How She Was Made

Woman is the most fascinating, the most captivating, the most bewitching – and the most complicated creature on earth.  The fascination for her is in inverse ratio to the age of man.  The law of diminishing returns comes into operation as a man grows older.  That is why Agatha Christie said that she was very lucky that her husband was an archeologist.  The older she grew the more interested he became in her.  But that is an exception.

How was such a creature created?  Man, we concede, could have been made out of clay. His manufacture needed quantity, not quality.  It therefore took so much of soil to make him that nothing was left.  According to one view, woman was made out of man’s rib.  It seems most unlikely that from such a small simple raw material, a creature at once so pliable, so a hard and so complex could have been fashioned.

Jawaharlal Nehru came upon an ancient Indian formula about the manufacture of woman during his voyage of the discovery of India.    He found it accidentally when he was imprisoned for embarking upon his voyage without prior permission of the authorities. The arcane formula was buried in the Naini Jail and was signed by an Englishman called F.W.Bain. According to that formulation, “when the Divine Artificer came to the creation of woman He found that He had exhausted His materials in the making of man and that no solid elements were left.  In this dilemma, after profound meditation, He did as follows: He took the rotundity of the moon, the curves of the creepers, the clinging of tendrils, the trembling of grass, the slenderness of the reed, the bloom of flowers, the lightness of leaves, the tapering of the elephant’s trunk, the glances of deer, the clustering of rows of bees, the joyous gaiety of sunbeams, the weeping of clouds, the fickleness of the winds, the timidity of the hare, the vanity of the peacock, the softness of the parrot’s bosom, the hardness of adamant, the sweetness of honey, the cruelty of the tiger, the warm glow of fire, the coldness of snow, the chattering of jays, the cooing of the kokila, the hypocrisy of the crane, the fidelity of the chakravaka( the ruddy goose); and compounding all these together, He made woman and gave her to man”.

As against this most interesting description of the ingredients and the process of the manufacture, there is the modern scientific theory about the elements that go into the making of woman. It was made public by V. Gangadhar in his piece in the Hindu of Sunday, the 14th June 1998 (‘Timeless Quotable Quotes’). He doesn’t remember the source — or so he seemed to imply. Maybe he is not willing to reveal it. But the formula is spelt out in fair detail. Woman, he learned in time in his youth, “was not made of sugar, spice and everything nice”, as he had believed like all young men of his age. On the other hand, she “was made up of 4 oz. sugar, 85 lb. oxygen, two oz. salt, 50 quarts water, three lb. calcium, 24 lb carbon, plus enough chlorine to disinfect two swimming pools, enough phosphorous to make 20,000 matchsticks, enough fat to make 10 bars of soap, enough iron to make a two-inch nail, enough sulphur to rid a dog of fleas and enough glycerin to explode a naval shell.”

The old Indian formula is herbal and nature – based.  The Western one is a chemical compound.  The final product however is not different in essentials. The former can be classed as an Ayurvedic product; the latter perhaps Allopathic. I wonder how the Homeopathic or the Unani formulations would have been. Homeopathic would have probably been all sweet and without any side-effects. The Unani would probably have been stronger, but with after- effects.

Man has always tried to analyse the creature whom he chases till she catches him.  I too have tried but finally have bowed to the greater wisdom of those who preceded me.  I have found, after extensive researches that there are three types of women: the beautiful, the intelligent and the majority.  As to their ages they too are three – at twenty they are attentive, at thirty-five they are attractive – and after forty-five they are adhesive.

Our nuclear scientist Dr. Abdul Kalam obviously wasn’t aware of the second formula. Otherwise, instead of developing nuclear devices, he would have just ‘Dolly-ed’ some women. But then, we can’t blame him. He is a bachelor and hence innocent of the properties of the product in question. So, alas, is the Prime Minister!

And we have to pay the price.