Labels

Monday, January 29, 2007

Marriages: Arranged, Love, Polygamy, Polyandry

Marriages have different connotations for different people. For some it is the quest for the ideal match, while the others have the aspiration of living happily ever after. Then there is the social stigma of being single after certain age, as well as the hormonal, biological drive to be intimate to the extent of having intercourses without everyday haggling. Reasons are manifold, and marriage, at least in the Indian context, is both a social ritual and institution that isn't easy to escape from. In this blog, I will present certain ideas, not necessarily my own views or objectives, but certain ideas, that we must be cognizant of and maybe discuss freely. I present certain questions and debatable points about marriage. Perhaps some arguments are listed here just for the argument sake, but I will be looking forward to discussion and responses.

The traditional Indian method of arranged marriage has continued to be the main means of finding life partners. The peculiar aspects of it remain: in the first stage, the prospectives are selected based on both their castes and their astrological charts (birth charts). The birth charts are based on calculations, based on what time and place you were born at and this determines the position of stars and planets in the sky at the time of your birth. With that initial condition, predictions are made about every month and every aspect of your life. Only when the stars of male and female complement each other, they are ready to tango. Then comes the ritualistic meeting of families, secretive and furtive family checks and at last the male and female meet. In present scenario, it is more like an approved first date arranged by the family. Thrust into five to ten such dates, the Indian male gets to say yes to one of them. In progressive Indian families, girls get to have their say too.

What I am particularly curious about is this whole aspect of matching the birth charts: when did this custom come into play? The whole match-making business relies on an initial condition, which defines and determines the calculations and predictions made for the rest of your life. A four minute delay or so, changes the whole mathematics and as any non-linear dynamics or chaos theory expert will tell you, the error grows with time. In India, most people have watches that are inaccurate. In old days, there were no watches. How was this system established then? I asked my grandmother about this, and her answer was that in her childhood the custom wasn't as prevalent, and it is only in last 30-40 years that it has gained such a strong foothold. Being from a family of Brahmins, I know how much emphasis is placed on birth charts, and yet I am never convinced that it is an essential aspect for arrange marriage, or if it is necessary part of Hindu religion and practice. There are communities who don't care about birth charts at all. Yet starting with the time and place of birth, most Pandits arrive at similar conclusions, which points to the internal consistency of the system. Still, why birth charts?

The second obvious question is about selecting candidates from the same caste. If I ever try to throw an argument about how the caste system in ancient times was based on occupation and not birth, and hence every well-read, qualified female would be practicing Brahmin, I get glares which tell me of having committed a sacrilege. I am told that irrespective of what I say or believe in, if it is arranged marriage, why not look into the females of our own caste: there is neither dearth of beauties or well-suited prospective matches in our own caste. The emphasis on caste is then extended to emphasis of her being from same region. There is always too much social outrage, and family discontent involved in making a rational choice. So after the requisite melodrama, the sentimental outcome preserves the intra-caste tradition. The government and political system has contributed in its own menacing way through their vote politics, that relies on rifts in different castes as a means of annexing power.

The practical matter of getting the match fixed has its own routine of melodrama: egos clash, utensils crack, mud-slanging business occurs behind closed doors, detectives get work, and then there is investment, market survey and financial hiccups. Beyond all this thrives the practice of active and passive dowry. Active, when demands are outlined in terms of money and property required, passive, as the girls family bears all the expenses. This custom has many detractors, most just criticize others, and then themselves engage in dealings that fatten their pockets. Why cannot we collectively get rid of sale and purchase business that goes hand in hand with weddings? A recent trend is where "girls" threaten the family of the groom, gets the anti-dowry squad ready, and is able to extort money.

Indian weddings may bot be the most lavish, they definitely require more spending (if normalized by the annual income of the family) than anywhere else in the world. Gifts, food, place to stay, clothes, jewelery and so on add up to bills that can be used to construct better houses, or can feed many orphanages put together. Any attempt to cut down the expenses meets with mother's admonition who has dreamed of the event all her life, society's frown- who would rather have a corrupt Jayalalitha spend millions on a grand feast than look at a simple ceremony and in most cases, the bride or the groom requires the showdown to stamp his or her social and economic status.

Love marriage in India lives in the shadow of the arranged one. These days people have become smarter about making choices which are more acceptable to parents; so choose someone of the right caste and right qualifications. The arranged marriages are such an accepted trend, that even when someone strikes as a good match, one must think a zillion times over before committing, which by the way, is like the declaration of a battle. As my friend said, "I had to go for arranged marriage, for I never found someone worth creating a Revolution for." Dating, at least the way we thought of it then and now (I know the new generation is perhaps as different from us, as we were from our predecessors) , dating involved meeting up enough times, and usually ended up as damp squid as either the girl or guy's family put their foot down. I hear the trends have changed a bit, love marriages face lesser hurdles (especially if caste, birth chart and qualifications match alright).

Most customs, most rituals, most anarchist beliefs are carried by the middle class. The poor have their bellies as the biggest concern, the rich buy and sell rules as and when they please. The middle class takes pride in being the guardian of "culture", and yet the middle class, by its middling nature, fails to take stand on any big issues. We thrive by brandishing our anger in view of petty matters, for even if our anger caused by various misgivings against society and government, we can control and manipulate only our local domains.

Marriage as a union of just two bodies is a Christian myth, a western phenomenon. We actually come from the land of multiple marriages, and say upto fifty years ago, this was practiced everywhere in the country. Neither the Hindu religion or custom or tradition has ever thought of polygamy as bad or unacceptable. Yet, like Dharamendra, either you go through a touted religion change or you divorce the first wife, if you intend to marry another. If women could live together and share space and responsibilities for centuries in India earlier, what is the reason for forbidding this constitutionally? Be it Dushrath with four wives, or Krishna with hundreds, they who could afford to feed and satisfy their innumerable spouses were the only ones who married multiple times. Most feminists get appalled at this suggestion, though heart of the matter is that neither polygamy nor polyandry is any better or worse than monogamy. The happiness of a family depends primarily on its financial well being and on spouses being accommodating and reasonable. In certain regions of Himachal, polyandry has remained a custom: one wife for all brothers. It functions exactly on the lines as Draupadi who was shared between her five husbands. Muslims, under whatever clauses, can have more than one wife. Why have we Hindus become so obsessed with the foreign ideal of monogamy? I may or may not want multiple wifes, and I don't belong to the tribe where polyandry is practiced, but I see no reason why it should be prevented, why I should frown at such a possibility.

On a lighter vein, say in polygamy, existence of many wives will lead to a healthy competition between them. The male shall need to work twice as hard for sustainance, and this will lead to overall increase in productivity. Every mother will want her Bharath to outwit Ram, encouraging more competition inside the home. I cannot imagine any of our epics could exist without polygamy. Not even Dhruv Taara (Pole Star). The sisterhood of wives of same person is legendary. We have become increasingly nuclear in the present system, where working sons and daughters must migrate away from parents, each family has only one or two kids, and the whole culture of uncles, aunts and close ties with fifty other family members is fading. We need bigger families, better families. Already the number of females per thousand males has touched new lows in states like Haryana. Add polygamy to the system, maybe the dowry system would die altogether. Allow polyandry and every man will have a wife. In tribes that practice polyandry, the woman is at the head of the household, and of course, runs her men as she pleases. More or less.

What is the essence of this article anyway? Is the author trying to figure out how he can marry more than one woman? Does he need to get married to a girl of other caste, without having to go through birth chart and horoscope business? Is he dead set against dowry or has he by living in US for few years lost his grip on Indian realities and Indian customs? Of course, I need to raise these questions myself, for I know many readers are particularly curious about the personal life of author, or just because rather than attacking any idea, any superstition, any social or religious hogwash, they find it more satisfying and intellectually appealing to just pound the speaker. Dismiss the author, my friends, and start to think. Then tell me, what do you think?

19 comments:

Vivek said...

from sulekha.com

Maria S comments: on Jan 31 2007 8:38AM
delete this comment - block this user
Marriage as a union of just two bodies is a Christian myth, a western phenomenon.


Vivek,

I saw your write-up (obviously with a catchy title- enough to get my attention!) as "quite objective and balanced"- until I read the above sentence..

What "Christian" myth? It is no such thing. If anything the book of Genesis says that
"Man and women were created in God's image" (as in more than body- a divine bond)
and later in the New Testament also while it is said that in a marriage "man and woman are of the same flesh"- (I would interpret it as- humans being more than animals).

*Call it a "western phenomenon"- that would be cultural (man-made) and not God-made..
The very same BIble tells us that we should "sell everything we own/five away everything we own- if we are to enter the kingdom of God" - do tell me, how many "laws" in the west have been created and enforced for that?!

*My point being- kindly do not mix- Christianity (teachings/doctrine) and western hypcrisy.









We actually come from the land of multiple marriages, and say upto fifty years ago, this was practised everywhere in the country. Neither the Hindu religion or custom or tradition has ever thought of polygamy as bad or unacceptable. Yet, like Dharamendra, either you go through a touted religion change or you divorce the first wife, if you intend to marry another. If women could live together and share space and responsibilities for centuries in India earlier, what is the reason for forbidding this constitutionally?


Absolutely nothing..if the women "want to"..

But, as we have evolved into purely legalistic societies- I suppose- one has to find a "legal model for marriage"- and that turns out to be "one-woman and one-man" model.

(Not that I necessarily think it is a good model- but, it is a more 'practical' model).






Be it Dushrath with four wives, or Krishna with hundreds, they who could afford to feed and satisfy their innumerable spouses were the only ones who married multiple times. Most feminists get appalled at this suggestion, though heart of the matter is that neither polygamy nor polyandry is any better or worse than monogamy. The happiness of a family depends primarily on its financial well being and on spouses being sccomodating and reasonable. In certian regions of Himachal, polyandry has remained a custom: one wife for all brothers. It functions exactly on the lines as Draupadi who was shared between her five husbands. Muslims, under whatever clauses, can have more than one wife. Why have we Hindus become so obsessed with the foreign ideal of monogamy? I may or may not want multiple wifes, and I don't belong to the tribe where polyandry is practiced, but I see no reason why it should be prevented, why I should frown at such a possibility.


Neither do I:)



On a lighter vein, say in polygamy, existence of many wives will lead to a healthy competition between them.



Excuse me-- why not many husbands? Why can't they engage in healthy competition?







What is the essence of this article anyway? Is the author trying to figure out how he can marry more than one woman?


Do you want me guess or pscho-analyse or psycho whatever you? Both will cost you!



Does he need to get married to a girl of other caste, without having to go through birth chart and horoscope business? Is he dead set against dowry or has he by living in US for few years lost his grip on Indian realities and Indian customs? Of course, I need to raise these questions myself, for I know many readers are particularly curious about the personal life of author, or just because rather than attacking any idea, any superstition, any social or religious hogwash, they find it more satisfying and intellectually appealing to just pound the speaker. Dismiss the author, my friends, and start to think. Then tell me, what do you think?


Ok..I give up..and will give some free analysis...

I think the author has been doing a lot of mental exploration and soul searching after what seems to be a interesting recent trip to India.

Only he can answer these questions- himself...and my instincts tell me that they will continue...even when he becomes Great-grandpa Vivek with perhaps some polyandy experiences:)
Good luck!

Maria

Vivek said...

from dud sea scrawls:

I think
By bilbobaggins on Wed, 2007-01-31 14:27

you need to use the spell checker. Sticking out tongue
also the grammar check.
shorter sentences would not hurt either. Makes for easier reading.
Also use terms when they are more or less known to all . for instance, you could have said sex ratio instead of the number of females per thousand males.
that said, am not sure polygamy is the answer to bring back bigger families. Those things are more or less gone and buried. Polygamy did not keep em alive and its not gonna help now.
Most guys, and this could be just my experience, do not really want to take the bother of starting a revolution , that too for a gal when they can just take it easy and have mom and dad find one . After all if its just abt hunger, and it is getting fed the easier way, why bother for kranti.

all that said, I am curious to know which readers are curious abt the personal life of the author. That makes for a more interesting blog me thinks. Big Grin
» reply | email this comment

Vivek said...

more from sulekha.com

vandana1982 comments: on Feb 1 2007 3:30AM
delete this comment - block this user
Matching of horoscopes has its own scientific reason. This tells us whether the family tree of groom and bride overlap or not? If it overlaps then genetically their union will lead to an unhealthy generation,which nobody wants and there may be genetically linked diseases.
So matching of horoscope is essential to see the":gotra" (family name) that depicts the family roots.


The author has made a very sarcastic remark "some readers are interseted in knowing about his personal life " Will the author please elaborate it .
vandana1982 comments: on Jan 31 2007 11:57PM
delete this comment - block this user
Oh boy! just try to think above the level of materialistic gain.

"Tan (body) ke milan se jaroori Mann(soul,atma) ka milan jaroori hai:)
vandana1982 comments: on Jan 31 2007 11:02PM
delete this comment - block this user
It all depends upon DESTINY.

Vivek said...

more comments from sulekha.com

ASH05 comments: on Feb 1 2007 4:46AM
delete this comment - block this user
Vivek
What I am particularly curious about is this whole aspect of matching the birth charts: when did this custom come into play?

A good question and I am also intrigued by it. Anyone cares to clarify.
I am only partially satisfied by the "gotram" explanation in one of the comments. It might do for the first seven or eight generations, but even if the bride and groom today came from the seed of Atreya, that was thousands of years ago. The amount of DNA match probably will be the same as an accidental match between Athreya and Angirasa. So, any other reasons?
BTW, we are the same people who gave the world the fable of the sage asking the king for one grain today, two tomorrow and so on for a month. Yet, we do not recognize error in horoscopes as you said. Which midwife or hospital recorded the exact second of birth tell me?

As for polygamy and polyandry, I am all for it. If the two systems co-exist, even better. Polygamy for internal competition and variety for men. Polyandry for variety for women (hidden benefit for men: you can palm off some of that work to the other four husbands). In this day of getting bored with each other too quickly, they provide neat solutions. Let's write to the government for that.

swarup sarkar comments: on Feb 1 2007 4:22AM
delete this comment - block this user
Dismiss the author, my friends, and start to think. Then tell me, what do you think?
--
In the name of marriage , what we want a sex partner or life partner?
It is applicable for both , men as well as women.

juli adutta comments: on Feb 1 2007 3:58AM
delete this comment - block this user
Vivek,
That was a long saga about marriages as they usually are even after. One of man's oldest institutions - perhaps management gurus learnt a lot from it. Marriage is not a subject that interests me as a person, however, as a social practice it is interesting to read. Good effort.
Julia

Vivek said...

sulekha.com reader pour out more

Vivek said...

even more from sulekha.com

bharatborn comments: on Feb 1 2007 8:39AM
delete this comment - block this user
Nice blog. Liked it.
As for polygamy/polyandry, well, it has already become the norm in western societies, from what I hear. only difference is they don't undergo the formality of marriage.
When each person is independent, when noone depends on another for her livelihood, it would be feasible. Otherwise, it could just arouse lots of negative emotions. Human beings are possessive. ya, there are lots of instances of polygamy in our puranas. but then. women were dependent; and do you think they really liked it? nor do i think the men in the polyandry system like it.
competition is good when it brings out better performance. but in human emotional context, I feel competition leads to bitterness.
Well, just thinking out aloud.
vandana1982 comments: on Feb 1 2007 7:22AM
delete this comment - block this user
Well Asho

after "n: no. of generation it depends upon the recombination,mutations in the genetic material that may lead to a sturdier or even fragile genaration. But here "Darwinism" come sinto play "survival of the fittest" those with healthier gene pool will survive while the other will perish.


So, somewhat relatedness caN BE OVERLOOKED.:)


dinesh gupta comments: on Feb 1 2007 6:21AM
delete this comment - block this user
Very good. marriage is a convenient thing

Vivek said...

Vivek Sharma comments: on Feb 1 2007 10:58AM
delete this comment - block this userswarup: I guess everyone wants life partner who is a sex partner as well. It is another question altogether if you wish to make your sex partner your life partner. In India, atleast conventionally speaking and talking conservatively, the concept of sex partners does not exist. Taking a liberal and realistic view throws a bizarre world of pre and extra marital affairs. Yet assuming most of us won't do it or accept doing it, so sex partner and life partner, in Indian context, are one and the same.

ASH05: Government does allow certain communities to practice polyandry and polygamy. The issue at hand is whether it requires a cultural, social, historical, religious or legal sanction for us to define what is acceptable or not? Of all these, polygamy fails to mtach the legal hurdle and by other counts is or was acceptable practice in India.

Shripriya: I'll love to get your gyaan, feel free to address it to me. I may not be against the rules, as I indicated in first paragraph, I may not wish to have many wives, I may even get a wife from my own caste after birth charts are matched. These are personal options, and choices. What I am after is understanding why things are the way they are. Rules, my dear, were once such that widows wore only white and had their heads shaved. Rules, had minimum age of nine for marrying woman. Rules once prosecuted people going for intercaste marriages. Rules change. Evolve. We test rules with reason, with the learning we have acquired over time.

Vandana: Common misbeliefs must be kept aside while talking about Gotra and Birth Chart Business. Even in Himachal we say, Pad pada, Rista Gaya (Great grandsons and thereafter are not relatives). What works well in every other society is not going to cause commotion in our own. If medical reasons exist, I'll rather have medical check-up and blood tests of a mate done rather than rely on Birth Chart for diagnosis. I simply refuse to buy your DNA arguments, without seeing a substantial evidence in favor of it.

Bharat :) I was thinking aloud as well. Thinking aloud is something we all need to do, and procastinate all the time;)

Vivek said...

more from sulekha.com

« Back to Post
Vivek Sharma comments: on Feb 1 2007 12:14PM
delete this comment - block this userDenice:)

Whatever made you think I have turned a polygamist:)
Like my poetry, my prose, fiction and essays are never as personal as they are made out to be. I may or may not do certain things, but I'll like to have a balanced view and educated opinion.

denice _menace comments: on Feb 1 2007 11:40AM
delete this comment - block this user
Ahem...me thinks that you have gone througha SEA of change after your KANAK review...weren't you the one who gor shivers and shudders after seeing that "extramarital" affair..hoy1 were you the one who wrote about that?
amazes me what women can make to one sulking young man like u
overnight they turned him in to a polygamist!!
JEZUS!

Vivek said...

more from sulekha

deepthinker comments: on Feb 1 2007 4:33PM
delete this comment - block this user
How is it possible to think or practise polygamy/polyandry ethically anywhere on earth? Marriage is not just about fulfilling body needs, there is a lot more to this sacred relationship. Although the first half of your blog on birth charts, arranged marriages, are interesting and commendable the second half about polygamy/polyandry and its relevance to the declining Indian female population is not sensible at any level. Marriage is all about committment, trust and thereby growing a stronger emotinal bond and physical bond and polygamy/polyandry is only about physical needs.
phittu comments: on Feb 1 2007 4:22PM
delete this comment - block this user
hi ,
MR. Forward thinking ,,nowadays similer people like u...mixup ur thoughts into controvorsial manner...why dont u turn ur back and look ur position if ur mother/father would have been a polygamy or polyandry......would u recognize urself for whom u born to?....better think millions and billions times before u interpret to public....anyways i hope u must be polygamy....

Vivek said...

Vivek Sharma comments: on Feb 1 2007 4:53PM
delete this comment - block this userPolygamy exists and has always existed in India as does and has polyandry. It functions as well as monogamy for all practical purposes. To say that such trust can exist only between two parties, to exclude the possibility of multiple spouses as unethical or unreasonable is simply untrue in face of the centuries of evidence to the otherwise.

Like Rushdie once said (paraphrased): We Indians treat sex as if it is something that doesn't happen in our country, as if the billion people just fell down from the sky. There exists a whole set of extra-marital relationships where wife tacitly approves of the existence of the other woman. There exist a range of possible scenarios, which in my opinion are prevented mainly by the legal consequences attached with them.

We may or may not wish to be in a relationship based in polygamy or polyandry, but that is neither a justification for calling it unethical nor an excuse for judging it as anarchist or irreligious. Just my thoughts.

Perhaps I lost some audience and some comments I wanted over the birthcharts issues, as I ended my blog with polygamy.

Vivek said...

sulekha.com again

pkas73 comments: on Feb 1 2007 9:19PM
delete this comment - block this user
It interesting that I have heard a lot of people say that marriages are made in heaven. It probably is --ofcourse only the good ones. As a teenager, marriage is something fascinating and it will be if there is compatibility.
If your spouse ends up ignoring you or taking advantage of you, then it goes down the drain.
I think the most common problem faced these days are infedility- either physical or emotional. Internet, cell phone are a few easy ways to commit infedility.
Fights are healthy as long as there are few of them and there is love between the spouses. Fight should be considered a difference in opinion rather than "right or wrong"
One thing about any marriage is, the person you think you know is the person you dont know!!!!
Take care and good luck to all you single people aspiring to get married!!!
denice _menace comments: on Feb 1 2007 5:05PM
delete this comment - block this user
I do wonder about this, yup at one point why doesn't Indians consider marrying for sex?
why do they sweep the issue of sex under the carpet when the concept of marraige it self is for procreation?
I feel mostly men get what they want being the bread earners, it's the women who are traded off without as much as her consent for teh marriage..actually more women shud be having extra maritals .

I feel marriage is just a contract if all the needs of two people is fulfilled the marriage works otherwise it becomes dyfunctional...somepeople let go somepeople stay put for various reasons I guess
but your polyandry is not a bad idea indeed.
;D

Vivek said...

The assault at sulekha.com is unrelenting:)

vandana1982 comments: on Feb 2 2007 7:57AM
delete this comment - block this user
My argument on DNA is well illustrated by the eg or prevalence of haemolphilia disease in the family of Queen Elizabeth 2.
Here i donot want to foment the argument on DNA theory. but underline its importance.

Though it is better to undergo mediucal test.
vandana1982 comments: on Feb 2 2007 7:56AM
delete this comment - block this user
My argument on DNA is well illustrated by the eg or prevalence of haemolphilia disease in the family of Queen Elizabeth 2.
Here i donot want to foment the argument on DNA theory. but underline its importance.

Though it is better to undergo mediucal test.
ddas15847 comments: on Feb 2 2007 2:13AM
delete this comment - block this userReads more like a survey of all the items in the topic. I'd have expected you to take a position with issues involved!
ASH05 comments: on Feb 2 2007 12:00AM
delete this comment - block this user
I should let the author speak for himself but looking at some of the comments, I wonder if too many people are taking this one too seriously as if the author is another Timothy Leary or Rajneesh. Polygamy and polyandry are worthy topics for serious discussion even if we do not want them now. Instead of being constantly horrified by what our ancestors have done, it is useful to ask if it makes sense under some conditions. That is the gist I got from this, and a bit of tongue-in-cheek. Gawd, some of the comments make me feel that Sulekha is located in Liberty University.
Milind Sonawane comments: on Feb 1 2007 9:21PM
delete this comment - block this userNice article...But author does not reach to consensus and leaves us a bunch of warms to deal with....:) My comments must be very crude and vague...Marriage is a conveniently designed to fulfill every kind of need....Assured love, sex, companionship, copulation, share happiness, and sorrow, and financial security. emotions, etc...

Many of these needs can be fulfilled under different kind of relationships other than marriage.. To be happy person does not have to get married...to have sex person does not have to get married..but there are some factors which surely need us to get marry...

Talking about polygamy, polyandry are basically came into existance once someone is strong, and feels to control other peple. Talking about love marriages, and arranged marriages, and dowry, and no dowry...it is all about who can dominate...

i have seen girls who are so obsessed with this dowry funda that they claim to not marry a person who favors dowry even though she loves him a lot. I have seen girls who has been sexually abused by their own family members, talks about not giving dowry. it is not about dowry, it is not about trading woman, it is not about money, it is no about gold, it is all about self-esteem for them.

Vivek said...

Vivek Sharma comments: on Feb 2 2007 8:55AM
delete this comment - block this userFirst I somehow left out an apology. As Maria pointed out, calling monogamy as "Christian myth" is perhaps wrong, and I'll leave it as Western Cultural phenomenon.

ddas and Milind: The objective of the article was to explore the arguments for and against different issues related to marriage. The consensus has to arrive in society, and my free opinion or conclusions about what is good, bad, practical, acceptable and unacceptable will disappear like a pebble thrown into a river. A discussion is like a storm, it may or may not lead to results, but the impact is more.

Bingo pkas. By saying marriages are made in heaven, by relying too much on Birthcharts, I think the pervading mentality turns into a fatalistic one, where all flaws, personal and economic are traced to stars. Another quip I have with too much emphasis on horoscope business is that they become an excuse for your failures and faults, though any wise Pandit will tell you, that stars are merely providing a good or bad influence, the "karmanevadhikaarastay", action is in your hands.. "mahafelashu kadachanaa".. fruit may not be.

:) Denice...Polyandry is unfortunately not my original idea. In fact, people like Arjun and Bheem were simulatenously involved in polygamy and polyandry. In the land of Kamasutra, it seems, now uttering the three letter word itself as much of a taboo as the four letter word in US homes and schools (and of course, not talking about it does not make it go away).

Amit Gupta said...

Vivek lots of great points and great questions in your article. I thought of the same questions when a 15 min time difference in my fiance's birthday could have made a massive difference to the timing of our wedding! Funny that you mention polygamy - my Nobel prize winning economics professor Gary Becker at U of C has also brought up the issue in his blog (becker-posner-blog.com) and convinced me that it should be allowed. However, I actually think that monogamy makes a lot of sense - but it shouldnt be forced by the law:-)

You also raise a good point when you say that the Indian middle class is essentially changing the way Indian culture and history is brought into today's life. Hopefully we wont distort it to something completely un-Indian!

Ruch said...

Thank you for visiting my blog Vivek, and for leaving your comments on it. Please do keep visiting, and also forward it to people who you think maybe interested. It is quite a new venture for me, this writing on the internet feature... and I truly dont know how people feel about what I write. Truly clueless.
I like your writing too, and shall keep visiting it.
Thank you

Vivek said...

more from dud sea scrawls

whats "arranged" exactly?
By atrakasya on Mon, 2007-02-05 11:38

When westerners (or even Indians) go to dating sites, what exactly is the love-marriage angle about it, and what is preventing us from seeing it as an arranged marriage?

I think the culture has shifted to “community-approved arranged marriages”, “Arranged-relationship marriages” and “organic-relationship marriages”.
Marrying someone by meeting them on a place like shaadi.com would fall under the second category.

Also, as a well-wisher, it is my duty to caution you about opting for polygamy.
Imagine more than one liberated woman sitting on your head!
Hell, even one liberated woman is tough to handle for any man - you think any guys have the er…machismo…to satisfy multiple liberated multi-orgasmic women??
Mar jayega - na kaam kar payega, na likh payega.
Think practical, man. By courtesy of nature, women are more powerful than men, but they hide this fact. So if you marry multiple women, you are only opting for multiple masters, trust me.
Monogamy is only an institution evolved by men to save their own asses.
» reply | email this comment
Times are definitely changing.....
By De-Silva on Wed, 2007-01-31 22:44

I think that love marriages say even 10 years ago very few and far between….but today’s urban India is very different. I think young unmarried people today are likely to either start a revolution to marry a person of their choice…OR…have the financial independence to simply walk away from it all and just get married without bothering to “negotiate” through the process. I’ve seen 3 - 4 cases over the last year in my family alone as evidence! Smiling

Cheers!
» reply | email this comment

Vivek said...

even more from sulekha.com

Shuchi Arora comments: on Feb 3 2007 6:26PM
delete this comment - block this user
'Is the author trying to figure out how he can marry more than one woman?Is the author trying to figure out how he can marry more than one woman?'
Amusing read, especially the polyandry and polygamy parts!Ha!Ha! I haven't really introspected really about this part as u've suggested but as of now I don't think that I wud personally find it interesting to have more than 1 husband or allow my husband to have more than 1 wife! ...nyways, keep putting forward more interesting wrtings!

kamalji comments: on Feb 3 2007 7:26AM
delete this comment - block this user
Dear Vivek,

I am the last to comment on this wonderful article.

Good tongue in cheek,and with true facts.So what do u want to do eh?Do u want our suggestions for that.lol

Great blog.Regards.kamal.i just loved it.
victorysugar comments: on Feb 3 2007 4:56AM
delete this comment - block this user
Dear Vivek,
just read your wonderful blog and the multiple responses.
one thing i have to say that you have stirred up a hornet's nest.
Some have reacted with indignation, some with introspection and some with sarcasm.
one common thread is that all have read and digested your blog thoroughly.

so you have managed to keep people thinking.

Now my views on your blog are as follows:
a)polyandry and polygamy exists even today and people who abide by this are very happy and contented.
b) As iscommon in our country the muslims are a vote bank and are allowed more sops and facilities because of their minority status, and vote bank politics and enjoy multipe relationships openly in compaison to our hindu and christian brothers and sisters.
c)We are so used to lying and fooling ourselves that we enjoy the make believe world of
one man one woman relationships while at every oppurtunity attempt multiple relationships
for their convenience.
c)with lot of public debate and the power of the youth today we stand a chance to change this to a better version of marriage.
d)Birth charts- are never scientifically proven but used by the intelligensia to fool the general people..they make no sense to anyone other than the pundits who will use it for their benefit.

If there was no law forbidding polgamy and polyandry then it would abound more openly in todays world and all of us would live happily ever after

Ruch said...

Thank you for your comments, and for adding my blog onto your list of favourite bloggers! I can totally see what you mean when you call it, "brevity" - There is longer stuff that I write, the problem is not that it does'nt hold. The problem is that of preferance. I like them short for now, so. So maybe itll change later... Well, dud sea scrolls seemed interesting, but I will need to check it out in detail later today or tomorrow. Is it only for Indian authors? Sulekha... I dont know if I'm into that.
The email address seems like a good idea, Ill consider it. Do a lot of bloggers do that?

Vivek said...

more from sulekha.com

« Back to Post
rambalak comments: on Feb 8 2007 2:04AM
delete this comment - block this user
Nice write-up Vivek. Good.

But don't you think that marraiges are out dated after the stand of NCW on Adultry and allowing maintenance and alimony in case of live-in relationship also.

They are saying keep and wife must be treated equally.

Seeing above stand of NCW. I do not see marraiges meaningful in 21st century only Polygamy, Polyandry with or without love will be there.

Marriages were invented because women wanted for security otherwise all were living like animals. All were allowed to see as many people as they can and there was no provision for marraiges. It became a security issue to women folks and then marraige was invented and all the relationship were evolved around that only.

Now, the representative organization of women is talking against marriages.

I do not know how many women they represent.


Giridhar Agoram comments: on Feb 6 2007 3:05PM
delete this comment - block this user
Oh Boy!! What do I say... quite a long read but interesting enough to keep me staring at the monitor for the entire read and the long list of comments. So many views and comments that I went through waves of mixed feelings and opinions as I went from your blog to the last of the comments.

In my opinion, refreshing thoughts and I just smiled at the stmt that the readers tend to attack the personal life of the author - how true... I fully agree.

I share your views on the marriage charts but vandana's views on the same that its someway linked to DNAs were gyans I would have never got in any classrooms. Thanks vandana!!! but that still doesnt answer the qn... that if the initial assessment of the time of your birth goes wrong, everything else from there on is incorrect!!!!

Your views on polyandry and polygamy were radical and it has made me ponder ..
Very good blog. Keep writing