Gods and their books

While reading many scriptures or holy books like the Bhagavad Gita, Qur'an, Bible, Ramayan, etc., I always wonder why these books are considered or called holy or sacred? Most of these books claim to dictate the message of some particular God, which is also supposed to be the creator of our universe (Allah in the case of the Qur'an, Krishna in the case of Bhagavad Gita, some other God in the case of Bible and so on). Surprisingly, all these books are not written by the God whose message they claim to deliver. I wonder why these gods didn't bother to write these books themselves if that message was so important and necessary for the human species that these books claim they created. After all, if you can create a complex living being like humans and the whole universe around them how much effort it takes to create a book, just like a product manual along with the product. So, several messengers ultimately delivered this divine message. Another wrinkle is that these books were not written by the messengers who delivered the message so that at least they can verify the content and attest it as a true copy, rather most of them came into print after many years of the reported divine incident of message delivery. These books claim to deliver an "absolute knowledge" for mankind. In today's world, most of these books are the property of some organized religion or other and they are used as manuals for framing rules and regulations (dos and don'ts) for that particular religion. Anything mentioned in those books becomes sacred or divine for its followers and anyone challenging them is labeled as evil or atheist.

As such just as literature, all these books about which I am talking are good to read. They are quite entertaining and full of some nice stories. They try to teach many good things via these stories. The only problem is they are written in some ancient languages that are either no longer in use or are spoken in very few regions of the world but the good part is there are many reliable translations easily available and one can read them in their own language. Most of them are reasonably priced (or even sometimes free) and easily available. I read many of them and they make a decent read if one reads them just as a literary book. They teach some very good things as most of the books that we read do and also help us to understand religions that follow these books. But things are totally different when religions or organizations appropriate these books and form societies based on them. They make their own concept of super almighty God which is supposed to be the ruler of this world. They have their own rules about many things like marriage, the role of women in society, how to pray, whom to pray, what to pray, what to eat, what to wear, etc. These rules are preached as a new way of life in the beginning and once they gather enough strength and power and become dominant then these rules are forced on people in the name of religion (God and its commands) and people who don't follow them or challenge them are considered as outliers and face discrimination and many other problems, even a death sentence.

So, people need to ask themselves, why do they give so much importance to these books? After all, these are just books like many other books written by various authors who wanted to share their knowledge and wisdom. Any single book can not contain everything humans are required to know. A single book can not teach everything required to live our lives as every human is different and they can have different needs. I agree that they can be useful in some subject areas like philosophy, religion, or history but there is a huge amount of knowledge outside the scope of these books which is equally important and equally relevant. Actually, the source of knowledge or information doesn't matter much but its relevance and contents do matter a lot. It doesn't matter who said it but it matters what was said and how relevant it is. Verifiable and relevant information is useful no matter from where it comes and unverifiable, outdated, or wrong concepts are useless no matter from which book or which person they come, it's as simple as that. I hope that people will understand this simple fact and at least stop fighting based on what is written in some books and what is not. Humans are much more than just a book. No single book can define us or guide us. We must learn to respect each other first then only any book can teach us anything. As long as we lack some of these basic decent qualities like love and respect for each other no matter which book we read or follow it's not going to make us better people.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing)

Junk food marketing to kids is a very serious issue

This issue was mentioned to me by my friend Vishnu a couple of years back. At that time he was working in the area that specifically dealt with this issue. When he mentioned me about this I didn't think it was that serious issue. I used to think that after all most of parents decide what they want to buy for their kids so as long as parents are aware of these things it should not be a big problem, but I was wrong as things are not that simple. There is a nice TED talk on this issue by Anna Lappe. I encourage everyone reading this to listen to this talk, it's really educating. She nicely explains from her personal experience how these big food (or junk food) firms strategically target kids to sell their products and develop brand loyalty. They got their mantra right "Catch them young." Once you develop a passion and likeness for your brand among kids you have a loyal customer who will promote and use your product rest of their lives. Sounds like a great marketing strategy for the 21st century. However, I feel that this great marketing mantra was invented long ago by people who wanted to spread their religion or cult movements, these organizations saw how well this strategy works so they all are using this formula to market their products.

All these big corporates that want to substitute everything on your dining table with products produced by them are pretty successful in their marketing. They have already established their brand value and all these brands have huge fan following and loyal customers. We can see that more and more people eat out and don't like to cook their meals at home and even naturally available and free drink, water, is substituted by a variety of soft drinks or energy drinks and there are so many zero-calorie flavored water products sold in the market. Because of all this heavy marketing in today's world people prefer to pay money to buy water rather than drinking freely available, easy-to-purify tap water. Many terms like zero-calorie soft drinks (like Diet Coke and Pepsi), chemical-free products (I wonder what they mean by this because even pure water is a chemical), or 100% natural, are used as marketing tricks to attract and mislead customers. These terms are used to make people feel that they are consuming very healthy stuff that is good for their health. There is no limit to what extent these advertisements can go to target their customers and they also use popular cartoon characters and very attractive packaging to attract kids to their product. I am not against marketing, companies have the right to promote their product and market it to potential customers in a legal way but if they purposely target customers who are not in a position to evaluate their product and judge their claims (kids and in some cases teenagers) then it's unfair to target such consumers so aggressively. Even many educated adults also fall prey to many marketing gimmicks so just imagine kids who don't even know that they are being targeted as potential customers and have no idea about the quality and effect of the product which they demand. Once they fall into this trap then it's very difficult to come out of it. This becomes a sort of addiction that is done by using legal means so that no one can question this.

Till now there was no public awareness about what can be the result of this targeted marketing on consumers. But now we can see the effect of these things around us. Health issues resulting from poor diet choices and sudden lifestyle changes are putting enormous pressure on the public health system in various countries (obesity, heart disease, and diabetes are some examples). For the first time in human history, there is a possibility that the life expectancy of the next generation might be less than the previous generation. This is because choices they make in their diet and lifestyle. Aggressive advertising has a huge influence on the choices consumers make today. The issue is serious enough that it should get the public attention. It should be discussed at every level as consumers of all ages are getting affected because of this. Public debate is required and some policymaking is also required before it becomes too big of a public health crisis to handle. It's all about our own health and the health of our future generations and if we don't talk about this then I wonder who will.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Links:
1. TED talk by Anna Lappe
2. Amount of sugar in some average sized bottles.
3. http://www.sugarstacks.com/

Why so much emphasis on biological motherhood?

The post is not only about biological motherhood but in general about biological parenthood. I specifically mentioned motherhood in the title as it gets highlighted everywhere and is a more glorified term compared to fatherhood or parenthood. Do we over-glorify or give so much importance to biological parenthood? No doubt that parenthood (becoming a mother or father) is one of the most beautiful things in this world, but why do we give so much importance to the biological part of it? Any capable adult can become a parent either by biological means or legal means (adoption). However, our society puts so much emphasis on biological parenthood that all other forms of parenthood are given secondary status. Even discussing other parenthood options are social taboo in many societies. Even some modern techniques for biological parenthood like in vitro fertilization, test tube babies, and surrogacy are the subject of heavy criticism by various conservative groups because they think some of these techniques directly interfere with the area of expertise of their God.

The biological part of parenthood seems so important that if for some reason couples can not conceive a child naturally (even after medical treatment) they feel very depressed (which is natural) but then they start thinking that they are missing something big in their life. They start running to temples and so many so-called Gurus to get a biological child, but somehow many of them don't think about other options available to them to become a parent. The main reason they feel hesitant to consider other options is the stigma associated with those methods as well as lack of knowledge. They also think that other types of parenthood are not as rewarding as natural parenthood. Eventually, they start feeling that something is wrong with their life. People or their relatives start feeling bad for them and feel sympathy for them. Those women are labeled as barren (like a barren land that cannot produce anything) and many times face torture and emotional trauma. Sometimes these women are not invited to social functions as they are considered a bad omen.

Generally, the entire blame for a couple's infertility is put on a woman (especially in non-developed countries or conservative societies). I have seen this happening in India (and I am sure it happens in many other countries too). Most of the time this happens without even doing any proper medical checkup. If a couple can not conceive 1-2 years after marriage then in most cases blame is automatically put on the wife but not on the husband. In many societies, for men to have some medical problem related to infertility is something very shameful. This is something that questions their manhood. They are called impotent or so many other names (most of them are insulting or derogatory terms), and because of this many men don't even like to go for any medical checkup for this type of problem. Due to the social stigma associated with these things in some societies, men try to avoid this issue or try to hide these types of problems. Actually, there are so many reasons for male infertility or female infertility and there is nothing shameful in either of them. Many infertility-related conditions are treatable, it is entirely a personal health matter and no one should be judged or discriminated against based on their medical history. I think just because our society gives so much importance to biological parenthood the act of becoming a parent is considered as the proof confirming one's manhood or womanhood and failing to do so is considered as something shameful.

In many societies still, women's main duty is to give birth to kids after marriage (especially a male child as heir to the family). If they fail to do so then they face many problems. Even if for whatever reasons (like career, personal unwillingness, finances, or anything else) they don't want to have a child they are pressured in various ways. They are reminded very often about "their most important duty" and "obligation" as a wife or daughter-in-law. This pressure is so huge that most women (educated or uneducated doesn't matter) surrender to it and a few who don't budge under this pressure face many problems and survive in a relationship only when they have the total support of their partner. I wonder why so much importance is given to biological parenthood in many societies and cultures? If we look at ancient stories or some famous mythological characters (like Krishna, Jesus, etc.) many of them have unknown biological origins or lived with adopted parents and led a very normal and successful life. We like their stories, recite them again and again, and love these characters, but even after all this we believe that life is not complete without having "our own' kids." A biological heir to a family is a must for many, why?

Many people make a big mess of beautiful concepts like parenthood by overemphasizing the biological aspect of it. Parenthood is a beautiful thing, very rewarding for both, the child and its parents but parenthood is parenthood no matter what. Whether it's via adoption, childbirth, or any other legal means, any adult can become a great parent if he or she wants. All parents can enjoy this process equally well and if they are not interested in this process, then also it's perfectly fine no need to bother them. People can live complete lives as they choose with or without kids. We should respect each other's personal choices. We have already stereotyped many things let's keep at least parenthood out of it. Many children need parents and many people need a child to fulfill their desire for parenthood, we all can help them by removing the social stigma associated with nonbiological forms of parenthood. I salute all parents who adopt a child even though they can have a child by biological means, not everyone can do this but people who do this are great social reformers. I believe that there is definitely more in life apart from biological parenthood. I am not trying to diminish its importance but sometimes people give way too much importance to this. Let's keep parenthood simple and not make complicated than what already it is.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Links:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infertility
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilisation
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogacy

India Untouched - a must watch for every Indian

India Untouched is a must-watch documentary for every Indian. I watched parts of this documentary on Amir Khan's TV show Satyamev Jayate. I am not recommending it just because of its subject which is the practice of untouchability in Indian society at various levels and in various ways but also to understand how deep-rooted this problem is, how brainwashed people are, even after all the economic and intellectual progress which we have achieved over these years, even after presence of glorious past which we all Indians proudly mention everywhere, how our present society is still engaged in practicing this heinous discriminatory culture. 

This documentary is very well made and doesn't target any particular religion or region of India, rather, it tries to show how this social evil is practiced all over India and by almost all religions in India. This practice is not only among uneducated or poor people as normally educated people would like to think but people from all sections of society engage in these discriminatory activities. The documentary shows very nicely how these things are cultivated in people's minds as a part of tradition and culture. Even if they know untouchability is not right still they feel obliged to practice it because they were told to do so. Even two best friends don't drink water at each other's home just because they belong to different castes. They love each other and help each other but cannot break this social barrier and they don't even feel that there is any need to break this tradition. It shows how deep-rooted this discriminatory mindset is and how challenging it is to remove it. The documentary also does a good job of showing how kids learn about these things at a very early age from their elders or surroundings and start practicing it even in their schools where it should not be allowed at all. Even people from so-called lower castes discriminate among themselves. They face discrimination from the so-called upper caste people but in turn, they also discriminate against some castes who are supposedly even lower than them and don't even feel they are doing anything wrong. There is no surprise that women face discrimination at every level doesn't matter which caste or religion they belong to.

Today many people like to believe that untouchability is an outdated concept in Indian society, and as we don't see it anymore so it doesn't exist. I agree that it's not visible in its old form but one can feel it in many different ways. The way of discrimination has changed but the spirit of untouchability is still very much there. The mindset is changing very slowly but still, there is something that stops many people from forgetting about their caste and their social status because of that caste. Still, many are there who feel that they are superior or inferior to people around them just because they belong to some particular caste. We can still see many associations, groups, and even Facebook pages based on castes and religions. People like to sing glories about their own superiority and the qualities of their caste. These all look harmless activities but some of these actions breed feelings of hatred towards others who don't belong to that group and then this is the same feeling that eventually leads to social evils like untouchability or discrimination. Untouchability should not have any place in today's society. Wherever we see it we should question and protest against it. If we remain just a silent witness then this is indirect approval from our side. So, let's have zero tolerance for such discriminatory practices. This horrible practice can be eliminated only by people, no law or punishment can change the mindset of people. The fight against this social evil has been going on for decades but still, this thing managed to survive in the name of culture, religion, and tradition. Please watch this documentary and get educated about this issue and let's try our best to eradicate it from this world.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing)

Reference:
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgDGmYdhZvU

Narendra Modi is only a temporary solution

On 9th April we had a nice group discussion with Prof. Anand Kumar, a member of the National Executive of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) at one of my friend's apartments in New Haven. It was a nice informal gathering over dinner with the local Indian community. The discussion was about topics related to India and Indian politics. Prof. Kumar nicely explained the purpose of APP and the reason behind their party contesting the elections. He also discussed major political and social issues that are ignored in of current political setup and the way Indian politics works nowadays. He also advised how NRIs who are not physically present in India but share deep bonds and care about their country can contribute to this cause of reforming the system. 

He very correctly pointed out some of the problems that India and its people are facing today, like corruption at every level, jobless economic growth, lack of proper and affordable education opportunities, no proper plan for the future energy needs of people, no water management, etc. The discussion on all these and many other related issues went on for a very long time. It's not easy to list all the points here and there is no single solution for all these issues but it was a really nice experience. It was nice to see people belonging to different political ideologies coming together and having a nice dialogue where they were willing to look beyond their own party lines or beliefs. Seldom do we see this happening in India. Even though this doesn't guarantee any solution to problems, it's a sign that people are willing to work towards finding some solution.

Apart from many other points that were discussed and debated during this discussion issue of the phenomenal success of Mr. Narendra Modi as Gujarat's chief minister and his possible selection as BJP's prime ministerial candidate was also discussed. Mr. Modi already has a huge fan following in India and abroad. Especially among youth, he is very popular and many believe that if he can deliver in Gujarat there should not be any problem for him to replicate the same model at the Center to transform the whole of India. No doubt some of his achievements as CM of Gujarat look spectacular and if they are true, he deserves full credit and praise for that but India is not Gujarat. India is much more diverse and complicated than that. Gujarat is a unique state where its people are culturally more inclined towards entrepreneurship than getting salaried jobs. Also, in his state, Mr. Modi had an absolute majority in the assembly which helped him to run his government as per his own wish and style but in the center, the possibility of any single party getting an absolute majority is very rare so I don't know how people expect Mr. Modi to function in same way if he doesn't get an absolute majority. This is just one of the problems which he has to face in the center along with many others.  

If the whole system is broken and the entire institution needs a major rehaul then bringing someone who can drive the same system to do some good work is only a temporary situation because whatever good effect or results the rotten system might generate will be because of the presence of that particular personality but not because the system itself has become any better. Also, the rotten system may spoil that new person and make him/her part of the system. There is no guarantee that one person can overhaul the entire corrupt regime, chances are high that the system will change that one person. Also, India has a history of looking for charismatic leaders rather than well-functioning institutions. Governments led by charismatic leaders heavily depend on that leader and don't guarantee the results. When the system itself is the problem then bringing an expert technician who is only going to fix some part of it to make it functional is only a temporary situation. Having an indispensable leader is very dangerous for any country or institute, because then in the absence of that leader, the whole institute will collapse or start malfunctioning. This mainly happens because the system itself is not perfect but somehow someone manages to run it well, this doesn't mean everyone can do this. India needs a system that runs with much fewer problems on its own no matter who is operating it.

So according to me, unless the citizens of India revive their own attitude where not only do they understand their rights but also their responsibilities, it will be difficult to bring any desired change. Bringing Modi or any other charismatic leader who doesn't promise to change the system but tries to run the present system as efficiently as possible is only a temporary solution. We tested this trick before by selecting Rajiv Gandhi, V. P. Singh, or even A. B. Vajpayee but nothing worked to solve this problem. This rotten system didn't allow them to do anything substantial but they were forced to compromise and fight for their own political survival. So the problem is not only the people who run this system but the whole system itself. There are many areas of concern, the way money is collected by parties, the way election tickets are distributed, the way elections are fought, the way parties design their election manifesto, and the way they play vote bank politics (based on caste, religion or any other issue which divides people). All this needs to change and I think that's where AAP needs to play a major role. They need to change the way this game is played currently. They need to change the rules of the game and force everyone to play fairly and once all teams are forced to bring all good and talented players into the game then automatically system will start improving and will show the desired results. Prof. Anand Kumar very nicely elaborated on some of these points and I hope his party is really serious about the things that he mentioned. They sound a bit socialist in their approach but the good part is he was willing to discuss and hear any alternative views, was fine with the criticisms directed towards them, and even told people to challenge their policies and point out any shortcomings which is a good sign. I think the next few years will be interesting in Indian politics and the presence of AAP will have some influence in the coming years. It's hard to predict how slow or fast that change will be but I hope there will be some positive change. I am optimistic and willing to contribute in whatever way I can and I invite all of you to be part of this change, together we can.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing)

Links:

1. http://usa.aamaadmiparty.org/?p=1723

Religious fanaticism - Let's talk about it

The recent incident of the Boston Marathon bombing is another example of how religious fanaticism can drive people to do insane things. This bombing is not the first example where some crazy person (or a group) attacked innocent civilians to take revenge for some incidents in the past where they felt their religion was targeted unfairly. Every day we read news about these types of attacks all over the world. Some places are more prone to these types of attacks than others, but this happens all over the world and no country is immune to this.

Religious fanaticism can drive people crazy. It can push them to do unimaginable things, they can do extremely good things (Mother Teresa is one example of this) or can do extremely crazy or cruel things (mass killings of non-believers, religious riots and terror attacks are some examples). The problem is not the religion itself but the feeling of "fanaticism" which is encouraged in almost all relations with the hope that it will motivate people to become devotees and totally surrender to their God. Religion wants to create a group that will practice and defend its beliefs without questioning them. However, it doesn't work this way all the time. People not only practice their own religion but they also force others to practice it, this is where the problem begins. No other discipline preaches fanaticism as much religion does. The closest second can be politics (actually both are like twins of each other). Religion needs devoted followers, who don't question the basic foundation of that religion, and submit themselves totally to serve the purpose of that religion. Religion recruits a dedicated force to propagate its values and protect it against any outside attacks. These things sound very benign but they can instill fanaticism and hatred about others who don't subscribe to the same ideology. This hatred can be in many forms. A subtle form of it makes people discriminate against others based on their faith. Devotees may form exclusive societies or cults which only cater to people with particular beliefs system, they may stereotype particular gender or group (like gays or transgenders). The extreme form of this hatred can result in violence, like mass killings or communal riots. The problem is that there is a very thin line between a devotee and a fanatic. You never know when any devotee can cross that line and become a fanatic or terrorist.

Many people who carry out all these barbaric attacks look and behave like normal people most of the time. The only difference if at all they have is they are very passionate about their beliefs and faith which is not a very unusual thing as many devotees are also passionate. These terrorists or fanatics also go to the same temple, church, mosque, or any other religious center, like any other devotee. They listen to the same sermons, but they interpret everything differently. Also, some religious gatherings preach fanaticism and extremism, they also ridicule other religions while trying to glorify their own religion. All religions should abstain from preaching hatred of any type against any group. This is the need of today and every religious group or leader must understand this. All religions need to update or revise their syllabus, the one which they are using is too old, totally outdated, and not at all suitable for the current world in which we live.

Just for the sake of not hurting the feelings of its followers or for diplomacy, many people say that no religion teaches hatred and they all teach truth and love. NO, this is only the half-truth. All religions teach love and compassion for their own followers but not for others. At least this is how the preachers and followers of every religion interpret the message. In some way, directly or indirectly every religion in its current form says that people who don't follow the path prescribed by them are either on the wrong path, are misguided, or plain evil. This is why we see so many attempts of conversion (from one religion to another), riots, and killings in the name of religion. Otherwise, what can be the reason for all this? Where is the love which all religions claim to teach? If they all teach only love then from where this hatred and violence is coming? Time has come to acknowledge that this current system has a problem, a serious problem that teaches people to hate or discriminate against people with different sets of values. Even kids in these families are not spared from such divisive teachings. From a very young age when they cannot decide what is good or bad, these kids are fed with a dose of sectarian beliefs which limits their intellectual growth in so many ways. By doing this these groups feel happy that they created obedient followers who will follow their respective beliefs and rituals to the core but at the same time, some of these kids become like a time bomb (with so much hatred in them about non-believers) which no one knows when it will explode. 

Many of these religions and cult movements teach one totally ridiculous thing that any crime (no matter how heinous it is) if done in the name of religion or to protect it is forgivable or rather rewarded lavishly by their super powerful God. They all also promise some imaginary, unrealistic, and outrageous after-death rewards. To encourage conversion (to attract new customers) they promise that all your sins and crimes will be immediately pardoned/forgiven once you surrender to their deity or God and not only that you will also be eligible for lucrative rewards just for surrendering to their almighty. It all sounds so stupid, and outrageous, something like a bumper offer to wash all your sins. This is a very clever marketing tactic. Many people believe in this propaganda and fall for it and this turns out to be a big selling point for all religions.

Fanaticism in any form is the ugly side of all religions and cult movements. This ugly side shows its presence more than often in various forms. Sometimes in the form of suppressing a particular gender or group. Sometimes in the form of physical or psychological violence within that religion. Sometimes in the form of terrorism. This is the aspect of religion that its followers don't even want to discuss and many don't even accept that this even exists and is a serious concern. As long as we keep on pushing this issue under the carpet for the sake of not hurting religious sentiments it will keep on hurting all of us in some form or other. Let's first acknowledge that this problem exists and then search for possible solutions. We need to talk about this and talk loud so that everyone concerned with this issue can hear it. Our silence has been way too long and if we remain silent then it will be considered as our approval of such violence.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing)

Justice or revenge - What is it?

Two recent incidents, one in Pakistan and one in India, where a prisoner was attacked and seriously injured. Out of them Sarabjit Singh succumbed to injuries and died on May 2nd, and the second one Sanaullah is battling for his life in hospital. The attack and death of Sarabjit has created furious reactions among people in India and even the Indian government registered its protest in very strong words. Because of so much public outrage and the sensitive nature of this issue, Sarabjit's body was brought to India and was cremated with full state honors. Both these incidents and the reactions of people and governments of respective countries (India and Pakistan) clearly show the kind of difficulties both these countries face in dealing with each other. Recently I wrote a post about many similarities and differences between them and if you read about these two incidents one can clearly see how similar people from both countries feel and react.

The uproar in the general public over the attack and death of Sarabjit is perfectly understandable. It was sad that he was held in prison for more than 20 years. But before demanding his release and getting emotional Indians also should take a note that he was tried, and convicted by the supreme court of Pakistan for bomb blasts in Lahore and Faisalabad which killed 16 people in 1990. All his mercy petitions were rejected and he was on death row. None of this justifies the attack on him and his subsequent death but I am giving this information to show the complete picture of this complex problem. Whether Sarabjit actually carried out those bomb blasts or not can be argued and discussed endlessly but courts in Pakistan found him guilty and we don't have any option other than to respect their decision. Imagine a similar convict in an Indian prison with a similar charge (a Pakistani national accused of bombing and killing people in some Indian city), I don't know how many people who are shouting or protesting for Sarabjit's release would entertian a demand for a similar Pakistani person's release. I am pretty sure they will demand execution of his death sentence immediately and would label anyone protesting for his release a traitor and enemy of India.

So in one case people really feel injustice has been done by not releasing that prisoner and rejecting his mercy petitions and in another case the same treatment is deemed as fair and considered proper justice. This is just because of their respective nationalities and the place of crime they committed. Any Pakistani killing Indians is hailed as a hero in Pakistan and Indians promptly reciprocate these feelings and actions. Both countries feel they are doing justice by punishing the accused. No doubt, a person who commits any terrorist activities deserves harsh punishment but this is the job of the judiciary of respective countries. Actually, by displaying such an attitude people from both countries are trying to take revenge on each other and revenge is an endless process. It keeps on going from generation to generation because no one is willing to forgive and forget. Indians and Pakistanis are trapped in this endless vicious cycle and now I see the same thing happening between the USA and some other Islamic countries.

It's the job of respective courts to decide whether Sarabjit or Sanaullah is guilty of the charges put on them or not, but it seems people in their respective countries have already decided that they are national heroes. In fact just because of this attitude some terrorists are treated as national heroes or hold position of power and influence in both  countries. So, one can understand the level of hatred for each other among people of these countries. This all is the result of a lack of proper understanding and interaction between them and also the use of people's emotions for political benefit by a few people with vested interests. There are some groups in both countries who benefit from this type of rift and hatred between people. They survive on these types of feelings and don't want them to go away and they are pretty successful in this, their strategy is really working.

I don't see any easy solution for this because as I said the main problem is no one is willing to forgive and forget and unless anyone of them takes some initiative in this direction peace is not possible. Unfortunately the sufferers in all this are the common people, politicians and other wasted interests who keep this fire of hatred burning only reap benefits, but common people are too busy in fighting with each other to understand all this. They all think they are fighting either for their country or religion but in reality most of the time they all are fighting to fulfill some political or personal agenda of some organization. I hope we all will take a break from this endless fight that has been going on for decades, relax, and think about what is going on around us. Then only we will understand that we are being tricked into all this and used as prawns. It is our choice whether to continue to be prawns of this endless game and play for those who just want to use us, or behave like humans, use our own conscious to decide good and bad. The choice is ours.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing)

Mother Teresa - a true social worker or just a missionary?

Recently I read a book "The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice" by Christopher Hitchens. The book makes very controversial allegations about Mother Teresa and her NGO. While I was writing this, another report came in the media about the study conducted by Canadian researchers who called Mother Teresa "anything but a saint." While reading all this news it reminded me few discussions that I had with my dad about Mother Teresa. He never accepted that she was just a social worker and even today, he argues that her real intention behind doing all this social work was to convert people to her faith (Christianity). I never agreed with his logic and still don't believe that it was the only reason she was involved in humanitarian work but there is enough scope to conclude that this might have been one of the reasons why she was so passionate about this work. I might be wrong but all these reports and the book by Hitchens point towards this direction.

Her work in Kolkata (Calcutta) is phenomenal. The work she did for leprosy patients, homeless, poor, and sick people is really admirable. Her work provided shelter and food to millions of people who otherwise would have died a very miserable death. She gave them shelter, food, education, and a place to die for sick people. I personally have huge respect for her and her social work. It's not that easy to dedicate one's entire life to social work. But at the same time, there is another side of this story where one can see she accepted donations from people with very questionable backgrounds. Not only she accepted donations from such people but she also tried to defend a few of them when they asked for her support. She also criticized abortion from whatever platform she could (including in her Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech). It seems she glorified suffering because she thought that's the closest one can get to God. There are allegations that people in her clinic got the treatment but not the proper treatment which could help them to cure in spite of the availability of money and resources.

As far as her social work is concerned there are many people who have done similar or even more work in the same area but for some reason, they didn't get as much recognition as she got all over the world. Maybe being associated with Christianity (which is the most popular religion on our planet) and the church gave her an extra advantage. One such person who immediately comes to my mind who has done monumental work in the same area is the late Mr. Baba Amte. I don't think anyone in India needs any introduction about this man. He fought against all odds and dedicated his entire life not only to serving leprosy patients, sick and poor but at the same time helped them to earn self-respect and dignity and taught them self-reliance. He did all this just to serve those people, not to serve any God or propagate the values of any particular religion. That's why his work is unique and stands out for me. I have huge respect for this man and his dedication towards reforming the mindset of society. I am not trying to compare him with Mother Teresa but just trying to present two very similar cases where two people who did more or less similar work with similar impact on society but one got preferential treatment just because of her religious affiliation and her work gets highlighted more.

Whether Mother Teresa was a saint or not doesn't matter to me. I don't believe in miracles so I don't even care about the miracle attributed to her. But her one-sided views about abortion, her love for poverty just because it gave her an opportunity to serve her God and her association with some people with questionable backgrounds always puzzled me. I personally know people who lived in some hostels run by her NGO, they all were thankful that they got a place to stay and food to eat but at the same time, they had to follow a strict Christian code of conduct (like no bindi on the forehead which is one of the typical tradition followed by Hindu women) which I think is a bit too extreme. You can not take the freedom of people away in exchange for help, food, or medical treatment offered to them. You should not coerce people directly or indirectly to the religious path in which you believe. This clearly puts a question mark on a person's intentions behind helping them. I have huge respect for her social work but if whatever is written in these books or articles is true then it's another example of what too much focus on religion can do to even to people with very good intentions.

Thanks for reading and please share your views about this topic.

Links:
1. http://www.motherteresa.org/
2. The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice
3. Mommie Dearest- Christopher Hitchens
4. Mother Teresa on Trial-Daniel Scott Lintott
5. Was Mother Teresa not so saintly after all?
6. Mother Teresa Humanitarian Image A 'Myth,' New Study Says 
7. The mystery of Mother Teresa-Navin Chawla
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baba_Amte
9. Maharogi Sewa Samiti
10. Anandwan- Forest of Joy

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing)