The Bachchan-Rai Marriage - One Wedding and Four Funerals

I quite like the article and the observation made by Ms Aditi are convincing

Well done

You feminists with your unhappy and miserable lives don't understand the Bachchan culture nor do you understand our country. This is not brangelina or the shaadi or Aishwarya Rai. This is the shaadi of the son of Amitabh Bachhcan, our most beloved man and icon ever. If you don't like it, you get married and do it any way you like. There will not be people hanging off trees to come watch your wedding or wedding of any other star pair for sure.

Good piece Aditi , I was personally appalled to see the regressive rituals and comments that the 'bachchan' family has been making .....its shameful that a young successful woman like ms.rai has conceeded to all this ....The sad fact is that , this public display would lead to further marginalising of very many indian woman who have far less power than ms.rai to object to these things...
Public personalities have a right to their personal lives, yet they also owe their public , a responsibility which they cant shrug away coz they are creations of the public. on that count the 'bachchan' family has failed utterly !

When you think of the impact that amitabh bachchan's polio ad had on increased polio vaccination , I shudder to think of the impact this 'regressive bachchan marriage' will have on aam people who adore these stars and emulate them !

Good observations. Vote for this article on http://www.bestofindya.com

Why be a celebrity if you can't deal with the paparazzi? The Bachchans are an overrated lot. Its kind of difficult to forget Amitabh's wild past or Aish's for that matter. Its amusing to see the pair with good old daddy visiting temples after temples as if they are the most pristine family of India.

BTW, great post Aditi, enjoyed it:)

Don't understand what point you are driving home with this piece. It is a marriage between two celebrities. It happened exactly the way one would expect to happen. Your title enticed me into reading it. But to be honest i didn't follow this marriage at all. I knew about this marriage couple of days after the marriage when i browsed through BBC. I was not really compelled to read about it. Why? I don't give a damn if Aishwarya marries Abishek or her ungle Gumby.

@ Preeti, Devi, Deepti, Indya, thanks! Glad you enjoyed the article.

@Gautam: I dismissed your comment beyond "You feminists with your unhappy and miserable lives..." as I'm sure most educated readers would. I hope for your sake that in hindsight you will realize how chauvinistic and petty your statement sounds.

@Naveen: Honestly, I never thought I would write about Bollywood weddings either....but when my colleagues come asking me how and why would India's noted female celebrity marry a tree, I feel compelled to write about it and vent my own frustrations at the lack of public statements issued by Ms.Rai's spokespersons (if any). I don't subscribe to or believe everything that the media says about them. They might've just gone to a temple and the media played out the "Oh, she's marrying a tree!" story. But Ms.Rai's media absence and the dearth of statements made by her own representatives encouraged such meaningless tongue-wagging. As a female personality of such international proportions, I think she owed it to the media to issue concise statements through her representatives and not through her father-in-law!

this is hilarious
"In Hindu tradition, in order to offset the evil influence of manglik dosh, a woman should marry a peepal or banana tree before she ties the knot with her fiancé. Or she could even marry a clay urn, which should be broken soon after the nuptial ceremonies, signifying that the bride has become a widow, and the manglik dosh problem has been solved.

It's not known if Ash has married, or plans to marry, an urn, but she reportedly has married a peepal tree in the holy city of Varanasi, and a banana tree in the southern Indian city of Bangalore."

...from http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=3945efb24607018569a0f4b2f3497611

Aditi - great post. The funny thing about this whole business in my view is that the Bachchans makes awkward celebs and the Indian media makes awkward papparazzi. It's like both sets are following a script that they've seen on TV but don't really know how to apply to themselves. Hilarious if it wasnt so sad.

Anyway, who cares? Ever since she married a tree, the whole thing's been a huge joke.

I enjoyed your article and I am glad you pointed out being a pretty face is not the most austere accomplishment to aim for. Yes, I too was irrtated watching Ash represent giggling Indian women on 60 min, her answers were flighty. Yes I do not think she embodies much intelligence and she does encourage our shallownes.

But I want to disagree with you on your comments on her wedding. We as feminists have to respect a person's choice to want to fall into a tradional lifestyle. From her career to her love life this woman makes her own choice and if she is letting her father in law speak on her behalf, I do think she has mind enough to choose. Bottom line it his her wedding and she can choose to marry a tree and than AB bAby, what ever traditions she wants to uphold is her choice. We as feminists need to respect that. I would spend more time commenting on abusive homes than the new Mrs. Bachchan ..she can handle herself.
As far as father in law of the 16th century, aren't they all? I have a career in Risk Managemnet and manage my Father in law's stock portfolio. Does he still fall into the partiarchial 16th century view at times yes. They all do. Having a career woman in the family is an adjustment. I have been married 6 years he does get used it. It takes awhile and finess

@Amrita: Your observations about the awkward celebs coupled with uneasy papparzzi are on the mark!

@Jasmine: I wish you would not have misunderstood my representation of media opinion as my own. Independent women all over the world make their own choices. I too agree that the choice of a traditional versus modern lifestyle/ wedding is a woman's own personal call. In fact, if you read my article, I actually do state that. However, women in media bear the added brunt of being role models. When the current media information is portraying Ms.Rai as a woman assisting superstitious beliefs which have hounded our country for years, she chooses to not make any statements that denounce such practices or to dissociate herself from these associations. These are not your everyday 'traditional' customs. Hindu reform organizations and even the constitution have condemned such practices. They are not 'traditional', they are means of rationalizing the backward beliefs of people out there who need an excuse to carry out such demeaning rituals. I don't know about you, but when an entire nation is represented by this woman worldwide, it becomes very difficult for the international community to explain something so bizarre to people who know nothing about our culture.

To be honest, try as I may, I don't know how your professional relationship with your father-in-law would in any way make your situation comparable to Ms.Rai's public blunders as a celebrity. Personally, I don't see any parallels.

My point is very simple, think about it: If I had a meeting to attend, or a surgery to perform, or an experiment to conduct, I would not have a relative go do it for me. Similarly, once you put yourself out as a celebrity, the onus of representing your beliefs and making sure that your media persona is correctly portrayed, becomes part of your profession. Why else would there be spokespersons? You and me might be mature enough to understand that Ms.Rai's beliefs are her own and they are none of our bussiness, but there is a whole world of impressionable or opportunistic people out there who could use her association with certain parctices to rationalize their own. Is it unreasonable for the media to expect her to issue a statement clarifying matters? I don't know, you decide.

I would like to know the geographical location of all posters critisizing bachchan's and aishwarya for behaving the way did.

My gut feeling that these posters are likely to be residents of the western world. They hardly understand our culture.

Some of my points are:

1. It is in our culture that the decisions are taken collectively, but it is dispersed by the elders. Which is amitabh bachchan.

2. It is in our culture that we respect our elders and let them decide the marriage formalties. Amitabh B and the other elders in the family waited for Abhishek and Aishwarya to take the decision of marrying and then they decided the formalities.

3. From Amitabh Bachchan we must learn how to stand by a friend. The whole world critisizes Amar Singh, But AB still stands by him. An admirable trait.

4. Learn the lengths to which Amitabh goes to protect his family privacy.

5. Who is affected by Aishwarya's and Abhishek's silence during and after the wedding. Not me, not the common people. It is the media journalists. Who cares??

6. Being Traditional, respecting our traditions does not mean regressive. If you think that, I can only pity your peanut size brain and dinosaureal ego.

7. Family is about being respectful of all in the family. BTW are you married? How many people were covering your honeymoon?

8. Being married to a tree. Who told you that? Aishwarya? or your own brethren in media?

Even if she did, there are some things you do to respect your parents. They are the world to us. They stand by us through our lives. If My parents told me that I'd do it too.. Let me give you and example. I am not a religious person. But since my dad likes it, I wear a turban( yes I am a sikh), This is called respect for our parents and our culture. At that point it does not matter that I am a director a $60,000 company.

a 60000$ company HA HA HA hardly anything to brag about.Talking about the Turban,don't you guys think you need to move on ? The purpose of the turban was to take care of your beautiful long hair.You even had to keep a comb inside.Today with all kinds of shampoos and conditioners available as well several hair styles to choose from,why do you guys still wear a turban ? why not flaunt your beautiful long hair in different styles.Many turbanators i interact with reek of sweat ugh which defeats the very purpose of the turban.

Sorry for the typo in my earlier mail. It is a $600,000 company.

Yes for many reasons I would like to get rid of the turban. But My dad's happiness is more than anything for me. Its worth the effort

@Sanam: I am amazed that you are trying to portray Aishwarya Rai of all people as this traditional sati-savitri, the epitome of Indian culture! Are we speaking of the same Aishwarya who is currently being charged with obscenity in a film scene, same woman who shook her rump to "Ishq kamina" like there was no tommorow?

Do you know what saddens me most? Your comparing the traditional Sikh turban to a ritual that is inherently debasing to women. Did you know that your religion was the foremost in deviating from the stringent ill-treatment of women? Do read the book titled 'Relocating Gender In Sikh History' by Doris Jakobsh. It will explain how your religion brought reform into the treatment of women plagued by such rituals.

You are right, Ms.Rai did not admit to having performed such rituals....but she did not deny them. If I were a celebrity and my name were to be associated with sati, child marriage or other such activities, I would immediately clarify matters.

I don't know whether to be offended or amused by the fact that you would choose to use such harsh personal comments against me to vehemently defend celebrities who have always used the media towards their benefit. Their love lives, their affairs, their religious views are all out there for the public but only when they are looking to promote a film or are making an entry into the political arena.

Do you think, Sanam, that the journalists were climbing over fences because they wanted to see the wedding? They were doing their job and covering a media event! And no, my honeymoon would not have been covered....I am not a public figure.

You speak of respecting one's parents. For years my parents strived to educate me and bring me up in a culturally rich environment. If my name were to be ever associated with a chauvinistic or superstitious practice, they would want me to speak up.

Lastly, you criticize the 'western world' and yet I notice you use a dollar figure to demonstrate the apparent prowess of your company. We all have double standards, don't we?

@Kela: tsk, tsk.

im not much of a person to read into celebrity stuff but this was a really good article quite amusing actually i probably havent really understood it as i should have but im young, definetely an article worth reading.

oh i thgt sanam was a man;haven't come across any woman wearing a turban;i bet she smells great

@ Aditi:

I see that you are immediately hurt when someone makes personal comments about you. Now imagine yourself in Bachchan family's shoes. There were people in media who broke all rules to invade the privacy of a completely personal event.

Let's talk about Sikhism in a different forum. Let's concentrate on the issue at hand.I am game for it.

You opine Aishwarya has been charged with obscenity "in a movie". There is a body in India who has been given the mandate to judge obscenity besides other issues. Did they find it obscene? At this point in time, someone has filed a case of obscenity in a court. Wait for the court ruling before you go pronouncing your judgment.

If you want to judge Aishwarya, Judge her by her conduct in Public. Have you ever found her demeaning Indian values?

Now you said that if you were a celebrity you would clarify/deny each remark made about you. Can you really? Secondly, has anyone posed this question to Aishwarya? If yes, what was the response? If no, please wait for the response. Do not pronounce judgments on issues you have no solid information. Thirdly, Aishwarya or Bachchan's or anyone else needs to respond/clarify/deny which was/is a extremly personal moment/events. ( Yes all her Poojas, Havans, Time with family comes under personal time. They did not invite the media to cover it. Nor do those issues affect anyone's life)

Now to the point of Celebrities using media. You opine celebrities use media to promote their films, political views. Yes you are right. That's what it should be. Their personal life is their personal life. I think we should respect that. Now who decides that? NOT MEDIA. The celebrities themselves decide what is for personal consumption and what is not. Look at how madly the media is trying to locate their Honeymoon place. So that they can capture Aish and Abhi semi naked and splash over the internet.

Please do not lament that journalists were doing their job. Every human should know what is proper and what is not. If they were instructed by their bosses to snoop into a pvt wedding, they should know that this is not right. Just for a few more Dollars ( Oops) rupees, they should not sell humanity.

Now your parents raised you, as you say, to deny any claim made linking you to chauvinistic or superstitious practice. Did they also teach you to challenge someone else's beliefs? Did they tell you that the only way to live is what they taught you? There are many ways to live Aditi, No one way is all correct, I think the Bachchans, and for that matter all celebrities or commoners have a right to live the way they want to.

Ps: I am extremely sorry for very personal comments in my earlier posting. You do not deserve it.

Celebs use the media not only to promote their movies but also to remain in the limelight especially when their fortunes are down, they make up juicy stories about their personal life which they use the media to publicize.That explains the media anger.ALso Aiswarya is a former Miss WOrld and when she marries a tree its big news and deservedly so

Aditi,

As a non-Indian feminist, I find your comments very offensive. You are the type who give feminism a bad name. Why is it the so-called feminists feel that they have to denigrate other women to make themselves feel good? Feminism is not about making proclamations to the press but rather about the freedom to make choices.

Aishwarya is actually a quiet feminist who has made it clear that she does not talk about her private life in public. She has survived in the male-dominated Indian film industry on her own terms and should be commended for it. Your article tries to portray Aishwarya as a weak bimbo. But, you forget this is the women who thumbed her nose at the Khans (SRK, Salman and Amir) when they tried to blacklist her and managed to maintain her career. Do you think the top directors who hire her and praise her do so for only her looks?

Also, Aishwarya has never had to use her boyfriends to achieve more fame as you stated. She has always been more famous and richer than the guys she dated. This is a woman who could have any guy (Indian or non-Indian) she wanted and yet married someone less good looking, less famous and less richer. That she tell you something about the type of person she is - the marriage was obviously for love. Plus, it was distressing to see you use the term shelf life regarding her age. Since when is 33 considered old and you call yourself a feminist?

I actually read another feminist article that compared Aishwarya negatively and praised Sushmita Sen for being outspoken, getting breast implants and adopting a child. The author held Sush up as a role model. For what? For being an example of a women who has affairs with married men and is supported by them, for destroying her body to attract men, for parading her daughter in the media for publicity. Is this the type of women we consider feminist? Then I guess, Anna Nicole Smith was a feminist too.

For your information, a lot of folks admire Aishwarya for her strength of character and not just her good looks. She has ignored her detracters and the folks like you who sling mud at her and forged her own path to success. We see her as someone with class, grace and elegance. As Aishwarya has stated "There is dignity in silence". Perhaps, you too can learn to have some dignity.

Sanam, I hope that the vain celebrities who you so vehemently defend live upto your expectations! Aditi did not bring up Sikh traditions into this forum, you did. If you are having a discussion about 'humanity', I think you will find that journalists are more humane than celebrities who are addicted to media attention but conveniently don the garbs of privacy when required. Do you really think that the media could have left alone the Bachchan residence especially if Mr.Bachchan so publicly announced their engagement. Is that a realistic scenario?

Please remember, you are defending people who's values, ethics, moral uprightness you are completely unaware of.The only reason you even know them is because of the media, that you so valiantly are rallying against.

As for Aditi, having read her previous articles, I believe she has better things to do than be 'hurt' by your comments.

@Sk

Thru my comment I was not raising the issue of Sikhism and women. The point I was making was "doing things for your family" even if you do not like them yourself.
Of course, every person, celebrities included, has limit to which he can information share with public at large. The media can not and should not cross that laxman rekha. In this particular case, all concerned knew that the wedding was a private event. So then why were media gate crashing into the event? This does not make sense. The media has to learn keep their noses out from private events if they do not concern the aam janta. These are same kind of media men who caused the death of Princess Diana by chasing her to a fatal accident resulting in her death.

I am defending every human's right to privacy including those of Bachchan's. I am not defending their values, ethics or moral uprightness.

Finally, I do not think Aditi needs your shoulder to cry on. She can choose to defend herself. She has been adequately trained by her parents.

@ Aditi,
I loved your article- esp Manglik part as I could relate to that issue. I am an Indian married for last 3 years. My first engagement was broken coz I was found a Manglik. Fortunately (and I won't say all the "so-called" Manglik girls(made by some pundits) can be as fortunate as me here), I met my current husband who did not believe in Manglik issue and we got married, and touchwood, we are leading a happy life with an adorable son. No deaths and no other issues. And the guy who broke up with me because I was a Manglik, just got divorced with his wife.

It really hurt me when the first Bollywood family gave so much importance to the whole issue of Manglik. I felt my father's pain when his daughter was rejected because she was a Manglik. When Bachchan clan is giving so much importance to this issue, and taking their would-be bahu to any damn place in India to get rid of that "so-called" stigma, I was wondering how other regular father-in-laws are treating regular middle class fathers. Aishwarya marrying a tree, going to the temples all over et al because she was a Manglik- that was just ridiculous and painful to me. And some people are actually proud of Bachchans who openly supported the issue of "woman being a Manglik is not good for the husband"? Wow!Hats off to you guys!!!!

Now you say, Bollywood's first family gave a lot of importance to the issue of Manglik-ness. Had they wanted to keep Aishwarya away from their son, they could have cooked up any excuse. They could have conveniently used the issue of Aishwarya older to Abhishek to prevent their wedding. But they did everything possible so that Abhishek and Aishwarya could marry. Even if I believe for a moment , that Bachchans believed in this manglik-ness. They still did everything to keep the elders in the family happy and get Abhishek and Aishwarya together so unlike the father of the boy who did not find your manglik status acceptable. Here the Bachchan's did not find the manglik status that much of an issue. If doing a few poojas makes them feel comfortable, so be it. So people are comfortable with out the poojas. To each his own.

Good post, Aditi. Yes, some of the things that have been happening are appalling and hark back to the dark ages. It's great that people are talking about it. The latest Outlook also has an article about how a lot of the country's intellectuals are aghast that AB has reverted to such ridiculous and regressive rituals, in complete opposition to what his father believed and espoused.

I can't help wondering whether some people just lose themselves totally in the bid to be populist, which is what Mr Bachchan has spent his entire life doing, barring his extra-marital affairs. His DIL seems to be following in the same worthy footsteps. So much for 'woman of substance'. But then I don't have such high expectations of Miss India/World Pageants in the first place.

Aditi,

First of all thank you for responding to my intial comments. With that being said, allow me to clarify a couple of comments.

As far as father in laws are concerned, what I meant to say. I have yet to meet a father in law who lives up to the ideal of liberated male who does not have expectations of a tradional bahu. It is the common for his generation and his family does encourage that tyoe of thinking. Austracising his comments is not a constructive form of feminism. Let's face it our society is not that far evolved. We as working professional or as housewives have to work at that concept and alter it. And instead we need to do this one by one with in our own relationships.

Secondly, Aishwariya Rai does not owe you anything as a media personality, she did ask for the role, Indian media made her the big thing. If you are looking for a model/actress/beauty pagent to be your spokesperson for feminism, what did you expect. This again is a grass roots effort, you as mothers, sisters, and mentors need to point out that actresses are artists who are paid to look good it is part of the job. And then look for different idols such as Kiran Desai or Mira Nair...the femal indian astronat..etc

I live in the US and I can certify most Americans have no clue who she is. She is a blink and miss on the screen. The most famous indian right now is Sanjaya and his sister from american idol. -- they aren't indicative of the the indian population either.

To Sanam: You have no idea what you are talking about. The father of the boy asked us to do Yagna- some expensive Yagna that asked us to a lot of contribution to the priests os the temples. I was asked to go to some temples in Rajasthan and down South. My father was not rich enough to do all these Pujas. Aishwarya's father was. Therefore she was accepted and I was rejected. Hope you got the point.

@Shefali: I am sorry you had to endure the circumstances you did and am happy you were able to move past that experience. I can only imagine how devastating it can be for any family to go through the things yours did. I am glad you enjoyed the article.

@Carol: You are an Aishwarya fan! I cannot argue with you. We obviously will continue to disagree. I will, however, take your advice and try to learn "quiet dignity" from Ms.Rai as per your suggestion :) My own miniscule accomplishments pale in the face of Ms.Rai's racy Bollywood scenes.

@Sanam: It took me a while to get it. You are a Bachchan fan! I cannot have a rational debate with you either. Like you said "To each his own". I am sure the Bachchans will appreciate your rallying for their right to privacy, just don't do it when their next big film venture is on the brink of release.

@Jasmine: Appreciate your well-worded clarifications. If you think celebrities don't owe the public anything, we would not have had role models and we wouldn't have had impressionable youngsters aping them. Public figures do in some cases carry the responsibility of supporting the right and denouncing the wrong especially when it is a matter concerning social/ religious beliefs. The current teenager population cannot be tamed to look towards the 'right' role models (Mira Nair etc). They automatically look to the popular ones.

I live in the US too and can attest to the fact that people who watch Oprah, the morning news and David Letterman, all know who Aishwarya Rai is and I have had atleast fifteen non-Indians ask me why she married a tree and if it was common parctice to do so since the past week.

I wrote about Sanjaya a few weeks ago. He isn't indicative of the Indian population...because he isn't Indian!

This Sanam person thinks he/ she is Mr.Bachchan's spokesperson and this Carol thinks she is Aishwarya Rai's spokesperson. They are just crazy fans who are able to put themselves in the shoes of celebrities but cannot relate to the opinions of general public! Ha!

@ Harshula.

You said " They are just crazy fans who are able to put themselves in the shoes of celebrities but cannot relate to the opinions of general public! Ha!"

I think you meant I can not relate to the opinions of over zealous media persons ( there is difference between their opinion and the general public) who can go to any length to get their copy.

@ Aditi,

If you think I am Bachchan fan , thats unfortunate.For my point is one single line

The media should respect everyone's privacy. If they were not invited they should not go there. This was a private affair. They can always get back at Bachchan family next around. But no, next Mr. bachchan shows a bone, these same media persons will go wagging their tail. ( We have already seen this in the case Sourav Ganguly. But I will leave this episode, as I am not sure if you know him, since you seem to be americanized and cricket is anyway not played in USA)

The media is behaving like a child where they have been denied their candy which they thought was there's for the taking. In the process they crossed limits of decency.

@ Shefali.

I am sorry to hear about what you had to endure and happy that you have been put the miserably episode behind you.

I am a fan of Indian cinema - Tamil, Bengali, Hindu, etc. Because I stated that you are treating Aishwarya unfairly by making false statements does not make me her spokeperson or a fan girl. Rather, I consider myself a rational person whereas you seem to have an irrational hatred for her.

Obviously, you are a liar since it is clear that you never had a love/hate relationship with Aishwarya. Your follow-up statements have exposed you for a hater who is using feminism as an excuse to write a nasty negative article which is littered with false statements - Bachchan senior has adamantly stated that they do not believe in Manglik and that Aishwarya did not marry a tree yet you continue to publicise this falsehood.

It is sickening to see how gullible folks are when it comes to believing everything reported by the media. Please stop using feminism as your excuse to bash celebrities that you do not like. There are more important issues you could talk about in India.

Sanam & Carol:

My point was to report current media consensus regarding the Bachchan-Rai wedding aftermath in media (please read my disclaimer). It was a summary of observations of media reports; not my personal take on Aishwarya Rai or the Bachchan family as some of you seem to have perceived. I am neither a fan nor a hater.

In this process I had personal comments thrown my way, had my dignity questioned, was called a liar for stating my honest opinions and a feminist with a miserable and unhappy life even! This is journalism, a thankless job that caters to some and rankles a few others. Believe me, I am beyond being 'hurt', 'offended' or deterred by such reactions. Mostly, I am amused by people's blind devotion towards their icons :)

I have nothing against the Bachchan family nor against Ms.Rai. My opinions are always neutral and I often leave it to the readers to make inferences.

@Sanam: The wedding was crashed by the papparazzi because it involved two major celebrities. If there is an event involving media personalities, journalists will show up, people will look for pictures and the media will go crazy reporting the events. It has nothing to do with humanity. It is a need based industry. If this is beyond your comprehension, I cannot further elaborate it. Because, try as we may, we will not agree....you will try to defend the Bachchans and the issue of privacy and I will continue to emphasize that 'selective privacy' is an unattainable luxury.

@Carol: As I said earlier, if a celebrity is associated with social, religious or political issues that could affect the rest of the nation's views in some way or extent, they do carry the responsibility of clarifying their positions on the matter in question. If this view makes it seem like I have some irrational hatred for Aishwarya Rai, well, I guess perspective is what matters.

****Having read all the opinions and comments posted on this forum I have come to the conclusion that there is an equal number of people who like the article and understand its matter and an equal number of readers who don't and tend to take its contents personally. So I will now refrain from commenting unless asked a specific question. I think I will have more fun sitting back and watching this debate advance.*****

Peace :)

Aditi,
you are a terrific writer. I was going to just read this but ended up reading so much more on your page!
Keep on writing!

Aditi,

Please do not classify yourself as a journalist. A journalist is someone who is objective and does not make snide comments about the person or persons on whom they are reporting. Rather, you are a commentator who is then entitled to express an opinion. It seems you cannot be objective since you keep categorizing the folks who disagree with your article as 'fans' of either the Bachchans or Aishwarya when that is not the case.

Plus, the entire tone of your article portrays you as a hater. Why are you picking on only certain celebrities? Should the Khans then starting making statements about Islam? What about the other celebrities who are Chrisitan or Sikh or Buddhist, etc? Do all celebrities need to be activists and tell us how we should live our lifes? NO.

what crap. what negativity. none of what you wrote is your business. i dont read such articles because they are filled with self made stories or assumptions which suit the story. what gives you the right to write about someone, be it bachan or aishwarya. and one last thing, if you do not have something nice to say about a particular person, dont say anything at all. that too in piblic. its shameful that such articles sell.

Aditi, I don't think your article portrays you as a hater at all...it is an opinion and you are entitled to it. A lot of what you say is perfectly logical and when you place your opinions about celebrities it is very likely that their fans will react in this way. Pls don't be disheartened by all the personal comments.

Carol: Journalism is defined as "Written material of current interest or wide popular appeal." According to that this is a journalistic piece. I am a journalist and I should know. By the way, do you realize how personal your attacks are?

It is funny that Ritesh says " if you do not have something nice to say about a particular person, dont say anything at all. that too in public" and then proceeds on a public forum to take the trouble of saying nasty things about your article. He says "i dont read such articles..." but actually took the time to place a comment for one. Whatever happened to freedom of speech and free press?

The last time I checked we lived in a free world. We are all entitled to our indvidual opinions. Just the fact that all of you are taking the time to retaliate gives way to your own personal opinions and biases. Aditi is entitled to her own opinion (which I completely agree with).Ritesh, before judging others take a look at the image you're projecting about yourself by writing your own "crap." What I fail to understand is why some of you are vehemently defending two public figures who could care two hoots about you think. In fact, being public figures/celebrities it's important that they are very careful about the image the project because there are a lot of young kids out there who look up to them. It's extremely demeaning to women to be forced to marry a tree. What about all the mangalik men out there? Are they forced to marry rose bushes? And if not, then why not? I salute Aditi for her courage in speaking the truth. Unfortunately as some of you have demonstrated, the truth isn't always appreciated.

Whatever is written in the article is absolutely true- bitter truth. Be it Aishwarya's changing lovers or Bachchan's extra marital affairs or whatever it is- today this so-called first family of the industry is concealing everything and pretending to be Shidha Sadha Cultured Junta who want privacy coz they want privacy and they demand privacy- P-E-R-I-O-D. Where did that privacy go when Abhishek proposed to Aishwarya right after Guru was released? They wanted all that publicity then just to prove that Abhishek's movie is better than that of SRK's (Oh I am no SRK lover again).

The best moment to see this family's hypocrisy was when Dhoom 2 was released and when they made such a big deal about Hrithik kissing Aishwarya. Now I heard they were angry with the director and Hrithik for making their Bahurani kiss on screen. Hello! Aishwarya knew about it beforehand and she was not any innocent victim there. And Abhishek kissed Rani in B&B. And what an insensitive lady Jaya Bachchan was to degrade Vivek Obeori in Koffee with Karan. Agreed that he fell in love with her Bahurani- but hey Sasu Maa- your bahurani was also with him all around for a year (or whatever). Salman is powerful in the industry- so they won't say a word to him though he actually harassed their Bahurani. Instead Amitabh made a point to tell the world that they receive well wishes from Salman. However, poor Oberoi is not in a good phase right now, therefore, they would go to any length to degrade him. I heard they denied attending the function for Shootout where Vivek was also attending. Wow!! First family- I salute you!!!

In addition to all these, why are some people are using harsh personal comments?This is a public forum- we are talking about Bachchan clan. Why attacking the author or anybody else.

Aditi, you are completely right about how atrocious that "domesticated" remark was from Mr. Bachchan. Yet the more unforgivable one was when he proclaimed that he was looking forward to a male grandchild. In a country when female infanticide is still a problem, how could a public figure make such statements?

Aishwarya and the family she married into is just sick.

I was actually surprised by Jaya's comment - "Sweta is no more Bachchan and thus Aishwarya will fill that position" on Koffee with Karan. No offense!!But even though girls are married, and even though they do not bear father's surname, they still belong to the same clan.

Carol,

You seem to be missing the point. You say she "thumbed her nose" at the Khans and "survived" as if she has done something grand on her own. What position was she in to do anything to them in the first place? She had flop after flop after flop after she fell out without those three major stars. The only thing that brought her back was her relationship to a man with the last name Bachchan. Since you are not Indian, you might not realize the enormous prestige, power and influence the Bachchans have in India. You are wrong when you suggest that Aishwarya married below her status. She did no such thing. She had definitely moved up a rung and she knows it.

As for her "surviving" after turning off most of the major stars, here's the explanation. Unfortunately due to the shadow of colonialism and the power of the West, too many Indians define beauty (among a lot of other things) by Western standards. So Aishwarya's fair skin and light eyes are held up as some sort of ultimate standard of beauty. This is where her popularity comes from-- her make-up ads and her beauty pagent win. This is the only thing she has been recognized for "internationally" as well and even then she is not a major name outside India as her PR likes to pretend. She will continue to get roles in Bollywood flicks for a while due to her eye candy status. She hasn't accomplished anything great or praiseworthy for making the most of the looks she was born with.

There was also that weird comment from Jaya about liking Aishwarya being "quiet" and "standing on the side" and "taking it all in."

Aditi, you don't need to say from the author, we know you well:)

Carol, seriously, what are you talking about? I almost laughed when I saw you had criticized Aditi's 'objectivity' when your own seems to have entirely disappeared! Whats this about Khans and religion? This article is about the Bachchan-Rai wedding not just about celebrities and social issues in general. Why is it so difficult for you to understand as a woman? If any celebrity is associated with something as reggressive as sati, child marriage and other rituals that are insulting to women, isn't it only logical for them to come forward and make sure their name is not associated with these things? Is this beyond your understanding?

Don't you guys get it? People reading this forum might be educated enough to understand the ramifications of such actions but what about the rest of the population who will do stuff just coz "Aishwarya does it, Bachchans do it". There are people like that out there.

What snide remarks has Aditi made? I don't see any! All I see is your personal comments towards her and those from Sanam who has made several unjustified comments about 'peanut sized brain', 'dinosaureal ego', parent's training, her Americanization (?!!) and god knows what else. You cannot speak of cricket with Aditi you say, Sanam! Ha! Have you read her review of 'Wondrous Oblivion"?

From her bio and her writing, you should know that this author is an accomplished woman and you guys don't even know Aishwarya Rai and Bachchans personally. Don't you feel bad about defending celebrities who care two hoots about your impressions of them and attacking a person who is only reporting media events?

I am a man and I can still see why as a woman it would be essential for a female celebrity to step up and denounce her association with such rituals. There are villages where already plenty of brides might have been rejected and forced into undue rites becoz Bachchans reportedly looked at horoscopes. Being women, how can you all vilify a female author for placing her thoughts on the matter?

Maybe this is why no matter how much progress India makes in terms of economy we will still somehow live in the 16th century, Indians will still be in awe of the coy bahu-ranis and the 'permissive' in-laws who 'allow' their bahu to pursue a career, not support, 'allow'.

How ironic Aditi, that most of the attacks should come from women!

Dear Aditi

Indeed a very interesting article, a point of view on the happenings of the world "Ash Abhi Wedding" included. (No Pun intended)

I am glad that someone looked at it from a "responsibility" point of view.

But tell me something: Why do we as a population put these celebrities, be it, sports, films on a pedestal? Seriouly, they are only people with Jobs (and that too not vert stable ones) that generate prducts: in this case films for the couple in question.

Why dont we just evaluate their product? Do we jusdge Naresh Goyal by which schools his kids study in or by the way Jet Airways operates? Do we judge Bill Gates by how he married his wife or how good a MS product is? So why should we even bother to judge these personalities with how they marry and whom they date? why dont we just concentrate on thier produtct - their films?

@ Bhairavi.

Because we always know how others should conduct themselves. We know to point out holes. And who is the easiest target???? .... Yes you got it. Celebrities. We tend to forget celebrities are humans too. They are not Gods. Role models Yes... but not Gods.

I do agree that Aishwarya having won the biggest beauty pageant in the world - shouldn't have acted like an everyday indian coming from a small family who'se grateful for the bachans for accepting her.

But the fact is - that's how she saw it and that's how others are seeing it. Even a poll in India said that Aishwarya doesn't deserve a man as good as Abishek bachan.

And coming from a middle-class family that isn't overly-respected like the bachans.. she does feel grateful just to be part of the bachans.

Which is like any other girl would have acted. And that's what makes it strange. Because she wasn't like every other girl. She was a Miss World.

Having said that I do think that when you bring your star power or celeb status at home - the family is ruined.

The only way to run a successful family is when you forget your credentials and be like a normal person. So in that regard Ash was the perfect example.

But maybe a little balancing would've done better. Or maybe a press conference for the millions of people outside her family would have been appreciated.

Though at the end of the day - it feels good to see one of the world's most successful beauty pageant queen coming home to a husband who'se a bigger star than her (or will be) and just being a normal wife.

Quite different than the ordinary, don't you think?

I believe the article has very harsh notes about Big B's personal event. It is not fair to assume that a celebrity shaadi should be public shaadi..it is an event held once in a lifetime.Especially if he has only one son.
There are many politicians who celebrate their children's wedding with huge pomp and show-thus wasting lot of public resources,money and time.We should appreciate the fact that it was a private and a low key event.Only thing which Big B owed to public was a little glimpse of the newly wed couple.He should have done that and not completely ignored the media.There must have been practical difficulties which made it impossible.
I think its unfair to be judgemental about Big B and his descion to decide the invitee list.

Dear Sonam

with all due respect to you, my question is directed to the author Aditi as I really liked what she wrote and want to know her thoughts on the same.

I do not quite agree with your approach to this whole article as on one end it tends to support privacy for celebrities and asks people not to poke holes in their personal lives at the same time reacts to a piece of jounalism in most personal way possible.

about celebrities being human yes, we are clear they are not aliens although some of them tend to behave like that.

My question looks at from the rights and responsibility perspective that is raised in the article and in some comments. If a celebrity exercises the right to promote themselves on the success of their product - the film then they must be responsible that the platform they have chosen to engage their customer - the cinema goers, in lieu of gaining personal fame is needs to be treated with sensibility, I agree with Aditi that most of them dont.

This leaves the customer confused as to whether the product i.e. the film is for review or the person in this case a film star.

I am looking at deeper issue of a society that hides in its responsibility both as a product provider and as a customer.

you are a [EDITED] so you feel the need to put something better than you....so shut up and stop writing garbage.

These are nice comments.I feel what Mr Bachhan is today , it is because of public .It is very rude of him to behave in such a manner with regard to his son's marriage , visiting temples , making huge donations(which ofcourse he didnot keep private and bragged in press).
I think man of his stature should have acted more sensibly in real life.

@Bhairavi:

Since you directed your questions towards me, here goes:

My point remains very simple: If a celebrity's name is associated with a practice that is demeaning to women, she should issue a statement saying she does not condone such rituals. Thats it. In my article I have chronicled a list of Ms.Rais' media blunders that have led to a lot of the journalistic bashing. It could have been prevented with so much as a statement.

Bhairavi, the problem comes into picture when you say "Why don't WE concentrate on their product on hand". Depends on who the WE is. You and I might have the ability to make that distinction. What about the rest of the country? We cannot dictate their thinking or actions. They ape the stars, use their television/ film testimonies to rationalize their own actions. These are the stars who's culture ultimately affects people's thinking.

About the examples you have cited of Naresh Goyal and Jet Airways: as I said, it could've been anyone really...if their names were associated by the press to a ritual that is inherently insulting to the status of women, they should issue a public statement through representatives/ spokespeople disconnecting themselves from such pracitices.

Thus far everything I have stated has been already published in newspapers...I just summarized it. In fact, I am not even the one reporting the manglik rituals. Hell, I don't even know if its true. But the fact remains that Ms.Rai's spokespersons are sitting back neither confirming nor denying it even as people are probably using her name to advocate these rituals. That is irresponsible.

For the longest time, Bollywood actors, cricketeers, etc have been role models in addition to being celebs. If we decide that they carry no social responsibility of making sure their names are not used to rationalize some ritual that has been deemed constitutionally questionable, we are essentially emancipating them from the most human of all obligations towards society.

@Sanam: Celebrities are the easy targets because they have the ability, the social exposure and the limelight that can influence general public on a larger scale. Hence their social responsibilities are more significant in defining culture. One cannot have selective privacy, public attention, adulation and no social responsibility. They are not Gods, they are humans and hence the need for responsibility which is something we teach even our children.

To Chandra,

How insensitive,immature and rude!! Utterly despicable!! Moreover how dare you!! I will be reporting you to desicritics for harrassment! Aditi is a remarkable human being with intelligent opinions. What gives you the right to inflict verbal abuse onto others? Perhaps it is you who is jealous of Aditi because you don't seem to have the intelligence or maturity to appreciate and respect others. As a human being I am disgusted by your hostile commentsand attitide. It is a shame that you are a human being.

-chaturvedi

@ Chandra:-
I hope [EDITED]
@ The author
I apologize to you. It's a shame that such people are active members of society.

Edited the 'chandra' with a foul mouth - I also want to note that this individual is not the same as our regular commenter with the same nickname.

Aaman

Thanks for clarifying :-). It must be somebody who is really angry with me :-)

rgds

Dear Aditi

thank you for the reply.

Yes, I would agree with you that social figures who are in a position to impact public opinion must be aware, sensitive and responsible towards what they do, say or associate themselves. More because the large section of society tends to look to them for inspiration and motivation.

I completely understand that what you wrote is what has been punblished for months in rituals that were undertaken for the wedding. Lets take the case where for a moment we allow Ms Rai and the Bachchans their freedom as any normal citizen in India. In that case they can do as many rituals as they want, change their daughter inlaw's name or donate money to temples - let them do so as privately as possible. they can at least do that, they can at least not make media statements about some of the above mentioned acts as they should have realised that they are pubic figures and while their own freedom is paramount the impact of their actions on the people who follow them blindly should have been thought into. In that respect their behaviour was irresponsible.

As far as Ms. Rai is concerned, I acknowledge that she is beautiful, but I would be lying if I called her a good actress (all aishwarya fans, please I am not passing any remark on her, I am only giving my opinion on her acting in her films - the product which I as a consumer have a right to remark on) and now that she has married or allowed herself to be called domesticated, quite ironical as right around her marriage a film of hers released where she rises above her domesticity and takes extreme measures to "free" herself, but that was a film/Karanjit's life turned into fiction which by her own actions or inactions Ms. Rai has proved that she can never lead such a life of substance off screen - that may be her choice, and she is entitled to it - its a free country

I agree with the mature comments especially about Ash shadowing under the bachchan's veil.Ash's example has proven that women today get easily empowered by men and feels lost when she has to stand up and voice her opinion.Ash has reflected that she is not feeling secure after marriage and any step she takes(even if right) could endanger her stability.
I agree with Aditi. Woman of substance...? No.

Hello all.

This is in response to Aditi's view that AR should have held a press conference to make certain announcements and clear the air about certain things the media has reported about her being manglik etc.

If I were a celebrity, and I only spoke to the media when I had a movie/product/event to promote, I guess I can see why they feel, if I don't give them interview's about my personal life, they would pretty much have to write stuff as they see fit, even if some of it is untrue. But then where does it end? Any and every reporter will start circulating wild stories and for each one of them I would have to come back and say that report is untrue, this report is untrue and so on. It would keep me quite occupied, I guess I would have to hire a PR person who has to give responses to questions about my personal life, and again I guess that would amount to someone giving an interview on my behalf. So it seems like a vicious circle.

I think sometime back media had reported that she had died in a car crash. So I guess the responsible thing for her to do would have been to conduct a press conference/have a spokesperson announce that she is in fact NOT dead.

To me it just seems so unnecessary. Lets make an accusation - then she will have to say something to deny it, basically get a rise out of her.

But what is truly disturbing is that there are people out there who believe all they read in gossip columns. Even now, lots of the posts on this topic talk about the manglik issue, they have totally ignored the fact that if not Aishwarya, at least someone in her family who is talking to the media has DENIED it. I could refer them to an interview that AR had with Simi Garewal, she does mention there that her being Manglik was the most outrageous rumor she had ever heard about herself.

But I guess even that won't be enough right? Media and other people will still want her to perhaps address a press conference and say or maybe even give in writing I am not manglik, I did not marry a peepal tree etc etc.

I think the public will be fine, its the media that I am worried about. Out of their anger for her not giving them interviews, the next terrible story about Aishwarya is round the corner.

Tatva: you are quite right, it is a vicious circle and how much and how many of the foolish rumours can one deny. However I also believe that Aishwarya was not as prompt and as thorough in denying these runours as she was in promoting her films, her affairs etc. Very few people over the world watch the Simi Garewal show. Most people look to the internet newspapers, The Hindu, Times, etc. It was very easy for her to have gotten a brief but clear statement into one of the papers saying she does not support the practice of rituals that are demeaning to women. Simple. In her article and in the comments, Aditi has stated that she is merely reporting current media sentiment and not authenticating the info from gossip columns. If you look through websites you will see more information about Aishwarya's movies, affairs but not one statement from her regarding these rituals! For a star of her calibre, its a bit careless, I think.

Hi Srinivas,

I have noticed that most celebrities give interviews, only when they have a movie release coming up, or some event/product coming up that they are promoting. I am guessing they have some clause in their contracts that they will help with the promotion of the movie/event etc. This is true for AR as well. I doubt I have ever seen her give interviews about her private life. It's usually the media who asks her for confirmation/denial of her relationships, and I think always she maintains that her private life is just that - private. I think one exception was when she issued a statement in TOI stating that she will not be working with Salman Khan again, and that again I believe was done due to increasing media speculation about her working with him sometime in the future. One could argue that she was not talking about her personal life but about her professional work commitments, but I am sure media will disagree.

So I think it is not so much a careless act but a very intentional course of action to maintain her privacy and not validate all kinds of media speculation that is always underway about her personal life.

I guess many may have the view that she is a celebrity role model and should voice her stand on the issue. But then again if she is not manglik to begin with then why would she want to make a stand on this issue? There are so many issues out there that are actually related to her like eye donation, polio vaccination, and she has taken a stand on those.

Aditi - you're an honest writer, and I like that the modern day journalistic approach hasn't polluted you.

I agree! Aishwarya Rai is a phony - "one smile fits all", VERY PLASTIC!!

Tatva: It is not about her being manglik or not being one....that isn't even the issue. It is about what is condoned by using her name. As I have said earlier, even as people here continue to defend AR, there are families who are carrying out such rituals in the (false?) belief that she being a celebrity performed the rituals, so why not them? In fact it might do her charities and her international persona some good to deny such allegations. If as you say this is just gossip, then this has very little to do with her personal life, it has a lot to do with what she supports and what she doesn't. You know how the biggest of stars sometimes go out on a limb to deny allegations of eating disorders, racist behavior, homophobia or drug use just so they don't affect public opinion, similarly AR should be sensitive to an issue that has been a concern in the country.

@Aditi: An excellent article, I don't have words to praise the articles as well as comments. We need more authors like you.

In my opinion it should be all about responsibility. More than Ms. Rai, it is the responsibility of Mr. Bachchan (sr.) to clarify his stand about being superstitious. If he supports so called traditions which are discouraged by constitution and which are harmful for this country, it is a shameful thing.

How is marrying a tree demeaning to woman, even if it is a superstition?

Aditi:
Good post - enjoyed reading it. I cannot see the point beyond Mrs Plastique Fantastique myself. Glad to have you on board our DC train :)
Psst! Don't mind the killjoys.

excellent post aditi.. and remarkable calm in the face of nastiness...

Only an actor can keep a straight face when claiming that he has nothing to do with politics and at the same time campaign for the Samajwadi Party by declaring "Uttar Pradesh mein dum hai, kyuunki yahaan jurm kam hai." Bachchan finds it hard to shed his political neutrality when events as disturbing as 1984 Delhi carnage, 1992 Mumbai riots, or 2002 Gujarat massacres take place lest it disturbs his carefully crafted political balance. Yet he does not find it problematic to support an administration in UP that has under its belt something as horrific as Nithari killings.

Politically inept, perhaps, but professionally always in charge, not even hesitating to charge his own company a fee to use his name. Heck, he apparently has even claimed that the Bachchans have always been farmers so as to continue to validate his claims on a piece of farm-land in the Pavana dam area near Lonavala. On top of that, every time he gets a notice from the Income Tax Department for the payment of his dues, we have to bear Amar Singh's diatribe that the Bachchan family is being targeted due to some political vendetta.

And yet, for this country Amitabh Bachchan is not simply an honourable man but a national hero. The bitter reality is that he is not, in fact he never was. He has always been an actor with a full-time job of entertaining us, perhaps with a certain political savvy, with the normal contradictions and foibles of a human being. And that's all right. Let him celebrate his son's wedding the way he wants. Let him dance and enjoy. Let Hindi film songs be his and his family's reference points. After all, they are the reference points for such a large chunk of this country.

But let us examine ourselves and what we have made of ourselves as a society. We elevate an ordinary actor to extraordinary heights, call him a national hero, an icon even, and then pull him down. We cry foul when he refuses to behave as a hero or icon should. Leave him alone, let him be an actor. But don't expect him to lead us out of regressive ideas and practices. For that we will have to wait for a real hero, someone who gives his or her life to something bigger than oneself.

@ Ann

Are these your comments?

Memorandum
From: Stree-Vriksha Love Association (SVLA)
To: All who love trees

For years now, SNLA has been stigmatized by those who say that our love is wrong, forbidden and indecent. So, I ask you good people of DC to sign my petition. More women need to marry trees. Please support us for two reasons:

1. There is a great shortage of shrubs in our country and this will be alleviated if more women marry trees.

2. Marrying venerable trees, such as banyans, will result in women getting more respect in society, because as we know everyone in India respects banyan trees.

Please support us. Stree-Vriksha prem ki jai.

May you prosper and err....flower.

Lalita Peepul
President, SVLA

Please note how the Aishwarya-Abhishek wedding was cited in a court of law, by judges during a dowry case. In this particular case, the Ashi-Abhi wedding was used to disprove the defense's case and was actually a moedrn view about their age difference. But it could have also worked in an opposite way too. If this marriage can affect court cases, don't you people think it can influence general public who are trying to find more excuses to pressurize the bride's father for rituals, more dowry and other such irrational demands? During the above discussion we might have forgotten the rural sector of India where people openly use Bollywood references to justify their actions.

Here is an excerpt from the article available on the link http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1094515&pageid=2

"Citing the recent fairy tale marriage of Bollywood stars Aishwariya Rai and Abhishek Bachchan, the Supreme Court on Thursday said age difference between the spouses could be no reason for a girl to commit suicide.

"It is ridiculous to say that just because the bride was a little older than the groom it resulted in her suicide. In that case even Aishwariya Rai is said to be a little older than Abhishek Bachchan but they are quite happy with the marriage," remarked a bench of Justices S B Sinha and Markandeya Katju at former High Court Chief Justice and senior counsel Prabha Shankar Misra.

The remarks, which came during the hearing of a criminal appeal in a dowry death case of a 20-year old girl Gayatri of Jharkhand, left the entire court bursting into laughter."


A serious court case about a woman's death was reduced to a joke by the mere mention of this celeb wedding.

Times Of India ran an article recently titled "Ash Shows Mangliks The Way".

If some of you people cannot have an understanding of how celebrities affect the rural and the uneducated class, just have some empathy and some respect for the millions of women who for years have suffered due to chauvinistic, oppressive, prejudiced and superstitious beliefs.

@Hardy: You asked how marrying a tree was demeaning to women. My question to you is, where does it stop? First it is marrying a tree, then it is some other astrological 'dosh' or some fertility rituals. There was the whole 'devdasi' ritual where virgins were married off to temple idols and then basically turned into keeps for the pujaris in villages. The point being gender-based disparities have for long plagued the nation and women have been at the receiving end. The bride's/ girl's family is the one to suffer. I have yet to hear of a man marrying a tree becoz of mangal dosh.

***The bottomline is that AR does not want to issue any politically or socially driven statements becoz they will affect AB's and Jaya Bachchan's political status. Majority of votes from the rural areas for the party come from males and the Bachchans do not want to lose out on that population by issuing statements denouncing their oppressive rituals. Hence the hesitation in taking a public stand.

Jawahara - LMAO! Actually, you raise a very good point there but it'll probably derail the discussion on this board so I'll move on.

#73...Well It stops just there and goes no beyond that...I think devdasi ritual(which is long dead) was a different one and its semblance has been drawn only to create big hype around this issue by feminist mouth pieces.

"Women and pujaries" I think is dragging it way too far just because it facilitates manufacturing a mask of women victimhood out of it. The moment one uncovers the hype about women-victimhood and starts to see a bigger picture, he will clearly understand the propaganda of feminist world. Males have always suffered more than women, but for same contribution to the world around. Women victimhood will get dwarfed if one starts accounting for the sufferings of men. The problem is that we have plugged our ears, clsoed our eyes and built a perception that suffering of men is inconsequential and mundane.

Again I do understand argument of those who say it is superstition, but then many of us are superstitious in one way or the other. However, what I do not see is how it is any demeaning to a woman.

I think marrying a tree momentarily to get rid of some dosha so that it satisfies some people who believe in rituals is not such a big deal. I, being male would do it anyday if I was manglik and somebody in my family felt I may(if i could please them). After all I would be doing that for the (so called) betterment of my would be.

There was the whole 'devdasi' ritual where virgins were married off to temple idols and then basically turned into keeps for the pujaris in villages

Dushratha has three wives. Deos the world consider all of them as keeps.

Check out wikipedia for Devidasi

Devadasi originally described a Hindu religious practice in which girls were "married" to a deity or temple. In addition to taking care of the temple, they learned and practiced Bharatnatyam and other classical Indian arts traditions and enjoyed a . Brahmins(Pujaries) were the elitist caste those days.


If women were treated so very unfairly and were intentionally marginalized/trampled then why did the (so called selfish but powerful) men did not send them to war-fields so that they could be used as shields/amateur army. To consider devdasi ritual in isolation would be grave mistake. We have to consider over-all state of society when that ritual was being practiced. All these rituals go away and all these cultural practices vanish on their own as the time progresses and as the society chnages and reshapes. You do not need feminist mouth pieces to abolish them.

Gaps filled...and enjoyed a high social status .


And mind you if there were devdasi's who were (so called) suppressed because they had to stay virgin and so on so forth, history is replete with examples where men devoted their entire life(Brahamcharya) and remained devdas.

Jawahara:
As our learned friend said: LMAO!

@Hardy: Although this discussion has very little to do with devdasis beyond the subject of superstition, I would like to clarify a few things because you brought them up: You seem to have read only the first few lines of the Wikipedia definition of a devdasi! Did you manage to take the trouble and read a little further on the very same page??...

"The practice of dedicating devadasis was declared illegal by the Government of Karnataka in 1982 and the Government of Andhra Pradesh in 1988. However the practice is still prevalent in around 10 districts of north Karnataka and 14 districts in Andhra Pradesh"

Read this abstract if you can:

"The Kudithini village of Bellary district is a glaring example of how the girl children are being initiated into the process of becoming Devadasis (sex workers) even before they attain puberty. Economic compulsions and traditional beliefs are the two main reasons for such a practice especially when the area suffers in famine, drought and epidemics, to appease gods and goddesses. In a brief ceremony conducted at the temple of
the local goddess 'Huligamma' near Bellary town, the girl goes through the process of getting married to the deity. After that it is an abusive cycle that continues for the rest of her life and a bond that forbids her to marry anyone else. "

Reference: http://www.ashanet.org/library/articles/devadasis.199812.html

If you are going to defend the 'devdasi' system, I don't even want to pursue this futile discussion. You obviously live in a different world than the one I have witnessed. Social work among rural areas is a real eye-opener. As an educated man you may choose to perform a "tree marriage" for your spouse. But when you do so it will not be published in newspapers or won't affect the mindset of the general public. Amitabh Bachchan is known in the smallest of villages. Media reports, even if they are false, about his association with superstition can influence the public.

If you want to be in denial, nobody can really enlighten you. If an educated person wants to believe that men's plight is greater than a woman's in India, what can I say?!!...I am on the wrong forum talking to the wrong set of people. The message should be simple: Once you begin assisting superstition or letting media associate your name with it, you are aiding the regressive acts of people who will now use your name to justify their actions.

How many men are burnt alive for dowry? How many men are smuggled into prostitution? How many men are sold into illegal trades and used like pawns? How many men are beaten up and are victims of spousal abuse? Look at our nation's statistics. It takes a few web searches to find reasons to deny stuff that you don't want to see, but it takes a lot to accept what goes on and then decide who should claim responsibility for it.

It is one thing to voice against feminism and another to deny the existence of the widespread and continued female oppression in India. Who are we kidding by comparing self-chosen Brahmacharya with the forced life endured by the child-devdasis?

Nonetheless, this discussion is about AR and I don't want to get into a different track altogether. Basically: AR should have clearly in an interview or in a statement on a popular newspaper denounced her association with superstition. She didn't and now people who want to use her name to justify their own actions will be free to do so.

Hardy, do you really think that devdasi rituals have been long dead??? I don't know what to say when I see you comparing Dashrath's wives to the devdasi rituals that sentences several innocent and pre-pubescent young girls to a life of abuse. These are rural issues and while you may not be aware of them, they do exist. Contrary to your beliefs the "feminist mouthpieces" that you so casually dismiss, have been crucial in abating the extent of such cases.

I completely agree with he author about celebrities using media when they need to, which includes discussing their private lives too. This practice has been followed by the Bachchans themselves for as long as they have been around. To begin with, if the Bachchans wanted the wedding to be a private affair, I find it a little confusing when Jaya Bachchan ends up welcoming her 'bahu' into the family during her acceptance speech at Filmfare awards. Does this not give the impression that they are very happy about the union and they don't mind speaking about it in public. The second episode I can remember is when Jaya Aunty decided to praise her to be 'bahu' on national TV (reference: Koffee with Karan). If the Bachchans are so worried about thier privacy, wouldn't it make sense for them to shut thier mouths till the wedding is over? Also, wouldn't it be a lot less chaotic if they had just allowed the media to click some pictures once the wedding is over. Fardeen Khan, zayed khan and if I am not mistaken even Hrithik Roshan had decided to invite the media when they got married. ( Do remember Hrithik was a superstar when he go married)...I can just sit back and laugh, when the Sr. Bachchan says he will protect his family's privacy till his dying breath!!
P.S. I am a fan of Mr. Bachchan, but that does not stop me from being objective unlike some of the many fams who have cared to comment so far.

Excuse the spelling errors in my earlier post.