Tuesday 20 March 2012

INLAWS & OUTLAWS


Some daughters are in.
Others are out. Especially the variety that marries your son.
In that sense they are like Quarks: some are Up, Top and Charming, the others Down, Bottom and Strange.
Just so we are clear, the latter are also called Daughters-in-Law presumably to soften / blur the fact that they are considered outlaws.

The TV channels do a roaring line in Mum-in-Law  and Daughter-outlaw spats. While multitasking with a multitude of electronic devices (mobile, iPad and surfing on a laptop) I keep a sharp ear open for the inlaw-outlaw spats; and there's plenty. Surf any domestic channel and you will find it hard to avoid. This used to be the staple of Bollywood movies too, but ever since they discovered colour film, skimpy clothes and Swiss locales, they have moved on.

The outlaws are outlaws by birth. Not for us the new-fangled theories on nurture Vs nature. By not being born in a family you become an outlaw in that family, if you are a girl. Our girls are well mannered, well brought up, accomplished and full of social graces, lively, dont talk too much nor too little, etc etc. All round good eggs, if you dont mind a non-vegetarian analogy. Outlaws on the other hand are the antithesis of all of the above. By definition.

There is a saying in Tamil that if an outlaw breaks a utensil, it is considered made of bronze (presumably when this originated bronze was the most expensive metal known to them) and if it was was broken by the inlaw it is a mere clay pot. An outlaw can't win.Again by definition

In the TV versions, the inlaws are stately matrons impeccably coiffed and made up with row upon row of pearls and gold around their necks. Somewhat broad of beam too, to use a shipping analogy. They dont so much as walk as float while making an appearance. If only they were less substantial I would have said they waft in. They only come in one version: strong willed and steely eyed; eagle eyed for the errors, omissions and misdemeanors of the outlaws.

An outlaw cannot win, by definition. If the son of the family is thin, she doesnt feed him enough. If he is obese, she feeds him too much. If she makes him work out, the dear darling is being made to sweat it out; if she doesn't, she doesn't care for him. Is she tames his wild bachelor ways, he is henpecked; if she doesn't, she is herself wild. An outlaw has to learn to cook but not nearly as well as her inlaw; god help her if she attempts to go one better. You see, the inlaw's view of the son hasn't grown up with the latter: a son is one that needs to be kept happy at both ends. Since he has stopped wearing diapers (never mind that many don't start wearing the pants even after they get married) the only thing accessible to the inlaw is the inlet. An outlaw must never compete with the inlaw for access to this.

An outlaw has to survive in a hostile ecosystem consisting of different female members of the inlaw family. The latter are capable of what Einstein described as "spooky action at a distance"; so splitsville is no use, even assuming that one succeeds in beating a separate path. The men usually are mute spectators and prefer to let the females enjoy their little games. So the outlaw has no option but to focus on her own little darling and hope that when he grows up she can have  her day. Do unto other what was done unto you, etc.  And thus the cycle repeats itself.

When the outlaw happens to be your own, her inlaws become the outlaws.

Monday 19 March 2012

THE SIMPLE LIFE

We live The Simple Life in Chennai.

Living The Simple Life involves repeatedly professing that one lives the simple life and that one does not need or want anything that ordinary mortals (translation: you and me) cannot do without. It involves proclaiming that one is used to the hard life and is ready to live it again if called upon to do so.

Don't get me wrong; to be an adherent of the Simple Life you do not have to give up anything; you just have to profess to be prepared to, if so required. The acceptance of the daily bounties of life is merely to please someone else: mother, father, family, wife, children et al. You must at all times appear not to want anything for yourself and must constantly beat yourself up with hardships and self-denial. Don't worry, you wont really have to live the life of a monk - someone will always persuade you to partake of the good life and you will do so to please them!


The concept involves abnegating the material as well as accepting it; acceptance not just of the greater cosmic inevitability, but of material things - the latter mainly and only to please the offerer. It might seem oxymoronic that you reject and accept at the same time. That is the beauty of this concept. You negate your need for something but accept that thing in order to please someone. Brilliant, isn't it? You can have what you want but just make a song and dance about how you can live without it and how you are accepting it merely not to offend anyone.

Lets start with the very purpose of life according to the votaries of The Simple Life.We must live this life lest we offend someone who put us here in the first place. We have no desire to live, but since we have been placed here for reasons unknown by powers unknown, we must not upset those powers. Our continued existence must never be confused with a positive desire to live or even to merely exist. We live so that our parents, wives, children and friends don't need to grieve (there are those who make their near ones grieve every moment of their existence, but they are exceptions). We must act as if we don't owe anyone anything but we must make everybody feel they owe us something.

I am here to please my Maker, I go to school to please my parents, I strive for good grades to uphold the honour of my family and school, I get married to please my parents, then I live for my children, after which I renounce everything for a better afterlife ( which is apparently the only instance of my wanting anything for my own sake).

In the TSL scheme of things, one does not express a preference for any item of food or even to eat: one merely eats in order not to displease the one who cooked. The usual refrain is, "not that I want this or that, I eat whatever is placed in front of me in order not to upset the cook ".

It all starts harmlessly enough with an inability or unwillingness even to make a choice, express a preference in food, an item of clothing, or even to say he or she needs anything. In all fairness the females of the species have no problem in expressing what they prefer; the problem is that not only they tell you what they want done, but leave you in no doubt as to how they want it done. It is the male of the species who show preference for TSL. Does it sound like a positive preference for something? Then I must be wrong. There is nothing positive about it. TSL is built on an strenuous avoidance of expression of a preference for anything. Is it negative then? It is certainly not positive. I am inclined to be very charitable today and say that it is neutral.

The votaries of TSL appear as though strenuously denying accepting anything; while being served food it looks as if they are fighting it. Eating is something they do in order to avoid wastage of food which is bound to follow the act of not eating... An extra helping is justified as saving someone else from having to eat leftovers the next day...so on and so forth.

They touch material objects as if they were red-hot or is about to bite them back. They don't consciously go to a place; they merely drop in on something / or someone on their way to some other place. Don't embarrass me by asking if that act of going some place else isn't itself an act of wanting (to do) something. I still haven't got this fully worked out. One day I will. For the nonce the reader has to be content with my empirical observations. They will accept a ride in your car if you are very insistent and that too only because not accepting your offer will offend you.They are quite prepared to walk miles, mind you, but accept a ride in your car lest you will drive alone; Or to help you use the Bus Lane which otherwise you may not be entitled to.

The cornerstone of the TSL is relentlessly professing detachment from all things material. In practice it is like what was said about Mahatma Gandhi - that it cost others a great deal to keep him in poverty.

It takes a lot of effort to help someone  live the Simple Life.

Thursday 15 March 2012

THE WORM TURNS........

Let me start with an apology for a mistake the readers might make in equating worms with young women who are the subject of this post. The link is clearly not mine nor the error, but still the apology is worth making for its in a good cause, namely, today's young women.

The proverbial turning of the worm is supposed to denote a victim giving up his victimhood and successfully turning on his tormentor. Or, as in this case, her tormentor.
What brought on this inquiry into victims, worms, women and tormentors? Simply put, some recent stories of matrimonial match-making in my extended family.

Recently an uncle of mine was very upset with his cousin's daughter for embarrassing the family (and no doubt him personally). He was trying to get the girl - the girls' parents actually - interested in his wife's cousin's son. For those unfamiliar with this format of matrimonial alliances, let me briefly add that in this part of the world, marriages are arranged between two families with the bride and the groom constituting two necessary but not sufficient components. If they are happy, it's considered a bonus. Their happiness is not, in the crude American neologism, a "deal-breaker". It was assumed that with the efflux of time (a phrase we love in these parts) the two would find a satisfactory working arrangement somewhere between physical war on the one side and happiness on the other. In my younger days when  my thoughts were quicker and my tongue was a swashbuckling and somewhat irresponsible organ, I would have - actually was known to have - described such alliances as driven purely by the economic considerations with one side aspiring to greater wealth and the other needing to find a match for a fast-depreciating asset. With age has come certain circumspection and amusement has replaced anger. Enough said about me.

The young lady in question was allowed to meet the eligible young man who, as already noted, was the said uncle's wife's cousin's son. My uncle in a way was the meat in the sandwich and was caught in the middle. His stakes were very high indeed. The young lady met the young man suitably supervised. Not in Chennai the Victorian-style chaperoned meeting for the lads and the lasses with the chaperon trailing discreetly behind, within eyesight but out of earshot..

She reportedly took the lead in what my uncle described as an "inquisition". Considering that the current day Chennai boys of certain social stratum are best described as "duhs", I was not surprised that it was so. She proceeded to ask him about his career, future prospects, pay ("gross as well as net", my uncle recalled with indignation)  etc. Then he was queried on his "liabiliies"  which my uncle felt was very forward and very impertinent. He is a product of the times and mores in which the women were supposed to concern themselves with making and raising babies and the men took care of everything else. Then came the clincher which blew my uncle off. Even at this distance in time he is barely able to contain himself, thinking about it.

The girl asked the boy  if  he would come into the marriage with "any baggage", a line of inquiry which even in retrospect has my uncle seeing red and seething with unspeakable anger. "The audacity of it" he exclaims while narrating the story. For a while I wondered if I should let him know that being a modern girl she could have been inquiring after his "package" which she would have to live with the rest of her life.Wiser counsel prevailed and I resisted the urge. He would have burst an aneurysm. Needless to add that the boy's family didn't take kindly to being considered "baggage" and the talks broke down.

Another recent story involves the parents of the boy going to meet the girl. The plan was that if they approved of her, then a "skype meeting" would be  arranged. It amazes me how a traditional ritual is being modernized in its structure but not intent. This process known traditionally as "seeing the girl" involves the boys family visiting the girl's home where she would have to serve refreshments (expected to be made by her own hand, but much cheating has been known in this aspect), speak when spoken to, pay her respects by genuflecting before the boy's family, sing a song or two (classical - Bollywood a definite no-no) and may be even do a step or two of dance where such proficiency has been claimed by her family. In other words a thoroughly humiliating experience for the girl (to briefly slide back into my youthful ways of describing it) while the boy's side took it all in to the accompaniment of sweets, savouries and coffee.

This story has a happier ending - at least in my opinion. But I am in a minority of one. The boy's father for one was totally aghast. When the boy's family walked in, the girl was reportedly seated one leg crossed over the other (a cardinal sin and sign of utter and unspeakable disrespect in these parts), and in deep conversation on her cell-phone. Much to the annoyance of the visitors she failed to get up. She also failed to genuflect before them. She continued her phone conversation, after waving a "Hi" somewhat airily  in their direction. That the visitors were offended is putting it mildly. Saner counsel prevailed and she quietly withdrew deeper into her home with her phone leaving her parents with the by-now-impossible task of carrying on a conversation with the visitors.

See what I mean by worms turning? de Beauvoir, Friedan, Steinem, Greer, Firestone, Millet, et al may have written tomes on women freeing themselves from the men-allotted historical roles. But here in Chennai we see them actually doing it.

And I am loving it  (despite having have a son who is yet to marry)