Let me start by saying that, while I don't fully understand how these things work in India or any country outside of the United States, I can see strong similarities between what I experience in the U.S. and what you describe in your blogs. There are many references to the differences between the U.S. and other nations. For the most part, I tend to agree with you when it comes to comparing the general American mindset as compared to the mindset of some from, say, Europe.

In the United States, we have a related problem of our own in regards to the Equal Opportunity and Equal Rights laws. I am delighted that we, as a country, have come as far as we have on the issue – and I believe we stand to progress even further – but I am ethically adverse to some of the concepts and checks and balances that the U.S. government has put into place when it comes to these issues. Let's look at Equal Opportunity for a moment.

The implementation of Affirmative Action – which I understand to be the rough equivalent of the reservation you mention in your blog – forces companies to maintain a specific (or roughly specific) percentage of diversity amongst its employees. I have personally been witness to at least 2 distinct instances where someone I knew was passed up for a job position in favor of someone with far less qualification in the name of Affirmative Action. I'm not anti-Affirmative Action or racist, but I believe Equal Opportunity should be just that… the chance to have the opportunity of getting a job based upon your merits and not your race or gender.

Assuming a hypothetical situation, let's take it for granted that anything considered equal for races X and Y are also equal for races A and B. Let's assume that there is a company with 40 employees. This company exists for the sole purpose of providing temporary, personal translators. Due to the location of this business, the only specialty required for employment is to be fluent in both English and Spanish. Providing the 40 Mexican employees are living in the country legally, why should this company be required by law to employee at least 2 people of non-Hispanic race? Does that even make sense to anyone here?

I've said my peace. I believe it all falls back to the government trying to maintain control over the situation, instead of letting the people decide for themselves and have a free-thinking mind.

<blockquote cite="#commentbody-4739">
indianhomemaker :
Our’s is a failed civilisation – where it is taken as normal that half the population is expected to lock themselves inside their homes after dark.

I don't agree with this. Of course we have many problems, but not only are we much better off than much of the world, we're doing great even in historical terms. My wife and I were discussing just this yesterday and it turns out that India's current state of development (on the basis of women's rights, economic strength, infant mortality and life expectancy) is around equal to what a country like the US was in the 1950s. Seems strange, but it's true. It's a myth that women were always properly treated in "other" countries and India is the mean bad place that shit happens. All countries go through this phase, but Indians seem to make it a point to diss their place and compare it unfavorably to any other place in the world (well, apart from Pakistan :) )

Of course I take your point that we have much to improve on – clearly we do. The fact that we're doing good (from a historical perspective) doesn't mean it's good enough, but only by seeing how far we've come, can we look ahead and get motivated to go on further without just giving up in despair.

I also feel equality does not mean uniformity – everybody need not live, travel, work like the adult human male does. He should not be the criteria.

Equality simply means that all the members in a society have an equal chance at leading happy lives.

Equality would mean if one member is suffering it is taken as seriously as any other member suffering.

A child, a woman, the differently-abled, a man, an old woman, a hijra or a homosexual citizen – each one’s happiness is valuable to the society. Each deserves respect and consideration.

Our's is a failed civilisation – where it is taken as normal that half the population is expected to lock themselves inside their homes after dark. (An organisation in Delhi had protested against this.) We still justify some kind of killing and abuse against half the population, and we still have parents killing their own female children (born or unborn).

Men cannot(and need not) be equal to women, in the sense that they can't learn to face, fear and avoid molestation and rape; they can't get pregnant (so equal job opportunities can't and needn't be the same opportunities); men can't be expected to understand how impossible it is for a woman to sing a song while cycling on Indian streets; or to enjoy a sunny day flopped in a park; or to expect rightfully that when the spouse comes to live with her family, he is instructed,
"From now on, he(she) is everything for you. Whatever happens, be patient. Even if someone hurt you, don't reply. Ensure you respect your husband(wife) and his parents. Behave properly so that they are happy." (http://brindhaseshadri.blogspot.com/2009/11/happy-beginning.html)

All the citizens need not live like 'men' to have equal rights. For example, some citizens might choose motherhood – and if the society wants babies (and a new generation of citizens), then they must ensure mothers are not deprived of self reliance or else accept that they will eventually decide against motherhood (which is happening in many countries). When we glorify motherhood, we don't realise it's not just about bringing up a baby and loving the children, but all that is given up in having children. It's not a sacrifice for the child – it's a sacrifice for the society. (So when we aren't providing creches or maternity leave to women we are not doing them a favour, we are ensuring that they are not treated unfairly – for everybody's welfare). Same rule applies to reserved seats and coaches in buses.

1. First of all, my comments are not with regard to the views expressed in this post on the reservation system based on Caste. I merely wish to discuss the principles behind the idea of “discrimination” where separate compartments/seats are reserved for women in public transportation.

2. I have to assume that this is a purely theoretical and “principle-based” view point that you present. For you can have no personal experience with regard to the issues which have lead to separate compartments for women in public transportation. So you probably cannot imagine how disturbing it can be.

3. If you feel that we can demographically segment out men who are “likely to pinch women’s bottoms”, then I must say, I disagree. We have all heard of affluent men abusing domestic help.. college professors abusing female students.. I am sure there are cases of old men who like to “play with” the young girls around.

But for the sake of argument say that we DO arrive at a segment of men who are less likely to indulge in such acts. I see two problems here. One, there will always be a scope for error in the segmentation. Compartments with the chosen male population will still not be a 100% secure for the women. Second, I think it is personally more insulting (to men) to have a law specifying which kinds of men are considered decent enough to travel with women.
Say the law claims that only men with PhD’s and residing in Anna Nagar (for the sake of an example) can ride with women. You, an MBA graduate, living in Nungambakkam, are considered not good enough. Imagine that. The LAW stating that there are some men who are civil and decent, but you are not one of them. Doesnt it feel particularly insulting? More insulting than a law that just keeps all men in a different compartment from women?

4. The most important point over here, is that of practical implications. By assigning one or two compartments to women in a whole train, no one is being deprived of anything. Women’s compartments are no less crowded than the regular compartments. No less smelly either. With BO, hair oil, flowers and other such smells floating about, it is far from a highly comfortable experience. The ONLY convenience of a women’s compartment is the guaranteed sexual safety. No butt pinching. No boob grabbing. And for that, I as a woman, am thankful to the Government.

So my point basically is – due to this particular reservation, we have eliminated the threat of unpleasant experiences for women at absolutely no practical cost. No one is worse off. No one has been denied anything.

Other than the perverts who derive pleasure from bottom pinching, of course.

Thats y I said you need to experience it.. It ranges from young to old and most times its Men who seem to be in their 50s… And most youngsters would just stop with whistling or passing comments and dont dare to go beyond

So the point is no one can differentiate.. young and old, educated and uneducated, posh looking to the most disgusting..

This is one end of the spectrum..

And u say allow only foreigners and people of higher economic level into the coach… Are we living in Victorian England or some other Feudal society????

This is democracy and when we say separate coach for women it ends there… I would feel shameful to live in a country which has such kind of discrimination..

I’m sure you’ll agree with me that the men who usually pinch girl’s bottoms in trains are young people. So how about allowing men over 50 into the coach? Or to make it better, men who’re above a certain economic level (again I’m sure you’ll agree that it’s the lower economic class who indulges in such activities).

Also, I’m sure that foreigners won’t misbehave. Do you agree to allowing foreign born men into this coach? Or those men who have a foreign degree?

If we can identify a demographic of men that doesn’t harass women with a very high degree of certainty, can we allow those men on the special coach? If not, why not?

One can only understand discrimination of any kind only when one has experienced it ..

I have been highly thankful for those authorities who separated a section of pallavan bus for women… It is almost like a battle out there from the moment you step out of the house and reach it destination without being molested in the crowded 21g or A18 … Unless you can afford your own vehicle which most of my fellow women travellers in the said buses can’t afford ..

We don’t care abt parliament or rights but we care about our bodies and an affordable way to travel safely…