Courage is to speak when it's easy to keep mum

Bullying is a type of abuse, physical and mental abuse. It is also called ragging or many other names, but the fact is that it is a type of abuse and torture. Bullying is also different than many other types of abuse, it happens in the full public glare. It happens in schools, colleges, universities, neighborhoods, social media, families, locker rooms, and many other public places where others are present, but they either don't react or watch as mute spectators. It is also true that it is not easy to stand up against a bully or resist raging. When most don't resist. When most surrender, ignore it as a minor nuisance or a necessary evil and try to justify it as a junior-senior interaction or friendly banter. It is hard to resist it. It is hard to stand against it. Even people subjected to bullying or ragging try to downplay it as they feel resisting it is much more damaging than tolerating it.

People justify their lack of action as a choice of the lesser evil. They feel standing up for abuse is more damaging than tolerating it, they find obedience more convenient than resistance. They may have their own reasons for behaving like this. However, not everyone thinks and behaves that way. Not everyone tolerates abuse wrapped as friendly banter or a necessary evil. Some chose to speak while the rest chose to keep mum. They do it at the cost of their mental peace and without any support. It is not easy to stand up for something when you see everyone accepting the status quo and obliging. It is not easy to resist when people who should resist try to convince you to keep quiet and tolerate it. Despite all this, some show this courage, and they are heroes. They choose to speak up even when it is scary, even when they feel threatened and intimidated, even when there is no support from friends and colleagues, and even when they know that speaking up may have unfavorable consequences. 

It is not easy to stand up against a bully, but that's the choice we have to make. This bully can be anyone, it is not always a human. In many cases, it is a person or a group of persons, like your seniors or even your own family, but not always. The bully can be a religion or some age-old tradition that may force you to do something against your wish, or we may get ridiculed or heckled by society or the community just for raising our voice of dissent against such practices. We must stand, we must resist, and we must raise our voices against all forms of bullying. Why? Because that's the right thing to do. It may not be easy or convenient, but it is the right thing. Nothing may change even after we register our dissent. It doesn't matter. We must stand, not because we will see that change, but to initiate that change. Someone must initiate the process of resistance, it may take years or decades to bring that desired change after the initiation, but initiation is important. I stand in solidarity with all those who show this courage. The world may never recognize or appreciate our actions, but every place we speak up, it changes something, may be a trivial change considering the vastness of the problem, but still, it is a change. The change that is initiated by us. We did the right thing when others chose to ignore and that is what matters the most. This post is dedicated to all who chose to stand up when it is not convenient to stand; to all who speak up when it is convenient to ignore and keep mum; and who resist when it's easier to oblige and surrender. Be proud of your actions, tell your stories to kids, and inspire them to resist suppression and injustice in any form and size.  

Thank you for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com

No one said sorry to my Nani

The title of this post is slightly confusing as it does not convey the subject matter of the post clearly. Who was or is Nani? Why anyone should have said sorry to her? If at all anything wrong happened to her, why didn't she expect an apology? These are some of the questions that might come to the reader's mind after reading the title of this post. Nani was my mother's mom, in the part of India where my parents came mother's mother is called Nani, and mother's father called Nana. I have not seen my Nana as he died very young, even my mom does not remember seeing her father as she was just a few months old when he died in a boat accident in the river Ganga near her village in the state of Uttar Pradesh. This was the first tragedy that struck my Nani and her life changed permanently after this tragedy. I do not know how old was she when my Nana died, my guess is she was in her teens as people used to get married quite young during those times. The death of Nana left my Nani only with her daughter to look after. There was no chance of remarriage. In that society, it was an unthinkable idea for a woman to get remarried after the death of her husband. If she had been a man, for example, my Nana, then it would have been not only easy but the entire family would have forced him to remarry. However, this option was not there for my Nani. No one even thought that there was any need for her to remarry even though she didn't have any source of income and was not educated so that she could work on her own to take care of her daughter. No one thought that this young girl also deserved to live a normal life like any other girl of her age. No one thought that it was not Nani's fault that her husband died in an accident at such a young age. No one thought that she should get a chance to restart her life. No one thought that it is wrong to force a young girl to spend her entire life without a life partner. I don't think even my Nani thought that it was proper to remarry, she just accepted her fate and continued her colorless, joyless, celebrationless life.  

I remember my Nani only wearing plain sarees, she never wore any makeup or fancy clothes. Also, I never saw her pallu coming off her head (pallu is the part of sari which women os that part us to cover their head and sometimes face). Nani always used to cover her head even in front of kids which other women never used to do. My Nana had four other siblings, and it was a joint family for a long time, Nani became part of one of the brothers' family and she took the responsibility for taking care of that household. She used to work very hard. I think that's how she maintained her relevance. She used to do all the daily chores and look after the kids of that family. My mom also became part of that family and it was a mutually beneficial existence. She was happy to see her daughter getting married and especially happy that her daughter had three kids, that too all boys. We used to visit her during our summer vacations and she used to treat us like the prince of some kingdom. No one in the entire village could say anything to us, no matter what we do, and if someone dared to say something, Nani would create havoc. She used to defend us like a lioness, this shows that she was not afraid of people or society or scared of arguing if she wanted to. She just didn't know that she had any rights and, hence never argued for herself the way she did for us. Even when my Nana's joint family divided their familial assets Nani did not get any share. Even though technically Indian law allows for a share for a daughter and a widow, Nani didn't get any, and it is not still uncommon for not giving a share in familial assets to daughters or widows without any son in many parts of India. She did not protest against this illegal act and gross injustice because she thought that without her husband and any son, she had no right to ask for any share in the family property. It seemed as far as personal rights were concerned, she didn't exist, neither for herself nor for society. The day her husband died her life became devoid of any self-enjoyment, for the rest of her life all she cared about was her daughter and grandkids.

WHY? Why did this happen to her and many women like her? Only one answer comes to my mind, just because she was a woman without a living husband and her only child was also a woman, there was no question of giving any property share. I know many Indians will not like this answer, especially when a country claims that it worships women. No doubt, women are worshipped in India, but it is also true that they are not given equal rights and freedom, they are discriminated against and judged with different standards. I did not see any man who lost his wife at such a young age living a life that my Nani lived. Also, it would be wrong only to single out India for such a discriminatory attitude towards women, but I grew up in India and I know from my personal experiences that gender discrimination is rampant there and I do not see any point in justifying it in name of culture, traditions or even offering an excuse other countries also do it.

Some traditions are bad and there can be no justifications for them, and my Nani was the victim of many such traditions. The problem was neither she nor the people around her thought that those were terrible traditions, their culture was deeply flawed. People sympathized with her, felt bad about her husband's untimely death, tried to help her as much as they could, and respected her, but they never thought that there could be an alternative to the life in which so-called traditions, religion, and culture forced her to live. Traditions and culture were more important than the right of a woman to live a normal life. As I grew older, I came to know about other women who lost their husbands at a much younger age than my Nani, some even didn't get to see the faces of their husbands and lived their entire lives as a widow of a man who they didn't even know personally. No one said sorry to my Nani for all this, I don't think she even expected an apology, and this is the ultimate tragedy. My Nani was not only the victim of this openly discriminatory and abusive culture of patriarchy which was supported by religion and traditions, but she was also a propagator of it. She didn't think whatever was forced on her was a fault of religion or culture. She was made to believe and she did believe that it was all her destiny's fault or something bad she did in the last birth that unfortunate things happened with her. This is how patriarchy survived so long, by taking support from religion and turning its victims also into supporters who were not only made to believe in that system but were brainwashed to willingly abide by it.

Nani passed away when I was in my first year of college. Her death didn't impact me that much as I was too naive and young to understand the impact of her loss. But on my subsequent visits, I realized that my maternal village was never the same for me after her death. I missed her presence there, without her I felt like an orphan, it's not like I was not welcomed there, her legacy is such that people still remember her and offer lots of love to me just because I am her grandson, but she was not there, and I always notice that. And as I know about it, it also reminds me of the gross injustice which happened to her. I am grateful to her for one thing which could have changed the course of my life. When it was clear that she wouldn't live long, people started coming to her with my marriage proposals thinking that if Nani said yes, no one could object to it. Nani did want to see the marriage of her grandson, one of the rare occasions of happiness in her life, why she would want to miss that. My mom told me that Nani was really happy to see that many so-called rich or respected people from her society were coming with marriage proposals and a good amount of dowry, but she refused all of them. Nani told them that my grandson is in college and he is going to become a "saheb" (a generic term used by her for educated people). I can't imagine how my life would have turned out if I had got married at the age of 18. I do not know how she avoided the temptation of witnessing her grandson's marriage? But I am eternally grateful to her for this.

As I grew older and read more about discrimination against women in various societies, I realized the injustice that happened with my Nani, I felt sorry for her, not because she didn't remarry, marriage is a personal choice and it's understandable if a person does not want to remarry after losing his or her partner, but because she was not allowed to enjoy even simple joys of life like wearing fancy clothes, having fun by forgetting that a big tragedy happened in her life. All symbols around her and her own appearance were tailored to remind her every moment about her tragedy, this was a psychological abuse that she tolerated for her most of life and I am sorry for that. No one said sorry to Nani, maybe she did not even expect it, and maybe none of the people who find all kinds of justifications for that discriminatory and suppressive culture will ever apologize to her as they might feel that nothing wrong happened to her, and it was all her destiny to endure all the pain and suffering, but I must say sorry to her, sorry for not understanding and acknowledging her sufferings and sorry for being part of that culture which made her to go through all this. I am determined to change that culture and challenge each and every tradition that discriminates. I know this journey is long and challenging, but I can at least do this much in her memory so that no one at least in my family suffers the same way she did.

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

When abuse becomes the norm of discourse, there is no discourse

When abuse becomes the norm of discourse, then there is no discourse. This is the tragedy of most of the discussion happening over the internet or on news channels. There are arguments, fights, trolling, and bullying, but hardly any constructive discussion. Most political discussions on sensitive social topics are always very passionate, one side normally tries to rip through the other side's arguments, but even while doing this passionately people try not to abuse each other, not to insult or humiliate on a personal level. However, today it seems the intent of every discussion is to humiliate the opponent on a personal level, to demonstrate the contempt for the opponent's views in whatever way one can. People are willing to use fake news, manipulated data, fabricated images, and whatever they can to prove that their opponent is wrong. Abuse in many forms is becoming a norm and in this process, the level of discourse is at all time low.

With increased access to information and data, theoretically, our discussions should become more fact-based and data-driven. We should be using the more relevant information to enlighten each other about all sides of any given issue or topic. But in reality, the exactly the reverse is happening in most of the cases. People are creating, using, and succumbing to more false information. The internet has become a fertile ground to spread rumors and create tension anywhere in the world. Technology is making discussions more superficial and argumentative rather than more deep and enlightening. This is not the fault of the technology itself, it is just a medium that is bound to produce the results based on the way users use it. It's up to users to make the best use of technology for their benefit. Similar to any scientific discovery technology can be used or misused, it can enrich any discussion or it can make it utterly useless. Assertiveness, aggressive advocacy, or even an aggressive attack on opponent's views can be very effective tools to be used in any discourse, but abusing opponents just for having a different view than ours is not one of those tools. When abuse becomes the norm of any discourse, then there is no discourse, there is just abuse. Abuse can be either from one side or both sides, it really doesn't matter. Therefore, each side has the responsibility to maintain civility and dignity of discourse if they desire to produce any positive outcome from any discussion. I hope people realize the difference between being aggressive and being abusive. I hope the dignity and aggressiveness of civil discourse are maintained without being abusive so that we can keep on resolving most complex issues via the way to discussion and don't shut down one of the most useful and effective avenues available for us to resolve our issues.

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

Gender equality is as much about educating men as it is about empowering women

It is a common perception that "gender equality" is all about women's empowerment and equal rights for them. It is true, but that's not the entire truth, gender equality is also about making men aware of this changing environment and shifting of gender dynamics where there is no weaker sex anymore. This might sound trivial and obvious, and many might ask why is it hard for men to understand this simple thing about gender equality? But it seems, it's not that easy for many men to grasp and adjust to this change. Many of them sincerely want to support gender equality but fail to understand how to practice it in their private lives. Especially during those special moments like going on a date or during intimate moments like sexual encounters. A recent story about Indian American comedian Aziz Ansari is an example of one such behavior where things can go terribly wrong without malice from either side.

Why do people fail to grasp the real meaning of gender equality? Why do many societies and cultures fail to accept gender equality in its true sense? Even in developed countries that pioneered and fiercely advocated gender equality in the modern era, why do many people fail to treat their partners the way any society that believes in gender equality should treat them? All these questions point towards only one major problem, somehow men were not as involved in this moment as they should have been. Maybe the entire focus was to make women aware of their rights and encourage them to stand up against the blatant discrimination practiced against them. It was the right thing to do, but at the same time, it was also necessary to engage men in this process. After all, they are the rest of the 50% population who are equally important if as a society we aim to succeed in our efforts to develop a culture without gender discrimination. A lot of progress has been achieved towards gender equality, still, it is not perfect but it is much better than just a few decades before. As women became aware of their rights and started demanding equal treatment, men also should have been made aware of the changing dynamics of the man-woman relationship.

The concept of a male as a dominant partner in a relationship is very old. Men were supposed to take initiative, they were supposed to initiate the relationship, and were supposed to play lead roles even in sexual encounters. The concept of enthusiastic consent was alien to most couples, but now times have changed for good and every individual participating in any relationship must make sure that he or she is aware of these changed notions. There are initiatives undertaken by many Colleges and Universities in the USA to make their students aware of these things. These educational tools are useful for everyone and I think everyone willing to be in a relationship should go through these materials to learn what is proper and what is improper conduct. Old social norms won't change unless people become aware of new norms and educate themselves. I hope the Aziz Ansari incident acts as a wake-up call for all who didn't bother to educate themselves about the importance of enthusiastic consent in any relationship. Relationships are beautiful only when both partners voluntarily participate in it, one's enjoyment should not become another partner's trauma. Gender equality is as much about educating men as it is about empowering women, and without their education we will not be able to achieve true gender equality.

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

An open letter to Mr. Arvind Kejriwal

Dear Arvind,

It was really surprising, if not shocking, to see you shouting angry slurs at the BJP and Mr. Modi on national TV and Twitter. I really thought that you learned your lesson from your horrible outburst against Mr. Prashant Bhushan and Mr. Yogendra Yadav, which was revealed immediately after your party's spectacular victory in the Delhi assembly elections. We all can disagree with others or even can have serious differences of opinion on various matters or criticize each other very strongly without being abusive towards each other. I was under the impression that maybe finally after that mistake you learned to control your anger, at least in public. But it seems that lesson is long forgotten and you are back with your "angry young man" avatar that has very little regard for choice of words while expressing his anger. I agree that you have complete freedom to say whatever you want, after all, the right of freedom of expression comes with the right to offend, but I never imagined that you would take it to the extent that it would sound like abuse. Frankly speaking, my love affair with AAP ended long back, immediately after you decided to resign after 45 days of your brief tenure as Delhi CM. I should accept that I was attracted to your political party because of the presence of a wide variety of people from different backgrounds who don't necessarily subscribe to a single ideology. It was an interesting mix and generated some hope in people like me that maybe people with different sets of ideas can also come together and create something unique that can challenge traditional norms of Indian politics. I must also accept that you guys managed to do that, but that phenomenon was very short-lived. I still agree that your party is somewhat different than all other political parties in India, but that difference is very minute and the gap is narrowing day by day. It still is somewhat different, and I hope it remains like that.

Now, coming back to this particular incident, I agree that Mr. Modi or the central NDA government misused power in their hand. I also agree that CBI was in the past and still today is used as a tool to settle political scores or strike political deals, but didn't you already know all this? Didn't you voluntarily sign up for this job and willingly enter the murky arena of Indian politics after knowing all these facts about predatory and dirty tactics used by central governments to intimidate their opposition? Or somehow you believed that these things won't happen with you and your government? Assuming that even if Mr. Modi or the BJP showed their cowardliness and vengeance, why you didn't show your bravery and sensible nature by facing that inquiry or raid like any common citizen of India? Why do you think that your office is so special that CBI needs to get your permission to raid it? DO they do this if they want to raid any common person's home or office? If according to you, Mr. Modi is a coward or a psychopath then who are you? A brave CM who is crying foul just for a single raid conducted on his office? Or is it the case that as a CM of Delhi, you expect to be treated differently than any other citizen of India? I still remember that you and your party as well as most leaders of other political parties saying on multiple occasions that you all are servants of the common people of India. Especially, you and your party claim to be against the VIP culture. But it seems this rhetoric is only true until you guys win the election and get the power, once you are in government then you all become those VIPs, expect some special treatment, and start behaving like a privileged entity who is above the law. I think you know this, but in case you forgot let me remind you that many common people in India go through these ordeals of search, raids, and arrests every day and there is no one to help them. Many of them go through this as a consequence of their criminal acts but believe me, many are put through this for no fault of theirs, but they all go through this, and hope that the system will do justice to them. They believe in the same system of which you are also a part now, even though the system fails them most of the time. They don't ask for any special treatment. What do you have to say now about the VIP culture and everyone should be treated in the same way? I know, that now you or your supporters will argue that then why any other CM's office was not raided or why some other scam was not investigated. I agree that there are often selective investigations and political vendettas in many cases, but I am sure you expected this. People are raising questions about these things and these things should be questioned, but not the way you are doing now. Also, if there are some allegations against one of the officers in your office, then why not investigate him? Why put conditions that first investigate X and Y, and then come to me or my staff? What happened to the claim that we will not tolerate any corruption or shelter any corrupt officer? Was it just a chunavi jumla, a gimmick to win the election, just like your esteemed opponents do in every election? If it was, then at least let people know about it, so they stop thinking that you and your party are any different than others.

If you expected that nothing of this sort would happen to you or that your political opponents wouldn't play any dirty games with you or they would deal with you using kid gloves or that politics would change overnight, then I must say that I am amazed by your naiveness. Similar things have happened in the past and I am sure they will happen in the future also, but it is you who promised to bring the change of culture, but it seems that now you are trying really hard to fit right into that same culture which you opposed as an activist. Your choice of words was not only wrong, but I am sure it was disheartening for many of your supporters to hear these things coming from you. It puts you in the same line of people who called you a traitor, Pakistani agent, bhagoda, naxal, and whatnot. I am sure you must be enjoying their company as you really tried very hard to be part of that group. Those people also used abusive language and displayed a very low level of personal vendetta and what you did is no different. I would not have bothered to write this mail a few months back, but recently I thought your government was back on track as you guys were really doing some good work, initiating discussions about relevant topics like pollution and air quality of Indian cities, but then this happened. It is like going 5 steps forward and 10 steps backward.

I don't want to make my letter too long and too preachy. I am also not here to tell you what to do and what not to do, I am sure you know this better than me. I just raised a few questions and I hope you bother to think about them and introspect a little. Let me end by citing a very relevant example for you, I am sure you know the name of Sachin Tendulkar. This man is considered a great cricketer not just for the number of records he broke or runs he scored but also for his temperament, consistency, sincerity, and on-field behavior. There are equally great players as far as statistics or records are concerned from his era or eras before and after him, many of them are very aggressive not only while playing cricket but also while dealing with other players on the field, and some of them are even known to be extremely abusive during their on-field behavior. Sachin is different from all those because he never engaged in on-field verbal spats, it is not that he was not abused or people never tried to intimidate him or he was not targeted, opponents from all teams tried all sorts of tactics but Sachin answered all that not with his mouth, but with his bat by scoring runs. His performance answered those insults thrown at him, no doubt that he needed to produce very high-quality performance consistently to deal with on-ground sledding, and this is one of the reasons he is considered a great cricketer. I hope this example inspires you to do something different from now onward. Because it is of no use just to claim that you are different, you also need to show that by your behavior.

All the very best and take care.

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

Bhagavad Gita — As It Is or As It Is Not (Part II)

Recently, I wrote a post related to my view about some of the purports by Prabhupada in his book "Bhagavad Gita As It Is." I particularly discussed his comments about women and mentioned lines from Purport where he said that women are more prone to degradation compared to men, and also quoted Chanakya's statement about women to support his views. Some readers were unhappy because of this and said that it was not Prabhupad's view but Arjun's. They also said that actually Arjun expressed his concern about women in related verses of the Bhagavad Gita, and Prabhupada just explained it to us in a better way in his purport. So let's try to see what's really going on in those verses of the Bhagavad Gita. 

The scene is from the great epic Mahabharat when both the armies (Kaurav and Pandav) are ready to fight a war and are assembled on the battlefield. Just before the war is about to start, Arjun expresses his desire to have one last look at the opponent's army. Krishna takes his chariot closer to the Kuru army, and there this conversation starts between him and Arjun. Arjun sees many of his relatives, cousins, teachers, and friends standing there. He has to kill/defeat them to win the war, the thought of killing his loved ones for the sake of the kingdom makes him feel emotional and nervous. He expresses these feelings to his mentor Krishna in many of these verses. Here is the translation of a few verses before and after verse 1.40 (chapter 1, verse 40). I am going to reproduce two translations here for the sake of comparison.

Dr. S. Radhakrishnan's translation,

(26) There saw Arjuna standing fathers and grandfathers, teachers, uncles, brothers, sons and grandsons as also companions.

(27) And also fathers-in-law and friends in both the armies. When the son of Kunti (Arjuna) saw all these kinsmen thus standing arrayed.

(28) He was overcome with great compassion and uttered this in sadness:

(29) My limbs quail, my mouth goes dry, my body shakes my hair stands on end.

(30) (The bow) Gandiva slips from my hand and my skin is burning all over. I am not able to stand steady. My mind is reeling.

(31) And I see evil omens, O Kesava (Krsna), nor do I foresee any good by slaying my own people in the fight.

(32) I do not long for victory, O Krsna, nor kingdom nor pleasures. Of what use is kingdom to us, O Krsna, or enjoyment or even life?

(33) Those for whose sake we desire kingdom, enjoyments pleasures, they stand here in battle, renouncing their lives and riches.

(34) Teachers, fathers, sons and also grandfathers; uncles fathers-in-law, grandsons and brothers-in-law and (other) kinsmen.

(35) These I would not consent to kill, though they kill me, O Madhusudana (Krsna), even for the kingdom of the three worlds how much less for the sake of the earth?

(36) What pleasure can be ours, O Krsna, after we have slain the sons of Dhrtarastra? Only sin will accrue to us if kill these malignants.

(37) So it is not right that we slay our kinsmen, the sons of Dhrtarastra. Indeed. How can we be happy? O Madhava (Krsna), if we kill our own people?

(38) Even if these whose minds are overpowered by greed, see no wrong in the destruction of the family and no crime in treachery to fiends:

(39) Why should we not have the wisdom to turn away from this sin, O Janardana (Krsana), we who see the wrong in the destruction of the family?

(40) In the ruin of a family, its ancient laws are destroyed: and when the laws perish, the whole family yields to lawless-ness.

(41) And when lawlessness prevails, O Varsneya (Krsna), the women of the family become corrupted and when women are corrupted, confusion of castes arises.

(42) And to hell does this confusion bring the family itself, as well as those who have destroyed it. For the spirits of their ancestors fall, deprived of their offerings of rice and water.

(43) By the misdeeds of those who destroy a family and create confusion of varanas, the immemorial laws of the caste and the family are destroyed.

(44) And we have heard it said, O Janardana (Krsna), that the men of the families whose laws are destroyed needs must live in hell.

(45) Alas, what a great sin have we resolved to commit in striving to slay our own people through our greed for the pleasures of the kingdom!

(46) Far better would it be for me if the sons of Dhrtarastra, with weapons in hand, should slay me in the battle, while I remain unresisting and unarmed.

(47) Having spoken thus on the (field of) battle, Ariuna sank down on the seat of his chariot, casting away his bow and arrow, his spirit overwhelmed by sorrow.   

Translation from the Bhagavad Gita as it is,

When the son of Kunti, Arjuna, saw all these different grades of friends and relatives, he became overwhelmed with compassion and spoke thus.(1.27)

Arjuna said: My dear Krsna, seeing my friends and relatives present before me in such a fighting spirit, I feel the limbs of my body quivering and my mouth drying up.(1.28)

 My whole body is trembling, my hair is standing on end, my bow Gandiva is slipping from my hand, and my skin is burning.(1.29)

I am now unable to stand here any longer. I am forgetting myself, and my mind is reeling. I see only causes of misfortune, O Krsna, killer of the Kesi demon.(1.30)

I do not see how any good can come from killing my own kinsmen in this battle, nor can I, my dear Krsna, desire any subsequent victory, kingdom, or happiness.(1.31)

O Govinda, of what avail to us are a kingdom, happiness or even life itself when all those for whom we may desire them are now arrayed on this battlefield? O Madhusudana, when teachers, fathers, sons, grandfathers, maternal uncles, fathers-in-law, grandsons, brothers-in-law and other relatives are ready to give up their lives and properties and are standing before me, why should I wish to kill them, even though they might otherwise kill me? O maintainer of all living entities, I am not prepared to fight with them even in exchange for the three worlds, let alone this earth. What pleasure will we derive from killing the sons of Dhrtarastra?(1.32-35)

Sin will overcome us if we slay such aggressors. Therefore it is not proper for us to kill the sons of Dhrtarastra and our friends. What should we gain, O Krsna, husband of the goddess of fortune, and how could we be happy by killing our own kinsmen?(1.36)

O Janardana, although these men, their hearts overtaken by greed, see no fault in killing one's family or quarreling with friends, why should we, who can see the crime in destroying a family, engage in these acts of sin?(1.37-38)

With the destruction of dynasty, the eternal family tradition is vanquished, and thus the rest of the family becomes involved in irreligion.(1.39)

When irreligion is prominent in the family, O Krsna, the women of the family become polluted, and from the degradation of womanhood, O descendant of Vrsni, comes unwanted progeny. (1.40)

An increase of unwanted population certainly causes hellish life both for the family and for those who destroy the family tradition. The ancestors of such corrupt families fall down, because the performances for offering them food and water are entirely stopped.(1.41)

By the evil deeds of those who destroy the family tradition and thus give rise to unwanted children, all kinds of community projects and family welfare activities are devastated. (1.42)

O Krsna, maintainer of the people, I have heard by disciplic succession that those who destroy family traditions dwell always in hell. (1.43)

Alas, how strange it is that we are preparing to commit greatly sinful acts. Driven by the desire to enjoy royal happiness, we are intent on killing our own kinsmen.(1.44)

Better for me if the sons of Dhrtarastra, weapons in hand, were to kill me unarmed and unresisting on the battlefield.(1.45)

Better for me if the sons of Dhrtarastra, weapons in hand, were to kill me unarmed and unresisting on the battlefield. It is the custom--according to ksatriya fighting principles--that an unarmed and unwilling foe should not be attacked. Arjuna, however, decided that even if attacked by the enemy in such an awkward position, he would not fight. He did not consider how much the other party was bent upon fighting. All these symptoms are due to soft-heartedness resulting from his being a great devotee of the Lord. Sanjaya said: Arjuna, having thus spoken on the battlefield, cast aside his bow and arrows and sat down on the chariot, his mind overwhelmed with grief.(1.46) 

Don't bother about the numbering of highlighted verses (1.41 vs 1.40) as they are slightly different in both translations (one has 47 verses in the first chapter and the other only 46), and numbering is not important here. One can clearly see that both translations are not that different from each other. Now let's read the purport of verse 1.40,

Purport for verse 1.40 from Bhagavad Gita As it is,

Good population in human society is the basic principle for peace, prosperity and spiritual progress in life. The varashrama religion’s principles were so designed that the good population would prevail in society for the general spiritual progress of state and community. Such population depends on the chastity and faithfulness of its womanhood. As children are very prone to be misled, women are similarly very prone to degradation. Therefore, both children and women require protection by the elder members of the family. By being engaged in various religious practices, women will not be misled into adultery. According to Chanakya Pandita, women are generally not very intelligent and therefore not trustworthy. So the different family traditions of religious activities should always engage them, and thus their chastity and devotion will give birth to a good population eligible for participating in the varashrama system. On the failure of such varashrama -dharma, naturally the women become free to act and mix with men, and thus adultery is indulged in at the risk of unwanted population. Irresponsible men also provoke adultery in society, and thus unwanted children flood the human race at the risk of war and pestilence.

To get a clear picture of what's going on, it is necessary to read all this. The situation of Arjun and his dilemma is described here. After seeing all his close relatives, teachers, and other dear ones, Arjun is feeling emotional here. His love for his relatives and his memories of the time he spent with them compel him to think about whether this war is worth fighting or not. Arjun was a very celebrated warrior, and the war was not a new thing for him; he had fought many of them before coming to fight this one. 

Arjun is feeling emotional weakness and wants to explain to Krishna his situation. Along with his emotional dilemma, he also wants to tell Krishna about the "effects of war on society." He is a clever guy and wants to make a very solid argument for not fighting the war. One cannot walk away just like that from such an important battle of their life; there has to be a very strong reason to do that, and Arjun was trying to put up a very strong argument. In that respect, he mentions all these bad things that war can bring to society and its people. He expresses his concern about the destruction of dynasties and the destruction of law, which might lead to total lawlessness in families and henceforth in society. Because of the prevalence of irreligion or lawlessness in a family or society, women of the family might become corrupted or polluted, resulting in further problems. Here, it seems he is mainly concerned about the sexual exploitation of women in a male-dominated society. After any big war (like World War) where lots of lives (mostly men) are lost on the battlefield, society's structure and composition might change drastically. A huge difference in the male-to-female ratio can create a lot of problems. Arjun's concerns seem very legitimate. 

One might accuse Arjun of taking the escapist route here; he doesn't want to fight the war, which is why he is giving reasons, but it's not out of fear; he is not a coward. He wants to question the necessity of fighting this war, which might lead to heavy losses for both sides fighting the war. He wants to show how war is "evil" and how it can prove disastrous for the whole society. He is more emotional here because this particular war involves people from his own family fighting on both sides. He can see the destruction of his own family and kingdom (which they want to acquire). His concerns and questions are very serious; that's the reason Krishna gave him such a detailed reply, which we call 'Bhagavad Gita'.

Physical abuse or sexual exploitation of females by victorious army men was very common in those days (and it happens even now), and in that regard, Arjun is expressing his concern. Nowhere, Arjun talk about the character of women, them being more prone to degradation compared to men, or women being not very intelligent and therefore not trustworthy. I feel that all these points are unnecessarily discussed in the purport; they are not at all related to the verse. If Prabhupad wanted to blame, he should have blamed males (or men) for polluting women, forcing such a big-scale war on society, but for some reason, his focus is all on women. Women can not be held responsible for rape or other physical abuse forced on them. How come one can blame a woman for an unwanted child after the rape? I found these views about women expressed in purport to be totally biased.

We all know that women have a very important role to play in any family, but the entire family's traditions or chastity and faithfulness don't depend only on them, but on all members of the family. Why put the entire burden on the shoulders of women? If the verse doesn't talk about women's nature or compare them with men, then why purport of this verse deviate from the main subject, the disastrous effect of war on society, so much? Why blame women for no fault of theirs? 

At the end of her purport, Prabhupada also blames 'irresponsible men' for provoking adultery in society, notice the use of the term "irresponsible" here, but when he commented about women, he was not talking about "irresponsible women" but women in general, that's where I have objection and I think scholar like him should have been more careful before passing such a general remark against women. And I don't think even women of the era of the Mahabharat were any less intelligent than men. His opinion about women can be his personal opinion, and he has full right to express it, but to deliver it in such a way (in the name of Gita) is wrong, according to me.

In the preface of the book, Prabhupada writes, "The Krishna consciousness movement is essential in human society, for it offers the highest perfection of life. How this is so is explained fully in the Bhagavad-gita. Unfortunately, mundane wranglers have taken advantage of Bhagavad-gita to push forward their demonic propensities and mislead people regarding right understanding of the simple principles of life." 

He claims that the importance of the Krishna Consciousness movement is explained in the Gita. Isn't it the direct marketing of his movement (ISKON) under the name of Gita as it is? Isn't he pushing his own agenda and advertising his organization here? This is the same thing for which he accused other authors. He has the right to do it, nothing wrong with it, but then, at least, please don't say something bad about others for doing the same thing. One can understand if he wrote this book as a manual for ISKON followers, as an interpretation of the Gita exclusively for his movement and its members (which is what that book is). I am not against his book, his translations, or his movement, but I am surprised by his claim that he is presenting the Bhagavad Gita "as it is." He is clearly trying to push his own philosophy and beliefs under the name of purports. I still use this book along with others to read translations of the Bhagavad Gita. The book nicely presents each verse in Devanagari script, a Latin transliteration, word-for-word meanings (Sanskrit-English), and English translation of the verse, but unfortunately, the major part of the book is Prabhupad's purports, and be careful while reading them. It's up to readers to decide what they think about the author's intentions in this book. I have expressed my opinion here. 

I just mentioned this book as an example, as I am reading it currently, I am not saying that this is the only book where the author tries to push his agenda in the name of some ancient scripture. There must be many other scriptures that might have been used by different authors for the same purpose. I think this is just one example. Readers should be careful while reading these types of books. They should try to differentiate between the actual translation of the text and the author's own opinion. It's always better to read more than one translation of any text (from other languages) to get a general idea about the meaning of that text. I think this post should explain my views, which I expressed in the previous post about the Bhagavad Gita as it is.

Thanks a lot for reading, and please share your views. 

Further reading:
1. Bhagadvad Gita-As it is or As it is NOT..

2. http://www.hknet.org.nz/seX-Vedic-view-of-women.html  

3. Why Krishna delivered Bhagavad Gita to Arjun not to someone else? 

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