Star Of The Day : 28th Jan 2011 - Page 13

@ vidyasu1

As is your habit, articulate and relevant.

Long since wondered, the burden of blame on Archana, over presumed snapping of two sons from a mother- the One who had been base instrument in cunningly bringing this innocent girl down to her miserable world in the first place.

Originally posted by: vidyasu1

love the conversations among saffs, tanya and jaanu -- coming here uplifts me because SOTD understands the essential goodness of Arman. And I have believed -- and will continue to believe -- that goodness is what makes the world go around. Talking of which, the complaint till now was that Arman were too sacrificing and too unrealistically mahan. Now that they have finally realised their love for one another, savita is calling them selfish and uncaring. Only last week, they showed archana listening in sweetly to Damo-Sav conversation, She holds no grudge against a mil who wants nothing more than to see her dead. What better proof of her goodness? Must Arch always run after her mil and fall at her feet? Even if she did, won't her mil curse her and kick her out?

@hardyboy, I really appreciate what you have written about living in chawls and being the sole bread winner. But equally, you'll agree with me that times are changing; mumbai has always been ahead of itself, and the fact that you are now living in Pune testifies to the possibilities of advancement the city offers. And once members move out, families automatically become more nuclear. Unlike Delhi, which is a babu city, Mumbai truly celebrates enterprise though some of that has now gone with the kind of corrosive politics that has taken over.

Coming to mother-child relationship, it is undoubtedly special but no mother ought to turn the fact of the child's birth into an eternal karz that can be repaid only by the child being in bonded labour to the mother. That is so melodramatic, exploitative and OTT. There is another point here:. Why does the son have to bear all of the responsibility of being in debt to the mother? The premise seems to be that the son ought not to go away ever, no matter how badly he is treated. This is so regressive. Aren't we feeding into partriarchal notions of son preference when we constantly ask the son to fulfil his duties towards his mother?( Does the mother have no duties towards the son?) How is that the mother is so easily able to gift away the daughter? Why is she paraya dhan? Was she not born of the same womb? And if so why is there no umbilical attachment and why is she not in debt to her mother? The sad thing is when a daughter does try to help her parents or her maternal family, she is seen as bartering away the sasural's interests.

The sky high expectations of the son and the belief that he is divinely ordained to look after the parents, is the reason why eastern societies kill unborn daughters. Why is sex-selective abortion not common in the west? Because for all its other faults, the west does not glorify the mother-son relationship the way we do. For the daughter it is even worse: she is paraya dhan for her own parents; yet in her marital family she has often to tolerate vile abuse.

The upshot of son preference -- and the daughter being treated as paraya dhan -- is that even when a son is financially able to live separately and look after his parents, he is made to feel guilty for even considering the option ( not in real life so much as in TV soaps). Anything like that becomes a betrayal. Case in point: Vinod and manju wanted to live in their flat but sulo got all tearful and emotional about it. Had they stayed separately, the K parents would have been better off. There wouldn't be the daily problems between the mil and dil. Isn't it better to be happy living apart than unhappy living together -- assuming this is financially possible?

But the worst double standard in PR is the constrasting relationships between sav and manav and sachu and shravani. The mother who is so accusatory of her son because he has left her has strangely no compunctions about separating another mother from her infant child. In your own case you want your married son to be tied to your pallu but you don't want your grandson to spend even his infant days with his mother. What irony!!! And it truly beats me that sravani is offering no child support to her baby. Sending a couple of 100$ once in a while ought to be the easiest thing for her, and yet she has left her only child in the care of an aged couple with no wherewithal. How absurd is this. What if the old couple were to die tomorrow?

SOTD, many, many thanks.