On the institution of marriage - 2

I had written a post earlier on the institution of marriage. I have been asked to comment on life post marriage. To protect our privacy I cannot comment directly on the same. However I will write about a few things which I believe are part of or essential to any couple's happy married life. Before I am pilloried I will put a disclaimer here - the sequence does not necessarily indicate the importance of the topic being discussed.

The first is companionship. Before marriage a person comes into contact with a lot of people in his/her life - parents, relatives, friends, girl/boy (generally not both!) friends. However in an inexpressible way the companionship provided by one's spouse is completely different. Here are two people who have made a (generally) public pact to remain wedded to each other, come what may, for the rest of their lives, or as said at Christian weddings, till death does them part. Who said it is not possible to fall in love after marriage? It is possible to realize the extent to which a person can love you truly after the wedding only. Before marriage one generally sees only the rosy aspects of life. Things can change even between people who were in love before marriage. A kind of complacency can set in which can prove to be most dangerous. However when you find a person who loves you beyond what you thought was humanly possible after the wedding, that is when you find true bliss on earth. This companionship is the hallmark of any successful marriage. As I mentioned before, the thing that must be avoided at all costs is taking the other person for granted. Thus a healthy respect for the other individual coupled with other emotions is essential. In Indian philosophy there is the concept of "neti" or not this. When one is asked to describe Brahman (the ultimate form of God, and not the caste) one can only say that it is not such and such. One can never truly describe what it is. Similar is the concept of this companionship. It can only be experienced felt and cannot be described.

Next I want to mention trust. This is the foundation of any marriage. When one cannot trust the other partner completely there is never complete peace of mind. Today I was talking to a friend of mine who is in the FMCG industry. We were comparing notes on the tours and travails (apart from travels) of people in employment today. Even people in stationary jobs come into contact with a lot of people. The husband who starts suspecting his software employee wife as she comes late everyday is setting up their relationship for disaster. Thus both have to build this trust and maintain it. It goes without saying that they should remain true to each other!

One very important aspect is understanding. This probably is as important if not more than any other parameter in a marriage. When two human beings stay under a roof there are bound to be disagreements. The success of the marriage depends on how these are overcome. There is also a delicious feeling to making up after a fight. This is another thing that probably only a married couple can understand. This parameter is more prominently required in an arranged marriage as the two do not know each other properly.

In my opinion any other parameter would be secondary as compared to the ones mentioned above. Now we come to love. I believe this develops (or does not) as a consequence of either the combined effect of the above mentioned parameters or the expectation of the above parameters. The sitcom Friends had an episode where Joey says that there is no selfless act. Let us look at what might be perceived to be a selfless act - I see a hungry person on the street. Though I have my lunch with me I wish to give to the hungry person. In the process I have foregone my physical nourishment. However I have gained mental happiness. Thus one would be hard pressed to find something that is truly selfless (with all due respects and apologies I do confess that I am leaving out instances of martyrdom). Love is something similar. We love someone who we want in our lives. We love because of the mental image we have of them. However this is one emotion that beats everything! As it is said, it is love that makes the world go round!

For those of my friends out there who are in doubt whether or not to marry, or whether it is too soon to marry I can only tell them this - it is a blessed experience to be married to a person, to be insanely in love with that person and to be loved back with as much if not greater intensity. There is probably no other joy a man or woman can experience (with due respect to parents and siblings) than that of wedded bliss.

The Lankan Link and China's String of Pearls

First of all I have decided to hate all those who insist on attaching "gate" to any scandal - Porngate, coalgate (some marketing executives must be moaning) etc.

 

Coming to the topic, let us consider something in the very recent past. Twice, Sri Lanka held the fate of India's entry into the finals of cricket tournaments, and we were let down, so to say both times. As an interesting sideline in both series Kohli put up heroic performances, to no avail in the larger scenario. Let us look at the political scenario. India has voted in favour of the US resolution condemning Sri Lanka, and as I had expected China opposed it. What needs to be noted is that in its pursuit of power China has been seen to support not-so-palatable regimes and practices, be it in Africa or elsewhere.

If there were human rights abuses in Sri Lanka they need to be condemned, and strongly so. However how advisable was it to vote publicly? India could very well have given a private dressing down. But, no, as we have seen the present UPA government has consistently been at the receiving end from its partners and in this case it was the DMK. Having failed miserably in the last assembly elections the DMK is trying to play to the gallery to the hilt. The Congress also does not want to be seen as anti-Tamil. 

China has this policy called String of Pearls. More information can be obtained from here, here and here. From the looks of it, India does seem to be doing something to counter China. The Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) in Sri Lanka was not exactly a success. Unless I am mistaken this was one of the main reasons why Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated. So how exactly are we trying to build goodwill in Lanka? I do not know. Whenever Sri Lanka is in the news it is either because the Lankan navy has fired at or detained Indian fishermen or because of our Tamilian parties crying themselves hoarse about injustice to their brethren across the Palk Strait. We must focus more on the positives and get the Lankans to appreciate our just demands rather than act like a big brother. The IDSA article, a link to which is given above specifically focuses on the importance of diplomacy. 

 

Much has been written of late how today influence is being increasingly wielded by economic rather than military means. China is building the Gwadar port in Pakistan. India can similarly work with Bangladesh (as it already is I believe) to link its north east to other parts via sea and road. It should continue its work in Iran, whether it be the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline or working with Iran on its ports to ensure a supply route to Afghanistan in the event Pakistan turns (further) hostile. Goodwill must be the primary means by which India should strive to first counter China. This would rather akin to the ancient Indian medicinal science of Ayurveda which focuses on prevention as importantly if not more than on cure. Charm and win over potential allies of China denying them any hostile space there. Remember the saying, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. India does not need to create the negative emotion of hostility which is in fact more difficult. I believe we are generally not perceived to be as aggressive (in a negative way) as China. Leverage this and counter those who wish us ill.

I want izzat: Mamata, I want an aspirin: MMS

Mamata says she wants izzat. Let us have a look at a few things.

1. Mamata did not accompany the PM on his last visit to Bangladesh. On the agenda were discussions on sharing of the Teesta's waters.

2. She did not attend the inauguration of the NSG hub at Kolkata. Chidambaram was present at this meeting. Mamata was upset with the NCTC then I believe.

3. Dinesh Trivedi who showed some sense has been removed. The PM expressed his regret and Mamata says she is not getting respect.

I believe MMS would be very justified if he asked for a fig leaf to protect his modesty or an aspirin to relieve him of a headache. Bengal, apparently does not seem favourable to the UPA. First came the Communists, their previous allies from Bengal (okay, all Communists are not Bengalis but they do have a sizeable presence there). Then came the not-so-good show in the state polls which were a huge success for Mamata. Then came the lady herself. The NCTC is a key requirement in today's India. It would be shame if this fell prey to politics. The states, if they have genuine grievances should highlight them at the appropriate forums instead of playing victims and games of oneupmanship. The centre on its part should give up its arrogance and try to involve all stakeholders.

Moving on, the BSP and TMC today saved the government to an extent. Though the TMC has expressed its opposition to the NCTC it did not vote for the censure motion moved by the CPM, BJP and BJD. The BJD put money where its mouth was. The TMC proved it is all mouth and nothing else. In my opinion these walkouts should be banned. The citizens of this country elect their representatives to act as their voice and legislate, not to walk out. The right to reject is a wonderful idea. Similar to that walkouts should be banned. If parties want to be hypocritic they should at least have the sense to appear so.

There was a report in today's paper that Mamata was in the know about the Railway Minister's recent decision to hike fares (even if it was nominal). This came after all the hungama about the increase in fares and Mamata's public posturing about the PM needing to sack Dinesh Trivedi. Apparently even opposition leaders were in the know and it was thought that the hike was unavoidable, given the present condition of the Indian Railways. 

Why are our politicians afraid of coming out into the open about something that they secretly acknowledge is for the greater good? Are they afraid that people (read voters) will see them to be anti-poor, anti-middle class and anti-everything in general? As soon as Mamata started making noises one of the ideas doing the rounds was that Mamata privately agreed to the hike but was publicly raising a cry to maintain her pro-aam aadmi image. If this is not true then Mamata is indeed turning out to be a populist demagogue of the most dangerous kind. Our politicians should not shy away from public debate on issues like FDI in retail, deregulation of petrol prices and such issues. They should stop thinking that the aam aadmi cannot understand such issues. If that is the perception they should strive to educate them and then take executive decisions which are in the interest of the country.

Take FDI in retail for instance. Granted, there might be a community of shopkeepers who might get adversely affected at least in the short term. However the middle class (which also includes these shopkeepers) would stand to gain from reduced prices and greater efficiencies in the supply chain. Why does the government not highlight such issues?

Moving on, the Gujarat Congress is up in arms against two articles published recently in the US. One was by TIME magazine and the other by the Brookings Institution. These seem to have praised Modi for developing Gujarat into what it is today. This seems to be a very good example of sour grapes. India is a free country where we have an independent Election Commission. Modi is still winning support of the people. The riots constitute an ugly blot on our democracy. However till date no court has found Modi to be guilty of anything with regard to the riots. So does the Congress not believe in our courts? Is it not contempt of court to pre-judge the guilt of Modi? Naveen Patnaik is a person who has been facing spectacular success in Odisha (I do not like imposing one's language on others, I prefer Orissa) has a personally clean image and is said to be working for the development of the state. Today more and more the Indian voter seems to be voting for development rather than for anything else. The Congress however seems intent on tarring Modi with the communal brush at every available turn. Its leaders insist on minority appeasement (remember Salman Khurshid's claim about Sonia Gandhi shedding tears about the Batla House encounter? I believe his wife, Louise lost the election).Salman Rushdie targeted young leaders like Akhilesh Yadav and Rahul Gandhi. He pointed out how minority appeasement failed. Our politicians should realize this and develop more guts as far as national interest is concerned.

On Kahaani and the Telugu film industry

Today I watched Kahaani starring Vidya Balan along with a few friends and our better halves. I was initially apprehensive about watching the movie when my wife suggested it. However it turned out to be an awesome movie. Typically when any of our intelligence agencies are depicted in films the agents are depicted to be James Bondish characters who rescue the nation from the clutches of the evil antagonist and win the heart of the heroine. Seldom do we get films in which they are portrayed the way they were in Kahaani. I wholeheartedly recommend the film to anyone who has not seen it yet. Do not be put off by the picture of a pregnant woman who seems to have a Durga-like portrayal on the poster. Watch the movie and understand the symbolism behind the poster.

After coming home while flipping though the channels on the TV I happened to come across what was probably the audio release function of a movie. This movie features the son of a very prominent actor. I was immediately struck by the sycophancy that goes into making Telugu movies. The hero is everything. One punch, and the villains go flying. He is invincible. The very elements tremble when the hero is in full flow, whether it is an introduction scene or a fight with the villains. The hero has to come out unscathed. Take for instance a movie called Tagore which featured Chiranjeevi. I was told this was the remake of a Tamil movie called Ramana. In this movie the hero sets up an anti-corruption agency which executes the most corrupt person in government departments. Apparently at the end of the Tamil movie the hero was hanged. Had this been the end of the Telugu movie the director and producer of the movie might probably have been lynched by fans. In Tamil films Rajnikanth has a similar fan following. Further there is intense glorification of violence in Telugu films. The hero, on the side of right ends up killing a lot of villains by the end of the movie. 

I wonder till when this extremely unrealistic portrayal of life will continue. When will the Telugu film industry get a movie like Kahaani consistently? I must say that there are some Telugu films also of late which have a story to speak of. I just want the age of sycophancy to end. I want good movies to be the rule rather than the exception.

Will Didi disappoint?

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This 19th century quote by Lord Acton is being proved right yet again in the 21st century. When Didi came to power I had a doubt. She was no doubt a popular leader, a demagogue even. But would she be an effective administrator? Mamata was in a sense lucky. There was a lot of effort which went into unseating the Left in West Bengal. However Mamata turned out to be the right person at the right place at the right time. Further had Nandigram and Singur not happened, who knows, maybe even today she might have been in the opposition benches?

I was talking to a person from Kolkata recently and happened to ask him if Mamata had managed to bring about any changes (remember her statement about changing Kolkata into London?). Yes, definitely was his response. Previously a policeman used to let you go if you bribed him maybe 5-10 rupees, today (I was expecting him to say there is no corruption) he charges 100 rupees to do the same! Just take a look at the recent events that have been in the news. A lady was raped after she stepped out of a Park Street nightclub. The blame was put on the Left. Look at how Mamata's relatives and supporters are brazenly showing their power. Initially she was running to Pranab da for assistance packages. Then she announced an autonomy package for the hilly regions of Bengal the validity of which was questioned later. Today she is one of the primary antagonizers of the government.

When the UPA came to power the second time, this time without the support of the Left, it was felt reforms could go ahead. However Mamata has replaced the Left as the principal opponent to anything related to the free market. She refuses to raise railway fares (I believe some time back the railway's cash reserves were below one crore). She refuses to let the government decontrol fuel prices fully. FDI in the retail sector? Baba, ki bolcho? Ae rokom jinish hobe na! (God, what are you saying? Such things cannot happen, my words). Railway safety, in the mean time might have gone to the dogs. Dinesh Trivedi, her acolyte and the present railway minister does not seem to be doing anything. Pariborton or change for the uninitiated is only that which is sanctioned by Didi. She might want to bring Bengal (and maybe the country) to its knees. However she should remember that people should go down on their knees in gratitude than in submission and coercion.