Why we hate the 'mahaan' ? - Page 6

Originally posted by: sectoreight

Ankit - with all due respect, you say criticism is done because we dont understand their upbringing, their culture, their environmental context etc. and therefore we criticize because the character is not like the way we would behave in the situation though our upbringing and culture may be different.

I think you are right in many cases, but not in the case of anandi.

I want to ask you -- how many village women in Jayetsar (born in the same context and brought up with same upbringing) -- would have made daliya for gauri and bothered so much about what names she would give her child etc. (particularly when the singhs did not expect anandi to do so and worry about the child --they themselves were not bothered about gauri and her child).

Sumitra brought up in the same environment as anandi (and perhaps more regressive because she did not have anandi's level of education or exposure ... and even more regressive because sumitra had inlaws like dadisa and not caring ones like bhairon and herself)... even sumitra has been shocked by anandi's constant desire to be friends with jagya and gauri... and on three occassions has told her that she cant believe anandi is doing this after all this 'apmaan'.

Sumitra was the one who told anandi to stop wearing sindoor.

Gehna also brought up in exact same circumstances -- if basant showed up at the door with a second wife -- do you think gehna would start doing aadar satkaar of the second wife with daliya and gifts?

Human nature is the same everywhere -- and I do not think any woman in the world will have any patience with a husband and a new wife brought in when the existing wife is still alive. It is not that I judge anandi through western standards or through urban city standards of metropolitan living ... I am viewing anandi through her own environmental context and village upbringing. How many village girls will tolerate husband's exwife and make daliya for them? keep calling them to know about the hala;-chaal? keep receiving phone calls from new wife, and answering phone when new wife is calling despite knowing that gauri will only abuse her?

sumitra herself would not have done it, gehna herself would not have done it ... I doubt suguna would have done it, and I doubt phooli also would have carried a torch for her naata socalled husband bharat and his original wife. Therefore, your argument does not hold with anandi i feel.

even village women will not behave like this.

I am not saying she had to go for jagya's jugular and take legal punishment for him... but she certainly can keep a distance from him and his first wife? Is it so off-base to think that a village woman will not keep her distance ?

one more thing i feel is that if people are mahaan, even if we dont come up to their standards, we certainly dont condemn them... we are inspired by them, and actually set them up as aspirational role models. We may never reach up to their high standards, but we do see them as a gold standard and try to emulate them to the extent possible.

@sectoreight, i think u didnt read properly my post😊 ur whole argument r moving around Anandi making daliya for Gauri or comparison other character with Anandi in same situation😆 first of all i hv mentioned in my post tht people start criticizing few weak point of a positive character (making daliya is one of thm) forgetting her other strong action, which r dominating over her weakness. Why so much stress on making Daliya, whn her this weakness is not harming the whole spciety, but her other action, like fighting against social evils, like BV, andhviswas, widow marriage, village developments r more dominating and more effective thn her weakness of making daliya for gawari😆😆. My whole point was tht on the basis of few weak point people start calling Anandi DOORMAT, forgetting her more domination strong points.

ankit,

Originally posted by: sectoreight

ankit,

in this discussion on 'mahaanta' - anandi's professional competence or her achievements are not under question.

the discussion of mahaanta centers around anandi's personal life.

You say you ignore anandi's daliya mission or gauri appeasment tendencies because of her professional achievements.

My question is why does it have to be either/or? why should her professional achievements be expected to compensate for or cover for her lack of self-respect in her personal life?

can anandi not have professional achievements AND conduct herself with dignity in her personal life?

and if some of us criticize her conduct in her personal life, that does not mean that we are jealous of her is what i am saying.

i did read ouur post and the part that i commented on was where you said we dont understand others who come from different cultural contexts or upbringing or backgrounds, and i was pointing out that even those who come from the same background, same family have a hard time understanding anandi's choices. 😆😆 even bhago had asked her "bawli ho gayi hai kya tu?", never mind sumitra, gehna and phooli.

To say that anandi's personal decisions should be ignored because she has professional achievements is not correct.

To say that we criticize daliya making missions for gauri because we are jealous of anandi's high moral ground and cannot reach her level of mahaanta is even more incorrect.

the difference in ur thinking and mine is tht i m talking abt over all personality and character and u r splitting it in two part and taking one for criticizing her and leaving second part. For me her social work is not her professional work, its her nature to help other. Its not her duty or for any benefit. Yes now as sarpanch, it may be her profession now but till thn it was not her profession, but her character to help people. I cant separate it from her personality. Even if u want only judge her character on the basis of her relation with Gawari, thn why u r missing the other events where she hd very delicately and perfectly showed her places, like, whn she went to ask for blessing for her SR, or many time whn she came on different mission. Why u only take only such events, which may be as per u and me annoying, but she just helped a pregnant woman, without thinking tht she is her sautan. May be its not acceptable by us and may be she sd not hv done it, but first of all it was not in bad intention and it didnt harm anyone other thn herself. And for me INTENTION is most important things in human nature, becoz, no one is flawless, a mistake with good intention is forgivable, but with bad intention, its crime and sd be punished. This is my firm believe . U may differ, and i will not even try to convince u😊 btw, where i told tht u r jealous with Anandi for making Daliya😉

I think many of us are missing the fundamental point made here.

Firstly, the article does not talk about jealousy. It talks about "anticipated reproach" which is a totally different concept from jealousy. Jealousy is when we compare ourselves with people and covet the aspects of their life--be it money, assets, looks or even qualities. Anticipated reproach ,means we judge someone else's goodness based on our assessment of our own moral compass, and somehow feel guilty subconsciously that we haven't been that good. So we try to justify our position to ourselves by castigating the morally elevated, saying that oh they must be fake or doing it for an ulterior motive. It's a subconscious feeling---it's the same feeling we have when we see someone working for a cause and we mock him or her, precisely because we subconsciously feel guilty for not doing the work he/she is doing, and hence we need to put him/her down to justify ourselves. The other aspect of this is we think the morally upright will judge us for not being so morally upright, and hence we already form our defense in anticipation. I guess when people mock at Anandi's passion for social work or her penchant for fighting for other people's issue, it's anticipated reproach at work.


Now the dalia serving incident is a little complicated than just an act of mahanta. I think Anandi's actions can be be interpreted in four different ways.
1. She acted so because subconsciously she wanted to set herself in contrast to Gauri's rudeness--in a way kill her with kindness---and prove a point to Jagya about her moral superiority.
2. She acted so because she has been conditioned to be submissive and couldn't break away from the regressive ideas that used to define an ideal woman. She was brainwashed to believe that a husband is god and he can never be wrong.
3. She acted so because she was weak in front of Gauri and did not know how to resist people who abuse and thrash her.
4. She acted so because for her Gauri was first and foremost a pregnant woman and a house guest, and she kept aside her personal issues to act in a way she would treat any other pregnant woman and house guest.

I think if we interpret the actions through the first two explanations, there's plenty of scope to criticize her. Number 3 points to a severe psychological condition that results from a repressive childhood and long term abuse. However, I personally see her action through the fourth paradigm--precisely because the first two explanations do not go with her character. The 2nd one is partially true, but again, there were enough incidents that showed she was critical of Jagya's actions and did not endorse him at all times. Number 3 might be true too, and if it is, then it's indeed tragic.

Now coming to the fourth one, it is a rare quality to be courteous to your enemies. Only a few can do it, putting aside personal grudges and treating them as they would treat others. It is true that it is dangerous to show such behavior as model behavior on a national television, for more often than not, it can be construed as an act inspired by reason 2, and as hima pointed out we really don't want to propagate regressive ideas about ideal womanhood.

However, what happens if we see her act as a result of reason 4; and in real life too if we come across people who are non-confrontational and calm and make peace with their misfortune or are courteous with their enemies in their own way? Do our ways of handling the crisis have to be the only way of doing that? Do we become intolerant to people whose personalities do not match ours? When those people harm no one, trouble no one, and just deal with their lives in their own way, do we still judge them and criticize them? That's what we need to think about😊.

^Is "harming and troubling OTHERS" the only lens through which we should view her actions? And it's more than likely that Anandi's actions towards Gauri were meant to be shown as "ideal", since you yourself said that Anandi had the mindpower to be critical of Jagya.

Originally posted by: krystal_watz

^Is "harming and troubling OTHERS" the only lens through which we should view her actions? And it's more than likely that Anandi's actions towards Gauri were meant to be shown as "ideal", since you yourself said that Anandi had the mindpower to be critical of Jagya.

krystal: I never suggested anything as the only way of viewing things. In fact I have suggested four ways of looking at her action in question😆. There can be more.

I agree with you that projecting a certain idea of womanhood as the ideal womanhood can be dangerous for the viewing public. However, I don't think most of the criticism for Anandi springs from the concerns over the effect of media over the viewing public, and the kind of cultural images that get circulated and consumed. I think people have variously called her a doormat or spineless or weak precisely because she does not cater to the model of womanhood many people here believe should be the ideal model.

The criticisms spring from our awareness and rejection of the notion of womanhood that patriarchy has dictated for ages together. But in the process of rejecting that model are we also not construction a counter-model that is equally constrictive? The model most of us believe in is the model in which the woman is outspoken, preferably financially independent, resolves her conflicts with a degree of aggressiveness and looks 'modern' in her dress and appearance. Keeping this in mind, are we really tolerant of the other forms of womanhood? Why is it that a woman who is a housewife by choice feels inferior and the needs to justify herself to her working female friends? Why are we outspoken against a woman who makes a choice to make sacrifices for her family? Why are we intolerant of a woman like Anandi who is non-confrontational and non-bellicose and makes peace with her adversity in her own way, again by choice?

Note I have highlighted the word choice. I am ruling out decisions women make out of pressure from society or patriarchal brainwashing. But if we encounter a woman who wants to act out of choice a different model of femininity than we endorse, why should we cry foul?


A friend of mine had troubles in her marriage due to her husband's drunkenness. It was horrible and we all advised her to divorce him. She started staying separately, the husband reformed and wanted her back. All of us, including her family, asked her not to go back; however, she loved her husband deeply and wanted to give him a second chance. It's her life, it's her choice, though her choice is something I would not have done myself. But does that mean that I then deride her and mock her as a spineless woman? Why does it have to be my way or high way?

Hi Woman11

Originally posted by: woman11