History « Inner Reflections Transcribed

Kahani Tawaif Ki Zubani: Tale of a Courtesan (Heera Mandi)

August 14, 2009 at 11:25 pm | In Culture, Gender Issues, History, Learning, Life, Men, Muslims, Patriarchy, Society, Women | 2 Comments

Following from my previous post on the book DAncing Girls of Lahore is this documentary into the lives of prostitutes of Heera Mandi. The documentary goes through the various reasons behind this trade, their own stories, the lives of generations of tawaif’s who are born into the profession, the prized virgnity of young courtesans, the secrets and revelations made by sex workers themselves, their pimps (some whom are the male members of the family) and even the musicians which provide the medium for mujra entertainment.

This is part 1 of 6. The rest is available on youtube

“Mere Sartaaj”

February 25, 2009 at 8:31 pm | In Culture, Family, Gender Issues, History, Just for Fun, Learning, Life, Men, Muslims, Non-Muslim, Women | 7 Comments
Tags: desi husbands, marriage humour, sartaj

For those interested in the many facets and quirks of the Desi culture especially relating to relationship dynamics, there is the intriguing world of those bound in matrimony (the married folks).

You may, or may not be aware, but there are many many phrases and references in desi circles to the husband, all without actually using or referring to his name in any shape or form.

Some examples being:

Mere Sartaaj: My crown (literal translation crown of my head)
Majazi Khuda: Worldly God
Jee: affectionate term best translated as “Dear”
Jaan/Jaanu/Jaani: My life
Khasam: Husband (not terribly PC – used in Punjabi dialects and commonly when referring to another’s husband rather than one’s own)
Khawandh: Husband (in ye olde Urdu)
Shohar: Husband (in ye olde Urdu)
(insert childs name)’s Abbu: Father of (insert childs name)
Mian: affectionate term, best translated as my dear one, darling. (In Urdu books they always referred to the parrot as Mian Mittu (sweet darling) )
Wo: (Formal) Them
Aap: (Formal) You
Unko: (Formal) Them
Mera Bhudda: My old man

Amongst some Desi women calling the husband by his name would be a considered rude, disrespectful, perhaps a sign of defiance, ill manners and (in the extreme form)a method of belittling his authority or insulting him. For some it was the local custom of the culture to call the husband using the children’s name as a suffix to Father e.g. Father of X. Some even believed using his name would incur wrath or bring about bad luck from the spirits, the worst case scenario resulting in his death.

Such attitudes are still held amongst the elder generations where women still refer to their husbands in the formal “them”. As a result one resorts to referring to the husband using formal language or speaking of him using the formal rather than informal nuances (e.g. using “wo”, “uney” (“they” or “them”)) – anything but definitely not calling him by name.

Part of these attitudes and customs go back to the idea of respecting the elder or those superior to you. Not calling elders/superiors by their first name is a code of conduct in Desi cultures – you refer to them either as brother, sister, aunty or uncle. And as the husband was (and is) considered the “leader” the same rules governing conduct relating to names were (are) also applied to him.

However, as time passes these attitudes, ideas and superstitions are dying out particularly amongst the educated city dwellers in the Indian Subcontinent. There remains a small minority of the rich upper class to refer the husband in the formal in the company of others- perhaps as this is more appealing for their social standing, having an air of aristocracy reminiscent of the nawabs – haut monde .

But you can still come across the odd scenario where a woman will want to gain the attention of her husband in a gathering of other couples. She hesitates to use his name and will instead say “sunaiyeh” ((Formal) listen) or a combined with “jee” to get “sunaiyeh jee”. This results in all the old men turning around assuming their wife is seeking his attention or calling for them.

Hilarious. I kid you not.

Fading Traditions – Devadasi’s (Temple Prostitutes): BBC World Service Documentary

February 13, 2009 at 6:00 am | In Children, Culture, History, Learning, Life, Men, Non-Muslim, Society, Women | 7 Comments

Three programmes investigating ancient traditions and ways of life – two of which have sparked struggles for survival; the third, a campaign for eradication.

Part Three : Temple Prostitutes

A group of former devadasis – or Temple Prostitutes – are fighting to eradicate a centuries-old Hindu tradition which turns them into prostitutes.

Originally, devadasi were celibate dancing girls used in temple ceremonies and they entertained members of the ruling class.

But sometime around the 6th Century, the practice of “dedicating” girls to Hindu gods became prevalent in a practise that developed into ritualised prostitution.

The girls are mainly of the lowest class, ‘untouchables,’ and their fight is the ultimate clash of ancient and modern culture in India.

Link for audio is available from the website, here

Muslim Conquests: Violent or Not?

March 29, 2008 at 2:35 pm | In History, Islam, Learning, Muslims, Non-Muslim, Society | 16 Comments

I was briefly reading up the history of Muslim conquests and began to wonder how the entire process of spreading Islam was done exactly. We have all heard of “Islam was spread by the sword” but how accurate is that statement? Where and has this statement been borne from? (Orientalists?)

I know during the Prophet’s time he (saw) sent out letters inviting people to accept Islam, but I had not realised there was a clause relating to this as it was commonly portrayed to be an open invitation with no compulsion to accept. The following is an excerpt of such a letter sent to Persia (Iran):

“In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful. From Muhammad, the Messenger of God, to the great Kisra of Iran. Peace be upon him, who seeks truth and expresses belief in God and in His Prophet and testifies that there is no god but God and that He has no partner, and who believes that Muhammad is His servant and Prophet. Under the Command of God, I invite you to Him. He has sent me for the guidance of all people so that I may warn them all of His wrath and may present the unbelievers with an ultimatum. Embrace Islam so that you may remain safe. And if you refuse to accept Islam, you will be responsible for the sins of the Magi.”[8]

Source

Other sources speak of “accepting Islam or be subdued”

Now if Muslim conquests were indeed non-violent and were initially built on trade and export as is commonly proposed as the most effective and speedy method by which Islam spread, then on which occasions was it spread through battles and capturing other lands/cities/tribes/? I know vaugely of the Crusades, so I assume it to be the “norm” of past centuries and era’s to create empires and let their influence and allow them the opportunity to attain “salvation” by reigning over foreign lands, peoples and cultures. Coloniasm isn’t any different. Some would say the same about globalisation.

When was it presumed to be necessary to let battle commence? Was it in refusal of the invitation letter? Direct or indirect misdealings and/or threat?

Books on this topic are usually incredibly biased (as are most historical books on any event) which is why whenever I have referred to it, it just confuses the issue further.