These are snippets from Mr Sashi’s session… Please note that the first sentence is the translation from the original Sanskrit text, and the rest present day meanings. I don’t agree with all of this, but certain points do seem illuminating.
- Shower everyday, get a body massage every alternate day, use soap every third day(otherwise your skin will go dry)
- Use talcum powder on in armpits after a bath. Don’t use deodorants - because the close our sweat pores - very bad for our body.
- There 64 such arts to be popular in a gathering
- According to the Kamasutra - a girl child should be fed and taken care of for the first five years, for the next ten years, the child should be disciplined, after 15 years of age, he/she has a distinct unique personality, and let him/her be. The parents should realise that. The girl should wait for three more years for her parents to find her a match. After the 3 years, she’s free to find her own groom
- For marriage, the physical match and mental match are important. But physical match is slightly more important. Doesn’t mean that mental age is not important. A girl of marriageable age should be sent with friends, in carnivals, festivals etc. (i.e. in public) in the traditional dress. But she should be able to handle herself, and control her urges.
- After marriage, 1st 3 nights, the husband and wife should sleep on the ground and do not involve in sexual activities(should follow brahmacharya). Should not eat stimulating food. For a week, they should go to social events together. This if for the couple to get to know each other(if they don’t know each other before marriage). The guy should gain the full confidence of his wife, before they, uh, start…
- To court a girl / after marriage to win confidence methods (warning - highly guy centric) :
- While playing board games, argue with her with something, and hold her hand and protest. (i.e. get close to her, and show your affection)
- While going swimming, go away from her, go underwater and appear suddenly before her. (i.e. impress her - do unique things)
- During events (in public) sit next to her, and touch her for some reason. (i.e. get rid of the shyness)
- When you’re drinking water, take some in the hand and spray it on her face (i.e. break the ice)
- Gossip/small talk with her to gain her faith.
- Don’t expect her to endure pain or leave her house. i.e. She’s wiser and she wants the boy to figure out wiser plans.
- Saying : To gain a women’s love, show affection to her children. If she doesn’t yet have children, then show affection to the children in front of her. To show that you are "father-material".
Mr Shashi made a very thought provoking comment about the so called ‘womens lib’. I need to dwell on it to reach a conclusion. But what he said is this : Indian women have always been respected and given and equal place in the society. The husband tells her "please take care of the laundry" doesn’t mean she should wash them. She can give it to the dhobi. Is this discrimination against women? The women’s lib is the effect of the west on the east. In the west, a women will have to dress and look like a man to gain respect. She dresses in suits and pants to disguise her womanhood, looks like a man, and calls herself liberated. Is this women’s equality? Or is equality the Indian version of respecting women as they are?
Very interesting thought. I don’t think I agree with him totally, I will have to think on it though
There’s a lot more, but unfortunately my battery is down, and I have to stop now. ta ta, and catch you a bit later after charging…
Technorati Tags: barcampbangalore, barcampbangalore6, kamasutra, panchatantra, tips, dating, tips to win girls
April 19th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
good that you covered this, I missed it
Do u already started implementing point here
April 20th, 2008 at 1:05 am
corrections:
‘Please note that the first sentence is the translation from the original Sanskrit text, and the rest present day meanings.’
–> i am not sure to what are you referring as first sentence is translation and others are not. everything i said was direct translation from the text, with of course my additions to make the point clear for present day context
‘According to the Kamasutra - a girl child should be fed and taken care of for the first five years, for the next ten years, the child should be disciplined, after 15 years of age, he/she has a distinct unique personality, and let him/her be.’
—> this is not in KS. and it is not just for girl child. this is true for either boy or girl. first 5 years give the child love and affection. next 10 years discipline, training, education (more than love, don’t pamper with undue love, give more of self control, discipline and education. then at 16 consider him/her as a friend.
‘For marriage, the physical match and mental match are important. But physical match is slightly more important.’
–> there is no reference that physical match is more important!
‘Don’t expect her to endure pain or leave her house. i.e. She’s wiser and she wants the boy to figure out wiser plans.’
–> the reference is to eloping if things are not working out. she is wiser to not take such steps since if the guy can’t figure out an amicable way, he is already failing the test of being tactful in society.
thanks.
April 20th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
@Shashi - sorry for the mistakes!
@Prashant - no probs
April 20th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
[...] Snippets from Panchatantra and Kamasutra - BCB Apr [...]
April 20th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
As long as Shashi’s comment are reproduction of what Kamasutra supposedly ‘means’ its fine. But if it is used to make a general comment on contemporary India, it’s highly contentious. May be Shashi should display the bibliography which he has considered or field work done before making such sweeping statements about the condition of women across different social and economic strata apart from the legal categories of four religions and caste and subcastes. i am hoping to see to see the studies Shashi has referred to. But if i misunderstood the context of the statements my apologies.
April 20th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Sir,
I think Mr Shashi was merely translating the Kamasutra, and explaining what it “means” with the use of every day examples. He was not advocating it, nor saying that was the ‘right’ way.
He was merely explaining it to us, and making it easier for us to understand using modern examples.
April 20th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Mohan, there was some mix up in my comment. i was referring to the following report by you: “Indian women have always been respected and given and equal place in the society. The husband tells her “please take care of the laundry” doesn’t mean she should wash them. She can give it to the dhobi. Is this discrimination against women? The women’s lib is the effect of the west on the east.”
also look at the following statement. They defy even the rudimentary knowledge of women’s movements in the west or the engagement of various scholars and people within India who do not see their work or efforts as direct continuation of ‘Western’ feminism.
“In the west, a women will have to dress and look like a man to gain respect. She dresses in suits and pants to disguise her womanhood, looks like a man, and calls herself liberated. Is this women’s equality? Or is equality the Indian version of respecting women as they are?”
April 20th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Those were direct quotations, from Mr Shashi.
)
(Which is again why I have the big disclaimer in front of the post
April 20th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
correction:
“responsibility and accountability are two separate things. while he is accountable for getting resources in the house, she is responsible for managing the house, …”
she is accountable (and depending on case by case, she may be responsible as well, e.g. if they don’t have enough resources). the maid is responsible for cleaning, dhobi responsible for laundry etc etc. they all report to her.
April 20th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
and here are some links about power suits for women:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/21/AR2006122101852.html
“To look professional and be taken seriously, you need to wear a jacket,” noted retail consultant Susan Rolontz of the Tobe Report. Rolontz made this comment not with a drumroll, but in the most nonchalant manner possible. How could anything other than a jacket epitomize power, confidence and authority?
What a woman needs for her workday is a sharp jacket and a good handbag, says Rolontz, whose research focuses on the women’s designer market. (She is not talking about the attire of the junior assistant but rather the woman who is signing the checks.)
But for most of the ’90s, designers shunned day dresses. They created party dresses, sundresses and expensive luncheon frocks. But the sort of dresses a working woman could afford and could wear to the office were practically nonexistent.
Yet it is difficult to recall an instance when one of the women of Capitol Hill appeared in public during the day wearing a dress — or without a blazer.
Mostly, though, even if the dress is tweed, gray flannel or glen plaid, it doesn’t resonate like a suit, which makes an unequivocal statement of authority. It designates who’s in charge. It says listen to me and obey. It says give me your money and your votes.
——————–
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/life/2006/07/14/stories/2006071400290400.htm
Finally Bollywood has caught up with the world of high-powered corporations, with Madhur Bhandarkar’s Corporate, which released last Friday. Men in power suits. Women too. Boardroom battles.
Nishigandha Dasgupta, played by Bipasha Basu, is a bright spark in the Sehgal Group. The only thing she stops at is actually getting into bed with a rival, but has no qualms in playing pimp (she puts a lady of easy virtue in her place), paying bribes (she is shown taking bundles of notes out of her handbag to pay off an informant a couple of times), and lying through her teeth — to gain access to the secret plans of their closest competitor, the Marwah group.
———————
http://media.www.blackcollegeview.com/media/storage/paper928/news/2007/02/27/News/The-New.Power.Suit.How.Powerful.Women.Choose.Suits.To.Fit.Their.Lifestyle-2828146.shtml
While today’s power suit gives women more options to be feminine, sexy and trendy, Washington women tend to choose suits that exude confidence and authority.
“The quintessential DC business woman would be in a pants suit, probably black or grey,” said Sullivan.
“Most corporate jobs just don’t allow you to wear the trendy work shorts or wrap dresses that are in,” said Levy.
Women are also taking style inspiration from men’s suiting. Deborah Johnson of Emporio Armani in San Francisco named tuxedo inspired pants-suits as a growing trend. Shimmery satin accents and tailored waistlines keep this power suit feminine while still maintaining authority and professionalism.
—————
http://media.www.mtsusidelines.com/media/storage/paper202/news/2008/04/03/Opinions/Focus.On.Clintons.Politics.Not.Her.Power.Suits-3299586.shtml
Women in power are oft criticized or perceived as “soft” or “weak” if considered too traditionally feminine, while they are also accused of being too “hard” or “strident” if they come off as assertive and powerful - traditionally masculine attributes.
Looking through the media coverage of Clinton over the past year, it seems that a lot of journalists just don’t know what to do with a strong female candidate. Old-fashioned sexism prevails, as seen in the repeated scrutiny of her appearance and the concentration on her role in-and attitude toward-marriage and motherhood.
Here is just a sampling of the sexist coverage of Clinton over the past year: An opinion article in The Oklahoman referenced her “frequent wearing of dark pants suits to conceal her bottom-heavy figure.”
Political cartoonist Nick Anderson created an animated cartoon which ran on the Houston Chronicle Web site featuring a curvaceous Clinton being asked, “What you gonna do with all that junk? All that junk inside your trunk?”
Though this comic was clearly an opinion piece and not bona fide hard news, it is important to note that, had it been commentating on a male candidate’s figure, it would have been unprecedented and shocking.
The Washington Post ran an article on July 20 entitled “Hillary Clinton’s Tentative Dip Into New Neckline Territory.” The article’s lead: “There was cleavage on display Wednesday afternoon on C-SPAN2. It belonged to Sen. Hillary Clinton.”
After briefly discussing what it was that Clinton was discussing (the burdensome cost of higher education, a worthy topic), the article divulges: “She was wearing a rose-colored blazer over a black top. The neckline sat low on her chest and had a subtle V-shape. The cleavage registered after only a quick glance. No scrunch-faced scrutiny was necessary. There wasn’t an unseemly amount of cleavage showing, but there it was. Undeniable.”
Unbelievable.
USA Today’s Annette Fuentes expresses a refreshing point of view in a Feb. 13 op-ed article. “Women in government stand out because of their strength, intellect and ideas - not because of their hemlines,” she writes. “Yet here we are in 2007 still treating powerful women like a novelty.”
Gail Dines, sociology and women’s studies professor at Wheelock College in Boston, told Fuentes that women politicians are often valued more for their appearance than their ability. “To be a woman politician,” Dines suggests, “you have to strategize and work hard, and yet what matters is what designer you’re wearing. It’s a way to make women in power less scary. It’s putting women into a comfort zone for those who are still baffled by how to treat strong women.”
Gender stratification has come a long way in the United States, but it still has a long way to go.
Women still only make 75 cents to every man’s dollar, and Hillary Clinton still has to worry about her cleavage getting just as many headlines as her policies.
————
need i say more?
these are happening in april 2008!!
April 20th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
mohan,
i had just now posted a long article with URLs and excerpts about power suits and women, articles from US newspapers in april 2008. it is not shown in the page!! not sure what happened.
April 20th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
just one reference should be enough to corroborate my statement.
april 3rd 2008:
Focus on Clinton’s politics, not her power suits
Women in power are oft criticized or perceived as “soft” or “weak” if considered too traditionally feminine, while they are also accused of being too “hard” or “strident” if they come off as assertive and powerful - traditionally masculine attributes.
Here is just a sampling of the sexist coverage of Clinton over the past year: An opinion article in The Oklahoman referenced her “frequent wearing of dark pants suits to conceal her bottom-heavy figure.”
Political cartoonist Nick Anderson created an animated cartoon which ran on the Houston Chronicle Web site featuring a curvaceous Clinton being asked, “What you gonna do with all that junk? All that junk inside your trunk?”
Though this comic was clearly an opinion piece and not bona fide hard news, it is important to note that, had it been commentating on a male candidate’s figure, it would have been unprecedented and shocking.
U.S. News & World Report’s Gloria Borger accused Clinton on Feb. 12 of using a “mommy strategy” to feminize her image and appeal to voters by playing up her role as a mother and wife.
The Washington Post ran an article on July 20 entitled “Hillary Clinton’s Tentative Dip Into New Neckline Territory.” The article’s lead: “There was cleavage on display Wednesday afternoon on C-SPAN2. It belonged to Sen. Hillary Clinton.”
After briefly discussing what it was that Clinton was discussing (the burdensome cost of higher education, a worthy topic), the article divulges: “She was wearing a rose-colored blazer over a black top. The neckline sat low on her chest and had a subtle V-shape. The cleavage registered after only a quick glance. No scrunch-faced scrutiny was necessary. There wasn’t an unseemly amount of cleavage showing, but there it was. Undeniable.”
Unbelievable.
Gail Dines, sociology and women’s studies professor at Wheelock College in Boston, told Fuentes that women politicians are often valued more for their appearance than their ability. “To be a woman politician,” Dines suggests, “you have to strategize and work hard, and yet what matters is what designer you’re wearing. It’s a way to make women in power less scary. It’s putting women into a comfort zone for those who are still baffled by how to treat strong women.”
Gender stratification has come a long way in the United States, but it still has a long way to go.
Women still only make 75 cents to every man’s dollar, and Hillary Clinton still has to worry about her cleavage getting just as many headlines as her policies.
April 21st, 2008 at 9:20 pm
@anil post #5:
i was impromptu translating directly from KS. of course i had to give some interpretations and make connections for modern times. that was the whole point of the talk.
regarding women being respected in india. what i mentioned was what the shAstra recommend. if any man doesn’t respect an otherwise fine woman, he is not following any indian value. he can’t quote anything to support his lack of respect for women. so, he is solely responsible for his actions.
i was not making sweeping statements about anything, but merely informing the audience as to what our culture actually teaches us. when we do bad things and say hinduism/indian culture teaches it, we are simply ignorant, selfish, cruel and barbaric. e.g. there is no support for violence against or oppression of women anywhere.
it is a very long topic, and not a matter of argument, but of discussion! i have no agenda or motive other than to introduce today’s youth to the wonders that was india, the continuity of our long culture, and how we may have forgotten it, not known it etc.
@anil #7
—-
Mohan, there was some mix up in my comment. i was referring to the following report by you: “Indian women have always been respected and given and equal place in the society. The husband tells her “please take care of the laundry” doesn’t mean she should wash them. She can give it to the dhobi. Is this discrimination against women? The women’s lib is the effect of the west on the east.”
—–
there are two aspects of life - earn and use. two major roles. one makes the house, other makes the home. who does what is not important. but statistically, you will not find many women who will marry a guy who wants to be a homemaker.
managing a home is a full time, respectable and VERY important role. psychologically women in general are more caring. if you read sexist remark in this, it is your problem, not mine
if she chooses to be the home manager, then she is only accountable for the works to be done. if they can afford, she can surely have maids, washerman, gardener etc. but watching them over, managing them etc is not trivial and is her role. if they can’t afford all these services, then she is also responsible.
but like in US where maids are expensive, men help out in the house chores, when both of the work, like dishes, laundry, vacuuming etc. yet, it is still she who is accountable. he will pack the kids bags, but she will make sure lunch is made to be packed!
—-
also look at the following statement. They defy even the rudimentary knowledge of women’s movements in the west or the engagement of various scholars and people within India who do not see their work or efforts as direct continuation of ‘Western’ feminism.
“In the west, a women will have to dress and look like a man to gain respect. She dresses in suits and pants to disguise her womanhood, looks like a man, and calls herself liberated. Is this women’s equality? Or is equality the Indian version of respecting women as they are?”
—-
this statement is based on my stay in US for 17 years and was referring to where the power matters really - the corporate boardroom. the western society has finally reluctantly agreed to give women the equal status legally (women could vote only after 1920!), but even today there are more than 4 MILLION domestic violence cases registered!! so what is this? law is made and yet they hit women, not just disrespect.
check out http://www.aidv-usa.com/Statistics.htm
The Human Factor
- 85-95% of all domestic violence victims are female.
- Over 500,00 women are stalked by an intimate partner each year.
- 5.3 million women are abused each year.
- 1,232 women are killed each year by an intimate partner.
- Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women.
- Women are more likely to be attacked by someone they know rather than by a stranger.
and please search for “women and power suit” and see what experts advice women for dress code if they want to climb the corporate ladder! bobcut hair or tight bun, power suit of deep shade (like men), bodice to conceal curves, not visible makeup (remember corporate movie and bipasha basu?)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/21/AR2006122101852.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9403EFD9103BF936A15750C0A961958260
If there is a new power paradigm for Hollywood honchos and computer billionaires, why isn’t there one for working women? Perhaps because women are still taking direction from designers who think referencing men’s clothes is the only way to give them authority. And perhaps that is because no powerful woman has emerged to demonstrate a new paradigm of dress.
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:40 am
For me Shashi’s comments flow largely from the way notions about India were constructed by the orientalists and the nationalists wherein the nationalists developed much of their anti-colonial discourse on the lines of oriental thinking. Most importantly the ‘Indian values’, ‘Indianess’ and the nation identity get constructed on the body of the woman at one level and as against an assumed homogeneous west (which in Shashi’s comments also includes north America). These tendencies, (or shall i call discourses) continue to this day and also shape a lot of public/private discussion on defining ourselves. This trend has is getting interesting turns with the sudden feeling that India is the emerging superpower in the context of liberalisation. I see Shashi’s responses and Mohan’s report of his remarks falling in the same trajectory. With these observations i sign out of this discussion. Thank you.