For all their colonial underpinnings, postcards from Hyderabad also inadvertently preserve a trace of local memory: a glimpse of a street, a face, a forgotten name.
Indian toymakers are now exploring new markets, but they want govt to negotiate a trade deal with US soon, introduce incentives and subsidies to make the industry more competitive.
The project is meant to be a ‘protective shield that will keep expanding’, the PM said. It is on the lines of the ‘Golden Dome’ announced by Trump, it is learnt.
Now that both IAF and PAF have made formal claims of having shot down the other’s aircraft in the 87-hour war in May, we can ask a larger question: do such numbers really matter?
Why has the author excluded any mention whatsoever of the lack of women heading mosques and churches? When will we have a lady Pope or a lady archbishop for India? What about oppressive Islamic customs like the burqa or triple Talaq? What about Catholic opposition to birth control measures? I do agree with the author that asking for ladies to be part of temple boards is a good idea, but why is there absolutely no mention of other religions? This is a lopsided article.
Arre bhaiya the article was written for temples but the author did said that the government needs to step up and provide reservation for women in all religious institutions. Also it is better that he didn’t said anything about other religions cause he doesn’t represent them. He being a hindu can only talk about his religion right? Instead of going through this victimhood complex it’s better to find progressive voices from all religions and amplify them. Rather than saying waha pe ye hota hai yahan pe ye hota hai.
World over diversity in religion is not allowed. In india Siya Rama or Umapati have become Jai Shri Ram or Har Har Mahadev. Male patriachy means women are meant to be indoors, under control with honour of family intact if woman are 4 steps behind male head of family. All the shane is only for woman with men being shameless.
Good point. This situation should change. Please also tell us how many women are involved in the administration of churches, mosques, waqfs, and huge church properties. Your argument should not be limited to Hindu institutions only.
Why has the author excluded any mention whatsoever of the lack of women heading mosques and churches? When will we have a lady Pope or a lady archbishop for India? What about oppressive Islamic customs like the burqa or triple Talaq? What about Catholic opposition to birth control measures? I do agree with the author that asking for ladies to be part of temple boards is a good idea, but why is there absolutely no mention of other religions? This is a lopsided article.
Arre bhaiya the article was written for temples but the author did said that the government needs to step up and provide reservation for women in all religious institutions. Also it is better that he didn’t said anything about other religions cause he doesn’t represent them. He being a hindu can only talk about his religion right? Instead of going through this victimhood complex it’s better to find progressive voices from all religions and amplify them. Rather than saying waha pe ye hota hai yahan pe ye hota hai.
World over diversity in religion is not allowed. In india Siya Rama or Umapati have become Jai Shri Ram or Har Har Mahadev. Male patriachy means women are meant to be indoors, under control with honour of family intact if woman are 4 steps behind male head of family. All the shane is only for woman with men being shameless.
Why no female Christian pope or female muslim maulana? Is sermonizing reserved to Hindus only?
Good point. This situation should change. Please also tell us how many women are involved in the administration of churches, mosques, waqfs, and huge church properties. Your argument should not be limited to Hindu institutions only.