Pre-marital torture

When the alliance of a girl and a boy are getting finalised, what should normally be the mood?

Happiness. An eager anticipation of a great day when two families join to become one. A day that will see two young hearts merge in a sea of love.

What should the parents of the boy and the girl be looking forward to?

Towards the happy married life of the children; towards greater happiness of the boy and the girl; towards the building of a new family.

Unfortunately this is not the scene, at least in one case, that I am getting to know.

The girl and the boy -- who got to know each other after their parents looked for an alliance -- are well-educated, and well-employed in MNCs. They are bright, knowledgeable, wise enough and well-off financially to take care of themselves. Ever since the parents decided that they had indeed found the match for their child, the two -- the girl and the boy -- have been interacting and getting to each other.

The good news: The two are hitting off well. It's after some four or five years that an alliance had finally fallen in place for her. They are discovering each other's wavelengths, and feeling comfortable with each other. They are fast falling in love, if not already in love.

The bad news: The parents are squabbling over dowry. The claim of the boy's father is that he has spent a fortune to educate his son, and through the alliance the girl is benefiting from it. The price is Rs 4 lakh. The girl's parents can, with great difficulty manage now Rs 2 lakh, but have assured the groom's parents that the rest would be paid after marriage. It's not that the groom's parents don't believe the girl's parents, but they say if the money is given after the wedding, it would go to the girl; meaning, the parents of the boy won't get it.

What do the children feel about this? They have no say in this. The boy feels there is nothing to worry and such discussions do take place during the firming up an alliance. The girl is too taken in by the attention she is getting from the boy and the prospect of a happy married life, that all this is just like a bad dream for her, nothing more.

The boy and the girl have got too close now that they can't think of separating. For them, no options; only marriage; come what may.

I am getting to know of this only from the girl's side. She is being advised by her friends to tell her father not to commit anything that is impossible to keep. She is tense, but the hope of joining the guy is too overwhelming for any worry to take root. The boy should be told to prevail upon his parents against tormenting the girl's parents.

The way the groom's parents are looking at making money (or recovering the cost of educating their son) through the son's marriage, is too shocking.

What more should parents want than see their child / children happily settled in a good career and family?

Why don't the parents realise that the squabble for dowry vitiates the atmosphere and strains the relationship of their child with his/her partner?

How can the parents of the groom ever think of making a holy alliance like marriage a business proposition. And the look at the excuses they have to demand dowry!

Shouldn't the parents, instead of bargaining for dowry, help the children settle down happily and set up a home?

Why can't the boy step in? Why can't he put his foot down and tell his parents in clear terms that marriage is not an excuse to make money. Why can't the boy tell his parent: "You helped me get a girl. Thank you. Now leave the rest to us..." Few parents would go against their son's wishes.

Hope it's all resolved amicably...

Barack Obama's YES WE CAN victory speech in South Carolina

This is a great speech, worth listening to. Obviously Obama and his supporters are all fired up. Because he has got a huge morale boost ahead of the February 5 Super Tuesday, when most probably the lineup for Nov 8 should be clear.

In South Carolina, it must be remembered, the African-American voters make up make up almost half the electorate, and majority of them support him rather than Hillary.

Reports say S Carolina voting was polarised along colour, gender and age. It's funny that in the world’s greatest nation people can’t look beyond these physical attributes. Probably it’s because there'sn't anything else to choose, with both Obama and Hillary speaking pretty much the same thing.

Obama is, I guess, aware of this, and tries his best to dispel it, when he says in his speech, “So understand this, South Carolina. The choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It's not about rich versus poor, young versus old. And it is not about black versus white. This election is about the past versus the future. It's about whether we settle for the same divisions and distractions and drama that passes for politics today or whether we reach for a politics of common sense and innovation, a politics of shared sacrifice and shared prosperity."

Any way, the contest is in no way over.

NYT backs Hillary Clinton, John McCain

This is not something the media in India do -- openly backing a candidate in an election. The first two editorials in today's New York Times are about who the newspaper's editorial board thinks should be the Democratic and Republican candidates for the Nov 8 US Presidential election.

"As Democrats look ahead to the primaries in the biggest states on Feb. 5, The Times’s editorial board strongly recommends that they select Hillary Clinton as their nominee for the 2008 presidential election," the newspaper says. "The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work. Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president."

• Primary Choices: Hillary Clinton

The second edit on the Republican Party, the NYT says, "We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president. The leading candidates have no plan for getting American troops out of Iraq. They are too wedded to discredited economic theories and unwilling even now to break with the legacy of President Bush."

Backing McCain it says, "Still, there is a choice to be made, and it is an easy one. Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe."

• Primary Choices: John McCain

Opinionated media & blogs

This is quite a normal feature in the US. But in India, though the media might editorially endorse or criticise the stand taken by political parties on specific issues, they (particularly big media houses) rarely openly declare its backing for a particular candidate, that too in a parliamentary or assembly election.

I guess the highly opinionated feature of mass media in the US is an indication of the highly evolved state of its society that makes elaborate use of multimedia to access, process and disseminate information. The society is not only highly literate but also has the benefit of sophisticated technology.

There is an argument that blogs have flourished in the US mainly because of the "bias of the mainstream media". Probably. But in no way can blogs claim a "holier than thou" tag, since there is nothing to show that the blogs themselves aren't biased and they themselves don't have any agenda?

I feel the best indication of a well-evolved society is the diversity of opinions. To that extent blogs are only complementing in their own way the multiplicity of opinions in the society.