Don't tell me how to dress, tell them not to rape

'Don't tell me how to dress, tell them not to rape' 'Nazar Teri Buri Aur Parda Mein Karoon?'

These lines caught my attention while reading one news article in the Times of India. The article was about the protest against the relentless stream of rape cases that have rocked the National Capital Region (Delhi) in recent times. With 465 rape cases registered in Delhi in 2011, 489 in 2010, and 459 in 2009 (on average more than one rape per day), one can see that something is not right. No one can justify the occurrence of so many sexual assault-related crimes in the capital of India. The slogans above are not only against rape but also against moral policing which many times blame women for the crime committed against them. Many people advise females to dress up properly, they insist that females should dress in a ‘proper’ way to avoid unnecessary attention, or not to provoke the emotions of males around; they should control their behavior and limit interactions with males. So, the problem of males not being able to control their animal instincts is conveniently blamed on females. In any civilized society, everyone has the right to dress up in a way they like. Most societies give freedom to males to dress up the way they want but want to put restrictions on females in as many ways as they can, this practice has been going on for generations.

The use of dress codes is not uncommon in society, many events or functions have dress code associated with them and people follow it gladly. Normally this dress code is recommended for certain functions and parties and people can choose not to follow it. But the dress code I am talking about is forced upon certain sections of society and often sanctioned by government institutions. In many countries, these compulsory dress codes (especially for women) are enforced by armed groups, self-declared moral police, or other non-state actors. According to international human rights law every person has rights to freedom of expression and freedom to manifest their religion or beliefs. Many times the way people dress can be very important for them to express their religious, cultural beliefs, or personal identity. As a general rule, in many countries where rights to freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression exists, it means that all people should be free to choose what they do or don’t want to wear. Governments must ensure that every individual’s fundamental rights (such as freedom to express their beliefs and identity) are protected and respected. Religions and cultures can be interpreted in many ways; many people have interpreted so-called holy books (scriptures) in many different ways. Interpretation of culture or religion or these holy books cannot justify imposing dress code on people, this is unjust to people who want to dress differently. It is the government’s responsibility to create a healthy environment where every person can exercise their basic rights. People’s religious belief is their personal thing, they cannot be imposed on the whole society.  I know that there are many more important issues for the government to look after than how people should dress. But when situation goes out of hand and stats clearly show that there is some problem then they should do something to protect their citizens. They should take measures to protect individuals or communities from being forced to dress in specific ways by their family members, religious groups, leaders or community.

Normally, ideas associated with dress codes are also one of the ways to stereotype gender identity, most of the time victims of this are women because somehow society, family members, and even the state believe that they are entitled to regulate women’s dress and behavior. They consider women’s image as the symbolic reflection of the community’s values and culture. People who think like this even don’t care or bother to check whether these beliefs are shared by the people on whom they are enforced. Enforcement of dress codes can be a result of age-old biased views against women which resulted in discriminatory attitude towards them and also reflect a desire to control women's sexuality and behavior. I wonder whether society or people who are doing this even realize that they are objectifying women and denying them their personal freedom. Many times, when women are victim of violence, sexual or physical assault, or are stigmatized for not abiding by dress codes, they are told that the blame lies with them. These incidents are often used as a reason to emphasize the importance of the dress code. The victim is blamed for perpetuating the crime against them rather than the offender.

I can understand this rebellious attitude of women who are targeted continuously and forced to carry the moral burden of society on their shoulders, it seems that males are free to do whatever they want but women should not cross their line. I think our society and culture have evolved enough to understand that we need to respect others beliefs and choices. Everyone has the right to practice their right to express themselves in whatever way they want. Let's stop judging others by their external appearance, let's not stereotype any gender, community, culture, or country. Along with our body, our thinking should also evolve, we can not live in the 21st century with the 1st-century mindset. Respecting our fellow citizens' feelings and rights is not such a big expectation to have. Let's try to become a law-obedient, respectful, and aware world citizen.

Thanks for reading and please share your comments.

Reference:

1. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-05-05/delhi/31586102_1_protest-march-jantar-mantar-house-station

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing at vvt1974@gmail.com)

Is love towards God one way process?

This post might only make sense to people who believe in existence of super natural entity God, people who don't believe in it, who are self realized and happy in their own way...:) may not find anything useful in it unless they just want to kill time...:)

I think people's love towards God is one way process as they don't see real God or even don't know for sure whether it exists or not. But if it exists then it's believed that God loves everyone, it can not single out any particular person and love him/her selectively. People offer their prayers, love and dedication (bhakti) to God, and naturally it’s up to him/her to accept it or not, offering is in their hand and then they don’t have control over it. Everyone thinks and believes that God loves him or her and it's a beautiful feeling and they should feel that way but feeling that God should favor me over others is little selfish. 

Love of God is available for anyone who seeks, it's a pure psychological thing. Whenever its cold weather (winter) or it rains, whoever is outside in that weather he/she feels it but we don’t think that winter or rain is particularly there for us, whoever want to experience it can come out and experience it. I think true love for God is like that, it’s available for everyone and whoever seeks it will get it for sure. It’s a one way process and still it feels beautiful if you don’t expect anything in return then it becomes a blissful experience in spite of being one way process. We should offer our love and devotion selflessly to God but that doesn’t mean that believe blindly whatever is written in so called holy books or scriptures, we need to think rationally accept the truth and reject the rest. God or that power (nature or whatever name you like to give it) does not reside in any book or scripture, it’s inside us, all these books are just for guiding purpose. These books are written by some individuals who wanted to share their philosophy and methods with world. One can find their own path without using any book and they also will get the same love of God. As I said God loves everyone so we cannot say that his love is more for particular group of people and less for others, how you fare in your life has nothing to do with your devotion or love for god, your professional success and other things are in your hand to large extend.

We can offer our unconditional love to God and this world, it's pure selfless offering, God don’t need anything so I don’t understand why people try to offer so many things to God, money, food, land etc. etc. why? What God will do with these things and first of all we are temporary owner of these material things, are we trying to bribe him/her? Or trying to strike some deal by offering such gifts? What’s the purpose of it and normally these gifts are proportional to the amount of money particular person or family makes (sort of commission), so does that mean rich people love god more compared to poor people?. The land or money or anything which we are offering will be somebody else’s tomorrow, food if you offer will rot if nobody eats it (God won’t eat it for sure) so what’s the use of such offerings? All we own is our consciousness and our selfless devotion and if we can offer it, that will be real gift for God and he/she will be happy to receive it because then you are offering something which is really yours. This power of devotion and offering is given equally to everybody rich, poor, small big everyone have it we just have to realize about it.

If at all we want to offer anything to God we should offer our love and devotion to him/her. By doing good deeds we offer our services to God. Our consciousness is our guide in our journey. All humans are equal and have equal opportunity to love God, so there should not be neither any hatred among people nor any discrimination (based on race, religion, economy, education or anything) that’s true service to God. God is nothing but true, selfless love, pure consciousness and everyone has capacity to get that love and offer it.

Thanks for reading and please share your comments.

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing at vvt1974@gmail.com)

Is technology making us more connected or isolated?

Recently I heard a TED talk by Sherry Turkle where she presented an interesting scenario where the use of technology is helping us to be more connected but at the same time making us more isolated. All these social networking sites like Facebook, Google+, Twitter, MySpace, and Orkut are now very popular among people from all age groups. Since their launch many of these have become immensely popular with an increasing number of users every day, some of them have more users than populations of many small countries. I think they are creating a parallel universe of their own, a virtual world where people live and interact with each other in a very unique way. Many have separate personalities and identities in that world, different than their real-life personality. These social networking sites along with the revolution in device manufacturing allowed us to use all these functions on our tablets, and phones. We can carry this world in our pockets almost everywhere. Now almost everybody lives at least two lives one is real life and another one is virtual life where we are with a device constantly updating our status, tweeting out thoughts, posting on our blog, or texting. These little devices that entered our lives very recently are psychologically very powerful, they dominate our lives totally even before we realize that they are there. They also now make us do the things that we normally never do, like texting or checking FB status during any meeting or presentation or during class, parents and kids texting during dinner or whenever they are together and then complaining about lack of attention from each other. These little devices changed not only what we do but also who we are, and how we interact, they are even redefining our relationships. 

No doubt that these technologies and devices have done many good things for us. They help us to reach people who are geographically distant from us, help the world to come closer, make us aware of many issues around the globe, and definitely improve our understanding of the world. But all this came with some side effects, nowadays I see that many kids are more comfortable with texting each other than talking with each other face to face. Many of us like to connect with each other but not to talk with each other, our understanding and meaning of conversation is changing. We are more comfortable with emails, texts, tweets, or status updates as they allow us to edit our feelings and opinions before posting, and they allow us to present a curated version of ourselves. Normal human conversations are often spontaneous and emotional. They take place in real time and many times we don't have control in which direction it might go. Our relationships are very demanding, even messy sometimes, and require a lot of commitment. These new techniques (texting, email, social networking) are pretty amazing and very useful but they can not replace face-to-face conversations at least within family.

We get a chance to understand each other better during face-to-face conversations, I know that it's not possible to interact with all our friends and relatives like this but the problem is we are not doing it even with the people around us. This technology has definitely helped us to reduce the distance with our distant relatives, and locate and reconnect with lost school and college friends, but at the same time, it has distanced us from the people around us. We want to be in many places at the same time, and these devices allow us to exit and enter any place we want at our own convenience. We pay attention only to the part of conversation or meeting in which we are interested and conveniently ignore the rest, some may call it efficient time management but at the same time by doing this we are getting more connected with machines than people around us. Slowly these phones and these other little devices are becoming our best friends for many of us, many phone companies are now developing software that they claim will make these devices our best companion and friend. I am not at all against cell phones but still don't have one which I can call my own. I use them as per my needs, maybe I am still an old-fashioned guy.

We want to be connected with people but don't want them around us, we are now afraid of physical intimacy. Not many days before we used to remember people, used to get emotions and feelings and then call them to express them but nowadays people want to have feelings to update their status, want to have something so that they can always present it on their wall. It seems that we started believing that being lonely is a problem and we need to solve it immediately. People forget solitude, they don't like to be with themselves anymore, they don't know what to do when they are alone, and they always want to remain connected. As Sherry Turkle said in her talk we have to reclaim those sacred places in our homes where conversations used to take place. We can't replace people with machines everywhere, at least not in our personal relationships. We can't operate from behind curtains all the time, good to get new technology and use it but we should not lose our old good ways of communication, we don't want to live with a robotic companion, or do we?

Thanks for the reading and please share your opinion.

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing)

Can Sita be an icon for today's woman?

Recently I read the news where Mumbai High Court judges used an example of Sita, a character from the epic Ramayana to advise a wife to follow her husband when he was transferred because of his job. The court wants her to relocate with her husband against her own wish. The statement created a lot of controversy, many people called it innately sexiest, and many people defended it by saying Sita was an ideal woman so what's wrong to quote her example. 

The story of this particular case is something like this, this couple had an arranged marriage some 11 years ago and has a 9-year-old kid. The couple was staying in Mumbai, but after some years of marriage, the man was posted to Port Blair at Andaman & Nicobar Island. The wife refused to join him, so the husband filed a divorce case in court on the grounds of his wife's unwillingness to relocate to his new place of work. During the hearing, the Bombay High Court judges invoked the Ramayan to persuade this woman to join her husband. Media reported that high court judges want all married women should take a cue from goddess Sita, who followed her husband Lord Ram even during his exile. She stayed with her husband whether in a palace or in a forest. It seems that they think a wife should be like goddess Sita who left everything and followed her husband Lord Ram to a forest and stayed there (but they forget that she did it willingly not on her husband's order or wish). 

Ramayan is an ancient epic, many versions of Ramayan exist but the most popular ones are Ramcharitmanas by Tulsidas and Ramayan by Valmiki. It is believed that Valmiki's Ramayan is the original one and all other versions were written after that. Tulsidas was a devotee of Ram and he wrote Ramayan as a devotee, so obviously he didn't find any fault with Ram and his actions. Tulsidas projects Sita as a very devoted and obedient wife, his version is more religious whereas Valmiki's version is more secular in nature maybe because Valmiki wrote as a contemporary, and not as a devotee. When judges referred to Sita, what kind of image of Sita they were referring to? Is it an obedient, devoted, submissive wife, who follows her husband wherever he goes, and suffers silently without protesting? Or is it independent, courageous, bold, fearless, powerful Sita who fought with her husband to accompany him to the forest, faced aggressive and powerful Ravan, raised her kids as a single mother, and refused to go back to her husband after he deserted her? As Tulsidas's version of Ramayan is more popular than other versions. Today, Sita is only looked at as a loyal, faithful, devoted woman or wife. Sita's liberal, fearless, and independent nature is conveniently ignored. The question to ask here is why do we put so much pressure on women to be perfect? Why do we even need a perfect woman or man, whats wrong with a real woman or man?

Whenever we want to look for any ideals we always tend to look into the past as if there are no role models in today's world. Actually, there are many role models in today's world to whom we can relate very easily, who are living or lived in similar conditions in which we are living today. Why do we expect texts written long ago, in a totally different era and time to guide us today in every aspect of life? Mythology and these texts or epics are fascinating for a number of reasons, they teach us many valuable lessons but to expect them to provide answers for all our problems in the modern world might be expecting too much from them. We don't live in the same era in which these texts were written so why do we expect answers to our complex questions in them.  Some people advocate that we should totally get over these myths and beliefs but I don't think it's possible, their hold on society and our culture is so strong that it is impossible to ignore them. We should positively use them rather than using them for selfish purposes as per our convenience.

Today's women face different challenges than Sita or Draupadi faced in times of Ramayan or Mahabharat,  both these women had difficulties in their lives and fought their way out. There might be some similarity in certain situations but the value system and society structure is totally different today, so maybe Sita and Draupadi can not provide all the motivation necessary for modern women to excel. Whenever Sita's example is invoked, most of the time it is to tell women that they should behave in a very polite, obedient manner and follow their husband's instructions without any protest, as Sita does in Ramcharitmanas. It's always used to constrain them to show their boundaries and to remind them that they should not cross the so-called Lakshman Rekha. Valmiki's projection of Sita's character is very strong character compared to Tulsidas's but people conveniently ignore the strong characteristics of Sita's personality and only try to project her as an obedient and faithful wife, which is a very limited representation of her total personality.

One aspect of Hinduism that I like is that there are many versions of the same book. Some are more popular than others, but almost every book has different versions written by different authors. Most books do not try to project the world as either good or bad. The good can become bad and bad can also become good, there is a lot of grey in the world and many times it's very difficult to differentiate the good from the bad. 

Society is not static, it changes over time. Even though the content of books might remain the same, their understanding and interpretations change over time, every era interprets them differently. Many times, people who think that they are in charge of religion or consider these books as their property. They insist that these books which were written long ago, in totally different times and eras should be interpreted in the same way as they were interpreted thousands of years ago. They even insist that they are relevant even in today's world and any objection or different interpretation of these books is heavily criticized or even criminalized. Whether people like it or not, every generation will interpret and understand these books according to their own needs, and requirements and judge them accordingly. If we want to get inspiration from these books then let's take all positive things and try to leave the stuff which is no longer relevant in today's world. This won't dilute the impact of these books, it's not an insult, rather, it's proof of their greatness that we still study them and use them as our guides. Maybe Sita from Ramcharitmanas is not a very ideal example for modern women to follow but many of her qualities like fearlessness, faithfulness, and independent nature are certainly useful even today. Sita of Valmiki's Ramayan lived a very independent life and women today also want to live an independent life, so there are many similarities and we all can take a lot of inspiration from Sita's character. But the courts should not force any religious idols on any society, let society or that particular individual decide what he/she wants to become, whom they want to follow. Advice should be offered whenever it's required but let people have the freedom to accept or reject it. Let us stop using these characters at our own convenience for our selfish motives. Let's study them so that we use their relevant teachings, or it is also okay to move on as many things around us can provide us inspiration and guidance. Why insist on or depend on just one source when we have many good options.

Thanks for reading and please share your views.

References:

1. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-05-09/mumbai/31640952_1_divorce-plea-family-court-computer-training

2.http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/the-buck-stops-here/is-sita-an-icon-for-the-woman-of-2012/232452

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing) 

Do we need a Guru?

Do we need a Guru (teacher)? I think, yes, we do, not one but many. Actually, we have teachers everywhere around us, we just have to look around. There are so many things people around us can teach us directly or indirectly. We have to be open to ideas and try to grasp whatever good we see. People often expect that they will meet or find someone in life who will be their real 'Guru' who will be able to answer all their questions and solve their problems. Whereas its not wrong to have such expectations, but very often it is not easy to find such a person and we also don't know where to search for such a Guru, and everyone is not so lucky to meet them. Many times we get so focused in our search that we tend to miss many nice things that we come across during our search. We become so focused on the target that we forget to look around and fail to notice many beautiful things along the way. It's good to be focused but at the same time, we should not miss many beautiful things in our lives.

In Mahabharat, there are some interesting stories about the teacher-student relationship. I want to mention here the story of Ekalavya. He was the son of a tribal chief, he belonged to a hunting tribe but he wanted to become a warrior. At that time society was divided into four classes (Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras). People from the fourth section (Shudras) were not treated equally with the other three sections of society. They were discriminated against because of their profession. Maybe the original intention was noble for this division but it resulted in a horrible caste system and untouchability in Hindu society, I am against such division and discrimination. Ekalavya was born as a shudra, but he wanted to become an archer/warrior. Skills required for archery were taught by very professional and talented teachers often belonging to the Brahmin section of society. Ekalavya was determined to become the best archer in the world, so he started learning on his own without anyone's guidance. His aim was to acquire as much knowledge as he could on his own so that when he asks any teacher for their guidance it would be impossible for them to reject him (because of his talent). He knew that his 'varna' (shudra) wouldn't make it easy for him to get admission to any Gurukul. He wanted to be a discipline of Dronacharya, who was a very celebrated martial arts teacher for Kuru princes (Kaurav and Pandav) and was considered one of the best in the world. Drona was impressed with his talent but he refused to accept him as his student, he rejected him because of his 'varna', and Ekalavya's talent didn't help him. This rejection was disheartening for Ekalavya, but he didn't give up, he was determined to achieve his goal. So, he went to the forest, made a statue of Drona, and in front of that statue practiced his skills in archery. He got all the inspiration he needed from that statue. He continued learning on his own and soon became a very expert archer. News of his great skills spread everywhere. Drona wanted his favorite student Arjun to become the best archer in the world. Arjun was very skillful and one of the best archers but Drona wanted his favorite student to be 'the best'. During their next meeting, Ekalavya credited Drona for all the knowledge he acquired and called him his guru even though he didn't directly learn from him. Drona really impressed by the progress of Ekalavya surprisingly asks for his right thumb as a 'gurudakshina' (sort of a tuition fee). Ekalavya like an obedient student complied with Drona's demand without any protest and in turn, destroyed his prospect of becoming the best archer in the world. There are so many theories on why Drona did that, some justify his action, some criticize, but he definitely failed here as a Guru of Ekalavya.

This is a very interesting story where we see a dedicated student, his search for a Guru, his dedication towards his Guru even after getting rejected, his thirst for knowledge, and his achievements. Then there is also this "Guru," one of the best in the world, who acts very selfishly and destroys the life of one of his talented students for the benefit of his favorite student. This story is a unique mix of dedication, determination of the student, and selfishness and betrayal of his Guru. This is a very sad story but there are many lessons to learn from this story. There is no doubt that we need a teacher, a guide, or a mentor who can inspire us, guide us, and help us to acquire the required knowledge and skills. Teacher-student is a very important relationship, commitment and dedication should be from both sides, it doesn't work if it's only from one side (only from the student or from the teacher). Students and teachers both have responsibilities to fulfill towards each other, only one-way dedication can produce very disastrous consequences like it did in the story of Ekalavya. For Arjun guru like Drona was a blessing but the same guru proved to be a curse for Ekalavya. So, we should be careful while selecting our Guru and should never surrender our loyalty without serious consideration.

Sometimes our wait for the right Guru can be endless, if he/she has to come they will come but no need to wait for that. One of the lessons from this story is that we can learn a lot on our own, from people who inspire us, or from books. Almost everybody around us including kids, adults, books, internet all have something to teach us, the only problem is whether we want to learn from them or not. It's very difficult to find one person who can acquire and deliver knowledge from all the fields to us. Some people are very good in science, some in maths, some in history, some in psychology, some in medicine, and some in philosophy or religious studies or something else. Every field is exploding with knowledge, we are inventing or discovering new things every day. One person can not specialize in all fields but it's always nice to have some general knowledge about other fields apart from our specialization, it definitely helps. There are some advantages as well as some risks involved in surrendering totally to one person and believing all his/her teachings blindly. Wherever we feel doubt we should ask questions. A good teacher won't mind honest questions from students. Asking questions is a very important part of being a student and very often we forget that. Asking our doubts or putting forward our hypothesis (even if it doesn't match with our teacher's hypothesis) is not an insult to our teacher, rather it's a part of the learning process for both, the teacher as well as the student. Actually, the teacher is also a student but in an advanced stage compared to his/her students. The aim of the teacher (Guru) should be to bring students to their level and then inspire them to go for a higher level. Ideally, there should not be a clash of egos between a student and a teacher.

We should not restrict ourselves because of our age, religion, gender, or anything else to acquire knowledge, it is an endless process. We don't learn only in school or college but our life itself is like a school where we learn new things every day. We need the knowledge to overcome our ignorance, to understand things in a better way, Wayne Dyer said "The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about". Our generation is lucky to see such a huge transition in a system of acquiring and distributing knowledge. We have this great tool, the Internet, which has made it very easy to learn and share things. We should keep our minds open to everything, learn as much as we can, and use those things in real life. Knowledge remains only a piece of information unless it's utilized for the betterment of oneself and society. Life is a unique school, it first takes an exam and then teaches a lesson, sometimes it's hard but we should not miss the lesson. Knowledge is more important, not its source. Let's try to learn new things and also share our knowledge with each other. Knowledge and happiness are the only things that multiply even after sharing. Let's share and care.

Thanks for reading and please share your comments.

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing) 

Are you kidding Dr. Zakir Naik?

A few weeks back while surfing on the net, I came across a few YouTube videos of Dr. Zakir Naik's seminars and Q&A sessions. I heard him long ago when I was in India on cable TV and was impressed by his sharp memory, but not with the content of his talks. Surprisingly, even after almost a decade his style and content are still the same. During his seminars, he continuously throws verse numbers, page numbers, book names, and many other details for whatever he quotes from ancient scriptures of the major religions of the world. He became a very popular and influential figure among Indian Muslims and even started his own channel to propagate his views. He claims to do a comparative religious study, which according to him is to compare every other religion with Islam and try to prove how Islam is the best. His style sounds very impressive in the beginning, you get impressed by his memory, but then he overdoes this thing so much that after some time his speech becomes irritating, monotonous, and utterly boring with so many page numbers and verse numbers. All you remember from his speech is 'this guy has a sharp memory' and nothing else. His speeches are rich in quotes, and literature citations (bibliography) but mostly poor in content. If one wants to know who wrote what, and which particular lines are from which book, then his speeches may be a good source of this information, but now one can find all these things easily online so why tolerate this torture? He does a good job in translating verses but many times his justifications, comparisons, and interpretations are biased and totally without any logic. One thing that I don't like is when he tries to intimidate questioners, especially from other faiths by ridiculing their beliefs and questioning their knowledge about their own faith by throwing a lot of bibliographic information and verses. He tries to prove his superiority over them by throwing memorized material at them. It seems he draws a lot of pleasure in scoring brownie points against such individuals and feels satisfaction in humiliating them. He doesn't even try to listen to their point of view, his only intention seems to force his opinion down to their throat. 

This post is not about Islam or the Qur'an, their mention is only in context with Zakir Naik's particular talk which I want to discuss. Recently I heard part of his speech where he tried to justify why polygamy is allowed in Islam (ref. 1).  One should watch that video to see how pathetic was his attempt to justify something that is totally outdated in today's world. According to him, it seems that whatever is written in the Qur'an is law and then he takes the task of justifying it. No doubt, the Qur'an is a very well-respected book among many. It's the basis of one of the popular religions of the modern world. According to me, polygamy was allowed in Islam because the social and political situation at that time resulted in a huge difference in male to female ratio (heavily in favor of females) and to maintain social balance polygamy was permitted. All religious scriptures were written in a certain era, they all have many things that are still relevant today and people can them for their own benefit. However, at the same time, we should also understand that most of them have many things that are outdated now and are not relevant in today's world. It's surprising to see that many people expect us to take these scriptures verbatim, and follow each and everything mentioned in them. 

He justifies the practice of polygamy first by citing the verse from the Qur'an which says 'marry women of your choice in 2s, 3s or 4s but if you can't do justice then marry only once' (ref. 1). He also claims that only Qur'an tells person (male) to marry once (if possible) rest all scriptures from other religions doesn't say anything like this about marriage (that is, marry once, if possible!!) and it seems other religions allow as many marriages as man wants. Note that no religion is giving females the same option. He further claims that even though at birth male to male-to-female ratio is equal, it seems female infant is stronger than male, and because of this, there are more deaths of male child compared to female child. I don't know on what basis he draws this conclusion. So, according to him, among children also male to female ratio is in favor of females (which is not true, check the table below and in ref. 2). The Female survival rate is higher for so many reasons, males die in larger numbers compared to females (alcohol, accidents, war, stress, etc.). However, if we look at the table still ratio is still in favor of males in most countries for the age group 15-65, it shifts heavily in favor of females only after age 65. Then he further claims that due to all this, there are more females in the world compared to males except in a few third-world countries like India. He does a good job in criticizing female feticide and infanticide in India which affected this ratio, good to see that he speaks against it. Then he continues his argument and puts one hypothetical scenario where because of more females than men, for example in the USA, if all males select their female partners then there will be still some females left without any male partners. Here, he conveniently ignores gay and lesbian people. Now, these poor females are without any bachelor males, as all males are already engaged. It seems now they have only two options, one is to marry with already married male, become a second wife, or become a 'Public Property'. I don't know what he means by 'public property'. Also, notice how he puts the woman questioner in an awkward position and tries to force her to accept his logic, even if he wants to justify polygamy I think he can do a better job than this.

Now let's see whether his argument contains any truth or it's all crap. If you look at the list of countries by sex ratio (ref. 2), it's very clear that in most of the countries, the male-to-female ratio is greater than 1 for most age groups (that is more males compared to females) except for the group above age 65, in this age group (65 and above) in most countries females are in much larger number compared to males. We all know that the mortality rate is higher in males compared to females in later stages of life (after 65) due to various reasons. A lot of research has been already done in this area and there is a lot of literature available about this for anyone who is interested in the reasons behind it. So, this argument of Dr. Naik about being more females per male in the world and especially in developed countries doesn't stand, rather, it's a totally opposite scenario (at least in the 15-64 age group).  Even if we take the example of some Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia and UAE we can see in all age groups (except the age group above 65) M/F ratio is greater than 1 (in UAE it's 2.74 for the age group of 15-64). Let's have a look at data for some selected countries from ref. 2. 

 

Country/region	at birth (CIA estimate)	under 15	15–64	over 65	total	at birth WDB estimate)
Afghanistan	1.05	1.05	1.05	0.92	1.05	1.06
Brazil	1.05	1.04	0.98	0.73	0.98	1.05
Canada	1.056	1.05	1.02	0.78	0.98	1.05
India	1.12	1.13	1.07	0.9	1.08	1.08
Iran	1.05	1.05	1.02	0.92	1.02	1.05
Pakistan	1.10	1.06	1.05	0.88	1.09	1.05
Saudi Arabia	1.05	1.04	1.29	1.06	1.18	1.03
United States	1.05	1.04	1.00	0.75	0.97	1.05
UAE	1.05	1.05	2.74	1.82	2.19	1.05
UK	1.05	1.05	1.03	0.76	0.98	1.05

Now after looking at this table who has the possibility of becoming 'public property' by his logic, male or female? And based on this logic will he support polyandry (one female marrying more than one male) to maintain social harmony? I don't understand what is his aim behind misguiding people like this? Why he is doing this? If he wants to preach Islam or spread the teachings of the Qur'an, there is nothing wrong with it, but why tp insult other religions or scriptures? What does he want to achieve by doing that? He claims to study comparative religion, but all he does is insult religions other than Islam. Many others also do similar things, they compare their own beliefs with others to show how theirs is the best, and Dr. Naik is also one of them. I don't know why people like him believe that they have to prove all others wrong to show that they are right. He is using all his talent or knowledge for the wrong purpose, the sooner he understands this is better for him. Millions of Muslims follow him, and he can use his influence to do something better rather than trying to insult people from other faiths who attend his gatherings.

A lot of research has been done in the area of anthropology and social science. Many marriage systems, like polygamy, polyandry, group marriage, monogamy, etc., have been studied and researched. Based on all this research it is clear that with experience our society evolved from polygamy to monogamy (one spouse at any one time). Scriptures or books have nothing to do with that. In the modern world, most countries have laws related to marriage, they don't try to follow any religious book for family law. Everything in our lives can not be controlled by any single religious book. Scriptures can be a valuable source of information for their followers but they should not dictate what we should do in our bedrooms, or what we should eat or wear, common sense is enough for this. 

Thanks for reading and please share your views.

References:

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQaPBU5ppsk

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_sex_ratio 

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sex_ratio

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing) 

Amir Khan- An actor with brain as well as courage

Today I saw the first episode of Amir Khan’s debut TV show ‘Satyamev Jayate’ (Truth Alone Triumphs). What can I say? I am speechless, salute him for his effort that’s all I can do. The issue of gender discrimination was always close to my heart. I saw it happening around me since my childhood, it happened in my family, in my neighborhood. I could see it happening everywhere around me. It was expected that Amir’s show would be somewhat different than others, he promised that and I must say that he didn't disappoint, actually it was beyond my expectations. It's not only different, but it's also unique. Many stars made their debut on Indian television before him, some were very successful, and for some, it didn't work that well, but all their shows were related to pure entertainment, and relied heavily on their personality and charisma. I was curious where Amir would stand but he did something entirely unexpected, he didn't stand in that line, he started his own line. Now we have to see how many others have guts to stand behind him in this line.

The first episode of Satyamev Jayate dealt with the subject of ‘female feticide’, the subject closely related to female suppression. The last few posts on my blog were related to women's suppression and I tried to focus on a few reasons behind so much bias or prejudice against females in our society particularly in India (where I spent most of my life). It's sheer coincidence that the first episode of Amir’s show dealt with a similar subject. According to me female feticide, the crime committed openly in Indian society today is a result of a social mindset which resulted because of centuries of male dominant environment.

I was shocked to know from the show that it was the government program that started female feticide in India. In the 1970s couples were producing too many kids in the hope of having a male child. The government tried to implement a family planning program but with very limited success. The desire to have a so-called heir for the family (son) was too strong and people cared little about population growth and its effect. Maybe government authorities working in the population control department thought the reason behind the birth of many girls/kids was the couple's desire to have a son (as an heir to the family). They thought of eliminating this byproduct (baby girl) for those couples who only desired to have one or two sons (and were willing to go on producing kids until they fulfilled their desire) and hoped this would bring population growth under control. They gave them the option to abort unwanted children (girl children in these cases) to limit the number of kids and avoid population explosion. Many individuals and organizations opposed this practice. The government realized its mistake soon and stopped this practice of sex determination during pregnancy but by that time the damage was already done. The diagnosis of the problem itself was wrong so no wonder the treatment failed and apart from that it also resulted in horrible side effects which turned into a major disease itself.  They opened doors for the huge illegal market for this business. Their plan failed because they didn't try to understand the root cause of the problem, why do couples desire only to have a ‘male child’? What is the reason behind it? Is the situation of females in society responsible for this desire? Was the government doing enough to support them?

When I wrote in my post ‘Who is guilty?’ I can understand why a woman being female herself wants to abort a female child, why they are so scared to bring a female child into this world? Did I support their action by this statement? No, not at all, but I want to point out the reason behind this act. We all know whatever they are doing is wrong, but then why are they doing it?  WHY? We might think that this problem is more among the uneducated/poor class, but that's not true, actually in every section of society, rich and poor, educated and uneducated, urban and rural, this problem exists. What is that fear? What's the origin of this fear? Are all these mothers involved in this crime culprit or the victims? It’s a very difficult question to answer. Many of these females who commit this heinous act are not offenders but I think they are victims themselves. From their childhood, they have seen the horror of being female, and are discriminated against because of their gender. This all stays deep in their psyche. After marriage, they are supposed to produce an heir for the family (boy). The pressure is huge, expectations are high and failure to fulfill this duty is not accepted very kindly. What is the result of all this? These women want to prove their worth, want to make people around them happy at any cost and be respected in their families. Their fate depends on what they deliver, male or female child. This creates that 'fear'. The sex of the child they deliver is key for their own survival, this forces the mother to get rid of her child, not by choice but to save herself from the humiliation, and torture that she faces after delivering a girl. Yes, it's shameful but many times she doesn't have a choice. If we can remove this 'fear' from her heart then we may not need any law to control this crime, it might stop automatically. 

Amir’s show did an excellent job not only in highlighting the problem but also in suggesting a possible solution. He didn't just show us the problem, we all knew it, he offered us the possible solution and promised to be a part of it. That’s what I like about him; he wants to be there with us when we fight this social evil. It’s not a fight against a few individuals, or some ruling class, or some invaders. It’s a fight with ourselves, our own people, our own family members, their beliefs, and our own society which is conditioned to think in a certain way and we have to break that mold without breaking the society.

This program left me not only with tears in my eyes but also with a lot of hope. I knew that I was not alone who is thinking like this but now I am sure, people are not only talking about this but they are willing to act. Together we can bring the desired change. I want readers of this blog to think about it, watch that show if you haven't already, and contribute your share. Remember, no contribution is small. One person cannot bring the change but he/she definitely can initiate it. I think Amir and his show intend to do that, hats off to him for doing this. He alone can't do it, we all have to be part of that effort. And please don't make this a fight or a war against a few individuals, hate the sin, not the sinner.

Thanks for reading and please share your views. 

References:

1. http://satyamevjayate.in/

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing) 

Do we need 'Social Activism'?

Recently I read a very interesting article by Yoginder Sikand titled “Why I Gave Up on Social Activism”. It’s a very honest post and I think everyone who wants to bring social change or is a social activist should read it. I could relate to many points the author mentioned in his post. I went through a similar phase at one stage of my life. Like the author I was not born into a rich family or don’t have any economically privileged background, rather I was right in the middle of those ‘oppressed communities’ about which the author is talking in his post. I also intended to fight against social evils like 'caste/class oppression', 'gender injustice', and 'imperialism'. I did not get a chance to become a professional social activist or study that subject academically but I saw those things happening right in front of my own eyes, in my neighborhood, and even in my own family.

I can understand and relate very well with the feelings of the author when he says “But all that came with a heavy personal price. The more I identified with the 'Revolution' of the 'oppressed', the more unbearably negative I became as a person.” Many times when we decide to fight some sort of social evil or cultural prejudice our fight becomes focused against people who we think are responsible for those activities. Our whole efforts are targeted to criticize them, prove them wrong, and hope that our efforts will bring the desired social change. Many times we forget that it’s not those people who are the problem but the culture or the mindset of society.  If we analyze closely we can see that even the ‘oppressed class’ also doesn’t treat women fairly, there are also strong and weak sections within them, and often strong sections exploit the weak. I even saw women who struggled in their young days or during their childhood, when they became head of household or got some commanding position in the family behave similarly as their male counterparts, there is absolutely no difference. They also expect other women to fall in line, suppress them, and obey so-called social norms to protect the honor of their family. All these things made me think more deeply about these problems. It's not only the gender that is responsible for this attitude. I think it’s the human tendency to dominate and exploit the weak for their own benefit, it's a part of our animal instinct. 

Many individuals who are involved in these socially evil acts or oppressive activities are not bad people, they behave perfectly normal most of the time. But their minds are so conditioned by the social environment that they see nothing wrong in their outdated beliefs and their actions according to those beliefs. They think that whatever they are doing is the right thing to do, and that's why they are so convinced about the legitimacy of their actions. Just opposing them without listening to their side of the story didn't help me to proceed anywhere apart from landing into a lot of arguments. Endless arguments, where I was opposing their views and actions and they were fiercely justifying them by saying how it's their culture or religion, and how it is my duty also to behave like that. In my endless pursuit to bring that revolution and change I totally forgot that I also need to work hard to make myself a better human being. I was so busy reforming others that I almost forgot that I needed to reform myself also, after all, I was also the product of the same society. This made me introspect, pause, and think all over again. I realized that just opposing my family or people around me and fighting/arguing with them won't solve many problems rather might create some more problems for me. People can ignore me very easily, we may cease to exist for each other, but will that solve the problem? So, I decided first to listen to their point of view and look for answers within their beliefs and actions. The problem was not with them but was in their thinking and beliefs, it was in social structure which formed those beliefs. I was hitting the wrong target. Now, I don't hate these people, I try to understand them and then try to talk with them. I don't force my ideas on them but try to show that there might be some problems in their beliefs and there are better alternatives. Many started thinking about the issues I was talking about, everything was happening around them all the time but now they also started noticing it, and they started relating with me. It took time but slowly they started acknowledging the problem. My aim is to solve the problem, not to alienate the individuals.

I believe that I am heading somewhere, the process is slow but I think it is working. I am willing to wait and continue my efforts. Many people have dedicated their lives to these types of social causes I can definitely do my bit. I encourage my blog readers to look around and be part of the change that they want to bring. Just thinking about the change won't help. At least start the process, the results are not in our hands they will follow sooner or later.

According to me, we definitely need social activism, but in what form it's up to us to decide. Nothing wrong in making social activism a profession I am not against it. Doctors fight against human diseases, similarly, social activists fight against social diseases. We need social activists like we need doctors. The good part of social activism is that we all can be a part of it, we don't need any degree or training to participate in it. So let’s begin, together we can bring the change we desire.  

Thanks for reading and please share your views.

References:

1. http://www.countercurrents.org/sikand190412.htm

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing)