"Pitah Rakshathi Koumare
Pati Rakshathi Youvanne
Puthro Rakshathi Vardaykye
Na sthree swathanthram arhati"
Much debated wisdom from respected Acharya Manu. In seventh or eighth standard we had one whole chapter in Malayalam pointing out the meaninglessness in this line and illustrating how woman lost their freedom. In my teenage (why does it seem like such a long time ago, it was only 8 years ago :( ), we used to have heated discussions about the unfairness of his statement and abuse dump Manu for making such stupid proclamations.
But now, if you ask me about the truth in these lines, I will wholeheartedly agree with Manu. It is like the saying "Moothavar vakkum muthunellikkem aadyam kaykkum pinne mathurikkum". Most of the time only the last line is quoted and debated. From an individualistic point of view maybe it is unfair. But as a society, these wise words from Manu has huge impact. Actually the mathematics of Manu's calculation is fairly simple if you are ready to view it in a non emotional, society oriented way. For each society, survival is one of the most important (rather THE important) factor. For survival, always a better generation than preceding one is desired. Mothers influence over the baby is far far greater than that of a father. I am not underestimating the role and responsibility of a father in bringing up a baby. But it is not even remotely comparable with a mom. So what Manu wisely points out is, if women are taken care properly, if they are devoid of any worries, you are promised a healthy and intelligent new generation, who are wise enough to survive in harmony with the nature. That is why women should be taken care of properly, by father, husband and son.
Now about freedom, freedom can be extremely dangerous, if not handled properly. Freedom (exposure to world), can introduce unnecessary worries too. As a mom I can tell you this, I was far more stressed during my pregnancy than my cousin, who is a house wife. Each negative impact on a woman's body or mind can get directly translated to the next generation. With freedom the risk of these negative impacts gets multiplied hundred fold. So why risk the next generation :D
Well that's my interpretation of Manu's words. There will be much more depth in his words than can be conceived by my stupid mind. But I do believe him.
But in our current society, I don't know if his words has any relevance. Currently we are a bunch of individuals living in a society, who are not bothered about nature or next generation. What matters today is "I" rather than us. Well may be that's another beautifully knit plan our of mother nature. In "God of Small Things" (Arundhathi Roy), Uncle Chako explains to Rahel and Esthappan, that if mother earth is a 45 yer old lady, human beings are just 2 seconds old. May be we are the self destructive tool that nature has invented to recycle herself slowly. Using our "ego" we are destructing the nature in all possible ways. But my gut feeling is that this is precisely what she (mother nature) has intended us to do. That is why she planted this stupid intelligence in us. May be we are not the "superior species" as we boast we are, but just a Dispose() call by nature on herself :D
PS: This post started as a reply to this one. As it got longer I put it as a post :D
Now about freedom, freedom can be extremely dangerous, if not handled properly. Freedom (exposure to world), can introduce unnecessary worries too. As a mom I can tell you this, I was far more stressed during my pregnancy than my cousin, who is a house wife. Each negative impact on a woman's body or mind can get directly translated to the next generation. With freedom the risk of these negative impacts gets multiplied hundred fold. So why risk the next generation :D
Well that's my interpretation of Manu's words. There will be much more depth in his words than can be conceived by my stupid mind. But I do believe him.
But in our current society, I don't know if his words has any relevance. Currently we are a bunch of individuals living in a society, who are not bothered about nature or next generation. What matters today is "I" rather than us. Well may be that's another beautifully knit plan our of mother nature. In "God of Small Things" (Arundhathi Roy), Uncle Chako explains to Rahel and Esthappan, that if mother earth is a 45 yer old lady, human beings are just 2 seconds old. May be we are the self destructive tool that nature has invented to recycle herself slowly. Using our "ego" we are destructing the nature in all possible ways. But my gut feeling is that this is precisely what she (mother nature) has intended us to do. That is why she planted this stupid intelligence in us. May be we are not the "superior species" as we boast we are, but just a Dispose() call by nature on herself :D
PS: This post started as a reply to this one. As it got longer I put it as a post :D
It is so sad to see that a capable person like you are looking only from one perspective! By keeping all the respect I have for the proverbs (as you quoted), I could still approach them judiciously.
ReplyDeleteMy point is, do you want to be just an animal that nature wants you to be? Then why don't you take a life style of a normal animal? The so called Manu, who wrote this (even that is a myth) himself is moved quite a lot farther from the "natural" state and the whole concept of keeping the generation. I personally won't believe that, the soul purpose of my life is to "Produce a better Generation".
Me as me with this mysterious mind and thoughts and intelligence and all... I believe a person have much bigger horizon than just the child makers...
[Vekkuka, viLampuka, prasavikkuka... I understand that most of the women will he happy with this life.. but please respect those who are not believing so]
Thiagu you said "My point is, do you want to be just an animal that nature wants you to be".... Can we be anything else than what nature wants us to be? Do you think we are so intelligent to move away from what is naturally required? Is that intelligence or foolishness? I wrote that article keeping aside the individualistic view point. I feel we are so engrossed saving our individualism that it is difficult for us to come out of that mold. I am not wise enough to understand the cycle of birth and death. But one thing I feel is what ever we acquire in this world wealth, fame, principles, friends, property for that matter anything... is irrelevant for nature. Only thing that is assigned by nature to us is to spread ourselves in such a way that natural balance is maintained.
ReplyDeleteThis is just a thought that struck me when I was wondering about the surprises that nature kept. I am not saying the sole purpose of humans is to reproduce and flourish. According to Hinduism, the whole purpose of life is to liberate a soul from the cycle of rebirths. But here also, only if you are bit more enlightened than your last birth that you will finally reach your goal of salvation :D.
Do I make any sense? Well these thoughts are hard to articulate. No offense to women who believe in something more than veykkal vilambal and prasavikkal. Once again, its not against any individual, its just a thought to be viewed outside the concept of individualism :)
While talking about Nature and God, the convenience is that, we did not have to provide any proof to back our opinion. We can say that God prefers this, Nature demands that, etc. Neither God nor Nature can participate, deny or confirm the arguments we make on behalf of them. So what we claim as what Nature/God wants, eventually it turn-out to be the individual's wish/proposal/argument.
ReplyDeleteAnd about the interpretation of the scriptures, it is merely time-killing activity now, since it is being written during a totally different time-frame by a not-so-civilized society where the power was centralized into a very small section in the society, who decides what others should do. The rules, laws, thoughts, arts, literature and everything can be influenced and manipulated. In fact, if we are looking forward to the good sake of the society as we claim, we should reject thinking about these out-dated laws in the modern world, since its mis-interpretaion can make worse impact than the one if its interpreted properly, which we have been seeing for quite some time now.
Raj, what you said is absolutely true. Even I have felt what we articulate as God's or Nature's is actually ours. But is that not what is written in scriptures as "Aham Brahmasmi" :D. So how can we discrad the scriptures saying times have changed?
ReplyDeleteAnd I will defenitely disagree with the term "not so civilized" society. A book like Gita or upanishads cannot come from an uncivilized society. But yes, we are different from those civilization in plenty of ways. So it is argueable that it is a waste of time to interpret or misinterpret the scriptures. But that is for people who use their time effectively na ;D
I did not say that 100 out of 100 things from scriptures are wrong. "Aham Brahmaswamy" is just one concept which is just an observation and harmless, where as Manu's is drawing a life style. The latter is a very dangerous concept, if its being misinterpreted. Unfortunately if its taken word-by-word(which is the case for common people, who makes the majority of the population), it would straight away encourage the misinterpretation. So when we tried to back a scripture/writing/book just because of a single right concept, we need to understand that there is a big chance for other wrong/out-dated concepts also may get promoted. We need to have this broader way of thinking, when we claim that we stand for the society.
ReplyDeleteAnd the reason for why I call "not-so-civilized", was given in the same sentence. In my humble opinion, in a proper civilization, each and every individual will have participation in pushing the country ahead, which was not the case at the time of Upanishads or Vedas.
Yes, even I agree that its a very good time killing activity, if there is nothing else to do :)
Na sthree swathanthryam arhati means, "A women should always be protected by a man" it is not a command by Manu the "law giver". It means that due to many reasons, a woman is always unprotected. It is the ill fate of a woman that she is deprived off the pleasure of independence. And Manu imposes a duty upon the male gender, to protect a woman.
ReplyDeleteThe ancient writings are in the form of slokas, which are poetry. So one should be able to understand the sense of the poet while understanding the meaning. It is a wrong interpretation that a woman do not deserve freedom.
"It is the ill fate of a woman that she is deprived off the pleasure of independence"... I would like to rephrase this statement to "It is the ill fate of the woman that current society is designed in such a way that she is deprived of her independence.. ".(I don't think independence is pleasurable, I think its an obligation). If you take out the laws imposed by the society upon us, I think men and women are left with same independence or dependence :)... I don't believe God will extend his protection more to men than to women :)... Thats my belief... I accept and believe in only the protection of Him, and not anyone else :)
ReplyDeleteGovernmento rakshathi bharana kale, na citizen swathathrya marhathi
ReplyDeleteas the govt restricts our freedom (we cant kill, steal, trespass, not pay tax, cant drive without licence) in exchange of protection.
I believe the protector has the right to restrict the freedom of the protected ones
in my house my dad can almost never decide what to eat because the kithen is ruled by mom. when it comes to economy he's the ruler and he restricts her spending.
i think thats how a family should be
Dear Soumya,
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly what I was looking for. That too it is awesome that the right meaning has come from a Woman. Myself was writing an article on this and stumbled upon your blog. What most people do is react when they see words like 'na sthree swathantryam arhati' as if they are protectors of women's rights rather that thing positively about it. As far as a woman is concerned it is ideal that she surrenders her independence to the right man at the right age. At the same time this itself is the right strength for a Father, Husband and Son.
Pakkanar - "Surrender"?? I dint like that word :)And independence is a term thats always misused. As long as my thoughts are not chained, I will feel independent :). Please read this one...
ReplyDeletehttp://mekhasandesam.blogspot.in/2010/09/blog-post.html
Kali would be the ideal woman according to me :)
Well, according to me, that 'Kali' is a 'frog in the well' and the hero is a true escapist - didn't have a honest wish to travel around. So I don't think the author has any other way to end the story :):)
ReplyDeleteRaj - its not a story.. Its his experience during one of his journeys... I know him in person... And I dont know if she is just a frog in the well, but just know that thats the kind of freedom and strength that i wish for... :)
ReplyDeleteDear Soumya,
ReplyDeleteMen are from Mars, women are from Venus, so forget the word. In our world, telling somebody that you look like Bhadrakali isn't a good thing, mostly among womenfolk. By common sense someone like Kali(in the story) can not be someone who contributes to the upliftment of culture.
Hello,
ReplyDeleteI havent gone through the comments, my comment is about the point "Na sthree swathanthram arhati"
As I recollect how my teacher taught us.
It was explained that father, husband and son should be there to protect women and she should never feel deprived of freedom.
I was listening to a literary scholar who has deep erudition and mastery over Sanskrit language and scriptures. I am referring Dr Garikipati Narasimha Rao who conducts a Mahabharata - a social commentary on Bhakthi TV channel. Hope the prologue gives the context to my comments. Swatantra word had different meaning a few hundred years earlier. Today we translate to Freedom. But earlier it meant "self-employment" or "having to feed oneself by physical labor" - so Manu's intent is so different. Manu recognized women's contribution to society and that forcing her to feed herself is a crime on the part of men. Summary, the misunderstanding is related to evolution of meaning of certain words. The interpretation coming from a language scholar makes me believe Manu did not imply what many believe today.
ReplyDeleteSwathantra also means "Abuse" in Sanskrit.
ReplyDeleteSwathantra also means "Abuse" in sanskrit.
ReplyDeletefeminism is a danger. when women wants equality, they will leave men,children and a society like USA will be the result. do search for lesbian feminism, radical feminism, culling of male population for a female only society with fertilizing eggs without sperms rearing only girl child a dna copy of the mother(in future) and other great ambitions of feminists. women are subordinates and partners of men and not vice versa. this is how we are born. another example is, our society should not fall for feminism. today, women in america, europe sleep over with numerous men and cheats for the bigger penis. search oprah dot com for "women are leaving men for women" - this is what the world comes to when women are leading the society with some radical man hating feminists and their craving for a feminist new world order which America's ruling wholeheartedly supports because apart from few alpha males who are rich and influential gets all the women, while MEN will remain no more. no morals, just creepy creatures these women in west generally turned out to be. angryharry dot com is also a good reference but at times it is over the board articles.
ReplyDeletegluck!
@Sacremento- I am a born feminist :) And it would be wonderful if that cloning is possible ;)
ReplyDeleteAll I can say is to everyone his own views. There is no point in trying to summarise. It never converges at any point. And if at all it converges there wont be any need of words then :)
give respect and take respect.
ReplyDeletewoman is a precious stone. it must be protected.
"na stre sothantramarhe"
take it positively.
biology of men and women differ, mind differ, the way they see things differ.so it is very difficult to convince both.
Soumya. Just to compliment your explanation arhati in Sanskrit or deserve does not mean in a positive connotation always. A punishment is also referred to as deserved or not. swathanthram Means self dependence. To rely on oneself. And in manu's poem he explains what dependency is he talking about. It's about one's own safety. The first three lines explains it well.
ReplyDeleteSelf dependence in modern world also means reliability on external factors. A woman who needs to pent for herself has to go out in to the rude world..so it is better she has a help in the form of another stronger person.
DeleteManu foresaw it.God made women for procreation with precision and tenderness. Man, by the passage of time,mutated to become his initial carnal self.Although there are exceptions.
So to be on the safe side it is always preferable for woman to be dependent..if not emotionally at least physically..
The minimum qualification for interpreting a text is to have mastered its medium, the language, in all its subtlety. Especially a highly cryptic language like Sanskrit. Further, it requires a lot of other faculties to comprehend the gestalt, the overall textual message, which imbues each and every word, phrase and sentence in it. Isolating a verse from its larger context, not knowing even the lexical meanings of the words in it, and foisting meanings of words of other languages onto them is a highly unscientific and unjust way of approaching any text. Unfortunately that is how self-styled intellectuals have approached ancient texts and come out with unguided readings.
ReplyDeleteLet me demonstrate very simply the contextual meaning of the verse in question here. The Sanskrit word swatantryam does not mean freedom. Tra means cross over, transcend, expand, enlarge, etc. Tantra means an act done to expand oneself, one’s present state of being (material/mental/physical/emotional/intellectual/financial/whatever). Swa means own, of one’s own accord. Swatantryam means fending for oneself. Looking after one’s livelihood by one’s own means. Arhati doesn’t mean ‘deserve’ in the linear sense of the word; it means ‘to come to have’. Swatantryam arhati means ‘to come to have to fend for oneself’. The implication is, woman should not come to have to face a situation where she will have to attend to her own livelihood (because she has a load of other responsibilities which men never have). (That is, woman doesn’t deserve to be burdened with the added responsibility of performing that role also.) Therefore, she must be made free, and looked after, taken care of, by father, husband and son during the respective stages of her life.
Now, if not convinced, you must also note that in the same book, in many places elsewhere, Manu exhorts man to respect woman, even proclaiming that she must be revered like a Devi, and a place where woman’s tears are shed is doomed! So, how do you reconcile the alleged antiwomanism of Manu with the thought in those lines?
Books are not to be understood and interpreted on hearsay; they are to be chewed, digested and internalised.
Once we gave freedom to a woman and the next we had an Emergency and Bank Nationalization.
ReplyDeleteOnce we gave freedom to a woman and the next we had an Emergency and Bank Nationalization.
ReplyDeleteThere is no bar for women to work in peaceful areas like arts and crafts, education, doctors, or any place where there is no place for crime and negative deeds. Once children are grown up women can take up such jobs which suits their convenience. They should not struggle. If their attention is missing on children they have failed in their basic duty of bringing up a good next generation. They can research and write books. Form a local group of women and discuss issues and spread knowledge , anything according to their convenience.
ReplyDelete