The trading of women No infrastructure for the poor

The abuse from the do-gooders What the do-gooders aim at

Corresponding changes in other Acts required

A conspicuous absence

Now, let us look at the features of the so-called do-gooders. They are people who turn a blind eye to the total problems of this nation. The feudal vernaculars that despoil both men and women. The lack of social security for anyone who is not a government employee. Pension is there only for the government employees. In English nations, it is there for everyone, who is financially weak. Low quality police personnel.

Judiciary is more or less a namesake, incapable of doing anything other than lip service, to all terrible things done by the government on the people. Police harass and beat up the people; they torment women; in the guise of stopping prostitution, they are given the right to take over the womenfolk for their own private entertainment. In all these things, the courts have been unable to do anything.

The trading of women: In Bombay, women from other places are lured, tricked, trapped and sold into brothels. No one, including the chatterbox media even mentions all this.

No infrastructure for the poor: There are no homeless shelters, and no safe place for a woman to reside outside her house, if she is on a fight with her husband. English education that can improve the quality of both men and women is actively denied. For, it gives the creeps to the do-gooders. For then, they lose their power of dominance over others. Women can manage things on their own if they have the capability, English knowledge and an English social environment. In the vernaculars, the women folk can be dominated by these so-called do-gooders.

The abuse from the do-gooders: The lower level indicant words such as that in You, She, Her, Hers etc. are the right of the husband to use to his wife. Not for these do-gooders to use. When they use it, they are also being abusive, snubbing, dominating, and more or less, oppressive. To all these things, they simply close their eyes and ears.

Without working for arranging such formal infrastructures like homeless shelters for the poor, social security for the financially weak, and proper English education for the common man, these self proclaimed do-gooders barge into sacred arenas in the guise of all-knowing entities, when actually they should first right the wrong they are doing in their own homes.

The do-gooders do not promote the idea that the family unit consisting of the husband, wife and children is the basic unit of society. That this sacred unit should not be fiddled with by outsiders, with the causal idea of disintegrating it. That is, the wife should not be persuaded to side with these outsiders who come in the guise of do-gooders. They have no great responsibility for the future of the family which would get disintegrated by their biased, prejudiced and self-righteous intrusion.

What the do-gooders aim at: There are many things that the wife should know about do-gooders. They are persons who are desperately trying to establish a social leadership for themselves. Once these persons are allowed inside the privacy of the household, they practically control events and persons. Even the wife, who went to them, will find that once she is in their clutch, it is not possible to extricate herself out.

It is like in the case of my parent. I had once seen her asking the police to apprehend a husband. When the police officer said that he was not currently residing with their limits of authority, she asked them to call the police station of that area and have him arrested. Now, what would happen was that once the husband is taken by the police, they will verbally abuse him, and possibly beat him also. That would more or less extinguish any chance of a restoration of the affection between the husband and wife. Once this takes place, the female is literally in my parent’s possession. For her husband wouldn’t come near her, for causing him the most terrible of events to happen to him; that of being apprehended by the Indian police. Her children also would later come to view her with disdain and disaffection for being the cause of disgrace and disparagement of their father.

Now, this is what the wife should understand about Indian do-gooders. They wouldn’t keep the wife in a pedestal of respect. For them, she would be a lower indicant case ‘She’, ‘Her’, ‘Hers’ and other equally disparaging words for ‘female.’

In India, there is a sly code of treachery that runs down the social communication. What should be done by the wife is to support the husband. If he is a no good guy or someone with whom she doesn’t want to live with, then divorce is the best.

Corresponding changes in other Acts required: Yet, divorce is not easy. The mediocre drafters of statutory laws have made that also a very difficult thing. When a terrible Act like the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is passed, there should be a corresponding change in the divorce rules also. If a marriage is going through the rough road of the husband being violent towards his wife, then it clearly means that he does not want the woman to be his wife. Why then force him to continue the legal relationship that would lead him to jail. It is his right to extricate himself from a relationship that is dangerous to him, in all sense of the word.

Yet, look at Section 32 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act: The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law, for the time being in force. Even though this statement seems quite scholarly, the fact is that it is idiotic. If this Act is to be implemented, then it shall have to question the provision of the laws concerning divorce.

Again the wife should take into consideration what the various interests of such persons as her parents, his parents, her uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, cousins and of his similar persons are, when they advice her to revolt against her husband. They want a docile person to be her husband, who would listen to them. Yet, her husband is under no compulsion to be their handyman. This is a basic understanding the wife should bear when acrimonious charges are brought against her husband. The moment she marries, she is aligned to him. That is the basic tenet of marriage. See what Macaulay has said about his own sister’s marriage.

If the alliance is going to a bitter side, without the intrusion of outsiders, then they are not fit for each other.

A conspicuous absence: When looking at the law, there is one thing quite conspicuous by its absence. There is no reference or mention of seeking out what or who is creating the problem, that results in the husband being angry with the wife and the wife with her husband. It is like looking at video clip, in which one sees a man furiously beating another man. When seeking to punish this man, it would be only correct to find out what is must have been there in the video part just before the shown clip. For, what provoked the other man to beat, in the first place? Beating without any provocation would not be logical in the material world of events. Was he under any attack?

Judiciary that does not take the background of the acrimonious action into consideration when passing judgment, is just being quite naïve and unintelligent, to say the least. In a nation, where provocations are everywhere, and where only power can contain it, one should seek to find out why otherwise composed men go berserk.