Alia Bhatt's New Bridal Wear Ad Sparks Controversy - Page 9

Originally posted by: snatch

to a certain extent you are right. but if we constantly do this it will curb our freedom. we will be afraid to raise our opinion and soon we will be forced to think and speak within boxes.

Ppl who have problems with the ad are making a point too, let’s understand that as well. Also we should be mindful while talking about someone’s customs n tradition.

Reason for Kanyadan in Hindu marriage ceremony.

In vedic ceremony there were 4 rituals

1. Sankalp (oath taking and prayer to Gods by bride and to begin a new life with auspiciousness )

2. Kanyaadaan (By father of the bride to the groom)

3. Panigrahanam (Taking the brides hand by the groom to indicate acceptance of bride as his life partner)

4. Saptapadi (Seven steps with seven oaths for the married life)

Why Kanyadaan...

The original reasoning was, that the groom was a brahmachari till he accepts the hand of a woman.

Hence they were dutybound to beg for every necessity and receive them as alms. Not just food, but everything (clothes, place to stay, etc...)

This process would begin with Upnayan sanskaar, where the first alms of grains and fruits were given by mother to the son. To indicate that from here on till he marries he has to live on alms till he completes his education and accepts the hand of a girl as wife (Panigrahanam).

So once he accepts a girl as his bride he is no longer brahmachari and she representing lakshmi gives him the right to earn wealth and donate to others.

Thus Kanyaadaan was the final alms or donation a brahmachari asks, and after he accepts her hand he gets Lakshmi with him, so he will never be in a situation where he will need a donation.

It was so in a time, where women did not go to gurukul for education or earn their own livelihoods, but boys did.

In today's time girls get the same education as men and earn their living too, neither do boys live on alms ao Kanyaadaan as a ritual makes no sense and needs to be discarded.

The other 3 Sankalp, Panigrahanam and Saptapadi still make sense....so they can continue.

As society changes rituals must change too to prevalent social dynamics. People should not be snowflakes to criticism of rituals. Criticising a ritual is not the same as criticising God or faith or religion. Instead of looking at this ad as a criticism of religion why not look at it as an opportunity to reinvent and improve religion.

Originally posted by: CherryMe

See, the point is the concept is not patriarchal is what i was saying. It's about love, care and protection we expect from men. And rakhi is symbolic. Same with kanyadaan. There is no evil intention behind these festival/rituals as it is portrayed by liberal gang.

Yeah, it's not evil at all. Also I find this debate useless because this has no bearing on our real lives.

Originally posted by: Chiillii

Reason for Kanyadan in Hindu marriage ceremony.

In vedic ceremony there were 4 rituals

1. Sankalp (oath taking and prayer to Gods by bride and to begin a new life with auspiciousness )

2. Kanyaadaan (By father of the bride to the groom)

3. Panigrahanam (Taking the brides hand by the groom to indicate acceptance of bride as his life partner)

4. Saptapadi (Seven steps with seven oaths for the married life)

Why Kanyadaan...

The original reasoning was, that the groom was a brahmachari till he accepts the hand of a woman.

Hence they were dutybound to beg for every necessity and receive them as alms. Not just food, but everything (clothes, place to stay, etc...)

This process would begin with Upnayan sanskaar, where the first alms of grains and fruits were given by mother to the son. To indicate that from here on till he marries he has to live on alms till he completes his education and accepts the hand of a girl as wife (Panigrahanam).

So once he accepts a girl as his bride he is no longer brahmachari and she representing lakshmi gives him the right to earn wealth and donate to others.

Thus Kanyaadaan was the final alms or donation a brahmachari asks, and after he accepts her hand he gets Lakshmi with him, so he will never be in a situation where he will need a donation.

It was so in a time, where women did not go to gurukul for education or earn their own livelihoods, but boys did.

In today's time girls get the same education as men and earn their living too, neither do boys live on alms ao Kanyaadaan as a ritual makes no sense and needs to be discarded.

The other 3 Sankalp, Panigrahanam and Saptapadi still make sense....so they can continue.

As society changes rituals must change too to prevalent social dynamics. People should not be snowflakes to criticism of rituals. Criticising a ritual is not the same as criticising God or faith or religion. Instead of looking at this ad as a criticism of religion why not look at it as an opportunity to reinvent and improve religion.

Everything was alright, until you somehow magically co related Girls education with Kanyadaan.

A girl was considered Lakshmi , in her parents house as well as In law’s house. And you maybe surprised to know that there are Vedas that were written by women writers.

And Kanyadaan was part of that society.

Surely there was degradation of women freedom for quite a while making them a dependent on men via Manusmriti and all.

Originally posted by: monu_tan

Everything was alright, until you somehow magically co related Girls education with Kanyadaan.

A girl was considered Lakshmi , in her parents house as well as In law’s house. And you maybe surprised to know that there are Vedas that were written by women writers.

And Kanyadaan was part of that society.

Surely there was degradation of women freedom for quite a while making them a dependent on men via Manusmriti and all.

You're lecturing Chilli on vedas 😆

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

You're lecturing Chilli on vedas 😆

Can’t undo that, hope it’s not a big damage 😂

Originally posted by: CherryMe

@bold...that argument is absolutely meaningless in the context of patriarchy and womens rights. It's basically used if the purpose is to target one perticular religion or to sheild their own from any criticism.

Yes, 20% in 1.4 billion is a country within a country itself which is why the that argument is avsolutely flawed and meaningless.

I wanna know more about your cherrys 😂

Originally posted by: monu_tan

Everything was alright, until you somehow magically co related Girls education with Kanyadaan.

A girl was considered Lakshmi , in her parents house as well as In law’s house. And you maybe surprised to know that there are Vedas that were written by women writers.

And Kanyadaan was part of that society.

Surely there was degradation of women freedom for quite a while making them a dependent on men via Manusmriti and all.

Any ritual if it is not considered in the context of time and situation it originated in become problematic.

Kanyaadaan like I mentioned was final ritual to discontinue the brahmacharya of Men..only...

The final donation that changes their status from celibate to a householder, from a seeker of alms to donor of alms.

Yes it is connected to education of women because no similar concept has ever existed for women.

Some women had the privilege of getting education due to the benevolence of their fathers they were called Brahmavadinis. Prayers to Indra's and Visvedevas of some of these Brahmavadini is in vedas. My favourite is Maitreyi.

But do note that they were exceptions and not the rule hence there has never been a similar concept of putradaan for the bride.

No groom was ever donated as final alms to a girl brahmacharini so what does that tell you.

Equality of women with men is a modern concept.

Girls having the same education as men is a modern concept

Girls being financially independent is a modern concept

Girls being their own person with right to take decisions for their life by themselves is a modern concept

Kanyaadaan as a ritual was OK in the past, when women were an asset an not an independent person like a man. It is demeaning now.

And those who think Kanyaadaan is somehow about love of parents in giving away their daughter to her husband. Shouldn't then there be putradaan for grooms then for his parents to show love and give him away to his wife.

If Kanyaadaan must stay then add a putra daan as well and make both the bride and groom equals.

And those who are saying liberals only bash Hindu rituals I agree with them. Anyone who is not calling out similar patriarchal ritual in other religions is a coward so what if they are minority in India.

The right way to do this was for the brand to release an ad calling out father giving away the bride in all religions as regressive or a series of ads. Calling only one religion as regressive and keeping mum about others is cowardice.

Originally posted by: Softness

I don't think Islam and Christianity treat women as property. Never heard of it.

If you're asking did Jesus say anything about women being property or 2nd class, no. In fact, the exact opposite.

But religion is a diff thing. Christianity has similar concept to kanyadaan (except nothing connected with brahmacharya of men).

Priest: Who gives this woman away in marriage?

Daddy: Her mother and I do.

Wedding vows from the bride says love, honor, and obey.

Wedding vows from groom says love, honor, and cherish.

In Khomeini's Iran, marriage was stated to be something between a HUMAN and a WOMAN! Imagine that!

Oh, yeah. Religion as a whole has been bad for women.

I don't know who made that comment about rigid faiths, but answering here. You're incorrect. First, Abrahamic faiths include Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Mormonism (they consider themselves diff from Christians). Judaism and Christianity have undergone significant changes in the last couple of millenia, all of them from within.

And @chillii, I disagree with your statement re: including all faiths in it. Sure you can. But when the majority is involved, targeting a minority would be an act of bias and/or deflection. Case in point, the child abuse in catholic church which was investigated in the U.S. Some people came up with the argument oh, it happens in other faiths. Probably does. There are despicable humans everywhere. But did it make sense to talk about when the sheer numbers made catholic priests with criminal behavior the problem? I don't think so.

Originally posted by: Chiillii

Any ritual if it is not considered in the context of time and situation it originated in become problematic.

Kanyaadaan like I mentioned was final ritual to discontinue the brahmacharya of Men..only...

The final donation that changes their status from celibate to a householder, from a seeker of alms to donor of alms.

Yes it is connected to education of women because no similar concept has ever existed for women.

Some women had the privilege of getting education due to the benevolence of their fathers they were called Brahmavadinis. Prayers to Indra's and Visvedevas of some of these Brahmavadini is in vedas. My favourite is Maitreyi.

But do note that they were exceptions and not the rule hence there has never been a similar concept of putradaan for the bride.

No groom was ever donated as final alms to a girl brahmacharini so what does that tell you.

Equality of women with men is a modern concept.

Girls having the same education as men is a modern concept

Girls being financially independent is a modern concept

Girls being their own person with right to take decisions for their life by themselves is a modern concept

Kanyaadaan as a ritual was OK in the past, when women were an asset an not an independent person like a man. It is demeaning now.

And those who think Kanyaadaan is somehow about love of parents in giving away their daughter to her husband. Shouldn't then there be putradaan for grooms then for his parents to show love and give him away to his wife.

If Kanyaadaan must stay then add a putra daan as well and make both the bride and groom equals.

And those who are saying liberals only bash Hindu rituals I agree with them. Anyone who is not calling out similar patriarchal ritual in other religions is a coward so what if they are minority in India.

The right way to do this was for the brand to release an ad calling out father giving away the bride in all religions as regressive or a series of ads. Calling only one religion as regressive and keeping mum about others is cowardice.

We also had a term Upadhyayanis i.e female Teachers for female students. There was indeed a good level of education for girls and Girls would also have their Janeu done until Manu smriti subverted women position in society.

We had concept of Swayamvar as well.

I agree to everything else u said apart from Kanyadaan was done for girls were not educated. Doesn’t make sense to me.

Also Kanyadaan was not only to end the brahmcharya of a man but also to have the gotra transfer of girl from father’s to husband’s.