Multitasking or distracted living?

Multitasking is the mantra of success in today's life. Dealing with a single task at a time is considered a waste of time and a very inefficient strategy nowadays. We now have devices and gadgets that are designed specifically to help us with multitasking. Many mono-functional devices are on the verge of becoming extinct now, for example, wristwatches, tape recorders, and paper maps. Even though there is evidence that shows that we cannot engage in multiple tasks at the same time, all we do is highly inefficient task-switching, but we still insist on multitasking and like to feel that we are good at it. We live in a world where everything is communicated continuously in a virtual world. People have a strong urge to remain engaged in these unending exchanges in the virtual world. This is the basic reason why people feel the need for multi-tasking, they just can't dissociate themselves from the virtual world only to focus on the task in their hand. Unfortunately, people overdo multitasking, that too very carelessly and sometimes dangerously. They indulge in some dangerous habits that are not only dangerous to them but to others also; they use their phones while driving, and some even try to make video calls while driving. Some other common habits include surfing the internet while watching TV, checking emails or SMS on the phone while talking, etc. As mentioned earlier, some of these acts are quite dangerous and against the law but still people do them. The justification offered is that they do this to save time or because they need to respond urgently to every notification they receive on their phone.

Multitasking or quick task-switching can be a really advantageous skill if used properly. Quite often this skill is required in today's competitive environment to avoid the feeling of missing something. Sometimes this habit of juggling too many things at the same time can lead to distraction or loss of focus on the main task, which we are supposed to execute at that particular movement. This distraction can come in many forms, for example, sometimes we get so busy that we don't have time for one-to-one discussion even with our family members. Checking Facebook status or emails or SMS has become such a regular habit that we don't even realize that we do it even while talking with others, in meetings, or even in the theater while watching a movie. Yes, multitasking is good and it can save us some time, and may make us more efficient but sometimes it's better to focus 100% attention on one task especially where our personal attention is required. When we are talking with someone, it's better to focus on the talk rather than surfing on the phone. If we are not interested in talking then it's better to politely excuse ourselves rather than insult the person by not paying attention to what they are saying. One should spend quality time with their family and friends rather than being always busy on their phone or tablet. This has become very important in today's world as everyone is getting busy in their own virtual world. It's important to interact with people around us and discuss issues in person rather than focusing only on virtual interactions. I make some of these mistakes but I try hard not to repeat them and I know how hard it is to stay away from these gadgets yet it is worth trying. People around us do deserve more attention and quality time; every relationship does need an investment of quality time to nurture it and sometimes by doing these things in the name of multitasking we mess up our relationships. Please don't get the impression that multitasking is always bad, as I said multitasking is a nice ability to have, if one can strike a balance then it can be a really useful and efficient tool. The most important thing here is to strike the balance. Anything in excess is bad, so let's hope that in the desire to accomplish more, we don't lose whatever little we already have with us. I am sharing a nice talk by Jennifer Meer on this subject; please listen to it as she nicely explains the phenomena of distracted living with examples from her own life. Sometimes it's better to relax and do one thing at a time and enjoy the process of doing that one task, maybe it is an old way but surely it has its own advantages, give it a try once in a while, I am sure you will enjoy it.

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. Distracted Living- Jennifer Meer

The war from within - struggle of women to break internal barriers

I wrote quite a few posts about gender discrimination against women happening in various societies and cultures. This discrimination can be in many forms, it can be in the form of some rituals or customs, it can be in the form of some religious beliefs that put some restrictions on women just because of their gender, or it can be in the form of some laws which prohibits women from doing something just because they are women (like driving in Saudi Arabia). All these examples are just a few among many, if readers are interested they can find more information about these things on the web. Women all over the world are trying to fight against many of these discriminatory practices. They along with all feminist movements managed to achieve a lot of progress in this area but still, a lot of work needs to be done. When I wrote a few posts related to this subject I came across a few comments where women commented in favor of some of the very common prejudices against them (like women are inferior to men or less capable than men). All these women were educated and working women. I was a little surprised by this but not shocked because I have seen in my personal life many women who somehow believe that they are not as capable as men just because they are women. Years of male-dominated society and patriarchal culture have made them believe this. Many of them also believe that they need the support of some man in their life to be safe and survive in this world. Many also think that when you live in society, whether you like it or not you need to follow all these social norms. One of the norms of patriarchal society is that women are inferior to men and this thought is propagated directly or indirectly. The idea that women are born to serve men is propagated in various ways in different cultures. There are also many discriminative traditions or rituals. Even some stories that are part of great epics or holy books try to propagate these types of views either directly or indirectly. Social norms that encourage any form of discrimination either directly or indirectly should be challenged and questioned no matter from where they come and how old they are.

These views have been propagated for centuries and slowly they have become part of our society's mindset. Many people think that this is our culture and tradition. They think this needs to be preserved at any cost because these things were designed by our ancestors for the betterment of our society so why should we change them? The strong influence of this type of patriarchal culture has resulted in many internal barriers and self-doubts in women's minds. I would like to quote from the book Lean In where author Sheryl Sandberg writes about the barriers women face from within "In addition to the external barriers erected by society, women are hindered by barriers that exist within ourselves. We hold ourselves back in ways both big and small, by lacking self-confidence, by not raising our hands, and by pulling back when we should be leaning in. We internalize the negative messages we get throughout our lives—the messages that say it’s wrong to be outspoken, aggressive, more powerful than men. We lower our own expectations of what we can achieve."

Years of brainwashing and suppression have created an element of self-doubt not only in the minds of many women but also in the minds of many other suppressed communities. These internal barriers created by self-doubt are not that easy to break as they are supported by traditions that reinforce them from generation to generation. Maybe there was a need for some of these traditions back then for the safety of women, but we live in a totally different world today and many of these barriers need to go. In today's world, every gender and section of society should be given equal opportunity to explore their potential. Why it's always a woman who has to choose between family and career? Why this unfair dilemma is only forced on them? As a society what are we doing so that women don't have to face this dilemma (most men don't face it, right)? Even though all these questions are relevant it is also true that first women need to overcome their own internal barriers. Society and culture's attitude is so hostile towards them, with these internal barriers they cannot expect any special favors from society. If they fail to break these barriers then it will be very difficult for them to break the external barriers set by society and culture. They first need to win the war from within to win this war against gender discrimination. Once they overcome internal barriers then it will be just a matter of time before they break external barriers.

I would like to end this post with another quote from the book Lean In, "Internal obstacles are rarely discussed and often underplayed. Throughout my life, I was told over and over about inequalities in the workplace and how hard it would be to have a career and a family. I rarely heard anything, however, about the ways I might hold myself back. These internal obstacles deserve a lot more attention, in part because they are under our own control. We can dismantle the hurdles in ourselves today. We can start this very moment."

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

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

Overhead costs and NPOs

Recently I heard a TED talk by Dan Pallotta, about how the way we look at our charity is totally wrong and how we use double standards while looking at profit organizations (PO) and non-profit organizations (NPO). This talk was very informative and sort of an eye-opener for me. I am guilty of doing one of the things that he mentioned in his talk, I also used to judge any charitable organization based on how little they spend on overheads. I used to think overhead spending was a total waste of donated money, every donated penny should be used for the cause for which it was donated. People donate their hard-earned money towards causes they like because they want to see that change in society but can't devote enough time towards that cause therefore, they donate to some organizations to work towards such causes. This all requires a lot of infrastructure and people to make things work, and this is where this talk is very helpful, Dan does a really great job in explaining to us how we need to look at the spending of these NPOs.

I loved this talk not only because it demonstrated how flawed my attitude was but also because he made a very strong case about problems of non-profit organizations because of some unreasonable expectations from donors. Every donor has a full right to know how their money is spent and how it helped the cause for which they donated. At the same time, they all also need to understand that these organizations also need to hire talented and motivated people to work for them, for this they must compete with all these profit-making organizations to attract this talent and if donors expect them to work well then we need to accept that they are bound to have some overhead costs. We need to judge them based on their performance and not how much they spend. If they are working very well towards achieving their goals and spending reasonable money as overhead cost then we should not complain. In today's world social work can be a profession and like all professions, it also requires a lot of hard work, dedication, and commitment to become successful. People working with NGOs also need to have a normal life, they also need to have their own families and look after their needs and whether we like it or not this all requires some amount of money, and if they are engaged in full-time social work this work needs to generate that money for them and we must remember this context while looking at the overhead costs.

This talk has changed my outlook towards NGOs and all other socially active organizations. I do care about how much they pay to their employees and if it's a reasonable amount I don't feel cheated or feel that they are wasting my money. I do understand that they need talented and hard-working people to do this job and it's not easy to attract good talent without having a good or at least reasonable package. At the same time, these organizations need to be careful about how they spend their money as people like to see most of their money being used for the cause to which they donate. This can be a tricky exercise but these organizations need to do it to keep all donors invested in the mission. I hope this talk will help many people to understand better how these NPOs use or can use their money in a somewhat better or more efficient way by hiring talent that would work hard towards their missions.

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. TED talk of Dan Pallotta 

How Arvind dared to do this?

Delhi's chief minister for the last two months (49 days to be specific) Mr. Arvind Kejriwal finally resigned. He has promised that if he cannot pass the Jan Lokpal bill in the Delhi assembly, he will resign. This is the bill for which a few of them back then started the India Against Corruption (IAC) movement and later formed the party (AAP) and fought the election in Delhi. This was the first promise in their manifesto, the basic foundation on which their party was formed, and the reason they fought elections. Now some people and two major parties of India (BJP and Congress) are calling AK a traitor and a coward who ran away from responsibility. One of them (BJP) called him opportunistic and power-hungry when he accepted the unconditional support offered by the Congress to form the government and now they are blaming him for creating crises in Delhi by resigning from the CM post. It is not uncommon for these parties to criticize no matter what their opponent does, so it's not a surprise that this tamasha (drama) has been going on in India for the last many years and still people enjoy this sitting in their living rooms.

I think AK should be arrested and tried in court for crimes he committed during the last few months. It will at least prevent something like this from happening again in the near future. How did he dare to challenge such a robust establishment? How did he dare to challenge the norms and rules set by the central government? How did he dare to protest in Delhi when he was chief minister of that state? Do chief ministers even behave like this? How did he dare to challenge the power of the central govt., Delhi police and Lt. Governor of Delhi at the same time? How did he dare to name the most powerful businessman of India and a cabinet minister both in one FIR? These are the few serious mistakes he made during the last few months. Wasn't he scared? Wasn't he worried about his CM post? What was he even thinking when he challenged this mighty political establishment that has been running this country for the last 65 years or so? How he dare to think that a common person like him could form a political party and challenge the grand old political parties who all know how to govern India as politics and governance flow in their blood. They all know how to win the elections and govern this great country and this maniac thought he could govern better than them? Anarchist, what else one can call him?

Didn't he know that many people are not yet ready for complete freedom (Swaraj)? People are against power decentralization, they want some messiah or dynast to rule them, not some common person, because all these people coming from the establishment know how to rule, how to govern, what a novice who didn't have any political background know about governance, right? People want some charismatic hero whom they can worship, adore, and believe blindly without questioning anything. What is a common man like him doing in politics? Clearly, he was a complete misfit in our corrupt system and therefore he needed to go, it was just a matter of time. Here, I am not talking about AK as a person but AK as an idea. As a person he is not that important, he may have all the drawbacks or strengths that we all have, but this idea of a noncorrupt novice leading any government needs to be crushed so that there can not be another AK. If common people realize that any one of them can become a leader then it will be dangerous for the current establishment. One AK is so difficult to deal with then imagine if everyone becomes like him. No, this should not happen at any cost, if this happens it will be like a death sentence for the current system, that's why AK's actions should be treated like blasphemy or treason. Actually, I am a little surprised to see that he dared to stand by his promise (to resign if Lokpal is not passed). Very few political leaders in India show the courage to renounce power like this, his government was short-lived but it tried its best as long as it existed. I am sure everyone from our grand political establishment has only one question in their mind, how Arvind dared to resign from CM's post like this? 

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

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

What's use of freedom of speech without freedom to offend?

I read disturbing news related to Penguin withdrawing a book on Hinduism (The Hindus: An Alternative History) written by American Indologist Wendy Doniger from India. This action was a result of an out-of-court settlement with some Delhi-based complainants who blamed the book for insulting Hindu traditions and culture. Some people took this matter to court and to avoid all legal hassles and controversies Penguin decided to take this action. Banning any book, movie, play, or even a person for some offensive remarks against some community, religion or God is not a new thing in India, it happened many times in the past and sadly it will happen again. Some books like Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses are still banned in India. In any free, progressive, and truly tolerant society, freedom of speech is very important, and as Salman Rushdie once said freedom of speech has no meaning without the right to offend. Anyone who understands the real meaning behind this statement will also find some sense in this wonderful article written on this subject Kenan Malik, from that article I want to quote one paragraph, 

"The notion of giving offence suggests that certain beliefs are so important or valuable to certain people that they should be put beyond the possibility of being insulted, or caricatured or even questioned. The importance of the principle of free speech is precisely that it provides a permanent challenge to the idea that some questions are beyond contention, and hence acts as a permanent challenge to authority. Once we give up on the right to offend in the name of “tolerance” or “respect,” we constrain our ability to challenge those in power, and therefore to challenge injustice. The right to “subject each others’ fundamental beliefs to criticism” is, in other words, the bedrock of an open, diverse, just society."

In the same article, he also says that it's impossible to bring any major social change or reform without offending someone's sentiments and I completely agree with this. Many people want some social reforms but they don't want to start it from their own home just because they don't want to hurt or offend their loved ones. I am sure someone's sentiments must have been hurt when child marriage was opposed, when a girl's right to get educated was advocated by Savitribai Phule, when widow marriage was performed, and when sati tradition was banned, but all these things were necessary to bring much needed social reforms. All those people who participated in these social reform movements experienced fierce opposition from people around them including their own families. They did hurt many people's sentiments but fortunately, their resistance survived and they could bring the desired reforms in society. All these things happened many years ago, but it seems even now our society's mindset in India has not yet changed. We are not yet tolerant of any criticism towards our leaders, Gods, religion, community, traditions, country, or even a political party. Any movie, book, or article criticizing anything related to these subjects immediately gets attacked, boycotted, or banned. Why? Just because some section of society claims that their feelings are hurt. Authors or movie makers face problems and sometimes these protests are very violent, where public and private property is destroyed. This is not a sign of a tolerant or progressive society. This is true when the matter is related to any religion, political party, or caste they all behave in the same way, it seems this is the problem of the entire society and any particular religion or community can not be singled out for this. As a country, India needs to improve its tolerance level towards criticism. I don't say that such things don't happen in other countries. There are more conservative and sectarian societies than India where there is absolutely no freedom of expression at all, but I am not interested in comparing India with them. When we Indians claim to have an open-minded and inclusive culture and a history of tolerating dissent, then this type of behavior contradicts this claim, rather it exposes our extremely narrow-minded and intolerant attitude.

I believe better common sense will prevail in all these matters and Indians will understand the true meaning of freedom of expression. Freedom of expression comes with a certain amount of risk but with a lot of benefits. The benefits outweigh all the risks. In the name of not hurting people's sentiments, we can not curb freedom of expression. People need to understand that with rights also comes responsibility and for every book that offends someone they have the freedom to publish a rebuttal that disproves the offensive material, this is the way to deal with such things, also, banning anything only makes it more popular. I was not even aware of Wendy Doniger's name and her work before reading this news, now I am going to read her book to see what it says about Hinduism and I am sure many came to know about this book only because of this controversy. Also. in the era of internet it's not possible to ban anything from getting distributed once it's available online, this controversy will be the biggest advertisement for this book. To all people who get offended by some book or movie, my simple advice is just don't read them or watch them, banning them or bullying people associated with those creations only displays a timid intolerant mindset. 

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. Penguin withdraws book on Hinduism

2. Changing landscape of free speech- Kenan Malik

Violence and silence

I listened to this TED talk by Jackson Katz, this talk was a total revelation for me, by far the best TED talk I heard to date. This guy said almost everything which I think but struggled to express in words (actually he told much more than I think) about the problem of domestic violence and sexual abuse in such an effective way. Jack said all this with such clarity and simplicity that I could not have done it in 100 blog posts, a very big thanks to him for doing this. I am really impressed by the way he communicated his ideas and emotions so effectively.

I liked the way he proved that domestic violence or sexual abuse is not only a women's issue but mainly it's men's problem as many perpetrators are men. He raised very valid points like how the dominant majority always gets the privilege to remain unexamined, and how the entire blame is put on the victim in most of these cases. Because of the exclusion of the dominant majority most of these issues get stereotyped. For example, people think gender issues mean women's issues, and racism means things related to minorities. I am also impressed by the way he objected to our silence to many of these racist jokes or rape jokes or all other stories or jokes who are in some way demeaning to a particular gender or to people with a particular sexual orientation. We all hear these types of jokes or posts somewhere, many times we protest, or many times we ignore them considering them harmless, but every time we ignore any such incident we silently give our approval for that incident to get repeated (he calls this a bystander approach). Many people offer this type of silent approval and slowly these things spread, and communities are stereotyped. People suffer and get discriminated against, but most of us prefer to take a bystander approach. We can stop or minimize all these things if we stop silently encouraging such incidents. By keeping quiet if something wrong is happening in front of us we give our silent approval to that thing. People keep quiet for so many reasons, some of us are scared of name-calling or getting labeled as man-haters or any other insulting term (shoot the messenger attitude). We need more courageous men and women who break their silence and become vocal about these issues. Jack also reminds us that this is not easy to challenge these things in a powerful male-dominated culture. It's not easy to question this type of behavior when most people choose to ignore or to keep mum, raising our voice against such things requires courage. We need to create an environment where such abusive behavior is unacceptable in peer culture, where remaining silent is not an option. Most of these perpetrators are normal people in most aspects but this type of environment where others remain silent encourages them to commit these types of acts. He also calls this problem not a sensitivity issue but a leadership issue, and nicely explains this in his talk. I also like when he says that only caring deeply about these issues is not enough anymore, I also want to stress his point that we need more gutsy people who not only care but also take some action to break this complacent silence.

I think Jack mentioned many thought-provoking points in his talk and we all should think about them. Next time any of us hear any racist joke or insensitive remark about any gender or community we should protest or at least express our disagreement to indicate this is not acceptable. I think this will at least make people around us aware that these things are not funny or that it's not okay to say these things. Our job is to tell them that these things are not only not funny but also disgusting and insulting. If we can take away just this one message from his talk and work on it I think it will serve the purpose of his talk. I encourage everyone to listen to this talk, also please watch this brilliant video and let me know your opinion about this topic.

Thanks for reading.

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

Links:
1. http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/Violence-Silence-Jackson-Katz-P
2. This Powerful Video Shows Men What It Feels Like To Be Subjected To Sexism And Sexual Violence

Arranged marriage: can it be called a legalized rape?

One of my friends called arranged marriage a "legalized rape." His statement didn't surprise me as I heard this previously also. I did not agree with this statement completely because I know many successful and happy arranged marriages (including my own). The system of arranged marriage is not perfect, it has many serious drawbacks, but even considering all drawbacks, it is an exaggerated statement to call all arranged marriages as legalized rape. However, this statement is not entirely wrong, the statement is not 100% right, but it's not also 100% wrong. It can make sense to a person only if he/she tries to understand the logic behind this argument. Some people might find this topic disgusting or offensive or against their tradition or culture, so for them, my advice is the intention is not to offend anyone but if they at all feel offended by this subject then please don't proceed and go and read some other post there are many other posts on this blog, hopefully, some of them won't offend you.

Arranged marriage is a system designed to find a partner for marriage. The system was designed during times when any unsupervised interaction between males and females was not allowed. In many societies, arranged marriage was the only way to get married. The system was controlled by parents and other elders as they used to decide everything, starting from selecting the bride or groom to the date and time of marriage. The bride and groom were just instruments to run this show. All decision and execution power used to rest in the hands of elders and slowly they extended this system to child marriage. After all, the consent or desire of the bride and groom didn't matter, so why have any age restriction, right? There can be many reasons why the consent of the boy and girl was not taken, the young age and immaturity might be the two biggest reasons. After the marriage next step is the consummation of marriage. According to Wikipedia, consummation or consummation of a marriage, in many traditions and statutes of civil or religious law, is the first (or first officially credited) act of sexual intercourse between two people, either following their marriage to each other or after a prolonged sexual attraction. In any sexual act if there is no consent involved or if force is used against the will of any individual involved in it, it can be considered a rape or sexual assault. There are high chance of this happening during the consummation of many arranged marriages. I think this is what my learned friend meant when he made this comment.

People often cite high divorce rates in developed societies to prove the uselessness of love marriages. No matrimonial system is perfect, there are some pros and cons associated with every system, but only a fool will advocate any system where two people are allowed to get married without knowing each other. Allowing two people who want to get marry interact with each other to make their own informed decisions is the best way whether it happens through a love marriage or an arranged marriage doesn't matter. No doubt that good traditions and rituals should be preserved and continued but not all traditions are worth preserving, some need major reforms and as a society, we should be willing to change. Obtaining informed consent of the two people getting married is not wrong, rather it's beneficial for everyone interested in that union and can avoid many problems after marriage. Why not follow such a simple common sensible thing during the arranged marriage. Parents can definitely help whenever needed, and offer suggestions whenever asked but they should leave it to the two individuals to make decisions about their own lives, after all, they are the ones who are getting married. In any relationship, it is essential to learn to respect your partner's choices and their right to say no, and arranged marriages must ensure this to avoid it being labeled as a legalized rape.

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

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

Mr. Modi's marriage and the issue of women empowerment

Recently, there was an interview of Jashodaben published in The Indian Express. Now, who is this lady, and why I am even talking about her interview? This is the lady who claims to be the wife of Mr. Narendra Modi. I don't think I need to give any introduction to Mr. Modi. I am sure anyone following the Indian elections knows who is Mr. Modi. This lady still claims to be his wife. She is the wife of a potential future PM (prime minister) of India. According to her, she got married at the age of 17 (still a minor age, according to the law as 18 is the consent age for marriage for females in India), and Mr. Modi was 18 (again a minor as 21 is the consent age for boys). So, technically it can be considered as a child marriage. But in those days most marriages were like this and it was a norm to marry a child before attaining legal marriage age. I am glad that this is not the case in most parts of India today, but this is not an issue here, even though child marriage is a very serious issue I won't be discussing that in this post. It seems, Mr. Modi left his wife after 1-2 years of marriage and didn't even recognize her existence until recently when he had to mention it on his nomination form to avoid disqualification. 

During political discussions with some of my friends, I argued that abandoning a wife like this is an injustice to her (sort of mental abuse) and illegal. As a public figure, Mr. Modi must offer some explanation for this behavior, and if he thinks he did something wrong he should accept his mistake, apologize to the woman who suffered because of him, and resolve this issue amicably so that they both can move on. A person does not become small or weak for apologizing for their mistakes, rather they display the strength of their character. I also know that this is his personal issue, but when you are a public figure and a leader of a major political party, then very few things remain personal. Mr. Modi's actions inspire many people and his followers can misinterpret them, that's why any public figure like him needs to be careful about their behavior.

In some discussions, I was tutored, taunted, and even accused of trying to defame Modi, by dragging his name into some unnecessary controversy, for being unfair to him, and for raising irrelevant issues. But such personal insults on such forums don't really matter to me. Some even called that woman as happiest woman on earth just because she is the wife of their great leader! I am used to these things, as I get these types of comments from most people who support traditional conservative systems. I get such responses whenever I raise some uncomfortable questions related to religion, God, politics, racism, casteism, or issues related to women. People who try to justify these discriminatory things by calling them tradition and culture, accuse me of insulting traditions or blowing trivial issues out of proportion. In this case, Jashodaben is not even blaming her husband for any injustice or wrongdoing, so what is my problem? That lady survived, no one abused her physically, her parents and brothers helped her, and they are still taking care of her. She blames her destiny for whatever happened, she even feels bad that her husband sometimes has to lie about her and wishes all good for him, so all seems to look good.  

So what is the real problem? Why this case is bothering me? Why the rest of India or other political parties are not raising this issue? I have seen a couple of cases like this around me, where a husband abandoned his wife for trivial reasons: like to pursue larger goals in their life (like social service, religious studies), studying abroad, or some other trivial reasons. They didn't even bother to tell their wives why are they leaving. Normally, all these cases are of arranged marriages where there was no consent taken from a boy or a girl before the marriage, parents arrange everything in these cases and marriage is performed. There is a basic flaw in this system as the consent of a boy and a girl doesn't matter much (especially in the old days), but that's not the point. In her interview, Jashodaben says, "When he told me he would be moving around the country as he wished, I told him I would like to join him. However, on many occasions when I went to my in-laws’ place, he would not be present and he stopped coming there. He used to spend a lot of time in RSS shakhas. So I too stopped going there after a point and I went back to my father’s house". She also says, "We have never been in touch and we parted on good terms as there were never any fights between us. I will not make up things that are not true. In three years, we may have been together for all of three months. There has been no communication from his end to this day."

I have also seen that in most of these cases, women blame their own destiny, misfortune, or family situation for whatever happened. They rarely blame their husband or parents for the problems in their relationship. In most cases, they also wait for their husbands until the end of their lives, they live and dress like married women (in India, widows, especially in rural parts don't wear makeup or colored clothes), except the husband is missing from their lives. Normally, there is no fight or argument between the two of them before separation, the husband in most cases just leaves the home without any explanation, that's why the wife thinks that her husband will return one day and accept her. Such wives live in this false hope, normally their husbands never return and such women live lonely lives without any partner for no fault of theirs. In some cases even if she or her family knows the whereabouts of the husband, their efforts to convince that man to come back are futile. In most of these cases, these women don't remarry, because legally they are not divorced and their husband is still alive (not a widow yet), so, they are not considered marriageable. Literally, they are treated like abandoned property, and society remains a mute spectator. People sympathize and feel sorry, but nothing else happens; the problem remains as it is. Many of these women live secluded emotionally traumatized lives. The situation is a little better if their family supports them or they are educated, at least they don't have to beg for a living or get abused or sexually exploited. I feel they deserve better than just survival and as a society, we need to be sensitive to their situation. A similar thing rarely happens in the case of a male in Indian society, this is gender discrimination and we need to put an end to this misery, people like Mr. Modi can help to initiate this change by setting an example by correcting their mistakes. It will require some courage but aren't public leaders supposed to have such courage to bring social reforms? I also know that this cannot be an election issue in India, this is not a big deal to many. Anyone who raises this issue will be called anti-BJP, anti-Modi, or pro-Congress. But for me, this is not a political issue, but a social issue and a very important one. I hope this case highlights the plight of these women, and people realize the sufferings they go through because of unfair traditions and customs. I hope people are interested in minimizing these types of incidents in the future. Women need to become independent, society needs to empower them so that they don't depend on anyone for their survival, and Mr. Modi can use his own case to highlight this issue. I hope he shows this courage and doesn't miss this unique opportunity.

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. ‘I like to read about him (Modi)… I know he will become PM’
2. 10 facts to know about Narendra Modi