Delhi Rape Incident - Danger Sign of a Dual Society

My time with Twitter severely increased, for the hashtag #delhirape kept me angry, frustrated, curious and sarcastic; all at the same time.

Most of the tweets said what Napoleon Bonaparte had said over 200 years ago, "The act of policing is, in order to punish less often, to punish more severely."

Indeed the rapist should be publicly punished severely.

The other majority of tweets were a bit of a concern. They were of women shouting their words of anger and wisdom about how females are being taken for granted, coerced and exploited. Any tweet condescending to femininity were thrashed and castrated. 

There were tweets by a few men of reckoning, expressing that girls should be accompanied by elders at night for safety. They didn't know what hit them before they could even read their own tweet.

Although, it is sad that it took a heinous crime like rape for the citizens to come out in protest, yet it is a delight because Democracy works best when people claim it as their own, and participate. We should hope that this protest ultimately concludes into the reasons behind such a heinous social phenomenon of raping a women.

This is not the first rape and we have seen that rapes were rampant even during the protests across the country. According to the National Crime Records Bureau, the incidents of rape went up by 873 percent between 1953 and 2011. This is three times faster than all cognizable crimes put together and three-and-a-half times faster than murder. Between 2007 and 2011 alone, rape incidents have increased by 9.7 percent. This is reported figure and we can fairly add a multiplier to these statistics.

I am not a social scientist, but I am a keen observer who have spent 37 years in this country. I have experienced this country before social media, before economic liberalization, and during Doordarshan. I have seen the times when two flowers connoted kissing in movies. I have been in the cusp of time when joint families were dis-integrating into nuclear families.  I have seen tennis transform from knee length skirts to bum-length skirts, while the shorts of the men tennis players perhaps increased in length.

The most critical change that I have seen is what media, satellite television and Internet  have brought in. The information about the glamour and lifestyles of people living in Mumbai (or any metro) became known to people living in villages. Sadly, it was the content that got broadcasted across the country without the accompanying context. 

India was always disparate in terms of income, culture and lifestyle, but it was not known and seen. Now, with technology, the perceived disparity is much more than actual disparity... and it is growing between the have's and have-not's. It is not about the economic disparity alone. It is not  about the rich becoming richer and the poor becoming poorer. Socio-cultural disparity in terms of identity is the concern that I would like to bring forth here. This is an alarmingly increasing disparity and a dichotomy is being created in terms of social attitude, expectations and perceptions about life. It is this polarization in terms of thoughts and world-view of things that concerns me.

With the Internet revolution and media, the world is changing too drastically. More drastically for a country like India, where education and economy could not and is unable to keep pace because of the sheer population, diversity and vastness of the country. And of course, lack of a visionary governance.

If I compare how I used to perceive a short skirt when I was 15 years old, with a 15 year old of today, I feel like I was a pervert. Fortunately, I was part of the drastic change. I was not a mere spectator to the change. I am afraid that the majority of the Indian population are mere spectators. There are a whole lot of 15 year olds who are stuck in time and have not graduated to this new age.

We have created an atmosphere of dual societies. A dual society contains two worlds in one: the Third World and the First World coexist within the same nation, under the same authorities and the same flag. Both are disparate in terms of access to benefits of education, of employment, standard of living, media and proximity to globalization of thought processes. These societies don't understand or relate to each other.

A simple case of dual society creation is the housing development that is happening in Mumbai through the 'Slum Rehabilitation Schemes'. The builder clears the slum, makes a sub-standard multi-storeyed building with tiny rooms to accommodate the slum population, and then makes a plush building with all club amenities for selling to the rich. The plush building brings in people with no history and similarity to the local population, people whose attitudes and lifestyle is different, and mostly un-acceptable to the local population.

The above example, although dangerous, is very mild. The disparity that non-egalitarian policies regarding education, employment and media can bring, is much more swift and over-powering.

Dual societies are ticking bombs waiting for explosion. Today it is an increasing trend on rape incidents, tomorrow it would be incidents of robbery and terrorism. This is where the policy makers of India has to act. Duality in society acts as a break for change and progress. It often leads to dangerous social phenomena like we have seen in the hashtag #delhirape.

The other conclusion to draw here is that lets not make this an episode of fight between genders. In a dual society, women are not safe. Period. Even man are not safe. I have heard of a female housemaid boiling a baby in a pressure cooker. I have heard of a housemaid poisoning the entire family during dinner. I have heard of a college kid stabbed and murdered by slum neighbours when he was trying to save one girl from eve-teasing.

So believe me that it is not about gender. It is about the unequal society and wider generation gaps. Let us all be responsible citizens and do whatever we can to have an equal society in terms of thinking, attitudes, and lifestyle. The haves should control their urges and be more sensitive towards the have-nots. Similarly, have-nots need to be given opportunities to cross the barrier.

It is quite a difficult task considering that we, as a nation, are a selfish lot. We consider the Ganga as a sacred river for a holy dip, but hardly bother for the next person who is coming to take a dip. We have to start thinking as a nation, as a team.

Till then, there would be only arguments, protests and tweets.

I hate being a Migrant Worker in Mumbai !

This is not a political statement. This is not a communal statement. However close it may sound. It is a cultural statement. It is an economic statement.

"Everyone in Kolkata has two names : Bhalo Naam Ar Ekta Daak Naam."

That is how it goes in the newly released movie - Kahaani. It is a great movie. Vidya Balan was simply superb. However, what I absolutely adored about the movie, was the way Sujoy Ghosh brought in the cultural nuances of Kolkata into the narrative of the movie. Making every Bengali proud.

You need a great sense of pride, belonging-ness and respect to one's own identity to be able to portray it so well into a movie. I love people who truly belong to their cultural ethnic identity. I love being Assamese. It is more than geographical and political identity. It is more about cultural identity that includes the history, mother tongue, customs, art and literature.

Sadly today, the importance of culture and ethnic roots is overwhelmed by the materialism of today. Career aspirations guide us towards mathematics, science, computers. We ignore our mother culture.

We urge and scold our kids to know multiplication tables, but may not do the same to know our mother tongue. We would not teach our kids about our great literary scholars like Laksminath Bezbaruah, Jyotiprasad Agarwala and Bishnuprasad Rabha. We would not teach them how to make the traditional snacks, food, pickles etc. We would not encourage them to wear the traditional dresses.

We want our kids to be global citizens, to be metropolitan citizens. The stress is more into learning English, more into imbibing the culture propagated by television and films (produced in the metros). We forget that we are actually the citizens of our ethnic identity, and of our geographical identity.

This attitude, or indifference to one's own identity has many negative fall-outs. The most critical among them, is the un-equal economic growth dividing the richer geographies from the poorer geographies. We are creating economic behemoths in the cities, especially the metros, leaving behind the rural India.

Every community or a region survives on the quality of the people, just like a school depends on the quality of the students. The good quality people are rushing to the bigger cities to become global citizens, resulting in brain drain and poorer rural areas. Brain drain is a direct consequence of taking one's own culture for granted. Brain drain is corollary to the aspiration to learn the global culture, expecting a better economic future and an acceptance in the global socio-economic materialism.

This expectation need not necessary be the truth. Even if it is true, it may not lead to happiness, a greater individual good and overall social progress. Opportunities for a better life exist everywhere. It may not be overtly visible to the common people. It is hidden because of the fact that better education facilities, social and economic infrastructure and knowledge economy are polarised in the bigger cities.

In reality, back home in our villages and smaller towns like Jorhat, Dibrugarh, Tezpur, we have lesser competition, better scope in almost all businesses, familiarity of language / culture and home / family support. More importantly, there is a grand feeling of doing something for the greater good of the society, by bringing in the knowledge capital from bigger cities.

The world is becoming smaller with easier transportation, improved Internet and mobile connectivity, leading to wider access to information. Today is the best time to think about going back to our roots and implement whatever we have learnt in the bigger cities. Although, it would not be easy, yet if we persevere, we can bring the much needed development and progress to the rural neglected regions of our country.

Parents and the elders have a big role to play to bring in this change. We need to instill a sense of pride for the community and encourage kids to come back after studying outside the state.

I have been outside Assam for the past 15 years. Surely, I have done well individually, but there is a nagging guilt that I am not using my knowledge and skill for the people of Assam. I could have scaled up my father's school uniform business. I could have contributed in many other ways.

I have started hating being a migrant worker. I always used to hate the Mumbai traffic, but now I know that I am causing it.

I have made plans to contribute to my Assamese community. I have made plans to return to Assam. It was never a better time to go back to our native towns and villages. Lets start a revolution. Lets stop being migrant workers!

Conflict of Individualism with Collective Knowledge

Elizabeth Gilbert - the famous author of 'Eat Pray Love' and 'Committed' sums up her western upbringing as: "You matter". She talks about personal happiness through a very personal, individualistic search for contentment.

Today one can read umpteen similar viewpoints supporting happiness via individualism, freedom to choose one's own destiny towards happiness, opportunity to shape one's own life's ambition and dreams, independence to choose one's own love (life partner), liberation from conservative tradition and promotion of the self.

Elizabeth Gilbert describes this phenomenon beautifully when she writes, "I was raised to believe that I was special. My 'me-ness' was always prized, and was recognised as being different from my sister's 'her-ness', my friends' 'them-ness' and everyone else's 'everyone-else-ness'."

I see nothing wrong with this attitude but fear that it may instigate rebellous-ness. Rebellion in itself too may not be bad but when laced with ignorance can create chaos.

Elizabeth Gilbert had to travel the world at the age of 37 to research and discover 'Marriage' - the stubbornly enduring old institution. That too, after being married earlier for 6 years. Fortunately, she had the money, motivation, intelligence and resources to take the effort. But was it worth it? It is interesting to note that she hardly mentions the role of her family, her upbringing in teaching her notions about marriage.

My contention is that decisions and directions in life is best taken with maximum possible understanding about life. It is the relative wisdom that would ensure relative contentment. My belief is that individual wisdom can never be richer than collective wisdom. My belief is that the family support system is the most self-less of all source of collective wisdom.

The culture of individualism conflicts with this benefit of collective wisdom because an individual has to suspend logic and obvious reasoning to take advantage of collective aged wisdom. There are many aspects of life's wisdom that cannot be understood at a particular point in time. Individual wisdom comes with age, experience, education, circumstances. So it may be prudent to believe in collective wisdom without really understanding the same.

If we take wisdom in terms of the understanding the institution of marriage and the effect of individualism in America, it was as early as 1800s when social conservatives suggested that 'this trend toward expressive individualism in marriage would spell out the very breakdown of society'. What they specifically predicted was that 'allowing couples to make life matches based purely on love and individual whims would promptly lead to astronomical divorce rates and a host of bitterly broken homes'. Dont you think they were kind of correct?

To reiterate, it may not be always possible to understand 'why is it what it is' for whatever our elders advise us, society administers, neighbours gossip etc. We need to open our intuition and instincts to accept views and opinions irrespective of whatever it is termed - 'traditions', 'superstitions', 'customs', 'gossip', jokes etc.

We should not let the collective wisdom of our extended family support system get diluted with fervent individualism. We cannot afford to re-invent our worldly understanding every lifetime. Of course, we can choose to disagree, but with extreme caution.

The western concept of individual choice may sound cool. But beware, its lonely and devoid of worldly time-tested logic. We have to let collective wisdom survive the onslaught of western individualistic culture.

Everyone of us cant be Elizabeth Gilbert.

What's wrong with live-in relationships, asks Supreme Court

Marriage as a forceful essential convention has got a kick in the butt.

The Supreme Court yesterday opined that a man and woman living together without marriage cannot be construed as an offence. This, along with the January 2008 Supreme Court ruling stating that 'if a man and woman are involved in a live-in relationship for a long period, they will be treated as a married couple and their child would be called legitimate', makes for a great change in the Indian social fabric.

With respect to physical security, the female of live in relationship is already given protection under the Domestic Violence Act 2005. In terms of the fear that the male partner may leave the girl with kids is also no longer true. In the court of law, it will be very easy for her to prove legitimacy.

With respect to children, the SC judgement has dispelled all doubts and apprehensions crucial for the children’s future, their prestige and treatment among the society. They will be treated at equal footing in the court of law.

I have always questioned marriage as being the ultimate weapon for eternal togetherness. You may want to read this. These changing societal landscape only proves that nature ultimately will raise its head out of human-created shackles like marriage. Although it may not reduce the significance of marriage as a safe institution, but it will surely encourage and support the rebels to follow their instincts and conscience.

Like the Indian economy grew after the 1991 liberalisation, the social economy will also get enhanced by this liberty given to choose the way we want to spend our life with our partners.

This will also bring women into equal economic footing, as they don't have to face the pressures of convention inside a marriage.

Divorce and break-ups will be a lesser taboo and emotionally less draining. It will ultimately be considered natural.

Relationships will be stronger, as the likelihood of each partner taking the other for granted will be lesser. We all know that marriage as a social bind changes the dynamics of a relationship. 'Shaadi ke baad change ho gaya hain' will be a lesser heard phrase.

This judgements and developments may finally make 'marriage' a lesser inspiration for jokes. It may lead to lessening of the significance of one of the oldest proverb - 'Shaadi ke laddoo jo khaye woh pashtaye, Jo nehi khaye woh bhi (nehi) pashtaye!'

Jay Ho!

Husband, Wife, Marriage, In-laws.. an unending discussion!

Bringing you a very interesting dialogue that IHM and I are having. This is in continuation to my previous post - What I understand about 'Paraya Dhan' - A response to one of IHM's blog. I am putting her responses and my replies.

You may read her blog - Paraya Dhan and her limited rights - first to get the discussion entirely.

My 1st response: By the end, I stay confused. Somehow I cant relate to so much brouhaha about so many things. I feel there is too much superficiality, complications and double standards in your writing and in the messages. I think the perspectives are too narrow and urban-ish.

IHM: Urbanish perspective? Not entirely.I think basic problems women face are the same all over India. Divorce is still a dirty word – we force girls to ‘adjust’ and live with their in laws even if they don’t want to; a large number of widows still stay unmarried; girl- children are still unwelcome, getting married and staying married (and staying a suhagan ) is still very important for a girl…

My 2nd response: Marriage as an institution is man-made and is a fault-ridden convention. The other name of marriage is adjustment, compromise and adapting to a new family. Both the boy and the girl goes through new requirements in life. If you want to be in the convention, you better be conventional. Divorce will ALWAYS be a dirty word, adjustments will ALWAYS be required, staying married will always be important for both THE MAN and the woman. Widow re-marriage is surely an issue that my dad once fought for. I didn't understand why he was not letting my masi stay close to us. I was a kid. I wondered why he got her married to someone so far away. Now I understand and I respect my ‘Deuta’.}

My 1st response: Or perhaps my perspective is narrow and Assamese.
I am born and brought up in Assam, where there is no caste system, no class consciousness, no religious sentiments (changing drastically with ISI being active and Bangladeshi immigrants). I have not seen domestic violence, dowry and dowry death, divorces and ‘nuclear families’ (the few ones I saw were unhappy). I loved my joint family upbringing. I was fed (with hands) by the aunts more than my mom ever got a chance. Games like hide & seek, community swimming in the pond, getting honey from beehives wouldn't have been possible without a joint family.

IHM: A fun filled childhood no doubt. I know male children are preferred there too. Shouldn’t all children be loved equally? Let me ask you this – why do parents all over India prefer male children?

My 2nd response: I agree with you here but I have always seen parents being happy with a boy and a girl. A pair is considered a blessing. So, I have seen parents wanting a child depending on the first child. Yes they may be a bit skewed towards a boy for their first child. But this is going to change. This thought and preference had a genesis / reason which is past due date and the fundamentals have changed now. I understand you being pissed with this status-quo, being a woman, but at the same time please agree that things are changing. No point stressing or rebelling too much about it. Its like the Indian motorist honking the daylights out of the sound ecology, even when he knows that traffic can only move that fast, or worse when he knows that the red light has just turned green. So although it is a valid point you are making, you cannot get too prejudiced and jingoist about it. And talk only of girl issues in marriage. Our (educated bloggers) discussions should be gender-neutral or gender balanced. You know we Indians are actually much better off. Have you seen movies like ‘North Country’ and ‘Mississippi Burning’? You will realise the rural US of A. We have had woman presidents and prime-ministers. How many countries can boast of that?

My 1st response: I really don't understand so much fuss. I would just want to say, why cant we just let nature take its turn.

IHM: Is it unnatural for adults to marry the ones they love and to make a house of their own?

My 2nd response: Of course it is natural. It is also natural that her elders would want her to convince them of his worthiness. They can get difficult at times, but they are your elders, your family and I am sure they will understand. However, ‘making a house of their own’ is a bit dicey and implication laden proposition, because the corollary implies that they are BREAKING AN EXISTING HOUSE of their own. It is natural that they will face a harder test from the elders. Why is this bothering you? Isn't the fallout of their want for a house of their own, natural too?

IHM: Is it unnatural for a girl to want to be wanted and loved by her biological parents as much as any other child? Or is it unnatural for a society to let all children love their parents, not just the male children or just female children?

My 2nd response: Of course it is natural for a girl to feel wanted by her biological parents. Its a crime not to let the female child not love their own parents? But the duty of the girl is also to give love and get love from her new parents. It may sound harsh but she has herself got into an existing convention called marriage. The boy is also in the same boat. He is the son to her parents. Ya it is worse for the woman because she has to stay with the husband’s parents. But that's a patrilineal tradition. And has not happened by fluke. You should understand that it is worse for the khashi and Garo MEN to stay with the girls’ parents; theirs is a matrilineal tradition. On a lighter note, the son also has a lot to go through in a joint family. Just imagine how difficult it gets to the man to have two women in his life – Mom and wife? Ha! If you are interested, let me tell you about an interesting Assamese custom. The mother of the groom does not attend the actual marriage puja. She cries and bid farewell to her son till the front door of her house. You may be thinking, what crap!!? But its true. She acknowledges and willfully bids farewell to her son to another woman – his wife. From the day of the marriage, her son is the responsibility and property of his wife. So woman favouring tradition does exist and society has acknowledged the position of the wife.

IHM: And is it unnatural that all women want to be valued even if they only have daughters/ or no children/ or no husband or no brothers? Do think about it.

My 2nd response: I thought. Like all woman want to be valued irrespective of her marital / reproductive status, all man also wants to be valued the same way. Have you noticed the way society looks at a divorced man, child-less man or an unmarried man. I know you may have noticed that about a woman. Men are also in the same boat. Society is crazy and helpful at the same time. It will eat you up if you are not among one of them. Importantly (and relevant to this discussion), there is no gender bias.

My 1st response: There are woman who do not think that household work is mundane. They love to be nurturers. They love to be provided for, to be submissive and feel sexy. And there are women who would always crib about a supposedly generated status-quo of women’s deplorable plight & jump up and down for women’s independence in terms of financial security.

IHM: There are also women who want a little more than household work. Won’t it be better if each did what they are inclined towards?

My 2nd response: I am a big support of free will. Women should be allowed to whatever they are inclined. And I don't believe that they are not allowed. There is resistance but things are changing. But the point I am repeating is that marriage requires certain adjustments from both the boy and the girl. And convention says that the girl is the nurturer. But woman do have a choice. In my hometown Duliajan, 99.9% woman are, as you call them, ‘Provided for’. But
interestingly the only MLA winning 3 consecutive assembly elections in my home constituency was a woman. See, there are choices to be made everywhere. But every choice has resistance applying both to THE MAN and the woman.

IHM: Do you really believe that the problems that are discussed on this blog are not genuine? I understand that it may not directly concern you, maybe it has never touched your life directly, but does that mean the problems do not exist?

My 2nd response: The problems that are discussed are not representative and are skewed towards woman. Problems may actually exist, that's not the point. My point is that I always rebel against skewed discussions, scenarios and logic. Skewed discussions never veer towards root causes of a problem phenomenon. Skewed discussions are more of crib sessions and finger pointing sessions. Of course culture plays an important role for a skewed scenario. For instance, a girl slapping a man on the streets would everyone have assuming that the man must have done something wrong. Similarly when I am in your blog and your forum, I feel I am in a skewed scenario with remarks and cribs without any clear analysis. I don't want to escape, and instead want to provide my two bits. So I am responding even after losing 2000 words to smoke. (My first try at this response got deleted). Consider another imaginary analogy of a 'man-blog' saying “Monogamy sucks, Polygamy is the way”. Going by my opinion that Men are intrinsically seeders (do you agree?) and there is a good chance of a rush of man-supporters to that blog. But that blog or the discussion that will ensue may not keep the general female population in mind. It would be definitely man-skewed. That's not productive for the overall society. Remember blog (pen) is mightier than the sword!

My 1st response: Today in Mumbai with increasing number of blogs (aka awareness) about women independence, I see more confused woman, more confused about their role in the society. More divorces. More under-eye circles.

IHM: The dark circles were always there, and the confusions were NOT permitted to women, so our folk lore and folk songs are full of women ( and their parents) fearing or complaining about a girl’s in laws.

My 2nd response: Folklore are also filled with remarks ridiculing marriage, ridiculing a wife’s tantrums, cracking jokes on Joru Ka Gulam etc etc. Also don't forget jokes. When I was engaged and was wearing my engagement ring, one of my seniors told me “that's not a wedding ring, that's suffe-ring. Ha! Again repeating, boys are in the same boat, IHM.

IHM: Today women are in a position to be able to do something about the confusions. And I agree it may disturb those who were comfortable with the old system, but should that mean we do not look for alternatives?

My 2nd response: I don't believe that anybody stopped women from getting confused. Marriage is also about giving shoulders to each other to get confused (and cry!). And we are successfully getting confused all the time. Why do you say, confusions were not permitted to women? Also I don't know if your blog or the comments are doing anything about solving the confusions. Its not analysing the issue keeping the husband in the picture. If you read one of the comments in my blog when I published my 1st response in my blog, shubhra says very aptly “Confusion arises when people/women confuse traditional views for being 'sexist'. Women being the nurturers of the family should not be considered/termed as 'Dependants'. No one would like to be associated with this word. Traditionally women have been perceived as biological production plants in certain societies and have been inhumanly treated..Probably that is the reason for such angst in the modern woman... They have been taught how their breed has been tortured for years and the only way to change this is to become financially dependant. I would plead all the women to treat this as a phenomenon practiced in few societies and not generalise this as a traditional norm. Domestic violence should not be acceptable to anyone, including women..But at the same time every woman should have an insight into who she is and what she wants from the society and from herself..Only then will she realise whether she wants to be a nurturer or a provider...or both(if she can balance the act) Once she accepts who she is, she will not feel the need to prove herself by going out of the way to fit into the modern society." Very well said, Shubhra. Thanks.

IHM: No divorces may or may not mean happy marriages. A lot of couples stay together even when they are unhappy – and that does not mean the marriage is successful, it simply means they are afraid of society’s reaction to a separation. Living together only because they have no choice is always a good idea?

My 2nd response: You are absolutely right. ‘No divorce’ is a farce. However, I again repeat, the man is also afraid of society’s reaction. Why do you forget that? Marriage is difficult and people do stay married for fear, for kids etc. It is a gender neutral phenomenon.

My 1st response: The reason is we are not letting each one be. Our support systems are breaking. We don't know our neighbours. We don't play hide and seek anymore!!

IHM: About Support Systems. Widows were often returned to their parents’ home and their children were discriminated against by whoever supported them – brothers or in laws. Today we realise that even if one needs support, one need not be dependent – today a widow can earn and ensure that her children and she, both have respect. Isn’t this a better system? Here I feel even the brothers can’t really be blamed – it was a forced responsibility. I feel a society where all adults can take basic care of themselves is a healthier society.

My 2nd response: I believe in re-marrying the widow and supporting her from all sides. But ya there are cases of her being sent away and blamed for the husband's death. I have not seen it myself though. With education, woman will start getting independent financially and you are right all adults taking care of themselves is a healthier society. Sau taka! But again, its more like social in-consistencies created by the strong and mighty. The similar analogy is the Brahmin-Non Brahmin issue. For centuries, Brahmins never allowed the non-brahmins to go to pathsaala. They always wanted the non-brahmins to be illiterate so that they don't understand their mantras that they recite (one of the reasons). Let me tell another interesting thing about ‘Brahmin mantra’. Did you know that on the marriage fire (don't know what it is called) the pandit actually marries the girl to himself and then hands her over to the husband. If you
decipher the sanskrit mantra you would see that he is the one who is marrying the girl first. He is a Brahmin and has a first right (of refusal!) over all of us. Another thing about Mantra that I read was, when one gives pind by the funeral pyre to his parents, the panditji through mantra says that the son actually is the cause of his father’s death and he has to wash his sins by giving dakshinas – a cow, a goat etc etc… Today things have changed and will continue changing.

My 1st response: I have seen both worlds. I have seen my joint family. And I have seen khashi and Garo families where the youngest daughter gets the property of the mother and the boys go to the girls’ house. I see how they beautifully manage.

IHM: They should be treated like all other adult family members- like equal members, taking part in all decision making, and their opinion should have the same value as other members.

My 2nd response: I completely agree. It will change with education and awareness. It will also change the way a mother in law (also a woman!) is overpowering and has an uneven say.

My 1st response: In Mumbai (perhaps in all metros), I have seen woman going to their parent’s home when she is about 6-7 months pregnant. That completely leaves me NUMB. My parents and the parents that I have grown up with would have taken that to insult. If the daughter in law feels more comfortable in her parent’s house after marriage, and not in the husband’s house, it is a curse for the in-laws. Believe you me, I have always met wives who are happier delivering in their husband’s home, therefore.

IHM: I think a woman should be able to choose who she feels more comfortable with – a girl who can go to her parents house whenever she likes is definitely happier than a girl who will fear that her show of love or trust for her parents might be taken as an insult by her in laws. Such things should not become a matter of honor or insult, this is the reason why women feel oppressed in Joint families.

My 2nd response: I agree. I don't debate free will. But I have observed that in-laws do take extra care so that she actually feel comfortable, esp. when there is a social obligation. See in the cases that I have seen, both the son’s mom and the daughter’s parents have given farewell to them and they have themselves for everything and the boy’s parents in most case. So the girl never thinks that she has the option that she can go to her parents. so she does not feel oppressed at all. A person in the desert may not feel the need for an AC, when he does not know about the existence of AC. Its like only when we buy an AC, that we cant sleep without an AC. See I am not referring to giving support back to parents, financial or otherwise. Both parents should be taken care of. They are our elders. Period.

My 1st response: Last week, one incident shook me up. One of my team members came to me and requested me for a leave of 1/2 days. She said her sister has got chicken pox and so her mother has to go and take care of her. And obviously since she had a baby, she cant come to office. Now the question that puzzled me was ‘where is her sister’s husband, parents, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts…’
I (we) take ‘paraya dhan’ very seriously. If somebody can trust their dhan to us and call their own blood as our dhan, we will better take care of her and make her the cynosure of our eyes.

IHM: An adult citizen’s welfare cannot be left to her family’s good intentions. When adults live together, there can be disagreements and there can be ego clashes, an adult should be able – if she so chooses, to live in her own house with her spouse, without being made to feel guilty.

My 2nd response: Good intentions are all that we have to trust and make our future. If we cant leave anything to good intentions, then most of the concepts in this world will collapse. As I said, living in her own house implies NOT LIVING in her husband's house. So it is natural to face resistence. Please note that her husband's house is her house now. She may not feel it in the first few years of her marriage, but she will be the overpowering SasuMa one day thumping her rights in every little detail. So its perhaps a bit of a trade off for the woman in the first few years. On a lighter note, I hate wearing ties but who is forcing me to work in a bank. Me myself. Fact is I forced myself hard to get into a bank because it pays. I never dreamt of the salary that I get in reality today. But the fallout is that in a bank, you have to be in a bloody formal dress. So I believe that for any problem or discomfort, we should first think why we got into the problem situation. Are we making a trade off? Then suddenly you may find relief.

IHM: The biggest problem with ‘paraya dhan’ is the girl belongs nowhere, the parents raise her to fit into another family, and the other family makes her their honor, pride and responsibility. Take a look at what girls all over India go through as kids because they are ‘paraya dhan’. What about their childhood?

My 2nd response: I dont agree that the girl belongs nowhere. In fact it is the dream & destiny of girls to marry INTO a good, wealthy, generous, loving family all over India. Also, today’s bahu is the SasuMa tomorrow. She is the bloody owner of the house and has all the keys for a good 20 years of her mature life. A man can never become as powerful as the SasuMa. Even otherwise, as a wife, you tell me who decides the colour of the house, the sofa set, the window curtains, the drawing room, the drawing room table where the husband cant put his leg, the colour of the shirts that the husband wears, the ganjees and underwears of the husband, … today, tell me who decides the nursery school, who decides the auto rickshaw taking the kids to school…and so much more that the wife does.