The liberal counter-point to this would be
With education and financial independence, there is lower tolerance to put up with incompatibilities/"injustice"
If Bhagwat has to defend the sacral nature of marriage, he should not do it in this Marxist way using economics
With education and financial independence, there is lower tolerance to put up with incompatibilities/"injustice"
If Bhagwat has to defend the sacral nature of marriage, he should not do it in this Marxist way using economics
Rather marriage and monogamy ought to be defended on their own terms. You don't stick together just because you lack choice
That's a bad argument, which is implicit in what Bhagwat is saying
That's a bad argument, which is implicit in what Bhagwat is saying
Bhagwat would be better off citing examples from US - where marriage is ironically stronger among the well to do and the educated, but much much weaker among the working class!
Sort of contrary to what he is saying here
Sort of contrary to what he is saying here
Defense of any traditional institution, be it marriage or religion, will be successful only if the votaries of it are upwardly mobile and successful
If the votaries of tradition are among the alsorans of society why would it ever become "aspirational"?
If the votaries of tradition are among the alsorans of society why would it ever become "aspirational"?
In ancient India, one reason why religion was preeminent was because the elites shaped it, espoused it and propagated it.
It was not a sub-altern thing. It was shaped by the elites and hence aspirational
That's missing in India today
It was not a sub-altern thing. It was shaped by the elites and hence aspirational
That's missing in India today
