I am writing this without having watched the entire episode of Neeya Naana on Vijay TV, hosted by Gopinath, which discussed modernity on February 12, 2011. I only caught the end of the program, and from what I saw, the discussion seemed to revolve around the usual rhetorical views about modernity, including aspects like appearance (dress), outlook, thought, and approach. I agree with Gopinath’s point that we should not confuse “trend” with “modernity.” However, when he cited examples like Sangam poet Poonkundranar’s famous lines, “Yadum Oore yaavarum Kelir” (All places are my home, and everyone is my kin), and also mentioned Periyar’s modern thoughts and teachings, I found myself questioning what truly constitutes modernity.
Without having seen the entire program, I don’t feel I have the right to comment on the discussion or the views shared by the special guests and participants. However, given the topic, I do have a few questions to further explore the concept of modernity:
Yes, modernity is not just a trend. But what modern thoughts did Periyar or anyone else introduce that had not already been practiced in society from time immemorial?
For example, when we cite Periyar as a recent modern thinker in Tamil society, can we accept all of his views on women’s liberation? Or should we consider the so-called “modern” thoughts found in Sangam or other Tamil literature as representative of the modernism of their time, recognizing that some of these ideas were ahead of their time?
Scriptures and literature, while they may reflect some aspects of societal reality, cannot always be taken as exact representations of their era. Every scripture and piece of literature often projects a certain idealism, which might have been seen as “modern” at the time. The same is true for the thoughts of so-called modern thinkers like Periyar, who are credited with being ahead of their time. However, neither scriptures/literature nor reformers’ idealisms are fully embraced or reflected in real life, nor can anyone completely implement them.
Take, for instance, women’s rights. What is new about this that cannot be found in ancient scriptures, literature, or modern writers? Similarly, love marriages, arranged marriages, relationships outside marriage, and other such practices are not new. Like the cycle of seasons, they repeat or coexist alongside the “normal” life of people.
What constitutes “normal” is another question. Is arranged marriage the norm while love marriage is modern in Indian society? When we have records of eight types of marriages in ancient India,@ which one is normal and which one is modern? An arranged marriage might be considered modern in the Western world, but in Indian societies, except for modern techniques, all forms of life and thought have existed in one form or another.
So, while it is important to discuss and debate topics like modernity, just as scriptures and literature do, such discussions on TV with experts and scholars are another form of (audio-visual) literature where more idealism is expressed than reality. Of course, such idealism is essential, but we should always remember its objective value.
@In ancient Indian society, eight types of marriages are mentioned in texts like the Manusmriti, ranging from arranged marriages to love marriages, and even more unconventional forms.
Db. February 13, 2012
8. According to the ordinance, there are eight kinds of marriages, namely, Brahma, Daiva, Arsha, Prajapatya, Asura. 9 Gandharva, Rakhasha, and Paishacha. The son of the self-created (Brahma), Manu, has spoken which of these forms (of marriages) is appropriate to each of the four castes. 10 …the first four forms are appropriate to the Brahmanas, and the fist six for Kshatryas. 11. To the kings, even the Rakhasha form is permissible. The Asura form is permissible to the Vaisyas and Sudras. Of the first five (forms), three are proper and two improper. 12. The Paishacha and Asura forms should never be adopted (by any man). These are the ordinances of the scriptures, and man should act according to them. (12)— [Dushmanta to Sakuntala]— M.N.[Manmatha Nath] Dutt, Mahabharata, Delhi, Parimala Publications, 7 vols. Vol. I. 1988, Ch. 73. ADI PARVA p.105
27. The marriage according to the Gandharva form, without Mantras, and between a willing woman and a willing man, is said to be the best to a Kshatrya. [ Kabwa to Sakuntala]—ibid. Ch. 73. ADI PARVA p.106
It is not to be supposed that when ancient sages held that raksasa and paisaca were forms of marriage, they legalized marriage by capture or stealth. What they meant was that these were the means of securing wives and that there are not really eight kinds of vivahas, but rather there are eight ways in which wives may be secured…—P. V. Kane, History of Dharmasastra, Poona, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Vol. II. Part. I. Ch. Forms of Marriage. p. 520.
I am writing this without having watched the entire episode of Neeya Naana on Vijay TV, hosted by Gopinath, which discussed modernity on February 12, 2011. I only caught the end of the program, and from what I saw, the discussion seemed to revolve around the usual rhetorical views about modernity, including aspects like appearance (dress), outlook, thought, and approach. I agree with Gopinath’s point that we should not confuse “trend” with “modernity.” However, when he cited examples like Sangam poet Poonkundranar’s famous lines, “Yadum Oore yaavarum Kelir” (All places are my home, and everyone is my kin), and also mentioned Periyar’s modern thoughts and teachings, I found myself questioning what truly constitutes modernity.
Without having seen the entire program, I don’t feel I have the right to comment on the discussion or the views shared by the special guests and participants. However, given the topic, I do have a few questions to further explore the concept of modernity:
Yes, modernity is not just a trend. But what modern thoughts did Periyar or anyone else introduce that had not already been practiced in society from time immemorial?
For example, when we cite Periyar as a recent modern thinker in Tamil society, can we accept all of his views on women’s liberation? Or should we consider the so-called “modern” thoughts found in Sangam or other Tamil literature as representative of the modernism of their time, recognizing that some of these ideas were ahead of their time?
Scriptures and literature, while they may reflect some aspects of societal reality, cannot always be taken as exact representations of their era. Every scripture and piece of literature often projects a certain idealism, which might have been seen as “modern” at the time. The same is true for the thoughts of so-called modern thinkers like Periyar, who are credited with being ahead of their time. However, neither scriptures/literature nor reformers’ idealisms are fully embraced or reflected in real life, nor can anyone completely implement them.
Take, for instance, women’s rights. What is new about this that cannot be found in ancient scriptures, literature, or modern writers? Similarly, love marriages, arranged marriages, relationships outside marriage, and other such practices are not new. Like the cycle of seasons, they repeat or coexist alongside the “normal” life of people.
What constitutes “normal” is another question. Is arranged marriage the norm while love marriage is modern in Indian society? When we have records of eight types of marriages in ancient India,@ which one is normal and which one is modern? An arranged marriage might be considered modern in the Western world, but in Indian societies, except for modern techniques, all forms of life and thought have existed in one form or another.
So, while it is important to discuss and debate topics like modernity, just as scriptures and literature do, such discussions on TV with experts and scholars are another form of (audio-visual) literature where more idealism is expressed than reality. Of course, such idealism is essential, but we should always remember its objective value.
@In ancient Indian society, eight types of marriages are mentioned in texts like the Manusmriti, ranging from arranged marriages to love marriages, and even more unconventional forms.
Db. February 13, 2012
8. According to the ordinance, there are eight kinds of marriages, namely, Brahma, Daiva, Arsha, Prajapatya, Asura. 9 Gandharva, Rakhasha, and Paishacha. The son of the self-created (Brahma), Manu, has spoken which of these forms (of marriages) is appropriate to each of the four castes. 10 …the first four forms are appropriate to the Brahmanas, and the fist six for Kshatryas. 11. To the kings, even the Rakhasha form is permissible. The Asura form is permissible to the Vaisyas and Sudras. Of the first five (forms), three are proper and two improper. 12. The Paishacha and Asura forms should never be adopted (by any man). These are the ordinances of the scriptures, and man should act according to them. (12)— [Dushmanta to Sakuntala]— M.N.[Manmatha Nath] Dutt, Mahabharata, Delhi, Parimala Publications, 7 vols. Vol. I. 1988, Ch. 73. ADI PARVA p.105
27. The marriage according to the Gandharva form, without Mantras, and between a willing woman and a willing man, is said to be the best to a Kshatrya. [ Kabwa to Sakuntala]—ibid. Ch. 73. ADI PARVA p.106
It is not to be supposed that when ancient sages held that raksasa and paisaca were forms of marriage, they legalized marriage by capture or stealth. What they meant was that these were the means of securing wives and that there are not really eight kinds of vivahas, but rather there are eight ways in which wives may be secured…—P. V. Kane, History of Dharmasastra, Poona, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Vol. II. Part. I. Ch. Forms of Marriage. p. 520.
Leave a Reply