7.7.09

The Muslim Factor in Rakhi ka Swayamvar

...and sophomoric feminism

Mainstream liberal privately-owned Indian television slapped the Muslim community. I was expecting it, but not the way it finally happened.

Rakhi with her gift of love

A short background. The reality show Rakhi ka Swayamvar is currently NDTV Imagine’s best-selling prime-time money maker. Rakhi Sawant has to choose from 16 suitors, mimicking the swayamvar of the old days.

There were two Muslim contestants. The first one was booted out on Day One; someone had to be and he was probably not all that good. Fair enough. The other contestant was a police officer from Kashmir. Athar Pervez did not come across as the smartest bloke but he was quiet and fairly dignified.

Last night, they got the TV host’s wife as the bhabhi, a sort of support system for the bride-to-be. Athar met her and said he wanted to confess something. He was already married and had three kids! What the heck is going on? The channel screened the applicants. Did he lie to them? Why was that question not raised?

Instead, there was an attempt to buffer the stereotype of Islam and four wives. The bhabhi looked shocked when he said that his wife and parents knew that he was participating and his wife only wanted him to be happy. When Rakhi was told about it she sniffled and said he was one person she had begun to respect and was thinking of as a potential partner. In a conversation, he repeated what he had said and Rakhi asked him how it was possible for a man to have more than one wife. He told her his religion permitted it but he would not leave his family. She looked at him angrily and shot back, “How can any religion allow it?”…and then went on to give him a lecture on Islam and what the Quran in fact says. (Her version is not completely right.) Pervez Athar may be married, but this was no way to make a point.

Rakhi welcomes Pervez

The point being made here is that now the protagonist of the show can turn around and say that these contestants may all have skeletons in their cupboards or something to hide so, nope, she won’t marry anyone. This bit will come at the end. In all likelihood it is an eyewash, to begin with.

Why do I watch the programme at all? For several reasons. I do watch TV, including soaps. Long before she was legitimised by the posh set of coffee spelled with a K and togged up in designer wear, I had expressed some admiration for her position; I felt there was a hierarchy followed regarding who could strip more and, because she spoke little English and did not belong to the charmed set, she was doomed to be referred to as an item girl. I thought that after her makeover she would still come across as honest even if melodramatic. She is. Pretty much.

I also liked the idea of a swayamvar. This was a practice prevalent in ancient times and some of our epic characters chose their husbands in this manner – be it Sita in Ramayana or Draupadi in Mahabharata. True, these were from royal families and the suitors were naturally from similar backgrounds. In a contemporary setting, it would be an interesting concept and perhaps convey that women have the right to ask questions and be in command.

The first episode had Rakhi welcoming her suitors; each carried a gift. Then there were episodes where she tested them at various levels, and perhaps that will continue. Unfortunately, even though she is the one in charge, she has talked about wanting to live in a joint family. When a buffoon said if he had to choose between a plasma TV and a washing machine he would opt for the latter because he would not want her to wash clothes, she was impressed. Puhleeze…he could bloody well wash them. She also talks about the importance of dal-chaawal over lipstick – now this woman cannot hold her breasts till they are filled with silicone gel, has had every part either pumped up or tucked in, so what is going on? Why can a woman not want the best if she has earned it? Why is she playing this simple girl? Is simplicity only about superficials?

Some of the contestants were students or barely earned any money; she herself implied that a couple of them were looking for fame. Of course, they are.

When the channel announced the show, they reportedly received 15,000 applications. There is one contestant from Toronto. The channel is attempting pop psychology with little games, but this is not anywhere close to a feminist statement. I mean, she dresses in low-cut gowns to convey that this is what she wears and then simpers and asks whether some guy’s family will accept her. She fed a Brahmin vegetarian some meat and he ate it. I know many pure vegetarians and they would throw up. This guy just made a face and then gobbled it up.

As drama, this works at a sophomore level because most of the boys/men are stupid and only want to show themselves on TV. It is obvious. Or they could be besotted by Rakhi.

Pervez Athar said he was. Besides the Islam factor, she also said that she would not want to break up anyone’s home. The fellow is telling her in front of the world that he loves his wife and will not leave his family. Where is the question, then, of breaking up a home?

Pervez Athar

He lives in Srinagar and if his seniors really gave him permission to participate in this, then one must find out what exactly are the rules. Did he show the channel any such report? Before an audience of millions he has been made out to be a liar and a cheat. If the police force wishes to take action against him, it would only be right that the channel is also made culpable. If all this was only for effect, I should hope no organisation issues a fatwa or something. That is precisely what some of these people want. The fact is that Athar said that he loved Rakhi and not her religion so he would not ask her to convert. Therefore, it isn’t a bearded Muslim issue, okay?

It does not take too much intelligence to realise that many of the contestants will have hidden stories and agendas, too. The channel wants the show to be in the limelight. It was Rakhi’s idea and a husband is the last thing she is looking for. This is her spunky attempt at becoming ‘respectable’ or maybe even a naughty take on the bahus in our serials and, who knows, a big kick to her ex-boyfriend. Interestingly, his friend is a contestant; she knew him from before the show. How did the channel permit it?

Meanwhile, I hope today’s episode that will most definitely touch upon the married guy sent packing scene of last night does not repeat the stupid stereotypes. In fact, there ought to be an attempt to apologise, even if all this was stage-managed, which seems very likely. So is the possibility of a fake marriage taking place to save face of the purported motive.

As for the contemporary woman outside TV channels, I think they are doing fine in their offices and homes without dreaming about washing machines and a guy cleaning his dirty linen in it.

12 comments:

  1. Hi Farzana,

    I came across your blog after googling - Ather Pervez Rakhi ka swaymwar married real or fake. It was obviously stage managed; as you mentioned, instead of asking why in the first place that guy was allowed on the show everyone was after the rules of Islam and what his wife thought about it. Now, why was the act incorporated is beyond me, maybe it was just an attempt to increase the drama quotient of the show and had been planned from the beginning. This has really made me wonder if this guy is actually a police officer from Srinagar or a budding actor. Also, about Atirek, whom she was 'very' surprised to see the first day when she asked him 'Aap yahan?'. I belive, she had seen every one's audition (atleast these 16 and other shortlisted one's) and had a 'big' hand (hopefully) in deciding who would be here as her prospective groom; then why the big surprise. And everyone, including the other 15 people and all the 'junta' can see how irritating the guy is, then why not depart him. Also, when one guy told her that my dad thinks you should think and speak, he was eliminated right away :). Now, this was the only guy who spoke up (a lil). I am pretty sure, of all the guys there, all being from middle class families, none's parents would be able to accept her. Whether she marries someone or not or where this leads to is yet to be seen, but from how the show is going on, I guess this is just a big publicity stunt for Rakhi and the other 16 are just claiming their share of fame :). It's just too hard to digest that Rakhi can marry some ordinary guy and at the same time be accepted in their family, just as is Ather Parvez's story.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks Farzana,
    i am glad you are keeping track of these intricacies of game shows.
    Without you i would not have this insiders view with you fine commentary.

    As for polygamy in Islam . It is time that society in India with help of enlightened and autonomous women would make polygamy a tradition of past (even of hindu mythology).
    Many Clans of muslims even before partition did not accept polygamy and kept the hindu tradition of monogamy( and divine destiny in mate ).Even when a bride died these families would not give a daughter .Widowers had to find brides from other clans.

    To a hindu as well as chritian mind(i am married to a christian)Marriages are made in heaven and are permanent while many of my muslim friends(not all) have considered it as a contract.All of my muslim friends are married to one woman.
    What are your views on polygamy.
    I am glad you are comfortable in discussing your views on religion.

    kul bhushan
    rxri.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  3. Other than Sita and Draupdi, read on swayamvar for Kalidas- Sanskrit dramatist which in itself ia an interesting story.
    Good idea for girls to be proactive in evaluating the available merchandise in matrimonial market.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Farzana,

    Indeed, there is ample reason to consider such "reality" television shows (both at home and abroad) as part of a wider (albeit quite shallow, or "superficial," as you observe) effort toward social engineering. Like kul bhushan, I too appreciate your analysis in this regard . . .

    However, I don't know that society in India (and elsewhere, with or without the help of "enlightened and autonomous women") can make polygamy a "past tradition," for, in my view, as long as young males are slaughtered and maimed and impoverished by their thousands in the abatoir of war and other such violent conflict, polygamy (however enculturated) will continue as a viable (and in certain, somewhat narrower respects, "humane") social expedience.

    Anonymous suggests it -- perhaps tongue-in-cheek -- "a good idea for girls to be proactive in evaluating the available merchandise in matrimonial market" (nice, ambiguous word "proactive"). However, one wonders if either girls or boys have yet the necessary accumen to compete proactively in such a "market."

    Just some thoughts. :)

    Regards,
    Mark

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ma'am some excellent points. The website has many readers talking about others who have a past. One correction is the first contestant eliminated was not muslim and he had some film connection.

    Very best wishes,
    Akanksha

    ReplyDelete
  6. I saw it only after reading this and it is boring!!Why do you like swayamwar idea?This show does not look like swayamwar at all

    ReplyDelete
  7. Farzana ,
    China and India has killed scores of millions of female fetuses. It will leave a shotage of women in next 20 years.That sure eliminates any logic for Ploygamy. May be somebody could make argument for polyandry(my first use of this word).I do not buy it .Human condition should not be made so miserable.Some Chinese think(Direct conversation) that only impact of this shortage in females is delay in marriage for chinese men.I do not think it works out that way.
    Cheers.

    kul bhushan
    rxri.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi Neha:

    Thank you for adding your views. She has seen the final auditions, so I don't know if anyone is going to be made accountable.

    Anon:

    I mentioned Sita and Draupadi as obvious figures; it was a fairly commonplace occurrence. How "proactve" it was one is not sure, because only the 'right' lineage was permitted to participate.

    Akanksha:

    You are right that the first eliminated candidate was not a Muslim; his name is Ali Bana and is a dancer-choreographer...he went in the second or third episode and as I stated clearly he was probably not good enough. His being Muslim was no issue one way or the other.

    KB:

    :) You are right that it is not like the swayamvars of old. Why do I like the idea of a swayamvar? Because ti is utterly charming to watch men preen like peacocks and try to win over a woman!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Kul Bhushan:

    Thank you, but don’t depend on me!

    Yes, I am comfortable discussing religion. I do not agree with you that in contemporary society people believe that marriages are made in heaven, unless it is stated for romantic reasons…and Muslims do have a romantic bone in their body, let me assure you…

    Besides, polygamy was prevalent in ancient times among the Hindus, and legally until 1959 it was allowed in the Hindu Marriage Act. The noted lawyer Ram Jethmalani had two wives.

    My views on polygamy are the same as for adultery – I don’t wanna share :) But generally, I doubt if men can keep more than one woman happy…The 72 houris promised in Islamic heaven are to make sure the blokes here manage the feat of keeping one woman in fine fettle here.

    More seriously, you talk about foeticide. It is a major issue and is already so bad that men in Haryana are importing women from the South. I don’t know how the problem can be solved. Women are not cut out for polyandry, although it would help to carry shopping bags!

    Hello Mark:

    Some thoughts to your thoughts…

    However, I don't know that society in India (and elsewhere, with or without the help of "enlightened and autonomous women") can make polygamy a "past tradition," for, in my view, as long as young males are slaughtered and maimed and impoverished by their thousands in the abatoir of war and other such violent conflict, polygamy (however enculturated) will continue as a viable (and in certain, somewhat narrower respects, "humane") social expedience.

    You have a point here. In fact, that was the premise of polygamy in Islam, when men were killed in wars the prophet enjoined the believers to take more than one wife who was widowed to protect her and provide for her. There were several stringent conditions placed for this provision. As a religious construct, it should not be legitimised, but we have seen that wars make humans into fairly ‘emotionless’ people and there are instances of sexual exploitation in war zones. I wonder, therefore, how ‘humane’ such polygamous possibilities would be.

    Anonymous suggests it -- perhaps tongue-in-cheek -- "a good idea for girls to be proactive in evaluating the available merchandise in matrimonial market" (nice, ambiguous word "proactive"). However, one wonders if either girls or boys have yet the necessary accumen to compete proactively in such a "market."

    I would say that in societies where women – and occasionally men – cannot even choose their partners nor have adequate time to understand them, the idea of getting involved makes sense. It is another matter that the choices would lead to confusion and perhaps regret that the product one opted for is not as good as the one that was rejected :)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yes, Farzana, I was indeed referring to Islam vis a vis the Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) consideration for widowed women who had likely become accustomed to a married state with all the rights and privileges thereof. Quite humane, if you ask me, as well as socially expedient. Originally, as I understand it, suttee (or sati) in India was likewise considered socially expedient for similar reasons; however, there, it seems, the family's claim on their deceased son's effects prevailed over his widowed wife's claim . . .

    With respect to those societies where either women or men "cannot even choose their partners nor have adequate time to understand them," my own entirely unscientific sense is that "buyer's remorse" occurs with equal frequency whether one gets to choose or not; though certainly such remorse is compounded when the process is akin to negotiating for a new car or cell-phone. :)

    State encouraged (or mandated) "family planning," however well-intentioned, exacerbated to the circumstance of female foeticide, it seems to me; however, while there is certainly some basis to suppose fathers see sons as an expression of their virility (which wives may have sought to accommodate); I don't know if enough attention is paid as to how mothers may socially construct sons. They're as good if not better than a 401K in many respects . . .

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mark:

    Re. Sati, besides the relevant point you make about the family’s claim to the son’s property and wealth over the widow’s, there is also the issue of automated fidelity. It may be said that the practice was voluntary, but force was often used. That it was more prevalent among the Rajputs, a warrior caste, reveals that there was also a concern for protecting women’s honour against the enemy, which were the Mughals, although cases were reported at the time of the Partition of India in 1947 too. In fact, it took on a mass scale where groups of women jumped into wells and fires even before the deaths of their husbands…when they set out to war. This was called ‘jauhar’.

    With respect to those societies where either women or men "cannot even choose their partners nor have adequate time to understand them," my own entirely unscientific sense is that "buyer's remorse" occurs with equal frequency whether one gets to choose or not; though certainly such remorse is compounded when the process is akin to negotiating for a new car or cell-phone. :)

    And there goes the theory of retail therapy! What happens when one keeps an extra cell phone as a standby?!

    State encouragement of female foeticide for family planning purposes has some currency because it is more obvious in the rural areas. However, how would one explain the extent of gender planning and abortions among the richer educated folks?

    Re. the father’s virility, would it not be patented irrespective of the birth of a son or daughter? Or is it that the Y chromosome is evidence of greater potency? I think it is more simply that men are supposed to carry on the legacy, therefore the importance of the son. There is also the economic aspect of earning potential. In India, at least, mothers are conditioned into believing that sons are important as protectors; coupled with the factors mentioned earlier, her stock also goes up.

    They're as good if not better than a 401K in many respects . . .

    Lol…in that case, it makes the mothers super smart. Especially if the possibility of getting onto a cruise liner some day is ensured :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. the whole thing seem to be absolutely fake. it seems rakhi is in it to show her acting/dancing/dressing skills. all suitors seem to be aspiring actors. the show is watchable only because you find some kind of comedy in every scene!

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.