Where should a man seek refuge?

Are big words like trust, mutual understanding, ghar ki baat, values etc applicable only to husbands?

My wife will bring up these words in her arguments with me. For example whenever my mother tried to interfere for the purpose of calming both of us my wife got infuriated and abused my mother for the reason that she has no business between husband and wife. Now it could be that I will have a softer corner for my mother but still what I can say being fair is that my mother always interfered to calm matters between us.

My wife has problems if my mother talks to my sister, real sister and shares her issues which my mother has had my wife. My wife wants that my mother should not talk to my sister about matters which are in the family or ghar ki baat.

Now, this Saturday (31 May) I, my wife and our son went to a movie with my sister's family - her husband and two kids. After the movie we were sitting in food court of Ambience mall at Vasant Kunj when I took all the kids to a bookstore. My sister had to use the washroom and so my wife and my sister's husband were left on the table. My wife started talking to my sister's husband about her issues with my mother.

What was that if not in direct opposition to what she has an opinion on family matters and ghar ki baat? This is not the first time she acted directly opposite to what she says or exhibits.

What should a husband do? Is there any provision in law that restricts a wife from talking family matters to relatives or outsiders? If I scold her I will be honoured by cases like 498a by my wife fully supported by Indian state. If I talk to her relatives or outside about her she will raise a ruckus and a raise a FIR against me for harrassment.

Where should a man seek refuge? His better half is devilish for him and the law forces him to abide by the devil.

Indian Law: Turning Indian men to Eunuchs

My wife threatened my mother with jail today.

And what was the reason? Will you be interested in knowing?

No, it was just not dowry demand, if only you can believe it. It has been over 5 years of our marriage and no dowry was ever demanded anytime during the tenor of my marital life. So what was the issue today that my wife threatened my mother?

The housemaid! Yes, the kaam wali bai. Last week my wife gave a pink slip to the bai who was working in my house for over 3 or 4 months on some reason. My wife scolded her like some Hitler and asked her to leave. My mother advised my wife that we can give the poor maid another chance but my wife did not agree. So, for about a week my wife could not find another housemaid and then she found one. Now this one had had an argument with my mother some 10/11 months back when my wife was at her paternal home (her third longish stay there in five years of our marriage). Obviously my mother asked this maid to go and not to come. This infuriated my wife and she treated my mother verbally in a very bad manner. She called her names and once again talked ill of her character. And this time she threatened my mother with jail.

And I am not surprised. Because Indian law allows her to not just threaten but actually go and do it.

Indian assholes (read legislators) have framed laws which do not ask for any proof from the daughter-in-law and take action of putting behind bars the alleged culprits - husband, his old parents, his brothers and sisters and any relative she wishes! Will it surpise you if I were to tell you that these laws have jailed even 4 months' old infants for harrasing a daughter-in-law!

Now you probably may agree that why Indian legislators are assholes!

What should a man do when his innocent parents are threatened for such trivial matters? Just swallow his prestige down his gut?! And feminists have actually succeeded in making men of India eunuchs. Kudos

I will eagerly wait for the day when some of these feminists get bitten by the snake they have given birth to in collusion with politicians who answered their libido instead of logic when passing these laws

Where is the support a man expects from his woman

For whom does a man earn? Why does he earn at all? What makes him bear all the tension of the job and swallow many things that at times demean him and still he goes on to persist in his pursuit of bringing money home for the family. What does he want in return?

I don't think he wants anything more than that his family has no monetary constraints within their standard of living and at the same time he also wants and is responsible to ensure that his parents get a decent life after all that they bore to bring him up.

Can you feel the pain that he would be in when he is told that despite his earning well his parents cannot be provided for something. Something really small. Despite his meeting his commitments to his family (wife and kids) he is told that his wife cannot cannot sustain his old mother!

Yesterday evening when I asked my wife to get home nariyal pani 2 or 3 times a week for mom too while my wife takes it daily when she goes out, I was told that she cannot buy it for my mom because she does not have enough money left. Now I give her 20,000 per month for household and that is only kitchen since rent, electricity, society maintenance, fuel, doctor fes etc is borne by me only. She expends only things to consume - fruits, vegetables, milk. Even her mobile bills are paid by me. All her medical bills are paid by me. Now I really wonder if 20,000 per month is less for a family of 3 adults (me, my wife, my 60 yr old mom) and a kid of 3 yrs of age.

I was left in deep pain when my wife told me that she cannot buy nariyal paani in these summers for my mom. A nariyal pani costs 35 bucks and if she buys 3 per week she will spend 105 per week and for one month it could be 515 bucks. Is that huge dent in her monthly pocket of 20,000 that I give her? Every month she will go to parlour to get her hair coloured, fingers and toes manicured etc. I don't even ask how much she spends there. But can I ask why she cannot spend 515 rupees for nariayl pani for my mom.

No, I cannot ask because Indian law does not allow me to ask. This asking can be easily classified as mental torture and I can be booked under 498a or some other law.

And therfore, a man, I should keep quiet and suffer the pain to see my "better half" with no inclination to take care of my old mother who spent her life taking care of me. So the man has no support from the person he is expected to support.

Hail Indian laws

Via http://www.my-diary.org/app/

Making ass out of law

We all know that law is an ass and at the risk of being taken into contempt, I ask with a lot of pain in my heart a question “what about those who make law look like an ass?”

See the news report (URL at end of this post). Logic defeats me as to why and how a dead man and his estate is liable towards his ex-wife with whom he has received divorce and who has re-married and with help of second husband is taking care of the child she had with the deceased. The report does not talk of it, but she might have more kids with second husband too.

Just because the man did not re-marry is no reason to entitle the ex-wife with the claim amount of man's insurance. That there was a case around it, I am sure there were other claimants to the man's estate (life insurance) whom the court has neglected.

I understand that the man has a child with the woman. But she re-married after divorce. Why doesn't the second husband be held responsible for the child? Why was the child not in the custody of the man for the child to enjoy the estate of his father? What about the dead man's parents and siblings?

Besides these questions I intend to draw your attention to some possible impacts on the society if this judgment becomes a sort of precursor (God forbid):

1. With this judgment in hand, a woman gets all the incentive she wants to murder her ex-husband and enjoy lavish with her next man
2. The rights of parents over their boys, whom they nurture, educate get relegated to mere talk while someone who divorced their boy enjoys the man's hard earned money
3. Probably men like me will abstain from taking any life insurance policy henceforth and this could be a blow to the fledgling industry in India thereby not contributing to India's economic growth
4. Marriage gets even more commercial from being institutional

While these questions are tough and no straight easy answers might be available, the question on top of my mind continues to echo is

“What do we call those who make the law appear like an ass?”

The link to the report referred to above is HERE

Women are objects, so say Feminists

We have, more than often heard that it is the lecherous men who look upon women as objects. And this baseless statement is given banners by the women activists. But there is enough logic to conclude that the way these nincompoop women activists have approached the women empowerment has actually done a huge disservice to woman-hood as the same has only reduced the stature of women to an object – much more than it is commonly believed and associated with men's perspective.

I shall give here some examples of such disservice by feminists.

Consider the way women are shown in advertisements of deodorants. A horde of women start drooling behind a man wearing a special kind of deodorant. And there is no vocal or otherwise protest by women activists. They have given it a clean chit showcasing women as dumb objects who can be attracted by mere fragrance! And I need not tell which species we know well to have a highly developed olfactory senses. But why have feminists not opposed such representation of women? Clear answer is the money power the big corporate owner of brands of these deodorants carry with them. These companies give the feminists what they want – money stuffed in their mouth and they cannot speak.

Same money power is at work when women are represented in bollywood/tollywood selling zandu balm or Shiela talking about her jawani!

Now look at the case these women activists have got the various laws of India tweaked to make women be an object. Consider law around adultery. It is well known that in India a woman cannot be tried for adultery since the law explicitly exonerates woman. The man is punishable. What does it show? That the man is expected to know what is right or wrong and make a decision before indulging in adultery. And if he makes the wrong decision, he shall be punished. But poor women! She is just an object – an object of the man's wrong decision. How can an object be punished. She was only being used. Even if she is 30+. Woman is not expected to have brains and know right from wrong. After all , she is an object!

The recently formulated sexual harassment laws take it a step further. A woman can complain against a man even if she “feels” that the man is mis-behaving! And why would any women “feel” so. Only if she thinks that she is an object! Whether a man thinks/looks with perversion in his mind is a different matter. If the woman carries an iota of doubt or notion that is वेहम that would be enough for her to lodge a complain. And when will a woman think that she is being ill treated? Only when the woman has doubts of her own existence. Only when she thinks herself as object (it is same as saying she thinks that others take her as an object). What we think of other's thoughts is actually a manifestation of our own thoughts. Someone has rightly said “No one can insult you without your permission.

Not just above examples but all examples of gender biased laws carry a deep logic of women thought of as objects, helpless, stupid who need support of men with latent libidos or nincompoop feminists.

Care for the reason behind the perverse patriarchy, please?

The Economic Times of 31 Oct 2013 carried an op-ed by Ms. Samanwaya Rautray (a correspondent with the paper) who has given her judgment over the judgment of Supreme Court of India on the case of Naina Sahni. The link to the write-up at the end.

I have no complaints against the judgment as it has been proved beyond doubt that the man Sushil Sharma murdered his wife Naina Sahni. For a crime proved to be committed, the criminal shall be punished is the rule of law across the globe. However, my problem is with the correspondent who is living in an open eyed dream of being more intelligent, more knowledgeable, more responsible than the judges of Supreme Court (though at the same time I do not intend to say that those judges carry these qualities better than rest of the denizens).

The law has a responsibility to ensure it delves sufficiently deeper into the motive of any crime committed. And the crime here – of a man murdering his wife – carried a motive which had it's genesis in a relationship of his wife with a man. But before I put forth my views on this motive, I want to look at certain points made by the 'intelligent' correspondent.

She says that the judgment is 'wrong' when it observed that an independent educated woman cannot be subjected to violence. Now lets consider this. I have two thoughts on this. A woman as educated and as political as Naina Sahni does not take any action against her husband if he had been subjecting her to domestic violence. Why? Why would such an educated woman not go to police and lodge a complain? Why would she not raise her voice? While answering these questions we need to remember that the year was 1995 and not 1975. In that year, women activism had gained the critical mass and was indeed a force to reckon with already. So why would a woman not raise her voice. Such a woman actually does not need parental support and can earn independently, live as a single woman and care the least for her violent husband and the society, a way which anyways is being propagated by feminists for the women of India. There could be two reasons for silence of such a woman. Either she was actually infidel and wanted to keep her relation a secret, which could have become public if she had raised her own voice or her husband was not violent towards her (despite his reputation of being brash and gun trotting) which did not actually give Naina any reason to complain. The woman feared that her extra marital relation wold tarnish the reputation of her parents and therefore continued to live with Sushil Sharma under all circumstances.

Thus the court and the judges were bang right when they stated that Naina was not 'poor, illiterate hapless woman' and had the choice of walking out which she deliberately did not choose under her own volition.

In the write-up, the correspondent makes a remark that 'women are taught to be servile, obedient and play second fiddle to the men in their lives'. I will want the correspondent to think deeply on this remark again but this time with the data that suicides committed by men in marital discord is almost twice that of those committed by women. It just shows who dominates whom and maybe the husband of the correspondent (if at all someone dared to marry her) can tell more.

Ms.Rautray then also states '...mindset drives our society to harass women who marry outside their caste, demand money from bride's family and kill women in the name of honour when they stray outside the moral mores laid down for them by the majority'. I do take note of the deliberate use of the word 'mores' instead of more common 'values' to complete the phrase around morality. Nevertheless my point here is the thought behind women liberation. Why is that linked to breaking moral 'mores', and not to education. I have witnessed more feminists like Ms Rautray harping around freedom for women in terms of breaking the established moral 'mores' especially of the type late night outs, continuing relationships outside marriage, freedom to wear revealing clothes but there are few and just about feeble noises around female foeticide, female education. Why? There is a reason. When voices are raised around female foeticide and education the only person to be blamed and punished are parents – father and mother – of the girl/women/feminists. Now, how can they do this? Their target is men and their parents. So it is matters between man and woman and not between woman and her parents that get support from severely lop sided and mis-targetted feminism in India, at least.

To read the write-up click HERE

Women are innocent and impotent!

Two news reports (URLs of both at the end) in yesterday's Times of India (Delhi edition) drew my attention and I wondered the society we are giving ourselves and planning to frame in the future.

The first one is a report where a Delhi woman killed her 4 year old son, injured her 15 year old daughter and killed a woman from her neighbourhood. The reason was that this murderous woman had illicit relation with the husband of the victim woman from the neighbourhood for few years. The dead woman had got suspicious of her husband and the murderous woman. It is reported that the husband ultimately reconciled with his wife and distanced himself with the murderous woman.

But this sent the murderous woman in a fit of rage so self-occupied that she even decided to eliminate her own children just for the sake of carnal pleasures. Yes, it was mere carnal pleasure as I deeply reject that a person (man or woman) can find 'true love' at age of 40 after three children. The murderous woman was 40 and had three children (her second daughter aged 12 escaped the mad wrath of her own mother since the poor child was at school).

Now before we look at the second report, let's just see how can this woman be punished by Indian legal system. With my limited knowledge of the Indian legal system, I guess she can be booked under attempt to murder (her own daughter, who is currently in hospital) and murder of her own 4 year old son and murder of her neighbouring woman. I do not think that she can be booked under having illicit relations with a person outside her matrimony. Why?

Two reasons. One, section 497 of IPC unambiguously and shamelessly excuses the woman of the charge of adultery. It says “...the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor”

The Indian legal system just does not punish a woman if she is found to be maintaining illicit relations outside her matrimony but has listed down the criteria for punishment for a man if he is found to be maintaining illicit relations with a woman outside matrimony. This also leads us to the second reason, which is that Indian legal system and the legislature is assinine.

Thus, the laws in India for protection of women are made with an assumption that all women are innocent. They just cannot do anyone any harm especially mental harm. Be it laws around domestic violence, 498a, or adultery it is the man who is at fault. Always.

Now, coming to the second report of the day, which as per me is somewhat hilarious. As per this report the National Commission of Women (NCW) is drafting a Bill of Rights. Before we look at the content it is to be noted that it does not specify whose rights. Since it does not specify whose rights, one can be led to believe that it is talking of Rights of all Indian citizens and if that be the case then why is NCW drafting it? Who is contributing in the draft on men's behalf, on behalf of kids, elderlies, handicapped and many other Indian citizens?

My half an hour search on the webiste of NCW did not throw up a single document that was called Bill of Rights but it had few other proposed bills and changes to existing bills. But going by the report, the next funny part is that there is a demand to make refusal of sex within marriage not a valid ground for seeking divorce. Now this is clearly an outcome of more than few judgements where wife's refusal for sex with the husband has facilitated the husband to seek divorce. The reasons I consider it funny is that while it is giving the wife a right to refuse sex, it is not talking of husband's right to refuse sex. This leads me to wonder if people who are drafting this think that the sex hormones exit only in men and women are impotent. It's only women who have “something” which they can refuse and husband shall be required to beg for it. It just reminds me of a quote on twitter by a woman which went something like this (addressed to womanfolk) “If your tears do not get you what you want depend on sex”. I took it as a joke then but I guess that lady was followed by some member(s) of NCW

At the same time I also find it pathetic and feel pity that such a draft is in a sense giving an impression that women indeed is a sex object. She has something which a man around her is after and she has a right to refuse it. Disgusting line of thinking this NCW carries with it, in fact.

My only suggestion to NCW will be on terms of reality. If they are indeed proposing such a stupid one sided right-of-refusal then also propose legality of prostitution else potential of sexual crimes could only see an increase.

Click HERE to see first report on the murderous wife; and

Click HERE to see the second report on NCW's nincompoop proposals