Live-in CHILD

Supreme Court will change the Indian social landscape. Steven and Stephen illustrated in their book Freakonomics, Michigan (or some other state) has less number of crimes because of the legalization of abortion for teenagers in 1970s (due to which there were less number of orphans). Our politicians will keep mud slinging on each other, over women reservations, dalits, temples, mosques, elephants, parks, names to be dedicated, without trying to look at the social fabric and taking the nation away from its old parochial systems.

Picture: (Maybe John and Bipasha are the icons of live-in relationship)

Supreme Court was loud and clear in the case of actress Khushboo. Article 21 of Constitution gives Right to Life, Fundamental Right. Two adults can stay together under one roof without any (registered) relationship, as they wish to. The Court’s lambasted the system for taking complaints against the actress, for her remarks on pre-marital relationship. We are not talking about morality or principles. It’s an individual’s choice, whether to marry or live-in. “Lord Krishna and Radha lived together”, the Court stated.

The Law needs to incorporate these changes and perhaps move a step forward towards registration of live-in relationships. Long live-in relationships as good as marriage was ruled in another ruling. Of course, this path was taken when the relationship lead to reproduction. But now, the case of reproduction has taken us to the next level. Why is it that a man and a woman require a stamp to prove their relationship? Perhaps for the following.

A man is denying his alleged relationship with his live-in partner with whom after living for years together and a baby, he denies any role in reproduction of the baby. What is the fault of the little angel for the choices, two individuals make in their life? Or perhaps realizes he was born by mistake. The female wants compensation from her man for the upkeep of the child. I hope Supreme Court will more likely rule in the lady’s favour.

Shouldn’t such men be ostracized from the society?

Women have choices under such circumstances. Whether to dump the man or accept him?

What Priety Zinta portrayed in movie, Kya Kehna in early 2000 is seeking society’s acceptance and demands not be banished but to be appreciated.

In my teens, after watching movie, I repeated the movie promotions to everybody, “kya app sochte hai, priya (Priety’s protagonist in the movie) ne jo kiya, woh theek kiya” (You believe what Priyadid was right). Most of the people wore an astonished expression. And then would smile/laugh at the stupid question of the youngster. But the question is there and we should have an answer for the question, whether we get or do not get into such kind of situation?

When our economy is growing, our society should also grow, to result in overall Development of the Nation.

The answer, do watch the movie?

As for the case, asking and taking the compensation is the most important aspect. Whether or not to use the money is the woman’s choice.

Reserved for whom?

A lot is being said and written about women, women who fought terrorists, who escaped domestic violence, who saved a toddler, who are businesswoman, making style statement, powerful woman. The idea of secular, republic and democratic India is taking shape for the first time since independence. Irrespective of sex, caste, creed, religion. We are yet to start baby steps in the other three, but firstly the sex seems to be gaining some importance. Especially after all the ballyhoo on 33% reservation for women, when we are preaching equality, the Women’s Reservation Bill on International Woman’s Day.

I know it is difficult for any man to understand what it takes to be a woman. Does it solve our issues or helps in abstaining our responsibilities by dedicating and celebrating one day in the name of woman? Pillars, symbols, parades, day’s definitely help in some way or the other. Though every day is woman’s day. A woman commands and must get respect in her home, workplaces and wherever she decides to go. The day is not far when men will be struggling for their rights.

Now getting back to the whole drama of getting the Woman’s Reservation Bill across the river. Putting things into ink and accepting it in spirit is a different ball game altogether. But then it should not be the reason for not inking in future. The whole script which ran during the process has taught many lessons.

Women from all parties joined hands after their feat on 9^th March 2010. The whole fracas is not for women’s reservation. But the battle is the build up for the War. Guess, we could comprehend, and hope it is for the better. In India, when Parliamentarians lock their horns, it is never over an issue, it is for something which serves their own/personal (can be read as party or staying in power) larger interests (read as of no use to so

ciety).

Ten/twenty years down the line, I hope I may not be running for getting my children a fake certificate under some privileged (read reserved like SC/ST. OBC, minority) category because over a period of time, we would realize there are hardly any seats left for general category. I may carry fear revealing my GENERAL category status.

But still, the optimistic will say, the structure of Reservations is changing and may undergo a complete overhaul in the coming decade. But it is here to stay. Yes, we have to not only live but die with it. All the politicians can fight for is percentage and not for abolishment of five years scheme from Nehru and Gandhi.

The perpetrators carrying the flame of under privileged categories are concerned that woman’s reservation will skew the proportion of Reservation of Dalits, OBCs. It is indeed a nice thought. Woman’s reservation will definitely eat the share from Dalits, OBCs and they hope to preserve the loss from Dalits to female Dalits. The point Yadav’s (Sharad – Lalu - Mulayam) made and over which they ransacked the Chair of Rajya Sabha (aka Vice President of India). 2-4% members aggressive gesture stalled the proceedings of the House. But the good part was the consensus of the House to 85 – 90%, fifteen years after the idea of Women’s Reservation was first raised in the Legislature. The Reserved Category is already addressing the needs/problems of SC, STs, OBCs (the most important and the biggest), Muslims, other minorities, freedom fighter, sports, North-East region, Jammu & Kashmir Category, Armed Forces, Border Forces, Underprivileged (destitutes, lost limbs), etc. etc. Of course, all of them are not found in all the reservations but yes then for different examinations, nominations, elections, selections, all such kinds of reservations are taken into consideration. However, the woman’s reservation only talks about this in legislature; Lok Sabha, State Assemblies, district bodies, local and civic bodies and Panchayats.

The Woman’s reservation is commitment from a foreign lady towards the Indian people. Congress did prove its mantle and they are capable of handling and making tough decisions, which previously they lacked and were always blackmailed by its political allies. This time, they said, Yes, we will talk about numbers but first the issue. The issue or the numbers, whichever comes first, the second loses the importance by the time, its turn comes.

But the way Yadav’s are suggesting the Bill to be drafted and desgined, it will become extremely difficult to segregate, allocate seats, issues. But may bring clarity at the same time.

To give a broad idea about the whole structure, currently out of 543 seats in Lok Sabha, 181 will be allocated for women. Out of this 181, 37.5% will go to SC/ST, OBCs woman candidates, 9.5% for Muslim woman candidates, 4% for some other type of woman candidates and hopefully 50% of it will be preserved for general category woman candidates. Quota within quota?

Until then, we can continuously shout the slogan with Mamta-di (Chief and Railway Minister) and Trinamool Congress members, were seen singing the famous song -- "We shall overcome some day".

Road to Shaadi

When I was a kid, everybody asked me, “what do you want to become in life?” I’d reply flashing my teeth, “papa”. Like every child, whose role models are his parents, I was way too flattered and excited at the authority my father commanded at home and in his professional life. Now 20 years hence -

Turning 25, 26 or 27 or perhaps 28, 29, 30, for those who are left out, is a vulnerable stage of your life, every single person you meet asks the same question, “SHAADI”. I sheepishly smile and question, “kiski”. The other person laughs and replies, “aapki”. I really enjoy such conversations wherein we turn the sides of the tables. Luckily I have a genuine excuse to evade such sorry queries, my elder brother is yet to get married, and I still have some time on my side. Why can’t we begin our conversations, with are you enjoying your life, your job, or are you trying to do something else in life? After marriage, the practical transition of question will be, “kids”, we do discuss and we do talk about it with our friends, relatives, colleagues, but I feel certain awkwardness about the same. Why can’t we let the other do, what he/she wants in life and when he/she wants? We need not force everybody through the same organic process of human existence. Actually, when everybody questions the same thing about your life, you are compelled, forced and pushed to the corner?

Now getting back to the whole Shaadi affair, our generation is sitting at crossroads and stuck between the older and the next generation of societal rules, rules which are broken but not shattered and rules which are yet in conception stage. Either we should be forced to marry with the boy/girl of our parents’ choice (like our parents did) or be allowed to decide the path of life on our own, wherein we hope to find somebody with whom we can share our life. Shaadi should be sharing our lives and not spending our lives. Don’t you feel, spending sounds burdensome?

While talking about the shaadi affair? If somebody says YES, I am in the process, then the next question, “How many?” Most of my friends have run through a dozen proposals. If the friend is a female, then it is two dozen or closer. Perhaps for the betterment of the society, men are facing more rejections these days than women.

To find a suitable person, those who feel, that yes we are in love and ready to respect and accept the responsibility of marriage, things are pretty easier for them, even convincing parents, if they are dead against the fact? This was hard part for Mr. Bhagat, but that is history.

Our parents are searching for a girl, who is educated (masters even if the son is matriculate), good looking (fair in complexion), knows cooking (dal, roti), wears jeans (rarely) and Indian wear with élan, and we are looking somebody who is smart (does not mean to be fair), intelligent (education helps but not the pre-requisite), working (maybe a diploma in fashion designing) or maybe wear a skirt, at times. Expectation mismatch from one person, how do we expect so much from a female? Ask the guy and his family, what are you willing to bring on the table.

If they are seeking a groom, he should be well educated (bachelors means highly educated), earning well (legal or illegal means), good looking (which is defined by his earnings), with strong values (no drinking or smoking) and the girl expects better educated than her, decent earning (respectable), handsome (this is controversial), good values (social drinking is fine). Again the definitions for the same person go for a toss.

The best part is parents’ like to seek their children’s consent for the same. It’s difficult to find the parents’ and children’s on the same plank or rather almost seems impossible to bring on the same plank. So that is why, things start working/moving after crossing the minimum number of 12/24 or whatever.

Here comes the harder part, young, single, independent, have been through flings, strings, affairs or maybe heart breaks, it is the same for both sexes. We all have been through our share, every person whom we meet adds to us as a human being, as a person. As we move ahead, we keep on adding the items to the ‘YES’ and ‘NO’ list for our marriage/life partner. Particularly in case of women, they have a very clear list of “NOT’s”. The hard part is always along the way, we fall in and out of love and then hunt for the same love, which is the recipe for disaster and the whole range of invariable human emotions that comes with this process of finding the right person.

I’d still say, enjoy the process with the hope, we are destined for the best.

Till then, “IN THE PROCESS” status may help.

Calling hubby names not cruel, says HC

Calling the husband ‘bhondu’, ‘pagal’, ‘bewakoof’ and making fun of his low educational qualifications does not amount to cruelty and is not a ground for divorce, the Bombay high court has ruled.

Imagine Bombay HC saying this thing, it has hit the last nail in the coffin. The dividing gap amongst the power in the household in the hands of a female has been evident since ages. The female was always an in-charge of the household and the man posed as the head of the family. Now in these modern times of Fundamental Rights, I believe men need to assert for their rights to equality. We are losing ground fast, really fast.

Couple of months back, SC said, ‘biwi jo kehti hai woh sunoh’ (listen to your wife and do as she says). Now Bombay HC gives the woman more rights to even rebuke and insult a man. I don’t know if it allows in front of other people.

A division bench of Justice P B Majumdar and Justice R V More dismissed an application filed by a 33-year-old Pune resident seeking to end his 2003 marriage with his wife, with whom he has lived for barely 20 months.

“The husband should not have been so sensitive even if a few words were uttered by the wife,” the judges said. “In family life, between a husband and wife, occasionally there may be some exchange of wit, anger, jokes or satire; that itself may not be treated as an act of cruelty,” the judges remarked, saying this could not be grounds for dissolution of the marriage.

I know women have better understanding of society, people and managing household and in turn lives. God has blessed women with their dynamic nature. But still that does not mean, that men should be frowned upon. They need their share of respect from the society.

Please My Lord (an appeal to our Hon’ble Judges), Kindly look at the plight of men than pity. Rather they should advise and say, KISS and make up.

WOMAN - Just LUV them

Supreme Courts recipe for happy marriage: Obey your wife
The Supreme Court has a recipe for a successful marriage, more so for men: Obey your wife and rule the world!

Must have read the news which came out few days on front page of some of the leading newspapers, OBEY YOUR WIFE, as suggested by a Supreme Court (SC) Judge. I would not like to get into the basics of knowledge and background of the SC Judge but SC Judge is thought to be amongst the intelligent lot to sit on such pedestal. If they say, the world’s gotta listen. Its not everybody we get to hear such social advice from our esteemed Judges.

I do believe the same. For a man to lead a peaceful life, he has to keep the woman happy. All the women around him happy. Be it in the form of a mother, sister, daughter and most important WIFE. To keep a woman happy is a painful process; the Judge reiterates that, ‘Hum sab bhuktbhogi hai (We all have undergone that experience)’. If you do not keep her happy, then you will not be able to live in peace.

Woman is the adorable creature on this earth and mankind. Even in our sages, it is written. Shivji used to be hell scared of Parvati. I just wanna suggest one thing to my friends to stay happy with a woman. Do not think much and never, ever dare to understand a woman. A woman is a complex and complicated creature and if, but and then comes at every point. Just keep loving her, the way she is. You may not live happily but you will definitely rest in peace.

To grab a snippet of the above headline, read the text below:

"Bibi joh boltee hai woh sunno (Listen to whatever your wife says). We all listen," a vacation bench of Justice Markandeya Katju and Justice Deepak Verma observed while hearing a lawsuit by Indian Air Force officer Deepak Kumar, who had complained that his estranged wife Manisha had ruined him and his family by implicating them in false criminal cases including sodomy. "Hum sab bhuktbhogi hai (We all have undergone that experience)," the bench observed.

"If your wife wants you to see this side, see this side. If she wants you to see the other side, do obey her," said Katju, adding: "One who obeys his wife rules the world."

Kumar's counsel told the court that his client had married Manisha 17 years ago but the couple soon landed in court with marital discord erupting between them.

A district court in Chandigarh dismissed Kumar's plea for divorce as Manisha opposed it, but a single-judge bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court had granted him a divorce and directed him to pay Manisha Rs.1 million as one-time compensation.

Manisha then approached the Supreme Court challenging the divorce decree. Seeking dismissal of Manisha's appeal, Kumar's counsel contended that she was opposing the divorce despite having ruined her husband's life.

The bench, however, posted the case for further hearing in the last week of July, saying there was no urgency in dealing with it.

"You have waited for 17 years, so wait for a few more days," the bench contended.