Numerous articles deriding 'Karvachauth' -- a north-Indian festival where married women fast from dawn till moon-rise without food or water -- made me introspect the tightrope of feminism that the "modern Indian woman" has to justify. A Huffington post article, Karvachauth -- The celebration of cultural misogyny, by Rita Banerji, is a scathing articulation on the issue. However, I have mixed views about the generalised name-calling of 'Karvachauth'.
Yes, it is undeniable that rituals like Karvachauth, Vat-Savitri, Teej, Gouri-Vrat that pray for the longevity of husbands are rooted in patriarchy because traditionally a woman's worth sunk drastically if her husband died. A widow meant ill-omen. Dressing, social interactions, even diet became restrictive. Bengal has a long tradition of rules for widows, the most alarming of which to me is that widows are expected to stop eating non-vegetarian food and convert overnight to a niramish diet. But, times are changing.
Some articles and status updates refuse to weigh in the complex coexistence of modernity and traditions, are myopic on the patriarchy angle and insist on mocking Karvachauth under a sweeping blanket of feminist assumptions. If these people are trying to insinuate that all Indian women still fast out of self-preserving obligations linked to their husbands' lives, that is a gross generalisation, if not wrong altogether. If they are trying to say that wishing for a better half's well-being is old-fashioned, find me one person who actively wishes their spouse to die. A little too extreme, eh? Well, but isn't that familiar? The general trend of most outbursts these days, feminist or otherwise, is extreme.
Karvachauth has largely evolved into an excuse for communal get-togethers now. There is new clothes and jewellery to look forward to getting which probably involves passive-aggressive bullying of the poor husband. There is mehendi and music. Gangs of married women indulge in gossip and jewellery show-off in exclusive "girl-time." The fasting is voluntary and not life-threatening. Mocking such harmless personal choices, even if one can't relate to them, is also a sign of intellectual intolerance.
Are we playing a "I-am-more-feminist-than-you" game here as we call a collective battle against something as inane as Karvachauth? Who exactly is a feminist and what ideas define our assumptions? Hypothetically, if I am willing to cook for my husband and iron his clothes, will I not qualify as a feminist? If I willingly give up my career to raise kids, will I be less of a superwoman? If I fast because of a sentiment I can't quite pinpoint, but based on vague, harmless beliefs and a touch of romantic sacrifice, will you gun me for falling short of the tenets of feminism?
Each relationship has give and take; women are now expecting equal share from men and many are getting it. Those wanting to bypass the complications of matrimonial adjustments choose to be single and are all the more happy for it. So, there is no right or wrong way to assert feminism, leave alone the need to assert. The over-the-top interpretations of feminism are unnerving. No wonder that some men run scared because utter the word "feminist" and they possibly picture a female preying mantis eating up the mate after intercourse.
Some articles deriding such gender fasts mention Manusmiriti, an ancient and controversial Hindu text of codes of conduct. But, raking up Manusmriti every time is cliché. Let's just accept that Manu was a misogynist and stop hinging our arguments on his derogatory understanding of women. Karvachauth, in many ways, does fall in line with misguided, but popular, cultural notions of self-denial and sacrifice that are intrinsically linked with traditional romance not just in India, but the world over. One wants to "prove" the love, and one wants proof. The validity or rationale of such fact-finding missions to determine the trueness of a relationship aside, we do see over-the-top expectations in most epic tales of "love."
Take for example a valid point raised by the narrators of the animated film Sita Sings the Blues. When Sita was abducted by Ravana, Rama's trusted devotee Hanuman actually managed to reach Sita while she was in captivity. The pious woman, however, sent Hanuman back to fetch Rama and rescue her himself. At this point, the narrator wonders to the effect, "Dude, she could have just come back with Hanuman and avoided the war altogether! What was she trying to prove?" Exactly that, I wonder. Perhaps Sita was completely sold out on stories of superheroes rescuing damsels in distress. The modern Indian woman is certainly not a damsel in distress but she can humour you with the upkeep of traditions if she so wishes. She might fast for her man but may not be blind to his faults or suck up abuse silently as she was "traditionally" counselled to do. Let her make the choices then, don't bog her down with your interpretations.
"If you call this (Karvachauth) a sham, then you might as well call marriage a sham altogether and argue why get into the charade of taking care of a silly twit and his family? It is a matter of beliefs. I am against being branded feminist or anti, my choice," said a particularly outspoken friend in defence of her fast. Feminism cannot be boxed into watertight ideas, especially in a country as varied as ours. Leave the sweeping judgements. To each her own. Women don't need handholding or approval on their personal choices. To fast or not to fast is a question best left to them ladies.
