Kusum Choppra

Why is crying de rigeur at marriages? Hardly is the wedding over and the whole company dissolves in tears. Not just the bride, but her entire family and entourage, some even sobbing away, for the entire world as if some major tragedy has befallen then. Yes, there are many to whom marriage is nothing but an unmitigated disaster. Why then marry in the first place? And the usual run-of-the-mill marriage arranged or love match, is arranged well before hand, much anticipated with flurries of shopping and rituals and glamour and giggling. Why then these tears? Are the tears not an insult to the groom and his family? That the entire bridal party is taking for granted that they are going torture the bride, so the apprehension over her leaving home, never mind the glamorous trappings. If it is a stranger and the bride is walking away into an unknown entity, some apprehension is warranted. But What if the bride is getting married of her own free will, to a guy she loves? The cryin...

For those of us, footsoldiers of Women's Lib in varied arenas of family and friends, authorities in school, college, public life and work places, Women's Lib then was a quest for an equal space under the sun, the right to do what one desired, rather than submit to ancient stereotypes. Is it therefore not painful to see the next generation lapsing so easily? There are those who tamefully hand over hard won freedoms to dissolute husbands who have become tyrannical because they themselves are frightened by the challenge of the confident women in their workspaces. And then there are those who cheerfully step on the heads of their hubbies, mouthing vacuous Women's Lib lines and rudely defy all social norms and graces. Was the movement not about giving women choices, rather than having them take the same tinpot despot road that males have taken over the unchallenged centuries and run society into the ground? And between these two extremes, whatever happened to equal rights and r...

One hears such inanities on newschannels. There was this anchor who tried very hard to convince everyone that any strike at the terror training camps in POK would be disastrous all round. REASON ? If India attacks Pakistan from the east, it would withdraw its troops from the Northwest to cope with the invasion. Didn't they have a large enough army for both fronts, when they can afford to export units of their army to other countries? The net result, it was argued, would be that Taliban/AlQuaida would walk into Pakistan with impunity. Aren't they there already,in any case? So India must sit on its hands while Pakistani "non state players' strike at will anywhere in the country? Condoleeza Rice was brought in to bolster the no-strike theory: that she came to specifically advise against any IAF strike againt the terror training camps in POK. So what's new? Is that not what the US has been doing for decades since Paksitan became its client state? Holding back India to...