Vidai- a cringe worthy ritual which is still practiced

Vidai (or Bidai) is a ritual performed in Indian marriages where a bride is supposed to say a final goodbye to her parental home and leave for her husband's house. The ceremony might be called with different names in different parts of India, but the intention behind the ritual is the same, to do a farewell to your father's home and announce your entry to your husband's home. It seems that it is assumed that no home is the bride's own home, she just gets passed on from one patriarch to another. It's an emotional moment with everyone crying as if someone has died, there are many hit Bollywood songs specially dedicated to this ritual. No doubt, this is a very emotional moment of life for many Indian women. I always found it odd to see people crying in the middle of a marriage ceremony that was full of joy and color until this ritual took place. I am glad to see that many brides are now questioning this ritual and going to the extent of getting rid of it, I commend their courage and support their movement to get rid of such a cringeworthy ritual.

The question is why has this ritual not been questioned so far? One of the reasons is it is so glamorized by society and the movie industry that it has become mandatory to have this ritual in every marriage video recording, even brides who don't feel like crying are made aware that they should at least display some sorrow otherwise what people will think. As I already mentioned there are hit movie songs memorizing this ritual and making it an integral part of their memory and culture, this is how it managed to survive so long. 

What's wrong with it? Almost everything. If you look at marriage, the bride and groom are getting married to each other, at least now, legally, both of them have ancestral rights to the property of their ancestors. Then why only the bride has to go through this ritual? The bride and groom, both are starting their new life together, probably, on their own with minimum or no support from their parents. Then why this ritual is applied only to the bride? The time when brides started asking this question, this ritual is standing on shaky ground and its disappearance is just a matter of time. No doubt, as it does always, patriarchy and its overt and covert supporters will argue about how this is a part of our glorious past and culture, how it has some emotional or rational or even some scientific rationale behind it. They make this style of argument almost about every ritual or tradition that gets questioned, many of these arguments are either ridiculous or laughable, but it does not stop them from making it. Hopefully, girls will see through this ploy of keeping patriarchy alive through some rituals and get rid of this ritual or at least force it to become gender-neutral.

Every society and culture undergoes transformations from time to time, this is not only natural but also essential for its survival. However, such transformations are not easy, especially when they question long-standing traditions or rituals that people have followed without question for centuries. Many marriage rituals from various parts of the world have passed their expiry date and need a major overhaul. I am glad to see that change is happening and women are leading this movement of change.

Thanks for reading and please share your opinion about this topic.  

Left hand and right hand, which one is right?

I have seen very few left-handed people in India. Especially during my childhood, it was very rare to spot a left-handed person. But, when I came to the USA I was surprised to see so many left-handed people. This sharp difference made me look for some reasons behind it. Is it genetic or due to a different climate or there is some other reason? While looking for possible reasons, I realized that it has to do with culture and tradition more than anything else. In India left hand is considered as a 'wrong' hand and many parents force their kids to use their right hand the time they realize that their child is using the left hand, especially while eating or writing. This happens at a very young age when the child is still trying to learn to perform his or her tasks on their own. Because of this cultural dominance of right-handedness, many kids change their "wrong" way and switch to the "correct" way. The ultimate result: they start using their 'right' hand for eating and writing and hence they ultimately become right-handed. 

Now, slowly things are changing for good. Even in India parents are more tolerant towards their kids using whatever hand they prefer while eating or writing. However, this was not the case during my childhood, this is why I think I didn't see many left-handed people around me. During my son's first India visit since he started eating on his own, when my mom saw him eating with his left hand she was really shocked. She blamed me that as a parent, I didn't make any efforts to correct this fault of his. She was worried about him using his 'wrong' hand to do pious tasks like eating, writing, or performing some religious rituals. My mom is not the only one who thinks like this, most people of her generation think like this and still, many people believe in these types of traditions. Most of them are fine with a person being a leftie in sports, rather lefties get special attention in popular sports like cricket in India, but if the same person uses his or her left hand while eating then the reactions are totally different.

I am completely opposed to this notion of right being a "right hand" and left being a "wrong hand." It should be the choice of an individual to decide which hand they want to use as their dominant hand. There is nothing right or wrong in this, it really doesn't matter. I am glad that slowly people are trying to understand this simple fact, but still, it is not acceptable to use the left hand during religious rituals. Priests often try to force a person performing the ritual to use their right hand and many oblige to this order just to avoid any confrontation or they somehow think that using their left hand is the wrong thing to do. I am sure this happens because of brainwashing since early childhood. I feel left-handed people should stick to their guns during religious ceremonies also, let these priests understand that there is nothing wrong in using the left hand, let others understand that there is nothing wrong in being a leftie, and one hand is not more pious than the other, both are equal. I know this is not easy, it might result in some struggle, also it might create some unpleasant situations or arguments, but someone needs to take the stand so that others don't suffer the same discomfort and humiliation. It will be interesting to see how my son reacts when he is told to use his right hand during some religious ritual. I am interested in knowing about the experiences of left-handed people who feel they got discriminated against or treated differently just because they use their left hand. We need to correct this bias, it is not that serious, but still, it is a bias and we must correct it.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

If beef can be banned, then why not Jallikattu?

Jallikattu is a bull-taming sport practiced in some parts of the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu for centuries. Recently Indian Supreme Court banned this sport because of complaints about animal cruelty. Animal welfare activists complained that bulls are tortured by using various cruel methods and are forced to participate in this sport. The court took notice of their complaint and banned its practice after looking into all angles of it presented by both sides. But the problem is this sport has become a tradition in those parts of India, and many people are emotionally attached to it. So, as usual, this has become a very sensitive and controversial issue. Just like the beef ban, which was imposed by various state governments with the help of court decisions, in this case, animal activists were successful in getting a court order to ban this sport. But the problem this time is that both governments (center and state) are not in favor of this ban. In the case of beef imposing the ban was politically beneficial and in this case not imposing the ban is politically beneficial. In one case governments were in agreement with the court decision and in the other they didn't agree. To bypass this ban, the central government of India issued a special ordinance that was supported by all political parties of that state. This was a unique scenario where all political rivals who fought with each other even on many issues of national interest came together. The reason? There are state elections in Tamil Nadu soon and no political party wants to create a perception that they are against some religious tradition which can cost them votes. But now the problem is that the court has struck down that ordinance also, so it will be interesting to see what happens next. One interesting thing to note here is that people who supported the beef ban for animal cruelty and calling cows their mothers want to support this sport. Some who opposed the beef ban saying that what they want to eat is their personal choice are supporting this ban on Jallikattu for animal cruelty. It is very interesting to see how people switch their sides conveniently without even realizing sharp contradictions in their behavior. Actually, one can not equate the slaughtering of cows with bulls being tortured for some entertainment sports, in one case an animal is killed for food and in another case tortured to create some entertainment. But in both cases, one can argue that there is an element of cruelty involved and it should be the topic of discussion. Are we okay with both of them or we are okay with one but against the other and why?

In both cases, the emotions are involved. In the beef ban case, people are sensitive towards cruelty towards one particular animal (cow) and want to ban her slaughter but in Jallikattu's case, they want to uphold the tradition and continue that sport without being bothered by the animal cruelty involved in it. I personally appreciate the sentiments of people who love animals and work towards animal welfare. It is a great cause and many groups are committed to working towards this cause. But the truth is animal and human lives are judged differently. Humans use animals as objects made for their personal use: we eat their meat, keep them in zoos, attend various animal shows, have them as pets, domesticate them for farming or milk production, and even hunt them. Basically, we use them for our own personal benefit in whatever way we want. All these activities that I mentioned are legal. Cow slaughter might be illegal in many states of India but it is permitted in some states and many countries of the world but human killing is considered a very serious crime everywhere. We should understand that as a species humans value their own lives more compared to any other animal on this planet. Therefore we should not compare humans and animals using the same scale because our laws or our societies don't do this. The problem in these types of cases is that people are not consistent in their views and double standards are used either to justify or criticize exposing the hypocrisy of our society.

If the beef ban was required to save cows then how can you support the eating of meat of any other animal? If the beef ban was not for religious purposes but to stop animal cruelty then don't other animals also deserve the same protection?  How it is okay to support any sport where animals are tortured?  If we look at the other side, if beef eating is your right to choose your food then why you are against people's right to choose the sport which they want to play? If cow slaughter is okay then what's wrong with bull taming sport? Actually, my personal experience is that people who do such flip-flops don't like to face any such uncomfortable questions. Whenever they are confronted with such contradictions in their behavior, they either choose to justify their own hypocritical behavior by using their oratory skills or get very aggressive. Such issues also expose lame attempts of various political groups to exploit such sensitive issues for their own advantage. It is not fair to expect courts to pass judgments on every such issue, but unfortunately, governments and civil society make these things so complicated that eventually, these issues land in courts. Some of them like this one get resolved quickly but many such cases keep on dragging on for years as it is very difficult for courts to pass any judgment on very sensitive issues, Babri mosque demolition case is one such example. 

Actually, at some point in our lives, our double standards are exposed. We should learn from such incidents and try to improve our thinking. Such issues expose the hypocrisy of people in our society but somehow they are still not willing to learn any lesson. I am sure that soon there will be another sensitive issue and another similar passionate and emotional debate where people will argue based on their political and religious affiliations rather than having a logical discussion, there will be another deadlock followed by another protest and court case.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Haldi-Kumkum - discriminatory tradition

Haldi-Kumkum is a traditional or social gathering event celebrated in various parts of India by married women during the festival season. It seems that historically it was started as an occasion to give an opportunity for married women to interact socially. This sounds quite logical because, in a patriarchal society where women were not allowed to go out of their homes alone, there were not many opportunities for them to socially interact with other women. Due to such a restricted environment, it made perfect sense to have some function like this where women can gather in a relaxed environment, interact with each other socially, and discuss topics of their interest. So, why I am calling this gathering discriminatory? Is it because men are not invited to it, am I alleging gender discrimination here? Absolutely not, one can have male social gatherings as well as female social gatherings, and there is no question of gender discrimination when each gender is allowed to have its own gatherings. This is not about gender discrimination but about discrimination within the same gender. I witnessed this discrimination as a child, but at that time I didn't realize that this was discrimination as I thought it was a part of our culture and tradition. So, where is the discrimination, and what I am really talking about here? If you check about this function widows are not invited to this function. Now, you may ask why are they not invited? The simple answer is because their husbands are no more, they can't be a part of a function where still having a living husband is celebrated. Note that even though this gathering is of women, this is not about them, but it is about the presence of a man, their husband, in their lives, that's what they are celebrating. I am sure most readers know that in Hindu tradition only married women put kumkum on their forehead and widows are not allowed to put that mark on their forehead. Basically, that mark denotes that woman's husband is still alive,  note that no such mark or symbol is required for males to indicate whether their wife is alive or not. Actually, I was told that if widows are invited to this function, it can bring a bad omen for all other married women in that function which is why they are not invited. It seems due to the presence of widows somehow all those married women also might get widowhood, and it can spread like some contagious disease. Another reason might be that when being alive husband is celebrated these widows might feel bad that their husbands are no more, therefore, to spare them from this grief they are excluded. But if this is true, then why it is branded as a social function for women? Just accept that it is a celebration of having a living husband. Both cannot be correct, if it was supposed to be a social function then there is no reason why widows should not be allowed to be a part of it, they were also married and socially more isolated, rather, they need such social functions more than other married women. Also, not many years before widows used to be excluded from all these so-called auspicious occasions, things are changing slowly now but traditions like this show strong prejudice against widows and women in general.

As a child, I never realized that anything was wrong with any of these traditions. I was too naive and ill-informed, I observed these things silently with many questions in my mind and no one around to answer them. I saw widows like my maternal grandma (we used to call her nani) wearing really simple clothes and participating in very limited functions. Actually, I saw both my grandmas (nani and aaji) only as widows, but my nani lived a much more subdued or simple life than my aaji, maybe because nani had only a daughter as her only child but my aaji had 5 sons. I never realized back then the reason behind the lack of colors in their lives. I also never felt anything wrong about it as I never knew that these women also have the right to live life like any other married woman around them. I was trained to believe that it is part of our culture and tradition, so I accepted widowhood and their colorless lives as something these women have to live with rest of their lives. It was their bad luck or misfortune and their family or society can't do anything to change it. Fortunately, this ignorance didn't last long, slowly I realized that many of these traditions were discriminatory, misogynistic, and part of patriarchal culture to have complete control over women's bodies and their lives. I also realized that not only men but women are equally responsible for following and propagating these things and since then I have questioned and opposed any such ritual or tradition that is discriminatory. I am glad that some people are questioning these things and some are even modifying these traditions to make them more inclusive and non-discriminatory. Both things are necessary, as getting rid of these traditions altogether is not the only solution, one can modify them, remove the discriminatory rules and rituals, and keep on practicing them for social gatherings. For example, raksha bandhan is celebrated in our home in a gender-unbiased way where brother and sister both tie rakhi to each other. I hope this ritual also goes through some major reforms and women start inviting all women irrespective of their marital status. This will be a real social gathering and real interaction, having a living husband should not be the only criteria.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Arranged marriage: can it be called a legalized rape?

One of my friends called arranged marriage a "legalized rape." His statement didn't surprise me as I heard this previously also. I did not agree with this statement completely because I know many successful and happy arranged marriages (including my own). The system of arranged marriage is not perfect, it has many serious drawbacks, but even considering all drawbacks, it is an exaggerated statement to call all arranged marriages as legalized rape. However, this statement is not entirely wrong, the statement is not 100% right, but it's not also 100% wrong. It can make sense to a person only if he/she tries to understand the logic behind this argument. Some people might find this topic disgusting or offensive or against their tradition or culture, so for them, my advice is the intention is not to offend anyone but if they at all feel offended by this subject then please don't proceed and go and read some other post there are many other posts on this blog, hopefully, some of them won't offend you.

Arranged marriage is a system designed to find a partner for marriage. The system was designed during times when any unsupervised interaction between males and females was not allowed. In many societies, arranged marriage was the only way to get married. The system was controlled by parents and other elders as they used to decide everything, starting from selecting the bride or groom to the date and time of marriage. The bride and groom were just instruments to run this show. All decision and execution power used to rest in the hands of elders and slowly they extended this system to child marriage. After all, the consent or desire of the bride and groom didn't matter, so why have any age restriction, right? There can be many reasons why the consent of the boy and girl was not taken, the young age and immaturity might be the two biggest reasons. After the marriage next step is the consummation of marriage. According to Wikipedia, consummation or consummation of a marriage, in many traditions and statutes of civil or religious law, is the first (or first officially credited) act of sexual intercourse between two people, either following their marriage to each other or after a prolonged sexual attraction. In any sexual act if there is no consent involved or if force is used against the will of any individual involved in it, it can be considered a rape or sexual assault. There are high chance of this happening during the consummation of many arranged marriages. I think this is what my learned friend meant when he made this comment.

People often cite high divorce rates in developed societies to prove the uselessness of love marriages. No matrimonial system is perfect, there are some pros and cons associated with every system, but only a fool will advocate any system where two people are allowed to get married without knowing each other. Allowing two people who want to get marry interact with each other to make their own informed decisions is the best way whether it happens through a love marriage or an arranged marriage doesn't matter. No doubt that good traditions and rituals should be preserved and continued but not all traditions are worth preserving, some need major reforms and as a society, we should be willing to change. Obtaining informed consent of the two people getting married is not wrong, rather it's beneficial for everyone interested in that union and can avoid many problems after marriage. Why not follow such a simple common sensible thing during the arranged marriage. Parents can definitely help whenever needed, and offer suggestions whenever asked but they should leave it to the two individuals to make decisions about their own lives, after all, they are the ones who are getting married. In any relationship, it is essential to learn to respect your partner's choices and their right to say no, and arranged marriages must ensure this to avoid it being labeled as a legalized rape.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Why daughters hesitate to claim their share in ancestral property in India?

This issue is somewhat sensitive in many families and people don't want to discuss it because of the possibility of tension it might create and also the possibility of spoiling relations, but I have been always curious about this issue. I am discussing this subject exclusively in the Indian context because I have seen this problem there, maybe it is also present in many other cultures but I am personally aware of this problem in India. Fight for equal rights for women is going on all over the world and India is no exception to this. Like everywhere else property rights of Indian women are unequal and unfair. A lot of improvements have been made on paper, some laws are also introduced to protect their rights but they are hardly followed. So, even on paper, the situation looks better but in reality, nothing has changed much. In India now at least by law daughters are legally eligible for an equal share in the ancestral property. However, many of them don't want to exercise this legal right, they worry about their family's reaction, society's reaction, and also about spoiling relationships, all these things make them very reluctant even to think about this important right given to them by law. Implementation of this law on the ground is still a very far-fetched dream.

Why daughters don't want their share? Why do they hesitate to claim it? What is stopping them? As far as sons are concerned they all think that it's their birthright to inherit ancestral property and they fight for it if they feel any injustice has been done to them but daughters hardly react if their share is not offered to them. Daughters don't bother to ask for it even if they are in financial difficulty and really need that share, they just think it's not their right, and even if this right is offered to them by the law it's not appropriate to exercise it. This is the effect of years of female suppression and brainwashing. No matter what rights the law is offering to them they are still hesitant to use most of those rights. To make things more complicated, there is a lot of confusion about women's property rights law and many people don't even know where to look for details. As Shruti Pandey (see link 3) said in her article there is no single body of property rights of Indian women, they get determined by which religion she follows, is she is married or unmarried, which part of the country she comes from, whether she is tribal or non-tribal, etc. All these factors along with a lack of awareness and desire result in many daughters not getting their share in ancestral property. This issue may sound very trivial but as far as women's independence and equality are concerned I think this is a very important matter.

I think the dowry system must have started to tackle the problem of offering shares to daughters in ancestral property, but this system itself became a big problem rather than solving the problem of equitable property distribution. The problem of dowry became so big that the government has to introduce a separate law to stop it, it's another issue that it's still practiced in some form all over India. Any girl asking for her share in the ancestral property is considered greedy and often faces the wrath of other family members (like brother and sister-in-law) who feel that she is unfairly trying to grab their share of the property. The feeling of guilt is also very strong in many girls' minds, most of them believe that the true heir to property has to be a male and hence it's not fair for daughters to ask for any share in ancestral property. The dowry system is not an answer to this problem, this system itself has created many troubles for women. The current system of dowry creates a lot of trouble for brides whenever their in-laws feel that they didn't get enough dowry and then demand more and torture the girl. Offering legal and proportional shares to daughters in ancestral property might be a better solution as this practice might help to remove the ambiguity associated with how much share a daughter can get. Often the dowry is demanded out of greed, so there is no limit on how much the other party (the groom's side) can demand, whereas a share in property is calculated as per law so there are fewer chances of unreasonable demands. This law would not stop all atrocities against brides but at least it would eliminate the social evil of dowry from their lives. But this needs a lot of courage and determination from daughters who normally hesitate to ask for their rights, and their families who don't bother to make sure that daughters get their share. Daughters need to prepare themselves for all the criticism and badmouthing, they need to believe that their rights are as important as their brother's rights. This will be a test of their patience, diplomatic skills, and courage, but in the end, this is their choice. After all, this is a question of their rights and no one can force them to do this if they don't want to, and the choice is entirely theirs. 

Thanks for reading and please share your views about this topic. 

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing] 

Links:
1. Daughter's rights in new amendment
2. Daughter’s rights in ancestral property in India
3. Property rights of Indian women By Shruti Pandey

A tale of two Mundans in my family

The incidents about which I am writing actually happened a long time ago, almost nine to ten years ago in my life. It is the story of mundan of my both kids. Mundan ceremony is very common and is known by different names in different parts of India. Note that it's not only common in India, but also performed in various other cultures and societies under various names. It seems the first haircut has some unique significance in every culture. According to the tradition followed in my family a boy or a girl should get their mundan (first haircut) done either before their 1st birthday if not then in 3rd year. I don't understand the logic behind these age assignments but this is what they believe, no one explained to me why? Because of this belief, many parents don't give haircuts to their kids for the first 9-10 months and then one fine fine day whole family goes to some temple, and the child's head is shaved or the first haircut is offered along with some rituals and prayers Normally, this haircut costs way more than a normal haircut, many times the family has to travel to distant temples or to some rich and famous venue (like Tirupati Balaji which is very famous for this ritual). So, there are many other things involved in this elaborate affair, it's not just a simple haircut.

The reason I remembered all these incidents after so many years was the discussion about mundan of my friend's son on Facebook. He was debating whether to go for it or not. Back then, I didn't face any dilemma about this issue as I was totally against it. According to me, to perform such an elaborate ceremony at a temple or to travel miles to some temple just to give a haircut to a child is really a wasteful idea. I don't understand the logic behind it, maybe there was some good reason to do this thing this way 100s of years ago but I don't see any reason to do this now. Why spend so much money and effort on a thing that can be performed with professional help at any saloon?

So for both kids before their first birthday, this issue came up for discussion. My daughter had very thick and beautiful hair at that time, she looked adorable. I registered my protest against shaving her head because I thought it was totally unnecessary. People give all kinds of reasons to perform mundan, starting from the original hair (womb hair) is not good in quality, they are thin, and if you need to shave the head to get nice and thick new hair, there is no scientific backing to any of these reasons but may be in some cases it works. There are some other reasons like womb hair is associated with undesirable traits from past lives, etc. But the major question was, why go to some temple just for a simple haircut and waste so much time and money? Why can't we do it in some saloon? But the hold of some traditions or rituals on people's minds is so strong that they are scared even to think about an alternative or more logical way. But the problem was that my wife wanted to do mundan for her, and as a parent, she has an equal say in what decisions we make about our kids. I can express my opinion, register my protest in the strongest possible way, argue over it, and stand my ground but I cannot force my views on my wife or on anyone. If I start forcing my opinion on others then there won't be any difference between me and many others who force these so-called traditions and rituals in the name of culture, religion, or God. There was a debate and heated discussion about this issue and everyone came to know my opposition to this ritual. I don't think it was a surprise to anyone in my family but I guess they were thinking that it's easy to talk about reform and change, many people do that but when it comes to their own kid or own family people compromise because of so many reasons the major one is to avoid unpleasant scenes or not to hurt anyone in their own family. I find this reason really strange because people don't hesitate to use the strongest possible words to criticize or question many things when others do them, like excessive spending on marriage, following some superstitions like this one, or the role of women in the family, but when their own family does these things then somehow they find some reason to defend or justify these actions. My family was somewhat surprised that I was putting on such a resistance to spoil such an important ceremony for my own daughter. To cut a long story short, even after all this mundan happened, I lost to the majority who wanted the mundan to happen. I didn't attend the ceremony. I don't regret at all missing the ceremony but I do regret somewhat that I failed to convince my own family not to perform this stupid ritual, but failures like these are part of the struggle to bring reforms.

The second time similar thing happened in my son's case, but this time I was not in India, everyone knew my opposition to this ritual, but it was easy for everyone this time to ignore me as I was not physically present there. In my son's case, it was done twice within a month (again without any logic and reason), one in Mumbai and one at Balaji - the famous Tirupati temple where every day thousands of people go to shave their head and offer their hair to God. I don't know why God needs so much hair from so many people but I know many people who go there every year and shave their heads. My kids asked the question why this thing was done to them to all who were involved in this ritual but they didn't get any satisfactory answers to date. The only answer they got is that as this is part of our tradition and everyone does it so we also did, it was even done to your father, but this explanation is far from satisfactory. So, this was the story of two mundans in my family.

According to me, this ritual is one of many traditions and rituals that people follow blindly (just like a superstition). They don't even think whether there is any reason or logic behind this, just follow it blindly. I can't do this, ignorance might be bliss for many but for me, it's not an option. I don't believe in forcing my opinion but that doesn't mean I don't express them. I express my disagreement whenever I face these issues in my family or somewhere else, and try not to attend these ceremonies. Many people (even those who can't afford them) spend a lot of time and money on these things but the same people don't have time or money for community service or charity. This is particularly sad in a country like India where there is a strong feeling for following culture and traditions but not that much for doing charity and community service. The mundans still happen but I hope this tradition will end soon, this will also save a lot of time and money for many. I hope more and more people will choose to follow a more sensible path rather than the usual path.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Links:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_haircut 

Don't use your wrong hand

My son is a leftie, which means his left hand is his dominant hand. Naturally, he uses his left hand for most of the major daily one-handed tasks (like writing, eating, and throwing). Actually, if we look around, we can easily see that the most commonly available things (like a computer mouse, cricket gloves, musical instruments like guitar, etc.) are designed with keeping right-handed people in mind just because they are in the majority. It is good to see that now left-handed versions are also available for most of these things. because of this most of the time lefties don't face any major problems, there might be a little inconvenience in getting such things but things are available for lefties also. But my son faces a huge problem whenever he goes to some Hindu religious gathering or to some pujas (a religious ritual), there he is always instructed "to use his right hand," or instructed "not to use his wrong hand" to perform rituals. This used to create lots of confusion and trouble for him. Now he is old enough to understand why people around him say this, the reason is that as right-handed people are in the majority these things are designed by only keeping them in mind. He understands this bias, but at the same time, it is puzzling to him why it is wrong to use the left hand during religious rituals? For him, the left hand is his strong and dominant hand, when someone forces him to use his right hand he doesn't understand the logic behind it. In many places he obliges and wherever possible he just ignores the instructions. If people are too rigid and adamant about using the 'right' hand then he tries to avoid those places. He tries his best to avoid any confrontation on this issue (this was one of the reasons he stopped going to ISKON gatherings). 

There are some theories and logic proposed to explain why one should use the right hand during rituals. One very common belief is that since the left hand is reserved for personal hygiene (wiping or cleaning ass after howl movements) one should always use the right hand as it's cleaner (so more pious). People from India should understand what I mean by the left hand being reserved for personal hygiene. However, this assumption is only true for right-handed people, and not every right-handed person cleans their ass with their left hand. In the past when proper sanitizers (like soap and sanitizer) were not available this thing might have made some sense, but today with all these methods at our disposal to keep us clean this tradition of using "only right hand" doesn't make any sense. It is also important to note that by insisting on using only the right hand we knowingly or unknowingly hurt people who are not right-handed, or for some reason cannot use their right hand or sometimes both hands. Such exclusionary traditions make excluded people feel awkward and abnormal. This is not a sign of an inclusive society.

I explained to my son why people insist on the use of the right hand, I also told him what are his rights as a person living in a free and democratic country. He is free to reject or accept things based on his own personal beliefs like others. I also offered him some suggestions on how to deal with these types of situations, but finally, I left it to him to choose his response and allow him to deal with these things on his own. I don't interfere unless he asks me for any help. I think now he understands people's attitudes better, he is not confused or surprised by their comments anymore, but I think not all kids get this type of support or explanation. They might start thinking that something is wrong with them or they are different than others just because they use a different hand. This might affect their confidence and behavior. Actually, we all are different and unique in some way, but still, we all are equal. We all are equal because we all are humans. Minor differences like skin color, gender, race, use of right or left hand, and sexual orientation should not result in any discrimination or discomfort to any of us. Every human should be treated with equal respect and dignity. I want my kids to grow up in a society where these differences have no place in it, where one can use whatever hand or leg (for people with no hands) to perform any ritual (religious or non-religious). This is a sign of a truly tolerant and inclusive society. I am willing to work towards building such a society and culture, are you willing to be a part of this journey?

Thank you for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing)

Links:

1. Why use right hand?