"Marriage and Morals" - Review

"Marriage and Morals"  is a classic of exploration of ideas and social norms by Nobel Laureate Bertrand Russell. Russell was a British aristocrat and a leading intellectual who hugely influenced political, mathematical and philosophical discourse during his time.

This book battles the idea preached by conventional Christian morality that there is something inherently wrong and sinful about sex and sexual relationships; that even in marriage sex is to be tolerated only because it leads to procreation and hence propagation of the species. Russell examines patriarchy and monogamy arguing that these systems originated purely to assure a man of his fatherhood of the offspring of the woman he has been with. The book was first published in 1920s when contraceptives were still a new concept; he examines the effect of the possibility of sex that need not necessarily lead to pregnancy, on society and relationships. The most important idea from the book in my view that is still relevant in our day is the examination of the educational system which inadvertently serves to supress sexual curiosity and enquiry in children; Russell insists that if we are to have healthy individuals with harmony between their instincts and beliefs - and therefore a healthy society, it's imperative that education serves to train the instincts with positive moral systems rather than fear , inhibition and preaching of self control. Russell himself started a school when he saw what was lacking in education system and tried to set a model for future education. While some ideas in the book are definitely dated after a century of publication, many still shockingly remain relevant and serve to show the deep-seated guilt, secrecy and lack of knowledge associated with sex that we still face as a society.

Here is the most impactful closing phrases I have ever read in a book so far:

"The essence of a good marriage is respect for each other's personality combined with that deep intimacy, physical, mental and spiritual, which makes a serious love between man and woman the most fructifying of all human experiences. Such love, like everything that is great and precious, demands its own morality, and frequently entails a sacrifice of the less to the greater, but such sacrifice must be voluntary, for, where it is not, it will destroy the very basis of the love for the sake of which it is made."

Review of "London, Paris, New York"

Let me start this review by saying I loved this one! So, it is a positive review.

I generally watch the downloaded Bollywood movies over a span of about 10 minutes. I just drag the arrow of the video player from one end to the other. Whatever I catch a glimpse of during that is generally more than enough to understand the plot and forget it forever.

My expectations were pretty much on the same level from Anuradha Menon's "London, Paris, New York" as well when I started watching it in the cab on the way back from office. However the movie turned out to be a pleasant surprise for me.

The plot line is simple, but told powerfully and is surprisingly not predictable. I found myself wondering whether it would have a tragedy ending. It's a coming off age movie with a good enough touch of reality. The movie traces the relationship of a girl and a guy who have a chance meeting in London and part ways. The intense attraction they feel only grows over the years even though their subsequent meetings are years apart. The turns their relationship takes and its subsequent culmination is the main story line.

Coming off age movies are a rage right now and this one has been compared to Wake Up Sid and Love Aaj Kal. The difference though, is quite apparent to anybody who cares to follow the plot. While the other two are about the thin line between friendship and love and not being able to determine whether these feelings are genuine and lasting, in LPNY, the attraction between the boy and the girl is quite apparent and out in the open from their very first meeting. There are no doubts here. No one is trying to hide their feelings. They are, in fact, quite vocal about them. What happens to the couple is a very natural angst arising out of the physical distance between them and differences in male and female perspectives.


I liked the gradual change in persona each phase of life introduces in the protagonists. For example, they start out with simple T-Shirts in London and graduate to chic clothes in Paris to grown-up styling in New York.

The film has only two characters, although it doesn't get tiresome at any point. Aditi Rao Haidari is too cute. I thought this over-cuteness might come in the way of her acting, but surprisingly it doesn't. She is quite perfect in her character as an innocent girl who slowly matures into a grown woman. I never found Ali Zafar handsome, but this movie changed my mind. I decided to look out for him. My only qualm is he sounds like a quawalli singer even when completely unnecessary. The music and background score is pleasant. Loved the song "Ye Ek Phase Hai". I have decided to save this movie and watch it again when a mood lift is necessary.

Movie: London, Paris, New York
Rating: 4/5
Director: Anuradha Menon
Actors: Ali Zafar, Aditi Rao Haidari
Music: Ali Zafar

Arranged Marriages - Some tips for gals

Arranged marriages are here to stay!

Let's face it, when we talk about marriage in the current urban Indian context, the entire plethora of double standards of the society are unleashed to the partner seekers in their full strength. There are nuances of differences in caste, social standing, class and value systems between the two families to consider. There are things that people are willing to express explicitly, and then there is an ocean of implicit requirements. How young, educated boys and girls manage to find a partner for themselves who matches them physically, intellectually and emotionally is a mystery in itself, considering one has very limited time in which to interact with the potential partner and give a decision.

However due to our unique social construct and amalgamation of the old and the new that we live with in today's society, the system thrives and marriages out of love are still not as common as one wishes them to be! Hence a set of tips from people who have already gone through the experience, to choose a reasonable partner can definitely come in handy. Listed below are some suggestions from me to consider before you give the green signal to go ahead and during the courtship period before the knot is actually tied.  They are the result of experiences of a number of friends of mine seen over a period of ten years. These are purely for girls and provided from girls' perspectives only. I am sure guys have a whole different set of problems of their own to handle, before the actual decision is made!

Here goes:

• Do NOT marry someone who does not talk to you on a daily basis, unless he is in Kargil and cant come to the phone!! A person who does not show interest in talking to you and trying to lay a solid foundation during courtship period, will not even attempt to do so after marriage!
• Do NOT marry someone who does not make the effort to meet you often if you live in the same city. That shows utter lack of interest or a conflicting value system.
• Talk to him about his future plans and see if you are a part of them. Planning an excellent career with no space for a spouse or family life is no good.
• Do NOT go purely by your mother/grandmother's advice.they will talk about all the hardships they endured, compromises they made and how they still turned out to be happy. You are not your grandmother. They hardly had any say in the course of their lives - you do! You have not gone through near starvation, travelling miles on foot to reach school, marrying the guy you have never seen etc. You won't be able to make the kind of compromises they did. 
• Children do NOT make everything all right.They make it much worse. People will tell you from the get-go and also every time you face a problem in your marriage that you should have a child together and everything will be fine. Remember how people used to tell you to get married and everything will be fine!! It takes a lot of teamwork to raise a child together. Also, and very important, children sense your unhappiness. The best gift you can give your child is a happy home. It's up to you to find someone with whom you can build one. 

Following these tips is not an assured path to happiness. But it can help you filter out disinterested suitors whose value systems are completely different from yours. While the task of choosing the right partner may seem daunting, and even after all this, the resulting marriage complicated, it does get better with time. Everyone makes compromises for day-to-day peace. But that is not necessarily a good thing. You might wake up one day and not like the person you have become.

Advaitha: A Short Summary

I was curious to understand Advaitha philosophy of Sri Shankaracharya  for a while now since it is one of the leading spiritual philosophies widely followed in India. Also I belong to a community who are supposed to be the followers of Shankaracharya's Advaitha philosophy. Hence I read "Life and Teachings of Sri Shankaracharya" by P. George Victor and a translation of "Upanishads" by C. Rajagopalachari. While my study is in no way extensive, it was sufficient to help me grasp the basics of the philosophy. Here is a summary of my reading:

• The first learning was that, the Bhagavadgeetha is a much later text than the Vedas and was composed in its present state during fourth or third century BC.
• There is a dispute over Shankaracharya's time among scholars. While most scholars agree he lived during 788-820AD, Sringeri mutt, one of the main pilgrimage sites established by Shankaracharya, claims he lived around 44 BC!
• Shankara's time was marked by the accent of Buddhism which was perceived as a threat to the Vedic religion. This might have influenced his thought process.
• Upanishads are literally the end segments of the Vedas and hence called Vedantas.
• Shakara's major contributions are his commentaries on Bhagavadgeetha, Bhagavad Sutras and Upanishads called the Prasthanatrayi.

Main principles of Advaitha:

• Self and Brahman(The Supreme Being) are one and the same
• Brahman can be realized from Nishkama Karma (action without the expectation of gain), Jnana Yoga (the path of knowledge) and Bhakti Yoga(the path of devotion). Yoga here means useful deed and meditation.
• While Vedas uphold Karma Marga(the path of action), Upanishads say they need not necessarily lead to the final liberation. However Shankara says Karma Marga is also important.
• Brahman, as the inner self, Aatman, is neither enjoyer nor agent of the actions performed by the body. It is the witness, Sakshi, for the experiences and actions of the body.
• The Self, and thus Brahman is beyond the chain of causality. The chain of cause and effect is infinite as each cause could be the effect of another cause. Hence freeing oneself from the perception of causality leads to Brahman.
• Brahman, in true form, is attribute-less(nirguna), formless(nirakara) etc. The only way to describe the true Brahman is "not this, not this" - "neti, neti"
• Saguna Brahman (Brahman with attributes) exists for practical purposes, Vyavaharika Satya. It has attributes - it is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. Saguna Brahma exists for those who pray and expect happiness, but not liberation, Moksha and knowledge. People who pray to Saguna Brahma attain happiness and after death reach heaven, but are not freed from the cycles of birth, death and rebirth.
• Shankara says Jnana Marga is superior to Karma Marga and grades worship like this: the first stage is image worship; the next consists of Japa and prayer; the highest is the form "I am He"
• However lower stages of knowledge is neither to be despised nor regarded as a concession to the ignorant man. As long as a man lives in this world, he uses any tool, which comes to his hand for his own Moksha.

To quote from the book "Life and Teachings of Sri Shankaracharya" by P. George Victor, "according to Advaitha Vedanta, Moksha is not something to be achieved, but it is the very nature of the self. It is not something that follows after death, and it is not to be understood in the sense of endless existence in some distant and unknown world. It is the attainment of highest state of consciousness through identifying the Self (Aatma) as Brahman. It is to be attained here and now while one is still in one's bodily existence. in other words, it is the realization of non-difference of the individual self from the Absolute self. Moksha is called 'experiencing non-duality' (advaitha-anubhava). A man who attains such consciousness is called 'the living-free', jivanmukta. 

While the above summary helps enhance my understanding of the key principles of Advaitha Vedanta, it raises more questions in my mind than answers them. Only time and further study can help them be answered.

 

Dynasty

What is all the fuss about some institutions and organizations being highly dynastic? About some countries, our's counted as one among them, still holding on to its dynastic characteristics, irrespective of supposedly being merit-oriented or socialistic democracies now?

Writer's son becoming a writer, artist's son becoming an artist - is it so immoral?

It's only natural considering that is the exposure they have got all their lives. That's the setting they have grown up in and seen assured success for their parents. Do all of us who don't take up the same profession or hobby as our parents really end up straying that far away from our roots? The changes we make so rebelliously - aren't they some variant of our parents' lives? Giving recognition to the offspring because of the parent's success can be deemed immoral. But when children choose the same path as their parents - can they really be blamed?

A tribute to Maya Angelou

Pretty women wonder where my secret lies.

I’m not cute or built to suit a fashion model’s size   

But when I start to tell them,

They think I’m telling lies.

I say,

It’s in the reach of my arms,

The span of my hips,   

The stride of my step,   

The curl of my lips.   

I’m a woman

Phenomenally.

Phenomenal woman,   

That’s me.

I walk into a room

Just as cool as you please,   

And to a man,

The fellows stand or

Fall down on their knees.   

Then they swarm around me,

A hive of honey bees.   

I say,

It’s the fire in my eyes,   

And the flash of my teeth,   

The swing in my waist,   

And the joy in my feet.   

I’m a woman

Phenomenally.

Phenomenal woman,

That’s me.

Men themselves have wondered   

What they see in me.

They try so much

But they can’t touch

My inner mystery.

When I try to show them,   

They say they still can’t see.   

I say,

It’s in the arch of my back,   

The sun of my smile,

The ride of my breasts,

The grace of my style.

I’m a woman

Phenomenally.

Phenomenal woman,

That’s me.

Now you understand

Just why my head’s not bowed.   

I don’t shout or jump about

Or have to talk real loud.   

When you see me passing,

It ought to make you proud.

I say,

It’s in the click of my heels,   

The bend of my hair,   

the palm of my hand,   

The need for my care.   

’Cause I’m a woman

Phenomenally.

Phenomenal woman,

That’s me.

Maya Angelou, “Phenomenal Woman” from And Still I Rise. Copyright © 1978 by Maya Angelou.

Source: The Complete Collected Poems of Maya Angelou (Random House Inc., 1994)

Some thoughts on "The Namesake"

This article cannot strictly be called a review of Jhumpa Lahiri's "The Namesake". Its more a collection of musings on reading the book. Once in a while you come across a story and a narration which resonates deeply with you and evokes a lot of thoughts. This is one such novel and I attempt to collect such thoughts here.

Ever since I heard that "The Namesake" is about alienation I was putting-off reading it. I finally got to it
quite co-incodentally when I saw a battered copy in my office library, incidentally the only fiction I could lay
my eyes on. When I finally did read it, I realized alienation is only a part of it. The novel is
about identity. It's about carving one's own little space in this big world; about figuring out who you are
among the multiple identities thrown at you. It's about being sensitive to one's past and yet open to a new
future.

The novel tells the story of the Gangulis who start their family life in the United States, back when it was
still a relatively new phenomenon to do so and the younger generation still felt deeply connected to its roots.
They thrive in the new country, have lucrative career opportunities, a nice house, a boy Gogol and a girl Sonia,  although their social circle still mostly comprises of Bengalis like themselves, in an attempt to stay connected to their cultural roots. The children, born and brought up in the US fail to understand their paretns' sentiments and are subtly resentful of it in their growing-up years. However, eventually when the children do grow up and try to have lives of their own, each of them is able to integrate into the American society to a different degree.For them finding a place in the society is never as natural as it is to an American person of American origin. Where Gogol's sister Sonia finds it easier to fit in, Gogol finds himself attracted to and marries Maushami, the daughter of the Bengali friends of the family. What draws them together is the commonalities in their upbringing - their shared nostalgia as well as derision towards it. Eventually the marriage breaks, since the common background is not enough to hold them together and Maushami's urge to free herself of the cultural bondage runs much deeper. The novel ends with Gogol finally understanding his father's urge to include him in his love for their roots and a deeper acceptance of his parentage.

Strangely, the character I could relate with the most is that of Maushami, who, on account of being a girl, is
pressed a lot harder by her parents to adhere to their cultural traditions. She is not allowed to date, not
allowed to be a part of the society she lives in. Eventaully she finds peace in France, a country which has
no claim on her whatsoever, as compared to the two countires which do define her identity. This is the crux of the matter. The life and the culture her parents hold dear and push her towards, is not her life, even though
it may be the only life they know and love. They chose to put her in a differnt society with a differnt set of
cultural values. They constantly expect her to understand and accept their past as compared to the present she knows and the future she is capable of accepting.

All of us routinely fail to understand what we want subconsciously and the life we have built consequentially.
The truth at the heart of the issue is that we all want our past back - the days of innocence and lack of
responsibility. We want our children to fulfill that deepest desire of ours - to embrace our past. But in
 reality that doesnt happen.For one, the children cannot understand where their parents are coming from. They are not the ones who have had those experiences. Even if they do understand, it's not in the children's power to fulfill their parents' desires. If only we can control the urge to project our desires onto our children, so much pain, angst and loneliness can be avoided.

At the end of the novel, the meaninglessness Gogol feels portrays the sum total of his and his parents' alienation.On the one hand, he does not have the protection of tradition to gaurd him from the overwhelming meaninglessness of it all. On the other, the individual freedom he has isn't of any particular use to him at that stage of his life. The novel remains relevant since, its not only the diaspora which goes through such alienation anymore. The current society moving everyday towards an individual oriented model as opposed to a traditional community oriented one, presents similar challenges to the youth today increasingly.

I am going to present a summary review of the book anyway, to end the article with.

Summary Review:
Book: The Namesake
Author: Jhumpa Lahiri
Type: Novel
Rating: 4 (out of 5, 5 being the highest)
I recommend: For its excellent storytelling and relevant theme