Does one write deliberately as a woman or man when taking up pen and paper? I do not know. But right now, I am writing as an Indian woman. The Indian woman who has held up the torch of cultured living for millennia through self-sacrifice, incredible feats of physical and mental endurance and abiding compassion. I know that the pen is a sacred object; if used unthinkingly as Sanjay Srivastava has done (The Hindu, Op-Ed, “Taking the aggression out of masculinity,” January 3, 2013), it might do more harm than good to the position of women in India.
Two portraits have been constant companions in my longish life as a housewife and writer. They have both infused in me the needed strength to face life despite scores of disappointments, frustrations and tragedies. One is the figure of Bharat Mata, rider on the lion, as though telling me: are you a weakling? You are as strong as this land, endowed with hurrying streams and gleaming orchards. Never give up! I learnt the connection between nature and the Indian woman when I read Sita say in Kavisamrat Viswanatha Satyanarayana’s Sri Ramayana Kalpavrikshamu that she has no fear of rivers and forests. Is she not the child of Mother Earth?
The other portrait has been that of Swami Vivekananda, with the caption: “Strength is life: weakness is death.” It is a message for men and women of India. Yes, indeed it was Swami Vivekananda who gave us back our dignity as women, our education, our strength of purpose and reminded us again that no woman is a zero. Inspired by him, a host of social reformers all over India opened a new, glorious page for Indian women. They educated themselves, took part in the Gandhian movement in vast numbers and became equal partners in work everywhere. Interestingly enough, they preferred not to jettison the received tradition that had helped them all along not go down under during the dark centuries in the past.
Hence, when I opened the Op-Ed page of The Hindu on January 3 and saw the familiar portrait of Swami Vivekananda and the photograph of young ladies full of the joy of life performing a ritual, I began reading the article. Certainly, the editor of the page had succeeded in drawing the immediate attention of readers. After I began reading it, I realised how childish an academician can be, and how cobwebbed his mind is when studying the history of the Indian society. After a good bit of verbiage trying to sound knight-errantish by repeating the word masculine, the author makes the pompous (almost laughable) statement: “Swami Vivekananda’s masculine photographic-pose was only one aspect of the cult of masculinity encouraged and tolerated by nationalism.”
What the picture represents
Actually Prof Srivastava can sit down with a whole portfolio of all the available photographs of the Swami and peruse each one of them. He will not find even one which will fit in with his boorish description. The one used for the article has eyes gazing with compassion at the sorrows inflicted upon Indian women, and a determination to help them overcome it. He had travelled all over India as a parivrajaka and endured untold hardships and realised that two things in Indian society needed immediate rectification: the condition of women and the condition of Dalits. Towards achieving women’s empowerment and caste equality he faced innumerable difficulties and disappointments but he won in the end. He was able to teach even the westerners to look upon women as mothers. According to him, women were not playthings for men, and women’s problems could be solved by true education, which was, according to him, “… a development of faculty, not an accumulation of words, or as a training of individuals to will rightly and efficiently. So shall we bring to the need of India great fearless women — women worthy to continue the traditions of Sanghamittra, Lila, Ahalya Bai, and Mira Bai — women fit to be mothers of heroes, because they are pure and selfless, strong with the strength that comes of touching the feet of God.”
Not ‘male-worship’
Such inspiration flowing from him through the nationalist movement laid the red carpet welcome to women to join the Gandhian movement, removing fear and ignorance which had imprisoned them till then. It was Swami Vivekananda who brought to India committed women like Sister Nivedita and Sister Christine whose work for women’s education was truly monumental. Not only has the Indian woman received education but she also knows what is good for her, in inherited culture. As for Prof. Srivastava’s characterisation of Karva-Chauth as male-worship, does he not know that when Sister Subbulakshmi Ammal founded the Sarada Home (Widow’s Home) in 1912 at Madras, one of the works she made her inmates study was the story of Savitri and Satyavan in the Mahabharata? It was because, herself a child widow, she found that Savitri empowered herself before facing Yama by a tri-rattra vrata which was a discipline of meditation, yoga, studies and rituals. In the same way, Sister Subbulakshmi wanted the inmates to empower themselves with education and self-discipline to face life which was very harsh to the widow of those days. Celebrations of joy and the reaffirmation of holy ties is not male-worship. Such attempts to degrade beautiful traditions is a perversion of the mind. Is tying a rakhi to a brother to be considered as male-worship?
If Professor Srivastava wants examples of macho icons, let him seek them in the likes of Dasaratha, who sport many wives. They are a dime a dozen today. If he wants portraits on the same subject, he can have his choice from the various glossy advertisements for men’s vests and motorcycles. He ought to know that serious sociological research is not achieved by mudslinging.
(Prema Nandakumar is a renowned Sanskrit scholar and Indologist.)
Keywords: Indian women, gender controversy, gender bias, masculinity, Swami Vivekananda, Indian women's condition
I find Ms Prema Nandakumar critique and personal attack unfortunate and unwarranted. Prof Srivastava, in his analysis of the situation, has been extremely perceptive in highlighting the subtle role of tradition, social norms and values, colonialism, education and religious ceremonies in perpetuating gender-bias in society. The criticism was of the masculinity in our nationalism. I do not find that Swami Vivekananda, his teachings or legacy were in any way slighted. Rather, I found the photo a good illustration of the point that Prof Srivastava was making - something I had failed to realise hitherto.
In a similar article, Challenging India's Rape Culture, Ruchira Gupta has challenged caste and role modelling by political and business leaders in society for resulting in a false sense of masculine entitlement.
We will not rid our society of its curse(s) until we are honest and bold enough to call into question those assumptions and prejudices that result in a cultural of exploitation.
I would like to draw you attention to the following points.
1. There have been several social reformers in the late 1800's who
worked in the areas of 'upliftment' of women, Educational reforms,
abolishing the caste system, etc. These include Raja Ram Mohan Roy,
Jyotiba Phule, Ishwarchand Vidyasagar and many more. Therefore to a
broad statement that " Yes, indeed it was Swami Vivekananda who gave
us back our dignity as women" is a bit too much.
2. The author goes on to claim that " women can be worthy mothers to
heroes" . In one line she has proved that second-rate individual
status of women is firmly established in her mind.
3.The rituals of Karva -chauth and Rakhi emanate from our feudal past
where father, brother , husband or son had to 'take care' of women. No
doubt, we love our male relatives and enjoy these festivals but let's
not have any illusions about where they came from.
Respect for our past is healthy, but not with blinkers on.
I think the previous article written by Mr Srivastava was purely from a sociological perspective. Sociological studies and perspectives has to be very neutral and without any ideology. The only fault, which i felt was that, he couldn't explain it comprehensively and as he didn't draw any proper conclusion for his article; his stand was not clear and thus drawn wide criticism. But this article in the defense could have been written in more matured way. This article and the following comments are driven by ideologies, which are to be neglected while writing a sociological perspective.
This particular picture has been a particularly central one in Indian
images of masculinity, probably wrongly so as Prema Nandakumar argues.
But that does not take away the force of Srivastava's argument which
only uses it to say how discourses have appropriated certain images.
Vivekananda's emphasis on celibacy and sexual purity for men has been
an inspired ideal for young men in India for many decades. One only
has to see how many school hostels have used it. There is an implicit
misogyny in this celebrated celibacy and has only reinforced the idea
that women are objects of desire and one should very carefully avoid
their company. This is not to demean his contribution in changing
women's status in the society but only to recognize that his portraits
have been reappropriated by the patriarchal, male-centered social
discourse as much as by emancipatory politics.
I am sorry to see The Hindu still being biased 'Recommending' only
viewpoints that support earlier Sanjay Srivastava's article. Debate
should be open and unbiased and unsupported. Thanks.
It is truly sad to see nationalistic chauvinism at its highest in this article. Here the author, for the sake of misplaced nationalism attacks Professor Srivastava and questions his academic intellectual and moreover this article sadly tries to vitiate the issue of women right to equality and freedom in all aspects of life-social, economic or political. The manner she praises the ancient albeit anachronistic practices of male worship portrayed by Karva-Chauth and takes the example from myths shows how patriarchy is deeply entrenched in Indian culture. A chauvinistic nationalist cannot stand "change" which is the utmost necessity for a patriarch society like India. Men and women of India should stop looking in the "past glory" for answers and look towards the future with a modern outlook.
A few disturbed days I spent after reading the earlier article on Swami Vivekananda (“Taking the aggression out of masculinity,”)has now been rewarded with this appropriate rejoinder from Prema Nandakumar. Who else could have responded any better? Swami Vivekananda was certainly a source for imbibing strength in everyone of us but more especially for women. The macho icon of Swamiji is one of an all-embracing and all-protective hero; not of a bad-men bashing hero.
As an avid reader, I thank 'The Hindu' for publishing this letter without any hesitation although it criticised its own earlier article.
Ms. Prema is taking only one section of the article by Mr. Srivastava
and calling him childish. I feel this is uncalled for . The whole point
of his article was to show how deep rooted the problem is in our society
. It is his opinion and there are quite a few of us who agree with him.
Sure, he might have made a wrong judgement with respect to Swami
Vivekanandas picture. Even there I do not get the slightest hint that he
was maligning him. The sheer fact that there are scores of comments
against that one point and this whole rant by you shows how intolerant
we are towards alternative view points. Disappointed to read this piece
from you.
A very thoughtful analysis by Ms Prema Nandakumar. Only a scholar engrained in Indian culture and tradition can express this thought with such clarity on Swamiji and how he was different from the innumerable ones that exist today. Masculinity is not reflected in tradition which portray joy, love, sacrifice and respect. Karvachauth is a mark of sacrifice and respect by woman for someone they hold dear to them, which only goes on to portray the greatness of Indian woman. Festival of Rakhi embodies the faith which the Indian woman has on her brother. Only a corrupted mind can visualise a negativity in these and portray the Swamiji's stance and glance an an embodiment of masculity without perhaps retrospecting on what he taught to the world. I now am sure that pen is mightier than the sword.... as we can see someone doing character assassination with the pen in the referenced article.
The rejoinder to Prof Srivasatava's article is written on behalf of 'Indian Women'. Rather, it should have been on behalf of Hindu women only. Indian women include manyl others who don't agree with the traditional view on women in Hindu religion which Madam Nanda Kumar seems to endorse.
Prof Srivasatava's view on Karva Chauth is just a tip of the iceberg in Indian Society. He just used it as an e.g. to show that Indian society has such social stimuli to brainwash women to be submissive to men.
As for Swami Vivekananda and masculinity, it is recorded in his biography from Ramakrishna Mutt, that he minded his body as a male to be muscular. A monk doesn't mind his body like a wrestler, but the Swami was different about which his followers are proud. No doubt Swami Vivekananda brought an element of masculinity to the religion which is why his poster is today used by Hindu organisations to put a message across to their adversaries.
A fitting reply to a totally uncalled for reference. Kudos to Prema for putting into perspective the selfless service of Swami Vivekananda. 'The Hindu' would do well without such malicious / misrepresented articles like that of 'Taking the aggression out of masculinity'
It is strange that a renowned scholar instead of accepting the fact that tradition like Karva-Chauth and Rakhi are indeed a male-worship tradition, tried to degrade the other person. Why these hollow traditions are followed and passed from one generation to other. What women want to show or achieve by observing one day fast. These traditions have now become fashion statements and sales opportunity to gold/silver/cloth traders only.
Being in agreement with the author, I should state that the portrayal of Swami Vivekananda as a masculine figure and a macho man would be an insult to him as he should be portrayed as one who was adamant to award every Indian the self respect he/she deserves. The author has beautifully interpreted his image and has recognized his contributions to the Indian Society as a server of the society and this is what we need to realize that every Indian possess a masculine character but that is for the protection of the society.
A thoroughly researched and truth written article. India needs more women like you who can differentiate and teach between right and wrong
women fit to be the mothers of heroes?
women are heroes, they don't need to produce them.
The author has failed to comprehend the ideas expressed in the
original article by Sanjay Srivastava, which emphasised the need for
greater gender parity by highlighting the way masculinity is conflated
with aggression and casts the male in a position of superiority over
the female. The reference to Swami Vivekananda formed a tiny and
admittedly unconvincing part of the argument. But Prema Nandakumar's
article is not only a distorted reading of Srivastava's piece but also
provides an unwitting reinforcement of his arguments, namely that the
ideas of masculinity and feminine-ness are so deeply inscribed in our
minds that women and men together participate in the perpetration of
patriarchal values in society.
I call this as true mudslinging. Mrs Prema's selection of words, her
implicit subjective statements upon which the conclusions are drawn is
highly non-professional. Her statements like its Swami Vivekananda who
gave our women education are misleading and I construct this as an
attempt to mix facts with fallacies to form a opinion of the readers.
Her tolerance levels can be measured from what she kindly refers to
fellow academician as childish, of cobwebbed mind.
At the outset Prof Srivatsava's article did not undermine the work or
influence that Swami Vivekananda had upon the Indians Hindus - which
is the focus of Mrs Prema's article. And in the context of masculinity
- I think Prof Srivatsava did not make a mistake by choosing a
particular photographic pose of Swami. But he surely failed to
estimate the outbursts and onslaughts by the so called intolerant and
irrational fellow scholars.
Anybody taking look at the photograph without a pre-occupied mind can
discern the masculine pose. Also Indian nationalism has been
encouraging the cult of masculinity and there is no doubt about that.
When this is the case use of words like knight-errantish and pompous
are certainly not warranted. To the best of my knowledge the author of
the article in question Mr.sanjay Srivastava has not written anything
to tarnish Vivekananda’s image. Why put words in his mouth? Whatever
Ms Prema Nanda Kumar may say in its justification, Karva Chauth is
superstitious and self respecting women do not enjoy doing it. The
example of Sati Savithri once again reiterates the notion that a
woman’s life is not worth living when her husband dies. If Savithri
did not empower herself to face Yama alternative for her was burning
herself in the funeral pyre of her deceased husband. It is always easy
to justify superstitious beliefs by quoting some epic or other.
Educated people coming out of our elite institutions are always
prepared to lap them up.
The author has brought clarity through this article.
She should have also mentioned about the exemplary life and service being rendered by Sri Sharada Math started by Holy Mother and Swami Vivekananda.
There is need for discipline and restraint both for men and women in public and private which only can lead to more ordered and well behaved society. The present culture of money power and limitless enjoyment that is being fueled by consumerism with the government trying to solve all problems with money or economics is not the way to go.
Dear Madam Prema Nandakumar,I don't have the words to express my appreciation. You have penned the feelings of millions of people like me. After reading of Prof Srivastava's article, I felt very bad and suffered by pain in my heart for four days. To day after reading your article, that pain vanished! I think, Karva-Chauth and Raksha Bandhan festivals came in to existent during Khilji and Mogul invasion period to pray God for the safe return of soldiers from war field. I pity Mr Srivastava, He has no hesitation in denigrating such a sacred festivals and Maha Mahima Swamy Viekananda! Million Thanks to you.
Million thanks[koti namaskarams] to Premaji.Every Indian,man or
woman,knows what Swami Vivekananda stood and toiled for in his brief and
purposeful life.That is why Swamiji is revered even today ,that too in
highly materialistic society.
Thanks to the Hindu for publishing such an enlightened article.However I
feel that publishing an obnoxious article by Shri Sanjay srivastava has
dented the image of the Hindu.
Good article indeed, by Prema Nandakumar. In fact, I am one of those
deeply hurt by the expression of Sanjay Srivastava(The Hindu, Op-Ed,
“Taking the aggression out of masculinity,” January 3, 2013) and Swami
Vivekananda's portrait is out of context for his article.
Nice defence!
Yes, he was great teacher of that time. He brought us honor.
Now his name is exploited by all sorts of anti social elements to get polarity.
An aspect of the of modern exploitation of our ancient teachers. This is highly un ethical.
Gopinathan Krishnan is a Scientist
brilliant! At last our women have started thinking!
feeling batter after reading a marvelous reply to editor , Next time the hindu must take care of photograph and article relation.
Thank you for this coherent write-up. Ever since, I have read Mr.Sanjay
Srivastava's article, my mind has been replete with numerous questions,
with self-founded ambiguous answers. One thing that I would want to
convey to you is that, the picture is open for self-interpretation and
so are the so-called rituals that we have inherited with equal ease.
The questioning of the rituals is in terms of ABSENCE of a similar
counter-part for the female population. While, praying for an elongated
life-span of a brother is no male worship,don't we have the right to
question the absence of any similar occasion that showcases the
importance of the life of a sister or a wife? Rakhi for instance
assures protection from the brother,assuming with ease the need for
such protection by the weaker sex.This assumed, automated,
nonsensically stereotyped, lop-sided nature of our rituals need to be
questioned. Also,the swami in his enlightened form saw women as
mothers, although he bore a different view before.
What a brilliantly objective piece!
I am so glad that you cite the story of Satyavaan Saavithri. These so
called 'Academicians' and Pseudo Secularists do not let go of a single
chance to attack and demean 'Bharatiya Samskriti'. Of course these
people do not bother to read before they do their random rants!
Please Email the Editor