Nobility

                        Who of the two is our adopted child?

Way back in the times when myth and legends that we know of is said to have happened, boons and manna were often dispensed by the Gods. Couples yearning to have a child of their own blood used to engage the preist-dom in sacrificial sorcery and offerings to the heavens, thereupon from the sacrificial fire appeared a god or goddess with the boon that would fecundate and soon a child is born. The mythical treatise of Ramayana mentions King Dasharadh appeasing the gods and his wives bearing children. The legend of Karna was born when the Sun god showered his pleasure on the mother of Pandavas, then still a maiden. The story of Christ is born out of virgin conception- again a decision by the God.  

It seems to have been a pretty easy exercise when the Gods had the sole dispensing right for the baby boom, compared to the trial and error matters with the intervention of man and medical sciences.

I was at the wedding of this gentleman “Y” ,in 1996. He was a friend and business acquaintance. The bride was an Andhraite Brahmin and a very exuberant person. We knew her from earlier times when they were courting.   The marriage was conducted in typical Brahmin fashion. It was an elaborate wedding in Bangalore followed by a elaborate dinner later in the evening.

Though I used to meet him occasionally and was communicating often on business matters we also used to preface our conversations with mutual enquiries after both our families. However, I did not meet his children, though I was aware that his family has expanded. And a couple of years back while I was in Bangalore for a business meeting in his office, he invited me home for lunch.  And I saw his children, a boy and two girls. He introduced me to the boy who was about eighteen. “A, meet my son.” And the girls were one in her adolescence and the other a few years younger.

 It just did not fit for me. First, his wedding year and the age of the eldest son were at odds. A guy married in1996 cannot have a son who is about eighteen in 2009. And bizarre it may be the boy seemed to have a Nepali appearance. It would be grossly rude and discourteous to refer these things in the conversation. And I smothered with the oddity until the next day when I could tell another friend about the confounding matter.

 The fact was that the boy was adopted and of Nepali descent. I was surprised, peeved at my silliness and felt admiration for the man.

Look around and we see many childless couples anxiously running about from temples to churches, and mausoleums before eventually ending up in infertility clinics that have mushroomed around every bend on the road. Gods seldom handout babies and bless with conceptions these days, though the lure and wizardry of faith and beliefs lead people to religious abodes. However, the medical practioner amused and patient waits as he knows that eventually his cash box will tinkle as couples will seek his assistance – cul-de sac.

The cruel irony is that as in any facet of life there are reprobates at large among physicians as well. These men of medicine often exploit the desperation of these gullible men and women who yearn for a child. One may not wonder if the lid is blown on these infertility clinics and their reprehensible and libertine ways are exposed. 

I wonder what precludes people who are physiologically unable to fecundate or conceive from taking recourse to adoption. Even the learned and educated of the gentry make beeline to places that offer supernatural remedies for infertility. Astonishingly they do not reason the course of adoption, which is nobler and practical than conceiving through a donor sperm, having a child through a surrogate or seek upward for the impossible to happen!

The handsome Nepali boy must have been adopted from a shelter for destitute. He must be immensely fortunate to get a home, loving parents and foster sisters. It was pleasure watching the family stay together, play, joke, and live together. Perhaps a rare glimpse of what heaven could be on this earth. And, for Y to proudly introduce him as his son is a prise that is nobler than nobility can ever be!

The Monster-in-Law

“ I,…….. , take thee,….. , to my lawful wedded Husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I give thee my troth.”

The vow of fidelity pronounced, the priest declares the couple “Man and Wife”. This is in true Christian fashion. Though the mutual plight is not necessarily pledged in weddings in other traditions the conduct is such that mutual acceptance as man and wife or woman and husband is emphasised.

But where in these vows or rituals can we find the reference to the “mother- in- law” inserted? I once heard someone (a woman) assert that when a girl marries a man, she also marries the mother-in-law! Hear hear the ones among women who are liberated! Surely this must be a chicanery of male chauvinists in cahoots with mothers in law!

I would not be hurt if fathers- in- law were given similar consideration and importance in matters, because I may be one, one day and then to feel the relegation from priority would be disheartening. But alas that is the way the world has been made- pardon me if I believe it is a woman’s world!

However all is not quite well on the western front. Perhaps it is lucky to be a father-in-law and consequently be ignored. For, the wedlock between a bride and her mother in law has not often been proved an aid to world peace and stability. 

I have been trying to keep my eyes and ears well overhauled to see or hear about a fascinating episode somewhere of a son-in-law – father-in-law affaire in the mold of the typical daughter-in-law – mother-in-law affection that we often hear of. Why it is the in-law syndrome seem to be endemic to women? This happens irrespective of culture, education and grooming. It is often that more defining the education and status, miserable is the relationship of the woman –in law.

I know of this woman hailing from a respectable family in Tamilnad and, she is a senior secretary in the government from the Indian administrative service. However she is perhaps the meanest of women, I have known of. She would probably address a social gathering about the responsibilities and family duties of a woman, then go home and banish her mother-in-law to bed without dinner. Then keep the little sister of the man in the kitchen throughout the night doing chores. These may be simply the pig tail ends of the real life conduct the IAS officer indulges with pleasure and satisfaction.

This does not always mean that the poor mothers-in-law are the offended lot piled over with misery and injustices. Every mother- in- law has once graduated from being a daughter- in-law. And the pendulum swings both ways. In such situations, often than not, the man is not to be seen as absolved, but is pliable, acquiescing and imbecile. Either the fellow is impotent or ductile to the whims of either his wife or the mother.  This should not mean that there are  no miserable fellows  who are caught in the crossfire . 

Psychologists explains away the syndromes as possessiveness of the mother for her son and her subconscious mind dictating that she refuse to  share the affection, attention and care of her son with another woman, an intruder, stranger and an alien. And, alternate cases, the wife feeling exasperated and disturbed by the intrusion of the old hag, the mother-in-law into her privacy and lone moments with her man.  I would rubbish this like the predilections Sigmund Freud was said to have in identifying most thoughts and notions with sex, (It is said that he even related a mother's feelings while she breastfeeds her infant to that of what is akin to sexual pleasure). I wonder if there are any mothers out there who would not ridicule this as Freudian nonsense and obsession. 

The panacea perhaps lies in a bit of understanding by the man that after all the good Lord made “woman”-  harvesting  rib from his rib cage. And he better watches out and let her/them not pick at the remaining ribs!

An exception to the rule of the “monster –in- law syndrome” is the comedy film trilogy- “Meet the Parents”, “Meet the Focker’s” and “The Little Fockers”, wherein the story revolves around a father-in-law in the monster-in-law mould and the son-in-law at his nadir end.

Civility In Argumentation

Blogs, like the superficial world of social network such as fb provide a medium to convey and also hear others. But the difference is that it is not of little substance as the later. An opportunity to see one's thoughts or even ramblings in print and in cloud all for free! (Imagine having to convince a publisher to bet on us). However it will be preposterous to presume and be dictated by one’s fantasies and bias than by argumentation. To rubbish the other out of prejudice will tell more of one’s cussedness. To hold the view that if you are against my opinion you are against me, a dictum followed by Mrs. Indira Gandhi and in the recent past by George.W.Bush is churlish in the least.

Are we able to receive criticism as we would invite appreciation? What would be the reaction to someone who may not agree with us? What would we do when we see someone able to threaten our beliefs or opinions which we know though inexplicable, we need to cling to for comfort or, for it may be necessary to cater our ego and may be even because of the fear of being disrobed? And do we use obstinacy as a shield of defense?  In the final analysis we feel offended .don’t we? Some of us would all the while and some, sometimes.

A tongue in cheek remark! “Yes, your statement, the clichéd judgment you made …, no comments as usual, you may carry on.” Doesn’t that tell more of the acerbic state of mind than a discerning repartee? Or it can also be because of misconstruing. In any case the loss is the spirit of debate.

It is a matter of fact that matters that are governed by social etiquette may not be confined to sexes, they overlap; there are certainly characteristics predisposed in the male of species and differently in female of species (man and beast). The matter is more evolutionary and how Nature has chiseled. And gregarious social life or formative and later day education may not necessarily completely erase evolutionary predilections. I’m apprehensive of commenting on such issues as there can be veiled and wanton statements categorising me as a women baiter. Which will certainly be as wild an allegation borne more out of inability to understand what I state and the spirit behind it? A statement of the kind mentioned in the paragraph above is deliberately left ambiguous and more than that it is subtle and crafty, assigned to euphemistically convey a message. “You conceited arse hole, you may brag but I don’t care, because I can never be wrong.”

It, to me would be akin to a termagant who wants to convey to the spouse her displeasure towards his indifference for something she fancies, but would love to exult in conveying messages through subterfuge, innuendo and as ambiguous as possible, (also say beat about the bush) to finally wear him out rather than confront him directly and tell him in simple language what she wants or means. Pertinently, not doing so is also the sign of the inability to convey in words and with reason why the person dissents. Also tells the confused mind the person keeps, though he/she would love to think otherwise-crafty allusions rather than facts that should convey the reaction in logical terms. An insurgent, guerrilla mentality perhaps!

I’m afraid of the notion, be it in me or other that what one says and believes is right and inviolate. Especially when one do not will to explain. And if the other with sufficient conviction and reason can decimate our notion, it is cussedness to play spoil sport and brand the person as intemperate and biased.

Tim Sebastian is an articulate person most of us would remember seeing on the BBC talk show, “Hard Talk”. He had pilloried many famous and infamous through his well-directed questions, crispy comments and retorts. His well-researched interviews have elicited many truths and made the many known for notoriety perspire in discomfort. And not that his observations were never repudiated effectively by the interviewee! Once, he was asked what he feels when sits across the table with the famous and the infamous. He commented that, it was his job and what he ensures at the closure of an interview was only to not shake hands with criminals and the ones with blood on their hands. Well are there folks amongst us with blood on their hands?

I suppose that in a discussion in the social world, it is necessary that one dose show the sagacity and civility to respect a different perspective, or question it with logic. And not be obstinately offended by a critique or comment understood incorrectly and in a wrong context. For being repudiated argumentatively is in fact a graduation to an improved state of mind and thought. Isn’t it so?