Monday, July 15, 2013







When Narendra Modi speaks, there is always a Huge Debate on it. His opponents pick out a word here and there and make huge issues out of them. It is a known thing.

Therefore, it is all the more reason that Mr. Modi must choose his words carefully. It is certainly the majority opinion that - no single section of the people need be appeased. Justice for All; And Appeasement to None – is of course the best Policy of Governance.

That said, when the opponents are so much driving on a single point that YOU ARE AGAINST a particular section of people and cite your own words as proof of it, I think, there is a need that Mr.Modi must also emphatically state that he and the BJP are as committed to ensure their welfare and safety, as much the welfare of anybody else. These must be specifically and emphatically stated since that is the main charge against Mr. Modi and BJP. Non-Appeasement does not also mean – NO-LOVE  for anybody. LOVE FOR ALL – JUSTICE FOR ALL - APPEASEMENT FOR NONE is a more comprehensive way of stating a Policy such as this.

The Ram Temple issue is not and should not be on the Political Plat Form at all. The Temple will come up only when the courts permit it finally. So, why rake it up as if it can and will be constructed soon after Elections? This issue must be totally avoided by BJP. If it can be constructed soon after elections, why was it not constructed when BJP was in Power for 5 long years? No one will blame BJP if it doesn’t construct the Ram Mandir  soon after Elections. Because, without a clear court verdict, it is not permissible. But, many people find it annoying that it becomes an election issue at all. It is at the least, a Vote Loser – not a Vote getter, for the BJP. RSS may not realize it, because they are not in public focus much. VHP may not realize it. But, BJP leaders, many of them, know it well.  They must not be repeating this issue parrot-like – and losing their chances of coming to Power.

Another issue is that of HINDU NATIONALIST.  The way, the question was asked by Reuters and the way, Modi answered it, to me it means, I am a Nationalist first. I am of course a Born Hindu, therefore you can say that I am a Hindu,  Nationalist. Saying that I am a Hindu, Nationalist, or, a Nationalist, Hindu is different from interpreting it as “Hindu nationalist.”

Anybody can be a “Nationalist, Hindu” or “Nationalist ,Muslim”, or “Nationalist, Sikh” and so on. We are all Nationalists, which is common for all. But, each may belong to his own religion. It does not prevent us from coming together as nationalists. But, these are words. If we know the person as a Nationalist, we won’t mind the words, whichever way they are put. We know the meaning meant.If not, we cry foul - rightly or wrongly.

Mr. Yashwant Sinha and a few other BJP leaders do state often that – we must focus more on real, people’s issues. That is the Key for success. What is Modi’s attraction among the People? He is a no non-sense Administrator of the TOP CALIBRE. 

That is accepted by all, though grudgingly, by some. But, that image must not be spoilt by getting into meaningless issues on WORDS, WORDS, AND WORDS used by him and by other BJP leaders. While negative words  can be easily avoided with some care – the focus must be on the use of more POSITIVE WORDS towards every section of people.  Friends don’t come easy. You must earn them. But, You can. That is the point.

What should 2014 give India? I prefer  the 2 National Parties only coming up with  all the seats shared between them in Parliament. I do not prefer their dependence on any regional parties. Either BJP or Congress, independently must form Government and the other must be a strong Opposition Party. Both should fight on the Agenda of Governance – not on communalism vs Secularism. In the last chance when BJP came to Power, it proved to be as much secular as anybody else. It must be better this time around.
I would extend the definition of secularism a little. I would say, there should be no Political Parties based on caste, caste-Groups  religion or religious groups. Every Party’s membership must extend to all. Every Party’s programs must cover all sections.

India has of course lost nearly 5 Years on the path of Development. UPA II has not even been a shade of UPA I in that respect. But, now at least, both Parties must focus on Development.

 *  *  *  E  N  D  *  *  *

Friday, July 12, 2013




Modi baiting has become a pastime for many Politicians in India. Some Politicians are almost paranoid about Modi’s rise in Public Opinion.

But, the controversies that they rake up are only helping people to see the GRAIN from the CHAFF- Modi from the Rest.

Modi appears much more secular, much more forthright, much more nationalistic than his critics. This is the Opinion people get after each controversy.

In the latest PUPPY REMARK CONTROVERSY, I went through Reuters publication (on its web site) of the Interview with Modi, to see, if there is anything at all, objectionable, in his views and remarks. But, his remarks seem to be humane and applaudable rather than objectionable.  So, what are these Politicians objecting to? God knows what they are objecting to.

Bhagavad Gita’s very first sloka indicate two major failings in Human psyche “aham-mama”, which are the Sanskrit words for “ME AND MINE”. These are the two failings of most people. We close our eyes to the failings of our own self and of those whom we perceive as our people.  On the other hand, every simple action of those whom we feel –as others – seems objectionable, condemnable, and so on. This is the failing of the Modi baiters.

Whether Modi sits, stands, eats or talks, or even breathes, they will find some thing objectionable in everything that he does. 

This should not be the way, Politics should be conducted in India. But, this is the way, it is being conducted in India by the Modi Baiters.

Whatever they or their own Party men do – they will totally close their eyes to it. This is equally bad.

Be that as it may, the following are the key excerpts from the Modi Interview. I find nothing objectionable in it.

Interview with BJP leader Narendra Modi - July 12, 2013 @ 11:45 am - By Reuters Staff - By Ross Colvin and Sruthi Gottipati

Reuters spoke to Modi at his official Gandhinagar residence in a rare interview, the first since he was appointed head of the BJP’s election campaign in June. Here are edited excerpts from the interview. The questions are paraphrased and some of Modi’s replies have been translated from Hindi.

]Is it frustrating that many people still define you by 2002?

People have a right to be critical. We are a democratic country. Everyone has their own view. I would feel guilty if I did something wrong. Frustration comes when you think “I got caught. I was stealing and I got caught.” That’s not my case.
Do you regret what happened?

I’ll tell you. India’s Supreme Court is considered a good court today in the world. The Supreme Court created a special investigative team (SIT) and top-most, very bright officers who overlook oversee the SIT. That report came. In that report, I was given a thoroughly clean chit, a thoroughly clean chit. Another thing, any person if we are driving a car, we are a driver, and someone else is driving a car and we’re sitting behind, even then if a puppy comes under the wheel, will it be painful or not? Of course it is. If I’m a chief minister or not, I’m a human being. If something bad happens anywhere, it is natural to be sad.

Should your government have responded differently?

Up till now, we feel that we used our full strength to set out to do the right thing.

But do you think you did the right thing in 2002?

Absolutely. However much brainpower the Supreme Being has given us, however much experience I’ve got, and whatever I had available in that situation and this is what the SIT had investigated.

Do you believe India should have a secular leader?

We do believe that … But what is the definition of secularism? For me, my secularism is, India first. I say, the philosophy of my party is ‘Justice to all. Appeasement to none.’ This is our secularism.

Critics say you are an authoritarian, supporters say you are a decisive leader. Who is the real Modi?

If you call yourself a leader, then you have to be decisive. If you’re decisive then you have the chance to be a leader. These are two sides to the same coin … People want him to make decisions. Only then they accept the person as a leader. That is a quality, it’s not a negative. The other thing is, if someone was an authoritarian then how would he be able to run a government for so many years? … Without a team effort how can you get success? And that’s why I say Gujarat’s success is not Modi’s success. This is the success of Team Gujarat.

What about the suggestion that you don’t take criticism?

I always say the strength of democracy lies in criticism. If there is no criticism that means there is no democracy. And if you want to grow, you must invite criticism. And I want to grow, I want to invite criticism. But I’m against allegations. There is a vast difference between criticism and allegations. For criticism, you have to research, you’ll have to compare things, you’ll have to come with data, factual information, then you can criticize. Now no one is ready to do the hard work. So the simple way is to make allegations. In a democracy, allegations will never improve situations. So, I’m against allegations but I always welcome criticism.

How will you persuade minorities including Muslims to vote for you?

First thing, to Hindustan’s citizens, to voters, Hindus and Muslims, I’m not in favour of dividing. I’m not in favour of dividing Hindus and Sikhs. I’m not in favour of dividing Hindus and Christians. All the citizens, all the voters, are my countrymen. So my basic philosophy is, I don’t address this issue like this. And that is a danger to democracy also. Religion should not be an instrument in your democratic process.

People want to know who is the real Modi – Hindu nationalist leader or pro-business chief minister?

I’m nationalist. I’m patriotic. Nothing is wrong. I’m a born Hindu. Nothing is wrong. So, I’m a Hindu nationalist so yes, you can say I’m a Hindu nationalist because I’m a born Hindu. I’m patriotic so nothing is wrong in it. As far as progressive, development-oriented, workaholic, whatever they say, this is what they are saying. So there’s no contradiction between the two. It’s one and the same image.

My Comments :- The furore, especially on the so called PUPPY REAMRK – is plain ridiculous. It is just a humane opinion. Yes. We do feel sad, even if a puppy dies under our car. What is wrong in it? Where is comparison of anybody with a  puppy here. The words “even if” are a clear indication that every life is valuable. Every life should be valued. The point is – Gujarat Government is reported to have acted within 24 hours of the incidents and controlled everything. On the other hand, his critics did not act for weeks – to control much bigger incidents in their states! If Modi does something wrong, by all means, we must criticize. Else, he will also commit big mistakes. Ditto for every Politician.  But, criticizing good deeds and good words – is bad politics.

*  *  *  E  N  D  *  *  *




Does any Elephant know that we have given the name, elephant to it and therefore, it is properly an elephant? Not by any chance. Does it care what you or I call it? Not in the least. Of course, a pet dog or cat may respond to a name that we give it. It does not mean that it attaches any great significance to it. It only gets confused if 2 or 3 pet dogs in the house are given the same name. Barring that, even if you call it a mouse or ant, it doesn’t care. It responds to this name with a single sound in its language. Dogs, cats, crows etc, usually have just one word in their languages. For all needs, they have to depend on body language. A dog’s bark or a lion’s roar doesn’t tell you whether it wants to eat you or whether it loves you. They have to use a lot of body language to tell that.

Naming is the game that we humans play. We have hundreds of languages and in each language, everything is called by a different name. Which means, elephant is not an elephant in hundreds of other languages. This name has no meaning or significance in those foreign tongues. Yet, naming has a certain use and utility for people speaking the same language.

For instance, calling a man a man is useful. It differentiates him from a woman. Calling a woman a woman likewise is useful and utilitarian. We begin to understand the man and woman a lot better by this categorization and naming.

We know that we are not responsible for making men and women, though we go into acts that seem to make the Next Gen. It just happens. Not that, it happens only because of us.

Men and women are rational. And emotional. And when emotional, we are a lot irrational. Whoever made us, made us that way. When men and women turn emotional in a certain rational or irrational way, we tend to reproduce our next Gen. Man plus woman plus the Next Gen produced by them is called  family. We have called them so. Man plus woman must take care of the next Gen so that the Human Race goes on forever on the earth. That has been the unwritten understanding of the human race – until recently. This is the unwritten understanding among all animals, birds, reptiles, insects and so on – even now.

What happens when men like men only and not women to satisfy their emotional needs? Likewise what happens when women like women only and not men – for their emotional needs? Well. There will be no Next Gen!

How does it affect the earth and the Universe? No effect. The earth goes on happily – as always. It is just that there will be no bombs. There will be no one to go from earth to Moon or Mars. There will be no human race. No religions. No castes. No races. No villages, No cities, No civilizations. No uncivilized people hating or killing others for reasons such as caste, colour, language, religion and so on. No singing, No dancing, No airplanes, trains, cars. No air-conditioning. No restaurants. The world will go on. The dogs will still be there. The lions and elephants will still be there. Nobody will miss us. We are useless for almost every living being on earth, though, they are useful to us.

This, however is not the point to ponder. The point is this. Men are beginning to like men only – and not women. Women are beginning to like women only and not men. They say, they are made that way. As of now, this phenomenon is a trickle. But, it promises to become a storm, a tsunami, a huge flood. They say, no one has the right to object when two men decide to live together and indulge in what they call love and sex. Or, if two women decide to live together and decide to indulge in what they call love and sex. It may be that there is NO NEXT GEN. Clearly there is no possibility of NEXT GEN, when this phenomenon becomes a flood.

Many Societies are calling this union of men with men and women with women as MARRIAGE! They  live together with full “marital rights,” whatever these rights are. More and more men are disillusioned with the opposite sex and are falling head over heels (or whatever) for this same sex “Marriage”.  Ditto with women.  They are also disillusioned with the opposite sex and are opting for Same Sex “marriage”. We are yet to understand their compulsions, or their obsessions. Neither do they.

Are we, the others, able to understand the compulsion of liking the opposite sex and falling head over heels to marry them and have what we call as sex – so that – we reproduce the likes of us – the next Gen? No. we also don’t understand the hormonal changes, their effects, why they come when they do, why they go when they go, and so on.

People like Socrates have warned – Get married, either you will become disillusioned or illusioned. Marriage between man and woman is not a bed of roses either. If they are, they do come with thorns.

For thousands and thousands of years, marriage has been defined as the union between a man and woman, especially for the purpose of sexual relations and procreation.

Even if sexual relations and procreation are not there, yet, the union between a man and woman is stilled named as marriage, because it grants the couple the “rights” for sexual relations and procreation and is recognized by the society as such.

Marriage is for orderly sex and orderly procreation – so that, there are no quarrels, battles and wars for sex. Woman, especially the woman, is granted a safe and respectable place, in the society, and she enjoys safety, respect, protection and support of the society in the institution of marriage. Likewise, every man, however weak he may be, enjoys the protection of the society in making his marital life safe, and protected – from the onslaughts of the stronger men in the society. These are the basic building blocks of the institution of the marriage – in every human society. Whether the man and woman will be happy or not – depend a lot on them – understanding or misunderstanding each other. Marital happiness depends on many such factors.

The definition of marriage also implies the definitions of man’s and woman’s sexual organs, their purpose in marriage, the process of procreation and the very purpose of marriage. This is thus, almost a water-tight definition.

For long, we have seen quotes like “marriages are made in heaven.” Whether they are made in heaven or not – they are purposeful for the long term continuation of the human society.

All societies have built up  procedures and formalities, before a  union of a man and woman is recognized as marriage.

If a man and a woman have sex and procreate, then also, it is not a marriage unless society recognizes the relationship as marriage, keeping in view the social purpose.

Marital relations are differentiated from extra-marital and pre-marital relationships between man and woman. There has never, ever been any doubt in this respect for all these, for  thousands of years.

Now, the LIVING TOGETHER of GAYS does not satisfy any of these criteria. Nor does the living together of Lesbians. So, where is the justification for dubbing these relations also as “marriage”. We can call it by any other name – but why should we call it by the name of marriage. Do we call a Potato a tomato? Do we call a sparrow a crow? Should we? Just because two things are eatables, or two things are birds, we don’t call them by the same name. It confuses. More importantly, the purpose of naming is lost.

If a boy and girl in their early or late teens indulge in sex, at school, or in dating, we are not calling even that as marriage, even if it results in procreation.

Marriage needs social recognition and must serve the long term Social purpose. It must result in or at least oriented towards furthering the human race into future generations.

It must fulfill certain criteria recognized as “marital relations”, “marital promises” and so on. Any other relationship  not satisfying these criteria must not be called “marriage”.

If 2 GAYs live together, or if 2 lesbians live together, this main purpose of marriage, namely, furthering of human race in to future generations – is just not served. In fact, if everyone falls for these relationships – human race ends with this generation itself. The dwindling attraction between man and woman is perhaps, mostly due to overexposure to sex and nudity – and this is perhaps the main cause for these Gay and Lesbian types of relationships. Or, perhaps, nature has some unique plan of its own in ushering in these relationships – to reduce population or some other such purpose of its own. We never understand Nature’s designs fully.

But, society can always give it any other name, but not marriage.  Let us coin new names for the purpose.  But, calling  these relationships as marriage seems meaningless and this infuses a whole lot of avoidable confusion into the society and social relationships immensely. The similarities are too less and differences are too many to permit them to be called as marriage. The implied confusions in these relationships are – a man calling him-self a wife, and, a woman calling herself a husband! Do we need this confusion?

Whether these phenomena are normal or not is not for us to say. These phenomena are there. They need a name. That is the only problem. That is not a problem if we give these relationships a name different from “marriage”.
The point is – not finding fault with or ridiculing any relationship. It is perhaps  Individual liberty, what they do in private, with mutual consent. The only aspect to high light here is, we must not call these relationships by the name “marriage”. Coin new Names. Call them anything else.

 *  *  *  E  N  D  *  *  *

Wednesday, July 10, 2013




For a long time, I had this uneasy feeling. I have been coming across false dowry harassment cases; threats of launching such cases; and plain, overt, unabashed bad behavior by newly married girls in their in-law’s houses. On the other hand, I have not come across genuine cases of Dowry harassment in my circles.
In all cases, which have come to my knowledge, it was some differences between the Husband and wife on matters totally unconnected with dowry or domestic violence – that trigger these cases under the dowry act and the domestic violence Act.
In some cases, from Day One, the Girl is unwilling to stay with the In-Laws and the reason is, she is a pampered child in her father’s house. In some cases, the girl is in her parents’ house only, for whatever reasons, for all time after the marriage – some, along with their husbands also. It is up to them – but why should such girls have the right to make such false accusations of dowry harassment under this law? I know many elders in their 70s and 80s,  living separately from their sons and daughters-in-law, either in their own homes or in Old age homes, because of the apathy of the daughters-in-law. The tragedy of this law is that even they can be accused under this Law.
It is in this context, that I get this uneasy feeling about these laws on dowry harassment and domestic violence.
These Laws are wholly illogical and unethical, as they are uniform for Bihar, Gujarat, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and all other states, where conditions of living and prevailing customs and practices are Poles apart. What is true for Bihar or Rajasthan is not true for Andhra Pradesh or Karnataka. The conditions in Bangalore are miles apart from Bihar or Rajasthan villages. The conditions in Chennai or Bangalore are much different from the conditions even in Delhi.
So, how can a single law which ignores all these differences serve in ensuring Justice? This law has been DISTRIBUTING INJUSTICE of a very inhuman kind to many homes of the in-laws. I do not think, this law is DISTRIBUTING JUSTICE even in a genuine dowry harassment case.
First and Foremost, What should be the ultimate aim of any such Law?
The aim of this Law (anti–dowry harassment Act) and of other laws like domestic violence Act should be to ensure harmonious and cordial relations between the newly wedded couple for their entire life-time and their cordial relations with their elders on both sides.
The only law which was sensibly made in respect of family relations is the law on Divorces. The family courts were established and a decent process of counseling was instituted to prevent avoidable emotion-based, break-ups of marriages. This Law has indeed served a good purpose, even though the growing intolerance and impatience of people is leading to more divorces, despite a good law. The law has indeed prevented many hasty divorces.
This law was working well – until the laws on dowry harassment and domestic violence came on the scene. The wisdom with which the divorce act was made is totally lacking in these new Acts.
The new laws do nothing good. Absolutely nothing Good.
Suppose there has been some genuine dowry harassment. What should a sensible law (like the divorce Act) attempt? It should ensure that the dowry harassment stops immediately but the marriage is intact and becomes more cordial, sensible and long lasting.
The relationships in the family must improve because of the law.
This means and directly suggests an arrangement like the family court which seizes the matter, either goes to the parties by itself or summons them – and counsels them. It can even threaten the erring parties. But, before that, it should try to find the actual happenings. In many cases, an arrangement like the family court can get into action even on hearsay – to find out the truth – before the problem becomes irretrievable. It can nip the problem in the bud. It can visit the Newlyweds at the time of marriage or within six months of marriage, see them privately, and counsel them wherever such counseling is needed. There is nothing wrong in such well-meaning third Party counseling. The aim has to be to ensure cordial relations between the couple and the elders.
 In any case, it can do so – wherever a problem is reported by the parties directly or through a third party. This saves the relationships, the marriage and ensures there is real Justice for all. Where a problem exists, the problem creators get identified and stop creating the problems. The Girl can also correct herself wherever needed. In other words, this arrangement really solves the problem early and avoids all hardship to either the girl or the boy or the in-laws.
 In many cases, the complaining Girl is severely and seriously wrong. She concocts and conjures up things which never happened and presents them as facts with all tears and melodrama. Many Girls are capable of that. But, they don’t understand the long term consequences of their falsehoods. They lose in the long term in their life. On the contrary, the Boy won’t and can’t cry – even if they are absolutely right. That makes them seem that they are false and the crying girl is right.
I am not saying – all boys are right. No. Not at all. More girls are right and more boys are wrong. This is because - More Boys are drunkards and take less responsibility at home. This is true. But, the number of Girls who are Bad-behaved and irresponsible is increasing very fast – and in many places, this is already equal to or more than the number of Boys who are ill-behaved.
Mother-in-laws also can’t cry. Age factor has dried up their tears. So, they also look wrong, even if they are dead right – before the crying daughter-in-laws and their lawyers. Also, the Boy and his family people get arrested without an iota of opportunity to defend themselves and get placed in Police custody. This has serious consequences for their reputation and for their health and other aspects. The employed persons get suspended or even removed from service – merely on account of such Police custody. Police Custody in India today is worse than punishment in Jail given by the court. There are many such adverse social and financial consequences of Police Custody / Jail term. Every such case also gets reported in Media. Then, the onus is on the Boy and in-laws to prove their innocence before the courts. Doesn’t all this look wholly illogical and a travesty of justice – and robbing of all the fundamental rights of the Boy and in-laws, merely because of the words of the Girl.
When Lawyers are there on the scene, they want to win the cases at any cost. So, they ADVICE their clients suitably – to win. They have little interest in ensuring the harmonious marital relations between the girl and the boy. They have no interest in advising the boy and girl to come together and make amends for respective faults. I am not blaming ALL LAWYERS. Perhaps, some are good and won’t even take up such false cases. But, there is somebody who is willing to take up even false cases, and make all efforts to win. That makes it a long term tragedy for the boy and the girl – and most importantly, for all the innocents in the Boy’s family. A Boy’s marriage in the family becomes a curse for all in the family, because of this LAW. How long should all the in-laws be afraid of their daughters-in-law under this law? No limitation. Can such a law be called legal and logical? It is a bad law, badly made and badly implemented.
Unlike the family courts, the Judges in these cases are also determined to find the culprits and punish them – and not determined to ensure harmonious marital relations. They can’t be blamed because there is no such provision in the law. When the Girl first approaches a lawyer or Police, or court, what happens immediately is – all of the family of the in-laws are put in either Police custody or in Jail, without a shred of evidence to support the girl’s case.  We are treating the right to liberty of the in-laws with such scant respect in our country. This happens even in cases of love marriages – in which divorce cases seem to be more frequent – like in the US, where the rate of divorce among love marriages is around 50%.
The utter insensitivity of these laws is that – it assumes that the daughter-in-law is always truthful, innocent and always right. It also assumes that her complaints, possibly drafted by her lawyers is also 100 percent right. This, obviously, cannot be the case.
I am not denying that there is no harassment of the Girl at all in any in-law’s family. There are cases. But, most of these cases are amenable to correction.  The point is, the best of in-laws also are projected in very bad light by some girls. Can the law deny that there are such girls? Yes. There are husbands who are very bad, drunk, flirtatious etc. But, what should the law attempt in the case of such boys and Girls? Set them right. That is the  solution, Law should attempt. Girls do love and marry such boys, knowing all of their such weaknesses in many cases. It is a sort of Hero-worship towards such drunken and fighting boys, in fact.
In Indian movies, many of our heroes fit the above description in many of their movies. The last cinema Hero who avoided drinking and smoking scenes on the silver screen to my knowledge (and  in real life) was MGR. Now, girls have no such role models to follow. They follow the models they see on screen. Having married such Boys, then realities face them later. They go for dowry harassment act, domestic cruelty act and so on – in anger. The Internet also gives countless examples of false cases under these acts.
The present laws invariably BREAK THEM APART. That is the only solution under the Law. Break them apart and send the Boy and the in-laws to Jail. There is just nothing which is good in these laws or their implementation. Whole families are taken into custody, including the very old persons. More often, the Girl, or, her lawyers, do not spare anyone in the family. Though there are many conscientious Lawyers, who are trying to fight against such non-genuine cases in courts, they can’t prevent the initial trauma of the in-laws being arrested and kept in custody.
The National Women’s commission and the Ministries women welfare etc should not be acting – as if they are Daughter-in-laws’ commission and Ministry for Daughter-in-laws’ welfare. The mothers-in-law and the sisters-in-law are also human beings and women. The Husband, the father-in-law and Brothers-in-law are also human beings. If that is not the case – no woman would marry them at all.
My appeal to the Ministries of women welfare, the National commission for women and also the Higher Judiciary is that – this Law must be replaced by a Law which attempts to locate problems in the family in the initial stages, counsels all erring persons including the Girl, the boy and others, warns them where necessary – and if these do not work, then, award DIVORCE. Even the scope of the present family court can be expanded to cover these functions.
Where the case of dowry harassment is proved genuine and doesn’t stop with a warning, the erring persons must be made to pay huge amount to the Girl, to her bank account. If there is no such divorce demand and If there is no compatibility, Divorce is the way. Jailing everybody in the family is not the way.  This Law needs immediate change. This is a classic case where a small change  in a Present law can promote a lot of welfare and happiness in the country.

*  *  * E  N  D  *  *  *