Sending money back to PIL - WWYD?

[Namechangedonceagain]

My DH is Indian, and his family live in India. They're wonderful, although very traditional. (For example, we had a very hard time convincing them that we wouldn't be moving to India to live with them in their family home as per the tradition, but they have seem to have finally understood this now and stopped asking.)

We have an awkward situation with them regarding money. Traditionally, as a son, my husband is expected to send money back to the family home to support them. There are four people (parents and grandparents) living their permanently, and his sister and her baby live there half the week (the other half with her husband and his family). PIL buy almost everything for SIL and her baby (may be relevent).

So, DH feels really awkward as there's an expectation that we will send money back to them every month. But they don't need the money. They have another house that they rent out which means they can afford all food and everything else they need on a daily basis. They also have a huge amount of property and land which they could sell if they wanted to and be very wealthy. (I don't mean the land that they live on (which is also huge!) - I mean additional unused land which is seperate to where they live and just going to waste. They don't want to sell it but we aren't sure why, as it's really not used at all and worth a lot of money.) Should add - we only think they should sell a small part of it as they should enjoy their retirement and travel, something they've never done - we don't want any of the money!

Here is my confusion. I asked DH why, traditionally, we should send money that they don't need. He said (traditionally) they'd keep any money that we don't use in a savings account so that any left over after their death would be divided between him and SIL. As SIL isn't expected to contribute any money, this seems odd and unfair to me - so we should give them a proportion of our money each month so that maybe in 30 years we can have half of it back? And SIL can have the other half?

Secondly, he said that he thinks the reason his dad is reluctant to sell part of the land is because he wants to leave it (along with all other land) for DH and SIL in his will. Which is lovely but they've both told him they don't need it and would rather he sold it and enjoyed his retirement!

I guess my question is, how would you deal with this? DH and I don't want to send the money (we really can't afford to send money - any contribution would be a struggle at the moment - especially to people who don't need it) and it seems really odd since they are much wealthier than us and don't need it.

Not only do they have a lot of land and income from tenants but they also gifted SIL several thousand pounds when she got married (again, a tradition) while we got nothing (as not a tradition). It just seems a bit unfair that SIL has thousands of pounds sat in the bank which isn't being used (as PIL pay for everything for her and her baby) and yet we are expected to send our hard earned money to them each month so they can potentially just put it in the bank and give us half back when we are old and hopefully more financially secure! There's no question that SIL should or would contribute in anyway.

We love them but we really aren't in a financial position to send money but don't know how to not play a part in this tradition as it will cause offence (we have already upset them by not living with them so are worried this might really make them upset).

DH isn't traditional at all and has lived abroad a long time so sees this whole thing as just as odd as I do. Keen to add also that we don't blame them at all - we know it's just a tradition which is why they expect it. But if we weren't to give them money they would be a bit hurt and also embarrassed in front of their friends and relatives (who use their children's incomes to show off to each other and compete about whose child buys them the most!)

They would never force us to send money or be angry about it - I don't think (although these traditions seem to run deep so sometimes their reactions to our breaking them are surprising).

WWYD?

" it seems a given that the west is stinking rich"

Still doesn't follow that money should be given to those who don't need it though, does it?

I thought that it was a tradition because the money was needed.

I thought that it was a tradition because the money was needed

It is - but then it morphs into something else and becomes a sign of how dutiful the western-based family are, which incidentally gives the Indian mums bragging rights about how well their son's caring for them

The actual financial need may not be there in this case, but it sounds as if the cultural expectation's still very much in place ... which is why I wondered at what point the DH developed his new view and if the family were aware of it before now

It isn’t really being given to the parents though, it’s being given to the family. We give similar amounts to pensions, and in taxes to pay for medical coverage and schooling. I think many people are misunderstanding the “hurt” this would cause. It’s because in effect the OPs dh will be rejecting becoming a contributing member of the family they have built to protect him, themselves and his sibling. He has benefited from their hard work and now when his turn comes is shirking responsibility. Of course this makes them feel ashamed, just as someone in the uk would if their child was a tax dodger, or just sat on benefits from choice.

The family is helping his sister who is obviously unhappily married. Surely this shows they are strong financially and compassionate? The sisters husband is obviously financially abusive as he is refusing her funds if she spends time with his family.

That's just how things work in Indian families. They will have invested in their son. The eldest son then looks after the parents. As your husband has already delegated that job to his sister, the least you could do would be to make a small financial contribution. If half your monthly salary is equivalent to a whole professional salary in India, then I doubt you need to send much.

“This made sense back in the day but in their particular circumstances, it’s just madness. “
“Surely, even in a culture embedded in such traditions, surely they can see this is utterly illogical.”

Easy to decide how other cultures should simply abandon the family dynamic which has been at the heart of economic and social structure in families for centuries.

Loads of men and their families (and women in MN) have difficulty with the idea that the wife and / or kids don’t have to have his name!

Change can happen. But The OP needs to work carefully alongside her DH to navigate this, not dismiss his family as mad and illogical.

TinklyLittleLaugh hes invested so its ok? Vile

Vile or not, it’s how that society works. Are you always so dismissive of other people’s cultures @TheCanyon?

Sometimes it’s so depressing reading people unable to see any benefit in doing things in a different way to the norm in the uk. In the west we now operate in very tiny family groups. We rely on the state if things go wrong. We expect to spend our last years in an institution. Living with your parents is only done if you are saving for a deposit, paid for childcare preferable to feeling obliged to family. There are other ways of doing things. Not better or worse just different.

Speakimg as a british asian, It's highly unusual that the married sil spends half the week with the parents, and they are prepared to bend the tradition by facilitating this.
Really as the son, it is your husbands traditional responsibility to live with his parents and for his wife (OP) to care for them in their old age, they have been accepting of this not happening.
I wonder if the unwillingness to sell the land that is" sitting unused" is because in their view, it is the ancestral land, they are holding onto it for future generations.
The 50-50 split between brother and sister on inheriting is not traditional, traditionally a married woman inherits nothing from.her parents, she is gifted a dowry on her wedding and after that it is for her husband and parents in law to provide for her. This is the money that was given to your sil.
If your pil really do have lots of savings, it wouldn't be unreasonable for your husband to ask his parents to give him a deposit for a house - and wouldn't be untraditional - quite a normal expectation as a wed ding gift in my circle..

in the west we now operate in very tiny family groups

But as someone else said this is changing - and quite right too but even in that changing cultural environment surely a blanket decision that results in a situation in which the poorer contribute to the richer is daft. I have no issue with a more collective idea of family and a move away from the concept of the nuclear family but I really don't like tears and shame in any family environment being used as a vehicle to manipulate family members into forking out money they can't affod.

"They will have invested in their son."

That's what parents do though!

"Sometimes it’s so depressing reading people unable to see any benefit in doing things in a different way to the norm in the uk."

Where is the benefit in this instance though?

Where is the benefit in this instance though?
OPs dh has been educated and supported and enabled to move halfway across the world and setup a life in a country where salaries are 12 times that at home. He stands to inherit a large amount of property and possibly other assets. He visits every other year and I would imagine his children will be welcomed and cherished. He will always have a home to go back to.

Tell them that in your culture this isn't done so for the next few years your culture will be honoured, why does it always have te be a one-way street culturally?

"Sometimes it’s so depressing reading people unable to see any benefit in doing things in a different way to the norm in the uk."

Actually the reverse is usually true, the non-UK culture trumps the UK culture.

Because we don’t really have much in the way of tradition in the west. And we’re not the better for it.

Erm i wouldn't get involved in financial matters between my husband and his family.
You say he's not "traditional" but that doesn't mean he's actually prepared to give up his cultural traditions.
Admittedly speaking from a background where this is also a tradition, though not expected by parents. Have you considered the support DH parents do offer? You may not have benefited from it yet but as an example, my brother sent money "home" for ten years. When he was ready to upgrade from his flat to a house our parents surprised him with a significant contrubution to his deposit. Similarly, when my sisters car died, they provided her with the means to buy a new one.
Its not always about lining their pockets. These traditions are often there because its the way families used to work, even here. Old fashioned, yes. And maybe its too much of a stretch for modern life in the uk, but i can't help feeling that there are benefits to some of these old traditions.

"OPs dh has been educated and supported and enabled to move halfway across the world"

I meant the benefit to Op/husband if they are struggling to find money that isn't needed.

Actually the reverse is usually true, the non-UK culture trumps the UK culture.
Really? That’s not my experience at all.

Sometimes it’s so depressing reading people unable to see any benefit in doing things in a different way to the norm in the uk. In the west we now operate in very tiny family groups. We rely on the state if things go wrong. We expect to spend our last years in an institution. Living with your parents is only done if you are saving for a deposit, paid for childcare preferable to feeling obliged to family. There are other ways of doing things. Not better or worse just different.

Completely agree. I have this white woman next to me who has had 2 babies in 3 years and is completely unprepared for parenthood. She moved miles away from her family with this husband of hers so they could earn City money but she is miserable, lonely and her parents can see it but their cultural philosophy is to raise kids until 18 or so and cast them out in the world to show how independent they are. Neither of their parents see them much more often than every 3-4 months as they are busy being retired and travelling meanwhile their poor daughter (in law) has aged 10 years in the last year, hasn't seen her proper friends for months and smells like baby sick (one of her kids has reflux).

She parents from books and websites. She struggled to breastfeed and paid hundreds of pounds for a lactation consultant instead of asking the Somali woman who has breastfed several children including one with Downs Syndrome for at least 2 years.

My culture, typically, especially in older generations, women do not work. Or at least, they don't have jobs that are as demanding as The Family. This means they are around (along with your father after he retires), to provide childcare to the grandchildren (and perhaps other kids of that generation). Older kids from the family help with this.

This frees up parents to pursue careers and generally have a life as well as parent. Of course, this means you help out your parents a lot be it financially or otherwise. That's why we end up being the ones who are in the hospital ward with several kids every day making sure our mother or grandmother is clean and fed instead of "popping in" when we have a minute with some fancy chocolates and our countdown timer set on 20 minutes.

@diddl I meant the benefit to Op/husband if they are struggling to find money that isn't needed.
ALL the things I listed are benefits to OP and her dh.

Hello! Thanks again for all the replies!

So I should clarify, I met DH when he was a student, and he wasn't expected to pay for this reason. For five years, he was studying, while I worked full time, and so didn't pay. Had children (very small age gap) after this and wasn't in a position to pay because money was very tight. However, the expectation is that we will start to pay soon.

For those of you who know about Indian traditions, you're right. It's NOT tradition for the daughter to live at home when married. She should be living in her husband's home, according to the tradition. So those of you who have noticed that they're willing to break tradition for her, have hit the nail on the head. And actually, now I think about it, I guess this is another part of the reason that we are reluctant to stick to traditions - not only that we can't afford to, but that maybe the 'tradition' card is played when it suits them.

To the poster who said that SIL 'looks after' PIL instead of us doing it - this couldn't be further from the truth! (DH laughed out loud when I read that to him!) SIL is lovely, but she is very, very lazy. She doesn't like her PIL and doesn't want to live in their house because they expect her to help with housework, and they won't look after her son for her. When SIL is at her parents house, she is like a queen - she doesn't have to life a finger. Her DC is looked after 100% by my MIL (even sleeps in the room with her at night so SIL doesn't have to get up for a night feed) and SIL doesn't cook, dress, play with or take care of the baby in any way. When she stays with her parents, they give her spending money to go out shopping, for meals, for movies. She doesn't work. My PIL have just paid for her to do a course she wants to do, so she's doing that for now part time, but mostly living a life of luxury! PIL are very much looking after her, and not vice versa! They're not elderly, they're all fit and active (PIL are in their fifties) and they're really not in a position to need 'looking after'.

Her husband is financially abusive, definitely. But again, this is partly because of tradition. SIL is actually 'humiliating' her DH and his family by refusing to stay in their house, and so her DH (as much as I can't stand him) is, in a way, in a horrible position. He is refusing to send her money because he's also under pressure from his parents to encourage her to stay in their home more. I don't agree with his behaviour at all. But I don't think it's fair that SIL is encouraged to break tradition (PIL baby her a lot and can't bear the idea of her having to help out with any housework, so they encourage her to stay at their house where she will be 'treated properly'), her DH's family are expected to put up with her breaking tradition, and then at the same time tradition is used to make us do what they want us to do, if you see what I mean.

As another poster said, no, traditionally the daughter would not be given anything by the parents in their will. The son would financially support the parents and then he would inherit all land. But this is another tradition which they are breaking (they have always said that SIL will get 50 percent of everything). Which we don't disagree with at all! And like I said, we aren't really interested in the inheritence anyway. But I just mention this to show that this is another tradition they're breaking in order to benefit SIL.

I love SIL and I feel awful for her - the arranged marriage is horrible. She's just not at all compatible with her husband. But PIL are willing to break all traditions to make her happy.

They regularly complain about her husband - that he won't agree to move out of his parents house to build SIL her own house where they can live alone (which it totally against tradition), that he spends money on his own family (they think he should spend his money on SIL and DC and not his family), that he and SIL can't afford to travel etc because he puts money towards his own family home. In one breath they're saying this, and saying that he should break traditions because SIL deserves better. But in the next breath they're asking DH and I to give up everything, leave our lives behind, and to come and live the traditional life that they think SIL is too good for.

So PP's are right who have pointed out that they expect us to give up our quality of life to serve them in the 'traditional' way, but that they don't want this for SIL, so it is quite hypocritical.

I just read this post back and it's not meant to sound as bitter as it does! But those of you who have pointed out the differences between how they treat SIL and how they expect us to behave have really hit the nail on the head. PIL have never given us anything, and we don't expect anything. But they have given SIL a huge amount of money and continue to do so, while at the same time expecting us to send money back which would probably be spent entirely on SIL now - on treats to cheer her up or on courses she wants to study or trips she wants to go on, because her DH won't pay, and because she doesn't like working - or which we will be given back 50% of in the future, while she is given the other 50%.

I also understand what those of you are saying about not wanting to sell the land because it might be ancestral land or have emotional value like that. However, FIL told SIL's husband that he would sell the unused piece of land if SIL's husband would use the money to build her her own house, so she doesn't have to live with his parents. (But he has flat out refused to move out of his parents family home, much to PIL dismay.)

So it's not all as simple as it seems, or as I maybe made it sound! Sorry for the huge drip-feed. I didn't realise this would be relevant to my original AIBU but I guess it actually is, very much so!

Also, I should say that as lovely as PIL are - and they are genuinely SO sweet and SO kind, don't get me wrong - but they have never done anything out of the ordinary for DH.

When he finished college, he worked himself to earn money. He moved abroad and studied with a scholarship. When the scholarship was over, DH and I were already married and we used our family resources to pay for the next level of his education. His dad had a government job when he was a child so his education and healthcare were free. His dad is a truly wonderful man who has worked hard his whole life and I love him, I'm really not trying to undermine him by saying these things at all, and I felt guilty even typing it because it feels like i'm insulting him, which I'm really NOT trying to do. He's truly a lovely, kind, generous man. But what I'm just trying to illustrate is that while he was a truly wonderful father and continues to be a lovely father, FIL and grandfather, I wouldn't say he particularly did any more than any other (good) parent for DH.

Yes, he is VERY keen that DH will have land to inherit and has worked hard when he could have just sold the land and relaxed. This in itself is obviously amazingly generous of him (I would have been tempted to sell a chunk of it for an easy life! Because they DO have a lot, and he could have sold it and still had plenty to leave both his children).
But we just want to be able to sort of make our own way in life, rather than be expected to give up our chances of having anything now and rely on the idea of having inheritence for the future. (If we mention saving to buy our own house for example, they'll say 'But you have a house!' meaning that we could live with them in their family home in India, and that the family home will come to us one day). But would anyone really be happy with that - giving up the chance to own a home of their own, in the country they actually live in, giving up the chance to do things with their life NOW (because if we start sending money to them we will have to make real cut backs in other areas, and we don't have any luxury as it is!) and just exist on the idea that 'we don't need anything now, we don't need savings or stability, we don't need a home, because in maybe 30 years we will inherit some land in India'. You know?

Just thought this might be relevant to point out too.

Oh and lastly, to those saying I married an Indian and so should tolerate it - actually it's not me who is saying I refuse to do this! DH doesn't think that we should do it, and can't find a way that we COULD do it even if we did want to, as we are really not in the financial position to part with a regular amount of money. We already can't afford the stuff we would like - DC have to go without in ways that we wish they didn't, and THIS is our priority as we sort of move forward in our lives and careers - to build a better life for our children. Sending money to them would be a nice gesture, but that's all it would be - a gesture, as they don't need the cash.

However, if he DID want to do it, and could figure out a realistic way to do it (or if we were financially in a better situation) then I'd have no problem! I'd never demand he give up his traditions IF they were important to him and he wanted to stick to them. But he feels the same way I do: we both share the same feeling that it seems very odd to send money (that we don't have) to someone (who has more than enough) for no reason other than that is what some other people in the country do. You know?

It's really not that I'm saying 'No you can't support your family!' It's that we're both a bit awkward about it as we need our money, they don't need our money, and we don't know how to sort of fix the situation without hurting them because they're already upset that we won't pack our bags and move in with them in their family home in India. We just wanted to see what other people would do in this situation.

"(they think he should spend his money on SIL and DC and not his family), "

So why doesn't that apply to your husband??

Just say no, you can’t afford it.