We welcome a visitor from United States.

Please take a look into the campaign to create a False Accuser Law and sign the petition.

The future breakdown of the Indian family

Reading Time: 23 minutes

This is the substantive part of a speech at the National Men’s Rights Conclave, New Delhi, on 23 February 2020, by British politician Mike Buchanan.
Headings and links have been added. Some introductory content is omitted.

Today I’ll be talking about a number of topics, but all will relate to the possible destruction of the Indian family. I’ll be comparing divorce in India and the UK, asking if feminists have any legitimacy to represent women, explaining the feminist assault on the family, asking who benefits from feminism, explaining why governments, corporations and international bodies such as the United Nations and the World Bank work to destroy families, family breakdown as a cause of male suicide, women’s false allegations of domestic violence, the impact of fatherlessness on society, culture and politics.

The global war on the family

It would be difficult to find two countries more different with respect to marriage and divorce than India and the UK. The divorce rate in India is around 1.3%, the lowest divorce rate in the world, while in the UK it’s around 42%, and it’s been at that level or higher for decades. A couple marrying in the UK today is 32 times more likely to divorce than a couple marrying in India. I’m aware of some of the cultural differences, and I know that three times more Indian couples will separate and not divorce, than will divorce. When my own parents divorced in the UK over 50 years ago, in the late 1960s, the taboo against divorce was declining fast, although divorces were not yet common. But divorces have been commonplace for decades, and there is no taboo against divorce in the UK. Three-quarters of divorces are filed for by women in the UK.

Looking to the West for guidance on gender issues is a mistake

Mike Buchanan

I cannot claim to have a deep understanding of Indian culture. But I sense that India looks to the West for guidance in some areas, including gender equality. Looking to the West for guidance on gender issues is a mistake – a VERY big mistake. We know from the past 50 or more years in the West, that the search for gender equality inevitably lead to the breakdown of the family, and it will lead to the destruction of the Indian family. It didn’t take me long on the internet to find evidence that the Indian family is a target for destruction by feminists and others.


In government circles, feminist narratives are never about the destruction of the family, that would be deeply counter-cultural in India, as in many other countries. The narratives are always about the empowerment of women, which might sound appealing to many, but in the West the empowerment of women has always had a number of consequences. I’ll give you six of them:

  1. The DISempowerment of men. If women as a class get more power, it can only come from men as a class;
  2. Women competing with men, rather than co-operating with them, as they have been doing throughout history, for mutual benefit, and for the benefit of children.
  3. Women spending less time on their traditional roles as mothers, wives, daughters and carers, and more time in paid employment;
  4. Women ending their marriages for personal financial gain, by stealing the assets of men, both in terms of assets and future alimony;
  5. Women denying their ex-husbands access to their children;
  6. More men committing suicide because of the depression they suffer when they’re denied access to their children.

Finally, feminists always seek the introduction of no-fault divorce. If India introduces that, it will lead to a HUGE increase in the number of divorces. I’ve been studying feminism closely for over 10 years, and it became clear to me many years ago that feminism is a cancer in society, and always has been. There is no good amount of cancer. There is no good amount of feminism. Feminism cannot be destroyed as an ideology, but it MUST be destroyed as a political force, for the sake of a civilized society.

Feminism is not an ideology seeking gender equality, it is an ideology seeking more privileges for women. Its goal is to turn men into slaves to women, even more than they are already. When feminists say they seek gender equality, they have no choice but to present narratives which are one of more of five things – a baseless conspiracy theory (such as their patriarchy theory), a fantasy, a lie, a delusion or a myth.

I have a question for you all. There is a way you can be 100% certain that a feminist is lying. 100%.

Her lips will be moving.

In the UK and across much of the Western world feminists wield HUGE power, and over the past 50 years in the UK, North America and elsewhere, they have corrupted almost every important institution and profession, including politics, the law, academia, and the media. The corruption is now so complete, that there is today only one elected politician in the English-speaking world who speaks regularly about men’s issues and criticizes feminists. Philip Davies is a Conservative MP, he spoke at two of the International Conferences on Men’s Issues – one in London, and the last one in Chicago

Feminist legitimacy

The corruption of institutions by feminists leads to the question, do they have any legitimacy to represent the interests of anyone, even women alone?

In the UK, in 2016, the Fawcett Society, a feminist charity, commissioned a poll, and one of the questions they asked men and women, was whether they identified as feminists. Only 9% of women – and 4% of men – identified as feminists. Feminists have no legitimacy to represent women or men. Most of the 9% of women who identify as feminists know little about the ideology, as I know from talking with them at Speakers’ Corner in London, and elsewhere. MRAs understand feminism so much better than the vast majority of feminists, ironically. The things feminists believe, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, are incredible.

Why feminists wish to destroy the family in India

Feminists wish to destroy the family in India, as they have destroyed the family in the West over the past 50 years. There’s a huge body of evidence showing feminists’ hatred of the family, but time is limited, and I’ll just refer to one example. Kate Millett, a highly influential American lesbian radical feminist, died three years ago at the age of 82. Three years before that, her sister, Mallory Millett, wrote an article titled, “Marxist Feminism’s Ruined Lives”. Here’s an extract from her article:

Kate said, “Come to New York. We’re making revolution! Some of us are starting the National Organization of Women and you can be part of it.”

I hadn’t seen her for years. Although she had tormented me when we were youngsters, those memories were faint. I foolishly mistook her for sanctuary in a storm. With so much time and distance between us, I had forgotten her emotional instability.

And so began my period as an unwitting witness to history. I stayed with Kate and her lovable Japanese husband, Fumio, in a dilapidated loft on The Bowery as she finished her first book, a PhD thesis for Columbia University, “Sexual Politics.”

It was 1969. Kate invited me to join her for a gathering at the home of her friend, Lila Karp. They called the assemblage a “consciousness-raising group,” a typical communist exercise, something practiced in Maoist China. We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a Litany, a type of prayer done in Catholic Church. But now it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice:

“Why are we here today?” she asked.
“To make revolution,” they answered.
“What kind of revolution?” she replied.
“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
“And how do we make the Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
“How can we destroy monogamy?”
By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.

Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears. Was I on planet earth? Who were these people?

They proceeded with a long discussion on how to advance these goals by establishing The National Organization of Women. It was clear they desired nothing less than the utter deconstruction of Western society. The upshot was that the only way to do this was “to invade every American institution. Everyone must be permeated with ‘The Revolution’”: The media, the educational system, universities, high schools, K-12, school boards, etc.; then, the judiciary, the legislatures, the executive branches and even the library system.

[Full article preserved in archives.]

Across much of the West, in the 51 years that have elapsed since that meeting took place, feminists have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in destroying the family. I will give you just one recent example of the corruption of justice in relation to the family in the UK. Last May the Ministry of Justice appointed members to a new panel of “experts”, the Family Justice Panel. The panel called for evidence on how the family courts protect children and parents in cases of domestic abuse and other serious offences.

The press release on the panel included this:

The panel members represent key organisations from across family justice including the Judiciary, academia, social care, policy officials and third sector organisations which represent and advocate for victims of domestic abuse.

UK Government, 21 June 2019

The panel consists of 11 “experts”. 10 of them are women, the man is a feminist judge. The women included feminists including “academics” and a woman from a charity concerned only with female victims of domestic violence. Not one of the 11 panel members represented organizations which support fathers, or male victims of domestic violence.

Who feminism is for

Many of you will be aware of the work of Paul Elam, the American who set up the website “A Voice for Men” over 10 years ago. He’s probably the best known MRA in the world today, with good reason. I strongly recommend his book ‘Men. Women. Relationships.'⇩1Men. Women. Relationships: Surviving the Plague of Modern Masculinity; Paul D Elam; ISBN 10: 1070406325 / ISBN 13: 9781070406329 and I’d like to read out an extract from the book, in the section titled, “The Eight Laws Governing Men and Women”:

We often joke, and with good reason, about the stupidity of feminists. But the question remains, if feminists are so stupid, then why is feminism now a dominant ideology on the planet, affecting almost every institution, political apparatus, provider of every level of education, as well as every law enforcement agency and corporate entity known?

If feminists are so intellectually vacant, then why are we here, without resources and struggling mightily to skate by on guile and creativity in order to do anything about the supposed idiots? The answer to that is as simple as it is forbidding.

Feminism is not for feminists. Feminists ARE idiots, but they are the useful idiots in the description previously reserved for Soviet sycophants in Cold War America.

Feminism is for governments and corporations. And it is the most effective tool for control of the masses since the riot baton and water cannons.

What we are seeing is a chain of governments, and just as importantly their powerhouse corporate interests, that have figured out the “secret” to inflicting whatever serves them on the populace without causing significant resistance.

They have found that the best method for making people toe the government line is not with iron-fisted restrictions on freedom of speech, the press or the right to assembly. Those are old world strategies still at play in some Third World regions, but not in the industrialized world. Sure, social media platforms are Orwellian in their propensity to silence dissent, but the government hasn’t embraced that trend.

First World governments, and even some who barely qualify, have discovered that they can control the masses with aggressive gynocentrism.

The method for doing so is not that difficult. All it takes is a little time, a little money, and more than a little basic understanding of human sociobiology. In fact, if you play your cards anything less than sloppy, you can control the masses with enthusiastic help – from the masses.

Paul’s first law governing men is this:

Men will not oppose anything perceived to benefit women. Protecting women and providing for them and their children takes primacy over critical thinking. Note that the law says “perceived.” It matters not if something benefits women, or if, in fact, it harms them. If the perception is popular that something benefits women, men will support it, even at their own expense and to their detriment.

Men. Women. Relationships: Surviving the Plague of Modern Masculinity; Paul D Elam

It would be easy to conclude from his eight laws governing men and women, that as MRAs we’re wasting our time campaigning for the human rights of men and boys, given the forces stacked against us, but I think that would be the wrong conclusion to draw. We face difficult challenges, but men are good at overcoming difficult challenges. Sometimes it takes time to overcome them, as the men’s rights movement knows. But we WILL overcome the challenges in time.


In his book Paul Elam mentions the feminist corruption of the United Nations. On Friday a speaker mentioned UN Women, or to give it its full name, the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women. Of course “empowerment of women” means the “disempowerment of men”. The World Bank was also mentioned. The World Bank is an international financial institution that provides loans and grants to the governments of some countries for the purpose of pursuing capital projects. As of November 2018, the largest recipient of World Bank loans was India, which owed the Bank 859 million US dollars. You can be sure loans come with plenty of conditions attached, so I googled the terms “World Bank” and “empowerment of women”, and within seconds tracked down plenty of links to material showing clear evidence of feminist corruption of the Bank… in the bank’s own documents. The reports contain many feminist narratives, which are all lies. I’ll be talking about one of those narratives, the one about domestic violence, and the gap between feminist propaganda and reality.

Inequality in India

The Indian government has a Ministry of Women & Child Development, the head of which is a cabinet minister. The name of the ministry indicates it’s a feminist project, and it takes only seconds on their website to find its objective is the social and economic empowerment of women, which means the social and economic DISempowerment of men.

Why would governments be keen on destroying families? We need to follow the money. The destruction of families results in higher tax revenues for governments. After a family is destroyed, there needs to be two new homes, one for the mother and children, and one for the father. This will cost more money, that money needs to be earned, and taxes paid. Usually it’s the man spending the money, but sometimes it’s the woman, if she takes up paid employment. And if the children are cared for by professional childminders while the woman is at work, that’s another source of tax revenue for the government.

follow the money

I understand that even today, the majority of Indian women are not engaged in paid employment. You can expect that to change over time. In the UK we have a Conservative government which boasts of record numbers of women in employment, while having no interest in the fact that unemployment has long been higher among men than women.


Corporations benefit directly or indirectly from the destruction of families, sometimes both. Two households require more to be spent on things such as utilities, transportation, furnishings, and so much more. We don’t normally refer to law firms as corporations, but of course they are, and they profit richly from the destruction of families. I see lawyers who profit from the destruction of families as criminals, nothing less.

The ratio of men to women who commit suicide in the UK is 3.5:1, higher than in India, where the ratio is about 1.3:1. For many years suicide has been the number 1 cause of death of men under 45 in the UK, in all age groups. The male suicide rate increases considerably after divorce, in large part because of fathers being denied access to their children. As the number of divorces increases in India, so will the number of men committing suicide.

Domestic Violence

One of the main weapons used by wives to remove their husbands from the home, and to give wives power over their husbands in divorces, is the making of false allegation of domestic violence. Feminist campaigners and feminists in positions of influence use the term “gender-based violence” to describe men exerting power over women through the use of violence, or the threat of violence. It’s another feminist lie, but it’s one you will find in documents produced by government across the world, the United Nations, and so many women’s charities and NGOs.

It has been known by researchers for decades that domestic violence is NOT a gender-based phenomenon. I’d like to spend some time on this because false allegations of domestic violence are commonly used in the West as a weapon to destroy men, and I know it’s happening in India too.

men and women perpetrate physical and nonphysical forms of abuse at comparable rates

Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project

Last year an important book by William Collins, a British blogger, was published. It was titled The Empathy Gap: Male Disadvantages and the Mechanisms of Their Neglect. Collins details how men and boys as a class are disadvantaged in many areas, and how this disadvantage happens. One area he explores at length is domestic violence. Across the West, domestic violence is presented as a problem with male perpetrators and female victims – what feminists term “gender-based violence”. Collins refers to two major international studies. I’ll focus on one, the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project, published in 2013⇩2Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project; Journal of Domestic Violence Research; 2013. Collins writes this:

The review was published in 2013 in the journal ‘Partner Abuse’ and is the most comprehensive review of domestic violence research literature review ever carried out. The three-year research project was conducted by 42 scholars at 20 universities and research centres. John Hamel, the project director, said this:

“The purpose of this project is to bring together, in a rigorously evidence-based, transparent and methodical manner, existing knowledge about partner abuse, with reliable, up-to-date research that can easily be accessed by anyone. The project is grounded in the premises that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not to their own facts; that these facts should be available to everyone, and that domestic violence intervention and policy ought to be based upon these facts rather than ideology and special interests.”

The headline finding of the review was that men and women perpetrate physical and nonphysical forms of abuse at comparable rates, most domestic violence is mutual, women are as controlling as men, domestic violence by men and women is correlated with essentially the same risk factors, and male and female perpetrators are motivated for similar reasons.

A key numerical result from the review was that the following, I’ve rounded some numbers to the nearest percentage point:

“Among large population samples, 58% of inter-partner violence reported was bidirectional (in other words each partner engaged in violence), 42% unidirectional (so only one partner engaged in violence); 14% of the unidirectional violence was male to female, 28% was female to male (FMPV).”

So the review found that men experience a rather greater amount of victimisation than women. The conclusion was that, in relation to unidirectional partner violence, men are victims twice as frequently as women.

The Empathy Gap: Male Disadvantages and the Mechanisms of Their Neglect; William Collins; LPS Publishing; ISBN-13: 978-0957168886

If you don’t buy his book, I recommend you visit his website, The Illustrated Empathy Gap. To my mind it’s the most insightful and well-informed website in the world regarding men’s issues.


One of the consequences of family breakdowns, and denying fathers access to their children, is children having no fathers in their lives. The negative consequences of fatherlessness have been researched in great detail and I can recommend Warren Farrell’s book “The Boy Crisis” as well as William Collins’s book. In the UK we have a major problem in some of our inner cities with black youths and young men committing knife crime against other black youths and young men, often including murder. These youths and men are in gangs because they have no father in their lives. In the US, one common factor in nearly all mass shootings is the absence of a father in the killers’ lives. Patrick Moynihan, an American politician who died in 2003, wrote this:

A community that allows a large number of men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future – that community asks for and gets chaos. Crime, violence, unrest, disorder – most particularly the furious, unrestrained lashing out at the whole social structure – that is not only to be expected; it is very near to inevitable. And it is richly deserved.

Patrick Moynihan

Culture and politics

It’s often said that politics is downstream from culture – that culture needs to change before politics will – and that’s clearly true. But the culture IS changing, in our favour, and MRAs can take much of the credit for that. When I spoke at the first International Conference on Men’s Issues in Detroit in 2014, I couldn’t have forecast the extent to which men’s issues activism, and online activism in particular, would have the cultural impact it has had in only a few years. Mainstream media are starting to report the truth about gender issues, such as men being victims of domestic violence. The reports are infrequent and usually inaccurate, but it’s a start, and we’ll see more of it. I repeat, the culture IS changing, in our favour.

But while the culture is changing, feminists continue to be highly influential in institutions and organizations, and life is going to get worse for men. MUCH WORSE. It will also get worse for most women, too, but feminists care no more about the happiness of women, than they care about the happiness of men. They care only about increasing women’s POWER over men.

Feminists’ appetite for power over men is insatiable, and it’s their Achilles’ heel, their biggest vulnerability. As women exert ever more power over men, the more men will respond in any ways they can. In contrast to the absurd feminist patriarchy myth, which states that men as a class have oppressed women throughout history, and continue to do so, the reality is that the majority of men have always been voluntary slaves to women, because they got certain things in return. Now they’re lucky to get anything in return, and they’ve become INvoluntary slaves to women. I applaud Men Going Their Own Ways, MGTOWs, for using the slavery metaphor of walking off the plantation.

It will be some time before we see the impact of the changing culture on politics, maybe decades, but I predict the day is coming when centrist and right-of-centre political parties will have no choice but to start considering men’s issues in their policies, to gain their votes.


There are powerful forces that are planning to destroy the Indian family – the government, corporations, and feminists. The Indian family needs to be saved, and what better-placed organization could there be, than the Save the Indian Family Foundations? Because I’m giving this talk in India, I’ll leave the last words to Ghandhi ji. There’s a quotation attributed to him, which has for many years been an inspiration for me, as well as many MRAs I know:

First they ignore you… then they ridicule you… then they fight you… then you win.

Text of the original speech can be downloaded in PDF format.

We thank Mike Buchanan for permission to publish his speech.


2 comments on “The future breakdown of the Indian family

Random Visitor

A small correction: It’s inappropriate to describe Mike Buchanan as a politician. Politicians run for and/or hold office, Mike does not do that, having chosen not to contest any of the most recent elections.

He could be accurately described as a Men’ Rights Campaigner, or Blogger, but not politician.


You are right that he has not contested either of the past two general elections. However, he is the official leader of an official political party, which is controlled by the laws of the country he is in. So while there are other designations that may apply, I think it not incorrect to call him a politician, by the laws of his country.

You raise a valid, if small, point and we will consider how much longer we regard someone as a politician who is not actively taking part in the political process.

Comments are closed for this post !!

Today's Video


Countries and Regions

Global visitors