Thursday, March 08, 2007

One Love?

[one of my previous posts had this sentence somewhere in it "We need somebody to be there for us at the end of the day, and more importantly _only_ for us." It refused to stay buried in obscurity and came back to haunt me for a blog of its own. So here is....]

Long ago, with enough alcohol in my body to inspire this, I had asked my dad pensively "whats the most important thing in life? money, power, knowledge, truth??" "Emotions you stupid fool, emotions!" I laughed at him then, now i know better.
So heres the big daddy of them all. Love. Though my tryst with this one has been rather unfortunate it is no doubt the most intriguing of all human emotions. Literarily, everything from a sonnet to an epic has been written abt it. Financially, everyone from Shahrukh Khan to the "khare daNe" vendor outside a park makes his living out of it. Historically, everything from bar brawls to monumental wars have been fought over it. Socially, everything from a condom to a commitment has been associated with it.. which.....brings me to my point.

Commitment. (rather, the lack of it)

What is so serene, so holy so noble about this word? Why does the almighty all powerful love, loose all its seriousness without its backing? Ayn Rand says “Love is the emotional price we pay for enjoying the virtues in others." Ok....i didn’t get that either, but do you guys sincerely believe that one human being can love just _one_ other human being in his entire life? I mean do you really buy that “mere liye koi ek bana hai, aur wo (god, I presume) mere dil ko ishara karke batayega..” yash chopra style crap? And am talkin romantic, dead serious, bottom of heart, no chance in hell kinda love. Not the hot body, crazy for sex love. If love is such a great thing, why is it so immoral to have it twice? Which law or what reason says it _has_ to be unique. If love just happens, then how can we be so sure that it wont happen again?? Somehow this commitment thing does not seem aligned with the spirit of love. There is no restriction on whom you love, who decided this 1 per lifetime upper limit then? How can a reasonable man/women ignore this simple reasoning and say, whtever they say while getting married! This, deciding your partner when ur around 25 (btw..this is the age when you r at ur stupidest best) and then sticking to it without thought or option till the end, is more of a convenience than true volition.

Society must have experimented with this looong ago and came up with the most simple and robust solution that we see today. One Love, One Family, simple, no complications. You follow this chain - birth, education, income, marriage, kids, retirement, goodbye.- and u r acceptable. u don't and u r looked down upon. love anyone other than ur partner, ur guilty. Simple rules. Keeps the society intact. But are u really guilty? This multi-love theory may not be this simple. i mean there are some 'practical' problems. For one..who do you stay with? :D But that doesn't mean its wrong morally. We are so imbibed with this "not making or breaking a commitment is a sin" idea that we simply can't comprehend the other side. I agree its time tested to work almost flawlessly. But that is basically for people who, out of ignorance or fear play by the societies rules....
My point is why can’t we (people who can and will…think!) decouple love and commitment? We should have a choice. Judging the seriousness of love by the willingness to commit, is wrong. The society will never approve of it, hmmm....but doesnt that make it all the more worth it? (just kidding..ignore me and have a happy life)

Of course there is a personal and perhaps more important aspect to this. You meet someone and that person brightens up your life like never before. Life is so beautiful that u r shit scared of losing it. Commitment seems so soothing. You demand it, get it at all costs and promise to love nobody else again, ever. I saw nishabdh the other day (stupid movie..zia khan is hottt though). Wife gets angry ‘cause husband likes another girl. Sad, I understand, very sad in fact. But angry?? I don’t get it. The world might say its infidelity but I can never accept that loving can be a crime no matter what the promise or the consequence.

Most of us will get married and stay together till “death do us part”, always _assuming_ that it was love that kept us together and not the commitment, of course not!.We will n'joy our _unique_ status in our partner's life and make a big scene if that status is lost. Just like normal people. But there might be very very few among us who will not commit but still stay together for ever _knowing_ it was love and nothing but love that kept them so. Those brave-hearts will most assuredly deserve but even more assuredly _not_ get, our society’s utter respect. And I wonder why….. :)




Blogger ABM said...

hey read j krishnamurthy ...u sound like him..

4:08 PM, March 16, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

favorite topic. so much to talk abt. would comment only on the last part. people follow social laws not to gain respect, but for the fear of loss of that respect if they dont.

5:17 AM, April 11, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if something is not broken, why fix it?


7:27 PM, April 21, 2007  
Blogger siddhya said...

haha..zhakaas comment mangya!
if something works well tht does not mean it is _right_ does it? not saying family system is wrong, just tht if someone chooses to not follow it, dont brand him/her as an infidel...

8:52 AM, April 23, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

was looking for a mutton khima recp on net...
your blog turned up to be the first link :D
Thinking you might have posted some recp.... I started reading further
"greatness" sounds quiet intresting but somehow not agreed with "one love?" ....

Hey not exactly the "yash chopra style crap" but yeah "Love is all about loosing onself,loosing your heart " and you just got only one..
our minds may pick up many but heart sticks to one and I belive its the so called Heart that decides this "1per lifetime upper limit"..
Belive me its not that immoral to have one to many relationships...lots of countries and religions still support such relationships...hey havnt you heard that in the royal era's even the kings used to have many marriages and hence many wives around...but only one among them used to be his "patt rani" right?
coz heart it sticks to one.
And that is why at our twenties when our heart isnt polluted with too many things we tend to loose it easily n Sincerely for someone...
you talk about multi-love theory and practical problems, I belive two is a company and three is a crowd...So why to unnecessarily increase the pace of company to crowd by "decoupling love and commitiment" where intimacy is priority.
Think about this, Would you enjoy if couple of peoples start conversing with you at the same time..isnt dat sounds noisy ?????
Basically if you know, a lion enjoys a community of lioness through out his lifetime....rather they arent so superior to follow this kinda family
yup! those "without faith" are supposed to be branded as infidel...
c ya

2:00 AM, December 20, 2007  
Blogger siddhya said...

i think u r confusing btwn love and first love. I agree first love is always special (as is ur first day at school, first job, first car..) tht does not mean you cannot love again, does it?
Consider this...
u love someone is college, she goes away, u marry someone else, u hve a great life wit ur wife for say..30 years. after tht if someone asks who is th love of ur life..wud it still be tht college girl?

btw i hope u found tht khima recipe u wer lookin for ;)

11:44 AM, December 27, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nope, am nowhere talking about first love or second or third..rather i dont belive at all in that way of numbering love...

Also i dont deny that love wont happen again..but dont agree with kinda multi-love theory you mentioned..

lemme explain your way...
I love someone in collg but that relationship took no shape;
I married someone else,n having a great life with my spouse for 30 yrs
Now if someone asked me who's the love of my life, dat would be simply my spouse
and not the one frm my collg..coz thats my past and we live our lives in present right?

2:30 AM, January 12, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

u know you are right sid...
the wife in Nishabdh shuld not be angry with such a what she loved him sincerely all her what she devotedly stayed with him..she shuld alow him to go away with dat they too understand the capabilities n incapablities of their relationship..may be the real time effects n deffects of it...but ever if he tries to turn back.. jus kick him hard...
watch out Arth..pooja played by shabana is an ideal character...

8:20 AM, February 05, 2008  
Blogger siddhya said...

anonymous 1: ok, so u mean we can love different people at different times in our lives, but not 2 ppl at the same time?

anonymous 2: haha..i am glad tht u accept that love doesn't hve to be possessive. to kick him or accept him back is entirely her choice. pooja in arth decided to kick him, good for her.
my point is, why do you have to leave one person to be with another? forget the logistics for a min, im asking is it impossible to love both?

12:17 PM, March 06, 2008  
Anonymous sheetal said...

yeah its simply impossible loving two different ppl at single point of time..and Also like u said..I too blive dat love doesn't hve to be possessive in any case..Its matter of Belonging and not Owning some1...

Multi love theory..hehe
dis might be common among animals like I said b4 but "Humans" dey are much more superior version among all the living species..
still u might wanna go ahead and stick to dis theory but then explain how wjuld u connect if multiple ppl talk at the same point of time with u..
dats how I had come along all the way.. explaining you dat LOVE is Companionship btween two and not a Crowd..
One Heart One Mind One Soul and One Love..wht say

1:54 AM, April 12, 2008  
Blogger siddhya said...

hi sheetal,

similes and progressions (One Heart One Mind One Soul and One Love..) might be effective linguistic tools, but have no logical value as such.

a passionate painter can love his art and his babe equally, right?
if Leonardo da Vinci (who was a scientist, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, painter, sculptor, architect, botanist, musician and writer) was asked which one of these he loved the most, would it be wrong if he said he loved them equally?
this seems rational to you, but loving two women does not. because you are treating them as just women, not individuals. why can't you love two people for 2 completely different sets of qualities?

4:36 PM, March 12, 2009  
Blogger Jitubhai Ambani said...

I think this is a very selfish point-of-view. I agree that it is possible that you love more than one person at the same time (and not necessarily all women .. hehe), but there are a lot of other things that come with love... in one word, "sansar"

A person starts a new life with you! But, what if tomorrow you start loving another woman (and the love for the first woman dies down). Then you just leave her? Stranded alone in this cruel world? The woman who is madly and deeply in love with you? You just leave her?

And men do have such tendencies. So, to keep people safe from such disasters we have a marry-only-one-person theory. (and anyone who marries more than one will _most probably_ destroy a life and hence, lose society's respect)

8:13 PM, April 15, 2009  
Blogger siddhya said...

ofcourse! this is an extremely selfish point of view. and i see nothing wrong with being selfish. at least to being with.

i don't agree with ur "stranded alone in this cruel world" theory. love does not make you dependent on anyone (not even ur lover), commitment does. so ur theory is true for marriage/sausar kinda stuff but not love. and if there is no dependence the question of leaving someone helpless does not arise.

2:15 PM, April 16, 2009  
Anonymous Sheetal said...

"Effective Linguistic tools" hahahaha
Oh My Gosshh!!!!!

you or me can find any logical values regardingly..

Painter....a passionate painter...he can have variety in his art and Imaginations...yeah agreed.

Leonardo da Vinci...a scientist, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, painter, sculptor, architect, botanist, musician and writer...
Great... he would love and cherish all his abilities equally...

But accordingly, if you wanna directly compare this with loving womens...u r wrong honey..aannnhh...doesnt make sense to me..
Loving ur imaginations or abilities or capabilites or charactersitics is one thing okay.. and falling for a person is another one...Its just not sane doing this.....and this is where those things (a heart,a mind,a soul) comes into picture....

Hey I do not disagree that one can love different people for completely different sets of qualities..why just 2? why not 20 or 200 or 2000 or just whatever????

But when you seriously expect a person to settle down with you for a lifetime bonding relationship.. then as a token of utmost respect towards eachother you make a commitment....And I know u wuld disagree but this is where again those things comes into picture...

Yeah.. but if you try and analyse "LOVE".. with a logical perspective or some selfish motives around then you are bound to disagree...

Coz love it counts, what "WE" want rather than what "I" want..isnt it??

2:48 AM, April 18, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home