Ek Se Bhale Do, Do Se Bhale Teen

112 Comments

Who would have thought that behind the exquisite voice and the plump, “Bholi si surat” looks hides a playboy polygamist ?

Yes, I am talking about Udit Narayan who will now share his home and hearth with two ladies: his “pehla nesha” Ranjana Jha and “pehla nesha once again ” Deepa Narayan.

“Garam Dharam” having two wives– I understand.

Boney Kapoor– a little tough to believe. Especially when the second wife is Sridevi.

But Udit Narayan? And two wives?

I never saw that coming.

Just like I could never have guessed from his cheerleader moves that Lance Bass of N’Sync was gay. Or that Mel Gibson, the director of “The Passion of the Christ” is a raving anti-Semite.

Well then what about polygamy? Many think that the main purpose of polygamy is to guarantee the man’s pleasure—-hot threesomes (on Satudays) and all that jazz. (Link courtesy Ali: the article linked here is a “must read”)

However what is forgotten is that polygamy is an institution that is intended to benefit women—-indeed it prevents women from getting lonely by creating lasting sisterhoods between multiple wives.

A cloth merchant, Tirthdas has two wives and knows the fine balancing act that goes into managing two wives! But impossible is nothing. “It was difficult to begin with but now things are in place.

My first wife Lata and my second wife Savitri live separately but we all meet up during festivals and are one family in happy and sad occasions,” says Tirthdas, who has two homes in Jantanagar.

“If I do not come home, one wife automatically assumes that I am with the other,” says Tirthdas [Times of India]

How wonderful ! Now how many monogamous houses are as functional as that?

The sad thing is that it’s just a few crazy chest-beaters who create all the fuss about sexual fidelity and condemn polygamy when it is, in many ways, so commonplace.

For instance, Deepa Narayan, Udit’s second wife had to laugh at the media circus surrounding such a mundane family problem.

According to Times of India:

So Udit accepted Ranjana as his wife and promised to provide for her maintenance and upkeep. Ranjana withdrew her complaint. And Deepa is busy dismissing it as a “Ghar ka jhagda… yeh to hota hi rahta hai. It was a big tamasha! I can only laugh after all this has happened. The only thing that disturbed me was how Ranjana had accused me for no reason.”

There are also more philosophical justifications for polygamy and how it is in a woman’s best interests—wars, children and sanctification of adultery but I shall not get into them.[ Interested readers may look here and here (this also explains, with a thought experiment, why polyandry is reprehensible but polygamy is perfectly reasonable)]

What however is forgotten among all these logical justifications is that allowing your husband another wife is the perfect gift for someone you really love [You are too old for porn, too young for Viagra. But I think you’re just right for another wife]

As “Lucky” Ali, a truly “lucky” , happily bigamous man says disarmingly:

“I love my first wife and love her even more for accepting my second wife the way she has.” But Ali admits that it isn’t easy to maintain two wives and finds it a grave responsibility. I hope that I can fulfill my duties adequately, but if I cant, I won’t be ashamed to admit that I have bitten off more than I can chew”.

Of course, some may argue that Lucky is always trying to bite more and more.

In the middle of the photo shoot, we catch him (Lucky Ali) staring at a shapely blonde in the swimming pool. Unabashed, he grins. “I have the glad eye. I told you I am a reactor (as opposed to actor)!” All the while, his wife of 10 years, Meaghan Jane aka Masooma aka Maymunah, has been siting in burqa-clad dignity watching daughter Tasmiyah (5) and son Ta’awwuz (7), frolic in the pool…………………..

Out of her earshot, I finally grill Ali with the one question I have been dying to ask: “How many wives do you have?”

“Why, two…how many did you think I had?”

Very very romantic. Now tell me which woman would not give his her right arm for this man?

And for Udit Narayan.

Advertisements

112 thoughts on “Ek Se Bhale Do, Do Se Bhale Teen

  1. I thought Polygamy was Passe, but now its back in fashion eh?

    Now this Udit and his Wife thinggy bother me – isn’t his current wife, the former wife of Kumar-Nosy-Sanu? Or the one he just accepted is the wife of Kumar Sanu. I remember some years ago, one of their wives (or maybe both who knows :D) had a big tamasha going on. What fun it was!

    Udit, Lucky – u are the men! Polygamy is here to stay! hehehe.

    Suyog

    PS: The amul dig was fabolous hehe 😀

  2. i am first – yippee!

    ““If I do not come home, one wife automatically assumes that I am with the other,” says Tirthdas”

    wow, he can actually go find a third while the first two think that he is with the other, and continue the arithmetic progression… thus did some body resolve the n=n 1 conundrum.

    lucky says: “Why, two…how many did you think I had?”

    it appears there are two more slots available in this multi-tasker, don’t you agree?

    – s.b.

  3. Pingback: DesiPundit » Archives » Ek Se Bhale Do, Do Se Bhale Teen

  4. The problem with polygamy comes when communities try to foster it on the next generation. This usually results in keeping the women uneducated and also marrying them off as children to sustain the polygamists. I had written a whole post about this here.

  5. Well we biharis always knew that Udit Narayan had two wives, one was there in Bihar to look after his family in his village and the other was in Mumbai to accompany him in the bollywood circles.

  6. [GB] you might have heard of South Indian actress Nagma who is having an affair with a Bhojpuri hero.. and his wife was “kind enough” to have accepted their affair/relationship 🙂

    [Sanjay] hehe, so as things grew and expanded.. he opened branch office(s)?

  7. Ek se bhale do, do se bhale teen,
    Teen se bhale chaar- Sabina Yasmeen ! 😀

    Li’l out of context perhaps- or not.

  8. Isn’t polygamy illegal in India, for Hindus at least? So I am guessing Udit didn’t marry the second one. So you are using the workd bigamay loosely since there is no second “gamy”. But he is just paying for her up”keep”.

    “Just like I could never have guessed from his cheerleader moves that Lance Bass of N’Sync was gay. ”
    The only surprise there is that the rest of the N’Sync hasn’t come out of the closet yet.

  9. twisted dna:

    obviously, n’sync ain’t!

    gb:

    i meant “n=n 1” but i think you got it anyway. and yes, hopefully, some of your readers are in the google recruiting division.

    suyog:

    your observation perhaps sheds light on how udit’s voice acquired that nasal characteristic which was hitherto unique to s(h)anu (granted, several other clones have since come out of the woodwork). and maybe, just maybe, we could have a new darwin on our hands, if someone could use this example to infer that dna gets transferred upstream as well!

    – s.b.

  10. gb:

    why can i not use the plus (‘ ‘) symbol on the comment section? i thought i had made a typo – obviously not!

    – s.b.

  11. Since this post seems to have been triggered by Jaggu-dada’s conjugal exploits in AntarMahal, I think a couple of excerpts from Mukundaram and BharatChandra on coping-with-co-wives are appropriate. It should very effectively disabuse us of our polygamous aspirations. For anyone who does not read Bengali, I am sorry. I can not translate this, but trust me – you do not want to be in the middle of the ultimate catfight.

    First Mukundaram (16th century): (the catfight)

    Mallo jeno kondole jujhe du-sotin.
    Bideshe sadagar, paiyaa shunyoghar,
    Laaj bhoy hoilo hin.
    Baro bahu probola, chhotojon ekla,
    Kaloho hoilo sei din.

    Chat chat chapor, chNirilek kapor,
    Bege marilo kankon.
    Dujonete korilo dhum, kiler gum gum,
    Megh jeno shila borishon.

    BharatChandra (18th century):
    (Barobou is getting all dressed up for the big night)
    KhNopa bNadhi taratari, poriya chikonshari,
    Poriya kajol chokkhe dila.
    (but she’s a little insecure about her kuchojugo)
    Golito hoyechhe kucho, kemone se habe ucho
    Bhabiya upay nahi pan.
    (but that does not stop her from tongue-lashing chhotobou)
    Laj bhoy nahi tor thheti,
    Ami keno boli khaya mati.
    Chhi chhi! dhik dhik dhik tore,
    Mamo aage tui jaas tar ghare.

  12. @Arnab:
    “Ali mentions during the course of his interview that he has seen UFOs many times. He says he has never tried to dwell into the matter, but has accepted the phenomena as something that has been mentioned in the Quran as well – that God is the Lord of the worlds and that one will see things that one won’t understand.”

    See what having two wives makes you see. One more and he will see dead people.

    Also, that Islam Polygamy link was fabulous. Never knew that polygamy actually gives women more rights. All these days, we were brainwashed into thinking the opposite. Must be the decadent western influence, and the licentious “typists and “secretaries”.Thanks.

    A funny thing – when this controversy started, Udit casually dismissed her as a crackpot golddigger on national TV, with that embarrassed smile of his. He forgot one tiny detail. There were at least a 100 photographs of their marriage and married life, and numerous witnesses to their marriage! He probably thought, “If I don’t think of them, they will go away!”

    @Suyog:
    Sanu’s case is different. He married two sisters one after the other, and fell out with both of them. Both were nasty break ups. Then he lived with Kunika Lal for a long time. That ended, but amicably. Now there’s someone else, I think. Methinks he was trying to copy Kishore Kumar (4 wives in succession) in every way possible. But no polygamy for Sanu, as far as I know, only lots of living in sin..:).

  13. its an effort to be wife to 1 man. wash his underwear, listen to his truimps in the badminton court, loose sleep when he watches soccer at night, endure the WWF, fake orgasms, fall in love with the mother in law, hold parties for his college friends,wash his car,make his fav mango pickle, bear children,listen to hard rock in his car stereo, sleep without a pillow cause he cant,support his utopian dream of making the son a champion footballer, give “company” when he drinks, drive him all over town,watch pron,”experiment” with sex all the time, accept and love his widowed sister, accept and love the widowed sister’s dog,make oats for the father in law, work for him,listen to his mother’s 100th account of his childhood badmash, meet his teenage crush and empathise, become friends with all his girl friends, endure his heavy bosomed secretary,

    this list could go on. that’s why women dontdo polygamy.

  14. You forgot to mention India’s First Family of Happy Polygamy — the Reddys. Kuchipudi dancer Raja Reddy married ‘child bride’ Radha, whom he calls his spiritual soul-mate etc. Then he married Radha’s young and nubile sister Kaushalya, apparently with Radha’s fondest blessings. They continue to flourish and give interviews on TV assuring everybody that it is a perfectly happy and amicable arrangement. Perhaps it is. Artisht manush to.

    http://www.the-south-asian.com/February2002/The Kuchipudi family.htm

  15. @from a wife’s point of view:

    My sympathies. If all that actually happens to you, you have it tough.

    But wouldn’t you like another “sister” in the house to share your burden? Maybe you should push your husband to become polygamous…

  16. @from a wife’s point of view:

    Oops. The moment I posted that facetious line, I thought “did that sound insensitive?” Not the intention, assuredly.

    I am aware how much trouble women go through in many, many households.

  17. Monogamy is overrated – why the hell should anybody be tied to someone coz they got dizzy around a flame? And are you supposed to like only one thing, person, book, band at a time??

    The only thing is women should be alowed to do this as well….It remindz me of these 4 lines I read somewhere

    A man sleeps with 2 women
    He is a stud
    A woman sleeps with 2 men
    She is a slut!

  18. @Pavan
    The mention of Nagma reminds me of another tragic hero.
    @GB
    Waiting a post about Dada’s famous email about Jaggu-dada

  19. @from a wife’s point of view
    I agree with you, in princple, about the hassle in looking after one man. I can’t imagine having to do the same routine 4 times over … no mattter how rich they all happen to be!! LOL :))

    @greatbong
    Udito phorgot abhout phothograps!! And everyone else seems to have selective memory … esp one Ms Deepa.

    On a slightly serious note, I can’t understand the concept of falling in love with 2 people at the same time. I can understand re-marriages, breakups and rebounds, even two- or three-timings … but 2 wives?? And anyway, isn’t marrying the second one legally void … if you don’t divorce the first one? At least in Hindu law and Christian law? I’m not very sure about other religions, but I believe all are bound by the Indian law while only Islam has the Sharia?

    Anyway, it just frys my brain … the logistics of two households!! Amazing!!

  20. I was hoping you’d quote this example of Bhojpuri actor Ravi Kishan and his second “wife” Nagma. I say wife in quotes because I read somewhere they will be marrying soon. Refer to this article:

  21. You forgot the famous bigamist of yesteryears … Raja Reddy. Now even he was not too glamorous was he. There are Mormons in Utah who have 4 wives all co habiting with each other … what do we say about that!

  22. @Asha
    You’ll find your answers in two classic David Dhawan movies, Saajan Chale Sasural and Gharwali Baharwali. How could you forget the famous song by Udit Narayan,
    “Ek taraf hai gharwali
    Ek taraf baharwali”

  23. Are you getting jealous of me? I can smell the hidden desires burnung in you. Its just a matter of potential – you may do howmany ever you can handle. If you think that more than one is “dangerous” for you, then stick to the law (as an excuse to find the reason why you didnot go for more).

  24. @dONE: I heard that Udit Narayan bought the rights of his life from Ektaa KKapoor.

    @Mosi Lager: All that I know is it’s hot !

    @Sanjay: Well then you should have shared it with the rest of the country many years ago.

    @Pavan: I initially thought you meant Sourav Dada. This Nagma lady I tell you…

    @Anonymous: Now dont give Lucky Ali, the “reactor” any more ideas.

    @Aravind: Yes indeed.

    @Twisted DNA: The way I understand it is that its “illegal” only if one of the wives complain. A third party cant register a case of polygamy. So if both the wives are fine, then yes its legal.

    @Somebody: I see even I cant use the plus sign. My blog seems to be prejudiced against “plus” sizes.

    @Dipanjan: I kinda think the cat fight might turn our husband on.

    @BangaloreGuy: Corrected. However the “his” also makes some sense.

    @Shan: If he werent so lucky and if he had married 2 women, then yes he would be seeing “dead people”. In the mirror.

    I know that Islamic website is awesome—-the logic behind why polygamy is beneficial for women is just astounding. These people should be writing research papers I tell you.

    Udit Narayan—-what was he thinking?

    @From a Wife’s Point of View: For a second there, I thought you were my wife. But then I read about the secretary and I realized no. I dont have one.

    @The Marauder’s Map: I didnt know of this. Artists…they do everything.

    @Ali: Awesome. That picture Holy cow. I think I am going to link to it.

    Our reporters were just gagging to hear the response to this mouth-watering question “And…. what are the sleeping arrangements Mr Wichai”? to which he replied modestly with a beaming smile
    Absolutely no problems! For the first three nights of the week, I will sleep with Ms Thipawan and the next three will be spent with Ms Sirintara. As for every Saturday, the three of us will sleep together”

    As Richie Benaud would say: Shimply Shuperb.

    Now as to you feeling jealous—all I can say is that right now you are “Ali”. Get lucky, become “Lucky” “Ali” and then you are in business.

    @Gourav: Totally. Monogamy is monopoly.

    @Anirban: Oh dont know what to write. One more sordid chapter of baccha dada. However I loved Cricinfo’s piece today where they point out how woeful Dada’s form has been in England. It seems he has played one ODI and has scored, horror of horrors, only 71 runs in it.

    @S. Jagadish: 🙂

    @Asha: A memory like a sieve. Two-timing and two wives is basically the same thing—except that the two wives means that both the ladies are aware of the other. Its like an “open relationship” where the relationship is somehow sanctified by marriage. Again bigamy is punishable if one of the wives complain—-if they dont then its fine.

    @DJK: First time I heard of this.

    @ichatteralot: Say nothing. Just sigh.

    @Lucky Ali: Yes sir I am jealous of you. Kindly share with us the secrets of your studness.

  25. Trust you to come up with an interesting topic. Better in the hands of a uniquely amusing writer.

    The way you have put things, his name should not be Udit Narayan but Uchit(Suitable)Narayan or should I say “Narayan, Narayan” the way Narad Muni used to say.
    Not a bad trend if it catches up, I would say.

    As for the wrives, varitey is the spice of life if you can afford them. The more the merrier, I guess. Osho said that there should be a kind of weekend affair to get a “change” as having the same dish everyday could be stifling. The same thing goes for husbands too unfortunately.( I can afford to write since my wife does not blog and is unlikely to read this).

    It would not be out of place to mention here that that Engineer who died in Afghanistan recently also had two wives and it caused a hassle at his funeral. After that they went their separte ways(Till death do us apart)

    As for “Ek se bhale do….”, it should also apply to writers. I am not trying to flatter you, but we could do with more of your kind to really make blogging popular.

    “Ek se…” could also stand for comments though you of course do not have to worry on that score.

    “Narayan”, “Narayan” !

  26. YOURFAN writes:
    @from a wife’s point of view: You sure have painted a picture to scare away all girls who are contemplating marriage. I am not saying your picture is wrong but it is a bit exaggerated and it is not complete. I am sure if a man wrote “from a husband’s point of view” then it would have been a different picture all together. One should be fair and desist from giving one sided generalized view of husbands of the world based on personal experinces or based on a few known samples. If your observation and its cause are written out of humor then it is all right but honestly do you think women don’t do polygamy in this age where access is so easy and the temptation so aplenty?

    @GB: As usual your post is superbly funny. But I was waiting for your reply to “from a wife’s point of view”. Your replies are also very funny. The reason why you finally realized that she is not your wife in disguise is that you don’t have a “bosomed secretary” is hilarious. But one thing, I am sure there is a secretary somewhere in your office. Have you thought that if she also reads your blog (one never knows!!) then she might think that you are calling her flat which no woman would like to hear?

  27. @Hiren: “Variety is the spice of life if you can afford them”. Hmm as you said good thing your wife doesnt read this blog. Not that I don’t understand myself but I wont be caught dead accepting that I do. 🙂

    @Sakshi: Lovely. I wish I had known of this before I had written this post. Nagma seems to be desperate to be someone’s second wife: Dada first and then this guy.

    @Yourfan: I really do not have a secretary. Period. Yes there are offices without them—-mine being a small research consultancy. Now as to what you said to “from wife’s POV”, women do fool around with multiple men (and thank heavens for that) but polyandry is a little less common than polygamy. I encourage you to follow the link in my post where there is a lovely fable which illustrates why polyandry (one woman, many husbands) is bad while polygamy (one man, many women) is good. Not just for men but also for women. Some guys have all the luck. And all the fun.

  28. Like somebody said: “The first marriage is the triumph of imagination over intelligence, and the second the triumph of hope over experience.”

    What about the 3rd one? You think up something… you have an amazing capacity for making one liners.
    Amazing post as usual. Loved it.

  29. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
    | | | | | |

    I don’t blame her. 11 kids ! She can plead insanity, and it would be a bullet-proof argument.

  30. GB, regarding that al-Islam website about Polygamy vs Polyandry etc. this might be controversial, but that argument does make some sense. Note that it doesn’t say one is bad, another is good, it just explains why polygamy has survived in some societies but polyandry hasn’t. At the root of all this is the simple fact that we are all here to propagate our genes (“Selfish Gene”, Richard Dawkins). So, whatever we do in life, it is basically aimed at that one goal – make copies of our genes and make sure that the carriers of those genes grow up to be healthy and strong human beings so that they can continue to propagate and da de da de da. So, in case of polyandry (or equivalently when women start sleeping with multiple men outside of marriage), the man is no longer sure if the children his wife gives birth to are carrying his genes or not (yes, in this day of DNA test etc it is not an issue, but I am talking about prior to that). Whereas, there is no such issue with polygamy or men sleeping with multiple women, because no matter how many women a man sleeps with, he can never fool his wife into believing that some other woman’s child is hers. A woman always knows who her children are for the simple reason that they come out of her body. That is the crucial difference between men and women. So, as long as the man doesn’t desert her and takes care of her and her children, it doesn’t matter to a woman how many other women her husband sleeps with (in an evolutionary sense). That explains why polygamy has survived, but polyandry hasn’t. Also explains why traditionally women were made to stay at home, were made to follow stricter rules regarding chastity etc. All so that the man can be sure that who he thinks are his children are really his.

  31. was watching ‘ A Good woman’ yesterday
    and there was a dialogue – marital bliss is too heavy to be imposed on two people, sometimes a third person is needed to ease the burden…
    haven’t used quote signs as i am not sure of the exact words…but the udit narayan and families with agree!

  32. greatbong:

    take your girl out this weekend . buy her new earrings. take a walk under the moonlight.tell her she’s beautiful.chop more onions.

  33. hey greatbong!!!superb writing…I have been following your writing for around 3 weeks and have read almost 70% of posts….they are simply great…you have been my inspiration to start blogging….good luck greatbong…

  34. @Mohan:

    Aah…was waiting for someone to defend the islamist site, and you come along. Wonderful.

    “Note that it doesn’t say one is bad, another is good, it just explains why polygamy has survived in some societies but polyandry hasn’t.”

    Really? So you did not get the implications and the subtext at all? Was it just our active imaginatiosn that imputed regressive values on an innnocent analysis of social mores?

  35. And teen se bhale chaar.
    http://www.mumbaimirror.com/nmirror/mmpaper.asp?sectid=1&articleid=8320060273025083200602154140

    Lalit Omprakash Sawant, 35, surely knows how to pose as an eligible bachelor. He has got married four times in the last four years — twice by pretending to be a senior bank official and twice again by claiming to be a police inspector.
    …..
    Sawant’s modus operandi was to place matrimonial advertisements in leading newspapers and register on matrimonial sites. Whenever he met the families of girls, he would pose as an affluent man in a good position, and after he got married, he would soon look for another girl to marry,” sub-inspector Shingate said. Sawant is now in judicial custody and police will ask for his police remand in Badlapur court today.

  36. Shan, no, it wasn’t my intention to defend anyone. Just wanted to explain why the argument makes sense from a genetic/evolutionary point of view.

  37. @Shan,

    Also think why the institution of marriage itself has come up. Because the alternative to marriage is women left carrying the baby. Like it happens with other animals – be it dogs, cats, elephants, lions, whatever. Why is it that it is always the females taking care of children in all those cases? Again, for the simple reason that it is only the female who knows for sure that they are her children. Males have no such guarantee and hence are not interested in taking care of them. But humans realized that if they have a system where men are also interested in taking care of the children then it leads to better chances of survival of kids (bringing up human babies is tougher, they take longer to be independent, so if women have to do it on their own it will be almost impossible – again in earlier times, may not be applicable now). Hence the system of marriage – but you get that male involvement only if he has a guarantee that the children are carrying his genes, not someone else’s. Hence the traditional system of women confined to the home, strict vigil by in-law’s, societal emphasis on chastity of women etc. Note that women don’t need a reciprocal gurantee of chastity from men. The only guarantee they need is that of non-desertion.

  38. I thought in Polygamy, you cant have threesomes?
    Its one at at time! There is a show on HBO “Big Love” about this.
    And i didnt know Lucky had two wives, interesting.

  39. Sad, whats the world come to? No regard for love and commitment.

    Now udit narayan can be thrown in jail for this, but it would be pointless once he converts to Islam, like Dharmendra 🙂 (yeah, he is a muslim on paper, like hema malini. Just on paper)

    Wow.. nice handy thing. Say I fancy a woman other than my wife in future, I care two hoots for the law, I just convert.

    All in all, isnt it hypocrisy, that we are not allowed multiple wives, BY LAW, while some other citizens get that right. Sad, I say… Where will I satisfy my perversion, and control my dementia. 🙂

  40. Just another thought, forgot to add that.

    Before anyone takes to the usual punching bag (the fav target of pseudo-seculars), I must say that Hinduism says nothing, absolutely nothing about the number of wives you can have. It just does not say anything about it.

  41. @Mohan,

    Interesting theory, I say. Reminds me of a show on leopards on Animal Planet/Discovery. But dont you think humans have evolved beyond animals. You say you are not defending anyone, but you sure seem like defending polygamy.
    —–

    Also this discussion reminds me of this – tum karo to pyar , ham kare to balaatkar.

  42. @Shadows:

    “Now udit narayan can be thrown in jail for this, but it would be pointless once he converts to Islam, like Dharmendra (yeah, he is a muslim on paper, like hema malini. Just on paper)

    Wow.. nice handy thing. Say I fancy a woman other than my wife in future, I care two hoots for the law, I just convert.”

    There’s a Calcutta high court ruling somewhere, that if a person converts to Islam in order to marry again, the marriage is still illegal (if the first wife complains) – look at the Kabir Suman case, as an example. The ruling explains that if the person converts to Islam prior to the first marriage, then it’s OK, but after the marriage, conversion is a no-no, as far as polygamy is concerned. of course this was long after the Dharmendra episode…

    Legally you need not be so glum… Sometimes the law isn’t entirely an ass!

    Incidentally, Islam does not permit a second, or third or fourth marriage without the permission of the existing wives. It may not be followed in practice in a majority of cases, but that’s not the fault of Islam, which was a rather progressive religeon at the time of Mohammad.

    @GB: There’s an African folk tale about a man with two wives. He got upset that his first wife was taking too long to cook his dinner, so went to his second wife. She wasn’t expecting him, and took as much time to cook for him. So he went back to his first wife. By that time, the poor woman, expecting him to be dining with his second wife, had finished dinner and thrown away the rest. So he returned to his second wife, who had done likewise. In a few years, the poor man starved to death.

    So, don’t get so frustrated by your lack of multiple wives – if you are not superhuman (After all you claim to be merely Great Bong, not Super Bong! Ha Ha!), you may be better off trying to manage with just one.

  43. @Joy Forever: triumph of habit over prudence perhaps?

    @Rajeev: Agree with Anon. This lady can and should plead insanity.

    @Mohan:

    Note that it doesn’t say one is bad, another is good, it just explains why polygamy has survived in some societies but polyandry hasn’t

    I would disagree. One section is titled “Defects of Polyandry” (ergo its “bad’). And the whole piece is about how polygamy is good for the woman and for society as a whole (ergo its “good”). Now whether polygamy makes evolutionary sense or not, thats another discussion. It could be argued that “marriage” as defined as a committed sexual relationship between man and woman is a sociological construct borne out of a need to have “fairness” in society and that it is in many ways “unnatural”. But I wont get into that argument. Why? I want to stay alive.

    But yes the reasoning provided in those links were specious (IMHO) and in the interests of truth, should be replaced by a line which says “Polygamy is good because I am a man and I think its hot to have sex with many women. However women having sex with many men hurts my masculinity.”

    @Ali: 🙂

    @Nandini: Indeed they would.

    @From a Wife’s Point of View:  Incentives for some “experimenting”?
    @Ram: Thank you

    @Rajeev: Except this guy was marrying on the sly. The difference with this guy and the ones mentioned above is that in their case, polygamy *appears* to be consensual from all sides.

    @Jeet: In polygamy, you cant have threesome? Now where is this written? Havent seen “Big Love” of course.

    @Shadows: Yes no regard for love and commitment….these people are animals I tell you.

    @Sayon: The African man could just have learned to cook himself. Or leave a note.

    As for me, thanks for the advice.

  44. @shadows,
    I am also “defending” the traditional system of confining women to home which is as much applicable to Hindus as to Muslims. So it is not about defending one religion or another. It is trying to understand why things are the way they are.

    As for humans evolving beyond animals, maybe. But I think by and large the primary goal of propagating genes remains true as much with humans as with other animals. Except, we have got clever in how we do it. Rather than simply trying to make as many copies as we can and seeing how many of them survive, we now limit ourselves to a reasonable number and make sure we bring up those copies in a healthy way. But in a lot of ways we are still mostly animals. We still covet females with a perfect figure simply because back when our ancestors lived in caves, a female with that kind of figure had a much better chance of bearing children than one without. Now with the advance of medical science, even though it hardly makes any difference in the ability to deliver kids, we still drool over Jennifer Lopez’s posterior because it is hardwired into our brains.

  45. @GB:

    “Now whether polygamy makes evolutionary sense or not, thats another discussion.”

    and then,
    “But yes the reasoning provided in those links were specious (IMHO) and in the interests of truth,” and go on to characterise the arguments in simplistic man vs woman terms.

    Interesting…

  46. @Mohan:

    Do you then posit that it makes evolutionary sense to confine the women to the home?

    Further, since we are talking about “scientific” things like evolution, I would tend to think that it makes evolutionary sense to for the woman bear as many children as possible so that there are greater chances for the survival of the species. To reach that end, it would logically make sense for the woman to sleep with as many men and bear their children as she can. The children with the better gene mix would survive compared to the other ones.

    Doesn’t that become a case for polyandry…?

    I know, might sound ridiculous, but then that is the result of using “evolutionary” theory to justify any regressive practice. Because the same can be used to justify not using contraception or for that matter, Eugenics

    Not sure we want to go there…

  47. in school i had a maths teacher in the 9th std. strict,disciplined. we used to call him Hitler. we all loved him though. anyway i still remember what he used to tell us.That now he was training us to jump through loops(rings of fire) , so that we grow up to jump without them.

    marriage and various other social constraints are rings of fire that teach us to manipulate thru the complex relationship between man & woman.

    polygamy.monogamy,live in relations, everything are just systems that we follow to reach some higher plane of understanding.

    so whatever works is okay.

    as our species evolves all these systems will be irrelevant.love will escape from the all the little compartments and form a selfless universal whole.

    till then we will have to wash underwears….

  48. @shan,

    “Do you then posit that it makes evolutionary sense to confine the women to the home?”

    It does. If women are not “confined to home” (as in, they are free to have sex with anyone they wish to), then men won’t be interested in raising the kids (not sure whose kids they are) and if men are not interested, women will have to raise them by themselves and at the same time hunt food for the family, hence lower chances of survival of kids. Compared to that scenario, a husband-wife pair where wife remains chaste and gets husband’s help in raising kids will always do better in raising kids.

    “Further, since we are talking about “scientific” things like evolution, I would tend to think that it makes evolutionary sense to for the woman bear as many children as possible so that there are greater chances for the survival of the species. To reach that end, it would logically make sense for the woman to sleep with as many men and bear their children as she can. The children with the better gene mix would survive compared to the other ones.

    Doesn’t that become a case for polyandry…?”

    Not really. No matter how many men she sleeps with, she can only bear one child per year. So just sleeping with multiple men doesn’t give her any advantage. What *does* give an advantage is to sleep with the best possible man she can get and stick to him, but that’s what most women do – they try to get the best man they can so that her genes get hitched with the best genes. So no, there is no case for polyandry.

  49. @Shan: The arguments proposed by Mohan are simple: that in evolutionary terms, the strategy which prevails is the most successful strategy, less successful ones die out.

    It doesn’t matter about the right and wrong of the matter -genes do not understand ethics – but simply a matter of behavior that maximises the proliferation of a person’s genes.

    It doesn’t matter if the strategy involves one sex manipulating the other, or if both are willingly engaging in the behavior. If the behavior is more genetically successful than a more ethical, more egalitarian or less sexist behavior, it is the unethical, unegalitarian or sexist behavior which will prevail by the simple procedure of out-breeding people who behave differently.

    Unfortunately, one of the conclusions which can be drawn from this theory is that men would behave the way women say they would like men to behave when caring, monogamists, sensitive men, who wash their own underwear, take out the garbage, leave the toilet-seat down etc etc, could outbreed the ‘cavemen’.

    As this is not happenning, it leaves me wondering (I’m sure I’m not the only one) what women really want…

  50. @Mohan:

    “What *does* give an advantage is to sleep with the best possible man she can get and stick to him, but that’s what most women do – they try to get the best man they can so that her genes get hitched with the best genes.”

    The moment you mention the subjective word “best” (“best man they can get…”) you have come out of the realm of science and into opinion. How will a woman know who is the best man? There are no physical characteristics that separate “best” men from others. It’s not written on their faces.

    The fact is, a woman has no way to know which man has better genes. It is a matter of chance. And the chance if getting better quality genes, and thus better quality progeny to further the race, are increased when that woman has sex and children from multiple men. Even if it is one child a year. The best will survive. So what do we have? Polyandry!

    I do realize that the same argument holds true for men as well. They will have children from multiple women to increase chances fo creating that “best” genetic progeny. So what do we have now? Polygamy!

    So if it is the same for both, what’s the point?

    The point is, again, that the evolutionary argument just does not stand in in this case because it can be used to justify both positions. As it has been done on one side by the Islamist web site and by you, and on the other side by many people.

    @from a wife’s point of view:
    “polygamy.monogamy,live in relations, everything are just systems that we follow to reach some higher plane of understanding.
    so whatever works is okay. ”

    Very philosophical. But the fact remains that for most people, especially women, polygamy doesn’t work. They spend miserable lives with very little choice in the matter, while the polygamous men make facetious jokes like “I have already been punished with two mothers-in-law” (Ram Jethmalani).

    It is because polygamous relationships don’t work that the very, very, few which “seem” to work become exceptional news items such as the ones we are discussing today.

  51. The ruling explains that if the person converts to Islam prior to the first marriage, then it’s OK, but after the marriage, conversion is a no-no, as far as polygamy is concerned.
    ==========

    @sayon,

    Hey , hell, how hard that hurts, my heart bleeds… ouch AAARGGGHHHH.. where is my freedom. Now, how can a so called secular country deny me freedom of faith..

    This also implies that we have less rights than minorities even if we convert !!!!

    I tell ya all, this is stupidity beyond any limits. The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits. I had only read this, but now I see it actually, and on such a mass scale.

    Hey all ye pseudo-seculars amongst you, arise. Protest against this communal government. Your rights are being infringed.

    >> which was a rather progressive religeon at the time of Mohammad.

    Aaahhh , now this explains your rant.

  52. @mohan,

    You are great, boss. I like what you say. I m totally in your support.

    I say, polygamy should be legalized and for everyone, so that the best genes carry forward. * drooling at the prospect of having more than one wife * 😛 😀

  53. Incidentally, Islam does not permit a second, or third or fourth marriage without the permission of the existing wives.
    ====

    How idiotic. I wonder how difficult it is to get that permission. I need to beg, plead, cajole, a few diamonds and a little gold is what it might all need. And a few scumbags might even turn to threats, violence, wife-beating, etc and get that “permission” 😀 ROFL…

  54. I Guess the answer to all this is to stretch a man’s life & finances to the limit and keep him there. Thinking about a second will just rest in blogs.
    Give him a good/easy life and he is sure to wander. Fight with his mom, squander all his money, get the kids to watch CN when FIFA goes on …. you surely will have him for life

    Overhead once,
    If you need faithfulness, you need a dog and not a man.

  55. @Shadows: ‘How idiotic. ‘

    I think you are talking about rules being flouted here. Religious or otherwise, rules are bashed everywhere. Doesn’t mean there is something idiotic about Sharia’s stand on the matter.

    It’s like, You calling the law that bans bribery in government offices as ‘how idiotic’ simply because most don’t follow it.

    Being a muslim, all I can say is that, the laws of polygamy in Islam were written with the most liberal and just mindset in era of a backward and highly uncivilized Arab Nation and, like most laws, people choose to modify the interpretations for their own ‘needs’.

  56. Hey all, I have just made up my mind. 🙂

    I am going to convert now, before I get married. So that if in future, I need more wives, one to cook better, one for belly-dancing, etc I dont have to get into legal wrangles, and the Laws of the Land dont discriminate against me. And soon, I will have reservations too 😀 Life is so cool.. wowzz.. Someone was saying, law is not an ass. Just want to remind that person – this is how easy it is !!

    If a quite well off person like me feels discriminated against, I wonder what actually happens to the lower sections of our country. I wonder if our pseudo-secular candle light vigil brigade actually realize that whining and lighting candles helps no one. That their concerns are actually well founded, but their methods to resolve them are 110% idiotic.

    So much for equality, liberty and fundamental rights.. BAAHHHHH..

  57. @sayon

    you are not supposed to know what women want— even the gods haven’t figured it out.

    my husband gets most UPSET if asked to dole out extra money any month. Worse if he is asked to solve any mundane problem like getting hold of the plumber or electrician.

    i think thats the only thing that stops his stingy soul from running a second household.

  58. the most liberal and just mindset in era of a backward and highly uncivilized Arab Nation and, like most laws, people choose to modify the interpretations for their own ‘needs’.
    —————-
    @Ali,

    There are justifications, and then there are justifications. And more justifications. And they are not convincing enough, I daresay.

    Hey, the thing to note – why are we not allowed to be liberal. Of course, my heart beats, and bleeds too. I am most liberal too and I have a just mindset, and I sure do want to practice liberalism. Isnt that a good thing to do – be liberal. Also, we should also be allowed to spread “liberalism” and “social justice”, isnt it.

    Are we not allowed to be liberal ? Or should we be judged without trial, and tied into the category of those loony shivsena bunch??

    Ali, Also note that I am not passing any judgements on Islam, what I am trying to say is – why the discrimination. Why less rights for us. Why the double standards while defining terrorism for Islam and terrorism for us. (Well, an international mag by the name of Newsweek, even went on to say that “Fanatic Hindu terrorists” bombed the Jama masjid. Now I say,.. How idiotic. And also, the word “fanatic Hindu terrorists” is used for those who just throw stones and take out protest marches.)

    As I earlier said – tum karo to pyaar, ham kare to balaatkar.

    And yes, let me preempt your charges. I am slightly-right-of-center. And I dont think the loonies BJP, SS and the likes represent us. Either they are not rightwing by definition, or are extreme rightwingers, which is again too bad. In fact, there is no political group that represents our views, the slightly-right-centrists, IMHO.

  59. @Shadows: I don’t get the gist of the argument. Is it:

    a) You want polygamy to be legal? which is fine be me..

    b) You want it banned for everyone since you dont have it? Then it brings us to the funda of common civil code and all that crap which is against my principle of live and let live. If something is not allowed for one group, why should it become an all encompassing law?

    Secondly, you must understand that hindus need not claim everytime that BJP and RSS don’t represent them just the same way as I don’t think its always necessary to put up a disclaimer that 9/11 bombers don’t represent me. It’s an understood fact, so, peace. 🙂

    On your rant of discrimination by the media and government, I don’t represent them and they definitely do not reflect us these days hence we can give their comments a pass. They have their own political commitments and their own reasons.

    And this really brings me to my core concern:
    Why does any topic these days which involves muslims boil down to terorrism globally and reservation locally??
    Terorrism is not in the name of religion in all cases, as it is claimed to be, but in the name of land, oil, freedom and revenge. Religion is probably an advertisement to get more endorsement like I know some people who will buy Bajaj vehicles because it is ‘Hamara Bajaj’.
    Reservation is a topic that everyone has an opinion so I’l spare people from that.

    Sorry for the long rant but I thought that someone has to say something at some point of time since I saw reservations and terrorism suddenly crop up out of nowhere in a discussion of polygamy.

    GB, my apologies.

  60. @shan,

    “There are no physical characteristics that separate “best” men from others. It’s not written on their faces.

    The fact is, a woman has no way to know which man has better genes.”

    You think so? A woman has many ways to know which man is better for her – looks, physique, bank balance, … First two ensure healthy progeny whereas the last one indicates his ability to take care of her and kids. Most women go for some sort of function which maximizes these factors (“dekhne me itna bura bhi nahi hai aur acchi naukri hai”). Ofcourse, in an ideal world for woman, she will have a rich, fat, faithful guy to take care of her and her kids while a John Abraham provides her the genes 😉 But unfortunately, that doesn’t work out from the rich guy’s viewpoint, so it won’t happen.

    “And the chance if getting better quality genes, and thus better quality progeny to further the race, are increased when that woman has sex and children from multiple men. Even if it is one child a year. The best will survive. So what do we have? Polyandry!”

    I think you are ignoring the huge cost of polyandry for women, which is that she won’t have the support of men in raising the kids (because of the uncertain paternity). Compared to that, the tiny advantage she gains by experimenting with different men pales in significance. Much better off sticking to one man (the “best” she can find) and raising the kids with his help.

    oh btw, idea is not to further the species or race. It is just to propagate your genes. That is the whole idea behind the book I mentioned – that the unit of selection is not species as thought earlier but much smaller than that.

    @sayon,

    well said. As for what women want, maybe that explains the emergence of the so-called metrosexual man. The smart, handsome man who also helps his wife in the kitchen, changes diapers etc. Give it some time (note that these requirements from women are fairly recent, till sometime back they were happy with just the strong, macho men) and the metros will probably outbreed the rest of us cavemen.

    Anyway, I think I will stop here. I have said what I had to say, this is a fairly complex topic and comments on a blog is not the best forum to discuss it. I would strongly recommend that book by Dawkins to anyone who is interested in the topic.

  61. i totally agree with what shadows says, and i think whats the root of the problem is the attitude that places religion before everything else, be it any religion. it is good to be close to your religion and roots, but not so much that you start making amends to the law of the place.
    the religion only says that if u ‘have’ to have more than one wife, make sure you are following these guidelines, so if the law of the place is that you cant be polygamous, then take it that you are not supposed to. nobody is robbing you of a fundamental right that you cant live without. why should special consideration be given to religious allowances, when the law has been designed giving enough thought to the human aspects pertaining to the specific region. why should religion even come into picture when designing the rule of the land.

  62. @GB a first time visitor to ur space, loved ur articles, and i dunno if it sounds cheeky, but honestly speaking i loved the discussions in the comments space a li’l more than the blog itself 😕

  63. @shadows:

    “>> which was a rather progressive religeon at the time of Mohammad.

    Aaahhh , now this explains your rant. ”

    Sorry, boss, I’m no Islam-apologist – note that I used the term “at the time of Mohammad”. Not now.

    I happen to like some of the more admirable aspects of Islam. Incidentally, every religion has its good points, including mine, which I need neither identify nor defend. I just don’t feel the need to attack everyone whose concept of the divine differs from mine, as long as I am left alone to practice my beliefs without inconveniencing others.

    I don’t understand why every mention of the Muslim faith on this blog, even when brought up in a humourous vein becomes such a vicious discussion, even when discussing mundane things like evolution and genetics and game theory.

    Might I humbly point out that in most Muslim societies, especially among educated Muslims, the incidence of polygamy is fairly low, even though it is permitted by law. It’s also well known that polygamy is often prevalent in societies that have got ghettoised, and hence, in terms of genetic propagation, backward.

    As you would know, if you did read any evolutionary biologist, that despite the ‘attractions’ of polygamy, a majority of people follow monogamy, primarily because of the strong evolutionary push towards pair formation. A Raja Reddy, an Udit Narayan or a Dharmendra are exceptions which prove the rule.

    You see, my dear shadow-boxing, just because you feel that the law is stupid in permitting a second marriage if the person converted prior to the first marriage, I humbly submit that the court did consider the point, and concluded that this was a violation of the person’s right to practice a religion of his choice – however conversion after the first marriage was likelier to be purely in order to marry again (a la Dharamji!) So it tried to balance between the two situations and ruled as it did. The judgement recognised that this could not be a perfect solution in every circumstance, but the best that was possible in the given circumstances. In this case the law is not an ass – you are, if you cannot even try to see another point of view!

    Unfortunately, people like you see only what you want to see – i.e. Muslims should be made to live as you do. Which is the mirror image of what your islamic counterpart thinks. Just as the extremist Muslim tries to enforce this belief, your extremist brother in the RSS/ BJP/ VHP tries to enforce your view on the world.

    “Moral of the story – If I practice polygamy, I am a liberal.”

    No sir, it just means that you are incapable of being happy with one wife – no more, no less.

    @Shan:

    “The fact is, a woman has no way to know which man has better genes. It is a matter of chance.”

    A woman knows which man has the best genes by the same evolutionary process – women who are attracted by the qualities which signify better genes are the ones whose genes propagate best. So consequently, after many many generations, women prefer alpha males, and find a good physique attractive (Why? Because the male is likelier to be healthier genes, survive long enough to sire more healthy children, and support her in bringing up the children). Not insulting women – men are attracted to women who have the right hip-waist ratio (better chances of safe childbirth), symetric faces (signs of genetic superiority) and good skin & hair (signs of good nutrition and health). This ability to recognise good reproductory health is so bred into us, that most of us do not realise what it is that we are looking at in a partner.

    Yes, it is still a matter of chance (after all the handsome stud or the beautiful woman may have damaged genes in the gametes), but the chance is much less than you imagine.

  64. >> You want polygamy to be legal? which is fine be me..

    @ali, thats what I want. Your rant is wasted in that case. I thought I had made myself clear. Your second rant does not even add justifications, however lame they were in the earlier post of yours.
    Anyway, thanks, and peace. Nothings going to change. I say that preventing me from having more than one wife, while allowing other citizens to do so, is discrimination. Fullstop.

  65. g.b.:

    re: “this also explains, with a thought experiment, why polyandry is reprehensible but polygamy is perfectly reasonable”

    polyandry is a subset of polygamy. i guess what you meant to compare was polyandry and polygyny.

    – s.b.

  66. @Sayon,

    >>>Might I humbly point out that in most Muslim societies, especially among educated Muslims, the incidence of polygamy is fairly low, even though it is permitted by law.
    ———

    Doesnt answer my question. Not a valid justification. So, I might be tempted to say that incidence of terrorism is higher amongst muslims, so … the usual conclusion !!!

    Remember, you cannot hunt with the hounds and run with the hares at the same time.

    >>> “Moral of the story – If I practice polygamy, I am a liberal.”

    No sir, it just means that you are incapable of being happy with one wife – no more, no less
    ————

    Now you are backtracking on your words. Did not you say that these are the most liberal laws. Hehh.. and you also imply that those were good at the time of Mohamed, not now. So will such antiquated laws be revoked. I guess not.

    And in the maze of words of pseudo-secularism, equality, liberty, and fundamental rights, it is I who is getting screwed.

    @Ali,

    >>On your rant of discrimination by the media and government, I don’t represent them and they definitely do not reflect us
    ——-

    911 bombers dont reflect you, media dont reflect you, govt doesnt reflect you. Aapne to har jagah se haath khade kar diye. 😀 Then why the protests when Salman is arrested. Why the killing of Hindu shopkeepers in Lucknow when someone in Denmark made those cartoons. (Funny thing is that it was the Danish who did that, and the targets are Hindus. Funnier still, I guess those shopkeepers might not even have heard of Denmark) Why only muslims fill up a big maidan to protest bush visit, the only Hindus being some loonies like arundhati roy (who are ok with paki and iranian bombs, but sling mud on India when we make nukes).

    As usual, these guys dont represent you, right ! Then who is doing all this.

    >>Terorrism is not in the name of religion in all cases, as it is claimed to be, but in the name of land, oil, freedom and revenge.
    ——–
    Yep, I wonder if lebanon has any oil or land. I wonder if kashmir terrorism is even terrorism at all, its a freedom fight. I wonder if alQaeda is for land and oil and freedom.

  67. @shadows – even if you hadn’t said it, it’s obvious that you are not married – it’s not as common as you believe, even among Muslims, to have a second wife. Once you get married, you’ll know why.

    incidentally – I agree, imo different laws for different religions in the same country is discrimination. In this particular, and peculiar case, idgara.

  68. Ali, Sayon,

    Actually I have nothing against muslims or islam etc. Most slightly-right-centrists would be happy to see the end of the war being waged against us.

    Did you read a very good article by some professor in the TOI in the sunday edition. a week or two ago. From JNU. I thought he must be one of those candle holding clowns, but for once I have seen sense coming out of JNU minds. (All that money of ours hasnt gone waste after all) He said that pseudo-seculars and apologists for a community, when defending acts of terrorism of one community while demonizing the other actually further create a divide.

  69. Its interesting to see how justifications in favour of polygamy/andry, hover mainly around progeny and propagation of the species.

    I would think that an additional spouse would be to address the result of a need for better/more frequent sex or companionship.

    But I guess the interesting thing about male female relationships, and morality in our century, is that there are no rules. Objectivity comes more easily, perhaps?

    As long as all parties involved, are comfortable with the, err, ‘living arrangement’, I’m sure it is not entirely without benefit.

    Ah, well, lemme admit, I’m just plain envious. All this decadence. Sigh. Our race is doomed 🙂 *sour grapes expression*

  70. @Shadows:

    “Doesnt answer my question. Not a valid justification. So, I might be tempted to say that incidence of terrorism is higher amongst muslims, so … the usual conclusion !!!

    Remember, you cannot hunt with the hounds and run with the hares at the same time.”

    No defence of Islam, you idiot – I’m talking of evolutionary biology – that the pair bonding instinct in homo sapiens is sufficiently strong that even when religion and law permit polygamy, only a small percentage practice it. Try and understand reasoning without the myopia of Islam bashing!

    “Now you are backtracking on your words. Did not you say that these are the most liberal laws. Hehh.. and you also imply that those were good at the time of Mohamed, not now. So will such antiquated laws be revoked. I guess not.”

    My dear shadows – I did not imply – I STATED that the laws were liberal and good at the time of Mohammad, not today. IMHO, the law supporting polygamy is not relevant in today’s world, though many Muslims may disagree with me on principle.

    So if I admire some aspects of Islam (just as I admire aspects of all religion, including athiesm), I become a pseudo secularist? You fall into the Goebbelsian trap laid out by your “more extremist” Hindu bretheren – when someone does not share hard-core Hindutva beliefs, or sympathises with any viewpoint other than theirs, they are labelled pseudosecularists and apologists. Never mind, it’s an attitude shared by extremists of all religions – Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Christian – all, means all.

    What liberty, equality or fundamental rights am I supposed to be supporting in my comment? Does an intellectual appreciation of a historical fact that Islam was liberal by the standards of Arabia in c 800 ad make you feel screwed? Why man, then you don’t need four wives – you’ll get screwed perpetually, by any thinking person, male female or otherwise. Enjoy!

  71. @littlegirl:

    Yes, all arguements based on evolutionary biology centre around progeny and propagation of the species – read Mohan or my comments – try and understand why. Or better still, read Richard Dawkin – he’s more knowledgable than us in this field and certainly writes more clearly.

    If you do you’ll realise that despite the possibilities of more sex or more companionship, polygamy/andry has not caught on in a major way – which means that in an evolutionary point of view, it is not the most successful strategy for propagation of genes. Pair bonding is, and is therefore more common.

    Full marks to morality? Naaah, I’m just being objective. 🙂

  72. as usual with gb’s blogs, this has split his readers and commenters into two dividing camps–

    some who are yet to eat the proverbial sweet from Delhi and are awash with hormone induced emotions,

    while the second group who have eaten the laddu and are only too sadly aware of the REAL facts of life.

  73. @Sayon : I’ll pick up the book sometime. I’m sure Mr Dawkin has some rather compelling arguments in favour of pair bonding.

    Though something tells me, it still won’t stop me from being appreciative of Mr Wichai Tao’s sleeping arrangements on saturdays 🙂

  74. @ shadows:
    ‘Yep, I wonder if lebanon has any oil or land. I wonder if kashmir terrorism is even terrorism at all, its a freedom fight. I wonder if alQaeda is for land and oil and freedom.’

    Tch tch.. your sarcasm bites me. I’m humbled by your information database. I rest my case.
    How true you are! I shall definitely remember not to mess with you next time man! And to think I wasted precious moments on the net arguing with you when you were right all the time.. Damn!

  75. @arnab,
    I have been following your posts for long.I find they are full of humour and like the twisted takes towards current events.But after the bombay blast this site has often been visited by people,identifying themselves with religion,.Their posts are killing the fun.I would advise you to filter these spoilers.There are lot many other places for mud slinging,let this one maintain its character.
    @shadows
    Udit or Dharam sab are educated hindus and living with two women.The law cannot do anything but remain as a silent spectator.
    @Ali
    Perhaps islam was a modern religion in 6th century.But if you want to implement those rules in 21st century,it would be called a backward society.

  76. Did you hear Udit has sold the rights to his biography to Ekta Kapoor?

    So if I admire some aspects of Islam (just as I admire aspects of all religion, including athiesm), I become a pseudo secularist? You fall into the Goebbelsian trap laid out by your “more extremist” Hindu bretheren – when someone does not share hard-core Hindutva beliefs, or sympathises with any viewpoint other than theirs, they are labelled pseudosecularists and apologists. Never mind, it’s an attitude shared by extremists of all religions – Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Christian – all, means all.

  77. Only Idiots marry. Seriously I don’t know why anybody will marry multiple times. How stupid. Marriage is dead as an institution.

  78. @sayon, Ali,

    hahahahaha….. pot calling the kettle black. all in all, you need to get out of your secular myopia, and actually actually try to realize, why the terrorism. And why the backlash. Good bye. 🙂 (irrelevant comments of yours ignored)

  79. @shadows: soon you’ll claim that the LTTE is Muslim, the ULFA is Muslim, the Naxals are Muslim, the IRA is Muslim, and so on… Typical of your woolly headed right wing fanatic…

    if it’s really goodbye then its good riddance – when you dont have any arguements, you ignore arguments of others and bring in irrelevant issues of terrorism in a discussion of polygamy and evolutionary biology.

    Pal, go see a shrink – might help get rid of your Islamic-terrorism obsession. Might be something as simple as taking a daily dose of Milk of Magnesia ( 4 tsp) or Isapgol (5g in a glass of hot water) before bedtime. Will do you a world of good.

    @Anon – Yo man! You have my vote! Anon for prez!

  80. @Fridi: I agree with you. The comments are always way better than the post. The commenters here

    @Somebody: I used the word “polygamy” in the sense used by the websites I linked to. But you are right.

    @Littlegirl: Doomed it is.

    @Sayan: I think its quite okay. After all this is a place for the free expression of opinion and unless we get to personal abuses, I think its quite cricket to let things go the way they are. Just because we dont like something shouldnt mean we should try to censor it.

  81. @sayon

    It’s wonderful how Islamic terrorists manage to infiltrate not only echelons of power and what not, but no matter what the topic, they have a pretty stupendous presence in the comments section of this blog.

    Let us throw a challenge to this here GB. Let him write on a topic on which no one can apportion blame/envy on THEM.
    (note to one’s self– check out that Himesh blog)

    And stop reccommending over-the-counter remedies. You do not have a licence to write prescriptions, you are an apothecary, a pill roller.

    Are you investing in milk-of-magnesia shares or isapgol plantations?

    I wonder what you will advise to the next dissenter/non Dawkinser? Suppositories? You are getting very very French. According to Lawrence Durrell, the French believe that a good bowel cleansing is the answer to every problem faced by mankind. (see the Antrobus stories)

  82. “Swati: Suppositories – why didn’t I think of that! Yup, I believe Antrobus was recommended a Cordon Rouge or something of that sort. Worth trying on someone who confuses evolutionary biology with religious terrorism.

    Anal Retentive: See http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19970718

    The French cannot be entirely wrong, can they? At least, in India, large sections of the theory on Panchkarma therapy deals with purgation.

  83. @Swati, Sayon: Awesome, awesome, the scholarly discussion on expulsion theory is brilliant, replete with references to two great classical traditions. With due deference to the deeply revered traditions of most of the reader on this board, you offer sufficient homage to Mother Magnesia. However, you both commit a serious, almost blasphemous nomenclatory error with Isabgol, a monumentally important organic substance closer to every good if not great Bong’s heart (or something that rhymes…), which motivates me to offer a correction along with the hurrahs. You must remember, as Thomson and Thompson would say, “It’s NOT Isapgol, with a P as in Psychology, but it’s IsaBgol, without a P, as in Venezuela.” And, what Himesh blog? Pray let us know…. And, yes, please continue posting on the Himesh thread. Let’s take it to 200.

  84. @Ranjan Chakravarty:

    As a Bong you’re right – We call it IsaBgol. Unfortunately, the Ayurvedic Formulary of India refers it as IsaPgol. Also Ispagula, Ispaghula, Isphaghula. Take your pick.

    There’s no link to the Ayurvedic formulary, but here’s a reference to a company which sells the product as Isapgul: http://business.vsnl.com/herbs/prod_list.html

    I shall in future refer to the unambiguous Plantago ovata -the botanical name of the noble plant.

    As a fellow admirer of the noble plant, here’s a link you may like: http://www.psylliumindia.com/psyllium_facts.htm

    Cheers!

  85. @Ranjan Chakravarty:

    As a Bong you’re right – We call it IsaBgol. Unfortunately, the Ayurvedic Formulary of India refers it as IsaPgol. Also Ispagula, Ispaghula, Isphaghula. Take your pick.

    I shall in future refer to the unambiguous Plantago ovata -the botanical name of the noble plant.

    Cheers!

  86. @Sayon: Indeed a pleasure to be corrected by such fine erudition. I withdraw my charge, change my stance and happily bow to you, secure in the knowledge that this noble plant has truly worthy admirers. Now off to the Himesh thread…

  87. Pingback: Stray Thoughts » Blog Archive » Should we not try to redress a Gravewrong the way we admire Greatbong?

  88. Best Plantago ovata in town– Softovac –it has got a host of tasty stuff like methi and sonamukhi.
    But if you go by tradition and ‘purity’, it’s back to Telephone brand Sat isabgul.
    @ Ranjan Chakraborty
    Can brands also count as characters?

  89. Pingback: Prabhu n Ferrari » What Next?

  90. Do you know why people going to be polygamist nowadays?

    the reason is only one , First marrige mostly people doing according to desire of their parents , but that life partner is not going to give satishfaction , because of they have already somme one in their heart, but only for happiness of their gurdian , they are taking step for according to ther parents desire, but ther is some thing which is can not be controlled, we can not supressed, this is called desire, that is why people ar3e more intrested about polygamy.

  91. I have been following your posts for long.I find they are full of humour and like the twisted takes towards current events.But after the bombay blast this site has often been visited by people,identifying themselves with religion,.Their posts are killing the fun.I would advise you to filter these spoilers.There are lot many other places for mud slinging,let this one maintain its character.

  92. Mallo jeno kondole jujhe du-sotin.
    Bideshe sadagar, paiyaa shunyoghar,
    Laaj bhoy hoilo hin.
    Baro bahu probola, chhotojon ekla,
    Kaloho hoilo sei din.

  93. Chat chat chapor, chNirilek kapor,
    Bege marilo kankon.
    Dujonete korilo dhum, kiler gum gum,
    Megh jeno shila borishon.

    BharatChandra (18th century):
    (Barobou is getting all dressed up for the big night)
    KhNopa bNadhi taratari, poriya chikonshari,
    Poriya kajol chokkhe dila.
    (but she’s a little insecure about her kuchojugo)
    Golito hoyechhe kucho, kemone se habe ucho
    Bhabiya upay nahi pan.
    (but that does not stop her from tongue-lashing chhotobou)
    Laj bhoy nahi tor thheti,
    Ami keno boli khaya mati.
    Chhi chhi! dhik dhik dhik tore,
    Mamo aage tui jaas tar ghare.

Have An Opinion? Type Away

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s