The effect of social media on us

Today the presence of social media (Facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc.) is felt by everyone in our lives. No sector or section of society has managed to remain unaffected by them. The revolution in communication technology in the last few years and the spread of mobile phones to the remotest corners of the world have made these things accessible to a vast number of people. Social media has changed the way people communicate with each other, it has modified the ways we interact with each other, and for the first time in history, we have written or recorded data for conversations of common people. All those tweets, FB posts, blog posts, comments, or chats are written records of our conversations with each other which never happened before in the history of our civilization. For the first time in our history, we are talking to each other so much by writing rather than speaking. In the past also people used to write long letters but the percentage of literacy was not that high in many places around the world and this mode of communication was limited for special reasons and occasions, but now we mostly chat with each other by recording our conversations in some form (SMS, FB, Twitter, Orkut or whatever). This is really unique, today we have the power to communicate anytime with anyone, anywhere in the world who has access to an internet-connected device. Anything we communicate today is recorded somewhere, stored somewhere, there is proof of what we express whether we know it or not doesn't matter, it's stored somewhere. We are generating a tremendous amount of data every day, that information is enormous and the speed with which we share our thoughts with each other is also phenomenal. One tweet, a blog post, or an FB post can reach millions all over the world in just a few seconds. This was not possible in the pre-social media era even in the presence of TV or radio. TV and radio also revolutionized our lives but that was mainly in the area of entertainment and news, but social media took the level of our communication with each other to a completely different level. We now live in a virtually well-connected world.

Politicians, celebrities, and even common people like you and me are using social media to communicate our thoughts to our friends and to people who don't know personally. We can share our thoughts more easily now, and many serious discussions can be done without meeting each other personally. Some political parties or organizations who ridiculed these things in the beginning as some temporary internet craze and didn't take these things seriously are also trying really hard to make their presence felt in this virtual world. Establishments and big corporates are using this medium as an efficient tool to attract new customers. Social media websites (like Facebook) are highly valued (worth a few billion USD) this is just because number of users associated with them. Nowadays many debates discussions and business transactions take place online, where actual debaters or buyers and sellers don't interact with each other directly or don't even know each other, but things work out smoothly. This is an amazing transformation of our society. Just a few decades back these things were considered impossible or can be seen only in fiction movies or books, but now it's reality and we all are living it, we all are part of it.

Social media and the internet have given us a parallel virtual world, which is very different from our real world. This virtual world is a place where two strangers can interact with each other at various levels of intimacy. Where relationships can be formed or broken, bonds can be developed, and almost every emotion can be shared privately or publicly, such is the power of this medium. Technically, one can spend their entire life interacting with people they will never know or will never see in their entire life personally. This was only possible in dreams or for very few people (like popular writers or actors who respond to fan mails) but now anyone can do this. This is a tremendous change that is already having a huge impact (positive as well as negative) on our personal and social lives. There are some similarities between the virtual and real world, like in a real-world in the virtual world also there are predators as well as saviors, people can transform each other lives positively or negatively, and they can torture and abuse. The only difference is that in the virtual world, they can do this anonymously without coming into physical contact with the victim, and this is the most dangerous aspect of this medium.

This technology has given us the ability to expand our horizons. We can be in touch with people who are physically far away from us, we can chat with them, and see them in real time. At the same time, some people indulge in this too much, they are so absorbed in this virtual world that they don't even realize that they are neglecting their real world, sometimes families suffer, and relationships break because of this. This medium is so powerful that's why its effects are also very powerful. It can even assist in creating mass movements against ruthless or corrupt establishments, and it can spread rumors faster than ever before. These are a few of the reasons why many governments are worried and concerned about the power of this medium and some of them are even thinking of censoring or controlling these things (like Facebook and Twitter). I guess they think if they can control this medium effectively they can have better control over their citizens, such is the impact of this medium.

This medium has also given us a unique platform and opportunity to create or invent new things. It was never easy to become a writer, storyteller, or inventor before as it is now. Now we have this very powerful tool in our hands and we are free to use it in whatever way we want. The choice is entirely ours, we can use it either to connect with friends and relatives, spread awareness, spread love, freedom, a message of equality, fight discrimination, or spread hate, fanaticism, inequality, and polarize society. The choice is all ours, the medium will work in a way we make it to work, so let's use it to bring positive change.

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

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

Do we need to build any more Temples?

Recently I read an article about a plan for the construction of a huge Vedik temple by ISKON at Mayapur in India. This temple is supposed to cost around 75 million USD, this is a huge amount of money as far as a country like India is concerned. Spending such a huge amount of money just for the construction of a temple is like a cruel joke on all who could benefit from all this money if it's spent for some relevant social cause. I also see a lot of photos of many temples, churches, or other religious centers which are constructed using very expensive materials, and decorated with precious metals like gold and silver. A lot of material and money is wasted to build and decorate them, they really look like grand and lavish displays of wealth, very often thought comes to my mind why can't this money be used to build other things that can be more useful to people? After I started writing this post there was huge controversy in the media when Mr. Modi said, "Pehle shouchalaya phir Devalay" (build toilets first then temples), a similar statement was made by Mr. Jairam Ramesh a few years back and then also it generated a lot of controversy for some different reason. So the question is, do we need any more lavish temples (I am using the temple as a general term for all religious centers like Mosque, Church, etc.) when people don't have access to some basic facility like a school, hospital, or a toilet?

I personally believe that we have enough religious monuments for all religions all over the world. One can find a temple, mosque, synagogue, church, or something equivalent in almost all major cities of the world, we don't need to build any more of these. Many people visit these places and some of them are big tourist attractions which attract millions of visitors every year. All the money from tourism is not reinvested in the community but it stays with that temple or private entities. The question is, in a country like India where many are living without home, proper medical care, food or education should any organization spend such an enormous amount of money to build a religious monument that will be just a tourist attraction? Can't they use this money to do something better, more useful thing, something like a hospital or a free school or college for the underprivileged or even toilets? On one side we all say that God is everywhere but then keep on building huge, expensive, and lavish structures just to host their images or for social gatherings (like prayers, etc.). Many religious institutions spend enormous amounts of money to build and maintain these buildings instead of helping people who are struggling for their basic needs. I am sure their God would love them more, and bless them more if they used this money for people's welfare instead of building another temple, Church, or any other religious monument.

Religion is a personal as well as social need for many and there are already many centers that can satisfy this need. If a temple serves as a place for social gatherings, to give shelter to the homeless, or to provide food and education for the underprivileged then it's a good thing. Some religious institutes do these things but to do such work I don't think we need any fancy structures with expensive decorations. One can build a simple structure and use all that extra money for some better social activity. A country like India needs more toilets than temples or churches, even though this thought was expressed by major political leaders from two big national parties of India, there are very few takers for this idea. Still, the construction of a temple or Mosque is considered more important than the construction of basic facilities like toilets. Isn't it ironic that in a country that hosts one of the richest temples in the world, many people still don't have access to basic facilities like toilets? Some of these religious institutes are so rich that if they want they can do wonders for society with all the money they have, but they behave just like big corporates, exclusively protecting their own interest without any real real social agenda. I think with all the problems our society is facing these institutes should put all their plans for the construction of Mosque, Church, or temples on hold, rather they should spend all that money on some social causes like building more medical care facilities, distributing medicines to poor, offer free education to needy, sanitation facilities (like toilets, especially for women), etc. There is a tremendous need for funds in all these areas and these institutes can play a very big role in funding such infrastructure projects. I hope they all think about this idea and give it serious consideration. One more temple, mosque, or church may not change anyone's life but one more school or hospital might change and save the lives of millions of people. Even a public toilet can make life easy for many and I believe doing this is no less than offering prayer to any god.

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. Mayapur to get largest Vedic temple
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padmanabhaswamy_Temple
3. http://luxpresso.com/photogallery-lifestyle/top-richest-temples-in-india/6249/2
4. Is the Catholic Church the richest organization in the world?
5. In Mumbai, a Campaign Against Restroom Injustice

Karva Chauth - love or discrimination wrapped in love?

Every year 'Karva Chauth' (करवा चौथ) is celebrated, mainly in the northern parts of India. I don't know when this ritual actually started, but it must be very old. I guess it must have started centuries ago when men used to depart their homes frequently for wars or travels and in those days all these things involved a great amount of risk and uncertainty this ritual must have started to wish these men good luck and safety for their endeavor. In recent times, this festival has been glamorized by many movies and TV serials as the ultimate symbol of a wife's love and dedication towards her husband, so now it has become popular in many other parts of India. I am not against any festivals or celebrations. Festive occasions are useful for getting together, relaxing, and having fun and there is nothing wrong if people want to enjoy. But if we analyze the situation carefully it's not that simple. Many people like me are blamed or criticized for bringing up the topic of gender equality almost in each and every issue we face, at least I do this because all these issues are so interrelated that I can't help it and I hope this post will explain why I am discussing this particular festival as an example (this festival is just an example, the post is not only about this particular festival), this is the case of a ritual, widely accepted, glamorized and celebrated, which looks very harmless and simple but it can have deep effect on psychology of people following it.

Now let's look at this festival of Karva Chauth. A wife fasts the whole day (in many cases without drinking even a drop of water) for the prosperity and long life of her husband, and in the evening after some rituals, they get a gift of their choice from their husbands and eat only after seeing the face of their husband. The festival is exclusively for married women whose husband is still alive. The Festival looks very benign and many people think it's full of love and devotion. Fasting is part of many festivals. Muslims also do it in the month of Ramadan. Actually, nothing wrong with fasting, wives definitely have the right to wish or pray for the happiness and long life of their husbands. The festival looks like a very harmless ritual, a beautiful way to express love and dedication by wives for their husbands. Note that in the traditional format of the festival, husbands don't fast. Perfectly fine as long as it's practiced voluntarily, without any obligation, and not forced on all married women either by social or family pressure. Does it happen like this? In most cases, the answer is 'No.' If it's about love and respect, this fast should be performed by both husband and wife as respect and love in any relationship should be mutual, but rarely this happens. I have also seen many mothers-in-law calling their daughter-in-laws a day or two days before such festivals and reminding them that they should keep some fast to make sure that their son's welfare and longevity are not jeopardized. Also, there is no festival that I know where husbands fast or pray for the well-being of their wives. The social pressure is also tremendous, believe me, the guilt some women get if they fail to do this is very strong as if they missed a crucial dose of some life-saving medication.

This post is not a criticism of all the festivals or traditions or any culture but it's about the mindset which gets perpetuated in the name of festivals and traditions. Unmarried women and widows are not allowed to participate in this festival which claims to celebrate love and dedication. As I mentioned many such festivals are supposed to be for the welfare and long life of husbands and it seems that many wives and mothers literally believe that it's necessary to do all these things to achieve this goal otherwise something bad might happen. Because of this fear, many try to fast even during sickness, poor health, pregnancy, or under circumstances when it might affect their health. Many women get praised for doing these things in adverse conditions, they get hailed for their dedication, love, and respect towards these traditions and their husbands. A question comes to my mind, are these things only about love and dedication? Or is it fear of losing that person or something bad might happen if that ritual is not followed (superstition)? I also see many women who suffer physical and mental abuse at the hands of their husbands, many who are abandoned by their husbands for other women or for whatever reason observe these types of festivals for the welfare and longevity of their husbands. Does this make any sense? Isn't it a sign of Stockholm syndrome? I am sure something else going on in these cases, why do you want to pray for the well-being of your abuser? I am sure this festival is about total surrender but I have doubt if love is part of it or not.

Every issue has positive and negative sides, there are many families where this festival must be fun and a nice way to get together, they may not see anything wrong in it (even the exclusion of widows). I am against any festival that forbids the participation of certain sections of society just because of their gender or marital status (widows), rather I believe that the practice of widows being barred from participating in many rituals or considering them as a bad omen is one of the worst forms of discrimination and it must have started from traditions and festivals like this. Imagine how they must be feeling when all these women are celebrating and they are not allowed to participate just because their husband is dead. It's a very cruel joke played on them by society. I am not saying that married women should not express their love or should not celebrate just because few widows are around, rather everyone should have the right to express their love and respect for their partner. Why not include all women and men in these types of celebrations? If necessary, change the format of the festival and make it inclusive where all (irrespective of their gender or marital status) can express love for their partner (living or dead it shouldn't matter). If it's about love and dedication then does it matter if the partner is alive or not, male or female, married or not?

Look at the festivals in the USA like Halloween, Thanksgiving, and Valentine's Day, where everyone can participate and there are no age, gender, or marital status restrictions. I know this is for marketing purposes, but at least they are open to all. Why can't we take this aspect of these festivals and include it in all festivals in India? We are copying many other unwanted things from the West so why not take some good things also. But I know that it's not easy to change these rituals and many people may not like my comments and suggestions. They will label this post as one more attempt to bring the issue of gender equality and criticize grand old traditions. I don't care about all this criticism but I feel festivals like these encourage gender discrimination and start instilling feelings of inferiority in women from a young age and we need to stop this.

 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/Karva_Chauth
2. http://hinduism.about.com/od/festivalsholidays/p/karwachauth.htm
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome 
4. Karva Chauth...is it only about love? (link for more or less same article published on blog in Nov 2012)

Is burqa oppressive to women?

The burqa is an enveloping outer garment worn by some women following Islamic traditions to cover their bodies when in public. There are various articles or posts about whether its use is oppressive to women or not. Some support it in the name of religion, modesty or to protect women's dignity, some oppose it and consider it a sign of women's oppression and attempt to restrict their freedom. I read both points of view and both have some positives and negatives in them. What to wear is a personal choice. If anyone wants to cover their body using a burqa or any other outfit I don't think anyone should have any problem with it, but at the same time if someone wants to wear some revealing outfit then also people should not make a big deal out of it, it's personal choice, people are free to wear whatever they feel is appropriate for them. If anyone is forced to wear some particular type of dress in the name of religion or modernity then it's wrong, it should be questioned.

People who support or demand the use of the burqa for women claim that it protects them from sexual harassment. What they mean is if men see exposed body parts of women (like face, hands, or legs), even in public places, they may not be able to control their sexual desires and there is a high risk of sexual abuse for women because of their dress. This is a pathetic attempt to put the blame on the victim. Even if it's the men who can't control their behavior and commit the crime the blame is on women. No religion or cult movement is very kind to women. None of them give equal status to women. The founders of most cult movements and all religions are men, so obviously they designed the rules that suited the needs of men. Some books books glorify women, even making them demigods but didn't offer them equal status. The introduction of all these dress codes and rigidly defined roles in family and society was an attempt to control women and confine them so that they don't compete with men. This trick worked for centuries because of male male-dominated society, women had no support to fight for their rights until feminist movements started almost a century ago. Slowly but steadily in the last few years, we have made a lot of progress but still, a lot needs to be done.

Dress codes for women are imposed in many places. They are imposed for both genders in certain religious places or functions like marriages or some parties. Personally, I am against all this. I don't like anyone telling me what to wear. I like to wear clothes in which I feel comfortable and I respect others' choices and expect others to respect my choices. As I like to choose what I want to wear and I am sure others like to choose their own dress. The topic of school uniforms (or work uniforms) is totally different, this rule is imposed to bring uniformity and a feeling of togetherness in school or workplace and it is for both genders. I feel amazed when people try to bring God and religion into all this, these things have nothing to do with what clothes people should or shouldn't wear. Clothes protect us against weather or make us look more attractive but we can not put the entire blame on a person's apparel if they are victims of physical or sexual assault. There are many cases where kids or people wearing so-called decent dress get sexually harassed, what role does their dress play there? So, the theory that more revealing clothes encourage or invite sexual assault is basically flawed. It pathetically tries to put the entire blame on the victim when the problem lies somewhere else. Educating men and women to respect each other is a better solution than putting the entire blame and moral responsibility on women. We all need to respect each other's choices. We should not judge anyone based on what clothes they wear, which country they belong to, or what religion they follow.

If anyone wears a burqa by choice it is like any other dress, why does anyone have any issue with it but if anyone is forced to wear it in the name of religion, god, or just because of their gender then it becomes a symbol of oppression and discrimination. The dress we wear or the food we eat is a personal choice that we make based on our likes and dislikes. I don't think any of us would like it if we were forced or not allowed to eat some particular dish just because of our or someone else's religion. We like to taste different cuisines, some we like and some we don't, same way we should think about clothes. People like to express themselves and their clothes are one of the ways in which people choose to express themselves and we can't take this right away from them. Let it be an individual's choice what they want to wear. I am not against the burqa or any other dress, people are free to wear what they like, forcing dress code only on women is a sign of male chauvinism. In today's world, we don't need it and we should not encourage it. It will be another step towards bringing gender equality.

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. Burqa
2. Don't tell me how to dress, tell them not to rape.....
3. Rape is never the victim's fault.
4. Is there any way to reduce rape and sexual abuse incidents?

Can constructive criticism be considered as an insult?

Can raising a question about some traditions be called an insult? Can constructive criticism be considered an insult? Can objecting to the views or opinions of some famous persons be considered an insult? Is constructive criticism really an insult? I am asking this because some people who claim to be ardent fans, devotees, or followers of some famous personalities like Chanakya or ISKON founder Prabhupad or followers of any particular religion or cult movement, objected to my questioning of some of these people's views and my criticism of traditions or rituals. They all believe that just criticizing someone's views or objecting to their statements can be counted as an insult, they don't seem to believe in constructive criticism. I am also an admirer of Chanakya for his views related to topics like governance and economics but I do not agree with his views about women, that's why I wrote a blog post about it. I also clearly expressed my opinion about Prabhupada and his sectarian views, especially about his misleading book, Gita as it is, in which he claims to explain the Bhagavad Gita as it is. These two posts along with some other posts related to women suppression and gender equality attracted a lot of such criticism.

Freedom to ask questions is a very important characteristic of any liberal and progressive society. Most of the ancient books or scriptures that people think are divine and even worship were written because there was freedom to express new things contrary to established beliefs. Constructive criticism is also very necessary for the progress of any society or culture but if it's not taken in the right spirit it can be misunderstood as an insult and can create problems. There is a huge difference between criticism and insult. Criticism, especially constructive criticism, is offered to improve things and insult is used to demean things for no reason. Some people are just not comfortable with the idea of old traditions being questioned, or views of some big names being criticized, they just reject these things. Instead of thinking about the objections or questions which are raised they just try to attack the questioner. They try their best to silence the voice of a person raising the question rather than trying to answer it. They do this because they find it easy to silence the person rather than trying to answer difficult or uncomfortable questions. Every religion has a dark spot in their history, rather than accepting these things and acknowledging their mistake they all just try to downplay it, justify it, or even deny it. This is what leads to confrontation and more questioning. Because of this attitude, I am labeled as anti-Hindu, anti-religion, or anti-Indian and what not, it seems if you raise an objection about anything (let's call it X) you are X hater or you are anti-X, there is no middle path for these people.

Respect doesn't mean keeping silent even if you see something wrong is going on. Just because something was practiced for centuries (traditions or rituals) doesn't mean it was right. We should not accept anything blindly just to show respect to some tradition or because it was said by someone great person. Such behavior to show respect is a very narrow and timid definition of respect. Seniority should be respected as much as it needs to be, following age-old ways of showing respect are really superficial (like standing every time someone senior enters the room or tolerating their improper behavior just because they are senior, etc.). Such things need to go. Everyone should understand that questioning is not an insult, it should be done properly and it is a sign of a healthy society. Everyone should have the right to raise objections to anything that they believe is not right. In true democracy, every voice counts so it should be heard. Forbidding questioning is like forbidding progress and I don't think any culture or society can evolve by discouraging people who want to object or think differently. Let's keep our gates open for new questions, new doubts, and new challenges, this will take us to new heights and will bring a lot of new ideas and new solutions. Please remember that knowledge is not stagnant it's a continuous and endless process and questioning is an integral part of it. Nothing is sacred in the process of generating knowledge, everything is open for discussion and debate. Once we understand this then people will realize the potential and power of questioning and constructive criticism, until then let's try our best to keep on asking questions.

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. Chanakya and his views about women 
2. Bhagadvad Gita-As it is or As it is NOT..Part-I
3. Bhagadvad Gita-As it is or As it is NOT- Part-II

Banished - what brainwashing can do to people

Recently I finished reading a very interesting book, Banished-A Memoir, Surviving my Years in the Westboro Baptist Church by Lauren Drain (with Lisa Pulitzer). I love the public libraries in the USA, I borrowed this book from the New Haven public library. All public libraries in the US are free to people living in that area and one can borrow a variety of books and movies. This book is about the life and experience of a girl (Lauren) born in a moderate or liberal family who eventually ends up living in a very conservative and sectarian Christian environment. The book and its main characters are especially related to Westboro Baptist Church. It's not that I didn't know about this church before reading this book, I read about their provocative pickets and banners saying very derogatory things about people from their own community, they do these things all the time to get local and national media coverage. It was interesting to read how this whole enterprise is designed and managed by a few people who think that they are the only authorized agents of God and believe that they have the moral right to preach and dictate their God's message to the rest of the world. This book also shows what systematic and planned brainwashing can do to some people and their families. The book talks about a very conservative Christian atmosphere but readers should not get the wrong impression that such things are associated only with any particular religion, this is very common with all religions and cult movements.

I don't want to discuss the story of the book or get into details mentioned in the book. I advise readers to read the book if they are interested in knowing the complete story of Lauren and her family. I guess anyone who has seen a very conservative religious or sectarian environment can relate to the experiences of a girl living and growing up in such an environment where she is constantly told that whatever values her family believes and follows are the only right values and all others are wrong, and it's their duty to preach the RIGHT things to others who are on the wrong path even if such people may not like it. They must preach god's message because God has given them the responsibility and privilege to do this. We all see fanaticism or different forms of discrimination practiced all over the world in the name of religion (almost all religions and cult movements are guilty of this, there is no exception). They mainly do this because some book (word of God) tells them to do so. These books are written in such a way that they are open to many types of interpretations and everyone interprets them in their own way. Many people hate others just because they believe in different Gods and books, they do this so passionately and convincingly because they think they have blessings or orders from their God to do this. This mindset is a result of planned brainwashing, a strategy that every organized religion or cult movement uses very effectively to trap and recruit their subjects to propagate their ideologies.

Religion is a very personal and individual choice, just like food or clothes we wear. I can choose whatever dish I like from available choices or make my own if I want but I should not force my choice on others. I should not assume that something that suits my taste and needs is good for everyone. I don't think anyone will say that I have the right to hate or kill someone just because they are eating a different dish than what I like to eat. But if we bring religion into the picture, everything changes. People feel obliged to follow their religion and defend it, they feel it's not wrong to kill innocent people in the name of defending their religion. We read about such incidents all the time, they manifest into terrorist attacks and communal riots. Our minds work differently when we start talking or thinking about religion. We always feel that our own religion is better than others, we are right and others are wrong. A similar thinking pattern follows when we think about our own caste, race, or gender, based on our social and cultural upbringing we get trained or brainwashed to think that a particular race or caste is superior to others, one gender is superior to another. Everyone following any religion likes to claim that their religion doesn't preach any violence, discrimination, or hatred but still, we find a lot of communal tension all over the world. WHY? Even within the same religion, there are many factions who fight with each other. Why religion can't stop all this fighting? I can understand arguments, discussions, and debates but what purpose does spreading venom of hatred and killing innocent people including kids in the name of god serve?

This book describes Lauren's journey, and it gives an insider's perspective. Most of us can relate to her character, her story is gripping, tragic, and heartbreaking but in the end, leaves us with some hope. There are many hateful groups like this present all over the world, they belong to all religions. Such groups target people of all ages, brainwash them, and groom them to make their brand ambassadors, who can go and spread their false propaganda. I am not against any religion but I am against anything that spreads hatred and encourages discrimination and violence. We need to stop this. We need to spread love and unity instead of hatred and discrimination. We need to enlighten people and encourage critical thinking rather than brainwashing because brainwashing only creates fanatics. We don't need brainwashing but we need enlightenment of our mind and our society.

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. Banished: Surviving My Years in the Westboro Baptist Church

  

Meaning of being liberal

I read this message on someone's Facebook wall. This message does a pretty good job of explaining the meaning of being liberal as well as some problems liberals face in our society, it also tries to clear some misconceptions about the term tolerance. Being tolerant doesn't mean being weak or submissive, rather one needs to be very strong-minded to be tolerant and liberal. Most people who make fun of the non-violence philosophy try to equate tolerance with weakness or cowardliness but in reality, it's exactly the opposite. I consider myself a liberal and open-minded person, by this I mean a person who respects other individuals on equal terms regardless of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or any other difference; and who is willing to listen to others' views and share my views in a democratic and civilized way. I believe in discussions, debates, and dialogues rather than forcing my opinion on others. I also believe that there can be more than one right answer or solution to the same problem. Behaving as if my way is the only right way is not my habit but that doesn't mean I accept whatever others say even if I don't agree. If I don't agree with certain things I make sure to express my disagreement in a civilized way, being liberal and tolerant doesn't mean agreeing and accepting each and everything thrown at you.

I also believe that people can live peacefully and work for the betterment of society even if they don't agree on some issues or have differences of opinion. We can always agree to disagree with each other and move on. This is very important for any civilized society. Many people, especially in the comment section of some blog posts expect that as I claim to be liberal and open-minded I should accept their views as correct views and also accept my mistakes (that I was wrong as my views didn't match with theirs). They wish me to align my views with theirs because I claim to be liberal. They also question me objecting to some famous personality's opinion, they claim it's an insult to that person. According to them, being liberal means arbitrarily respecting everyone and accepting everything. Basically, they want liberals not to challenge anyone and respect each and everything. As an open-minded person, I am willing to listen to their views and ideas but I have no obligation to agree with them or with anyone if I don't find those things right. I also believe that there are some things that no one should tolerate like gender discrimination, racism or casteism, sexual abuse, terrorism, etc. But people support these things directly or indirectly and I am willing to listen to them but I just can not agree that these things in any form are acceptable.

I guess many people have serious misconceptions about what is meant by being liberal. It does mean being open to all ideas and views but that doesn't mean one should also accept them. Liberals can very much disagree and oppose views and ideas with which they don't agree but the major difference is they don't just want to silence the people who voice ideas by force but want to debate and challenge those views. They believe in change via debates and discussions. They believe in constructive criticism and dialogue but at the same time, there are certain things on which they can't compromise. They also have their own beliefs. But according to me the major difference between liberals and hardcore conservatives is, that liberals acknowledge that there can be differences of opinion and there can be disagreements on some issues, we can have debates or discussions about them and we can live together peacefully even with all our differences. A tolerant society is a type of society where everyone has the right to express their opinion, and at the same time, everyone has the right to question. People are allowed to question anything and everything. Once we understand this then no matter who we are, liberal or conservative, we all can live together peacefully.

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

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

Freethinkers

A few days back I read this quote by Leo Tolstoy on Facebook "Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but is essential for right thinking; where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless."

I like the quote, but then a question came to my mind, are there any true freethinkers in our world? We get trained by our parents and mentors, schools, colleges, or society. All these entities knowingly or unknowingly condition our minds in a particular way. When we think we look at the world with that conditioned mind. So, how can we claim that we are independent or freethinkers? No doubt, there were many philosophers or writers who with their own imagination or thinking process created new ideas and philosophies, they tried to think out of the box and many of them were successful in producing some brilliant work that we still study even after centuries. We all can become freethinkers and break the boundaries of our conditioned minds, we all are born with this ability but we rarely use it, because whenever we try to go out of that well-defined secure box we either feel very uncomfortable and guilty, or we are scared about people's reaction and therefore, we reject those thoughts before even testing them for their validity.

So the question is, do we have any freethinkers? Are they some special people or anyone can be a freethinker? Anybody who is not afraid of challenging well-established ideas, who dares to propose something new that was never thought before, who can even challenge their own ideas and is not ashamed if proven wrong is a true freethinker. Even though they are the product of the same educational or social system through which we all go they dare to think something different. They dare to face the contradiction that exists in our lives and have the courage to express uncomfortable thoughts and pursue new ideas even if their outcome is unknown. It's not necessary that always these types of people will be successful or their ideas are accepted by society, but freethinkers don't worry about the acceptance of their thoughts, they just care to express them. Such freethinkers could be present in every family, every society, and every neighborhood, we all meet them and see them but just because they are not that famous don't notice them. If we can overcome our prejudices and biases any of us can become a freethinker. Not only do we restrict our thinking by all our inhibitions but while doing this we also fail to recognize and appreciate others' thoughts. We reject new ideas before even evaluating them. We need to overcome these inhibitions not only to think freely but also to appreciate the new ideas and philosophies of others. 

Let us try to make ourselves free from many inhibitions that stop us from welcoming new ideas. The same inhibitions stop us from questioning or criticizing age-old beliefs that we accept blindly in the name of tradition or culture. I know that it's not easy to get rid of them so easily, they have been part of our society for centuries, but without such reform, we cannot become freethinkers. Being a freethinker is better than being a blind follower, so let's give us a chance to become a freethinker.

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

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

Are people like Gandhi and Shastri still relevant today?

Every year 2nd October is celebrated as Mahatma Gandhi and Lal Bahadur Shastri Jayanti (birth anniversary). People remember them, and many Gandhi detractors consider this occasion as a golden opportunity to criticize him for whatever reason they can think of, starting from Muslim appeasement, Hindu hater, India's partition, his nonviolence theory, or anything else. Shastri almost goes unnoticed as people are either busy praising or bashing Gandhi so they don't have time for Shastri as there is nothing much to criticize about him and as he was a staunch Gandhian himself so there is nothing much to praise about him for Gandhi haters except for his simplicity and honesty, so he is not a very attractive target for many. Mahatma Gandhi, Pundit Nehru, Sardar Patel, Bhagat Singh, Shastri, Subhash Bose, Tilak, and Gokhale along with many others (the list is too long) are iconic figures from the freedom movement of India. All these people along with many others contributed tremendously towards India's freedom struggle, but no one receives praise and criticism as much as Gandhi. His name somehow generates extreme reactions, either people think of him as a god-like figure or they criticize him as if he is a monster. His critics call him names like a selfish manipulator, ruthless politician, Muslim sympathizer, Hindu hater, sex pervert, and whatnot. They blame him for India's partition, for the delay in achieving freedom, and for anything that they can think of. His critics try to put as much blame on him for everything wrong that happened during his politically active days in India (~1920-1948). Some of them even go to the extent of justifying his assassination and many of them are big fans of his murderer Nathuram Godse. Godse's court speech is very popular among them, this speech which is available on the internet is no different than any fanatic terrorist's speech. These people revere Godse's speech so much but surprisingly despise similar speeches by other terrorists who carry similar justifications. Some groups claim to follow Gandhi but actually, they use his image and name purely for selfish reasons, just as some marketing tool, they absolutely don't show any commitment towards his causes and principles. This behavior always raises a question in my mind, are people like Gandhi and Shastri still relevant in today's world? Are they mere marketing tools, just statues and posters that people visit once or twice a year and then forget until next year?

It's quite normal to have differences of opinion in politics and Gandhi, Nehru, Tilak, or any other leader of their stature were all politicians, they all believed in certain ideologies and tried to propagate them as much as possible. These leaders tried to direct the freedom movement based on the ideologies they believed in. Gandhi was the most popular leader of all. One can criticize their approach or question their methods, there is nothing wrong with it. Whatever these people did, right or wrong it can be debated, but they all meant good, intention was to take India forward, do something for its people, not to hurt anyone or neglect any community purposely. To hate any political leader just because of ideological differences to the extent to justify their assassination is insane. How can one justify the murder of an opponent just for ideological differences? No wonder that the same people then go on to justify other violent acts like communal riots also.

I was always fascinated by the lives of all these leaders. I read about them and get a lot of inspiration from their work but I don't associate myself with any particular camp or ideology. For me, Gandhi was a great human being with very honest intentions and a great leader who managed to involve common people in the freedom movement. At the same time, Gandhi was also a politician, very religious and fanatic about some of his personal beliefs, the same thing is true about many other great leaders. They all have certain great qualities and some not-so-great qualities, but in general, their greatness overshadows all other things that's why they are respected. I take whatever I find good from their teachings and leave the rest or question it, argue it, or criticize it, but I don't hate any person just because I don't agree with a few of their ideas and principles.

People like Gandhi or Nehru never ran away from criticism or troubles, they always faced it and tried to solve the problems or conflicts in politics via dialogues not by force or violence, at least this is one thing we all can learn from them. Their personal honesty and integrity were their strength, and they never forced their personal beliefs on anyone, they kept their personal faith separate from their politics. How many leaders do we have today who even know the meaning of honesty and integrity? For today's generation, many ideas and principles of these people look outdated and difficult to practice. For example, simplicity is no more a virtue, and nonviolence is mostly perceived as a weakness. Consumerism is a need of today's economy and there is a lot of pressure and encouragement to consume, and enjoy life without any social responsibilities. This all makes people like Gandhi and  Shastri more relevant today. We need to follow at least some of their ideas to bring balance to our lives. We either like to go too much right (extreme capitalism) or too much left (communism), and no one likes to be in the center because then they feel like an orphan. People feel isolated if they don't belong to any group, they feel obliged to choose a camp. We admire these leaders but hesitate to pave our own way and prefer to choose some popular belief and try to become a part of an established group. We don't need to worship these people, that's a useless thing to do but we should discuss them, debate their ideas, offer constructive criticism, refine relevant ideas, and implement them. I hope people find their ideas more useful than their photos or statues.

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. Mahatma Gandhi...from my eyes
2. Lal Bahadur Shastri...a forgotten hero.
3. Reflections on Gandhi- Shoonya Magazine