Gender Equlaity

Note – Before I even begin to write what is on my mind, let me clarify that I am aware of and agree to the following, lest I be reminded of these later:

  • Women were mistreated in all possible ways for many many years and still are in some segments
  • The concept of women not being equal to men was never gladly accepted and is still not.
  • Systems such as Dowry, Parda et all should never have existed and should not exist
  • Female foeticide and infanticide are a deplorable reality

HAVING SAID ALL OF THIS, my focus in this post is on the middle class segment of the society which BY AND LARGE does not suffer from these ailments (or at least not in a violent way) – EXCEPTIONS ARE MANY I KNOW!

Today, I will be concentration on equality that needs to be provided to the MEN in our society. Most people must be agreeing with me, but never state the same given that it is completely against what SHOULD be said.

I want the females reading this to picture the following (the men are already a part of this so no need for them to imagine):

  • A coach specifically reserved for the ladies in the Metro, and the right to travel in all other coaches as well – and then when in PEEK Rush Hour, some females decide to board the general coach, the expectation by them that all men will maintain one arm’s distance from them – and every time the same is not done (simply because it is not possible in that kind of crowd), the women cry hoarse over the issue subjecting the men to humiliation and shame. [I have seen this so many times in the last one month plus of travelling by metro that I pity the poor men]
  • A woman can flirt with any man around her that she wishes to, and it is supposed to be taken as a compliment by the men – but the minute a man she doesn’t WANT attention from decides to flirt with her, all charges of molestation, eve-teasing etc. are rattled off on the guy. EITHER disallow the women also from flirting with the men THEY THINK FIT OR allow the men also to flirt with the women THEY THINK FIT.
  • During a fight between two people, the woman may threaten to kill, destroy, harm the man and the man is supposed to understand that she is saying all these things in anger (even if she may have meant them), but the man as much as glares at the woman or as much as moves his hand (not hitting her), a case of Domestic Violence is slapped on to the guy.
  • A woman decides to dress in absolutely see through clothes (I have seen a female – on a metro platform, dressed in a white see through skirt, to the extent that her inner garments were visible). Such woman expects to attract all the attention she WANTS and no UNWANTED attention. It’s simple – you don’t want men of all kinds staring at you – don’t wear such clothes at 9:30 in the night in a public place. Any man who as much as looks in the direction of such females  will be called names and questions will be raised on everything ranging from his character to his upbringing.
  • The woman (wife) can decide to disrespect her in-laws, not even be courteous to them, take their son away (literally) from their home and lives and no-one bats an eyelid, but if a man as much as suggests that the girl’s family is too interfering, this amounts to CRUELTY on the woman.
  • In any given field today, there is reservation for Lower Castes, Economically backward,….., Women – Where it leaves the general category men, I shudder to think.

At no point am I claiming that middle class females are not subject to atrocities. My sole contention is that, for the acts of a few, why is the whole community of men being held guilty. Why have we made it a habit to assume it is the man’s fault? Why is it that before we even know an iota of the story, we assume that somehow somewhere the man is wrong? If the woman is angry, it is the man;s fault, he must have caused the provocation; if the man feels angry, it is the man’s fault, he should not have given in to the provocation, “if at all” by the woman. EQUALITY???

The following video shows just what equality should mean (I INSIST EVERYONE WATCH IT ONCE) –https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1JADWjEajg

 

Advertisements

Terrorist? Freedom Fighter?

Before I write, I request all of you to read this post with an open mind, minus bias to the perspectives that have been in our minds for ages because of where we belong to, and the social perspective thereof.

Who is a terrorist? There is no International definition of the same, and that is so for a reason. In common parlance, a terrorist is said to be someone who causes terror at a mass level.  But then again, who defines this terror.

A person who murders many, is he a terrorist? If yes, then every serial killer should be prosecuted not under the normal criminal law, but as a terrorist. Is someone raging a war against a country a terrorist? If so the crime of sedition should be removed from the Indian Penal Code and should be replaced by the crime of terrorism. What exactly does it mean to cause terror, and who really is a terrorist.

Bhagat Singh and other such people are called Freedom Fighters by us Indians; Extremists, yes, but freedom fighters none the less. Let’s look at what they were doing. To put it simply, they were causing terror in the minds of the British (which were a mass) and raging war against the government in force at that time. They were breaking the then laws of the land. The British called them terrorists. I guess they were, if we go by the definition we give for terrorists.

On the other hand, we have the sensitive area of Kashmir, the people there call themselves freedom fighters, fighting for the freedom of Kashmir from India. We call them militants or terrorists. Why? Are they not doing what they are, for freedom.

You may say that J&K conceded to be a part of India. But then similarly, did the Nawabs not initially concede to a contract with the British to hand over government to them?

How are our “freedom fighters” not terrorists, while theirs are? Or looking at it from the opposite end, how are their “terrorists” not freedom fighters but our’s are? Think over it.

 

Another issue I would like to take up is the Nuremberg and such trials. Out of the people tried after the Second World War, was a woman, who was tried because she had told the then government of her husband who was acting against Hitler. Her argument was that she was following the law of the land, as it was at that time. How and why is that punishable? Also facing trial were some high officials of the government for imposing the rule made my Hitler. Their stand was that they only imposed what was the law in force, and had they not complied, they would have been given the death punishment. How is this fair to them?

The major argument that comes across for these trials is of Human Rights violation by the Nazis. And to this I ask you, what is natural justice? What are human rights being violated? The basic human right of right to life?? Is not the POTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act) [ though repealed], against human rights. The Act stated that a person could be kept in custody for 180 days before he had to be produced before a Magistrate. The normal law says within 24 hours. How is that not human rights violation? Also the people who die every year of hunger, or excessive cold or heat, how is that not human rights violation? Put the legislation and the government and executive to trial for these violations.

Finally, I leave you all with one more question. If today a law is passed, that states something as mandatory, which is against the consciousnesses of you or I, with the punishment for disobedience being death, can you or I fight it? The best we can do, is appeal to the higher judiciary of the country to make the law ultra-vires (against) the Constitution, but if that is not done, would we not follow it? Think about this..