The Marriage Postulate

Nearly twelve years ago, I wrote this piece. My marriage was a good two and half years away, but the thought had started bothering me a little. My parents were anxious to get me married off and 'settled' in life. Here I was, with so many questions and confused thoughts. I decided to make sense of that turmoil through this article. Writing about it made me feel somewhat more comfortable, I remember. Ultimately, I don't think I was guided by a 'rational' decision into marriage -- I just plunged into it, like everyone else!

Having reached a “marriageable” age, it is only natural that the thought should now be consistently nagging my mind. My thinking has left me confused - clarity on the matter seems like the mirage. What does it mean to marry, after all? And why am I so bothered by the question?

A friend of mine, who’s evidently happily married, said as a matter of fact, “You are needlessly being consumed by this question because you look at it as a major decision in your life. Why should it be so? Just marry!” If only it had been just as easy!

To begin with, the thought of staying with somebody all your life is frightening. Suppose we get bored of each other? What if we begin to dislike each other intensely? In this sense, isn’t marriage some thing that “makes” or “breaks” our lives? The latter phenomenon is being observed with increasing regularity. The standard reply to this would be, “Well, everything depends on how you make it work, the extent of give and take, the ability to adjust...” I can only nod my head in vague, cerebral agreement.

The institution of marriage is as old as the hills. It’ll be interesting to see how it began. Perhaps this will provide us with insights into the issue of why one should marry at all, or say, what the advantages may be, if one marries.

Prehistoric people were primarily nomadic. They must have operated with some division of labour. Quite understandably, the men-folk would have done the roaming, hunting etc., while the women were relatively less mobile, rearing children and so on. With the advent of agriculture, the mobility of men must have reduced, as their work profiles changed.

In the initial stages, I suppose there were no restrictions to mating freely within a particular community. The issue of pair bonding may have come about in relation to taking care of the young ones. Thus, it seems to me that, over a period of time, the bonding must have become “institutionalised” and ritualised because of this reason, i.e., proper care for the offspring, and the propagation of the species.

I’m sure there was a realisation that this would be a socially stable arrangement. Also, it ensured some sort of security for the individuals involved, physically and emotionally.

How were mates chosen? I do not know, but I believe that the process was more instinctual, and not governed as such by the intellect. There must have been the problem of separation, if “everything did not go well”. How did it operate then?

Today, the essential argument for marriage being the same, the process has become vastly complicated. No longer does it cater only to the issue of species propagation - the central problem of marriage is the problem of compatibility.

In this connection, the study of astrology is interesting. Scientific scepticism does not deter the astrologers who cling to the belief that our fate is linked to the movements of the stars and planets. This is somehow related to the psychological attributes of the person. Presumably, horoscope matching is nothing but the matching of these attributes.

Well, this is one side of the story. While astrological predictions are considered to be important, marital harmony is seen to be very much linked to (that oft used word) compatibility. Physical, emotional and intellectual matching, to various degrees, is the crux of the matter. Add to this the matching of social and economic status. Nowadays, these two seem to have taken precedence over the others as necessary criteria for a “good” marriage. Marriages are increasingly beginning to look like business propositions. Thousands of years ago, the processes leading to a bonding for life must have been much simpler.

What are the arguments for marriage? My supposition is that humans have to grapple with loneliness and insecurity - this is our fundamental predicament. Many are the efforts that are expended to overcome this condition. My own understanding is that this predicament invariably leads to, in all of us, a universal hunger and longing for love. Marriage is one of the ways by which this incompleteness can be filled. In this context, the essence of marriage is that it is a process of sharing our lives (with our husbands and wives…) -- joy, sorrow, pleasure, ideas, feelings, sunsets and sunrises, the trees, hills and vales, rivers, oceans, butterflies, babies and indeed, the entire gamut of existence. It is this sharing that helps us to transcend our aloneness and vulnerability and become stronger. The creator has perhaps intended in the cosmic scheme of things that man and woman be complementary to each other, like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.

Having put forward my case for marriage, let’s look at the flip side of things. Marriage, in my opinion, is a ‘construct’ of the human mind. In this sense, it is artificial, perhaps unlike the natural theory of selection of Darwin. It is not ‘naturally’ intended as a process in nature. Barring the issue of insecurity and safe propagation of species, I do not see any other worthwhile reason for marriage. Custodians of marriage may reproach me for being ‘anti-marriage-establishment’. Let that be. This is precisely how I feel. There may be a few exceptions, where individuals have managed to live with each other for several years, and yet the experience is enriching and meaningful. By and large, many couples whom I have met indicate that their relationships have become routine. The rejoinder to this may be that it is entirely up to the individuals to “make it work”. But when I see a widespread breakdown of sorts – divorce, suicide, extra-marital pre-occupations, even couple ‘swapping’ and an overall lack of purpose and meaning in marriages, I am inclined to believe that a re-thinking is needed. These are manifestations of a ‘gross mismatch’ of the different compatibility criteria that contribute to a good marriage. Something is therefore wrong.

I must address the issue of matching and compatibility in greater detail now, after having touched upon it so far in a somewhat casual manner. All conditions of compatibility operate as a whole, and not separately by themselves, and each condition is linked to the other. It is only because some (or few) of these criteria are met that people are looking elsewhere for fulfilment. The outlook is not holistic, and does not cater to the soul. The nourishment is only partial: “I’d like to marry somebody who’s earning at least 20,000/- per month (so that our combined earning is at least 30,000/-),” or, “My wife should preferably be a software engineer working in a multi-national corporation.” I do not wish to be unjustly critical, but these are statements indicative of a trend that doesn’t promise healthy, enriching marriages. While I do appreciate that there are practical difficulties especially in an age of spiralling costs, these parameters should not be allowed to take precedence over other, more important factors that will ultimately contribute to human wellbeing. If happiness in marriage is what one aspires for, it is puzzling that we’re choosing routes which will only take us there tangentially, or may not even take us there at all.

Translated into simpler terms, one way of looking at marriages is that they are need-based. Every individual has many needs, apart from just finance – sexual needs and their fulfilment, for instance. Emotions need proper expression; their suppression only leads to frustration. Thus, it seems that need fulfilment is closely linked to compatibility, and comes before it. But how can needs get fulfilled when two individuals may have very different sets of needs, priorities and expectations?

We finally then arrive at the matter of ‘compromise’ and ‘adjustment’. These are words that are used more than they are implemented. They essentially refer to the giving up of space in order to create space for the other. Its almost like saying, “Well, we may have several needs – can we learn to express them; can we also agree upon which of these needs can be met, how they can be met; can we agree upon what may not be possible, and why so?” This dialogue is necessary to keep the relationship going, and needs a considerable amount of time, effort and perseverance.

I’m still not convinced that this is possible by and large throughout the human species. Is it humanly possible for men and women to stay meaningfully and purposefully with each other throughout their lives, rear children, and look after each other? To many this may be a redundant question. I ask it with all sincerity and passion, for it relates to the overall quality of life, and not, on the other hand, a mechanical, routine exercise of living.

By nature, there are various impulses operating within us, which may not find an expression in marriage. What is to be done about them? Forget them, suppress them, or, find fulfilment and gratification for them discreetly elsewhere? How does one look at the issue of loyalty in a marriage?

I’m still confused, but I’d rather believe that the creation of the institution of marriage might not be in consonance with certain fundamental, natural qualities and tendencies in human beings. It is only the fear of chaos that has ensured the endurance of the institution.

My imagination recoils at the thought of the resultant disorder that would prevail in society if it not were for marriage. Perhaps, we can make it work if we set our own inner houses in order.

November ’97

Depression

Here is another article from the winter of '89. As with many other articles that I wrote then, this is another example of one of my soliloquies. During bouts of depression, I often wondered what it was all about, and how to deal with it. Reading it twenty years later, I realize that the approach to dealing with it remains essentially the same, at least for me. Additionally, perhaps, my understanding is that if we chase depression to get rid of it, it comes back stronger! The best way then is to let it come, and pass...

One thing is absolutely certain about depression – it makes one feel depressed! Surely, depression is one thing which everyone likes to get rid of before it sets in. Often the fact that depression can be got rid of by identifying its root causes is overlooked, further aggravating the condition.

Now there are two ways by the help of which one can identify the root cause of depression. The first of these methods (which I will call the ‘biochemical-particulate’ view) will certainly sound crazy, but can be relied upon to yield satisfactory results! First of all, it is important that you assume a relaxed posture with your eyes closed. Try to imagine the various chemical reactions taking place in your brain, and also bear in mind that there is a physical basis for these chemical reactions, at a deeper level the end result of which is this state called depression. Now, whatever is causing this depression is the final result of an extremely complicated (and perhaps unfathomable) set of processes that are taking place in your brain. It should be borne in mind that the environment i.e. the surroundings have a profound influence on all these processes, because of the mutual interaction between the brain and the environment.

The key to the solution of your problem lies here, in the labyrinthine complexity of your brain. By the time you ‘understand’ these reactions, and find your way out of the millions of neural networks in your brain, you will find that your depression has vanished, as your observation will show that in the ultimate analysis, your depression does not have any cause and that it is a part and parcel of life!

The second method will help you to attack depression from a slightly different angle, with the same end results. Try and look at only the positive aspects of life. Identify the positive points of your character. Remember all the good moments of the past, when you were smiling with happiness and also remember the times when you, by your good deeds, brought a smile on the faces of your near and dear ones. Note that these good moments will come many more times in your life, and you have to carry on at least to experience these moments and derive joy from them.

You are actually a very privileged person, because you are capable of reading whatever I have written…there are millions in this world who cannot even read. And there are millions of them who have seen the most horrible things in life, and whose plight is heart rending – yet, some of them are smiling always! Learn from them! You have to consider yourself to be very lucky, as you may not have experienced the cruelest aspects of life – even if you have, you are better placed than many others, as you can possibly learn a lot from these incidents and experiences.

Are you still feeling depressed? Remember – you have been sent into this world because there was a very strong reason, a very special purpose – it is your responsibility that you achieve your goals while there is still much time. Look at the beggar on the street -- he is not in a position to help his own self, let alone help others. Is not your position better than his, that you are in a better position to help yourself, and others? Start now! It is important to realize that a genuine smile on your face is always welcome, and a good deed per day will not only make others smile, but will also make you smile, automatically.

Where is your depression now?

(November 1989)

On the nature of scientific enquiry

Here is an article I wrote in the summer of 1989. Those were the days of fascination with disciplines like theretical physics and mathematics. My friends and I bunked classes to discuss quantum mechanics, relativity theory and other exciting developments that had revolutionized our understanding of the physical world. Yet, despite the power of these forms of knowledge to unravel the mysteries of the universe, I was distinctly uncomfortable as I felt that these disciplines did not admit certain types of questions. Some of that tension is reflected in this article.

In his Evolution of Scientific Thought, A.d’Abro says:
“Consider the phenomenon of gravitation. Does any one really imagine that Newton or Einstein has ever attempted to explain gravitation? To say that gravitation is a property of matter or is the property of space-time in the neighbourhood of matter is just as much of an explanation as to say that sweetness is a property of sugar; for in the last analysis, what is matter – what is space-time…? (Scientists) content themselves with describing the properties and the relationships that appear to connect them. Clearly, those who seek explanations will find no comfort in science. They must turn to metaphysics. And yet, as a matter of fact, these rather gloomy conclusions are gloomy because we are expecting too much…we shall find that the descriptions of science are creative and fertile, and not sterile, as descriptions usually are.”

As far as my opinion goes, I would like to point out that I wholeheartedly disagree with A.d’Abro’s point of view. To be just content with explanations or an understanding of the relationships between various parameters without really wanting to find out why these relationships exist (or, more appropriately, in the words of Stephen Hawking, “What breathes fire into these equations…?”), does not represent a complete enquiry as such.

Till now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is than to ask the question why. On the other hand, the people whose business is to ask why, the philosophers have not been able to keep up with the advance of scientific theories. Scientists often ‘look down’ or dismiss philosophical speculations, though they may themselves be constantly suppressing such urges within themselves!

Perhaps, as A.d’Abro says, those who seek explanations will find no comfort in science, and that they should turn to metaphysics. But can we really afford to be satisfied with just this ‘what’ kind of information and knowledge? We should be grateful (to whom, I wonder?!) because we are in a position to ask – what is matter, what is space-time, why is the universe…? Perhaps nature has ‘built’ us that way, so that we can ask these questions.

Let me consider this problem from the ‘atomic’ viewpoint of science. ‘Life’ can be defined roughly as ‘atoms trying to understand more about atoms’. I am not in a position to explain what understand means. And if atoms can ‘ask’ why atoms should exist, for example, there should be a reason, the reason being that atoms have themselves felt the need for asking these questions, knowing fully well that they have ‘felt the need for asking these questions’, and also ‘knowing that they know fully well that they have felt the need for asking these questions…ad infinitum.

When the need for asking these questions has been felt, the answers should be there – there cannot be questions without answers, however seemingly stupid or otherwise the questions may be (actually, no question is stupid as such). This is necessary to maintain some sort of ‘equilibrium’ or ‘balance’ in this universe…there should not be any ‘agitation’ which will disturb the ‘universal calm…’ In that sense, being content or jubilant that it is enough to understand relationships between various parameters without asking why those relationships exist, does not represent the highest product of the human intellect. The process of enquiry may go on forever, but that should not deter one from asking these questions. That is my sincere opinion.

March’89

Musings on Cricket and Life

Some experiences can scar you for life. They leave a certain block in the mind which is difficult to overcome. Lifelong behaviour is influenced by these scars that just don’t go away. Just when we seem to think that we have dropped the baggage for good, some incident or the other allows that part of the memory to surface with a vengeance -- it recreates the experience and leaves us perplexed, angry and bitter for a while. It feels as if we have relived that experience. I suppose this is what happens when we try to suppress such experiences.

The experiences that scar you for life can also lead to disastrous consequences. I still remember the scene in a Bharatpur village in Rajasthan more than three years ago. I was doing a classroom observation in a government school, sitting in the veranda. Overcrowding and lack of space had resulted in the veranda being converted into a classroom. It is still a common sight in many schools, despite massive investments in infrastructure over the last decade. I was sitting in one corner of the class, and could see the village beyond. Suddenly, a boy came running almost out of nowhere and jumped without hesitation into the well adjacent to the school. I was too horrified to react. Some of us, including the children who had seen the boy jump, instinctively got up and ran towards the well. The teacher followed suit. Soon, everyone from the school had gathered around the well. The boy’s brothers had come running after him within a minute. Quickly, to my amazement, a rope was tied in a crisscross manner round the elder brother’s shoulders and waist, and he was lowered into the well. Many villagers had turned up by then. The women were wailing, while the men could be seen arguing heatedly. The boy’s inert body was brought up after what seemed like an eternity. We had stationed our jeep just in case he had to be rushed to the hospital. Luckily, he survived. I learnt later that his elder brother had admonished him. Following an argument, the boy had decided to give it all up.

I was left wondering how fragile human nature is, after all. Steely determination, focus, energy and strong will that we see and experience sometimes gives the strong impression that human nature can withstand much onslaught. What surprises me however, is its fragility. Nowadays, we hear more and more and see more and more of this fragility, through examination related suicides, relationship problems and all other kinds of human issues. A friend of mine had once looked at suicide differently. ‘Contrary to the notion that suicide is an escape from the misery of it all, it is an assertion’, she had said, adding that extreme human will is required to carry out the act. She is right in a way. But I would still maintain that the human will can assert in ways that can prevent self destruction. Perhaps this can happen if one sees meaning in life. When this sense of meaning collapses, it is difficult to carry on. I’m still reading that wonderful book by Victor Frankl titled Man’s Search for Meaning, which talks of hope and emancipation even in as harsh a place as the concentration camps of the second world war. What an amazing story it is!

Then there are some experiences can leave you disturbed for a long time, till you find ways of dealing with them. Dealing usually involves looking at them in perspective, and in believing in oneself. What this essentially means is the development of a certain kind of detachment, and understanding the circumstances that led to those incidents. Subsequent accumulation of a wealth of experiences and wisdom as we grow up can help us appreciate why such a thing happened in the first place. I have usually found that ‘laughing it off’ (which often also involves laughing at oneself) is the best way to deal with the hurt that comes from such experiences. That is what I’m now able to do with my experiences on the cricket field almost thirty years ago.

The year was 1980, and it was the hundredth year of our school. Imagine! I was in grade six. We were all busy preparing for the centenary celebrations. As such, the normal, monotonous routine of the school was broken because of this huge event for which we were getting ready. We were all happy, as we didn’t have to sit through class after class everyday. During that period, I was asked to report for practice in the junior cricket team of the school. Apparently, someone had seen me play in one of those myriad matches that we used to set up during lunch time in the big field, often stacking up our bags or big blocks of stone as the wickets at either end. At any given point during lunch time, there would be at least twenty matches played on our famous big field. I remember that I had somehow developed the skill for producing a prodigious amount of turn with my off breaks. This troubled almost any batsman who faced me.

Iyer, an ex-student of our school, was our coach. He was probably 18 or 20. As soon as I reached for practice after school in the small field, he asked me to do a few rounds and then threw me the leather ball. Unlike the ‘cork’ ball, which was easier to turn, I was unable to turn the leather ball as sharply. But my good line and length and quick movement through the air was enough to still trouble most batsmen. Iyer seemed pleased and he said ‘You are pitching the ball in places that are difficult for the batsmen to play…’ I was pleased as hell and attended practice regularly. I don’t remember much about batting practice, but I remember bowling my heart out everyday. There were sixteen of us who were part of the junior team.

There were my off days as well. After some time, I had more off days than good days at bowling practice. Something was wrong. This resulted in Iyer not interacting with me much. He would only expect me to field and fetch the ball. I would wait longingly for a bowling stint which didn’t come my way for a long time. However, my lunchtime matches continued, and I continued to trouble many batsmen. One fine day, Iyer threw me the ball again. How I troubled Sharath, one of our best batsmen and junior team captain, with my flight and spin! He would dance down the wicket and I would pitch it just a wee bit short. At other times, the trajectory of the ball would draw him forward full stretch. I thought I had rediscovered my lost art. Suddenly, everything looked good. But Iyer still decided not to operate with me everyday at practice. He wouldn’t tell me what was wrong and what I could do to change things. No feedback, no conversation.

A few months later, we had the Cottonian shield. The matches were played in the small field of the Bishop Cotton School. We won the first two matches and suddenly found ourselves in the final. I didn’t get to play but got to watch from the sidelines. The final match against Cottons was a three day affair which we lost quite badly. Naturally, the team was dejected.

I remember the prize ceremony and the distribution of certificates. They started calling out our names. I waited for my turn to go up on stage and collect that certificate of participation. That moment never came, and I was too shocked to come to terms with what had happened. The gathering dispersed even as I heard many hurrahs for the winners. All my junior team friends were carrying their certificates on which their names were written. We got into the school van. Sitting quietly in a corner, I tried very hard to suppress a tear. Some of my friends noticed my turmoil but didn’t say anything. I suppose they couldn’t. In a matter of fact way, Iyer told me that there were only 15 certificates prepared. My name had been deliberately left out of that list. Why? Why me? After all those months of practice, and cold shouldering!

Tough times followed for some days. Eventually I got over the incident. Luckily, I didn’t give up cricket. The big field matches and the street matches near home continued as before. I loved the game too much to be bothered about Iyer. A couple of years later, Sharath asked me to report for practice in the senior team. Promptly, I got back to practice. We played many matches. We won some, we lost some. But we didn’t make it to the final of any tournament. I enjoyed the playing, though. I suppose that is what matters, ultimately.

Our school football team was much better. They won the interschool shield in 1984, just a day before Indira Gandhi was assassinated. I remember the extended holiday!

Looking back, I realise what a bad teacher and a bad coach can do. Only my self belief helped me to overcome those initial moments of despondency. Iyer was a bad and insensitive coach, who didn’t believe in open, honest communication, the hallmark of a good teacher. Perhaps he was too young to be one, in the first place! I wonder where he went.

I sometimes worry for my son, who’s taken to practicing cricket in an academy near home. It is a sixty year old club, perhaps the oldest in Bangalore. He practices thrice a week and we play endlessly in our living room and in the backyard. He’s got a good front arm bowling action, and has all the potential to become a good bowler. His batting is improving too. I’m happy he’s pursuing a game of his choice, given that the school he currently goes to does not even have a playground! We’ll change his school next year. I want him to enjoy his game, and will not expect anything more from him.

The beauty of cricket has very nearly been killed by the BCCI, which is run by a bunch of ruthless businessmen who want to milk from it the last drop of money. I don’t see much spontaneity in the way the game is played. We played cricket in every conceivable place without thinking where it would lead us. We enjoyed playing it. Period. Today, everyone seems to be making a plan to make it big. Parents want their children to get into the under 10 league and move up from there. The many different forms of the game have opened up avenues for raking in the moolah. Young children are exposed to it all through television. It is up to the parents and the coaches to tell their children, ‘Look just go out there and enjoy playing the game. It’s a game after all!’ As parents, we need to be careful not to thrust the burden of our expectations on our children. At the same time, we will need to prepare them to handle failure, through self belief. I can only hope that Iyer is doing well, if he is still a cricket coach.

July 2009