From: ngopalas@ha14.eng.ua.edu (Nath S. Gopalaswamy)
Subject: Re: Abortion and the status of Indian women
Keywords: India, women, West.
Organization: The University of Alabama
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 20:03:50 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.155610.18671@usl.edu>, sgs1679@usl.edu (Sudhindranath Sira G) writes:
|> In article <1992Jul29.192930.10820@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> gayathri@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Gayathri Krishnamurthy) writes:
|> >In article <1992Jul28.195446.106984@ua1ix.ua.edu>, ngopalas@ha14.eng.ua.edu (Nath S. Gopalaswamy) writes:
|> >> In article <1992Jul28.184107.16452@usl.edu>, sgs@ucs.usl.edu (Sudhindranath SG) writes:
|> >time when monarchy flourished in India, princesses were given away in 
|> >marriage just to keep peace with a powerful king even if he were old and 
|> >ugly or otherwise repellent to the bride. As for single-parent families,
|> >several women widowed in childhood had not only to run single-parent 
|> >families but also it was  considered "inauspicious" to see them at certain
|> >times or in ceratin places . Also, they had to depend on their brothers 
|> >or somebody else for sustaining themselves and bear all the insults. The
|> >wives of the time had to see to it that they pleased their husbands in
|> >every way and tolerate even his irrational behaviour - and were generally
|> >some kind of "possessions" who weren't supposed to have a mind of their 
|> >own, who were supposed to forgive and tolerate whatever the husband said
|> >or did, who had to listen either to her father (before marriage), to her
|> >husband or to her son (in her last years). 
|> 
|> I acknowledge that all this is true. I myself have heard/seen
|> these things. But I wish to clarify that these distortions took place
|> in the dark ages that started around 800 C.E.

I missed Gayatri's original post so let me clarify a few things. I was talking
about respect and not freedom, the two do not go necessarily hand in hand. In
fact in "Western" terms, very few individuals have freedom of action in India.
Even those very same kings could not do a lot of things as they wished but had
to adhere to a lot of customs and traditions etc. What about princes who had to
marry women against their wishes? It is not always that women find some men
repellent, it can be the other way too. The good of the state came first, hence
alliances were formed keeping that in mind, prince nor princesses' wishes were
considered important. I guess what I am saying is that as long as men and women
stuck to their assigned roles by society, they were respected a lot. All this 
modern phenomena of eve-teasing and sexual assault was markedly small in the past,
and the few guilty were severely punished, that way women enjoyed much more protection
in the past than today. One glance at "Western" statistics shows that women are
33 times more likely to be assaulted than in India. I think Sudhi was right when
he said that Western civilization has not created equality for women, instead
left them to fend for themselves. 
Granted the customs of our past are stifling to personal freedom, but a compromise
should be worked out, not embrace Western values. Our culture is vastly different
and pride should be taken in it, instead of decrying it.

|> 
|> >Oh yes, women were supposed to
|> >have been respected at sometime in the historic past - and there have 
|> >been women poets and all that - but barring few exceptions, I can't 
|> >remember reading of a time when women had true respect in the family and
|> >the freedom to choose her way of life - maybe in the B.C s ? 
|> >If there 
|> >had been such a past when ordinary women had this kind of freedom, I'd
|> >certainly like to hear about it.
|> >

This suggests a very condescending tone on your part. The vedic ages were truly
one of the great ages, before casteism and subjugation of women started to seep 
in. What is wrong in looking to that period for inspiration? If everyone is just
cynical and trying to mock views of others then nothing will be achieved. 

|> 
|> Well, I wonder whether you are being derogatory when you talk of
|> BC. It looks like you feel that such ideas are so antiquated that
|> they cannot be implemented now. What _I_ feel is that certain
|> values are fundamental, universal, immutable and eternal. 
|> There is nothing foolish in trying to rediscover them.
|> 
|> I suggest that you read "Incorporating modernity into tradition".
|> I don't remember the author's (is it Hiriyannaiah ?) I don't have a 
|> copy with me. Otherwise I could have mailed/posted the excerpts.
|> It does not focus on women alone, I think but gives a pretty clear 
|> idea of what our approach should be when we talk about our society's 
|> future.
|> 
|> >> cultures. Our culture is unique is that women do carry a lot of respect,
|> >> but today's consumerist and materialistic attitude has led to an absolute
|> >> breakdown of that respect. The best way to work things out is to use those
|> >
|> >It's not just "today's consumerist and materialist attitude" my friend.
|>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> >
|> 
|> Well, the hundreds of Indian women who have been burnt because they
|> didn't bring "enough"  dowry might disagree with you...

And you can add to that the billboards featuring scantily clad women selling
products and the movies stressing the fact that women can be "won" over by street
thugs by eve-teasing them, that women like to be eve-teased etc, not to mention
the customary rape scene. If it is not due to consumerist and materialistic reasons
then what is it?
|> 
|> >Regards,
|> >Gayathri.
|> >--
|> >-----------------------------------------
|> 
|> Regards,
|> 
|> --Sudhi.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian