Food and the Global Indian Woman: Response to Criticism

Like most people, I read some blogs regularly, some once-in-a-while, and some just once. While bloghopping, I came across blogs featuring western women married to Indian men and I keep going back to follow these chronicles of culture shock, adaption, etc., involving not only the new Indian spouses but the usual drama of Indian families, in-laws, society, customs, etc.

Some things ring true, some seem plain silly. One commenter on a blog post stated that the blogger's Indian husband's habit of tasting food from the blogger's plate was either "controlling" or "opposite of our upbringing where were are taught never to 'snatch' from someone else's plate". Sheesh, western lady married to a desi man - after all this time with your man, did he not explain to you about food and closeness, whose "jhootha" you could eat, and whose you couldn't? Or were you just looking combatively for discipline issues when a simple cultural explanation would suffice?

Anyway, the one issue that struck a chord was the food one. You don't realize how much of your culture is what you put into your mouth on a daily basis, in fact three or four times a day. And how awful it is when you can't get what you took for granted in the kitchens and the fridges and the marketplaces of your native land. Uniformly, these western women turned desi bahus longed for the comfort of olive oil, cheeses, breads, and random junk food of their childhoods. Some who lived in bigger Indian metros could find what they needed, if not exactly at the same price. Others in smaller towns were just plain out of luck and had to bide their time till they went back to their native lands.

I feel for them. I really do. Having gone through the same thing in reverse, I understand the almost-physical longing for familiar aromas and textures and tastes. But I don't understand the criticism of Indian food as either "unhealthy" or not appetizing nor I do comprehend the dismissing of the morning bustle of Indian housewives as they prepare breakfast and lunch as a waste of energy. And the insistence of simpler western schedules and food preparation as the only way to live. Sure, Indian women are stressed. But isn't every woman on the planet? It's not as if the adoption of a "western" way of housekeeping or cooking has led to a miraculous cure for the stresses of women living in the west. You only have to look in the waiting halls of psychiatrists and counselors to see that the un-stressed women of the west who are supposedly living, breathing role models for the women of the developing world are a miniscule minority. The way to de-stress the overstretched Indian woman is not to tell her to start eating sandwiches or to stop cooking. [Hint: reduce her drudgery levels in the kitchen by *helping* rather than doing away with the cooking itself. It's a labor problem, folks, folded into a gender issue, an old, old story]

Here's why the attack on Indian cooking strikes me as a particularly unproductive criticism. First, cooking is an act of creation. A perfect way to de-stress oneself. Everyone should be taught to cook, boy or girl or grumpy old Gramps. Second, do away with Indian cooking or reduce it, as some western wives of Indian men suggest? Firangi bahus, are you for real?! Having observed both Indians and westerners in the kitchen, I can say that it's not without reason that Indian cuisine is considered one of the master cuisines of the world. Even the humblest everyday exponent of Indian cooking brings to the task a level of complexity that is really not seen in most American or Anglo-American kitchens. The simplest dals taste different with different seasonings, the smashing of ginger and garlic in a humble mortar adds a depth of flavor that can't be matched by the sturdy roasts and simple soups of the average British or English kitchen. And the most Haute Cuisine of frozen dinners doesn't cut it, sorry. When I lived in France years ago, I fell in love with the food but was sad to realize that good food is about expertise, about trained chefs, rather than a complex art that can be practiced by anybody with access to a stove and an oven. The closest thing I've seen in western culture that approximates the Indian relationship with food is the care that Mediterranean peoples lavish on their cuisines. No wonder, Italian food is also one of the master cuisines of the world.

My Indian culinary heritage is mine - handed down to me by word of mouth, scraps of yellowing, handwritten recipes, sometimes a fusion of European and Indian, but something to be recreated every day if I so wish. So why would this creative act be wrong? It is in fact a civilizational heritage to be cherished and kept alive as long as possible, with tweaks and helps from technology as and when required. Yes, the maintenance of this cuisine means that I must give up certain things. So, I regretfully decline the offers to come out and cavort in bars and restaurants every week. Going out is something I do perhaps once or twice a month. For the rest, I enjoy the chopping, the sauteing, the creation of something tasty and good for me and my family. If this is slavery, well, hand me the apron, baby.

And by the way, my family does help with cooking and cleaning.

The Parent Trap

Back after a long break. I was very busy with the book, editing, etc. The book is finally out but I am not going to blog about that here, as I rather like this little semi-private web journal where I can write about other things than the book or about my other writing. My friends and family know whose blog this is, anyway. And my literary blog (under construction) has a life of its own.

Anyway, Indian Homemaker, a blog I read regularly, had a post about parenting and setting limits on grown children. The comments section is a lively give-and-take about parenting in the west and in India, the need to let go of adult children and to set limits with them when they do share space. Below is the comment that I initially set out to write. I will post there too, but I thought I would post here too, since these are my observations, too. Here is what I wrote:
------


Sometimes, in cross-cultural comparisons, we end up comparing apples to oranges. I need to blog about this at length but for starters, here's a couple of things that strike me as baseline differences so fundamental that we don't pay attention to it - money/housing and a safety-net. I'm not saying that Indian families are not controlling or manipulative but we do need to consider the material context of Indian lives too. In western cultures, not so long ago, grandparents lived with grown children and their offspring because there used to be no safety-net, no old age pension, etc. Once that was put in place, began the celebration of the great "nuclear family" and "individual freedom."  I don't see this in India at all at the present, despite some advances. The only social stratum that can afford to do all this is the wealthier section of society and even here most people cling to the clan/family for all sorts of reasons, given the precariousness of public networks,

From the kids' perspective, western countries (especially the US, to which this article refers) have a housing surplus situation. It is relatively EASY for youngsters to find a safe apartment in a half-way decent neighborhood and move out. How many Indian parents would tolerate their children having to set up independent living in unsafe conditions with unreliable security? In India, where rent can eat up a substantial amount of income, youngsters have no option but to stick it out in the parental nest. Also, rentals are not standardized as they are in the US. So, for example, how many Indian landlords are required to provide a stove and a refrigerator in even the humblest apartment? And what guarantee is there that the tenant won't simply rip those out and take it with them? Buying a house or building a house needs saving for a long, long time. Until housing becomes more affordable and available, most Indian children do tend to linger at home unless they have a government job with government housing or a job that allows one the financial wherewithal to live apart.

Finally, the emotional part. I find both approaches strangely lacking in emotional warmth and empathy. The way that Indian parents detach from their daughters is weird and cruel enough. I know someone whose own parents refused to come and attend to her during a medical crisis because she was her in-laws' problem after marriage. Unthinkable to feel that way to one's own flesh-and-blood! Similarly, in western cultures, how does suddenly turn and tell one's own children that as soon as they reach 16/18 whatever, they are OUT! It's cruel, cold, and I would bet that creates all sorts of emotional issues between parents and children, even if the children need not fear for their material survival as they do in India. Grown children might claim in later years that it was the best thing for their parents to have done to them, but this is rather like middle-aged Indians looking back with nostalgia on the caning they received from their school teachers as having been good for them. One does not need to be cruel to build character  - or independence. Or, indeed, to set boundaries.

Short Notes to Myself 1: Britain's Pivot to Asia

Given the constraints of time it isn't always possible to write long blog posts. So from time to time, I'm going to write up short notes, to point out patterns and trends that I find interesting. This time: Britain's move away from Europe is in tandem with Britain's pivot to Asia. How are the two connected? Here is my take on recent British policy moves.

Always in copycat mode vis-a-vis the United States, Britain has decided to get on to the Asia bandwagon. But how to do this when not one of the British Isles has an Asian coastline? Well, time to dust off the old Commonwealth ties. My 2013-2014 prediction: there's going to be significantly greater British ties with Canada and Australia, the two countries with Pacific faces and a cultural inferiority complex vis-a-vis the mother country, who will be willing to reconstitute a British zone of influence in the Asia-Pacific. Other players in the British move to Asia will be Singapore and, I think, New Zealand. Basically, move out of Europe in which Britain sees no more potential and swivel via the Commonwealth to recreate some semblance of British power in the Pacific.

Cold and ruthless, but that's perfidious Albion for you, as no doubt the French are grumbling about. Recent indicators that might validate my observation: the appointment of a Canadian, Mark Carney, as the Bank of England  governor. Then, there is the recent move to strengthen defense ties between Australia and Britain, and the British logistics problem of doing business in Asia is beautifully solved by sharing embassies with Canada. Right now, William Hague, the British Foreign Secretary, is calling for Britain to once again pay attention to its neglected Commonwealth ties. What he really means is that Britain wants to enter the prosperous Asia trade zone by way of its pre-existing networks. Now, we all know that the stereotype of the Englishman is that he will try to get someone else to pay for his drink at the bar, so the question is how big a tab will the poor suckers Australia, New Zealand and Canada, be left holding? I bet Canada supplies the money for the embassies while Britain gets to have "access", and Australia does the bulk of the defence expenditure while Britain gets to "train." What can one say? Brilliant, old Blighty, just absolutely bloody brilliant!

Take Back the Night, Bring Back the State

I had intended my first post of 2013 to focus on the positive, the possible, but the horrors that December 2012 wreaked on innocents in two different parts of the world have stirred up a reflective mood in me and in everyone, it seems. Between Newtown and New Delhi, violent incidents provoked a rare outburst of collective outrage and concern among most thinking people. Did 26 blameless people , the vast majority children, have to die in Newtown, Connecticut to establish that military-style assault rifles should not be in civilian hands? Did  a young girl out to see a movie in Delhi have to be brutalized and left to a lingering death to shake up a sleeping government to its own lack of governance?

Let me leave to others the philosophy of gun rights or the psychology behind sexual violence. I have strong opinions about those but will tackle them later. Let me confine myself to just discussing pragmatics for today. First, guns. Just to be clear: I'm not talking about hunting rifles. You want to shoot your dinner? More power to you. Hey, I might even buy you a new rifle next holidays if you're a friend of mine. Just remember to give me some of that venison, OK? But assault rifles? They don't belong in your civilian hands, cold, dead as they may be. These kind of weapons only belong with the military and with law enforcement.

CAPS ALERT: Lots of caps coming!

Some background info here: I grew up with guns in the house. As the offspring of an army officer, this was inevitable. I saw guns being taken apart, cleaned, loaded, unloaded inside the house and sometimes at the firing ranges where families were invited on limited occasions to witness firing demonstrations. I've sat inside tanks, heck I've even driven a tank! And here's why I am a total snob about guns in the hands of civilians - no civilian will ever receive the amount of training one needs to handle military grade guns safely. See those two key words - "Training" and "safely"? Let me repeat them - TRAINING and SAFETY. The obsession with safety in military training when it comes to guns cannot, repeat cannot, be overstated. After a weapon was discharged, not only did it have to be reported but the empty casings had to also be picked up and brought back! Not only was my father obsessive about locking guns and ammunition separately, not only did he check and re-check the safe storage of weapons EVERY SINGLE DAY, it was his JOB to be that way!

No civilian will ever reach these levels of obsession with safety and responsibility because for the average civilian guns are not a JOB, they are a HOBBY! And assault weapons especially are not part of a civilian's professional responsibility. God willing, they will never have to be. So stick to hunting, civilians. If you want to shoot with assault weapons, then join the army or law enforcement. Oh wait, those organizations require psychological tests for aspiring entrants. See, what I said above about training and safety? I saw very few cowboys in the army when it came to weapons, in fact most of the murderous louts were those goons in the hinterlands with their sawed-off shotguns, firing in the air during weddings, and feeling macho talking about "kattas" and "gupti" . They felt macho because they hadn't had the training to be grown-up and responsible about guns. And now to the last point of this post which is...

....the State has to step in here. For too long in this country, the state has been receding from areas concerning the safety of its citizens. The diminishing role of the state in public safety has been concealed because as of today, the armed apparatus of the state retains, just barely, an advantage of firepower vis-a-vis the average citizen, as the Branch Dravidians in Waco, Texas, discovered to their cost in 1993. But the United States is now awash in small arms and this is a threat to public order and public safety. Did you known that 90 per cent of civilian casualties are caused by small arms? I fully support a gun law that will RESTRICT the rights of civilians to own or store assault-grade weapons in the home. And I look forward to the debate that is coming on this issue.

Next post on the horrible, horrible sexual assault and murder of the young woman in Delhi and on the role of the state in India. Oh, and Happy New Year!

The Oldest Reason in the World

This is a short post on the bizarre scandal to surface in the rarefied circles of policymaking - l'affaire Petraeus. And here is my take on it - FWIW, as they say.

The story is about old fools being taken in by legends of their own stud-liness. Not only is there no greater fool than an old fool, but there is no greater vanity than that of military top brass dazzled by the shine of their own medals. And I say this with full sympathy for the army as an institution, being as I've repeated many times, an army brat myself.

Being from the culture, so to speak, may I suggest that there are other factors at work here? At the highest level, there is a lot of socializing among army officers and local civilian circles. But, while there may be respect and even adulation aplenty for rank and pomp, military groupies have been largely drawn from the rather modestly middle class ranks of those who were either raised in the military culture or have married into it.You know, the kind who can speak with breathless assurance that Gen X was, didn't you know, the Commandant of the Army War College and therefore direct in line to upstage star rival Gen. Y, who had only been CG of Fort Lewis. Rarely, does one see a rush to court the top brass with as much determination and spendy zeal as did the now-notorious Tampa socialite, Jill Kelley. Thinking about this angle brought me to consider what is the point of this post. Dear reader, I submit to you that the root cause of this civil-military scandal is the oldest reason in the world...

.....Money! Follow the military contractor trail and you will see why Gen. Petraeus was courted not, as the old fool thought, for his dazzling good looks or his sparkling wit but rather for his ability to dole out the pork barrel projects by putting in a good word in the right ears for his friendly friends in  Tampa. Jill Kelley's ex-brother-in-law is in the business of military contracting and it looks like Jill Kelley herself was trying to get into that particular scam. The last ten years have been one of continuous warfare. This has been a tremendous strain on soldiers' personal lives undeniably. In the case of senior generals though, this has given them unprecedented authority in the disbursement of government, i.e. taxpayer, moolah to all and sundry in foreign theaters of war such as Iraq and Afghanistan. A substantial amount of money is spent by the Department of Defense (DOD) in these areas and auditory oversight is not always clear. The contractor disaster that was the Iraq War is no doubt replicated in Afghanistan as well with US-based military contractors soaking the taxpayer with all sorts of overpriced food and supplies items. Such is the vaunted efficiency of the private sector. Guaranteed to suck the blood out of the taxpayer in the most efficient way possible.

But another unpleasant truth illuminated by both areas of operation is that the military top brass in the field has been given immense financial authority without much of a financial education to enable them to think things through wisely. Someone please enroll these guys in a finance class so that they understand the enormity of the sums they are handling. And so that it dawns on them that the parties to which they are invited at the homes of contractors and their relatives are, um.... how to put it without making irresistible puns?.....are business meetings. And if they are not careful, they will be sold a bill of goods.

Bless 'Em All, The Long and the Short and the Tall....

Once again, we are in the era of violence unleashed by religious feelings being hurt by attacks on religion in the name of religion. I will say little about the obvious moron who is behind the so-called film about the supposed life of the Prophet Muhammad. Thinking about the whole thing from the vantage point of a late summer day in a pretty part of New England, I do reflect how attitudes to religion vary not just among cultures but even within cultures. Here in Fairfield County, CT, religion is not something people get very worked up about. I am sure there are frothing-at-the-mouth atheists and fundamentalists lurking about and but in general they are an eccentric minority. People in my little part of Connecticut go to temple, church, synagogue and mosque as they wish without much raving and ranting or self-righteousness. Like much else in the Northeast, religion is all about moderation. Which is possibly the reason why most Northeastern politicians, whether Democrats or Republicans, don't make it to the national scene. Clearly, moderation is not a virtue that goes down well in the battleground states.

That was brought home to me quite strongly during this car trip out West. While in Minnesota, I put little M. into a swim camp for a couple of weeks. I waited poolside along with the other moms and watched as the kids learned to float and put their faces in the water, etc. The first sign I got that I wasn't, ahem, in Kan...Connecticut anymore was when one of the moms whipped out a religious text and began to read it in frowning concentration. I am fine with this, having grown up with people playing with prayer beads, whispering mantras and chanting slokas sotto voce in public places.

Had it remained just a personal conversation with one's inner soul, no problem. But soon, the peaceful scene of head bent over holy book was replaced by another act in a play that ran every day of the week: a conversation between this lady and another mom who also waited while her kids learnt swimming. The dialogue would follow a similar pattern each time: first, a recounting of the benefits of some local religious school, next would follow a recital of the joys of homeschooling, the grand finale would be the denunciation of the evils of secular society and the siege that religious people were under. One particularly outstanding interchange involved the evils of doctors and medical education and how these two mothers would encourage their children to think of careers other than in medicine because of the irreligious ethics taught at medical school (this was a thinly-veiled criticism of birth control and of the abortion techniques that no doubt apprentice physicians have to be made aware of in order to intervene in an emergency situation).

To me, what stood out was the tone of victimhood. These home-schooling mothers of six and five children respectively felt victimized and persecuted despite the fact that secular society had not prevented them from having as many children as they wished, nor from home-schooling these children. Indeed, these women had benefited from the educated doctors who had delivered their babies. I'm waiting to hear if any of these ultra-religious women ever handed over their physical well-being to doctors who hadn't had a conventional medical education. Further, secular society never banned these women from expressing their views nor did they put them behind bars for grumbling about "secular society". Which brings me to the second point I noted about this loud opinionating: hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy is what allows such people to feel that they are above secular society even as they see no problems in extracting every last benefit it offers them. The swimming pool evangelicals were harmless, bored suburban women with more time on their hands than sense in their heads. In a different setting though that swirling mix of anger, perceived disempowerment and pious canting that defines fundamentalists of all faiths, can have devastating consequences. Combine victimhood and hypocrisy and place the combination in a lawless land like present-day Libya and you get to see how murderous bigots can not just slaughter a man who supported an oppressed people's fight for liberty but even celebrate the demise of the freedom for which he gave his life. RIP, Ambassador Stevens.

How do these different pieces connect? No, I am not part of the "It's all America's fault" brigade. Neither am I reiterating what other people do - that America too has its fanatics and fundamentalists. Far from it. Quite the opposite, in fact. I am drawing on domestic examples and linking them to external developments precisely in order to dispel the bafflement that many Americans feel about the current upheaval in parts of the world that target America as a symbol and as a political enterprise. What I am pointing out,hopefully without the smug self-righteousness that characterizes so much analysis on America's global role,  is that religious fanaticism everywhere is rooted in anti-modernity and hypocrisy and is fueled by a false sense of victimhood. Its contours must be recognized, whether it comes in the shape of tracksuit-clad mothers or disheveled, raggedy teenage boys. America may not have been the force behind the Arab Spring, that laurel rightfully belongs to the young people who braved their own dictators. But neither were religious fanatics the creators of free societies in their countries. In fact, religious fanatics everywhere use the cloak of freedom to overthrow the revolutions that young activists launched and drove home to their logical conclusions.

Religious fanaticism is not the Revolution, nor is it the Arab Spring. Rather, it represents the counter-revolution, the absolutist vengeance on the Revolution. In every culture and every country, its goals are the same  - the overthrow of the secular, modern state of laws. And that state, however imperfect, must be preserved if Benghazis are not to be repeated elsewhere. I feel this last point especially strongly, as a minority immigrant. As a minority, I am very aware that a strong state with just laws (important to stress this as plenty of strong, unjust states have existed throughout history) is absolutely essential to my personal security. The breakdown of the state is inevitably followed by the law of the jungle, not the collective lovefest about which anarchists and hippies dream. That chaos is the vacuum in which fanatics seek to step in to create a strong and unjust state governed by the absolute power of tyranny.  I want to keep the modern constitutional state safe from the marauders who firebomb its ramparts, its symbols, and its culture of law. And modernity and constitutional law in its local variant is what I wish for the brave young men and women of the Arab Spring. That they may courageously undertake that most difficult of tasks: " to create a just state by just means." (Jawaharlal Nehru to Andre Malraux)

Reflections on a Road Trip: Part 1: Equality and Inequality

Where did May and June go? I know, work, wrapping up the kids' school, more work, etc. But here we are now, halfway through July, and I have been on a road trip en famille, visiting the Midwest and the Rocky Mountain West.

We meandered through Pennsylvania and Ohio, stopping to wander in the Firelands, and to visit little Ohio towns named after their counterparts in Fairfield County, Connecticut. It was great to stop in Norwalk, Ohio. It is home to the finest small town museum I have seen. In my opinion. The care and the effort that the curator and the town have lavished in showcasing the history of their little town are wonderful to behold. Ohio's landscape may be one of bleak de-industrialization but here and there there are these great flashes of determined cultural effort and striving. Long may those dolls, doilies and that awesome gun collection live on in the Firelands Museum.

Besides little delights like the afore-mentioned museum, one sociological pattern caught my eye: the further west you go, the less race-segregated work becomes. Let me clarify this: do I mean that racism lessens as you go into the Midwest? No, it doesn't. But when it comes to labor, especially in small towns, there are just as many whites doing menial jobs like cleaning bathrooms and sweeping out restaurants as there are minorities. That I was startled enough to notice this made me realize how differently race stratification works in the East Coast and in cities like Chicago, from upper Midwestern parts like Minnesota and South Dakota. For example, in the East house cleaning seems to be primarily a Hispanic and Polish monopoly, with some African American variation here and there. Poor whites in the midwest do exactly the same jobs as poor minorities in the East but comprise some of the first class racists of the country. Poor minorities perform menial labor everywhere and end up being despised anyway.  I wouldn't go so far as to call the mid-western pattern "equality" but it did make me stop to consider how complicated the politics of race are.

Next post: religiosity