Indoctrination in English versus that in the vernacular: Now I need to go into the fervent theme of male-female equality. Well, in England this equality can be more or less considered a mere fact of life; even though, it is also true that man and woman are not same, but have different physical and mental features. The question is only about equality of status. In which case, in English it is not possible to keep either the man or woman at a lower status, other than by statutory means. The same issue of Black slaves in the US not mentally being indoctrinated that they are lower in status. For, unless there is a statutory law that they are inferior, it is not at all possible to insert the idea that they are inferior in their heads.
However the case is quite different in India. Anyone can be quite forcefully informed of his inferiority by simply changing the indicant words connected to him, in a relative sense.
Bringing up daughters as inferior or otherwise: I had been long observant of the fact that usually the females in a household are brought up in an inferior status manner. This fact became a forceful understanding when I had my own daughters. They were taken for swimming, including in the sea; they went for long distance jogging; travelled with me all round the state; were allowed to watch the English movie channels right from their infancy; went with me outside even in the night time; were allowed to play outdoor games, including football; went for roller skating, went for hitchhiking, and many such more or less minor things, that every male child does as a matter of everyday event. In the case of watching the English movies, at the time, I was in a village area, where it was then the standard idea that females should not be allowed to watch English channels at all.
Differing capacity scale: Now, it must be mentioned that there are an immensity of females who do all these things and may be more. Yet, viz-a-viz the males, on an average, the females are brought up in a closed arena. However, this understanding is quite a relative one. For example, if one were to go into many villages and minor towns, there are thousands of males, who have not travelled much, not seen an English film, does not know swimming, does not play outdoor games, cannot speak English etc. However, in their case they have to be compared with the females around them, who will most certainly be in a worse containment.
Ineptness of equalising unequal beings: So in the social set up, there certainly is a marked lowering of status for the females, relative to the males around them. Now to say that the females who have less social and mental experience are equal to the males who have comparatively more mental and worldly experience is a total idiotism. However this sentence is not to mean that all males are superior to all females. The understanding should be taken like this: As one goes down the social ladder, the females are increasingly in a lower mental and worldly knowledge, as far as outdoor life experiences are concerned. Yet, it does not mean that they are without innate intelligence. Even the most inexperienced female in a remote village, may have a better idea to run the house than her male counterpart. Or have the capacity to get a better bargain on an agriculture product sale.
A sly, standalone technique to overtake: Yet this must also be said. The females in the lower levels are more adept at using the sly cunning of lower indicant words to extract leadership with no other signs of intelligence or social information. This technique is a standalone technique and quite effective in suppressing others, including the males.
Now, as one goes up the ladder, especially to the social areas, wherein English is more common, the level difference between males and females become increasingly less. Now, there are arenas wherein females may even overtake the males in capacity. This has to be explained in more words:
Where females reach above: When the female and male equality is more or less, equal, some females can certainly show more capacity than males, depending on their individual capacity and lack of forceful social downgrading. There are other types of females, who may not have innate higher capacity, but can forcefully show power by just being rude, impolite, truculent, and suppressive of others including the males. This is not really a visible feature of equality or of superiority, but rank incivility and lack of worldly experience; or possibly due to certain distressing life experiences. However, they may also find it quite a successful strategy. However, there are men also who use downright rudeness and incivility to achieve a seeming feel of leadership.
Then there are the solitary areas of equality or superiority that females can exhibit. It is in certain closed arenas. For example, a female whose has not much worldly experience, yet has come to occupy a higher position in a business organisation. Certainly she would be in a senior position, and may even be quite efficient in that area. Yet, in an innate English sense, she is still inferior in many capabilities.
Or in some areas like a job in the software world, or in a Call Centre etc. a female may still possess superior capacities. However, since she is still a recluse to worldly experiences, as detailed by me earlier. For, when it comes to stark worldly events, the males may view her as a novice.
Equalising the unequal: Now, we come to the question of equality again. Unless a person is of equal capabilities, how can one insist he or she is equal? It might be like saying a servant is equal to the master, as one might seem to see the scenario in an English setting. In the vernacular, the words insist that she is inferior. And she is quite at home in that setting.
Now again, the understanding that I am trying to convey is not getting through. For, it is not essentially individual capacity that lends the equality or superiority or inferiority. For instance, the servant man would be capable of playing football, climbing up a tree and possibly dealing with a live snake. The boss may not be capable of doing any of those things. Well, then how do we deal with the concept of equality, superiority and inferiority, as understood in Indian social communication? Well, ultimately it is the mental mood. That of being having the social capability of being equal and if needed, superior. If this is not there in a female, and if the feminists argue that she is equal or superior, it is just like saying that the maid servant in the house is equal to the lady of the house. Basically, it is the parents of the females job to inculcate that she is no less than her male counterpart. But that doesnt come by just repeating the sentence, but by allowing the same level of independence and social freedom to the daughter that they allow for their son. Will any Indian parent dare do this?
A dramatic change: I have mentioned the term Indian maid in the last paragraph. Let me go to that arena again. There is a specific house in a South Indian state, of which I have heard of. When visitors ring the bell, the door might be opened by a very quality looking female of age (then) around 23. She talks good English. And has the bearing of the lady of the house.
However, she is not the lady of the house. She is (or at least, was) actually the maid of the house. She had joined the household as a young girl maid servant many years ago. However, since everyone in the house spoke English consistently, she also learnt the language, and was soon on talking terms with them in English. Once in English, it is quite difficult to maintain the draconian snubbing tones that are there in the vernacular. Soon she was on first name terms with everyone, and later was part of the household, as a sort of regular member. She would sit with them at the dining table, and literally participate in everything as a member of the house.
Now, that is the difference that English makes. And what the Blacks of the English nations never understood, as they went on claiming for more and more equality, with every levels of superiority given to them seen as not enough.
Now, the same is the issue with the discernment of Indian women. Seeing from English, they are an enslaved lot indeed. Yet, from the vernacular, they are in varying levels of freedoms, linked to so many other factors. Trying to impose the English levels of equality, without bringing in English is an utter nonsense.
No such things as equality in India: Now, let me go back to the theme of equality between husband and wife. In Indian languages, there can be no such equality. Fighting for such an equality is like fighting for the Indian servant to be equal to his or her master. For, every word in the communication does enforce subordination on the wife. Along with this subordination, there comes the factor of discipline, need for display of inadequate intelligence, need to show lesser smartness and less efficiency, need to ask permission, and such other things. That is the way the language codes work.
If the servant displays more intelligence, efficiency, smartness etc. that goes beyond his accepted levels, it can be a very distressing thing in the Indian languages. It does not help in the social environment. The same is the case with the subordinated wife. Her higher abilities, in the feudal vernacular settings do not really help in creating an amiable ambience. It does the opposite effect, other than in real emergencies.
All these things are really connected to the language codes and also connected to what can be called reality codes. I have dealt with these issues in my books: March of the evil empires; English verses the feudal languages! And in Codes of reality! What is language?
To cast blame on the husband in particular and the men folk in general is a total idiotism, that springs from lack of profundity.
