Women Bridging Lives… Differently

Did it ever cross our mind what bridges generations, driving life towards happiness, and emerges as the cause of achieving excellence? The one, who conceives, creates, and transforms life into paramount existence with immense support is ‘woman’!

Surpassing the days of trembling cups, parading in veils, to being in cockpits, manoeuvring aircraft, plowing in fields, setting out in armed forces, steering away tractors, computer programming and devising software, baying debates in parliaments, imparting and carving the future through education, and hailing as a professional; she has achieved all of it.

Beyond just hand-holding and shoring up the universe and innumerable lives, there are more stories of her inherent strengths that are still latent.

Ahead of the typical verbal patronage or giving platitudes of “Women of Today should be Empowered”, the thoughts have proven archaic; thus they left afar. The women of the day have emerged victorious amidst all throes and woes.

It’s more of a metamorphosis of the scene today. After extensive embattled states of identity hunt and survival and, evidently, countless testing and endangering warpath, the changed lingo now is “Give more dimensions to the empowered women of today.” Formidably though, it took ages to reach thus far! Liberalization took several years, for them, more than the others on earth.

However, it has now come up with age. Nevertheless, the erstwhile woman still was as powerful, to manage too many things with the utmost ease. But people undermined their hard work and exploited them to just get work done, but not recognizing the intellect, abilities, sharpness, and insightful quotient.

They would have excelled in the benchmarks of predictable and conformist standards of accomplishing tasks at any given time. In the scheme of giving credit to the abilities, there was barely any intent to do so - by a long way obstructed from expressing themselves and their voices muzzled. The picture couldn’t be more frenzied and predatory, and indisputably, not liberal at all.

Appallingly, we’ve had a few unsung women achievers like Velu Nachiar in the 18^thCentury, Bikaji Cama, Lakshmi Sahgal, or Rani Gaidinliu from Manipur, Kanaklata Barua or Aruna Asaf Ali in the 19^thand 20^thCenturies, whose stories hardly emanated as legends to talk about, mainly for their extraordinary command and determination.

They fought it through the freedom struggle, during the Colonial regime. Most of the childhood folk tales for hearsay were Rani Laxmibai, Indira Gandhi, Mother Teresa, and a few in the league with indomitable courage and character; ironically, none preferred one in a normal household. Even today, their extraordinary feats are celebrated all over, but hardly anyone knew the vicious challenges they had to put up with.

Oddly enough, but the reality, for the women of yore - it was always the circumstances logged in obscurantisms, social stigmas, and repressive mindset. All of those and more followed through the generations and centuries to confine them to the kitchen fireside, barraged with daily monotonous chores. Repression has been diverse and tortuous and brutal.

Society’s insularity, for the most part, was frugal in filling up the opportunity platter to them. The more worrisome and lethal is the child mortality and the acrid reality – feticides. One infanticide annihilates the development of the entire human race, in one go. But spiraling changes in the outlook have done miracles; all kudos to education for all.

People with progressive acumen to handle situations better realized the imperative of “Equality in Education, Rights & Awareness” to the core.

The woman of today has gained the dexterity to not only educate herself but others too, whilst having apt pursuits of aspired career and growths, embarking on the desired lifestyle to putting up with too many tasks at hand to manage effortlessly.

Regardless of the milieu, be it urban, rural, remote areas, they have had fierce tightrope walking to prove their abilities, amidst shambolic settings of home, life, workplace, institution, and so on. As a result, she had to put in twice the efforts, to prove herself everywhere, yet emerged prolific for all, despite the challenges posed by society. They triumphed in all. The outright contrast, but a pleasant one was - their abilities belied all prejudices and partisan notions.

In all fairness, the statistics state that there’s a well-oriented socio-economic resolve, with increased economic independence and sustenance because of working women across India and worldwide. There’s enhanced female labor participation at professional corporate workplaces, in rural work fields, and several other performing quarters.

Moreover, their spirit, competency, and courage have been the epitome of the generation - as pilots, police staff, celebrated movie and sports personalities, and more - to the youth of today. As the names often doing rounds are Kalpana Chawla, Sunita Williams, Kiran Bedi, Sania Mirza, PV Sindhu, and so on. The inculcation and pursuit of Education, Career, Profession, Lifestyle, put together, were the cornerstone for happy families, and countless women globally have ratified it.

Some Statistics to cite their Economic Empowerment:_[1]

(i) There has been an increase in female labor force participation - or a reduction in the gap between women’s and men’s labor force participation - which results in faster economic growth.

(ii) Evidence from a range of countries shows that increasing the share of household income controlled by women, either through their earnings or cash transfers changes spending in ways that benefit children.

(iii) Increasing women’s and girls’ education contributes to higher economic growth.

(iv) Increased educational attainment accounts for about 50 percent of the economic growth in OECD countries over the past 50 years.

(v) A study using data from 219 countries from 1970 to 2009 found that, for everyone, more years of education for women of reproductive age, child mortality decreased by 9.5 percent.

(vi) Women tend to have less access to formal financial institutions and saving mechanisms. While 55 percent of men report having an account at a formal financial institution, only 47 percent of women do worldwide. This gap is the largest among lower-middle-in
come economies as well as in South Asia and the Middle East and North Africa.

Par excellence abilities of the woman of the day are as real-time: A pragmatic case studies for the youth to get inspired from! Also, they can serve as the posterity for the new generation to have a practical outlook and rewarding career paths, and a perfect lifestyle. Of course, needless to say, their growth determines the growth of the household and the nation, at large.

 

 Source:

Source:

^[1] http://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/economic-empowerment/facts-and-figures

https://epistems.blogspot.com/2026/02/women-bridging-lives-differently.html

Authored in 2018, also, published in the book “Cow On The Ice” in 2020 - https://www.amazon.com/dp/1649835175

 

Journalism Overthrows: The “Exposés” Of All Time

Investigative journalism has often acted as the lantern carried into the dark corridors of power. Yet the same instrument capable of illuminating truth can also be manipulated by those seeking influence over politics, finance, and public opinion.

---

In a world where the media has so much power to change people's minds about politics, business, and global finance, it seems like there are some who would use this power to their own benefit. Some people have been found to be using journalists as pawns to spread false information in order to try to control public opinion for political reasons or to make money.

Bradley Birkenfeld, a former UBS executive, was one of these people.¹ He is well-known now because he admitted that he helped many wealthy clients hide money in offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes.² His actions were not only against the law, but they also showed that he didn't care about how the law protects taxpayer money.³

These revelations, which led to a big investigation by American authorities, showed that Birkenfeld was not the only one who worked with offshore companies and tried to avoid paying taxes.⁴

 

References

¹ Walter Hamilton and Stuart Pfeifer, “IRS Awards UBS Whistleblower Bradley Birkenfeld $104 Million,” Los Angeles Times, September 11, 2012.

² Bradley C. Birkenfeld, Lucifer’s Banker: The Untold Story of How I Destroyed Swiss Bank Secrecy (Austin: Greenleaf Book Group Press, 2016).

³ U.S. Department of Justice, Deferred Prosecution Agreement: United States v. UBS AG, Case No. 09-CR-60033 (S.D. Florida, 2009).

⁴ U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Tax Haven Banks and U.S. Tax Compliance, Hearing before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, July 17, 2008.

 

Primary Source Documents

U.S. Department of Justice

• United States v. UBS AG (Deferred Prosecution Agreement, 2009).

U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations

• Tax Haven Banks and U.S. Tax Compliance (2008 Senate Hearing).

Internal Revenue Service

• IRS Whistleblower Office, IRS Whistleblower Program Annual Report to Congress (2012).

 

Bibliography

Birkenfeld, Bradley C. Lucifer’s Banker: The Untold Story of How I Destroyed Swiss Bank Secrecy. Austin: Greenleaf Book Group Press, 2016.

Hamilton, Walter, and Stuart Pfeifer. “IRS Awards UBS Whistleblower Bradley Birkenfeld $104 Million.” Los Angeles Times, September 11, 2012.

U.S. Department of Justice. Deferred Prosecution Agreement: United States v. UBS AG. United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 2009.

U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Tax Haven Banks and U.S. Tax Compliance. Hearing before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, 2008.

Zucman, Gabriel. The Hidden Wealth of Nations: The Scourge of Tax Havens. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015.

 

Is Secularism A Strategic Political Shield Or An Identity Maze?

 

In India, what does "Secularism" mean? Whence comes this pervasive, purportedly enunciated, pseudo “religious” acrimony?

Did the British in India create the word "secularism" to characterise their hegemony of disposition to rule? The idea that it signifies "no religion" is a common misunderstanding. The term "secularism" refers to the concept of "separation of state and religious institutions." Yes, but how much distance? While the state should not be used to promote any one religion, this does not imply that all faiths are created equal, perhaps, in the “allusion” of semantics. In reality, nations like Iran or Saudi Arabia might adopt secularism if there were no prejudice against other religions. Voila – seminal confluence? Or excessively optimistic, aren’t we?

Equal protection under the law is the first step towards this goal, and the second is unrestricted freedom of expression. Because of this, there are a number of laws in place to prevent acts of hatred. And what about the freedom to worship as one chooses? Why do some individuals feel they need to disguise their identities in public if they have the freedom to exercise that right openly? Whether that is required is a question we must answer. Is it conceivable that they are hesitant to speak out because they believe they may be prosecuted for blasphemy or iconoclasm of superficially magnified humans as deities or other acts that go counter to the views of the majority?

At the moment, "maybe" a few Indian political parties share a position: they all wish to keep religion out of politics. Again? Bummer! Plausible or not?  Do you believe that to be true? Perhaps a rhetorical strategy of political ascendancy from the distant past? They promise to protect people's right to practise whatever faith they want. They argue that the government “should” respect people's freedom of choice. One wants to hope it’s not verbal tokenism!

Nevertheless, in practise, this state of affairs exists only on paper. Yet, members of many faiths have divergent opinions and pursue their goals in life accordingly. In and of themselves, differences are not problematic; the problem arises when they fuel prejudice and violence.

When confronted with criticism, religious societies often respond negatively. They want the state to safeguard their religious freedoms. But what about the duties that fall upon them? Is there mutual respect for individual freedoms, or is there an attempt to force one's will on others? The result has been a great deal of tension between many faiths.

Considering the country's size and diversity, it's difficult for all Indians to adhere to a single faith. People may be found throughout the world who follow any number of faiths, including Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Buddhism, and Jainism. Many people identify themselves as atheists instead. Do you want to imply that we should give due regard to each and every one of these faiths? Isn't it sufficient to ensure that all people, regardless of faith, enjoy basic human rights?

One may certainly respect the rights of others without automatically endorsing their whole worldview. If this is the case, then why isn't secularism the norm rather than the exception? Despite expectations, secularism is not the norm. When people struggle to articulate their thoughts about their religion, they typically prefer silence. In their silence, additional questions are raised.

If the rise of religious fanatics is so alarming, why haven't more people speak out against it? Extremists often go after anyone who expresses their disapproval. In addition, those who keep quiet are seen as timid.

There are secularists out there, but they don't feel safe speaking out about it. What can be done, however, until people cease worrying about being persecuted for challenging religious beliefs? When will it be safe for individuals to talk about their faith without worrying about repercussions?

The vast majority of our country's population identifies as either Hindu or Muslim. Not everyone must adhere to Judaism or Christianity. Everyone has the freedom to practise whichever faith they believe will bring them the most joy in life. It's ironic that religion, which should bring harmony to the world, often leads to strife instead.

The topic of whether "Pluralism" is synonymous with "Secularism" is often raised.

No, not quite. The word "plurality" describes a state of having many different things. This means that pluralism is a philosophy that celebrates differences. In the United States, for instance, people of many different races and ethnicities live side by side. The variety of this civilization is a source of great pride for its inhabitants. Yet, how does this relate to debates about religious freedom? The majority of our government officials and bureaucrats have had their education in India, which has led to a swell of nationalistic pride on their part. Yet, many confuse "Hindu" with "secular," and vice versa. A lot of atheists and agnostics in India don't feel welcome because of the strong religious culture here. They're made to feel like and are treated like strangers. They don't consider themselves to be Indian, hence they can't help the nation progress.

Where do we find the solution then? Is it possible for India to become an openly secular state? If we accomplished that, how would it affect our progress in society and the economy?

Give me a moment while I offer you some illustrations.

If all Indians could practise their faiths freely, there would be less animosity against them. They would have a deep sense of national pride and be committed to making significant contributions to the development of their country.

Hindu customs and rituals date back many hundreds of years. We shouldn't let them go into history; instead, why don't we do our best to keep them alive?

The members of a multi-religious community may gain insight and insight from one another. Tolerance and mutual respect provide the foundation for a prosperous and peaceful community.

The democracy in India is the youngest in the world. A person's social status, religious beliefs, or gender; are all equally protected by our constitution.

As an example for other nations, we should become completely secular. It's possible that we'll be the world's first secular country.

Now, however, the most pressing matters. We must further our own education.

The Bewildering Dynamics of Electoral Funding: Do We Have A Say?

 

The democratic principle is that ultimate power rests with the people. Their needs and desires should be prioritised by the government. It shouldn't help the lobbying companies and interest organisations that use taxpayer money to influence policy. Everyone in our country has the freedom to vote and support political candidates and parties of their choosing. When some individuals can afford to fly on private aircraft but others can't even afford the bus fare, how can there be equality of opportunity?

As a result of this inequality, a two-class society has developed in which the wealthy continue to prosper at the expense of the poor.

We need to do away with our existing voting system and switch to one based on proportional representation (PR). Through PR, we may elect representatives depending on the percentage of the popular vote they get. That is, if a candidate receives 5% of the vote, he or she will be guaranteed five seats in parliament. 

If someone received 40% of the vote, that person would be allocated 40% of the seats. In the same vein... Reasons why PR is a superior system, and why PR is a superior system are obvious. Under a PR system, voters choose candidates, not political parties. If there is just one election winner, the person with the most votes becomes the prime minister. If the popular vote total is too low for any contender to win, the person in second place would be elected. In this manner, everyone has an equal voice in the democratic process. More lawmakers mean more opinions being heard. Just what democracy should be about!

The majority of voters might prefer PR because it more accurately reflects their interests than the existing system.

In anybody’s opinion, PR is a fantastic concept in theory but will never work in practice since most parties in this country are unwilling to give up power. The opposite is true. They won't let go of our votes until we stop voting for them. They will state that they speak for us and ask for our undivided support. Yet, they will lose control of our democracy if people start voting in new ways. We need to mobilise the public behind candidates who will best advance our interests. Should we scrap our present electoral system in favour of PR?