There is a well-known notion that women or girls become impure during their monthly periods and should stay away from the consecrate temples and other holy places, even the pooja room in their homes.
When I had my first monthly periods at the age of 13, my mother advised me similarly on my ‘conduct’ during the periods. I accepted readily, for at that tender age you rarely question your parents’ wisdom, and even practised stringently. But as I grew up, I started putting this notion to my test of reason. And alas! It failed. How strange it is that an antiquated notion which has survived civilisations failed to pass my basic test of reason! After all why wasn’t it questioned before? And subsequently I realised that gender discrimination and male favouritism is so deeply rooted in our traditions dating back to the most archaic civilisations, that it takes hell lot of courage to defy these notions. And this is the sole reason why women up to our mothers’ generation have servilely bowed to such irrational ideas. But the brighter side is that in our age of globalisation, liberalisation and information, girls have started questioning the rationale behind the notion.
Periods is a simply a biological phenomenon that transforms a girl into woman. If you say girls become impure during periods and should abstain from worshiping, you are attributing impurity or shamefulness to womanhood. Because you are saying, “This is not something to be proud of. And because it is impure and dirty, so stay away from the Gods”.
The most miserable part of our society is that men have by default assumed the role to frame the code of conduct for women. It is very clear that women could never have made such traditions. Let the women themselves decide their conduct during periods and how should they worship God. After all it is their life, their periods and their Gods. Freedom is the birthright of women as it is for men.
Periods are a gender identity for women, a part of life. For me it is even a divine gift from God and not an ‘impure’ phenomenon because it dispenses a woman the potential to give birth to a life. When it is said that women should not offer prayers during periods, it is like dismantling its divine attribute. And by advocating segregation during periods we are linking it to disrespect and offensive attributes. And being a woman is not offensive. Womanhood is just a matter of pride as is manhood.
So girls, be proud of your periods and let not the age-old traditions insult your reason and subjugate you. We will decide our conduct ourselves and no one else will. Worship your God the way you want and don’t shy from visiting temples even on the very first day of your periods. After all if people have no problem worshipping Shivling, then why cant we worship our deity during periods?
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
MAKING INDIAN ROADS SAFER...
During the latter half of my 4- yrs stay in Dehradun I saw the traffic administration getting more and more stringent day by day. As I watched traffic policemen into action, I realised that traffic control reflects the law and order state of a city. When people break traffic rules and escape law, it reflects the lawlessness of the city. For a tourist or a visitor to a city, this comes handy in lending the first impression of a city. Similarly the administration on major roads and highways reflects the law and order state and governance of a country.
A few eye-openers: In all the road accidents across our country, 12 lakh people are seriously injured and about 3 lakh are permanently disabled. With 290 people on an average dying in road accidents in India everyday it is worth deliberating how to stall the progress of our roads and highways towards a graveyard and make them means of safer travel.
Usually in most cases of road accidents, victims are declared “brought dead” when they reach a hospital. In these cases, victims had to depend on the mercy of strangers to pick them from the accident-spot on time. A few crucial minutes saved could have well served the purpose. This calls for more number of patrol cars, emergency vehicles and motorcycle-borne policemen on the highway to keep an eye on speeding vehicles, rash driving, signs of drunkenness behind the wheels and to rescue accident victims.
A number of audits for highways have also recommended fencing to keep animals off the street and warning signs in accident -prone areas. Cameras should be installed in tunnels to check if any vehicle is not stranded within. Regular road safety audits should be made mandatory. It would also check factors that contribute to high accident rates- poor lighting, lack of signage and cattle or stray animals on the street. All of us are well aware that most of our highways are generally not illuminated. This is not a good sign.
Most cases of drunken-driving and intoxication behind the wheels are seen during the night. In fact, establishments those run high on business during the night hours are the nightclubs. It is at these nightclubs that youngsters get sloshed. And then we have the famous episodes of BMW verdicts! In France every such establishment like clubs and cafes that serve alcohol is legally bound to conduct breathalyser test on patrons as they leave. India should also institute such rules in cities where the management refuses to hand over the keys to customers who test positive.
Hefty fines for speeding could also go a long way in sloping down the accident rates. In Mumbai, for instance, the maximum fine one pays over speeding is a mere Rs. 200. In Singapore they charge an equivalent of Rs. 20,000 and in France it is in parity with Rs. 3.06 lakh. Whereas developed countries charge fines to the tune of one’s monthly income, in India it ends up to around half of one’s daily income.
With over 1 lakh people dying of road accidents in India every year- that’s 10 percent of road accident fatalities worldwide-it’s time we goad into action!
A few eye-openers: In all the road accidents across our country, 12 lakh people are seriously injured and about 3 lakh are permanently disabled. With 290 people on an average dying in road accidents in India everyday it is worth deliberating how to stall the progress of our roads and highways towards a graveyard and make them means of safer travel.
Usually in most cases of road accidents, victims are declared “brought dead” when they reach a hospital. In these cases, victims had to depend on the mercy of strangers to pick them from the accident-spot on time. A few crucial minutes saved could have well served the purpose. This calls for more number of patrol cars, emergency vehicles and motorcycle-borne policemen on the highway to keep an eye on speeding vehicles, rash driving, signs of drunkenness behind the wheels and to rescue accident victims.
A number of audits for highways have also recommended fencing to keep animals off the street and warning signs in accident -prone areas. Cameras should be installed in tunnels to check if any vehicle is not stranded within. Regular road safety audits should be made mandatory. It would also check factors that contribute to high accident rates- poor lighting, lack of signage and cattle or stray animals on the street. All of us are well aware that most of our highways are generally not illuminated. This is not a good sign.
Most cases of drunken-driving and intoxication behind the wheels are seen during the night. In fact, establishments those run high on business during the night hours are the nightclubs. It is at these nightclubs that youngsters get sloshed. And then we have the famous episodes of BMW verdicts! In France every such establishment like clubs and cafes that serve alcohol is legally bound to conduct breathalyser test on patrons as they leave. India should also institute such rules in cities where the management refuses to hand over the keys to customers who test positive.
Hefty fines for speeding could also go a long way in sloping down the accident rates. In Mumbai, for instance, the maximum fine one pays over speeding is a mere Rs. 200. In Singapore they charge an equivalent of Rs. 20,000 and in France it is in parity with Rs. 3.06 lakh. Whereas developed countries charge fines to the tune of one’s monthly income, in India it ends up to around half of one’s daily income.
With over 1 lakh people dying of road accidents in India every year- that’s 10 percent of road accident fatalities worldwide-it’s time we goad into action!
Thursday, August 6, 2009
THE PROMISCUOUS GRADUATES OF IITs/IIMs/AIIMS
IITs, IIMs and AIIMS- the most elite institutions of India that produce world-class engineers, managers and doctors. The mere mention of the institution brings them a 6-7 figured salaried job. An IIM graduate grabbing a Rs. 1-crore job makes so much of news in this country. Why? Was this the purpose for which these institutions were set up?
We are actually deceived by these unfaithful elite graduates. We must remember that if the government does not subsidise their education in IITs/IIMs/AIIMS, the students would end up paying fees running in 7-digit or even 8-digit numbers. But the government subsidises their education. And where does that subsidy come from? Our taxes!! And instead of returning it back to the nation, they fly overseas lured by lucrative jobs. After all who would like to work in countryside India in lack of resources, or even who would like to work in India at all? They forget that the benefit they get from government subsidies is ‘not’ a prize for their hard work but a training process for obligatory service.
And how easily these graduates forget the huge sums of resources flowing uninterrupted for them, come what may. There may be floods in Bihar, no hospital till 60 km radius in several villages, single-room schools in many villages, but they will always get a subsidised education. And what else, even in the economic slowdown! At such a huge cost we subsidise their education which coupled with inadequate returns culminates into exorbitant losses to the nation. When the government and the people of the country fulfil their ‘commitment’ with so much dedication, these elite graduates turn promiscuous!
And let’s have a look at what they have to say about the Indian issues. Recently a reputed newspaper published Chetan Bhagat’s (an IIM-A graduate) article on agriculture and it’s state in India. So what do you have to say about it Mr. Chetan?
He claims that subsidies, loan waivers and cheap rice do not create real progress or change the real face of agriculture in India. Such a great patriot you are Mr. Chetan sitting there in Singapore and worried about the progress of India. How about coming back to India and working for it? Then “Over two- thirds of our agricultural land is dependent on rains. Developed countries depend very little on rain. Apart from that we are not efficient either. China can produce twice the amount of rice for every acre of land as us. Australia can produce five times the rice per acre than India”. Wow, wonderful knowledge! Did you get to know all this in your IIM? In fact Mr. Chetan, you said nothing new. You just reiterated what has already been in the discussion. Sad that your IIM did not teach you how to pay back your nation which has subsidised your education.
Again, “The Indian farmer is on drip-feed in a hospital being kept alive for votes”. Drip-feed? Ludicrous! For a farmer in India, it is hard even to access a hospital and even if he does, affording a drip-feed is out of question. Then he claims “There are negatives created by such subsidies for which the government has to borrow”. This time you got it right Mr. Chetan. Which subsidy do you think is wrong? That given to a farmer or that given to you?
And then comes his out of the box idea. “In Hong Kong and Singapore, milk and butter come all the way from Australia. If an Indian software company can provide service abroad, there is no reason why an Indian farmer should be denied such a lucrative market”. Because software companies do not feed a country Mr. Chetan. You say that “if” a farmer makes money, he will invest in more cattle or efficiency improvements and production levels will meet demand in India and abroad. But how are our naive farmers going to make money and set their foot in a market, where Australians already have a good hold, without being properly equipped or having the expertise? And how will they compete with international quality standards of nations that have already been pursuing mechanised agriculture for long? Producing international quality standard products will further increase the input costs in the already loss making farming profession. Even if we are able to invest so much our margins will be narrow. Because other developed countries like the USA produces 20 times as much as we on an acre. And just because of this, our farmers will not be able to stand the fierce competition of offering ground-level prices from their competitors. Because beneath a certain level and because of low yield per hectare farmers will be further pushed into losses. And will not the capitalist countries demand opening up our markets with lesser duties so that we be able to sell in their markets? In such a case, our farmers will even loose the domestic market facing the same problems as in the international market. In all cases the poor are going to bear the brunt leaving the rich unaffected.
The point is we cannot just randomly step into the international market at any point of time. We did not move from “ship-to-mouth” situation this way either. We first need to target higher yield per hectare levels, higher quality levels through mechanisation. Only then we can move to the next level. But only if you knew the “real” state of the country, Mr. Chetan!
We are actually deceived by these unfaithful elite graduates. We must remember that if the government does not subsidise their education in IITs/IIMs/AIIMS, the students would end up paying fees running in 7-digit or even 8-digit numbers. But the government subsidises their education. And where does that subsidy come from? Our taxes!! And instead of returning it back to the nation, they fly overseas lured by lucrative jobs. After all who would like to work in countryside India in lack of resources, or even who would like to work in India at all? They forget that the benefit they get from government subsidies is ‘not’ a prize for their hard work but a training process for obligatory service.
And how easily these graduates forget the huge sums of resources flowing uninterrupted for them, come what may. There may be floods in Bihar, no hospital till 60 km radius in several villages, single-room schools in many villages, but they will always get a subsidised education. And what else, even in the economic slowdown! At such a huge cost we subsidise their education which coupled with inadequate returns culminates into exorbitant losses to the nation. When the government and the people of the country fulfil their ‘commitment’ with so much dedication, these elite graduates turn promiscuous!
And let’s have a look at what they have to say about the Indian issues. Recently a reputed newspaper published Chetan Bhagat’s (an IIM-A graduate) article on agriculture and it’s state in India. So what do you have to say about it Mr. Chetan?
He claims that subsidies, loan waivers and cheap rice do not create real progress or change the real face of agriculture in India. Such a great patriot you are Mr. Chetan sitting there in Singapore and worried about the progress of India. How about coming back to India and working for it? Then “Over two- thirds of our agricultural land is dependent on rains. Developed countries depend very little on rain. Apart from that we are not efficient either. China can produce twice the amount of rice for every acre of land as us. Australia can produce five times the rice per acre than India”. Wow, wonderful knowledge! Did you get to know all this in your IIM? In fact Mr. Chetan, you said nothing new. You just reiterated what has already been in the discussion. Sad that your IIM did not teach you how to pay back your nation which has subsidised your education.
Again, “The Indian farmer is on drip-feed in a hospital being kept alive for votes”. Drip-feed? Ludicrous! For a farmer in India, it is hard even to access a hospital and even if he does, affording a drip-feed is out of question. Then he claims “There are negatives created by such subsidies for which the government has to borrow”. This time you got it right Mr. Chetan. Which subsidy do you think is wrong? That given to a farmer or that given to you?
And then comes his out of the box idea. “In Hong Kong and Singapore, milk and butter come all the way from Australia. If an Indian software company can provide service abroad, there is no reason why an Indian farmer should be denied such a lucrative market”. Because software companies do not feed a country Mr. Chetan. You say that “if” a farmer makes money, he will invest in more cattle or efficiency improvements and production levels will meet demand in India and abroad. But how are our naive farmers going to make money and set their foot in a market, where Australians already have a good hold, without being properly equipped or having the expertise? And how will they compete with international quality standards of nations that have already been pursuing mechanised agriculture for long? Producing international quality standard products will further increase the input costs in the already loss making farming profession. Even if we are able to invest so much our margins will be narrow. Because other developed countries like the USA produces 20 times as much as we on an acre. And just because of this, our farmers will not be able to stand the fierce competition of offering ground-level prices from their competitors. Because beneath a certain level and because of low yield per hectare farmers will be further pushed into losses. And will not the capitalist countries demand opening up our markets with lesser duties so that we be able to sell in their markets? In such a case, our farmers will even loose the domestic market facing the same problems as in the international market. In all cases the poor are going to bear the brunt leaving the rich unaffected.
The point is we cannot just randomly step into the international market at any point of time. We did not move from “ship-to-mouth” situation this way either. We first need to target higher yield per hectare levels, higher quality levels through mechanisation. Only then we can move to the next level. But only if you knew the “real” state of the country, Mr. Chetan!
CLASS X REFORMS...
With the appointment of Kapil Sibal as the new HRD minister students and parents all over the country are expecting a wind of change to blow. With the HRD minister set to make Class X boards optional, it is worth deliberating if we are actually addressing the root cause of the problem. Mr. Sibal states that Indian education system is traumatic for both students and parents and the increasing number of suicides sets the urgency of the matter. While his other arguments may be directed at the root but this one seems to be a superficial one!
A different reason and not Class X boards makes the education system traumatic. It is gaining access to the system at the nursery and college levels that is traumatic. It’s coping with the dearth of options within the system that’s traumatic. Children commit suicides post poor results because students’ options close after that. Doors shut. It’s the fear of ‘life-after’ if you don’t score well that’s traumatic. So how do we cope with this problem?
First, we need to add more(in fact a lot of) seats to the system and make it equipped to cater to the huge population of students, both at the nursery and the college level. Second, education should be used as a tool to help students realise their talent area. Subjects should be as diverse as possible till the primary level. Subjects like music, sports, yoga, astronomy, sculpting, painting, basic sciences and maths should be introduced at the primary level at different stages. This would give children an opportunity to know which areas enthral them, unlock their brain and switch them to ‘exploring-mode’, thus identifying their talent areas. As they progress towards the secondary level students should have the liberty to pick few subjects of their choice from the primary level and continue to mature in them. Also after the primary level, subjects relevant to engineering, medicine, law, psychology(streams of higher difficulty) should be introduced. Stress should be laid on exposure than learning till Class VIII. As the student transition to higher levels of learning, they can keep on picking subjects of their liking and thus move gradually towards focussed learning from the one that was diversified at the primary level. This is how one can cope with the dearth of options within the system and make learning an enjoyable experience!
We shouldn’t forget that towards the end of the school years we might have students who may have only sports, arts, music subjects(and no sciences, maths) in their portfolio. But that does not matter at all. After all so many years of school education has moulded them from a raw talent to a finer one. The basic motivation behind this set up is imparting exposure at the school level itself and not at the graduation level(as is the case now). People argue that every talent cannot be an extraordinary one. We can have only one Abhinav Bindra, only one P. T. Usha or oly one Vijender Singh. Well, if China can win more than a 100 medals in a single Olympic, why do we stick to only one?
A different reason and not Class X boards makes the education system traumatic. It is gaining access to the system at the nursery and college levels that is traumatic. It’s coping with the dearth of options within the system that’s traumatic. Children commit suicides post poor results because students’ options close after that. Doors shut. It’s the fear of ‘life-after’ if you don’t score well that’s traumatic. So how do we cope with this problem?
First, we need to add more(in fact a lot of) seats to the system and make it equipped to cater to the huge population of students, both at the nursery and the college level. Second, education should be used as a tool to help students realise their talent area. Subjects should be as diverse as possible till the primary level. Subjects like music, sports, yoga, astronomy, sculpting, painting, basic sciences and maths should be introduced at the primary level at different stages. This would give children an opportunity to know which areas enthral them, unlock their brain and switch them to ‘exploring-mode’, thus identifying their talent areas. As they progress towards the secondary level students should have the liberty to pick few subjects of their choice from the primary level and continue to mature in them. Also after the primary level, subjects relevant to engineering, medicine, law, psychology(streams of higher difficulty) should be introduced. Stress should be laid on exposure than learning till Class VIII. As the student transition to higher levels of learning, they can keep on picking subjects of their liking and thus move gradually towards focussed learning from the one that was diversified at the primary level. This is how one can cope with the dearth of options within the system and make learning an enjoyable experience!
We shouldn’t forget that towards the end of the school years we might have students who may have only sports, arts, music subjects(and no sciences, maths) in their portfolio. But that does not matter at all. After all so many years of school education has moulded them from a raw talent to a finer one. The basic motivation behind this set up is imparting exposure at the school level itself and not at the graduation level(as is the case now). People argue that every talent cannot be an extraordinary one. We can have only one Abhinav Bindra, only one P. T. Usha or oly one Vijender Singh. Well, if China can win more than a 100 medals in a single Olympic, why do we stick to only one?
EMBRACING HOMOSEXUALS...
In a historic judgement, a two-judge bench of the Delhi HC comprising Chief Justice A. P. Shah and Justice Murlidharan had decriminalised non-heterosexual sex between consenting adults. But a lot of debate has since then surrounded this judgement. With LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) activists embracing the judgement, the so-called religious groups and ‘moral custodians’ have resorted to opposition. Surprisingly, even Ramdeo Baba, widely accepted as a reformer in ayurveda and yoga, has stood in vehement opposition and described homosexuality as a ‘disorder’ while sexologists describe it as a ‘natural sexual variant’. The legal battle started by the Naz Foundation in 2001 has culminated in lending dignity to the ‘sexual minorities’.
Rightfully argued by the Delhi HC, the section 377 of the IPC violates the right to life and personal liberty, equality before law and equal protection from law and a provision that prohibits discrimination on grounds including sex that the constitution grants. The judgement demonstrates an unparallel example of ‘inclusiveness’.
There are two types of people in a society- the ‘majorities’ and the ‘minorities’. We, as majorities, must understand that we have an onus of responsibility on our shoulders to understand the minorities (including sexual minorities) and mainstream them and not ostracise them. Everyone in this country should be free to pursue her/his sexual orientation without shame and fear. Just because we are the majorities, we are no one to decide who is right and who is wrong. Then come the ‘moral custodians’ in our country who beat women in pubs and feel homosexuality is ‘immoral’.
WHO has said that homosexuality is not a disease. Then what are we afraid of? That homosexuality will dismantle our culture? Which culture are we talking of? A culture where few hundred years ago sati and child marriage were practised and widow remarriage abolished and women and animals were treated alike? (In those ages also we practised these evils with the ‘consent’ of religion through Manu Smriti). Or a culture where men object the freedom of women and beat them in pubs? (Those men also took themselves as custodians of religion).Or a culture where still 21 Dalit women are raped every week and their marriage in the upper castes is objected by ‘society’.
Ramdeo Baba claims that homosexuality is not just a disorder but a ‘sin’. It is not a sin. It is just a different sexual orientation. He even says that children have now started asking absurd questions on homosexuality to parents. What is so absurd in that? In a country where politicians object the inclusion of sex education into mainstream education on ‘moral’ grounds, where else will the children resort to if not parents?
There is also a popular perception that the judgement will lead to spread of homosexuality. Homosexuals existed even before this judgement but they lived in the closet. This judgement will only give them some air breather to come out of the closet and be proud of their sexual orientation.
Homosexuals have been in the closet for long long years and have awaited dignity that never came before this judgement. They are humans living beneath human dignity and ashamed of even revealing their ‘identity’. They have been the victims of the norms set by ‘our’ society.
We should learn to ‘accommodate’ people in our society. We don’t need to fear that this judgement will spread homosexuality but let us hope that this judgement will help us understand homosexuals better.
Thank you Chief Justice A.P.Shah and Justice Murlidharan!
Rightfully argued by the Delhi HC, the section 377 of the IPC violates the right to life and personal liberty, equality before law and equal protection from law and a provision that prohibits discrimination on grounds including sex that the constitution grants. The judgement demonstrates an unparallel example of ‘inclusiveness’.
There are two types of people in a society- the ‘majorities’ and the ‘minorities’. We, as majorities, must understand that we have an onus of responsibility on our shoulders to understand the minorities (including sexual minorities) and mainstream them and not ostracise them. Everyone in this country should be free to pursue her/his sexual orientation without shame and fear. Just because we are the majorities, we are no one to decide who is right and who is wrong. Then come the ‘moral custodians’ in our country who beat women in pubs and feel homosexuality is ‘immoral’.
WHO has said that homosexuality is not a disease. Then what are we afraid of? That homosexuality will dismantle our culture? Which culture are we talking of? A culture where few hundred years ago sati and child marriage were practised and widow remarriage abolished and women and animals were treated alike? (In those ages also we practised these evils with the ‘consent’ of religion through Manu Smriti). Or a culture where men object the freedom of women and beat them in pubs? (Those men also took themselves as custodians of religion).Or a culture where still 21 Dalit women are raped every week and their marriage in the upper castes is objected by ‘society’.
Ramdeo Baba claims that homosexuality is not just a disorder but a ‘sin’. It is not a sin. It is just a different sexual orientation. He even says that children have now started asking absurd questions on homosexuality to parents. What is so absurd in that? In a country where politicians object the inclusion of sex education into mainstream education on ‘moral’ grounds, where else will the children resort to if not parents?
There is also a popular perception that the judgement will lead to spread of homosexuality. Homosexuals existed even before this judgement but they lived in the closet. This judgement will only give them some air breather to come out of the closet and be proud of their sexual orientation.
Homosexuals have been in the closet for long long years and have awaited dignity that never came before this judgement. They are humans living beneath human dignity and ashamed of even revealing their ‘identity’. They have been the victims of the norms set by ‘our’ society.
We should learn to ‘accommodate’ people in our society. We don’t need to fear that this judgement will spread homosexuality but let us hope that this judgement will help us understand homosexuals better.
Thank you Chief Justice A.P.Shah and Justice Murlidharan!
Friday, May 29, 2009
THE UNCOMPROMISING BULLSHIT MALE EGO
I was inspired to write this blog by the reminiscences of a PDP (Personality Development Programme) class in my college. The class was lectured by a male teacher who singled out a male student to play a small game called ‘Hot Chair’ in which he would be fielding questions from the whole class. Things were going very propitious until a girl asked a question whose reply had force enough to provoke my feminine ego.
The girl’s question was: “What is that one trait that you would not like your wife to have?”
And the boy gave the most coward answer ever: “I would not like my wife to be working.”
One could easily sense the insecurity that surrounded this boy. The reply prompted me to ask: “You would like to have an educated woman as your wife and every educated woman would like to have her own career. So how do you think you will manage?”
Well there was no escape for him. People have heard of male ego but a feminine ego can be exponentially dangerous and he did hit that. While the boy felt short of courage and kept quite, the teacher started fielding questions for him(as they shared the same perception on this issue). The discussion revolved around two things:
One, the teacher said that every man would want his wife to take care of “their” child sitting at home for at least two years and then should rejoin her work.
Now, all those people who are in touch with international affairs would know Sarah Palin (the vice-presidential Republican candidate for the recent US elections). Famously known as hockey-mom, she returned back to the most exhausting campaigning just three days after her delivery. Which heaven gave her that courage and strength? If one woman would do that it is certainly possible for others also. Moreover, when you marry a woman and have your own child, taking care of the child demands an equal participation from your side and not a disproportionate one. It is not the sole responsibility of the woman and if you ask her to sit at home, you should also do the same.
Secondly, he said that women leave their jobs because they are “not able to do” so many things together- conceiving a child, looking after him/her and taking a job etc. etc. simultaneously. Now there, my teacher, if even you were given to do so many things together, even you would have not been successful. After all a woman is also a human being. Moreover, when you want her to sit at home for 2 years looking after your baby, do you think she remains trained and competitive enough to step into another world so suddenly after 2 years and work as efficiently as she used to in her office just like before? Ultimately she’s not able to stand all that, becomes frustrated and demoralised and gives in. And finally, your plot of a totally illogical & absurd “2 years” has worked out!
Whether or not you were able to persuade her to sit at home, finally she has given in. And you then blame everything on women’s abilities. Double victory, isn’t it?
The most surprising part was that only one male student – Rahul, among 20 supported me. While he raised his voice stating that “P. Chidambaran’s wife is an advocate in the Supreme Court” his comment was sidelined by the teacher as it could easily undermine his defence. The other boys were implicitly against me, though quite. If only one person among 20 could support me, just imagine the ratio of males in our country who really understand women, their dignity & freedom!!
The girl’s question was: “What is that one trait that you would not like your wife to have?”
And the boy gave the most coward answer ever: “I would not like my wife to be working.”
One could easily sense the insecurity that surrounded this boy. The reply prompted me to ask: “You would like to have an educated woman as your wife and every educated woman would like to have her own career. So how do you think you will manage?”
Well there was no escape for him. People have heard of male ego but a feminine ego can be exponentially dangerous and he did hit that. While the boy felt short of courage and kept quite, the teacher started fielding questions for him(as they shared the same perception on this issue). The discussion revolved around two things:
One, the teacher said that every man would want his wife to take care of “their” child sitting at home for at least two years and then should rejoin her work.
Now, all those people who are in touch with international affairs would know Sarah Palin (the vice-presidential Republican candidate for the recent US elections). Famously known as hockey-mom, she returned back to the most exhausting campaigning just three days after her delivery. Which heaven gave her that courage and strength? If one woman would do that it is certainly possible for others also. Moreover, when you marry a woman and have your own child, taking care of the child demands an equal participation from your side and not a disproportionate one. It is not the sole responsibility of the woman and if you ask her to sit at home, you should also do the same.
Secondly, he said that women leave their jobs because they are “not able to do” so many things together- conceiving a child, looking after him/her and taking a job etc. etc. simultaneously. Now there, my teacher, if even you were given to do so many things together, even you would have not been successful. After all a woman is also a human being. Moreover, when you want her to sit at home for 2 years looking after your baby, do you think she remains trained and competitive enough to step into another world so suddenly after 2 years and work as efficiently as she used to in her office just like before? Ultimately she’s not able to stand all that, becomes frustrated and demoralised and gives in. And finally, your plot of a totally illogical & absurd “2 years” has worked out!
Whether or not you were able to persuade her to sit at home, finally she has given in. And you then blame everything on women’s abilities. Double victory, isn’t it?
The most surprising part was that only one male student – Rahul, among 20 supported me. While he raised his voice stating that “P. Chidambaran’s wife is an advocate in the Supreme Court” his comment was sidelined by the teacher as it could easily undermine his defence. The other boys were implicitly against me, though quite. If only one person among 20 could support me, just imagine the ratio of males in our country who really understand women, their dignity & freedom!!
INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
Well as this is my first blog, i would like to start with my favourite article among all my articles. This article also gives a true reflection of my thoughts and a glimpse of my very basic character. An epithet like 'feminist' is the most common attributed to me by my freinds and others. Carry on....
INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY-
THE IRONY OF THE CELEBRATION
Read any article on the internet or newspaper on International Women’s Day and for most of them the opening lines will be “She’s the multi-tasker – daughter, mother, wife, sister, etc.-“. What is so achieving about being a multi-tasker? A man is also a good father, son and husband. You cannot make an assumption or claim that he’s not. But a man is never identified as a good father, son or husband but as a CEO, an IAS officer, an eminent engineer or a doctor or to talk plainly – an ambitious employee. Then why are these traditional roles her parameters of identification? The irony is that these are the roles that have domesticated women- her job as a mother, her job as a wife and as a daughter and made her advent in the outside world of men more difficult.
Women’s Day should not be used as an occasion to celebrate traditions but to celebrate all those occasions when traditions were broken. In ancient days, even the desire to learn in a woman was considered a ‘sin’. The code of Manu states, “In childhood a woman must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband, then to her sons; a woman must never be independent. There is no God on earth for a woman than her husband. She must on the death of her husband allow herself to be burnt alive on the same funeral pyre. That everyone will praise her virtue”.
To reach the top, women face more difficulties than men and counter more stumbling blocks than a man does. She might not be multi-tasker or might have completely different set of interests but she is forced to do certain things because of her traditional roles in society. For example, she is ‘asked’ to learn cooking and other household works, along with her education, that she might not really enjoy doing. The famous stories of Indira Gandhi, Kiran Bedi, Kalpana Chawla, Kiran Mazumdar Shaw and Indira Nooyi are jubiliant but unveil only a part of the scenario. And if new examples are not set at a faster pace, it will be indicative of the ‘real’ status of women in society that we have prevaricated to make the women happy and ‘contented’.
Why do IITs, IIMs and ISB have disproportionately fewer women enrolled than men? Because gender plays a very important role in shaping parents’ ‘expectations’ and a child’s education. Why does the army still not recruit women to combat on the frontier? Not because they cannot be made combative; they can be. Even men need training. But because that is not the traditional role of women. If a woman can climb the Mt. Everest she can also combat on the front. Cricket is not a sport in India but an obsession. But how many would be able to tell the name of Indian women’s cricket team captain? Forget the names of players. The reason? This is not the traditional role of women. How many would be able to name a single woman boxing player?
Traditions in India and elsewhere have only gripped women in shackles which might have started loosening but the gender stereotypes still prevail. Traditions did not come from heaven but were created by us only. And their creation was subjected to our already diseased psyche that women are inferior and the biased mindset of which the Manu Smriti is a testimony.
It needs immense courage and fearlessness to defy and demolish the traditions and stereotypes. And somewhere we ourselves have want
ed women to stay in those stereotypes, that is why we have so much objected whenever the traditions were defied (of which the recent Mangalore pub incident is an evidence). If we dream of those days when women will not only emulate but also surpass men in all those fields that still remain unventured by women, and to be one of the lucky generations on this earth who have witnessed a revolution, then breaking the traditions is what needs to be encouraged and celebrated and not her ‘default’ roles.
THE IRONY OF THE CELEBRATION
Read any article on the internet or newspaper on International Women’s Day and for most of them the opening lines will be “She’s the multi-tasker – daughter, mother, wife, sister, etc.-“. What is so achieving about being a multi-tasker? A man is also a good father, son and husband. You cannot make an assumption or claim that he’s not. But a man is never identified as a good father, son or husband but as a CEO, an IAS officer, an eminent engineer or a doctor or to talk plainly – an ambitious employee. Then why are these traditional roles her parameters of identification? The irony is that these are the roles that have domesticated women- her job as a mother, her job as a wife and as a daughter and made her advent in the outside world of men more difficult.
Women’s Day should not be used as an occasion to celebrate traditions but to celebrate all those occasions when traditions were broken. In ancient days, even the desire to learn in a woman was considered a ‘sin’. The code of Manu states, “In childhood a woman must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband, then to her sons; a woman must never be independent. There is no God on earth for a woman than her husband. She must on the death of her husband allow herself to be burnt alive on the same funeral pyre. That everyone will praise her virtue”.
To reach the top, women face more difficulties than men and counter more stumbling blocks than a man does. She might not be multi-tasker or might have completely different set of interests but she is forced to do certain things because of her traditional roles in society. For example, she is ‘asked’ to learn cooking and other household works, along with her education, that she might not really enjoy doing. The famous stories of Indira Gandhi, Kiran Bedi, Kalpana Chawla, Kiran Mazumdar Shaw and Indira Nooyi are jubiliant but unveil only a part of the scenario. And if new examples are not set at a faster pace, it will be indicative of the ‘real’ status of women in society that we have prevaricated to make the women happy and ‘contented’.
Why do IITs, IIMs and ISB have disproportionately fewer women enrolled than men? Because gender plays a very important role in shaping parents’ ‘expectations’ and a child’s education. Why does the army still not recruit women to combat on the frontier? Not because they cannot be made combative; they can be. Even men need training. But because that is not the traditional role of women. If a woman can climb the Mt. Everest she can also combat on the front. Cricket is not a sport in India but an obsession. But how many would be able to tell the name of Indian women’s cricket team captain? Forget the names of players. The reason? This is not the traditional role of women. How many would be able to name a single woman boxing player?
Traditions in India and elsewhere have only gripped women in shackles which might have started loosening but the gender stereotypes still prevail. Traditions did not come from heaven but were created by us only. And their creation was subjected to our already diseased psyche that women are inferior and the biased mindset of which the Manu Smriti is a testimony.
It needs immense courage and fearlessness to defy and demolish the traditions and stereotypes. And somewhere we ourselves have want
ed women to stay in those stereotypes, that is why we have so much objected whenever the traditions were defied (of which the recent Mangalore pub incident is an evidence). If we dream of those days when women will not only emulate but also surpass men in all those fields that still remain unventured by women, and to be one of the lucky generations on this earth who have witnessed a revolution, then breaking the traditions is what needs to be encouraged and celebrated and not her ‘default’ roles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
