No need to abort female foetuses or drown baby girls: A practical solution from Baba Ramdev and company

Want to be ASHTA PUTRA SAUBHAGYAVATI ? Without aborting the female foetus. Or drowning the newborn baby girls. Or raising them teaching how to be perfect Sati-Savitris?

An army of Hindu fertility experts are coming to rescue you from the misfortune of being mother to a girl.. or gasp… many girls… or gasp gasp… no kids!! Baanz… apshakuni women of holy India- rejoice!!

You can buy a boon, a medicine, a male heir from none other than Baba Ramdev ( Jai ho) that will instantly make you pregnant with a KULDEEPAK.

First they said that every Hindu woman should produce at least 4 kids. Because otherwise Hindus will be a minority in Hindustan. Then they thought 4 is too low. So they made it 10. A nice round figure you know. Dashputra Saubhagyavati Bhav!!

Now you have a 100% guarantee that majority of these ten offsprings to be sons.

All you have to do is pay a few hundred rupees and bear a glorious male child. Or ten of them. Baba Ramdev’s pharmacies bring you the golden elixir that is guaranteed to produce a glorious Hindu army of 56 inch chaati males in our Bharatvarsha.

I have a male dog. So maybe I should call myself ‘EkKutra Saubhagyavati?’

Homeland 4

I binge watched the season 4 of Homeland. After Season 3, I had almost given up on it, and this season continues its gross misrepresentation of Muslim world. However, like many addictions go, there is no clear answer to why I love this show to the point of compulsion.

After cringing at Carrie’s increasingly bizarre characterisation, the very problematic portrayal of Islam, the near ridiculous plot twists in Season 2 and 3, in this season, we are greeted by pretty much same level of Islamophobia made worse by horrendous Hindi and Africans playing Pakistanis. Talk of racial imperialism you know, Africans.. Asians… same thing.

However, Carrie is back to her being one of the best characters in recent times. Claire Danes is mind-blowing stunning. Her hyper, so-called Bi-Polarisms in season 3 are wiped out, thank god. And she is back to playing this intriguing character with nuance. I also loved the exploration of her motherhood. I was afraid that she would be this I-am-a-reformed-mother-of-my-dead marine/terrorist/ congressman/fugitive/patriot boyfriend. But she is not. There is a very tense scene in the first episode in fact where she almost drowns her baby. She is inept as a parent and is not exactly criticised for her choice of choosing spying over motherhood.

Of course she is selfish, takes self-destructive decisions and manipulates everyone. She seduces a teenage boy and ultimately becomes responsible for his death. She is also not a great boss. Her nonchalance over bombing of civilians nudges her towards the darker characterisation.

And that has prompted me to think again about my recent obsession – ideology of cool, grey female characters in recent times. Feminist critics have criticised Carrie for being a tool of patriarchy- choosing to be just one of boys. They have also criticised implications that a powerful woman can’t be a good person, a good mother, a good boss.

And there is merit in the critique.

But beyond this, I think there is an overriding ‘cool grey’ness to her character which should not be chastised just because she is a woman and ought to be a great feminist example. Virtually all popular cultural figures revel in borderline greyness in recent times. From Joker to Walter White TO House of Cards. Even Carrie’s own male colleagues are imperfect and walk on the thin line of morality. None of them have normal, family lives. Peter Quinn lives like a malfunctioning robot. Brody and Saul exploit their wives who reluctantly put their own lives secondary to their men’s obsessions and beliefs.

So I don’t really see why Carrie should be expected to bear the white flag of normalcy. Rather, it is her grey cool ness which makes her a true anti-hero of a popular show. I am not saying this grey coolness is something I champion, but lets admit it. A BiPolar, impulsive, self-destructive, driven, brilliant CIA Agent makes for a far more compelling character, no?

I for one love the fact that more and more women are portrayed in the grey zone.

On another note, the only person who overshadows Carrie is young medical student Ayan, played by our ver own Suraj Sharma. His performance is so nuanced and so heartbreakingly real, that I won’t be surprised if he walks away with several major awards this time.

Work – Family Balance

If you are a woman, it doesn’t matter what you do for a living. You could be a commissioner of police or a CEO of a Billion Dollar corporate a la Indra Nooyi. There is only one question the humanity has for you.

How do you manage your family with high pressure job?

Needless to say, a man in power is never asked the same question, because it is assumed, and correctly so, that there would be a supportive woman who would take care of his family. Sorry, ‘her’ family. Because while the family might carry a man’s name, it is the responsibility of a woman to look after it and take a step back when it comes to her career/ individual growth.

What is surprising is that many people would like to believe that in todays ‘post-feminist’ world, (a.k.a where equality is totally achieved and we don’t need feminism ya all), it is a ‘choice’ that women make.

Right.

It is hardly a choice when opted for by overwhelming majority of one gender. It is hardly a choice when that same gender has been conditioned for centuries to focus on her role as a mother/ wife/ nurturer. And when the same conditioning continues even today in mainstream cultural dialogue.

Choice requires multiple options. Economic, structural, social, cultural, medical.. the list goes on. And in our society, majority of women just don’t have them.

Even women who have some structural advantages, find it difficult to act on them due to cultural pressure to be the primary nurturer and Gajar Ka Halwa maker of the family.

If you state this fairly obvious fact, you would be bombarded with angry responses, even from women. About how ‘it is her choice’ to stay home and look after her kids. Or that they happen to ‘ like’ to be there when their kids grow. Or that they are against the crass materialism and inhuman work-pressure. Or that their husbands just happen to earn more than they do and it makes sense for them to quit the job rather than their husbands. And how dare you challenge their legitimate ‘choice’?

Majority of these responses refuse to take into account the overwhelming cultural conditioning, economic factors and inherent sexism in our notions of parenting.

While feminism is about wide range of choices for women, no individual choice can exist in vacuum.

The decision to stay at home with kids or reject the pressure to be ‘powerful’ would be actually be a true choice when a significant number of men also ‘have’ to take that option, thus rendering it gender-neutral. It would be a true choice when women and men have similar options and similar parenting roles. It would be a true choice when there are no ‘mommy-tracks’ or gender wage gap. It would be a true choice when women choosing not to have kids are not looked down upon as aliens. It would be a true choice when rather than phony lip-service, mothers are actually compensated for the tremendous work they do by birthing the child.

Until then, whether we like to admit it or not, it is hardly a ‘choice’ women make in a ‘blissful post-patriachal vacuum.’

So this comes as a fresh breath when a powerful man decides to make the ‘choice’ to stay home to spend more quality time with his kids and blogs about the unfair expectation of women to worry about ‘family-work’ balance, while men never get asked about the same. Powerful men making this choice and recognising that this choice doesn’t exist in ideological vacuum, gives it legitimacy in our world full of dated notions of masculine identity and power.

It also reemphasises that kids have ‘parents’ and not just ‘mothers’.

It acknowledges that fathers also care about their kids and can sacrifice their careers for their kids.

Millions of women have to take this option every day. We definitely need more dads making this choice and being aware of the gendering of this concept. It would not only ease the pressure on women but also bring a healthier and balanced notions of parenting in our society.

Creche in the office

Please help this excellent initiative by signing the petition by going to the following link.

http://www.greenpeacex.in/petitions/make-creches-at-workplaces-a-rule-not-an-exception?bucket=email3&source=facebook-share-button&time=1406290078

Most of the women in our society suffer serious professional downturn post childbirth. Many have to ‘choose’ between working outside home and caring for their children at home. It is hardly a choice when there is no other valid and sustainable option.

When women are put on ‘mommy- track’, we are effectively discriminating against women in general.

While my first question to humanity in general would be ‘why is it almost always a woman’s problem?’ , I am not going to ask it here. Because no matter what I believe about father’s and society’s responsibility towards childcare- I am realistic enough to know it is a tough battle. Which needs to be fought simultaneously.

As quite a senior employee in corporate sector, I have come across several examples of bright and productive women who would have continued and successfully so, had they got support from home and workplace. Many end up quitting. Many end up accepting projects and jobs that are never going to give them robust professional growth.

And the saddest part is that many women choose careers that are not demanding so that they don’t get into this conflict in the first place. Which means our girls are effectively being told to excel academically but choose careers with one eye on the baby.

Having childcare support at office is one step towards giving women more options. If we can make it happen at policy level, it is telling our girls that they don’t have to sacrifice their professional life for a baby. I know it won’t be so hunky dory, but it is definitely a step towards equality.

Please sign the petition.

Supreme Court asks why are mothers ignored?

Thank you Supreme Court!! And thank you Madhav Kant Mishra for stating the obvious:

Mothers hardly match the authority a father commands in official documents necessary to prove a person’s identity. While the father’s name prominently figures in government documents, the mother is usually given the go-by.

And you know what? This bias ties back to my favourite rant. Why do kids, even in today’s day and age always take their father’s last name? Especially, when their mother hasn’t taken her husband’s last name after marriage? 99.99% cases of women I know who haven’t changed their last names after marriage, have given their husband’s last name to kids. Why? why? why? They are usually the ones who take most of the burden of childcare, their lives- physical as well as social- change more dramatically than those of their husbands.

Then why do husbands get to be umbrella identity markers? And please don’t tell me about exceptional cases like Sanjay Leela Bhansali, we are talking of the norm here. Also none of the ‘Oh, it doesn’t matter because last names are just formality/ relics of bygone era’. When majority of children carry their father’s name and not mother’s – it is clearly institutionalised sexism.

Motherhood is all about sacrifice a la Gajar ka halwa!! However, when it comes to real power- mothers can go take a hike. Because from religious rituals to government documents to last names for kids to Bollywood movies to corporate policies, it is the fathers who rule the roost. After all, the word Patriarchy is derived from the all mighty ‘father’.

The petition, filed by journalist Madhav Kant Mishra from Allahabad, says ignoring the parenthood of the mother in government documents is in gross violation of the Fundamental Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. It sought an ordinance making the mother’s name compulsory in documents.

Why are we asked to name FATHER OR HUSBAND in every frikkin document: from passport to nursery leaving certificates to bank accounts to medical tests to pan card to voter’s card?

Because father ( or husband) is used as a marker of identity.

‘ Whose daughter/ son? ‘
‘This man’s.’

Sort of like when in ancient times a person would be first a part of the community/ caste/ village/ family and then an individual.

It would have seemed quaint has it not been 21st century. And had mother was also used as a marker of a person’s identity.

But it is done rarely. It is not ironical but outright fucked up that while a woman’s femininity is validated the most when she is a mother, her identity as a mother is not good enough to be acknowledged as a marker for her own kid.

She is not good enough to preside over any traditional ceremony, the kids almost always take father’s last name, and she isn’t considered parent enough to be mentioned in any official document concerning her child.

So hope that social, legal, official and cultural norms change to acknowledge mothers’ rights in meaningful manner rather than melodramatic lip service.

Another nonsensical lip service a.k.a MOTHERHOOD IS THE TOUGHEST JOB EVER…

Another ‘pat on your back plus hollow lip service‘ message for mothers.

From President Obama to your neighbourhood Facebook banshees, everyone screams hoarse on how motherhood is the world’s toughest job, like EVER EVER EVER…

Yes ladies, bring forth that Gajar Ka Halwa or its modern childcare equivalent, be garlanded for your holy martyrdom and shut-up about your postpartum depression. You might be a commissioner of the police or a prime-minister, it is NOTHING as compared to the celestial and 24 hr. job of being a mamma. Do not dare to ask for privileges, or equality, because hey, we all know it is also THE MOST REWARDING WORK YOU WOULD EVER DO EVER..

Forget the coal miners or women labourers who break their backs doing construction work for 18 hrs. or finance minister working on annual budget of the country or a social worker working tirelessly with child prostitutes… well, you get the drift.

I really wonder if mothers buy this kind of nonsense? Going by media coverage, a significant number of them do. And other mothers, thank god, call out the hypocrisy and the saccharine sweet gender stereotyping such messages re-enforce. This is a sophisticated version of the Nirupa Roy syndrome Mothers. No hunky Vijay is going to save you from baddies or take revenge or raise you from poverty kyunki mere paas maaa hai!!

It is one thing to recognise the tremendously valuable work of child raring that (largely) women do, for no money, meaningless titles of CEO of the HOUSEHOLD notwithstanding. And it is another to give this dumbified messages which would raise the hackles of any self-respecting woman or man, mother/parent or not.

No country for a healthy debate?

I emerged from travel followed by a presentation to come across this 2 week old article referred to by so many of people on my FB feed, that I knew it was going to be like, you know, controversial without really having any meat on it.

And so it is.

I am sure you have all read the article and have varied opinions on it. ( I think the writer started out with an interesting point and lost out somewhere between Aishwarya Rai, mommy-blogging and goal fetish.)

But have you read the comments? Have you? Have you?

They are tiny little gems, those ether-spewn-pearls of wisdoms..

Most of them are cringingly predictable – (mostly)women admonishing the writer for daring to write about parenthood in negative light. The tone of the comments is sooooo smug and moralizing- that you are almost reminded of Nirupa Roy jokes. Needless to say, all of them ironically confirm the writer’s contentions, rightly or not.

Why are we not used to ‘listening’ and ‘accepting’ other views is beyond me. Someone finds bliss in parenting and wants to write about their kids and schools- great. Someone finds it irritating and exhausting and wants to rant – great. Shouldn’t all voices be heard and debated?

Especially those who might be saying something that has not been said frequently before?

After all, none of the commentators are debating about the inherent flaws in the article- and there are plenty. But all of them are reacting to the very premise that a woman may find parenting not as great as it is made out to be.

This is what makes our country such a terrible bore- people not only have no patience for other’s views, they also feel it is their duty to morally bulldoze someone down for daring to say something different.

To Baby or not to baby?

So there is this new villain on American Parent-Sphere, my friends informed me during our weekly Gchat.

I am mildly scared of reacting to anything parenting/ baby related around my quite opinionated and otherwise very democratic friends. All other topics are usually hotly debated, but the moment it comes to kids-Bam!! Everyone’s nerves go jittery, everything becomes more personal than underarm shaving and the tender thread of Gchat threatens to spill in angry diatribes, wicked smileys and passive-aggressive FB status messages whereby everyone knows who is being taunted, but nobody can claim it openly.

The new villain is Chef Grant Akatz of Michelin star restaurant Alinea. He tweeted when a couple got their 8 month old to his fine dining establishment:

‘Tbl brings 8mo.Old. It cries. Diners mad, Tell ppl no kids? Subject diners 2crying? Ppl take infants 2 plays? Concerts? Hate saying no,but..”.

My friends were fuming about the inconsiderate hoity-toity ness of the kid-bashing, spatula wielding man who couldn’t tolerate a toddler screaming in room full of 78 other customers who had paid $ 265 per head to have a Michelin experience. And I am not talking of the tyre here, but a truly exclusive, need-to-book-weeks-in-advance experience.

I am almost always very pro-mothers. I believe that motherhood shouldn’t cost any woman experiences that other people can avail of. I believe that motherhood is as feminist an issue as any.

I am not baby friendly, but I get along very well with kids.

And I have never publicly declared my annoyance at inconsiderate parents. So, my friends assumed that I would support their argument that by banning kids from restaurants would effectively ban their mothers ( since it is mothers who overwhelmingly care for infants).

And yes it is true. But the answer is definitely not subjecting other people, who have zero interest in your kids’ developmental needs or whatever it is, to your unruly babies/kids.

‘Aww… it is a baby and babies cry..’,’Awww… he is just a kid’, or more annoying ‘ You also were a kid once’ are insensitive responses when someone points out that your offspring is, well, being a nuisance.

Since I am not a parent myself, I will not tell you about disciplining your kids.Or recite stories about ‘when we were also kids once and were mortally scared of our mother’s raised eyebrows when in public’. Because honestly, I have rarely seen a parent who takes these suggestions constructively. But when your kids are in public, you better. A pampered brat is cute only to you, not to others, even to the most considerate ones like myself.

And while you are at it, try not to take the baby to a fine dining restaurant.

And by YOU I mean both the parents. Bloody dads looking at the mum with a mixture of helplessness and embarrassment is not OK. People only targeting women for unruly toddlers is not OK.

It is very unfair that the wrath of people at inconsiderate parenting falls on women only. What is the dad doing then? Is his role to withdraw, smile and hope that the semen turns into a beautiful, accomplished 18 year old by magic?

In India, parents have more child-care support compared to western nations. But sometimes I find that mothers who can actually leave their kids back home, do not, fearing that the husband/maid/relatives will not take good care of them in their absence. I do think, in that case, maybe you better stay home rather than go and watch The Wolf of Wall Street with a 6 month old.

I would also be very suspicious of husbands who claim that they can not handle/ take care of their own kids to give mumma a break.

Most of the times, parents are quite unaware that their baby would not be welcome in certain places. And if they are made aware, even jokingly, most parents take it as an insult. I am not saying all my Gchatters are like that, but I sense resentment when anything that is not an outright praise for their kids is uttered, even in jest.

I compromise, by keeping mum. Or trying to change the topic. Since none of these people are my close pals, I have never felt a need to point out that the world doesn’t revolve around their kids. (I also shamelessly use our talk as market research!!)

So, most of the time, when people are throwing mildly annoyed glances at you but not saying anything, it is not that they love you screaming child, but they are nervous about your sanctimonious reaction. I am one of those people who will, at max, shake my head and take a deep breath at kids running around in restaurants/airports or kicking my chair or banging plates or speaking loudly in a movie. If an adult talks in a movie, I have no qualms about shushing them up directly or confronting bad behaviour like talking loudly on cell phones in fine dining restaurants. But I avoid confrontation with parents because of the general holier-than-thou touchy entitlement that many young Indian parents display.

Let me give you an example of my own non-michelin star lunch last month, with my new acquaintances from my housing society. All of them are women and know each other because they all take their babies for walk in the evening. I started chatting with them since all their babies like to talk to Puppyjaan. They suggested I join them for their monthly weekend brunch. I was game since I love the venue- a lovely British pub.

I tried not to look shocked when I saw three babies perched on their mother’s arms. I tried to smile when one of the babies threw a tantrum and started crying loudly as soon as we entered the dim, loud-music-playing pub and continued shrieking intermittently throughout our meal. I tried to interject between an angry mother demanding a baby chair and an angrier waitress pointing out that the establishment does not have one. I clutched to my beer, since I was frankly worried that the baby moving his arms all over the table would spill one if I ordered something in a glass. I had accepted that the talk would be all about babies, since all of them are in that group because of the babies. But what I wasn’t ready for was the mayhem – glasses spilled, food thrown around, loud cries and a very nasty smell that lingered due to the closed environment of the pub.

More cringeworthy was the blatant indifference of my lunch mates- They sensed that they were ruining it for everyone there, but they ploughed on since they were paying and had every right to be there and it is a kid after all and we all were kids so don’t be so stuck up…. They expected the waiters to coo and entertain the babies. They behaved exactly as if they were in their home.

Like I was shy to point out to my friends that the chef is right to expect his restaurant give quality experience to his patrons ( which doesn’t include a crying baby), I was shy to point out that young babies do not belong in a pub. These women could have left their babies with maids ( all of them have them) or husbands ( it was a saturday). But they chose to ruin the experience for themselves and others.

I fully support women’s prerogative to enjoy themselves, but the sheer nonchalance for others and a bleh attitude is not understandable. People do not spend thousands of rupees on a weekend to hear couple of babies in a pub.

I think women should have all experiences and I understand that in real world, motherhood imposes restrictions of women that are unfair. But the answer is not insensitivity at thrusting the kid at inopportune situations.

What do you think?

Stay At Home Moms and $$$

$$ value of a SAHM’s labour

Charts such as these which assign $$$ value to Stay At Home Mums’ work abound the modern American debate- from feminist blogs to Mommy blogs to conservative blogs to general controversy mongering headlines.

What would be the Indian counterpart to this chart? Especially since labour in India is pretty cheap vis-a-vis United States ( ask Devyani Khobragade), how would this chart look like in Indian context?

This particular chart is hugely problematic because it compares salaries of professionals with SAHM who is clearly not executing these duties on that scale of professionalism. When you assign salaries for skills, there is an assumption that you execute them in a professional environment, have a financial goal associated with your performance which is appraised in financial terms.
Emotional feelings of all-powerfulness of mother aside, we can not take professional salaries and assign them to SAHMs without these parameters then.

So what are SAHMs truly worth, in hardcore financial terms? ( We had this debate a year and half ago when a bill was going to be proposed that would ensure housewives get a salary. )

Related to this and more important perhaps is to ask what of financial security for SAHMS in Indian context? Especially today, when financial dynamics practically dictates social and family life.

I know that many women ( I will not say ‘parents’ because the number of male parents who stay at home to look after their kids is too minuscule to consider here) do not stay home just as a replacement of paid child care, but to ensure that their children grow in healthy ( mental, intellectual, physical) manner. Many have no support system of parents/ grandparents to look after their child. Many do not want paid care to raise children because it might be unsafe or unsatisfactory. Many leave their salaried jobs for emotional satisfaction of being with their children.

So, how can we put price on what these women bring on the table? While you can not assign market value to everything, especially emotions and relationships, I firmly believe that financial security is paramount to Indian women. And if they are spending their prime years working hard, it should be recognised- in real terms and not Bollywood songs.

So let us not only sentimentalise about priceless experience of child-rearing, but also try to look at it from financial perspective.

Fair Labour and wage laws are sign of an evolved society and logic that some work is ‘outside’ these laws is dangerous to the people who do the said work.

I want to puke when people offer sentimental lip service about how women are sacrificing their lives for building the nation. The same people then leave these builders of nation to the mercy of their earning husbands and a vague notion of moral responsibility.

I am not even talking about the choice that women make to stay at home because they miss their kids. In absence of gender equality in parenting, we can not call something a choice when it is overwhelmingly expected of one gender. More often than not, society, culture and economic need expects women to be the primary parent and ‘choose’ between career and childrearing.

So, what about hardcore monetary security?

If something goes wrong in the marriage and the woman wants to leave her husband, the non-working-for-salary woman gets a pretty raw deal even when it comes to the same kids she spent her live raising. A cousin undergoing divorce is finding it tough to retain custody of her kids since she has no property in her name. In real life, the welfare of kids would require financial security which is not compatible with our divorce laws.

Tougher is the life of a woman who might not want to look after her kids anymore, and do something of her own in late stage of her life.

And what about women whose kids have grown up and do not require their mums as much as they did? What would be the financial worth of these women then?

And how is the performance to be appraised? What if an excellent mother’s kid turns out to be a thug? Whose parenting will be under scanner then? ( Rhetorical question this. For centuries people have blamed mothers for ill doings of their offsprings.)

While alimony, child-support and joint- investments exist , most women would find themselves in tough corner, especially middle-age onwards, if they do not have financial security that they can call their own.

When we say that the family- husband, parents, kids – would ensure that the woman who devoted her life for their comfort, we are putting the woman in dependent position. Because familial relationships may or may not be based on objectivity and fairness, how to ensure that the women get their due?

For this, we need to know what is their due in financial terms.

In absence of the same, the woman is dependent on her spouse to ‘recognise’ her work- both in terms of quality and quantity.

I am not writing this as yet another ‘mommy-war ke aag mein tel’ provocation. Women who work outside home do many of these tasks as well, and the ‘double shift’ is topic of another post.

For the first time in my life, I have formed acquaintance with SAHMs, thanks to the kids and babies who are attracted to Puppyjaan and want to talk/touch/play with him. As the babies coo, gurgle and wave their hands while Puppyjaan stands like a patient tiger; the mum and me usually chat with each other. I go to lunches with them sometime and this very new group experience always forces me to think about the tremendous financial punt these women are taking by leaving their jobs and looking after their kid full time.

I really do not understand how to put value to the work of women who choose to stay home. I also do not understand why 100% of stay-at-home-parents in my 21st century, Mumbai housing society are women. I do not understand how to make sure that child-rearing is seen as a specialised job that requires special privileges.

What do you think?

Nirupa Roy Jokes

The Ultimate Mommy

Move over Alok Nath-a.k.a betiyon ke babuji…

Make space for Nirupa Roy, a.k.a Beton ki Maaaaa…who is the latest viral sensation, a.k.a butt of jokes.

The one, the only, the smashing white-clad-sans-sindoor nuclear reactor of Indian traditions and values..

NIRUPA ROY… the aponyous Maa in the iconic dialogue’ Mere Paas Maa hai..’…

THE Nirupra Roy who had good luck to squash the very Hot Amitabh Bachchan to her chest hundreds of times over her career in the name of feeding him Gajar Ka halwa and holding his dead body in the temple.

Beton aur betiyon, uth ke pranaam karo.

Actually, it is hard to imagine Nirupa Roy with a beti. She always has sons, who range from obedient, gangsta, cop, wayward, morally upright, but it is always sons. Because the hindi film makers know that mother is a mother only when she is the mother of sons.

Because if you are mother of a daughter, the best you can do is adjust her wedding pallu and wipe eyes daintily. Or cry when her ijjat is lutaoed by thugs. Where is the fun in that? ( Not to mention, where is the very Hot Amitabh Bachchan in that?)

One of the jokes says, ‘Nirupa Roy’s daughter doesn’t talk to her because she was named Vijay by Nirupa Roy’.

And it is true. What is the point of being a poor, marginalised widow unless you have hatte-katte sons to avenge the injustices and receive lectures of morality?

We will continue the discussion on what Nirupa Roy means for Indian motherhood later. till then, enjoy these white yards of jokedom:

1. Nirupa Roy’s laptop has got WIDOW-98 installed.

2. Nirupa Roy can instantly cry on a joke.

3. Nirupa Roy’s laughing MMS goes viral… she claims it’s doctored.

4. Nirupa Roy has 6 sons. All of them are named Vijay.

5. After Nirupa Roy’s first marriage, her father said by mistake: “Sada abhaagan raho!”

6. In her next flick, Nirupa Roy might lock lips with Alok Nath.

7. Cannes to roll out white carpet for Nirupa Roy’s welcome.

8. Nirupa Roy’s most horrifying nightmare: she saw that she was young!!

9. Nirupa Roy’s most romantic moment: when her husband gave her flowers for the first time…on Mother’s Day.

10. Nirupa Roy’s daughter doesn’t talk to her anymore as she tried to name her ‘Vijay’ when she was born.

11. Nirupa Roy has 73 shades of white in her wardrobe collection.

12. Nirupa Roy to play lead role in upcoming movie ‘Hasee To Phasee’.

13. Nirupa Roy dragged Johnson & Johnson to court over the “No more tears” campaign.

14. Nirupa Roy plays Holi with sindoor.

15. Nirupa Roy’s Whatsapp status says: “Last cried at…”

16. Nirupa Roy was once approached for a comedy movie. That casting director lost his job.

17. CRY Foundation has offered Nirupa Roy to become its brand ambassador.

18. Nirupa Roy was born pregnant. She became grandmother at 4.

19. Nirupa Roy sends Weepeys instead of Smileys.

20. Nirupa Roy looks for her groom in Obituary columns.

21. During school days, Nirupa Roy always preferred to dress as a Widow during fancy dress competitions.

22. Nirupa Roy still thinks Draupadi’s ‘Cheerharan’ was a wardrobe malfunction.