On saving Indian families

I am very glad that my browser was giving me trouble when I first heard about this post, because, although my immediate reaction was to tell Sumanth-ji to do things to himself that no 'radical feminist' would want to, (and no gay man either - since they're firmly rooted in the feminine ethos - which is the only ethos worthy of mother nature), I have done a rethink.

Truly, these radical feminists are all crazy.

The only good thing these feminists do is to burn the bra. The bra is a western invention, and Indian women should never wear western clothes.
In the good Indian tradition, women only wear a single six-yard long piece of cloth. I am convinced that that, and only that, is the proper way to dress. And petticoats!! Such a terrible invasion of culture... the very word is angrezi; our colonial masters with their damn victorian morals made our women wear petticoats and blouses.

And of course, they don't want our laws to change. Now, you and I, Sumanth-ji... we want laws to change. If I had my way with the law, the first thing I'd do would be to remove women altogether from the scope of the criminal procedure code.
Because we all know that according to the great Manu - who had such wonderful ideas about marriage and firmly put to rest all nonsensical speculation about love being a justification for marriage - had said that 'Dhol, Ganwaar, Shudra , Pashu, Naari , Yeh sab Taadan ke Adhikaari'.

Now, do we say that it is crime to beat a drum? Does anyone go to jail for kicking a dog, or even a Dalit, for that matter? Why then should weak, old, sick people go to jail for setting a bride or two afire?

All these people who complain about torture and harassment and 'kitchen accidents'... what do they know about culture and tradition? In Indian families, wives set themselves afire, willingly! Why punish old sick people who're just trying to save them the indignity of being widowed first, and then burnt.

Old, sick, weak people shouldn't go to jail, ji. They should be set up on a pedestal and worshipped for masterminding the growth of the family's economy. Now, just as we close down a 'sick' factory, just as we shoot a lame horse, so it is with the bahu - when she isn't quite being the cash cow she was meant to be. Besides, you can get a woman for less than the price of a cow or a buffalo.

Now, you just try and kill a cow! THAT would be criminal in a proper Indian family. If only these radicals wouldn't distract the law and let it focus on meritorious issues like anti-cow-slaughter legislation...

And oh, that business about adulterous daughters-in-law, since the Imrana case is only a socially fashionable issue and not representative of the real filth in Indian society, let's take a look at the 'real' filth in society: divorce... (tauba-tauba).

Have you heard of a worse thing than two people actually going their separate ways, just because they cannot be happy?

I mean, have you ever heard of something as ridiculous as being happy in marriage? Whoever got married to be happy? Good Indian families are based on the firm foundation of duty. It is our duty to suck all the individual joy out of each other's bosoms; to lay our many burdens on each others' shoulders and hey, the more burdens there are, the more shoulders we need, right?
Besides, what possible cause could anyone have to want a divorce, in India? If a daughter-in-law is unhappy, she should do her bahu-like duty by allowing dear father-in-law to get adulterous with her (that being not filth, but merely a socially fashionable non-issue).
And brothers-in-law might be added to the list as well. Akhir vansh jo aage badhaana hai, nahin sumanth-ji?

If the husband is unhappy, of course, he should just leave the stupid bahu at her maika. No divorce needed, ji. Better still, he could utilize her dowry to go abroad. When he has had enough of pleasuring himself elsewhere, he could always return and demand his wife back.

In fact, what are we talking about? Divorce? Divorce does not exist! There is no such thing as divorce, as good old Manu told us.

Come, people, let us all take a pledge to save the 'Indian family'.

There is that little problem of choice - so many types of Indians and marriages and families... we'd have to decide who is the most 'Indian' and therefore deserving of the honour of being upheld as THE Indian family.

Let's sort this out right now -

Single-parent families are out, of course.
The Pandavas were not a proper family. Kunti (the mother) was not an Indian mother at all. And we really must stop this bullshit worship of Radha. Radha was a properly married woman. She should be punished for lusting after a younger boy, not worshipped, for Krishna's sake!!

And what is this nonsense about Atal-ji's 'adopted' family. He's a single man, so how can he have a family?

And, why do they keep referring to that Nehru-Gandhi family as a family at all - it never seems to have all the ingredients that Indian families are supposed to have - widows never 'head' families, and if they do, it becomes a single-parent family! Besides, it cannot be traced back to Nehru, because vansh toh putra se hi chalta hai, bhai! Pity, Nehru-ji didn't have sex-selection technology at his disposal in those days...

But, what does one do about the Tribes?
All these savages - they actually claim to have divorce rites. Ever heard of anything as un-Indian as that?! Hmmm, I guess we can tackle them by 'mainstreaming' them all - cut down the forests; 'change' laws, to prevent them from working in the forests, force them to come down to cities and then, of course, all those savage un-Indian practices will automatically get taken care of.

But what do we do about the Muslims?
Oh wait! I forgot, the Muslims don't count as 'Indian'. They're outsiders and either they'll get thrown out or will have to accept the 'Indian' way of family-building (minus the offensive section 498 A, of course... even minorities have the right to seek dowry, and grow old and sick, unmolested)

And also (since divorce does not exist and polygamy is outlawed) either Rama or Lakshman must be considered illegitimate - Dashrath couldn't be allowed three LEGAL wives, could he? Oh, he can? The mere mention (in 'Indian' texts) of Polygamy is enough, is it?
Aaah, and so is Polyandry (Draupadi-pratha) Indian, then... like, wow!!

You know, I'm liking the sound of this Indian family more and more - first, I get to have a swayamvara - so all the men who want me have to line up and get looked over. I'll check them out and set all sorts of impossible conditions for them to fulfil. Then, I pick one. Or five.
Depends on what's on offer.

I get to pick the brainiest, the brawniest, the most skilled, the sweetest and handsomest AND maybe twins, (just for variety). And I get to keep them all, and they have pay for me and fight wars for me and kill their family members, if they insult me... and they do this for ever and ever, because... divorce, you see, does not exist!

[Psst! What the hell were all you radical feminists thinking of, all this time?]