Do we still need feminism?

Feminism is the term used a lot nowadays. We can find it in many places, and like many other terms, this term is also slowly getting stereotyped. For some people, feminists are men haters, anti-fashion, people who like to blame all miseries of women on men, and who want to make this world a female-dominant place to take revenge for years of male dominance. For some, feminism is an anti-men movement. Some are utterly confused as to why feminism is even needed. One can find many groups supporting feminism at the same time opposing it, some even hate feminists because of their demand for gender equality in society. I consider myself a feminist and I don't fit into any of these stereotyped definitions. For me, feminism is a very simple thing, it's advocacy for equal rights for women, a movement for gender equality. Feminism expects gender equality, nothing more, nothing less, equal opportunities for all genders in all fields, and encouraging their participation at all levels in society. That's all, anyone who believes in this or in gender equality is a feminist according to me.

Actually, the basic question is why do we need feminism? Isn't our society already progressive, technically advanced, and civilized? Isn't the situation of women in most cultures and societies much better than it was just a decade ago? Then why do we still need feminism? Yes, we have indeed made tremendous progress in science and technology in the last few decades, we have also improved our social structure in most parts of the world compared to what it was just a few decades ago, but still, some people want women to play only certain role in society and family (mostly wife and mother). They are against her freedom to make her own choices about various aspects of her life. These people, even want to dictate choices about very personal things like her sexuality, health, and fertility. They take shelter from some religious book or some age-old beliefs to justify this encroachment on women's personal rights. These groups are still very powerful and active and to deal with them we need feminism and we need it very badly even today. So there is no doubt that we still need feminism.

Anyone who thinks that women should get equal rights and opportunities in our society is a feminist. Anyone who thinks women are no less or more than men is a feminist. One does not have to work with some NGO, part of some political party, or member of some society to be a feminist. The belief in gender equality is enough to become a feminist. Feminists are not men haters. I don't know where and why this misconception originated. Feminists don't want to bring a women-dominated culture or society, they just want equal rights for all genders. Most societies are still men dominated that's why sometimes during the fight for gender equality it seems that this fight is against men, but that's not true, it's not a fight against men, but it's a fight against everyone (including women, religion, traditions, etc.) who think that women are inferior to men and should not be given equal status in society. The real fight is against this mentality (also called patriarchy or misogyny). It doesn't matter who is the flag bearer of patriarchy or misogyny, mostly they are men that's why I think this wrong impression is created. Wherever we see gender discrimination, we should voice our concern, discrimination of any type should be challenged. There should not be a place for any kind of discrimination in any progressive, tolerant, and inclusive society.

I am proud to be a feminist and I hope more and more people will understand the real meaning of feminism and feel proud to call themselves feminists. Whether you call yourself a feminist or not, I hope you will stand with me in the fight for gender equality. The label is not important but the mission is. We still need feminism as we have a long way to go.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Khurshid Anwar - Guilty or victim of media trial

I read news about the suicide of Mr. Khurshid Anwar, a social worker and director of an NGO called the Institute for Social Democracy on my Facebook wall. I didn't know about him before reading the news about his death. The reason why this news caught my attention was because of the cause of his suicide, which was the depression caused because of sexual assault charges leveled against him by a 23-year-old girl who worked for some other NGO. Another reason was, that many women who knew Mr. Anwar personally were really surprised and shocked by this allegation and believed that there might be something fishy going on in this case. They think these charges might be false and someone was trying to implicate him in a crime he did not commit. If this is true, then, this may not be a suicide but a sort of murder. Maybe after a detailed investigation, the real truth will come out, but life is already lost. The role played by some news channels who accused Mr. Anwar of rape is also questioned. Can the media pass on the verdict of guilty or nonguilty without any trial? Such media trials can put a lot of stress on concerned people and results can be devastating as in this case. Media has the right to report the news but do they have the right to take sides and deliver verdicts without any substantial evidence?

Any victim of sexual assault should get all the possible support and help, and the guilty should not be spared in such cases no matter who they are. But at the same time, we should also need to make sure that such laws are not misused for personal or professional gains. Nowadays many cases of misuse of anti-dowry and anti-casteism laws are reported, and there are also cases of false sexual harassment or rape charges, because of the nature of these crimes victim immediately gets all the sympathy, and the accused is immediately painted as evil or declared guilty. No doubt that the victim should get all the required support but at the same time accused should also get the chance to defend and prove his/her innocence. The process should be fair for both of them. The rights of both the accused and the victim should be respected and honored. Media, social networks, and other electronic mediums also should deal with these types of cases sensibly and responsibly. Media plays a very important role in any civilized and progressive society. They are responsible for communicating correct and nonbiased information to people but nowadays we hardly see them doing this. Most of them are becoming like any other entertainment channels that cater to whatever their audience likes to watch, this is really pathetic.

Social and news media also played a very important role in some cases like the Jessica Lal murder case to get justice for the victim. However, tough competition between various news channels to grab the sensational news and report it first has created a situation where there is hardly any time to authenticate the information. Many times the channels broadcast the news as received before validating it or even checking the source and sometimes this creates a lot of damage to concerned parties. Recent sting operation tapes against AAP which were broadcasted on many news channels is another such example. I am against censoring media by any government organization, they should be independent, then only they can do their job without any fear of adverse government actions, but at the same time, they need to be responsible, with complete freedom also comes a lot of responsibility. They need to be really careful with the authenticity of the contents of their reporting when a large section of society depends on them as a source of authentic information. I hope this sense of responsibility prevails in current media houses that are controlled by some of the big corporations. I hope this doesn't become just another business but remains an independent pillar of democracy. If not, then we might see more victims like Khurshid Anwar who were declared guilty before any fair trial.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Links:
1. What Khurshid Anwar's suicide should tell the media
2. NGO director jumps to death as rape charges are levelled against him by 23-year-old woman

Verdict 377: Progressive or regressive step?

The recent judgement by the Supreme Court of India related to section 377 of the IPC (Indian Penal Code) has created a lot of controversy as well as very emotional responses from the LGBT community across the world. Supreme Court set aside the lower court ruling (historic 2009 judgement by Delhi High Court about the same issue) and ruled that Section 377 (which criminalises sexual activities "against the order of nature", including homosexual acts) is constitutional and also said that it's not the job of the court to repeal or amend this section but only parliament can do this. According to me, this is such a regressive step. After the 2009 historic judgement (which was hailed by most of the world) slowly people were becoming more open about their sexuality (especially people from the LGBT community) in India, they were coming out of closets and feeling more comfortable sharing views about their sexual orientation. People were slowly getting over the social stigma and fear of the law attached to these things. The said law can be used to torture or trouble them but it rarely happens, it seems less than 10 cases have been reported so far under this section. But this judgement can derail all that development and do more harm than good.

Homosexuality is not new to India. There are sculptures in the Khajuraho temple that display homosexual acts. Still, many people call it unnatural. Unnatural things normally don't survive for long, they perish over time just because they are unnatural. One can debate whether homosexuality is ethical, moral, legal, or whatever because all these concepts change from time to time. Generally, in any progressive society, these concepts evolve with time, they get modified as society evolves, so, it was a bold step by the judiciary when the Delhi High Court in 2009 decided to recognize the existence of such a community (homosexuals) and took first step to welcome them in our society. Before that judgement, these people were a cornered group, always trying to hide their identity, and lived like second-class citizens just because of their sexual orientation. Even today many in our society look down on transgenders, eunuchs, as well as homosexuals, they don't feel welcomed in most social settings once their identity is disclosed. They are also citizens of the country like any of us, just because they follow a few things which don't match our line of thinking doesn't mean they are abnormal, unnatural, or evil. Many societies that claim to be tolerant and inclusive (which India also claims) discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation, race, or caste. I wonder on what basis they call themselves tolerant or inclusive when they cannot accommodate people with sexual orientation which is different than so-called normal sexual orientation. Can't we modify a 150-year-old law which can eliminate this type of discrimination? It seems they are interested in playing the game of passing the buck (from judiciary to parliament and from parliament to judiciary). How long these people have to wait for their rights as citizens of a country which they love and respect? Why their countries don't rise to the occasion, acknowledge their existence and honour their presence? Are these people going to get right to live in our country as equal citizens or not? If yes, then what steps are we going to take to make sure that they get their right? If not then do we deserve to be called a tolerant, inclusive and progressive society with a rich culture?

Every society and culture needs to evolve with time, things which evolve survive long and which don't evolve perish over time no matter how strong they seem now, we have many examples from history to prove this hypothesis. Also as a society, we need to be considerate and sensitive to the needs of all sections of our society. We shouldn't only think about the majority, the minority also deserves equal consideration and respect and this is true regarding any religion, race, caste, sexual orientation, or anything else. Giving equal status and opportunity to all sections of society is a sign of a civilized and evolving culture. I believe everyone wants to stay in such an atmosphere. This judgement is not going to help to create this environment in India and that's why I feel as a society we need to protest against this and should ask for equal rights for all citizens. Whether someone is a homo, bi, or heterosexual doesn't matter for their fundamental rights. People may belong to a different faith, race or gender but when we see injustice done to people, then it's our duty to stand for them irrespective of their gender, race, beliefs, and sexual orientation. I feel this judgement is a regressive step and the sooner we correct it better it is for our society.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Links:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code
2. Verdict 377: Betrayed by my own country!
3. समलैंगिकता अपराध है?

How logical is the concept of hell?

Almost in every book associated with any religion one can find a description of Hell. In some scriptures this imaginary place is described in very graphic details, many people literally believe these descriptions and really think that hell exists somewhere. They also describe what may or may not happen if someone lands in hell. I call it imaginary because there is no direct or indirect evidence of the existence of this place. Every religion and its scriptures describe it somewhat differently but they all agree on one thing it is a really bad place to be there and no one should land there even by mistake. Some religions or scriptures go beyond just describing the place, they also list several punishments one might get if one lands there. Actually, as per their logic, no one just accidentally lands there, they are forced to go there as a punishment after death for their bad deeds during their life on earth. This punishment which sounds so inhuman and cruel is awarded after judgment by the highest authority (God) of that particular religion. At least this is what the scriptures say. Some of the punishments described are very cruel and inhuman, like frying in oil or burning in fire. This is all without any due process and just for not following some rules written in those scriptures, and that too these rules are so different from one scripture to another, whatever is considered sacred in one can be totally blasphemous in another. I think if any government or any authority tries to award some of these punishments they can be tried in court for human rights violations, only some radical extremist organizations like Al-Queda can justify such barbaric acts, and for this, they get criticized by all quarters of the world, but no one seems to mind when these things are mentioned in scriptures. People's attitude suddenly changes when there is involvement of their religion or god in these types of issues.

I often wonder if people at all think how logical is all this description of hell and those punishments described in any book? The descriptions of these things are so cruel and inhuman that no one with normal sense and logic can agree to such punishments delivered to hardcore criminals and forget about common people. I agree that these books are really really old but I feel that today's authors do a somewhat better job in writing fiction stories. I must also say that today's authors also have the advantage of time and better technique. Still, believers don't feel that their scriptures are fiction books, they fear this imaginary hell, and they all have a strong desire to go into a similarly imaginary place called heaven that promises a bunch of rewards. Many who care about going to hell or heaven don't care about their cowardice acts like terrorism or heinous crimes like rape or murder or many other mistakes in their day-to-day lives like corruption, domestic violence, sexual abuse, etc. So, clearly, these threats about hell and lures about heaven are not working in the way they were supposed to work, rather, they create an illusion in people's minds that no matter what they do in their personal lives if they ask for forgiveness with their God everything will be fine and they will be pardoned and rewarded. This very generous offer is advertised heavily by almost all religions and sects. This fear and attraction to the illusionary world of heaven and hell have created a unique mindset in people's minds. Many care and worry about these imaginary things rather than their own conduct in day-to-day life. Many times they don't even care about the law of the land but care whether they will land in heaven or hell. Many religions and sects make use of these fears to attract followers, they make tall claims that are difficult to prove or disprove and lure people into their trap, and people fall for this trick.

Do we really need the promise of heaven to do good deeds or fear of hell to deter us from doing bad things in our lives? Why our own conscious mind can not guide us to follow the righteous path in our lives? Why fear of the law of the land is not enough to deter people from committing crimes? We need to ask these questions and try to find honest answers. Maybe this will help us to introspect and realign our beliefs. Maybe this will help us to follow a righteous path without worrying whether it will land us in some imaginary place like heaven or hell. Kindness, love, compassion, and truthfulness are all wonderful qualities to have, and everyone should aspire to have them, I don't think anyone should require the lure of heaven or fear of hell to lead a life full of love and kindness. Let's focus on all the good work we all can do without worrying about these imaginary threats or rewards.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

AAP should not remain just a political party but should become a phenomena

The recent success of AAP (Aam Aadami Party) in the Delhi elections has created a lot of buzz all over India. Many political parties poked fun when AAP was created almost one year back and even dismissed their presence. They termed it as a temporary phenomenon, a bubble that will eventually disappear without creating any significant impact. But destiny had something else in its mind. The spectacular performance by the AAP in the Delhi elections left everyone shocked and surprised. They won 28 out of 70 seats, no one expected this to happen. They not only fought the election but fought really hard. During the India Against Corruption (IAC) movement, the current political brigade challenged a few common people not to just protest on the street and create a nuisance but to enter the political system and try to clean it if they are not happy with the current system. They never imagined that some people would really take this challenge seriously and take a plunge into the muddy water of politics. They tried everything from sting operations to government investigation about their funding, but nothing worked against AAP. So far they came out of all troubles successfully and managed to maintain their clean image.

I am not excited about AAP only as a new political entity, there are so many political parties in India, local as well as national, they all were launched with a lot of good intentions and some of them became very successful. However, they all became part of the same system and played the game with the same set of rules which included the use of money power, corruption, and many other illegal ways about which most people are aware. Skepticism about AAP was quite understandable because people saw many new parties emerging and becoming part of the same system many times before. Leaders like Laloo Yadav, Mulayam Singh, and Mayavati, came from very humble backgrounds and entered politics with a lot of good intentions but today they are big players in the same system, playing by the same rules. They couldn't change the system but the system changed them completely. But so far AAP seems to be different. They have a totally different approach and transparency is the most important aspect of their approach which impressed me a lot. Whatever they do including the collection of money to run the party is in the public domain. No other political party has done this before. Everyone thought that no one could survive in Indian politics with honesty and complete transparency but so far AAP has done it. This is what scared other parties, they are scared to disclose their sources of funding, and they are worried about losing the election if they don't field popular or winnable candidates. They all used to field such candidates and never used to care even if some of these candidates have criminal backgrounds, but now they may not be able to do it anymore. At least they were forced to field honest candidates with clean images during the Delhi elections just because of the presence of AAP. This is what makes me excited about AAP. Not only they are playing the game honestly but they are also forcing their opponents to follow the same path. This is what I want to happen, reformation of all parties and the entire system. One candidate or leader with good intentions is not a big deal. They are there in every party but when every party and candidate is forced to stay clean and work honestly then only desired reform will happen. First, there has to be some external pressure (which AAP has created) and then slowly it may become a norm and then we may not even need to mention specifically AAP's name because all parties will be like them. This sounds like a crazy dream today but I am optimistic.

AAP has still a long way to go. They just started and hit a home run in their first attempt, but that doesn't mean they will remain like this or will have the same success in every election they contest, but it seems they are not worried about that and I like this attitude. They seem to be more interested in overall political reform rather than short-term gains. That's why I think it's not just another political party but a phenomenon that made common people believe that they also can enter politics and win, they also can dream of challenging this corrupt system if they want and this is what excites me and makes me optimistic. Many say that nothing can be done with our current political and bureaucratic machinery, it's damaged beyond any repair, but AAP's success and approach are a ray of hope. They showed us not everything is lost and it's we who can repair it and change it, it's our responsibility to fight for the change we want. So now the ball is in our court, we need to make sure that AAP just doesn't remain another political party but becomes a phenomenon, an experiment that can be repeated everywhere and at every level. If not, then we will be stuck with the current rotten system for many more years to come and I don't think any of us want this to happen. I am happy for AAP's success, more than that I am happy for myself, I am happy for the common people of India who desperately needed some ray of hope and now they have it.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Why always look in the past, we should also sing glories of our own generation

I often see many people glorifying distant past achievements of their ancestors, singing their praise, telling everyone how in the past their culture or civilization was rich, dominant, or superior to the rest of the world. Nothing wrong with feeling proud of our ancestors and taking inspiration from their achievements but this does not mean not giving any credit to recent achievements and breakthroughs. I hear in India all the time people singing glories from the past but are not willing to appreciate the present situation. I feel proud of many achievements of my ancestors in India, no doubt it was remarkable that they achieved so much with such limited resources and techniques, but at the same time, I am equally proud of the achievements of the present generation. Spectacular achievements in the field of science and technology, a revolution in the area of communication and medical care, progress in the area of gender equality, abolishment of slavery, all are recent phenomena. Most of these things happened within the last 100 years or so and I am really proud of all these achievements. They are equally important and great in every respect compared to any past achievements.

Actually, our generation has achieved tremendous progress in many areas. Revolution in the area of communication technology is just phenomenal, the world was never better connected than now. The amazing phenomenon called the internet has completely changed our lives is a recent invention Many path-breaking discoveries in the area of drug discovery have increased average life expectancy across the world. Recent progress in the area of gender equality is also impressive. Our ancestors didn't think about many of these problems for so many different reasons but we not only diagnosed these problems but are working hard towards resolving them. Let me also say that I am not trying here to claim that recent generations have solved all existing problems. No, that's not the case. Still, many problems need solutions, and work is still in progress. I am also not trying here to compare our ancestors with us, it would be very unfair to do this but whenever someone says that our ancestors were much better than us or they were much more developed, or superior I feel surprised by their attitude and ignorance. I fail to understand the logic or rationale behind this statement. I wonder on what basis people say this? If people say this because of the perceived moral degradation of society then also it doesn't make any sense. The current world is much better as far as morality is concerned compared to any ers of the past. In the past, there used to be wars, people used to discriminate, slavery was very common, people used to kill each other just because they belonged to different tribes or faiths, polygamy, and polyandry were common in many societies, there used to be barbaric punishment for crimes like stealing or lying or adultery, and the situation of women was not better than what it is today. So, I don't know on what basis people claim that our society was much better in the past compared to today. Rather, as a society we are much better today. At least there is democracy in most of the countries, democracies didn't exist in most parts of the wold just a few centuries ago.

The point I am trying to make is that there is no point in comparing two different eras against each other. Both have their own success stories and failures, and we can draw inspiration from them whenever we want. The discovery of gravity is as important as the discovery of zero and traditional medicine was as important for our ancestors as modern medicine is to us. There is no point in comparison, it's useless and a waste of time. We also don't have to always look back at our ancestors to draw inspiration we have enough examples from our own generation which can inspire us to do good work and achieve new heights in every field.  

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Links:
1. Were Our Ancient Ancestors Scientifically Advanced?
2. Signs in the Sky: The Irrationality of Astrology
3. Fraudulent Use of Obsolete Vaastushastra

This is complete misinterpretation of Live-in relationship

Recent news about a judgment by Madhya Pradesh Lok Adalat left me surprised and shocked. As per the court order the wife and live-in partner of a man should live together under the same roof, sharing the space and time with their man, this arrangement was made after a mutual agreement between them. I am still trying to understand how come court concluded that an extramarital affair qualifies as a live-in relationship. This is a case of adultery where an already married man without giving divorce to his first wife engages in a sexual relationship with another woman. I also wonder what would have been the court's reaction if this had been a reverse scenario, that is, a married woman engaging in an extramarital relationship with another man outside her marriage. Would this court have given a similar verdict? Would people have accepted such a verdict as easily as they accepted this one? This decision might have been taken after considering the fate of the other woman who is dependent on this man, even if he cheated both these women they don't have any other option but to compromise and stay with the same man who cheated them both. This is a very sad state of affairs. After this verdict, one of my cousins told me that now in India even Hindus can marry twice legally! Such is the effect of such judgments.

The topic of live-in relationships is very intensely debated on many discussion forums in India. This is a very controversial and sensitive subject, many people and institutions are against it because they think it is against their traditions and culture. They also feel that this might put the institution of marriage in danger. There are many misconceptions about live-in relationships in India. First, a one-night stand or extramarital affair is not a live-in relationship.  Live-in relationships are almost like a marriage but without any legal obligations for separation (like filing for divorce) but they also come with all other requirements like commitment (as long as the relationship is in place), offering financial support to the partner, and children. But often people misinterpret it as an easy way to have sexual relations without marriage and ignore all obligations. Now it seems even courts started making this mistake. Protecting the rights of a partner in any relationship is very important. The institution of marriage allows that protection but there should be an alternative for people who don't believe in this institution and a live-in relationship has emerged as the closest possible alternative. Society needs to discuss and debate it before accepting or rejecting it. Accepting or rejecting anything without proper consideration would be a huge mistake, and this judgment is a good example of it. I also agree that the court didn't have many options in this particular case but this case should not make people believe that now polygamy is legal or there is some way to practice polygamy legally.

I am questioning this particular judgment because there is a common impression among people that in this case man got rewarded instead of getting punished for his infidelity. This perception is dangerous, and this is why such judgments should come with proper explanations, warnings, and disclaimers. This judgment is a total misinterpretation of the concept of a live-in relationship. I hope they clarify this before many more commit this mistake again or start thinking that this is not at all a mistake. I am also not saying that because of this judgment, these things will now start happening, they are already happening but this judgment should not confuse people more about the already confusing concept of live-in relationship. These issues require some understanding and mature response from society as a whole, these things should not be used to exploit people and create unnecessary disturbance in society. I hope people understand this and act accordingly.

Thanks for reading and please share your opinion about this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Links:
1. Lok Adalat orders man to spend equal time with wife and live-in partner
2. Court Asks Man, Live-in Partner to Stay with Wife in Same House

Why do people need these fake Gurus?

Recently when I shared the news about one incident which happened in India where some people wanted to spread flowers in the path of rape convict Narayan Sai when police planned to take him to a hospital for a medical check-up and to a court for the demand of legal custody on my Facebook wall, one of my friends asked why people need these dhongi (fake, pretentious or cheat) gurus or babas? The answer is not that easy and straightforward. Why the heck these people want to glorify a rape convict or a criminal? This criminal was arrested after a manhunt for almost two months, he was trying his best to escape the law like any other criminal and he should be treated like that but I know that his devotees won't accept it, and we need to understand why they do this.

I think everyone needs some sort of counseling at different stages of their lives for various issues or problems they face. Parents, teachers, and other close relatives play this role in the early part of our lives, when we grow up our education is supposed to empower us to deal with most of these things on our own and if we can't then various books, movies, friends, and other resources can perform the role of counselor whenever needed. All these resources help us to deal with various issues and problems in our life. But not everyone has access to such resources for their mental health-related needs, and even if they have it's quite possible that sometimes even all these things combined can not answer all their questions, then they need someone to comfort them, someone to say to them that everything will be okay. Many times, these fake gurus fill this void in people's lives. People get attracted to these babas or gurus because they do mass counseling, initially for free to trap all their customers. These self-proclaimed gurus entirely depend on their personal charm, charisma, and fan following. Many of them have good oratory skills, good knowledge about many scriptures, great memory, and charming personality, but they are not professionally trained to offer any professional advice or consultation about any personal issues. But that's what most of them do and that's the main reason for their popularity. Hardly do people go to them just to listen to their speech, many visit them for consultation. Once they are popular they become powerful, their devotees become their strength, and many of them have so strong influence locally that it's very difficult even for law enforcement agencies to take any action against them even if any charges are pressed against them. The influence and clout of some of these people are so great that even people who suffer abuses from their hands don't dare to file any complaint against them. Many cases of financial irregularities, sexual abuse, or exploitation don't even get reported. All these benefits and immunity that come with this profession of babagiri have attracted many people with good memory and oratory skills into this profession. The case of Nirmal Baba who offers very absurd and stupid solutions to people's problems is one such example of popular baba.

Seeking the help of a counselor for any personal or professional problem is not a culture in India rather it's a taboo. Most people still hesitate to visit a psychiatrist or counselor. They always worry about what other people will think if they come to know that there are some mental health-related or personal issues in their lives. However, visiting any baba or anyone like him is not at all considered as something unusual, rather it's something that everyone loves to talk about. People like to discuss about greatness of their guru, the various powers he/she possesses, and also about miracles they can do. Even people visit these fake gurus to seek advice related to many medical issues this can be very dangerous but still they do it. The presence of such culture for centuries has created a very fertile environment for many such gurus and their cult movements. Some declare themselves an incarnation of some deity and exploit people's weaknesses and emotions. Actually, these fake counselors in the name of various babas and gurus fill the vacuum created by the absence of professional counselors in people's lives. This all needs to stop, but all these babas or gurus are not going to close their shops on their own. As long as there are customers and favorable market conditions they are going to sell their product. Also, we can not put the entire blame on these cheaters, people who buy their products, and government and law enforcement who don't take any actions to stop these practices are equally responsible for this. Actually, we need to make their product out of date if we want to remove their influence. We need to expose their fraud and wrongdoings systematically to stop their business. Some of these self-styled gurus are still worshiped by many even if they are facing serious charges like rape or sexual misconduct, and many of them fool people by making unverified claims and selling non-tested treatments for many diseases. People are blinded by their faith and problems and follow these people without any logic or thinking.

A tireless campaign against all these fake gurus is required. People with a rational mind and the capacity to think logically need to come together and work towards this goal. It won't be easy to challenge these fake gurus. Many devotees of all these gurus are like suicide squads they are willing to do anything for their guru or God. A very determined and systematic effort is required to free our society from the clutches of these evil-minded people who take advantage of the ignorance and weakness of people. People should take the help of some professional counselors rather than these types of babas for their medical, personal, and family problems. Professional help is always better as it's more reliable. NGOs also can play a crucial role in solving this need for professional counseling for people and with the help of everyone we can eradicate the need for these fake gurus from our society.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Links:

1. Narayan Sai held for rape after 58 days

2. नारायण साईं गिरफ्तार, समर्थकों ने कोर्ट के बाहर बिछाए फूल

Why daughters hesitate to claim their share in ancestral property in India?

This issue is somewhat sensitive in many families and people don't want to discuss it because of the possibility of tension it might create and also the possibility of spoiling relations, but I have been always curious about this issue. I am discussing this subject exclusively in the Indian context because I have seen this problem there, maybe it is also present in many other cultures but I am personally aware of this problem in India. Fight for equal rights for women is going on all over the world and India is no exception to this. Like everywhere else property rights of Indian women are unequal and unfair. A lot of improvements have been made on paper, some laws are also introduced to protect their rights but they are hardly followed. So, even on paper, the situation looks better but in reality, nothing has changed much. In India now at least by law daughters are legally eligible for an equal share in the ancestral property. However, many of them don't want to exercise this legal right, they worry about their family's reaction, society's reaction, and also about spoiling relationships, all these things make them very reluctant even to think about this important right given to them by law. Implementation of this law on the ground is still a very far-fetched dream.

Why daughters don't want their share? Why do they hesitate to claim it? What is stopping them? As far as sons are concerned they all think that it's their birthright to inherit ancestral property and they fight for it if they feel any injustice has been done to them but daughters hardly react if their share is not offered to them. Daughters don't bother to ask for it even if they are in financial difficulty and really need that share, they just think it's not their right, and even if this right is offered to them by the law it's not appropriate to exercise it. This is the effect of years of female suppression and brainwashing. No matter what rights the law is offering to them they are still hesitant to use most of those rights. To make things more complicated, there is a lot of confusion about women's property rights law and many people don't even know where to look for details. As Shruti Pandey (see link 3) said in her article there is no single body of property rights of Indian women, they get determined by which religion she follows, is she is married or unmarried, which part of the country she comes from, whether she is tribal or non-tribal, etc. All these factors along with a lack of awareness and desire result in many daughters not getting their share in ancestral property. This issue may sound very trivial but as far as women's independence and equality are concerned I think this is a very important matter.

I think the dowry system must have started to tackle the problem of offering shares to daughters in ancestral property, but this system itself became a big problem rather than solving the problem of equitable property distribution. The problem of dowry became so big that the government has to introduce a separate law to stop it, it's another issue that it's still practiced in some form all over India. Any girl asking for her share in the ancestral property is considered greedy and often faces the wrath of other family members (like brother and sister-in-law) who feel that she is unfairly trying to grab their share of the property. The feeling of guilt is also very strong in many girls' minds, most of them believe that the true heir to property has to be a male and hence it's not fair for daughters to ask for any share in ancestral property. The dowry system is not an answer to this problem, this system itself has created many troubles for women. The current system of dowry creates a lot of trouble for brides whenever their in-laws feel that they didn't get enough dowry and then demand more and torture the girl. Offering legal and proportional shares to daughters in ancestral property might be a better solution as this practice might help to remove the ambiguity associated with how much share a daughter can get. Often the dowry is demanded out of greed, so there is no limit on how much the other party (the groom's side) can demand, whereas a share in property is calculated as per law so there are fewer chances of unreasonable demands. This law would not stop all atrocities against brides but at least it would eliminate the social evil of dowry from their lives. But this needs a lot of courage and determination from daughters who normally hesitate to ask for their rights, and their families who don't bother to make sure that daughters get their share. Daughters need to prepare themselves for all the criticism and badmouthing, they need to believe that their rights are as important as their brother's rights. This will be a test of their patience, diplomatic skills, and courage, but in the end, this is their choice. After all, this is a question of their rights and no one can force them to do this if they don't want to, and the choice is entirely theirs. 

Thanks for reading and please share your views about this topic. 

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing] 

Links:
1. Daughter's rights in new amendment
2. Daughter’s rights in ancestral property in India
3. Property rights of Indian women By Shruti Pandey