Of Karwa Chauth
Over an year ago, me and hubby were discussing Karwa Chauth. Hubby has banned Karwa Chauth since declaiming it as misogynist. I think, however, that banning Karwa Chauth is just addressing the symptom, not the cause.
The basic premise of Karwa Chauth is that the husband's life is very important for a woman. The wife will fast for her husband's long life. This is also the premise of the standard Hindi movie blessing of "sada suhagan raho". Now, folks ask, why do we not see any reciprocal traditions coming from the husband? Is the wife's life not equally important? Does he not love her as much?
I think this is not a question of love. It is a question of economics. Without a husband, the Indian woman is fairly dispossessed. Without a wife, the husband is inconvenienced.
To begin with, under Indian inheritance laws, the father's wealth is divided among his sons.Until an amendment in 2005, the daughters did not have an equal claim to the wealth division. Societally, it is yet considered improper for a daughter to demand a portion of your parent's estate. The woman also has no claim to anything in her in-law's estate. So essentially, the woman's claim to property does not exist. It is only her husband who has the claim to any estate. So the woman does not "own" the asset.
Now why does this matter? Women are educated and capable of earning, so why depend on inheritence?
Firstly, they are educated and working, today. Just a generation ago, a woman going out to work was frowned upon. Even today, it is considered as optional. Secondly, only small percentage of women are educated. The illiteracy among women is staggering. Even among those educated, there are many with "check-mark" education and no real employable skills. So a loss of husband brings a definite loss of quality of life through lack of income, and the associated fall in the family's social bearing that goes with the income.
But the real issue is that India is an agrarian society, not an industrialized society. In an agrarian society, the land is the primary resource for a farmer as against in an industrialized one where employment is the primary source of income.. Without land a farmer has no employment. Now, land is, in most cases, inherited. Since a woman has no claim to asset (land) ownership either through her parents or her in-laws, she is dependent on her husband. So, she remains economically dependent on her husband, with no recourse.
Until 1956, women were not entitled to inherit any of either their parents', in-laws' or husband's property. She did not even have residence rights, and could essentially be turned out. In 1956, the Hindu Inheritance Law allowed women to retain residency rights, but did not give them coparcenary (equal inheritance) rights.
So the tradition of Karwa Chauth and likes at hand here, which certainly predate 1956, are born off desperation. A woman in an agrarian society with no claim on land assets is a destitute without her husband. Any wonder why she so desperately hopes that her husband outlives her? The laws of the land and society left her at the mercy of her in-laws and parents, and in not-so-well-do households, she was a burden, either to be exploited domestically, or to be driven out of home or to be sent off to sati. Exploitation and abject destitution of widows was fairly common till early 1900s.
I have folks tell me that dowry system was in place to mitigate this. I do not buy it at all. Firstly, if you think inheritance laws are broken, fix them. Do not work around them by doling out handouts to the girl for which she is made to feel like a burden. Secondly, giving goods to her in-laws family does not replace giving her real control of assets. So, dowry does not hold.
The 2005 Amendment fixes this issue of inheritance. But socially, it is yet considered improper to demand for a share in inheritance. So there is no widespread application of the law in general cases. As we move to an industrialized society, the impact of this is diluted, but only for women who are equipped to participate in the industrialized economy. But it yet matters tremendously for the women who are outside this sliver of a category.
So I think going after Karwa Chauth is pointless. It is the laws and mindsets that perpetuate the situation that need to change.
And till then, let the girls have some fun. :)
The basic premise of Karwa Chauth is that the husband's life is very important for a woman. The wife will fast for her husband's long life. This is also the premise of the standard Hindi movie blessing of "sada suhagan raho". Now, folks ask, why do we not see any reciprocal traditions coming from the husband? Is the wife's life not equally important? Does he not love her as much?
I think this is not a question of love. It is a question of economics. Without a husband, the Indian woman is fairly dispossessed. Without a wife, the husband is inconvenienced.
To begin with, under Indian inheritance laws, the father's wealth is divided among his sons.Until an amendment in 2005, the daughters did not have an equal claim to the wealth division. Societally, it is yet considered improper for a daughter to demand a portion of your parent's estate. The woman also has no claim to anything in her in-law's estate. So essentially, the woman's claim to property does not exist. It is only her husband who has the claim to any estate. So the woman does not "own" the asset.
Now why does this matter? Women are educated and capable of earning, so why depend on inheritence?
Firstly, they are educated and working, today. Just a generation ago, a woman going out to work was frowned upon. Even today, it is considered as optional. Secondly, only small percentage of women are educated. The illiteracy among women is staggering. Even among those educated, there are many with "check-mark" education and no real employable skills. So a loss of husband brings a definite loss of quality of life through lack of income, and the associated fall in the family's social bearing that goes with the income.
But the real issue is that India is an agrarian society, not an industrialized society. In an agrarian society, the land is the primary resource for a farmer as against in an industrialized one where employment is the primary source of income.. Without land a farmer has no employment. Now, land is, in most cases, inherited. Since a woman has no claim to asset (land) ownership either through her parents or her in-laws, she is dependent on her husband. So, she remains economically dependent on her husband, with no recourse.
Until 1956, women were not entitled to inherit any of either their parents', in-laws' or husband's property. She did not even have residence rights, and could essentially be turned out. In 1956, the Hindu Inheritance Law allowed women to retain residency rights, but did not give them coparcenary (equal inheritance) rights.
So the tradition of Karwa Chauth and likes at hand here, which certainly predate 1956, are born off desperation. A woman in an agrarian society with no claim on land assets is a destitute without her husband. Any wonder why she so desperately hopes that her husband outlives her? The laws of the land and society left her at the mercy of her in-laws and parents, and in not-so-well-do households, she was a burden, either to be exploited domestically, or to be driven out of home or to be sent off to sati. Exploitation and abject destitution of widows was fairly common till early 1900s.
I have folks tell me that dowry system was in place to mitigate this. I do not buy it at all. Firstly, if you think inheritance laws are broken, fix them. Do not work around them by doling out handouts to the girl for which she is made to feel like a burden. Secondly, giving goods to her in-laws family does not replace giving her real control of assets. So, dowry does not hold.
The 2005 Amendment fixes this issue of inheritance. But socially, it is yet considered improper to demand for a share in inheritance. So there is no widespread application of the law in general cases. As we move to an industrialized society, the impact of this is diluted, but only for women who are equipped to participate in the industrialized economy. But it yet matters tremendously for the women who are outside this sliver of a category.
So I think going after Karwa Chauth is pointless. It is the laws and mindsets that perpetuate the situation that need to change.
And till then, let the girls have some fun. :)
Comments
AS: But in order to have fun, Karwa Chaurh is not needed, right? Why not a girls' night out? (If the idea is to let the girls have their fun). When is KC anyway? I need to troll Jen.
SK: Because going after KC does not make any difference. It seems like we are bringing in equality, but in reality we are not until the real causes of the economic disparity are fixed. About fun, being part of any festival is social in addition to being religious. KC is big fun in India, so why not enjoy the festival?
VR: Shweta does KC, but doesn't go all the way. She eats fruits through the day, and she does not avoid water like most other do. I am definitely ok with that. Why should I dislike it? You are always free to decide how you want to celebrate it..
AS: But going after KC is the "low hanging fruit". Changing the society and the law is much more work. I think we can try to do the latter, but that doesn't mean that we couldn't do the former first. I am not saying that you shouldn't celebrate KC, but that if someone thinks it's misogynist and doesn't want to celebrate KC, that's OK.
Dear educated women friend of mine. I get that no one likes to rock the boat. I understand that by disagreeing with your friends, inlaws, relatives about KC, you are creating trouble for yourself. You will be accused of not loving your husband, abandoning indian tradition, not being social, trying to be too smart, too forward, too much of feminist, etc etc.
But the fact of the matter is this, you bear a social responsibility. Whether you like it or not, your success in life makes you a role model for a countless others in your family. By choosing to do KC in any form whatsoever you are validating this utterly idiotic and misogynistic tradition. You may be doing it for one of the myriad reasons only known to you, but from the outside the only message that gets communicated is that .. wow look at that enlightened, educated girl.. even she does karwa chauth, so it must be okay.
No it is not. There isn't a single occasion in the year when the husband fasts for his wife or kids, but the wife.. she is not just supposed to fast for her husband, she ends the day by seeking his blessings. The whole, its a lot of social fun thing is just putting lipstick on a pig. The core message and purpose of this "festival" is to reaffirm the secondary status of women in a martial relationship. And no, husbands fasting with wives does not make it okay either. Because as I said, no one cares for that little tidbit, the only thing that gets communicated to everyone is that the wife did the vrat.
So, don't do it, for yourself and for all young girls in your family looking up to you.
And KC is purely irrelevant in this context since not doing KC is not fixing anything. It is not even a low hanging fruit. If doing it is a show, then not doing it is a show too. It is like women who think wearing skirts makes them forward thinking compared to those who wear salwar suits.
If women really want to improve a woman's standing in an Indian marriage, they should support women's economic rights. If they want to rock the boat, they should not "proudly" sign away their inheritance, they should support their sis-in-law's inheritance rights, not tell women that someone (implying they) has to sacrifice for the family, and so on. Those are fairly difficult to do, but only when a woman has equal economic standing will she become an equal partner in the marriage.
After that whether they choose to do KC or not is a matter of their faith and will become irrelevant for everyone else. But if you think that by not doing KC you are doing your part of helping women throw off the secondary status, you are fooling yourself and others who really need the change. That is also a lipstick on the pig.
There are things you can do and there are things you have no control over. Not re-affirming the secondary status of women through silly religious rituals is something you can do. It creates conflict and conversation which are the first steps to change.
Let us not kid ourselves that karwa chauth of all festivals has anything to do with being hindu.
http://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/273g1m/men_of_india_what_would_you_like_all_women_to/
(there is only one comment in the whole thread that I liked).