Why 'not BJP' ?

                              
    The assembly elections are at the doorsteps in Kerala and political parties are trying their level best to come victorious in may 19, the results day. It is mainly a battle between the United Democratic Front (UDF) and Left Democratic Front (LDF). But the important question that always arose during debates is whether Natinalist Democratic Allianze (NDA) will open its account in Kerala assembly. Well, I hope it won't, but the chances are not minimal.
     Years back, when I thought to know more about politics around me I went through different aspects of political parties prevalent in Kerala (of course only in the basic principles, I had no deep study over this). At first, I was attracted towards BJP since it was some sort of a new entry at that time, but knowing it more led to my pure repulsion from the whole institution. My family; father's side mostly compiled of INC (Indian National Congress) sympathizers and mother's side of communists was never into any active politics than exercising their franchising rights. But the whole family atmosphere and academic institutions always inoculated in me an idea of India which was very neutral and secular. I found all political parties tend to forget the idea of being neutral in many things that they face and that too in different ways. But some parties; even though they say secularism is something that they promote, built their base on religious affinity. And almost a decade back (way before the time of awarding anti national tag to people) I reached this conclusion that such parties are against the nationalism, they are against what actually India is. And I found BJP is one of them and I certainly feel hinduthva ideology is not at all on national interests.
       They remains at the same place till now, and knowing more about that party never changed anything to me than adding bitterness. But the whole scenario has changed overtime, BJP increased its vote base, even in Kerala too.  Now it is offering a government in Kerala which will be corruption less and which will diminish political violence (Congress led UDF bear the tag of corrupted government and the Communists are tagged for their violent politics). I would like to know how much is exactly BJP a people's party? Just have a look at the 2 year rule of BJP in India and their governance in some states (especially their leaders talk's and actions), one will get to know the distance between rule and people in democracy meant by them.
       When the NDA came into power in 2014 I was not happy and I was not happy about the prime minister post also. But my brother told me to respect the people's decision, and what else could I do? My personal displeasure towards a person; especially the prime minister of my country doesn't count, I had to respect that post. And I did, and I observed the whole affairs that happened in the past 2 years. But unfortunately Mr Modi never became like the prime minister of this country, he could never rise above as the leader of BJP or RSS. He forget not all Indians are driving crazy for him and his party, he forget people want a better life than eliminating his political rivals from Indian soil, he forget to become the leader of India which included vast number of religions and religious views, castes, languages, diets, dressing styles, literature, traditions, rituals, celebrations, political affiliations, way of lives and expressions.
           The promise BJP putting forward that it will be an alternative to corruption is really questionable, their rule in Madhya Pradesh, Rajastan, Karnataka or the cases of some union ministers in some allegations that clearly showed personal profit above people's interest.  Yes, BJP never agreed to such allegations, their spokespersons really play with tongue very well. All most all corruption under UPA came into light while they were in rule. Well, it doesn't mean BJP rulers do stay away from corruption, it just meant now it is public duty to prove corruptions and money trail. Even in 2014 loksabha elections Anna hazare and Aam Admi Party played a very large role in ousting the corruption ornamented UPA, but the BJP actually reaped the profit of their struggle. People definitely see the corrupted government exposed by anti corruption struggle but the idea that BJP became majority because people identified them as corruption less is rhetoric. And even now BJP is nowhere near a corruption less status.
        Another offer like they will be an alternative to violence in state is a joke. One get to see the hand of BJP and RSS in every political murder and murder attempt in the state. And if some places in Kerala become criminal dens then BJP got equal responsibility in that. In fact Marxist violence is almost restricted to political arena (it is drastic too), but BJP even with a small base in Kerala brings violence to everything (freedom of all kind, political rivalry etc). So intolerance, violence are a part of that institution, and if Marxists are based on violence BJP face is fascism. I would like to mention one thing here on its attack on people by anti nationals. When I was in college we used to watch processions by different student wings of political parties almost everyday. ABVP (the student wing of BJP) used to use 'Vandemataram' and 'Bharat mata ki jai' as their slogans, as they think that make them more nationalists. But that was the only time I ever got irritated to here those chants. Their was no reverence, no respect at all, they had no idea what so ever exactly what bharat stands for, there was only rage. Yes, I don't think such chants four times a day make me a patriot or I don't chant anything makes me anti national. But for now I just want to tell about young people who were using that chant to express their feelings, there was anger or rage only, no element of respect, brotherhood or compassion and by seeing those generation one can easily assume what peace BJP is going to bring to the state.
         And now back to development that it promise to implement in Kerala, I certainly found some good movements by the central government in the area reforms or investments. But a number of things which could be useful even with some alterations withdrawn to avoid the wrath of people. And it is really confusing; a party that got a mammoth majority and vote base still has this trust deficit. It is not able convince people to get aboard, that is not at all positive. And even while trying to implement something they are more interested in advertising their profit numbers rather than completing flagship programms. They just want to take credit for the past, present and future of India. And foreign affairs part is always in the news because our prime minister is in the air most of the time. It is very encouraging to see the interactions with other countries, but if ask what are the outcomes, we need to think about an answer. One positive thing is the conversations with Pakistan, which is also fruitless until now, but gives hope. The fun in this that the PM's visit to Pakistan or talks of NSA's even after terror attacks would be called 'treason' if those happened at the time of UPA or any other, by the same BJP, RSS and Sivsena. But all these developmental talk is irrelevant, I will tell later why is so.
      The last two years were very turbulant in India, mostly public area than in parliament. Intolerence issue, invasion of RSS politics into education, prohibion of dissent, the antinational debate, senseless talk by senior BJP leaders on science, myths and igniting talks by some leaders on religious aspects, so BJP was, kind of in the  back seat than in driver's. The difference between cow and bullock or what exactly beef meant trended in India for some time. No, of course I don't think these are petty issues. Government which is led by a party that is biased on its believes doesn't dictate what I eat or what I do. If Thasleema Nasreen seen a very tolerant India now, we can't help it but we are not comparing our country with Bangladesh. We are concern about the change of India from what it was. Now people who are in rule really trying to dictate the RSS agenda here. Indians don't want the rule of RSS, we were never a hindu rastra and we are not going to one. Sivaji (good or bad) is the history of India so is Akbar (good or bad). Muslim rulers invaded India theory doesn't entitle them to give India the hindu tag. The present of India is Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Hindus, Jains and many more and whatever was the past, none of them has less right than the other Indians. So it is true that the incidents that happen around us causing scare and the government is doing nothing. Terming lynching a man 'an unfortunate incident' or 'accident' shouldn't be the Government way to deal it.
        Well, the term government is a joke now. Every minister compete to claim the fulfillment of Modi's vision or dream. Prime minister himself is vocal about his dream for India and implementation of it. And I was wrongly thinking the Congress party got the copyright of sycophancy! And one doubt is India still a democracy or it went under king's rule after 2014 elections. India had many great leaders with vision for the people and they shared their thoughts to achieve our freedom and later, its growth. But the authoritarian way now democracy seems is way worst than even Indira Gandhi's. Well, I really have doubt whether other leaders of BJP has a right to opine or is there still an executive? There is no executive decision or government decision, there is only Modi's vision. And the rhetoric is India will have a development like Gujarat and there will be Gujarat model development in Kerala too. That's what I fear too. Gujarat never made me feel positive after 2002 and the term Gujarat model always take me to the past where a 13 year girl looking at the blazes, destruction and dead bodies featured in Matrubhumi newspaper, with fear. Even if we forget the parts like who initiated, carry out, supported or backed things back then, it can never be forgotten who didn't prevent it. I don't think greatness just happen when people around you suggest so, it always comes from great work.
         Apart from one man show, the government tried successfully to topple some state governments, I wonder how such noble democratic people can do these things. The ruling parties used to appoint people of their interest in various posts, but damn.. how can some so conveniently hide the merit factor for such selections which is on the run now. BJP is trying to fill the government posts with true bhakts, so how are we supposed to believe something will happen in an unbiased way. In my state some BJP leaders lamented 'intolerance' against BJP; for them the fear of people letting the demon inside the houses is called intolerance.
        I'm not a political pundit, but certainly the common sense thing makes me to talk against BJP. Yes, the fall of UPA in the center doesn't change the Congress or its allies in the state an inch. The marxists are way too in the path of violence, they are kind of misunderstand revolution with fight and violence. The two are bad, but they are treatable because their foundation is built upon the true nature of India, the democracy, sovereignty and secularism. Their idea or ideology doesn't biased, so they still got the power to perceive things in a neutral way. But yes, there need a cleaning and in the present condition I don't know how many years it take to achieve that. Now when I look at BJP, it is playing the communal card, and even its win in 2014 elections is on the base of consolidated hindu votes. All of its leaders are verbose when talk about plurality or secularism, but they thoroughly follow their ideology, that is pro-hindu. The divisive politics never did good to any nation and it is not going to be.
           BJP says it is a secular party, but a state meeting that took place in Kerala a few months back found the growing Muslim population a concern. On what ground they are going to explain this? A concern to whom? If somebody on statistical ground says the growth of population is a concern for economic growth of a country, it is understandable. If somebody  say a population growth on religion basis is a concern, I found it communal. So does that mean the Muslims, Christians or any other minority in India should always live in concern because the majority is Hindus? Is BJP really a democratic party? They boast of the use of new technology and reformation in India while spreading myths as realities. Double standard can be seen in every thing. One can't move forward and back ward at the same time.
       4 days back some BJP workers came to my house to ensure our support in elections. I'm going to quote someone in that group who explained why we should vote for BJP. It is almost goes like this ' we (hindus, specifically upper castes) are really not getting any concessions from the governments of Kerala (whether it is UDF or LDF), and the gurujans (meant ezhava) or harijans(meant hindu dalits) are not competent with us (again, upper castes). Our real competition is with Muslims and Christians who have wealth and conditions that make them to compete with us. When our kids are getting nothing, their (muslim and christian) leaders are bargaining and getting every concessions from government. In BJP ruled states, nair like castes get 10% reservation and here too BJP will do that. We need BJP to survive against them (Muslims and Christians)'. I have no clue what he meant by 'incompetent'. There was no single mention of development or even not used the term 'rights', it was always 'concessions'. Should I still believe BJP is secular, it was a direct statement to be against other religions. And now they don't biased towards upper caste only, at least the votes of other hindus matter to them (may be because of their new partner in the state). This is their true identity, they cleverly use the secular card along with development to lure people who are in higher strata and use their communal politics to lure the lower strata. In a state where a lot of people who object the reservation policy may easily get trapped in this trick.     
          They also distributed some palmlets which showed the pictures of BR Ambedkar and preamble of Indian Constitution and a statement 'directive principle of state policy is our motto'. Well, to my knowledge the directive principles along with fundamental rights holds the principles of constitution. Otherwise directive principles are mere instructions instructs how to create laws. I would like to have my government to be one follows Indian Constitution as a whole, not as parts as it likes (if you go through the directive principles you will get to know the interest of BJP in directive principles). But that is not the thing irritated me, the preamble showed in the picture is the one before it amended in 1976 and it doesn't have the words socialism and secularism. If BJP doesn't believe in socialism and secularism they come forward and say it. If the nation amended the preamble to include those words then it meant something. So showing the parts of constitution which is not the truth now to spread their political agenda can't be included in the nationalism category (well, I'm not sort of a person calls others anti nationals).
           I visited my mother's house almost 8 months after the NDA crowned at the center. And I was shocked to see a puppy with a saffron tilak in my cousin's house. And she lamented it was my 11 year old nephew who did that. Well, he himself was sported with a tilak and he also has that saffron thread around his wrist like BJP or RSS. And my cousin was not at all happy with his manners like that, but the change from Marxism to BJP by the second generation of boys in our family attracted the kids also towards saffronisation. But it was nothing, until he said it. During our talk he said 'I don't like muslims' and of course I was shocked and asked him 'why'. He didn't have a specific answer but said, they are different and he doesn't like them and went away. This was happened in the short span of time after the BJP started to grow its base. This is what RSS and Sangh doing in the grounds, and this is what BJP  is covering under when they talk about secularism and their commitment to sustain plurality. Kids are grown up with poison in their minds, they are sowing the seeds of communalism. Yes, after the talk with my nephew I'm pretty scared too. And after the lynching episode in UP, there was a comment by the sister of main accused which published in Hindu newspaper and she said that it (lynching and killing of a man) was a sad thing but it would make people refrain from doing such mistakes or sins (killing cows and eating cow meat) like that. In that night I had a nightmare in which I saw my niece (she is 9 now) saying that comment. Do I have a reason to not be scared?
     That is why I earlier stated the development talks of BJP is irrelevant. They are never going to make anything. Their base is made up of communalism, they are built on hindutva. They think some thing is more Indian than other, and again they think some are invaded India and they are at the mercy of others. They are raised with that ideas, and they will always show their true nature. Certainly, all parties play with caste cards to make profit in elections. But playing with people on castes and religions especially when you know what a minute spark can bring on the topics like religion is irrational. I happy to see Sanghis comments in social media like the UDF  and LDF spoiled the hindus in Kerala, and I'm certainly hope democracy and secularism prevails over communal politics.  The two year rule in India by BJP never reduced any of my concerns and the things that happen in ground level is really terrifying even in Kerala. BJP president said BJP would show us what is real freedom of expression is. Well, we have seen that already, for them, people talk against execution (of anyone) which is lawful by our constitution is anti nationalism and people who called for the murder of such 'anti nationals' are using the freedom of expression. Yes, it's true we are in between devil and sea but to avoid that choosing inferno is defying common sense and logic.

NB: Reviewing after 8 long years and BJP is well into people's life with their continuous reigns. And the state is developed to such a phase that our PM now speaks openly in every election rally in the same line of that BJP karyakarta who asked for vote in 2016 to be competent against Muslims. It's unbelievable that a prime minister of India can blabber the names of religions in the public like the way it is said now days. More than unbelievable, disgusting!!! 

Life paradoxes

      I know I'm going to write something that most of the people feel irrelevant. But I would like to make some points about some paradoxes that happens in my life, well, they are nothing serious, but funny.
      When I started my graduation I had to move to a hostel. So I was then moving from my village where fresh water supply was plenty (thanks to Sasthamcotta fresh water lake) to  the city which provided with water that was salty always. From the first day in hostel I used to hear the complaints regarding the water quality. Girls were always condemning the low grade water for hair fall. And I also sang the song along with them even though I was not facing hair fall in such a gravity. In fact I had faced a drastic hair loss situation in the final year of my schooling, and  when I  joined college I was already with less hair and that too almost a quarter of the original length (thanks to my mother's  hair dressing techniques). I didn't face a serious threat by the chloride water in the hostel, but I also lamented that water ruined my hair. But after all these years and lives of 3 more hostels and my own house (fresh water was available at all these places), I think I should admit this that I had wonderful hair when I was there at Kollam. Yes, the water was way too salty, and it might affected hair, but mine was fine and silky even then. The fact is  my hair had it's best texture when it washed with salty water, that's what I felt. If my hair is cool now, it was cooler then. I apologize here for my wrong accusations about my large scale hair loss due to water at that time.
        I had very good healthy teeth, but my habit of not washing mouth after snacks and sweets during my high school days given me some tooth decay at the molars. So since then I had been experiencing a kind of tooth ache, but nothing serious. The starting of tooth decay alerted me and I cleaned my teeth properly since then. But it spread to some extend, I had faced intermittent pains. Then I heard about a tooth paste brand which was suggested by almost everyone for toothache and sensitivity. I heard from witnesses themselves that putting some amount of that paste in the decay part itself can reduce pain. So when my father brought that brand from canteen I happily started using it. I had a little pain in the first day itself, but I continued use. Then pain started to aggravate and within a week I was rolling over floor. And thanks to the brand suggested by many, I just had to suggest my dentist to take away my teeth and it was extracted. I never had continuous toothache, but for one week I went with a populist suggestion and ended up with less teeth in my mouth.
        When we talk about healthy habits, we always get a suggestion to stay away from junk foods. And it is proved that these bakery items or gluten can cause small to serious problems. But what about taste? And especially when one is away from the home food. So during my hostel days which had accounted for almost 6 years I used to gorge on bakery items almost everyday. I was never a big veg lover, not even now. So always skipped the veg part provided in hostel (most like skipped the whole hostel food) and lived on junk. Well, at initial stages it was like 'I don't like hostel food', but later when I was ready to compromise I was not given enough food I like. So my diet included these scarce hostel food items, lot of bakery and some weekend home non veg extravaganza. I don't remember a single time I took pain to include some veg even at home during holidays (may be some cauliflower,bitter guard and potato at times). So food meant a lot of gluten, meat and oil for me then. There was no regime for work outs. And, I had no forms of skin problems, pimples or marks. I'm at home for some years now; eating very healthy with enough vegetables, cutting down my meat in take several folds, oil fried snacks are almost away and I never skip my morning exercises and walk. But with a lot of face pimples and marks. Unfortunately my healthy way of living gives me skin problems than before. Well, I'm not going to blame being healthy for my pimple heads, may be the situation in I'm now causing the out breaks. Being healthy is not enough, being happy also counts.
       We expect a number of things happen in some way (call it normal), and probably this is the basics of common sense intuitions. But in reality, in life, things may happen differently and if they are not happening differently because of the influence of an external force, then let it be like that. This just means that people are different and it is okay to be different or feel different. And that is certainly not being abnormal.
      

Women; life, family, career, love, sex and freedom

       Life comprises everything that followed 'life' in the title. The thing is I wanted to compare everything that mentioned in the title and more with different categories, here it is gender. I don’t support classifying some issues as women issues; I don’t think there is something like that exists. There can be the problems that could happen to only women because they are women (due to the anatomy and physiology); all other things are common to humans despite of their gender. Financial problems, family issues, right issues, freedom clashes, like and dislike disputes, ownership issues, ego, complexes, mental problems and the list never ends, all these present here. And as these problems are here and free to choose anybody, people who suffer by these should be selected randomly, right? And in a population almost divided equally the probability of having a ‘problem’ is half i.e. ½. Voila! But it is not like that. So here is the problem, there are some problems that should be appear in a 1:1 ratio in humans namely to men and women, but in reality it shows a very different ratio, i.e. now most of these issues are women centric or happens to women frequently because they face discrimination in almost everything. And the question is, who changed the basic human problems into women issues?
      The answer is very simple; from the starting of the social life the society which comprises of men and women graded humans according to their gender, like first grade good quality men and second grade not so good women. Yeah, history says many things like women had a high position in the society at specific times and places, and which degraded at certain other times. But whatever history says women still considered as a second grade by the society even in the 21st century. And the irony is this; society doesn't comprises men only, half the part is women! And regardless of the nationality, class, religion, caste every society tends to propagate that men are superior to women. According to men, women are under them and the world is tend to follow a patriarchal line. ( I wish to specify a thing here, the whole article is going to use 'men' and 'women' at places, and I have no intention to generalize anything, so when each time I use these terms I only mean people who actually belong to the specific category I mention). So women deprived of their rights, now bear more problems than men.
        The society I live in has definite different rule books for men and women. In fact one won't see that anywhere, but it is omnipresent. From birth to death everything is gender specific; how to walk, talk, eat or even love. Even rights and wrongs are different for men and women. In a country like India one is going to see a number restrictions sanctioned by the society; but from the way it should be carry out to the percentage of error in carrying out is different for different gender. Even though India is going to scale in economic and technological avenues plight of women is just staying where Manu put it: 'na stree swathanthrya marhati'. I'm not saying every women lives in hell here, but the attitude towards women is always the same; she is second to he and it is like a law that can never be changed.
      There are Parents who still prefer boys because girl is going to be a burden. The thought behind this is when an educated boy brings profit to home, a girl has to go to another house with a handsome dowry. Discrimination on the facilities given to a boy and a girl still prevails. The best thing always goes to boy and the girl should satisfy with whatever left. There are many families belong to different religions or castes in my village where boys go to CBSE english medium while girls go to government schools (well, these parents think CBSE is superior to Government schools). Yes, it is laudable that every child is going school in my locality. But whether these kids feel the same? The girl knows her parents doesn't consider her equal to her sibling and the boy gets his first lesson of male supremacy there. One of the initiative by Government to empower women is giving a number of things free to girls at the time of education; like uniforms, texts, bicycles etc. But does these things serving the right purpose? Doesn't this simply put girls as Government sponsored while boys remain the apple of eyes of parents? The attitude towards girl child remains same here, it is just that she get a chance to educate. Well, does this change anything? Let's see.
    The advertisement of a telecom service provider states their network service can provide education to the women who can't go to colleges because the elders prohibit that right for women. If these women educate themselves by the medium provided  then what are they going to do? Still sit in the houses and do whatever elders say, huh? In this case, it is clear that elders' decision is morally and constitutionally wrong in India. But there are thousands of such things happen at different places of India. And these discriminations, unfortunately do continue over centuries and educate; men or women never able to stop it. So here is the thing: government or somebody provides free education for you, but after all of these you can't stand up against a social evil then what is the purpose of education? Now just forget standing up for a social cause, if an educated girl can't stand up for herself then what is this government initiatives serves? At present a girl faces discrimination, yet she grows up, gives up her dreams to fulfill others dreams and at the end she produces the next generation of masters and servants. So what should change first is the attitude, the attitude that XY is mightier than XX. She should be consider like any other who born on this planet and she should have the right to choose.
       From childhood kids are given notions like 'that is girl's thing so boys shouldn't do that' and 'this is boy's stuff, a girl shouldn't attempt that'. And later kitchen will be hailed as girl's area and boys should do only this office work. But time proved that this is wrong and girls are as good as boys in any work. But boys are still kept away from cooking, cleaning, washing functions. Well, I won't say they don't do it, they do it happily if they are doing it as their profession. But when women do this, they are cheap petty jobs assigned to women only in houses. Yes, there is a change in this (at places), but it remains at the first step since it still a girl's work and the 'generous' men help women in these house chores. Well, how one is going to explain the house chores for a working couple? Why can't it be explicitly state to your kids that if they want to eat they should learn to cook regardless of gender? Why can't kitchen be just a place in the house than a girl's area? And this is only one of the things that followed through generations and that still continues which shows how the society unveil it's gender disparity in the name of customs.
          When young, girls used to be restricted from activities which strengthen their body, they won't be allowed to participate in games and plays much. And later when women fail to accomplish tasks which need strength they will be called as weak. For every society women are weaker gender. Yes, it is true, physically women are not as strong as men, (there are women stronger than some men, I think) and it is pure biology and not a factor to reason discrimination. And these gentlemen (well, women too) then give women the tag of 'to be protected' gender and quickly get ready to give away their valuable time and space to protect women, what a sacrifice! All the time women taught to be unresponsive and when they fail in protecting themselves from their absconders they will be called as weak. Why women should be protected and from whom? By the way Why is women get attacked? Let's see.
        The slogan 'women should be protected' hear always, and should be protected from whom? the answer is men, not aliens. And this is how men is mightier than women. He can forcibly conquer her, threaten her with his might, beat her, rape her and this is the proof of his power. Men are strong because they can abuse women hood while women are weak because they let others to call them that. Can anyone tell at least one thing than this that men alone can do and that make him superior to women? Why some men needed to protect women from other men? Do I need a protector here or should I just not be attacked? If the system wants to really protect it's women folk, it just needed to keep the devils out of the system. And if you just check the criminals who committed crimes against women, most of them get multiple chances to do the same again. We just need to admit that whatever now on the run is flawed one and should get it repaired.
          I have no intention to blame the system which enforce laws on people to prevent crimes. But I would like to know Why women are attacked? I don't think some men came and just molest women (there can be that type too). The convict in the Nirbhaya case revealed a number of things which should be taken care of seriously. He said molesting and gang raping is common thing at his place and why there was so much hype that time? I don't know somebody ever investigated into this thing. Second thing, he said he  and his friends had the right to do whatever they had done and the victim should have cooperated with them. Unfortunately most of the people (which will be a significant percentage) live with this attitude. In any situation like this a number of people going to question the victim or survivor with 'why went out at night',' why went alone', 'why went with a boy' ' why wore that dress', 'why went out without parents'. And even when a number of people oppose rape attempts they would find some fault with the victim. And even though these people don't understand it, their sons are growing up hearing this. So later these gentlemen start to evaluate women on the lessons that given from their family like if she is alone, he can do whatever he wants or if she wear 'this' he should teach her a lesson by molesting her. Yes, you can have whatever view on dresses that you wear or even walk or talk, but please don't spread your views as facts and put it as a the scale to measure the world. Because such narrow mindedness nurtured in the families by elders is now misusing by kids to curb women rights and their freedom. The convicts were raised with this attitude and even under death penalty they couldn't realise the grave mistake they had done. Who created them? The society! Is this the only malice produced by the society, Let's see.
           The convict's another mention in the documentary fingers into another serious concept that persists. He mentioned about a girl who came and did what he wanted her to do at a place where no one was present. And for him that's the ideal women, like a slave come and fulfill the job she was asked to do. Unfortunately this is the plight of women even at the places boasting of high percentage of literacy or education. Girls always get the lesson to be the second to men. She would get reprimanded in her life many times for doing normal things which are not ideal for women in the eyes of society. She can do whatever she want if permitted. When men follow their dreams women should get the permission to do so. Girls raised with the notion that she can never win the best actor award, well, if people around her choose she can be the supporting actor. A girl can't have a life alone, she should be under a man. Men need money to survive, and women need men to survive, this is what you get when you grow up. This thing makes 'Marriages' the inevitable one in women's life, because she can't survive alone.
          I have no intention to say marriages are evil in the society and those bar women's freedom. But I certainly wanted to know how many women of my generation got married because they found it is the right thing in their life at that point of time (by going through a series of aspects) than their parents asked them to. A number of fictitious but persisting facts about women hood are;
1 All women have to get married otherwise the society questions them indefinitely and make whores out of them than they become whores.
2 Family reputation resides in the marriage of the girls in the family and they should married of at the right age to any body who bargains for good a dowry.
3 Don't even think, it's like you got married because you fell in love with a man who loves your life profoundly, it is always you get married first then love or not love the man (or vice versa), who cares?
4 And you live with that man till your life's end regardless you are treated good or bad, raise his kids and proclaims 'this is my victory!'
5 And it's the women's duty to follow and defend her husband whatever he does, right or wrong. (Some may not believe this but, in some cases starting from her favorite actor to political views changes after marriage, just because it is ideal for a good women to follow her pati parameswar in all areas of life).
6 Divorce is a shame for a women than leading a dreadful life in 'your own family', so continue there because your successful marriage depends on your patience, just tolerate, haven't you heard, women can tolerate like mother Earth?
        She is always instructed to follow a decorum that makes her a good girl. This simply means she shouldn't be expressive and should follow orders or just be obedient. Then one day you will be asked to live with  a man, well of course you will get to know him more for some weeks or even months before marriage or what's the need of it anyway, you got a life full to know each other. All these things shows only one thing society which include men and women doesn't consider women as creatures with brains. Or they think women can't make decisions or can't have their wishes. A girl child was always there to follow orders and she will always be one to follow her husband's. And our society is the one which force their son's to be the masters of their wives. So before getting out and cries for equality set everything right at your own home.
           Well, I won't say all women face things like these, but even people who boast them selves educated and civilized show their displeasure at women getting more space which is actually their right. But still, these freedom that women have consider only as a gift from male folks. We can still see men saying 'I allow my wife to do whatever she wants' and this trend continues. When young girls get permission from parents, after marriage they get it from men call as their life partners. Fighting to get permission from men to lead their life as they wish is now called empowerment. Is that so?
        The same idea force women to sacrifice their career or ambitions to serve for their families. Most parents (father and mother) say to kids that they did a great thing for her by sending her (even though a girl) for higher education or allow her taking up a job (which is always usual to boys). The same continues at the place of in laws and this idea make them demand their daughter in laws to sacrifice their dreams as it was a gift by them; when required they can take back that offer. The percentage of women whose life and career shrink into their houses is still high. How many women can come forward and say they have some personal growth after their marriage, which should have there because philosophy says wisdom attains with age.
        As I witness, women around me in a state which is called to be progressive one, I just saw the opposite. I see young to old couple in which female always has more educational qualification than male. Of course educated in a subject doesn't add anything to your personal life unless it brings income. But I think as you go for higher education you see the world more people more, and thus embrace the lessons that must for life. And here, these educated women half, who got definite income job, just stay there, where they start journey until death with stunted growth. The real sight of patriarchy can be seen in this men where they won't allow women to grow as a person (of course they already received these lessons from their parents). An independent women who prefers to live  as she wants will just be called as a stubborn shrew. She will be termed a family spoiler and a witch mostly by other women. Then there will be the most notorious comment 'when men only went for jobs, these tragedy wouldn't happen, this is the result of education given to women'. The rights women born with taken away from them and when they fight for it, these self righteous women and men blame the education that help  the women to be who they are.
       If you want you can oppose this, but it's true that men can't agree the fact that women can lead their life as they want; even though men differ in this in 'percentage freedom' basis. Some men say my wife/daughter/sister can work if it is a day job, or it is at x or y place. She can wear jeans if wear with long kurta or she can wear sleeveless when we are out of state. That is percentage freedom and society doesn't consider women are enough intelligent to carry out management or money matter. In fact the basis of marriages in India is that, let me explain.
          Girl born, raise her with siblings, probably spend less on her eyeing her marriage, give her special lessons to be a good girl, force her to dream about marriage than anything else, protect her, after education, she may fortunate to get a job even at the starting of twenties (she is really lucky to be unmarried till then) or remains unemployed and then matching prospects come home, then there will be some 'gift talks' (one could hear demanded items as gift in these situations ), and brides with a huge dowry in most cases go to husband's house. I can put the word dowry here because it is a prestige issue, there are fathers who just want to let know the world about the gold his daughter took with her to the in laws in the sedan gifted to her. No intention to question dowry here because in Kerala most educated give more dowry. But think about this, in many cases the girls will have to live with a family who argued for a gram of gold more or a cent of land to take her into their family. And I have no intention to lessen the role of her own family put her for bargaining. This is exactly like a business in which people make a deal on wealth percent than similarity in minds. And one interesting thing is, in the case of the cattle meant to sell and the girls to get married  the same question ask to owners/parents by the society ' why are you keeping,' (like expecting more profit by the deal.). And other than telling whether she like or not the groom (that too depends), the girl has no role in taking decisions even in her most personal matters.
           Girls probably get to know at their marriage how much wealthy they were. But again without a question they live as the society expect them to. Girls are ready to love the ones made a good deal to include her in their family. All her life she has nothing her own and suddenly she get a car to travel with her hubby, should she feel honoured or insulted? On the day of marriage she suddenly becomes a princess with lot of jewels and travels  in a posh car. If the girl who needed money to live and fulfill her dreams that she never got from her family suddenly given lacks of rupees as a gift to be managed by the groom, will she feel proud? Single and unemployed girl get the details of exact amount of money that spend on her day today life by her parents, but just when she agrees for a marriage parents are ready to spend millions on arrangements, gold, or gifts and girls are expected to be overjoyed to see this (most of us take this as an honour).  Well, she too needed that, the money to live the life she wanted. If parents are giving this money as a share of their savings to their daughter, why they wait till her marriage? Why didn't give at the time when she needs it? Why do every parent think they should save and spend to buy her a protector. No, I certainly won't blame a women who has some self esteem, refused to kneel down to this bought life partner. Well, if her parents who see her all life, can't understand her values and her attitude towards life then how can she think of a man who came to make a  deal understand, value and respect her.
         Let me tell one thing that I read last year which I felt as something positive. One of the civil service rank holder of last year was in all praise for her husband and family for her achievement. Well, I don't find that amusing (for me that should be the actual thing happening everyone's in life). But she said it was her husband who reminded her of her dream to be an IAS and in the present scenario I find that as really exciting, somebody who push his wife to become what she is capable of, that is a real partnership, I say. And this world of masters and slaves everybody should have this notion. Regardless of gender men and women should help each other to grow more as a person. But unfortunately the concept of marriage and family  in the society is very regressive and repressive especially for women, it always make women to give up what she actually is or what she want to be and well, of course  then praise her for her sacrifice. I don't know how this idea get in rule that the family welfare is on the sacrifice and patience of women. So whatever problems happen, it is because of her. She is the one who maintains and look after a family, she is the one inferior in the family and if the family doesn't add up the disgrace is also on her,what a concept?
         The real trick by the society is putting women in the shoes of 'goddess'. Yes, one can abuse as much and then can easily say he respect women, women are goddess, but the only thing is women should be silent as Gods always do, and they should remain in the four wall of house as in temple. Male chauvinism is the face of all religions and castes. Society teach her to feel inferior about her body, put a number of things in front of her and say if she be ignorant about such things her virtue increases. She should be naive in matters like physical intimacy and shouldn't express her desires. Rape victims should be worried more about their lost chastity than the attack on their body and freedom. She should keep her body pure for a man whoever he is (supposedly that's the sole purpose of women). Live for the pleasure of men.
     Last year a video enacted by Deepika Padukone on women empowerment attracted both lauds and criticism by many. Critics mainly questioned the content of video, find it less empowering for women as it voiced for more personal space than professional. But how can one say a woman who can't control or express her views even in her personal matters can come out and make victories and more space in professional arena. Yes, women are so less in number in public domain where major decisions are taken, they are even struggling to compete with male counterparts for their rights in work spaces, they are discriminated in work places, they are denied wages and promotions at equal rate with men because of unknown reasons, they are being sexually exploited and mainly, the respect that should be there for any individual is missing because she is just 'she'. Yes, we need our society to empower women to take up any task in public domain without any glitch. But how can somebody who always plays only a subordinate role in personal relationships and think it as the right thing, come out and call for empowerment in outer space only? That's hypocrisy to the core. Women should have the right to choose; in fact they have, but some wrong social norms that followed for ages reside in their head always mutter 'she doesn't even possess the right over her body' and 'she doesn't have a choice'.
        The atrocities faced by women at present are mainly because of the sanctions and orders on women that followed rigorously by the society in the name of customs. Women have the same right as any individual but this can't be true according to most of our customs. On the name of protection her rights are curbed. The findings like use of modern technology and mobile by women are behind the menace of growing sex rackets and trafficking is one in that. By empowering one should mean educate enough to recognize and resist exploitation, coexist in the society with respect, dignity and individuality. Empowerment should of human race, when men(women too) should be empowered to shed the habit of exploit and women should be empowered to fight exploitation. Technology growth is not a menace, how a person using it define his or her relation with it. So no mobiles for girls is a regressive slogan which just shows the male incapacity to stay away from crimes themselves. Why women should sacrifice their freedom to live as they like because some men can't live with their lives only? Guys, this world is not a bad place because women live as they wish, it is because men run their wickedness as rules. The beliefs like individual freedom for women will result in anarchy is a very lousy concept even for a fictitious environment. Well, all these are because of the fear that men will loose authority if women come forward and ask for their rights.
        Unfortunately the quest for authority is the main reason that let things to be as it is. If women are empowered to manage herself how one can claim authority over her? It is so disturbing that even in a country like India which boast of traditions that celebrate family and relationships still make that on the basement of authority. Do we really living in an environment where families are hold together by love and affection? I don't think so, if that was the case women would never be asked to be silent, emotionless and  mere followers. So the fact is a family set up built on authority can be very much exploitative for women, and it is. It is funny that the Indians used to ridicule the live in and short live relationships of western world. But when I see Hollywood movies, two people who share their lives when talk about marriage used to say that it is a big decision and need to think more. But for Indian women and men it is the easiest decision, marriage is necessary for physical relationship and there is not much to think about.
      The idea of marital rape is declared as a mere idea by our legislatures by saying it is impossible in the Indian context. Is it because all the men really consider their wives as devi or they think they have the authority over the body of their wives? Of course the law in my country tells husbands got right over wife, well I think the legislatures should make a debate on finding the meaning of being civilized in Indian context. Even when we discard the idea of Manu, we still follow it rigorously by asserting women is under men in each stage of her life at every place.
       Any women who believes in love before marriage is a bad girl in Indian context even at a time many chooses that path. Love life should follow marriage and the other way is not our culture especially for women. Women choose career over family or women who try to have both are still viewed as people want disorder in the system. Even in a progressive state like Kerala you may face questions like 'are you going to be a Sara Joseph or Sugatha kumari' when you put your views in front of male folks. They just can't tolerate that you have a view and more than that women with a stand is always termed in a negative sense. The choice of being your self in a society like this, is a hard one because anything goes against the majoritarian view will suddenly be called as immoral. And it is very disturbing to see men and women cry 'mayhem' when they see independent women and trust me it is here and probably in every societies, but may be in different levels.
       We doesn't need women empowerment ,what we need is empowerment, we need to empower our self to be inclusive. Let everybody be what they want to be. We are living in a country which is structured on a well written constitution (yeah, almost!). So the fear that freedom (to men or women) brings doom is baseless (of course freedom doesn't stand for one's right over other). To portray an empowered women it is not necessary to put a wine glass or cigarette in her hand, and it is not necessary that she ride a bike, but she also can make such choices and please don't make a terrible look then. Using out dated rituals and beliefs in the name of culture and tradition to sideline women is unacceptable. Woman is not a property owned by man and notions like, men decide what should happen in her life is not close even to stone age culture. She is a human being born with brain; intelligent enough to take right decisions, reason situations and earn and maintain herself. The fiction that she will be doomed if men not supported her is laughable since the whole human race have been living on earth with mutual cooperation and support. So 'she doesn't kneel before me so I will make her life hard' is the thought that should be changed. Let the ego leave and see people as people and understand; men, women or anybody else, they have a right; an equal right  to choose their life.
         It should be women remain un-attacked than protected. Everybody should be respected and women shouldn't be spared because they are women. Nobody should face discrimination and women shouldn't face discrimination because they are women. Everybody has the rights given by the nation and women shouldn't be rejected this rights because they are women. Let her decide what and where she want to be like any other person, it can be well within the comfort of home or out in the sun, it is her right to choose, don't take that away. As I read somewhere recently, women is not a reserved category, and please don't make them to be one. They have the power to be what they want and do not make what they deserve as reserved for them. And it is really pathetic to use her biology and physiology to discriminate her and rate her. Denial and demoralisation are not the way to protect, women or anybody. Sex specific abortions, differential treatment, discrimination, exploitation, extortion, domestic violence, rapes and attacks, marital rape, exclusions... the never ending spree of malices that floating around us along with the rules and regulations specific for women shows the mind set of us. And when we change our attitude like this, we may proudly boast about our culture and traditions.


P.S : I was also grown up with the ideas like I do have the right to comment on somebody if they don't follow the customs or way of living that we follow (especially against women). It was not long ago I had discussions about actors (whom were familiar to us only through films) who had multiple abortions and how shameful that was or stuff like that (gossips). I'm not learned making assumptions or judgements about 'women not of our league' from any classes I studied, it was the mind set integrated into me through the society I live in. Now I'm happy to see each person as them and their lives as theirs. And more than that now I'm capable of respecting others' choices.