Having read the above just a few days ago, I began to ruminate on my mashi (aunt) who is in her early seventies, living a retired life with her husband in Kolkata.
In 1971, having returned to India, after years in London, pursuing a Masters and Ph.D, she married a man who was a good match if not better to her intellectual excellence. Both having, returned from abroad, in times when few heard of such things in our Bengali middle-class families, they decided to approach their marriage, with a difference. Both maintained separate Bank accounts. Neither was in any way curious about the salaries drawn by each other, properties bought even after their wedding was in the name of the person who paid for it. There were no joint finances in household management. Rather, they paid for different activities and expenses separately and having come to a consensus on who would bear the cost of that service. What was most important was the fact that, her husband never interfered in her continuous distribution, donation and financial help rendered to the less fortunate in our family.
I was always fascinated by this aunt. In fact, for many of us, in my generation, she was a role model. She was intelligent, studious, kind, gentle yet at the same time, vivacious.
Many of us, in later life, chose women who were like her. I certainly did.
When I started getting into long term relationships or even in the case of friendships with both genders, I maintained the egalitarian principles. Equality between partners, democracy in thought and action and finances on equal share basis. This came from watching other relationships and the power balance between partners and friends, vis-à-vis, money. And also from being a feminist.
My partner and I are not bra-burning feminists. She pursues academics. I am a writer, but also have a very strong business background. Both of us write on issues that are feminist concerns, but hers is very solid and academic.
Right from the beginning we laid out certain rules. We are joint participants in household expenses, unless I am being visited by my family or friends. Then, I am cautious to see that I do not burden to her purse. We also have separate bank accounts and separate houses that we own. I am unaware of her remuneration as she is of mine. When, traveling together, we jointly bear the expenses of the trip. We have no joint properties and will never have one, unless, one or the other decides out of love and affection to gift a property to the other. Not all nomination to my properties, bank accounts, savings and investments are hers after my death. Neither am I a nominee in hers.
Yet, we have a loving and giving relationship and a great bonding intellectually and I should say, spiritually. But, this account is to place before an audience, what in fact, to me means working towards an egalitarian relationship. The heart has not been allowed to mix and mesh in every area of our lives together.
And, it has never been an easy task to achieve. I come across many feminists and other working women, who work it out totally differently with their partners. The areas of sharing/ individual responsibilities vis-a-vis family and finances, are not so clearly defined. Many times it is taken for granted that one or the other takes care, even if both are working.
So what are we talking about? Is this a plausible way to work out relationships in metropolitan India? Or is it to cold and buisinesslike?
As far as I am concerned, I like things clearly cut out. Especially, as women partners we have no legal rights in India. I feel the measures taken as per the listing above, make for democratic relationships, your's or mine and keep out oppressive/suppressive or exploitative relationships/ friendships at bay. As humans, we are all fallible, at any time.
I like this difference between – let’s have dinner together as against let me take you out to dinner. In the first case, two or more are going to have a dinner together, but all are going to pay their separate bills/or are going to share the bill equally. In the second case, I am taking someone out for dinner and I will therefore foot the bill for both of us.
Normally speaking, as soon as I give a gift to someone, I get one back from that person. This, in my understanding keeps the balance perfect, without tilting it on one side too much. It also keeps the friends sharing dignity towards each other.
Abundance is an attitude. So is lack. Life exists as relative and hence, poverty, wealth is assessed in relation to or in the context of a certain thing/s. There are no altruists really in the world – for everything, there is a price to pay, in cash or kind. So why not keep at least our relationships/ friendships clean and egalitarian?
My questions are:
- Am I a crusader for equal rights? And Equal participation? Perhaps not among those who are economically challenged, but among those who are in the same standing as I am?
- What is the perfect balance vis-à-vis the fact that economics play a determining and dynamic role in the power balance among partners/friends?
Hi Gregory,
See, I have a point. Thank you. Its not only to safeguard against a breakup, but also, within the relationship, share your heart fully; why your bank account? What BIG giver are you trying to prove you are, by doing so. If the wife decides to travel on her own or see another man, the joint bank account will quickly turn to singly owned!! Lets face it Gregory, there are always strings attached to the altruist's kindness.,
Thanks Gregory, for this personal input. It motivates, what I believe a necessary change in the Metros atleast in India.
Julia
Reply | | Report Abuse
I agree with the advice in your blog.
-- GF
I was together with my 'ex-wife' or 'partner' for 17 years. She was an atheist, I an Advaitist, both strict vegetarians since teen age. She did not want a legal marriage and neither did I because we both felt that our relationship was our business, and we didn't want the State involved in it. Likewise religion. What religion? She did not want children and that was okay with me. Who in their right minds would want to raise kids in the fascist USA anyway? Public school is a brainwashing machine.
We both worked full-time as Registered Nurses, kept separate bank accounts, bought a house together, paid fifty-fifty for almost everything, compromised on the rest, split the chores -- she liked dusting, I liked sweeping. I liked cooking, she liked entertaining -- built and completely paid off a charming 2000 square foot suburban house in less than five years. Filled the house with antique furniture, had a gorgeous yard, collected vintage American quilts, always had plenty of extra money.
When we split up, dividing our property was relatively easy. No lawyers, no arguments.
Reply | | Report Abuse
Madhu,
Sorry about that! The other day I made a similar mistake with one Vidya - turned out to be a man! Well, great India, at least here, names can challenge gendre issues
Julia
Reply | | Report Abuse
Hi Basab,
Of course 'heterogenous' was not the right word, I meant to write 'heterosexual' .... somehow I did not realise the mistake while posting..... ato tension-ey mathar thik nei....
Aditi
Reply | | Report Abuse
Julia,
Thanks for stopping by at www.indimag.com -- appreciate it . Btw, I'm a HE
Regards,
Madhu
Reply | | Report Abuse
Aditi, is heterogenous the right word in this context? The opposite word to heterogenous in homogenous. Surely you didn't have that in mind! :)
In this day and time, an avid blogger like you should get out of this coyness in using the correct terminology when it comes to sexual preferences, even if it is not the 'accepted thing' in our staid society. :)
Reply | | Report Abuse
Dear Aditi,
Hope your mother is well and your son is well placed in a college of his liking. Thank you for finding time to visit this post of mine.
There are two issues I am looking at here through this post - (a) are we in metropolitan cities poised to make changes of this nature? (b) Is it not the way to go, in relationships/marriages/friendships, which need to be durable and sustainable?
Of course, I am speaking from a space of being in a relationship, which because of lack of social acceptance at large as well as legally unsupported, we need to take precausions that harm neither of us. But, of course it makes things a bit clinical, but I suppose, opne can't have everything. I would not like to be a part of any form of exploitation in the name of love, friendship, partnership.
I am aware that the Indian social system is rather "lose" shall we say on these matters, but in a society, where marriage is so highly regarded and the family is supreme, and guarded by law, one can afford to rely blindly on the other. Yet, I have seen some terrible instances where at the end of it all, money differences played hell and all was never so well in the family after that.
Perhaps, just perhaps, we need to pull up our socks a bit? My partner too was and is totally clueless on money matters. In fact, she abhors to know what to do with her money, how to invest and in what....but I have forced her to learn these things because, I said, it is for her own good. And in nine years, she is now beating me at it! Its good to be your own master, especially where money matters are concerned.
Thank you Aditi, for your time,
Julia
Reply | | Report Abuse
Hi Julia,
Long-term relationships of a conjugal nature are as strong as the weakest link, and in this sense, if financial issues and misgivings become important in a relationship, sooner or later the relationship becomes brittle. Many relationship advisers do advise these days to be conscious about financial arrangements and draw boundaries rather than leave things unsaid and unstructured. In this background, your blog and the steps you have written about are logical.
Having said that, I also think for majority of heterogenous married couples in the Indian context, such systematic delineation for 'egalitarianism' are alien to the concept of marriage itself... in a marital relationship, most common people (other than celebrities I guess) do not "need to" establish egalitarianism so clinically...
I must confess that I do not follow any system in my personal life, and have no apprehensions or regrets either of being financially insecure. It is a kind of contradiction of sorts with me vis a vis my formal training. I have no head for or natural inclination for money and investments and it helps that I have hardly any money of my own to spare for investment...hahaha.. .but there are no accounts in banks or in financial papers where both of us are not co- owners... though we operate our own salary accounts separately, it helps that the other is also a (sleeping) partner, for any emergency. This is a matter of simple trust , mutual comfort and convenience in a conventional marital relationship. Even though my late mother in law was a housewife and had no independent source of income, she was a co-member in all financial papers of my late father in law.
But I do not extend this statement to live-in relationships, both heterogenous or otherwise, I think for such relationships, delineation of duties and responsibiities and stating boundaries make immense sense for a cordial and strife-free existence.
Aditi
Reply | | Report Abuse
Hi Madhu,
I am so glad you have come here to my post and commented. I recognise a very level headed woman here and I welcome you to my blog.
I for one, do not wish to go the western way although some of these checks and balances are hired and borrowed from them, I agree. But, I will say this for being an Indian, I see it as the best possible way to be in any relationship, in Metropolitan India, especially where both partners are working and earning. Why should, for that matter, men have to bear the burden of the expenses as in yesteryears, when his partner too is working.
As an Indian, while I accept this line of functioning in my partnership with my gf, I am given to generosity too, which is not something I calculate always. Perhaps never. I don't think the west has been able to crack this deal. Let me give you an example. A friend comes. I offer my home and whatever I have there to them, at no cost at all. In the west I will have to pay to get the same benefit. B & B costs, staying costs, even if I am to stay with a friend. It is not about the fact that things are expensive there, it is about poverty/lack in some area of their lives. Even the richest, suffer the same attitude of impoverishment. I as an Indian will never be that, because, my culture and upbringing has taught me hospitality, to give and to share.
That is a one timer, on a daily basis, I prefer to go by the way I feel comfortable. I would never want my partner or me to lose respect for each other, because, one or the other is financially dependent on the other. For me, it just does not work that way.
Thanks for dropping by,
Julia
Reply | | Report Abuse
Julia,
We ought to move with the times. Like it or not equality is bound to happen -- it's only fair ? The question is how long will it take ?
On the semantics, we ought to learn from the mistakes of the west who have already experimented some of these checks and balances. Even in the prestigious lanes of Hollywood many a celebrity has been stung by pre-nupt or the lack of it . While live-ins are routine in the US, Gay marriage is a huge issue (the recent California rulings and it's aftershocks..). Is marraige = union ?
We are only as good as our weakest link and unless we move forward as a society with good participation from all quarters(police, judiciary, legislature, general public), it's a tough one to pull off.
Madhu
www.indimag.com
Reply | | Report Abuse
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
Displaying 1 - 10 of 52 Blog Comments