Talks of dowry are nothing new for Indians. No matters how much the percentage of literacy has been increased, or how much standards of living have been enhanced, such cursed cultural-religious ceremonial system of marriage remains in the realm of Indian marriages. The bride’s family pays a dowry to the groom to recognize that he will provide good life and security for his wife.
If someone personally asks to me, I have no problem regarding dowry. But I have sincere problems with marriage and society. Basically, dowry is no wrong if it is NOT taken as religious-cultural tradition, but taken as a legal contract. Breach of the contract will mean legal charges being filed against the breaker of that simple contract. For that marriage contract, the two partners, who surely can be lovers, will sit up with calmness to discuss their priorities, philosophical, political, social, individual preferences and patterns and will make a mutually beneficial marriage rules applicable for both of them equally. Obviously, that written document may or may not involve any monetary transactions, that is, dowry may or may not be a part of such free-willed marriage contract. Yet, the contract will be enforceable.
The breakage of simply defined rules for the couple by any of the party may and will lead to punishment (monetary or otherwise). It is freedom of both the girl and boys to keep up their desires regarding a happy married life and make their personal laws for the mutually beneficial relation between the two. The couple may/may not agree on varied subjects like allowance for polygamy or polyandry etc. let’s say a couple agrees for monoandrous and monogamous relation, i.e. for both the bride and groom, sex outside the marriage is unbearable. That is, two people married on mutual consent for monogamy/monoandry. After age 40, male felt he don’t want sex anymore.
Then there should be freedom for wife to take divorce and go for other man, but if the husband and wife agrees to remain in contract, and allow polyandry for wife, then there is no problem. But if wife cheats, than it is cheat and immorality, that is, polyandry/polygamy itself is not immoral, but if there is a contract for monoandry/monogamy and that contract is breached not by the mutual consent of the two parties engaged, but by cheating and fraud, then it is immoral and illegal, and that will be punished as breach of contract.
But in India, the marriage system is not contract based. And that is why dowry becomes a demon. There’s no legal responsibility of the husband to take good care of wife, while he can surely exploit the girl/wife for further demands of dowry by simply acting illegal. Anywhere and in any form, where there is no economic and social freedom for the individuals, the women suffers predominantly. The women will keep suffering the illegal and immoral acts of her dowry-demanding corrupt husband while he will keep breaking the generally presumed marriages law. Woman won’t oppose because of the fear of society, how the hell will she live if she leaves her coercive and exploiter husband? Living alone is such a curse for a woman you know, and what and how will she earn and eat? Will she again be an unwanted responsibility on her father’s/ brother’s shoulders? What will happen to her children etc, so many ill-reasons for a woman to keep suffering within the four walls of her imprisoning SASURAL! Obviously, woman will have to counter attack such societal moralities which forces her to accept the wrong and discourages her to use her individual rights. It is not like government or society hasn’t done anything for the women. There are various laws against dowry and domestic violence. But such laws are irrefutably redundant and on a reasonable basis, are wrong. They are redundant because irrespective of all such laws, the violence against women and the dowry-demands never stopped. They are unreasonable, because on legal formats, such laws create a difference between rights of men and women on gender basis, providing more and unbalanced legal powers to the women. Because of societal inequalities between the two genders, the genuinely needing women seldom (nearly never) get themselves in a position to use such laws and earn justice. While on other hand, some of the pretentious and cheater women irresponsibly use such laws to harass and exploit the male counterparts.
The ideal state would be equal and reasonable irrevocable rights and total freedom for citizens irrespective of their gender, class, creed, religion etc and non-interference of government, society, authority in individual freedom. < discussed here Liberty, Tolerance, Freedom of expression and Political Correctness!
In Ayn Rand’s words, “Evil requires the sanction of Victim!” it is the woman who can stop all the atrocities against womanhood. It is her individual strength and the inalienable rational rights which she acquires by virtue of her own rational faculty and not by the provision of any government or society which can and ultimately will prompt her to stand against any ill-defined tradition or cultural-religious based ill-practices.
A woman’s freedom is not dependent on the irrational reservation or governmental announced laws based on flawed basis. The freedom and enlightenment of womanhood is dependent only on the individual woman standing on her own against any ill any injustice of religion, society, community or state government. It is the woman alone, who can safeguard and void the evil victimizing her, and none else. And for that, obviously women will have to demand for her individual rights, she will have to stand alone. She will have to be the light!

Let us consider a just opposite situation. Let’s say it is not bride or her family who have to pay dowry, but it is the groom who has to pay dowry in order to get married to prove to the bride’s family that he will be a good provider. Will that change the situations of womanhood to any better state?
Obviously, the answer is a big NO. It won’t effect in the situation of women in the society. The example is the Thailand’s cultural/traditional system of “Sin Sod”, according to which, the male has to give dowry to prove that he can be a good provider for the bride. But, in absence of social and economical freedom, even that causes a curse to women. (Read more about Sin Sod here Thai Dowries Change with Time.
Obviously, I am not against this system too if individual rights and mutually consensual premises are enforced under free-will contract system.
Many westerners marries farm girls from NE of Thailand by paying good amount in Sin Sod, some of them even marries girls who have already worked in bars or prostitution rackets for the cause of poverty.
Mostly, girls are being sold there by their families irrespective of their consent or non-consent just for the cause of greed of money by the poor farmers. The girls may be minors too. Hence, it causes unwanted breakage of individual rights and exploitation of individuals who obviously are women, girls. Many Thai men just cannot marry because of lack of good amount for Sin Sod, again similar situations as in India. There also, the dowry system proves to be working ok at rich family cordons. But at middle class and poor class, same dowry system proves to be havoc. It simply shows that, until the woman herself won’t stand for her individual rights as an individual and not as a mere part of a family or community or sect or religion/tradition or country, she won’t get any justice, no matters what ever changes the cultural traditions may take place. There is only one way for freedom, and that way is the Individual’s will and strength to be free on the basis of reason!

http://couplewriters.blogspot.com/p/about-us.html

I am sorry if I sound repetitive. But the subject is so hilariously abrupt, that I just cannot avoid writing about it. Since last three days two of my closest friends kept stressing on dangers of global warming, and today I am writing it again.
It is not like I am against the fact that climate is changing. Climate do change, it is the basic property of climate. If climate wouldn’t have changed, could we have had any possibility of existence? Dinosaurs might not have let us thrive. Climate changed that’s why the mammals grew and spread all over, and we humans are one of the species who won the race of adaptation accordingly.
No matters what we do, climate will never stop changing. As we say in Hindi, “Parivartan Sansaar Ka Niyam Hai”, it is a natural rule of the climate and environment to keep changing, it is unavoidable.
So what should be done? Only that can be done which the human is constantly doing since the eons of his existence. That is, to keep adapting and winning over the climate, keep changing accordingly and use the climate and change most proficiently, exploiting the climate for the benefit of Human Kind. That is the reality which cannot be ignored.
Man can do nothing else.
Last month, a worldwide joke was staged by the hooligans of the global warming gang. On March 29, at evening, cities whole round the world put their lights and electricity off for a period of an hour, which they named Earth Hour. The basic concept was, to spread awareness about the dangers of global warming. Residential lights were shut off, even the great buildings like Sydney Opera House, remained dark for those 60 minutes.
Can you imagine life without electricity? It was organized to make public think how to reduce energy consumptions and hence carbon emissions, though the organizers accepted that the dark for an hour affected nothing on carbon emission. Every now and then, people shout that global warming is real and serious. The public discussion forums are full of heated debates on global warming; they keep using electricity for their fun for debating to prove that there is a catastrophe lurking around.It is genuinely disputable that any kind of planetary disaster is going to happen.
Such predictions have always been disputed, and will be done again and again, by various sober scientists skeptical of the global warming Myth.
Yet, the fact which is kept hidden by these propagandist of global warming is, if the greenhouse gases will be reduced to the limits they suggests, it will cause a greater harm by itself. Greenhouse gases are essential for life.
Now these politically motivated environmentalists demand for a huge reduction in carbon emissions, like about 75 percent below the 1990’s limits. What that means? Fossil fuels are the major resource of electrical energy, 86 percent of whole world energy in 2005 was produced by fossil fuels. So, to reduce it to 75% of 1990 levels, it needs to hugely reduce our energy utilization. Common people never realize what they mean actually. The fact is, we just cannot live without energy. We take it for granted, and never think of how much profit we gain from it and how dependent we are on it. we use cars, and bikes for going to schools and offices, we use gas for making food, we use air conditions , coolers, heaters, we use computers, laptops, fans, lifts elevators…every step of our life is dependent on electricity.
Can one live in Alaska or Siberia or Ohio or even London without heaters?
Can one live in Rajasthan, or Mumbai or Madhya Pradesh, or some part in Bangkok, Malaysia, or central Asia, or Africa without cooling systems?
People don’t realize what sacrifice these environmentalists “actually” demands from us, and thinks that by roping a tree in their garden or letting one bulb off they are doing great.
Nah, they are just getting befooled and bemused. By switching off light for an hour, while they always knew that after 60 minutes all will be same, they thought they saved earth. They thought so, because earth was never in danger. There is simply no catastrophe going to happen, it’s all myth. But consider this, if that earth Hour is extended to an earth day, or an Earth Month, or Earth year? That is, no electricity for a day, or a month or an year. No one will agree, because it’s useless. For an hour, it was like party time.
In reality, it is all political illusion created for the benefits of those politicians.
We just cannot live without energy, and for energy we need to exploit nature. If fossil fuel usage will be reduced for a degree, then nuclear electric plants will have to be implanted. Now how this nuclear electric plant came in existence? By technology, technology provided the alternative, not these environmentalists’ philosophers and politicians.
What are they demanding? They have no consideration about how our life with reduced electric consumption or without any electricity, what only they demand is to whip the middle class whole round the world and deny them electricity with their much demanded draconian laws on carbon-reduction, applying carbon taxes, absolute bans on further thermal power plants. Doesn’t it sound creepy?
Even today, electricity is not available in villages of India. So, will those villages remain always in dark and will never grow above the dark ages? Not only that, they even don’t want the middle class of cities to have facility of electricity.
It is a sure reality, that with all climate changes, Earth and Humanity has no danger, and not a single man on earth is going to die because of global warming Myth, but this is a bigger reality, that if these propagandists got success in their mad run, they will sure cause a catastrophe on earth by cutting carbon emission. Because to exploit resources, is essential for living. With those carbon and electricity taxes, what will remain in the hands of the poor and middle class whole round the world? Right from medical gynecologist operation theaters to morgues, we need electricity at every step, and every step there will further taxes and bans and loot. What they really want is to make us feel guilty of being alive, destroy our economy, destruct every hope and happiness we can cater, and deny the simple scientific facts for their own madness of political benefits.
Some people suggest that it’s the western propaganda against developing world. It is further nuisance; in fact, it is the major attack on developed nations and developing nations combined by the socialists/communistic crap, it is against freedom, it is against liberty, and it is against capitalism.
It is all a try to reduce the advancement of Humanity to the savage of dark ages again. They want to stop and cull the industrial revolution. They want to ban the producers, the hard workers, the innovators. They want to destroy the spirit of human to excel over environment and turn it for the favor of humanity, and that is the real danger.

Just few days ago, I and Susan were discussing about people so easily believing in all crap of Global Warming and Cold Era while they pronounce superstitions and theism as gullibility. And now, the Earth Day is coming again, the 22nd of April. Doesn’t it sound funny? Do they really believe that human as whole is any comparable force against nature?
Earth Day always approaches with a grave danger for the mankind. The danger is not from smog or acid rain or cutting of forests as the Environmentalists are constantly trying to indoctrinate us. The danger is Environmentalism itself. The principle of environmentalists is remains dubiously anti-human.
As a matter of fact, environmentalists are no better than the people crying for Ram and the Ram Setu without having any logical evidence of it to avoid the making of canal from southern India to SriLanka. The religionists’ uses religion and superstitions to avoid developing schemes and progress of society just for the sake of political favors and befooling people, same way, and environmentalism is also being used for political profits whole round the world.
They say that nature has intrinsic values to be revered for its well-being irrespective of any benefit for the human-kind. That is, man should be banned from using nature for his own ends. If nature has its own intrinsic value, then any try to change the environment is immoral. Now who can believe that shit? So, was it immoral of the cave men to get out of the caves and make huts for themselves? Or the discovery of fire was immoral or the agricultural initiation was immoral? This fake doctrine of Nature’s intrinsic value is never against a Tiger that eats deer or termites that ruins the woods and trees, the wrong is only man if he wants or extracts something from nature.
So what is the ideal world for an environmentalist? Certainly it is not the 21st century, it is the Neanderthal era with no human intervention in nature, a world without change or innovation, without manly effort for survival as it would be mystically guaranteed as human will mystically merge with environment. Now think about this, if the environmentalist’s mentality had been prevailed in 18th or 19th century would we have had any Industrial revolution? Yet, environmentalists might have cheered that situation. How could have they saved themselves without the benefits of modern science and technology? If Edward Jenner had got some influence of these creepy environmentalists and had denied experimenting on cows, would he had discovered Vaccination and cure for smallpox?
The question arises how and from where such ridiculous theme of environmental hazards due to human progress and other craps of Global Warming got its roots? Michael Crichton tries to explain it here in his Essay
The basic goal of environmentalists is to restrict men from changing the environment, as if man is some kind of devil. That is, environmentalism is basically anti-human. This is a well-known fact that for survival any living-being needs to exploit the environment. If that living being won’t exploit the nature, the other beings will exploit that being. Don’t use pesticides, and pests will not only eat up all agricultural products but the jungles too.
Only by exploitation can a being safeguard its life and project a long life with conscious goals. Obviously intrusion improves environment if environment means the external material conditions of human life. Isn’t it better that we live in well made house with air conditioned best technology appliances to help and ease us? Exploitation is a requirement of the mankind for survival. But environmentalists take nature as without man. Man has no righteous requisites, although trees, ponds, birds, fishes, fungi and bacteria certainly have rights according to environmentalists. If sharks won’t be controlled at shores, will they leave human without hurting them? No, they will exploit man and will eat it up. Every being exploit the nature and every other being is a part of nature for that being.
A consistent environmentalist Paul Taylor says “The ending of the human epoch on Earth,” in Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics, “would most likely be greeted with a hearty ‘Good riddance!’” In a glowing review of Bill McKibben’s The End of Nature, biologist David M. Graber writes (Los Angeles Times, October 29, 1989): “Human happiness [is] not as important as a wild and healthy planet . . . Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.” … This is the naked horrendous truth of environmentalism: it does shed tears at the death of one shark or tiger or tree but actually welcomes the demise of billions of populace. Can there be any more malevolent, anti-human, man-hating philosophy? The base line of environmentalism is sacrifice, Self-sacrifice, the sacrifice of elongated life-spans, healthier lives, more affluent lives, more pleasurable lives, overall, the sacrifice of humanity. But no individual is born in servitude, freedom is birth right. Every individual have moral right to live his life for his own sake. He has no duty to sacrifice his life or pleasure or affluence for the needs of others and certainly not for the non-human.
We must not let these environmentalists with disastrous motives against human kind to distract us from developing, progressing and gaining further pleasure, knowledge, technological advancement and essence of life.
George Clooney explains all this freakishness of environmentalists’ spree of “Save the Planet” exactly in this video

Watch It
Related Post::The catastrophe lovers want to return to Dark Ages