Maneka’s violent men

Violent Maneka

Maneka Gandhi’s recent comment that ‘All’ violence is male generated stirred a controversy in circles nowadays. We could find out what went inside her mind when she concluded this.

She had studied our mythology and history and concluded the same. For instance, in Ramayana, we find that Shri Rama Chandra married mother Sita but King Dasaratha has sent them to exile in a forest. Even though Sita did have a choice to stay back in the palace but giving an order of separating her from her wedded husband was a plot to instigate violence against her. Feminists like Maneka see possible sexual violence plot (depriving her of her conjugal rights) against Sita here. It is different that Manthara and Kaikeyi were the two who originally planned this exile but Dasaratha was the in power and finally ordered the exile. Now feminists can’t be blamed if men are weak under their pants. So how can they see anyone other than a man initiating violence?

Now come to the case of Lakshmana, the brother of Lord Rama. For no fault of his wife he had deserted his wife Urmila and went to exile even though it was not ordered by the king. It was another forceful violence by Lakshman on Urmila as he denied her conjugal rights.

Ironically some men see Kaikeyi and Manthara behind these violence that Maneka Gandhi can never understand.

Even consider why the war between Shri Rama Chandra and Ravana started.

Shurpanakha, the sister of Ravana only proposed to Lakshmana, it was a proposal for love, but Lakshmana had slashed her nose, that resulted in Ravana taking revenge and abducting mother Sita. So Lakshmana started a bigger violence. However, some critics point out that it was Shurpanakha who initiated violence by stalking Lakshmana in the forest. But Maneka can’t understand that argument because she is Women and Child minister and used to listening to only women’s side of the story (or may be animals’).

Now consider the modern day India and consider cases like Rohtak Sisters and Jasleen Kaur. MRAs have been very vocal against these cases and they might think that these two cases proved that violence is women generated at times. But both these cases actually prove otherwise as Maneka can see them–

Maneka sees that in Rohtak Sisters’ case, the three men started the fight as they spoke about the right of an elderly woman. This was done at a time when all woman related matters were supposed to handled by the WCD ministry run by Maneka. The elderly woman in the bus could have brought the matter to the notice of the WCD ministry for redressal. But the men wanted to save the woman from distress and hence created mental violence against the sisters. To Maneka this is again a result of patriarchy as men are not adhering to the supremacy of a ministry run by a woman. Men need to take cues from such incidents and refer such matters to WCD ministry next time they happen.

Similarly in Jasleen Kaur case, the very fact that Jasleen was asked to regulate traffic by male dominated Delhi’s traffic department itself shows that those men were originators of violence. Maneka could see two way violence there. One, violence by making Jasleen stand in the middle of a busy and dangerous road for long hours and second by forcing her take a snap for publicity. In fact, Maneka may also consider giving Jasleen bravery award like her Dept had done for Rohtak Sisters. The very fact that Jasleen could take a snap in the middle of a busy road itself was bravery.

But unfortunately many in India do not understand these path breaking logic by the Indian minister. Some are saying that she needed to be punished for her comments and that the ministry itself needs to be closed for spreading hatred against 50% of the population (men) and violating Indian constitution.

Some are wondering that if the leader of women in this country is any representation of the condition of women in the country, then they definitely need rehabilitation, probably to a different planet.


Like this article! Follow this blog for more such humaar.