Alia Bhatt's New Bridal Wear Ad Sparks Controversy - Page 4

Originally posted by: MujheMaarjaneDo

Shaadi karne k liye ladka aur ladki, or ladke/ladke, ladki/ladki, ji zaarurat hoti hain..

Ya phir ladka/transgender, ya ladki/transgender, ya phir transgender/transgender.

Originally posted by: monu_tan

...

Before everything I want to honestly think, do we have kanyadaan only in Hindus. Does other religion not follow this ritual in some way or other? Aren’t girls from other sects not sent off to the grooms house with much fanfare and prayers?

If yes, then why are only Hindu rituals targetted?

...

No, there is giving away of the bride in Christianity. Muslim marriages have their own problematic parts. I've never attended a Buddhist or a Jain wedding or a SIkh wedding to know.

But India is nearly 80% Hindu. So when you target patriarchy in religious customs, you target what is most common. Portraying Christian wedding rituals or Islamic practices without mentioning 80% of the population would look ridiculous.

It would be like an ad in the U.S. which talked about kanyadaan😆. First of all, no one would get it. Secondly, why go for a significantly minor part of the population when 65% is Christian? Young Sheldon targeted Christianity in the show. He didn't talk about Vishnu or Allah. Same logic.

And yeah, let's not conflate sending bride off with kanyadaan. The idea behind it is that the girl's father is transferring ownership over his human property to the groom. No matter what the religion, women are not anyone's damned property. We're human, just like men. We have our rights, just like men.

She looks pretty. I don't find her beautiful but she looks gorgeous in this ad.

Originally posted by: blue-ice.1

Its not Mahaan...its maan....as in dignity/pride...

and yes Kanyadaan is a derogatory tradition and there is no way to justify it....Girls are not property....you can only give your property in daan...not a person whom you don't own..

Hey! Thanks for the correction. I don't know why I heard it as Mahaan

Sorry, I disagree with you about the derogatory part. Its even a common western philosophy now that the greatest wealth that a person can own is relationships. Daan of the greatest wealth (more than property, diamonds or any other valuable objects) that is the daughter seems to me to be the closest to the western marriage concept of 'giving away the daughter by the father'. It's symbolic, not meant to be derogatory.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Perhaps you should do some research. Most religions have the concept of kanyadaan. And it is wrong in every religion. The ad showed a Hindu wedding because majority Indians are Hindu.

And yeah, the claim is parents get moksha by donating your daughter to a man?😆 Gimme a break. Not only mahaanta, heaven/moksha etc depends on what you did in life, not whether you donated your girl child to a man.

Please guide me towards an Indian ad where any other religion's aspect was criticised. I genuinely seemed to have missed it. How does majority or minority justify wrong and right? It doesn't for me. If it is wrong in all religions, the ad could have shown clippings of all the ceremonies.

Agree about the moksha part. I am merely pointing out that traditionally, the custom of KanyaDaan doesn't have a derogatory meaning (as a way to insult a girl by giving her in Daan) but a positive one as a daughter is considered to be the wealth superior to all materialistic wealth.

Originally posted by: cutejodikangal

This post is so wrong at so many levels that I am not able to figure out where to begin with and where to end.

Kanya daan is supposed to get punya to whom?

Beta is already mahaan madam/sir, no need to even say it. But beti is mahaan has to be said because people don’t even acknowledge beti to be a person as they consider her as a material that can be given away just like they give away cows and other cattle in daan. stating beta is ‘also’ mahaan is like when women are fighting for their existence men coming and saying ‘me too’. 😵

It’s not about religion. I being a staunch Hindu, find it offensive! Nobody can give me away to earn some punya for themselves. What the heck man. One earns Punya by their own good deeds not by trading people. 👎🏼

You did manage to type out quite a lot inspire of not knowing where to start or end.

I do not agree with the general statement that all women are mahaan (which I misunderstood in the ad itself. As a member pointed out to me its Maan not Mahaan.). Fighting for equal pay, equal respect, equal opportunities is sensible but things like all women are Mahaan or victim is plain stupid . Cows were considered wealth not materials, that's why cows were (still are) worshipped. The problem is you put 21st century glasses to check the intentions of an ancient, symbolic ritual. Daan isn't supposed to be of useless, second hand THINGS, it is supposed to be of WEALTH. A person is wealthy by relationships is a pretty common philosophy now and relationships are not things.

Me too happens with boys too though in the far minority as compared to girls. They deserve not to be treated that way too. Gender doesn't matter when it comes to a crime.

KanyaDaan is a religious symbolic practice. You have no grounds for saying it has nothing to do with religion. Your choice is be a part of this practice or not, whether it forms part of your belief system or not. Whether I agree with your belief or not, I respect your belief.

'Trading People' is outright false and disrespectful. A wedding is not a flesh market where humans are being bought and sold.

Originally posted by: PranPriye

I am merely pointing out that traditionally, the custom of KanyaDaan doesn't have a derogatory meaning (as a way to insult a girl by giving her in Daan) but a positive one as a daughter is considered to be the wealth superior to all materialistic wealth.

It is derogatory because it says the daughter is an owned object, a very expensive one, but still an object that is passed from one family to the next as a grand donation. Women are not wealth.They are living breathing human beings and they do not lose their family of birth just because they got married. My parents would always take first place, not my in-laws. It is regressive to claim the daughter is now foreign to her own home and belongs to someone else.

Originally posted by: PranPriye

'Trading People' is outright false and disrespectful. A wedding is not a flesh market where humans are being bought and sold.

It is not false. People like to romanticize marriage because of romance novels and movies. But marriage is basically a contract where two sides decide that pairing up is more beneficial than remaining single. Traditionally, it benefits the man and his family WAY more than the woman and her family. Dowries (and they occur in many religions/cultures) are basically the buying/selling of a human and they occur in hidden ways even in rich, educated families. It's all done hush hush but there is an emphasis on how the bride has to bring certain "gifts" with her for the man and his family. This occurs in the majority of Indian marriages.

Originally posted by: hotchoco

It is derogatory because it says the daughter is an owned object, a very expensive one, but still an object that is passed from one family to the next as a grand donation. Women are not wealth.They are living breathing human beings and they do not lose their family of birth just because they got married. My parents would always take first place, not my in-laws. It is regressive to claim the daughter is now foreign to her own home and belongs to someone else.

I disagree. It is in the modern times that wealth has been reduced to expensive objects only. Wealth earlier consisted of living beings as well like cows.

I agree that a girl does not become 'foreign' after marriage and you can check any of my posts. I have claimed nothing of the sort.

Can you all please 'like' this ad on YouTube? As of now, the no. of dislikes are higher than likes, thanks to bhakts, IT Cell and other faux Hindutva warriors.

If you want brands to make more such progressive content, then show it in the form of your likes, shares and comments. Else, they will assume these IT Cell bots represent the collective voice of the society and stop being progressive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWudnPrBUUA