Hindu Marriage Ritual: Kanyadaan - Page 3

Originally posted by: devashree_h

Marrying and having children is also paying a debt. If you find debt negative and transactional, then you are having issue with Hinduism itself. Remembering Ancestors and keeping them happy in after life is a very basic tenet of Hindusim.

But its weird this debt is only for one gender

And no, i have no issues with hinduism, i have issues with rigid conservatives who understand hinduism the least and try to act as gatekeepers

As i said above, every Hindu God and Avatar, from Rama to Krishna have constantly said rituals and practices don't matter, they have said karma is more important than rituals, they have said rituals should change with time

I will rather take the word of Hindu Gods themselves than modern gatekeepers who want to take one of the most fluid and progressive religion and want to make it a carbon copy of rigid Abhramic religions

Originally posted by: Harish111

What mindset is this? Its a fact that india is the country with one of the most crimes and injustice against women. How is fact a "mindset". Its also a fact that regressive thinking and culture and rituals leads and adds to these injustice

In your very post you talk about father giving his responsibility to groom. But why is a grown daughter a responsibility but a grown son not? Why is a man needed for responsibility of other grown up person? After all, the son is also starting a new life and needs help and support but there is no son daan?

I think the mindset we need to truly change is the fact that people downplay genuine injustice and concerns in a country like india. India is one of the worst places in the world to be a woman, every stat and study confirms this

There is no "mindset", only cold hard facts

I'm not saying that there aren't crimes done against women. I'm myself a girl and I am fully aware of the heinous crimes done against girls in our country. But have you ever wondered that nowadays people are always pointing out hands at anything and everything they feel which can be related to a girl as something which offends her gender? Kanyadaan IS NOT objectification of women. It's a mere ritual which gives happiness to a girl's parents. They believe that they're fortunate to have someone to take care of their child. What's wrong is this now?

Obviously responsibility doesn't only me supporting the girl financially and making her feel not worthy of being able to support herself. It's more like parents feel that there would be someone there to support and take care of their child when they won't be there with their daughter.

And about the son daan, men don't go to their in laws house. If they went they maybe instead of Kanyadaans we might have Son-daans existing in our society.

Feminism is surely required in our society but it never means that each and every thing done regarding a woman is wrong or offending her rights. And moreover, nowadays neither the families nor the couple takes all our customs too seriously. They're all concerned with taking good photos and just being declared married by the Pandit and that's it.

If a girl feels she requires to look the best in her wedding day and that's not a problem and it's "her choice", then if a father wants to put her hand over her to be husband, how can it be treated as objectification of her? If doing a small ceremony which means nothing to the couples in our generation makes the bride's Father happy, i don't find anything wrong in it.

@Devshree and @Harish111,

You make good points in each of your posts❤️. I greatly value all the important information you both shared with us.

Various viewpoints and approaches of expressing those perspectives.❤️

Marriage is an institution, not just a ritual, a fad, or a detestable custom. This ceremony has gone through several phases throughout history, adapting to meet the needs of the period, just like any other tradition.

Kanyadaan is a relatively new concept when it comes to wedding rituals.

The Vedas, which are texts that delineated principles of living one’s life through daily life in order to attain eternal freedom, did not have this concept. During the Vedic times, consent of the women for marriage was given utmost importance. She had the final say about whom she wanted to marry. She entered into the union as the groom’s equal, the other half of his existence.

The concept of the father offering his daughter to the groom was unheard of in ancient times. As time went by, the principles of Vedas evolved, giving rise to the Manu Smriti texts that emerged as the foundation for modern Indian Hindu laws and jurisprudence.

Sita tested her groom's valour to see if he had the courage to become a future king. Draupadi tested her husband's proficiency with archery, which was important at the time. In order to make her son to succeed as king, Satyavati demanded a vow to protect her position as the queen consort. Kunti voluntarily adopted herself to serve as a surrogate for the heirs.

As her brother questioned Rukmini, she expressed her wish, asked, pleaded and then decided in silence to accompany Krishna, the man she loved most, to the altar. Shubhadra followed suit. Radha was never concerned about social norms.

In the past, women had a great deal of independence. There was no Kanyadaan. Only partners with equal rights.-------------

After Hinduism evolved from Vedic traditions to accepting the treatise of Manus as the basis, the position of women changed in the Hindu society. The status of equality that women enjoyed during Vedic times was vastly curtailed, and they were stripped of any independence. They were placed under lifelong male guardianship – Father when unmarried, Husband when married and finally son when old and widowed. From here emerged the concept of Kanyadaan, which some would just consider transfer of property rights, the property being the girl to be wedded. According to Manu Smriti, Kanyadaan is the biggest achievement for any family man, the greatest ‘daan’ or gift of all. But, in real context, the scenario is not as cut and dried as that. The ritual is enmeshed with a lot of emotions that undermine the religious side of the process. It exemplifies the bond between a father and a daughter and their mutual love!!

The Kanyadaan ceremony marks the biggest transition in a bride’s life. The ceremony confirms the change of role in her life, from a daughter to a wife. Their fates now linked together, the bride is no longer a part of her father’s household and is accepted into the groom’s family.

It is emphasized during the ritual, that the parents are entrusting him with the most precious ‘gift’ in this world. It is expected of him that he will always take care of his wife, their daughter, respect her and keep her happy in every way possible.

In fact, it is not mentioned as Kanyadan --it was mentioned as Panigrahan.

The ritual, while it might seem a bit misogynistic at its core, is not just a Hindu custom, but equivalent traditions may be cited in Christian and Jewish weddings where the father of the bride leads her to the wedding altar and ‘gives her away’ to the groom.

This approach defines the problem from a different perspective. Let us see....

According to Manu Smriti ---

न कन्यायाः पिता विद्वान् गृह्णीयात् शुल्कमण्वपि ।
गृह्णंशुल्कं हि लोभेन स्यान्नरोऽपत्यविक्रयी ॥ ५१ ॥

The above shloka means:

“If a father greedily does Kanyadaan of his daughter by receiving a fee, then he incurs the sin of exchanging or selling the child.”

Apastamba Smriti (9.25-26) states that, “Whoever gives his daughter in exchange for a price, he lives in Raurava hell for many years”.

लक्ष्मीरूपामिमां कन्यां प्रददेविष्णुरूपिणे ।

तुल्यं चोदकपूर्वा तां पितॄणां तारणाय च ॥ (लघुआश्वाल्यनस्मृति, 15.26)

The above Shloka means, ” I give this girl who is in the form of Lakshmi to the groom in the form of Vishnu. Why ? To provide Mokhsa to the ancestors.” This is such a beautiful description of Kanyadaan. Hence, it is the favour/blessing that the bride’s father does to the groom. Therefore, the importance of the bride increases manifold.

Another perspective---

Objectifying women as a gift is less surprising but what surprises me is the fact that this ritual is still in practice, unquestioned.

Does the practice of kanyadaan serve any purpose in today’s society? With changing times, rituals must change too.Isn't it?

I proudly admire Vedic times and practices, but when it comes to marriage, rather than just admiring, we are keeping the system intact.

Hindu marriage, with its rituals and ceremonies of the Vedic age, was relevant in the social circumstances of those times. Girls were married off before attaining puberty, and hence the ritual “Kanyadaan”. The girl needed another guardian after her marriage, and the responsibility of a girl was completely transferred to the family she was married into after the ritual --kanyadaan.

Times have changed. Girl child marriage is history now. In 21st century, we are talking of equality, rights of girls to education, rights to have share in property, everything! But how often do we talk of establishing the balance? How frequently do we target the fundamental cause of inequality?

The role of women has changed incredibly. Women are now getting educated, they are self-sufficient, taking care of their parents and financially independent. They have attained immense success in every field, whether it is sports, politics, or academics. Women have been struggling for decades to come out of being considered the weaker ones. They are no more the dependent section of the community. Then what is the logic behind continuing with the rituals like Kanyadaan? What is the logic of considering the groom as Lord Vishnu in today’s time and to offer him the woman as an object by bride’s parents?

Is this we call equality? By simply changing the name of the ritual from Kanyadaan to Panigrahan, it sounds good, not a questionable ritual. Isn't it? 😊

Please share your views.

Pani grahan or hasta melap, are part of Kanyadaan ritual.

From main post:

According to Shastras, Kanyadaan is an important ritual where the Father gives away his daughter(Laxmi) t the Groom(Vishnu). A Father is said to attain Brahmalok when he performs Kanyadaan. It said, he pays back the debt of his ancestors, by performing this ceremony.

It's all about interpretation. Here Father gives away his daughter as a part of Chaturvidha Purushaarth-Dharma, Artha, Kaam, Mokash. It was his dharma(duty), to continue the social system, he is part of. His parents were united in marriage, got progeny. Nourished, educated their children, got them married as a part of the social system. He did the same with his daughter. Used artha(earned money) in the process. It was father's wish(Kaam- kaamanaa) to get his daughter married. As per the system, he is then free to work towards attaining moksha, after fulfilling other responsibilities of his life.

Giving away his daughter in marriage does'nt guarantee him Brahmaloka. Or by now Brahmaloka would have been over populated. This ceremony is not a short cut for moksha. Its only a ritual. Not to be interpreted literally.

What is ancestor's debt? Father as a head of the family, should complete all his social responsibilities towards his family.

In ancient times, system of 4 aashrama was followed.

Brahmacharya (student), Gṛhastha (householder), Vanaprastha (forest walker/forest dweller), and Sannyasa (renunciate).

Brahmaloka is achieved after all karmic accounts are cleared along with perfect renunciation.

So its a long path & kanyadaan is not a short cut to achieve moksha.

Thanks for reading.

i dont knw abt the legend behind Kanyaadaan...

i guess all marriages follow this ritual....

father bringing bride till altar....

handing over to groom etc....

i dont find anything wrong in it....

ths depend on people mentality

There is Kanyadaan and then Giving away the bride.. there's Mangalsutra and then we have a Wedding band/Ring.

Why is one dissed and one welcomed as something modern?

Many people have explained the reason behind the ritual so won't elaborate on that. But the emotion during that ritual is something to be experienced.

Also it's not necessarily a Father who does Kanyadaan. There have been many instances where a related or known couple close to the family does all the wedding rituals usually done by parents. This mostly..but not always.. happens when one of the parent is absent

Just for people wondering.. Mahabharat mentions Putra daan.

Also if anyone has heard the vows during Kanyadaan it mentions equal rights for both bride n groom..its a union of two people in order to perform their dharma.

That's why the word is Dharmapatni

Personally, I think we should stop debating on this. Let's face it, yes, Kanyadaan has patriarchal roots. That's because society was largely patriarchal until previous generation. This is not a Hindu or Indian thing. There are such rituals across various cultures and religions. There is no use of dwelling in past, instead we should live in present.

At present, I think the ritual needs to open up a bit to include single parents, siblings etc. I also think that if the couple wants to skip this one ritual then it should be accepted. Similarly, couples and their families, who want this ritual need not to be shamed. Marriage should be a fun and memorable experience for the couple.

On the other hand, if someone wants to skip more rituals or ceremonies, they should really opt for alternative ways. It doesn't make sense to have a wedding where you are going to skip virtually everything. You don't go to a sandwich shop and ask for a sandwich without any veggies, instead you go to a store and buy some bread.

Definitely Kanyadaan has patriarchal root. But there are others thing which need to be address before modifying ritual. For eg. bride leaving their home and going to Groom's house. Nowadays couple are living together outside Groom's home because of job in different city. Most of the women are working and decide to get joint loan for their house. So in this case Kanyadaan can be skip. Or both parents (Groom's parent also) can do Daan (handing their hands to each other).

If bride is going to Groom's parent house then they should properly follow old custom.

Can someone logically explain why this is done by only bride's parent?