Lost in the din

warning; this post may contain material that is labelled in popular wisdom as parochial, backward, stagnant, frozen in time, unfashionable, not at all coool, and politically incorrect.

The Rizwanur case is a tragic one. The truth needs to be dug out and justice done. No questions about that.

But the matter has brought to fore other issues. Statements made by all and sundry exalting this union of love and everyone adding a coat of black to the father's image.

A very common argument aired especially by the media, and a very dangerous one; 'well, they are adults,. If they are old enough to vote they sure are capable of making their own choice to booze, dope, marry who they choose to, sleep in------ whatever.' The fallacy in the argument is that her vote does not individually determine the fate of the nation. Our major objection in the case is to her being the 'sole' decision taker. Also, if the wrong govt. / person is brought to
power, there is a way out subsequently. In case of a wrong marriage, technically though the option to quit exists, it is not in the best of interests of the parties concerned.

'It is her life, why do the parents interfere?--- so you can trust the media, the government, the politicians, but can't trust the parents!

when is one old enough, mature enough to shape her life, her destiny? Does age, education or job make her ready to take on the responsibility? None of the above accord any guarantee. The person who is emotionally involved is not likely to see reason.

The girl in this case is 23, educated and what a choice! She must never have stepped out without a car, the fellow's monthly salary won't equal her day's pocket money and she says she would be happy with him! Girls who make so much of a fuss to choose a dress or lipstick choose life partners this way! If love is so blind, it sure needs some leading by the ear. Worse still the boy is supposed to be 30, and has seen the seamy side of life . Should he not have asked himself if he was, in any way, a match for her? Whether it was feasible, desirable? If he really cared for her, wld. he have dragged her from riches to rags? I find it difficult to buy the love angle. To me it appears more like a well planned strategy to attain instant riches. He is not in his early 20s to be so innocently foolish. And to hear people call him a martyr who died for a cause!!

I know of a graduate Tr., a very respected, no nonsense type jealously guarding her rights and her place, a very intellectual and literary type (it was a treat to listen to her critiquing the latest Marathi plays), getting involved with a rickshaw driver and ruining her life for good. He was already married, had children, was too lazy to work, needed money to drink and had zeroed in on her for a regular source of income! The last we heard of her was (she had taken a posting) she lived in utter poverty , misery and terror, the fellow tortured her, stood at the school gate on salary days to collect the money, no one dared befriend her or help her bec. he was a rogue and they were scared. She was trapped and there was no getting out. She lived in mortal fear.That is just an example. One is never too old, educated or big for a bit of sane advice.

But this post is mainly about the role of parents. The parents who make sacrifices of the highest order (read some of the blogs of young mothers and you'll see what goes into parenting), give up their chosen careers, education, health, recreation, personal choices --to give their progeny the best; families that keep relatives and friends out because their children are preparing for board exams; parents who give up promotions, decide to live apart so that the child's education may not be disturbed; shift residences leaving their security zone to suit the child's needs; sell their house, jewellery to provide for the child--- these same parents are suddenly made out to be outsiders, INTERFERING in the girl's/ boy's life!

Two consenting adults-----what business have parents----- bah! what do you think parents are? villains? who do you think cares most for the child? It is alright for the politicians to make high sounding noises and use the opportunity to score over their political rivals; for the media to rush in to improve TRP and project itself as the crusader for causes; for the NGO's to register their presence; but when all the clamour dies down, all the mileage squeezed out, when every one turns his attention to the next sensation, -- who remain?--- the parents, scarred for ever, dead in the soul, bleeding from the core.
Who do you think are the most affected in cases like models Gitanjali or Padma -- it is the parents who had lived a very honourable life and done nothing to deserve this ignominy.

Parenting in the present times is already a daunting task and many are opting out of it. Please don't add to the complications by sending out the message loud and clear that once they are 18, they answer no one, that they owe nothing to the family.

If law accords the children a claim to the ancestral property and parents can't deny it to them, by the same logic, does it not require the child to be a custodian of the ancestral culture? a duty to preserve and pass on the family tradition? When the son/ daughter gets a share of the parental wealth, he / she also has a legal binding to take care of the parents.

And in most cases the parents are not asking for your financial or even your physical support. They try to be independent and let you spread wings if you so wish to. All they ask is that you do not dump down the drain their labour of generations in your recklessness, that you don't downright discard the values they hold so dear.
They are not demanding a status quo, are aware of changing times, but the change should be gradual, for the better and without compromising the basic value system. It is not for each one to decide what is weed and what is crop and indiscriminately pluck and throw to suit your convenience!

Shah Rukh Khan once said in an interview that earlier when someone had commented about his smoking and asked if he wld be o.k. if his son smoked, he had said it wld. be perfectly o.k. and as an individual he wld. be free to make his choice. But years later, after he actually had a son , he said he wld. not want his son to smoke and wld. like to stop him from doing so! This is a classic example! we have to wait for unimaginative people to learn their lessons and already a lot of damage gets done by then.

When the family has all along been taking into consideration the children's likes and welfare in making every decision from the most trivial to the most crucial, should not the children keep in mind the family's reputation, likes, conveniences to some extent when they take major, life altering decisions?

Please do not say religion, caste are not important. They are very important in the personal sphere and they define a person to a great extent. They give a sense of continuity and immortality, the strength that deep roots provide. The objection could only be to letting it interfere in our public life. And marriage is a very personal matter.

what do you expect parents to do when the apple of their eyes, the meaning to their existence takes a ridiculous decision about his/ her marriage? Like when an 18 yr. old daughter of a business empire in all her adult wisdom chooses to marry a 40 yr. old slum dweller of another religion? In the Rizwanur case, the parents must have tried every other means before being driven to take extreme measures (if they did, that is). Just trying to show how helpless the parents' position becomes. Easy for an outsider to say 'let go'.

If you are so enamoured of the right to choice, we'll invoke His choicest blessings on you that your son/ daughter may on his 18th birthday 'choose' to (I am not saying 'run away', that is not said) marry or live in (that is even more the 'in' thing) the most unsuitable being possible. In the meanwhile please let us old fashioned fools bring up our children in our old fashioned ways, with a fear of God, a sense of right , and a dash of conscience.

You bother me by making the aberrations seem the normal, the exceptions--the rule. pre marital sex? 'of course, why not? everybody does it',( yea, they know it all); extra marital relationships? 'go ahead, you are consenting adults'-- and what's more, they would be within the limits of law in most cases! Don't repeat the cliche, 'This is the land of the kamasutra', our ancestors knew better about what, where, how much- not strewn all over in the most distasteful ways what was done discretely. Please let us live in our conventional world where some things are definitely white and some black- a totally grey world is a messy nightmare!