Why can’t the person, regardless of gender, who has a better understanding of finance and economics deal with family finances instead of making money the new instrument of control?
For centuries in our country, money and talking about money were left entirely to traders, businessmen and bankers. Most people were happy to have money of course, but somehow, it was not something that one spoke about in the drawing room, except in very tangential forms, as one would do when speaking about the vagaries of the stock market or bemoaning rising interest rates. However, in the last couple of decades, money has burst dramatically into urban Indian drawing rooms. People seem to talk about little else, from the precise value of the latest scam to the price of their most recent designer acquisition or fancy car or exotic vacation. Still, there remains one bastion that has remained impervious to money’s recently acquired status — marriage.
In the past, money was squarely the responsibility of the man and few women had access to much money (often, the finances of women from wealthy backgrounds too were managed by some man or the other in their lives). As a result, financial discussions, if at all, focussed on mundane quotidian expenses, acquisition of jewellery and saving up for dowries. However, a fair number of contemporary couples live in dual-income marriages where each has full access and control of their respective earnings. Nonetheless, it is quite remarkable how reluctant young dual-income couples are to discuss money and finances, except when it comes to some big-ticket expenses that would require contributions from both.
A typical contemporary scenario that plays out in middle class urban India involves both partners servicing personal, educational or vehicle loans that they have no desire to disclose to each other. Or both partners would like to give some portion of their incomes to their respective parents, but do not want to run the risk of an inquisition from the spouse. Often neither knows what the other earns or saves, unless they find out by accident. And when this does happen, the surprise is rarely a pleasant one, for each ends up feeling that the partner is earning either ‘too much’ or ‘too little’ and are filled with concerns like ‘where does all the money go?’ or ‘how can we ever save on that income?’
More commonly, given our social structure, the family patriarch or matriarch demands to control the couple’s dual incomes cocking a snook at that trivial issue of consent. And if the couple lives as a nuclear family, there is every possibility that the husband might chauvinistically insist on being the trustee of the family finances. If the wife resists, ugly scenes can ensue and family panchayats summoned. Sometimes, and this has now been tending to happen with increasing frequency in recent times, the wife continues to get her taxes done by her father and his auditor and relies on the father for investment advice, rather than discussing the situation with her partner. This too ends up causing deep schisms in the marriage.
Every time I speak to a young couple who engage in what I refer to as ‘financial opacity’, both feel that financial transparency will result in increased expectations and unfair demands. After several years, some degree of financial translucency, even if not complete transparency, does enter the picture, even though little nest eggs are often secreted by either or both partners. This discomfort with financial transparency also manifests as a reluctance to have joint banking accounts. Even if such exist, they are used only as a transient space where shared money for specified purposes is located. Often such opacity is rationalised on the grounds that finances are part of one’s personal space and therefore, are to be zealously guarded. And in some marriages, although this seems to be on the decline in recent times, financial attitude seems to operate on the ‘my money is my money and your money is our money’ paradigm.
As far as I’m concerned, the most convivial way of dealing with the family finances is for the partner, regardless of gender, who has the better understanding of finance and economics to be designated to liaise with experts on the subject, always, of course, in consultation with the spouse. Unfortunately most people define themselves and their identities by the jobs they do, the designations they hold and the money they earn. As a result money has become a new instrument of control between partners. ‘I earn more than you, so I have greater rights than you’ seems to be the emerging mantra.
I do believe that transparency and open discussions, and by these I don’t mean sharing every gory, boring detail, but only those that are relevant and appropriate, is very important in a marriage, simply because it creates the nidus from which a bond of shared responsibility can grow. When there’s financial transparency and common goals, it facilitates two people pulling together rather than away from each other. And marriage gets redefined as a partnership between two contributing adults.
Maybe, as is done in the U.S., U.K. and several other parts of the world, the Finance Ministry could be persuaded to consider giving substantial tax reliefs to married couples filing their income tax returns jointly. It worked for the Hindu Undivided Family, at least for several decades. Maybe, it might be just the right shot in the arm that the Indian Undivided Marriage could use.
Email: vijay@vijaynagaswami.com
Keywords: gender issues, money and relationships



Money alone does NOT ensure a happy life. Having More / Less money is a factor depending on how you spend? Here lies the crucial problem in our EDU system.At 9th std or so level itself a huge division occurs viz. Science or Commerce and the rest of Maths taught goes along this division! WHERE AS to be successful/intelligent in daily life of spending, EVERYONE need to have BASICS of BOTH STREAMS. So we REQUIRE a total revamp to a COMMON Maths syllabus up to 12th std. This will help in having a HARMONIOUS life! for Life is Chemistry[24/7] plus Medicine plus Maths !
The author raised a very serious issue but treated it lightly. For millenniums, regardless of their ability, men controlled family lives through finances. That might have been acceptable when he was solely responsible for earning the money to support the family. An unfortunate consequence of that was inordinate control over women. Owing to their physical strength, men extended their control over all aspects of the lives of women even when the latter brought more earnings – especially among manual laborers. Just now middle class women have begun to enter the economic arena and they earned the right to the privileges that come with ownership.
Under the new and emerging circumstances, partners in a marriage should behave like business partners. They have voting power in taking decisions with the pooled resources. True that they should take the best available advise to manage the money and enhance its value. A couple should have a plan for their family not only with respect to money but in
Vijay Nagaswami totally lacks understanding of human nature. We are not computer
programs, but biological entities who have evolved over eons with various selection
pressures.
One such character is that most men AND women need the Man to be the provider
and protector. Else why would most women even in developed countries only marry
men who earn more than they do?
Perhaps people should acknowledge the primacy of biology in our lives.
After all the fluff is said about what we want in our partners, for the man its the
beauty, for the woman its the wallet.
Else why not marry a homeless man with no prospects, or an ugly grandmother?
Marriage and family are a marketplace for genes.
Personal life depends upon the wishes of the person. It does not necessarily always need to follow logic. Otherwise what is the point living. absolute logic is understandable in professional life and to a very great extant in Social life, but can only go to an extant in Personal life. At one point it does not make sense to apply pure logic in certain aspects of personal life, otherwise the very Idea of Personal life with its privacy and free choice is defeated.
This is the reason the following statement of the author may not make sense to all,
"Why can’t the person, regardless of gender, who has a better understanding of finance and economics deal with family finances instead of making money the new instrument of control?"
My ex husband was " my money is for me and my family while what your
father earned is for you and the kids". Of course he left us with his
money and the the kids remained with me.
It is the way we raise our children than influence their behavior later
in life. I would blame a parent for raising a money minded materialistic
child.
Please Email the Editor