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!