Question; The concept of freedom is a widely advocated topic. However, there is a generalized yet stringent template of freedom construed by society when it comes to that of women. Somewhere, is it happening that the society in attempting to advocate for women’s freedom is rather curbing it by deciding the definition of freedom on behalf of them? Freedom is not just about the popular idea of it. Instead, it needs to get reflected from the inner self of everyone. Freedom should, ideally, lie in the mind and demeanour of an individual. It is intrinsic and cannot be fathomed in terms of only external pursuits. The actuality women’s freedom in India, and not the fancy version of it, is shown in the following instances:

Marital Rape can be seen across as a major impediment in the way of women in attaining freedom in its true essence. It is discrimination that has been conveniently homogenized in society. The presence of such an unfortunate conception reflects upon the materialization of the whole existence of women in society. It reduces their position to a mere inanimate state. It clearly asserts that marital rape is an engrained nuisance in Indian society. The idea of consent to sexual activities post marriage is to “implied” on behalf of a woman. The mere fact that she is married takes away her right to say no to any kind of intimate activity between her and her husband. Isn’t this a violation of the Right to live with dignity? Does it not go against her guaranteed fundamental rights? The reason behind such heinous reality is the misconstrued notion that wives are their husband’s property. How can we assert the presence of equal freedom between men and women when such a basic element of consent is subjectively available to women? The modern age definition of freedom of women is very constricted and narrow in terms of the inclusivity of choices. It doesn’t provide for the free flow of decisions amongst women. The society, while constructing this definition, forgets to provide the right to decide for themselves to the women. It creates a standard idea of the freedom of women. However, one generalized idea of fancy freedom might not be freedom at all. Freedom implies the liberty to take decisions of one’s life, to make choices, to freely express one’s self and the like. But, the new-age definition of it certainly revolves around the surface definition of freedom. But there are instances when, while attempting to conform to the generalized idea of freedom, the real sense of freedom gets lost. For instance, a woman wearing Hijab is not necessarily a sign of religious repression. It might be her choice to wear Hijab and not a compulsion. But society has become so obsessed with the generally perceived perceptions that it will make irrational assumptions without even knowing what that woman really wants. We are advocating for women’s rights without even knowing what they really want. How can this be freedom in its true sense? It is less empowering and more constricting rather in the modern age world. What according to the author wearing of Hijab by women may imply?

Options:

A) Religious repression

B) Lack of freedom

C) Freedom to choose

D) A compulsion