I sit in front of the computer tonight to ask a question. This is a question that does not have an easy answer: the right answer may be considered as wrong and the wrong as right. This is also a question that cannot be satisfactorily settled by law. This is a question that can only lead to more questions and torment you. But logically, shouldn't every question have one correct answer which is not clouded by different points of view? I hope it has, and that's what I am seeking.
To ask you the question, I need to tell you a story. It is about someone I know, rather knew, for he is no longer in this world. It is the story of AK, my dear friend.
AK was a small-town boy who had a way with words ever since he was in school and after a couple of years of struggle in Delhi, landed the job of a creative writer with an ad agency. Sincerity and talent saw him climb the ladder fast, and soon he had women falling all over him. AK, being a small-town guy at heart, relished their attention but was not up to entertaining a woman he did not intend to marry. He directed all this energies at wooing a girl in the office next-door, whom he was so crazy about that he would have even jumped off the twelfth floor in order to prove his love for her. The girl indulged him initially, but finding him excessively possessive, fled from the relationship and found a new boyfriend. AK was shattered.
Next thing I saw was AK's wedding invitation. He was marrying one of the girls in his office. A year later, they had a child. He steadily rose up the ladder, bought two cars and a house. His salary was a matter of envy among his friends, but he would shrug off remarks that he was doing so well and would settle down for a drink with us, saying, "Achchha chhodo woh sab yaar, kuchh Kishore chalao (now leave all that aside, play some Kishore Kumar songs)."
Soon I moved to Chennai and our weekly sittings were reduced to once-in-two months phone calls or text messaging. I learnt, not from him though, that he had bought another house. When I heard this piece of news, I wished I had joined advertising instead of journalism. But I was happy for AK. He was an emotional fool who deserved good things in life.
One day, four years ago, news came that AK had died. He had contracted a strange fever, and even before the doctors could diagnose it, he had slipped into coma and died. I was too shocked to shed a tear for him. I only thought of his young wife and child: how must they have taken it? I didn't know the wife too well, but had met her enough number of times to imagine what she must be going through. Somehow, I did not think of AK's parents, the elderly couple living in a small town in Uttar Pradesh. Their lifestyle had in no way changed because of AK's zooming career, but they, like other parents, felt rich in the fact their son was doing well.
I am telling you the story of AK because today, out of the blue, I ran into his sister. I had last seen her many years ago, during a party at AK's place, and now I was face to face with her again. We both recognised each other instantly, and several moments of awkward silence followed. I did not know what to say. I began by enquiring about AK's wife, rather widow. "I hope she has taken it in her stride," I mumbled. "Yes, she is doing well," the sister replied, "she has married again, though I don't know where she is these days." A restaurant was close by and I took her there and ordered coffee.
"You know, my father has been in and out of the mental hospital ever since. He is now like a vegetable. Imagine, he had to cremate his own son. My mother is a strong woman, but she can't take it anymore," the sister said, trying to stiffen her lips to fight tears. She then told me things which I don't think I can ever get over, considering that AK was such a dear friend.
AK's father's only desire, after he lit his son's funeral pyre, was to keep him alive by wearing his clothes. By the time he gathered his senses to ask his daughter-in-law to pack his departed son's clothes, the young widow replied, "But I have already given them to the maid. I would have kept them if I knew you wanted them."
I don't know if the old man protested, but the world had no time for the elderly couple who had given birth to AK and had raised him. It was showering sympathies and money on the wife, who AK had met only a few years ago and had married only on rebound. Being the emotional fool that he was, he had not only bought the two houses in his wife's name but also had had the two home loans insured. His death turned out to be a windfall for her. Am saying windfall because she remarried within four months. She couldn't have found a groom in just four months unless she knew someone from long ago: it was as if she was waiting for AK to die. Anyway, that's her life and it does not bother me. What bothers me is why, when a man dies, the world heaps sympathies on the wife alone and not his aged parents whose pain is manifold.
Now, imagine a man who has just had an arranged marriage. He hardly knows his wife, and his wife hardly knows him, except that they have slept on the same bed for a few nights and made love and had a baby. One day, soon after the marriage, the man dies. Who should be the beneficiary of the sympathy and the funds? The wife, who is still a stranger to the home; or the aging parents, who will find the loss irreplaceable?
One can understand the wife being the beneficiary in the traditional, joint family system, where the husband and his extended family, including his parents, have the upper hand and the wife is more or less a glorified maidservant whose sole role is to keep the elders happy. A woman who has just lost her husband has nothing but a blank future to stare at. She is torn by the personal loss and the responsibility to raise the kids single-handed.
But roles have reversed in the nuclear-family era, especially with women also working. Today, it is the aged parents play glorified servants when they visit their well-to-do son and his newly-acquired wife in a big city. The wife not only comes from a well-to-do family but also earns as much as -- if not more than -- the son. In such cases, why should all the money and sympathy go to a woman who is emotionally and financially equipped to tide over the tragedy, and not to the parents who invested their youth in bringing up the child and spent their savings educating him? The answer, anyone?
Parents obviously don't want compensation, for no amount of money is going to bring back their son. But shouldn't someone be considerate enough to give them a hug and say, "I know what it means to lose a child"? But the world would rather score brownie points with a young widow. Such is the world. May AK, now that he is up there, use his supernatural powers to look after his devastated parents.
This is really a HUGE issue.
Especially so for the not-so-well-to-do.
You talk about your Ad agency friend and his obviously well-heeled colleague, but the problem is far more critical in the case of the defence personnel and para-military jawans whose pensions and terminal benefits are contested both by the parents and the widows (not to forget that there are other complications at times of numerous women representing themselves as 'the widow').
Society too is is split on this - there are those groups who would castigate the widow as the 'husband-killer' (khasmanukhaaniye, as popularised by that sick SRK song) or treat the parents as the pariahs, while according all social respect and monetary dues to the widow and her children.
Not an easy or pretty issue to deal with.
Very emotional issue Bish, but there are no answers. AKs wife is one kind. I know a lady with children in their teens who is struggling to find her feet and a job after her husband's death. He was an only son, as we say.
Here, who should get the benefits? Don't forget the children from such a marriage as well.
We have moved to such a pass that old people are being forgotten, and that is sad. The monies are only one part of the issue - I would imagine AK's parents would want to keep in touch with their grandchild.
This post really made me cry.... I don't think there can be any straight answer for this question...
Pathetic.. You sure he wasn't poisoned!!
When a woman remarries, she loses all rights on the first marriage.
Haven't men heard of a thing called 'WILL'? They should set aside money for their parents too..
I am not so sure if that is such a good question. I can clearly see why people are more sympathetic toward the wife. The parents, even though they raise and struggle so much for their kids, their responsibility is over once they get them married. They find joy in spending time with their grandchildren and seeing their son or daughter visit them once in a few months; their lives are all settled. On the other hand, the wife has a whole life ahead of her that she has to deal with all by herself. It's true that women these days are earning well and what not, but is financial support the only necessity for the wife? Every moment is a burden for her as she has to do a two-person job just by herself her entire life. While the main thing that the parents have to deal with due to the loss is grief, the wife has million other things to worry about in addition to the grief. Of course, I am talking about the loyal ones, not the kind you mentioned in your post. Anyways, your posts are always interesting!
I am not too excited with this article. I want to know how many of you here including the author have made any property or even a simple deposit in their parents' name after marriage. I think its ludicrous to think that a man after marriage will not put things in his wife and children;s name. no one expects to die soon and dont you think the wife had dreams and aspirations when she married him and all that shattered for no fault of hers and I especially am flabbergasted with your subtle suggestion that she may have known the guy she married again, before her husband died. that is an irresponsible statement.
You never know when you fall in love or find the right person and there is necessity too. also we dont know how good a husband he was, remember your good friend does not necessarily mean a good husband. so why dont you cast some aspersions on the dead man and not just the widow.
There are guys living hale and healthy and dont do a damn thing for their parents and you are talking of dead man and his widow.
Its pure bad luck for the man, his wife, child and parents. so as sad as it is they have to deal with it.
I think we should be happy that she is able to find another life and as regards to parents I dont think they would have had much help even if he was alive. I think you first obligation is to your wife and children and we should not rear our children hoping of some return. its an unconditional love, between parents and children.
difficult issue, but I could see the male chavunism in this article,
I bet no one would point any fingers to a man if his wife died and he doesnt do a thing to help his inlaws, now does he??
Post a Comment