I saw a telugu film Stri which was screened on DD around International women's day. It was the story of a woman hopelessly in love with a womanising, alcoholic, gambling, good-for-nothing guy. She forgives him every time he commits a crime and tries to get him out of it, even when he sets her hut on fire while she is sleeping inside because she refuses to give him her chain which he demands for a prostitute he is enamoured with. The villagers save her but she risks their goodwill by refusing to testify against her lover. Even when she finds him with the other woman, she only blames her for trying to steal her husband while she is willing to forgive him. In the end she is about to be handed over to the police for helping him steal some cargo from a boat hoping he could have a fresh start. In her heart she knows that he would take the money straight to the prostitute while she would suffer beatings in the hands of the police. The film ends with her saying "But once he has spent the money he will have no one to go to and he will come back to me as I am the only one who really loves him."

I was angry, furious and in tears. Why was this woman shown in a favourable light? Why did this film win awards? Why was it shown in International film festivals? Was she someone to be admired? Was she a woman to be celebrated? Is this a celebration of the all forgiving, suffering, masochistic Bhartiya Naari? A perpetuation of the culture that deified Nalayani?
We all know it happens around us everyday - in the lives of our domestic helps. We know it happened in the years when women were helpless and dependent. And sometimes even to educated working women today. The other day a relative was telling me how her colleague puts up with an alcoholic husband who has lost his job and spends half her money so she has to struggle to make ends meet. Apparently when he is sober he is the most loving husband and she feels helpless to leave him, especially now that he is jobless and has no one else. She blames it on his circumstances. She consults astrologers in the hope of the stars changing and bringing miraculous changes in their life.
Why can't she see that he is exploiting her kindness and leave him and realise that is the only way he will come to his senses?! It is not a show of strength but one of weakness - one that is not willing to let go and help him seek professional help. Or do such women enjoy a sense of power in being there when they come back destroyed every time? If so, they both need psychiatric help.

Why do we need to showcase films that celebrate such doormats? I agree that it celebrates the capacity of a woman to love and forgive. But I think the need of the hour is to tell women to stand up for their rights and not be forgiving of such criminals. The girl in Stri is so drunk with her suicidal sacrificial tendencies that she requests the writer she meets on the boat to write her story. For what? Immortalise her stupidity? Does she expect to acquire the status of a Sati and be worshipped for her lack of self worth and sense?

I remember being brought up on a diet of such stories of sacrifice and masochism. Women burning themselves like camphor and sandalwood, like a lamp that destroys itself while spreading light all around. And it seemed such a romantic thing to do. Americans have a nice word for this : "losers." This is precisely the kind of anger that I feel when I see representations of Paro ( Devdas) and Lolita ( parineeta). Romanticising women treated shabbily by men. Women smothered by possessiveness - as if they are objects to be owned. At least you can justify these characters by saying they are from a period where the role of a woman was perceived differently.But Stri? Today? It is not enough to have laws against abuse and facilities for education to empower women. Women must rise above these stereotypes and empower themselves. And can we expect some help from media in putting an end to idealising doormats? Bring on the Chak de s and Dor s please. Stri s are passé and we can manage quite well without them in the sisterhood.

Watched an iranian film - Leila. A very insightful portrayal of a woman who is forced by her mother-in-law to share her husband with another woman because she cannot bear him children.Her husband finally gives in to her pressure only on condition that she would not leave him because he loves her very much. But in spite of all her strength she is unable to stay in the same house when he actually brings home another woman as his wife, even though she herself had given him her approval. The plot would fit as well in any Indian televison serial or film except that in this film all melodrama had been totally avoided and the feelings of all concerned portrayed sensitively.

Being a woman I could relate to Leila very well - her sense of guilt ( though entirely stupid) at her inability to be a mother and her inability to share the man he loves with another woman.But my son who watched the film along with me was completely outraged at the idea and the stupidity of the women and their whole approach to the issue. He could not believe it when I said this was as common in India even among the Hindus.

I remembered a story that my friend A had told me about her grandfather. She is from U.P. and this happened in the later years of the 19th century. Theirs was a family of rich landlords. Apparently her grandfather's first wife could not bear children. So she insisted that her husband marry again but the man loved his wife so much that he said it was impossible for him to love another woman.But his wife kept insisting until finally gave in on condition that the woman should not expect him to love her the way he loved his first wife. So they found a young girl from a poor family (one of the many daughters of a clerk who worked in their house)and fed her well and raised her in the house in order to get her married to the man when she became a woman. In`a few years the marriage happened and she gave birth to a child within a year. The child was immediately taken away by the first wife - she would be the mother of this child and bring him up. What could the poor gilr do? She knew this when she consented to the marriage, didnt she?And in the course of years, she gave birth to more children too but all of them called the first wife as mother and their own biological mother as "chhoti ma". And whatever she wanted she could not ask her husband but had to ask the first wife as that was the husband's instructions! Finally she was 60 when the first wife died, this is when the second wife became the lady of the house. By then her husband was gone too!
I have often thought about the two women and wondered whose sadness was worse -
the first wife who had to let her husband have another wife and live in the same house or the second wife who had everything and still could call nothing hers!

Perhaps for many who are in their 20s now, this might all seem like fiction. Sometimes real people are much stranger than what fiction can come up with! And guess what, the first wife in my friend's story was also called Leela, Leelavati!