A culture is the manner of doing things individually, or in an organized manner as a group, which the majority of populace in a particular group adheres with and accepts.
So, culture can be characterized as individual culture, or as organized culture. Yet often, the Individual culture becomes insignificant against the organized culture of the group or society, and when an individual pertains and adheres with his individual approach and manner of doing things, his manner or culture is testified by categorizing him/her or his/her acts as cultured or uncultured. That makes the individual culture insignificant and the individual becomes either a cultured (skilled) person or uncultured (unsophisticated) person.
Socio-political culture of a society represents the methodical organized activities of a society people as a group, which pertains, with the development of socio-political scenario of that society in a particular time period. The noticeable thing is, culture is not a fixed absolute truth, and it keeps changing from time to time. Culture is a dynamic flux where the aspirations of the individuals of the society and the values of the community clashes with each other, providing a middle path of change satisfying both the aspirations and value premises of the youth members and the veterans of a culture. The noticeable fact of this flux is aspirations of the youth or new members often wins over the value premises of old and that brings about a change in outlook of the society and its values.
Indian culture is a vast and historic flux that is evolving, distorting, and reshaping itself searching for the freedom, equality and justice, since the start of the time. Yet, in the making of Modern India, the first genuine effort to unite the Indian sub-continent as a nation to express a dignified culture took place during the evolution of Maurya Empire. Chandragupta Maurya was the founder of the Maurya Empire. He succeeded in bringing together most of the Indian subcontinent, and that is why he was the first genuine unifier and emperor of India.
After the invasion of Alexander on India, Chanakya, the economic-political scholar and teacher of that era, roused as the individual power to bring upon an empire, which could defend India against any further invasion from any foreign power. He overthrew the vast Nand Empire with the help of Chandra Gupta and cultivated a new empire controlling the Indian borders and safeguarding them. Chanakya was more known to be an economic liberal and a liberty-lover who denounced all excessive taxation system of Nand Empire and established new norms. According to Chanakya,

“Taxation should not be a painful process for the people. There should be leniency and caution while deciding the tax structure. Ideally, governments should collect taxes like a honeybee, which sucks just the right amount of honey from the flower so that both can survive. Taxes should be collected in small and not in large proportions”.

Chanakya was a firm believer of self-sustenance and individual rights and the virtue of selfishness.
In Garuda Purana, Chanakya signifies the importance of money and the value money inherits—

1.7: Put aside some wealth in case of future difficulties. Never ask, “Why should a rich man dread hard times?” If Lakshmi, the Goddess of Fortune, decides to go elsewhere, even your savings will dwindle. Chanakya, Garuda Purana

Later on he says about wealth and richness –

5.20. Wealth, which represents Her in this world, never stops moving from one hand to the next. Whenever a clever man becomes rich, others lay schemes for plunder—banks through exorbitant interest rates, governments through constant and excessive taxation, thieves through extortion and common citizens through lawsuits—all conspire to reduce a rich man’s accumulated wealth to zero. Chanakya, Garuda Purana.

It is observable, that with the stability in political culture, Maurya Empire brought-forth a need for Individual liberty and economic freedom too. Yet, the era was feudalistic and Chandra Gupta Maurya established the empire by dethroning and killing Nand Vansh.
The blood-shedding of feudal structure kept Indian plains blood red and Ashoka, the greatest of Indian Emperors followed the same gory culture and killed his own brothers to gain the empire. Yet, historical evidences interprets that Ashoka was the most successful, benevolent and popular emperor.
The kingdom and serfdom continued to rule the Indian sub-continent, struggling within them-selves, involving in bloody wars and fights, and as the organized culture of unity deteriorated, Indian sub-continent again faced foreign invaders in form of Ghauris, Qutubs, and Mughals.
Babar established the Mughal Empire, and Akbar, the grandson of Babar, proved himself as the most significant ruler of Mughal Empire. He again unified India and brought about some major socio-political and religious changes. Yet, because of the similar drawbacks of feudal system and inter-contradictions and fractions, Mughal Empire lost its control and British Empire took hold of India. Indian public was used to the imperialism and serfdom, yet the kings and rulers of India revolted against the British rule, and the first Independence struggle was staged in 1857. The basic change that struggle brought forth was the sense of common citizen of India, to be a vibrant and important part of India. After 100′s of years, the society was now taking a unified facet with a charm of equal responsibility. Yet, this dream of liberty was only against the foreign rulers. In 1857, the common citizenry was still ready to accept the national kingdom of Mughals or some Indian Kingdom again.
Yet the times were changing and it took a little time from a drastic change in socio-political culture of India from that point of time of 1857. Indians rouse against any sort of rulers and kingdom. Obviously, the intellectual touching from foreign world and Indian intellectuals drive towards the reasonability of individual freedom and the democracy strengthened in India. With the establishment of Indian National Congress under the headship of Indian Industrialist Dadabhai Naoroji and veteran leaders like Gangadhar Tilak, feudalism was destined to end in India.
Yet, on the name of Liberty, the national leaders were seeking for political liberty of Indians, and in 1947, Indians did achieved the political freedom with establishment of democratic India. Democracy provided a certain degree of freedom but the battle didn’t ended there. Democracy, being the rule of majority over minority, providing ruling powers to certain class of rulers belonging to politicians, never let the Indians to strive and aspire for Individual freedom. The Organized culture continued to defeat the Individual strides and demeaning the individual culture as “Unsophisticated”. Yet, the aspirations are meant to defeat the outdated values.
Until 1991, Indian government kept a closed organized culture of socialism, unjustified egalitarianism, and governmental indoctrinations. The economic meltdown of 1992 brought forth a further economic-socio-political change and India opted for liberalization of economy. The flux is under constant change, and it is not very far in future when Indian society will start emphasizing the Individual Culture, the culture of freedom, liberty and individual rights over the organized culture. It is a positive evolution, a story of evolving changes in the society merging from socio-political clutches of serfdom to the individualistic aspirations of freedom, self-reliance and Individual rights based on economic freedom as enshrined property rights and culture of Individual voluntarism.

In India, even supporting the idea of owning a gun is an exception, thanks to the ideas of Gandhi and Ahimsa.
No wonder all forgot Subhash Chandra Bose, Bhagat Singh, Rani Lakshmi Bai, Kunwar Singh and many more.
After the mutiny of 1857, the British lords were trying to ensure every step to avoid any further revolt by Indians against the oppressive foreign government. One of the steps was to improve British Army and restructuring the administration and strengthening the ways of communication and transportation. On the other hand, British were also engaged in disarming Indians completely and destroying the local firearm production completely to avoid any further chances of mutiny.
It was during that time when Lord Lytton as Viceroy (1874 -1880) proposed the Indian Arms Act in 1878. The Indian Arms Act exempted British and ruled that an Indian could hold a weapon “only if” the British masters considers and declares him a “Loyal” servant.
The idea of importance of disarming the public was not new and James Burgh exclaimed it in 18th century as—

“No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.” –James Burgh (Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses) [1774-1775]

Although Indians always respected the ideals of Ahimsa, and regarded Gandhi as the Mahatma, but what were Gandhi’s own views about the Gun-Control?
Gandhi criticized the Gun-Control law vehemently and said—

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.” — Mahatma Gandhi (An Autobiography OR The story of my experiments with truth, by M.K. Gandhi, p.238)

British had a reason to oppose freedom of Indians to own a gun, an instrument for self-defense, but after the Independence, it was well-sought by the Indians that such ridiculous and anti-freedom act will be removed as soon as possible.
India got independence in 1947, yet it took almost 12 years to repeal the Indian-Arms-Act. In 1959, free Indian government denounced the Indian Arms Act of 1878 and enacted the Arms Act of 1959. Nevertheless, India was still struggling with the distrust of government against its own people. The Indian Government started License-Raj and the legislation gave enormous powers to the Licensing Authority to decide whether a common honest law abiding citizen can hold a gun or not.
It was the era of communistic impressions on India

“A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.” — Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

As all other departments, government strictly controlled the arms production and private arms manufacturing industry completely.
Obviously, it was all done to reduce the ongoing dangers of secession at Kashmir, Punjab, Assam, Mizoram and Nagaland borders, and to decrease the dangers of Naxalism.
However, during the mid 1980′s the government put an end to all small arms import because of the rising dangers of terrorism and seized the little freedom for private arms manufacturing units.
Government never considered that not a single terrorist or criminal ever used a licensed arm; still it made owning an arm legally near to impossible. Thus, the honest law abiding citizen was disarmed completely.
On the other hand, the black market of illegal arms started flourishing in every next city of India and crime kept increasing continuously.
It is a fact that licensed arms are far less dangerous than motorcycles or city buses.
It is also a fact that Gun-Control provides a certainty to the criminal that the victim, who mostly is an honest law-abiding citizen, is unarmed. The situation goes as-
Less guns, more crimes.
Most violent crimes, including the terrorist attacks and religious riots are committed using illegal arms and there is no way to trace and stop the illegal arms trade. Terrorists or underworld criminals are not going to respect gun-control laws, they seldom respects any law. They will be willing to gain any arms of their choice and will use them to commit crimes. Government always ignored the fact that in India it is much easier and cheaper to buy an illegal weapon than to own a legal weapon, and why will a criminal or terrorist try to get a legal weapon? Legal weapon are for self-defence by the law-abiding citizens only, and government makes them rare, government makes it impossible for the honest citizen to defend himself against the criminals.
Who can oppose owning a gun for self-defence? Who can oppose the right to self-defence?

“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” — The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

Was it possible for the rioting mob of Aligarh and Bhopal in 1993 to kill those hundreds of innocent if they had a gun, an instrument for their self-defence? Was Godhra riot or Best Bakery massacre, or Mumbai Riots or Golden temple Massacre possible if the common law-abiding citizen had a chance to defend himself?
We say our sisters and mothers to learn martial arts to defend themselves against the rapists and women haters. How would a rapist be able to abduct a working girl while returning from her work to rape her if he knows she owns a gun for her self-defense? At present, he knows she has no way to defend herself, her cries will not be strong enough to call back some cop to defend her and he attacks the girls freely, but what if he comes to realize that she can shoot him pretty well.
When a person owns a gun, he becomes godlike with special powers to harm and attack others. When a person owns a bike, he becomes godlike to run faster than the air. Do all bike owners commits accidents and kill people on roads through rash driving? So yes, it may be a case that some people may abuse the gun-power but mostly owning a gun makes a person responsible and careful enough to use it properly. Can anyone deny that despite of all dangers of road accidents, bikes, cars, and mopeds are a necessary need and a modern power as bless of god for the common man? A legal gun will be just another power for the honest citizen against the criminals to defend self.
Arms are free for the criminals and terrorists. Crimes and riots are free for the criminals and evil doers. However, when the evil-doers and criminals know it with certainty that the honest law-abiding citizen is defenseless; they become more audacious and adamant. If the Law-Abiding citizen owns the guns, the power to defend themselves against any sort of riots or crimes, it is clear that no or very few will even think and try to create any riot on the name of religion or caste.
Some people wonder on the removal of gun-control, will the violence increase abruptly.
Guns are not necessary for killing and domestic violence is already up. Nevertheless, if the physical weakness of women against the violent male is counter equated by the ownership of gun by a woman, it will certainly reduce the chances of domestic violence.
As a matter of fact, Indian Laws or so much strict that a common citizen cannot even hold a stick, on the other hand, even the constables are now allowed to hold a gun but they are empowered with Lathis, Lathis to lathicharge the mob.
A Mob with illegal guns and grenades can not be controlled by lathis.
When the police cannot defend itself, how is it going to defend a common citizen?
The honest law-abiding citizen needs to demand for the right of self-defence, and government should help him by removing gun-control.

The man in the street bleats his excuses
a part of the flock so easily led
wearily down the trodden path to the end of the world
“I want to…I’d like to…I will one day”
“I’d like to change the way I live”
I know this tune, we’ve heard it before
We’ve been this way
we know where the path will lead

Turn off the path, you are free.
Face the force of free will
set it loose.
Play a new tune,
sing a new melody,
teach others to dance
Unfold your wings and fly again

Where there is no path,
leave a trail
and know that others will follow
if only the hardy few at first
Explore your fears and discover your dreams
The meek will inherit the earth,
but the brave want heaven right now
and we are prepared to come and take it.
Stop bitchin’ and start a revolution.

What is Labor in Rent and Interest?

Read a related article “Reason for Interest”

The labor is waiting!
Take a look at a person who invests $5 million dollars in bank for 10 years, and he earns (at 6%) $300,000 per year, a salary good enough for a 5 years exp project manager in America. You might say, that man is not working at all, and he is living off the interest. This is no labor, but here is the thing, he is deferring his enjoyment of those $5 million dollars. He is surely getting $300,000 every year, which is a quite a large sum of money and he is surely enjoying that too, but if he uses that $5 million dollars he can do a zillion things, he can buy a big house, a big yacht, a helicopter and scores of other things. BUT he is not able to do all those thing, for next 10 years. He is simply waiting, the 5 million dollars are right now being used by someone who needs it, and using it to make more money.
He is doing the labor of waiting.

Now you may say waiting is not labor. Well lets say a girl told you that she will meet you on the bus stop, and you forgot to ask her what time, so you decide that you will stay there for the whole day on the bus stop waiting for her. But instead you ask a jobless guy standing on the bus stop wanting to go to his home. Well he would be doing your part of labor if he waits for say till 6PM from 6AM in the morning. He had to go to his home, but can’t till the wait is completed. You are not only giving him compensation for deferring his departure to his home, you are paying him for his labor of waiting.

Lemme bring common story flowed across among socialists which has a big fallacy.
The story goes like this. OF course some agitated communist wrote it to me, but I couldn’t really get the actual text of story, I am sure you might have read it.

A Capitalist owns a pair of Nike shoes. He is a fat dumbass lazy bastard. So he decides to find someone whom he can exploit with the Nike shoes. There’s a 100 metres running race happening at a place. He finds a well built talented guy who can run very well but does not have a pair of shoes. This lazy bastard decides to hire the young guy and makes him run the race with the nike shoes. The young guy wins the race and gets a hot cash prize of 10,000 bucks. The capitalist immediately takes away the 10,000 rupees from the young guy and gives him just 100 bucks. And when we Communists ask the lazy capitalist bastard “why are you getting the money while the young guy ran and won the race?” And the capitalist bastard comes up with useless senseless answers which you would be knowing or comes up with ant grasshopper story.

Can the readers see the fallacy in this story?
The fallacy in the story is that it ignores the labor of the Capitalist in the athlete winning the race. It presumes that somehow its the duty of the Capitalist to provide the athlete with shoes.
Lets presume Capitalist himself is a hard working runner, and with proper training he can also win the race. But his problem is the same as the athlete, he does not have the shoes to run for the race. So both the capitalist and the athlete decide that the capitalist is going to use his time and resources to make the shoes for the athlete who will train himself and then run in the race, and once he wins the race they both are going to share the prize money.
My question is, do you now see the labor of the Capitalist? The capitalist didn’t run in the race, but he could have, in face he contributed in the athlete’s victory, by spending his time in doing something in which he is more proficient at, i.e. making shoes.

Lets see another scenario, lets say a trainer trains an athlete for a race. Trainer demands 50% of the prize money once athlete wins the race. Do you think the demand of the trainer is justified? If yes then the capitalist who provides shoes to the athlete is also justified in his demand. Its because of HIS shoes which enables athlete to win such a race, its because of HIS labor in the shoes that now athlete can win this race. There is no exploitation as long as athlete is free to reject the deal.

Now about the issue of Capitalist leaving only Rs 100 for the athlete and taking Rs 10,000/- with him, then we will have to look at some auxiliary conclusion we can derive from the example. First of all, the athlete and capitalist both must have agreed upon the prize money distribution, and if the athlete agreed upon such a deal it simply means that the marginal utility of Athlete’s labor was very little to the Capitalist and he could have gone to any other athlete and given him the shoes and have him win. If the athlete was irreplaceable, and still the capitalist insisted on such a deal, then the athlete could have gone to some other capitalist who would supply him with shoes and give him a better deal. Since the athlete did not go to any other capitalist that means there were no other capitalists available to supply him with shoes and since the deal really took place means Capitalist was in the position to replace the athlete with any other person.

So this means that irrespective of the fact that it was athlete who ran, without the Capitalist’s labor he couldn’t have won the race. Any other participant could have won the race using his shoes. That simply means that it was a win-win situation for both of them. The capitalist was irreplaceable to the athlete, and the athlete was easily replaceable to the capitalist. Therefore this 1:100 distribution of the prize money is perfectly justifiable.

5 Comments

RSS

Filed under: Anarcho-Capitalism, Economy, Employment, Ethics, Inspiration, Reason

Born August 31, 1870, Maria Montessori was destined to become an incredible woman. Born into a privileged household she was able to do things no other woman in her time was able. Her education was at an all-boys school, she was the only girl there in attendance. Even her higher education was groundbreaking. She became the first woman to graduate with a medical degree from the University of Rome La Sapienza.
After her graduation Maria became intrigued with trying to educate the ‘mentally retarded’ or the so-called uneducable in Rome. She developed her own method, later known as the Montessori Method, in an effort to try to teach these students. In 1898 she gave a lecture on her teachings and her findings at the Educational Congress in Torino, Italy.
The Educational Minister of Education became very impressed by her methods and her arguments that he appointed her the Director of the Sculoa Ortofenica. Sculoa was an institute devoted to the care and the education of the mentally handicapped. A few of her 8 year old students at the institute applied for the State examinations of reading and writing, and all passed with above average scores. This achievement was later called the “First Montessori Miracle.”
In 1904 she became a professor of anthropology at the University of Rome. Maria held the chair for only three years before she resigned it. She instead chose to focus her time on the education of children and in 1907 she founded the “Casa de Bambini” or Children’s House. This child care center was made in a poor neighbourhood in Rome and it instituted and technique Maria called ‘spontaneous self development.’ [1]
The purpose of the Montessori methods was to allow children to set their own pace of learning. Maria believed that children develop differently from adults and under that belief she thought that with the proper help in developing that these children would one day advocate world peace.
Twice Maria was invited to the USA. The first time was in 1913 when she gave a speech at Carnegie Hall. That same year Alexander Graham Bell and his wife formed the Montessori Educational Association out of their own home in Washington, DC. In 1915 Maria was given a chance to demonstrate her methods. A classroom with glass walls was built and people were allowed to observe as children learned and excelled under the Montessori Method.
Her principles were so strong that she was even able to stand up against dictators. And that was precisely what she did in 1934 when she stood up against Benito Mussolini. She refused to allow her students to become soldiers and in her defiance she was exiled from Italy.
She then went to Spain but could only stay there until 1936 when the Spanish Civil War broke out. From Spain she went to the Netherlands and remained there until she received an invitation to visit India from the Theosophical Society of India. In 1939 Maria took her son Mario and moved to India, making Chennai her home. Due to the outbreak of WW2 Maria was forced to stay in India for 10 years.
She did not waste the time though. Maria stood bravely as she tried to institute her teachings in a country where the voice and words of women were usually ignored in the public eye. She spent the time in India conducting training courses, 16 batches of them, called the Indian Montessori Training Methods. By the time she left India in 1949 her teachings were on sound footing and spreading throughout India, and even Pakistan, where she did a few training courses as well. Her work in India was continued by Max Joosten and Swamy S. R.
Maria died on May 6, 1952, the same year she received her third Nobel Peace Prize nomination. The other two nominations were in 1949 and 1951. Unfortunately she never won the prize. Though if she had won it, it would only have been a small accomplishment compared to the barricades she had faced in her life with great bravery.
“My vision of the future is no longer people taking exams and proceeding then on that certification …. but of individuals passing from one stage of independence to a higher [one], by means of their own activity through their own effort of will, which constitutes the inner evolution of the individual.” Maria Montessori. From Childhood to Adolescence. [5]
In the Montessori Method of education common practices, such as grading system and exams, are not utilized because it is detrimental to the growth and developmental of the children. Instead the teachers observe the children and write down areas where they need improvement and help the child overcome their difficulties.
The entire method of education is focused on the needs of the child, and to help them develop into fully functioning adults. It is based on the belief that child have their own will to learn, that the children want to master any kind of challenges that are put before them. Children learn at a very early state that someone is concentrating and not to bother that person.
“And so we discovered that education is not something which the teacher does, but that it is a natural process which develops spontaneously in the human being.” Maria Montessori [6]
What supports Maria Montessori’s idea about educating mentally retarded or so-called uneducable students is the fact that various famous and successful personalities, like Albert Einstein, Leonardo Da Vinci, Walt Disney, Agastha Christie, Thomas Edison, Pablo Picasso, and bollywood actor Abhishek Bachchan were considered dyslexic.
Recently, Indian actor turned director Amir Khan made a commercial movie “Taare Zameen Par” based on issue of education of children, the idea of which was based on Montessori Philosophy of schooling. [7]

References:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Montessori
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montessori
3. http://www.michaelolaf.net/
4. http://www.montessori.edu/index.html
5. http://www.montessori-namta.org/NAMTA/index.html
6. http://thinkexist.com/quotes/maria_montessori/
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taare_Zameen_Par

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

“Honour killing is murder. This is a barbaric act.” [6]
That was said by a man by the name of Khalil Aswad. His 17 year old daughter Du’a Khalil Aswad was stoned to death in a mob of 2000+ people and some of those in the audience were police officials who did nothing. And what was her crime to deserve this animalistic treatment. She had fallen in love with a Muslim boy outside her Yazidi tribe.
Du’a was stripped to her undergarments and slowly stoned to death while onlookers cheered on the killers and recorded the actions on their cellphones. Du’a died slowly, the stoning lasted almost 30 minutes. In this horrific video Du’a is screaming and crying for help but there is none for her because in the eyes of her tribe she had dishonoured them all.
After her death she was buried with a dog to show that they thought she was worthless in their eyes. Her body was later exhumed for examination to see if she was a virgin. Even though it was proven that she was, it did nothing to redeem her in their eyes and her murderers went unprosecuted. Her family lives now as outcasts in their tribe.
“My daughter did nothing wrong,” Aswad said, “She fell in love with a Muslim and there is nothing wrong with that. I couldn’t protect her because I got threats from my brother, the whole tribe. They insisted they were gonna kill us all, not only Du’a, if she was not killed. She was mutilated, her body dumped like rubbish.” [6]
“To do this to their own flesh and blood was unforgivable. Forgiveness isn’t even a question. They don’t deserve to be on this Earth.” [10]
“How can someone think that kind of thing and actually do it to your own flesh and blood? It’s disgusting.” [11]
Bekhal Mahmod said those in an interview after the death of her sister Banaz. Banaz was raped, beaten, and then strangled to death by men hired by her father and uncle. Both her father Mahmod Mahmod , and her uncle, Ari Mahmod, were convicted of murder in the United Kingdom.
Banaz’s crime was simple. She had left an abusive arranged marriage and had fallen in love with someone her family did not approve of. Her family had even threatened to kill her boyfriend if they stayed together.
Banaz Mahmod disappeared on Jan 24, 2006 and her body was found buried in a suitcase in Handsworth, Birmingham three months later. The shoelace that had been used to strangle her was still around her neck.
Bekhal lives in hiding, afraid of her own family because she too had left an arranged marriage. Like her sister, in the eyes of her family she has caused great shame to the family. She will not even go outside unless she wears a full veil showing only her eyes. This is the price she has to pay to live.
“If I had realised then what she would become, I would have killed her the instant her mother delivered her.” [13]
Abdel-Qader Ali, 46, killed his 17 year old daughter on March 16, 2008 and those were his words. Rand Abdel-Qadar was stomped on by her father, strangled and then finally stabbed to death. Her mother, Leila Hussein, called in Rand’s brothers to try to help her but instead they joined and helped their father to kill her. Rand’s body was then throw into a unmarked grave without a ceremony as her uncles spat on it in disgust.
“I don’t have a daughter now, and I prefer to say that I never had one. That girl humiliated me in front of my family and friends. Speaking with a foreign solider, she lost what is the most precious thing for any woman. ‘People from western countries might be shocked, but our girls are not like their daughters that can sleep with any man they want and sometimes even get pregnant without marrying. Our girls should respect their religion, their family and their bodies.” [13]
“I have only two boys from now on. That girl was a mistake in my life. I know God is blessing me for what I did,’ he said, his voice swelling with pride. ‘My sons are by my side, and they were men enough to help me finish the life of someone who just brought shame to ours.” [13].
Those were his words to try to justify the horrible murder of his own daughter. And the thing that makes it worse is that he was released 2 hours after by the police. The police even congratulated him on killing her. All this because she was seen talking to a Christian British soldier in public.
Rand believed she was in love with him, and due to that she brought shame to her family’s name. Her mother watched the whole murder in horror and had the guts to leave her husband, and he beat her and broke her arm when she announced she was going.
But even Leila wasn’t able to get away. On May 17 she was gunned down just as she was about to leave to meet a person who could get her out of her country. It was an unhappy ending in this tragedy.
Honour killings are defined as generally a punitive murder, committed by members of a family against a female member of their family whom the family and/or wider community believes to have brought dishonor upon the family. [18] and more often than not a women is the victim of these honour killings. Honour killings “go across cultures and across religions.” [2]
What I have mentioned above are three examples of these killings, but there are many many more. Thousands of women are murdered each year in the name of honour for their families. The range of offensives can range from a mere allegation of infidelity, pre marital sex, flirting, or even failing to serve a meal on time. There was a case where a woman was killed by her husband because she had a dream she had betrayed him. [2]
The men who commit these murders are usually the teenage brothers of the girls because if there is legal action, they would get lighter sentences. [2] Although this is not to say that only teenage girls are the victims of these honour killings. Victims can range from pre-pubescent girls to grandmothers.
It does not matter if the women are innocent or not of the things they are accused of and killed for. The allegation alone is enough to defile a man’s honour and therefore enough to justify the killing of the women. [5] Even rape victims are often killed because they have dishonoured their families or tribes. An innocent victim of brutality at a man’s hand killed for not being able to fight back.
And are the men ever held responsible for the actions they commit. If a woman has an affair she is killed but more often than not, the man she had cheated with escape. In most countries those who commit honour killings are not punished for their acts, though now some countries such as Turkey are making honour killings illegal. Although in the wake of that there is a rise of honour suicides, when the family convinces the girl she should kill herself. [15]
People need to realize that honour killings are pathetic excuses for men to brutalize and murder women. Men are just that…men. They are not Gods and they should have no right to take the life of another person, especially a member of their own family. They may be able to get away with this in this life but they will get retribution in the next. If there is a God, there is no way he would condone the murders of innocent women.
We as a society need to move towards a change. Men and women both have the right to life and they should both have the right to live the way they want to. Men are not better than women and neither are women any better than men. We are equals and should be treated as such.
Animalistic treatment such as honour killings would not exist if people were allowed to live the way they want to. There is happiness to be found in freedom of one’s own choices and everyone should have the chance to experience that.

‘Freedom of expression for some is not enough.
We must work for freedom of expression for all.
Human rights for some is not  enough.
We must work for the human rights for all.
Peace  for some is not  enough.
We must work for peace for all.
I, come what may, will not be silenced.
Come what may, I will continue my fight for equality and justice without any compromise until my death.
Come what  may, I will never be silenced.’ “Taslima Nasreen”!
References.

1. [1]

2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]
5. [5]

7. [7]
8. [8]
9. [9]
10. [10]
11. [11]
12. [12]
13. [13]
14. [14]
15. [15]
16. [16]
17. [17]
18. [18]