Unlike the Indian culture, western world has always been an open society. For instance, the first women Nobel Prize winner Marie Curie who was awarded the Nobel Prizes in the years 1903 and 1911 was embarked on a highly charged love affair with a married scientist Paul Langevin who was five years junior to her.
 When Marie Curie became widow, she urged Paul Langevin who was the father of four children to give divorce to his wife and marry her. Similarly, Albert Einstein also had many liaisons throughout his marriage to a fellow scientist Mileva Maric.
 Einstein had no intimacy for his wife and considered her like a maid. While he was still married, he was involved in love with his first cousin Elsa. After he divorced Mileva Maric in 1919, he married Elsa and got involved with Bette Neumann within the four years of his second marriage, who was his secretary and the niece of one of his friends. Likewise, several other famous western scientists have also enjoyed life full of illicit relationships.
 Juliet Mitchell (1974)  affirmed the existence of kinship systems where men exchanged women as the symbol of power which fathers possess within their system and the consequences of this power on the psychology of women. Overall, due to the lack of strong family value system, illegitimate relationships were pretty common and the concept of a stable and dedicated family was almost null for the western world.
After the World War II, west witnessed a huge economic uprise. At that time, since the economy was mostly in the hands of men, the majority of the western women who were not directly involved in the economic structure and were dealing mostly with the household affairs felt oppressed while seeing the few other fellow women freely living their life without any restriction. Feminists also backed these housewives as they realised that their male competitors have the advantage of homemaker wives and so in order to get ahead more
easily, men must be deprived of their advantage of having stay-at-home wives. Soon they recognized that family was the main hurdle which was confining them from getting involved in the mainstream economic system which was mainly held and dominated by men.
Consequently, the feelings of subordination and oppression evolved in their mind and they realised a need to get empowered in a system of society where men were holding the power positions and enjoying privilege as the head of the family, social groups, workplace, government etc. In order to express their depressive feelings of oppression and a desire to transform the feelings of insurrection into a political practice, a theory of patriarchy (Latin: Pater means “father”; Archy means “rule”) was put forward by the western feminists with a motto to abolish the family itself while focusing patriarchy as the root cause for such a society which they considered as a systemic bias against women.
ALSO READ –
 With this ideology, feminists came forward with the Karl Marx’s theory of capitalism often known as the “Marxist theory of capitalism” to explain their concepts of patriarchy based on the relationship between male domination and female subordination. Juliet Mitchell in her book “Psychoanalysis and Feminism (1974)” describes feminism as a struggle against ideological mode of patriarchy and conceptualises it as a form of Cultural Revolution to transform the foundations of patriarchal society.
During the mid of the 20th century, when the theories of patriarchy and radical feminism were evolving in the western society, Indian women were merrily rooted in the structured Indian culture with strong family values, customs and traditions which were derived from the ancient holy Indian texts such as the Ramayana, the Mahabharata and the Vedas, among others. In ancient time, Indian family and religious belief systems were so designed that both the genders were equally respected and praised by the society in their respective roles. Men were designated as the protector while females as the creator of the society. Both were cordially playing their respective roles in making a joyous and satisfactory society. Due to the masculine character of males such as courage, strength, leadership and assertiveness, all the work involving physical strength and human power was assigned to them while the work which involved high creativity and less human power and courage was allocated to the females due to their gentle, sensitive and empathetic nature. Therefore, unlike today, we do not find any evidence of female involvement in the armies that are described in the great Indian epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. Besides this, since ages Indian women were much more fashionable than the western women and were enjoying the colourful vibes of sophisticated dressing styles, ornaments, festivities etc. Even at the spiritual level both the male and the female form of Gods were worshiped in India. In fact, in numerous ways, Indian civilisation was entirely different while being more superior and civilised than the western world. This clearly suggests that the theory of a biased society against women was a fairy tale for the Indian society.
In Indian joint family structure, ethical values were imparted by the elders from generation to generation. Unlike the west, the role of Indian women was not just limited to managing the household affairs but was more importantly to install the Indian ethical values, religious beliefs and spirituality in the young generation. Therefore, special focus was given towards the moral, spiritual, religious and social upliftment of the female child. During the mid of the 20th century, alike the rest of the world, Indian young minds were influenced by the economic uprise of the west. They started considering the economic uprise of the west as the only parameter for a successful society and disregarded the fact that joyful and stable families are the roots of a prosperous society. Consequently, the western theories of patriarchy and radical/ Marxist feminism of that time clicked the young minds of few in India. Gradually India started witnessing an uprise of feminism in the name of women empowerment which significantly influenced the Indian joint family structure. Soon happy and prosperous joint Indian families started breaking apart into unhappy and isolated nuclear families.
This was the time when the uprise of feminism in India smashed the joint family structure and paralysed the Indian value system. The shattering of the Indian family structure was in accordance with the second wave (1960s-1980s) feminism which considered family as the basic unit for the creation of a patriarchal society. Kate Millet (an American feminist), in her book “Sexual Politics (1969)” describes “family as a patriarchal unit whose functions are to differentiate children on the basis of sexes, temperament and statuses and to maintain women in a subordination state.
 In 1971, Robin Morgan (an American feminist) founder of Ms. Magazine called marriage “a slavery-like practice” and narrated that
We cannot destroy the inequalities between men and women until we destroy the marriage.
 They considered themselves free and liberated when serving their employees but slaves when serving their own family. This was all to breakdown the family structure in order to end patriarchy. After the collapse of the joint family structure in India, the nuclear families were targeted. According to an American feminist Linda Gordon,
The nuclear family must be destroyed and people must find better ways of living together. No women should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children. Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.
ALSO READ –
By this time, Indian society had already lost the ethical values due to the collapse of joint family structure, consequently crime escalated in the society. Moving towards the goal to breakdown the nuclear families, marriage was criminalised with several stringent anti-man laws. This gave an upper hand to the married women to legally abuse, blackmail, harass and torcher their husbands and in-laws. Since then several Indian men have been committing suicides on daily basis amid legal terrorism while most married men are forcibly living a distressful and disrespectful life in their family. Indeed, today Indian men are respected only when they sacrifice their life fighting at the border. If the laws were made gender neutral, the extreme violence that men face today would have been avoided.
 During the past 1000 years, India faced approximately 40 major foreign invasions followed by several cultural attacks. Although the foreign invaders were quite successful in conquering India both physically and tactically, they failed to conquer it spiritually. Since the essence of the Indian culture was deeply rooted within its family value system, foreign invaders were unsuccessful in altering the Indian moral, spiritual and religious beliefs. Max Muller (a German philologist) stated that
India has been conquered once, but India must be conquered again, and that second conquest should be a conquest by education.
 He strongly believed that in order to superimpose foreign visions onto the Indian culture, it was essential to reform Indian cultural and religious belief system. According to a letter which Max Muller wrote to his wife, he was employed by the British to translate the Vedas in such a way that Indians lose their faith in them.
 In order to achieve their goal, several westerners termed Indian religious epics such as the Ramayana and the Mahabharata as “Hindu Mythology” (a collection of untruths).
[11-13] They knew it well that India could not be conquered and converted according to their beliefs unless its structured family value system was broken down. Today, the invasion of feminism in India in the name of women empowerment amid gender equality has completely collapsed the Indian value system while the nuclear family system has almost reached its final stage of downfall. For what the foreign invaders could not achieve during the past 1000 years of their invasion, the ideology of feminism has quite successfully accomplished in a very short period of time.
According to the surveys 7 out of 10 Indian women cheat on their spouse while 53% of the married Indian women had an intimate relationship outside their marriage against 43% men. [14-16] Among these, 41% admitted to be involved in regular sexual intercourses with someone other than their spouse, against 26% men. 77% of the Indian women cheat their spouse due to boredom by their monotonous married life.
 Undoubtedly, scrapping of the section 497 (adultery law) has favoured an exponential increase in adultery which is becoming a major cause of husbands murder in India. Lately we can find several articles in the local media regarding incidences of husbands murder by wives and their lovers (author will cover
this issue in a separate article). Previously IPC Section 497 allowed husband to prosecute his wife’s lover while CrPC Section 198 (2) gave husband the legal right to bring charges against him for adultery. Thereby indirectly commanding the married couple to remain loyal to each other. In 2018, a five-judge constitution bench, led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misha considered that section 497 treated married women as the commodity of her husband.
ALSO READ –
 CJI narrated
Husband is not the master. Obituaries should be written of these historic perceptions.
….while Justice D. Y. Chandrachud observed Section 497 as a “codified rule of patriarchy” and Justice R. F. Nariman depicted adultery law against the right to equality and life.  From these statements it is clear that considering husband as the master is a rule of patriarchy which defies the right to equality. This was in good agreement with the feminists’ concepts of patriarchy. Well, if the adultery laws were made gender neutral then it would not have only ended the concept of patriarchy but have also brought equality while preserving the Indian value system which considers adultery a moral sin.
Obviously, abolishing the adultery laws will not end the concept of patriarchy nor it will bring equality in the families unless the biased laws related to alimony and maintenance which allows women to beg money from their husbands considering them as their master gets abolished. For, the workers don’t pay but they get paid by their masters for the work they do. Getting rid of the adultery laws while keeping the alimony and maintenance laws clearly indicates that the idea of feminism was definitely not to achieve gender equality but getting all the laws in their favour without taking any responsibility. Certainly, feminism purports itself to be the movement for equality but it remains silent when it comes to gender neutral laws.
The ideology of feminism to end patriarchal culture has now moved one step further and has turned into a man hating, shaming and gender discriminatory movement. According to an American feminist Sally Miller Gearhart,
The proportion of men must be reduced and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.
…while Ms. Magazine Editor Robin Morgan feels that,
Man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.
Andrea Dworkin states that,
Under patriarchy, no women is safe to live her life, or to love, or to mother children. Under patriarchy, every women is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman’s daughter is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman’s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another women.
Today, most main stream media houses do not leave any opportunity in making this movement a success. Men are always exhibited as culprits while women as victims. This deeply rooted feminism in the Indian system has given rise to sexism (prejudice based on gender). The statements similar to that of the feminists portraying all males as culprits and females as victims are now becoming common in India.
Will Make Schoolboys Periodically Pledge To Behave With Girls: Delhi CM Kejriwal [20, 21]
All violence is & male-generated: Maneka Gandhi 
ALSO READ –
In this hate movement against men, the agenda of women empowerment is touching new heights through gender discrimination. In the name of women empowerment, free bus rides,  free passports,  free smartphones  and extra marks in IIMs  etc. are given to the girls while boys are strategically eliminated from the society. Indians are facing a cultural revolution to end patriarchy in the name of women empowerment amid gender equality, a concept which aroused in the minds of western feminists almost a century ago.
But, are we really ending patriarchy? In spite of all the successful efforts made to demolish the Indian family structure and the value system via anti-man laws, man still remains the head of the family. As long as the women centric maintenance law such as CrPC 125 and alimony laws are allowing women to stay financially dependent on their husbands considering them as their master, patriarchy will persist. Additionally, discontinuing the practice of bride migration to her husband’s house considering him as her master would also help in terminating patriarchy.
4. Mitchell, J., Psychoanalysis and Feminism London: Allen Lane. 1974.
5. Beechey, V., On Patriarchy. Feminist Review, 1979(3): p. 66-82.
6. Millett, K., Sexual Politics. New York: Doubleday, 1969.
9. Georgina, M., The Life and Letters of Right Honorable Friedrich Max Muller, London: Longman. 1902. 1.
11. Wilkins, W.J., Hindu Mythology: Vedic and Puranic; Thacker, Spink & Company 1882.
12. John, D., A Classical Dictionary of Hindu Mythology and Religion, Geography, History and Literature; Trubner & Co., London. 1888
About The Author
Dr Ashutosh Agarwal, earned his doctorate from NTU, Singapore and is also an alumnus of IIT-Roorkee, India. Dr Agarwal is a researcher by profession and has published several research articles in journals of international repute.
His interest lie in men’s rights issues and gender equality. He believes that true gender equality can only be achieved via gender neutral laws and equal responsibility.