November 14, 2007
And all she got was a bun.Musings
Allow me to preempt someone from asking why I chose to write this story. No, really, let’s get it out of the way, this nimisham:
• Did this really have to be blogged?
• Slow news day?
• Aren’t X,Y and Q more important?
• And furthermore, doesn’t your lack of blogging X,Y and Q indicate that you are a heartless bitch who doesn’t care about Pakistan/the Nuke Deal/the environment/immigration??
Yes,
maybe,
perhaps and
refer to my finger, for that last one. It’s an extra-challenging week at work, so I can’t write anything dazzling, not that the performances which I usually phone in are sublime. I don’t have much time, but when something’s on my mind, it’s easier (read: cathartic) to type, so a “Musings” post it shall be.
Unless you were the last person to be found during hide and seek yesterday, you have heard the cringe-inducing-on-so-many-levels news about an Indian man “marrying” a dog (thanks, Aggiebabe). It is somewhat like the whole “Aish weds trees…twice”-fiasco…except in TMBWITW’s case, she was doing it to compensate for her apparently unfortunate nakshatram and not because she had killed two trees.
An Indian man has “married” a female dog, hoping the move will help atone for stoning two other dogs to death.
P Selvakumar, 33, said he had been cursed since the killings, suffering paralysis and a loss of hearing.
The wedding took place at a Hindu temple in Tamil Nadu state. The “bride” wore an orange sari with a flower garland and was fed a bun to celebrate.
Superstitious people in rural India sometimes organise weddings to animals in the hope of warding off curses.[BBC]
Buried among the hundreds of jokes which punsters are giddily guffawing over (enjoy your free pass to bitch about how the bride is a bitch…but more on that later) is to me the most appalling aspect of this story; this man killed two innocent, defenseless creatures.
I didn’t know how he killed them until I settled in to my seat on the subway this morning and found out that he had stoned them. That detail bothered me so much, because my imagination doesn’t need any assistance in recreating actual events. Have you ever seen an animal cowering in front of a human? Yelping and whimpering out of fear and pain? It’s heartbreaking, but that’s what this so-called man saw, as he brutally stoned two dogs. I remember the way our late German Shepherds looked terrified and anxious, when they were merely being scolded…and that was after they had committed capital offenses, like uprooting our only curry leaf plant.
These dogs must have been perplexed as to why they were being hunted down by this sadist. The whole crime makes that red, squishy thing in the middle of my chest ache a little bit. Achtung, it’s lame that I have to assert this, but I’m not some granola-lite, bleeding heart Aggie who puts the welfare of puppies over people—no, I’m someone who, like most of you, is well aware of the connection between perpetrating violence against animals and committing it on humans.
Many studies in psychology, sociology, and criminology during the last 25 years have demonstrated that violent offenders frequently have childhood and adolescent histories of serious and repeated animal cruelty. The FBI has recognized the connection since the 1970s, when its analysis of the lives of serial killers suggested that most had killed or tortured animals as children. Other research has shown consistent patterns of animal cruelty among perpetrators of more common forms of violence, including child abuse, spouse abuse, and elder abuse. In fact, the American Psychiatric Association considers animal cruelty one of the diagnostic criteria of conduct disorder. [woof]
Dogs and cats are simple, available targets, and practice makes perfect, if the definition of perfection involves torture and murder. What else has this person done? And to whom? And I recognize that I was born here, in the first world, that I am privileged because of that and thus view this news story through my very American eyes, but at least I’m aware of this heinous flaw o’ mine. At least I am ashamed that I have this privilege to be bothered by what some consider a triviality.
But he killed two dogs. That’s all my mind returns, when I pause between Outlook storms. Maybe I should add the Humane Society to my slowly-expanding list of Causes on Facebook, since I’m obsessed with this. And dogs in general (and this cat, but she’s the exception which proves the rule).
Back to our story- after slaying two canines, the groom lost his hearing and according to most stories I’ve read, became paralyzed. Obviously this is divine retribution for being such a flaming merde-bag, oui? Oui. How could one fix this? But of course! Have him marry a dog! Easy atonement, even as such atoning is gleefully retold the world over, ensuring that some desi kid at a less progressive, less diverse school— like the ones I went to— will be having a GREAT recess and lunch period.
Crowds cheered the newly-weds at the end of the ceremony in Sivaganga district, about 50km (30 miles) east of the city of Madurai.
The “bride”, who is called Selvi, was led to the temple in Manamudurai wearing a sari before vows were exchanged in a traditional Hindu ceremony.
A relative of the groom who attended the wedding said he hoped Mr Selvakumar would now be cured.
“Fifteen years back Selvakumar was physically fit. But, once he attacked a pair of dogs and thereafter Kumar could not move his limbs freely,” the relative, Ramu, told the BBC.
“He tried every cure for his ailment but could not be rid of his disability.
“On the advice of an astrologer and others, he decided to marry a bitch to get cured. Then we arranged Selvakumar’s marriage with a bitch.” [BBC]
Who is going to look after that bitch and protect her from abuse—no, I don’t want to get in the possibilities— or is the prevailing assumption that he’s learned his lesson and now will behave? Speaking of “bitch”, that is the final snag on my mental stockings—the B word. Is “bitch” commonly-used in India? Does it have the same connotations? Yes, it’s an even more trivial triviality, atop that other triviality, i.e. my soft shpot for dogs.
This entire story leaves me feeling weird and I don’t feel like I have the “privilege” to explore one of the other aspects of it, which is bothering me- religion. I don’t know enough about Hinduism and though I eat like one, I’m certainly not Hindu. What does this story tell the world (or us, or martians, or…) about religion and what we are willing to tolerate within it?
Then again, maybe there’s some weird Christian tradition that makes even less sense to some girl in Madurai*, I don’t know. Maybe she’s not even thinking of such things. Maybe she’s already rolled her eyes, written this off as mega-superstitiousness which has nothing to do with her or the life she leads, and moved on. I wish I could shake this or make sense of the maelstrom this story evoked within, as easily.
*the closest city to where this happened, I think.
anna on November 14, 2007 03:15 PM in Musings · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
Anna, when you blog, you gotta develop a thick skin. If you want to make fun of Hinduism, or want to question some aspect of it in a serious manner, fire away. We know where you come from. There is no need to be defensive especialy consdering non Christians here have no problem attacking Christianity whenever it warrants.
I do not see where Hinduism comes into this in a sinister way other than the fact that this ignorant moron has been punished by becoming the laughingstock of the world by marrying a dog in a temple. If anything, the temple has made him a big time joke by having to atone for his past sins or whatever. I do not think the humiliation of this whole thing has really sunk in yet to this guy. Maybe when he grows half a brain, he will die of shame.
man. this story is bizarre.
This entire story leaves me feeling weird and I don’t feel like I have the “privilege” to explore one of the other aspects of it, which is bothering me- religion. I don’t know enough about Hinduism and though I eat like one, I’m certainly not Hindu. What does this story tell the world (or us, or martians, or…) about religion and what we are willing to tolerate within it?
well, i'm sure some people would argue that this isn't hinduism. that this is the local folk religion of tamil nadu. those arguing for this perspective probably be both dravidian nationalists and more "orthodox" sanskritized hindus.
as for superstition, Georgia governor leads prayer for rain.
mebee i missed it, but was "selvi" someone's dog? as in, pet.
In the USA, we're debating whether or not gays should be allowed to marry one-another. In India, we're so advanced, that we can even do inter-species marriage.
Therefore, India is a more liberal country than the USA.
It annoys me to no end that these "omg-they're-so-crazy-over-there" stories generally don't carry dates. As if the incident somehow transcends the usual customs of journalism because of its tabloid factor. stoopid bbc.
As far as that quotation from Ramu the Relative, it was probably translated from Tamil.
I don't condone cruelty against animals, but I just have to point out that strays in India are different. I vividly remember being chased by dogs and being scared for my life when I was a little girl in Hyderabad. Now I wouldn't have gone and stoned them, but I'm just saying.
I don't see how marrying the dog will atone for his past deeds but in the world of illogical people, this is a very logical action. I used to worry about people hunting and poaching innocent animals once. Then I saw Maneka Gandhi's program where I saw one guy kill a beautiful, small bird by shoving a knife through it which wasn't even enough for a bite. After so many years (about a dozen) I still can't get that clip out of my mind. Since then I have realized I can't keep up with such news, so I use feed readers to carefully choose which news I read.
forgot to add- so maybe there is more to the story, and the dogs weren't 'innocent.' I still don't think it's justification for killing a less developed creature, though, but it's not like animal control probably exists where he lives.
As for the religious aspect of it - I dunno. I don't think it's that bizarre that he's trying to atone for his sins like this. It makes logical sense to those who believe that 'what goes around comes around' (to quote Justin Timberlake). And it's not like he's going to keep the dog as a wife- probably more like he will look after the dog, treat it well, etc.
I would say that this is part of Hinduism. Let's remember Hinduism is not a discrete religious entity like other religions. If it is going to be inclusive of all the little tribal faiths, then it is going to be associated with them in their good and bad times. I do not see this incident as religion condonding what he did. But it does look silly when the temple serves as a venue for this ridiculous marriage unless the originators of this "tradition" devised this solution as an amusing karmic payback to a guy who sinned against dogs.
Nala also has a valid comment. Stray dogs are not seen in the same way. I am actually surprised the idiot actually felt bad enough for what he did that he suffered psychosomatic symptoms of his past deeds. That is more than jail can administer to him.
Fear not, it's no longer the most viral story on the beeb. This is and deservedly so if you like teh weird.
I'm putting a picture of a dog on a profile on shaadi.com tonight, lets see how many proposals I get.
Wheatish complexion, good mixture of dog and human values, etc etc etc
"The wise see a dog and an eater of dogs (untouchable) with equal eyes as a cow or brahmin." Bhagavad Gita - 5:18
I am not particularly shocked or embarrassed by the story. As faith healing goes, it is not a bad solution. The guy was obviously traumatized and feeling guilty about his action of killing the dogs, else he wouldn't blame his disease/disorder on them. The marriage can be seen as an act of atonement that frees him of some of his guilt, while also (hopefully) assuring he doesn't perform such a cruel act in the future. After all, he is symbolically wedded to the canine kingdom now. ;)
What is taught as Hinduism is usually just the Brahmanical or Vedic aspect, which doesn't really describe the day to day spirituality of most people in India (i.e. not the creamy layers of society whose scions end up in the US). People like me aren't trying to be evasive when we say that this isn't "Hinduism". We are taken to task by Leftists when we use the more expansive definition of Hinduism as all the religious traditions originating in India. So this is not Hindu if you are using the "Asian Religions 101" definition, but it is Hinduism (along with Jainism, Buddhism, Shaktism) if you use the more expansive definition.
I've never heard of this, but I am not surprised either. As a non-Tambrahm Tamil, I can tell you that our Amman temple worship violates almost all of the "Hindu" pollution laws. Pandarams and "low caste" assistants, rather than Brahmins, perform the ceremonies, we do blood sacrifices of goats, and we used to use liquor as well. In all likelihood, the "Hindu" temple in question was an Amman type temple as a Vedic rite (i.e. Asian Religion 101 type Hindu) organization would never allow this
My uncle used to shoot stray dogs from his terrace. I'm not one to condemn him since some of them savaged his pet dogs. Blame the gov't who never do any culling whether its dogs, cats, cows or monkeys. As far as the canine bride is concerned, she is probably adopted as a pet. Nothing strange is going to happen to her other than having to wear a saree. The boys in India will learn a lesson. Don't stone the dogs or else you'll end up having to marry a real bitch.
I really, really, really cannot see how belief in a conventional God is any better than this type of belief in a dog. In addition to providing much of the same warm fuzziness that God does, this dog is real. Why should there be a problem tolerating one form of superstition and not another? I understand some gods are considered to be real and true but seriously what does that say about religion and what we have been willing to tolerate for so long.
As for weird ideas that Hindus don't get, I would say that the exclusivity of Jesus/Allah as being the only way ranks highly. I know a great number of what I call Christianized Hindus, in South India especially, who have adopted a Christian ethic but will never become fully Christian due to that cognitive hump.
I would like to add to the definition of Hinduism. In Kannada, there is a word for "religion" called "mata" which connotes belief based religions. Hinduism is a "dharma" which is a way of life. Hence there are all these individual "castes" inside one dharma. Regardless of what god you choose to believe in, you still coexit with people around you. That part is missed my most people and Hinduism is demoted a notch to being a religion.
They believe the dog is god? It must be some other deity who is punishing him for his crime. A lot of deity patronize animals. Like Hanuman and the monkeys.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/12/wtree112.xml
just as weird and were i jumped to this indian marrying do story....
I just have to say, I grew up in a multicultural school district and went to an uber-'progressive' high school, but that still didn't stop the immature a$$holes from saying shit like, 'you worship an elephant! LOL!' or on the days when I wore my Sai Baba locket, 'haha! saffron robe! just like the gates in central park!'
Er, as someone who's had her beliefs ridiculed by people of other religions, 'secular Hindus,' and atheists alike, frankly I'm glad that there are people like anna who try to respect other's beliefs and tread carefully. I only wish other people wouldn't be so quick to judge everyone else. :(
Rasudha has a good point. We cannot view morality the same way. Dogs are not necessarily that helpless in every environment.
Rezab, I live in Georgia and it is freaking embarassing to have a Governor lead public prayers when he could have put some effort to be proactive on this issue a couple of years ago. What was a bigger embarassment is the absolute shitfest Nightline has become. The newsguy , sacrifices integrity, when he kind of adds a little fake mystery, when he says and I paraphrase here "and wouldn't you know, rain is forecast for the day after the prayers. It works in mysterious ways". The idiot did not mention that the forecast was made before the prayers and so the prayers would not even have anything to do with the prayers.
Yeow, the thought of squishing of an organ makes me cringe. And how does one even know that the heart is squishy.
As for this story, I am wondering about a few things
- Is bestiality not a crime in the IPC. Does this mean this dude will go to jail for consummating his marriage?
- Does the Indian state recognize such marriages?
- If it does recognize, does the dude have another wife. If so, would be he arrested for polygamy?
- Else again assuming the legality of this marriage, does this mean he wont be able to marry a woman unless he divorces the bitch? What about alimony in that case?
Also, I think it's totally appropriate for people to bring up serious discussions about religions that are not their own, in a respectful manner, in a space like this- I just didn't think SM bloggers actually advocate 'mak[ing] fun of Hinduism' or any religion, as comment #1 advocates.
Anna should marry a Pakistani Immigrant who cares for the environment and is pro nuke deal in a traditional Hindu marriage ritual to atone her sins of total apathy towards those sets of people.
I think it has less to do with Hinduism as a religion and more to do with rituals/astrology and associated beliefs. I am not sure if analyzing natal charts and prescribing ritualistic solutions are restricted to just the Hindus, I believe it could be anyone with a belief that their present is in some way affected by the past. Just my 2 cents.
Bri#20, holy crap. That tree man story pictures were unbelievable. Like some creature out of a Tim Burton movie. HPV warts, ey. I don't think any PSA could be as effective as pictures of the tree man. Wow, gross.
Nala, you got a point. But if Anna is going to bring it up halfway, she might as well bring up what exactly bothered her about the religion. Otherwise it becomes one of those "You know something is bothering me... oh, never mind" and then you want to ask that person "what? what?" and she will go "oh nothing.". I am of course, all for free expression. You cannot condemn someone for thinking what is on their mind. When you write for a public blog, it must be tiring to be defensive every single time you want to question a practice. I think Anna should not have to feel stressed to merely express an opinion and that is the impression I get of her whenever she has to write about religious stuff. I do not say she has to be like me who has no problem talking without any kind of filter. But it's OK to open up more. I am sure a lot of SM readers have her back in case she gets attacked.
you know, I don't think it's a half bad idea, psychologically speaking. After all, he's not going to have sex with the dog. (he's not right?) It's just a symbolic gesture to show atonement to the dog community.
I'm with you Anna--the thought of stoning anything give me chills ever since I saw that video where the Kurdish girl was stoned by many men. The great philosophical question: how many angels can fit on the head of a pin should be replaced with how many people can get together and stone one other creature to death?
Oh, it's not. You should have seen the astrological manipulations my Dad and his siblings were attempting, when I landed on the cusp of a nakshatram that wasn't so auspicious. What's so wrong about being Chitra? Just because I will bring about the destruction of your house, I mean...sheesh.
I never advocated that. But if someone wants to do that regarding a specific practice, why not. Marrying a dog is ridiculous if it was done without any sense of humor.
By the way, I was just giving the different options one might use to talk about religion. I never insinuated that SM bloggers actually made fun of religion.
See the "OR" in my quote. I wasn't sure what about the religion Anna wanted to comment about it. So I just laid out some options and I was in favor of any of it. It had nothing to do with what I thought SM bloggers adovcated when it came to making fun of religion.
ugh:
கடந்த 15 ஆண்டுகளுக்கு முன்பு 'உல்லாசமாக' இருந்த நாய்களை அடித்து கொன்று மரத்தில் தொங்க விட்டார்.
translation: Around 15 years ago, he hit and killed two mating dogs and left them to hang from a tree.
'நான் செய்த பாவத்திற்கு பரிகாரம் செய்துள்ளேன். மனைவி செல்வியை பத்திரமாக பார்த்துக்கொள்வேன்' என்றார்.
trans: "I've atoned for the sin I committed. I will watch carefully over Selvi." [link]
Oh, Lea. :( I thought of that, too.
Oh my G-d, this just gets worse/sadder with each additional bit of information. Thank you for translating, Vivek.
Now, just to bring up another angle to this story-based just on this picture, the dude hardly looks like he is paralyzed. Note that he is tying something around the animals neck-this requires considerable dexterity of both hands. Soo....hmm how is he paralyzed. Also, he is able to sit crosslegged with an upright posture, again rather difficult to execute if one is 'paralyzed. Now, I suppose, if it is JUST his feet...again, both feet being paralyzed seems highly suspicious-generally a stroke or spinal cord problems tends to affect one side or another. Something doesn't add up. Shayad halak gia ho...hehehe..
Imo, articles like this are usually written by reporters who have absolute contempt for the subjects combined with a superiority complex. The guy who symbolically married the dog actually seems way nicer than the reporter. For all his faults, he hasn't forgetten a mistake he did 15 years earlier.
And as a symbolic repentance, why is it any worse than praying in mosque/temple/church for forgiveness? And why this intrusion of privacy---making a mockery of this guy worldwide (not that I think the guy would care) simply because the reporter thought s/he was better?
To me, this is equivalent to a school kid who laughs at a fat person.
Pravin- I understand what you're saying. I didn't mean to say that I think that the SM bloggers make fun of religions, but that I'm glad that they try to be respectful and not just 'make fun' of religions. This is a very meta discussion that probably gets on their nerves, though, so I'll stop. Plus, I'm confused with the back-and-forth, heh.
See, I think it would be more ridiculous if it were a love marriage.
Marrying trees, marrying snakes, now marrying a bitch. Hinduism has become a parody of itself. This is an example of 'India NOT shining'.
I don't know that it's worse, it's just...different. Why not just take care of the dog, why truss it up in a sari and make it go through a wedding? What if the dog didn't want an arranged marriage? Won't someone think of HER? ;)
Upon reflection, it's starting to remind me of those "shame" cases, where judges sentence people to stand around in a public place while wearing a sandwich board proclaiming something humiliating...
ALC,
Your statement is hardly called for, instances like these are exceptions rather than the norm and will not define India although Western media perpetuates this image of India as the land of the weird. More and more people are starting the truth for what is and making blanket generalizations doesn't do any good.
Al_Chutiya_for_debauchery, I can think of other more toxic religious ideas that are having a more negative effect on the world/India
Your statement is hardly called for, instances like these are exceptions rather than the norm and will not define India
Hmm, this news is all over the web and cable news. Its being emailed like crazy. It will certainly have some impact (however temporary and marginal) on the way people see India. If I had a penny for every freaking time that I have been asked about people worshipping rats in India, I would be richer than Ambani.
This is yet another story about the weirdness of India. The story alone will not result in people making up their minds one way or the other, but it will certainly add to 'India the weird' perception that people have of India.
These kind of superstitions have always existed in India. We're getting to hear more about them these days thanks to Al Gore's invention.
ALC,
The cable news is pandering to western sensibilities, you reality is very different than mine, in my six years in America I have never been asked if people worship rats in India. India is as weird as any other country, it is amplified in the west as it doesn't adhere to western definition of "Normal", which btw will make half of the world abnormal. Incidents reported in isolation don't serve any purpose, there is nothing in hinduism that calls for people marrying animals and coverage afforded to such incidents is for cheap thrill not journalistic reporting.
I respectfully disagree with your take and we can discuss if India is shining or not on a more appropriate thread.
I respectfully disagree with your take and we can discuss if India is shining or not on a more appropriate thread.
India not shining comment was tongue in cheek but at some level it does add to the Indian weirdness factor.
SM Intern ?
I hear you, but I think one of the reasons for the ambiguous discomfort I am experiencing regarding this "news" story is related to what ACD mentioned in his second comment:
When a tip is sent in repeatedly and I hesitate to blog it because my inner fourth-grader is all, "omg, what will white people* think!", that's disturbing and telling. I shouldn't care what people think, about me, my croc MJs, my ethnicity et al. I shouldn't care what people think about India. But I do. And this blog is visible enough that I have to question such things consistently; as a concern, "what will happen if I post this?", is omnipresent. Am I complicit in making India look worse? It's exhausting.
I read about this on the way to work, was bothered by it, considered blogging it, and then got all clammy with the above inner-monologue. That's when I realized that as sloppy as a post might turn out, it might be worth putting something out there. I've learned from this blog that I'm not special; if I'm feeling something, there's a solid possibility some of you are, too.
*my fourth grade class was very monochromatic
Why's everyone dogging al chutiya? I got it the joke...
ptr_vivek, would you or ACFD feel the same if I made the same comment about ACFD's faith ?
eek. that is indefensible. it does bring up questions of punishment vs. rehabilitation though. though i guess his marriage to this 'bitch' could be seen as a little bit of both. ;)
Now that's an extreme case of beer-goggles ! Just wait till he sobers up.
So what.. big deal.. There are also news stories about India sending satellites to orbit the space. People can read whatever they want and can think whatever they want.
If at all, I'd like more such stories about men and women marrying trees / snakes / dogs / whatever they want without getting dragged into parliamentary / prime ministerial debates on who should be allowed to marry whom. :-)
I read the comment as a parody of itself. Maybe I was wrong. I don't know what his faith is.
Has the marriage been consummated yet? If he becomes a US Citizen and wants to bring over his 'bitch' to the US, the 'bitch' cant come to the US unless the marriage has been consummated.
I'd... hit it? :S
I thought it might be parody, too...what's unfortunate is that people with less familiarity with his comments won't have such context. At the same time, I respect the "hey, that stings!" sensation. I feel it when people parody Christianity+ on here :)
Hey. Everyone who doesn't know Al Chutiya (as if the handle doesn't give it away), he's not serious when he says mean things about Hindooos.
I think the story here is in the media coverage: Marriage occurs on the 11th. Tamil daily covers it on the 12th, including detailed reportage of Selvakumar's horrendous act as well as a direct quotation from him as to what this means to him. It hits the international press the next day. The Times of India omits the quotation from Selvakumar, but ends with details of how he killed the dogs, but omits the quotation. The BBC and most other international outfits omit both and focus more on the wedding. Additionally, both the Times and BBC omit the date on which the wedding occurred.
So in the end, the widest coverage goes a bit like, "MAN MARRIES DOG!" and the when/why get left by the wayside.
I'm pretty familiar with his past comments, so I don't feel embarassed if I didn't catch this recent turn
For heavens sake, I was being facetious. I will try to be more clear the next time. I guess I am no Colbert.
Yeah, I didn't mean you...by SM standards, you're an elder statesman, at this point. ;)
Here's the TOI story
Well I would
Ptr vivek- thank you for the tamil text - been a while since I have seen Tamil on a web page.
there is a tamil saying - Kallakanda naaya kaanam - naaya kandaa kalla kaanam. Trans : When you have a stone, there is no dog. When there is a dog there is no stone. I suppose stoning dogs goes way back.
Believing that bread and wine are the body and blood of jesus christ. The Immaculate Conception? I dont belive there is an equivalent word in Tamil / Malayalam / Hindi. Am happy to be corrected. It does not carry any connotation of being evil as it does in 'American' ( cant really call it English).Maybe I'm just cuss word-illiterate, but I thought 'sali' in Hindi was roughly equivalent to 'bitch'?
The "bitch" quote is almost definitely a translation from whatever Ramu said in Tamil.
It conveniently gives license to anyone who wants to say "marry the bitch" as many times as they possibly can before the story gets old.
saali literally means sister-in-law hence the innuendo laden rhyme saali aadhi gharwaali (saali half wife). It also doubles as a mild form of a cuss word. While bitch can be used as a stronger cuss word, I don't think using saali by itself would have the effect of a strong cuss word. Also, don't think you can translate saali literally into bitch.
SM,
All the italic font on your posts for some reason get completely unreadable in Google reader. FYI.
OK, I'm coming in mid-thread, and although Anna mentioned Hinduism toward the end of her post - I don't really see the 'man marries bitch' story as being about Hinduism, unless everything anybody did in India was to be 'Hinduism' - in which case, someone would extend the logic to Christianity and Islam to bring them within the fold as well.
The difficulty is partly what louiecypher correctly points to - that the 'progressive' perspective will protest both the 'Brahminical' Hindu's effort to distance himself from this kind of stuff, and also protest any expansive view of Hinduism which includes both stuff like this and Jainism and Buddhism and, in the 'really expansive' versions - even Sikhism, Indian Islam and Indian Christianity.
My way out of this is to say, all this about is this one man and the (to me) weird way he chose to atone. But I agree with Al-Chutiya that this will be seen in the larger world as being about Hinduism - and there will be bigots that will emphasize this point, and in the end, will make some, perhaps many, Hindus apologetic and embarrassed.
Still and all, a religio-spiritual tradition that sees the divine in non-human beings - whether trees or snakes or dogs - or indeed, sees the affirmation of a committed mating partnership as a spiritual act in itself - can't be all bad (even if I can't buy into all implications thereof) - and only points up the anthropocentrism inherent in so many other religious traditions.
Along the same lines as this occurrence in Sudan. The goat is dead, though the bitch is still alive. :)
chachaji,
But it's not just about Selvakumar - it's about the astrologer who told him that this would be the way to go about lifting the curse which had plagued him since shortly after his 'sin,' and there are plenty of these astrologers.
Also, I don't really understand how stuff like this can be compared to the other religions you mentioned. I think the line is pretty clear: ask someone if they're Hindu - if they say yes, they are. If they say no, they aren't. Would most Jains, Sikhs, or Buddhists reply yes? This line of course gets muddled in terms of practices vis. recent conversions.
I think the easiest way to approach this from the perspective of someone who is Hindu and doesn't agree with incidents like this is by saying, "I'm a Hindu. So is Selvakumar. And that's great."
I wonder if all this research extends to cruelty to animals called food (by way of the wonderful meat industry in the USA), or only applies to animals called pets. ;) :)
I don't think Hindu self identification offers much explanatory power, especially to a Westerner whose definition of "religion" is quite different from that of people who follow Indic religions. So when you say that Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism are separate religions, the outsider will:
a) Correctly guess that there are distinctions between genesis myths, (existence of) deities, ethics, metaphysics
b) Incorrectly guess that adherents to these religions were scrupulously endogamous.
c) Incorrectly believe that the variances meant continuous strife (as it did between the Western traditions)
And it is a meaningful distinction, I have seen many publications mistakenly classify the SL conflict as a religious rather than an ethnic/linguistic conflict. The LTTE doesn't attempt to blow up relic containing viharas because the Buddhists are in error, Rightists Sinhalese monks don't hate Tamils for their inability to understand the concept of "non-self". The Left likes to perpetuate this myth to make all religions seem dysfunctional in the same way...which is altogether unecessary given that all religions are dysfunctional in different ways.
I agree with this. But then the logical extension is to ask someone if their definition includes behavior such as his, and also be prepared for whichever answer comes up.
The difficulty is that 'Hindu' has often been a portmanteau term, and also been used as a geographical and ethno-racial reference and descriptor - both by Europeans and Arabs and others. Historically, this meaning has often overlapped and sometimes coincided with the religio-spiritual. In other cases, people might say yes to the geographical or ethno-racial meaning, and no to the religio-spiritual. Outside of South Asia, many South Asians of Islamic and Christian faith find themselves being referred to as 'Hindu' by their non-South Asian co-religionists, who are using it to define their geographical and ethno-racial origin in the context of their religion. The first Sikhs in North America were called 'Hindoos'. So all told, the history and current practice of the usage of a word like 'Hindu' is quite complicated.
i agree with divya and others - big deal. as long as he never commits a wanton cruel act against a voiceless creature again-- can one judge others and accuse them of being 'racist" against animals:) -- and actually takes care of this dog and has a more humane outlook from now on, what's the harm? i would be more upset if the dog actually endured any suffering in the ceremony, but it doesn't seem so - it's no more silly than people in the west who dress their dogs up for halloween (isn't that torture too?) or marry them in churches. or those bizarre people who get drive-through, fast-food weddings in a gambling den, which is apparently legal.
all those worried about how this is going to affect their image in the west should wonder why they are more worried about the impact of what seems to be a harmless ceremony done with good intentions on their lives thousands of miles away than the actual man involved in the ceremony and his peace of mind, however he chooses to find it. and people in india are just as worried about the effect on their image by some weird things and behavior of their diaspora counterparts. the embarassment goes both ways:) You should be more worried about how the western press covers anything non-western, non-christian, such as calling durga puja a "bizarre" festival. the burden of stupidity is on the reporters and on the people who ask stupid questions. but we all see each other as bizarre anyways, so i guess it's par for the course.
how is this any weirder than any number of rituals in churches, mosques, temples, synagogues and any number of weird, irrational things that are said in those places? in fact, many of the things said in those places of "higher" religions are often more harmful to the world than a man marrying a dog as an act of atonement.
This man is an ignorant individual who was merely following the advice of an "astrologer and others". Not to say that he should not be blamed for killing 2 dogs; however, to link the murder of those dogs to personal aliments...and then to "atone" for those ailments through marriage... is a mindset that can be found only among the religiously illiterate.
In many ways, this man is as much of a victim as he is a culprit...(for what sane man would marry a dog unless goaded into it?)
Man marries bitch ... so what's new? :yawn:
"I don't condone cruelty against animals, but I just have to point out that strays in India are different."
not sure what you mean, but are you saying that strays in india are somehow more prone to chasing people? i think you'll find that strays everywhere are the same, it's the manner in which they are viewed and treated that differs from place to place and individual to individual.
Man marries bitch ... so what's new? :yawn:
---------------------------------------------------------
And As per news, She even tried to run away mid-ceremony.... what a bitch !
Most commenters seem to be reading this as a religious thing.
Isn't this an interesting comment on the notion of justice in India, though? It was a real enough solution that Kumar went through with it all the way. In this case, a crime was committed (the dude even admits to it), and some sadhus came up with a brilliantly elegant idea for dog murder. Marrying a dog is just (provided he actually treats this dog with love and kindness).
I can't help but contrast this (admittedly weird) situation to the concept of justice in America. Justice is usually a function of the judicial system (and that's a good thing, really), but it is therefore tied to the penal system almost exclusively. Here, or in Europe, a man who's killed a dog could face jail time, or fines, or probation.
Justice is largely punitive once it's codified, no? There's not a lot of room for hijinks like "man-marries-dog" anymore. You get standardized punishments meted out as a form of bizarre economics: manslaughter carries less time than first degree murder, etc. I'm not saying it's good or bad, just that it's interesting to contemplate.
I suppose I should also state that I do not mean to imply that India does not have a fully functional justice system, which it does.
But the overall level of use of that system is rather less than in America.
Not comparing humans and animals, but the basic idea in both cases seems to be the same: to teach compassion.
louiecypher (#71):
I'm lost. Which Left where likes to perpetuate this myth?
The question of what is and what isn't "Hinduism" is a complex one. I will say that what is referred to as "Hinduism" today took form in medieval times and was promoted by the Shankarans in the successful Neo-Brahmanical counterattack against atheistic Buddhism, Jainism, Samkhya, Lokayata, etc. Most Indians aren't aware that the Bhagavad Gita was used for the purpose of propaganda. I recommend "The Gita as It Was" by Phulgenda Sinha, a former U of Chicago scholar. He documents the theistic interpolations in the original Gita which wasn't remotely theistic. Here is a review and link to whet your appetite:
"Sinha argues that the original Gita, which was based on the Samkhya and Yoga philosophies was much shorter (86 verses). The rest of the Gita are later interpolations done by a monists who wanted to further the interests of the priestly class (brahmins). The work is well researched and has many references. I am sure that the orthodox folks with a closed mind aren't going to like this book."
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812690257/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
One reason why something like this wouldn't work in the USofA is because it would provide ammunition to the gay-hating religious right who would jump up an down with joy, shouting, "We told you so! We've been warning about this."
Illogical, but that's how it'd play out.
I would agree that life is not particularly pleasant for dogs in India when viewed in comparison to companion animals in the West. The Indic religions of course do view animals as ensouled, whereas the Abrahamic religions do not, but at the end of the day this does not necessarily translate to better treatment of animals. Ahimsa towards animals is of course central to Jainism, but I've always thought of the original impetus of Brahminical vegetarianism to be the view of flesh & blood as being impure and mentally destabilizing. I've seen a program on the original "village dog", light tan coat with curly tail, of India & SE Asia, apparently genetic studies show they came out of Africa alongside with the first modern human migrants to Eurasia. But the relationship was more of a loose understanding between early pastoralists/hunters and dogs that they would receive some scraps in exchange for guarding the band and flushing out prey. I don't see that this relationship has changed much over time, no one is directly responsible for the care of these animals except for those relatively lucky working guard dogs that belong to farmers and indoor pets belonging to Westernized elites. I have seen petty cruelty on the streets, kids throwing crackers at frightened mutts. I see at least one dog roadkill mess per day of road travel in India, but then again buses don't stop for humans either.
Amit (84):
Nevermind the reaction from the wingnuts. I think the main reason this wouldn't work in America would be that it wouldn't seriously be considered justice, either by the defendant or "the people."
The Vijay Prashads, Anjana Chatterjees, and Pankaj Mishras of the world who see a Hindutvaadi in every Hindu. That kind of Leftist.
Why "Sala/Sale" is considered to be only a mild term of abuse (and it is) is one of those enduring mysteries of Desh.
To be perfectly direct...Sala=Brother-in-law="I can do your sister any time I like, dude, and there's nothing you can do about it, (ie "I'm the man"). And almost everyone who uses the term in India-Hindi speakers, anyway-fully understand the innuendo. But no one thinks it is a particularly vile term of abuse.
Sorry, but it had to be spelled out for general edification of SMers...
Boston Mahesh
If this man had fallen in love with the dog and married of his own volition, it may not be accepted. However, it was advised and arranged by an elder, an authority, maybe even a religious figure, so it's all good. Mutual love (unarranged) marriages between same species same sex partners in India do not merit the same acceptance by the wider culture.
louiecypher (#87):
And you've gleaned this from their writing on Sri Lanka??
Prashad's "Letter to a Hindu", Mishra's op-ed pieces. Their broad characterizations of the Hindus who had objections to elements of the Cal text books as "Hindu fundamentalists". Pretty safe extrapolation of their views based on the above. We're not going to agree, best spend your efforts elsewhere (e.g. Oy ! bootcamp, ASATA propaganda)
Sakshi @81, it reminded me of that scene, too. But that's why somewhere up-thread I asked about having him adopt the dog vs marrying it. I think it's that aspect of the atonement that furrows my brow.
Salil, very true.
"But that's why somewhere up-thread I asked about having him adopt the dog vs marrying it. I think it's that aspect of the atonement that furrows my brow."
probably because he felt he had been cursed and thus needed the security of religious sanction and a religious rite. marriage is one of the most important rites/bonds in india and in "hinduism" or whatever you want to call it. why do people feel the need to atone/show their fervour/get rid of a curse by wearing devices that cut into them and make them bleed or "walk" on their bloodied knees for miles or have an exorcism overseen by a priest? or why does one claim atonement of one's own sins via the death of another? in each of these cases, there probably is a less "bizarre" way to atone/show one's dedication/compassion.
This is highly amusing since Tamils love to brag for hours on end about how "great" their culture is, how "ancient" it is, and how "civilised they are. So now we can add marrying dogs to female infanticide, suicide bombers, child soldiers, cyanide capsules, drug traficking, prostitution, credit card fraud and inter-ethnic murders. Way to go!
Thank God for the WGA strike.
what does this have to do with Hinduism? If he had been Christian and received similar counsel from a priest and married the dog in a Church, it doesn't make it a Christian ritual does it?
louiecypher,
No, I suppose we're not likely to agree any time soon, but I am genuinely curious as to how you got to Indian Leftists from the Sri Lankan conflict. I didn't see your logic at all.
assuming particular religious priors i can see this sort of behavior (i.e., marrying a dog to restore balance to the world, etc.) being totally intelligible and logical. in the united states every few years we have some unlettered types who engage in exorcisms that take a physical turn. i recall one case where eyes were gouged out from a woman who was believed by her family (and herself) to be possessed by the devil. well, read the bible. demonic possession exists. and people cast out demons through the power vested in them through the charisma of the holy spirit. i don't believe in any of that stuff, but it is rather interesting to see conservative authorities who have to figure out whether to prosecute how they deal with people quoting passages from the 'acts of the apostles' back at them. like i said before, there's no such thing as religious neutrality. if you believe in demonic possession gouging someone's eyes out might be the logical thing to do.
(the case i'm thinking about the woman who lost her eyes didn't want charges pressed, she believed she'd been possessed and so the removal of her eyes were necessary)
Uh, yeah it would, to me. And I'd be just as perplexed and vaguely disturbed. I'd also be just as likely to blog about it, if it involved a desi angle and if I had the time to write it.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, especially since you've never commented before, so I don't have context...but I wasn't trying to be disrespectful by asking the questions I did, in case you need me to state that even more blatantly.
what's interesting is to note the difference in the manner two equally "bizarre" religious beliefs are treated by the bbc or by their separate correspondents.
the indian man marries a dog story has this headline: "Barking Mad? Man marries dog to ward off curse."
a story about a british jehovah's witness woman who refused a blood transfusion due to her religious belief and then died after giving birth to twins has this headline: "Mother dies after refusing blood"
in the first story we have this to explain the man's action: "Superstitious people in rural India sometimes organise weddings to animals in the hope of warding off curses."
in the british story, we have this to explain the woman's action: "We follow the Bible and abstain from blood and I've got no reason to believe that Emma didn't share those views," the friend Terry Lovejoy added. and "Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions because they believe that God has forbidden it in the Bible. They believe that accepting a blood transfusion is a sin."
there is no mention of the word "superstition" or "mad" in the british story or any attempt to portray her unusual and some would say, abnormal, belief as anything other than "normal" and appropriate to her personal faith. but peopel in rural india are superstitious (a loaded term). one is portrayed as superstition and the other as a belief.
in the end, whose "superstition" or "bizarre" belief proved to be the more harmful? and how come brits aren't worried about how weird/bizarre their country must seem to the rest of the world?:)
Let's you and me make a deal: I will continue to assume that these outlying, sensational stories are nothing more than just that-- and you don't associate me with deluded people who deny their family members blood transfusions, life-saving meds, etc. ;)
I agree that the standards are unfair and I'm the first person to push back, when I can. I don't think the Jehovas Witness case is less appalling. No shortage of outrage in these knickers, no.
i think one can interpret a term like superstition through analyzing along two dimensions of variation: class & culture.
if a practice is associated with individuals in a lower class then it is more likely to be labeled superstitious. e.g., faith-healing tends to be lower class practice in the united states, associated with "holy rollers." it is superstitious. on the other hand, the miracle of the eucharist is not superstitious because large segments of the elites accept its supernatural validity. substantively the eucharist is also wrapped up in some pretty deep greek philosophical garb. the "common sense" fundamentalism of many faith healers is pretty unsophisticated and seems to be easily superseded by modern medicine, but an understanding of the molecular and atomic nature of matter hasn't swept aside the ancient platonic derived explanations of how the eucharist enacts its miracle.
in regards to the cross-cultural aspect, i think something like astrology is a good example of a "superstition." in the western tradition astrology was associated with pre-abrahamic societies (babylon, etc.) and magic which was outside of the church's purview. it also seemed to contradict the omnipotence of the one god. in many parts of catholic christendom the belief in astrology is very low precisely because the church proactively preached against its validity. it was marginalized as the domain of marginal rustics or heretical esoteric philosophers (astrology is obviously intuitively appealing because it has cropped up over and over again as an interest among western intellectuals, even among those who considered themselves orthodox christians). in contrast in indian religion astrology is a mainstream part of the dispensation, and not a superstition at all. the scientistic fringe of hindutva even claims it is a science which on the same level of validity as astronomy.
First of all, is this part of Hinduism? Yes? No? What the hell is Hinduism in the first place? Hinduism, being one uniform religion, is a recent concept. If you do not accept such views, then you can say that this kind of ceremony as some sort of karmic payback is limited to that one form of Hinduism which is localised to a few villages and is more a function of local norms . Who cares. It is clearly an exception. But it is still part of the religion as it has come to be - a religion with some essential texts but possesess a lot of variety when it comes to beliefs, rituals and customs. I think the religion as it has come to be allows for many niches. This is one tiny niche.And nothing wrong with commenting on this niche.
I always get amused when people of any religion deny that some practices is not real Christianity or real Hinduism or real Islam. Religions are man made. It's not like Bible never went through revisions by different men. Same with the emergence of new sects in Islam or the coopting of new tribal Gods or Goddesses into Hinduism. Like it or not, if something goes into practice for many years, it becomes real for the adherants of that religion. At that point, who cares what the real intent of the original religion was. It is that way with casteism. I dont give a damn what th eoriginal intent was. What it became is what is real and Hindus should take responsibility for it. Same with muslims who believe in a greater Islamic empire taking precedence over nation states. There are enough people who believe in that I do not believe it suffice to say that it is anti Islamic for someone to believe in it.
Anyway, I went off on a tangent as this specific case does not warrant such a rambling analysis.
I would like to see some wideangle shots of that ceremony because I am willing to wager that there are some people laughing in the background. And let's face it. It is harmless as far as religious weird behavior goes. Besides, it is a very interesting way of dealing with the situation if you can remove from one's mind any funny references to bestiality. (Seriously, try staring at that picture and not laughing.)
But let's not get so defensive about such practices whether you are a Hindu trying to disassociate oneself from this practice or a Christian tryi