Honesty is the best policy!

When we were in school, there were a few proverbs or phrases that were engraved on our minds through constant usage. One such phrase was 'Honesty is the best policy'. In our hostel, if someone did something deceitful, or had told a lie, the repartee used to be, "remember, honesty is the best policy". 

This maxim used to mean that if we maintain honest behaviour in our day to day life, it will reveal our good character and sincerity, and will bring honour and happiness in the long run.

As a kid, I used to rationalise that human beings are perhaps inherently dishonest, for us to have felt the need to parrot such quotes deep into our minds. As an adult today, my rationale sort of stands verified with experience and observation. Indians, in general do not have the strength to be honest and truthful. They don't have faith in honesty to yield a happy life. It is a confused or partial faith in honesty that gets compromised easily in day to day living of our lives. It is unlike the developed western economies where we can say that only people in particular are dishonest. Overall, they do not feel the need to be dishonest.

Personally, I have always had a deep relationship with this phrase. I thought and still think that it is an universal truth. Honesty benefits our life and make it beautiful. Unfortunately, the trend seems to be going the other way. Our societies are becoming dishonest and deceitful by the day. It is irrespective of the fact that the density of temples or mosques or churches are increasing. To common logic, places of worship should increase the incidences of honesty in a society. In contrary, it seems that rising dishonesty is the reason why worshipping places are mushrooming in every banyan tree possible. It seems that we are becoming a society of sinners to our own conscience, and we need worshipping places to placate our conscience, to seek forgiveness from our Gods. It is easy to say sorry to our Gods, as we do not have to deal with Him in our day to day business. Some of us who deal with God everyday, whom we call the Pujaris, are even dishonest to their Gods. They take money to take 'the sinners' to God faster with minimum hassle.

Our society was never like this. Temples were made and maintained by kings and rulers. General public used to visit those temples (or work of art and magnificence) during special festivals. Instead, societies used to have customs and rituals that they used to practice during births, deaths, marriages, full moon, eclipses etc. Perhaps, we didn't feel the need for so many temples, mosques and other places of worship.

I do not completely understand why and when we started losing faith in honesty. However, I have a theory that originates from my studies about oppressed societies. Societies oppressed by rulers and colonial powers, often face scarcity of resources that they have to fight for to exist. During times of extremes, basic instincts to survive over-rules concepts of fairness and honesty. It becomes a situation of him vs me, or his family vs mine to acquire the bare necessities food, shelter and protection. The rich becomes richer and fewer. The poor becomes poorer and more in numbers.

India have had British oppression for 200 years, in which period the even the Industrial Revolution in Britain was financed by de-industrialisation of India. India weavers, textile merchants, and even agriculture was affected. India’s share of the world economy by the time the British arrived on its shores was 23 percent. By the time the British left, it was down to below 4 percent. India's trade share in textiles was 27% which was down to 2%. We have had British PM Winston Churchill leaving us to die during the Bengal famine, as late as 1940s, when he had diverted essential supplies from Bengal to pile food reserves for the British.

There is another think tank that believes that oppression of India had begun much before British arrived. If we agree to that part of history, India had had over 600 years of oppression.

It is perhaps this oppression that has evolved or rather, spoiled our character to such depths in our collective minds that seven decades of independence have made almost no difference to India's character in terms of our belief in honesty. Just like our economic size in relation to the world has not changed after independence. Six centuries of colonial ravages cannot be undone in two decades or seven.

From my life, I have enough evidences that honesty has a direct relationship to long term happiness. Dishonesty, unfairness, lies and deceit have a direct relationship to long term sadness and misery. If we look closely at any corrupt family over a period of twenty years, my theory about happiness will be prima facie proven right.

Worshipping places do not make a society honest and fair. It is at best an escape from the turmoils of being dishonest. The worst consequence of too many worshipping places is a divided society with a false sense of security.

We need to restore our faith in honesty and in being good. It is the only way to rise from our perils and lead a happy and content life. Honesty and fairness can also bring economic progress distributing wealth equally in terms of the amount of hard work being put in by the society. It will create a feasible business environment and eco-system that will enable all of us to do fearless business with minimum risks.

I re-affirm with full belief that honesty is the best policy, and believe me, it will prove itself to be so in your lifetime, if you belief in it.

'Assamese' in transition and the increasing significance of Naamghars

Assamese society is going through a phase of transition. We are moving from the times of abundance to the times of scarcity. We are moving from a phase of harmony to a phase of competition. We are moving away from collective identity to individual identity.

Like any phase of transition, it is a phase of chaos and instability. It is also true that transition or change is the only constant. We have to adapt to the new times and keep on striving ahead as a community, and as a culture.

We cannot get lost in the winds of change. The communities and cultures who did not adapt to the change have all perished. For instance, I had read that the original population of a lot of South East Asian countries have perished, and these countries are now inhabited by people of Chinese origin.

Assamese culture, Assamese language, Assamese people have to survive the wind of change. We can and will survive, if we are prepared, ready, willing and understand the universal truth of continuous evolution. The only way to adapt and evolve is by working as a team, as a community, together inclusively towards the overall good of the community, culture and language. There will be a lot of reasons that will play a divisive role, but we have to get together with a purpose and with a resolve for the greater good. We have to get together in smaller and bigger units, and talk, share and make action plans for the unit. A unit can be a village, a Panchayat, a club or even a Naamghar.

The unit or place of get-together is very critical to this process of inclusive growth. A particular place has to drive this inclusive growth process. That place should have the credibility of being the symbol of progress, unity and together-ness. However much I think on this, the most egalitarian, equalitarian and a place of purity is our revered Naamghar. Naamghar is one of the most representative institutions of the Assamese community for ages, present in almost every village of Assam.

The genesis of naamghar is very significant in this regard. It was Srimanta Sankaradev's immense wisdom and vision to create unity in diversity, and to create a sense of community and belonging-ness. He had built this institution for the same purpose. It was for people to get together, offer community prayers, perform various group cultural activities and to participate in socio-economic discussions. Anybody from any background could come to a naamghar.


It was the ‘Facebook’ of those times. There were groups having their own naamghars, like we have FB groups today. Group members at each naamghar used to get together every evening after their daily jobs to sing the Kirtanas and other scriptures in the praise of the Lord, and then discuss about the problems of the group among themselves.

Naamghar was built as an institution of purity and immense wisdom. Srimanta Sankaradeva believed that regular or periodic visits to any institution of purity and wisdom would help the people of the community in purifying their thought processes from all thoughts and acts of evil, short-sightedness and maleficence (bad intention). He believed in the phrase, 'To err is human'. He said that it is impossible to become completely free of the all vices and evil thoughts, and regular visits to Naamghars would help us in keeping the evils of the mind away to an extent humanly possible. He designed various art forms such as the Ankia Nat and Sankari Dance, to be practiced and performed in and around the naamghars so that the village folks can spend as much time as possible in the naamghars and keep themselves occupied to lead a very inclusive and positive community life.

Also, naamghars are an inclusive institution. Any progress which is not inclusive, is bound to generate divisive sentiments. If a particular age group, sub-community or gender is not coming ahead to participate, we have to do the necessary to include them. Naamghars were designed for everyone, but with time that essense is getting lost and divisive mentality has entered the corridors of naamghars as well. Many naamghars do not allow Muslim people. The young today hardly visit our Naamghars. Absence of youth simply means absence of new ideas. Since the genesis of naamghar had the essense of inclusivity, I believe we can again make naamghars appeal to everybody. The elder folks have to invite the youth and give them responsibilities to make them feel part of the initiative.

The logic of the naamghar system still applies. It will help in the process of continuous evolution. We should collectively start a revolution in our naamghars to help the Assamese society in these times of chaos, to build a new wave of progress and development, unity and peace.

To conclude, I would just say, "Aha ami adda maru goi naamgharat..." and take Assam into the next millenium.

Domestic Violence - a subject too big for Satyamev Jayate !

Domestic violence is too big a subject for one episode of television programming. In retrospect, I would think that all the issues taken up by Satyamev Jayate are much wider than it can perhaps swallow. All of them are perhaps wider in scope even for a PhD thesis to cover after  years of research. So encapsulating it in one episode will surely leave a lot of uncovered questions, aspects and perspectives.


For instance, this article against Satyamev Jayate sounds valid and reasonable, where the story of the death of Mr. Rai's wife Seema is being questioned. The accused doctor has written an open letter to Aamir Khan urging him to explain his stand on propagating half truths without proper research taking both sides of the argument. You may read this article.

These allegations do not take away any credit from Mr. Aamir Khan and his team. They are doing whatever possible in given constraints, to spread awareness of issues that they feel should be highlighted at a bigger canvas. They are not social scientists or activists expert on all these issues. They are just a bunch of passionate genuine creative individuals who have thought of making a socially relevant television programme. You may read about my experiences with the Satyamev Jayate team.

Domestic violence is similarly a large topic. For instance, it involves the husband as victims too. While the very idea of a man being beaten by a woman runs contrary to many of our deeply ingrained beliefs about men and women, female violence against men is a well-documented phenomenon almost completely ignored by both the media and by society. 


According to the National Family Violence survey in the US, researchers Murray A. Straus, Ph.D., and Richard J. Gelles, Ph.D., found that between 1975 and 1985, the overall rate of domestic violence by men against women decreased from 12.1% to 11.3%, while women's violence against men actually increased from 11.6% to 12.1%.
You may read this detailed report on domestic violence against men in the US.

There are various causes of domestic violence. Male ego, 'parampara' (tradition) and patriarchy are broad reasons given in frivolous discussions about domestic violence. They are superficial and hampers the study of the real reasons. There is a need to study deeper for precise answers towards domestic violence.

The answer may lie in the questioning of the institution of marriage itself. I may argue that one (or few) marriages in the living life of an organism is not natural. There are some noted references that after multiple marriages as per the Islamic tradition, domestic violence reduces and a certain calmness is prevailed in the family. Who would fight and with whom becomes the question :). So the discussion about domestic violence can be as deep, varied and convoluted as that.

Let me discuss one of the million reasons that may cause domestic violence against either sex in today's times. I pressume that public opinions on this reason is yet to be formed. It is about the upbringing of a girl child vs a boy child. It is perhaps the reason behind girls doing better in their class x and xii examinations (guessing).

Assume a family with a son and a daughter. From the time, the girl starts to converse intelligently, her mother would talk to her about becoming an independent women. She would brainwash her to become financially independent. She would encourage her to study harder and become a working wife. In short, the mother effectively tells her daughter not to become another woman like her.

Till now this is all common sense. Lets look at how she is raising her son? Why should we bother much? They are men after all. They will learn the ropes of life just like that. Of course, the sons are also encouraged to study harder, and to stand on their feet. But are they told to not become like their fathers?

He grows up seeing his mother getting tea for his father whenever he comes back from office. He grows up seeing that the mother of the house makes breakfast, lunch and dinner. He grows up seeing the mother packing tiffin for the father every morning. He grows up seeing a docile mother agreeing to whatever the father says. He grows seeing his father ordering his mother for almost all his inside-the-house needs.

At one extreme, the mother is teaching her daughter to be an independent working women. At the other extreme, she is not teaching the son about accepting an independent wife for himself.

He is not brainwashed to not expect breakfast, lunch and dinner from his wife.
He is not taught that if the wife earns more than him, it is not a question of ego.
He is not taught that his wife may not know cooking like his sister doesn't. So it is okay to get food cooked by himself, or to help her in the kitchen.

I personally respect the role of the housewife and I think it is critical for the generations to procreate in a healthy conscience, culture and manners. You may read "Lets glorify housewives" and comment if you like.

But the tragedy is that the boy child is not even taught to respect a housewife's need for financial independence.
He is not told about how the wife sacrifices her career for the family when she decides to be a housewife. He is not given an idea that he should share 25% of his salary into her bank account, the day he gets the salary. It may be a sure-shot idea of having a happy married life. Trust me.

So there is a disparity in the way we are bringing up our kids.

I know one family where the younger sister is away from home working hard for a career, and the elder son is wailing away his time waiting for his father to hand-over the business to him.

This is disastrous for the social fabric. Domestic violence and divorces would increase, and we would keep blaming the husband and the wife (and the kundalis !!!). It is really not important who beats whom. A girl earning more can very well beat the husband. A TIME article had commented that an earning wife is much more caustic about husbands spending their money, as compared to an earning husband. Read another analysis on similar lines.

The real blame should go to the parents. The real blame should go to education system. The real blame should go to the society at large that treats boys in a particular way, which is unreal in today's free world of modernity, capitalism and consumerism.

THINK ABOUT IT. Lets change for the sake of the BOY CHILD.

What's wrong with live-in relationships, asks Supreme Court

Marriage as a forceful essential convention has got a kick in the butt.

The Supreme Court yesterday opined that a man and woman living together without marriage cannot be construed as an offence. This, along with the January 2008 Supreme Court ruling stating that 'if a man and woman are involved in a live-in relationship for a long period, they will be treated as a married couple and their child would be called legitimate', makes for a great change in the Indian social fabric.

With respect to physical security, the female of live in relationship is already given protection under the Domestic Violence Act 2005. In terms of the fear that the male partner may leave the girl with kids is also no longer true. In the court of law, it will be very easy for her to prove legitimacy.

With respect to children, the SC judgement has dispelled all doubts and apprehensions crucial for the children’s future, their prestige and treatment among the society. They will be treated at equal footing in the court of law.

I have always questioned marriage as being the ultimate weapon for eternal togetherness. You may want to read this. These changing societal landscape only proves that nature ultimately will raise its head out of human-created shackles like marriage. Although it may not reduce the significance of marriage as a safe institution, but it will surely encourage and support the rebels to follow their instincts and conscience.

Like the Indian economy grew after the 1991 liberalisation, the social economy will also get enhanced by this liberty given to choose the way we want to spend our life with our partners.

This will also bring women into equal economic footing, as they don't have to face the pressures of convention inside a marriage.

Divorce and break-ups will be a lesser taboo and emotionally less draining. It will ultimately be considered natural.

Relationships will be stronger, as the likelihood of each partner taking the other for granted will be lesser. We all know that marriage as a social bind changes the dynamics of a relationship. 'Shaadi ke baad change ho gaya hain' will be a lesser heard phrase.

This judgements and developments may finally make 'marriage' a lesser inspiration for jokes. It may lead to lessening of the significance of one of the oldest proverb - 'Shaadi ke laddoo jo khaye woh pashtaye, Jo nehi khaye woh bhi (nehi) pashtaye!'

Jay Ho!

Husband, Wife, Marriage, In-laws.. an unending discussion!

Bringing you a very interesting dialogue that IHM and I are having. This is in continuation to my previous post - What I understand about 'Paraya Dhan' - A response to one of IHM's blog. I am putting her responses and my replies.

You may read her blog - Paraya Dhan and her limited rights - first to get the discussion entirely.

My 1st response: By the end, I stay confused. Somehow I cant relate to so much brouhaha about so many things. I feel there is too much superficiality, complications and double standards in your writing and in the messages. I think the perspectives are too narrow and urban-ish.

IHM: Urbanish perspective? Not entirely.I think basic problems women face are the same all over India. Divorce is still a dirty word – we force girls to ‘adjust’ and live with their in laws even if they don’t want to; a large number of widows still stay unmarried; girl- children are still unwelcome, getting married and staying married (and staying a suhagan ) is still very important for a girl…

My 2nd response: Marriage as an institution is man-made and is a fault-ridden convention. The other name of marriage is adjustment, compromise and adapting to a new family. Both the boy and the girl goes through new requirements in life. If you want to be in the convention, you better be conventional. Divorce will ALWAYS be a dirty word, adjustments will ALWAYS be required, staying married will always be important for both THE MAN and the woman. Widow re-marriage is surely an issue that my dad once fought for. I didn't understand why he was not letting my masi stay close to us. I was a kid. I wondered why he got her married to someone so far away. Now I understand and I respect my ‘Deuta’.}

My 1st response: Or perhaps my perspective is narrow and Assamese.
I am born and brought up in Assam, where there is no caste system, no class consciousness, no religious sentiments (changing drastically with ISI being active and Bangladeshi immigrants). I have not seen domestic violence, dowry and dowry death, divorces and ‘nuclear families’ (the few ones I saw were unhappy). I loved my joint family upbringing. I was fed (with hands) by the aunts more than my mom ever got a chance. Games like hide & seek, community swimming in the pond, getting honey from beehives wouldn't have been possible without a joint family.

IHM: A fun filled childhood no doubt. I know male children are preferred there too. Shouldn’t all children be loved equally? Let me ask you this – why do parents all over India prefer male children?

My 2nd response: I agree with you here but I have always seen parents being happy with a boy and a girl. A pair is considered a blessing. So, I have seen parents wanting a child depending on the first child. Yes they may be a bit skewed towards a boy for their first child. But this is going to change. This thought and preference had a genesis / reason which is past due date and the fundamentals have changed now. I understand you being pissed with this status-quo, being a woman, but at the same time please agree that things are changing. No point stressing or rebelling too much about it. Its like the Indian motorist honking the daylights out of the sound ecology, even when he knows that traffic can only move that fast, or worse when he knows that the red light has just turned green. So although it is a valid point you are making, you cannot get too prejudiced and jingoist about it. And talk only of girl issues in marriage. Our (educated bloggers) discussions should be gender-neutral or gender balanced. You know we Indians are actually much better off. Have you seen movies like ‘North Country’ and ‘Mississippi Burning’? You will realise the rural US of A. We have had woman presidents and prime-ministers. How many countries can boast of that?

My 1st response: I really don't understand so much fuss. I would just want to say, why cant we just let nature take its turn.

IHM: Is it unnatural for adults to marry the ones they love and to make a house of their own?

My 2nd response: Of course it is natural. It is also natural that her elders would want her to convince them of his worthiness. They can get difficult at times, but they are your elders, your family and I am sure they will understand. However, ‘making a house of their own’ is a bit dicey and implication laden proposition, because the corollary implies that they are BREAKING AN EXISTING HOUSE of their own. It is natural that they will face a harder test from the elders. Why is this bothering you? Isn't the fallout of their want for a house of their own, natural too?

IHM: Is it unnatural for a girl to want to be wanted and loved by her biological parents as much as any other child? Or is it unnatural for a society to let all children love their parents, not just the male children or just female children?

My 2nd response: Of course it is natural for a girl to feel wanted by her biological parents. Its a crime not to let the female child not love their own parents? But the duty of the girl is also to give love and get love from her new parents. It may sound harsh but she has herself got into an existing convention called marriage. The boy is also in the same boat. He is the son to her parents. Ya it is worse for the woman because she has to stay with the husband’s parents. But that's a patrilineal tradition. And has not happened by fluke. You should understand that it is worse for the khashi and Garo MEN to stay with the girls’ parents; theirs is a matrilineal tradition. On a lighter note, the son also has a lot to go through in a joint family. Just imagine how difficult it gets to the man to have two women in his life – Mom and wife? Ha! If you are interested, let me tell you about an interesting Assamese custom. The mother of the groom does not attend the actual marriage puja. She cries and bid farewell to her son till the front door of her house. You may be thinking, what crap!!? But its true. She acknowledges and willfully bids farewell to her son to another woman – his wife. From the day of the marriage, her son is the responsibility and property of his wife. So woman favouring tradition does exist and society has acknowledged the position of the wife.

IHM: And is it unnatural that all women want to be valued even if they only have daughters/ or no children/ or no husband or no brothers? Do think about it.

My 2nd response: I thought. Like all woman want to be valued irrespective of her marital / reproductive status, all man also wants to be valued the same way. Have you noticed the way society looks at a divorced man, child-less man or an unmarried man. I know you may have noticed that about a woman. Men are also in the same boat. Society is crazy and helpful at the same time. It will eat you up if you are not among one of them. Importantly (and relevant to this discussion), there is no gender bias.

My 1st response: There are woman who do not think that household work is mundane. They love to be nurturers. They love to be provided for, to be submissive and feel sexy. And there are women who would always crib about a supposedly generated status-quo of women’s deplorable plight & jump up and down for women’s independence in terms of financial security.

IHM: There are also women who want a little more than household work. Won’t it be better if each did what they are inclined towards?

My 2nd response: I am a big support of free will. Women should be allowed to whatever they are inclined. And I don't believe that they are not allowed. There is resistance but things are changing. But the point I am repeating is that marriage requires certain adjustments from both the boy and the girl. And convention says that the girl is the nurturer. But woman do have a choice. In my hometown Duliajan, 99.9% woman are, as you call them, ‘Provided for’. But
interestingly the only MLA winning 3 consecutive assembly elections in my home constituency was a woman. See, there are choices to be made everywhere. But every choice has resistance applying both to THE MAN and the woman.

IHM: Do you really believe that the problems that are discussed on this blog are not genuine? I understand that it may not directly concern you, maybe it has never touched your life directly, but does that mean the problems do not exist?

My 2nd response: The problems that are discussed are not representative and are skewed towards woman. Problems may actually exist, that's not the point. My point is that I always rebel against skewed discussions, scenarios and logic. Skewed discussions never veer towards root causes of a problem phenomenon. Skewed discussions are more of crib sessions and finger pointing sessions. Of course culture plays an important role for a skewed scenario. For instance, a girl slapping a man on the streets would everyone have assuming that the man must have done something wrong. Similarly when I am in your blog and your forum, I feel I am in a skewed scenario with remarks and cribs without any clear analysis. I don't want to escape, and instead want to provide my two bits. So I am responding even after losing 2000 words to smoke. (My first try at this response got deleted). Consider another imaginary analogy of a 'man-blog' saying “Monogamy sucks, Polygamy is the way”. Going by my opinion that Men are intrinsically seeders (do you agree?) and there is a good chance of a rush of man-supporters to that blog. But that blog or the discussion that will ensue may not keep the general female population in mind. It would be definitely man-skewed. That's not productive for the overall society. Remember blog (pen) is mightier than the sword!

My 1st response: Today in Mumbai with increasing number of blogs (aka awareness) about women independence, I see more confused woman, more confused about their role in the society. More divorces. More under-eye circles.

IHM: The dark circles were always there, and the confusions were NOT permitted to women, so our folk lore and folk songs are full of women ( and their parents) fearing or complaining about a girl’s in laws.

My 2nd response: Folklore are also filled with remarks ridiculing marriage, ridiculing a wife’s tantrums, cracking jokes on Joru Ka Gulam etc etc. Also don't forget jokes. When I was engaged and was wearing my engagement ring, one of my seniors told me “that's not a wedding ring, that's suffe-ring. Ha! Again repeating, boys are in the same boat, IHM.

IHM: Today women are in a position to be able to do something about the confusions. And I agree it may disturb those who were comfortable with the old system, but should that mean we do not look for alternatives?

My 2nd response: I don't believe that anybody stopped women from getting confused. Marriage is also about giving shoulders to each other to get confused (and cry!). And we are successfully getting confused all the time. Why do you say, confusions were not permitted to women? Also I don't know if your blog or the comments are doing anything about solving the confusions. Its not analysing the issue keeping the husband in the picture. If you read one of the comments in my blog when I published my 1st response in my blog, shubhra says very aptly “Confusion arises when people/women confuse traditional views for being 'sexist'. Women being the nurturers of the family should not be considered/termed as 'Dependants'. No one would like to be associated with this word. Traditionally women have been perceived as biological production plants in certain societies and have been inhumanly treated..Probably that is the reason for such angst in the modern woman... They have been taught how their breed has been tortured for years and the only way to change this is to become financially dependant. I would plead all the women to treat this as a phenomenon practiced in few societies and not generalise this as a traditional norm. Domestic violence should not be acceptable to anyone, including women..But at the same time every woman should have an insight into who she is and what she wants from the society and from herself..Only then will she realise whether she wants to be a nurturer or a provider...or both(if she can balance the act) Once she accepts who she is, she will not feel the need to prove herself by going out of the way to fit into the modern society." Very well said, Shubhra. Thanks.

IHM: No divorces may or may not mean happy marriages. A lot of couples stay together even when they are unhappy – and that does not mean the marriage is successful, it simply means they are afraid of society’s reaction to a separation. Living together only because they have no choice is always a good idea?

My 2nd response: You are absolutely right. ‘No divorce’ is a farce. However, I again repeat, the man is also afraid of society’s reaction. Why do you forget that? Marriage is difficult and people do stay married for fear, for kids etc. It is a gender neutral phenomenon.

My 1st response: The reason is we are not letting each one be. Our support systems are breaking. We don't know our neighbours. We don't play hide and seek anymore!!

IHM: About Support Systems. Widows were often returned to their parents’ home and their children were discriminated against by whoever supported them – brothers or in laws. Today we realise that even if one needs support, one need not be dependent – today a widow can earn and ensure that her children and she, both have respect. Isn’t this a better system? Here I feel even the brothers can’t really be blamed – it was a forced responsibility. I feel a society where all adults can take basic care of themselves is a healthier society.

My 2nd response: I believe in re-marrying the widow and supporting her from all sides. But ya there are cases of her being sent away and blamed for the husband's death. I have not seen it myself though. With education, woman will start getting independent financially and you are right all adults taking care of themselves is a healthier society. Sau taka! But again, its more like social in-consistencies created by the strong and mighty. The similar analogy is the Brahmin-Non Brahmin issue. For centuries, Brahmins never allowed the non-brahmins to go to pathsaala. They always wanted the non-brahmins to be illiterate so that they don't understand their mantras that they recite (one of the reasons). Let me tell another interesting thing about ‘Brahmin mantra’. Did you know that on the marriage fire (don't know what it is called) the pandit actually marries the girl to himself and then hands her over to the husband. If you
decipher the sanskrit mantra you would see that he is the one who is marrying the girl first. He is a Brahmin and has a first right (of refusal!) over all of us. Another thing about Mantra that I read was, when one gives pind by the funeral pyre to his parents, the panditji through mantra says that the son actually is the cause of his father’s death and he has to wash his sins by giving dakshinas – a cow, a goat etc etc… Today things have changed and will continue changing.

My 1st response: I have seen both worlds. I have seen my joint family. And I have seen khashi and Garo families where the youngest daughter gets the property of the mother and the boys go to the girls’ house. I see how they beautifully manage.

IHM: They should be treated like all other adult family members- like equal members, taking part in all decision making, and their opinion should have the same value as other members.

My 2nd response: I completely agree. It will change with education and awareness. It will also change the way a mother in law (also a woman!) is overpowering and has an uneven say.

My 1st response: In Mumbai (perhaps in all metros), I have seen woman going to their parent’s home when she is about 6-7 months pregnant. That completely leaves me NUMB. My parents and the parents that I have grown up with would have taken that to insult. If the daughter in law feels more comfortable in her parent’s house after marriage, and not in the husband’s house, it is a curse for the in-laws. Believe you me, I have always met wives who are happier delivering in their husband’s home, therefore.

IHM: I think a woman should be able to choose who she feels more comfortable with – a girl who can go to her parents house whenever she likes is definitely happier than a girl who will fear that her show of love or trust for her parents might be taken as an insult by her in laws. Such things should not become a matter of honor or insult, this is the reason why women feel oppressed in Joint families.

My 2nd response: I agree. I don't debate free will. But I have observed that in-laws do take extra care so that she actually feel comfortable, esp. when there is a social obligation. See in the cases that I have seen, both the son’s mom and the daughter’s parents have given farewell to them and they have themselves for everything and the boy’s parents in most case. So the girl never thinks that she has the option that she can go to her parents. so she does not feel oppressed at all. A person in the desert may not feel the need for an AC, when he does not know about the existence of AC. Its like only when we buy an AC, that we cant sleep without an AC. See I am not referring to giving support back to parents, financial or otherwise. Both parents should be taken care of. They are our elders. Period.

My 1st response: Last week, one incident shook me up. One of my team members came to me and requested me for a leave of 1/2 days. She said her sister has got chicken pox and so her mother has to go and take care of her. And obviously since she had a baby, she cant come to office. Now the question that puzzled me was ‘where is her sister’s husband, parents, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts…’
I (we) take ‘paraya dhan’ very seriously. If somebody can trust their dhan to us and call their own blood as our dhan, we will better take care of her and make her the cynosure of our eyes.

IHM: An adult citizen’s welfare cannot be left to her family’s good intentions. When adults live together, there can be disagreements and there can be ego clashes, an adult should be able – if she so chooses, to live in her own house with her spouse, without being made to feel guilty.

My 2nd response: Good intentions are all that we have to trust and make our future. If we cant leave anything to good intentions, then most of the concepts in this world will collapse. As I said, living in her own house implies NOT LIVING in her husband's house. So it is natural to face resistence. Please note that her husband's house is her house now. She may not feel it in the first few years of her marriage, but she will be the overpowering SasuMa one day thumping her rights in every little detail. So its perhaps a bit of a trade off for the woman in the first few years. On a lighter note, I hate wearing ties but who is forcing me to work in a bank. Me myself. Fact is I forced myself hard to get into a bank because it pays. I never dreamt of the salary that I get in reality today. But the fallout is that in a bank, you have to be in a bloody formal dress. So I believe that for any problem or discomfort, we should first think why we got into the problem situation. Are we making a trade off? Then suddenly you may find relief.

IHM: The biggest problem with ‘paraya dhan’ is the girl belongs nowhere, the parents raise her to fit into another family, and the other family makes her their honor, pride and responsibility. Take a look at what girls all over India go through as kids because they are ‘paraya dhan’. What about their childhood?

My 2nd response: I dont agree that the girl belongs nowhere. In fact it is the dream & destiny of girls to marry INTO a good, wealthy, generous, loving family all over India. Also, today’s bahu is the SasuMa tomorrow. She is the bloody owner of the house and has all the keys for a good 20 years of her mature life. A man can never become as powerful as the SasuMa. Even otherwise, as a wife, you tell me who decides the colour of the house, the sofa set, the window curtains, the drawing room, the drawing room table where the husband cant put his leg, the colour of the shirts that the husband wears, the ganjees and underwears of the husband, … today, tell me who decides the nursery school, who decides the auto rickshaw taking the kids to school…and so much more that the wife does.