Recently, I watched the Tamil film Maaman, starring Soori as the protagonist 'Inba'. Like so many Indian family dramas before it, the movie attempts to position its male lead as a relatable, even admirable 'hero' – a man navigating complex familial loyalties. Yet, what struck me, chillingly, was the film's familiar glorification of a deeply troubling archetype: the man whose 'love' becomes a weaponized apology after sustained patterns of neglect, dismissal, and public humiliation towards the woman in his life. This piece isn't just film criticism; it's an interrogation of this dangerous narrative. It asks why we find such men 'cute' in their belated, often self-serving remorse, and challenges the very notion of 'love' when it coexists so comfortably with cruelty. The 'Maaman syndrome' forces us to confront a painful truth: when men persistently prioritize everyone and everything except the partner they chose, declaring love becomes less an affirmation and more an insult. Let's dissect why this misplaced loyalty isn't noble, but a profound failure of wisdom and basic humanity.
Often, loyalty is rigidly directed towards parents, siblings, or extended family, seen as an unquestionable duty rooted in tradition ("parampara," "khaandan"). This loyalty becomes performative, measured by adherence to expectations rather than genuine care. Meanwhile, the loyalty owed to the partner – chosen through love and commitment – is treated as secondary, flexible, or even sacrificial on the altar of familial appeasement. Love towards their partner gets lost in Translation. The declaration "I love you" rings hollow in such cases because it's divorced from action. Love isn't just a feeling; it's demonstrated through consistent respect, prioritization, protection, and shared responsibility. When a man's actions (ignoring, disregarding, prioritizing others, gaslighting, public humiliation) constantly scream "you are not important," the whispered "but I love you" becomes an insult, a tool of manipulation to evade accountability and maintain control. This is precisely why this archetype is the "safety net" for family dramas. It reinforces a dangerous status quo, normalizing neglect. It portrays the wife's emotional needs and rightful expectations as secondary to the man's familial duties or personal whims. The "grand apology," often framed as the climax, suggests that enduring neglect and abuse is worthwhile for this moment of performative remorse, absolving the man without requiring genuine, sustained change. One must know that weaponized apologies cannot erase a pattern of dishonor; they merely compound it. The woman is positioned as the one who must forgive to restore harmony, placing the emotional labor entirely on her shoulders while the man faces minimal consequence. His "cuteness" is his redemption arc, demanding her compliance. The "Inba" Syndrome (and beyond): Characters like Inba, or the countless Bollywood heroes who humiliate, neglect, or mistreat their partners only to be redeemed by a tearful speech, embody this toxic dynamic. They teach audiences, especially men, that love is separate from respect, that apologies erase harm without restitution, and that a woman's primary role is to absorb pain and ultimately forgive. It reinforces the idea that a man's "love" (declaration) justifies his prior cruelty (actions). It's time for all the move makers to know accountability, not apologies, is the real measure of change.
Secondly, what does "wisdom" in such relationships truly look like? Is it blind loyalty to blood, or is it the discernment to nurture the relationship you actively chose and built? Can "love" exist without consistent respect, prioritization, and protection? Or is declaring love while inflicting harm simply emotional fraud? Who bears the cost of misplaced loyalty? When a man prioritizes relatives' demands over his wife's well-being, who truly suffers? Is the "harmony" achieved by silencing his partner genuine, or just the quiet of suppressed pain? Why is the burden of forgiveness always placed on the woman? Why is the man's performative apology often seen as sufficient, while her ongoing hurt is dismissed? When does "duty" become an excuse for neglect? Is upholding rigid tradition more important than the emotional health and dignity of your life partner? What would it mean for a man to truly understand? Would it mean recognizing his partner as his primary teammate, her feelings as valid boundaries, and her need for respect as non-negotiable? Would it mean understanding that love is proven daily through action, not declared as an absolution for bad behavior? True wisdom isn't found in clinging to harmful notions of loyalty or in weaponizing the word "love." It's found in the courage to prioritize the chosen partner with love & respect, to listen before dismissing, to protect instead of humiliate, and to understand that genuine love requires actions that align with the words – consistently, before an apology is even necessary.
Marriage is presented in Scripture as a sacred covenant before God (Malachi 2:14), not a flexible commitment subservient to other loyalties. While honoring parents is commanded (Exodus 20:12), it is not meant to supersede the "one flesh" union created in marriage (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5-6). The "parampara" or "khaandan" loyalty that persistently sacrifices the spouse's well-being violates the primacy of this God-ordained covenant. True wisdom discerns that upholding the marriage covenant is an act of honoring God and fulfilling a higher duty.