The Online Bihartimes has been playing a remarkable role by publishing readers’ opinions in the form of articles and commentaries on Bihar related issues in particulars and India’s in general. This Forum gives an ideal opportunity to readers to discuss issues and exchange views so that a right approach to the issue can be applied. Open discussion and free views expression are strongest tolls for correct decision-making.
We enjoy some time our rights too deep to remember the norms and discipline of freedom of expression. I take the comments of Mr. Khan openheartedly and with pleasure. I am pleased that he has given me an opportunity to further discuss the issue and to address the concerns. People generally fail to understand things, which bad effects are felt in the long run as its immediate seemingly temporal good results cover it. There are many examples of that. A man fills up his stomach due the deliciousness of foods but its bad effects can be felt later, which may result in the stomach disorder. If such activity continues, chance of multiple diseases development like cholesterol, acidity, blood sugar, blood pressure increases. Further, it reduces the life expectancy.
Secondly, many actions fail to rectify a situation because it develops in the society too slow to understand its causes. Sometime we understand it but we hesitate to address it as it has already deep-rooted in the society and people are accustomed of it. We also sometime hesitate to address it as it has developed due to our wrong policy taken years back.
Mr. Khan should clear himself that man and woman are not equal in creation. Hence, if we apply our science without understanding the Creator’s science we can do many mistakes. May I ask him only one question before attending to his concerns, that will he accept to see his mother and sister taking hardship to go for work to feed their children/husbands while the father or brother-in-laws are sitting idle? If he says yes, then I cannot say but to pray for his guidance. If he says both of them should work, then he should know that many Indian fathers and brothers-in-laws are jobless to feed their children and wives. Many have been waiting to become fathers and brothers-in-laws but the unemployment is a big hindrance for them. Is it not immoral (it may be some time Haram depending on the situation) if a mother or a sister occupies a job that should go first to a father or a brother-in-laws?
Mr. Khan also lacks the knowledge of his own religion, Islam. In no case, a mother will be asked to feed her children. If a father dies, such responsibility goes to the grandfather. In the absence of the grandfather it goes to the uncle (brother of the father), in his absence it goes to the elder brother of the children. In all their absence, it goes to the ruler or his representative. If somebody comes forward to help them they are most welcome and their actions will be appreciated.
In India, many poor women are working as house maids / cleaners, etc. Most of them working because their husbands are lazy, i.e., not going for work. Some husbands are going but spent their earnings in evil activities and intoxicant. In such situation, mothers cannot see dying themselves and their children of hunger. Hence, they are compelled to go out for money.
Women have not been prohibited from working but at the same time, they have not been made responsible to feed their husbands and children. Option for women to work kept open as they might be, in certain situations, in need of money to support the family. One of the examples is women working as house-maids mentioned above. A husband can also ask his wife to support him in his business, if he cannot afford to hire a man to support him.
As for the general education, women must be given same opportunity to have it as they, being mothers, can play better roll in bring up the children who can then build a society full of moral values. As for job-oriented education, it should go first to men.
When the deprivation is experienced, the necessity of reservation is felt. A society built on equality and justice has no place for deprivation. A job for men is necessity while it is optional for women. If the necessity is ignored, the essence of the pleasant society will be lost.
Women should be given jobs but not at the cost of men and not at the expense of losing their decency and modesty. Keeping view of the above identification of places for women to work can be easily made.
There is no doubt that there is huge gap in education among women between lower and upper castesl. Sole reason for this bill is to deprive lower caste candidates in elections. Intend is to reverse gain made by SC/ST/OBCs in electoral politics.
If Congress and BJP is so caring about women representation then why don't they give them enough ticket in elections?
First of all, Mr. Gheyas Hashmi needs to check what he says, "If such bill is passed, the employment among men will increase." The height of nonsense in the article is: "Before doing such things let us be clear about who is "bread-earner". Of course, no one can say that they are "Women". Perhaps Mr. Gheyas either pretends of not knowing or tries to deliberately putting an information, which is not only illogical but also lacks facts and figures drawn out of research. His notion is purely based on self-created perception.
Can the author provide me any example – either from religious texts or secular writings –to support his assertion that "they have not been created to work in place of men?"
Perhaps the author does not have the least idea about the hundreds of thousands of poor women working as household maids, say for example, whose husbands are drunkard and criminals or those whose husbands have deserted or divorced them.
Can Mr. Gheyas tell me what are "certain originations and departments where their requirements are felt better than men can be employed?" I can only deplore the prediction that the author, while aping Nostradamus, says: "
If women are unemployed at the cost of men, there will be a chaos and disorder in the society."
The author shows complete lack of respect for woman and her identity and does not like to see woman stand with honour. In his mind, women are only meant for marriage and if the wedlock is affected, it is due to women, not men.
I request the editor better not to give space to such wayward thoughts.
M Shamsur Rabb Khan
I do not subscribe the ideas of this story. I think there should be reservation for women’s but not in the form of current bill introduced in the Parliament. Its fact that the level of education in women in weaker society viz; schedule cast & schedule tribes, minorities and other backward communities is very very low. So this 33% reserved seats will be taken over by the women of forward class only. Forward class wants to keep their dominance and superiority in the guise of women reservation bill. There should be reservation for women of weaker section of societies under this 33% reservation for women.