Hinduism:
Sindoor
Maangalsutra
Bangles/Kangan/Chudi
Vows
Kumkum
Toe rings/bichiya
Nose ring
Colours of the clothing
Originally, sindoor was meant to represent the a woman's visible desire for her husband's long life. According to what I've read, red was seen as a symbol of power and the vermilion in general represented the female energy of Parvati and Sati. Apparently Sati was seen as the ideal wife, a woman who gave her life for her husband's honour and as such the symbol was supposed to represent a woman's commitment to do so for her spouse. In addition, a woman who wore vermilion in her maang, was said to have garnered the protection of the goddess Parvati for her husband's life. Dear friends, I am yet to see which part of these beautiful symbolic meanings suggests that a woman's life after the death of her husband or the removal of her husband from her life is meaningless and meant only to become a shadow chasing a gone man. In another reading, I found that this red symbol of marriage represented blood- the sign of life, it represented fertility and indicated that a woman's life was full and with its removal her life was no longer so wonderful. In plain terms, it was barren.
Hmm... I sense trouble there. On one hand, the blessing of having sindoor in your maang gives you life makes you fruitful, adds happiness and joy, promises children, a home, more people to your family. Yet...this very symbol can mean the end of your life. Everytime you see it in the mirror, you should pray that it is never removed, not because you fear for your husband's life, but because you should fear what your life might be like after it. Without it. Sad, isn't it? That something so beautiful must be marred by the darkness of society's views on what your life should be like after your husband is removed from it.
Before I continue, let me quote a little paragraph here:
"In Hinduism, when a girl gets married she adorns certain jewelry and observes special customs to make obvious her marital status. Just as a many of you wear the wedding ring after marriage, the married Hindu girl, according to the tradition, has to wear the 'mangalsutra,' bangles, nose and toe rings and a red
bindi or apply 'kumkum' or vermilion on her forehead symbolizing not only her rite of passage from a girl to a married woman but also her heightened position in society as an adult who is respected and is capable of running a household, which is, in a way, the microcosm of the society at large."
-https://hinduism.about.com/od/matrimonial1/a/mangalsutra.htm
So are some members of society suggesting that after the loss of a husband, a woman no longer deserves to be respected in society? Should she no longer have the right to a say in her own household? Does no longer being married remove a person's responsibilities from their life? I'm guessing that the responsibilities are allowed to remain in some aspects (caring for children, and older relatives and in-laws) so then why should not the other aspects of life remain in a widow or divorcee's life? Does the loss of her husband make her into a slave meant to sit in silence while life moves on without her?
Now onto the maangalsutra. Here I shall simply quote again:
The word 'mangalsutra' is derived from the two words, mangal meaning holy or auspicious and sutrameaning thread.It is a sacred necklace that the groom ties around the bride's neck on the day of the wedding in a ceremony called Mangalya dharanam(meaning - wearing the auspicious), thereby giving her the status of his wife and life mate. Thereafter, the wife wears the mangalsutra all her life or till the time the husband is alive as a sign of their marriage, mutual love and goodwill, understanding and faithful commitment to one another.
Hindu women are extremely superstitious about the mangalsutra. If it breaks or gets lost it is considered ominous. Therefore, the Mangalsutra is much more than a piece of fancy jewelry, but a sacred necklace of love, trust and marital happiness of a Hindu couple - a vital symbol of wedlock.
...the black beads...ward off the evil and uphold the sanctity of the institution of marriage.
-https://hinduism.about.com/od/matrimonial1/a/mangalsutra.htm
Holy...thread...Hmmm...commitment to each other...a commitment of love and goodwill...Symbol representing the sanctity of the institution of marriage... In all of my reading so far, nothing here has suggested that with the loss of the status of marriage a woman needs to become cursed and permanently unhappy all her life. Also, if it represents the sanctity of marriage, doesn't that mean that when that sanctity is violated she has a right to remove it? Doesn't it mean that if that husband she built her life on no longer provides the trust, love, commitment that the symbol represents, she has a right to remove herself from that situation and find the person who believes in fulfilling these aspects of a marriage? If the marriage is destroyed by the evil of life's circumstances and/or the spouse, then doesn't it mean that those black beads no longer serve a purpose? After all, why protect the tainted from what has already destroyed it. Isn't that like putting a cover on a glass of milk after the scent of something like lime, fish, etc or the presence of some foreign object has spoiled it and then saying, "You know, it's milk. It should still be preserved, keep the cover on and hope it doesn't hurt you when you drink it." When should a woman accept that enough is enough, and that the sanskaars represented by the maangalsutra are no longer being met, therefore she should move on with her life?
Chudi/Kangans:
I'll simply quote a little bit of what I found:
Bangles and Honeymoon ' During an Indian wedding, the bride tries to wear the smallest glass bangles. She is helped by her best friend or sister to do this using scented oil. It's believed that smaller bangles symbolize a happy and loving marriage and a wonderful honeymoon.
Bangles and Husband and Luck ' A married Indian woman is required to wear bangles (green or red depending on which region they belong to) on a day to day basis because bangles are symbolic of safety, marriage and luck for their husbands. Sudden breaking of glass bangles is considered a sign of danger or an unpleasant incident involving the husband.
Color and Meaning
Glass bangles hold different meanings according to their color. Some regions have specific bangles associated with their local traditions, and there is a more general color code for bangles as well. Red bangles symbolize energy, blue bangles symbolize wisdom and purple symbolizes independence. Green stands for luck or marriage and yellow is for happiness. Orange bangles mean success, white ones mean new beginnings and black ones mean power. Silver bangles mean strength, while gold bangles mean fortune.
Once again, what I have read revolves around the woman's desires regarding her husband, and not the other way around. The bangles of a married woman, from my understanding, represent her hopes and dreams for her life in relation to her husband and family. You could say that they are a prayer for happiness, and good fortune in the woman's life. They also give hints into various aspects of her personality since you can tell by the colours and types of bangles she wears what she wants from her life. Does she want wealth, happiness, wisdom, independence, her husband's long life? However, does this mean she should stop desiring these things after her husband's death? And if so, why? Are her wishes not as important as her husband's? Is the society suggesting that there is only one person in the marriage and that is the woman? However, if they are...then this should also work in her favour, isn't that so? Because a marriage with only one person means that the person is free to release themselves if the situation is not conducive to her wellbeing...isn't that so? While if there are two people involved, then it means the husband should be just as interested in preserving his wife's long life, praying for success and happiness for her, and doing everything in his power to make their marriage work, just like his wife. Where then does this leave room for double standards if marriage is a two way street as the wedding vows suggest?
Since I'm mentioning those vows. The information I found on the Saat Phere:
Quoting from an India- Forum member's post _charu_ of the YRKKH forum (google sent me there)
Seven Vows
An Indian marriage is one of the most serious and scared affair in the society. This is visible from the austerity with which it is performed. A Hindu marriage in particular is all about rituals and customs. There are a number of them which are followed before and after wedding, making it an elaborate ceremony. Every ritual and rite has its own meaning cannot be done away with. However, the most important ones are preformed on the day of the marriage itself. One such custom is solemnizing seven vows or pheras. For more detail, read on.
Without exaggeration, the seven vows or pheras can be said to contain the crux of the practice of marriage. This is attributed to the fact that love marriages performed in temple, marking the holy priest and the almighty as the only witness, only consist of seven vows or pheras. These seven vows are the seven promises which the bride and the groom do to each other for a happy and prosperous life. They are bound together by an unseen bond protected by these promising words.
These seven vows are known as Saptadi, which are performed along with Mangalpheras, which is revolving around the sacred fire. Any marriage is incomplete without these vows and is deemed complete once they are conducted. On the day of the wedding the bride and the groom sit under the Mandap or the scared canopy for this ritual. The bride is seated towards left of the groom before the pheras, while towards the right after they are complete.
The Seven Vows:
Groom:
You will offer me food and be helpful in every way. I will cherish you and provide welfare and happiness for you and our children.
Bride:
I am responsible for the home and all household responsibilities.
Groom:
Together we will protect our house and children.
Bride:
I will be by your side as your courage and strength. I will rejoice in your happiness. In return, you will love me solely.
Groom:
May we grow wealthy and prosperous and strive for the education of our children. May our children live long.
Bride:
I will love you solely for the rest of my life, as you are my husband. Every other man in my life will be secondary. I vow to remain chaste.
Groom:
You have brought sacredness into my life, and have completed me. May we be blessed with noble and obedient children.
Bride:
I will shower you with joy, from head to toe. I will strive to please you in every way I can.
Groom: You are my best friend, and staunchest well-wisher. You have come into my life, enriching it. God bless you.
Bride:
I promise to love and cherish you for as long as I live. Your happiness is my happiness, and your sorrow is my sorrow. I will trust and honor you, and will strive to fulfill all your wishes.
Groom:
May you be filled with joy and peace.
Bride:
I will always be by your side.
Groom:
We are now husband and wife, and are one. You are mine and I am yours for eternity.
Bride:
As God is witness, I am now your wife. We will love, honor and cherish each other forever.
From I have just read, it seems both the husband and wife are required to care for each other's wellbeing. They are supposed to both love, and support each other. All of these vows point to the promise to each other stand side by side forever. Since Hindus believe in reincarnation, a person can say that a wife is required to stay by her husband's side every time she is reincarnated. From what I've just read, the same is required from the husband. Toh, if the pati does not keep all of the vachans made, isn't he breaking the pact created by all seven vachans? Does he not lose his right to his wife's unfaltering support and well wishes? Does this not mean that she should be allowed to find a man who is willing to keep all seven vachans that are dictated by Hinduism?
The fascinating thing is, both pati aur patni have to make vows that cover the same ground of happiness, love, care, support and a forever. So then why was it seen as fine for a man to remarry, but not for a woman? Why is it mahan for a woman to think of forever and hold onto the ends of her pati's doti while a man who chose to remain a widower would be mocked? After all he made vows of forever and ever too, didn't he? Why is it that the man is not compelled to wear conspicuous symbols of marriage (atleast something a whole lot more obvious than sacred thread which he could probably keep in his pocket if he felt like) ? Why does he not have to wear symbols that ask for his wife's long life from the various gods? Does his wife's life not mean as much as his? As far as I can see, if it goes for him, then it should go for her too. If he can remarry, then she should be able to remarry. If she must be burned with him upon his death, then he too should be burned upon her death.
It seems that the more I read about marriage in society, in particular Hindu society, the more it looks as if only the woman is seen as married, while the man is just the image of marriage. What I mean is, one person is the reality bearing the consequences and responsibilities that come with making a commitment, and the other is getting to play the doll-house version, with no consequences for messing up the game because it's just not of real value.
KumKum:
So I just found this in regard to why a widow should not wear kumkum or similar symbols of marriage:
1.13 Reason for application of kumkum by widows being unauthorised by Scriptures
A. Obstacle in the onward journey of the dead husband's subtle body: After the death of husband, while applying kumkum the woman remembers her husband because of which the subtle body of the husband is again compelled to come to the Earth.
B. Sacrifice of the Great Illusion (Maya) and creation of sense of detachment in self: After the death of husband, it is necessary to awaken a sense of detachment in the woman. Hence she has to sacrifice the ornaments that are suggestive of state of a married woman. Hence, this conduct assists a widow to proceed on the path of God realisation.
Due to lack of religious education and the increasing influence of Western culture, some widows say, 'So what if the husband is dead?' and indulge in irreligious conducts by doing inappropriate actions like applying kumkum on the forehead and wearing a mangalasutra. By doing so, they also cause spiritual harm to the husband. In order to prevent the harm, they should pay attention to observing righteous conducts in daily life seriously.
https://forumforhinduawakening.org/understanding/glory-hindu-dharma/importance-of-kumkum-over-bindi
Since I am not Hindu, and have not studied Hindu scriptures, all I ask is this:- The woman must wear all the symbols of marriage, and then remove them upon the death of her husband to ensure that his soul is not troubled in whatever new life he has, and is not drawn back to earth or this part of the universe if I am understanding it correctly. Therefore, is it not beneficial to the deceased pati and his roaming soul, to have the wife be free of the symbols attached to him, and make a new life for herself? Won't his soul be free to go wherever it pleases while she lives the life that remains on Earth in this part of the universe? And if you do not agree, then why doesn't her pati wear some symbol that he has to remove so that he won't keep her soul trapped to Earth? If he doesn't have to wear anything, then it means that she is free from him, isn't that so? And if she is free from him, why can she not exercise that freedom in the act of remarriage?
Bichiya are said to be worn to remind the married woman where her boundaries stand after marriage. Through my reading so far, I've come to assume that these boundaries represent the things that she is allowed to do while married. The things that do not stain her reputation nor her pati's reputation, and the level of decorum that is expected from a married woman. Therefore, upon the ending of the marriage, those invoked boundaries should automatically be done away with, right? Shouldn't she be free to now do the things she deems fit for her way of life? And if that way of life includes remarriage, then shouldn't she be free to do so?
The interesting thing is that both men and women now where bangles and toe rings. So why is it that there is a different meaning in the wearing of these ornaments for men, and for women? Do individuals like Kaki not step outside of the dictates of society's past and see the reasoning attached? I suppose the fact that she can gloss over something as big as infidelity and abandonment, means that I would be an idiot to expect her to note something so insignificant as this.
The nose ring is said to be a symbol of Parvati the goddess of marriage. If this represents marriage, then after marriage, when this is removed, does this imply that marriage ceases to exist? Is it being suggested that the goddess should no longer be relevant in the woman's life? If that's so, then why should the woman be forced to hold on to/ adhere to rules attached to the dead husband? After all, according to the quote mentioned a few lines above, the pati's soul is roaming freely and the patni's use of the symbols from that marriage would only bother him. So why does she not have the right or freedom to get on with her life and once again find a place for the goddess Parvati and the union the nose ring represents?
Colours...Marriage brings with it the colours of life. However, from what I've seen so far, from infancy colours are in a girl child's life. She certainly doesn't spend her life in white, and blandness before getting married. So why then should these colours be taken from her life after her pati's death? His presence was meant to add to the colours that already existed in her life. His presence (according to the marriage vows as well) are supposed to increase her happiness and fruitfulness. Therefore, he is supposed to augment and improve her quality of life. Therefore, logically speaking, the woman should have the right to return to her former state of being, that is, the state before marriage improved her life and added it's own colours, and deepened the hues that already existed.
All in all, the summary of ramblings is that the woman has just as much right to return to the life she was leading before her husband entered. She has the right to happiness and peace of mind after his death. Just as men were not required to be burned when their wives died, then a woman too should not be required to die either mentally or physically after her pati's death. Marriage was meant to improve the lives of those involved, not chain them to years of sadness or loneliness upon the marriage's demise. Life was given by God to all to be enjoyed to its fullest, and if a person wants to say that it is a sin for a woman to remarry and move on with her life, then isn't it just as much a sin to take life for granted and not put it to its fullest use by living out the rest of the years God has blessed you with in happiness and contentment?
The most hurtful thing about this aspect of all societies, is that we women continue to encourage these perceptions in our daughters and sons. We degrade other women in these positions instead of helping. We perpetuate and enable this sort of inequality by setting different moral standards for men and women. Often, there are women like Kaki who spout bullscrank and are happy to remain in the pits of woeful inequality, degradation and uncalled for humiliation. Men with multiple girls are seen as studs, and players and other disgustingly encouraging names. Women are called derisive names like s**t and wh**e if they are seen with even one man.😳 Pura bakwaas.
I feel myself stepping into dangerous grounds, so I think I'll stop there.😆
Suggestions / Comments
Health and Fitness
Mahadev And Sons
Geet - Hui Sabse Parayee
