The Discriminatory Dhakkan

In a fictional survey not conducted by anyone, 93.2% of umbrella users asseverated that they used umbrellas to protect themselves from the rain and/or the heat of the sun. (2% used his umbrella primarily as a proxy golf club and 4.8% slept through the entire exercise.) All of these 93.2% people then went on to confirm that they indulged in these climate-countering activities either on their own or at the behest of family and friends.

In another recent study, carried out amongst urban women in my neighbourhood, 100% of the respondents (i.e. both of them) said most vehemently that they most definitely lock the doors of their flats before retiring for the night, even though there is no law or local statute in force that specifically requires them to do so.

What this data seems to indicate is that intelligent people (extrapolated from umbrella users and neighbourhood ladies) naturally take steps to protect themselves from unwanted outcomes or unpleasant experiences. Couples who use condoms and TV viewers who change the channel when the ad-that-shall-not-be-named comes on are further examples of the same human tendency.

All this would seem quite obvious and hardly worthy of all the kilobytes being consumed in writing it down had it not been for the curious case of the two-wheeler helmet. You see, the helmet seems to be an exception to the instinct of self-preservation. Media persons of both genders have devoted substantial column-centimetrage in the leading dailies to this issue. Why have the traffic laws of Delhi made women exempt from wearing protective headgear on scooters and motorcycles? Do our laws not value our women, they ask. Are the crania of our female brethren unworthy of protection, they inquire.

No matter what your private opinion, this is a serious matter. For it appears that according to an undiscovered secret decree, a Delhi-ite may wear a helmet only in the presence of the law. Haven’t you noticed how Delhi’s two-wheelerists respectfully remove their helmets when there is no policeman present? It’s the same with seat belts, but at least there’s no sexual discrimination there. But by specifically exempting women from wearing helmets, the law has seemingly denied them the protection that a helmet offers. Or so the media would have you believe.

My own belief is more laissez-faire. I believe that because our democratically framed laws have given women the freedom to buy and wear helmets if they want, it’s really up to the ladies, isn’t it?

After all, who should know better than them what their own heads are worth?