…Is frightening to say the least. Leave it unleashed and it obliterates your very existence, but what can tame it – social conditioning, aligning to what others define as “normal” and “acceptable”?

What happens when the chemical concoctions brewing in your brain refuse to assimilate in the proportion they need to for you to be deemed fit for community living?

How do you disassociate with what your psyche perceives as real and ally with what the people around you see?

We as a society are intolerant to any behavior that we recognize “different” from what has been understood as the norm. We are so insecure about our fragile social constructs of “normalcy” that the minute a person behaves even slightly tangential to what we are “used to”, we go on the defensive – our first reaction is to protect ourselves, and the second to “judge” - brandish the person as “mentally challenged” or “flawed in personality or character”.

The more sympathetic among us try to derive logical reasons, try to “sort” thing out, try to find a “cure”.

But, none of us “accept” and “include”.

Our rigid set-ups do not make allowances for an overactive imagination, for a passionately fiery spirit, for an individual who might have a different arrangement of molecules in the grey matter in their system.

Each one of us is unique - yet only to a limited extent, after which we all “conform”. The price for non-conformance is too huge to pay – alienation from society – friends and family.

Like everything else in life, there are no easy solutions to the exclusivity we all practice as part of community living. Acceptance must begin at home, at the level of the family unit. That is our only hope.

(I have not been able to coherently string together the many thoughts that a close association with one such powerfully distinctive mind evoked in me a while back – But, I finally decided to publish this long pending draft to share with you the frustration at our inability to assimilate variations into mainstream – forget assimilation, we refuse to acknowledge the rights of “differently” constructed individuals to lead a normal life – we just give up on them, we subject them to indifference or anger – pushing them into greater depths of estrangement – we make them pay for what is out of their control – the mind – the omnipotent mind that is above the individual.)

Read more »

I chanced upon this article in the Sunday Times supplement of The Times of India today that talked about the different schools of thought around a girl changing her name (or second name) after marriage.
This discussion has gained prominence in the world of journalistic deliberation primarily because of Munnabhai's (that's Sanjay Dutt...just in case...) highly provocative statement about his sister Priya Dutt who retains her dad's surname after marriage and I quote Mr. Dutt here, "Priya should have changed her name after marriage and taken responsibility of the new family". For those out of touch, this is all in the context of the siblings tiff in the Indian political arena post their father, Sunil Dutt's demise.

Sanjay Dutt has obviously not taken his Wren & Martin lessons in English grammar very seriously in school. Changing name after marriage and taking on family responsibility are two disjoint ideas and therefore cannot be combined to make a single sentence. There is no relation between the first and second clause. Unfortunately, in our predominantly patriarchal social mindset, many people end up making this mistake.

Marriage is one of the most complex institutions in modern day society. And with too many conflicting notions that surround, I cannot even list all of them in one breath. Therefore, I will stick to only one...a girl's changing her name after marriage.
First, contrary to popular belief, this is not a pan-Indian or global phenomenon. Families in many parts of southern India and the world, for that matter, and those hailing from matriarchal societies in Kerala and Goa, retain their maiden name.
Second, there is no evidence of religious enforcement of this name changing ritual in any of our ancient texts (and I mean ancient texts of all religions) and it is absolutely not a legal mandate.

I am not sure how this naming changing business really came into practice. On some introspection, I feel it could be a practical arrangement between the husband and wife that maybe makes the day-to-day life simpler. I mean if you have the same second name as your spouse, the receptionist at the hotel you are checking in will not cast a suspicious glance, joint loans, property agreements and insurance claims are easier to negotiate, hospital formalities become a wee bit simpler et al. As decades passed by, I think, like most other pragmatic compacts, this became a societal norm and then a regulation.

The minute you begin imposing, somebody is bound to rebel and a revolution happens. And this issue inflamed most feminist movements as they equated the name change (and rightly so in cases where this is coerced) with a brand acquisition, you overtake a name and brandish it with yours to make it your own. I believe many families compelled, and still compel women to change not only their last name but also their first name. This, I perceive, as the height of commodification of women.
Thus, heralded the Hillary-Rodham-Clintons and Aishwarya-Rai-Bachhans. A safe technique to keep your cultural identity and yet mould yourself into the societal expectations of a married lady. Not bad, I'd say, only not very practical. I mean so Ash's daughter should be Ash2 Rai Bachhan, she marries a kapoor and becomes Ash2 Rai Bachhan Kapoor and imagine the plight of the third generation!

The simplistic solution some women have come up with is not to change their name at all. This is a quite feasible option but does not have the undeniable advantages of the first and second alternatives, and also particularly problematic once the kids come along. I mean, how insecure can I get about my "identity"...is my identity only my name?

So what do? Well those confused, join the gang. I continue to use my maiden name for all formal, legal and practical purposes. No, I am not a die-hard feminist who finds this as the means to get back at the male dominance and I hate it when people cast me as one. I use Yuvika Chaube for three reasons - the emotional one being that I like the way Yuvika Chaube sounds. The more formidable one being the amount of paper work involved in changing the name; I cringe at the thought of filling out long forms, going to sad government offices, court rounds etc.

Some years down the line, I plan to give this name change business a serious thought. I might be transformed into Yuvika Chaube Vishwanath..naah that's too long...I myself get breathless by the end of it, maybe just Yuvika Vishwanath or maybe Yuvika C Vishwanath...Sometimes I wonder if Yuvika would serve the purpose :).
For others, I would say go by your gut feel. Do what you feel is the best and would suit you the most.

Fortunately, there is no right or wrong to choose from here. Your name has nothing to do with how good a wife, daughter-in-law or mom you are!

Read more »