A myth of chemical free products

Nowadays the term "chemical-free" is used by many manufacturers to attract customers. They want customers to believe that their product is totally natural and hence chemical-free which in turn implies that it is safe to use. First, if anything that includes natural ingredients doesn't mean it is chemical-free. Second, having chemicals in any product doesn't make it by default harmful. Finally, it is impossible to have any chemical-free consumable or nonconsumable material. Nature contains many chemicals and many complex chemical reactions happen in nature continuously, many of these reactions (photosynthesis) and chemicals (amino acids) are very essential for our survival. The tagline, chemical-free has become a selling point for many processed food items, beauty products, and many other consumable items. This way of advertisement seems to be working because many people do feel that all chemicals are by default harmful and because of this the phrase chemical-free works like magic on their psyche. People buy and use these products without even checking the validity of the claims made by manufacturers. Actually, any processed food, cosmetic, or any product that is packaged and sold in stores undergoes some processing. All processing techniques involve the use of some chemical either to increase the shelf life of the product (preservatives), improve texture, flavor, appearance, etc. Some chemicals are added to enhance the nutritional value of products (like vitamins in fruit juice and milk, iodine in salt, etc.). People forget that even water (H2O) is a chemical. So, it is impossible to find any chemical-free product. Calling any product chemical-free is an absolute lie and is an attempt to purposely misguide customers, it is a way to create and make use of chemophobia to sell products.

But then why this phrase is used in so many advertisements? Why it works so effectively? Why do people get attracted to so-called chemical-free products? Maybe the main reason behind this is the overuse of some chemicals in day-to-day life which cause some harmful side effects on humans and some unfortunate pharmaceutical and chemical disasters like Bisphenol-A and Bhopal gas tragedy of 1984), side effects associated with some medicines, and the use of chemical weapons. Maybe all these things have created a chemophobia, a fear of all chemicals in people's minds. But the truth is there are good (harmless) chemicals and bad (harmful) chemicals. The effect of bad chemicals gets highlighted more often in the news which helps to create chemophobia in people's minds. Poor knowledge about science and its application makes this situation more complex. Due to the emergence of the processed food industry nowadays people are consuming unprecedented amounts of processed food. We consume most of the crops that are genetically modified. Everything we consume or use contains some chemical, which has created fear of overexposure to some harmful chemicals in people's minds. This is rational and there is a very good reason behind this fear. Things like cosmetics, genetically modified crops, and processed food are launched without extensive testing on humans. Many products for human consumption don't have to go through rigorous and extensive clinical trials like pharmaceutical drugs. Most products (even though consumed by a large section of the population) don't require FDA approval. Sometimes harmful chemicals end up in these products because of oversight or pure greed to ignore potential hazards associated with them. This puts many people at risk by exposing them to cocktails of many chemicals whose actual effects are unknown. However, chemophobia is not the solution to this problem. Proper testing, monitoring, and awareness about chemicals are the solutions.

Actually, not all chemicals are harmful, in the same way as not all bugs are dangerous. We have many friendly bacteria inside our body which help us to digest food and remain healthy. Similarly, there are many chemicals that are essential for our life and we need to consume them (like water, vitamins, proteins, etc.). The basic building block of our body is an amino acid which again is a chemical. At the same time, not all chemicals are good for our health. There are many chemicals that are harmful or even poisonous, and we need to stay away from them. Some chemicals are very harmful to our environment also, we need to monitor their consumption and disposal. Heavy commercialization of consumer products and tough competition have resulted in the use of many cheap (but not necessarily safe) chemicals in many businesses and this is what makes some products harmful to our health and environment. Poor monitoring and lack of effective regulations make the situation worse. Excessive use of anything is bad, if anyone is eating a lot of processed food it is going to affect their health today or tomorrow, similarly, too much sugar or oil is bad. Once we understand this simple rule then I think it will be easy for everyone to strike a balance in their life. We are surrounded by chemicals and we are made from chemicals, so technically it's not even possible to live in a chemical-free environment but we can try to create a safe and healthy environment by eliminating or regulating use of harmful chemicals.

Rather than trying to misguide people by claiming chemical-free products companies should try to educate their customers about their products. They should try to give as much information as possible about the contents of their product. The effects of many commonly used chemicals on humans should be studied and published regularly for everyone to read. There is no harm in labeling GMO products, let people decide what they want to buy. This will help people to decide if that product is suitable for them or not, this will work in the same way as doctors decide if certain medicine is suitable for a particular patient or not. Consumers should have access to all facts related to the product and then base their decision on those facts rather than believing some myths or misguiding advertisements. It's impossible to live in a chemical-free world but with proper chemical balance, we can make our planet a safe and beautiful place for all.

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. BPA Among Toxic Chemicals Driving Up Health Care Costs, Experts Say
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

3. How did Vioxx debacle happen?

Kanyadan or giving daughter away, example of gender bias or a tradition?

There is a tradition, custom, or ritual of giving away the bride in Christian weddings, where the father walks the bride to the groom, so it's like a transfer of a daughter from a father to make her the wife of a husband. A similar ritual in Hindu marriages is Kanyadan (Kanya = daughter or girl, dan = donation, so literally it means donation of one's daughter). Both are symbolic rituals where the father gives away his daughter to a man to whom she is getting married. I have seen this ritual happening in all marriages that I attended. Such rituals and their significance are highlighted in many movies and books. The scenes about these rituals are often very emotional. Very few feel there is anything wrong with it (or there is any gender bias in these rituals). Even during my marriage, I witnessed this ritual. My father-in-law and mother-in-law together did this ritual, donating their daughter to me, telling me symbolically that this (girl) was in our possession till today and from today it's your property (or responsibility), and as a husband, I need to take care of her. There is nothing overtly offensive or objectionable in this entire process, after all, this is just a symbolic ritual, part of our culture and tradition, going on for centuries (like Baptism, Mundan (shaving off head), thread ceremony, etc.). We are supposed to respect and follow our traditions. After carefully looking at this process I disagree with this tradition. One of my friends said to me after the marriage of his daughter that while performing all those rituals as a father he felt that his daughter was now going away from him and he was giving away his daughter. It seems every ritual reminded him that now she belongs to some other family. This raised the question in my mind, why didn't my dad feel the same or would my friend feel the same during his son's marriage? The answer is No. After all, there is no ceremony called "giving away the groom" or "Putradan" (Putra = son) during marriage.

As I said the ceremony itself is very emotional and is performed at a very important junction of life. Marriage is a very important and emotional event for all involved in it and no one likes to question the rituals of marriage to avoid spoiling the mood and atmosphere of the function. I can understand this hesitation, I never objected to it as long as I was not aware of the gender discrimination aspect of this ritual, and even after becoming aware of this aspect, I never objected to this ceremony during any marriage for the same reason (not to cause any disturbance). But I wonder how come as a society we never object to such rituals. How do we never see anything wrong with practicing them? Is it just because they are part of something emotional and romantic event like marriage? Or as a society, we are still fine with gender discriminatory rituals like this which indirectly give secondary status to females?

Some traditions like this look harmless but they have a deep impact on the thinking and psyche of people. This is how husbands start thinking that wives are their property, no one tells them this, they just assume this from whatever is happening around them. We all become a part of this patriarchal system without even knowing it. That is why I feel we need to question any gender-discriminatory ritual, custom, or tradition like this. If these things are really needed, they must be modified to remove any gender discrimination. I have no idea what will happen during the marriage of my daughter, I will stand for my beliefs and will do what I believe is right. But at the same time, I don't force my ideas on anyone, she will be free to choose what path she likes. I can always register my protest and opposition but I also know that change will be slow and will require a lot of persistent effort. I know that I can't change things overnight but that doesn't mean I stop trying. Another reason people give me for not opposing such rituals is that they don't want to hurt their parents or elders by opposing or questioning these traditions and rituals. They claim that as their parents are so touchy or emotional about these rituals they do these things just to make them happy. Not wanting to hurt the sentiments of parents is a very noble thought, I don't think anyone willingly wants to hurt their parents, this is always the last option, but if we don't challenge discrimination within our own family we have no right to challenge it when others do the same thing. One needs to take a stand for what they believe is right. Sometimes it's not possible to bring the desired change without hurting someone's feelings. Many want to see the change but they do not want to start from their own family. They want the change but don't want the struggle associated with it. It's like they want to save their country from the enemy but do not want their kids to fight in a war, someone else's kid should do it because the life of their own kids is too precious to waste. Similarly, their parents are too sensitive to hurt their feelings, therefore, others should hurt their parents to bring change. This is not how social reforms happen, this is hypocrisy. I believe in Gandhi's sentence "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." Whoever understands the meaning of this sentence will relate to this post, for all others, it might sound offensive, anti-tradition, or anti-religion.

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. Giving Away the Bride: Traditions and Alternatives
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanyadan
3.  Gaudaan... Vastradaan... Annadaan... Bhoodaan... Kanyadaan?

Follow your dream

The title of this blog is a very lovely line to read, I don't know who said it, but we all must have come across it many times. We especially hear it during motivational talks or can find it in any motivational material. No doubt its meaning is very beautiful and it's one of the very inspiring quotes. But how easy it is to practice this thing in real life? How many people are lucky to have just one dream in their life that they can chase? What to do if one has more than one dream, how can one follow or chase all of them? There are many questions like this and this is my attempt to find some practical answers for some of these questions and also try to explain what I take from this quote. This is by no means my recommendation for others but just my point of view about following one's dreams, everyone needs to derive their own meanings from these types of lines.

At least in my case, my dreams kept on changing many times in my life till now. During various phases of my childhood and teenage, I wanted to become someone based on who influenced me during that phase of my life. I didn't even consciously choose my current career path, actually, this was not possible at least for me for various reasons. I never had the luxury of choosing what I wanted to study, my marksheet decided it for me. I am sure very few at that time or even today do this in India (choose a career path of their own interest). There can be various reasons for this like market demand and scope for that particular field, fierce competition, lack of awareness or options, and parent's pressure and expectations. I just walked in the direction in which life took me, gave my best possible efforts, expected good results, and landed where I am today. I have no major regrets for that and I am very happy with my overall journey. So far it has been an exciting and very rewarding experience for me. Eventually, I started liking the field that I chose and today I love it (chemistry, drug discovery), but honestly, it was not my dream or conscious choice to work in this field. I am sure many like me must have traveled a similar path in their life as far as their career choice is concerned. Now I dream of discovering a drug that can cure some major illness, want to work towards making people understand the usefulness and limitations of drugs, want to explain to them how and why drugs work or fail and what they can do to remain healthy. But honestly, none of these was my passion or dream when I entered this field as I had no clue about any of these things at that time.

Follow or chase your dream is easy advice to offer but can be very confusing to follow. No doubt, it sounds very romantic and inspirational and can motivate many people to pursue their own interests. This advice helped me many times in my life and this blog itself is the result of my dream to share my thoughts with others on a larger platform. But sometimes situations or our own limitations stop us from doing what we want to do, then depending on the situation it's better to take a pause and think about our next step and if required keep our dream on hold (but this doesn't mean to forget or to squash or kill it completely). This detour may help us to get to the situation where we can give it a try to bring it into reality. This is a practical way of pursuing our passions without getting too much in trouble because very few of us have the courage to put it all on the line to chase our passion. Many times things done purely with emotional instincts without much serious thinking may not produce the desired result. By this, I don't mean emotions are not important, but we need to strike a proper balance. It's also true that people learn from mistakes so one needs to make mistakes first to learn from them, at the same time, we can learn from others' mistakes also. We should not be scared to take risks or make mistakes for things we really care about and really want. After all, we live only once and we need to make the most out of it.

I chase my dreams as much as possible, and I take some calculated risks. So far this approach has suited me and produced the desired results for me. I see some people take enormous risks to chase their dreams, I admire them and respect them but I am not one of them (but you never know). I hope everyone finds their dream and figures out their own way to chase them because dreams are important, they give us new aims and new goals, give us a reason to wake up and work hard and we all need at least one such reason.

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

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

Difference of attitude in science and religion

The tussle between science and religion is not new, this is an old fight that is still going on. Even after so many years of conflict on so many different levels, both fields still exist and are very popular among the masses. The debate becomes very intense when someone questions the existence of God because the concept of God is one of the basic elements of all organized religions. They all believe that their god or gods are the creator as well as the controller of this universe and there are some books that the god delivered through authorized agents to dictate his message (also known as holy books).

 

Now is this debate about science and religion any useful? Will it lead to any conclusion, if yes, what and when? Most of the discussions related to this topic often turn into arguments where both sides try to convince each other that the other party is wrong rather than understanding each other. This doesn't produce the desired result for both the parties involved in the discussion. For me, the question about science or religion is a simple question of personal need. Many people still need religion in their lives, they are very much dependent on it, they feel their existence depends on it, and they are scared of questioning their own religion. If someone else does it, it makes them angry and worried, they become either defensive or offensive while defending their own religion. Rarely do people manage to stay neutral on this subject. No one should object to anyone following any religion as long as they keep it a private affair. Religion is a deeply personal thing, just like your underwear or your genitals, there is no need to publicly share such information. At the same time, many people don't need religion anymore, they all have moved on, and this is their personal thing. People who don't find religion of any use question it and challenge it whenever they witness it in the public domain. That's why I mentioned religion being a private affair, as long as it remains private I don't think anyone would be bothered by it. Sometimes while arguing against religion people become too aggressive which complicates the situation, it is better to show some patience while questioning these age-old personal beliefs. People who challenge or question religion are increasing day by day because of this the argument is also getting more intense. In the past, it was easy to silence the challengers but nowadays they also have fundamental wights, and this has changed everything.

So what is the major difference between science and religion? It's the attitude to evaluate things before accepting or rejecting them, this attitude is different for these two fields. Let's consider one hypothetical scenario, consider two groups of people (or societies) totally disconnected from each other but simultaneously existing (like life on two different planets). Imagine one following only science and another only religion (doesn't matter which religion, one can assume whatever religion they like). Now imagine that both of them discover something like fire for the first time. Initially, both groups will be amazed by the beauty of fire, at the same time astonished and scared by the destructive power associated with it. The religious group will consider it as a creation of their creator because some knowledgeable person said that everything is created by that creator. They may start worshiping it and consider it a divine creature. They may preserve the original source of fire as a divine fine from which everyone borrows the light to light their own fire. If someone from somewhere came with a lamp to this community, they may feel threatened by the existence of another source of fire that has not originated from their divine source. They may blame this lamp carrier as a blasphemous guy who is challenging their creator by creating the thing that they believe only their creator has the power to create. However, a few people may get attracted to the new flame and start following that new lamp guy. Now, another group that is following a different fire source as a divine source is born. Both groups hate each other because each thinks that the other group is totally insane and the rest is the history of organized religion which we all know.

Another group also goes through the same emotions in the beginning after discovering the fire (surprise, amazement, fear, etc.), but they were curious about how this fire was formed, and how can it be reproduced to be used for their own good. The fire was not sacred to them, they studied its properties and discovered that everyone could make their own fire. This opened up many more avenues for them where they could use this fire for their own good in many ways. They made many instruments and machines that could use the power of fire. Here also a new person with knowledge of different energy sources like microwave radiations arrived from somewhere. This source worked better than the fire, everyone was happy to see the new invention, and they all welcomed the new idea, some even thought of collaborating with that person to see if two ideas could be combined to form something better. Some challenged both these things and proposed something new, their viewpoint was also given due consideration. Experiments were performed to check the validity of each claim. This resulted in the formation of many more new branches which attracted many people to discover many new things. But none of this created any rift, hatred, or fight but rather increased debates, and discussions. This is a very simplified example that I chose to illustrate two different approaches, one purely religious approach, and one purely scientific approach. 

So according to me both groups react differently to similar incidents and that's the major difference between these two areas. Religion demands obedience whereas science demands systematic study. Their attitude towards looking at things is totally different. Now it's up to an individual to decide which approach (or combinations of approach) they prefer. I personally choose science because for me it sounds very logical and rational, whereas religion has become too rigid and dictatorial, everyone is free to choose what they like.

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

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

Why I decided to support AAP?

Last month results of the assembly elections in five states in India were declared, and most results were as expected except for the result of India's national capital New Delhi, A rookie party AAP came second. Surprisingly, it won 28 seats, only 8 short of getting an absolute majority in a 70-member assembly. Their phenomenal success surprised many, including me. I expected some impact from AAP, but unexpectedly they created a huge impact, so huge that now there is a government by AAP managing the administration of Delhi. During that election I did one thing that I never do during any election, I openly supported AAP. I endorsed this party openly and even campaigned for them via phone calls to Delhi voters. This was the first time I campaigned for any political party directly. I voted many times during various elections (state, national, municipal) in India, I voted for different parties in different elections. I am not a supporter or member of any single political party, my choice was based on the situation and need of that time. During local elections, I voted for the Shivsena candidate even though I didn't agree with many of their policies or their ideology. I voted for them just because their local candidate was really helpful and supportive of our entire neighborhood. Likewise, I chose different parties in different elections (state or national). I was impressed by the honesty and youthfulness of Rajiv when he entered politics, VP Singh's anti-corruption drive attracted me, Manmohan Singh's economic policies after 1991 created a lot of change and hope, and Vajpayee's honesty and sincerity impressed me, but I also didn't like or disagreed with many things related to the governments headed by each of these leaders. I had really high hopes for Manmohan Singh as PM of India, not every time I was right or my expectations were fulfilled but I was never (and still I am not) a fan of any one political leader or party. I support a good candidate or policy, it doesn't matter from which party they come. There are some basic principles on which I will never compromise but apart from them, governance is the key issue that I consider while voting. So, why did I decide to support AAP this time? What made me to change my stand of not supporting any party openly, why I didn't keep my political inclination a private affair this time?

During every election campaign, all parties promise so many things that they never even try to fulfill. They try to field winnable candidates, and they even field candidates with very questionable backgrounds just because they have the power and capacity to fight and win elections. Every major political (state or national) party does these things there are very no exceptions to this. From the beginning, AAP was different than all of them. First, they declared their all funding sources and amounts, and everything was available online for anyone to check. To date, no other political party in India has done this. It seems they have too much to hide, AAP was the first to do it. AAP was also the first party to disqualify their candidate from their party when they found some corruption charges against that candidate. They did this even after the deadline of withdrawing nominations expired. This was again a unique step. With actions like these, they showed their uniqueness and transparency from the beginning. All these things were enough for me to believe in their sincerity. I don't agree with some of their populist policies, and I am even not sure if they will live up to all expectations, but at least they are trying sincerely and that's the main reason I support them. I am also not expecting any overnight change, it will be a very long and difficult battle with many ups and downs. In the past many parties that came out of some movement and claimed to work to deliver social justice surrendered to the current political system and became an integral part of it once they got power. They didn't even try to change the system but became part of the system. Now they all are busy navigating their way to the top using the same old techniques and methods. AAP didn't do this, at least not yet, and this is what made me support them.

This was the first time I felt that any political party in India was not playing politics of caste and religion during the election., This was the first time that some party talked about overall system reforms not just an empty promise of good governance. As Amir Khan said in one of his interviews this was for the first time when some party promised not to offer a good rule but to act as people's representative and execute what people want. This was the first time that any party did a referendum to ask people whether they should form a government with the outside support of the party against which they fought the election. This party seems to care what people like me think, they seem to listen to our demands. They didn't go and settle in VIP culture after getting elected. They look very accessible and approachable. For the first time people seem to have the power to challenge the government, ask questions, demand action and pull it down if they don't like their work. For the first time, any CM has to change his official residence because many people disapprove of his choice. Many see this incident as a weakness and lack of leadership for me it was walking the talk (their promise that people are in charge). For the first time, ministers declined the security cover (however personally I feel this is unnecessary). For the first time, ministers won't travel in cars with red beacons. Some politicians practiced many of these things individually but for the first time, any political party included these things in their rule book and followed it. For me these things are enough to show that currently this party is different than many others out there and as long as they remain different, and don't deviate from their path I will support them. The day they deviate from their path, engage in the same old tactics, or become corrupt I will be the first to criticize and oppose them because my support is not blind and unconditional. I am not a devotee but just a supporter who is with them to build a great and prosperous nation.

I am waiting for the day when all other parties will become totally transparent in their activities and funding, field clean candidates, try to fulfill their election promises, and if the presence of AAP forces them to do this then I think this will be the greatest contribution by AAP to Indian politics. If this happens then uniqueness of AAP will diminish and every other party will become like AAP, and there will be competition to provide honest and noncorrupt governance to people and that will be a true democracy. I am waiting for that day. I hope AAP stays on its path till then if it deviates or changes its direction drastically it will lose the support of me and many people like me, this might happen as nothing is guaranteed but as always I am optimistic.

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://www.aamaadmiparty.org/

2. A cowardly act- The Hindu
3. Assembly Elections 2013-TOI
4. दिल्ली: बदले-बदले से 'सरकार' नज़र आते हैं

Motherhood - a personal choice of any women

The recent judgment about premarital sex by a court in Delhi has sparked some debate about the right of adults to choose their sexual partners. In India, there is still a very strong connection between marriage and parenthood, especially motherhood. Actually, I am a little surprised by the court commenting on the morality aspect of the act rather than the legal aspect. I don't understand why any court cares about what any religion says about anything? How things mentioned in any religion or religious texts are relevant legally? We also need to understand the effect of these types of judgments on our society. These types of judgments increase the bias against the people who don't follow these so-called moral norms. One of the issues directly related to this judgment is the issue of motherhood of unmarried adult women. This is a big NO in many societies (including India). People look down on unmarried pregnant women. They have to face a lot of humiliation, their character is questioned and even their own family might disown them because of the stigma and shame associated with premarriage pregnancies. It is difficult for women to survive with the label of "unwed mother" in most conservative societies. So the question is, do adult and independent women have the right to decide when and how they want to become mothers (or pregnant) or society should decide it? Maybe this question is irrelevant or unnecessary for many but this is very important for many women who want to bear children but are not interested in marriage. 

Many independent, working women sometimes find it really hard to find a suitable life partner, who can really understand and support them. This is all because independent and opinionated women are a recent phenomenon and not all men are comfortable with them. Men want to date outgoing, smart, and so-called modern women but ultimately they expect their wives to remain within their control. It seems our society is still not ready for independent women who can decide about everything related to their lives. Even in today's world, no organized religion gives fair and equal treatment to women. This may be because all religions are quite old and the product of a patriarchal society. All religions are heavily biased against women and obviously, therefore, we cannot use any standards used by all these religions related to women and their rights, at least I expect honorable courts to be cognizant of this. These types of judgments help to make already existing prejudice against women more strong, they even legitimize it, that's why we need to question and challenge them. 

Motherhood should be a personal choice of any adult, independent woman. Every child should be a legal and legitimate child irrespective of the marital status of their parents. Actually, any adult should have the right to decide about major things related to their own body and life. Marriage, choice of partner, and motherhood are part of a woman's personal decisions and she should have total control over these things. People around her can help whenever she needs or asks for any help and can assist her to make proper decisions but she should have the final say. I wonder how come any person with a rational mind and common sense can oppose this? Why there is such a strong desire and desperate need to control women and their bodies? Why some people are so scared of totally independent women? Women are almost 50% of our workforce, and making them independent and strong is going to help us build a strong and vibrant society. It's better to have a society that is equally sensitive towards the needs and concerns of every section. I believe everyone would love to live in this type of society. Motherhood is a personal choice of any woman, it is her personal choice and it should remain personal. 

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. Premarital sex 'immoral', no religion permits it: Court
2. http://www.singlemothersbychoice.org/

The curious case of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose

I don't need to give any introduction to Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, at least in India almost everyone knows him. We studied his heroics in history books in our schools, and some of us also read about his tussle with Mahatma Gandhi when Bose became president of the Indian National Congress. He took a different path of armed freedom struggle when the rift between him and Gandhi widened because it was difficult for him to remain in Congress and pursue his agenda. Stories of his journey outside India and his struggle to obtain support from other countries for India's freedom struggle are very interesting and the story of his life is the subject of many books and some movies.

Many people think India would have performed better under his leadership instead of Nehru's or Gandhi's. They all also feel armed struggle (even if it didn't produce any desired results) was a better approach than Gandhi's nonviolent movement. Many of them ridicule Gandhi for his non-violent approach and think that he was weak and pro-Muslim compared to other leaders like Bose and Sardar Patel. All these assumptions are very biased, because Patel and Bose were leaders from the same political party (Indian National Congress) to which Gandhi belonged, and they always respected Gandhi. Patel was with Gandhi till Gandhi was murdered by a Hindu fanatic terrorist. Having a difference of opinion is not a bad thing at all, and both these leaders didn't criticize Gandhi or Congress in their lifetime but their supporters or people who want to use their name for political gains propagate these things about them.

I find Netaji's case unique because he was the only leader from India who tried to get military help from other countries to fight against the British. He traveled to countries like Germany and Japan (two very strong enemies of Britain during World War II) to get their direct or indirect military support. He even did not hesitate to ask for help from a leader like Hitler. I have no idea whether he knew at that time about Hitler's attitude towards Jews or not, but for him, Japan's aggressive attitude towards some countries in Asia or Hitler's attitude towards Jews was not a deterrent for asking for their help. I wonder whether Netaji Bose's supporters are fine with this aspect of his personality. I am asking this because many other leaders like Gandhi and Nehru are criticized for many things like their so-called pro-minority attitude, India's partition, or not saving a few freedom fighters from capital punishments, but I don't see any criticism directed towards Bose for asking help from these countries with very barbaric attitude towards their own people and neighbors during the World War II.

It seems Bose used very simple logic, the enemy's enemy is a friend. He never bothered what the enemy was doing or what were ethical and moral implications of taking help from countries with questionable human rights records. There is no doubt about his good intentions behind this, he was very passionate about winning freedom for his motherland, and it seems for him the end justified the means he wanted to use. Unfortunately, he died untimely death before one can see the final results of his efforts but I always feel curious about the scenario of what could have been the result if allied forces had demanded his trial after World War II because he sided with Hitler and others. How could have he defended himself? Actually, these all are hypothetical questions and it's very difficult to find answers, and answers will vary from person to person. These are the things that make me curious about Netaji Bose's life.   

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/Subhas_Chandra_Bose

Lean In - very inspiring and thought provoking book

Recently I finished reading the book "Lean In" by Sheryl Sandberg. It was a very refreshing and learning experience for me. I liked the book because it was an honest perspective of a very successful woman about the challenges she faced and difficulties she experienced from every quarter of her life like family, culture, social taboos, and traditions. Without any hesitation, I recommend this book to everyone, especially to those who are interested in knowing about the tremendous progress women have achieved and also about their continuous struggle towards equal and fair treatment in our society. 

One thought that I liked the most from the book is her point that we need to respect the choices of people. We need to respect the choices of women who choose (out of their own will and desire) to stay at home, look after their family, and make this their primary job as well as women who prefer (again out of their own will and choice) to go out, pursue a career in any field they want and become successful in it.

"We all want the same thing: to feel comfortable with our choices and to feel validated by those around us. So let’s start by validating one another. Mothers who work outside the home should regard mothers who work inside the home as real workers. And mothers who work inside the home should be equally respectful of those choosing another option."

At the same time choices of men who choose to do any of above mentioned things should also be respected. We need to change heavily stereotyped gender roles, redefine them, and make the choice of any job a matter of personal choice, not a gender choice.

"The gender stereotypes introduced in childhood are reinforced throughout our lives and become self-fulfilling prophesies. Most leadership positions are held by men, so women don’t expect to achieve them, and that becomes one of the reasons they don't."

As this book is about her personal experiences in day-to-day life, it sounds very practical and logical. The problems and possible solutions mentioned in the book sound very practical as they are based on real-life experiences, it doesn't sound like some manifesto or too preachy this is a big plus for this book.

She also writes about the fears that women face.  
"Fear is at the root of so many of the barriers that women face. Fear of not being liked. Fear of making the wrong choice. Fear of drawing negative attention. Fear of overreaching. Fear of being judged. Fear of failure. And the holy trinity of fear: the fear of being a bad mother/wife/daughter." she also goes on to say "for women, “self-doubt becomes a form of self-defense. In order to protect ourselves from being disliked, we question our abilities and downplay our achievement".

I also like when she questions society's attitude towards women, she writes, "It’s up to us to end the self-fulfilling belief that 'women can't do this, women can't do that.' Throwing up our hands and saying 'It can't be done' ensures that it will never be done." 

Along with society's attitude women's attitude to themselves matters a lot and is going to play a key role in determining their role in future society. She also writes about women's attitudes towards other women, often this is used to show that women are real enemies of other women. She offers a very candid explanation for this where she emphasizes that women can be both victims and perpetrators of gender bias.
"Women’s negative views of female coworkers are often seen as an objective assessment—more credible than the views of men. When women voice gender bias, they legitimize it. Obviously, a negative attitude cannot be gender based if it comes from another woman, right? Wrong. Often without realizing it, women internalize disparaging cultural attitudes and then echo them back. As a result, women are not just victims of sexism, they can also be perpetrators." 

She also comments about gender stereotypes and questions many indirect gestures that condition our minds to stereotype both genders.
"Other cultural messages are more blatant. Gymboree once sold onesies proclaiming “Smart like Daddy” for boys and “Pretty like Mommy” for girls."

The book contains many situations and examples that are really interesting and thought-provoking. She also shares many successful examples from her friends' lives where couples break traditional norms and share responsibilities or even switch traditional roles to live a peaceful, happy, and successful life.

I would like to end this post with a very optimistic quote from the book, "The hard work of generations before us means that equality is within our reach. We can close the leadership gap now. Each individual’s success can make success a little easier for the next. We can do this—for ourselves, for one another, for our daughters, and for our sons. If we push hard now, this next wave can be the last wave. In the future, there will be no female leaders. There will just be leaders."

I wish everyone works hard to make a society a reality where we have equal opportunity for everyone irrespective of their gender or any other characteristic that is immaterial for that opportunity. This will be the first step towards the creation of a discrimination-free world.

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

Links:
1. Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead
2. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B009LMTDL0/ref=r_soa_w_d
3. Sheryl Sandberg: So we leaned in ... now what?