When you’re visibly pregnant and riding the NYC subway with a book titled “Family Planning” in hand, you’re bound to draw stares and curious gazes. Such was my experience earlier this month as I traveled on the downtown 1 with 25 year old Karan Mahajan’s laughter-inducing yet tender first novel in hand. In this Brooklyn-based, New Delhi-born author’s debut work (HarperPerennial, 2008) set in contemporary New Delhi, family life, politics, adolescent love, and prime time soap operas intertwine in entertaining and unexpectedly moving ways. 
At the heart of this story is the chaotic household of Rakesh Ahuja, a hard of hearing, America returned engineer who holds a prestigious position as New Delhi’s Minister of Urban Development. Apart from the bureaucratic and political challenges that face him at work (he’s in charge of a laborious flyover construction project and part of a political party that sponsors intolerable bills such as the Diversity of the Motherland Act which calls for the compulsory registration of all Muslims “for reasons of diversity and national security”), Rakesh is beset by his own personal dramas at home.
The father of 13 children (and one more en route), he must deal with the trauma of having had his teenage son Arjun walk in on him having sex with his wife in the baby nursery. Understandably, Arjun asks, “Papa, I don’t understand–why do you and Mama keep having babies?”
While he has to figure out a way to explain himself to his son (“Obviously, Mr. Ahuja couldn’t tell his son that he was only attracted to Mrs. Ahuja when she was pregnant” reads the first line of the novel), this is not the only secret Mr. Ahuja has been keeping from his son, master babysitter and eldest of 12 younger siblings and darling of his mother, Mrs. Ahuja, an unattractive woman whose days are spent changing diapers, managing her vast household, knitting, and recovering from the loss of her favorite TV character Mohan Bedi from Zee-TV soap opera, “The Vengeful Daughter-in-Law.” There’s also the bit of information about Rakesh’s first wife, Arjun’s mother, who suffered a tragic death and who continues to haunt his unhappy existence. Meanwhile there’s Arjun, an awkward teen so madly in love with Aarti, a Catholic school beauty who rides the morning bus with him that he’ll do anything to get her attention–even start a rock band with a bunch of classmates.
Yes, there’s a great deal happening in Mahajan’s novel; many competing heartbreaks and dramas. And yet, as a reader, I was pulled in just as much by Mahajan’s observant and sensitive eye as I was by his ability to create satirical scenarios that reflect some of the complexities and paradoxes of social and political life in today’s India.
Read the rest of this review and a Q&A with Mahajan, whose sense of humor is as refreshing in the interview format as it is in his prose, below the fold. None of the Ahuja family’s plans go quite right during the course of this tale. When Minister Ahuja writes his resignation letter to protest the “Diversity of the Motherland Act,” he expects to be supplicated to stay in his position. Quite the opposite. He discovers that his authority means little in a system wrought with personal power struggles. As for Arjun, his rock band has its own set of challenges, not the least of which is the fact that none of its members can really carry a tune. And, Mrs. Ahuja watches as her eldest son assumes the persona of a “stepson” and distances himself from the rest of the family.
If you’re in the midst of stocking your summer bookshelves (or perhaps are looking for something to read during the ongoing Indian elections?) and want a book that manages to be both humorous and insightful, “Family Planning” may well be for you. While offering us a charming comic tale of crossed wires and family drama, Mahajan simultaneously (and subtly) examines the theme of power — the power that is wielded in the outside world versus what is wielded at home; the power parents wield against children versus what children wield against parents; and the power politicians wield against citizens versus the power wielded by politicians against their very own.
Q&A with Karan Mahajan
Q. You describe the experience of discovering a school of Indian authors once you came to college in the US and describe your childhood reading as a “fairly standard colonial diet of Enid Blytons, P.G. Wodehouses, and Agatha Cristies.” What was it like to come upon novels by Indian voices when you did? How did that shape or inspire you as a writer?
I only began reading Indian writers after I went to the US for college, and my approach to them was very argumentative: I saw in 
their way of relating to western readers–whether through cultural exposition, exoticism, Indian-isms, or a complete denial of the issue of audience altogether–strains of my own (initial) discomfort about being a foreigner in the US. Which is why it was thrilling to read Rushdie, Narayan, and Naipaul in close succession. These writers had solved the problem of audience by being utterly singular, and pouring their self-consciousness into style and story, and the lessons I learned from them are invaluable. I read them now as I did then because they are brilliant writers, not because they have Indian surnames.
Q. Would you describe the literary scene in India today as different than what you were exposed to during your childhood? What are your observations about your generation of Indian writers?
Great question. There are just so many Indian writers in English now. It drives me crazy. I want to be special again.
But in all seriousness, Indian writing in English is much more of a homegrown phenomenon than it was in the past, and this means that we’re going to see fresh writing come out of the provinces in addition to the metropolises. Many of these writers will be writing for an Indian audience, and this will mean that they can be far more topical and contextual in their subject matter. But I can’t make any guesses about the quality or universality of these books.
Q. The novel is about the English-speaking middle class (of which you are a part), but from what I understand you have no connection to political life. What were the opportunities and challenges of writing a novel about a political figure, set in a subculture of which you were not a part?
The main challenge was being authentic about the milieu without being constrained by reality. I find among Indian writers and editors a complete mania for authenticity: they’d rather describe with painful exactitude a religious ritual or the passage of a Parliamentary bill rather than alter details to suit their story, and I wanted to know enough about politics to take liberties with it. So I took the usual steps: I researched, I interviewed, I eavesdropped, I Googled, and then I threw it all away and did exactly what I pleased. I write fiction, not documentary, and I want to keep the world safe for fabricators.
Q. American educated, Indian returned administrative official and politicians like Rakesh Ahuja are rare, are they not? Do you know any? 🙂
I wish I knew some! But a lot of politicians—Nehru, Manmohan Singh, even the aspiring Shashi Tharoor—have had stints abroad and there’s the recent trend of IIT graduates starting their own idealistic political parties, and so the idea of the America-returned political animal didn’t seem totally implausible. That was my point from the outset: to insert a man with the qualifications of a Rajiv-Gandhi-crony into present-day Parliament, and to see how he’d use his “outsider” status effectively, or, as in the case, of Mr. Ahuja, ineffectively, by descending into hubris and trying to impose an upper-middle-class idea of order on a crazed city.
Q. The book, you say, “began with the question: what in the world would prompt a middle-class couple in contemporary, urban India to have a large family?” Though you were aiming not to perpetrate stereotypes, isn’t the stereotype of the large Indian family and lack of family planning in India is one that exists in the West?
I’d disagree that it’s a stereotype, but even if it is one, I go to great lengths to paint the family as unique in its strangeness and dysfunction.
Q. Writing about sex and sexual dysfunction: Was that something you consciously set out to do? What do you anticipate the response will be to these themes in India when your book is published there? Were editors in India open or skeptical?
It’s difficult to say, but I do think people will have a hard time with the book, and many will dismiss it as unsavory. Uncles and aunties will talk about me behind my back, and say, “Look what happens when you people send your children to US.” Offers of arranged marriage will be withdrawn. My mother and father, ever supportive, will be mercilessly interrogated. Eventually I hope there will be book-burnings.
There are things about my book, looking back, that I would perhaps do differently–I started writing it when I was twenty–but the sexual content is not one of those things. I am drawn to writing about the private lives of individuals; I want to burst through their doors and into their bedrooms. And that desire is enhanced by the fact that there is almost no serious discourse about sex or sexual dysfunction or gender dynamics in middle-class Indian media, and that books, written by individuals, free from the snarl of commerce or committees, allow us to say things that TV or film simply cannot.
Whether anyone wants to hear these things is another matter.
Well, I agree with Dharmachakra that it would be very disturbing for me if I grew up with my parents having sex in the same room as me, thought to be fair, they do it only because they are poor and lack privacy and they only do it when the children are asleep and they do it quietly. Still, you know that sometimes kids wake up in the middle of the night and realize whats going on…………….
So Dharmachakra is speaking from a privileged point of view too. His parents had their own room so he didn’t have to get exposed to their lovemaking sessions.
Its one thing to teach your kids about sex but its something entirely different for a kid to see her/his parents having it. Its just not something any of us want to see and be stuck with that image in our minds.
As far as Sita Ram, I’m not going to get into that more than I already have. I worship them as Gods but their example as a married couple is not functional. Yet they are still held up as an example in India, especially for us women. I have no problem with their examples in other areas, but as a couple, no, not a good example.
Of all the myriad ways in which poor children can be mentally scarred, I think an awareness of their parents’ sexuality is one of the most benign.
Based on what exactly?
Based on his suspicion of, trial of, and abandonement of her and her dependency on him.
Like you said, it was a different time and culture, so their example is not one to follow today. Its a disservice to women to tell them to “be like Sita”.
Women today have nothing to “proove” to a man. Take us as we are or don’t take us. We can move on.
Being so casual about marital infidelity kind of undercuts the entire point of marriage in the first place.
Wives and husbands are expected to be faithful to each other. I don’t see what is so awful about that.
And your attitude is one of the worst legacies that the Sita Rama Legend has left behind.
Where in the world does infidelity figure into the equation?
That spouses are supposed to be faithful to each other?
Really terrible society we’d live in there where adultery is looked down on. How oppressive.
@ Mr. Morning After Pill I am sorry Ms. Morning After Pill if I really hurt you. I haven’t seen that comment, and I regret for that.
You said that you have read epics and spiritual books. Can you mention a few of them? The great epics are narrative poem telling of a hero’s deeds. And spiritual books always take about the spirit, which is present in every living form. So both the type of books you have read hardly give any information about gurukuls. You seem to be understanding caste in the way the British and other colonialist have understood. To understand caste read this: http://hinduwisdom.info/Caste_System.htm The social order in India is built like that since ancient times. It’s a patriarchal society. I don’t know the reasons why it was built like that, but I strongly feel that there are some valid unknown reasons for that.
Your stance on caste marriages is highly contradictory. I know hell number of people who don’t care of caste anymore. I have seen few of my neighbors marring people from other state and caste. My best friend is going to marry a girl from Himachal Pradesh. And a lot of people have no nitpick about that. Even the women who are marring have no complaints against it. If women feel bad about the way the society is conducted, then why don’t they start a feminist revolution?
So I hereby strongly feel that women are highly satisfied with the way things are going on in this society. So it is the greatness of women for accepting such a way of life. That’s why women in Hinduism are adored like no other religion. Can you imagine Vijayadashami in other religions.
You seem to have no knowledge of what women are like in ancient times. The culture was not setup like that, but was modified like that. Is modified because always the male thought that he is superior in strength, but didn’t realized that he nowhere comes near to the mental strength of female. The plight of women is as old as humanity itself. But I strongly believe that women in this religion have enjoyed a greater privileges that others. I see women having hell number of festivals from the time they are born. And if we transform ourselves from the present plight to a better society, then I am sure Hindu women will be the best in the world.
The epic Ramayana is wonderful piece of study by one and all in this society. You don’t need to literally do what they have done in their times. You should look at the spiritual level. How great is Rama after he obeyed his father decree? How great sita is when she followed Ramachandra footsteps without murmur? You don’t seem to realize the great love, affection among those characters. You shouldn’t take everything literal. You don’t know what kind of conditions is prevailing in his kingdom after his return. Ramachandra is Dharma Prabhu. You should know ideal characters of a king. There is a very great saying in Telugu by Gurajada Venkata Apparao “Desamante matti kaadoyi, desamante manushuloyi” meaning, A country is not made of land; a country is made of its people. If you don’t study the spiritual bonding between Rama and Sita and try to emulate what the west is practicing then you will probably end up with a failed relationship. But I do see and look up to Rama and Sita, not merely as a relationship but the kind of spiritual bonding that they shared during times of high and low.
that is absolutely not what morning after said, your translation of her statement that women have nothing to prove to a man into a statement that questions the fidelity of the woman is the problem here.
Please convey my regards to your friend for baring with you. It does take the perversion to a whole ‘nother level.
@ Ms. Morning After Pill
Do you think science is complete? If you think science explains every thing then let me remind you that science doesn’t answer everything. Science stops, where, spirituality start. So you haven’t read anything on the life experiences of great saints and sadvis of this country. But let me tell you pretty straight. So long you don’t control your vices; you will be suffering till you practice the virtues. It is only those virtues that bring heaven in a moment in once life. It is only because of virtues that once life becomes fulfilled. If you are not living a virtuous life then there is no point in taking birth in the form of human being. If we Humans start thinking like animals, then what really is this life about? If we don’t understand the higher purpose of our life then why do we need to be born as Humans? It is because of his vices and virtues only a human is respected in this world. Human can be as bad as an animal and as good as a GOD. It is up to your choice which way to follow.
definitely pornography. savita bhabhi is clearly healthier than theolder kids.
We were discussing Sita’s exile no? The whole point was that her fidelity was in question and that’s what she had to “prove to a man” (although in the case of the Ramayana she was not proving it to Rama so much as to the subjects of Ayodhaya, male and female alike.)
And I don’t see where you assumed it questions the fidelity of the woman specifically. I said the entire time that husbands and wives should be faithful to each other. It puts responsibility on the man as well.
@ Yoga Fire
Those principles are universal. So they apply to all humans. It is indeed true that even Catholics don’t bother about them. But that doesn’t stop us from absorbing those ideas. It is wonderful to see how different cultures, religions have so many commonalities.
Man, that’s what Kamasutra is all about. In Hinduism we have sutras, Shastras for every thing. When you are born we have Annaprashan. When we are dead then we have a funeral tradition. In a similar fashion one should learn sex from temples like khajuraho and scriptures like Kamasutra. One should not take the help of pornography or should not learn from street children. One should learn definitely with the help of parents and a wise pundit.
It makes sense that different cultures would arrive at similar conclusions given that we are all trying to interpret and make sense of the human condition. But I’d say that Christianity tends to take the prudery a little too far. Especially since the Victorian era.
What’s more, the Victorian era sensibilities that were imposed on India during the Raj have made Indians integrate that prudery as part of Hinduism in a way that I don’t believe is entirely healthy. Yea we shouldn’t be exposing kids to anything too raunchy at too young an age, but there are worse things in the world than to see sex being had.
@ Ms. Morning after pill You said that you read epics and it seems to be that you haven’t really understood Ramayana. Their relationship can be looked as ideal even nowadays. One should not see with the present day lens. Life consists of all forms of emotions. And the real challenge is not when you are single, but when you are married. If you stumble to petty emotional conflicts and its costs your relationship then do you thing that you really have a relationship? In spite of many emotional calamities if your relationship is till there, don’t you think it’s a great and terrific relationship. Also one should look always at the spiritual bonding rather than physical one. Marriage is like a triangle. The GOD resides at one vertex and husband and wife at the other two vertices. When both of them pray to god they start moving slowly to the GOD’s vertex at which they are united. This what has happened to Rama and Sita. That’s why I consider Rama as Maha purusha(Great Spirit) and Sita a Punya Sthree (virtuous lady)
Yoga Fire, you jumping straight into the trap and becoming Exhibit A for exactly what I’m talking about.
That Sita’s legacy is STILL related to infidelity, so many centuries, milleniums, AFTER she was KIDNAPPED is proof of my pudding.
Don’t you get it?
If anyone’s fidelity should have been questioned it should have been Rama’s. Afterall, he was roaming freely as Sita was trapped in the jail of her kidnapper’s home. There’s no telling what he did during that time, or with whom.
That a woman who was victimized in the way Sita was would be questioned, “did you like it”, is apprehensible.
yes, that is the only way marriages flourish.
ok, this is really perverse. parents??? that’s too much yaar. and pandits are so ugly yaar. maybe a smart bra
hman?There is a familiar saying in Telugu (may be in others too)that when you do it (sex) by the book (shastra) you end up having puppies(not human kids)as progeny. Just cautioning.
That is the silliest thing I’ve ever heard. It should be done the way it has always been done- Naughty magazines secretly swapped in classrooms,(my text books were ‘debonair’ and ‘mastram’), playground exposition by ‘experienced’ seniors, and finally secret experimentations. The rest is instinct. Nobody teaches a lion how to hunt.
Although I certainly don’t agree with some of dharmacakra’s points about curtailing literary license to avoid mature themes (sorry dc, freedom of speech is important no matter how abhorrent), I think the point he is trying to make about sex ed is that parents talking to their kids about the “birds and the bees” is healthy. I don’t think that’s the same as having them demonstrate (which obv isn’t the intention when there’s 8 to a 1 room residence), but studies in the west have also shown that parents who bring up the topic in a responsible fashion end up raising kids who are less likely to start prematurely or engage in risky behavior. Whether you are a feminist or a religious traditionalist, there’s nothing wrong with making sure women (and men) respect themselves and don’t engage in cavalier, self-destructive behavior. In that respect, he does have a point.
Ms. Morning After Pill,
I see your point about Rama and Sita, but I think you’re reading a bit too much into the Sita “getting jilted” factor. As yoga pointed out, he didn’t know she was pregnant. The Ramayana as an epic is supposed expound the importance of duty. Rama was treated unjustly by the actions of Kaikeyi (instigated by her servant), but because of his duty to his father, he accepted Dasaratha’s orders. A son must respect his father that is the message. As for Sita, again, Rama’s actions were not due to cowardice or or his personal questions about fidelity, but rather because his duties as a King came first. That is the message. I know your concern is that he should “stand by his woman” if he were a true exemplar (which I can certainly understand), but the message of the Ramayana is that the true exemplar also must execute his/her duties to society even before family. If his love for Sita were the only factor, he would’ve ordered Hanuman to rescue her from lanka (as Hanuman suggested to Sita), but that would defeat the purpose of the avatar, which was to punish Ravana for his arrogance (he was originally a sage who became corrupted by pride). So I think you’re being a little hard on Rama.
Also, don’t mean to be “that guy”, but I think you mean reprehensible not apprehensible–sorry, just being polite. Later
Satyajit Wry, I get what you’re getting at and that is why I said that Sita Ram can be seen as exemplars of many things – duty towards subjects, parents, etc, but they are not exemplars in the intimate man-woman relationship department.
MMAP, hmm, I don’t know, since the point is that our decisions must be based on all of our duties, not just the ones that we have to our loved ones. After all, Rama refused the advances of surpanaka, was heartbroken when he had to ask Sita to leave, and begged her to return to Ayodhya when he found out she had borne Lava and Kusha (and there is certainly no mention of any infidelity on his part even after she left). He was someone who deeply loved and defended his wife and was faithful to her. I know a lot of things end up being subject to personal interpretation (and you’re obviously entitled to your views), so I’ll just leave it at that, but the overarching theme of the Ramayana is that we shouldn’t just be guided in life by our selfish needs or personal desires. In the spirit of Trekmania that has sweeped the nation (ok, maybe not), “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one”…
What are you talking about? Sita’s legacy is of being the perfect wife. Most people who have not read the right translations of the Ramayana don’t even know about her being exiled after Rama assumes the throne. You specifically mentioned the exile due to charges of infidelity and are then complaining that I’m talking about the subject you brought up yourself?
Or maybe the people of Ayodhaya, having known Rama since he was a child, were already well aware that he was no ordinary man? Or maybe the fact that polygamy was common at the time (as evidenced by Dasaratha’s multiple wives) would have meant that Rama wouldn’t have even been judged on those grounds even though he kept himself up to a higher moral standard than society would hold for him?
She did allow a strange man into her home while her husband was away you know? It’s not fair that she was kidnapped, and it’s not fair that people would spread invidious rumors about her. But that’s the point! The point is that it wasn’t fair to her, but for the good of the kingdom she left anyway. That’s what makes her so great. She put her duty above herself.
SM Intern. Where are you? Has Dharmachakra abducted you? Please save this thread.
Yoga Fire 73 “She did allow a strange man into her home while her husband was away you know?”
So? Most married women in India allow strange men into their homes all the time — the plumber, the electrician, the dhobi. Should all Indian husbands demand an Agni Pareeksha?
The point that Ms Morning After Pill is making is that fidelity in the Ramayana is male-defined. Nowhere in the epic does Sita ask for proof of Rama’s fidelity. The onus is on Sita, the wife, to prove her fidelity to Rama, not vice-versa. Even if she had demanded proof, we all know that Hindu women do not have the social sanction to spurn their husbands the way Hindu men do. We aren’t talking about mutuality and reciprocality here, lets get real.
MMAP is right in saying that Sita’s legacy is harmful to women. In the popular understanding of the tale, Ram’s abandonment of Sita is often interpreted as a man having the right to question and demand proof of his wife’s fidelity. Fidelity is not a mutual requirement.
Yoga Fire, how come there are no epics about women suspecting their husbands/demanding proof of husbandly fidelity?
OTOH, men spurning/abandoning women is a common theme in most Hindu mythology — Vishwamitra and Maneka, Dushyant and Shakuntala. The other common theme is a woman’s wifely devotion, Satyavan Savitri, Rama and Sita, Gandhari and King Dashratha.
A Hindu woman is exhorted to be a good, ‘obedient’ wife in countless tales and parables. The festival of Karva Chauth, Sati, the Manusmriti — its always the woman’s duty to be a good wife. I didn’t know of any mythological tradition that exhorts men to be good husbands in quite the same way. Yep, contrary to Dharmachakra’s assertions, the Sanatana Dharma is hopelessly partiarchal.
Dont forget that the obsession with sons is also because only sons may light their parent’s funeral pyre and guarantee then a place in heaven. We all know what the consequences of this particular tradition are, don’t we?
She was asking for it?
This is the kind of inanity you get when you apply sociological theories with no understanding of historical or economic context.
It was a polygamous society back then! What do you want from him? He stayed monogamous even though nobody expected it of him. And beyond that, it’s not hard to imagine why there is more of an onus on women to stay loyal. It’s not about oppressing women for the fun of it, it’s about the fact that it’s logistically impossible for a husband to cuckold his wife. Get that? Since it was regarded as the husband’s duty to bring in the resources necessary to support a child, it was the wife’s duty to ensure that the child he is supporting is actually his. The reason husband’s are supposed to not sleep around is because doing so means some other poor sap is going to be cuckolded. This was widely regarded as “a dick move.”
If you think that’s what the Ramayana is about you really need to reread it. Like I said, most regular folks don’t even know about the Agni Prakasha. I’ve read one translation where that episode gets left out altogether. To take one chapter of an enormous epic and insist that this is what the entire story is about is patently dishonest.
Oh yea. It’s not like Rama had to go to war against the mightiest king of the time to save her or anything. Nope, he clearly fulfilled no obligations towards Sita whatsoever.
Put yourself in an Ayodhayan’s shoes. Knowing people’s propensities towards engaging in prurient gossip and rumor-mongering would you really be surprised that rumors would fly?
If you’re going to read everything through the feminist theory lens then I wouldn’t be surprised you wouldn’t notice it. Most of the systemic bias in analysis of myths and history is done through a patriarchal world-view. When it’s done from a feminist perspective it is almost always done in a reactionary, anti-patriarchal way rather than a balanced study that broadens the scope of the dialogue. Hence, traditionalists who read the stories will read into it the stuff that’s interesting to them (naturally excluding the obligations that they are being expected to uphold) and feminists who read the stories look for ways to rebel against the rules being suggested for them rather than looking for the similar rules that are supposed to fall on the other side of the coin.
Have you noticed how most of the instances of weakness or bad behavior on the part of husbands visit consequences upon their families to illustrate why it’s bad? Yudishtira has a weakness for dice and as a consequence nearly compromises Draupadi’s honor. The point is “Hey guys, don’t be gullible saps or you’re going to end up hurting your loved-ones.”
Rewind just a thousand or so years in the past. Not only do boys die or get maimed more often than girls due to being more prone to illness, but also because boys are expected to do more physically demanding and dangerous work in the fields or at war. Hence, at equilibrium the gender ratio is dramatically tilted towards women. On top of that, death-rates are high in general so in order for society to continue to survive it has to adopt aggressively pro-natalist norms to keep birth-rates high enough to keep up. Otherwise there aren’t enough people to work the fields and everyone starves. That is if your village manages to luck out and avoid being raided by bandits who hear about how you have few young people who are capable of putting up a fight.
Now do you think it’s valid to take the moral standards of the modern age, where better technology improves the survivability of men, the ability of families to plan ahead, and a government’s ability to smooth out economic downturns so that the continuation of civilization no longer depends upon having a harvest every single year, and apply it to another era that is completely alien to our’s? Does that make sense to you because it certainly doesn’t to me.
Yoga Fire, you’re making two different, and mutually incompatible arguments. On the one hand, you insist that the Ramayana has to be understood in light of its particular cultural context, on the other hand you chafe as MMAP’s suggestion that Rama and Sita are not necessarily suitable marital exemplars for all time (By the way, MMAP is Pardesi Gori, but she’s talking sense here). Upthread, you suggested that the Ramayana upholds mutual fidelity with no gender bias, but in your last post you suggest that the epic’s ethos prescribes different duties for men and women. You would do well to choose one argument and stick to it.
By the way, Preeti is completely right that the Ramayana has had pernicious real-world effects on women – during Partition many men refused to take back their raped womenfolk, because, after all, “Rama didn’t take back Sita”. Nevertheless, there is liberatory potential for women in the Ramayana, even in Sita’s exile. One could take away from it a message that when a woman has endured enough from her husband, she can count on unconditional support from her mother (and it would be nice if women who are abused in their marital homes could always count on that sort of support in their natal homes – in many cases, they can’t).
i don’t know why people are so upset at yoga fire. everybody knows that today if the bitch steps out, you pop a couple in her. and the dude she stepped out with. that’s just how it goes down if you want to keep the respek among your peeps. and that’s what ram did.
but you respond, “analy-sis, what you say sounds very reasonable as always, though there is one issue – sita didn’t step out. she was abducted, it wasn’t her fault. why then?” which is why the ideal man only set her on fire.
Yoga Fire, that is my point! Why are Sita Rama held up TODAY as the ideal couple?
Like you said, “does that makes sense to you because it certainly doesn’t to me”.
if a rumor flies, set your woman on fire. if she survives, she is yours. if she dies of third degree burns, she never was.
Hindu ethics has never been centered around action, but intentionality and mindset. The gist of the relationship between Rama and Sita is that they have essentially subsumed their own personal needs to consider themselves as a unit, living not for themselves but for each other. I don’t see what’s not exemplary about that. The actions you must judge based on the context of the time, but PG isn’t judging the action she’s judging the actor.
Are you sure you’re not confusing me with Dharmachakra? I’m not sure I understand your point here. I said the Ramayana upholds mutual fidelity as an ideal. I also pointed out that the culture at the time was polygamous. My point was that Rama stuck to the ideal even though society didn’t expect it of him. The rest of it was an anthropological account as to why societies have always put a higher premium on fidelity among women than men.
Beyond that, having different duties for men and women does not mean you are biased against one or another. A doctor can take gifts exceeding $20 from a drug rep but a politician cannot do the same from a lobbyist. Different people have different dharmas. That doesn’t mean we are discriminating against one group, it means that depending on your situation your obligations are going to vary. You can grant that people have equality in terms of fundamental rights without necessarily requiring that they be identical in every way.
Rama’s actions were unified with Sita. To preserve his reputation he broke that unity first questioning her, then the trial by fire, then casting her out. Where is this “unity” that you speak of ?
Rama’s actions were unified with Sita
should be…………
Rama’s actions were not unified with Sita
One chapter in a very very long epic.
And a chapter whose message was that as a King he had to put his kingdom above everything else. You see, people have multiple hats that they have to wear throughout life and you can’t look at any one in isolation.
And even after Sita left he took no other wives and later asked her to come back, meaning despite her absence he still considered her to be spiritually connected to him.
Yoga Fire, this was one very long epic with a lot of stuff going on it, we know that.
But the legacy that this particular episode has left behind for Indian women today in 2009 …………
Yoga Fire, that is my point! Why are Sita Rama held up TODAY as the ideal couple?
Like you said, “does that makes sense to you because it certainly doesn’t to me”.
And just to complete the circuit and spare anyone the burden of having to follow the logic to its end, that means that he executed his husbandly duties as well as possible given the fact that he was the king.
So we are in agreement then that while they may have been exemplars for their time and space in the intimate male-female relationship zone, they are not exemplars in that same zone in today’s time and space. In fact, if you apply the same in today’s time and space, it becomes more than just a bit problematic.
Do you honestly think that the only reason women have it hard in India is because of the Ramayana? Really? There couldn’t possibly be other sociological and cultural reasons going on that make people read the Ramayana the way they do?
I already explained this: Hindu ethics has never been centered around action, but intentionality and mindset. The gist of the relationship between Rama and Sita is that they have essentially subsumed their own personal needs to consider themselves as a unit, living not for themselves but for each other. I don’t see what’s not exemplary about that. The actions you must judge based on the context of the time, but PG isn’t judging the action she’s judging the actor. The right actions change with context, but the right values, the right priorities, and the right mind-set does not.
Amba, et al,
Finally, name an ancient religious epic that couldn’t somehow be deemed patriarchal? Name an ancient religious tradition that couldn’t somehow be deemed patriarchal. That was the nature of global society back then. They knew that unbridled individualism would lead to societal breakdown, and there had to be order (rta) for righteousness (dharma) to prevail. Man was the hunter/protector, woman the gatherer/nurturer because they were biologically assigned those roles. Unless you were a mythological Amazon, that was how society functioned because duties have to be divided somehow. Finally, no society has celebrated the mother as much as hindu civilization. The level of respect afforded to her is unparalleled (“mere paas ma hai”, “mathru devo bhava”, “mother is the first guru”), so if you guys want to spend all your time talking about women being oppressed in hindu society, at the very least, broaden your scope beyond “intimate relations” to get a fuller understanding of the society you enjoy condemning. I don’t know if you guys are just being facetious or not, but i think dharmachakra’s point about your needing to sit down with a Pandit, rather than a gender identity academic, to properly interpret the important messages here might not be off the mark…
Nope. I’m judging the actions. All of them, Rama’s and Sita’s.
I still worship them as God in the mandir, so I’ve got nothing against them as actors/Gods.
Its their actions in regards to their marital relationship that I question.
@ anal-ysis and @ Lupus Solitarius Guys you should rally open your eyes wide. There is always a great saying that “old is always gold”. How can humans handle their basic instincts when they are not mature? All the problems the west is facing right now like premarital sex, teenage sex, broken families and relationships and countless number other problems have started with that small basic instinct. Every thing starts small and when it grows big then it will totally control you and you will end up in problems. The western society is a practical example of what we are seeing. Yes, nobody teaches a lion how to hunt. But we are not lions or tigers, we are humans. God has given us mental capability to judge what is right and wrong. We have the potential to control our selves to an unimaginable extent. As we are all born in India we should know what our swamiji’s, sadhvis have been preaching since time immemorial. The situation hasn’t even changed now. At least we have huge information technology resources to spread their message. But again people are becoming more and more ignorant and mundane. The west has been recognizing the importance of Indian spirituality. There are many people who are practicing Indian yoga, Meditation and following Vedic Dharma. But why are our people foolishly sidelining those practices and imitating new ones. The concept of Brahmacharya is such a wonderful concept. I don’t how many have really understood it and are practicing. That’s why our rishis are no ordinary men and women. They have clearly predicted what all the things will happen in this kali Yuga. God save this country and people.
@ Satyajit Wry
It is indeed true that people don’t commit mistakes if they learn directly from their parents and teachers. The immediate problem solver for any of your problems will be first your parents and then your teachers. What I want to say is that the sex education that the west is practicing in not at all complete. They don’t see any art in it. The what, how to sex? that one learns from friends, seniors, and by viewing magazines and other stuff is not at all complete. They see it as a body work. They never enjoy it in their minds. They don’t see any spiritual significance in it. On the contrary see the great temples like khajuraho and books like Kamasutra. One can get the complete idea of sex and enjoy it to the fullest. But it should be taught at the right age and once mind should be protected from dirty vices until then.
@Ms. Morning After Pill
Why are you contradicting yourself so much? If you don’t see anything significance in them, then why you worship when you go to mandir? Why they are treated by many people as gods? Even you said they are gods in the above statements and you have nothing against them as gods/actors. Do you know why Rama and sita are worshipped together? it’s because of their relationship. The significance of Rama and Sita is their relationship and how they are together during the times of high and low. And you are carelessly ignoring the truth.
I’m not a Hindu, but I’m entering this debate at the risk of being shot down.
I agree with Ms. Morning after pill and Preeti that the Ramayana and other epics like it were written in a particular social context and era where the actions taken by the heroes made sense. Arguably, those actions don’t make sense in today’s world. I think in today’s society if a man cast his wife out on the mere suspicion of infidelity, we would consider that problematic.
This is not especially a problem with Hindu scriptures or epics, it’s a problem with all ancient scriptures. If we tried applying Biblical or Quranic stories literally in the modern world, we’d run into the same problem. After all, Prophet Muhammad married a 9-year-old girl, something that was considered perfectly fine in 7th century Arabia, but something that we in the 21st century would consider absolutely reprehensible.
I think MMAP is right to say that Ram and Sita should be worshipped as gods in the mandir but shouldn’t necessarily be used in one’s personal life as exemplers of the ideal married couple.
Again, I think the core messages of the Ramayana are being missed here. A faithful and protective husband. A faithful and virtuous wife. Societal needs must be put before individual ones.Those are examples for any time period and that is why they are still worthy of emulation.
I think this discussion is going nowhere fast so since the mutineers haven’t decided to close the thread yet, why don’t I try to change the topic.
Any one actually read this book? How bout any other recent desi lit? Recs?
That’s our point. When Sita needed Rama to stand by her the most, he abandoned her to the forest. Seems like you can’t see the forest for the trees………
Again, MMAP, you’re missing the point–or seem stuck in the forest. Rama’s duties as a king trumped his duties as a husband. He had to put the kingdom before himself and his queen. Please, let’s try and avoid the Gloria Steinem Ramayana and focus on the intended messages.
Desi lit recs? Anyone? How bout that Meenakshi Reddy Madhavan book, “You are Here”. Since we’re invariably talking about feminism here, thoughts on that book and its take on contemporary urban India?
if you da boss in da hood you gotta make sure people know whats what. if popping a cap in your woman is what it takes, do your dizzuty, bro.
I’m actually curious as to why there hasn’t been a big trade in translating local language literature into English. At the very least it would increase the scope of the audience and it would serve to improve India’s cultural footprint. Maybe it could even encourage non-Indians to learn Indian languages other than Hindi out of interest.
@ms.morning after pill You are totally missing the point. First of all do you know what the meaning of an epic is? Here is the definition of an epic, Epic: A long narrative poem telling of a hero’s deeds Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_poetry An epic (from Greek: ĂŽÂπος or επικό “word, story, poem”[1]) is a lengthy narrative poem, ordinarily concerning a serious subject containing details of heroic deeds and events significant to a culture or nation. So the centre of the story is the hero Rama. How he saved his love and queen Sita and defeated the demon Ravana? That all it is about. But we pray even to other characters like Sita, Lakshmana, and Hanuman etc. Do you know why we pray to them and why we worship them in the form of Idols? It is because of their ideal characteristics. We see them through those idols; we meditate on them and on their qualities. We worship them to bring us their qualities so that we will be happy in our lives. Do you understand now?