Marriage and Family compatibilities

Yesterday, we (Anagha, Suyog and me) met up with Swathi. She'd been here for the week end. Ashish's parents and grand-parents had come over to meet Swathi's parents and relatives. They wanted to finalize on the entire process of the marriage. (In Cognizant software terminology, they wanted to get PSPH {Project Specific Process Handbook} in place!}

While having lunch, Swathi recounted the entire episode was and how pleased she was that the families seemed to be so very compatible. She kept on repeating the point that for a girl this is a very important factor. This got me thinking….. about the rituals and the traditions that we have in India.

The Indian tradition is so really strange. It expects that after marriage, the girl will become a member of the husband's family and the she'll lose her status of the family member in her own family! Also, the Indian tradition says that the male descendents are the only ones responsible for the welfare of the parents when they grow old.

In olden days, with huge families, maybe this policy made sense. There was more than one son to take care of the parents and also, the girl had to relinquish her hold on the property. This I feel was correct especially if the girl happened to marry the eldest brother. Traditionally, he's the one who'd inherit the lion's share from the parents. The girl on marriage would become a partner, superseding all the husband's brothers. If she had a say in her own family too, then the passing on of the heritage would have become a mess.

But, in modern days, with nuclear families and the single child policy, is this a really correct way of uniting families? Let's explore the repercussions on the guy and the girl in a modern day situation. Let's start with the traditional setup:

After marriage, the girl becomes a member of her husband's family. She is supposed to adjust and ensure that her addition does not drastically alter the delicate structure of family relationships in the husband's household. She is supposed to serve the in-laws and take care of the husband's needs. In return, all she gets is the love and affection of her husband, if he is a good one. If not, even this is denied. The girl was entirely dependent on the husband for all her needs.

For a guy, the change was negligible. He'd get a nice advisor, cum friend and a person who'd help him at all his needs. The wife was someone, who was taken for granted. She'd do whatever he said and she'd probably have no say in his lifestyle.

In modern day, most of the things are not true. The girl is financially independent. The guy cannot take her for granted. In this scenario, what exactly does marriage mean for the guy the girl in terms of the compatibility of the families?

For a girl, she is worried if the guy's parents will accept her. She still is considered to become a part of the family after the nuptials. She still has to take care of the in-laws. But, she's now also responsible for her job and her parents. Since the family size is small, she may be the only kid and she may have to take care of the parents in their time of need. My question is: does the Indian society event recognize this need? What if the son(s) neglect the parents and they are left with nobody but their daughter for help? Will the Indian society accept the fact that the girl's parents are staying with her after marriage?

For a guy, things are a bit simpler. The expectation from the girl's parents is just that he keeps their daughter happy. He's not expected to serve the in-laws. Still, isn't it his responsibility to ensure that his wife's parents too are cared for? What if a situation arises where the husband and the wife are both the only kids of their parents? How is the guy supposed to choose if he'll support his parents, the girl's parents or both?

I really don't know why I got all these questions in my mind. Maybe it was just lurking somewhere after I'd seen my maternal grand mother die in-front of my eyes. That was one sad episode.

My mom has five brothers. Her father (my grand-dad) was en extremely short-tempered man. He'd mistreated the male kids quite badly, beating them or neglecting them. In the old age, the children had no love left. Unfortunately, even my grand mom too got blamed for the behavior. Since, my grandpa did not have much of property; the children were not really worried about taking care of the parents.

My grandma had come to our place in Pune. She'd been staying with us for about 15 days and then, she was supposed to leave. She seemed so happy and peaceful when she was with us, compared to the tense and worried person that she'd always appeared to me. Just about 2 days before we left, she became very quiet. On the day we were supposed to leave, she woke us up at 6 am and complained about a heart-ache. Immediately, we rushed her to the hospital. There she suffered a seizure in front of my eyes. That was probably her end even though she struggled for about 10 minutes more.

My mom still believes that what killed my grandma was the sad and dejecting thought that she'd go back to a place where nobody wanted her or loved her. Sure, the sons ensured that she got food, medicines and shelter. But, she got no love. In this situation, if my dad had asked her to stay, I guess, my grandma would have been pleased. But, she'd still moved back to Bangalore as the society would view it as a bad thing. They'd comment: "Even with five sons, she's staying with her daughter". My question is, is it so bad to stay with the daughter?

Well, looks like finally I am trying to get a hang of what the marriage business is all about it. The sheer complexity of the inter-woven relationships, the hidden traps and the intangible layers of expectations is quite daunting. Hope, things are not really this difficult in everyone's case!