Why don't politicians stand up against bully from their own party?

Political cult is not a new phenomenon. History has ample examples of political cults that not only rule any specific political party but also captivate an entire country with their charisma and rhetoric. Often, these political leaders develop a cult-like following, and they attain the status of messiah or become a divine figure for their followers, just like God. There are good examples like Gandhi, and there are bad examples like Hitler, but one thing is clear: political cult is not new, and it seems that we have not learned our lessons from the dangers of harboring political cult. No matter what its origin or intention is, a political cult ultimately turns into relentless bullying without exception. The leader who attains such a status doesn't like any dissent or alternative views; rather, any dissent or objection is treated as defiance or rebellion. Often, other leaders and supporters surrender to this political bullying. Such leaders have no need to be objective, accountable, or transparent, as no one, absolutely no one, from their support sphere is willing to stand up against any action taken by them or any word spoken by them. This begs a question: why don't politicians or supporters stand up against a bully from their own party? There can be only a few reasons for this; most politicians are scared of losing power, and are spineless and opportunistic, who want to cling to power at any cost. 

Advocating for their own vision and agenda is a prerogative of every leader, and there is nothing wrong with it. However, taking the entire administration hostage and stifling any dissent is not leadership or democracy; it is a dictatorship and bullying. This is what is happening in many countries, including the USA. There are just a couple of voices in each political party that dominate, and the rest all meekly surrender. If someone needs an endorsement of the Prime Minister or the President for a local election that should be centered only around local issues, there is a serious political cult problem that needs to be addressed. In any dictatorship, power is centralized, decision-making is centralized, and everything must go through the dictator or the dictator's coitre. One cannot displease the dictator and get away with it, but true democracy cannot and should not function like this. In any decentralized federal structure, every election serves a different purpose and addresses a different constituency. Presidential election is different than a ward election, which is different than a governor election, which is different than a senator or congressman election. The names and terminologies can differ, but this is how different democratic governments are structured, where there is a separation of powers, and independent institutions exist. However, if political cult and bullying dominate, these structures crumble, and one gets into a democratic dictatorship, where elections serve to fulfill the ego of one person who dominates the discourse. This is no longer a democracy but an authoritarian regime. 

Whenever and wherever political cult and bullying prevail, it illustrates the point that elected officials of that administration and party are a spineless and power-hungry bunch. When power is centralized, and one person's endorsement means everything, there is neither separation of powers nor individual accountability. But the main tragedy and worrisome part is that people are equally enabling this degradation. People are not only participating in this debacle but also actively making sure that this system becomes a new norm. Democracy is messy and imperfect, but this does not mean authoritarian or elected dictatorship is better. Any authoritarian regime is more harmful than a democratically elected government, as it stifles dissent, curbs fundamental rights, and encourages hate and resentment to harbor polarization. This is why it is dangerous when people and elected officials don't stand against political cult and bullying. It is dangerous when we allow narcissistic leaders to take center stage and control the narrative rather than working on our differences through discussions and constructive criticisms. People and politicians are trading dangerous waters in many parts of the world, and I hope they know what they are doing. I hope true democracy survives this political cult and bullying phase. If not, we all know what the consequences are, and I am not willing to go back to those dark days when the world witnessed immeasurable harm inflicted by democratically elected dictators. 

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

When Remaining Silent Is Not an Option

What will you do when you see a civilian being shot by a law-enforcement agent in broad daylight? What will you do when lawyers and judges are threatened and intimidated for passing judgments or representing clients who do not align with the government in power? What will you do when academic institutions are bullied and coerced for practicing policy independence and academic freedom?

Ignore it, because these issues seem larger than your individual sphere of influence? Remain silent, because your voice may feel insignificant? Grow cynical, believing that nothing you say or do can possibly change what is happening?

One can debate what should be done and how far individual responsibility extends. But one thing is clear to me: remaining silent is not an option. Silence is not neutral. It can be read as acceptance, even complicity. Our silence does not merely turn us into bystanders; it enables and emboldens those who commit blatant violations of human rights.

Silence is often described as golden, but only when it has a positive effect. When silence enables destruction, cruelty, and injustice, it ceases to be a virtue. In such moments, silence becomes a moral failure. No responsible and sensible citizen should choose it under any circumstances.

I understand that protesting on the streets or attending town halls may not be possible for everyone. People have constraints: work, family, health, and fear. But in today’s world, silence is no longer the only alternative to physical protest. There are many ways to raise one’s voice. This blog is one such avenue, my small attempt to speak up rather than look away. Whether it has any measurable impact is not in my control. History will decide that.

Not all battles are fought to win. Some must be fought simply to register that someone cared enough to resist. Speaking up matters because it disrupts the comfort of perpetrators. It reminds them that they are being seen, questioned, and challenged, even if only by words.

When misinformation floods our discourse, when hate is normalized, when resentment is amplified, remaining silent is not an option. When love and compassion are mocked as weakness and violence is glorified as strength, silence becomes surrender.

Speak up. Even if your voice trembles. Even if it feels small. Even if you are scared. Speak so that kindness and compassion survive this onslaught of hatred and fear. Because silence, at such times, is not peace, it is permission.

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 

Are All People Really Equal?

Most constitutions across the world open with moral certainty: “We the people”, “all men are created equal”, equal protection under the law. These phrases sound reassuring and morally unassailable. They are meant to signal a break from feudalism, monarchy, caste, race, and inherited privilege that resulted in the exploitation of certain sections of society for centuries. But when measured against lived reality, they often sound hollow and perform well short of reasonable expectations. The uncomfortable truth is that people are not treated equally, and in many societies, some are demonstrably “more equal” than others. The constitutional equality is largely aspirational, not descriptive.

I have spent most of my life in India and the United States, countries that proudly describe themselves as the largest and oldest democracies, respectively. Both claim to be governed by the rule of law. Yet both offer striking examples of how constitutional ideals collapse under the weight of power, wealth, privilege, and political expediency.

Equality on Paper, Inequality in Practice

Both the Constitution of India (Article 14) and the United States Constitution (via the Equal Protection Clause) promise equality before the law. However, these promises are routinely undermined by explicit, legally sanctioned exceptions that place certain individuals above ordinary accountability.

Blanket immunities granted to diplomats, senior bureaucrats, and heads of state are a clear reminder that the law does not apply uniformly. While such protections are often justified as necessary for institutional stability or effective governance, they nonetheless contradict the foundational claim that all people are equal before the law.

A particularly troubling example is presidential immunity in the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States. This doctrine allows a sitting President to be shielded from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office, conduct that would lead to immediate investigation or prosecution if committed by any ordinary citizen. Whatever the legal rationale, the implication is stark: the same act is treated differently depending on who commits it. This creates a reality where the legality of an action depends not on the act itself, but on the office of the person committing it. No ordinary citizen enjoys this privilege. No teacher, nurse, immigrant, or factory worker can invoke “official capacity” as a defense against criminal prosecution. This is not equality; it is hierarchical citizenship.

Wealth, Power, and Legal Manipulation

Beyond formal immunity, wealth and power themselves function as informal shields.

In India, the problem is especially visible. Inequality before the law is not merely theoretical; it is statistically documented.

According to data published by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR):

• Over 40% of Members of Parliament in recent Lok Sabhas have declared criminal cases against themselves.

• A significant subset face serious charges, including rape, murder, kidnapping, and crimes against women.

• Despite this, many of these individuals are repeatedly elected, promoted to ministerial positions, and publicly celebrated.

Even more revealing is the financial data. Numerous politicians show exponential increases in personal and family wealth within a few years of entering public office, growth rates that far exceed any legitimate business or professional benchmark. Investigations are rare, convictions rarer still. This is not speculation; it is observable, widely discussed, and yet largely tolerated. Corruption among politicians and senior government officials is so normalized that it rarely shocks anymore. Even individuals accused, or convicted, of heinous crimes such as rape or murder can enjoy public adulation, electoral success, and cult-like followings. In India, criminal allegations are no longer political disqualifiers; they are often political credentials.

This is deeply disturbing in a society that claims moral superiority through reverence for women, tradition, and even inanimate objects. When convicted criminals are celebrated, and victims are dismissed or silenced, it exposes a serious moral and institutional failure, one that places power and identity above human life and dignity.

In the United States, the dynamics are subtler but no less real. The wealthy and politically connected are not entirely immune from scrutiny, but they are often insulated from its consequences. Access to elite legal representation, political influence, and financial leverage dramatically alters outcomes, whether in regulatory enforcement, criminal accountability, or civil liability. Justice may eventually arrive, but it often does so slowly, selectively, and unevenly, often looking like injustice.

The Myth of Equal Citizenship

The repeated assertion that “all people are created equal” survives largely because it is rhetorically powerful, not because it is empirically true. In reality:

• Power determines accountability: Justice depends on who you are, not what you did

• Wealth determines access to justice: The poor are punished quickly and harshly, and the powerful are judged slowly, or not at all

• Status determines how laws are interpreted and enforced

The Counterargument: “Equality Means Equal Laws, Not Equal Outcomes”

Defenders of the status quo often argue:

“Equality does not mean everyone is treated the same. Immunities and privileges exist to protect institutions, not individuals. Presidents, diplomats, and ministers need safeguards to function effectively.”

At first glance, this sounds reasonable. But it collapses under scrutiny.

Why This Argument Fails

1. Institutional protection has become personal immunity
   What begins as functional protection quickly turns into personal insulation from consequences, especially when oversight mechanisms are weak or politically compromised.

2. Power already comes with advantages
   High office already provides access to information, influence, resources, and elite legal defense. Adding blanket immunity compounds inequality rather than balancing it.

3. No meaningful accountability substitutes exist
   Impeachment, internal ethics committees, or electoral consequences are neither swift nor reliable. In practice, they often fail precisely when accountability is most needed.

4. Equality loses meaning when exceptions become permanent
   If the law bends for the powerful as a rule rather than an exception, equality ceases to be a principle; it becomes a slogan.

This does not mean constitutional ideals are meaningless, but it does mean they are aspirational rather than descriptive. The real problem is that we treat aspirations as achievements. Treating them as accomplished facts instead of unfinished goals allows inequality to persist unchallenged.

Constitutional equality was never meant to be self-executing. True equality requires more than elegant constitutional language. It demands limits on immunity, transparency in political finance and process, real consequences for corruption, and a justice system that works for all and does not bend under pressure from money or office. Instead, societies have grown comfortable confusing aspirational language with lived reality. The claim that “all people are created equal” is not just inaccurate; it is misleading.

Constitutions do not fail because they promise equality. They fail when societies pretend the promise has already been fulfilled. Until power no longer shields corruption and criminality, wealth no longer buys delay and accountability, and the most vulnerable are at the mercy of some good individuals rather than reliable institutions, equality before the law will remain what it largely is today in both India and the United States: a noble idea, honored more in rhetoric than in reality.

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 

Government Spending and Capitalism: The Selective Outrage

Have you ever noticed how rarely self-proclaimed champions of capitalism question government spending when it benefits elected officials and the powerful? We almost never hear outrage over taxpayer money funding the salaries of presidents, members of Congress, governors, and other elected leaders—along with their extensive travel, elite security details, generous benefits, pensions, and perks that often extend to their families. We almost never hear outrage over tax breaks for the rich or giant corporations, even when they are earning billions. We almost never hear outrage over billions of taxpayers' money spent on unnecessary wars that benefit only powerful and giant corporations that get lucrative contracts to rebuild what was destroyed using taxpayers' money. 

But mention government programs that offer basic support to the poor, working families, the elderly, students, or the homeless, and suddenly there’s an explosion of concern about fiscal responsibility. Suddenly, taxes are “theft,” budgets are “bloated,” and the word socialism is thrown around with dramatic urgency, conveniently reserved only for programs that help ordinary people survive.

No one labels congressional salaries as “socialism.” No one calls lifelong pensions, taxpayer-funded healthcare, or taxpayer-funded security for elected officials “welfare.” No one mocks elected officials as “welfare kings and queens.” Those insults are carefully reserved for people who receive a fraction of what politicians and their allies take from the public purse. Spending or assistance to the rich and powerful doesn't burden the budget, but social assistance programs do. And you know why? Because the people who benefit most from this system control the narrative, and their supporters repeat it without questioning it, drinking the Kool-Aid even when the policies hurt them the most. And the hypocrisy doesn’t stop there.

Billions, often trillions, of dollars flow freely into military contracts, corporate subsidies, tax breaks for the wealthy, bailouts for failing corporations, and influence-peddling through lobbying and political advertising. When banks crash the economy, they’re “too big to fail.” When corporations demand subsidies, it’s called “stimulating growth.” When billionaires get tax breaks, it’s framed as “job creation.” But when a struggling family needs healthcare, food assistance, or housing support, suddenly it’s a “handout.” Equity-based programs, designed to level a deeply uneven playing field, are relentlessly scrutinized, attacked, and painted as giveaways. Meanwhile, the very people mocking these programs quietly benefit from government-funded roads, public education, subsidies, and favorable tax structures. Socialism for the rich, rugged capitalism for everyone else.

Even election spending exposes the absurdity. The astronomical sums poured into campaigns, lobbying, political consulting, advertising, and influence operations could fund meaningful healthcare, education, housing, and infrastructure programs many times over. But we refuse to do so, and this spending is rarely framed as wasteful or irresponsible. Why is it acceptable to subsidize power, comfort, and influence for a political and economic elite, but unacceptable to ensure a basic quality of life for people who actually keep the system running? Why is it capitalism to offer government assistance to the rich and powerful, but socialism to help the poor and needy?

And then there’s the farce of government shutdowns. Members of Congress continue to receive their salaries and benefits even when the government shuts down. Federal workers, who had no role in creating the crisis, are furloughed or forced to work without pay, while politicians face little to no personal consequence. This is precisely why elected officials are so willing to force shutdowns: it costs them almost nothing. In what other profession would someone be allowed to stop working, create chaos, and still collect a paycheck?

To make matters worse, accountability is virtually nonexistent. Instead of consequences, we get press conferences, blame games, and performative outrage. The media often treats this dysfunction like a sporting event, choosing sides instead of relentlessly questioning those responsible and exposing the cruelty of policies that punish workers while rewarding gridlock.

What’s most frustrating is watching ordinary people, those hurt the most by these decisions, cheer for this political theater, defending politicians who openly exploit them. Selective outrage isn’t fiscal discipline. It isn’t capitalism. It isn’t principled governance. It is drinking the Kool-Aid and surrendering our moral compass for the benefit of selfish elites. 

If we’re going to have a serious conversation about responsible use of taxpayer dollars, it has to be consistent. Scrutinize all government spending, not just the programs that help the vulnerable. Until then, this isn’t about budgets or ideology. It’s about power, privilege, and a system that protects itself while convincing everyone else to fight over crumbs.

Selective outrage isn’t policy, ideology, or activism. It’s hypocrisy.

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 

One-Sided or Propaganda? It All Comes Down to Intent

When polarization plagues a gullible society where cult worship is common, whether in politics or religion, or other aspects of social life, propaganda movies start emerging as mainstream blockbusters from time to time. Various ideologies and movements regularly encourage such content deliberately designed to shape the audience's beliefs, emotions, or behavior toward a specific agenda, but their reach often remains limited to a niche audience. Propaganda movies work best in polarized societies, where social divisions and mutual distrust are already deep. In such environments, it becomes far easier to stoke fear and anger toward a fictional enemy, generally a target minority group, and cast them as the threat from within. This is especially potent when the government itself is involved in spreading such divisive propaganda, as there is no fear of government action. The impact is stronger because the messaging carries an aura of authority and reaches a wider audience. As a result, polarization deepens, emotions escalate, and people become more susceptible to simplified, divisive stories.

One can argue that movies are often one-sided and are made purely for entertainment, and expecting them to change beliefs or behavior is far-fetched. But this argument misses a crucial point: entertainment is just one of many motives behind filmmaking. Movies are made to generate money (as a business), fame, and recognition; to spread awareness; and sometimes for personal satisfaction. Given that, it's not hard to see how cinema becomes a vehicle for something more calculated.

There are one-sided movies, including documentaries, that are biased and present events, characters, or issues from a single perspective. Propaganda movies also do this. So what separates them? Why is a propaganda movie not just another movie telling a one-sided story?

The core difference is intent. And this difference matters.

In one-sided movies, bias is not necessarily intentional; it may simply be incidental. The filmmaker may want to highlight one interpretation or emotional truth, and still aim to entertain, raise awareness, or tell a personal story. Opposing perspectives are ignored or downplayed, but there is no organized agenda driving that choice.

In propaganda movies, bias is strong, deliberate, and purposeful. These films are often backed or favored by a government, organization, or movement. They often glorify one entity (person, government, or religion) while demonizing others. They use emotional manipulation, selective facts, symbolism, and persuasion techniques. Opposing views are not just excluded, they are actively ridiculed and demonized. The goal is not to express a viewpoint but to influence public opinion, promote a specific ideology, or drive behavior.

Artistic liberty is common in all art forms, and there is nothing wrong with taking cinematic liberty while making a movie. But there is a line. When cinematic liberty is used to distort facts or twist truths by blending them with blatant lies, it stops being just artistic freedom; it becomes harmful emotional manipulation. Both these types of movies take cinematic liberty, but there is a difference. One-sided movies involve selective storytelling. Propaganda movies take this to another level entirely; they are engineered to spread an ideological agenda. And here's the subtler point: an intelligently made propaganda movie can easily look like a one-sided movie on the surface. The real difference often reveals itself in how the audience reacts, what they walk away believing, feeling, or wanting to do.

Some examples of one-sided movies: The Social Dilemma and Michael Moore documentaries like Bowling for Columbine. Some examples of propaganda movies: Triumph of the Will, the Why We Fight series. Recent Bollywood blockbusters like Kashmir Files, Kerala Story, Animal, and Dhurandhar have also entered this conversation. Both these movies are biased. Both express a single viewpoint. But which is which? I'll let the reader decide.

Just remember: one-sided movies are biased, but propaganda movies are biased with intent. And it's worth being aware of that intent.

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

War For Peace

“Every single empire in its official discourse has said that it is not like all the others.” — Edward Said

That quote resonates with us even today because it exposes a pattern that repeats across history. Every regime that wages war insists its war is different. It is framed as necessary, defensive, moral, reluctant, and even noble. Again and again, violence, whether in the form of war or abrogation of fundamental rights, is packaged as responsibility. Destruction is sold as a necessity to bring order. War is renamed peace.

But war, by its nature, brings ruin. It destroys infrastructure, uproots families, erases history, and kills innocent civilians who pose no threat to anyone. And even when declared objectives are supposedly achieved, the destruction often continues. The bombingd do not stop even when the justification has run out. The suffering goes on, and somehow it is still defended in the language of strategy, security, and national interest. Even communities and countries that have themselves endured profound inhuman tragedies can later subject others to pain and suffering in the name of peace. What is most difficult to comprehend is how those shaped by such suffering can inflict pain and suffering on others.

That is what makes modern war so grotesque: not only the violence itself, but the lies used to sanitize it.

While the world debates terminology, some of humanity’s oldest civilizations are reduced to rubble. Civilians are buried under collapsed buildings. Schools, hospitals, historical sites, and essential resources are destroyed. The loss is not accidental or collateral in any meaningful moral sense once it becomes repeated, normalized, and excused. At that point, it is no longer a tragedy alone. It is a choice.

We are told that institutions such as the United Nations exist to preserve peace, prevent escalation, and create space for negotiation. Yet when massive destruction unfolds in full public view, these institutions often appear paralyzed. Statements are issued. Concerns are expressed. Meetings are held. But the destruction continues. The world watches without doing anything to stop the deaths of innocent civilians.

Why?

Why, despite diplomacy, international law, and endless channels of negotiation, are wars still allowed to expand across borders and consume countless innocent lives? Why does the violence continue even after its stated objectives have supposedly been achieved? Is it because the attacked refuse to submit? Or because those who unleash war are not seeking security at all, but submission?

History will record the answer. It will also record the silence.

It is easy to speak when nothing is at stake. True courage begins when speaking carries a cost — when careers, alliances, reputations, and material interests are on the line. That is precisely where much of the world is failing now. The destruction itself will be remembered, but so will the calculated quiet of those who had a voice and chose not to use it.

Most wars are dressed up in the language of honor, defense, and necessity. But beneath that language, the real motives are power, money, influence, political survival, and control. Human life becomes secondary. The deaths of ordinary people become statistics, acceptable losses, background noise. This is mainly because the powerful are immune to the destructive effects of the war. All the risks are borne by other people and their children, while the rewards are collected by those who authorized the violence and those close to them. The pattern is painfully simple: let others die so that power may be preserved, expanded, and enriched. This is why the war is sold as necessary, so that no questions are asked, and dead soldiers are celebrated and honored as martyrs without raising questions about who was responsible for their deaths.

But there is nothing necessary or noble about bombing a school full of children. There is no moral sophistication that can justify the slaughter of innocents. There is no avoidance of danger in raping or sexually torturing prisoners or helpless civilians. That is not a strategy. It is not peacekeeping. It is not civilization defending itself. It is cruelty with political cover.

Bombing children is tyranny. Destroying civilian life and calling it peace is tyranny. Replacing one tyrant with another does not end oppression; it merely changes its face. Every war-mongering ruler insists that this war is different. This one is unfortunate but required. This one is for stability. This one is for peace. But peace built on the bodies of children is not peace. It is domination. It is terror.

So what is all this for?

What logic can justify such immense human and material loss? What political objective can outweigh a generation traumatized, cities shattered, and innocent lives erased? Listen carefully to the statements made by those on all sides of these wars. Too often, they reveal no real reverence for human life, only calculation, messaging, and blame management.

Perhaps the deepest moral failure is not only in the decision to wage war, but in the refusal of societies to condemn inhumanity when it is committed by their own side. We have become skilled at selective outrage. We mourn some children and rationalize the deaths of others. We always condemn brutality in enemies and excuse it in allies. We measure the worth of a life by the flag under which that life was born.

And still we call ourselves civilized.

If we cannot hold our own side accountable, then our morality is hollow. If conscience speaks only when convenient, then it is not conscience at all. It is performance. The least we owe the innocent is honesty. Honesty about what war is. Honesty about what is being done in our name. Honesty about the lies leaders tell when they wrap violence in the language of peace.

Any war that brings mass destruction, civilian suffering, and the devastation of entire societies cannot be casually excused as a path to peace. When leaders knowingly unleash such horror, and when others enable or ignore it, what we are witnessing is not peace in the making. It is an assault on humanity.

If we fail to name it honestly, then the loss is not only of lives, homes, and history. It is also the loss of our moral credibility. And if that loss means nothing to us, then perhaps the most frightening question is no longer what war has made of the world, but what silence has made of us.

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

On the Occasion of the 14th Anniversary

I can hardly believe that this blog has completed 14 years. When I started it on March 5, 2012, I never imagined, even in my wildest dreams, that I would be writing and publishing regularly for this long. Yet here we are: at least one post every month for the past 14 years. That realization fills me with quiet pride and genuine surprise.

This is not self-praise or self-promotion. It is simply amazement at the journey itself.

The blog began as a space to express my thoughts on a wide range of topics, political, personal, and social. I wanted a platform where I could articulate ideas that often felt very different from those around me. Over time, something unexpected happened. Readers, from places I never anticipated, found value in what I wrote. My wife and children, along with many others, shared thoughtful feedback, encouragement, and perspectives of their own. Knowing that my words resonated with people, or helped them reflect and think more deeply, gave me the motivation to continue.

I want to be clear about one thing: I do not expect followers, nor would I want anyone to accept my views uncritically. Blind agreement is never the goal. Instead, I hope this blog helps readers engage with the complexities of the world around them and supports them in their own search for answers. If my writing encourages independent thinking, questioning, and reflection, then it has served its purpose.

To me, true success lies in fostering critical thinking, challenging assumptions, understanding nuance, and striving to make our surroundings just a little better than we found them. We need a kinder, more compassionate world for humanity to truly flourish. This blog is only a small step in that direction, but it is a step I am grateful to have taken.

Thank you to everyone who has read, reflected, commented, or simply spent time engaging with these words over the years. Your support and encouragement have meant more than you know.

Happy reading.

My Journey from Conservatism to Liberalism

I proudly call myself a feminist and a socially liberal person today, but this identity did not come to me naturally. I did not grow up in a liberal household or society. Liberal ideas were not a part of the culture, community, or environment in which I was raised. In fact, they were foreign to me, sometimes even threatening, because they challenged almost everything I had been taught to believe.

And yet, once I began examining those beliefs with honesty, there was no going back. It took me quite some time to gather the courage and intellect to examine my cultural and social conditioning, but I am glad that I was able to do this. I know that for many, this is not even possible; they spend their entire life living in a bubble and fighting to protect that bubble with all their intellect and power. I could not imagine a world where discrimination and oppression were excused as “culture,” “tradition,” or “religion.” My journey to this realization was slow, difficult, uncomfortable, and ultimately liberating.

---

Growing Up in a Conservative World

I was born and raised in Pune, in a family that had migrated from Uttar Pradesh to Maharashtra. My childhood environment was deeply conservative. Religion and culture shaped every aspect of our lives, so intensely that people were willing to harm each other in the name of protecting “honor,” “faith,” or “tradition.”

Patriarchy was not subtle where I grew up.
Misogyny was not hidden.
Casteism was not questioned.

Religious bigotry and hatred were not just taught but were expected as a part of your affiliation with your religion. These weren’t just social norms; they were considered virtues. And like most children, I absorbed all of it. I had no alternative worldview, no exposure to anything different, and no one around me who would challenge the system.

---

The First Cracks: Movies, Books, and Questions

Things began to shift only when I started watching movies of my choosing and reading books outside the school curriculum. Those stories introduced ideas that were almost revolutionary for my conservative mind:

• Caste discrimination was real

• Gender inequality was everywhere

• Religion was used as a tool for dominance and polarization for political gains

• “Honor” was often a mask for oppression

These books and films planted doubts, small at first, then louder. 

Questions began forming:
Why are women treated as second-class citizens?
Why do we claim to worship goddesses but deny respect to real women?
Why are some people considered inferior just because of their last names?
Why was I told to dislike Muslims without knowing anything about them?

Growing up during the Ram Mandir movement added fuel to the confusion. Like many teenagers around me, I fell for the rhetoric. I sympathized with the movement simply because I believed it was my duty as a Hindu. I was so immersed and impressed by conservative rhetoric and propaganda around me that I even wrote a letter to Mr. P. N. Oak, author of the controversial book, Taj Mahal-The True Story (I read the Marathi version of the book). I completely believed his conspiracy theory about the Taj Mahal being a Hindu temple, and proudly treasured his postcard reply where he praised my commitment to the Hindu cause.

At that time, I thought I was doing something noble and great. I was really proud of my anger and hatred against people whom I didn't know, just based on unverified statements by someone whom I believed to be intelligent. 
Looking back, I realize how easily young minds can be influenced when they grow up in environments that encourage obedience and subjugation, not questioning.

---

Understanding Gender: The Most Painful Realization

Of all the discriminatory practices around me, gender inequality was the most visible and the most disturbing once I learned to see it. It was everywhere, in my home, in my neighborhood, the rest of society, in most movies that I watched, and in the country. I watched women’s lives shrink after marriage. Young girls who had a little freedom as teenagers were suddenly expected to:

• cover their faces

• speak softly or not at all

• avoid going out alone

• defer to any male relative, including boys younger than them

Even in my own home, when important family matters were discussed, men sat in the main room while women listened from the other room. Their opinions, even when the issue affected them directly, were neither asked for nor welcomed.

This wasn’t considered oppression.
It was “culture.”
It was “tradition.”
It was “how things are supposed to be.”

I was told to be proud of these things and protect them at any cost. And yet, something in me was deeply uncomfortable.

---

Breaking the Mold: Marriage, Books, and Self-Reflection

When the time came for my own marriage, a simple request, to speak to the girl before saying yes, was considered a bold act. Reena’s extremely modest expectations from her future husband startled me. They exposed how deeply unfair the system was to women.

This moment acted like a mirror. I realized how much I needed to change, both around me and within me, if I wanted to break the conservative mold I had inherited.

As there was no one around me to whom I could talk or ask any questions, books became my biggest teachers.
They validated my doubts.
They challenged my assumptions.
They held up a mirror to parts of my belief system that I had never examined.

Every new concept: feminism, equality, social justice, representation, challenging traditions and superstitions, human rights, was like learning a new language. Slowly, liberal values entered my life, one step at a time.

---

Becoming a Parent: The Final Transformation

If books opened the door, my children pushed me firmly through it.
Becoming a father, especially wanting a daughter so desperately, forced me to confront the biggest taunt I used to receive:

“You will understand the importance of these rules/traditions when you have a daughter.”

I wanted to prove, to others and to myself, that I truly believed in equality. My children made me revisit every belief I had inherited. They made me examine my unconscious biases. They pushed me to imagine a world where they could grow without fear, limitations, or discrimination.

Parenthood turned questioning into responsibility.

---

Letting Go of Hate and Rediscovering Myself

My shift from conservatism to liberalism had nothing to do with political ideology, left or right.
It had everything to do with empathy, justice, and self-awareness.

It is not easy to admit that everything you once believed in, things your family, religion, and community glorified, can be wrong. It is not easy to stand against practices that people around you consider sacred. Most of them were good people; they simply followed what tradition told them. When culture and religion justify discrimination, people no longer see it as wrong.  

But the moment you start questioning, the entire structure begins to unravel.

You realize how ideologies manipulate you into becoming a loyal follower instead of a critical thinker. As Dr. Ambedkar wrote, a Hindu is a casteist not because he is a bad person but because he wants to be a good Hindu. You realize how prejudice is taught, not inherited. You realize how privilege can blind you to the pain of others.

This realization was painful, but liberating.
And once I embraced it, I could never go back.

---

Where I Stand Today

Today, I still care deeply about politics and society. I vote in every election. But I am not a blind supporter of any political party. I am a deliberate supporter of equality, dignity, representation, and justice.

I take pride in calling myself a feminist.
I actively work on recognizing and correcting my biases, both conscious and unconscious.

Living in the U.S. exposed me to topics like LGBTQ+ rights and mental health, which were not part of my upbringing. These were shocking at first, but slowly, through listening and learning, I understood their importance. I am still learning.

And that, perhaps, is the biggest lesson of my journey:
Liberalism is not a destination. It is a continuous process of self-reflection.

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 

True Leaders Don’t Demean Others to Prove Their Own Leadership

Most leaders love giving speeches, and many are gifted orators, at least when addressing their fan base. Yet, some seem to have made it their mission to belittle or ridicule the performance of their predecessors, believing that doing so somehow elevates their own image.

When a leader feels the need to demean their predecessors to highlight their own achievements, it reveals insecurity rather than strength. What past leaders did is history. Governance is about progress and accountability, not theater.

A confident leader focuses on plans, delivers on promises, and lets results speak louder than words. Healthy criticism of political opponents is natural, after all, different ideologies will always clash, but disagreement should not devolve into mockery or personal attacks. Constantly belittling others doesn’t project strength; it only exposes pettiness and a lack of substance.

Too often, this mockery and political drama are deliberately staged to distract the public from real issues and evade accountability. These performances are designed to energize the fan base, to make them feel victorious, even when their own lives are mired in hardship. Sadly, this tactic has been perfected by certain leaders in both India and the United States. What’s more concerning is how many people fail to see through the act and, in doing so, allow themselves to be shortchanged.

Many of today’s leaders are driven by narcissism, greed, and self-interest. But the responsibility doesn’t lie with them alone. The onus also rests on those who cheer, enable, and normalize such behavior. When we applaud leaders who demean others, we’re not only endorsing toxic discourse, we’re helping it spread through society.

It’s time to reject this culture of divisive and demeaning leadership. The power to change lies with the people, because in the end, we get the leaders we deserve. And surely, we deserve better.

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

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

Immigration Is a Privilege, So Is Holding Elected Office

It is widely accepted that immigration is a privilege, not an entitlement. A country extends this privilege after determining that the presence of immigrants will benefit its economy, society, culture, or intellectual ecosystem. Acknowledging immigration as a privilege, however, should never be used as a justification to treat immigrants as second-class citizens.

Immigrants understand that they do not possess all the rights reserved exclusively for citizens, such as voting or holding certain public offices. That reality is neither controversial nor unreasonable. At the same time, fundamental human and civil liberties: freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom to practice or not practice religion, and protection from discrimination, should never be conditional on citizenship status. These values are not just moral ideals; they are core democratic principles and among the very reasons immigrant-friendly countries attract global talent in the first place.

People do not leave their homelands lightly. Contrary to popular rhetoric, only a small fraction of immigrants leave because of war or extreme distress. Most leave with heavy hearts, separating from family, culture, and familiarity in search of opportunity, dignity, and a safer future for their children. Starting over in a new country requires courage, resilience, and enormous sacrifice. I can attest to this from personal experience.

I chose to come to the United States not only because of the professional opportunities it offered me as a researcher, but also because of its social values. I was drawn to America’s commitment to freedom of expression, its openness to self-criticism, and its willingness to confront uncomfortable truths. I admired an education system that encouraged debate and challenged entrenched ideas, and a society that, at its best, strives to address systemic problems such as racism, gender inequality, income disparity, and unequal access to resources.

For decades, this intellectual openness helped make the United States a magnet for global talent, not merely for economic advancement, but for the freedom to think, question, and innovate. That openness strengthened the country scientifically, economically, and culturally.

In recent years, however, immigration has become a highly polarized political issue. Immigrants are increasingly viewed with suspicion simply for being immigrants, regardless of their contributions or conduct. This approach is deeply counterproductive. No nation can attract, or retain, the world’s best talent if it makes people feel unwanted, distrusted, or targeted. Skilled individuals will either choose not to come at all or will leave as soon as the environment becomes hostile.

Political hatred, once unleashed, is notoriously difficult to control. Even when leaders claim they are targeting only a specific group, such rhetoric often spirals into broader hostility that engulfs entire communities. Polarization based on identity is a powerful political tool, but it is also profoundly destructive. It weakens social cohesion, corrodes democratic norms, and ultimately harms the very country it claims to protect. Like an autoimmune disease, it causes a society to turn against itself.

This brings me to an equally important point: holding elected office is also a privilege.

Just as immigration comes with responsibilities, so does public office. Being elected is not merely a position of power; it is a public trust. Elected officials are granted authority by the people and are accountable for how they use it. Exploiting fear, vulnerability, or legal status, especially of immigrants and minorities, for political gain is an abuse of that trust.

Immigrants are not outsiders who arrived unlawfully or accidentally. They come through rigorous and often exhausting legal processes. They work hard, pay taxes, raise families, and put down roots in the communities they choose to call home. If they are willing to contribute and play their part, it is only fair, and morally necessary, that those in power do not weaponize their vulnerability for political spectacle.

Immigration and elected office are both privileges. One should not be used to undermine human dignity, and the other should not be used to inflame fear or target the most vulnerable members of society. The strength of a nation is measured not by how it treats the powerful, but by how responsibly it governs and how humanely it treats those who seek to belong.

I hope we recognize this before the damage becomes irreversible.

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