270923 Women's Reservation Bill wrt Women's Votes

 Women's Voting Rights In Elections

    My little girl asked me a question last night about why women were not allowed to vote in the begini8ng years of the previous century. This was my reply:

    Right from the ancient times, Indian (and therefore the Aryan) method of united living was to involve all the households in the process of decision making. This was done through the Panchayat system. There the elders of the household gathered to formulate laws, policies and plans and the decisions were executed through the elders onto each household. Earlier, the elders were free to gather together for such long and intriguing discussions while the younger people went about their day-to-day work. Then, there was need for some critical decisions to be adopted only as per confirmed majority of the households to be willing to get involved in it (e.g. engaging into a war, adopting some Uniform Civil Code, etc.) because with a large number of households not getting involved would mean an alarming loss of power and increased risk of loss. So, the presence of every household and their consequent vote became the mode of social decision making. Here too, the focus was to garner support and involvement of each household.

    But then this system  was considered inappropriate as some families contributed one head for one male adult in the family, some contributed five heads for five male adults in the family and some others contributed only one head for five male adults in the family. So unevenness was unpalatable in mutual relations and even though the elders were good enough to keep the family and the society together, incidents do happen (these happened for Lord Rama as well). So the next development was to involve all adult male as voters and the accumulated votes would stand up for the cause if required. Hence the system of voting by all adult males was promulgated as the standard form for all issues. The ladies were not required to stand up in public as it was mutually understood by one and all that the 'ardhangini' (the wife) would join with the husband in all deeds and therefore not required to be explained the pros and cons of each case and vote after understanding these and thinking about her family situation with  respect to these matters. Similarly, unwed adult females (which were normally nil) were also not burdened to participate. Single widows were not bothered as well. So, in those times, women's voting was not required at all.

    These necessities were acutely required in the Western World and especially in the US when the war ravaged countries with lots of widows and single married/unmarried adult working/non-working females to take care of were required to involve women into the voting system and into the Government so that they could voice their difficulties and dangers straight to the Government and to their Societies in their Countries. Thus came up the issue of allowing women into elections both as a Candidate as well as a Voter.

    So, in modern times, all democratic methods require women to vote as well as permit women to contest in the elections.       

    I hope the historians and the lawmakers would approve my views. However, any contradictory comment are welcome as well.   IPYadav

200923 Women's Reservation Bill

 Women's Reservation Bill 

    Yesterday, the new 'Sansad Bhavan' was put into service and as a mark of first issue, to make it a first successful issue, the PM Modi took up the issue of Women's Reservation Bill. I had commented on this issue before also and I would reiterate the same here, i.e. this kind of reservation, and that too for one-third of the seats is totally wrong. Firstly, India is a Male dominated household society and very often males are  doing all the work, so it's unconstitutional to curb their setup and put their females into command and control, and secondly, females can be easily victimized at all levels and any and all the issues can be manipulated to suit one's own purpose. We have seen voluminous misuses of this kind in the past and now is the time matters are to be rectified and controlled.   IPYadav

      More about it in a few days .....

180923 Row Over Threat To Sanaatan Dharm

 180923 Row Over Threat To Sanaatan Dharm 

    When the threat to finish the Sanaatan Dharm was proclaimed, I was wondering as to what was secretly meant in such a proclamation. So, herein, I will present my various viewpoints to my readers and leave the issue to my readers to decide.

    First and foremost thought was about a cyberspace talk about Bhagwaan (the God) and Bhagwaa (the bhagwa colored cloths). Theoretically, as per study of Hindi Vocabulary, if we look keenly on the spelling of these two words (Bhagwaan and Bhawaa) these are like antonyms i.e. meaning oppositely to each other. Then what is the essence of these two words which are like founding stones of Hinduism (the God Himself and the sacred color cloth itself). How can these oppose each other? Is it that the various sects of Hinduism (like those groups worshipping Brahma, Vishnu, Shiv, Matarani, Ram, Krishna, Devraj Indra, etc.) has got some relation to the coining of these opposing sensed words? Just while these thoughts were flowing through, the very next day came the proclamation. So does it (the proclamation) has got some relation to the ancient feuds of Hinduism?

    Second thought was about the recent political events all over the world. The powers of 'Adharma' (evil) are taking a beating all over the world and hence the followers of such black powers are highly anxious and perturbed. So in a vicious attempt to fightback, they could have caused such proclamation to call and raise their people to fight the powers of 'dharma' (good will). For this they could have generated the command at their power center and promulgated it to their followers all over the world and since India is at the center of their feud with the powers of 'Good', such a command and mission has burst out over here. This means the sectarian clans of the South India as well as the separatist forces like the Tamil Rebels could involved and be activated. Does it mean that the demolition of 'paid fighters' in Ukraine is falling out upon India because they could be thinking it to be an easy meat and a hefty meat to rebuild themselves! We sure should be alarmed and be prepared just in case if it is so.

    Thus I was myself confused and eager to see how it unfolds but nothing happened except that a lot of hue and cry is going on about such comments. Then, I have come to consider a third point of view which is also a dangerous trend. This is to divide the country into two groups - the upper caste Hindus who are would identify themselves as 'Sanaatan Hindus' and the others who would include the lower caste Hindus, the 'baahari log (the outsiders or offspring of invaders) as well as the opportunistic and sectarian Indians (looking for better future with the enemies of Indians). Naturally, the first type would run to the BJP and it's allies and bolster it's leaders (10 years of their rule hasn't brought 'achhe din' yet for Bharat Mata or Yoyo Group or the 'Indian Raj' Group) (on the contrary, a lot of bad has been done, and if I am thinking right, then their top leaders are in it too). (So,) For me, all their Governmental works, policies, plans, etc. remain suspended and subject to review classifying each leader's and Section's works separately and the effect of Controls in their works. Surprisingly, when I started using 'Bharat Mata ki Jaya' in my (last two) blogs, the PM has enforced an instant name change from India to Bharat in the G20 Summit. And maybe he left India to the second type who would collectively form I.N.D.I.A. These second type were always with the Ruling Party i.e. the Congress and never surrendered their 'Ruling Party entity' to the 'Swaraj'. So 'Swaraj' remained a far cry and the opportunistic BJP leaders grabbed the Rule for themselves. This seems  to be the story of 'Swaraj, Achhe din, Yoyo, IndianRaj, Raja Hindustaani, etc., etc. So, if India bifurcates into these two types and under the rule of these leaders, the cases of 'Swaraj, Achhe din, Yoyo, IndianRaj, Raja Hindustaani, etc., etc. would become lost. Does it mean that these two Parties are bifurcating India (previously it was hindustaan and pakisthaan; now it seems to be bhaarat and i.n.d.i.a.) and each party's leaders are downplaying Indian Raj (no native monarchs are into the leadership fray! where is their Monarchy? where is 'Swaraj'?), and which means that they are conducting Foreign Rule, can it mean that they may divide into two parts the North going to BJP leaders and the South going to the Congress leaders (and people of the second type!) Wouldn't it be a dangerous trend?

    Such a trend was always there there when the South always supported the Nehru and Gandhi family (so called Ruling family) and Congress but had their own Party and their own Rule and the ruling ways. South was always segregated in all fields and worked differently. It seems they have dislodged the Gandhi family and worked out their settings with the BJP leaders to continue to divide India and Rule over India. So every now and then, rows about Aurangzeb, Hanuman, Sanaatan, Nooh, Mathura, etc. keep popping up like pop up screens on the laptop and churn up heated debates and mindsets of these segregations. So we are deprived of our fortune of 'Swaraj' and 'Foreign Rule' is dividing Indians and thrust it's clutches to cut out small parts for themselves as their offspring's territories just as they did for Pakistan and Bangladesh. 

    We are into the 21st century and freedom, fundamental rights, equality, United Nations, ICJ, etc. are the norms of living but reality speaks something else. Realities are debt traps, Corona Virus, Black-White feuds, brotherhoods across the borders, NATO / Russia alliance, corruptions and impeachments, computerized sectarian controls, forced deprivations and manipulations, economic assault, etc. and add to it our local Hindu-Muslim, North-South, natives-externals, Gandhis-Modis, etc. They keep playing their cards like it's their game to play and 'Swaraj' was their stumble stone which they cunningly devised to hide from the Indians and instead grabbed hold onto the rule by hook or by crook and scattered us helter-skelter to Rule over us. We cannot let this happen to our ages old India and whether it's BJP or it's Congress, we should demand for 'Swaraj' and our own 'Monarch(s)'. Let them take the seat , show their face and lead the country instead of any 'Tom, Dick and Harrys' running India through Internet screens.   IPYadav