A Big, Decadent Pakistani Wedding

The poem is NOT about making people feel guilty for enjoying the fruits of their labour. Those who create wealth through hard work or creativity have every right to spend it in whatever way their desire, be it on designer labels or expensive flowers. This poem is about the indifference I have witnessed within the top echelons of Pakistani society to the plight of the poor and the lack of sense of duty to alleviate the socio-economic problems of the less fortunate.

One of the admiring aspects of the British and American societies is the level of philanthropy practiced by the super rich. Lord Sainsbury, George Soros, Walton Family and countless others have a splendid lifestyle, and at the same time donate billion of dollars to charitable initiatives. By contrast, I have seen little of such philanthropy from Pakistan’s elite (The Citizens Foundation is a rare example).

Another example is when Barack Obama promised to raise taxes of those earning $250,000 or more, a majority of this group voted for him even though they would have to pay more taxes under an Obama administration. Those well off, have a realization that they have gained from the economy and so they also have a responsibility to give back to their country. This civic duty is missing in Pakistan...

The purpose of this poem is to portray poverty in Pakistan and the lack of empathy towards those in need by the top segment of the society. There is a huge disparity of wealth and those of us with the means have a responsibility to give back to the country which has given us so much.

Thank you for your comments.

- MAJalal

I agree with the writer of this piece. Some of us have very simple weddings.

Weddings, lavish weddings are fine. When I was young and innocent and kind of propoor I had such ideas also. As i grew old began to feel it is fine as it creats jobs for all people top and bottom. More business is more better for less well people. All this money they spend diffused and many got jobs and to money home for families. More rich spend better for poor. It unlocks potential of money. Saved or horded money ( Is like a stagnant money) may be good for rich people but damaging to poor

May I know under what circumstances did you get married? If you're single, what plans do you have to check this 'fun for the womenfok' that you call wastefulness?

Malik:

I think you're right on. There is something to be said for simplicity and humility, and recognizing that less is more. Lets eschew vanity, gluttony and excess - even if we can't save the planet at least we can reach out and do some good today.

Ejaz

Re: # 1

Indian weddings are far far more disgustingly wasteful, gaudy and filled with hypocritical spirit and outright rites which nobody understands - than those in Pakistan. The dowries can kill more parents in India than in Pakistan.

Kamath

'ALIMONY' IS LEGAL TERRORISM TOO!

http://spoonfeedin.blogspot.com/2008/11/india-estranged-wife-entitled-to .html

In one of the most sadist judgements against male rights, the Indian Supreme Court has opined that husbands should provide not only of his divorced wife's medical expenses, but even provide her a house of equal value to the one he
lives in!

This new ruling is as startling as it is UNETHICAL in this age of INCREASING divorces, for two reasons :
Firstly WOMEN are known to initiate divorce in more than 70% of the cases in the USA [1].
And second, combined now with the TEMPTATION of living a grand life post divorce, the wife's responsibility for happiness within the marriage will be diminished further. Womens groups will definitely celebrate this bonanza, and
misuse this, as in western nations, as a further ENCOURAGEMENT to divorce.

This ruling, will encourage MORE women to seek divorce, and will make more men wary of marriage ( and increasing risk of divorce ) in the future.

Coming just after the Men's Day on the 19th, this ruling might harass more men in the future, due to increasing divorce rates. The male now has to earn for the sake of a woman who probably HATES him more than anyone else in the world! This paradox seems to have escaped the inventors of the concept of 'alimony' though!

The ORIGIN of alimony can be traced back to the ecclesiastical courts in England,[2] at a time when 'DOWRY' was in practice. "Because the husband was the property owner, and the wife depended upon him to provide for her sustenance, the English ecclesiastical courts, consistently ruled that the husband had the duty to provide for the wife after divorce. Even though the courts in America continued that tradition, there were some critical distinctions between American society and society in England. England, at that time, only granted divorces "a mensa et thoro," while the American courts granted absolute divorces."

The first reported LEGAL case of alimony in Nevada involved a wife, in a divorce action in the late 19th century, who petitioned the court for alimony pendente lite. This award at that time was considered money for attorney's fees. One year later, in 1867, the court expanded the concept of alimony pendente lite to assist the wife with travel expenses of witnesses. As the years went by the Nevada Supreme Court opinions reflected what the court, at that time, believed to be the purpose of alimony. As one reads the court opinions, it is apparent that the purpose changed from time to time and those changes reflected society.The first recorded alimony was as recently as in 1867 in evada. More recently some awards have been unbelievably large.

"No compensation" divorce is more gender neutral, and does NOT favour the break-up of marriages [4]. The judiciary however, likes to involve itself in kitchen politics, since this is a big source of revenue for itself. But putting
further pressure on men to remain in the marriage through anti-male laws ( IPC 498a, DV, etc.), while encouraging women to leave it, is immoral. One of men's rights primary concerns, is about the practice of alimony being exploited by feminist authors for financial gain [5]

Misandry has itself been redefined by this complete and despicable ruling, negating men's sensitivities and human rights. The awareness of the dangers of marriage must be brought about, to the young men of marriageable age.

Wake Up, Males! Wake Up!

[1]http://paa2005.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=51210
[2]http ://www.divorcenet.com/states/nevada/alimony_weakest_link
[3]http://edition.cnn. com/2008/SHOWBIZ/03/17/mccartney.mills/index.html
[4]http://www.abolish-alimony .org/
[5]http://books.google.co.in/books?hl=en&id=3j2B-uXW6RwC&dq=alimo ny+divorce&prin\
tsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=PpicWQC8Ff&sig= GlBHY_KdUwk-mCXt9PC8QwI6QYo&sa=X&o\
i=book_result&resnum=6&ct=r esult#PPP1,M1

Also Read :

en.wikipedia.com

Topics : 1.) Men's Rights
2.) Misandry

Someone explain to this idiot that if the rich were to be frugal like McCartney and not spend like Mercury on stuff like 'midget on a tray'.. there will be less going around.

Beteen India & Pakistan for reason of secertly admiring each other

No matter what Laadu /Arjun and rest hark...

is Indian Wedding any different ?