Sakshi Maharaj, a woman is not just a womb and a pair of ovaries
In the film Heyy Babyy, when a motherless child is left at the door of three men, and they need to bear the fruits of their fluids in the form of the indescribably irritating child, they realise what a woman goes through to raise a child. Can someone drop four motherless children at Sakshi Maharaj's public-funded residence, please? The man desperately needs to realise the effects of spreading his seeds - verbal ones in his case - without a care. He doesn't have a child (not any we know of); he wouldn't know what bringing up a child means. But then, I don't have a child either. But I am a woman. I am wired to know. And I fear the Maharaj with a lady-like name, who is no different from Sadhvi Niranjan (who is an MP with a manly name), wouldn't know.
Maharaj is a Hindu man, who believes and forces his belief on fellow Hindus by speaking it out loud, that every Hindu woman should have at least four children in order to propagate Hinduism. As a woman of a somewhat child-producing age, born-a-Hindu-raised-a-Hindu, I beg to differ. Thank you for your suggestion, Maharaj, but have you ever spared a thought about us working women? How exactly do you propose we give birth to four kids and then manage household work, and go out and work in an office, too?
But again, if books that the likes of Sakshi Maharaj go by are to be believed, women are not even supposed to work in offices. Our sole purpose in life is to propagate Hinduism, by producing four kids each - that being the latest count. The number's a variable; the underlying mindset is a constant. If you're a woman, you aren't supposed to work outside your home. Offices are where men of ill-repute prowl and pounce on Hindu women, much to their displeasure. Women are to be chastised, domesticated and prescribed an existence within the four walls of the house.
However, when, in the 21st century, a certain Sakshi Maharaj sees that this is unlikely to happen - thanks to societal ills like education, changing mindsets and dismissal of patriarchy, statements like "...the time has come when a Hindu woman must produce at least four children in order to protect the Hindu religion" are thrown at Hindu women. Because, you see, we have to compete with Muslims - our major contenders in the game of the propagation of the human race - and outdo them in their child-producing abilities. The Maharaj also said, at the same gathering, "India belonged to Hindus earlier; it belongs to Hindus now, and will continue to belong to Hindus. Hinduism is something that needs to be absorbed and cannot be found lying in mosques or prostrating in churches." Hence, as Hindu women, when the religious know-it-alls say that we need to get down to our basic roles - that of producing children - should we avoid them?
In Meerut, as a part of the occasion of Sant Samaagam Mahotsava, the Maharaj had said, "The concept of four wives and 40 children will not work in India, and the time has come when a Hindu woman must produce at least four children in order to protect the Hindu religion." But then, maybe, the average Hindu woman should rejoice at the fact that finally, even at the cost of turning herself into a child factory of sorts, she is now the protector of her religion. Now, when have we ever heard statements placing such responsibility on the frail shoulders of us women!
No woman in her right mind would want to be treated like just a womb and a pair of ovaries. Four children or 40, it is not the business of any man with a microphone to decide for us. Women, you see, have a brain, too. Along with the womb and other functional parts of our body, we need to make use of that part, too. And the brain, sure - unless it's been washed - would disagree with the four-children-per-woman part.