Tradination marraige

[sabarinathan]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear all,
Please have a look on that attached document .

 

[kunjuppu]

Sabari,

There are two different and distinct topics here. Here is my take on both of them.

The first part deals with the dowry and unreasonable demands of the grooms parents. I am looking at the figures involved, and it appears that these come from the poorer strata of our community (God Bless, no offence meant here).

From what I have seen, the more affluent the folks are, the less the demands. Maybe because it is assumed that weddings will be conducted in style befitting their ‘status’. Also, nowadays, with smaller families, and higher incomes, there is more money to throw about.

Also, I am very surprised, that in these days of skewed gender representation, ie unavailability of marriageable girls, that the father of this girl accepted to terms which were beyond his means. Again, I think, this boils down to the humbler strata of the society, who are less educated, more conservative, more traditional, and prone to listen to the muttheads. I think any attempt to ‘educate’ them of current trends, would fall on deaf ears. Again no offence meant to anyone.

It is interesting that the note begins with discrimination against quotas and government jobs. Not sure what that has to do with dowry demands, except again I sense a fury over deprived entitlements. I do not buy it.

Part 2 is very surprising. I do not claim to understand all of it. But I think, in these days where the concept of ‘first night’, is more a ‘first of many nights’, it is news to me about the one year brahmacharyam rule (did I understand it right?). even 50 years ago, when we married into traditional families these things did not happen. Though one of my aunts spent first 6 months of the marriage, at her inlaws house, in another town and ‘learned’ the pazhakka vazhakkams of the husband’s household (it was all bunkum, sadistic and slave labour – this is their concept of honeymoon HA!!).

On the whole, I think, it is a phony letter.

 

[sabarinathan]

hi

kunjuppu,
Thanks for your reply ,The first part i know that its no way related to current ,but i like the secound part which tells about the practices which we left in now days

 

[kunjuppu]

kunjuppu,
Thanks for your reply ,The first part i know that its no way related to current ,but i like the secound part which tells about the practices which we left in now days

sabari,

can you please do me one big huge favour. can you put in simple english, part 2. for my benefit. would be greatly appreciated. thank you.

 

[sangom]

Sabari,

There are two different and distinct topics here. Here is my take on both of them.

The first part deals with the dowry and unreasonable demands of the grooms parents. I am looking at the figures involved, and it appears that these come from the poorer strata of our community (God Bless, no offence meant here).

From what I have seen, the more affluent the folks are, the less the demands. Maybe because it is assumed that weddings will be conducted in style befitting their ‘status’. Also, nowadays, with smaller families, and higher incomes, there is more money to throw about.

Also, I am very surprised, that in these days of skewed gender representation, ie unavailability of marriageable girls, that the father of this girl accepted to terms which were beyond his means. Again, I think, this boils down to the humbler strata of the society, who are less educated, more conservative, more traditional, and prone to listen to the muttheads. I think any attempt to ‘educate’ them of current trends, would fall on deaf ears. Again no offence meant to anyone.

It is interesting that the note begins with discrimination against quotas and government jobs. Not sure what that has to do with dowry demands, except again I sense a fury over deprived entitlements. I do not buy it.

Part 2 is very surprising. I do not claim to understand all of it. But I think, in these days where the concept of ‘first night’, is more a ‘first of many nights’, it is news to me about the one year brahmacharyam rule (did I understand it right?). even 50 years ago, when we married into traditional families these things did not happen. Though one of my aunts spent first 6 months of the marriage, at her inlaws house, in another town and ‘learned’ the pazhakka vazhakkams of the husband’s household (it was all bunkum, sadistic and slave labour – this is their concept of honeymoon HA!!).

On the whole, I think, it is a phony letter.

Shri Kunjuppu,

I don't think the letter is phony, but from some old collection, probably of the early 1940's itself. But the one year brahmacaryam was when the girl was about 14 or just above (post-Sarda Act period) and by common consensus the pravesa homam (pravisya homam) used to be performed some time after marriage when the wife used to repair to her in-laws' house on long term basis. But to the best of my knowledge, no Brahman used to do the daily oupaasanam as prescribed even though a mud pot called "oupaasanap paanai" is still carried - as a very sacred object not to be cracked even - along with the bridegroom's party on their return trip from the marriage.

 

[kunjuppu]

sangom,

thanks. that explains the reasoning behind 1500 rupees considered a huge amount.

 

[siganeswarie]

that good one

 

[Iyyarooraan]

The letter "vivaaham" belongs to the period when Rupee-Anna-Paisa was ruling. Is it applicable today? The cause those days was girl and the effect these days is girl. As for the rituals, Kanuyadhaanam and Paanigrahanam, are the core rites in a marriage. Paanigrahanam occurs in nursery/KG levels (and how many paanigrahanams?!). And among other things, "Kaasi yatrai' could be applicable only to vaidheeha sects of continuing generations. When the rite for consummating the marriage is taking place? Others do not know because it is either preponed or postponed by the intending or unintended couple!. Thank god we are all at least talking of 'vivaaham'.