Thinking in English- Its been 60 years post Independence!

I think English in India is like Persian or Sanskrit... a language of those in power. Recently, some member had posted a very long reply to my comment on the thread motta-paati-virginity-what-nonsense-ask-some-brahmins (which talked about virginity and the control men had over the women whose virginity they 'took'. It also justified shaving off a widow's head because hair 'conducted' sexuality). I had thought that this post, which gave some very offensive textual evidence from the scriptures about the "importance" of virginity was a ere joke, I mean can any person living in this era having grown up in a country working hard to emancipate women and people thought to be lower castes really believe that women ought to be controlled, that widows heads should be shaved of because the controller was dead? If virginity and "sexual activation" made a man the Supreme Controller, then why must the husband exercise such control? That sounds like the justification given for monarchy.

Now, maybe I'm being "modern". But thats exactly how religion survives, by being dynamic and accommodating. I did reply in jest, saying that if virginity makes a woman the taker's slave then the last person who should be enslaving her is the husband and so, virginity must be lost to a total stranger. But, apparently, this is a case of "thinking in English". That's exactly what our azhwars were doing when they tried to create an equal society. I draw a comparison between caste and gender because these are two kinds of oppressions that have been sanctioned by "religious books". So many dalits converted to escape violence. So many people are turning atheist. Have we Hindus finally had enough?

I am Vaishnavite. I never call myself Brahmin (yet, I registered here to read about this community). If the Shastras must be believed, then I am no individual, I'm just a man's daughter. I am casteless, I must be called Brahmin because my father is one. Well, Ambedkar had pointed this out many many years ago. My question is, should the Shastras be believed when they say things which have no relevance today at all?

I am no Arundhati Roy. I'm not urging people to dismiss religion but to engage with it. After Bhakti Movements and contemporary Dalit and Feminist Movements, its time our rituals and religious books get modified to redefine what a Hindu woman is. Maybe people are forgetting their old traditions, maybe. Or maybe its just the language that is changing. English, Tamil, Sanskrit, isn't the message important? The cruel edge that religious "secondary citizenship" has won't be borne for long.

This person(who called me "dry clouds") talked about Jawaharlal Nehru. I can't think of a bigger threat to our religion, and to society in general than his idea of secularism(yet, we needed an agnostic to pass rights guaranteeing women's rights). As pointed out by many critics, Nehru chose to simply ignore communalism. We cannot afford to do so. Atheist think that religion is mere mumbo jumbo and they are quite right, at times. By giving Hinduism a new face, all this could change.

In the words of Charlotte Bronte "Convention is not morality, self-righteousness is not religion"