The tenterhook of intimidation: Now that we have reached here, there is something connected that has to be dealt with. It is connected to the issue of discipline. Indian vernaculars insist on force to subordinate. For example, when visiting English men came to India during the British rule in India, they found that the sovereignty and rule of law, and such things were all based on the concept of force and intimidation by arms. It was an experience completely different from that in England. Some of them have commented on this. Even now, if one were to ask any Indian Police officer, he would insist that the people of India should be kept on the tenterhook of intimidation. Any leeway given to them would be misused, and they would go directly into impertinence. However the inner codes that make this a necessity are the vernacular language codes. Obedience is given to those whom one respect. Respect is given to those one fears. Such empty words like I respect Gandhiji, but I dont fear him. I will obey him. and such things do not really have any meaning in the matter of discipline. For example, Gandhi couldnt control his own followers from indulging in looting, arson, stone throwing, intimidation of traders selling foreign goods etc.
Comparing armed personnel quality: To understand this concept further, let us look at the Indian army. The lower soldiers are literally terrorised during the training session to such an extent that they view their officer class, who looked upon them, as some sort of divine beings. They themselves are made to bear a very lowly individuality. Now, look at the English army. The British army personnel do not come with such a slavish attitude to their officers, and a mentally degraded mood.
One Indian soldier who had been deputed to one African nation as part of the UN forces, told me thus: When we were there, the British contingent was also there. The British army is a totally different world. The British soldier is a totally different person. We are like the servant to our officers, but they are not like that. Yet, whatever way we serve our officers, they also do it. Yet, they are in a higher level. I cant explain more.
Now, this is more or less the situation in all things. You cant take an English setting and compare it with an Indian setting. Change the language, and then there is no need to enforce the settings. It comes automatically. {I dont think that the English that is taught in Indian schools is much different from Indian vernaculars}.
The vital leadership: Now, in every organisation, there is need for a leadership. This statement can be brought into the realm of the family also. I had said that that the leadership inside the family should not be in the husbands parents house or in the wifes parents house. It should be well inside that house itself. {By house, I do not mean the brick and cement one, but the non-tangible parameters of a family unit}. Now, we reach into the question of where exactly should it be inside this household. Well, one of the major factors that should decide this is the language of the household, itself. For, if the language of the household is English, the leadership shall be more or less near to the midpoint between the wife and the husband, with a slight shift to the husbands side. That slight shift is again brought in by the general mood of male domination in the totality of the Indian nation.
To say that men do not like to be under women is not entirely correct. If the subordinated men are at home in the usage of respectful titles to the woman, then they do not have much problem. If a low capacity woman is perched on them forcefully and they are made to extend the title of respect to her, even when they perceive her to be of lesser individual capacity, they do or might rebel. However, this is not just because the person is a woman. For, even if the imposed inferior person is a male also, they would revolt.
Tumbling the leadership: Now coming back to the issue of leadership inside the household: If the household is a vernacular speaking one, no matter how much one tries to make the wife equal to the husband, it is not possible. As impossible as saying that the Indian soldier is as equal to the British soldier, in his qualitative interaction with the officer class. Frankly it is not possible. For, if the Indian soldier was to show a higher individuality, it would surely distress his officers. If the vernacular speaking wife is showing more capacity, it would surely distress her husband. If the vernacular speaking servant is showing more individuality, calibre and intelligence, it would disturb his master, male or female. When the vernacular speaking wife is showing more capacity, she is not becoming an equal to her husband, but more or less, overtaking him. In the vernacular, there is no such concept as equality, that can sustain for long. One either goes up or down as time goes on. It may be noted that other family units and their members in the society are basically competing social units, as understood in the vernacular. When the husband of one family unit is overtaken by the wife, it shall add to the glee of the others. As surely as the Indian side would delight in seeing the Pakistani soldiers overtaking their officers. When leadership tumble, the unit tumbles.
It is more or less the same in the Indian vernacular household. Now, speaking about the English speaking household, there is this reality to be mentioned. In most English speaking households in India, English is only a part of the communication system. The other part is still the vernacular. So again, a lot of complexity would come into this issue of leadership.
The aspect of force and power verses regimentation: Now, speaking about leadership, how does the Indian army officer enforce his authority on the soldiers? Well, he has the power to punish severely. Yet, that is not the only thing that brings in discipline. The real disciplining factor is the regimentation created by the codes, tenets and decorum of the army.
In the same way, for a family to function, there are many unwritten codes, conventions and cultural aspects that aim to bring in a pyramid-like formation inside the family, whereby the husband is treated as the head of the family. It is these things that really hold the household together. The wife can very well say to the husband, You move with so many women in the outside. I can also go with any man I like. If I want I can sleep with him also, if I want. It is my body that I am lending him. What really curtails such talk is the totality of social conventions that discourage such talks and frowns on such behaviours.
No set up, organisation and institution can hold together or exist without a framework to hold it together. In the case of the Indian army, the officers are given punitive rights. Now, here we come to a really complicated question of should the husband have such punitive rights. Well, in the English army also, the officers do have punitive rights. So, in essence it is not the officers having the punitive rights that make the difference. But something different. That is the English language.
Punitive rights: However, in the Indian family there is no such thing. So, again we go back to the question of punitive rights to the husband. Well, traditionally in India, the master class, like feudal lords, the teaching class, the policemen all use terribly physical force to enforce discipline and to subordinate. That is a part of the Indian national culture, forced upon the people by the feudal communication.
Now, the best manner to remove this tendency is to bring in English. However, that takes us beyond the scope of this book. Yet, in real truth, this shall bring a change to the character of married life from that of a feudal set up to that of a liberal set up in which the husband and wife interact at a real level of equality.
Violence and provocation: Physical violence from the husband and his henchmen on the wife is not allowable. Neither is physical violence from the wife and her associates on the husband allowable. Yet, when studying this issue, the provocation also needs to be studied. As mentioned earlier, the issue of verbal and non-verbal abuse by the wife. The word provocation as understood in English has no meaning in the Indian vernacular. For, the violent provocation that can set in as a persons standing in the virtual codes gets smashed up by a mere change of indicant words is not at all understandable in English.
Suppose the common man goes into the police station and addresses the police Inspector or constable with a lower You, and uses a lower He, what would happen? Well, he would be beaten to a pulp. What would happen to an ordinary soldier, if he uses similar words to and about an officer? He would be literally playing with his life.
Well, that is the level of provocation that such words have. Now, suppose the wife uses such words to the husband, what might happen? Well, if the husband is really tormented, he may go in for physical violence. Or he may control it with the use of abusive words. What the wife would have done would be in a slow voice. The husbands abuse voice would be furious, loud and totally uncontrollable.
Now, the actual fault is with the language. Not with the husband or with the wife. It is just like this: The wife says, You dont speak to me! The husband beats her.
What an idiot husband to beat her for such a simple sentence. He must be a real brute.
In English, this is the easiest explanation. And if one were to ask a psychologist or a psychiatrist, he would go into the idiotism of his textbooks and come up with some equally idiotic terminology.
Yet, the real explanation would lie in the understanding that the words said by the wife can be translated into the vernacular at varying indicant word levels, each with its own levels of adoration or provocation.
The wifes words were in the totally provocative indicant word mode. If the same had happened in the army or in the police station as mentioned above, something very near to murder would have taken place.
What marriage is all about: Marriage is about love, loyalty, endearment, fidelity and such things. And not about competition for leadership. The joint idea is to promote the family as a whole, including the children. Here, the understanding that all others come outside the intimate parameters of this family should be there. The hierarchy here should be husband, wife, and children. Not husbands father, husbands mother, wifes father, wifes mother, elder brother, elder sister and then the other others mentioned.
There may come about a time, when the complete social communication may allow a hierarchy where the husband-wife ranking may shift to wife-husband ranking. When it comes, it is okay. If it is possible for the wife to convince the husband that she should be in charge, and he concedes to it, it is okay. However a family unit wherein the wife consistently is advised to revolt against his leadership, surely shall head for disaster.
Automating endearment: When we talk about endearment and such things, it is required to mention that feudal vernaculars do bring in such things, in an automatic manner. For example, when the boss uses lower words to his servants and the feudal lord uses them to his serfs, they reciprocate with respectful words. Not with acrimonious words. What develops here is a loyalty and attachment quite different from what those words mean in English.
Now, in a similar manner, inside the family, when the husband-wife communication is line with the above mentioned mode, then an endearment and loyalty comes to exist between the spouses. Yet, the moment the wife changes here words to that of the lower indicant case, it literally means that she is no more in a level of loyalty, love and attachment to the husband.
Now, I leave this issue here, for the time being, to return to the tantalising issue of equality between the wife and the husband.
Woman as the master of the house: Can a woman really be the master of the house and the husband the second in command? Why not? Well, let us take the case of polyandry. That is a woman having more than one husband. The most common understanding is that of a woman being under the command and string of more than one person. It is not quite possible in the current understanding of a womans personality. It would literally be like a dog having so many masters.
Yet, there is another way of looking at the same. I have seen strong women (I mean very rude types) in command over docile men, who are their serving class. Well, in the same manner, a strong woman can marry more than one such man, and more or less lord over them as in polygamy. The mens personality will be tune with the subordination that fits their station and situation. Yet, the whole marriage set up to function perfectly, the whole society or at least a significant part of it, should be practising the same kind of married life. Otherwise, the whole affair would look quite odd, and the husband may act quite weirdoes.
In a similar manner, if in an Indian family, the woman is completely in charge, and the man just a subordinate, there would have to be a complete change of the personality of the woman and the man to fit their stations perfectly. Moreover, the indicant words of respect and subordination will have to reverse to align with the changed scenario. Otherwise, a woman in command being addressed in the lower case by the subordinate husband would, in itself be a cantankerous issue. In fact it would be quite ridiculous. Like the Sub Inspector being addressed with the lower indicant words by the constables.
Moreover, a sizable part of the Indian society should be practising this kind of family relationship. Otherwise, this family would be an oddity and certainly eccentric from the point of view of social acceptability. Yet, it can exist, as one knows that the world is full of strange entities. Yet, it is not a common event, as yet.
Yet, I do not think that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act does aim to promote any such odd social behaviour.
