How does the Hierarchy go?

This is a bit tongue-in-cheek but truthfully written :)

How does the family hierarchy go?

1. The male patriarch is top dog. This can be the father, the grand father, the older uncle, the older brother. Whoever of these is handy. True that mothers, grandmothers etc. can also be important and make a lot of noise but their power is NOTHING if the male patriarch shows his disapproval/preference for something.
2. After the male patriarch come other male members who have shown promise in asserting themselves: sons, sons-in-law, uncles etc.

3. After this comes the male patriarch's mom, if alive. If not then his wife. You would think that she would rank higher than her own sons but you would be mistaken. She might SEEM to rank higher and it can be confusing at times but trust me on this.
4. Then come the other female members of the household: daughters, aunts, daughters-in-law etc.
5. Then the children.
6. And finally the help.

Some people may take issue that I have placed the children so low in the hierarchy when we PRIDE ourselves in loving our children. We do make a big deal about loving our children but truly, a typical 'loving' interaction with a child goes something like this:

                Adult: I like your baby sister. Can I take her home?

                Child: No!

                Adult: I will take her home with me.

                Child: Noooo. Ammmmmmeeee,
                             Aunty will take Zarah with her.

                Adult and Amme laugh. Not particularly loving!

Or something like this:

               Adult: What a cute child. Give me a hug.

              Child does not want to give a hug.

              Adult completely ignores this
              and embraces the child in a scary bear hug. Child screams.

              Adult and the child's parents laugh.

Or this:

            Adult playing with infant and telling the infant's mom:
            I have a fever and was feeling miserable but I still came
            to see your child. (and give it whatever germs I have!)

Why are Women Treated Badly in my Part of the World

A friend was wondering why I thought women were not treated well in my part of the world.

I am assuming the question was why the ill treatment of women and not whether I think that women are treated badly. There is no question that they are.

First of all I do not think anyone is treated particularly well. Anyone who can be oppressed is: servants, employees, children, old people, poor people, sick people, disabled people, wives, sons, daughters, daughters-in-law, … a sad never ending list.

Why the rampant oppression? Or perhaps, the more revealing question is, who IS treated well? 

In a family, it is actually very simple:

Anyone higher in the family hierarchy, you treat well. Anyone lower you can treat as you see fit. (http://saba-anvery.blogspot.com/2013/10/how-does-hierarchy-go.html).

Why? There are the usual suspects: we come from a tribal culture, there are economic factors, our culture does not like individualism etc. These are all valid reasons. They just make up for a very complex problem. 

Families living in cities with no tribal associations continue to honor the family hierarchy very strictly - for the age old reason that this is what we have always done and there is no immediate advantage in changing. In addition, we are obsessed with what other people think about us and so change is that much harder.

The awful problem with the hierarchy is that people are trained from the very beginning that the worth of a person comes from where he fits in. There is no inherent worth in a human being. It is something that I keep working on myself to fix in myself. It is difficult for me to instinctively think that the help is as worthy of respect as my father is. If I treat the help well, I feel very good about myself but if I give respect to my father I feel as if I am doing my duty. Both feelings are wrong.

Latest Read: Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth by Reza Aslan

Got to know of Reza Aslan through his Fox News interview. If you want to watch it, it is at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5f7fRtnasg

Hilarious isn't it? I am not being sarcastic. I do not expect much from Fox News, but the way Reza Aslan keeps his calm reminds me of a Kindergarten teacher.

I bought the book and enjoyed it very much; learnt quite a bit. For example, I was very surprised to learn about Jesus’s brother’s teachings and that he had been opposed to Paul’s teachings.

When great prophets are written about in this way – when they are humanized rather than deified – they are more appealing. I wonder though, if a prophet came now, would I want to believe that he performs miracles or would I be content to know that he preaches sanity?

The more I read the more I find out that I must learn more. I think I knew the most after high school; since then it has just been a steady realization of my ignorance. 

Latest Read: How to Get Filthy Rich in Rising Asia by Mohsin Hamid

No. I did not like it. It seemed a bit forced with the self help theme. Another reviewer used the term gimmicky and I think he got it right. The book IS very gimmicky. 
It follows the unnamed protagonist from a poverty stricken childhood to extreme riches. It is a good story but so badly done - If you like Mohsin Hamid, I do not recommend it.

Latest Read: The Blind Man's Garden by Nadeem Aslam

Before you read this know that I LOVE Nadeem Aslam. Absolutely LOVE him. My nephew thinks that he uses too many metaphors; I think he uses just enough :)

This book is set in Pakistan, in the fictional town of Heer in the Punjab. It spills over into Afghanistan when two boys from the family in Heer go to Afghanistan to join in the jihad. 

I love Nadeem Aslam because he writes the truth. Everything that happens to the two boys and the family is because of greed, revenge or lust - wrapping it up in the holy name of jihad and religion is something that people from my part of the world excel at. And this is what Aslam writes about.

Latest Read: The End of India by Khushwant Singh

This gives me some answers to my question, 'Why the partition?'  
After I began to doubt all the Zia-era-education I received, (in which the partition is THE only thing taught in history AND Pakistan Studies AND takes the place of geography and civics),  I have often wondered why was there ever a partition. India is secular, albeit with problems, but nevertheless secularism seems to be the goal, and the government grants sufficient autonomy to the provinces.
This book gives a good perspective. To be clear, it is neither written about the partition nor the reasons leading up to it, but Singh mentions that the fundamentalist elements in the Congress at that time were barely held at bay by Nehru.

Well!!
Well well!!

Mind boggling isn't it?

As far as a review of the book - It is written by one of the most respected and intellectual authors of the Sub-Continent. If you enjoy reading political books and are not afraid to be scared it is well worth a read.

Latest Read: The White Tiger by Aravind Adiga

Could not put it down. Written in the first person (in the form of letters to the president of China!) it is about a poor village boy who grows up to be a rich entrepreneur in Bangalore. Yawn...you say. The devil is in the details my friend. This is not a feel good story - it is a brutal portrayal of the divide between the rich and the poor. It brings home the old truth that the poor are expendable and meekly accept that fate; unless - unless they are the white tiger. Its amorality hits you hard in the stomach. Awesome awesome book.