Endless mega serials on television show women at their shrewish, assertive best. Every other week, there are talk shows on gay rights and single parenthood. Live-in couples openly flaunt their relationships on air. And there is an unthinkable level of boldness is evident in fashion and lifestyles.
Yet, the stories of Konidela Srija, who fled her father Chiranjeevi‘s home to marry her sweetheart, and the Calcutta girl Priyanka Todi, whose husband Rizwanur Rahman was found dead on the railway tracks soon after their marriage, raise the simple question: is the news of India’s modernisation vastly exaggerated?
Yes, writes former Debonair editor Amrita Shah in today’s Indian Express:
“The social fissures that form so easily in cities as a response to issues of reservation and religion indicate that caste and religion are still pervasive influences in urban India. As far as marriage goes, surprisingly the young—despite appearances to the contrary—are more prone to conforming to tradition than rebelling against it.
“Youth surveys reveal a majority to be inclined towards arranged marriages. And though most want a greater say in their choice of partners, they are likely to choose spouses from the same class and the same or congruent castes. Materialism and a willingness to permit women in the workplace have also not translated into an upheaval of old patriarchal attitudes.
“There is a telling scene in the recent film, Chak de, India, when the goalkeeper, a married woman, tells her coach that her in-laws, after having availed of the flat allotted to her as a sportsperson, now want her to stop playing the game.”
Read the full article here: Papa will preach
25 October 2007 at 8:59 pm
yet another instance of reality hitting those who think what they show and say is what india is and those who harbour grand illusions of social engineering the country.
this one would have been on front pages had the groom not been a brahmin. i am not saying great injustice has been done or anything, only saying that the perception of injustice would have taken on a different dimension atleast in the eyes of “intellectuals” who decide who can be injusticed and who cannot, because it makes great bottomline.
26 October 2007 at 12:08 am
Why is an arranged marriage seen to be backward? As long as it is within the framework of the law and all the parties involved (mainly the guy and the girl) are happy, what is the social problem?
Even in the US sites like e-harmony etc. which basically filter and ‘arrange’ partners interested to marry are getting more popular. Does that mean the section of society which uses the service is not ‘modern’?
As long as a proven social system works – it will stay. That is why, when the time comes to get married, a majority of youth opt for an arrange marriage.
The bad side-effects of an arrange marriage (what the writer would term ‘backward’) are more a result of economic dependence of the woman on the man. That is the problem, women should receive education the same as men and jobs should be ensured in case they want to take it up. Which is a more basic problem, and has less to do with rebelling, daringness, arranged marriage or ‘modernity’.
BTW in Chak De, it wasnt mentioned if the goalkeeper’s marriage was arranged by parents or not. So assuming the guy and girl found each other and then got married, how would the situation have been any different? As long as the girl didnt have the guts to convince her husband or failing that leave him, she has no choice does she? Could have been the same thing anywhere – US and Europe (the paragons of social modernity according to such writers). What’s modernity got to do with it?
26 October 2007 at 12:18 am
TS,
You forget that other small dynamic. Traditionally, higher caste men have had access to lower caste women. Things go really nasty when the reverse happens – when lower caste men take upper caste women.
26 October 2007 at 5:50 am
I don’t know what you mean and donot want to get involved in caste discussions. But chiranjeevi belongs to a politically socially and economically powerful caste. I have also personally known more than one instance where a brahmin bride was rejected by a family belonging to a “lower” caste. It would be highly dubious to assume that all such dynamics would been/are of only one kind, even if you consider a small sample of all the kings from mauryas to raayas and beyond this would fail, forget local lords and biggies.
In any case my point was that “intellectuals” would have spun it conveniently if it was not between the castes involved were involved whether or not there was a groundswell.
Enough said on this useless subject, bye thanks.
26 October 2007 at 9:20 am
I think this article should have begun with the disclaimer:
modernity = whatever the West has done in the last 100 years.
There’s no issue in adopting science, technology and consumer goods, because that is a two-way street. Think Indian food, clothes, IT services…
But now, we are supposed to define modernity exclusively on the basis of what western societies practice?
The spurious argument made in this regard is that since we adopt western consumerism and tech, we must also adopt their mannerisms and culture.
What crap! I don’t see a sudden spurt in arranged marriages in Britain just because Chicken Tikka Masala is their “national food” now.
… and precisely what is the difficulty with arranged marriages? Is it arranged marriages per se or the reaction to “love marriages”or is it the underlying caste and religious divisions in society?
The article seems to indicate the last. And really it has nothing to do with marriage, or culture, or even love. It has to do with the history of animosity between communities and castes, which would be reflected in most other countries with large caste, racial, religious, ethnic minorities. Not even the most “progressive” of the Western states with large ethnic minorities can claim to have no problems about it.
26 October 2007 at 10:11 am
TS,
You know one or two instances of a Brahmin bride being rejected. India’s history is lower caste people being continously rejected. Your argument is almost like the media trying to get hold of a Brahmin poor family (or two) to show how there are also poor people among Brahmins and how reservation is a faulty policy.
No one disputes that there are poor Brahmins and that many problems affecting OBCs and Dalits also affect them. But in what proportion? What do the percentages say? How many Brahmin women are housemaids vis-a-vis OBC and dalit women?
Like you say, there are variations. But how many times do the variations occur? Isolated examples do not stand up to the dominant pattern.
But then, isn’t caste always been an uncomfortable equation in Hindutva’s logic?
Goodbye.
26 October 2007 at 6:06 pm
i dont know why we are flying off our handles when in all probability chiranjeevi had some plans for her daughter. i reckon the bharadwaj boy is not sufficiently landed and monied for his tastes, that is all it is in all probability. Or perhaps he is only being a protective father. or both.
in anycase… i dont know why you brought in hindutva and obc and dalit etc.. i am also no apologetic to brahmins/hindutva etc etc, but i hope this analysis extends to inter-religious marriages too.
my point is that what the “intellectuals” are doing is not something new, it more of the same shi that has gone on for ever. This is just modern day “brahmins” making a new “king”. This type of social engineering has been happening for a long time right from jarasandha’s days and prolly even before that.
I would have thought given all the new theories now they would have completely undermined caste and eliminated it by now, but no, they are more interested in perpetuating it. Well, apparently, it is still useful for the new “brahmins” to just reorganize it and just do piecemeal fixing.
26 October 2007 at 6:18 pm
any statistician worth his numbers will tell you that, outliers tell as much about the system as averages do. he will tell you that the system has no outliers only models have them. infact an outlier is defined by the model.
but models and their averages are more convenient to handle and impress the “boss”. heck, most of the times averages are not even “system averages” and especially because they remain unmodeled, outliers always carry useful information for those interested in the system not satisfied by the models. but, hey, if the boss is satisfied then why rock the gravy boat?
26 October 2007 at 10:18 pm
Is this discused because it is a high profile case involving Chiranjeevi and his family?Yes, it is.This happens at least dozen times a day in all combinations of caste, status, sex.Nobody is interested in this and our high profile networks won’t give a damn.Have the papers been covering this everyday? No. Networks need something to feed on, and if it is a page 3 case, so much the better; and they blow it above all levels of accepted norms.
26 October 2007 at 11:21 pm
Dear All,
As usual I have a unique take on this issue: IMHO Chiranjeevi should be celebrating his daughter’s wedding! Given the remarkable looks of his daughter ole Chiru should be happy that a chivalrous boy came forward to marry her in the first place after being in love with her for quite some time. The boy himself is no prince charming. It is the case of a frog marrying a toad in a manner of speaking. Very nice.
Please don’t bring in Brahmin, Kapu, Kamma and Hindutva here:)
27 October 2007 at 9:46 am
Two things,
First is on how the new Brahmins are perpetuating caste. Probably the race experience of U.S. is instructive. When blacks demand equal rights, they are accused of perpetuating racism by clinging on to their blackness. What people conveniently forget is that there is no way for blacks to talk about their subjugation except through the language of blackness. If they abandon it, the whole question of race needs to be abandoned. Same holds good for Dalits, OBCs. If they abandon their Dalit/OBC status, the whole caste question and the attendant exploitation have to be abandoned.
So how long will caste be kept alive? The answer is simple – until social justice becomes a reality.
The second is on averages and outliers. Sure outliers have amazing insights. But they can also be strategically used to take attention away from the dominant trend. No model is free of outliers (or averages). But to use them to deny the dominant trend that is showing up over and over again is trying to problematize caste by saying that it is undercut both ways. It definitely is. But who benefits when this happens?
And Brahmins can always justify caste transgression. Didn’t Manu allow Anuloma marriages?