Do societal disparities, such as economic and gender inequality, impede the pursuit of happiness and equilibrium in an individual's existence?
It is commonly observed that the demographic ratio between males and females fluctuates, with instances where males predominate and others where females surpass them—an assortment of issues manifesting across various locales. This phenomenon is not confined to India alone; it is endless regardless of geographical context. Nonetheless, these dynamics are intrinsically regulated by nature, remaining beyond our control, and even our perceived agency often leads to error. While I express this notion in an understated manner, the persistence of such discrepancies is undeniable. The paramount concern, however, pertains to the issue of foeticide, which warrants our contemplative scrutiny. We assent to these circumstances, yet if a delineation exists within percentages, nature possesses an innate capacity to restore equilibrium over time. The discourse surrounding foeticide necessitates profound reflection. This cultural bias underpins the prevalence of foeticide absent any other rationale. A systematic inquiry into society reveals that, when parents of both sons and daughters are probed regarding their provisions for their children, the data often indicates favor towards the girl child, with positive sentiment exceeding 50% or even 70%. This suggests an inherent compassion that manifests in their caregiving; however, societal pressures often curtail such inclinations, compelling families to restrict the freedoms of their daughters under the guise of protection. Yet, one essential truth emerges: if we endeavor to achieve serenity in our lives it ultimately leads to an overarching quest for inner peace.
If we cultivate in our daughters a proficiency in this domain, I assure you, their safety is guaranteed. They become shielded by nature from the spectre of assault in any locale. Much is spoken of one’s aura; indeed, once this aura manifests, it engenders a protective sphere around us, which dutifully arrange for our safety. Certain actions may appear commendable or reprehensible in the societal gaze, yet if these actions emanate from nature’s benevolence, divinely bestowed for societal betterment, then it follows that we are rendered unharmed. We often discuss inequalities; daughters receive less affection than sons in myriad contexts, though some environments differ. As you aptly noted, while the son nurtures aspirations, the daughter remains indifferent—a transference of toxicity that may go unnoticed. Nonetheless, her psyche subtly absorbs the notion that the yearning belonged to him, not her. Ultimately, she internalizes this dynamic, driving her to emulate those aspirations as she matures.
2- Concerning the issue of gender disparity, to whom do you attribute the preeminent influence: the government, society, or the individual?
The answer will be an individual. As an individual, I shall never assign blame to the government or society at large. Any system can never be fixed if it is imposed on the government. It is paramount to reflect upon these matters within the realm of individuality itself. It is individuals who effectuate change. One must grasp the notion that the positions we attain in life, whether as a woman or a man. I shall not harbor distinctions between genders in this discourse. We ought to aspire to a juncture where we cultivate an environment within families that admonishes feelings of inferiority; the advancement of the female child is contingent upon this ethos, lest it remain unfulfilled. Thus, this ideology necessitates a fundamental overhaul. From my own experiences, I have also experienced in my own life that a woman's heart is more likely to have a commitment to her work than a man heart.
Yet, we urgently require a culture of respect. Our inability to extend genuine respect perpetuates a vicious cycle of multitasking and exploitative mentalities. The absence of respect has reached a level of such magnitude that we no longer hesitate to voice opinions about others indiscriminately. While traversing the streets, one may overhear unsolicited remarks about strangers. The speaker may err, yet if dialogue ensues devoid of comprehension regarding the essence of reality, that too is an affront. Subsequently, if he refrains from discussions and entertains thoughts privately, such behaviour is equally erroneous. Presently, when our son ventures beyond our abode, the needle of suspicion remains steadfast; conversely, when our daughter departs, suspicion is aroused. I refer to the essence of emotions, which contravenes the dignity owed to women. In contemplating the advisability of prohibiting children from staying outdoors post 9:00 PM, this principle ought to be uniformly applicable, irrespective of gender. My discourse is not about forbiddance; rather, it articulates the inner sentiment that prevails within us, reflecting the same thematic concern for women's esteem. Such understanding must ideally originate within the familial sphere. However, we must recognize that our notion of family extends beyond mere parentage; it encompasses our professional environments as well. Thus, we are compelled to reflect on and assimilate this ethos in every context, gauging the extent to which we can embody these principles genuinely.
