A Counter-view to my recent Blog Post ‘Marriage and Children (getting married, having children)’

I had recently written a blog post on what I see is a clash between individualism and the rubric of Indian society. (http://om-marathe.blogspot.com/2019/01/marriage-children-getting-married.html)

The post described what to my mind seems to be an overbearing influence of society on some intimately personal choices, those relating to getting married and having children.

I shared this post on Facebook, where it aroused much debate, with many professing both publicly and privately to me that the post captivated what they have felt all along.   

It was in response, or should I say a rebuke of this viewpoint of mine, that my cousin and Mumbai based businesswoman Vaijayanti Kaigaonkar penned a long letter offering not just a counter narrative, but many of her own insights on marriage and children.

It is only fitting, that in keeping with democratic tradition, the readers of this blog also get to read this counter-view, and have a chance to induce from our two views what suits them the most.

By Vaijayanti Kaigaonkar:

DISCLAIMER

It is undeniable that every individual has the right to pursue happiness as they see fit, this right includes the right to not marry, the right to choose when, how and whom to marry as well as the decision to have or not have children. My argument is not about laws but about what I see as potential best-practices based on my experiences and observations. The points that I mention are for people to pursue on their own, and definitely not for parents or society to force it upon them. So in no way do I endorse interference or pushiness on the part of controlling parents, that is and will remain a problematic part of our culture. At the same time, there are several benefits to conform to the traditional marriage-procreation timeline if freely chosen by both parties involved and that is the thought that I intend to elaborate on.

Following are my views endorsing: the traditional societal parameters of marriage, the right time for it, having children (and the right time for it too), even at the risk of sounding like a boring old aunty! :)

Firstly, as Sadhguru says, marriages are not made in heaven and there is nothing divine about them, it is but a human arrangement, a convenient  and practical arrangement to fulfill human needs; sexual, emotional and mental (of companionship). Not that I deride love, love is the most beautiful emotion indeed, but it thrives on the above. It is interesting to note that this institution evolved independently across the globe into an almost similar format. By and large we can conclude that this institution is the best available arrangement after thousands of years of trial and errors across the globe.

Why marry

For emotional sexual and mental reasons, of course. But that is possible even without making it legit. Making marriage legitimate gives emotional security; such a  person will certainly be more productive , more stable, more at ease 

As a child, one only has emotional and mental needs, which can be fulfilled by family and friends, as soon as a child comes of age, sexual needs begin. Ideally, as it was earlier times , marriage should happen at that age. In that sense older cultures were more forward thinking in recognising their children’s sexual needs... 

No, i do not endorse child marriage ! But just looking at the merits of the system. Earlier, the age for mental and physical maturity was matching. And so it worked. 

Now there is a gap, physical development happens earlier but mental takes time, because education and dependency on parents goes on longer. Now we can say that mental maturity in general is when a person starts to make his own living. So, according to this logic, in today’s time, the ideal age to get married would be soon after one is independent and makes their own living, roughly in the twenties.

Yet, how can one be sure of finding the right person at just that time?

Well by right time, i do not mean the same month or year that you get your first job. But 2-3 years after you are independent. 

Is that too short a period to find the right person? Certainly not. 

Like I have said earlier, marriage is a human arrangement; then finding the most suitable partner if one searches in an organised manner using so much communication technology should not be difficult in 2 years at all! 

Arranged marriage 

Its fashionable for the intellengia to frown upon arranged marriage. But if a person does not meet his or her right partner in college, at work, how long should he/she wait? Why not work towards it? Officially using the help of your parents. If we don’t shy away if our friends set us up with someone, then what is so uncool if our parents set us up?

As long as there is no compulsion and complete freedom to choose, I feel the modern arranged marriage system in india is simply the best! Basically it is a blind date, where your date has been put together by your parents (the people who love and care for you the most, who know you best, who wish only the best for you and yes, who know life a bit better). Background checks are fully done by the elders so you don’t have to kill the romance by playing detective once you are into it.  

An Italian woman i met a while ago, putting it very nicely, said "It is so good that Indian parents take responsibility of finding a partner for their child, our parents leave us to our means." (She is financially stable, 30 plus, lonely, looking for a partner but there isn’t any established system like ours that she can go to, simply waiting for cupid to strike at his convenience.) 

When i was 22, my parents started the hunt, and i asked them- “What’s the hurry, why not wait till i come across someone naturally? Why should I compromise into an arranged marriage?” That is when my mother retorted, “In fact what you now intend to do, i.e. wait to meet someone randomly, is a compromise! Why do you want to compromise by considering such limited options? Here I am offering you the opportunity to explore options from beyond your line of work and beyond your city!”   

Among other factors, arranged marriages also matches other considerations- financial, social status, intelligence ,looks... so even though that may seem unromantic it is very practical.

When there is a major mismatch in any of these, it breeds insecurity in the weaker partner, eventually becoming a bone of contention in an argument. 

So according to me, if one doesn’t get lucky in finding a partner in college or in the first few years of work, one must actively participate  in the arranged marriage search. Most would surely find their right person in 2-3 years. 

Of course, there are all sorts of exceptions but what I mean is by and large. 

Our ancestors understood this and put it in writing, they gave us the recommended 4 stages of life- student, householder, retired, and ascetic.

Now this of course cannot be a law but only a recommendation for societal structure and well being. 

To take it forward, either every parent must explain it to their child in such detail, but it isn’t possible for those with limited intellectual means and thus to enforce it,  it became a social norm and then social pressure.

Marriage and love

I have repeatedly called marriage a human arrangement, but what about love? 

When the elders say, get married to the right person , and love will happen later... yes it is true. And this love (based on matching partners, commitment, and  years of togetherness) is far deeper than teenage college love (which is based on mere attraction). 

As they say, never get between arguments between a husband and wife (even if they fight or complain, what they share  is very deep and intense), and eventually the outsider becomes the villain.

Single people of marriageable age

If you observe , singles in their late twenties and onwards spend a lot of time trying to show how much fun they are having being single. 

Really? I see them being constantly on the lookout for that special someone... or stepping out every night looking for sex. One night stands, casual link ups are not as easy nor practical in reality as they appear in movies (surely not for average looking people). 

So much preoccupation must be affecting career focus and productivity, I would assume.

Where as a married person steps out to just have fun without any other agenda, knowing that he/she can get back home for sex or a real conversation.

Children

Passing your genes forward is a biological instinct. Simply a means for survival of species and an attempt at immortality. This is biological, it is wired into us. Every parent will agree that it pleases them so much when someone says, “Oh, your child looks just like you!”. It is even better than hearing “your child looks like Aishwarya or Hrithik”.

Animals simply do it for survival of species, humans have gone further, they expect their children to fulfill their unfinished aspirations!  

Very unfair but a reality. 

Sure we have evolved, we are overpopulating the planet, we have taken things into our own hands, we don’t allow nature to correct the balance of numbers. We certainly can do with many people choosing to not have kids. It is definitely better for the planet. It is also a good choice if the parents do not have resources to raise a child. I completely agree and respect people who make this  choice. But what about the biological wiring? It is a brave and bold decision, but it may manifest later in a psychological manner. The number of people who are choosing to do so are few, and mostly are still young, but it might just give rise to a brand new psychological problem in the near future.

Having children on time 

Yes, now a days women are having children even till they turn 60. But is it ideal? I don’t think so. Having a child (pregnancy and delivery) is the smallest part... that is possible at any age thanks to science. But is it easy? No. 

Conception is harder as you get older, a man and a woman’s reproductive health deteriorates with age, and so does the frequency of sex. Couples are simply not as sexually active later, as they were in their twenties or thirties. And when there is effort and planning to conceive, that is the end of a healthy sex life. Many couples become distanced from each other when they have to struggle to have babies. 

Raising a child requires physical energy, sleepless nights, running around with them, keeping pace with their energy and excitement of doing things. It’s just harder when you are older. 

The generation  gap! It gets amplified when the difference is more. Children and parents find it even harder to understand and relate to each other.

Of course, to all of the above there will be exceptions and unusual situations. But to everyone in general, do marry, marry in your twenties, have kids, have them on time. Don’t compromise into a love marriage (if it feels like that), do explore arranged marriage options.

The basic gyaan all elders give, but with lots of explanation :) !! 

Marriage, children (Getting married, having children)

Marriage, in Hindu theology, is a sacred duty. According to the Shastras, marriage diminishes some of the sin that one inherits from birth. While few of us today are aware of what the Shastras prescribe, the feeling of obligation or duty continues unabated. Yet, given the overall trend of departure from religious dogma in our country, there are increasing numbers of us who choose to not get married- either in the so called ‘marriageable age*’ or even at all. The question then arises- how does the society deal with such recalcitrants? 

If still in the ‘marriageable age’, a double whammy ensues- the family coaxes, and peers cause disquietude.

Inquisitional methods are applied, either to the face or behind the back. ‘Why isn’t he/she married?’, ‘Is there a medical reason?’, ‘Must have had their heart broken’, ‘Did no one find them attractive?’, ‘too selfish’, ‘must have taken a vow’… the list is as long as the contour of ignorance itself.

Beyond this 'admissible' period, the gaze of prying eyes begins to transfigure- from baleful contempt to inflated sympathy. Take the example of the 'unmarried bua (aunt)', a common fixture in Indian films. One need not elaborate further.

Yet, the decision of not getting married does not evoke as strong a passion as does the one of not having children. This is terrifying for society, completely beyond its grasp. Stupefied by incomprehension, the only comeback that can be churned here is one of pretentious sympathy. When one sees a couple beyond the ‘reproducible age*’ without children, showers of pity begin to fall. These showers become tempests as the specimen being judged advances in age. An old, gray haired, ‘childless’ couple is perhaps the strongest sympathy magnet in Indian imagination. It does not matter whether this couple voluntarily chose not to have children, or even if they could not reproduce themselves, are perfectly okay with it, and chose freely not to adopt. 

Justice (Retd.) Katju rightly calls India a 'semi-feudal' society. It remains to be seen when and how we allow those amongst us to assert themselves without fear, who we have not allowed to do so in the past.

*marriageable age/reproducible age:

For men- not fixed, obviously

For women- up to 30; based of late on the largely unscientific myth that women above 30 have ‘complications’ during delivery

Experiences in England

This past month, I have been attending a course in London on Human Rights. The demographics could not have been more diverse: the professor a Syrian British scholar trained in the US, and the classmates including students of law, international relations, and journalism from France, Italy, Germany, and Taiwan. The experiences and viewpoints that each of us contributed in class reflected our diverse cultures, ideologies, and backgrounds.

Needless to say, the program turned out to be enriching beyond words.

Upon its close, I can think of certain notable factors which, in my opinion, made the course so rewarding.

As a student who has had the experience of going through the education system both at home and now abroad, I was able to observe in England two striking things which were a complete departure from the system in India:

1.    The professor as a professional

In our country, the culture (deriving from ancient spiritual and cultural ethos) places the people in our everyday lives on distinct pedestals. Parents and teachers, above all, are explicitly ordained to be at par with God himself. Owing to this, for better or for worse, the possibility of having a relationship among equals is eliminated. Obedience is the cornerstone of this contract, with little room for discussion or consensus, forget dissent.

In England, the professor is a professional and nothing else. They only expect the student’s commitment to the course, and little else. They are held in high regard, not because of any spiritual or cultural factors, but because of their knowledge and experience. In the classroom, this fundamental difference has a tremendous impact on how discourse occurs. The classroom thus becomes a beacon for open discussion, explanation, and debate, with each person equal to the other, including the professor.

2.   Learning method and exam pattern

The semester exam in India is, in all truth, a memory test. In engineering, for instance, one is supposed to write theorems and solve numerical questions by remembering formulae. In law, entire provisions, authorities, and case laws are expected to be memorized. The other students in my class in London were baffled when I told them that I had key provisions of the Indian Penal Code memorized.

As most of the grading is focused on reproducing from memory, few are interested in attending lectures, and prefer studying at home. If they do at all, it is only to save themselves from punitive action later. For most, the subject is not learnt in class, but during the month-long ‘preparatory leave’.

In London, to my great surprise (and happiness), we were not expected to memorize a single word. We were, however, expected to thoroughly read and reflect upon an extensive set of ‘required readings’ and ‘recommended readings’. These included textbooks, journals, research papers, newspaper reports, online video discourses, and magazines, to name a few. We were not expected to ‘learn by heart’ a single definition, equation or formula. Instead, we were expected to assimilate the learnings from this diverse literature, and formulate our own argument. The grading depended on how well were able to articulate the learnings into own words in the exam.

These points are an attempt to highlight the differences between the two countries, with the aim to stir the debate on what we want our own educational system to be.

Finally, it would not be prudent to jump to the conclusion that the entire Indian system is substandard. The academic community in India is not very far behind in either diligence and commitment to the cause of education. However, even they agree that an overhaul is necessary. The world’s sixth largest economy deserves a system that propels it to even greater heights in its tryst with destiny.

Cadell or Veer

‘Independence’

At the turn of the 20th century, when Indian politics was led by Bal Gangadhar Tilak (the ‘Father of the Indian Unrest’), its raison d’etre shifted from achieving social reform as espoused by Phule, Sir Syed and Ranade, to achieving political reform. Achieving social reform as an objective, by completely cooperating with the imperial government, was replaced by the goal of attaining of self-rule or ‘Swaraj’ (according to Ambedkar at the cost of the former). Since then, ‘Swaraj’ would end up defining the country’s political trajectory. Subsequently, Gandhi and Nehru also made ‘Independence’ their life’s objective, so much so that Nehru, during his 1937 election campaign, called for people to vote for the Congress ‘only if they believed in Swaraj’. Tilak, Gandhi and Nehru were all convinced that British rule was the root of all evils plaguing the country, and that only in its removal lied the country’s salvation.

Then, as it happened, legislation after legislation, through Morley-Minto, Montague-Chelmsford and the Cabinet Mission, the colonial enterprise came to an end. Now that the ‘natives’ began to rule the roost, and every successive government with their complacency and ineptness ended up making the British look good, the need to demonize the European ruler was increasingly felt. Soon enough, the Congress Party propaganda machine with unabashed use of state machinery began eulogizing the ‘Independence Movement’ while idolizing its leaders. The country’s history textbooks in their anti-Anglo Saxon zeal not only erased pro-imperial narratives, but also the legacy of intensely patriotic yet pro-British leaders such as TB Sapru and MR Jayakar from public memory. An entire generation grew up believing that before the Battle of Plassey, India was a ‘Sone Ki Chidhiya’, some sort of celestial Dwarka, Atlantis, Neverland or Utopia; and that the British ‘looted it all’. And obviously, that the spectacular and immaculate representative governments since 1947 have only had their problems because of the ‘colonial past’.

Another evil to accompany the first

While the anti-British propaganda machine ran unabated for 70 long years, India witnessed the rise and then domination of another very similar rhetoric in the same timeframe: Hindu nationalism. They are indeed quite similar as they are both rooted in hatred, the former of the European, and the latter of anyone but the Hindu. The world got to see how comfortably they could work together in Maharashtra of the 1990’s, during the heyday of the Hindu nationalist Shiv Sena in the state politics. The first domino to fall was the name Bombay, to be replaced by the Marathi equivalent ‘Mumbai’. As Suketu Mehta points out in ‘Maximum City’, all major cities in the world are called differently in different languages. London is called so in English, while in French and Spanish it is Londres. Cairo is called so in English, while in Arabic it is Al Kahira. Bombay similarly was called so in English, in Hindi as Bambai, and in Marathi and Gujarati as Mumbai.

Yet, we saw the combination of anti-European and communal rhetoric trump common sense, and the city was renamed. Following this was the rampant renaming of streets earlier named after Europeans. The more prominent roads were renamed after Hindu or Marathi leaders, and the other smaller streets after the grandparents of the highest bidder. Never mind the historical or cultural significance that these old names bore. After all, Europeans are monsters; there is no question of them having done anything good for India.

Cadell vs Savarkar

The road outside my apartment in Mumbai is one of the city’s principal arteries since British times. When built during the first two decades after 1900, after the Bombay Municipal Corporation decided to commission the suburbs Dadar, Sion, Matunga and Wadala, the road was named after the British army officer Thomas Cadell. Cadell was a war veteran who had played a key role in suppressing the Sepoy Mutiny in 1857. Now, the Sepoy Mutiny was a revolt waged against the British authorities of the time, not by the common populace, but by the princes, landed aristocracy and feudal families whose inheritance was threatened by a legal instrument called the Doctrine of Lapse. These rulers had no love for the populace, and they called off the revolt the moment Queen Victoria declared the safety of their fiefdoms in 1858. Social reformers of the time including Sir Syed Ahmed and Jyotiba Phule had thanked the country’s lucky stars that British rule was restored.

Then in 1909, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar wrote the book ‘The Indian War of Independence’, painting the rebellion as if it were something momentous like the Fall of Bastille or the Russian Revolution. The Sena government, which regarded Savarkar as one of its sources of inspiration, had found a golden opportunity to correct a ‘historical injustice’. 

And hence as fate would have it, Cadell Road was renamed Veer Savarkar Marg.

To pay homage to the imaginary ‘War of Independence’ perhaps. Also, never mind the fact that a large portion of the Cadell road houses the Kapad Bazar, a large Muslim ghetto, whose residents now are forced to write in their home address the name of a man who hated their existence. Oh, maybe that part was deliberate. (Savarkar fervently hated the British and the Muslims both; calling for the removal of Urdu, Farsi and English loan words from Marathi.)

It is a known fact that hatred is brilliant vote-catcher. But it is also unquestionably true that hatred as a public policy inflicts deep wounds on the society, which are very difficult to heal. Such anti-social ideologies must be countered for the good of the nation. But while in opposition, the true liberal must understand and accept that not all those who adhere to hatred in their lives or politics are essentially evil. The objective of the liberal movement should be to convince its opponents of the virtues of pluralism, equality, and tolerance, while exposing the ugly face of communalism. The true victory of liberal thought in India will be the day we as a country look at our experience with the Delhi Sultanate, the Mughals and the British from a dispassionate standpoint, not through a jaundiced and partisan lens.