The World has never yet seen a truly great and virtuous nation because in the degradation of woman the very fountains of life are poisoned at their source
- Lucretia Mott, an abolitionist,
social reformer
What should have ended up as an outstanding statement to the world has become a ground for political vote bank battle. Just imagine, for a second, what a moment it could have been if RED CARPET was rolled out to welcome women devotees on October 17, when the temple opened for darshan post the verdict. A grand welcome with everyone coming together. All devotees, both men and women, chanting of Saranam Ayyappa would have reverberated across the world. An event that would have been etched in our memory. Unfortunately, that is not the case to be. We have to wait. We may or may not see it in our lifetime. Depends on which seed gets the water, seed of progression or seed of discrimination. Both the seeds have been planted. We have to wait.
In last 2-3 months we saw three critical verdicts from Supreme Court on 377, Instant Triple Talaq, and Sabarimala. Each verdict got a different level of reception from the parties, and leaders, cautious to welcoming the verdict. We also saw them taking one stand when the verdict came out and flipping later based on response from a section of the public. We see more resistance for women’s entry in to Sabarimala than what was observed in Triple Talaq. In the case of Triple Talaq, community itself was not for Instant Triple Talaq, which the Supreme Court made illegal. Rest of Triple Talaq is still valid and legal (which fails the equality before law test in a democracy). That could be the reason for least resistance. In the case of 377, the Supreme Court has scrapped Section 377 of the IPC, decriminalising the 158-year-old colonial law which criminalizes consensual gay sex. We didn’t see much resistance. My take is we will start seeing real resistance when the LGPBTQ community start pushing for their rights like marriage, adoption, inheritance, etc.
In the case of Sabarimala, since the impact was immediate, we see the protests. So far, no women have been able to enter Sabarimala post the verdict. They got harassed and sent away. Like any other issue, politics has entered the protests with National parties taking a different position at central and state. Same parties which welcomed the verdict, now going on protests in Kerala against the entry with their national leaders adding more gasoline to the fire. We have one leader saying “abstract notions of constitutional principles also have to pass the test of social acceptance – all the more so when they are applied to matters of faith…” Ideally it should be other way, any faith needs to be backed by constitutional morality. But let’s go with his line of thought, what he would have recommended in 1936 or 1939 when Temple Entry proclamation and Temple Entry Act were passed in Travancore and Madras respectively and there were protests? Should have gone with what the society wanted? Then we hear a plan from an activist that If any one (women between the ages of 10 and 50) tried to enter the temple with the help of the police, about 20 people are ready to make a cut on their hand and shed blood. If that happens, the temple would have to be closed for three days (on account of desecration). There is no need to open it no matter who says so. If we are being provoked like that, we too have our ways. If blood or urine falls on the temple, it has to be closed. This is faith.“ I leave it to the readers on what they make out this.
Ruling state government, from their actions seem to be fully committed to implement the verdict but they are caught in a situation where violent protesters enter the premises as devotees. Arguments are being made why women shouldn’t be allowed, God’s wish, uniqueness of the temple, impurity, they can visit other temples, there are temples where men are not allowed, etc. Then the usual “whataboutism”. What about that <religious practice – fill your favorite one>? Why target this practice which doesn’t harm anyone?
One positive side of the protests is that we come to know history which we didn’t know earlier. For example, multiple histories on how the temple came about, how ancestors of Mala Arya tribe used to perform rituals in Sabarimala until they were forcibly removed in the 19th century by the Pandalam kings, how Brahminism took over Buddhism between 8-12AD in Kerala, etc. It shows how appropriation of culture, gods, and symbols kept happening by the majority of that particular period in history of India. What is very clear is our history is layers upon layers. So, it always puzzles me when I hear we are correcting the mistake done earlier whether it is as simple as name change of a street or a city, to a temple demolition, or a temple construction. Which layer you plan to fix and how far down you want to go? Why stop at a layer convenient to you?
My goal for this post is to show how far we have come with respect to equality, kind of discriminatory practices that existed and how long it took to change the social views with few key historical incidents. Not just faith related but also other social practices and dogmas. It will shed light on the fact that all the arguments that are being made now, same and similar arguments were brought up 100 years back when the push came to stop certain discriminatory practices. Whatever freedom and equality we enjoy and cherish now did not come by easily. We all are standing on the shoulders of those great people who took a stand, fought against discriminatory practices, and pushed for equal access and rights. And why the job is still unfinished.
"It was winter. The cold was extremely bitter. I began to think of my duty. Should I fight for my rights or go back to India, or should I go on to Pretoria without minding the insults, and return to India after finishing the case? It would be cowardice to run back to India without fulfilling my obligation."
- Gandhi from My Experiments with Truth
On 7th June 1893, Gandhi was forcibly thrown out of first-class carriage on a train in Pietermaritzburg. He did have a first-class ticket. What was the crime he committed? He didn’t obey the segregation laws, there were separate carriages for colored people. It wasn’t that he wasn’t allowed to travel in train. Argument was you guys have your own carriage, don’t get in our carriage. Rings a bell with current arguments? In that cold night, sitting there in the waiting-room of Maritzburg he wasn’t sure what to do next. Should he go back to India? Should he stay back accepting the discriminatory practices. But that momentous day, something changed in him. From that day, he decided he will not accept injustice in any form.
Aside: Let’s stop and think about that incident. All of us would have gone through similar incidents in our life, where we are forced to do things that didn’t align with our values. As an example, paying bribe. We all are against it, complain and talk about till our faces go RED and eyes bulge out, but when push comes the shove, we pay the bribe and move on. Yes, we sulk in the beginning, for few hours or few days. In a fantasy world in our head we play a hero who thumps the guys asking for bribe. Eventually we rationalize paying the bribe saying need to get the work done, life has to go on. But not Gandhi. On humiliation, he decided to stand up and fight. Fight in his own ways. Rather than understanding how he did it, we conveniently called him a Great Soul, a Mahatma, distanced ourselves from him making him not normal. Made him different and special. As a thought experiment, let’s flip the position. What if Gandhi is Normal, he exhibited a behavior of normal human. What does it make of us? It makes us bunch of freaking hopeless, shallow creatures. We may not have to do the fighting, but when we see someone standing up for the rights, least we could do is to support them rather than ridicule them or call them a joker. We may not have to go on a procession but at the least support them on their cause. Just imagine, Gandhi would have been called a joker when he refused to remove his turban in the court in South Africa, I am sure his friends would have told him, just remove the turban, what is the big deal.
Today, there is a plaque at the station in Pietermaritzburg that reads: ‘In the vicinity of this plaque MK Gandhi was evicted from a first-class compartment on the night of 7 June 1893. This incident changed the course of his life. He took up the fight against racial oppression. His active non-violence started from that date.’
Care has to be taken that the power of divine spirit is not dissipated that has been consecrated by mantras that requires Brahminical rituals and protection from adverse influences that also includes entry of oppressed castes in to the temple and its premises.
On November 12, 1936, the Maharaja Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma of Travancore signed the historic Temple Entry Proclamation, that removed the age long injustice of barring oppressed castes from entering temple. This proclamation did not come about easily. It took two decades of non-violent protests. From 1919, social reformers had taken up the issue of temple entry with Travancore government. In 1921, not seeing any changes, reformers decided to start peaceful agitation based on Gandhi’s direction. Protests in 1924 in Vaikom, northern part of Travancore was partially successful, it did not succeed in lifting the bars on castes but it did open the roads around the temple for oppressed castes use. Partial yes, but when you put yourself in that era, it must have been big breakthrough considering hundreds of years of oppression and denial. Section of society were not ever allowed to use the roads. For the temple entry movement, this must have been a positive impact. Action shifted to Guruvayur then. On November 1, 1931, Dalits and upper caste Hindus kick started a demand that all avarnas be allowed inside the temple. Protest went on for 10 months and temple entry movement gained further momentum. In 1932, committee appointed by Travancore Government recommended opening of roads and tanks for all but not the temples. Reason given for not opening the temples: care has to be taken that the power of divine spirit is not dissipated that has been consecrated by mantras that requires Brahminical rituals and protection from adverse influences that also includes entry of oppressed castes in to the temple and its premises. Does the reason ring a bell?
Former President of India, K.R.Narayanan, in one of his speeches quoted the incident where frustrated Gandhi posed the temple entry question to boy Maharaja. The 12-year-old Sree Chithira Thirunal, readily and without any consultation, promised Gandhi that he would allow temple entry during his reign. Maharaja Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma did keep his word when he signed the proclamation on November 12, 1936, that opened all temples under his administration to all Hindus and that no restrictions would be placed on those who wanted to worship at the temple. Reread the highlighted section and the current situation we are in.
The Proclamation was the first of its kind in Princely States as well as in British India. Yes, there were agitations in other parts of India and temples were made open earlier, but this was the first time such a concession made in a large scale. Of course, it didn’t bring in any immediate change in nearby princely states. The maharaja of Cochin declared the whole of Travancore as untouchables. It took another few more years for those states to change their mindset.
“Tamil Nadu has two persons who involved not just themselves but their families as well for the cause of the society. They were Periyar and Vaidyanatha Iyer. It would not have been an easy task for Iyer to organise such a movement at that time”
On July 8, 1939, 8:45am a batch of non-caste Hindus numbering six entered famous Sri Meenakshi Temple, Madurai, along with A.Vaidyanatha Iyer and L.N.Gopalasamy. To understand the significance of this event, one need to keep in mind certain class of people were not allowed for 1000+ years. Agitations in nearby Travancore and Temple Proclamation Act of 1936, lit the spark for temple entry movement including removal of untouchability in Madurai. This significant event in Meenakshi Amman and nearby temples in Madurai paved the way for Government of Madras to pass the Temple Entry Act in 1939. While Travancore led the temple entry, it was top down, but in Madurai it was bottom up, the realization of non-caste Hindus entry in to Meenakshi Amman temple happened in a peaceful way, without the support of state authority. Taking the cue from Meenakshi Amman temple entry, doors opened for non-caste Hindus in Azhagar temple, Thiruparankuntram, Pazhani and Srivilliputhoor temples in 1939. The movement kept gaining momentum with similar entries into famous temples in Tiruchendur, Thanjavur, Tiruchi, Kanchipuram, and Tirunelveli.
Temple entry movement in Madurai began in 1934, when Gandhi on his fourth visit to Madurai, took Kakkan, the congress leader, along with him to visit the Meenakshi Amman temple. Kakkan informed Gandhi he would wait outside since he was not permitted to enter the temple precincts. Gandhi also decided not to enter till Dalits get the similar rights to enter the place of worship. History says that Gandhi was reluctant to enter the shrine during all his previous visits to Madurai (1919, 1921, 1927). 1934 sowed the seed for the movement in Madurai which eventually resulted in July 8, 1939 wonderful entry. Thanks to the movement led by A.Vaidhayanatha Iyer and other Gandhian leaders, this is how Gandhi wrote in the visitors’ book after offering worship at the Meenakshi Amman Temple along with non-caste Hindus on February 4. 1946, “I AM delighted that my many-year-old desire has been fulfilled today.”
While the whole movement was peaceful, it wasn’t immediately accepted. Brahmin community announced that Vaidhyanatha Iyer and his family were no longer part of their community. The temple Priests led by the Sanatanist leaders locked the temple doors leading to the inner shrine and did not turn up for duty. Sanatanists attributed the World War II to the passing of the Temple Entry Act. Does that ring a bell? The suit filed by them in Madurai sub-court July 1941 got dismissed and their subsequent appeals went up to Federal Court, Delhi, following dismissals from District court of Madurai, and High court of Madras. Federal Court dismissed the suit along with upholding of Priests dismissal. The priests joined duty without performing any cleansing ceremony, which they insisted on doing post Dalits entry, and agreed to obey the law.
Aside: It wasn’t only temples where the discrimination existed. It was widespread, sections of society were not allowed to be educated, denial of property rights and education to women, polygamy, child marriages, separate burial grounds etc. Few got removed with combination of social reforms and legal protection, few continue to exist. We all need to give a big thanks to the renaissance movement, which produced few great leaders, that ushered in the change and breath of fresh air.
“People always say that I didn’t give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn’t true. I was not tired physically… No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in.”
- Rosa Parks in her Autobiography
On December 1, 1955, during an evening in Montgomery, Alabama, Rosa Parks, a 42-year-old woman took a seat on the bus. She set off a social revolution when the bus driver instructed her to move back, and she refused. To understand the significance, we need to know the law that existed those days on racial segregation of public buses. The front 10 seats were permanently reserved for white passengers in the city buses of Montgomery. Mrs. Parks was seated in the first row behind those 10 seats. So, no violation so far. But when the bus became crowded, the bus driver instructed Mrs. Parks and the other three passengers seated in that row, all African Americans, to vacate their seats for the boarding white passengers. While other three passengers moved, Mrs. Parks didn’t move arguing that she was not in a seat reserved for whites. Driver believed he had the discretion to move the line based on crowd. Police was called, Rosa Parks was arrested for violating the segregation law. This wasn’t the first time she got in trouble with the law. When she was 12 years old, she paid her fare at the front but refused to follow the rule that was in place for blacks to disembark and re-enter through the back door. History shows she stood her ground till the driver pulled her coat sleeve and demanded her cooperation. She got off the bus rather than give in. Blacks had to co-exist with white people in a city governed by segregation laws. Blacks could attend only certain schools which would be substandard, could drink only from specified water fountains, could borrow books only from the “black” library, to call out a few. On December 5, 1955, Parks was found guilty of violating segregation laws, given a suspended sentence and fined $10 plus $4 in court costs.
The blacks of Montgomery decided to boycott the buses on the day of the trial. Black participation in the boycott was more than anticipated. That gave the boost to Parks’ lawyer E.D.Nixon, who along with some ministers spearheaded the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA) to manage the boycott. What is more striking to me is that they elected Dr.Martin Luther King Jr. as MIA’s President. I would have never connected Rosa Parks with MLK or Gandhi’s connection to Meenakshi Amman Temple till I delved deep in to these incidents. Boycott went on for 381 days until US Supreme Court upheld the ruling by three judges in US District Court that made segregation of public buses unconstitutional on November 13, 1956. Of course, as appeals and related lawsuits wended their way through the courts, there was anger among white population including some violence and bombing of lawyer’s and MLK homes. Violence did not deter the boycotters or their leaders and finally boycott came to an end December 20 when the court’s written order arrived in Montgomery. In 1999, Parks was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest honor the United States betsows a civilian. Her arrest triggered the community to come together and protest against the discrimination they had endured for years.
The World has never yet seen a truly great and virtuous nation because in the degradation of woman the very fountains of life are poisoned at their source
- Lucretia Mott, an abolitionist,
social reformer
Aside: One has to write pages, like I have done, to convey the thoughts. Only a handful get their message across with few words and few of that stands the test of time. I am always in awe as to how did they think and come up with this? What was their trigger? Like Thiruvalluvar’s 7 words Kural, these quotes hit you like a sledgehammer. I would love to come up with at least one quote like this in my life time!! Lucretia Mott, I read, was a great orator. Consider the environment she lived in, 1793-1880. Members from Abolitionist movement opposed public activities by women, especially public speaking. Women speaking to mixed crowds of men and women was considered promiscuous by some.
On August 8, 1920, US granted American women the Right to Vote with 19th Amendment ending an almost a century of protest. Elizabeth Cady and Lucretia Mott launched the movement of women’s rights in 1848 at national level with Seneca Falls Convention. Movement worked hard to raise public awareness. For us, it may come as a surprise that women did not have the right to vote in most of the countries even begin of 20th century. Anti-suffrage views dominated among men and women through the early 20th century. There were cartoons that mocked suffragists. Religious leaders were against women suffrage. Many reasons were given against women suffrage, silly to outrageous.
Few of them will ring a bell since those arguments are being made even now, but for different issues. Opposition to the vote was both religious and cultural. Sample list below (have some fun in a serious writing):
Political Activity rendered women incapable of breast feeding
Husband’s votes were sufficient to allow a woman’s political expression
Women can’t fit into the polling booth because of her dress
Women lack the expertise or mental capacity to offer a useful opinion on political issues
Husband’s votes were sufficient to allow a woman’s political expression
More voting women than voting men will place the Government under petticoat rule
- • Women took care of home and children. Do not have time to vote or stay updated on politics
- • States that provided women suffrages has been a proven failure - divorces have greatly increased since the adoption of the equal suffrage amendment
- • Crimes will go up due to lack of the mothers in the home
- • 90% of the women either do not want it, or do not care
- • It means competition of women with men instead of co-operation
- • Women can only double or annul their husband's votes
- • It is unwise to risk the good we already have for the evil which may occur
- • Women do not need a ballot to clean out their sink spout
With women’s rights movement and pressure, countries after countries started giving in. Germany in 1918, UK in 1928 (from 1915-1928 women could vote at age of 30 as long as they own a property or graduates of UK university; Men could vote at the age of 21 with no qualification), Sweden in 1919, and Italy 1945. Switzerland in 1971. Greece, the home of democracy, gave the rights in 1952. Of course, The Pope, head of Vatican, is still elected by all-male College of Cardinals!!
Thanks to our constitution makers, India gave universal suffrage from day of Independence. It is not that everyone agreed. There were opposition to women’s suffrage; some wanted to add conditions even for men. Indian women had been pushing for women’s suffrage from 1920s. They faced a conflict between nationalist movement and women’s suffrage advocacy. They had to balance it with the imperatives of the nationalist movement. Leaders like Gandhi wanted to avoid the distractions (due to difference of opinions on women’s suffrage) from the larger goal. Yet these women did play a larger role which made saner voices prevail during making of constitution. Every Indian citizen irrespective of caste, religion, or gender got the Right to Vote from day one of Independence.
Even though the 15th Amendment adopted by US Constitution in 1870 granted African-American the Right to Vote, various discriminatory practices were put in place to prevent them from exercising their right to vote. 15th amendment did clearly prohibit states from denying a male citizen the right to vote based on race, color or previous condition of servitude, Nevertheless, in the ensuing decades, specifically states from the south used literacy tests, poll taxes, along with intimidation and violence to prevent African Americans, from exercising their right to vote. Like women’s suffrage, reasons varied from as silly as they got the poll date wrong, wrong polling booth, insufficient literacy skills, to atrocious requirements like being asked to recite the entire Constitution, which even most white voters would fail. It wasn’t until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that legal barriers to deny the blacks their right to vote were outlawed at the state and local levels.
The intention of calling out few incidents is not for history lesson but more to show that how the conditions were just 80+ years back. We are not talking about practices from 500 years back but in last century, when our grandparents lived. Our parents would have seen or encountered them when they were kids. We have come a long way from the kind of discriminatory practices that existed in first half of 20th century, like people of the Paraya caste had to stand 64 feet away from Brahmins, Pulaya caste 54 feet away, Ezhava caste 36 feet away, Pulaya caste had to stand 30 feet away from Ezhavas etc. In our social hierarchy or decks, which still exists, suppression went top down. Each hierarchy suppressed the level(s) below. If that is not enough, within each deck, men were more privileged than women. All these changed to large extent as a result of the renaissance movement.
Till 1936, every single god was consecrated in a way that disallowed Dalits. That got changed with the movements pushing the executives for legal protections in place. 80 years later, these may look like a distant memory, I don’t think any one of us think divine power or integrity of the deities got diminished because of non-caste entry in to the temples. No idols have left the temple so far because the custom was broken.
Moving the society towards progression will take time and is not going to happen as fast as we wish. Years of conditioning will not go away in a moment. To understand conditioning impact, consider this: with Sabarimala verdict Supreme Court has clearly said, women you are not impure because you menstruate, you have equal access. But we have the same women on streets fighting that verdict. Conditioning from birth is so powerful and so ingrained that many of us believe the impurity construct. Conditioning imprisons your thoughts. It takes conscious effort and constructive dialogues, and intense self-introspection to get over that wall. If you look back in history, good percentage of women were against giving voting privilege for women in US, men used women to give speeches in anti-suffrage rallies.
As an instrument of control, impurity notion gets effectively used to discriminate and differentiate the society based on caste and gender. Since it is applied at birth, family you are born in to or born a girl child, purity is not something you can acquire. You get the impurity certificate along with birth certificate. We can debate to death when these practices came in to force and how, but once they are in place, most of the them gets rationalized. Where rationalization doesn’t work, it is turned in to belief in the name of god and religion. If you dig deep enough, these are all instruments of control deployed by people in power to rule over the masses.
Coming back to the verdict, no one is forcing any women to go. Even with the verdict, it is perfectly alright for a woman not to visit Sabarimala (or any holy place for that matter) if they believe in impurity (or for any other reason). It is their choice. On the same coin, don’t stop a woman (or anyone for that matter) from visiting, that too with violent protests, if they exercise their choice. Don’t question their wish. It is between devotee and God. Leave it to them.
When we discuss about Equality, it is just not Equality before law, it is also Equality in society. While Law will and should protect the Right to Equality as an individual in a democracy like India, the second one, Equality in Society will not come by easily, especially in a hierarchical society like ours. Equality in Society, includes day to day social life, and equality within and among religions and faiths. While our constitution guarantees equality for all citizens irrespective of caste, religion, and gender, have affirmative laws to correct 1000s of years of discrimination, as a society we have not attained equality yet. Caste-based hierarchical suppression still exists (honor killings is an example), caste-based superiority still gets propagated (and portrayed as a prestige in our movies), and gender discrimination in the name of religion and god continues.
Renaissance movement that started early last century brought in required changes like temple entry for everyone, women’s education, and universal suffrage, but it is left unfinished. For example, Dravidian movement in Tamil Nadu which pushed for any caste to become priests in temples lost its momentum and came in to force only after Kerala pushed ahead with the change a year back. Still the goal was partial since it pushed for only men and did not include women, plus it was limited to only Hindu temples. While we have women deities, we don’t have women priests. What stops a woman to become priests, imams, bishops, or pope, if they want to, if they wish?
This is not just in religious institutions. Women’s representation is minimal in our Assemblies and Parliaments. Currently we have 62 women MPs in current Lok Sabha, out of 543, at 12%, a marginal increase from previous one (58), and the highest in the history of the country. In an ideal world, this would be at 50%. For the change in the top to happen, first we need to get proportional representation of women in Assemblies, Parliaments, and ministerial posts. Just getting this number to say 150+, would ensure voices are heard, and not drowned, and make sure gender centric policies get enforced (they do exist on paper at this time). When it comes to judiciary, we have only 3 women judges in SC out of 25 currently. So far, we had 8 women judges in SC in last 70 years, including current 3. We are yet to see a women CJI. Expecting a Due Process with so many flaws and imbalance is not realistic.
As of now, we are seeing a piece-meal approach. Due to limitations, Supreme Court looks at only the issue in front of it and not the whole picture, instant triple talaq rather than the whole Triple Talaq, or only Shani temple or Sabarimala temple. These piece-meal approaches and measures leads to further separations and gulfs. Ideally, our representatives in Assemblies and Parliaments should be debating and pushing for the change, whether it is 377, or Triple Talaq, or Sabarimala. Unfortunately, they are not doing their job, and changes are being driven by PILs and Supreme Court Verdicts. With other avenues not working and our representatives not doing their job, Supreme Court seems to be the only one coming to rescue.
For all of us to get a clearer picture, we need to take a step back. Rather than looking at these from public or social acceptance or community point of view, we need to look at them from the point of single individual. Keeping the birth attributed identities aside, like caste / religion / nation / language, it comes down to a question of Rights of an Individual Vs Faith and Rights of Individual Vs Rights of Collective. That single individual is the smallest entity, I don’t want to use the word minority due to negative connotation, and, in a democracy, individual rights need to be protected through the Constitution. That is the strong foundation to build upon. That individual right is what always being challenged by the collective whether it is to ban the book, column, movie, music, painting, temple entry or any other forms of individual expression. Collective is never going to be comfortable with a voice that challenges the status quo even with a tweet of 280 characters. It is up to our own peril to weaken that foundation.
Brilliant as ever. Very well arturo Rad. Wish i had written this.
Well organized thoughts expressed very well! Thanks Rad!
The article is based on “inequality” supposedly of gender. That is fundamentally flawed basis. When no other Hindu temple follows such “gender inequality” then there must be some logic in why such practice is followed only in that temple. May be it is beyond our understanding. In life everything don’t have logic. Comparing this with triple talak is even more ridiculous. In essence, this article is not in line with my view. However I respect your view, because you are entitled to hold your view.
Amazing, mind-blowing piece Rad. Such a powerful write-up on the ever present societal hierarchy that serves to oppress, physically or psychologically. And being conditioned from birth, we don’t know any better as we have never seen anything different. The historical accounts and the quotes are powerful, and yes I would like to quote some of your lines elsewhere 🙂
Go ahead and use the quotes, Bakshree!!