Sunday, January 28, 2007

Saturday, January 13, 2007


“Chastity has no meaning in the current period and it applies to both men and women" says Sushmita Sen [link]. S Greesh Kumar has a problem! The first part of the quote makes sense though I am not sure why something nonsensical should apply to both men and women. Mr. Kumar has purportedly taken upon himself the onus of ensuring that Indians don’t forget the virtue of being chaste. Mr. Kumar is sure chasing fame in the short term. I wish him all the best. Anyway!


Judgments on chastity of an individual lead to honour killings. Association of honour with the chastity of women makes women easy prey to violence. One example that comes to my mind is that of partition of India when women were forced to jump into wells else the honour of the families would be at stake.


Many women died trying to avoid sexual violation, preserve their chastity, and protect their religious and family honor. Scholars of India’s partition have noted numerous ways in which women took their lives. Some jumped into the nearest well or set themselves ablaze. Sometimes the act was accomplished alone, sometimes all the women in a family committed mass suicide.” – [link]


There ought to be better metrics, if at all required, to determine a family’s or society’s honour! It is just plain selfish and criminal on part of a society to associate honour with the chastity of women or men for that matter. It only victimizes women who have been victims of sexual violation. It avenges rape by raping another woman instead of punishing the rapist [Mukhtar Mai]. Indeed chastity should not have any meaning at all and even if it is to have a meaning it is for one to determine whether he/she is chaste or not.