Do you treat widows in the same way as you treat other women?

Original article published in Prajavani

Translation:

This is the twenty-first century.  A time when women are flying to space.  But it is difficult to believe how inhumanly widows are treated by  educated and supposedly modern families even in this age.   It is a shameful matter. An incident that occurred a few days ago inspired me to write this. 

Sunita (name changed) has always been a smart person. She is educated and progressive-minded.  With a  loving husband and intelligent children, her family was a happy one. But unfortunately, when she was around forty, she lost her husband.  She started living by herself, along with her children, without anybody's support.  With determination, she recovered quickly from the shock of her loss. She sent her children abroad to study, and she enabled them to become independent.  Now she is busy with her work and activities, and travels frequently.  She leads a life that many people admire.   

Recently, there was a wedding in her family. I was surprised and worried to see the usually ebullient Sunita sitting alone and quiet in the wedding hall.  When I asked what the matter was, I found that she had been forbidden to go anywhere near the wedding ceremonies.  After all a widow's presence is inauspicious isn't it?!

This isn't just Sunita's experiences.  Several women have had experiences like this.

If we want to go into the reasons for these beliefs and customs, we have to go a little into the past to consider the lifestyle then.  Back then, widow remarriage was prohibited. Since chid marriage was also common back then, if a girl lost her husband before or after she went to her husband's house, there was the fear that some other man would be attracted to her. 

So what was the solution? To ensure that nobody found her attractive and bestowed unwanted attentions on her, a cruel custom developed.  They would try and disfigure her. Her forehead, arms and neck would be made bare, and very often, her hair would be shaved off too.  They even went so far as to lock her up inside the house.  The little girl, who should rightfully have been playing around, was forced to give up all her wishes and desires, and dedicate her life to the service of those around her.   When there were ceremonies like weddings, the child would see tinkling bangles and shining gold all around.  The innocent child, not even aware of why she was being forbidden all this, would naturally look at the jewellery and finery with eyes full of desire.  (Doesn't the very thought wring your heart?) 

People who believed in the concept of bad drishti (loosely translated , the concept that somebody's look of longing and jealousy will cause you harm.) would keep the child away from the new bride, with the fear that her drishti will prove inauspicious to the bride.   Or it could also be that the child was kept away from all this to spare her from longing and desire.

In case of women with children, they would have to stay in their in-laws' place, or go back to their maternal homes after they lost their husbands.  She would have to experience the helplessness of being completely dependent on somebody else.  It was common to view her with derision. Some people felt sorry for her, but there was nothing much they could do. 

Things have changed now. A woman who has lost her husband now retains her mental strength, goes out to work, earns, looks after the house and brings up her children, and leads her own life.  In case her work requires a degree, and she is not educated, she even pursues further education.   She sees that her children are settled in their lives. 

It is said that a husband and wife are like the two wheels of a chariot. When one wheel goes missing, the wife becomes the other wheel and carries the entire weight of the chariot.  She doesn't express whatever sorrows she is experiencing in her mind, doesn't whine about why this happened to her, and makes sure that the lack of a father doesn't affect her children, and she lives her life with confidence.  I've seen such women from very close.   

But she doesn't have a place in the weddings and ceremonies of her own children.  She doesn't have the opportunity to sit down at the wedding and take part in the rituals - some other couple will have to stand in for her.  Can anybody gauge the extent of her sorrow in such circumstances?  Can't she, who has dealt with everything alone all this while, participate in the rituals also alone?  She has after all given so much of herself for her children - will she ever wish misfortune upon them?

Even if a woman can sweep sorrow aside and lead life boldly, society doesn't let her live in peace.  People don't invite her for arishina-kumkuma (haldi-kumkum- religious functions where a major part of the ceremony is to offer turmeric and vermilion to married women) In case they do invite her, they just skip her while offering vermillion and flowers, and give it to women sitting right next to her. They just give her coconut and blouse-piece, though!  

 Nobody says anything if she wears other ornaments.  But she shouldn't wear vermillion. What kind of logic is this?  Vermillion might be sacred - but what is it about this red powder that these women cannot even touch it?   When people visit, these women are not supposed to offer vermillion to others with their hands.   "There is kumkum in the pooja room, please take it," they say.  Or they bring the bowl of kumkum, keep it down and say, "Please take it."  

These women have already suffered a major blow in their lives.  So why does society insist on dealing blow after blow on them even before they have recovered from the first? Society makes them shrivel up.   The same society calls itself "developed" in all other aspects.  Their attire, going to restaurants and parties, and in their choice of music and language, they ape the west, and call themselves modern.   But in these aspects, they are two centuries behind. 

Nowadays, several women who have lost their husbands continue to wear kumkum, toe-rings and the maangalya (mangalsutra) whereas several married women choose not to wear these at all.    So it is clear that kumkum, maangalya have stopped being symbols of being married.   So isn't it stupidity to blindly follow these customs that have risen out of long-forgotten societal norms that hold absolutely no meaning any longer?

One might say, "To each his own - let them follow whatever they want."  That might be true. But think about it.  Is it right that you follow a belief or custom that is harmful or hurtful to other people?  If orthodox, traditional-minded people follow these customs, you can't do anything. But it is saddening to see the current generation behaving this way.   And one worries about how one can bring about a change in their thinking. 

In contrast, if a man loses his wife, he panics. He approaches other womenfolk of his family to help him look after his children.  He employs someone to look after the house, someone to cook for him.  His family himself starts looking to get him married again. Apart from the sorrow of losing his wife, no other circumstances arise that will cause him hurt or pain. 

When you see all this, don't you feel that we ought to look upon such women  with admiration, they who have taken on the burden of life alone, instead of treating them as lowly, or viewing them with pity?  It is not as if she has committed a crime.  So isn't it ironic that she suffers from  society's ignorance and stupidity?  Is it fair?  At least now, society must not tag her with the "widow" term, and not treat her as anything unusual, right?

Lastly, I'd like to narrate an incident that took place more than forty years ago.

A close relative of ours had lost her husband. Once, she had donated some money for a celebration at a Mutt. She went to the Mutt to attend the pooja ceremony, where the Swamiji of the Mutt was distributing prasad to all the devotees. When it was her turn to receive the prasad, one of the disciples of the Swamiji noticed that she was a widow, and called her to one side, using sounds like, "Shh, tch-tch," and tried to throw the prasad into her hands without touching her. 

Immediately, the lady spoke out aloud - "The money I gave you is not mylige (very loose translation - dirty/untouchable) to you, but I am mylige.  How is that?"  Then she told her son, "Come on child, let's go.  Who wants their prasada?"  And she walked out.

She wasn't pained or insulted.  But the feeling in her was, "What kind of people are these?"   She was a bold lady of those times.  This story has stayed in our family and is recounted often with pride. 

It is good if society changes.  But if it doesn't, then it is better if women itself develop an "I don't care" attitude.