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

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