Posted:
I am a little confused. Forgive me, I am not Indian -- but have spent a lot of time in Indian rural society.
I was a little confused with the social structure -- the lady is supposed to be bharat's wife -- and phooli is supposed to be the nata lady (I assume nata means a live in relationship which has social sanction - I dont really understand how it differs from a marriage though - even after reading on the internet it is not crystal clear to me as to when someone gets married and when someone can have a nata).
Anyway, that is besides the point.
What I am confused about is that it is my belief based on what I have seen that a woman is called a wife only when she can bear a child (I am only talking about village social structure -- not the institution of marriage itself) -- otherwise, nobody really wants a 'wife' who is infertile and just hangs around the home without a child.
So, then they will usually get rid of the first wife if she is infertile -- and then take on another woman, and if that woman bears a child -- then she (in this case phooli) will get the status of 'wife'.
This particular twist in phooli's case seemed extremely unusual to me -- that the infertile wife is still given the status of wife by bharat and his parents -- and phooli is so cruelly used just as a surrogate mother and sort of seen as a prostitute - someone who sells her body for money by calling it 'nata'. he says to her "you are fit only for naata, not to become someone's byaahta"
In most of rural society, the woman who produces the heir is automatically the wife... and any other wife who has no heir is tossed out and stripped off her wife status.
What have i missed here?
Obviously it is some technicality of natapratha that i dont understand... but i think it is very very odd that the mother-in-law and bharat will invite the first lady who has no heir back to their home and give her a wife status again with an adopted child.
Pati Patni Aur Panga
