In-laws

The term “in-law” came into being because the strict canonical laws of the early church were implemented and followed to the “T”. This gave most women little or no respite when it came to matrimonial matters, for many of them were “sold” for purposes of power, prestige or pecuniary interest. And when a blushing bride was introduced into her husband’s abode, she was supposed to (so the traditionalists say) abide by the rules of the house, or household, aka “mother-in-law”, per se, period.

Today, however, the world has evolved, and women are talking back, not just at in-laws, but at outdated notions of propriety. It’s not just a one-way street, mind you. Sometimes, couples remonstrate with their parents, taking up for each other, in an often pitched battle for control. Yet, all too often, one side of the family gangs up against an individual, and then all hell breaks loose.

Let’s look at some famous examples, dear Reader. In Greek mythology, the goddess Aphrodite was so completely jealous that her son, Eros, had fallen in love with a mere mortal, Psyche, that she gave her a whole list of impossible tasks to complete, before she could claim her man! Catherine de Medici ( of France), treated her daughters-in-law most shabbily, murdering one and using the other—none other than Mary, Queen of Scots—as a political pawn and puppet. And in a strange twist to my tale, there was the “outlaw”, Robin Hood, of Nottingham fame, who ended up marrying the Maid Marian.

Perhaps the most enduring “in-law” narrative is to be found in the Bible. Ruth, her sister Orpah, and their mother-in- law, Naomi, lose their husbands within the course of ten years. When Naomi decides to return to Israel, she urges her daughters-in-law, to remain in Moab and possibly seek out husbands for themselves. Ruth’s is one of the greatest replies regarding family, ethics and duty; she says: “ …for where you go, I will go; and where you lodge, I will lodge: your people shall be my people, and your God, my God: Where you die, I will die, and there will I be buried: the Lord do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part you and me.” Interestingly, many artists have portrayed the debacle facing Ruth, as she “clings” to Naomi, (DABAQ is the original Hebrew word, an action reminiscent of a man clinging solely to his wife, and vice versa). Ruth’s second husband, a wealthy Jew called Boas, was the father of their son, Obed, who, in turn had a son, Jesse, who fathered David, the predecessor of Jesus of Nazareth.

Not everyone can afford to be an “outlaw”. Not everyone can be crass enough to disregard “in-laws”. But as Gandhiji often explained (in my own words, so please excuse me), if we gouge out one another’s eyes, we will be blind to the reality. And what good will that do, when innocent lives are at stake.

Good old Billy-boy Shakespeare once said: “Ripeness is all”. I would like to add some extremely relevant words from TS Eliot’s The Waste Land” ( for we are in it, nor were we ever out of it) : DA: DATTA (give), DAYADHVAM (sympathise), DAMYATA (control). “Shantih, shantih, shantih” which roughly means: “The Peace that passeth all understanding “