Allow me to preempt someone from asking why I chose to write this story. No, really, let’s get it out of the way, this nimisham:
• Did this really have to be blogged?
• Slow news day?
• Aren’t X,Y and Q more important?
• And furthermore, doesn’t your lack of blogging X,Y and Q indicate that you are a heartless bitch who doesn’t care about Pakistan/the Nuke Deal/the environment/immigration??
Yes,
maybe,
perhaps and
refer to my finger, for that last one. It’s an extra-challenging week at work, so I can’t write anything dazzling, not that the performances which I usually phone in are sublime. I don’t have much time, but when something’s on my mind, it’s easier (read: cathartic) to type, so a “Musings†post it shall be.
Unless you were the last person to be found during hide and seek yesterday, you have heard the cringe-inducing-on-so-many-levels news about an Indian man “marrying†a dog (thanks, Aggiebabe). It is somewhat like the whole “Aish weds trees…twiceâ€-fiasco…except in TMBWITW’s case, she was doing it to compensate for her apparently unfortunate nakshatram and not because she had killed two trees.
An Indian man has “married” a female dog, hoping the move will help atone for stoning two other dogs to death.
P Selvakumar, 33, said he had been cursed since the killings, suffering paralysis and a loss of hearing.
The wedding took place at a Hindu temple in Tamil Nadu state. The “bride” wore an orange sari with a flower garland and was fed a bun to celebrate.
Superstitious people in rural India sometimes organise weddings to animals in the hope of warding off curses.[BBC]
Buried among the hundreds of jokes which punsters are giddily guffawing over (enjoy your free pass to bitch about how the bride is a bitch…but more on that later) is to me the most appalling aspect of this story; this man killed two innocent, defenseless creatures.
I didn’t know how he killed them until I settled in to my seat on the subway this morning and found out that he had stoned them. That detail bothered me so much, because my imagination doesn’t need any assistance in recreating actual events. Have you ever seen an animal cowering in front of a human? Yelping and whimpering out of fear and pain? It’s heartbreaking, but that’s what this so-called man saw, as he brutally stoned two dogs. I remember the way our late German Shepherds looked terrified and anxious, when they were merely being scolded…and that was after they had committed capital offenses, like uprooting our only curry leaf plant.These dogs must have been perplexed as to why they were being hunted down by this sadist. The whole crime makes that red, squishy thing in the middle of my chest ache a little bit. Achtung, it’s lame that I have to assert this, but I’m not some granola-lite, bleeding heart Aggie who puts the welfare of puppies over people—no, I’m someone who, like most of you, is well aware of the connection between perpetrating violence against animals and committing it on humans.
Many studies in psychology, sociology, and criminology during the last 25 years have demonstrated that violent offenders frequently have childhood and adolescent histories of serious and repeated animal cruelty. The FBI has recognized the connection since the 1970s, when its analysis of the lives of serial killers suggested that most had killed or tortured animals as children. Other research has shown consistent patterns of animal cruelty among perpetrators of more common forms of violence, including child abuse, spouse abuse, and elder abuse. In fact, the American Psychiatric Association considers animal cruelty one of the diagnostic criteria of conduct disorder. [woof]
Dogs and cats are simple, available targets, and practice makes perfect, if the definition of perfection involves torture and murder. What else has this person done? And to whom? And I recognize that I was born here, in the first world, that I am privileged because of that and thus view this news story through my very American eyes, but at least I’m aware of this heinous flaw o’ mine. At least I am ashamed that I have this privilege to be bothered by what some consider a triviality.
But he killed two dogs. That’s all my mind returns, when I pause between Outlook storms. Maybe I should add the Humane Society to my slowly-expanding list of Causes on Facebook, since I’m obsessed with this. And dogs in general (and this cat, but she’s the exception which proves the rule).
Back to our story- after slaying two canines, the groom lost his hearing and according to most stories I’ve read, became paralyzed. Obviously this is divine retribution for being such a flaming merde-bag, oui? Oui. How could one fix this? But of course! Have him marry a dog! Easy atonement, even as such atoning is gleefully retold the world over, ensuring that some desi kid at a less progressive, less diverse school– like the ones I went to– will be having a GREAT recess and lunch period.
Crowds cheered the newly-weds at the end of the ceremony in Sivaganga district, about 50km (30 miles) east of the city of Madurai.
The “bride”, who is called Selvi, was led to the temple in Manamudurai wearing a sari before vows were exchanged in a traditional Hindu ceremony.
A relative of the groom who attended the wedding said he hoped Mr Selvakumar would now be cured.
“Fifteen years back Selvakumar was physically fit. But, once he attacked a pair of dogs and thereafter Kumar could not move his limbs freely,” the relative, Ramu, told the BBC.
“He tried every cure for his ailment but could not be rid of his disability.
“On the advice of an astrologer and others, he decided to marry a bitch to get cured. Then we arranged Selvakumar’s marriage with a bitch.” [BBC]
Who is going to look after that bitch and protect her from abuse–no, I don’t want to get in the possibilities– or is the prevailing assumption that he’s learned his lesson and now will behave? Speaking of “bitchâ€, that is the final snag on my mental stockings—the B word. Is “bitch†commonly-used in India? Does it have the same connotations? Yes, it’s an even more trivial triviality, atop that other triviality, i.e. my soft shpot for dogs.
This entire story leaves me feeling weird and I don’t feel like I have the “privilege†to explore one of the other aspects of it, which is bothering me- religion. I don’t know enough about Hinduism and though I eat like one, I’m certainly not Hindu. What does this story tell the world (or us, or martians, or…) about religion and what we are willing to tolerate within it?
Then again, maybe there’s some weird Christian tradition that makes even less sense to some girl in Madurai*, I don’t know. Maybe she’s not even thinking of such things. Maybe she’s already rolled her eyes, written this off as mega-superstitiousness which has nothing to do with her or the life she leads, and moved on. I wish I could shake this or make sense of the maelstrom this story evoked within, as easily.
*the closest city to where this happened, I think.
I read the comment as a parody of itself. Maybe I was wrong. I don’t know what his faith is.
Has the marriage been consummated yet? If he becomes a US Citizen and wants to bring over his ‘bitch’ to the US, the ‘bitch’ cant come to the US unless the marriage has been consummated.
I’d… hit it? :S
I thought it might be parody, too…what’s unfortunate is that people with less familiarity with his comments won’t have such context. At the same time, I respect the “hey, that stings!” sensation. I feel it when people parody Christianity+ on here 🙂
Hey. Everyone who doesn’t know Al Chutiya (as if the handle doesn’t give it away), he’s not serious when he says mean things about Hindooos.
I think the story here is in the media coverage: Marriage occurs on the 11th. Tamil daily covers it on the 12th, including detailed reportage of Selvakumar’s horrendous act as well as a direct quotation from him as to what this means to him. It hits the international press the next day. The Times of India omits the quotation from Selvakumar, but ends with details of how he killed the dogs, but omits the quotation. The BBC and most other international outfits omit both and focus more on the wedding. Additionally, both the Times and BBC omit the date on which the wedding occurred.
So in the end, the widest coverage goes a bit like, “MAN MARRIES DOG!” and the when/why get left by the wayside.
I’m pretty familiar with his past comments, so I don’t feel embarassed if I didn’t catch this recent turn
For heavens sake, I was being facetious. I will try to be more clear the next time. I guess I am no Colbert.
Yeah, I didn’t mean you…by SM standards, you’re an elder statesman, at this point. 😉
Here’s the TOI story
Well I would
Not so much. Its use among some Republicans in the US is on the rise, though. In “Indian English”, it is mostly used for female dogs.
Ptr vivek- thank you for the tamil text – been a while since I have seen Tamil on a web page.
there is a tamil saying – Kallakanda naaya kaanam – naaya kandaa kalla kaanam. Trans : When you have a stone, there is no dog. When there is a dog there is no stone. I suppose stoning dogs goes way back.
Believing that bread and wine are the body and blood of jesus christ. The Immaculate Conception?
I dont belive there is an equivalent word in Tamil / Malayalam / Hindi. Am happy to be corrected. It does not carry any connotation of being evil as it does in ‘American’ ( cant really call it English).
Maybe I’m just cuss word-illiterate, but I thought ‘sali’ in Hindi was roughly equivalent to ‘bitch’?
The “bitch” quote is almost definitely a translation from whatever Ramu said in Tamil.
It conveniently gives license to anyone who wants to say “marry the bitch” as many times as they possibly can before the story gets old.
saali literally means sister-in-law hence the innuendo laden rhyme saali aadhi gharwaali (saali half wife). It also doubles as a mild form of a cuss word. While bitch can be used as a stronger cuss word, I don’t think using saali by itself would have the effect of a strong cuss word. Also, don’t think you can translate saali literally into bitch.
SM, All the italic font on your posts for some reason get completely unreadable in Google reader. FYI.
OK, I’m coming in mid-thread, and although Anna mentioned Hinduism toward the end of her post – I don’t really see the ‘man marries bitch’ story as being about Hinduism, unless everything anybody did in India was to be ‘Hinduism’ – in which case, someone would extend the logic to Christianity and Islam to bring them within the fold as well.
The difficulty is partly what louiecypher correctly points to – that the ‘progressive’ perspective will protest both the ‘Brahminical’ Hindu’s effort to distance himself from this kind of stuff, and also protest any expansive view of Hinduism which includes both stuff like this and Jainism and Buddhism and, in the ‘really expansive’ versions – even Sikhism, Indian Islam and Indian Christianity.
My way out of this is to say, all this about is this one man and the (to me) weird way he chose to atone. But I agree with Al-Chutiya that this will be seen in the larger world as being about Hinduism – and there will be bigots that will emphasize this point, and in the end, will make some, perhaps many, Hindus apologetic and embarrassed.
Still and all, a religio-spiritual tradition that sees the divine in non-human beings – whether trees or snakes or dogs – or indeed, sees the affirmation of a committed mating partnership as a spiritual act in itself – can’t be all bad (even if I can’t buy into all implications thereof) – and only points up the anthropocentrism inherent in so many other religious traditions.
Along the same lines as this occurrence in Sudan. The goat is dead, though the bitch is still alive. 🙂
chachaji,
But it’s not just about Selvakumar – it’s about the astrologer who told him that this would be the way to go about lifting the curse which had plagued him since shortly after his ‘sin,’ and there are plenty of these astrologers.
Also, I don’t really understand how stuff like this can be compared to the other religions you mentioned. I think the line is pretty clear: ask someone if they’re Hindu – if they say yes, they are. If they say no, they aren’t. Would most Jains, Sikhs, or Buddhists reply yes? This line of course gets muddled in terms of practices vis. recent conversions.
I think the easiest way to approach this from the perspective of someone who is Hindu and doesn’t agree with incidents like this is by saying, “I’m a Hindu. So is Selvakumar. And that’s great.”
I wonder if all this research extends to cruelty to animals called food (by way of the wonderful meat industry in the USA), or only applies to animals called pets. 😉 🙂
I don’t think Hindu self identification offers much explanatory power, especially to a Westerner whose definition of “religion” is quite different from that of people who follow Indic religions. So when you say that Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism are separate religions, the outsider will: a) Correctly guess that there are distinctions between genesis myths, (existence of) deities, ethics, metaphysics b) Incorrectly guess that adherents to these religions were scrupulously endogamous. c) Incorrectly believe that the variances meant continuous strife (as it did between the Western traditions)
And it is a meaningful distinction, I have seen many publications mistakenly classify the SL conflict as a religious rather than an ethnic/linguistic conflict. The LTTE doesn’t attempt to blow up relic containing viharas because the Buddhists are in error, Rightists Sinhalese monks don’t hate Tamils for their inability to understand the concept of “non-self”. The Left likes to perpetuate this myth to make all religions seem dysfunctional in the same way…which is altogether unecessary given that all religions are dysfunctional in different ways.
Is the TOI site safe now? Or is it still going to detonate our drives?
I agree with this. But then the logical extension is to ask someone if their definition includes behavior such as his, and also be prepared for whichever answer comes up.
The difficulty is that ‘Hindu’ has often been a portmanteau term, and also been used as a geographical and ethno-racial reference and descriptor – both by Europeans and Arabs and others. Historically, this meaning has often overlapped and sometimes coincided with the religio-spiritual. In other cases, people might say yes to the geographical or ethno-racial meaning, and no to the religio-spiritual. Outside of South Asia, many South Asians of Islamic and Christian faith find themselves being referred to as ‘Hindu’ by their non-South Asian co-religionists, who are using it to define their geographical and ethno-racial origin in the context of their religion. The first Sikhs in North America were called ‘Hindoos’. So all told, the history and current practice of the usage of a word like ‘Hindu’ is quite complicated.
i agree with divya and others – big deal. as long as he never commits a wanton cruel act against a voiceless creature again– can one judge others and accuse them of being ‘racist” against animals:) — and actually takes care of this dog and has a more humane outlook from now on, what’s the harm? i would be more upset if the dog actually endured any suffering in the ceremony, but it doesn’t seem so – it’s no more silly than people in the west who dress their dogs up for halloween (isn’t that torture too?) or marry them in churches. or those bizarre people who get drive-through, fast-food weddings in a gambling den, which is apparently legal.
all those worried about how this is going to affect their image in the west should wonder why they are more worried about the impact of what seems to be a harmless ceremony done with good intentions on their lives thousands of miles away than the actual man involved in the ceremony and his peace of mind, however he chooses to find it. and people in india are just as worried about the effect on their image by some weird things and behavior of their diaspora counterparts. the embarassment goes both ways:) You should be more worried about how the western press covers anything non-western, non-christian, such as calling durga puja a “bizarre” festival. the burden of stupidity is on the reporters and on the people who ask stupid questions. but we all see each other as bizarre anyways, so i guess it’s par for the course.
how is this any weirder than any number of rituals in churches, mosques, temples, synagogues and any number of weird, irrational things that are said in those places? in fact, many of the things said in those places of “higher” religions are often more harmful to the world than a man marrying a dog as an act of atonement.
This man is an ignorant individual who was merely following the advice of an “astrologer and others”. Not to say that he should not be blamed for killing 2 dogs; however, to link the murder of those dogs to personal aliments…and then to “atone” for those ailments through marriage… is a mindset that can be found only among the religiously illiterate.
In many ways, this man is as much of a victim as he is a culprit…(for what sane man would marry a dog unless goaded into it?)
Man marries bitch … so what’s new? :yawn:
“I don’t condone cruelty against animals, but I just have to point out that strays in India are different.”
not sure what you mean, but are you saying that strays in india are somehow more prone to chasing people? i think you’ll find that strays everywhere are the same, it’s the manner in which they are viewed and treated that differs from place to place and individual to individual.
Man marries bitch … so what’s new? :yawn:
And As per news, She even tried to run away mid-ceremony…. what a bitch !
Most commenters seem to be reading this as a religious thing.
Isn’t this an interesting comment on the notion of justice in India, though? It was a real enough solution that Kumar went through with it all the way. In this case, a crime was committed (the dude even admits to it), and some sadhus came up with a brilliantly elegant idea for dog murder. Marrying a dog is just (provided he actually treats this dog with love and kindness).
I can’t help but contrast this (admittedly weird) situation to the concept of justice in America. Justice is usually a function of the judicial system (and that’s a good thing, really), but it is therefore tied to the penal system almost exclusively. Here, or in Europe, a man who’s killed a dog could face jail time, or fines, or probation.
Justice is largely punitive once it’s codified, no? There’s not a lot of room for hijinks like “man-marries-dog” anymore. You get standardized punishments meted out as a form of bizarre economics: manslaughter carries less time than first degree murder, etc. I’m not saying it’s good or bad, just that it’s interesting to contemplate.
I suppose I should also state that I do not mean to imply that India does not have a fully functional justice system, which it does.
But the overall level of use of that system is rather less than in America.
In a weird way, it reminded me of that scene from Gandhi:
Not comparing humans and animals, but the basic idea in both cases seems to be the same: to teach compassion.
louiecypher (#71):
I’m lost. Which Left where likes to perpetuate this myth?
The question of what is and what isn’t “Hinduism” is a complex one. I will say that what is referred to as “Hinduism” today took form in medieval times and was promoted by the Shankarans in the successful Neo-Brahmanical counterattack against atheistic Buddhism, Jainism, Samkhya, Lokayata, etc. Most Indians aren’t aware that the Bhagavad Gita was used for the purpose of propaganda. I recommend “The Gita as It Was” by Phulgenda Sinha, a former U of Chicago scholar. He documents the theistic interpolations in the original Gita which wasn’t remotely theistic. Here is a review and link to whet your appetite:
“Sinha argues that the original Gita, which was based on the Samkhya and Yoga philosophies was much shorter (86 verses). The rest of the Gita are later interpolations done by a monists who wanted to further the interests of the priestly class (brahmins). The work is well researched and has many references. I am sure that the orthodox folks with a closed mind aren’t going to like this book.”
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812690257/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
One reason why something like this wouldn’t work in the USofA is because it would provide ammunition to the gay-hating religious right who would jump up an down with joy, shouting, “We told you so! We’ve been warning about this.” Illogical, but that’s how it’d play out.
I would agree that life is not particularly pleasant for dogs in India when viewed in comparison to companion animals in the West. The Indic religions of course do view animals as ensouled, whereas the Abrahamic religions do not, but at the end of the day this does not necessarily translate to better treatment of animals. Ahimsa towards animals is of course central to Jainism, but I’ve always thought of the original impetus of Brahminical vegetarianism to be the view of flesh & blood as being impure and mentally destabilizing. I’ve seen a program on the original “village dog”, light tan coat with curly tail, of India & SE Asia, apparently genetic studies show they came out of Africa alongside with the first modern human migrants to Eurasia. But the relationship was more of a loose understanding between early pastoralists/hunters and dogs that they would receive some scraps in exchange for guarding the band and flushing out prey. I don’t see that this relationship has changed much over time, no one is directly responsible for the care of these animals except for those relatively lucky working guard dogs that belong to farmers and indoor pets belonging to Westernized elites. I have seen petty cruelty on the streets, kids throwing crackers at frightened mutts. I see at least one dog roadkill mess per day of road travel in India, but then again buses don’t stop for humans either.
Amit (84):
Nevermind the reaction from the wingnuts. I think the main reason this wouldn’t work in America would be that it wouldn’t seriously be considered justice, either by the defendant or “the people.”
The Vijay Prashads, Anjana Chatterjees, and Pankaj Mishras of the world who see a Hindutvaadi in every Hindu. That kind of Leftist.
Why “Sala/Sale” is considered to be only a mild term of abuse (and it is) is one of those enduring mysteries of Desh.
To be perfectly direct…Sala=Brother-in-law=”I can do your sister any time I like, dude, and there’s nothing you can do about it, (ie “I’m the man”). And almost everyone who uses the term in India-Hindi speakers, anyway-fully understand the innuendo. But no one thinks it is a particularly vile term of abuse.
Sorry, but it had to be spelled out for general edification of SMers…
Boston Mahesh
If this man had fallen in love with the dog and married of his own volition, it may not be accepted. However, it was advised and arranged by an elder, an authority, maybe even a religious figure, so it’s all good. Mutual love (unarranged) marriages between same species same sex partners in India do not merit the same acceptance by the wider culture.
louiecypher (#87):
And you’ve gleaned this from their writing on Sri Lanka??
Prashad’s “Letter to a Hindu”, Mishra’s op-ed pieces. Their broad characterizations of the Hindus who had objections to elements of the Cal text books as “Hindu fundamentalists”. Pretty safe extrapolation of their views based on the above. We’re not going to agree, best spend your efforts elsewhere (e.g. Oy ! bootcamp, ASATA propaganda)
Sakshi @81, it reminded me of that scene, too. But that’s why somewhere up-thread I asked about having him adopt the dog vs marrying it. I think it’s that aspect of the atonement that furrows my brow.
Salil, very true.
“But that’s why somewhere up-thread I asked about having him adopt the dog vs marrying it. I think it’s that aspect of the atonement that furrows my brow.”
probably because he felt he had been cursed and thus needed the security of religious sanction and a religious rite. marriage is one of the most important rites/bonds in india and in “hinduism” or whatever you want to call it. why do people feel the need to atone/show their fervour/get rid of a curse by wearing devices that cut into them and make them bleed or “walk” on their bloodied knees for miles or have an exorcism overseen by a priest? or why does one claim atonement of one’s own sins via the death of another? in each of these cases, there probably is a less “bizarre” way to atone/show one’s dedication/compassion.
This is highly amusing since Tamils love to brag for hours on end about how “great” their culture is, how “ancient” it is, and how “civilised they are. So now we can add marrying dogs to female infanticide, suicide bombers, child soldiers, cyanide capsules, drug traficking, prostitution, credit card fraud and inter-ethnic murders. Way to go!
Thank God for the WGA strike.
what does this have to do with Hinduism? If he had been Christian and received similar counsel from a priest and married the dog in a Church, it doesn’t make it a Christian ritual does it?
louiecypher,
No, I suppose we’re not likely to agree any time soon, but I am genuinely curious as to how you got to Indian Leftists from the Sri Lankan conflict. I didn’t see your logic at all.
assuming particular religious priors i can see this sort of behavior (i.e., marrying a dog to restore balance to the world, etc.) being totally intelligible and logical. in the united states every few years we have some unlettered types who engage in exorcisms that take a physical turn. i recall one case where eyes were gouged out from a woman who was believed by her family (and herself) to be possessed by the devil. well, read the bible. demonic possession exists. and people cast out demons through the power vested in them through the charisma of the holy spirit. i don’t believe in any of that stuff, but it is rather interesting to see conservative authorities who have to figure out whether to prosecute how they deal with people quoting passages from the ‘acts of the apostles’ back at them. like i said before, there’s no such thing as religious neutrality. if you believe in demonic possession gouging someone’s eyes out might be the logical thing to do.
(the case i’m thinking about the woman who lost her eyes didn’t want charges pressed, she believed she’d been possessed and so the removal of her eyes were necessary)
Uh, yeah it would, to me. And I’d be just as perplexed and vaguely disturbed. I’d also be just as likely to blog about it, if it involved a desi angle and if I had the time to write it.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at, especially since you’ve never commented before, so I don’t have context…but I wasn’t trying to be disrespectful by asking the questions I did, in case you need me to state that even more blatantly.