I Used to Ask How Genocides Happened—Now I Know

I used to wonder how genocides like the Holocaust could ever happen. I used to ask what kind of world, and what kind of leaders, would allow such crimes to unfold. I looked at the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, the Bengal famine of 1943, the Rwandan genocide, and felt anger toward the leaders of that time, and toward the people who knew, yet remained silent. These were not hidden crimes. They happened with the full knowledge of world leaders, institutions, and societies. I believed that such moral collapse belonged to the past.

Now I know better. I am living in that same world.

Today, I feel the same anger, pity, and frustration, but this time directed at our own leaders and ourselves. I see how mass killing, especially of civilians, is once again being tolerated, justified, and rationalized. I used to wonder how people could stay silent, or worse, defend the killing of innocent people. Now I see exactly how it happens. Every civilian death is filtered through ideology, religious, political, or otherwise. Compassion is conditional. Outrage is selective. Humanity is negotiable.

If the violence is carried out by a government we support, or a leader we voted for, we find ways to minimize it, explain it away, or justify it. We use familiar language: orders were followed, national security required it, this is the price of safety. These are not new arguments. They are recycled excuses. The same moral evasions that once enabled the worst crimes in history are alive and well today, only more polished and more confidently expressed.

What is most disturbing is not just that civilians are being killed in the twenty-first century, but that this is happening openly, on camera, in real time, with the full awareness of elected leaders, global media, and millions of ordinary people. And yet, the death of a civilian is no longer treated as a humanitarian failure. It is debated as a policy choice. It is weighed, defended, dismissed, or weaponized depending on which “side” one belongs to.

Even tragedies that should unite us in grief are pulled into political combat. The suffering of parents who lost children has been mocked, denied, or turned into talking points, for example, look at what happened with the Sandy Hook incident. Human loss has become ideological currency.

How did we reach this point? Why did we learn nothing from history? Why do political loyalties so easily override compassion, empathy, and basic human decency?

I don’t have clear answers. What I see instead is a frightening trend: our tolerance for innocent death has increased. We have become more articulate, more strategic, and more ruthless in justifying violence carried out in our name. We no longer even pretend to feel guilt or shame. There is no acknowledgment of wrongdoing, only aggressive defense and the vilification of anyone who dares to question it. Dissent is treated as betrayal. Objection is framed as disloyalty. Protests are labeled as mutiny. 

It is moral decay, not strength. Every unnatural death has become political capital, used either to seize power or to protect it. This is not strength; it is moral decay. It is not strong leadership, but cruelty wrapped in political language and sold as a necessity. It is not national security when civilians pay the price; it is national shame. There is nothing great about justifying innocent deaths, nothing courageous about silencing dissent, and nothing patriotic about abandoning basic human conscience. What is presented as resolve is often cowardice, the fear of accountability disguised as power. A society that normalizes such violence does not become stronger; it becomes complicit.

This is not strong leadership. It is cruelty wrapped in political language, brutality justified by slogans, and violence laundered through ideology. Calling it national security does not make such violence honorable. Security that is built on the bodies of civilians is not security at all; it is a confession of failure. When the protection of the state requires the abandonment of humanity, what is being defended is not a nation, but power itself.

I once believed that the world would not repeat the worst mistakes of the past, that the mass killing of civilians under indifferent or brutal leadership was a lesson permanently learned. I was wrong. This world is fully capable of repeating the same horrors, with the same intensity, the same indifference, and the same justifications, and then moving on as if nothing happened.

That realization leaves me deeply saddened and profoundly disappointed. I still hold onto a fragile hope that somewhere, some country, some society will prove me wrong, not with words or statements, but with moral courage and actions. Until then, we are not better than the past we claim to condemn. 

Thank you for reading, and please share your views on this topic. 

© Vinay Thakur, All rights reserved. Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com 

This New Year, Renew Your Commitment to Unity

Another new year begins today, and I want to wish a very Happy New Year to all my readers!

May this year bring you fulfillment, joy, and the energy to pursue what truly matters, not just for your personal growth, but also for the betterment of the society in which you live and thrive. I hope you find time to engage in activities that nurture your passions and also make a positive difference in the lives of others.

Let us remember that each of us is an essential part of several circles of belonging: first, our family, then our neighborhood, our city, our state, our country, and ultimately, this shared universe. No matter how small they may seem, our actions matter. Each of us has the power to create a ripple of positive change wherever we are.

Sadly, there are always some who choose to spread hate, fear, and division. Let’s make a conscious choice not to become one of them. What our world needs today is more people who can spread love, compassion, confidence, and kindness, because that is what true bravery looks like.

Those who seek to terrorize, divide, or instill fear in others are not brave; they are cowards who exploit fear to control fragmented societies and avoid accountability.

As we step into this new year, let us take a pledge:
Refuse to fall for divisive propaganda, no matter which political party or ideology it comes from.
Stay united and stay strong.

A polarized society only serves those who wish to avoid scrutiny and responsibility. Division benefits the few selfish people who act as if they care, but they really don't; unity empowers the many.

Let’s begin this year with renewed hope, empathy, and courage to speak up for what is right, to bridge divides, and to build communities grounded in trust and respect.

Once again, Happy New Year!
May 2026 be a year of clarity, compassion, and collective strength.

In Search of Love

Love and hate are universal emotions found across the animal kingdom. Their expressions may differ from species to species, but both emotions are deeply ingrained in the fabric of life. Humans are no exception. Yet, despite all our intellect and progress, humanity has never mastered the art of finding love.

Over time, we have tried to channel this powerful emotion through institutions like family and marriage, constructs designed to give love a stable, socially acceptable form. But while these structures can provide companionship or social order, they do not guarantee love. At best, they offer the security of togetherness; at worst, they create emotional prisons where people cohabit without affection or understanding. There are countless homes where people live under the same roof but remain emotionally estranged. This is why people continue to search for love, even while seemingly having everything that society says they should.

Why does love remain so elusive? Why can’t we always find it within our families or marriages? The answer often lies in the absence of gratitude, compassion, and respect, the very essence of love. Ironically, people who live closest to one another can be the most hurtful. They see each other’s best and worst moments, but often fixate on the flaws. Over time, empathy fades, and emotional manipulation replaces care. When one partner becomes the constant target of control or neglect, any affection that remains is not love; it’s emotional conditioning, sometimes resembling Stockholm syndrome.

Love cannot be manufactured by rituals or sustained by duty. It flourishes only where people genuinely care, respect, and try to understand each other. Yet our societies measure relationships not by emotional depth but by adherence to tradition and its length. Those who do not conform, people who choose to live single, pursue unconventional partnerships, or reject societal templates, are often judged as incomplete or abnormal. Their happiness is questioned simply because it doesn’t fit within the accepted framework of family or marriage.

Although modern societies are slowly opening up to nontraditional relationships such as live-in partnerships, the pressure to conform to conventional routes remains immense. People continue to marry not always out of love, but out of fear, fear of judgment, loneliness, or social rejection. And so, even within these well-defined systems, the search for love goes on.

True love is rooted in compassion, gratitude, and respect; it cannot be institutionalized. It cannot be bought, forced, or guaranteed by law. It must be nurtured freely, beyond the boundaries of tradition and expectation. Until we learn to value love for its essence rather than its form, humanity’s search for it will never end. 

Thank you for reading. Please share your views on this topic. 

© Vinay Thakur, All rights reserved. Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com

From Playfields to Battlefields: The Death of Sportsmanship

Sports have been an integral part of human civilization for centuries. It is an expression of strength, spirit, and unity. From the ancient Olympics to modern-day tournaments, sports have transcended borders and ideologies, bringing people together through shared passion. Even today, teams command cult-like followings, and rivalries, whether between schools, clubs, or nations, ignite intense emotions. Yet, when the whistle blows, and the final score is called, tradition demands one thing above all: respect.

A handshake at the end of a match, whether between boxers, wrestlers, or cricketers, symbolizes that the competition was in the spirit of the game, not a personal battle. That simple gesture reminds us that sport is not war, that winning and losing are temporary, but dignity and respect endure. 

At the same time, there are many dignified ways for athletes to express dissent or solidarity without compromising the spirit of the game or disrespecting opponents. History offers numerous examples like players taking a knee to protest racial injustice, wearing black armbands or colored ribbons to honor victims of violence or disease, or making symbolic gestures that draw attention to humanitarian causes. Such acts do not target rival teams or nations; instead, they use the visibility of sport to promote awareness and compassion. These moments remind us that athletes can be both competitors and conscience-bearers, capable of challenging injustice while still upholding respect, discipline, and fairness on the field.

Sadly, that line has begun to blur.

The recent India-Pakistan cricket controversy is a troubling reminder. Reports that Indian players refused to shake hands with their Pakistani counterparts and refused to accept the winner’s trophy from a Pakistani official reflect a disturbing trend, the politicization of sport. What should have been a celebration of skill turned into a performance of political symbolism. Commentators and social media voices, including the Prime Minister of India, went further, comparing India’s cricket victory to a military triumph, reducing the sacrifices of soldiers and victims of terrorism to the level of a game score.

This is where the spirit of sportsmanship dies.

If sports become extensions of political agendas, they cease to be sports. Players become pawns in a nationalistic spectacle where rivalry replaces respect. When we equate a game to war, we cheapen both—the discipline of the athlete and the sacrifice of the soldier. Even in actual warfare, military personnel are trained to respect their adversaries, dead or alive. Shouldn’t athletes, who represent the best of human discipline and grace, be held to at least that standard?

If a nation feels so strongly against playing another for political or moral reasons, the dignified course is simple: boycott the match altogether. Decline to participate rather than demean opponents who, like our own players, are ambassadors of their nation, not its politicians or generals. To show disrespect on the field is to insult the very principles of sportsmanship we claim to uphold.

Imagine if the roles were reversed, if Pakistan had won and celebrated it as a “victory” over India in warlike terms. Wouldn’t the outrage be swift and loud, condemning it as immature, provocative, and offensive? Then why do we excuse the same when it comes from our side?

Sport is meant to unite and inspire, not to divide and demean. The field, court, or pitch should never become a stage for political theater. True maturity lies not in shouting louder than your rival, but in walking off the field with grace, whether you win or lose.

If we continue down this path, where sports become war and war becomes sport, then both will lose their meaning. The cheers in the stadium will echo hollow, not with pride, but with propaganda.

Let’s bring back the handshake. The spirit. The respect. Because if that’s lost, then no victory will ever be worth celebrating.

Thank you for reading. Please share your views on this topic. 

© Vinay Thakur, All rights reserved. Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com

Politics and Violence: A Marriage of Convenience

In today’s world, politics and violence are no longer separate ideas. If you look closely at the rhetoric of modern politics, across countries and parties, you will see that hate and aggression are woven into nearly every radical populist political movement. Violence is no longer confined to unstable or developing nations with ethnic conflicts; it has become a global political currency.

Why? Because hate and polarization deliver tremendous dividends. They guarantee long-term power without the burden of accountability. This is why almost every government or political party is tempted to use this method either to win an election or stay in power without doing any public good. A divided society does not ask its leaders for jobs, education, or healthcare. Instead, it demands revenge. Citizens begin to rejoice not in their own well-being, but in the suffering of their opponents. This is the enduring “divide and rule” strategy: fear and hate for those who look different, pray differently, or think differently. It is one of the oldest tricks in politics, and in the age of social media, it has become more potent than ever.

You may ask: aren’t people smart enough to recognize when they are being manipulated? You wish. In the age of social media algorithms, echo chambers have become impenetrable. People are now fed only what they already believe. Rarely do they challenge their views; instead, they consume one reel, one meme, one outrage post at a time until bigotry feels like truth.

This brainwashing has consequences. Racism, sexism, misogyny, and xenophobia are dressed up as nationalism, populism, or patriotism. The freedom of expression is invoked to defend hateful propaganda, but when others use the same freedom to dissent, they are silenced or branded as traitors. Even parties that claim to champion freedom of speech remain silent when their opponents are silenced through government force or intimidation, such is the blinding effect of the lust for power. What we see is not freedom, it is propaganda masquerading as liberty. The echo chambers of hate are not only created by powerful algorithms, but they are actively reinforced by the tactful monitoring of human behavior and tacit approval from all parties who benefit from it. 

The tragedy deepens when governments themselves deploy propaganda. When hate becomes a policy, instead of debating ideas for the public good, politicians weaponize communities against one another to mask their own failures and corruption. We see working-class citizens cheering for tax cuts for billionaires, believing that the “enemy within” is to blame for their struggles.

Take immigration. It is a serious problem that requires solutions, but instead of policy, politicians fuel hatred against entire communities. The result? Citizens are fighting among themselves while those in power escape scrutiny. In this system, every death becomes political capital, not a human tragedy. Citizens are not valued as members of society but used as political weapons, activated, manipulated, and discarded.

History is full of examples: empires, kings, colonizers, and dictators have always relied on hate and violence as tools of control. What is alarming today is that even democratically elected governments are adopting the same playbook, ruling less like representatives of the people and more like autocrats. And disturbingly, citizens are not just tolerating it; they are cheering it on. Many celebrate the erosion of fundamental rights when it happens to their opponents, convinced that it will never touch them. But when genocides are glorified as heroics and propaganda is consumed as fact, society loses its moral compass. Bigotry may start as an opinion, but repeated often enough, it calcifies into “truth.” Once that “truth” is amplified by media and algorithms, propaganda doesn’t just shape the news, it becomes the news.

The saddest reality is this: we, the people, are allowing it to happen. Our silence, our complicity, and our willingness to stay in our comfort zones enable this cycle. It does not have to be this way. Politics need not be synonymous with violence and hate. Our political opponents are not enemies of the state. We can reject this toxic model. We can choose love, compassion, constructive criticism, and accountability as the foundation of politics.

The power of hate is immense, but so is the power of humanity. History shows that hate divides, but love unites. The choice is before us. The question is: will we wake up in time?

Thank you for reading. Please share your views on this topic. 

© Vinay Thakur, All rights reserved. Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com

Comfort in Commonality

Humans are social creatures who thrive in groups. Social acceptance and recognition are fundamental to us, and this is how cultures, religions, and societies have evolved. Most of us naturally conform to social and cultural norms, which influence many of our personal and professional decisions. From the clothes we wear, the religion we follow, and the gods we worship, to whom we marry, how we perceive life and death, what we teach our kids, and the careers we pursue, these choices are often dictated less by individual preference and more by the collective script of society. The influence is so pervasive that we may not even realize how deeply these norms shape us. And yet, we follow them for one simple reason: there is comfort in commonality. Doing what those around us have done for generations brings a sense of security, even if those norms once supported harmful and unethical practices like slavery, racism, casteism, or gender discrimination. Many of these injustices were normalized simply because they were universally practiced. Even today, traces of such practices linger in various forms, despite being outlawed and widely condemned, just because of comfort in commonality; when everyone does it, it cannot be wrong. There is strength in mass bigotry. When prejudice or discrimination is shared by the majority, it gains a dangerous legitimacy that makes it harder for individuals to challenge. What is morally wrong becomes socially acceptable simply because it is collectively endorsed.

Why do we find so much reassurance in conforming to societal expectations? Why is it so difficult to step outside them, even when they seem trivial or irrational? From personal experience, I know how hard it is to resist deeply rooted and outdated cultural and social norms. When you choose a different path, people not only question your decision, but there is a potential risk that you might get excluded from social circles. One could argue that if you reject the rules, you shouldn’t want to be part of the group upholding them. But the issue is not always about the rituals or beliefs; it’s about human connection. I often find myself attending social or religious gatherings, not for the rituals but for the people. Yet, this nuance is rarely understood. Some communities view skepticism toward their values as a threat, making genuine inclusion difficult. It is rare to find a group that embraces you fully without demanding conformity. The tension always looms when you are in a minority that has rejected outdated rituals and values after much reflection, and sometimes this means grappling with this tension indefinitely.

The comfort of commonality extends beyond religion and culture into nearly every stage of life. Society offers a pre-written roadmap: go to school, excel academically, attend a prestigious college and again axcel there, pick one of the “hot” careers that promises a big paycheck, marry by a certain age, buy a house, take yearly vacations, have children before you’re “too old,” avoid divorce at any cost, and pass on the same “values” to your kids. This script removes uncertainty; you don’t have to question your choices because the path has already been laid out. This is a pretested prescription, and the reward for following it is a predictable lifestyle and a support system. Deviating from this plan, on the other hand, is intimidating. The road is unmarked, often lonely, and rarely comes with guidance. I have personally felt lost at times, with no example to follow or mentor to seek advice from. Even in parenting, there was no clear model for me to adopt. As parents, Reena and I carved out our own approach, with many mistakes along the way, and our children shared that uncertainty. Still, I hope that through this process, they learned something more valuable than what a conventional path could provide.

In the end, comfort in commonality comes with undeniable benefits: stability, security, and belonging. But there is another way. It may not offer the same perks, and it may come with rejection and risk, but it leads to a life that feels authentic rather than scripted. Choosing this path often requires rejecting the expectations around careers, family timelines, or rituals you never believed in. It demands courage to create your own roadmap, at your own pace, guided not by others’ approval but by your own convictions. It is a harder choice, but it is still a choice. And for some of us, it is the only choice worth making.

Thank you for reading, and please share your views on this topic. 

© Vinay Thakur, All rights reserved. Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com

Learning From Our children

As parents, we often see ourselves as teachers, guiding our children through life with the knowledge and wisdom we’ve gathered over the years. And while that responsibility is real, it’s only half the story. The truth is, our children have just as much to teach us if we’re willing to pause, listen, and learn.

Most of us grew up in a very different world. The environment, the values, and the social norms of our era shaped how we think, behave, and judge right from wrong. But the world isn’t static. It evolves constantly, sometimes slowly over generations, and other times so rapidly that a few short years bring transformative change. As parents, it’s worth asking ourselves: are we preparing our children for the world as it is, or for a world that only exists in our memories?

This is where our children become our teachers.

I can speak from personal experience about the power of listening to my kids. My kids have taught me more than I could have imagined. Sometimes their words have challenged long-held beliefs, other times they’ve helped me evolve in ways I never thought possible. And none of it would have happened had I not chosen to listen.

Listening doesn’t mean agreeing blindly. In our home, discussions often turn into intense debates. My kids don’t hold back, and they attack weak arguments with full force. At times, the exchanges get heated. But when the dust settles, I walk away with plenty to reflect upon. I believe they do the same.

Through these conversations, my perspectives have shifted on issues like mental health, gender, feminism, racism, and much more. If I had dismissed their views simply because they are younger, I would have missed invaluable lessons.

It’s a mistake to believe that a child’s silence is a sign of respect. Somehow, in many cultures, including Indian culture, not speaking in front of elders, especially not questioning or arguing with them, is considered a sign of respect, and doing otherwise is considered a sign of disrespect or arrogance. More often, silence signals fear, or worse, the belief that engaging with you is pointless. That silence doesn’t build love or trust; it builds walls and resentment.

As parents, it’s our job to initiate meaningful conversations and to create a space where children feel safe enough to challenge us. If they can debate with friends or teachers but remain silent at home, we’re not raising honest communicators; we’re raising hypocrites. And the world already has enough of those.

Values are important, but no value is immune to becoming outdated. Outdated values need updating. What worked decades ago may not serve our children in the present, or prepare them for the future, no matter which book, religion, or prophet has said those words, values, and beliefs get outdated, and they need constant updates. By listening to our kids, we gain access to fresh perspectives that can refine, update, or even replace the values we once held tightly.

Our children are not blank slates waiting to be filled; they are thinking, questioning, evolving individuals with a lot to say. If we give them patience, attention, and the respect they deserve, they can teach us how to grow alongside them.

So don’t close the door on learning just because you’re the parent. Keep the conversations open, even when they’re uncomfortable. Challenge them and let them challenge you. In doing so, you’ll not only raise responsible, empathetic citizens, but you’ll also become a better version of yourself. Remember, as parents, it is our job to initiate the discussion, we need the learning, and we must be proactive to initiate this process. 

Learning from your kids is free. And it will transform your relationship with them, for good. 

Thank you for reading, and please share your views on this topic. 

© Vinay Thakur, All rights reserved. Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com

Is capitalism on the brink of failure?

As a self-declared capitalist, I still believe that capitalism remains the most effective economic model humanity has developed thus far. Its ability to drive innovation, reward risk-taking, and generate prosperity has lifted millions out of poverty and reshaped the world in countless positive ways. I say this not as an outsider, but as someone who has directly benefited from the opportunities that capitalism can offer. I started my journey in a poor and underprivileged neighborhood in India. From those modest beginnings, I was able to pursue an education, become a scientist, and later transition into a career as a lawyer. That path, that upward mobility, was made possible through the systems and incentives that capitalism creates. I know firsthand how capitalism can fuel dreams and help turn aspirations into reality.

But I also know that my story is becoming increasingly rare. Two of the most pressing criticisms of capitalism today, both of which deeply resonate with me, are the growing income disparity and the persistent failure of capitalist societies to provide for the basic needs of all their citizens.

One of the fundamental promises of capitalism is that hard work and ingenuity will be rewarded. In theory, everyone has the opportunity to succeed. In practice, however, that promise is slipping further out of reach for many. The gap between the rich and everyone else is widening at an alarming rate. While top executives, investors, and shareholders continue to accumulate immense wealth, wages for the average worker have stagnated. The cost of living keeps rising, but economic gains disproportionately flow to those already at the top. This isn’t just an economic issue; it’s a moral and social one. A society that rewards the few while leaving the many behind is on a dangerous path toward instability. 

Let me be clear: this is not a call for financial equality, nor for equal distribution of wealth. I’m not advocating that everyone should earn the same. But I do believe deeply in equitable access to resources, and in equitable wealth distribution in the sense that every honest job should afford a decent, dignified life. Anyone willing to give their best should be able to provide for themselves and their families without living in perpetual financial insecurity. Capitalism must be measured not only by how much wealth it creates, but also by how that wealth is distributed across the spectrum of labor.

Capitalist societies, particularly the wealthiest among them, pride themselves on progress and prosperity. They flaunt their economic data and talk continuously about fulfilling the dreams of their residents. Yet many consistently fail to ensure their citizens have access to life’s basic necessities: shelter, food, education, and healthcare. In nations brimming with wealth, how is it acceptable that so many are homeless, hungry, undereducated, or medically underserved? How can a wealthy nation tolerate anyone dying without access to necessary medication or medical treatment? The problem is that these essentials are often treated as commodities rather than rights. Those with resources can buy the best care and education, while those without are left to fend for themselves. These are not luxuries; they are fundamental needs. And when people are denied these, not because of laziness or lack of ambition, but because of systemic barriers, the system itself is failing or malfunctioning. The idea that market forces alone will meet these needs has proven inadequate. The market may be efficient in distributing goods and services, but it often does so without concern for equity or dignity, and this is where capitalism needs to step up.

This post is not a call to abandon capitalism, but to reform it. We must push for a version of capitalism that values fairness, dignity, and access. We need a capitalism that works for everyone, not just shareholders. No doubt organizations and their shareholders are important, but workers, families, and future generations also also equally important. This should not be just on paper or in slogans; our actions as a society must demonstrate this. That means rethinking tax structures, corporate responsibility, access to public services, and how we define progress and prosperity. That means ensuring that work is rewarded not just with wages, but with security. It means designing systems that open doors, not close them, and that lift up those who are trying to climb rather than trap them at the bottom.

Unregulated or indifferent capitalism is not sustainable. If we care about preserving this model, we must confront its failings with courage and clarity. Otherwise, the growing discontent and inequality will erode trust in the system and invite more extreme alternatives, some of which may do more harm than good. Capitalism has the potential to be a powerful force for good. But only if we recognize that its survival depends on its ability to evolve and act accordingly. My story is proof of its potential, but for that potential to be realized for everyone, we must demand a more just and inclusive version of the system that helped build it. That requires not idealism, but pragmatism—and the political will to make sure the system that has fueled so much progress doesn’t leave too many behind. Capitalism is standing at a very important juncture, and we cannot afford it to fail.

Thank you for reading, and please share your views on this topic. 

© Vinay Thakur, All rights reserved. Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com

Why it is dangerous to be a fan of any government

One thing that most politically engaged people seem to agree on today is this: the world is becoming more polarized and divisive. Whether left or right, conservative or progressive, across democracies worldwide, people acknowledge this growing rift, but still, somehow, fail spectacularly to address it.

Why? There is only one reason that comes to my mind: too many people have become fans of their political parties, leaders, and governments. This is why we are living in the Age of political fandom and the decline of constructive dialogue at every level of society.  

When you become a fan, you are no longer just a supporter; no matter what you call yourself, you are a devoted follower. The first thing fans do is they begin to idolize. As a fan, your loyalty becomes so strong that you no longer see faults, or worse, you explain them away by pointing fingers at others: “They did worse,” “What about them?” or “This is not even a real problem.” This is what's going on around us, that too on a massive scale. In this atmosphere, public discourse has turned into a battleground of superfans, shouting, abusing, demeaning, and scoring points, often with more passion than purpose. And the biggest beneficiaries of this environment? Political leaders and governments across the board. 

There’s no denying that every elected government in a functioning democracy works toward fulfilling its promises, and those achievements deserve recognition. But that doesn’t mean we become cheerleaders for the government or the leader we voted for. Supporting a government is not the same as suspending our critical thinking. It does not mean we become their fan and stop questioning or criticizing them. Also, not being a fan of any government does not mean to dispute all progress or work done by them or to question their every action consistently. Being a responsible citizen means holding our leaders accountable, continually asking what more needs to be done, pointing out harmful policies, and challenging populist measures that disproportionately hurt vulnerable sections of society. It means to reflect on a broader behavioral pattern that tries to make use of certain loopholes of the democratic process to stifle opposition. Criticism of a leader or government should not be mistaken for a rejection of all progress. Conversely, acknowledging progress shouldn’t mean ignoring ethical concerns or governance failures. Progress and a leader’s moral compass are not mutually exclusive, but they are distinct.

Unfortunately, what we see today is an alarming trend: people often justifying or even glorifying the questionable behavior of leaders they support, sometimes to the point of turning a blind eye to actions or rhetoric that may harm the most vulnerable or undermine democratic norms. The concern is not about disagreeing with voters' choices; that’s their democratic right. It’s about how those choices are defended. And here's the irony: when one group supports a leader fervently, it’s called “respecting the will of the people.” But when another group does the same for a different leader, for example, Trump, it’s mocked, dismissed, or viewed with disbelief. This double standard is troubling; it is not just intellectually dishonest, it normalizes hypocrisy. If we want our democracies to function well, we must strive for consistency. Be fair in your praise, and be fair in your criticism.

It’s also worth noting that economic progress is often championed most by the privileged classes, because they benefit most directly. But a democracy cannot be judged by GDP alone. Its true measure lies in how it treats its dissenters, its minorities, and its most marginalized citizens. That is where the real test of leadership begins, and where political fandom must end. Remember, without constructive criticism, your support becomes meaningless; you’re not a responsible citizen, just part of a fandom. And being a fan of any government is not just unwise, it's dangerous. 

Thank you for reading, and please share your views on this topic. 

© Vinay Thakur, All rights reserved. Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com 

Traveler and tourist - Two ways to see the world

At first glance, the difference between a traveler and a tourist might seem trivial. After all, both visit different places. Both love the thrill of travel, of exploring the unknown. And both seek to gather experiences that enrich their lives. So, is there really a difference?

I believe there is a difference.

A tourist typically sets out to see places. Their main goal is to cover as much ground as possible, especially those iconic, postcard-perfect destinations everyone talks about. Tourists often travel with fixed itineraries, carefully planned for maximum efficiency and economy. Comfort and convenience are key. If their budget allows, they’ll choose luxury hotels, guided tours, and organized experiences. For tourists, travel is often a well-deserved break from the routines of daily life, a reset button before returning to their regular world.

A traveler, on the other hand, ventures out not just to see a place, but to feel it, experience it. For them, it’s not about ticking boxes but soaking in the soul of a destination. They may skip the tourist hotspots and instead spend time in lesser-known neighborhoods or small villages. Their plans are fluid, changing as they move from one place to another. If they connect deeply with a location, they might stay far longer than expected. Travelers are less concerned with luxury and more interested in authenticity and connectivity with the people of that place. They often avoid mainstream hotels, seeking local stays or hostels where they can meet like-minded people on similar journeys. They may form lifelong bonds with some travellers as they spend a lot of time together and get the chance to know each other more than any tourists can.

While I’ve been to many places as a tourist, I haven’t yet had the opportunity to be a true traveler. But I long for that experience, an unhurried, immersive journey that connects me with people and places on a deeper level. It’s something I hope to do at least once in my lifetime. That’s why I was so happy when my daughter decided to take a solo trip through Europe, and then again through Southeast Asia. I’m sure those journeys changed her in ways no classroom or office ever could. She must have met extraordinary people and collected stories and experiences that will stay with her forever.

The truth is, such experiences are rare, not because people don’t want them, but because the world we live in doesn’t always make room for them. The capitalist system is designed for productivity, for generating and consuming capital. Extended time away from work or commitments isn’t easy to carve out. The system does not allow it, and many times, it brutally punishes people who dare to disobey generally accepted norms. 

But if you ever get the chance, be a traveler. You may feel anxious and worried about many things that we are told are super important, job, career, money, and whatnot. Of course, they are important, but if all these things don't offer us the freedom to take a break, then what's the point? 

You’ll likely find yourself a tourist many times in your life. That’s the easier path in today’s world. But even once, if you can be a traveler, take that leap. It’s a chance to step out of your comfort zone, immerse yourself in the unfamiliar, and return with something more than photos and souvenirs. Return with insight, perspective, and stories that live inside you.

You won’t regret it.

Thank you for reading, and please share your views on this topic. 

© Vinay Thakur, All rights reserved. Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com