I was reading an autobiography of Fatima Zehra Qazi (A lady from Diplo, Thar). She was second wife of her husband, who married her because his first wife didn’t bore him a son. This book tells about quite tough life and story of pregnancies in remote area lacking medical facilities.
At one place, it is mentioned that there was no choice to have 11-12 children, because many children die in infancy and a couple could / can save few of their children in most cases Unfortunately, the situation in these remote areas remain unchanged.
My question is, if conditions like these are only hindrance to adapt family planning or there are certain cultural, social and religious aspects which made these things a taboo?
I’ve been hearing this dua for long ‘Allah tujhe saat bete de’.
As I’m only son of my parents, I’ve also heard a baba ji in our community ‘jis ka ik beta ho, wo apne aap ko mehfooz na samjhe’. I couldn’t understand this when I heard this first time,but now I knew he was referring to vulnerable position of parents, if God forbid they lose their only son.
Back in the days when technology was not around, man power was the only power you would have.
If I have three sons, and you have five, and our families are enemies, then you would appear to be in a winning position.
Even if there is no animosity, but we are both farmers, then you would have an edge over me cause you can produce more than me as you have more man power.
As odd as it may sound to all the feminists, men having more wives in olden days had less to do with fulfilling sexual desires, and more to do with producing more kids (hence chances of having more sons) in a given year.
Interesting and understandable for farmers and tribal cultures, where people needed sons. But why on earth Kings went for a dozen and more sons when they knew that it would lead to conflict for kingdom. Shahjahan had faced the conflict, but he kept on producing sons and finally Aurangzeb came in the world 'jis ne na kabhi koi namaz chhoRi, aur na hi kisi bhai ko zinda choRa.
Well, for kings, if you have more sons, then you have more opportunities to appoint governors of different and newly captured states from your own family.
Plus, mughal kings were ayyaash and tharki. Period. What do you say about the character of kings who would kill their acquaintance to marry his wife because they have a crush on her
oh you need to update yourself with changes in Indian society. 10 years back, Pretty Zinta said in 'Kal Ho na Ho'. Bachon ke liye shadi zaroori nahin.
hayeN? :o to, iskaa matlab yeh huaa k India sexuality ke mo'aamile meN maGhrib se pesh raft le gayaa! waah jii, waah! ise kahte haiN taraqqii-e-be_raah_ravii...tabhii to Aqil Malik ne Gauhar Khan ko zanaaTe daar thappaR raseed kiyaa thaa kal! :D
But British royal family never appointed their sons as Viceroy of India or other colonies, though, there are examples to prove that this royal family also believed in nepotism.
hayeN? :o to, iskaa matlab yeh huaa k India sexuality ke mo'aamile meN maGhrib se pesh raft le gayaa! waah jii, waah! ise kahte haiN taraqqii-e-be_raah_ravii...tabhii to Aqil Malik ne Gauhar Khan ko zanaaTe daar thappaR raseed kiyaa thaa kal! :D
BTW, when Indira started family planning program, why Muslims agitated more than other communities?
because Muslims always had more than national average of children per family and Hindus were worried that with this rate of growth, Muslims may someday outnumber them [in 100 or so] and thus they saw a ‘conspiracy’ behind all this.
also, they thought at that time that the sterilization of males was against Islam and hence it was an attempt by the majority to curtail the minority’s population growth.
Khuda kaa shukr hai k kam az kam ab aisii baat nahiiN rahii…bahot Ghareeb aur anpaRh log to abhii bhii nahiiN “sudhre” magar paRhaa likhaa aur mutavassut Musalmaan ‘sudhar’ chuke haiN…
…ab Ghareeb aur anpaRh logoN ke liye saare din kii meHnat aur mashaqqat ke ba’d raat ko ‘yehii’ ek entertainment bachaa hai.
maine to suna hai India main jughiyon main bhi Star Plus ka mano ranjan upladh hai, phir yehi entertainmnet kiyun reh gai? kiya loadshedding baRh gai hai?
Members and relatives of the British Royal Family historically represented the monarch in various places throughout theBritish Empire, sometimes for extended periods asviceroys,*
maine to suna hai India main jughiyon main bhi Star Plus ka mano ranjan upladh hai, phir yehi entertainmnet kiyun reh gai? kiya loadshedding baRh gai hai?
lol...TV par item songs 'appetizer' kaa kaam kartaa hai...bhook aur lagtii hai to phir waaHid shoGhl-e-tafreeH bas 'YEHI' to rah jaataa hai jiske ba'd shikam sai'r, rooH sair, tan-badan sai'r!!! :D
Unplanned birth in rural areas are common. Remote areas like Thar, where children die because of lack of medical facilities. People in those area are foreign to family planning and possibly don't know importance of gap between two pregnancies.
Muslims toh abhi bhi confused hain about contraception. For a vast majority it's haraam so we might as well forget about changing that aspect warna blasphemy case ban jaye ga.
I think property issues are that girls take away money while sons retain it. Someone even made a comment to my parents how my marrying someone all the family's money is going to go out.
But British royal family never appointed their sons as Viceroy of India or other colonies, though, there are examples to prove that this royal family also believed in nepotism.
If one looks strictly at the British loyal history, for them producing sons was very very important. Having a queen as a sovereign of a nation is a very new concept in the British history, and even then, it's complicated. Elizabeth I, even when she was a queen, was expected to marry and produce a son, so the Tudor dynasty could go ahead. Because of political (if she married a Spaniard, the British land would become Spanish land. If she married a French, Britain will come under the control of France, and both their countries have historically been mortal enemies) and personal issues, she never went ahead with it, and with her the Tudor dynasty ended with her. Instead King James came into power, who was related to Elizabeth and Henry VIII by blood, and started the House of Stuart. That also ended eventually. Queen Victoria and Prince Albert knew they had to produce a multitude of children, including many sons so their dynasty (which is still going on with Queen Elizabeth II) could continue. The only reason Queen Elizabeth, and her sons, and their sons are in power now, is because Queen Elizabeth's uncle abdicated his throne after being king for only a short period. QE's father was the second child, and wasn't groomed to be a king, but he was in line for the throne. Queen Elizabeth's own husband is not a King, he's a Prince, because the lineage is not coming from Prince Phillip, but from Queen Elizabeth.
