Priced consent
Sir — Men have always struggled to grasp the concept of consent. The recent controversy at the show of the comedian, Pranit More, brought this into focus. A member of the audience suggested that paying for a plate of biryani on a date entitled him to physical intimacy with her. This is nothing short of sexual harassment. Incidents like these often dissuade women from going on dates. Dating for women involves a lot of hidden mental labour. For stepping out for a simple cup of coffee, women are forced to weigh so many concerns: am I dressed correctly? What if my friendliness is misread as desperation? And what if I am subjected to unwanted advances even if I pay for my half? Consent cannot be bought; it is unconditional.
Sulagna Biswas,
Calcutta
Silent sacrifice
Sir — In the past, earning an income and providing for the family were considered the sole responsibilities of the husband. Now women contribute significantly to the household finances as well (“Pay them”, Jun 15). Yet, in many families, women are expected to give up their careers after marriage and devote themselves entirely to domestic responsibilities.
Being a homemaker is not a nine-to-five job; it offers neither fixed hours nor retirement. It is essential for husbands to thus share domestic responsibilities in addition to meeting the family’s financial needs. The Supreme Court’s recent recognition of the unpaid labour of homemakers in compensation claims offers a fresh perspective on the economic value of their contribution. This vast, unpaid workforce deserves both recognition and respect.
S. Sankaranarayanan,
Chennai
Sir — The editorial, “Pay them”, reflects a welcome observation by the Supreme Court. A man may spend long hours outside earning an income and is rightly regarded as the family’s breadwinner. Yet, little attention is paid to the countless hours a woman devotes to household chores without expecting any financial return even when she is unwell. Society tends to judge contribution solely in monetary terms. Few pause to consider that without a woman’s labour, a household would struggle to function. Ironically, she is often criticised if any lapse is noticed in her work.
Pratima Manimala,
Howrah
Sir — The sacrifices made by women in nurturing and uplifting their families are unquestionably admirable. Equally significant are the sacrifices made by men. Mothers and fathers are like two rails of a track — both make sacrifices for the family’s welfare.
N.R. Ramachandran,
Chennai
Sir — The recent observation by the Supreme Court that homemakers are “nation builders” acknowledges the immense contribution of women whose unpaid labour forms the foundation of families and of society. Homemakers devote their time and energy to managing households, raising children, caring for the elderly and supporting family members. Though unpaid and often overlooked, their work plays a vital role in the nation’s development. The court has taken an important step towards promoting gender equality and social justice. The government should now formulate a roadmap to secure homemakers’ financial rights and provide them with some form of social security.
Bal Govind,
Noida
Sir — The valuation of a homemaker’s work at Rs 30,000 a month by the top court corrects a long-standing economic injustice. Women spend more than seven hours each day on unpaid care work — labour estimated to be worth 15-17% of the GDP — yet it remains largely invisible in policy and budgeting. Assigning a monetary value to homemakers’ work is not an act of charity. However, financial compensation alone risks reinforcing the notion that caregiving is solely a woman’s responsibility. Genuine progress requires affordable childcare, shared parental leave, safe public transport and flexible work arrangements that enable both men and women to balance earning and caregiving.
K. Chidanand Kumar,
Kollam, Kerala
Sir — One cannot truly put a price tag on a woman’s contribution to her family. The Rs 30,000 benchmark is perhaps best understood as a legal tool for assessing compensation rather than as a measure of a homemaker’s true worth. A homemaker’s contribution is value-based rather than cost-based. No court in the country can put a price tag on a woman quickly wiping the sweat from her face with the pallu so that her husband and children do not see her discomfort.
Avinash Godboley,
Dewas, Madhya Pradesh
Tech barriers
Sir — Anthropic’s decision to restrict access to its most advanced Artificial Intelligence model for foreign users following directives from the government of the United States of America on national security grounds marks a significant turning point in the global AI race. It reflects the growing view that frontier AI systems are strategic assets, comparable to advanced defence technologies. The US’s message is clear: access to cutting-edge AI capabilities will be shaped by geopolitical and security considerations.
As competition between the US and China intensifies, both are likely to treat their AI models as critical national resources. This could leave nations such as India dependent on second-tier technologies and delay their access to frontier innovations.
M. Jeyaram,
Sholavandan, Tamil Nadu
Luxurious vision
Sir — N. Chandrasekaran, the chairman of Tata Sons, has announced that the company sees long-term growth potential for Tata Starbucks in India, proposing expansion. But the economy remains under strain. One would expect consumers to cut back on discretionary spending. A Rs 400 cup of coffee is hardly a necessity.
S. Kamat,
Mysuru