Society and Institutions
On violence and CEO deaths
The lynching of the CEO of an Italian auto parts manufacturer is bad enough. What’s worse is the Labour Minister Oscar Fernandes’ justification of the violence proportioning the blame on the management that "pushed the employees to the limit." I am no longer shocked at the politician’s lack of tact, and complete callousness. My few years of observing Indian politics has taught me that we cannot expect any better from them. But, what got my goat were a few comments on Nita’s post on the same issue. Especially a comment by Odzer where he pretty much justified the killing because he was a big shot. I agree that we do not hear about the death of the "common man" every day. I also agree that there is so much publicity because he was the CEO of a company. But tell me something. Does the fact that Mr. Chaudhry made a lot of money as the CEO of an Italian firm justify his killing? Does his family not mourn his death as much as the family of a sweeper who dies? Especially when the person was killed?
The problem is not just with this case. The problem lies in the basic distrust of those who make lots of money. This was a trend I noticed during the recent financial meltdown. Most people I spoke to were far from sympathetic to the fact that thousands of investment bankers lost their jobs. In fact, most of them simply said, "They made so much money for so long. It won’t hurt them to be without a job now." What we do not understand is that someone is not making money at someone else’s expense. Life is not a zero-sum game. For CEOs and investment bankers to be successful, a factory worker or an investor does not necessarily have to suffer. Why are we so apathetic towards the plight of a top official? We kept quiet when an engineer from IIT was murdered in Bihar. But, the Singur issue is burning. We all sympathise and empathise with those poor farmers who are being exploited by the tyrannical Tatas. But, we fail to look at the other side of the issue or take into account the loss incurred by Tata Motors. And this is simply because the Tatas are the rich capitalists exploiters. I may sound extremely pissed off. The fact is that I really am. As long as we cling on to feudal and outdated notions of industry, ownership and investment, we will never progress. That’s what the Communists really want right? So that they can blame the big, bad capitalist world for the stagnation? We are a democracy> If we do not progress, if we stagnate and suffer in chronic poverty, it is because we elect people like Oscar Fernandes who will do anything to preserve his vote bank. After all, we only get the governance we deserve.
Arranging marriages
There are two posts by Roop and one by Thought Room that have spurred me on to writing this post. The first post by Roop made me sit back and think. It made me want to write a more balanced perspective. It was in this state of mind that I read Thought Room’s take the issue. This post, tried on the other hand, to explain the arranged marriage custom to foreigners and sounded apologetic to me. It is easy to rationalise and explain why the custom evolved, in the absence of a social security system. It has existed all over the world at some point. In Europe, the upper classes, especially the aristocracy, have married its daughters off to another aristocratic family to further political or economic interests. The difference between India and Europe is that Europe dropped the concept with the fall of monarchy and the rise of democracy. We in India have not changed for 2000 years. The fact that arranged marriages acted as a social network at some point does not justify its continued existence today. As Roop says in her second post, I do not see why I should sacrifice individual liberties in the name of marriage. This holds true for both men and women. It is no less difficult for a man to live life with a complete stranger than it is for a woman to do so.
Also, the whole concept of arranged marriages is driven by considerations of caste, class, status and money. Take for example the issue of dowry. In some communities in South India, the girl’s horoscope is given to the marriage broker with the total amount in cash, and of gold that the parents are willing to give the girl as dowry. So, if a family is looking for a bride, they will first look, not at the bride herself, nor her qualification or character, nor even her family, but the amount of money she will bring in as dowry. To me, that’s not marriage. That’s socially accepted selling of the bride as a marketable commodity. You still think it’s acceptable? I also agree with Roop when she says that we must not be forced to listen to parents on the issue of marriage when trivial things like buying a dress or a pen are entirely up to us. Of course parents have a say in our life. But, that does not include treating one’s own child like a marketable commodity, as is happening in several million families today.
It is scary to contemplate the scenario that Roop talk about. What if, after 5 years of an arranged marriage you realise this is not what you wanted for yourself? You may argue that such a situation can arise even if you chose your own partner. But, think about it. In the latter case, you would made a conscious decision. It would have been your choice. If you regret that decision, so be it. I would rather live with the regret for a bad decision that with the feeling that I could have been given a chance.
I would also like to respond to one comment on the second post by Roop. Sidhusaheb wants to know if we advocate replication of the United States’ "failed society" model. No, we do not. But the climbing divorce rates in the US and elsewhere are not because they are "love marriages" but because more and more people feel the need to assert their individual identity. The fact that divorce rates in India are relatively low does not mean more marriages are happy marriages. It simply means that less number of people are choosing to opt out of an unhappy marriage. Couples stay together for various reasons: social ostracism, kids’ welfare, lack of parental or family support, lack of finances for one of the couple etc. If divorce rates in India increase, that’s not necessarily failure. It could well be an awakening.
Joint families and daughters-in-law
I came across this post by Indian Homemaker just a short while ago. It’s interesting to read. But, wanting to read the original post to which the current one refers, I clicked back to this. Let me take deep breath. I have so much to say, but I don’t know where to start. In the post on joint families, IHM says that joint families are extremely convenient for the boy’s parents/grandparents. I agree. She also says that when a bride steps into her marital home, every action is scrutinised and she ends up being loaded with plenty of responsibility without the authority needed to carry them out. I agree with that too. I also agree when she says that the boy’s parents tend to take the new daughter-in-law for granted. One such case is that of the anonymous daughter-in-law who commented.
However, I think it is important to nuance the arguments a bit. While it is unfair to expect the bride to take on all that responsibility without the authority required, we must also realise that sometimes, the Indian joint family can be a huge safety net. It starts with mundane things like housework. Two daughters-in-law in the same house means that the work is shared. Sometimes the mother-in-law is also nice enough to help. Granted, most of them behave exactly as IHM points out. But, there are exceptions who deserve to be acknowledged. This safety net extends to caring for the children when the mother goes to work. I know many women who feel that their mother-in-law takes better care of the kids than a paid nanny or servant. The kid is their grandchild after all. Also, in cases where the couple goes through a though time financially, the joint family can step in to provide the much-needed solace and support. I understand that this is declining but in case of a problem, the parents’ (of both spouses) step in to help. I would give anything for a safety net like that.
That said, I fully sympathise with the anonymous daughter-in-law. She is unfortunate enough to have in-laws who neither care nor empathise with her as a human being. Such parents deserve no respect. In this context, I would not spare the husband either. A man who is capable of censoring the blog of his wife, one he is supposed to trust and support, deserves a talking to. The bride/wife/daughter-in-law, is a human being and an individual first. She reserves the right to say anything she pleases on any forum. Nobody, especially not the husband, has any power to stop her in that. If he treated his wife well, and made sure his parents did the same, she would find no reason to complain. I read so many blogs that talk about husband and family, that make one envy the family they have. If you are happy, it shows, on your blog and elsewhere. But, if are being abused, dominated or suppressed, that will show too. In the lack of ease with which a suffering blogger writes, and in the melancholy surrounding the blog. As IHM puts it, an adult requires no permission to go shopping, meet friends and family or watch a movie. She is an adult and an individual. It’s time parents-in-law realise that. On that note, check out this post. It contains advice to the in-laws. Good job!
Socially relevant soap operas?
Let me state, at the very outset, that I hate soap operas with a passion. I rarely watch any and the few that I have come across make me want to scream. On that note, I quite agree with Rashmi Bansal when she says that soap operas need to be responsible to society. The soap in question is titled "Balika Vadhu" and is aired on Colors. It deals with an 8 year-old bride who is put to sleep by "Sasuma" with stories about Rajkumars and is forced to eat after her husband and the other elders of the house and on the plate used by her husband.
The reactions to this are surprising. I am rather shocked to see viewers defend the serial on the grounds that child marriage still happen in India despite the fact that they are banned. Of course it happens in India. But to say that it is acceptable on television because it is a fact is stupid. Let me extend that logic a bit. Bride burning happens in India. Would you accept it if the protagonist in a serial planned to kill the bride? I would not. The fact that something happens does not make it right. What I find even more galling is the fact that the serial is sponsored by the Women and Child Development Ministry, as Rashmi points out in her subsequent post on the issue. The Ministry allegedly wants to create "awareness" about the plight of child brides in India. I doubt portraying a child as a normal bride with normal adjustment problems amounts to spreading awareness. In addition, the protagonist is a child. Ever heard of the rights of children? How can you even think of portraying a child as a normal bride? A child is supposed to enjoy her childhood under the care of a parent and a loving family. What exactly was the Ministry thinking when it decided to extend its support to a serial like this? Sigh!
My grouse is not just against this serial. I hate all serials, as I stressed a while ago. All of them uniformly treat women as some sort of Sati Savitri. Those who are not are the villains of the piece and spend all their time planning to take revenge on other women for some assumed wrong. And if the likes of Ekta Kapoor are to be believed, all good women take all that bullshit lying down and emerge victorious. During my many brief encounters with the K-serials, I came to one, albeit rather comical, conclusion. That all good women wear unpretentious round and red bindis. They wear sindoor in their maang and worship even philandering, corrupt and abusive husbands as God himself. the vamps on the other hand, wear highly elaborate, Sudha Chandran style bindis, in designs ranging from the sun to snakes. They may wear sindoor in their maang too but their husbands are normally hen-pecked and do everything their wives tell them to. Trust me, I have done my research. All K-serials are like that. Now, you must be wondering if I spend all my time watching these serials. The answer is no. You don’t need to. Just pick any random soap opera and watch it for 30 seconds. You will find proof for my thesis. To summarise, I think that the goodness of the television character is inversely proportional to the level of complication of the bindi. I call it Amrutha’s inverse proportionality law. Howzzat??
The dreaded C-word
Wondering what that is? Caste of course! We Indians are obsessed with it. By either denying it exists or insisting it plays an important role in everything we do, or by simply refusing to discuss the issue openly, we somehow convey that it is an uncomfortable idea. I just came across this post by Preethi. It is not a rant. She somehow seems more tolerant of it that I am. But, what I find rather intriguing is that people go all the way to England and Scotland and France and make friends based on the caste of the individual. She says an acquaintance of Indian origin asked her for her caste. In her place, I would probably have taken offence. I can’t really explain why, but I find it insulting when people ask me what caste I belong to. If I choose to reveal it in the course of a conversation, that’s my choice. But, I don’t see what difference it makes for those who talk to me.
She goes on to state that,
"During an expert interview I was warned that the caste system is very prominent amongst the South Asian diasporas in the UK but I never imagined it would be such a guiding force for young, second generationer’s."
I can’t get over that. I am probably just very naive, but I somehow imagined that people become more open to other cultures when they travel. I was apparently wrong. I have relatives in the US and in Canada who take pride is forming Tamil Associations and Brahmin Societies and discouraging all contact with those who don’t conform. What are we doing? Why the hell can we not treat a person as a human being rather than as a Brahmin, Hindu, or other? I probably come across as cold when I say this, but during my 2-year stay in Paris, I never found the need to bond with other Indians through social gatherings aimed exclusively at Indians. Of course, I have many Indian friends there, but the presence of a non-Indian never made a difference to the gathering. It was a meeting of friends, not one of Indians away from home. I somehow preferred it that way. My brief visits to the Maison de l’Inde were far from welcoming. I found people far too nosy and noisy. I faced questions regarding my origins, caste, parentage, language et. al. It did not matter that I was Indian. I had to be Tamil, Kannada, Hindu, Brahmin or something else. I had to "belong". To one of the numerous groups. I wonder why. No, I am not from JNU. And no, I am not from Delhi either. I did not study at Stephen’s or LSR. And yes, I come from the apparently conservative city of Madras. And yes, I still use the two names interchangeably. I refused to be typecast as a Tamil, Kannadiga, or Hindu. I am just me. Is that so difficult to digest? I don’t get it at all.
It is disheartening to see the caste system being not just preserved, but also reinforced every day of my life. People want to know what my caste is. My students want to know what I am. Is it not enough if I am their teacher? How does my caste matter? With the overzealous government wanting to bring in reservations in the private sector and in schools, I am being surrounded. Everywhere I go, my caste matters. I don’t care any more whether X, Y or Z gets a seat in a college because of reservations. But, I would like to see my children grow up without that all-important question put to them. When I do have kids, they will not have any answers to give. Will they have to explain each day that their parents got married out of caste? Will they have to justify our choices each day of their lives and feel apologetic about not having a clear answer to that question? I certainly hope not. But, to be truthful, I see no improvement. I am losing hope.