Cinderella didn't need a prince Charming!

Cinderella didn't need a prince charming, she just needed a day off!

Snowhite didn't need need a prince either. She was already kicking ass when she met him!

So why do we have these delirious notions where a 'damsel in distress' needs to be rescued by a prince? Why can't a girl slay all the dragons and rescue herself? Why can't she be 'the Saviour' (quoting: Once Upon A Time)?

Though these stories were written ages ago when the world was dominated by patriarchy, nothing much has changed since then.

Take Elena for instance. While Stephan treated her delicately as if would break like a glass, Damon's love was so consuming that she forgot herself (quoting: The Vampire Diaries)! And how can we forget Meredith, who sort of flipped her humanity switch (even though she's very much human) when McDreamy died (quoting: Grey's Anatomy). Granted that the circumstances these characters endured were extra-ordinary and anyone in their situation is allowed to act out, yet its not an excuse that only a lass should be in trouble.

Why can't these shows show their male leads being rescued by women?

Look how Christina Yang's career flourished when Burke left her and she left Owen. Khaleesi (quoting: Game of Thrones) became the 'mother of dragons' etc. when Khal Drogo died and she decided to take on the world herself with her loyal followers. Bonnie is the single most powerful witch that there ever would be. The way she single-handedly saved the 'vamipre world' several times making countless sacrifices in the process makes me wonder why aren't we focussing on her?!

Another area of conflict is the Marvel and DC Comics series. There is Batman, there is Iron Man and then there is Superman. What about their female-counterparts? Although there are some female characters- Catwoman and Wonder Woman to name a few, yet are they being projected at equal footing with their male counterparts? No.

Why aren't any of the super-human series showing women as their lead (please don't quote Powerpuff Girls)?!

In this era when women are showing the world a new light, the society is still polarised. A woman is still expected to micro-manage her life. She is expected to be a homemaker first and then care about her career. She is still expected to be an 'epitome of sacrifices and selflessness'. She is still expected to change her surname (and identity) after marriage. She is still expected to remain behind the curtains and obey orders by the so called alpha-male of the family.

My question is why can't she be the 'alpha-female'? Why can't she do anything without being surveyed by those judgy little eyes like men? Why is the society always expecting things from women? Is it the code for saying that 'men won't be able to handle the pressure' or is our society (lead by its male members) theatened by the female community and the things they can achieve if given complete authority?

It is interesting to note that even the so called advocates of women's rights haven't highlighted/protested over the fact that all the documents ask for either father's name or husband's name. No document asks for just mother's name. It's like secretly these documents are screaming that women are under male guardianship and they cannot exist without these 'assigned identities'.

Women in Saudi Arabia are under male guardianship. That guardian can be anyone- father, husband, brother or even the son who learnt all his life lessons from his mother. Many people have openly criticised it. But I think that it 's still better. At least they own up to it. We (the Indian and many others like us) don't. We just point fingers while forgetting that we're sailing in the same boat!

Talking about marriage, I don't get the concept of 'Kanya daan'. You donate an object or a thing. If you're donating a human i.e. your daughter, you're basically objectifying her. How's that right and how can anyone in his/her right mind label that as the 'highest form of donation'?! And how can our ancient texts call it 'sacred'?

Even our traditions are biased. A girl when married goes to her husband's house, says the tradition. She must change her surname, says the society. But why aren't similar norms applicable to men? Why can't men shift to their wives' homes? Why can't men change their surname instead? Why is that women have to adjust in their brand new families with a whole new set of do's and don'ts while men get a free pass?

I believe 'all or none' approach is the fair thing to do. Either both change their surnames or both don't. Why should one person do all the adjustment?

And now the classic argument that never loses its pun- we pray to goddess yet we treat our women like they're nothing at all. We fast and feast during Navratras, we visit Vaishno Devi, we tell tales of how the great eight-handed goddess saved the world from the demon king, yet we disrespect, objectify and mistreat women! It's like you're murdering people the whole year and when you take a dip in a river, it's going to magically even out all your sins. What you're forgetting is that even after taking the dip, dead will be dead. Now apply the same analogy in case of worshipping and respecting women. (Hope you get it now!)

The point is that the society needs to change as a whole. We can't preach something and practice something else. There has to be a balance and the society collectively needs to work towards a common goal. Its like taking out a really complex tumour. Sometimes you do it in one go. The other times things must proceed in stages.

The world can survive only if the creator and the creation are in sync not otherwise!

India's A-Game Against Pakistan

It's no brainer that India and Pakistan have never exactly been the most friendly neighbours to each other. Despite all the hostility and difference of opinion India has abstained from lodging any direct attack against the neighbour country on the international platform.

While Pakistan has always insisted on having a plebiscite in the war-torn Kashmir valley, often going over-board with its emotions; India, on the other hand, has always asserted its rightful claim to the valley's 'Iron throne'.

But the recent turn of events has been such that the dynamics in the valley have changed completely.

Though terrorist infiltrations, terror attacks, cross-fires and curfews have long plagued the valley, a direct attack on the armed forced has been a rare event. But a recent attack on a troop of army men in Kashmir's Uri sector has changed the parameters that have long governed the politics in the highly volatile state of Jammu and Kashmir. Uri attack has shifted the focus of the global conscience to a region that has been considered an area of bilateral dispute so far.

While the countries that have for long maintained a neutral stand on the issue, have openly picked their side; other nations that have eschewed from making a statement so far, too have declared their loyalties.

Pakistan, which under the circumstances seems to be in a desperate need of cover, has ducked into its constant rant about the Kashmir issue, blaming India for being the 'mad king'.

While Pakistan is facing flak from the global community over nestling terrorism and terror outfits in its protection, things have not been a smooth ride for the Modi government too. People across the nation are blaming Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his government of inaction and of having a feeble stand, ignoring the bigger picture in the process.

To those who have been following the series of events that have led to nations including US, UK, France, Russia, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka isolating Pakistan on the international forum, the heated political curry is a part of India's master-plan against the nation. The events that have unfolded in the recent time seem harmless and discrete. However, when put together in the right order, they hold the key to understanding India's ultimate solution to its nearly seven-decade-old 'Pak problem'.

Here's the breakdown.

India has always taken a defensive stand, prioritising bilateral dialog and negotiations to surf through the rough waters. Her stand as a peace-keeper has helped her to maintain stability and win many friends.

Extending the same tradition, Prime Minister Narendra Modi made an impromptu visit to Lahore last year to wish Pak PM Nawaz Sharif on his birthday. While this move was severely criticised by people at home, who insisted that PM Modi had cowed in, it was like icing on top of India's spotless image that projected her willingness to cooperate even in the most dire circumstances. Internationally, this move was widely welcomed by the United Nations and other leaders.

While the rift between Indo-Pak relations seemed to be healing slowly, Pak PM's efforts to jeopardise India's bid to the Nuclear Supplier's Group (NSG) by writing to the world leaders personally not only projected the nation in bad light but also raised questions on its willingness to establish peace in the Kashmir valley.

Following this, Nawaz Sharif's 'deep shock' and protest over the killing of Hizbul Mujahideen commander Burhan Wani in an encounter in Srinagar raised several eye-brows, questioning his stand on eliminating terrorism from the Pak soil.

Yet another give-away on Pak's intentions of resolving the Kashmir issue was Nawaz Sharif's statement at a political rally in Azad Kashmir, in which he said that he was 'waiting for the day when Kashmir would become a part of Pakistan'. His statement invited wrath both from wit‌hin and across the land, wherein, on one hand India fired back lodging its retaliation on Sharif's lucid dreams, while on other hand Pak media called him 'delusional' for having such wishes.

Soon afterwards, atrocities being committed in Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir (PoK) by the Pak army came out, which further strengthened India's case against Pakistan.

While Pak, in a move to defend whatever dignity it was left with, started the talking about how India was murdering human rights in Kashmir obsessively, it's constant bickering about the Kashmir issue, seemed like the curious case from one of the classic tales 'the boy who screamed lion'.

Following this, India threatened to scrap the Indus water treaty, to which Pak replied by threatening to use the nukes should the two countries go to war. A move that was widely criticised by the global community and earned Pak 2 negative points

Going for a diplomatic offensive, India announced that it would boycott the 19th South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation that was scheduled to be held in Islamabad in November this year. Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Bhutan and Sri Lanka followed India's lead.

Going for an offensive strike, India authorised its Army commandos to destroy terrorist hideouts across the Line of Control in Kashmir. The operation went flawlessly as the jawans gunned down nearly 45 terrorists in the process.

Here's the fun part. While Indian Army was giving a press briefing about the operation, Pakistan denied all reports of a surgical strike in the region. It took 'clueless Pakistan' a day to get in touch with the reality and accept that the strike on the terrorists had indeed happened. If that wasn't enough, Pak media flew to the region where strikes were conducted, just to prove India wrong (love their sense of humour)!

Though Pak took it as an act of war, the world appreciated the move, winning India two brownie points. As India's case against Pakistan strengthened, South Korea and Maldives too extended their support to India.

In the meantime, people flooded the White House with petitions to declare Pak a terrorist state. A similar thing happened in United Kingdom too.

All these events combined with the Uri attack provided India the perfect ingredients required for defeating Pakistan in its own game.

It is interesting to note how India has never lodged a direct attack against Pakistan even while putting forward its case against terrorism.

India's visionary diplomacy combined with Pak's lucid ranting has paved way for India to corner the country in its own game.

My view: Pak should take the clue and stop this soap opera now. Endless lives have been lost on both the sides. Countless mothers have lost their sons, children their fathers, wives their husbands and sisters their brothers. Pakistan should let go off this madness now. It is time that the world unites to work towards a better future instead of crying over the spilt milk.