and who they know and see how little caste matters all round.
I don’t see it as ‘private conduct’ – not when we’re discussing it right here on SM, and who knows how many others are doing the same on their chat boards
Well, we’re clearly not using “private” in the same sense of the word. You’re apparently using it in the normative sense of “not known to others”. I’m using it in the more legal sense of “not being conducted for public consumption, or by decree of the public.” Ultimately, whether someone decides to consult an astrologer and marry a tree is conduct that is private, even if it is normatively public.
this has actually been proved as a myth among cyclists – who largely shave for aesthetics. the myth was that if you crash and get road rash, the hair makes cleaning difficult. well, actually yes – you got to shave the spot but there’s no ‘hygienic reason’ involved. plus i got a perverse pleasure pulling the scabs over the newly sprouting hair to expose the pink skin underneath and the occasional droplet of blood. and it was fun scratching around the scab. but it’s a good myth. i shaved my leg below the shorts line once, but it was so arousing, it made riding difficult. same thing among swimmers, shaving is something of a myth. for ‘tapering’ and to a lesser extent for the heightened sensory awareness of water from the fresh depillation.
myths make life so much more fun, dont you think. but what would you know – you dried-up rational little monkeys. vere’s the jus. now my dear pindoos, i got a neighbor upstairs who plays the tuba off and on, as she’s doing now, and she has violently loud sex – with or without a partner. now that’s jus and sometihng to aspire for.
relax.
Ennis,
From what I remember the mangal dosha or manglik applies to men as well as women, so the practice as such is not gender discriminatory. I am not sure which census will give you the reported number of mangliks and the stat on their spouse’s deaths, if you do find some numbers, please share with this forum so that we can all be enlightened.
Manglik superstition makes specific claims about women who are born at particular times, namely that unless they are ritually purified that their husbands will die prematurely. That both creates a class of disadvantaged women who are considered inherently damaged, and it makes specific claims that can be proven false.
To be fair, the manglik superstition also applies to men. That is, a man with manglik dosh may have to be ritually purified prior to marriage as well. So if it discriminatory at all, it is in a gender-neutral way.
Link
It’s easy for us to sit here and say that this is a gender-neutral issue, but I think you need to think from the perspective of a person living in India – I’m sure for many of them this is an issue that is much more of a problem for a woman.
Good point in general, though I don’t see how you can maintain the distinction in this case. Let me grant that it was not conducted for public consumption – so then why are we talking about it? How did we come to know? And why? Did the people who fed this to the media think it was actually good publicity, given their take on where most Indians’ mindsets are?
hairy_d, please tell me these are real … links posted here and here 🙂
Aren’t people free to choose superstition and blind faith? Notice the qualifier. What is the difference between faith and blind faith?
What is love then? Oh, it is a return on investment!
Good point in general, though I don’t see how you can maintain the distinction in this case.
Well, chachaji…in my mind, the distinction applies to all situations. To the extent that a particular type of conduct is not decreed by law, it’s private. The fact that an issue is discussed in public does not make it public in the legal sense. For example, if we suddenly heard that Aishwarya Rai stopped silk because of something a pandit told her, we’d still be talking about it, but the conduct would be totally private.
I would add that any conduct that resists regulation by the government is probably private too. For example, states could certainly pass laws saying that humans marrying trees is illegal. But how in the world would they enforce it?
Chachaji,
There is a concept very similar that is known as:
paparazzo |ˌpäpəˈrätsō| noun ( pl. -razzi |-ˈrätsē|) (usu. paparazzi) a freelance photographer who pursues celebrities to get photographs of them. ORIGIN mid 20th cent.: from Italian, from the name of a character in Fellini’s film La Dolce Vita (1960).
Did the people who fed this to the media think it was actually good publicity, given their take on where most Indians’ mindsets are?
Photographs or private lives of celebrities has nothing to do with Indian’s mindset, Gurudev. It is universal.
My knowledge of Scientology comes mostly from reading about Tom Cruise, and John Travolta.
ennis,
i know its off topic … but which one is it?
Sonia,
I didn’t mean to downplay the magnitude of this problem, I lived in India for better part of my life and my brother is a manglik. I don’t know of any manglik women but his in laws made him go through the prescribed poojas and rituals to mitigate his mangal dosha. Did he believe in it? may be not, he went through it for everyone’s peace of mind. On a lighter note, I have seen most pandits and astrologers become flexible about Mangal or any other doshas with the right amount of dakshina.
The latter, I mis-spoke. I’m selfish b/c I don’t want to bury my hypothetical wife.
Sonia – that explains a lot, actually – I never heard of a manglik man being a curse on his wife, only whispers about “well, you know, she was manglik” when the husband died prematurely.
Divya – I’m afraid there’s a whole world of social reality out there that can’t be wished away, it’s not just about taking or leaving what your textbooks say.
Silly SP — men can never be a curse, just like women can never be a blessing. Don’t you understand how things work? See below.
Of course the fact that the woman gives her whole life to the man is conveniently forgotten. Given that this is monthly fasting, is there any connection to the other monthly sacrifice a woman makes?
vaht’s life without a little jus, eh?
Those who believe in astrology have the understanding that certain planets placed in certain houses of your chart can effect you. There are ways to remedy the ill effects.
I’m not really into astrology but i have to say that i was AMAZED at what one astrologer knew of my past – simply by seeing what planet was placed where.
Cetain placements have possibilities (probabilities) and an astrologer just tells you what might possibly happen, or what might have possibly already happened, based on the placement of planets in your houses.
Example;
Saturn in the first house might raise the possibilities of one growing up without one or both parents, like that.
Doesn’t mean it’s a definite, but the possibility is there.
Kush, I would say again good point in general on the paparazzi, (BTW, I have seen the movie) – but don’t tell me announcing the engagement to coincide with the premiere of ‘Guru’ was a paparazzi conspiracy! Paparazzi exist, and celebrities know they exist, and they manipulate them when they can.
Hema – On the private conduct thing, I realize better now the distinction between legal and normative uses of the word – I grant the state would not be able to easily regulate marriages with trees. And if someone else marries a tree, that doesn’t harm me, so why should the state regulate it at all. OK. But surely I’m entitled to voice my queasiness about the private acts of a well-known personality when they become public?
But surely I’m entitled to voice my queasiness about the private acts of a well-known personality when they become public?
Absolutely! 🙂