Tag: South Asia

More Than a Babysitter: The Grandmothers Who Raise Us

More Than a Babysitter: The Grandmothers Who Raise Us
Some women don’t just help—they hold the whole beginning.

Raahima is only 15 months old.
She doesn’t know many words. But she knows who to call when she’s hungry.
When she’s sleepy.
When her little world feels too loud or too bright.

She calls for Dadi.

Not because someone told her to.
Because since the day she was born, Dadi has been her everything.

The First Arms That Held Her

Raahima’s mother was recovering from a tough surgery when she arrived.
There was no skin-to-skin contact. No soft mother-baby hour.
But Dadi was there.

She was the one who cradled Raahima’s fragile body,
fed her,
rocked her,
bathed her,
whispered blessings into her soft, folding ears.

Not once. Not just for a week.

Every single day, since birth.

She’s the one who knows Raahima’s different cries—
the hungry one, the bored one, the tired one masked as a tantrum.
She’s the one who sits cross-legged on the floor, patiently feeding her mashed bananas while humming a tune from her own childhood.

We Call It “Helping” but It’s Really Holding

In many South Asian homes, grandmothers are called “helpers” in the family story.

But that’s a small word for such a vast role.

Dadi doesn’t “assist.” She leads.

She is the default.
The fallback.
The routine.
The rhythm of the day.

She knows which tiny sock belongs to which tiny foot.
She knows how to warm milk to just the right temperature.
She knows how to coax a baby into sleep without fuss, just by placing her palm on her chest.

And Raahima?
She doesn’t yet know the word “grateful.”
But she reaches for Dadi’s dupatta like it’s a lifeline.

Because for her, it is.

The Woman Behind the Baby’s Calm

This isn’t a temporary setup.
It’s the architecture of a babyhood held together by a grandmother’s hands.

When people compliment Raahima’s calm nature, her cheerful giggles, her early understanding of comfort—they rarely think of the quiet woman behind the scenes.

But Dadi is the reason.

Her patience.
Her repetition.
Her unwavering, bone-deep love.

No salary. No leave. No applause.

Just devotion.

Maybe We Should Rewrite the Story

Maybe we need to stop calling grandmothers like Dadi “secondary caregivers.”

They’re not backup. They’re primary.
They’re not optional. They’re essential.

And maybe, when Raahima is older—
when she learns to say full sentences, when she runs instead of waddles,
when she forgets how often Dadi rocked her through a fever or chased her through the house with a bowl of kichdi—
she’ll still remember the feeling of being safe.

Not because anyone told her.

But because Dadi gave her that memory in her body.

Some grandmothers raise mothers.
Some grandmothers raise children.
And some, like Dadi—
raise the whole world around them.

“The Forgotten Clause in the Nikahnama”

Why do most brides in Pakistan never read their marriage contract?

Here’s what I noticed.

At almost every Pakistani wedding I’ve attended, there’s this moment during the nikah ceremony. The bride’s side falls strangely silent during this moment. A male relative signs the form. A qazi recites Arabic verses. The bride, veiled behind a curtain or in another room, is asked: “Qubool hai?”

Three times. That’s all.
No one hands her the actual document.
No one asks if she wants to insert any clauses.
No one explains that she has the right to do so.

Even women with college degrees often surrender at this sacred intersection. Those with professional titles, Instagram accounts, and agency in other parts of their lives also surrender. We’ve been raised to see modesty as silence. We see obedience as virtue.

This Isn’t a Cultural Oversight. It’s a Systemic Erasure.

Under Pakistani law—and Islamic law—the nikahnama is not just ceremonial. It’s a legal contract.

And here’s the shocking part:

  • Clause 17 allows women to restrict polygamy.
  • Clause 18 grants them the right to divorce (called Talaq-e-Tafweez).
  • Clause 21 pertains to maintenance.
  • Clause 22 addresses dowry and gifts.
  • Clause 25 lets women demand conditions—such as education, work, or even relocation terms.

But these are often crossed out before the form even reaches the bride.
Sometimes, the qazis themselves strike through them “to keep things simple.”
Sometimes, families tell daughters: “What kind of girl makes conditions before even entering the home?”

Translation: How dare you use your rights?

Even Educated Families Miss the Point

A weird thing happened at a wedding in Karachi last year. The bride, a lawyer, asked to read the full nikahnama. The qazi hesitated. The mother-in-law got upset. The groom said, “Don’t make a scene, it’s just tradition.”

You ever wonder why the moment a woman asserts her rights—especially religious rights—it’s called rebellion?

Here’s the contradiction no one wants to name:
We praise the Prophet’s marriages. We quote Khadijah as a symbol of strength.
Yet our weddings muzzle women.

Islam gave women contractual rights in the 7th century. Pakistan often strips them in the 21st.

But There’s a Quiet Rebellion Brewing

I’ve met young women who carry a printed copy of the nikahnama to their wedding.
Women who walk into marriage negotiations with calm dignity and say:
“I will sign—but I will also write.”
“I accept—but I expect.”

They’re not anti-marriage. They’re anti-erasure.

Even some qazis are shifting. Some feminist lawyers are training brides-to-be. Even a few grooms now say, “Let’s do this right.”

It’s not a revolution. Not yet. But it’s a ripple.

So What If We Taught Every Daughter This One Thing?

That Islam gave her a pen.
That she’s allowed to write on the lines—and between them.
That a veil is not silence. And a contract is not a commandment.

Maybe then the nikahnama will stop being a lost page in her own story.
And start becoming her first word.

Why India Sees a Conspiracy in US-Backed Moves—and Why Washington Might Not Care

India is shouting into the wind. On May 9, 2025, the International Monetary Fund, with U.S. backing, approved a $1.4 billion loan to Pakistan. Five days later, a $1.3 billion loan went to Bangladesh. On May 14 and 15, the U.S. sold $225 million worth of advanced AMRAAM missiles to Turkey. To New Delhi, these moves aren’t isolated. They’re a pattern—an anti-India trifecta that emboldens its adversaries. Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Turkey, each tied to India’s security nightmares, are reaping Western rewards. India’s warnings about terrorism, regional instability, and encirclement fall on deaf ears. Why does India see these as anti-India? And why does the U.S., the world’s hegemon, seem unmoved by India’s protests?

The answer lies in a brutal truth: geopolitics isn’t about fairness. It’s about leverage, interests, and cold calculation. India’s concerns are real, but Washington’s priorities are elsewhere. Let’s unpack the moves, India’s fears, and the deeper game at play.

The Pakistan Loan: Fueling a Rival or Stabilizing a Powder Keg?

India’s objection to the $1.4 billion IMF loan to Pakistan is loud and clear: Pakistan misuses funds. New Delhi points to history. In the 1980s, U.S. aid during the Afghan jihad flowed into Pakistan’s military and, indirectly, its proxy networks. Today, India alleges Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence funnels resources to groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba, which target India. The 2008 Mumbai attacks, killing 166, still burn in India’s memory. A 2024 Indian Ministry of External Affairs report claimed Pakistan’s defense budget, bloated by foreign aid, grew 15% since 2020, with “credible evidence” of terror financing.

But the U.S. sees Pakistan differently. It’s a nuclear-armed state teetering on economic collapse. Default risks destabilizing a nation of 240 million, potentially unleashing chaos near Afghanistan and Iran. The IMF loan, backed by Washington, aims to stabilize Pakistan’s economy, not its military. U.S. officials argue that a broke Pakistan is more dangerous than a funded one. India’s counterargument—that funds free up resources for mischief—gets traction in New Delhi but not in D.C. Why? Because Pakistan’s utility as a counterweight to China outweighs India’s complaints. The U.S. needs Pakistan’s cooperation on Afghanistan and Central Asia, even if it means ignoring India’s red flags.

Bangladesh’s Loan: Rewarding Anti-India Posturing?

The $1.3 billion IMF loan to Bangladesh stings India more. Under Prime Minister Younus, Dhaka has veered from India’s orbit. Younus’s cozying up to Pakistan and China, coupled with her provocative remarks about India’s northeastern states, sets off alarms. In a March 2025 speech, he hinted at “supporting self-determination” in Assam, a dog whistle for separatists. India sees the loan as a Western pat on the back for Bangladesh’s anti-India turn. Worse, it suspects the funds will bolster Dhaka’s military, already buying Chinese submarines and Pakistani drones.

Yet, the U.S. and IMF have their own logic. Bangladesh’s economy, battered by 2024’s global trade slowdown, risks spiraling. With 170 million people and a strategic location in the Bay of Bengal, a stable Bangladesh matters. The U.S. also sees Dhaka as a hedge against China’s Belt and Road dominance. Younus’s anti-India rhetoric? Irrelevant to Washington, which prioritizes maritime security and countering Beijing. India’s fear of encirclement—by a China-aligned Bangladesh and Pakistan—gets drowned out by America’s Indo-Pacific chessboard. History repeats: in the 1970s, U.S. aid to Bangladesh ignored India’s concerns about Dhaka’s tilt toward Pakistan. Today, the pattern holds.

Turkey’s Missiles: A Backdoor Boost to Pakistan?

The U.S. sale of AMRAAM missiles to Turkey is the final jab. Turkey’s support for Pakistan is no secret. During India’s 2023 Operation Synindor, Turkish-supplied drones aided Pakistan’s border skirmishes. The $225 million deal, finalized on May 15, 2025, equips Turkey’s air force with advanced weaponry. India fears these could end up in Pakistan’s hands, given Ankara’s history of transferring tech to Islamabad. A 2022 SIPRI report noted Turkey’s role in supplying Pakistan’s air force with targeting pods used against Indian positions.

Washington’s rationale is straightforward: Turkey, a NATO ally, needs modern arms to counter Russia and Iran. The U.S. also wants to keep Ankara from drifting toward Moscow. But this ignores India’s perspective. Turkey’s Islamist-leaning government under Erdogan openly backs Pakistan’s stance on Kashmir, a neuralgic issue for India. The missile sale, to New Delhi, isn’t just about Turkey—it’s a signal that the U.S. will arm Pakistan’s allies without restraint. Historical precedent looms: in the 1990s, U.S. F-16 sales to Pakistan sparked Indian outrage, yet Washington pressed ahead. The same dynamic persists.

Why India’s Rants Don’t Sway Washington

India’s protests—voiced in diplomatic cables and op-eds in The Hindu—frame these moves as reckless. New Delhi argues they empower a Pakistan-Bangladesh-Turkey axis, indirectly backed by China, that threatens India’s security. The moral case is potent: why fund or arm states that enable terrorism or destabilize South Asia? But morality doesn’t drive geopolitics. The U.S. calculates differently.

First, India’s own rise complicates its pleas. As a Quad member and economic powerhouse, India is a U.S. partner, but not a dependent. Washington expects New Delhi to handle its own backyard. Second, the U.S. prioritizes global flashpoints—China, Russia, Iran—over India’s regional anxieties. Pakistan’s role in counterterrorism, Bangladesh’s strategic ports, and Turkey’s NATO membership outweigh India’s warnings. Third, domestic politics play a part. U.S. defense contractors like Raytheon, which makes AMRAAMs, lobby hard. Economic stabilization via IMF loans also aligns with Biden’s 2025 agenda of global recovery.

History underscores this. In 1981, the U.S. ignored India’s objections to arming Pakistan during the Soviet-Afghan War. The pattern held in 2001, when post-9/11 aid to Pakistan flowed despite India’s 2002 Parliament attack by Pakistani proxies. India’s voice, though louder now, still struggles against America’s strategic math.

The Deeper Contradiction: India’s Isolation in a Multipolar World

India’s alarm exposes a paradox. It champions a multipolar world, yet expects U.S. deference to its concerns. This won’t happen. A multipolar order means competing interests, not alignment. The U.S. backs India against China but won’t sacrifice other pawns to soothe New Delhi. Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Turkey aren’t anti-India in Washington’s eyes—they’re tools for broader goals. India’s challenge is to counter this without overreacting. Escalating tensions with Bangladesh or Pakistan risks proving Eunice’s or Islamabad’s narratives right. Alienating the U.S. over Turkey’s missiles could weaken Quad cohesion.

What’s the way forward? India must play the long game. Strengthen its own economy to dwarf Pakistan’s. Deepen ties with Bangladesh’s opposition to counter Younus. Use diplomacy to highlight Turkey’s double-dealing in NATO circles. Above all, India needs to accept a hard truth: the U.S. isn’t its babysitter. It’s a partner with its own agenda.