64. You are cordially not invited

Let it remain an intimate affair!

Much has changed since the faceless virus vitiated all civic life. Even the 'made in  heaven' tag couldn't save marriages from losing its sheen, with most guests falling under 'you are cordially not invited' list. A crash of $50 billion marriage market is the net outcome as marriages become sanitized affair with restrictions on regalia. The sky of uncertainty has fallen upon the age-old institution of marriage which continues to hold the divine tag ‘les mariages se font au ciel' proclaimed in France during early 16th century.
   
Even though the virus continues to pose an existential threat, the divine angle continues to pop up for good reasons. How else can it be explained that two people desperate for each other end up in different nuptial knots, and the other two unknown to each other exchange marriage vows? It is as trivial as it gets, with no easy answers. Ask those who could not tie the desired knot, and they will tell you in chorus that if some day they were to meet the person behind the divine proverb, they would try to get him/her for felony. 

Taking a potshot on the divinity angle, Hollywood legend Clint Eastwood had once quipped 'if marriages are made in heaven, so is thunder and lightning.' The virus has indeed struck like a lightning thunder. What matters at this stage is the manner in which families have worked past this unexpected thunder to forge safe alliances. Everything becomes negative if one of the couples or the family were to test positive! Trade-off between matrimonial compatibility was never so uncanny.

Marriages have now become more intimate and closed affairs, and for good reasons too. Come to think of it, the so-called social sanction alone had transformed marriages into big fat extravagant and wasteful. The turnaround has been dramatic with this being the best time for marriages though, as these events have less of 'market' in them, making them slim and smaller, frugal and sparing. Don't get me wrong if I say that the virus has inadvertently reinforced the often ignored fact that overt monetization had indeed transformed this pious activity for stitching new relationships into a market place for bargaining alliances. 

This had to change, and I am glad it has at least been forced to change. The trend of big-fat weddings set by the upper echelons of the society has been getting to the bottom billions, to emulate at enormous costs. On my visit to the US couple of months before the virus had unleashed its terror, an Indian graduate student had unabashedly told me that investment on his foreign education was sure to earn his parents back home dividends in the matrimonial marketplace. The impact of such trend on this cultural activity has been shocking, and obnoxiously too deep rooted.  

Had the dreaded virus arrived a year too early, it could have helped me plan an intimate and frugal wedding for my ward. For all those family members and friends who now sing paeans on the virus-induced lockdown and subsequent restrictions having cleaned the air and cleared the rivers had paid little heed to my humble plea on saving colossal personal and public resources during that wedding, or any other for that matter. Why control over how we spend our monies guarantee us unequivocal rights over common pool of resources? I continue to wonder why wasted food, splurged water and fouled air during weddings didn't count?  

Not sure how long will this newfound compulsion of frugal marriages may last. It will be unfortunate should this compulsive behavior not gain currency for frugality becoming the new normal for all future matrimonial alliances. I would expect prospective candidates to commit it online and offline, over and above their so-called class and status. The fear of virus is unlikely to lose potency in keeping the guests cordially uninvited. For once, be wary if you get cordially invited. Else, celebrate!

First published as a Times of India blog on Aug 27, 2020.   

63. The sorry state of apology

'You always say 'sorry', you better 'apologise' now!  

When you desperately seek it, it rarely comes your way. And when you don't, it flows like beer from a pitcher. Still at other times, you may not even notice when someone brushes past you while exclaiming 'sorry'. Not sure if it is a new form of greetings that we have yet to get used to, but it has come to mean that way. However, what surprises me most is the glaring omission by those who are liberal in saying sorry even when they sneeze but refuse to apologise when they hit a car. 

When in linguistic history apology and sorry became synonyms is beyond me, but I do know that apology has its origin in Greek and sorry comes from English. It's transition to English is conveniently attributed to Shakespeare as he was renowned as a creator/user of new words. Even if it isn't so, let's stay put with this explanation for now to let me conclude somewhat reluctantly that tendering an apology is a formal expression of admitting wrongdoing while sorry carries an informal tag of not admitting anything, meaning that I'm sorry for not doing it while you may think otherwise! 

I am not intending this as a piece of whataboutery, but trying to understand the trade-off that makes an apology such a keenly contested idea. No wonder, every so often a case of seeking an apology grabs news headlines and engages eyeballs on television, making heavy weather of not-so-ominous clouds. Although one would expect a well-turned and ingenuous-seeming apology to put a difficult issue to rest, in reality given its tactical nature none of the contesting parties is ever willing to go on back foot to rest the initiative. One is often reminded of Gandhi who would take moral high ground in such matters.

Whatever be at stake, experience shows that the possibility of getting an apology always remains remote. As I have understood, part of the problem is that no matter how heartfelt an apology gets tendered, there is a lack of genuine forgiveness at the recipient's end. With this being more often the case who would volunteer to make oneself vulnerable, be it the case of a court seeking apology for a contempt proceeding or a neighbour demanding regret for defaming his propriety,   

One reason people don't easily apologise has to do with psychological benefits of choosing not to apologize. Social psychologists have found that those who refuse to express remorse show signs of greater self-esteem, increased feelings of power and integrity. No wonder, it is easy to demand an apology than to deliver one. Even if it doesn't propel any such signs, refusing to apologise will at least ensure that in subsequent events of the kind it will not be held as evidence that you admit liability too soon. Apologies make tricky affairs!  

Tricky for sure but I think the word apology itself has been misunderstood. Even Plato, while presenting the Apology of Socrates, recorded it as a speech of legal self-defence at the trial of Socrates, and not an explanation of how Socrates admitted his transgressions. It is for this reason people don't tender an apology that easily because it is understood as 'something said or written in defense or justification of what appears to others to be wrong or of what may be liable to disapprobation'.

An apology could be a complicated matter, and it indeed is. Since childhood we have known that words once uttered can't be taken back, then how can an apology turn things the other way round? Given that an apology can get overstretched on the length and breadth of the internet, political strategists talk about the need to 'get ahead of' an issue. Given it is complicated, it is high time it is clear how the word 'apology' ought to be understood. Else, we will only end up feeling 'sorry' for it.