“Ek chutki sindoor ki keemat tum kya jaano Ramesh Babu…ishwar ka aashirwaad hota hai ek chutki sindoor…suhagan ke sar ka taj hota hai ek chutki sindoor…har aurat ka khawab hota hai ek chutki sindoor”, one of the most iconic dialogue from Farah Khan’s movie “Om Shanti Om” (2007) reverberates through Indian cinema and is echoed in different ways through soap operas every day.
The exuberant acoustic music played in the background when a husband puts sindoor (vermilion) on his wife, is a theatrical play to glorify the whole act of putting sindoor and make it seem desirable for the female audience. The way of communicating the significance of sindoor under the garb of romance is aimed to provide an aesthetic appeal to the female audience. It wants to make them desire not just the sindoor but the whole idea of a perfect marriage in general and an ‘ideal’ wife identity in particular.
The propagation of the idea of an ‘ideal’ Hindu wife takes a charismatic turn when the teachings (on how to be a ‘good’ wife) of a (patriarchal Hindu) family, is strengthened by the representation of virtuous wifehood in Indian cinema and daily soaps. The whole façade of a sacrificial and devoted wife, who prays for the longevity of her husband by wearing visible signs of a sacramental marriage, has become a dominant powerplay for producing and promoting a particular kind of (patriarchal) ideology by the so-called carriers of culture. And this authorial power induces what Michel Foucault calls “pleasure and desire” in women. Thus, the “miraculous evaporation of history” (Roland Barthes) essentialises the whole idea of sindoor and makes it seem eternal. With little or no trace of its origin, it achieves the natural state and is not read as a motive, but as a reason for ensuring the longevity of the husband.
It is not just the desire which is being created through T.V., but there also takes place the task of instilling fear among the audience by promoting stereotypes early deaths of husbands whose wives don’t respect the ‘holy’ vermilion, or the very clichéd notion that the falling of sindoor on the floor would consequently lead to mishaps with the husband.
However, the Hindu scriptures play a prominent role in naturalizing the notion of a woman wearing sindoor as an ‘ideal’ Hindu wife which tends to bind her within the boundaries of femininity. There are many signifiers such as subservient behavior, procreation, mangalsutra, toe-rings, nose pin, domesticity so on and so forth to signify the ‘idealism’ of Hindu wife as prescribed in the scriptures, but here in the following essay the focus will be upon how the vermilion in the parting of a married woman’s hair is not just a powdery substance but an arrogant mark that demands her to be an ‘ideal’ wife.
Traditionally, women had to prove their virtuousness in numerous ways and out of that whole lot the two most important factors which hold relevance in contemporary times are the necessity of reproduction and the enforced display of marital signs. The colour red, in the Hindu tradition, signifies auspiciousness, love, passion and potential growth. According to the Puranas, sindoor is said to be worn by married women as a mark of their distinct marital identity and to ensure the longevity of the husband. As a result of which it becomes a visible expression of a woman’s desire for her husband’s longevity. It also suggests a wife’s belongingness and devotion towards her husband.
Vermilion represents the female energy of Sati and Parvati. Sati is considered an ‘ideal’ Hindu wife because she gave her life for her husband’s honour. Every Hindu wife is supposed to emulate her in order to attain the status of ‘virtuous’ wife and moksha in afterlife. According to the scriptures, goddess Parvati grants ‘akhand soubhagya’ (lifelong good fortune) and protects the husbands of all women who wear sindoor in their hair parting.
Also, according to an answer on Quora, the scientific justification says that mercury, one of the primary components of sindoor is responsible for activation of sexual drive and libidinal energy which helps in removing the fear of performing the first sexual act. Since time immemorial, sindoorhas been the dominant signifier for determining the ‘idealism’ of a wife. Hence, it does not limit itself to a powdery substance but carries within itself the whole lot of duties that an ‘ideal’ wife is supposed to perform according to the Hindu scriptures.
The acceptance and application of sindoor by women across cultures without comprehending its implication highlights the successful ideological indoctrination of patriarchy. The sindoor along the parting of a woman’s hair connotes not just her marital status, but when examined carefully, points out that she is ‘taken’ and is sexually ‘available’ to just one man. It is the proof of monogamy, her loyalty towards her husband. But no such customary commitment is forced upon the husband who can only confirm his marital status on being asked. This non-egalitarian arrangement is deeply problematic. The obligation of monogamy is exclusively extended to the woman. The man, on the other hand, is under no ritualistic obligation to profess his fidelity. It further signifies that the woman with a vermilion mark is under the protection of her husband and hence no one should make mistake to cast an evil eye on her. Thus, strengthening Manusmriti’s notion of “…nothing must be done independently” (V.147) and “in childhood, a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband, when her lord is dead to her sons; a woman must never be independent (V.148).”
Right from the title of a daily soap called “Kumkum Bhagya” to the ritualistic belief of Goddess Parvati granting ‘akhand soubhagya’, it is made explicit how the society has equated soubhagya(good fortune) with sindoor. It is made ideologically as well as materially clear that a woman, who does not wear the mark of her marital identity, will be chastised not just by the society but by the ultimate authority (God).
According to A Manual of Hindu Marriage (1997), “a wife always wears this mark on the parting of hair on her head as a proud insignia of a worthy husband” because of the predominant belief that “a virtuous wife should constantly serve her husband like a god, even if he behaves badly, freely indulges his lust and is devoid of any good qualities” (Manusmriti, V.154). Hence, the onus of praying for the husband’s longevity, for his fortunes and misfortunes, for dealing with him and for making all the compromises and sacrifices, is always on the woman. This is perhaps why in Bengal a festival called Sindoor Khela takes place which is all about the celebration of a proud feeling of possessing a husband, no matter how pathetic he is. It’s unbelievable and incomprehensible to assimilate that a non-passive, non-living thing like sindoor has been granted so much agency over a living set of individuals (women). The ceremony of sindoor daan is self-reflexive of the fact that a man’s donation (sindoor) is to be placed on a higher pedestal and it must be given utmost importance in the lives of women.
The supposed belief associated with the vermilion being responsible for the activation of sexual drive is the reason why its use is prohibited for unmarried women and widows. This clearly foregrounds the fundamentalists’ ideas of possessing a control over the womb and carnal desires. It’s not just the libidinal energy of women which is kept in check but their agency is being threatened. In a society which functions on the lines of religious scriptures, a lot has been said about women’s chastity but for a man, polygamy is considered to be “an act of merit” (Mahabharata, 1.160).
The sindoor applied in the parting of a married woman’s hair symbolizes the sacredness of her fertile potential (when exercised within the confines of patriarchal marriage). Even if the husband does not perform the duties a marriage brings, he is represented by the sindoor and is considered borderline invincible. This can be very well illustrated from a scene in the Mahabharata where Draupadi is said to have wiped off her sindoor in disgust and despair when the Pandavas fail to provide her with the ‘protection’ which they are supposed to provide. It is evident how history has framed a woman like Draupadi who not only hindered the dominant ideology by having a polygamous marriage but also rose in angst against the failure of the Pandavas on performing their supposed duty. This shows the timidity of society in chastising a woman for not taking the ‘signs’ seriously and for hampering the rules of patriarchy. Therefore, a woman like Draupadi is not given the status of an ‘ideal’ wife in Hindu scriptures because “by violating her duty towards her husband, a wife is a disgrace in this world…” (Manusmriti, 5.164).
There is also a prevalent belief running in the contemporary scenario according to which sindoor is worn by women only for its aesthetic appeal. However, this belief is flawed because one cannot overlook the message which the sindoor carries with itself. Film star Rekha faced a major socio-religious controversy on wearing sindoor casually at an award ceremony. The self-confessed righteous defenders of Hinduism took her to task for apparently harping on the ‘privilege’ only secured to married women. This foregrounds that the sindoor is not devoid of meaning and the ‘privilege’ which is being stressed upon is the privilege to reproduce, to be proud of being ‘taken’ and of being under the protection of a man. Therefore, it should not be seen as merely ornamental but as a position solely reserved for married women to prove their ‘idealism’. Because if the sindoor is only worn for aesthetic appeal by women, regardless of their marital status, it would cease to be the signifier of male authority over women, which is what patriarchy cannot endure.
Hence, what is implicit is the glaring proof of a woman’s lack of agency and the uneven power dynamics which foreground how the egalitarianism on which a relationship rests, is coloured, quite literally in favour of men. Sindoor has been given so much importance in Hinduism that it is considered a soubhagya for a wife to die before her husband, that is, with the vermilion intact in her hair. This is perhaps because it is hard for Brahmanical patriarchy to accommodate women’s separate identities, as failure of doing it would result in the collapse of the entire structure on which patriarchy rests.
The father gives the daughter away to the husband who must henceforth bear all her responsibilities. He procures charge of her life and she wears the signs of marriage in consent because it is considered must for a married woman to bear proof of her husband’s authority. But as Barthes foregrounds that “where then is man in this family picture? Nowhere and everywhere, like the sky, the horizon, an authority which at once determines and limits a condition” (“From Mythologies, 1972).
Women must understand the ingrained misogyny symbolically embedded in the vermilion powder which ensures their subordination to men. The vermilion can be termed as the sole representative of the entire set of values and duties that Hinduism expects and demands from an ‘ideal’ wife. It is important for women to realize that it is not the verdict of God which is being circulated but a well thought out the political play of ideology that is being propagated to ensure the dominance of the hierarchical structure.
Like all other myths, this too is silently rooted within patriarchy but is “naturalized, frozen and eternalized” in such a way that it becomes almost impossible to see the deep-rooted misogyny that it contains and exercises on a regular basis. The myth which has been considered as the ‘ultimate state of being’, as propounded in the sacred texts, should not be taken as the verdict of god, since the texts are composed by the men in “authority” who hold a strong gender bias. Sindoor or for that matter any signifier cannot be a catalyst for determining a woman’s ‘idealism’ because idealism is itself a masculine construct which functions on the lines of patriarchy to ensure women’s subjugation to men. Therefore, it has become increasingly important for women to move away from the internalisation of such mythical practices entirely, and focus on their upliftment independently.
Source - Youth Ki Awaz
