Dangerous wives and sacred sisters: still relevant almost 40 years after it was written

To give a very quick introduction, this book is a study of the lives of Brahmin women in a village somewhere in the hills of Nepal. Bennet has rightly figured out that affinal women are treated as dangerous and consanguinal women are treated as sacred in Brahmin communities in Nepal. It gave rise to so many thoughts in me.

The lives of Brahmin women

First of all, I am amazed at what a detailed study she has conducted. She has documented all the different rituals, from birth to vratabandha to marriage to death, complete with diagrams of the placements and objects required in worship. And she has even made an extremely detailed table of who defers to whom during dashain.

By coincidence, I had been reading something parallel at the same time. I was reading the memoirs of one Brahmin woman, Manmaya Sitoula. Disparate issues like the harsh duties of women or the way they touched their husband's feet and drank the water, occurred in the two books parallely and helped me link up and think about the lives of my foremothers. First of all, the harsh life terrified me, and led me to appreciate my own life even more. I don't know what terrified me more: the extremely difficult physical labor that these women had to undergo, or the extreme subservience that they had had to perform. I think the subservience part was more scary, definitely, even though the labor was back breaking. For example, Sitoula talks of how when her third uncle came home, on a horse, his aunt would make him stand on a small wooden stool, and wash his feet, white and beautiful. And then drink that water. And about how, some really devout husband-honoring women would store some of the water from washing his feet in a karuwa, which they would drink when he is traveling…. If this doesn't send shivers into any woman's soul, I don't know what will.

Putting Brahmin rituals in context

To go back to Bennet's book, reading it was also strange in so many levels. The way she described some things felt like she was describing something very foreign, like I was watching the rituals of some other foreign culture from afar, and wondering how those made sense. Rituals fell apart, and that things that have always made sense appeared ridiculous when she described them in such a dispassionate manner. For example, when she says something like, in dashain, for blessing, the elders will put a mixture of red color, rice and yoghurt on younger people's foreheads. I look at this scene from a distane, and think, why red powder? Why rice? Why yoghurt? Why tika? Why does putting a blob of color on the forehead mean a blessing? How does that red blob make things official? How come missing it on dashain means disrespect, or sadness? Similarly, the way Hindus symbolize things, was also put into stark relief by Bennet. For example the worshipping of betel nut as Ganesh. I begin to think ,why? Why does bête nut represent Ganesh? And why should we worship it anyway? And if I, as an atheist, think that the physical existence of an elephant headed deity is merely a figment of imagination, but I still want to be a part of Hindu culture that has nothing to do with gods, for example by being part of Dashain celebration, then why am I to do with the betel nut? I believe most Hindu rituals can be translated into every words which can have meaning for everyone. For example, that the dashain tika is a means of blessing people with plenty (recent rice harvest) and good vibes (red color), and in that sense I accept it. And in the same vein I take the drinking of feet-water to mean subservience, so I reject it. But then what am I to do with the betel nut? And what am I to do with the walnut that the sisters smash in Bhai tika, thus smashing Yama? How does walnut represent Yama?

Myriad questions aside, it was refreshing to look at these Hindu rituals without preconceived notions that we are born with, without the assumptions we have gathered as insiders. It helped me look at and evaluate everything afresh. I agree with most of her observations about the place of women in a Brahmin community, and there are some that I disagree with.

Wives: a threat to agnatic solidarity and asceticism

Let us begin with the agreements. I agree with her central premise, of how wives are dangerous and sisters are sacred in Nepali Hindu communities. Wives are treated like pariahs, ritual outsiders by their partners. The central philosophy is agnatic solidarity, which Bennet has captured so well and in such great depth and detail. And in this, every woman who marries into the family is considered a threat, unless she amalgamates completely into the agnatic family and puts the interest of this family over everything else. While they do most of the physical labor, in rituals their place is low, they are often not even allowed to touch the objects of worship, which would "pollute" the rituals.

I also agree with Bennet's reasons for why wives are treated as dangerous: first of all, it is to control their behavior, most specifically when it pertains to their sexuality. Bennet mentions inheritance, which she gives less priority than I would. For controlling women's behavior, I think the most important reason in inheritance: who can property pass to, in a patrilineal, patrifocal, patrilocal world. Property is passed on only through sons. But sons need wives to procreate, hence the need to guard their sexuality zealously. Heaven forbid if the son happens to pass on his property to another man's offspring. All the stories of love, jealousy, possessiveness, I think they are all manufactured feelings, manufactured to aid this cause. Of inheritance. This applies most often to land, because cattle and chattel, jewelry and cash, can and is often given to women as well. But not land, which is related to the very subsistence of a life in rural areas, before the advent of capitalism and jobs that pay in cash.

While Bennet mentions this reason for controlling women's sexuality, she downplays it in favor of another reason, which I found brilliantly researched and argued. And very, very revealing for someone who has grown up immersed in these philosophies but never put them in this context. She brings up the basic conflict in Hindu philosophy between an ascetic and householder as the reason that women are given a permanently low position. Hinduism idealizes asceticism, or in particular, the ascetic, non-sexual man, because a consideration of women's sexuality is not part of the mainstream where women are merely the sexual objects. But then Hinduism also cannot deny that the householder is needed to sustain life. Hence, men are allowed to become householders, but must try to retain their asceticism as much as possible. Women are a threat to this asceticism, but not all women. Only wives who have sexual roles are threats, and sisters who have non sexual roles are thus revered as signs of purity.

Bennet's observations and arguments are brilliant and compelling. She brings up the ideal of asceticism that men try to implement every day, from the purity of the kitchen, eating habits, not touching children during meals, etc etc. She invokes the idealizing of the Nath culture, which she calls founded on a deep misogyny. This made me realise how much of the misogyny I had already internalized, since I have, on occasion, idealized such systems of ascetic men too. The criticism of the place that they had for women came late, even for me. When Bennet puts the Hindu Brahmin's marriage in the context of this basic conflict between asceticism and domesticity, it makes perfect sense. She shows us things which we understand from the inside but never bothered to put into words.

But I go back to my assertion that this conflict, as a reason for the control of wives, is secondary to the reason of inheritance. Philosophy is second to practical reality, I believe. I believe that philosophies don't make reality, but that philosophy is contoured around reality. The reality, the need to control women, maintain and agnatic solidarity, comes first, I think. Because it gives much to men. It gives men sole control of property, it gives them lordship, it gives them the right to have their feet washed and the resulting water drunk, their right to demand such subservience, the language of dominance which establishes all of this, and it gives them individual slaves in the form of women, sexual and otherwise. Even though sex is more sensational and floats to the foreground, sometimes the otherwise, the invisible labor that a woman puts in at home, is even more important than the sexual aspect. Hence, I think the philosophies of asceticism, and most other dominant philosophies, are created to justify such realities of power structures. Here I differ with Bennet, but it is a small difference, only about which of the two factors is more important in deciding the place of women in Hindu families.

The inequality of Patrifocal and filiafocal systems

But there are bigger differences I have with some of Bennet's conclusions. One of the things that seems surprising to me is how much importance she gives to the filia-focal relationship, as she calls it. Bennet says that the relationships in these families operate on two opposing paradigms: one is patrifocal and other is filiafocal. Here, the patrifocal system is the regular old patriarchy where everyone defers to males in the order of seniority, the household land and money are owned by the senior male, and women's place is dependent on their sexual relationship with the men. The other one, the filiafocal one, is the one which reveres sisters. For example, the worship of virgins. The fact that men touch their forehead to their sisters' in respect, that they give gifts and dakshina to their sister. And if the sisters give them something, they always give something back, which is equal or higher in value.

Bennt calls the filiafocal system and Hindu men's actions towards their sisters the parallel to western chivalry, and I agree. If a man is chivalrous, he invites his sisters to all family functions, gives them generous gifts, and takes care of them if they face hard times. I have seen many such examples where the men are appreciated for taking care of their sisters. All well and good. But then in the western world, chivalry flows from the superior men to the inferior women, and the case is the same in Nepal. Men go out of their way to act generous towards their sisters because they are superior, that's not how they would act with their brothers.

But, Bennet seems to believe that the two systems, patrifocal and filiafocal, are equal. She is constantly amazed that sisters get such respect and deference, dhog and dakshina, in Nepal, and cites them as an example of the high status of sisters. However, I beg to differ. For me, someone who has internalized this system, this was a sign of deep misogyny from early on. For example, men would often cite these examples, of young girls getting worshipped and getting dakshina, as examples of women's superior status. If there is a discussion of unequal gender roles, these examples would be put forth as examples of equality or even women's superiority in "our glorious culture." However, that does nothing to take the everyday reality of women's secondary place, even of daughters who are not really exempt from household tasks or subservience to their male members.

I agree that the symbolism of the filiafocal relationship, the gifts, the dhog, the worship, are all beautiful, which elevate the Hindu system from systems of complete misogyny where no woman is accorded such a space. However, its contribution to the overall reality of gender that a woman lives with throughout her life is a small one. A minuscule one for most women who spend most of the year in their husband's family and only a few days at their natal home. The contribution of the filiafocal relationship to improving a woman's life may be bigger if she lives closer to her natal family and if her natal family is loving, and generous, resourceful and back her up well. But those are a lot of ifs that not many relationships fulfill.

Philosophies justify power structures

More importantly, there is the power structure. Like I mentioned before, this chivalrous relationship is related to the power structure where men hold all the power and decision making roles, and thus can be chivalrous to those left out of the power structure. The worship of women, the gifts and the dhog, make no dint in this structure. Women are just as powerless when it comes to inheritance, and ritual roles in their family to which great emotional and social values are attached. Throughout the book Bennet treats these two systems as though they were equal, sometimes getting breathless in admiration of the filiafocal. When comparing the two, nowhere does she acknowledge that the patrifocal relationship is vastly superior to the filiafocal one. And while the patrifocal system is strictly enforced, the implementation of the filiafocal relationship is optional, and entirely up to the men's generosity, or chivalry in Bennet's words. It can be compromised at any moment if the patriarchy needs it. For example, Bennet mentions that daughters get lighter chores than daughters in law. That's true, but what if there are no daughters-in-aw? Then, willy nilly, it is the daughter who has to do everything. And then the Teej feasts, the marriage dowries, the invitations at family functions, the dakshinas, they are all entirely optional and can be taken away in a slash. But not so the duties of the subservient wife, who cannot put a toe out of line, ever…

In fact, Bennet herself has already documented this, when she quotes a woman. Bennet apparently asked a question about these parallel but competing systems to a woman about who is superior, the father or the daughter, since the father is the head of the patrifocal family but touches his daughter's feet during rituals. "Dharma karma ma bau le chhori ai mannu paryo, jindagi ma chhori le bau lai mannu paryo," the woman says. I couldn't have put it better. I would just like to remind that dharma karma lasts only as long as it lasts, while jindagi lasts forever and more, expanding and spilling on to other lives as well.

Dakshina: a symbol of (only) ritual superiority

A case in point of the inferiority of the filiafocal relationship can be found in the admirably detailed table that Bennet makes of who pays respects to whom in the Dashain festival. She lists out how sons and daughters in law give dhog to their fathers and mothers as a sign of respect, and give a small bheti. Also that sons will touch the feet of their sisters too in deference, even if the sisters are younger, and give them dakshinas. At this point, it seems as if the two relationships are equal, that fathers and sisters are to be equally venerated by sons. In the list is the phupu, who, is in a weird position. Due to her place in the patrifocal system, she is to be given dhog as an elder female. But due to her position in the filiafocal system, as the father's sister, she is to be given dakshina. Now, this makes it seem as if the phupu is double powerful because she gets both the patrifocal and filiafocal marks of respect. In fact, nothing could be farther from reality. The phupu, in practical terms, means nothing in the power relations of a son. She can neither make or enforce decisions like the father and mother, nor can she regularly expect gifts and dakshinas like the sister. In fact, the phupu, because she is a filiafocal member, has far less influence on the son's life than say for example the kaki and badiama, who, because of their patrifocal membership in the agnatic family line, are to be treated as mothers.

Bennet also brings up the point of the dakshina as a sign of the filiafocal woman's superiority, but in my opinion that argument is faulty argument. Bennet compares the dakshina that men give to sisters to the dakshinas that Kshetris give to Brahmins: both are given to ritual superiors by people who are practically more superior. Brothers who make the decisions and claim the inheritance give dakshinas to sisters, and kshetris who rule give dakshina to Brahmins who perform ritual functions. Bennet is right to an extent: these dakshinas are given to ritual superiors, and are examples of chivalry so that the more you give, the more generous you appear even though you don't always have to. But there is one critical difference: Brahmins are far more powerful in comparison to sisters. While the ruling class of Kshetris have the hard power, Brahmins, especially the Brahmins who are so revered, have soft power. Their word is law when it comes to rules of lifestyle: who can marry who, who should be excommunicated because they married low, who can eat with who and who should be excluded, who defers to who, who pays respects to whom, what someone can eat, what a woman should wear, how deeply she should defer to her husband and his agnatic kin, etc. While Brahmins do not have the muscle power, often their word is enough to implement these rules. Sisters do not have the same power in relation to brothers. While married sisters are considered members of their husbands' gotra, spinsters or widowed sisters who live solely on their brothers' generosity cannot dream of telling him what to do. Also, the deference to Brahmins is year-round, while the deference to sisters, as we already discussed, is limited to the ritual. Hence, this comparison should have been better qualified, otherwise it gives the wrong impression of the power and superiority of sisters' position.

Advancing misogyny

And then, I wish she hadn't advanced misogyny by agreeing with the dominant patrifocal thinking that wives are dangerous and divisive. Just for a moment, Bennet seems to have "gone local". She discusses the theme that women are mistrusted by the patriarchal family because they are always scheming to get more of the patrifocal property and to get their husbands to separate from the family. However, instead of seeing this phenomenon neutrally as an observer (which she does for most of the book and the case study), or even as a woman where she could sympathise with all the women forced to amalgamate, willy nilly, into the agnatic joint family, at the cost of her entire being, she chooses to pass the judgment on women. She selects a particularly complicated case with many wives and many conflicts. And even here, despite the fact that none of the characters are perfect or ideal or even "good," I would not fault the women for wanting what they want: less chores, more freedom, separation, etc. And at the end of it, Lynn says something like, in some cases, it is clear that women are as scheming as they are said to be (not her exact words, which I forgot). Aww Lynn, I wish you hadn't said that. Just this once, I wish you had seen the forest and not just one tree, weighed the actions of a particular woman against the social structures and pressures she faced, and refrained from passing judgment. Just by reading the case study, readers would have come to their own conclusions, and the men and the patriarchs would have said what you said anyways, there was really no need to highlight it.

Conclusion

I still haven't finished the book, but wanted to get all this out on paper before I forget, so I might write more in a few months. But until then, I thoroughly enjoyed delving into this book, putting my own experiences and observations into perspective. Sometimes I even learnt new things, for example that fathers will only look at their newborn children if it is ensured that the child is not born under mul or unfavorable stars. What a revelation and food for thought, I even wrote a poem about it. And I enjoyed reading about things that I had taken for granted and never thought to note, for example that while buharis are strictly surveyed and censured for talking or laughing with other men in their husband's family, they are more free to talk, joke and laugh with men when they go back to their natal home. I don't know why, but the revelation of this seemingly small detail that I had never thought to note made a strong impression on me.

In conclusion, Bennet has made a thorough study of the place of high caste women in Nepal, and a created a glittering gem of a book that is a staple of anthropological study even today, almost 40 years after it was written. It's older than me, but still relevant, and that's enough to say how strong the book is in observation and articulation. I had been hearing about it for long, cited in journals and invoked by scholars, and I am glad I finally got around to reading it. It is also an inspiration for further observation and writing for anyone interested in gender in Nepal.