Hindu Marriage Ritual: Kanyadaan - Page 6

Originally posted by: Neutral2

Kanyadaan might be minor issue but discussing about it will bring change in mindset of people.

It is wrong to say we should not talk about hijab since it is minor issue compared to triple talaq.

It is wrong to say that people are targeting one particular religion because somebody choose specific topic. When we discuss about hijab, some muslim point at Gunghat which is equally wrong but the topic was whether head veil should be allowed in school or not in which only hijab come.

Here the topic is Kanyadaan. Sure the people can compare it with same type of tradition which is happening in other religion like father walking with bride in Christian marriage. But what is happening in other religion/custom can't justify what is happening in your own religion/custom. Because both comes from Patriarchy society rather than particular religion.

There are many issues which Indian girls faced because it is considered that daughter in law should serve her parents in law but same is not expected from son in law.

One of the reason where working woman has problem with their mother in law (especially if in law are from village) is that they treat their son as chief guest but their DIL as maid. I heard many story where they don't want to keep maid for cooking and demand their DIL to cook. This kind of mindset should go.

Kanyadaan or similar kind of tradition exist in those days where brides goes to husband's house. Still this tradition is followed. So I don't see any problem in following old custom. But for the couple who are both working and living separately and sharing everything equally, this type of ritual could be problematic.

There are many reason because of which I think Kanyadaan should be removed.

1) In the past Brides goes to Groom's house (usually joint family). Nowadays people are shifting for nuclear family (especially both partners are working in different city).

2) Before Girls literally separate from her family. Nowadays because of mobile and flight, they are easily reachable to their family. Couples are becoming mature to handle both family together.

3) Before ancestral/father property are not given to married daughter. Usually parents gave lot of gold/jewelry at the time of her marriage. Now dowry is illegal and married daughter has equal right in fathers property. So the thinking that daughter is paraya Dhan should be removed.

4) Daan mean giving. Whether this is a positive word or negative, only question arises why it applies only for girls

What has the ritual got to do with girl going to husband's house, joint family, nuclear house or wherever?

Its the blessing for union of two beings..so wherever the girl is going to live..she is still going to be married to her husband. Even if the groom is going to be a Ghar jamai .. still they r getting married.

Am not getting the issue here ..problem is with the ritual or its name?

Originally posted by: Kyahikahoon

What has the ritual got to do with girl going to husband's house, joint family, nuclear house or wherever?

Its the blessing for union of two beings..so wherever the girl is going to live..she is still going to be married to her husband. Even if the groom is going to be a Ghar jamai .. still they r getting married.

Am not getting the issue here ..problem is with the ritual or its name?

Each ritual has its own meaning. But nowadays people do it without knowing it in the name of tradition and custom. That is what I am describing.

How Kanyadaan started? Daan means giving so Kanyadaan mean giving daughter to husband. In a simple sentence, Groom comes to bride's house, bride's parent hand over to Groom and Husband- wife left for their sasural. That's what Kanyadaan is.

This does not happen in matrilineal society. Infact opposite happen. Groom's family introduce Groom to Bride's family and announce that he will be going to stay with her wife in wife's home (ghar jamai) and bride's family welcome him. So it is like opposite of kanyadaan.

I am seeing quite a few unsupported and wildly inaccurate statements about Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata in this topic. Since they are irrelevant to the issue of the kanyādāna ritual, I don't want to spend too much time refuting them. Anyone can look at the texts or their translations to find out how Rāma carried out a death sentence for Śambūka under the caste system, whose ideas were the tests for Sītā's and Kṛṣṇā Draupadī's svayaṃvaras, whether Rukmiṇī made any effort to marry Kṛṣṇa, and how Kṛṣṇa deliberately deprived Subhadrā of a choice. As for the much later invented character of Rādhā, imagining that she didn't care about societal norms would put a damper on all the songs about her and Kṛṣṇa having to sneak around.

More relevant to the topic of kanyādāna, Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata consistently refer to a man paying śulka for his wife. For Mādrī, it was material wealth; for Kaikayī, it was rājya-śulka - the promise that her son would inherit the kingdom; for Ambā, Ambikā, and Ambālikā, and for Baladharā, it was vīrya-śulka - a valiant abduction.

Bāhlīka clarifies to Bhīṣma (who repeats it to Yudhiṣṭhira) that a wife is not a purchased slave simply because she is paid for (Anuśāsanaparvan 44.44-46):

ye manyante krayaṃ śulkaṃ na te dharma-vido janāḥ

na c'aitebhyaḥ pradātavyā na voḍhavyā tathā-vidhā

na hy eva bhāryā kretavyā na vikreyā kathaṃ cana

ye ca krīṇanti dāsīvad ye ca vikrīṇate janāḥ

bhavet teṣāṃ tathā niṣṭhā lubdhānāṃ pāpa-cetasām

Those people who consider śulka a purchase do not know dharma; one should not give away a bride to them, nor marry one of theirs. Indeed, a wife should not at all be bought, and should not be sold by any means. Those who buy a wife like a slave and those people who sell, their fate is just like that of evil-plotting robbers.

The purport of this is that even thousands of years ago, the authors of fictional characters who believed that a husband had the right to enslave his wife to another man did not believe that śulka (and by extension, kanyādāna) treats females as chattels.

Even Sāvitrī, who had the freedom to travel around looking for a husband, admonished her father in these words: sakṛd aṃśo nipatati; sakṛt kanyā pradīyate; sakṛd āha dadān'īti; trīṇy etāni sakṛt sakṛt - An inheritance is received once; a girl is given away once; "I give" is spoken once; these three happen only once. (Mahābhārata Āraṇyakaparvan 278.25). She had chosen her husband and insisted that her parents must perform the ritual formality.

Why? Well, she lived in a society where marriage was virilocal, inheritance was patrilineal, and authority was patriarchal. Sāvitrī had no brother and Satyavat had no property; even then, her father didn't invite him to join the royal court of Madra as his presumptive heir. He took Sāvitrī to the āśrama, asked Satyavat's father to accept her, performed the bride-giving, and left her there.

Times have changed. It was once considered admirable for a man like Satyavat, lying on his back, to lift both arms and bawl with worry for his parents (Āraṇyakaparvan 281.94). New age men, who can handle being part of two families, may be given away to live uxorilocally, take their wives' family names, and look after their in-laws. That can be manly too.

Ṛṣi Mārkaṇḍeya prophesied (Āraṇyakaparvan 188.35):

na kanyāṃ yācate kaś cin n'āpi kanyā pradīyate

svayaṃgrāhā bhaviṣyanti yug'ānte paryupasthite

When the End-of-the-Age approaches, no one will ask for a girl, nor will a girl be given away; there will be self-grabbed marriages.

Giving away daughter in any ritual be it Christian wedding or Sikh Anand Karaj is sexist. Period. She is considered property of her father and is passed on to her husband. It comes from past when women were considered property of males be it dads or husbands or later sons.

And had no agency or identity of her own.

Woman is NOT wealth or Lakshmi. It is dehumanizing to count her as wealth.

It is sexist itself to give away bride. Why no putradaan eh? Why woman loses her name and identity after marriage and is made to cut off from her parents and natal family and identity and only woman is supposed to move out but man is not, and only woman is supposed to adjust but man is not, and only woman is supposed to adopt ways of husband and in laws but man is never supposed to adopt ways of wife or serve his in laws or balance between parents and in laws?

The whole system is a patriarchal scam. In ANY religion before someone comes @ me.

It is a sexist ritual. I favour court marriage. Sign documents as EQUALS. This man on mare and woman in ghunghat or packed off in doli like an object and bidaai, or rituals like throwing away rice to show her daana paani from parental house is over is sexist AF.

Woman need not be shut in a box. Why no bidaai for man?

Why man never changed his name?

No man is Vishnu or embodiment of god. Pati parmeshwar thing is sexist.

Also, woman is not something to be given in daan. Or given away. Father's salvation should not depend on giving away daughter in marriage. What if woman does not want to marry at all and chooses to stay single all life? Father will not attain shanti or brahmalok blah blah?

All baseless superstitions made by men to use and pass around women as property and dehumanise woman, cut her off from her own biological family.

Originally posted by: Suchme

Why every ritual of hinduism is questioned and not of other religions ... ??? Please open your eyes wide open 👁️👁️ and think ....

Bass aur kuch nahi bolna

The United States and the Soviet Union already land a spacecraft on Mars. India is planning to do after successful Mars orbital mission.

We always look forward, not backward. Sure hinduism is progressive religion. But progressive is continuous process. We reach here today because somebody question and rebel. The whole Bhagavat Gita is question and answer. Spiritualist like Gautam Buddha strongly oppose some of old custom which were blindly followed. Many social reformist goes against sati pratha, support widow remarriage and women entering temple, that's how hindu women got rights.

Nothing wrong in questioning. One of the best quote from my manager "No question is stupid. Only answer can be stupid"

Why would I compare Hindu with much regressive religion like Islam? Silver medallist look for Gold medal, Gold medallist look for record. Only loser compare himself with other loser.

People are changing religion to Buddhism or becoming Atheist. Instead I would prefer Hindusim to become an example for other religion to accommodate all and become most advance religion. For this we should always look for improvement with time. There is always room for improvement even if it is slight.

Instead of asking why every ritual is questioned, it should be Why every ritual is followed blindly without understanding. Hence this debate.

Originally posted by: Palak2812

It is easier to comment and diss Hindus and Hindusim bcoz people don't go crazy over it and can survive even after saying the shittiest things about them.

People have no problem when the father walks the girl in other traditions but are always ready to raise their fingers on our religion and tradition.

People have no problem with white weddings, every modern and every woman wears white to their wedding of some religion.

But people come and give gyaan and talk about breaking stereotypes bcoz wearing red, maroon, pink, and yellow lehenga/saree is not modern and is their zanjeer for them even when they have more choices than others.

Most importantly a HINDU wedding can happen without Kanyadaan if someone has a problem should simply skip it, but raising questions on each and everything is something, I think needs to stop.

Also, it is said who does Kanyadaan is said to have done something really good that's why they got a chance to give the hand of their daughter for reunion of two souls.

It is said sacred bcoz in Hinduism, marriage is said to be a sacred bond between two souls and families.

It is nothing against anyone on this forum, just my views

@red, people have questioned giving away tradition of jews and catholic, some people modified it with Groom's also walking with his parent. Controversial speech/question by priest is also removed.

https://www.brides.com/giving-away-the-bride-tradition-5072586

https://unboringwedding.com/giving-away-bride-alternatives/

@blue, foreign celebrities have also started wearing different colored gown in their wedding ceremony.

https://www.marthastewart.com/7957398/colorful-celebrity-wedding-dresses

Almost 80% Indians are Hindu, so there will be more question and discussion around Hinduism. But the truth is people all around the world are questioning their own religion/custom/tradition.

Originally posted by: Viswasruti

Demeaning women and making them as tools for their cruel desires is the latest development. No one gives a man a right to insult, hurt or demean any women.

Please take note of another vital point: India is a nation with many diverse traditions and customs, and each one has a unique definition of what constitutes a marriage.

Has Kanyadaan got Vedic sanction?

As far as my knowledge goes, there is no mention of kanyaadaan in the Vedas. But the Dharma Sastras and Sutras do mention ‘giving’ a kanya in marriage. But how this became ‘daana’ or gift, only god knows.

It is said that the bridegroom, who is the receiver, is treated as Mahavishnu. Naturally the bride has to be Mahalakshmi then. But who is competent to give ‘Mahalakshmi’ as a gift ?😊

Let us check this from Ramayan period--

Ramayana was composed in the post-Vedic period, which predates Puranic period.

The wedding of Sita and Sri Rama was mentioned in Bala Kanda.

इयं सीता मम सुता सहधर्मचरी तव || प्रतीच्छ चैनां भद्रं ते पाणिं गृह्णीष्व पाणिना |

"This is Sita, my daughter, take her wishfully, let safeness betide you, take her palm into your palm..."

पतिव्रता महभागा छायेवानुगता सदा || इत्युक्त्वा प्राक्षिपद्राजा मंत्रपूतं जलं तदा |

"She who is prosperous and husband-devout, will always be abiding you like your own shadow..." So saying that king Janaka then poured forth water into the palms of Rama, which is sanctified with hymns."

We can observe from the above slokas that it was no where mentioned kanyadan. King Janaka said that Sita will follow Sri Rama in all aspects -as सहधर्मचरी(Sahadharmacharini).

It was about panigrahan only, but not about Kanyadan .

Further, no mention of Vishnu or Mahalakshmi here. These customs may not be traced in Vedas, as they were not mentioned in Ramayana, a post-Vedic epic.

No other epic or purana, including Mahabharath, made any mention of it. The majority of the significant epic characters were married in accordance with the bride's wishes and intentions. Even though he is a powerful king, she used to determine who she wanted to marry instead of the male member. To win the bride's approval, the kings and valiant warriors must compete to demonstrate their mettle in front of the bride, the other royals, and the populace.

The only occasion which was glaringly visible in the Mahabharath was Bhishma bringing brides against their wishes to marry to his princes , and Amba returned as Shikhandi to defeat him during the Mahabharata War.

Such occurrences were extremely uncommon at that time. Everyone who committed crimes against women was subjected to severe punishment. Stree was never considered as daan, a Savior to the mankind.

Very good information Madhuri, but wanted to add something to it. The excerpt I posted in my Original Post, is from a book called 'Vedic Wedding Book'. Kanyadaan is mentioned in various Ghriya Sutras, and these are part of Kalpa, which is considered a Vedanga. So, we cannot say Kanyadaan does not belong to Vedic Era.

What I feel is our Vedic texts have always treated man and woman as equals.

We have a ritual of ring exchange, where both are equal.

During Varmala/ JaiMala / Bengali malabadal , bride and groom garland eachother and accept eachother as equals.

During saat pheras around the sacred fire each take part in leading the other around it .

Both bride n groom take saat vachan treating the other as equal .

Elders join the hands of the bride n groom amidst chanting or holy mantras and pouring of holy waters and friends n family shower flowers with their good wishes n blessings … this is the ritual of kanya daan.

This I feel can be renamed as Var Kanya milaap , or hasta milaap rather than kanya daan which literally means giving away the girl to someone.

The ritual has nothing wrong in it but the interpretation sometimes is wrong.

Its Ok if modern couples want to avoid it. It’s their choice. What finally makes a marriage work is mutual respect, adjustment, cooperation and caring for eachother, a one sided thing will never ever work. It does not make a difference if you had the ritual of Kanya daan in the wedding or not.

Originally posted by: devashree_h

Very good information Madhuri, but wanted to add something to it. The excerpt I posted in my Original Post, is from a book called 'Vedic Wedding Book'. Kanyadaan is mentioned in various Ghriya Sutras, and these are part of Kalpa, which is considered a Vedanga. So, we cannot say Kanyadaan does not belong to Vedic Era.

During the Vedic period, consent of the women for marriage was given utmost importance. She used to have the final say about whom she wanted to marry. She entered into the union as groom's equal, the other half of his existence. The concept of the father offering his daughter to the groom was unheard of at that time.

The Vedic marriage is concentrated on Panigrahan. Kanyadan is however a smrti-based ritual, a later version of the vedic marriage.

Apastamba, Hiranyakeshin, Ashvalayana and Gobhila do not mention the kanyadan ceremony as such, although the “giving daughter in marriage” might be construed.

Kanyadan is a preoccupation of most of the sutras, and Smritis currently in vogue in North India, and in many parts of West and South India.

The Vedic Age was between 1500 BC and 600 BC and later Smritis and Shrutis gained prominence.

The laws for regulating Hindu society from time to time are codified in the Smritis. Manu Smriti is the main text which defined the Manava dharma ,most scholars claim that it was written between 300 and 600 BCE. Other important dharma texts were written by Yajnavalkya, Parashara, and Narada.

If we see in the four Vedas, according to the Vedic teachings and ancient Aryan scriptures, women have been placed at a higher status than man. She has been given preference to man in every field, so much so that when giving a boy a joint name of a god and goddess, the name of the goddess is always placed before the god.

The marriage rituals may vary from place to place, region to region, and unfortunately it is losing prominence in recent times.

Evolution is a much-needed aspect in every society, and every era has its constraints and liberties to improvise the prevailing rigid customs and traditions. Marriage and the associated rituals are changing from time to time, to facilitate the society's smooth functioning.

Devi, what topic it is dear, you made us ponder for hours and hours , rechecking the information and searched for a few reference books in my bookshelf to know first to share it here with you all. ❤️

It appears as the views are proliferating because each post makes a number of good points and demonstrates that the person has a thorough comprehension of the subject.

Originally posted by: Sutapasima

What I feel is our Vedic texts have always treated man and woman as equals.

We have a ritual of ring exchange, where both are equal.

During Var mala bride and groom garland eachother and accept eachother as equals.

During saat pheras around the sacred fire each take part in leading the other around it .

Both bride n groom take saat vachan treating the other as equal .

Elders join the hands of the bride n groom amidst chanting or holy mantras and pouring of holy waters and friends n family shower flowers with their good wishes n blessings … this is the ritual of kanya daan.

This I feel can be renamed as Var Kanya milaap , or hasta milaap rather than kanya daan which literally means giving away the girl to someone.

The ritual has nothing wrong in it but the interpretation sometimes is wrong.

Its Ok if modern couples want to avoid it. It’s their choice. What finally makes a marriage work is mutual respect, adjustment, cooperation and caring for eachother, a one sided thing will never ever work. It does not make a difference if you had the ritual of Kanya daan in the wedding or not.

Very true

Its mostly called Hastmilap or Panigrahan..that's what is written on wedding invites too from where I come.