Ananth Venkatesh

I profess that there is immense admiration and fascination in me for Hinduism and for the many divinities that epitomize this faith.

The sacred books such as the Vedas, the Bhagavad Gita and many others provide this religion with its seductively cerebral foundations. The duration of the survival of these pious treatises illustrates their attachment to the psychology and mentality of the Indian State.

The gorgeousness of Hindu treatises is that their applicabilities is not confined to the Hindus alone. Sage standpoints are enshrined in the Bhagavad Gita, the Vedas, etc., which offer suggestions to the individual humans as regards apt and judicious fashions of administering and directing any human life. The advices of these visionary Hindu tomes are not exclusivist. None of these books have been awarded the most paramount position in the Hindu scriptural hierarchy.

The Bhagavad Gita is not exclusivist and does not speak ill of other religions. Photo Source

Christian and Islamic sacred books are defined, at times, by their inferences linking foreign religions to heathenism or incivility or unenlightenment or primitivism. The connotation – displeasingly – in certain pages of these books is that these uncouth foreign religions have to be Muslimized or Christianized with muscularity if necessary. One will struggle to find the same sinful intolerance in the Hindu texts such as the Bhagavad Gita and the Vedas and even the monumental Hindu epics like the Mahabharata and the Ramayana.

Also, the Gods and Goddesses of Hinduism represent sundry stories, lives and messages that have ample relevance for humankind today. The multifarious stories of Hindu deities thrill me to a beefy extent and are so pertinent in the modern world. Their pertinence will always remain.

My respect for Hinduism is unordinary probably as I have never really felt any attachment to the ‘specialty of the purity’ of Brahmanism. I never will.

I have regarded Brahmanic preeminence in ritualistic Hinduism as a concept that wholly mars the vast intellectual extraordinariness of Hinduism. Brahmanic absolute supremacy should be a concept that should be abolished by the Hindu society itself. The theological, cerebral and scriptural richness of Hinduism can survive even in the absence of outright Brahmanic ascendancy.

Brahmin: A person who is literate in Vedas and Vedic Science

Kshatriya – A person who protects and fight for the a kingdom/country

Vaishya – A person involved in running in trade, agriculture.

Shudra – A person who works for others.

From Here.

My cherished mission is to see comprehensive Hindu unity in India, which covers politics, culture and social order. This goal of unity cannot afford senseless, pejorative and preposterous caste hierarchies in Hindu society, which only assist the internal and external foes of Hinduism.

Thus, while I will unendingly venerate and propagate the mammoth knowledgeableness and visionariness of the Hindu faith, its epics, its books, its scriptures, etc, I will never be able to associate myself with the Brahmanic stream of Hinduism. Brahmanic presence may be kept at the same social level as that of other communities.

Vishwamitra (bearded) was not born as a Brahmin. His Brahminism was a result of his work. Photo Source  

On a more lighthearted note, another Hindu issue, which appeals to me immensely, is the issue of Hindu interlingual matrimony. The idea of a Rajasthani Hindu male wedding a Malayalam Hindu female seems such an enticing one. Of course, the Rajasthani man needs to be in a condition of romance for the Malayalam female and vice versa.

I visualize that it would be idyllic socially if interlingual matrimonies were run-of-the-mill affairs in India. But there is strong resistance in some Hindu quarters to the thought of interlingual/intercaste marriages between Hindus. This is simply detrimental to the extraordinary status of Hinduism in the Indian soul.

We need to reach a point where interlingual nuptial ceremonies between Hindus are par for the course. Even now, lamentably, there are Hindu parents, who hesitate to wed their daughters and sons to Hindus of another language. Isn’t this inexcusably senseless?

There are Hindu parents, who are unnerved on realizing that their daughter or son is in a romantic state for a Hindu of another linguistic community. For example, there would be some Hindu parents in Gujarat, who would baulk at the idea of making their son marry a Hindu Telugu female. The hesitation would be not because of the personality of the girl, which may be delightful, but because of her ‘Teluguness’.

Similarly, Tamil parents may worry on comprehending that their daughter has been smitten by a Punjabi Hindu male. The Punjabi boy may be a topaz as regards personality i.e. he may be a pleasant and responsible man. His parents may be immensely lovable. The Tamil girl and the Punjabi boy may have steady compatibility and will want to tie the knot. But the Tamil parents may exhibit procrastination as regards the marriage because of the Punjabiness of the boy. That he is also a part of the miscellaneous Hindu community is overlooked.

Such parents exist in every linguistic Hindu community. I hope that this nervousness about Hindu interlingual marriage vanishes one day in the future.

Inter-caste marriages are becoming increasingly common. Photo Source 

As regards me, I say that, if I am involved in an interlingual (love) marriage with a Hindu female (who is of Punjab or Kashmir or AP or Kerala or Maharashtra or Gujarat or Rajasthan or Karnataka or of other non-Tamil blocks), it would give me copious contentment for several reasons. I would feel that (what I am going to say now may seem heavy…..) I have played a tiny part in strengthening interlingual Hindu unity.

Obviously, I would also be happy that I married the female, for whom I had romance and respect, and who had love and esteem for me. I would be contented that I wedded a woman with whom I had fair compatibleness.

Also, I have to voice this. If I am in a state of love for a female of my linguistic community and the same sentiment is experienced by that female, obviously, matrimony would be one of the next steps for all intents and purposes.

In any case, I firmly feel that certain Hindus will have to gradually stop giving regal status to terms like Brahman, Yadav, Kayastha, Jat, Iyer, Thakur, Iyengar, Nadar, Shetty and Patel among others. This regal status cannot come at the cost of injury to overall Hindu cohesion, especially politically and as regards marital intermingling.

 Sikh-Rajput weddings have strengthened ties between the cultures and helped national integrity. Source

The inward-looking Hindus need to embrace interlingual Hindu marriages for the solid preservation of Hindu structure in the future. Also, they need to embrace it for the sake of sanity.

Another attitudinal transformation wanted in some Hindu minds desperately is the stoppage of female feticide/infanticide. This is a grisly act not worthy of mercy, especially considering the powerfulness of Hindu female divinity and the venerable status that they have in our religion.

May be… may be…… the paucity of interlingual Hindu marriages was one reason behind a mainly Hindu India being molested and disfigured by foreign religious forces in the past. The more comprehensively unified Hindus in India become, the better it would be for Hinduism’s durability here and for its ability to combat effectively mortal perils to its existence.

Kartikey Sehgal

Women often pick and choose morals to suit their purpose. Others would argue that they don’t know how to choose in any case. (and therefore, say, should not vote)

Recently, a man killed himself after writing an essay on the desperate condition of men in society. Mainstream media ignored his death in favour of the ‘slutwalk’. In brief, this is what happened to him, in his words:

“My story starts with the infamous slapping incident of April 2001. While putting my four year old daughter to bed, she began licking my hand. After giving her three verbal warnings I slapped her. She got a cut lip. My wife asked me to leave to calm things down.

When I returned hours later, my wife said the police were by and said I could not stay there that night. The next day the police came by my work and arrested me, booked me, and then returned me to work…

After six months of me not lifting a finger to save this marriage, she filed for divorce. Almost two years after the incident, I was talking with her on the phone.”

Thomas then burned himself to death. Ten years was too much. He was poor and he missed his children.

In response to the story about his death, one of the women, who had seen abuse in her life, wrote this line:

“I assure you, a slap to the face seems dull in comparison to say, having your face thrown down into a plate, breaking it, along with a tooth. All because you didn’t do the dishes.”

She doesn’t think that Thomas deserved his punishments. Another woman replied to her thus:

“It may seem dull, but it doesn’t make it ok.”

According to this woman and her ilk, wrong is wrong. Right is right. Everything is black and white. Until it affects me. And this is misplaced morality.

2.

A police constable, tired of his wife nagging away at him continuously, slaps her. The woman then weeps uncontrollably. Her neighbours and friends console her and call the husband a bad man. You must never hit a woman. Only bad men do that. Devils do that. You have no reason to touch a woman. They threaten to report him.

3.

Internet promises anonymity and there are several anonymous women – and those with names secure that you would never meet them – who hate Thomas and are okay with his death. Let them, it’s their prerogative to not agree with him. But few take him on logic. Barely none of the women question his complaints or argue that he is wrong about his assessment of society. Thomas spent years researching his case and wrote letters to government officials and gathered statistical data; the women dismissed him without batting an eyelid to the information at hand.

Their ‘analysis’ is mostly about slapping children and how men are generally bastards and how much womenfolk have suffered. Black and White.

One of the strangest stories on Thomas’s death comes from this source.

Imagine: Thomas writes a logical and legible 10000 word essay on why he is killing himself. The lady titles her story thus: “Familiar refrain: Why?”

Why? He just told you why. In 10000 words. He explained why, he sang why. And you wonder why he killed himself.

No readers, the why in the lady writer’s story is more of an ‘emotional why’. Suited to her purpose. The crux of her story is this:

aww… you are upset. you must do this and that. you must get over it and all… but suicide is bad.

Yes monsieur. She picks out the suicide part and tells us that suicide is bad and that we must not do bad things like suicides.

Therefore, “…mental health advocates say, it is just one example of a public health problem that is often overlooked.” The story becomes one of mental pain and how emotional pain needs to be redressed. Then there’s this gem: “Start being aware of suicide. Be aware if someone is feeling upset. … It’s about community and connectedness”

Emotion, community, connectedness, pain and “it’s about knowing that trauma”. This is what the story is about. All such glossy terms with little substance. The man who burned himself had better sense.

4.

Imagine that you are locked in your room for a month with no connection with the outside world. You slash your wrists. So the lesson you are given by misplaced morality is this: slashing wrists is bad. You did a bad thing. Why can’t people just talk out their problems instead of slashing wrists. Very bad.

Say, a harassed woman kills herself. The husband, in-laws would immediately be suspects. Or would you hear the familiar refrain, that killing yourself is bad? The woman should not have done a bad thing? No. There would be a detailed investigation and analysis of the men.

5.

A woman nags a man for drinking alcohol and you can’t match up to her verbal attacks and one day you hit her. Equals crime.

A man nags a woman for drinking alcohol and she can’t bear his silent glances and logic and one day she insults and abuses him. Does not equal crime. Equals free will of the woman. Her independence.

When feminists come to power. They use morality and rules to their advantage.
A woman blackmailing her child is no crime. A man chiding that woman may be harassment. That same woman insulting him is no crime. A man hitting back in anger equals abuse.

Who decides? The law run by men who adhere to feminists (also stated by Thomas in his essay). The law that has given up on logic because the feminists don’t like logic.

To see how they don’t like logic, and to know more about this faux morality, refer to this page on a website called ‘Feministe’. How easily, just how easily, the writer and the female commenters pass Thomas off as a psychopath who deserved it. Sadness for his death? Perhaps from a few. A smart discussion on the points Thomas raises? Nil. Everything is eaten up by faux morality: he hit his child, he was evil, I would never do it.

Siddharth Kurian

Of recent, when famed woman’s lib author/thinker Germaine Greer was asked to comment on the issue of children being sexualized, she began by panning the Barbie doll saying that the doll itself is a fetish and that it is a descendant of a sex toy. And in the same breath implied that fathers too belonged to the same coterie of wanton sexualizers and did so by helping their daughters learn how to "flirt" just by asking them to "kiss daddy goodnight".

I find MTV, haute couture fashion designers, Hollywood and this overpriced plastic toy a menacingly shameless proponent of exaggerated beauty.

Greer calls this "a sinister culture" of a society bent on perverting children and especially girls, who, she believes are made slutty because of not only Barbie dolls but their own fathers.

I agree with Greer on the Barbie doll. And yes. Fathers do sexualize their daughters. However, are men part of a sinister culture as Greer puts it?

Be it with a kiss or be it with getting them what they want; toys, dresses, expensive phone, flashy car or a guy from a rich family. If overdone, fathers end up “spoiling” their daughters, who may or may not turn out to be “slutty”. But as a father his most basic duty is in the role of a provider. Provider of love, security, guidance and good sense.

It is argued that women are sexually objectified, but men consciously or subconsciously look for or are attracted to much more than a woman’s body. They look for a good wife and a good mother. A woman seeking a man shows off her skills as a caretaker, sustainer, lover, colleague, partner, for this is what she’ll bring in into a setup where she tries co-existing with a man. A daughter/sister takes up such roles too albeit differing in purpose and perhaps magnitude.

What is inspired in this role-play is that she learns to do all of the above, she, even though is a natural at it, picks up these skills over time so that when she chooses her man and decides to live with him, she has all that she needs to sustain a relationship. Hence, fathers are what I would call “soft-trainers”. They may not be explicit or even conscious of this but the fact that they are men and that daughters have to grow up to be women with their own families spurs both men and women into understanding each other, which works well for daughters when they grow up to choose a man of their liking and “secure” him as her husband. Fathers are guilty, if at all, of showing their daughters that their future men might need their care in many ways similar to how they care for their fathers today.

Sons too are sexualized, through their mothers, their aunts, sisters, cousins, grandmothers or grandaunts. Sons are only made to understand that they will be loved and taken care of in return for them being “Men” i.e. being providers of security and solidarity of several types and that they too will have to provide their women with the same.

This is not sinister but a natural way of rearing relationships.

Kartikey Sehgal

When women can’t believe their happiness and success, they demand subservience from men to justify their status. They become ‘queens’.

Women are self-critical; to be right, they must have the backing of the other gender – the gender that is markedly different from their gender. The other gender abounds in logic and self-assurance, which is a pre-requisite to fight wars and maintain civilizations. When the warrior-creative gene backs them, women work happily.

Needless to say, the warriors and poets must be honest to them. Always the importance of the honest man. Honesty ensures that women are not spoiled.

Women are spoiled by excessive praises to their beauty and body. In this culture, they are the given utmost importance by media. The less prettier ones can make up with doles of exuberance and other—in their case—distractive qualities (that distract men from the lack). These women may have more talent that the beauties. But in this culture, talent does not hold a candle to beauty. However, less talent in a woman is glorified to give justification to selection by beauty.

Women who can modulate their voice and speak with some force are called ‘outgoing’, vivacious and forthcoming, when what’s mostly forthcoming is attempts at sexual attraction. I attract you through my body – but if you don’t like it, see to it that I have other personalities.

A woman who can sew very well versus a sexy woman who can sew just about well is a no-contest. Media will hold the spotlight on the sexy woman and train men to look up to this woman as the epitome of something (sewing). The other woman, who sews better, will have to shed clothes to compete.

The era of cloth-wearing-‘Goddesses’ is diminishing. Present day Goddesses don’t wear many clothes and media terms this as oozing confidence/forwardness or some such thing. When these women are spoiled by praises, they speak against the men; their fathers and brothers. They start holding themselves to be true representatives of womanhood and womanliness. It is now the duty of the men, the warriors and poets of society, to speak against such false claims of ‘womanhood’ by distancing themselves from such thoughts and critiquing the illogical stance of the spoiled women. And at the cost of being unfriendly with these women.

Only the meek men would think that any unfriendliness with the spoiled women would result in lack of sexual relations with them. These men turn subservient and support women rights. They turn blind to more talented women who don’t shed their clothes. These women are thereby pressurised to remove clothes. And behave like the spoiled women to get the attraction of men.

Subservience by men harms both men and women.

The spoiled women are still self-critical, no praise can diminish this aspect of their gender. They face the fact that their importance is through sheer beauty, which will fade. They realise that their real worth is lesser than the projected worth. They may hence be humbled and softened. Or they may seek further proof of their worth by taming the warrior-poet class of men. Women that choose the latter style of behaviour demand subservience from men.

Kartikey Sehgal

In the previous story, I had said that men should not get consumed by a woman’s sweet words (not always). Natural manipulation is acceptable to a certain level, beyond which it is poison for man. (The definition of ‘level’ deserves a separate story)

If a woman, while serving food to you, nags you and assumes superiority through the act of serving, then it is acceptable to walk out of the scene without a goodbye. Let her come to the table and see it empty. Let her wonder with the dish in hand if you heard her lamentations at all.

Women have been given to understand that their utility in the kitchen is a favour to man. Men are lousy and lazy, apparently. The way to their hearts is through their stomachs (a cliché); so use the ‘food time’ to complain and nag. If you have a sense of the self, then you will woeful at times when your woman (in any relation) uses food as power tool.

However, if the woman prepares food for you lovingly, without haughtiness, with a smile and an anticipation of your collective pleasure, then you must not leave the table and cause displeasure. She doesn’t see the act of serving food as a cause to establish superiority or a job beneath her dignity, or a job at all. Don’t leave such a woman standing.

If you find such a woman.

Men can prepare food. They can be neat and tidy if they want. They can make friends with other men for good company. And these are matters of great concern for women:
If men are cornered, and they don’t give in to bullying, and take care of their self, make food, iron the bed sheets, clean bathrooms, then, they will look at women as pure objects for sexual gratification.

Feminism may (will) lead to sexual objectification of women

They will not wait for you to nag them. They won’t take food; they will eat at a restaurant with other men. Your best bet then would be to find men who are too weak to get out of this rut; they will take your food and your verbal volleys. So your future and your happiness would depend on the weak men, and you’ll end up hunting such men to father your children.

Feminism may (will) give you weak men, weak relationships

And that is the importance of food; the difference between eating fruits by the roadside and being served with dignity and ‘love’. And that is love, if it is anything. It is at least not promises of wealth and clothes.

Kartikey Sehgal

(Many/Most) Men are idiots when it comes to understanding women. They choose the logical over the emotional. If she is smiling, soft-spoken, and makes my favourite dish, then she must care for me. Why else would she take such trouble upon her? Women use this logical reasoning of men to their advantage.

Women love their daily soaps on television. They are able to identify the ideal woman and the vamp. Men also watch these serials, especially if they want to observe and study the behaviour of women.

Women know about the actual nature of women. They can identify the manipulations in their niceness; they are curious about their facades. Hence they concentrate on these serials to see if the ideal woman (there is one in almost every serial) actually lives up to her ideals. The serial makers, therefore, make this ideal woman pass through various tests, requiring her to maintain her composure and qualities through all of them. Only when she has suffered aplenty can she be looked upon as ideal.

The vamp, on the contrary, manipulates and seduces under the garb of goodness. She acts like an ideal woman; smiles and talks like her; thereby proving that idealism is not a difficult quality for women to achieve.

The vamp is interesting. She tells you a lot about the machinations between men and women. Men are often unable to perceive the treachery and deviousness of women; women only have to act good–an art that is natural to most of them–to win the attention and approval of men. (Many/Most) Men are idiots when it comes to understanding women. They choose the logical over the emotional. If she is smiling, soft-spoken, and makes my favourite dish, she must care for me. Why else would she take such trouble upon her? Women use this logical reasoning of men to their advantage.

Is the woman really good, or is she bluffing, many men cannot tell. But they like to believe in the former, particularly because they like to believe in their sense of the ideal woman; a quality ingrained in them from childhood.

Men are easy to please. Women know that and they can understand this better in the soaps. They care for emotion than logic. Therefore a woman can die and come back through some miracle, or undergo plastic surgeries that alters her height and shape but women don’t care about such things. ‘How is this woman behaving, what drama is she creating and will she succeed?’

Men’s logical brains do not accept such nonsense. They see the vamp as vamp and the good girl as good girl and accept this division. Unless presented to them in a better fashion (like in a good feature film), they don’t care for emotional entanglements on television. As such they have to appease their woman and play up to her dramas in real life.

Women are natural manipulators. Some (many) of them misuse this quality and turn it to abuse. They may learn this from their mothers who may have manipulated their husbands (which is why we need strong fathers). They see this in society. They see it everyday. They can identify it in the good woman. They see more manipulation than men do. You are pacified/affected by a woman’s smile. The other woman knows the story behind that smile. Not that men can’t do the same. But it requires effort and an understanding of emotion. It requires you to not be taken in by sweet words (all of the time). It requires skill that is absent in today’s ‘modern’ environment. Your mothers won’t tell you that they can be manipulative, will they?

Kartikey Sehgal

Here is a premise for happiness; in monogamy, the wife fights her husband to attain a better life; in non-monogamy the wife keeps herself desirable for her man.

Men who are denied their share of women may turn alcoholic and abusive. When their wives leave them they become severely depressed. Thing did not work out for them. They didn’t get their women and monogamy didn’t serve them well either. They are further blamed for the dissolution of marriage.

Even if they get their women during the term of their marriage, they are marked by guilt by society. They are further blamed for the dissolution of marriage.

Guilt destroys men. Guilt is often used as a tool by women for control.

Men and women are different yet the society expects them to be homogenous. Homogeneity destroys them both. They blame one another for not being true.

Women assume that monogamy is the solution to their happiness and hence they find it easy to transfer the source of all their problems to infidelity. Infidelity may not be the source of problems but its carrier.

…

To subvert a man’s nature is to harm him. Hence many women who marry to change a man fail in this super-human duty. The failure in playing God is passed off as man’s inability to be faithful and to be loved and loving. There is no truth in the belief that a woman who knows and accepts her man’s wicked ways is unhappier than the women in monogamous marriages.

Desire holds men and women together. Here is a premise for happiness; in monogamy, the wife fights her husband to attain a better life; in non-monogamy the wife keeps herself desirable for her man.

Kartikey Sehgal

The second page of a two page write-up called “Polyamory in India: Then and Now”, published in Psychology Today,  prompted me to write this story. The author “Deborah Anapol, Ph.D” guides a married woman named Leela towards sleeping with her friend Karna. According to the author, Leela’s husband Sandeep must come to terms with his jealousy. In my opinion, the application of polyamory here is utter rubbish and a subtle form of radical feminism that is making weaklings out of men.

Here’s the first paragraph about Sandeep and Leela and how Leela wants to sleep with another man, Karna, who won’t inform his wife about his affair.

“I arrived in Bombay a few weeks after the 2008 terrorist attack that left residents and tourists alike in a state of shock. Sandeep, an Indian man in his early forties who runs a small consulting firm in Bombay, was still reeling and grateful that his immediate family was unharmed. Sandeep has been married to Leela for fifteen years, and they have a six-year-old daughter. Theirs was an arranged marriage, as is still common in India; nevertheless, they came to love each other deeply. Sandeep told me that Leela is his best friend, that they tell each other everything, and that they started their business together as well. Two years ago, Leela told Sandeep that she wanted to become sexually intimate with their good friend Karna. Sandeep was very uncomfortable about this, partly because Karna was not telling his wife but also because his own jealousy was painful and intense. He’d already downloaded my Compersion e-book by the time we met and had found it helpful, but he was still struggling.”

This is bizarre. The onus of all discomforts lie on Sandeep. He is asked to easily understand and accept that his wife wants to sleep… become sexually intimate with another man. And notwithstanding the biological impulse of a man to be possessive about his woman, he is supposed to read the author’s e-book and accept the idea easily, and be selfless and not selfish. And all that the wife is to do is to prepare herself for the affair, or rather explore her ‘inner self’, ‘inner desires’ ‘sexual personality’ etc.

My first deductions on reading this paragraph (We’ll return to them eventually):

1. Leela is not sexually satisfied with Sandeep. He is too ‘soft’ for her. She wants a ‘better’ man; richer, better-looking, violent.
2. Karna must be an aloof ‘higher’ male which is supported by “…Karna was not telling his wife…” about the proposed affair.
3. The polyamory angle is just an excuse to cheat without getting caught in the entanglements. Woman’s liberation angle.

It didn’t seem like polyamory to me; it appeared like a doctor prescribing elaborate measures for a cut on your knee when a few drops of Dettol would do the job. Or telling you that you got a cut on your knee because you don’t listen to your mother and make her unhappy.

The doctor then writes that

“…I suspect that Sandeep and Leela are on the leading edge of a growing polyamorous movement in India. Sandeep is a thoughtful, insightful man and a professional communicator with a Western education.”

She is making a case for herself. She is informing us that Sandeep is not an idiot. He is very good, in fact; educated and successful; and my client.
She then brings in advaita philosophy and purports to explain in brief how it applies to her sense of polyamory.

“He is a student of Bombay advaita master Ramesh Balsekar, who teaches that it is only our thoughts about what should or shouldn’t be happening that disturb the natural state of peace and happiness.”

And therefore the wife must not think about Karna and the affair and proceed to solve her issues with her husband Sandeep. No?
No Sir. It is Sandeep who must do the thinking. He must be clear and all accepting about his wife sleeping with another man. What applies to Sandeep must apply to Leela. Not according to this doctor.

“Leela and Karna also have an affinity for advaita, and the threesome have attended many satsangs (literally translated, this means "meetings in truth") together, so I figured that they had at least some chance of working this out.”

Why then is this Karna not telling his wife about the impending affair with Leela? Lessons from the “Meetings in Truth” do not apply to Karna? Or are they meant solely for poor Sandeep who must ‘bear the truth’ or ‘come to terms with jealousy’? Has the wife been truthful about her thoughts and desires to her husband all this while? This is bad usage of the concept of advaita.

The advaita angle is employed by the doctor to establish her theory. To tell you that olden Indian philosophies are concurrent with her research. Advaita does not ask men to be weak and timid. A cursory wikipedia reading will give you some idea about the the term.

But let’s read more about Leela and Sandeep. And Karna. And how Sandeep is made out to be a pitiable creature.

“After acknowledging Sandeep’s courage and willingness to let jealousy be his teacher and I inquired about his family of origin. As I’d guessed, Sandeep’s relationship with his wife mirrored that with his mother, who was a fiery and dominating figure. His father was amiable but distant, much like Karna. Clearly, this triangle offered Sandeep an opportunity to do the inner work of healing the past, and he had the necessary skills and motivation to move through these old issues quickly, but still his marriage was at risk because Sandeep and Leela had never established a satisfying sexual relationship.”

“After acknowledging Sandeep’s courage and willingness…”

Sandeep’s courage and willingness would lie in getting things right with his wife in the sack, in the social sphere or in the mind. Here courage is reduced to acceptance by Sandeep of the author’s ideas.

“…Sandeep’s relationship with his wife mirrored that with his mother, who was a fiery and dominating figure. His father was amiable but distant…”

So is Sandeep weak? Does he fear women? Is he ‘soft’ as I had predicted in point one? Yes.

“His father was amiable but distant, much like Karna.”

Refer to my point 2 about Karna being aloof. Obviously Leela loves this quality. Or at least it stands better when compared to Sandeep’s softness. She loves Karna’s personality and wants to sleep with him. Simple. Like millions of women worldwide. There is nothing remarkably ‘cutting edge’ or ‘revolutionary’ in this case.

Leela also doesn’t want to sleep with Sandeep and even without the polyamory angle, she would have gone ahead and slept with Karna. And given immense grief to Sandeep.

“Clearly, this triangle offered Sandeep an opportunity to do the inner work of healing the past…”

If I believe the author, then Karna is like the distant dad Sandeep had who stayed away or was scared of his dominating wife. The author thinks that through this three-way arrangement Sandeep will be healed. He will come to accept Karna as a part of his life. And so he will come to accept his father. Here’s an observation; Leela, is, attracted to this distant, aloof, man called Karna. Should it not occur to Sandeep that Karna is more exciting than him and ‘more of a man’ for Leela, and that he should change his ‘soft’ life to be more exciting to Leela? In which case, won’t the problem be solved by a change in approach to life?

And note. Leela, who is an advaita devotee is not telling Sandeep what she wants or how she wants her man. Despite the author telling us that, “Sandeep told me that Leela is his best friend, that they tell each other everything…”

A woman may confide in a man only that which she thinks to be true. Not the truth itself. I could write more on this but this suffices to explain the case at hand. That Leela is not honest. And doesn’t mind if Karna doesn’t tell his wife about the affair. As long as she ‘gets’ him. Just like millions of women worldwide.

Here’s more contradiction in the author’s writing. She says that:

“still his marriage was at risk because Sandeep and Leela had never established a satisfying sexual relationship.”

and in the first paragraph she had informed us that:

“Theirs was an arranged marriage, as is still common in India; nevertheless, they came to love each other deeply.”

In any case, point 1 of my assessment is again established. Bad sex, not necessarily from Sandeep’s side; Leela wants an escape; enter polyamory nonsense garnished with advaitaism and Leela has a way out.

The author is also saving the marriage by scaring the man. She seems to be telling him that ‘Save your marriage. It’s very important. Or you will suffer’. ‘Leela may leave you after the affair and she will get joint custody of the child. You would not be better off. So live with this. Give it the name of polyamory, it will sound better, better than cuckoldry at least’. Therefore, get over your jealousy. It will always be your fault, man.

The doctor then reaches the zenith of her misguided advice. I expect some of you to cringe. Unless you have a doctor like this in your life.

“I suggested that he ask Leela if she were willing to invest some time and energy in creating a sexual connection with him as well as with Karna. In India, as in the United States, it’s sometimes easier for people to access their eroticism with a new partner than with the spouse they know so well.”

Reverse this with: “I suggested that she ask Sandeep if he is willing to invest some time and energy in creating a sexual connection with her as well as with (the woman Sandeep is attracted to).” Possible? (Or spousal abuse, emotional pain, women rights)

This is not polyamory. It is bad advice to a couple wherein the man is made to suffer. It may be seen as a variation of cuckoldry. And such situations are common in society. A woman wants to sleep with another man; she may live with her husband and sleep with this new man; or she may eventually leave her husband. Except that in this case there is a doctor telling the husband that it’s okay. Perhaps the husband would be made to believe that this is good. But it would mean trampling his ego, his self, his manliness. It is anti-man. Anti-nature.

Kartikey Sehgal

Love is nature’s ploy for reproduction; lust is nature in crisis.

It is possible to love one woman for the rest of your life and there are many such women available.

Women are marketeers when it comes to marriage. They make a man believe that he wants it and his time will run out.

Marriage is a compromise for men. Women just have to decide between options.

A man (man) remains a man despite the allurement of beauty. The affections of women on such a man are often affectations. 

Men go out of their way to please women and thereby stand on the first step of losing them or losing freedom.

Man works to get a woman. Then man works to keep a woman. Then man wonders why he did all this. Mid-life crisis.

Man wants car, woman wants car. Man must buy it.
Woman sits in that car and talks equality of genders.
Man is impressed by this woman.
Car breaks down.

Kartikey Sehgal

[Written immediately after the ‘Tiger Woods Scandal’ obsession and kept aside. Sentences in brackets and italics are current, additional thoughts]

Tiger Woods’s wife should have forgiven him his extra-marital affairs. Who stands to gain; have the children benefited from this drama? Tiger Woods? Or has it ‘improved’ him or made him a ‘better’ man? Nobody except the wife stands to gain. She gains sympathy. And money, of course.

(private affair. Was she a good wife, mother. Has anybody investigated. There must be other ways of being ‘bad’ other than extra marital affairs)

Do you believe that a man has months and years long affairs with one, two… ten women and his wife knows nothing about it? If true, what does it speak about the communication level in the marriage?

Or do you believe, as it is being written about now, that the husband is a sex-addict for many years and the wife knows nothing about it? If she knows nothing about his habits and behaviour then what does it say about the married life of the couple?

(marriage ‘two-way street’. Possible there is lack of communication from either side)

She is, obviously, not fit to take custody of the children but law will aid her in her claims. That’s marriage for you. Never mind that Tiger could be a better father, and parent, for the children. Despite his affairs.

Tiger’s wife is considered not guilty and a good parent because she didn’t, apparently, have flings. You’d never bother to find if she is hateful, overtly manipulative, hysterical, or otherwise unfit to be a good parent and partner. Conversely, Tiger could be loving, cheerful, attentive and everything that should be a good father. Yet you’d look at the number of women he has bed.

Who is to say that Tiger’s wife was a good wife? Extra-marital affairs are not the only method of determining the goodness of an individual in a relationship. What do you say about some playboy who saves an eighty year lady by risking his life and what about a faithful husband who watches as a lady is assaulted in a train by some hoodlums? Whom would you trust children with?

Sex in all its ideologies and arrangements is an affair between Tiger and his wife. It is not the only basis of judging (why should you) his capability as a father. He has no compulsions—although he is apologising—to apologise to the world. He didn’t promise them monogamy.

(she gets half the money, then marriage is about money. If wife cheats, she is thrown out without money or any material gain to the man. Man cheats wife gets something. Are non-monogamous men worse than monogamous men and women.)

(And say Tiger is a guilty man, how does this automatically make his wife non-guilty?)