Compromise and Collusion
budget in one aspect has been very people oriented, well if
you can call some of them people, that is.
No sooner was a wife from among the people charged with stealing
her husband's mobile, its price was reduced, meaning she will
be guilty, if at all, for a lesser sum.
According to psychologists this fiscal move shall also deter
wives from stealing their husband's cellular phone because
it will not be then that costly an item, and so the motivation
to steal shall be greatly reduced.
That's the only bit of budget that was also understandable,
thanks to policy analysts who pointed it out. For without
their help the entire package appears to be a lot of gibberish.
Some people, however, have the knack of understanding rubbish
more quickly than most and even before the minister concerned
had alighted from his podium there were pro and anti michhils
with banners that must have been penned as the budget was
Many wives have since queued up at lawyers' chambers querying
what constitutes a mobile set theft that can provoke a loving
husband to file a divorce suit. With lawyers sweating without
difficulty in the prevailing heat to calm down the paranoia
with assurances, such as, you have to have six crore of his
taka in your bank account, which you don't; and that he must
have had at least a dozen known lovers.
This advice has also led to some additional marital problems.
Many wives have rushed back to her husband demanding why she
is given cash each month and not paid through her bank account.
At least one husband was slapped by her wife when he innocently
said, 'But, Darling you don't have a bank account'.
Some wives have appointed detectives, actually their friends,
to find out whether their husband's love track is as barren
as he claimed on nuptial night. There has been significant
backtracking when some wives were reminded about theirs. In
some cases it was also same-side, meaning the detective herself
had been somewhat involved. It's a small world you know, she
explained while pocketing her fee.
A client deserves an answer and some lawyers are of the opinion
that a wife may hold her husband's mobile phone for ten minutes
each hour before it represents a robbery. If she holds the
set at his request while he is fixing a tie knot, and when
he is driving a car, and when he is being extremely mobile,
such times shall not be added on. The reason for exempting
during tie fixing is care, during driving is compromise and
during the third act is collusion.
The policy analysts did mention something in that line while
evaluating the budget now on the table. Care for the poor,
compromise for supporting investments and employment generation,
and collusion with big interest groups.
If however the caring lady ties his knot while also holding
on to the husband's mobile (you know most men believe the
wife has more than two hands); the compromising wife lies
to his boss about his illness on his mobile; and the collusive
spouse recharges his mobile before hers, she will earn some
If all these sound confusing, the lawyers have explained that
laws are meant to be like that. Otherwise where would be their
bread and butter? But for a fact most lawyers in this country
What however has most people confounded is why on earth a
wife should need to steal her husband's mobile, particularly
when she has more than one herself. Let's see, if an expensive
set costs around twenty thousand, how many can one buy with
the bank interest from taka six crore?
If arresting ladies for pinching their husband's mobile be
the trend then our police will be awfully busy if wives start
complaining about their bottoms being pinched by their husbands.
And it is not easy to stack every alamat in a police station.
The mobile belongs to each other as much as does the butt.
Having studied Irish-born Mathew Carey's essay "Rules
for Husbands and Wives" from his book Miscellaneous Essays
(1830, Philadelphia), we have developed a modern day set as
A good spouse
1. will always regard the spouse as an equal; treat the spouse
with kindness, respect and attention; and never address the
spouse with an air of authority.
2. will cheerfully and promptly comply with all reasonable
requests of the spouse, when it can be done, without loss,
or great inconvenience.
3. will never lose temper towards the spouse
4. will consult the spouse on all great operations. Many a
spouse has been rescued from destruction by the wise counsels
of the spouse. Many a foolish spouse has been most seriously
injured by the rejection of the advice of the spouse, fearing,
lest, if followed, one spouse would be regarded as ruled by
the other! A spouse can never procure a counsellor more deeply
interested in one's welfare than one's spouse.
5. will always receive the spouse with smiles leave nothing
undone to render home agreeable and gratefully reciprocate
one's kindness and attention.
6. will study to discover the means to gratify the spouse's
inclinations, in regard to food; in the management of the
family; in the dress, manners and deportment.
7. will never attempt to rule, or appear to rule the spouse.
Such conduct degrades spouses and spouses always partake largely
of the degradation of their spouses.
8. will, in every thing reasonable, comply with wishes of
the spouse and, as far as possible, anticipate them.
9. will avoid all altercations or arguments leading to ill-humourand
more especially before company.
10. will never attempt to interfere in the spouse's business,
unless advice or counsel is asked for, and will never attempt
to control the spouse in the management of it.
When grapevines had it that a famous former president had
married a young lady who stays abroad, some of us thought
we heard she was bideshi, a twist in fact to the
lady's name. Come to think of it, that in reality would have
been far better and wiser, not that we are trying to encourage
the tiger to bat a fourth innings.
If bideshi had any political ambitions we would all
protest on the street that she cannot become our prime minister.
She would be dispirited, would have no reason to threaten
herself to widowhood, no reason to break her own prized possessions
in her own house and definitely no valid reason to steal her
(R) thedailystar.net 2005