Kanyadaan should stop??

I have a near adult daughter who would be moving out to start University soon. As far as I am concerned she will be always my little girl and will always be welcome to come & stay with me, however all of us have to bear our own cross and find our own place in this world. I can't be there for her always so I want her to be able to survive without depending on me. I want her to be independent and strong enough to handle things by herself; for this reason I have to let her go and let her make her own decisions & learn to thrive on her own in this world.

 

I saw a Kanyadaan verse posted here from Wikipedia, and interestingly it differs from the verse used in a book I have (The Vedic Wedding: Origins, Tradition and Practice)

Please ignore, if irrelevant now...I did not read all the pages in the thread.

 

Nice one deepslikes.

 

i think quite a lot of indian children managed to grow up to be successful adults within the interdependent structure. the word 'depending' is used as if they are unable to hold a job, find their way in the world and are looking to their folks for the smallest thing.

 

I didn't mean 'depending' on just a career or financial way... I meant it in a wider sense which includes financial, social and emotional dependencies. Whether or not you agree with my parenting style is immaterial to me, I am doing what I believe is the best for my daughter.

 

i don't believe your parenting style was being debated, so that is immaterial. the larger context of dependency in terms of growing up to be a successful adult, which includes all the other parameters you mentioned. success as a wider definition which has been possible within a looser structure of interdependence.

 

many of us on this thread are abroad, representation from india has been minimal. it would be interesting to see what the younger generation thinks about this. it's heartening to see girlygirl's views which blend what is good in her culture and adapt it to work best with a newer model.

 

This is an interesting thread, somewhat unusual because although the temperature rose occasionally, almost every participant contributed useful thoughts. YellowMango’s summary, arguing for a reinvention of tradition to accommodate the ‘girl’s family’ is sound. The existing norm has its roots in a tradition favoring patrilineal inheritance of property. This is certainly maladaptive in the modern world where women are equal participants in generating the wealth that is to be inherited. However some points relevant to the original discussion and the interesting digressions have not been made – perhaps made cryptically, but not explicitly.

 

Simple things first:

Regarding ‘Kanyadaan’, we have seen different perspectives in this thread – ‘Kanyadaan’ as a beautiful tradition, as ‘merely’ symbolic, as a ceremony emblematic of antiquated thinking and one perpetuating an inferior status for women. There is some truth to all of these; they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. One parallel might be the modern abandonment of the ‘obey’ part of the ‘love, cherish and obey’ phrasing in historical Christian marriage vows, because only the wife was required to ‘obey’.

However, the sensibility we bring to any tradition is as important as the tradition itself. There is a tradition in southern India where pilgrims in Kashi vow to give up some favorite food as a penance. This is not so different from a Mormon forgoing stimulants as mild as coffee or Coca-Cola. Growing up, I used to think this was silly. What’s the point? Dude, a coffee is not going to kill you and giving up samosas is not going to make you a better human being, enough already. But then, now that I’m a little older and a little ‘wiser’ I see it differently. Now, I think that what really matters is the meditative sensibility we bring to these symbolic acts.

What do I mean by that? If I give up my favorite food (samosas, not just Marmite as a symbolic gesture!), then every encounter with that item is an opportunity for reflection - a brief moment of temptation, when one voice says ‘go for it man, these are stupid traditions – besides, who’s going to know anyway’, while another urges restraint, keeping promises made in good faith, staying true to a commitment. I now think that it is this moment of reflection that is crucial in such symbolic acts. It is the contemplation of moderation, of restraint, of temptation, of weakness, that makes the tradition significant – not simply the act itself. The act has to go with the contemplation, with meditative awareness. It is not simply a ‘yeah whatever, ok I give up chewing gum’ thing. The same denial and temptation hold true for giving up carbs. The pilgrimage and the religion are simply a scaffold. It is our sensibility that imbues one act with symbolic meaning and the other with a desire for ripped abs. The beauty lies within.

So it is with the Kanyadaan. As routine ritual it has no value. Coupled to archaic notions of ‘paraaya dhan’ it may be detrimental; but as an ancient tradition signifying a rite of passage from daughter to wife, it can have value if you let it. The tradition need not exist outside of you. It reflects you, it is in you, it is you.

 

Now on to @Coolwinds’ thesis. I have been waiting for her to make her case, but she seems to be shying away from it (is such a thing possible?) :hide: Is it restraint? Or is she pressed for time? I think the notion of ‘interdependence’ that she raised is key. So, here are some of my thoughts.

There is some controversy about the origins of the nuclear family in the west. One school of thought considers it to be a post-industrial phenomenon, with extended families being the norm, while a revisionist school argues for nuclear families existing as early as medieval times. I want to set aside the history to look at current trends and the future.

The modern nuclear family is sustained by some variant of the welfare state, major pillars of which are subsidized childcare, medical benefits, unemployment benefits, pension plans and retirement homes. These are costs that are pooled across a population, although the percentages and mechanisms vary. I am not confident that this model is sustainable in the long run. It is based on postwar prosperity, a rather unique trend in the west, a period that seems to be drawing to a close. Many demographic trends point to an increasing reliance on family as opposed to the state, especially in tough economic times. This is not simply a southern European aberration. In the coming era of climate change, resource depletion (water) and exhaustion of fossil fuels (not if, but when), I do not think that the welfare state is sustainable. Increasing national and private debt in the service of an ever-growing economy is a Ponzi scheme. The US has already abandoned defined benefit pension plans, companies have reneged on pension obligations after bankruptcy with the approval of the supreme court, Social Security, Medicaid / Medicare obligations continuously generate cries to curtail ‘entitlements’. The double-digit growth in China and India is again a temporary thing. It is inevitable that there will be a plateau.

The nuclear family set up with each family being able to afford a separate home, childcare, healthcare and elder care is a temporary middle/upper class aberration that is not sustainable in the long run. We happen to live in boom times. Never forget that India is 10 times as dense as the US – three times the population in one-third the space, approximately. The extended family is a risk-pooling strategy. It is certainly susceptible to a ‘tragedy of the commons’ and all sorts of abuse, but yet, the family ‘interdependence’ is a better bet than social programs (unless we manage to invent atomic fusion power in time!) – with modifications of course. The aspirations of a nuclear family will soon become unsustainable even for the middle-class – it will never be a reality for people in the lower socio-economic strata in India.

I think we are somewhat misled by semantics in this thread. Most words are very freighted. The word ‘dependence’ for example conjures up an image of some child clinging to parents like those little langurs hanging on for dear life to mummy’s underbelly. ‘Interdependence’ is much better, as is the term ‘intergenerational families’. I agree with many of the criticisms of the failings of Indian family systems voiced here. There is no doubt that a reinvention is required, especially to redress the balance for women. However, I think that a ‘nuclear family’ for everyone is a utopian aspiration in India, once we factor in the externalities.

Jeez CW I can’t believe you made me do your homework for you! waitingsmiley

Multi-Generational Families | Pew Research Center