Be It Kanyadaan or Vardaan: What Is Wrong with It?

Kanyadaan (the ritual giving away of a daughter): If I have some trust of yours in my possession, and I return it to you, what would that be called???? No, no, do not describe it in terms of honesty, goodwill, or duty; tell me which word you would use to express the feeling of that trust reaching you.

Now you will say, "What a strange eccentric, we would simply say we returned the trust to its rightful owner." Meaning, "returned" or "given". Oh, but wait a moment, the sentiment of this action called "giving" is also expressed by the word "daan" (ritual giving).

By the way, *daan* also means the ichor flowing from an elephant's temple, and it also means a type of nectar or honey, as well as the act or sentiment of giving something to someone inspired by dharma (cosmic order and duty), philanthropy, assistance, or out of generosity and compassion. And nowadays, it is most famous in the sense of alms or charity. Now, the very word that means "to give" also means "honey", but the word *daan* became conventionally fixed in the sense of giving, and even within that, it is most commonly used in the sense of "alms".

And there you have it—*daan* turned into "kudaan" (bad giving), meaning a complete distortion of meaning. Some gentlemen, by linking the meaning of *daan* solely to alms, launched an assault on the word *daan* when attached to *kanya* (daughter). And they launched this assault with the claim that the word *kanyadaan* is not used in the Vedas, so why is this "vile" (according to them) word used in vivaha (marriage)?

Look at that argument! Is that even a point? The region where I live, called Jaipur, was not named Jaipur 250-300 years ago, but "Dhundhar". And even before that, in the Vedic period, a part of it was called "Maru-Dhanva", another part was known as "Jangal", and a large portion was part of the "Matsya Janapada" (republic or realm).

Now, what will we say to Jaipur today? "No brother, your name is nowhere to be found in ancient literature, so you have no right to be called Jaipur even now." What can Jaipur do but beat its own forehead before such "wise" men who say this, just as the word *kanyadaan* is beating its forehead.

Kanyadaan

The word *kanyadaan* is screaming out loud: "O people, look at me only in the context of *vivaha*, which unbreakably binds together the two elements—man and woman—that drive the cycle of creation, and not in the context of a contract called 'marriage' with the sentiment of 'today I am your wife, the day after tomorrow I will be betrothed to someone else.'"

As soon as the context is blurred, meanings are distorted. The context of *kanyadaan* is the sanskar (sacrament) of *vivaha*. In this creation, the union of man and woman is essential for the generation of human life, and conjugal life is absolutely necessary to carry that life forward smoothly.

Kanyadaan: Just as neither man nor woman alone can procreate, and a new existence is created only when the two become one, similarly, a grihasthi (household) is not formed by one alone until two existences merge to become one. This becoming one is indeed what *vivaha* is. In other words, without one, the other is incomplete; only when both meet do they become one.

Now, how will they become one when half the body is in one place and the other half is in another? That is, one element is born and residing in someone's house, and the remaining element is in another's house. A couple is nurturing and protecting the half-body of the man—that is, his trust—and fulfilling their responsibilities towards her, while the woman's trust is located elsewhere, receiving nurturance and upbringing.

Kanyadaan: The method of uniting these two incomplete elements is called *vivaha*, under which both become a complete whole with the vow of bearing each other's responsibilities. Now, the way of the world is that a woman goes to the man's house after marriage. Therefore, the couple who fulfilled the responsibility of the *kanya* hand over their daughter through *vivaha* to the one who is entitled to her. If this custom were reversed, the groom's parents would give the woman her ardhanga (half-body), that is, their son.

Now, whose trust has been returned to whom, and that too with a clear declaration: — "......................विष्णुरूपिणे वराय, भरण-पोषण-आच्छादन-पालनादीनां, स्वकीय उत्तरदायित्व-भारम्, अखिलं अद्य तव पतनीत्वेन, तुभ्यं अहं सम्प्रददे । "
O groom, who is the form of Vishnu, I have fulfilled all the responsibilities of maintenance, nourishment, and protection towards your wife; handing over all those responsibilities to you, I duly present your wife to you.

Look at that, they are not throwing away alms like pulling a twenty-five paise coin out of a pocket. They are duly giving, through *vivaha*, those who are entitled to each other for the bearing of responsibilities. So, if a father giving his daughter to her worthy groom, who is entitled to discharge responsibilities towards her, is not called "kanyadaan", then what else would it be called? If the custom were reversed, they would have called it "varadaan" (giving of the groom). But perhaps then the messengers of male awakening would have been irritated by this "varadaan".

आनन्दाश्रूणि रोमाञ्चो बहुमानः प्रियं वचः। तथानुमोदता पात्रे दानभूषणपञ्चकम् ॥

Now you tell me, whether it is kanyadaan or varadaan, what is the harm in it?

 - Amit Sharma, scholar of dharma, folk traditions, and history

Read also: 

Those who make specious arguments against Hindu marriage will not understand this

Boys should keep these things in mind before marriage

Does Manusmriti (ancient legal text) oppose women??

The love of Janakanandini and Raghunandan is an example of true love