PK: A review by an amused Hindu


Summary: If you really knew the teachings and philosophies of different religions, you would know this movie is really a misplaced interpretation of  Hindu Dharma. Yet, it takes the popular version of our religion and targets it, while shamelessly leaving out other religions which preach similar or even worse things.

Chronological Review:

Aamir Khan’s an alien, doing what he does best.  Darting eyes and making silly faces and such sh*t. (Rehash of his Dhoom3 autistic(?) brother portrayal)

Anushka Sharma is too distracting with her BIG Botox lips and weird acting in her opening scene. She meets with Sushant; is friendly first and cold later when he says he is a Pakistani. Why is that? Is her mistrust politically motivated or is it communal? Before you can even complete the question in your head, she is following a song-singing Sushant through streets of Belgium.

Bin pooche mera naam aur pata,
Rasmon ko rakh ke pare,
Bin kuch kahe, bin kuch sune
4 kadam, chal do saath mere…

Oh so silly of me to feel that’s a total euphemism of love jihad? My personal feelings aside, *Boom* Anushka’s holding hands, hanging out, making out…I’m glad that happened quick.  I almost felt happy at the progressive portrayal of women and…. Chaar kadam kya saari umar, Chal dungi saath tere… Nopes! Spoke to soon. *Love has happened*.

Isn’t it too premature to involve the parents, but anyway they are. We can imagine the her mom’s priority list when her first question is “Munda karda ki ye? Joint family se toh nahi ye?” Thank you writers for quite a caricature of Indian parents.

Now parents are shocked that he’s a Muslim and that too from Pakistan. Mom expresses genuine doubts : Burkha pehnegi? namaz padhegi? (Convert karegi?) I can see where this is going…love is above religion rebellion? But then the movie’s not about that, is it? What about the guy’s parents? There is no mention of them or their (happy?) feelings towards marrying a Hindu girl or even guy’s stance on conversion to Islam by the girl. And as Bollywood has always taught us, ‘should do anything for love’. What is religious freedom got to do in life when you have love.  Wannabe-liberals and psuedo-secularalists have grown blind to this manipulation by the media and movies. Dear Hindu love jihad naysayers please wake up to the reality.

Coming straight to the point of the movie: Anushka’s dad is a follower of ‘Godman’ Tapasvi. That is the butt of all jokes. That and Hindu Idol worship.

Following a book is acceptable, but a human being, Oh no! That’s stupid!!

Call Hindu religious leaders/teachers Godmen, who use people’s faith for personal benefit. Meanwhile, Popes and Maulvis are doing great service to their religion and of course, they have nothing to do with money-making. Hindus who follow some gurus are victims while others are devotional to attend sermons and mass.

A barrage of over the top exaggeration follows with Mr. Tapasvi’s face printed on quilts, school bags and posters in the bathroom. What genre of comedy is this? I am struggling to find the humour. They said it was satire? Only satire is in the other film reviews of PK.

I thought I was well-travelled. Alas, I never got to go to a place where people behave like the way these writers imagine.  Keeping Hanuman’s idol (from a god-box) on the treadmill, question giving online donations and have seamless wi-fi connectivity.  The trivialisation of faith and belief of Hindus for comic relief shows the extent to which filmmakers are taking Hindu audience for granted. And what do we do, laugh along. Over the years, Bollywood has slowly brainwashed us into believing being a devout Hindu is uncool. The hero has got nothing to do with god while the villains wear a tilak or a skullcap.

Anyway, cut to the ‘baba’ with his bhavishyavanis and slight-of-hand magic.God talks to this fellow. Anushka rolls her eyes.
Ahem ahem, aren’t all other religions just this? God speaking to/revealing truths/messaging through a human being. Gosh! Anushka you are so insensitive.

There is difference between astrology and religious philosophy and religion. There are hakims, healers and  such hoaxes, and it is utterly stupid to show Maulvis or priests being all about that in Mosques/Churches. And it is never shown. Yet, with Hindus anything goes. This kind of scene blatantly belittles the credibility of Hindu gurus, their knowledge and ability to help people. The media champions this cause with their Hindu Godmen bashing. And the youngsters are believing it, moving further away from their religion, even being ashamed of it. Things on TV are so bad, so politically motivated and so anti-Hindu and pro-minority and I have quit watching all these 24X7 news channles and minority apologists newspapers and now watch headlines in 15mins on Doordharshan which is surprisingly neutral and to-the-point.

Now, this Tapasvi is pretty political. Pakistanis have given nothing but chhal, kapat and dhoka, says he. History is proof, says he. True. Especially now.

In his bhavishyavani, Tapasvi follows it up by totally illogical clause of Sushant/Sarfaraz sleeping with Anushka and not marrying her. Tapasvi is now associated with making idiotic claims and we are now forced to dismiss everything this fellow has said, truth or not. Spare us the Aman-ki-asha narrative. It can’t be more ridiculous for our movies to show oh-our-dear-Pakistan after the recent happenings in Kashmir.When will they learn?

Did I mention, Anushka decides to get married the next day just to prove the Godman wrong. I wouldn’t say Tapasvi’s bhavishyavani came true but any rational person, Paki or not, would flee for his life from such a weirdo that’s Anushka. Sushant doesn’t turn up the next day and breaks up via a note. Seems legit. First of all, Anushka’s Hindu and Sushant is Muslim, then why are they getting married in a Church? Second of all, Anushka, why would you tell a cab drive in Brussels to take you to New Delhi. Lady, you need help.

So now she’s a TV reporter. She meets Aamir in a Delhi Metro.  Wait what? What is Aamir saying? I can’t make out his sh*t over his scary face. Aamir is supposed to be looking for God. He is carrying Missing pamphlets with him.Why do they have only Hindu deities printed on them? Why only paste stickers of Hindu deities on your face? Why steal money from a only temple handi and justify it?

Anushka, like most youngsters in our country who refuse to see the anti-hindu stance prevalent in our generation, is impressed. Anushka wants her TV news channel to cover him. Her boss says no news on religion because followers of Tapasvi stabbed his bum with a Trishul.  That’s true of people from all religions, no. All followers even. To come the facts, which religion’s fundamentalists need to feared for saying anything against their religion is a no-brainer.

The humour in this movie is just beyond me. Pissing in public, black-ticket hogging old men, giving bribe to policemen,  homophobic jokes, getting slapped for holding stranger’s hands….ughhh! And to that add the irritating background score. Don’t force your lack of humour on us, Hirani.

And Aamir has been sent to do research on Earth, right? Yet he is without any prep or equipments or anything. Zzzzz….Spent the last 30 minutes not writing anything. Nothing to write about.Aamir thinks only God can help him find his remote which can help him contact his alienship. Couldn’t think further than ET, could you? And in Delhi he comes across only Hindu temples. If that’s not targeting what is?

All the other reviews I have read invariably state that PK asks very pointy questions about religion. Here’s the list of questions.

  • What’s the difference between small and big idols?
  • Do Hindu idols work on battery?
  • Whether there’s a transmitter in the idols?
  • Why do we have to pay fees to Hindu temples to be heard by God.
  • Are Hindu gods mute?

Ouch, so tickles.
No thanks for your preachy anti-idolatry stance. Yet, there is more to Hindu religion than idols.

If I had to ask questions about illogical things across religions, including Hinduism:

  • Why do religions need to increase the number of their followers?
  • Why should people follow something written in an ancient text?
  • What is the need to pray multiple times a day?
  • Is it not hypocritical to not eat meat on auspicious days while you gorge on it on other days?
  • Why do we have to believe the translations mostly done by non-Indians of our texts?
  • Why haven’t many people heard of Advait/Dvait philosophies, it is same as plain monotheism?

Anyway, moving on…

Another policeman talks about riots following a Christian visiting a temple. Can we stick to a bit of realism?  Introduction of church and frivolous jokes on crucification and wine offering. Then Aamir takes to a mosque and is driven away before he can make any silly comments on Allah. Hmm…. Smart way to try to be totally anti-Hindu while dedicating a couple of frames to other religions to assuage our anyway tolerant secularists.  Now I saw some news about questionable Censor board whose head is Leena Samson deleting anti-Christian stuff. Muslim groups were able to get Vishvaroopam banned and PK, well the courts told Hindus to just deal with it. Who is going to stand up for Hinduism?

What follows is a comparision of religion with an commercial establishment and comments on equality of all religions. All religions are for-profit organisations, according to PK. Yet, some use it for maintenance of temples, while others use it to fund conversions. If religions are so equal in this country,  then why do we haveHindu endowment act which makes it possible the use of the revenue and donations from Hindu temples to be used for several other activities including financial support for other religious institutions. If they are so very equal then why aren’t the huge acres of land given to Christians under the British Rule or the property owned by Wakf boards not talked about?  They are hardly proportional to the population percentage of the religions’ followers in the country. India has been neither a secular not an equal country for too long.

Oh, we are back to the godman Tapasvi, who has the remote that belongs to Aamir and is lying that it is Shiv’s damru’s part for which he wants to make a temple with donations of gullible followers. Of course, Hindu gurus are liars and by extrapolation all things considered holy by Hindus must be part of a sham. So, lets blast the bodhi tree, desecrate idols and demolish temples. All sham. And well-aware Hindus, don’t you dare protest because your religion is a bunch of lies. That is what is the learning here. When is this movie is going to end?

Turns out Aamir can now read minds too. Anushka believes that he’s an alien and wants to help him get the remote from the cluthches of Tapasvi. Aamir gets a revelation that God speaking to/through men is a sham. And I thought Aamir was a good Muslim. Come on.

Feeding cows, performing gulatiyan, milk pouring on shivling is senseless but sacrificing animals in the name of God is perfectly fine, no?

The film touches upon the use of fear in driving religion. Yet, Hinduism is the last religion which needs to resort to fear. It doesn’t ask you to follow procedures, it doesn’t stipulate a judgement day or facing god’s fury for changing religion. Jo darr gaya who mandir gaya is a dialogue. Really. Which Hindu devotee goes to a temple out of fear? Or even prays to god because if he didn’t it would make him less of a Hindu. Where is the fear in our religion? It’s ample focus on a person’s morality and call towards performing (non-religious) duties and even the ability to imagine God as something one can be unified with is proof that no one needs to ask anyone to do something specific in the Hindu Dharm. Why are you further misleading the youth of our country, Hirani? Just to make Rs.300cr+ revenue?

Aamir places a stone at an examination center and makes a joke about followers praying to it. It is less of a joke and more an indication of Hindu philosophy. God is accessible to anyone in any form. An idol is not a God till a devotee prays to it, wants to see God in it. Our god is very accessible that way

Ultimate dialogue: “If god wanted us to follow his word without questioning, he wouldn’t give humans ability to reason and question”, says Anushka.
How is this relevant to Hinduism?Seems more suitable to Islam, Christianity and abrahamic religons. She continues: “When the prophets or messengers of God can’t answer your question, they use fear and violence to kill your voice  and make you follow them”. This too is the least true of Hinduism and more directed towards other rule-based religions.

Cut to the montage of allegedly fradualent miracle workers; one hindu baba, one gau-seva basher, Chiritian conversion bashing, Malala-like pro girls education activist, 2nd Hindu guru… Although I am not such a follower but I can imagine people seeking help from gurus for finding the meaning or purpose of life instead of just curing their diseases or because they got paid for it. At least not in Hindu Dharm.

We have witness an awkward love story out of nowhere? Love is baste of time. True. Spare us.

After all this BS there is still half an hour to go!

Face to face debate between Aamir and Tapasvi is going to happen. Why? Because of hate mail and decrease in merchandise sale and trolling on social media outlets of Tapasvi.

Aamir is  shocked when Sanjay Dutt (Why is he out of jail again?) tells him the remote theif has sold his remote to Tapasvi. He knew that like an hour ago, didn’t he? Guess not. Aamir suddenly concludes that God isn’t a liar, his all-is-well type Wrong-number catch phrase (which by now has become unbearable) is irrelevant because only the ones who lie are the people on earth. I wonder what it says about all other religions, who depend on God’s word via man.

Now the climactic TV debate starts. Oh me god. Anushka’s bloody show is like Barkha Dutt’s. Giggle giggle.I can feel a Aamir khan style preachy sermon coming. I was right, this is Satyamava jayate: The movie.
Aamir gives a good start with faith as a coping mechanism and hope a motivator. Oh no. Spoke to soon. Here is the anti Hindu part.:

Aamir sermons that there is THE true god and then there’s your God, Mr. Hindu guru. Small like you, he says addressing the Hindu guru. The true god has created us and your god takes bribe. Aamir suggests that the ‘duplicate gods’ should be eliminated and we should all believe in the True god.

If I knew this was going to be a lecture on Abrahamic religions, I would have bunked the class. The Exodus was much more entertaining than PK, with the same message .

The channel crew is smiling and silently celebrating…what? I don’t know. Yet, they are potraying the real attitude of our media.

Now suddenly the whole topic has changed to trivia of bhavishyavanis and inaccurate forecasting and wagering for the remote. I was expecting a philosophical exchange of ideas but obviously I can’t expect that from a movie, can I?

It’s now suddenly all about Anushka’s love life and Aamir turns into Sherlock. He deciphers the whole mystery of Anushka being jilted at the altar. It turns out Anushka or Sushant never checked if the break-up note was meant for them. At this stage, all I can say is whatever.

Now we are dabbling in some random crap in a RajKumar Hirani style audience crying scene. Now suddenly everything is resolved between Anushka and Sushant and Anushka’s dad. How did Anushka’s dad suddenly have a heart change? Anyway finally Aamir got his remote.

Just go already, Aamir. OK now Anushka’s learns that Aamir loves her. Emo music in the background. I hope she isn’t thinking of going with him. Nopes, just stay back and write a book.

WTF did I just watch?


Arranged Marriages are made in express Heaven


Arranged marriages, as prevalent as they are in India, is usually given a defeatist hue by hard-core romantics that we are, thanks to love-triumphs-all Bollywood teachings and the glam of going from casual dating to on-the-knee proposals in American TV shows and Hollywood movies. Arranged marriage is viewed as a indication of one’s inability to find love without parental involvement, and is an alien concept for people in other countries.

Many find the whole arrangement a bit strange and unnatural in this day and age. Are arranged marriages really all that strange?

I say, not at all.

When two prospective bride and groom meet each other in the backdrop of arranged marriage it saves a lot of time and effort for everyone by:

  • Filtering out people who don’t want to get married just yet.
  • By justifying asking of detailed personal questions.
  • Getting a forthright disclosure of financial and social standing.
  • Not having to convince your parents about the relationship.
  • Ability to consider more than 1 person at a time.
  • Having an in-built easy exit-strategy.

Individuals in the arranged marriage setting meet often, get to know each other, decide if they are compatible, sometimes even fall in love and then they agree to the match.

Isn’t this better than regular dating and waiting.

  • When you enter into a relationship, you are expected to not talk about marriage, otherwise it’s just creepy. May be 2 years into the relationship you get to know your partner doesn’t plan to marry at all.
  • You might spend 2/3 years per partner to really figure out the person and if you want to marry (Not counting flings and casual affairs). If it turns out you DON’T want to get married, that’s a sunk cost of 2-3 years and not to mention the huge opportunity cost of not meeting the right person. And in your indian marriageable age span of 24-33 (9 years), you can go through 3 people max. That’s a lot of pressure. The probability is totally against you and your marriage!
  • There is a chance that you may fall in love but then it might not be reciprocated.
  • There is chance that your parents are strongly against the fellow and you have to sour either of the relationships to deal with the situation.
  • It may be a long time before your partner tells you about his/her family and their outlook towards you, their financial and social position.
  • Ugly break-ups, heartache and emotional baggage.

Another glaring difference between arranged and love marriage is the sex.

Now in the Indian society, pre-martial sex is still a taboo-in-the-closet. People might accept that the guy/girl in their consideration may have had past relationships but the parent’s don’t want to know and neither do they want to know if there was sleeping together involved. As hypocritical as that is, it is the norm here.

The concept of ‘having sex before you fall in love‘ is non-existent in people’s mind.

So, even though it is almost illogical to marry someone without ever checking your sexual compatibility, that is the norm. And it is not unreasonable to fix a wedding without going through this aspect of a relationship.


What is actually strange is the almost-xenophobic need to marry within the caste/community/social class.

The issue here is that the net-worth of a person is not just a summation of his/her being-

  • Job
  • Education
  • Psychographics: attitude towards life, kindness, ambition.
  • Interpersonal dynamics: Compatibility

but in the Indian scenario also includes externalities like:

  • Similar location of residence on the Indian map
  • Matching of caste, sub-caste, gotra, community.
  • The astrological matching of kundlis.
  • Equitable jobs & education of the parents.
  • Acceptable size of house, the locality of their residence,
  • Positivity in the neighbour’s opinion on the family

This is my opinion is the bane of arranged marriage reality.
Although it is not as prevalent yet as it should be ideally, but there is a shift in priorities of families and individuals to give more emphasise and time to compatibility between the prospective bride/groom.
So, there is scope for-
Love in an arranged marriage before the wedding.

I would like to end with a recommendation to read Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink.
And you would know why are so many arranged marriages successful even after just 2-3 meetings.

Got stared at. Grew blind to it.


I am a tall girl.
People used to stare and I got used to that.
So much so that I had become blind to people staring (like most girls).

I was a pretty outdoorsy person and travelled in buses, local trains, on foot at weird times and to new places without a care in the world.
Got stared at in buses, on roads, while sitting in autos, trains, ticketing queues of trains, pubs, discs (everywhere? I dunno)

No matter what I wore, who I was with, what I was doing. Got stared at.
If i stared back, some would look away, some didn’t.
I eventually got tired of bothering and grew immune to it.

I always used to wonder, what is there to stare?

I wasn’t ‘that’ pretty.
I wore ‘proper’ clothes, by choice.
My hair wasn’t out of place.
As a young girl, I had convinced myself it was because they hadn’t seen many tall girls.

Of course, I always called out people when they touched/tried to touch but I didn’t have the bandwidth to deal with staring people.

I was living in Mumbai then and frankly things weren’t ‘that’ bad. Only a ‘few’ people stared/touched and several times other men/women joined in the creeps-bashing when I pointed them out.

Then I moved to Gurgaon.

I am not that outdoorsy anymore.

I loved walking and in my first week there, I thought I will go to a supermarket which I was like a 15-min walk.  That one walk opened my eyes.

There were so many cars slowing down by my side while I was walking on the footpath, sometimes honking, sometimes coming to a halt. I was crossing roads and some cars just sped up to me as if to scare me and get a kick out of it.

Ugh creepy.

I never went even to an nearby ATM alone.

Once me and my girlies were returning late from a movie in an auto. And at a signal, we had to stop. It turns out it was near a liquor store. And can you believe this: there were some 10-15 people around the auto and they started tapping on the auto. I don’t know what the hell it meant but we got out of there asap.

Such rubbish.

Then I got married.

And my husband told me not to wear my low cut top once when we had plans to go around town.
The feminist in me was outraged! How could he! He had no right to tell me what to wear. I fought with him and I wore what I wanted. The neckline wasn’t even that deep anyway.

Then we went out  and he was fuming on the way. I thought he was still bitter about the fight, so I brought it up again and he told me that he hated creepy guys looking at me.
I was stumped. “What guys?”, I asked him.
“The ones we crossed on the road”, he told me.
I never noticed any and I told him so.
“Are you blind?”, said he.
I was. I never noticed anyone staring. I used to just look past everyone by default. Now I don’t and it makes me realize that in this case ‘Oblivion is bliss’

And that is why I have asked my husband to refrain from getting into arguments over this or staring back at  such creeps because it is just not worth it. Especially because it won’t make any real difference to their psyche. And moreover these days we hardly go ever use public transport or such places or may be because I have again grown blind, no one seems to bother me.

I asked him this same question that you are asking here and he told me the following:

“Most guys are frustrated.”

That’s all.

The society of India and it’s machinery only fuels this frustration.

  • Sometimes, ironically, by withholding everyone within it’s ‘traditional’ (post-wedding) shackles.
  • Sometimes, by justifying crime against women, as just being men being men.

Where does this frustration channelizes?
Gang rapes?
Groping in a crowd?

Staring at women in movies and women in real life.

Is it a surprise then that a recent UN sponsored study found the following:

Indian films topped the chart in sexualised portrayal of women onscreen. The study also states that 35% of female characters in Indian movies are shown with some nudity, the study reports. That’s not all. The study found that female characters in Indian cinema make up less than one-quarter of all speaking roles! This isn’t the first time stereotyping and sexualisation of women in Indian cinema have been talked about; however, the fact that it has ranked so high on an international survey has come as a surprise

Indecent Exposures


I have come across at least 3-4 incidents of  perverts exposing in public. I am feeling disgusted even thinking about it. The most horrifying aspect is that I witnessed most of them as a kid.

I feel nothing less than horror when I think of safety of kids. I was plain lucky to get away with only flashing but the line between that and physical harassment is very very thin.

It is obvious that men would not risk flashing any grown-ups and young girls/boys are easier for them to target.

The first incident was way back when I was a 5 year old. Can you believe it? I was visiting my grandma with my family. My sister was 2 year old then. It was Diwali, I remember. I loved to make rangoli and I was making one outside. And suddenly I notice a grown-up standing close by with his dick out of his pants, commenting on my rangoli or whatever.

5 year old kids are not dumb as that man must have thought. I knew his exposure was wrong but I was in shock to even move.  My 2 year baby sister was just walking out of the door and it was only then, in an effort to protect her, I ran like crazy, picked her up and went inside.

Ugh. I took a bath for an hour after that. Retrospectively, I think , I felt violated in some way.

It turns out that man was the milk supplier of the building.

Next time I remember it happened was when I was in 6th standard, I think. My school was a 10 min walk from home. My friends and I used to walk back from school on foot and we had to pass through a relatively isolated location. One day, a grown-up man walked past us with his dick out of his pants. I am sure most noticed it and yet didn’t really look at it. The man just walked past with a straight face.

Most of us were horrified. Some giggled but it wasn’t because it was funny.

And guess what, within another 3-4 days, the man was back. Again he repeated the same thing.
We just started running till we reached home. And never again went back to that road, taking a much longer road instead.

Did we complain? No.
Did we feel offended? Yes.

There was a boy/man in a building opposite mine. It was pretty far away but no so much that I couldn’t see the silhouette of people in the those houses. So, i used to sit in my room studying for my board exams and several times I noticed a weirdo in one of the houses in that building being a creep.

My eyesight was kind of ruined by then after hours and hours of online chatting. This was in year 2001, when people chatted online in chat-rooms.
So, I couldn’t really see who this person was or if he used to be stark naked or only topless but this fellow used to just pose in front of his window. I can’t say if he saw me or not.  Yet, I was forced to draw my curtains to ensure that he didn’t see me.

I hated sitting in low-sunlight but I can’t understand why I didn’t say anything to my parents. I didn’t know if I should or I could.

The last incident was when I was in college and one day I was waiting at a bus-stop and I saw that far away there was a man exposing himself on the road, to the passing traffic.

This time I was beyond feeling offended but I was feeling sad for people like him.

What could have been wrong with this fellow to do this?

Is it my hypocrisy or fear, that I slapped another person who tried to touch me once while I didn’t do anything about perverts’ public exposures?

I am a lot like the system I live in.

We do have an Indian Penal Code for indecent exposure and a lot of cases are filed under this section. I am sure you must have come across most of them. Actress are targeted for wearing skimpy clothes in movies, on posters, in public shows. Easy target for faux-moral policing? Most definitely.

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) is often used to charge sex workers with vague crimes such as “public indecency” or being a “public nuisance” without explicitly defining what these consist of.

Isn’t this an extension of getting raped the woman’s fault attitude?

All I know is: kids are never safe.
Apologies to my future kids because their mom is going to be over-protective.

Women’s reservation: Anti-feminist?


I say, absolutely NOT.

The basic tenant of feminism is equal opportunity, equal treatment, equal rights.

We can’t suddenly apply ‘Equality’ once men and women reach adulthood.


  1. Why should graduation seats have reservation for girls?
  2. Why should govt jobs have promotion and recruitment quota for women?
  3. Administrative posts have reservation for women?
  4. Why should their be seats reserved for women?

Respective Assumptions:

  1. Equal education opportunity and encouragement given to girls by family
  2. Equal willingness of chauvinistic men to work under women, or even admit that a woman is better than them
  3. Equal probability of men with a patriarchal point of view  to vote for women candidates than to men
  4. Equal level of safety to women from harassment or molestation in a crowded bus

Also, you can’t sit in your MNC office cubicles having got a Post Grad degree;  getting equal pay (?) and respect from your colleagues irrespective of your gender and imagine a similar utopian society out there in smaller cities/towns and govt. offices.

There can be no equal opportunity for women in higher studies or jobs, if at primary level there has been discrimination.
The attitude of even educated men isn’t quite far from misogyny.
Nothing has to be said about the level of safety of women.

This is not a feminist issue.  Not yet.
When we live in a evolved society where there is no female foeticide, infanticide, have non-patriarchal families, equal chance of women completing education as men; then I will be the first one to say women don’t need reservation.

Unequal taxes in the same income bracket, yes, that was an example non-equality and has been done away with coz it is the most logical thing to do. Women who are able to earn just as much as men are truly on an equal footing to contribute to national exchequers.

The reason for so many people feeling short-changed on the issue of women reservation is because the women who actually making use of it are from economically and socially strong backgrounds. That is not fair.

There has to be a family income-linked gender reservation.