This article is part three of my series on how one's birth year plays a part in shaping one's attitudes towards various things. So far, I have talked about consumerism and government. In this article, I elaborate on dating and marriage. To recap, the four groups according to birth year are: pre-independence, between 1947 and 1965, between 1965 and 1988, and post-1988. Each groups thinks of dating and marriage differently.
The first group has never understood the concept of dating. The members of this group often think of dating as something that 'good children don't do'. According to them, a guy and a girl meeting alone before marriage in not exactly acceptable. Let alone dating and then eventually choosing their spouse, they didn't even get to see their faces before they married them. The parents made the decision, and they simply accepted it. The marriage was not of two people, it was of two families. Once married, they couldn't even think of the possibility of a divorce. The fear of what family and society will think is just too great. Just like dating, the engagement and the honeymoon were non-existent too. Showing affection for the spouse in front of anyone, in public or at home, is not common either.
The members of the second group had considerably more freedom than their parents in choosing spouses. It was not considered inappropriate for them to 'have their eyes on' a prospective match. When the appropriate time to get married came along, the families would be brought into the picture, and the parents would do the talking on behalf of their children. A commonly used term for such a marriage is 'love-cum-arranged' marriage. The approval of the family was an important, but not the only factor in deciding who to marry. Though inter-caste marriages were not common, they weren't frowned upon either. Dating while in college was becoming normal, but it usually meant going out in a big group of guys and girls, with every member having someone special in the group.
The third group embraced the concept of dating and being in a relationship before marriage. Inter-case marriages are common, and so are the so-called 'love marriages'. The members of this group find nothing wrong in finding their own spouse, but also appreciate the benefits of arranged marriages. The last of this group will be married in the next three to five years, and a lot of them are marrying someone they've dated for a few years. With the obvious exceptions, it is uncommon to see members of this group having had multiple girlfriends before marriage. They figure that it is okay to date and see if things work out, otherwise there is always the option of having parents find someone nice for them. They look at the arranged marriage as a backup option.
The last group probably thinks life should be like the way it is in the sitcom 'Friends'. Members of this group will get married much later, and have their first boyfriend/girlfriend much earlier in their lives than those in the third group. They are comfortable with the concept of a live-in relationship and with dating in high school. They look at marriage as a tool to get society's approval for two people living together, something which they do not care much about in the first place. They are also much more accepting of homosexuals then the members of the previous groups. Just like their attitudes with consumerism, they find themselves to be closer to the western world. A lot of energy is spent by the other groups discussing the loosening morals of and lack of a value system in this group.
As of now it seems as if each generation marries later, is more liberal and more accepting of alternative lifestyle choices than the one preceding it. Each generation takes some amount of pleasure in the fact that its value systems are better than the 'kids of today', but worries that its own children would grow up just like those kids of today. Though inter-cast marriages have become very common, so have divorces and broken engagements. One thing that hasn't changed, however, is that very few people marry outside their own religion. Indian society has traditionally been highly segregated and no amount of liberalism has changed that in a substantial manner.
February 23, 2009
February 11, 2009
Political sentiments and the Indian populace
Continuing from my article ‘Consumerism in India’ in the last issue, on how one’s birth year affects one’s consumer habits, I feel the same also affects one’s perceptions towards the government and the political system of India. To recap, the four groups, according to birth year, are: pre-independence, between 1947 and 1965, between 1965 and 1988, and post-1988. Each group has a different attitude towards the duties and rights of the government, and what they think of the political class, both of which I refer to as the system henceforth.
The first group has witnessed politicians who were closer in nature to freedom fighters. They have seen a political class that genuinely cared about the progress of the nation, and made use of the government machinery to achieve it. They remember a government that worked tirelessly in the years after independence to create a foundation from which the nation could progress. They still believe in the system, and are willing to wait for it to work, even if it means suffering in the process. They are too scared to try to demand change. They accept the system the way it is, almost as if the prevailing scenario is a part of their fate. The word for the government, ‘Sarkar’ is used extensively by this generation. Just the fact that it actually means ‘master’ tells us that this group looks at the government not as a public servant, but as an entity that is above the common man.
The second group remembers an era of Indira Gandhi’s abuse of the system. They recall a license Raj, corruption, the Emergency, artificial shortages, and abuse of power. Nothing positive comes to mind when they talk about politicians and the government. They are skeptical of the system and always try to work their way around it. They firmly believe that following the law is equal to being left behind. If one has to succeed in India, one must have the government and the various components of the system, such as the bureaucracy, the police, the judiciary, etc. in one’s pocket. Bribing is considered the first step, not the last option. They think of politicians as scum which has to be tolerated. They do not believe in suffering while waiting for the system to work, or in trying to change the system. They simply bribe their way around it.
The third group does not have the patience to deal with an incompetent and ineffective system. As mentioned in the previous article, it is the first group to have had first-hand experience of the developed world in a major way. The members of this group have seen how governments function in other countries. They realize that a country must have an effective and accountable system in order to keep up with the rest of the world. They don’t accept the system as it, nor do they believe in simply working around it. I’m sure there are many who do, but there are a sizeable number of people who are willing to take a stand, ask questions, make some noise and hold the government accountable. They are starting to believe that to clean the gutter; one must climb down into it. They believe that the system is constantly improving and the time will come when efficient governance will be the rule, not an exception. Their efforts have brought about changes the previous two groups never thought possible: a transparent passport issuance system, efficient railway bookings…the list goes on.
The last group is apathetic when it comes to the system. The members of this group are pretty young and have not had to deal with systemic inefficiencies so far. They are used to someone older taking care of everything. They probably don’t consider it important to vote, read a political party’s election manifesto, or even know who the Governor of their state is. Life is fine without having to worry about political issues of the country, and they would like to keep it that way. They feel closer to the developed world than they do to India, and often turn a blind eye to the problems of their motherland. They will bear the gutter’s stench for a few seconds as they pass by, and then forget about it. They will not even consider the fact that cleaning it up is as much their problem as it is someone else’s. What remains to be seen is whether the attitudes of this group will change as it grows up and becomes part of the workforce and mainstream society. Will it become more apathetic towards the system, or will it further the demand for accountability of the third group?
The first group has witnessed politicians who were closer in nature to freedom fighters. They have seen a political class that genuinely cared about the progress of the nation, and made use of the government machinery to achieve it. They remember a government that worked tirelessly in the years after independence to create a foundation from which the nation could progress. They still believe in the system, and are willing to wait for it to work, even if it means suffering in the process. They are too scared to try to demand change. They accept the system the way it is, almost as if the prevailing scenario is a part of their fate. The word for the government, ‘Sarkar’ is used extensively by this generation. Just the fact that it actually means ‘master’ tells us that this group looks at the government not as a public servant, but as an entity that is above the common man.
The second group remembers an era of Indira Gandhi’s abuse of the system. They recall a license Raj, corruption, the Emergency, artificial shortages, and abuse of power. Nothing positive comes to mind when they talk about politicians and the government. They are skeptical of the system and always try to work their way around it. They firmly believe that following the law is equal to being left behind. If one has to succeed in India, one must have the government and the various components of the system, such as the bureaucracy, the police, the judiciary, etc. in one’s pocket. Bribing is considered the first step, not the last option. They think of politicians as scum which has to be tolerated. They do not believe in suffering while waiting for the system to work, or in trying to change the system. They simply bribe their way around it.
The third group does not have the patience to deal with an incompetent and ineffective system. As mentioned in the previous article, it is the first group to have had first-hand experience of the developed world in a major way. The members of this group have seen how governments function in other countries. They realize that a country must have an effective and accountable system in order to keep up with the rest of the world. They don’t accept the system as it, nor do they believe in simply working around it. I’m sure there are many who do, but there are a sizeable number of people who are willing to take a stand, ask questions, make some noise and hold the government accountable. They are starting to believe that to clean the gutter; one must climb down into it. They believe that the system is constantly improving and the time will come when efficient governance will be the rule, not an exception. Their efforts have brought about changes the previous two groups never thought possible: a transparent passport issuance system, efficient railway bookings…the list goes on.
The last group is apathetic when it comes to the system. The members of this group are pretty young and have not had to deal with systemic inefficiencies so far. They are used to someone older taking care of everything. They probably don’t consider it important to vote, read a political party’s election manifesto, or even know who the Governor of their state is. Life is fine without having to worry about political issues of the country, and they would like to keep it that way. They feel closer to the developed world than they do to India, and often turn a blind eye to the problems of their motherland. They will bear the gutter’s stench for a few seconds as they pass by, and then forget about it. They will not even consider the fact that cleaning it up is as much their problem as it is someone else’s. What remains to be seen is whether the attitudes of this group will change as it grows up and becomes part of the workforce and mainstream society. Will it become more apathetic towards the system, or will it further the demand for accountability of the third group?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
