Comment by Lakshmikanth

Wed, 8 Mar 2006 13:06:44 EST

Anil: I am not debating on the marriage system of the Nairs/Menons etc etc. I am putting forth a condition, i believe, should have been quite common. I am not debating on the aspects that you mentioned, I am not saying that ALL women in Kerala were treated as objects. I am saying some were. I am asking the following question: Given the fact that these associations were NOT out of choice. Would there not be a SINGLE woman/girl who would not want to involve in it. Read the book 'Indulekha'. The book is widely held to be an objective account of what the society was in those days and whatever I have written on is inferred from this very famous novel and from my experience in Kerala for 18 years. It is debatable of how much choice they had in these matters. You can also point out some heroines like Unni Archa etc etc. Those were exceptions. The question is Choice. I think its a debatable issue whether a 13-16 year old girl had much of a choice in this matter. My proposition is this : If there was a girl who did not have a choice in this matter, then this is institutionlazed rape. Nairs within themselves have had a quite good system, and I agree to you there. The window of observation here is the mind of a girl who is into sambandam , without choice! This system obviously treats girls as objects, and sambandham is the liscence to have sex. Any institution collapses in the long run when its members are used as a means to an end (i.e. as objects), be it men or women. It also collapses when people are more educated and dont want themselves to be used as objects. i.e. Any system that fails to be rational ceases to exist in the long run(for ex: How many powerful kings and queens do u see nowadays?) I dont think sambandam is existant now, is it? I think that is proof enough for me to state that sambandam did use women as objects. You may ofcourse come up with several reasons for that. But then the question would be : If it was such a nice system why give it up?

Comment by Anil Menon

Wed, 8 Mar 2006 07:40:37 EST

Laxmikanth: The Nair marriage system has been the subject of more than 300 or 400 research papers for a simple reason: it's extraordinarily bizarre. It isn't very useful to use loaded words like "institutional rape" to describe sambhandam. And your moral outrage is mildly ironic; in 1812, when the poet Shelley -- darling of the Enlightenment -- read about the (idealized) account of the Nair marriage system(s) from James Lawrence's 1793 book, he wrote to Lawrence: "Your Empire of the Nairs which I read this spring, succeeded in making me a perfect convert to its doctrines." The Nairs constituted the fighting forces in South India; there are mentions of Nair warriors in the Chola armies as early as 10th century C.E. Most Nair men were destined to end up dead in one of the neverending battles in medieval south India. So their marriage systems (there are several) evolved to keep men detached from the emotional claims of family life; that is why, for example, a woman's brother rather than her husband reared her children. It worked out rather well for Nair women. They enjoyed remarkable economic and social independence in medieval times. Unlike their Brahmin counterparts, they were not barred from education, owning property (in fact, Nair men typically didn't own property) or choosing their husbands. Namboodari women often ended up as spinsters because only the eldest son of a Namboodari could marry a Namboodari woman; the social consequences can be imagined. In contrast, a Nair woman was free to chose her lovers -- both successive and simultaneously -- and maintain a husband at the same time. Keep in mind that the Sanskrit texts refer to Kerala as Striloka. Modern women should be so lucky.

Desicritics Comments on Sambandam: Women as Utility?

Comment by Lakshmikanth

Comment by Anil Menon