On marriage, fidelity and such
I know I promised people a post on my cats, but earlier this week I caught the last half of Barkha Dutt's We the People on NDTV, which perplexed me one hell of a lot, and raised rather a lot of questions that I would like to discuss. So that is what this post is going to be on - I'll give you all the lowdown on the feline half of my family next time, I promise.
The issue was marriage and fidelity, prompted by the release of Karan Johar's much-hyped Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna - or so I gathered from the fact that Karan Johar and Shah Rukh Khan were part of the panel - along with some esteemed people who the media clearly considers specialists when it comes to matters pertaining to emotional well-being - Shobaaaa (did I get the number of 'a's after her name right?) De, some tarot card reader whose name I've forgotten, and the creator of shaadi.com. Anyway, what I want to discuss is the issue of fidelity. We've all been brought up tp believe that cheating is BAD, seen enough films and telelvision shows that show marriages breaking up thanks to extra-marital affairs, and have a well-defined contempt for the greatest vamp of all times - the 'other woman'.
Yet here were people blithely asserting that fidelity isn't such a huge issue any more, because 'everyone cheats'! And, since everyone does so, it ceases to be wrong - in fact, the tarot card reader, who doubles as a counsellor (presumably because of the qualifications deciphering pretty coloured cards load her with), stated emphatically that she never encourages women with straying husbands to leave them - quite the opposite, in fact, even if the wives are clearly shattered by the incident. Ms De (when she wasn't busy promoting her latest book) supported this statement. And everyone imputed this recent sociological change in the family structure and roles to modernity, since it's the youth who are supposed to be indulging in merry cheating everywhere you look.
Shah Rukh was actually the only one who made any sense, and certainly the only one who came across as honest - after candidly confessing to being 'old-fashioned' and 'conservative', he exhorted people to be clear in their heads about why they were getting married - did they genuinely believe in the commitment they were making, or were they doing so because everyone in India is expected to marry at a certain age, in much the same way that they're expected to graduate or get a job? Because if you believe in the commitment you make, you will honour it. But his was a lone voice - even people from the audience calmly said they wouldn't leave their partners if they discovered them cheating.
Now this is where my perplexity lies. Because I always thought marriage - any relationship - was a pretty sacrosanct deal. You become responsible for the happiness and well-being of another person, and the commitment you make is not so you can break it at the first available opportunity. When I got married, I did so to a person I loved, someone I wanted to share the rest of my life with. The commitment I made was a promise I'm not going to renege on. And one of the essential components in a relationship is trust. You trust your partner to be with you, to honour his/her commitment towards you, to never hurt you in any way. Cheating means s/he's done all the above. How, then, can you stay on in a relationship with a person who's betrayed your trust? How can you ever trust her/him again? Does anyone else feel the same way, or is it true that fidelity has become a bit of a joke these days? Is it true that, despite the sanctity social norms have bestowed on the institution, marriages are increasingly becoming a sham? I know my friends feel much the same as I - so where is this 'everyone' who cheats as a matter of course? Is this yet another sign of the moral turpitude of our times?
Here, I'm not taking into consideration 'open marriages/relationships' - if people have stated their intentions of eschewing monogamy to their partners, and if the partners are happy with the arrangement, there is nothing else to be said. But that isn't the case here, obviously - surely women wouldn't be tearfully asking the tarot lady if divorce is a good idea if they knew what they had signed up for?
It came as no surprise when, later in the discussion, one found that divorce was much frowned upon. Bad word, that - still is, strangely enough, even in the liberated 21st century where everyone cheats. People were even more firm when it came to children - a couple has got to stay together if they have kids, was the unanimous opinion. Except for Karan Johar, and I agree with him (can't believe I actually said that!) - wouldn't living in the company of two adults who just do not get along, in an acrimonious, tension-riddled household, actually harm the children in the long run? Contrary to what most adults think, children are not stupid. Far from it. Their parents' unhappiness and hostility would communicate themselves to them - and imagine living the better part of your life in constant tension and stress. Wouldn't it be better, given that scenario, to separate and give children some form of resolution?
Tough choices, I know, and complex issues, but - what do you think?
About Me
- A very cool cat
- A confirmed misanthrope, I'm a great believer in personal space, and living and letting live. Admire and appreciate intelligence, self-awareness and humility in people, and detest arrogance, rudeness, selfishness, avarice, ignorance, meanness, irresponsibility, bigotry, and callow, youthful know-it-alls. Passionate about animals, especially cats. And I love sunshine. Really don't see the poetry in dark, gloomy skies, dank weather, and mud squelching underfoot.
13 comments:
Everything I say below is what I have observed and inferred, not my personal views on the subject.
Marriages are more a matter of convenience than commitment. If it was an arranged marriage that the couple had, then after the initial excitement has died, they've been making compromises against their will to safeguard the marriage because the society expects them to. Even when it comes to fidelity, it's not that they want to live with their spouse any more, it's a whole lot of other considerations. The family, as in the persons parents, siblings are in most cases, against a separation. Divorce is a taboo even now, as you mentioned. If the man has been cheating, there still are a whole lot of women who are economically dependent on their husbands, and leaving him in their late 30s when you have children growing up is not a practical thing to do. If the woman is cheating, it's the man's ego. It's not easy to let go of someone, and more so if she chose another person over you. There's always this attempt to impose your will on her, to make her submit as a punishment, rather than leave her and be free to pursue her new relationship.
Besides the normal practical, social and familial reasons, it's always a way of getting back at the other person. Men shy away from divorce at times because if they make the first move, they'll have to pay more as alimony, which would not be acceptable to them for a cheating partner. Women would not take the first step for the same reasons, and also because they are supposedly more concerned about children (I've made the statement Karan Johar made, everytime I've had a similar discussion with my mum), and also because it's ingrained in their psyche very deeply that divorce is not a socially acceptable thing. And anyway, let's face it, single women do not have an easy life in our society, whether unmarried or divorced. They are deemed easily 'available'.
When it's a love marriage, besides all the above factors, another thing that one has to own upto is that one made the wrong decision to begin with. The concerned person has to take the responsibility of marrying the wrong partner, making an immature/rash choice, often against the will of the family. And again, there's always this hope that the other person might come back when he/she realizes the mistake he/she has made. It's ego, it's chivalry, it's a perverse fascination for pain, it's sympathy, it's convenience and it's apathy that one seeks.
Considering all this, it doesn't really come as a surprise that one doesn't see many separations taking place, and that when I can personally vouch for atleast 5 couples in my vicinity who've been married for over two decades and who'd have had it a lot easier had they been single. To even think of divorce is considered preposterous. It's supposed to be the 'videshi' thing, the western culture that's permeating and corrupting our oh! so pure culture. We will stick to our roots, even if that means destroying all mental peace, harmony within the home, bringing up children in an environment that gives them no scope to grow normally and happily (which I believe is extremely essential for a plethora of reasons), all to keep up that status of being married.
I personally feel that marriage is an extremely beautiful institution, a perfectly valid reason for people to come together and spend their lives embracing each other for what they are, but it saddens me to accept that most marriages today have become a farce in that respect (though I doubt they ever were so pure, what with dowry, polygamy, and the whole history attached to marriages across the globe). If a married partner discovers that the other is cheating, it makes no sense to carry on living with that person, since the very reason why you got together in the first place does not exist. There is no trust, no faith, no love. As for the other person still continuing in this relationship, it might be for the fact that the third person is not ready for a commitment, or due to the fear of being socially ostracized. I believe that if one actually has another relationship while being married, it is a perfectly reasonable occurence, but then the person has to go to ones spouse, talk it out and take it on thereafter.
After all this, I think it's long enough for a post, and that I should withhold any more views that I might have till I am married and hope that I have a happy marriage. :)
Firstly I don't think one should base their outlook on marriage or how it is perceived from show where the panel is so heavily skewed towards the upper middle class.
I wonder though if they showed some statistics and what kind of sampling was done. Because attitude towards marriage changes from colony to colony (especially in a place like New Delhi!).
I think more than the trust issue is that of belief.. people do make mistakes in life, they do things which totally destroys the trust (which in the first place needs to be built up with a great deal of hard work).
But if you believe in some person then I am sure that you can make them realise what they did wrong and one certainly shouldn't need tarot cards to decide.
Marriage in this day an age has become a necessity for many people, kind of like having a cell phone. In India people start thinking funny things if you are not married off by a certain age.
Therefore I agree with Shah Rukh when he says be sure you believe in the commitment which you are about to make.
The marriage scenario has become polarised in today's age... on one hand you have people coming together not because they want to but because they are pressured or they just don't know what else to do. When you are pressured into something where does the trust factor come in? Or maybe the trust factor is even more explicit, since you are being married off to someone (maybe chosen by parents?) then they would surely would take care of you? I don't know what the case is. I guess it would be different with different people
On the other hand you have the clear cut practical approach to marriage. This kind of approach I think is being promoted by sites like Shaadi.com where each and every piece of info about a person is laid out... much like a car or an electronic gadget has its specification listed out.
This allows practical people to search for things which they value.
Such an open approach hardly leaves any room for trust. It is more like you accept the risk because the person has thing that you are looking for.
I found this bit to be the most interesting one:
"Far from it. Their parents' unhappiness and hostility would communicate themselves to them - and imagine living the better part of your life in constant tension and stress. Wouldn't it be better, given that scenario, to separate and give children some form of resolution?"
This is a very personal thing, each approch has its own positive and negative points depending on the exact situation.
There is no way of saying which solution is the best way out.
I don't think even if the parents seperated it would guarantee any relief to the child. Things might become more confusing for them.
Society, especially other children, (like you say children are not stupid esp. thanks to Mdm. Ekta Kapoor!)
would surely not sympathise with them.
Then maybe it is better to keep things hidden so that atleast the child can lead a normal existance in the world.
As they say prevention is better than cure. I think they should have some kind of licence for having kids. Where you should have a specific minimum age and should have been married for certain number of years, maybe even go through psychological profiling.
I know its a crazy idea but its better than bringing up kids who suffer from hypertension and other issues.
While not all marriages should be saved forcefully, splitting up shouldn't be made as easy as making a cup of tea.
This may somehow guarantee that only those couples split up who really have issues which cannot be cleared up through professional help and counselling.
One of the major factors in a successful relation is the maturity of the female.
Not meant to sound sexist or anything but many times guys do end up doing stupid things and the ball always lands up in the girls court to deal with... thus here a mature female will (I hope) take a better quality decision...
Azahar and Swetank: First, thanks a ton for taking the time out to write such long and well thought-out posts - much appreciated! Second - and I probably should have stated this earlier - I am aware of how marriage means different things to different people, especially those belonging to different socio-economic backgrounds. I know why some women cannot leave their partners - financial dependence being the least of it. However, what I was highlighting was this airy dismissal of everything marriage is supposed to be, regardless of whether it actually is, and that too on prime-time television, on a channel that a whole lot of people consider worth their while.
But I guess you're both right - societal pressure, coupled with the exigencies of keeping up appearances, connive to make sure marriages turn into little more than contracts, despite what films or advertising would have you believe. Sad. However, since I know several people who do not subscribe to this view, you included Swetank, I think there's still hope for this rather jaded institution.
And as for divorce and children - I agree, Azahar, that specific cases have their own dynamics, but the view I have set forth is not one that's popular. Most people will stay in a bad marriage for the sake of their children - I think someone, somewhere should try and ask these children what they would have wanted, given a choice.
However, I'm not sure I agree with you, Azahar, when you say that the burden of responsibility should fall on the woman because men will do dumb things - that's the kind of presumption that make a lot of men feel they can do exactly what they want and yet expect to be forgiven for it - while someone else, usually a woman, picks up the pieces. A relationship is a two-way affair - both partners need to be mature, responsible, and accountable for anything that goes wrong.
I wrote my comments...but midway got confused as to what is the point of debate?
Is it that marriages dont mean anything? that cheating on 'ones' partner is allowed? How can we say that? For if we do agree to that view - we will be hurting the sentiments of millions of people who are happily married - and who have built that relationship of trust and love bit by bit...
But does that mean - that all marriages are beautiful relationships? Marriages may go sour...whether it was entered into by one's own consensus or whether it was arranged. And the reason maybe, not 'fault' of any person - but the realisation that the two people are not able to go along with each other, meet each other's expectations. If we go along with the belief that marriages are sacroscant - then the person who tries to opt out of the marriage - becomes the 'villian'... On the other hand, should a person be forced to continue with the marriage?
But on the other hand - if a person has shattered a partner's trust and faith, by an unthinking act - then its the breakdown of a relationship. And the relationship breaks down - because atleast one of the two people who entered into it has an understanding of marriage that is different from the other....
or a marriage may continue even after an act of infidelity...because of the capacity of one person to forgive another...
And then perhaps people have different expectations from their partners, from their marriages. What is 'infidelity?' We usually associate it with having sex outside marriage - but what if a person finds friendship or companionship in someone other than the married partner? - a companionship that fills a gap that the marriage is lacking but at the same time - it maybe that the person is fully devoted to his or her own marriage. Would it be infidelity?
Open relationships - are not so open either. It maybe that I got the book wrong - but Paulo Choello in Zahir...the main characters were in an open relationship - till one of them leaves in search of her true self...and the other realises that he had taken her for granted all along and embarks upon a journey in search of her.
and this brings me back to my confusion - what are we discussing? I am not even married - I pose all these questions from what I know of people around me ....
Hey thanks a lot!!
As for that post, I was just kidding with that friend, but I've been meaning to link your blog too. Just that I forget about it everytime I read your post and comment on it (It's taxing). :D
Will do it now. :)
Hi Kalpalata - thanks so much for that comment! Yes, you're right, it is confusing - in fact, there were these couple of young guys in the audience who actually asked the panelists if there was any point to getting married if what they said marriage was all about was really true! At which point said panelists, who were till then making light of the commitment that necessarily needs accompany marriage, did an about turn and waxed eloquent on the beauty of the institution!
Once again, I have to iterate that I know marriage is a complex issue, and no two marriages are the same - neither can we impute the same 'rules' that each relationship has to follow. However, these panelists, however much we might scoff at them and their credentials, do stand out in the media, and often claim to speak for a certain section of Indians. When they so blithely - and yet vehemently - asserted that fidelity is a non-issue, and divorce the last resort, I couldn't help but be startled, appalled and compelled to initiate this discussion, more so because they claimed that all they said was the 'truth', as practised by young people today.
But you've raised a very interesting point about fidelity - I've often thought of that too. In fact, in discussions with women friends, we've all agreed that we would be equally - if not more - threatened by the prospect of our partners finding emotional intimacy with someone else.
Swetank, you're welcome! And thank you for linking me, too! :)
:)
Actually by the maturity of the woman I did not mean for her to handle the situation without compromising the relation...
Perhaps my example was one sided but I meant that since all problems end with the woman and she is the one who has to face the burden of her decision (often alone).. a mature person will realise things which you talked about (w.r.t. the relation not working out) much quicker and will not be afraid to go against social pressure.
The maturity needs to be there to make sure that she knows when it is time to try and save the relation and when the relation is beyond saving.
"I think someone, somewhere should try and ask these children what they would have wanted, given a choice."
I don't think most children have that kind of maturity or that deep an understanding of social dynamics to make the choice.
When a relation is breaking down the direct effects are felt by the children. They become the central issue. In such a state of confusion how can the child decide. It is kind of like trying to decide which way to go when you are in the middle of a thick fog, without any maps or instruments.
Most kids would just want the confusion to end.. but they wouldnt be able to see the tradeoffs resulting from the end of the confusion.
Maybe this is where child counsellors can come in? I don't know how accessible are these facilities in India.
After all mental health disorders are right up there at the top of the list of taboo subject in India.
This once again touches on a post you made earlier about dowry. Because the submission of females doesnt just start after marriage.. it starts much before.
Yes this is a very confusing topic, maybe because there cannot be a single answer to it. Whether a couple can remain in a relationship /marriage after one of them has strayed is I suppose not the question. Couples have and they will. Is the question how can they?
I am not married, but I am trying to imagine what a marriage is. (I still think that we have to make a difference between marriage and a relationship when we talk of this…. inspite of our discussion…) I’d think ideally, in the initial few years a marriage would be a meeting of hearts and minds, a sharing a caring ….. After a point, children would come into the picture, adding responsibilities and as the years progress a marriage would entail responsibilities vis-à-vis each other, children, the extended family… It would entail joint finances, joint bank accounts, investments, maybe joint business, memberships, a joint face to the world. So with the progression of years a marriage would become like a complex organism which two people who have bonded have created together. Even in a marriage in which the bonding was somewhere flawed, the complexity would have been created. If one of them strayed would it be so easy to cut the chord. Is it just a chord that holds them together or is it an entire web…
But then this is a question that only the concerned couple can answer. How can Shobha Dey or a tarot card reader or Sharukh Khan or Karan Johar claim the credibility to give a standard advice that can apply to all? They cannot even hope to represent the strata they belong to. Every person even in that segment also does not mirror the other’s psyche….
Its interesting that while earlier we heard “marriage is made in heaven, you are not to stray”, people claiming to have kept in sync with 21st century developments again say the same thing “ whatever happens, the marriage stays”. Modernity so far, it seems to appear, has only sanctioned us to stray but not given us the courage to struggle out of the web….
Why people stray…? Perhaps because tragically their marriage was not made in heaven, because when they were finally allowed to know each other they didn’t like each other at all, perhaps because their work timings are such that they hardly meet and it’s much easier for either to meet his/her friend in office and unburden her/himself……….
I think I have rambled enough and my five seconds are up :) but I do just want to add that it is difficult enough as it is to get a divorce, I do hope it is not made any more so. There is this tragic, and at one level funny, case of a lady, married to someone with whim she shared nothing in common, who found companionship in another man. She asked her husband to give her an amicable divorce. He refused because he didn’t have the time or the inclination to find another wife and didn’t see why he should give anything without returns. So she filed a case for divorce on the ground of cruelty …. She had to cook up stories because to get a divorce you have to show ‘fault’ of the other person. The case dragged for three years and now the husband has found photographs of the lady and her friend together and filed them showing that she is the one guilty of adultery. She has no option but to withdraw the case because the law says ‘you cannot take advantage of your own wrong’. Some would say, good she couldn’t get a divorce, the law served its purpose. But what purpose did it serve to anyone to deny someone, well in her forties, who had taken a reasoned decision to discard a marriage that was long dead, and who had the courage to claw out of the web, the right to pursue a path of happiness that lead her away from this dead marriage? Why does she have to remain tied to someone who is virtually a stranger?
Hmm!! Don't like choosing easy topics do you? While the institution of marriage has been around for centuries, a marriage is a very personal bond between two people(usually :)). It is really difficult to be objective about the subject as every couple has their own ideas on the subject
-- when they enter into marriage and when/if they walk out of it. So, I can only talk about myself and my views. I feel one needs to have a certain level of maturity before one can think about taking on such a responsibility, because that is what marriage is--for richer or poorer and in sickness and health--I am leaving out the last bit (a little gloomy). As someone said, you become responsible for the other person... their wellbeing, happiness, and to a certain extent their family and friends. I would advise anyone considering entering into the institution to visualise themselves with their partner 30 years from now and see if they are as content with each other then as they are now. This way, they might dintinguish between a purely physical attraction from a true meeting of the souls.I know it sounds cliched, but I can't see any other way in which the couple will be able to resist temptations to stray. And temptations there will be, but a conscious decision to resist them will only happen if the marriage and their partner is more precious to them than anything else. As for the discussion on NDTV, it was nothing more than a publicity stunt for the movie KANK, so we should not even be thinking seriously about what the panelists said. I did , however, like the suggestion of psychological profiling before allowing a couple to have children. But it will be impossible to implement in our country with a billion plus population. Think about the massive plan outlay for the department which will handle this!
Have used up all my grey cells for now. Will get back to the topic soon with some new thoughts...
I wonder if the very basis of conducting the debate/TV programme was fruitful.Relationships are a matter of perspective,which can vary from one human being to another...I can't possible conceive the idea that how anyone can be an 'Expert'in this matter,anyways...thats not what this is about.
I wonder if the so called 'Cheating'spouses can get away from their own concise by covincing themselves with 'Everybody Cheats' phenomenon,then perhaps one day killing your father for money won't be a bad thing eiether .... I guess this kind of philosophy is leading us back to stone-age.
I do agree that divorce is still a taboo in the Indian society and there can be so many couples who'll just be living together just for the sake of their kids or for sake of social acceptance but then for how long can anyone (male/female) continue living with such a compromise?? but the truth is that people still live together and this probably has tarnished the image of marriage as a sacred institution....
I remember a famous incident in a movie where the germans are outnumbered and are surrounded by Americans. The american captain suggests his german counterpart to surrender which the German colonel declines. The american says "There is no such thing as GOOD DEATH colonel,there is just death",to which the german replies "Then let me choose mine".....
It's just matter of choice.
Hi Cool Cat!
I woke up on Sunday morning with news that I have been tagged :-) Since protocol demands that I must continue the thread, I took the pleasure of tagging you. Please check out my blog for the details. I wish you a good week ahead.
no new posts? has the fire gone out?
No, Azahar, the fire has not gone out in the least. Sorry for my long silence - but the post I just put up should explain my absence. That, and the fact that after we shifted house, we didn't have broadband connection for a very long time!
And Ambrosia, thanks a lot for the tagging - though am not too sure what that means! You'll need to explain it to me.
Post a Comment