Women in India: Are We Better Off?

Pankaj #104 Thanks for describing the Hindu beliefs. I`ll check out the web sites you mention in due course. I remember reading somewhere that the core beliefs of all religions are remarkably similar and consistent.

Sac:

I will take the `disaster theory` in the same stride that you have intended. Just to let you know, there is much more to it besides taking this thought lightly.

``How about a sane human being regardless of marital status who gets there on merit?``

Either you have a hard time understanding the premise of an argument or you do not want to deal with reality. No one is debating on the validity of the the above thought! There is something else in the picture here. Please care to catch up on what is being said/expressed than bringing forth blanket and out of context statements. If it is hard to read `men` being analyzed for their behavior and attitude then be forthright. Koii Baa`t Naheen--It is will be easier to understand your reactions ( *_ *) :-)

Kind Regards

In reply to Asfand -- how do Hindus adopt new customs, who has the authority, etc. ? -- perhaps an illustration of an extreme case will clarify.

Let me define ``jati`` to be a group of endogamous people (i.e., who marry amongst themselves). A version of customs, laws, traditions are carried by such a group.

Let us consider the extreme case of change in customs -- conversion to Islam or Christianity.

Typically, individuals or nuclear families do not convert, an entire jati or large chunk of it converts. By whose authority ? It is a decision by people within that group. There is some religious teacher that most people in the group have made a joint decision to follow.

Likewise, there have always been Hindu teachers, revitalizing (or regressing) the dharma; and likewise, a jati or large chunk of it may decide to change.

In both cases discussed above, the jati may split, and people who did not accept the change and people who do accept the change may no longer perform marriages between the groups.

Hope that helped.

-arun gupta

Re to tahmed

If you are interested in knowing more you may like to visit the following sites.

http://www.hindunet.org/vedas/rigveda/

http://www.engr.mun.ca/

Re to tahmed #97

Well Ahmed, the basic crux of Hindu philosophy and beliefs is contained in Upnishadas. Upnishadas unambiguously declare that there is only one ``Nirakar, Nirgun Brahm `` (ie a supreme entity with no material form, and with no externally observable characteristics). It manifests itself through three main forces of nature or the trinity of Gods: Brahma, the creator, Vishnu the preserver of the order in the universe, and Shiva the destroyer. It is interesting to note that the forces of destruction are not considered evil, but only the other side of creation and hence a manifesatation of the same ``Brahm``. All other dieties are either an ``avataar`` of this trinity or derive their power from this trinity. Another important aspect of Hindu philosophy is the doctrine of ``Karma``. It says that `` Do your duty without caring for the rewards``. A person goes to heaven or hell depending upon the ``good deeds`` or ``bad deeds`` one does in his life. This is in contrast with Christianity in which one goes to heaven solely by believing Jesus was their saviour. Hindus also believe in reincarnation, ie a person who has not done enough good deeds in his life will be reborn as lower organisms such as insects etc till he achieves salvation from the cycle of rebirth by performing ``good karmas``. However Hinduism believes that there are many ways to know ``Brahm`` , by knowledge, by bhakti, to name a few. I do not have much knowledge on this subject and it is difficult to write all that I know. But the most important point is Hinduism urges you to explore truth on your own taking cues from Vedas or Upnishadas, but not to be bound by these. The holy books of Hinduism are only a collection of thoughts of revered sages through centuries and not binding.

Cheers

re Zahra #99:

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Don`t know about a sane man with a strong woman though....that`s usually a recipe for disaster :) (Look at our friend Billy). How about a sane human being regardless of marital status who gets there on merit?

re slink #100:

The teacher seems to be taking her job rather seriously. My reference to a manly demeanour was based on traits like ruthlessness,haughtiness and imperiousness generally associated with the alpha males of our despicable speceis. If a woman has to behave like a man to get the job then why complain if the society treats you like one? If your thesis about a patriarchial society doing these leaders in is correct then how do you explain the willingness of the same society to let them get there in the first place? Wouldn`t the `patriarchial` society be the clever one in hindsight? Get them there for all to see how inept they are and then get rid of them in a manner that is a lesson for all future generations not to repeat the folly. Oh my aren`t we geniuses!!

later

-sac

Asfand

I am sorry to barge into your discussion with Arun, but here is what I think on the issue you are discussing. The distinction between smriti and sruti texts is valid but there is another, more fundamental point. Hindus are not bound by any scriptural text. Hindu scriptures are just guidelines, to suggest. The spiritual quest is a man`s job. You have to search for your own truth, taking guidance as and when you require from the spiritual texts. Not being an organised religion, there is no concept of an `apostate`. There have always been different schools of thought and they have discussed philosophical points threadbare, but that has never encroached on others` right to accept or reject any philosophical point. So, any hindu is always free, in theory, to reject any social practice he/she considers evil/illegal/in bad taste. Hindus dont have the option of hiding behind `it is my religion` plank.

I dont believe in conversion to hinduism, as there is no `ism` here. It is a commonwealth of many beliefs coexisting, inclusive, and freely borrowing from each other.

The social rules and `laws` are decided by society itself and there is no authoritative `book` to decide about these. Manusmriti is just a book by an ancient author discussing his concept of social laws, in the same sense as `Arthashastra` is a book on politics or Vatsyayana`s Kamasutra is a book on Sex.

I am a hindu and I can tell you that Manusmriti didnot take any part in my marriage or in my family life. I am not aware of anything except its name. My marriage was done with vedic mantras, and other than that everything else was dictated by the social norms of the place I was getting married at, which was different from the social norms of my family in many ways. A very large numbr of Hindu marriages dont even have vedic mantras.

Re-Reply#92

Slink

I don`t think my friendly neighbours can derive any benefits whatsoever from reading the article by R Chander. I can`t fathom why she has painted such a gloomy picture about women ( not just Indian). Its articles like these that remind you of the well known adage - Auratein hi Auraton ki dushman hoti hain. The author is of course free to express her views. But atleast get your facts right. In any case my friendly neighbours do not have to rely on such articles to know about the status of Indian women. They have access to Indian TV Channels, newspapers and relatives living here.

Don`t you think slink,that today`s woman is more aware? Ready to fight for her rights inspite of so many societal pressures. Some win some loose. But I definitely feel that blaming men for all the ills plaguing women is going to lead us nowhere.

By the way, what made you think that I worked for an intelligence agency? I did not in the past,nor at present. Aage ka khuda jaane. Knowing myself there is not the remotest possibility in the future as well. So long!

sac...

`more manly in their demeanour`, what does that mean?

Sac:

It seems that you’ve been there, to analyze and review the `eternal feminine insistence` on reforming the wild ones!!! Sorry, I haven’t ever noticed this trait — therefore, I will rely on your esteemed observation! Thanks for sharing that perspective.

An Example: There are two ways to look at a coin. You see one side of the coin and I see the other. Both are related to the same coin, but it is the perception. Side One: The man did not know how to treat women. Well, he got a lot of chances to learn, still he did not try hard.
Side Two: The women who married him got carried away/his charisma totally overwhelmed them. As a result, their mind was overawed by their emotions. I have heard this quite a few times in this specific case. In general, I am not interested what was the driving force behind any woman’s decision to marry him. It may be: love, infatuation, money, power, status----whatever. I brought up this case, as these women were not from downtrodden families---still they went through upheavals in their marriage. So the writer’s [Radhika] stance on mistreatment of women in a certain class is untrue. The Feudal Lord had some charisma that people will dullo-fy on him. I remembered hearing that from my childhood(I had few very close family members, who were active in PPP during early 70s). I also remembered hearing/reading good feedback about him from the people of his constituency, but on the other hand, the inside stories were very distasteful!

On a relatively serious note: I am not pleading the case of South Asian Women Leaders to be the most capable ones, on the face of earth. Contrary to that, I am pointing out the inconsistencies and the false images set by the S.A. countries – mainly, by electing these women as PMs (This is what the damn article was stating). Personally, I’d rather have a sane man with a strong backing (a woman) be the PM and hold a balanced view than a woman PM, who is totally incapable of any perception, and to add fuel to the fire —- she has a poor backing (a weak man).

?

re slink #92:

History unfortunately is not as charitable as you suppose.None of the south Asian ex-Queens(and I use the term loosely) was a victim of a `patriarchial` society.Actually if you think about it Indira and Benazir were more manly in their ways and demeanour than some of the more male leaders we`ve been blessed with.And the dastardly tradition will continue in the form of Priyanka in the coming years.

Personally speaking I think women make better leaders than men due to their empathetic and consensus-building skills with the caveat that the leadership has to be won on merit not luck of the genetic roulette.

As for ``......we realize that size doesn`t matter......``, couldn`t agree with you more.Girth is definitely more important!!

later

-sac

macgupta #93 The Smriti vs Shruti distinction is interesting. I looked up Smriti on the internet and one of the web pages had this quote, presumably from the Vedas: ``Surrender yourself to the Lord. He will be your greatest help and comfort. The person who knows this is unafraid, does not worry and is free from sorrow.`` This is entirely consistent, incidentally, with the basic beliefs in Islam. So what are the religious arguments all about?

Reply to #93 for Macgupta,

Thanks for clearing my confusion. You were right on point. But I am still confused and may be you can shed some light on the following two questions:

1) Where does the rules (law) about daily life comes from? For example rules for marriage, divorce, conversion to hinduism, etc etc.

2) Who decides which scripture can be considered current and which scripture should be dropped because the society dislikes it or rejects it completely?

I am asking this because when I read Swami Harshananda`s website I get a starkingly different point of view from what you mentioned in your reply.

Asfand Siddiqui

Sacramento CA

dear Sadhana,

neither man, nor woman, just `inhuman`.

shandana

slink #92
Here is a wicked question :-). Those who indulge violence or kill for purposes of ideology, profit, honor, power or whatever, particularly in S. Asia, are they equally men and women, or...?

Sadhana

In reply to Asfand (#82), no one denies that the Manusmriti is a Hindu religious text.

What we do deny is that it (or any Smriti, actually) sets down the rules for eternity.

A Smriti -- literally ``remembered`` -- (which includes Manusmriti, Ramayana, Bhagavad Gita, Purana) is a text with an author and authority very roughly comparable to say, the writings of a major Muslim saint or scholar.

A Shruti -- literally ``heard`` -- (the Vedas, including the Upanishads) are considered to be ``authorless``, i.e., roughly analogous to the revealed nature of the Quran, and are what are eternal.

Smritis can be discarded or ignored if the community so decides.

What confuses the discussion between Hindu and Muslim is that Hindus see Shruti e.g., God is One, and Smriti elements (rules for divorce) mixed up in the Quran. So, if a Muslim extrapolates from his holy scriptures, he will think that a Hindu law book is equally binding on Hindus as Quranic law is on Muslims. However, for most part, Shruti does not prescribe behavior, social norms, etc. -- all these are in Smritis.

-arun gupta