Religion and terrorism

The issue of terrorism is not new to humans, our society has dealt with various forms of terrorism since its existence. The most ugly form of terrorism is violence inflicted on innocent people, but it can also manifest itself in so many other forms which are equally detrimental. There is no doubt that any form of terrorism is harmful to any society or civilization. The arms and weapons industry is a huge player in this area and it has a tremendous influence on how world politics works, the revenue of this industry depends on feelings of fear and there is nothing better than terrorism to infuse this feeling among people of any country. Any society suffering from any form of terrorism faces so many problems, first of all day-to-day lives of its citizens are severely affected in many ways, many people live in constant fear of attack and it creates feelings of insecurity and distrust among its people. All these things are not signs of a healthy society, they affect its growth, stability, and productivity. So, it is always better to address problems related to any sort of terrorism on a priority basis. Ignoring such problems doesn't make them go away on its own, rather they can give rise to so many other problems which can be very damaging to any country in the long run.

Many countries have been battling with the issue of terrorism in various forms for years. As an Indian, I know very well how it feels to live in a country that is at the receiving end of terrorist attacks regularly. The situation in India is not as bad as many other places in the world, but still one can feel the heat of terrorism. People try to label these acts of terrorism in so many ways, many times these terrorist groups label themselves, they choose to attach themselves to certain regions, ethnic groups, or religions to create an impression that they are fighting for that particular group's interests. In the last few years, there has been increasing use of terms like "Islamic terrorism" all over the world or "saffron terrorism" in India. These terms try to link some particular religion with terrorist activities happening in that region. The clear intention behind this is to indicate that that particular religion is used as an instrument to incite people to perform acts of terrorism. So, the question we need to ask is, is there any relationship between religion and terrorism? Especially, when almost everyone claims that all religions teach peace, why there is so much hatred and violence in the name of religion? Why are people willing to kill each other in the name of religion? Is this a fault of those people or does religion give them this opportunity by being ambiguous about the use of violence? Is it possible that in reality, almost all religions teach both, hate and love, peace and violence? When such extreme options are available people conveniently use the one that suits them to justify their actions of love as well as hatred and violence. I know some of these questions might make some people feel very uncomfortable and might even offend some devoted followers of religion, but nevertheless, we need to ask them. It seems people very easily get offended nowadays, I was surprised to hear that speakers need to give a "trigger warning" before saying anything that might be contrary to some popular belief or against some widely accepted ideology. But we need to ask these questions so that people can understand about this very complicated and sensitive issue. Religion or aspects are religion are regularly exploited to propagate terrorism, therefore, we all should be very careful in defending everything associated with religion, especially, the aspects that are used to trigger violent reactions should be recognized and appropriately handled on intellectual and social levels.

Most religions have gone through various forms of struggles to establish themselves in this world, one can easily read the history of different religions on the internet. Some religions originated in a very hostile environment and had to fight bloody wars to defeat their enemies and establish their presence. This might be the reason most of them include recommendations to fight wars against their opponents (enemies) until the opponents are wiped out from that region. These recommendations might have been necessary at that time as that was the time of the "might is right" era, but such conditions don't exist anymore. Most of us now understand that all these religions are like personal choices and different people can have different religions as it suits their requirements and needs. Most of us also understand that there is no imminent threat to any religion in most countries. Most civilized countries offer their residents the right to practice any religion of their choice. If that particular religion is relevant and useful it will survive, and if not, it will fade away with time. This is a simple rule of the market, if the product is popular and sellable it will stay in the market or something else will replace it. The point I am trying to make is, that any violence propagated in the name of some religion is under attack or in extreme danger is a false narrative and a lame attempt to justify the hatred and violence.

Also, every religion needs to own things happening in its name, it doesn't matter if they are good, bad, or ugly, they need to take responsibility for all these things. The propagators and followers of any religion can not be selective in only owning good things about their own religion. They just can't only talk about good things about their religion and purposely ignore all the bad and ugly things. This is called hypocrisy, where someone tries to project only one side conveniently ignoring other sides as they don't suit their purpose. At least, violence in the name of religion must be confronted in the strongest possible terms by people of that religion to demonstrate that they don't support any violence in the name of their religion. Historically, every major religion has been used to commit autocracies on nonbelievers at some point in time. Some sort of discrimination was practiced or still is in practice against nonbelievers of all religions. Rather than accepting these things, various explanations are offered to justify these acts either directly or indirectly. This is one of the reasons why most people don't hesitate to justify violence in the name of their own religion as almost everyone other religion has done it. As others have done it, so, why not us, this is the simple but ridiculous logic they follow. Many of these heinous acts get some sort of legitimacy if they are committed in the name of some religion. 

It seems religion can generate extremely good or extremely bad emotions in people. Some groups use both these extremes to serve the purpose of their organizations. But the problem is most followers are really prompt and attentive in praising good deeds by people from their own religion, but at the same time, they are hesitant or completely reluctant to accept many bad acts committed in the name of their religion. People need to own these bad acts and criticize them in the strongest terms if they care about their religion. Strong criticism from outside of that religion doesn't act as a deterrent, it helps to radicalize some of its supporters and it helps the purpose of groups who want to misuse that religion. Because no religion takes criticism from outsiders very kindly, because it is assumed that outsiders will criticize mainly out of their hatred or jealousy. This is why strong criticism must come from within the same religion, and then only any positive reform is possible. Until these things start happening on a large scale, religion will be vulnerable to misuse by some bigots from their own fraternity. Today it is Islam, tomorrow it might be something else, or even some new religion. Our social and political class needs to show courage and commitment to address this problem without getting into a trap of not hurting anyone's sentiment type of mentality. Please remember that as most saints belong to some religion, most terrorists claim to belong to some religion and they make their motive clear. As religion owns these saints, they need to own these terrorists and take up the challenge of refuting their narrative assertively, a meek denial or refusal won't work. It is the job of everyone to reject these violent ideas no matter which holy book or religion is used to justify them. Unless we all unite to fight this evil, we will continue to suffer because of it, so, let's unite and fight this evil of terrorism together.

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

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

Mother Teresa's miraculous path to sainthood

When I read the news that Mother Teresa is on her way to becoming a catholic saint, I couldn't decide whether to feel happy or sad. I am a great admirer of her humanitarian work which she did in India, and her work speaks for itself about her greatness, so I wonder why she needed these random incidents under the name of miracles to get the title of "saint." Wasn't her social work enough to call her a saint? But it seems a minimum of two miracles are required to be declared as a catholic saint, I don't know on what basis they came up with the number 2, but that seems to be the criteria. So, even after all that great work that she did most of her life, it was not good enough to qualify her to become a saint, and now finally she got that dearly required second miracle recently which cleared her path to become a catholic saint. Seriously? Mr. Pope, do you need such trivial miracles which are just random incidents that happen every day somewhere in the world to declare someone like her a saint? I am really stunned to know that church authorities need some sort of nonreproducible random incidents (so-called miracles) to declare someone like Mother Teresa a saint. Can they please explain why her exemplary work is not enough for that? I feel astonished by all this because I come from the part of India which has produced many sants (equivalent of saint in Marathi) like, Dyaneshwar, Tukaram, Eknath, Namdev and many others. Actually, to be fair to Vatican people there are some miracles attributed to some of these people which according to me are clearly works of fiction. Miracles are attributed just to emphasize their greatness to some people who may not be able to understand the real importance of their work. That is why according to me all of them are not saints because they did some miracles, but for their scholarly work in the field of devotional literature, for carrying out social reforms, or for their humanitarian work. Miracles don't exist and no one can perform them. Maybe many centuries back people needed some fictional stories about different miracles to understand the greatness of someone, but in today's world why do we need such things which we know are some random incidents. Today how believable is the news that someone with multiple brain tumors prayed for her and got cured? Now for a moment let's assume that this is really true, then is it recommended for all those who are undergoing medical treatments for similar diseases to stop those treatments and start praying to her or someone else to get cured. If not, why not? Actually, people do pray whenever they are in deep trouble or when they see no other option, but they do this for their mental satisfaction there is not much logic behind this as there is no data to prove that prayers are as effective as medicines. But people do have the habit of praying and many also feel that their prayers produce desired results, but there is no proof for these things. Such a psychological boost can work in some cases, in medical science, there is a phenomenon called the "placebo effect" which is a similar scenario, but it is not a miracle, there is a rationale and logical explanation behind it.

I wrote one blog post about her many months back, even though I am an admirer of her work, her intentions and motives behind her work are questioned by some people. These questions or objections might sound unreasonable to her admirers like me, but they are there and one needs to acknowledge their existence. But my main objection to this miracle thing is what is the real purpose behind attributing such lame miracles to anyone? Don't they know that such things spread superstition among people? Especially those who are very vulnerable to believe in such things, for such people anything coming from their religious authority is absolute truth and this is dangerous. Superstition is already a huge problem in many societies and if powerful religious institutions like the catholic church are instrumental in spreading these things so blatantly, then I wonder how a society can dream of getting rid of these social evils? I absolutely have no problem with declaring Mother Teresa a saint or God or angel or whatever they want, but I have a strong objection to the so-called miracles attributed to her. This is a very clear case of superstition, just because something happened randomly doesn't mean it is a miracle. Many years back things like lunar eclipses or even rainbows were considered as miracles done by some God, but not anymore. I think it is the responsibility of any responsible and powerful institution not to propagate the culture of falsehood and superstition. This drama of miracle is really not necessary for giving sainthood to a great lady like Mother Teresa, people like her or Baba Amte are great human beings. We can call them saints, gods, or angels just because of their amazing work, they don't need any crutches of miracles to prove their greatness. I hope people understand this and give well-deserved respect to these individuals which they totally deserve because of their superb work, and not based on some stupid miracles.

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. Mother Teresa to become a saint after Pope Francis recognizes 2nd miracle

An open letter to Mr. Arvind Kejriwal

Dear Arvind,

It was really surprising, if not shocking, to see you shouting angry slurs at the BJP and Mr. Modi on national TV and Twitter. I really thought that you learned your lesson from your horrible outburst against Mr. Prashant Bhushan and Mr. Yogendra Yadav, which was revealed immediately after your party's spectacular victory in the Delhi assembly elections. We all can disagree with others or even can have serious differences of opinion on various matters or criticize each other very strongly without being abusive towards each other. I was under the impression that maybe finally after that mistake you learned to control your anger, at least in public. But it seems that lesson is long forgotten and you are back with your "angry young man" avatar that has very little regard for choice of words while expressing his anger. I agree that you have complete freedom to say whatever you want, after all, the right of freedom of expression comes with the right to offend, but I never imagined that you would take it to the extent that it would sound like abuse. Frankly speaking, my love affair with AAP ended long back, immediately after you decided to resign after 45 days of your brief tenure as Delhi CM. I should accept that I was attracted to your political party because of the presence of a wide variety of people from different backgrounds who don't necessarily subscribe to a single ideology. It was an interesting mix and generated some hope in people like me that maybe people with different sets of ideas can also come together and create something unique that can challenge traditional norms of Indian politics. I must also accept that you guys managed to do that, but that phenomenon was very short-lived. I still agree that your party is somewhat different than all other political parties in India, but that difference is very minute and the gap is narrowing day by day. It still is somewhat different, and I hope it remains like that.

Now, coming back to this particular incident, I agree that Mr. Modi or the central NDA government misused power in their hand. I also agree that CBI was in the past and still today is used as a tool to settle political scores or strike political deals, but didn't you already know all this? Didn't you voluntarily sign up for this job and willingly enter the murky arena of Indian politics after knowing all these facts about predatory and dirty tactics used by central governments to intimidate their opposition? Or somehow you believed that these things won't happen with you and your government? Assuming that even if Mr. Modi or the BJP showed their cowardliness and vengeance, why you didn't show your bravery and sensible nature by facing that inquiry or raid like any common citizen of India? Why do you think that your office is so special that CBI needs to get your permission to raid it? DO they do this if they want to raid any common person's home or office? If according to you, Mr. Modi is a coward or a psychopath then who are you? A brave CM who is crying foul just for a single raid conducted on his office? Or is it the case that as a CM of Delhi, you expect to be treated differently than any other citizen of India? I still remember that you and your party as well as most leaders of other political parties saying on multiple occasions that you all are servants of the common people of India. Especially, you and your party claim to be against the VIP culture. But it seems this rhetoric is only true until you guys win the election and get the power, once you are in government then you all become those VIPs, expect some special treatment, and start behaving like a privileged entity who is above the law. I think you know this, but in case you forgot let me remind you that many common people in India go through these ordeals of search, raids, and arrests every day and there is no one to help them. Many of them go through this as a consequence of their criminal acts but believe me, many are put through this for no fault of theirs, but they all go through this, and hope that the system will do justice to them. They believe in the same system of which you are also a part now, even though the system fails them most of the time. They don't ask for any special treatment. What do you have to say now about the VIP culture and everyone should be treated in the same way? I know, that now you or your supporters will argue that then why any other CM's office was not raided or why some other scam was not investigated. I agree that there are often selective investigations and political vendettas in many cases, but I am sure you expected this. People are raising questions about these things and these things should be questioned, but not the way you are doing now. Also, if there are some allegations against one of the officers in your office, then why not investigate him? Why put conditions that first investigate X and Y, and then come to me or my staff? What happened to the claim that we will not tolerate any corruption or shelter any corrupt officer? Was it just a chunavi jumla, a gimmick to win the election, just like your esteemed opponents do in every election? If it was, then at least let people know about it, so they stop thinking that you and your party are any different than others.

If you expected that nothing of this sort would happen to you or that your political opponents wouldn't play any dirty games with you or they would deal with you using kid gloves or that politics would change overnight, then I must say that I am amazed by your naiveness. Similar things have happened in the past and I am sure they will happen in the future also, but it is you who promised to bring the change of culture, but it seems that now you are trying really hard to fit right into that same culture which you opposed as an activist. Your choice of words was not only wrong, but I am sure it was disheartening for many of your supporters to hear these things coming from you. It puts you in the same line of people who called you a traitor, Pakistani agent, bhagoda, naxal, and whatnot. I am sure you must be enjoying their company as you really tried very hard to be part of that group. Those people also used abusive language and displayed a very low level of personal vendetta and what you did is no different. I would not have bothered to write this mail a few months back, but recently I thought your government was back on track as you guys were really doing some good work, initiating discussions about relevant topics like pollution and air quality of Indian cities, but then this happened. It is like going 5 steps forward and 10 steps backward.

I don't want to make my letter too long and too preachy. I am also not here to tell you what to do and what not to do, I am sure you know this better than me. I just raised a few questions and I hope you bother to think about them and introspect a little. Let me end by citing a very relevant example for you, I am sure you know the name of Sachin Tendulkar. This man is considered a great cricketer not just for the number of records he broke or runs he scored but also for his temperament, consistency, sincerity, and on-field behavior. There are equally great players as far as statistics or records are concerned from his era or eras before and after him, many of them are very aggressive not only while playing cricket but also while dealing with other players on the field, and some of them are even known to be extremely abusive during their on-field behavior. Sachin is different from all those because he never engaged in on-field verbal spats, it is not that he was not abused or people never tried to intimidate him or he was not targeted, opponents from all teams tried all sorts of tactics but Sachin answered all that not with his mouth, but with his bat by scoring runs. His performance answered those insults thrown at him, no doubt that he needed to produce very high-quality performance consistently to deal with on-ground sledding, and this is one of the reasons he is considered a great cricketer. I hope this example inspires you to do something different from now onward. Because it is of no use just to claim that you are different, you also need to show that by your behavior.

All the very best and take care.

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

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

Why it is important to understand enigma of American politics - Donald Trump

One of the front runners for the Republican nomination for next year's presidential elections Mr. Donald Trump has been creating a lot of media waves all over the world. Somehow, he manages to grab headlines in print or electronic media because of his statements. Many of his statements have generated very polarized responses with some praising him for calling spade a spade (hinting that he is telling the truth, even though he might sound politically incorrect) and some criticizing him for spreading hatred and negativity about certain sections of society (an outright racist, misogynist, etc.). But to everyone's surprise, so far he managed to stay in the news, and also if polls are to be believed he is still one of the front runners to grab the Republican presidential nomination. Many people are surprised by his high popularity as well as the amount of support his statements receive. He is considered an outsider in politics, but for all Republican primary candidates, he is giving a run for their money. To some, this "outsider" tag might seem like a big drawback, especially, when you are planning to run for the topmost political post in the country, but this guy has managed to turn this to his advantage by diffusing all attacks that question his political inexperience. I am not at all his supporter or for that matter any party supporter, but I have a deep interest in politics and like to study various aspects of it, and there is no doubt that Mr. Trump is the most unusual and interesting candidate in this US presidential race.

I live in Connecticut, which is considered a loyal Democrat state, that's why I was really surprised to hear when an old lady who was a very devoted democrat supporter for many years said that maybe this time she will vote for Mr. Trump if he gets the nomination. It is worthwhile to note that she didn't say that she would vote for some republican candidate, but she specifically mentioned Mr. Trump. I guess the main reason behind this is people's frustration with politicians from both parties, election after election they witnessed every presidential candidate making huge promises during their campaigns, they all promised to bring change, and in the end, nothing much changed on the ground. So, it seems that people are increasingly getting frustrated with the inability of seasoned politicians to deliver on their election promises. They are losing their faith in them, for all those people Mr. Trump is like a breeze of fresh air, someone who may not lie and cheat just to win an election. To boost this confidence, Mr. Trump already declared that he is not going to take any money for his campaign from so-called BIG donors who then try to influence the government. This is a very well-known fact, called lobbying. The donations that these corporations make to various candidates from both major parties is a sort of investment on their part to protect their own interests, and it doesn't matter which candidate wins these corporate houses make sure to keep their goodwill with both major parties. There is nothing illegal or wrong in this practice as it is allowed by law and everything is declared for everyone to see, so one should not blame these corporations for this as the system allows them to do this. They are just using legal ways to protect their business interests. It is the duty of politicians to make sure that they protect people's interests. Mr. Trump's controversial statements about illegal immigrants, Syrian refugees, or Muslim immigrants are very insensitive and controversial, but I think he knows that people will relate to his statements as most politicians won't dare to make such statements as they are offensive. Many seasoned politicians don't want to touch some of these topics because they don't want to get into trouble, they don't want to hurt their vote bank, and because of this attitude, many of them just refuse to accept that these problems even exist. This is where traditional politics fails and gives someone like Trump an opportunity to make their case, these problems and concerns are there and people need some answers. Why can't Democrats explain that if you legalize current illegal immigrants then how it doesn't mean that you are actually encouraging more illegal immigration? Just because people who broke the immigration law are in millions, is it okay to pardon their illegal act? Suppose the government does that today, then what is the guarantee that after 10 or 20 years the country will not be facing a similar situation, and then what to do? Issue another legal pardon and legalize all peaceful illegal immigrants? What is the process followed to make sure that all refugees entering the US need genuine help? The point I am trying to raise here is, that people have many questions like these, and politicians or political parties who are willing to legalize illegal immigrants or want to take more refugees are not able to explain properly why they want to do that. They somehow are not able to explain the logic and rationale behind their decision clearly and assertively. If you dodge a question, you give your opponents a chance to say that you are hiding something, or you don't have any answers to that question. This creates confusion and builds resentment. Any opposition to these issues can not be dismissed just based on partisan politics. This should not be projected as a democrat vs republican battle. Mr. Trump is not even a seasoned republican guy still he is getting so much support, we need to ask, why??

I think one major reason behind Mr. Trump's popularity is that there was an apparent disconnect between republican voters and politicians, and Mr. Trump is trying to bridge that gap. His ability to say some things that any traditional politician won't even dream of saying on a public platform is paying him some dividends. We all know that many times in politics political parties try to make use of the same issues in every election. Actually, many political parties are interested in keeping many issues alive because those issues generate votes for them in every election, I have seen it happening in India for decades, in the US the situation is much better compared to India, but these things happen here also. I guess people think that Mr. Trump can challenge this and change this, whether he will get elected or do it or not, is a different issue, but at least he is projecting himself as a "no-nonsense" person, and many people are buying that. Many of his controversial statements are highly flawed and made with a clear intention of polarizing people, they are inflammatory statements. They are clearly targeted to make use of feelings of uneasiness in people's minds. I guess he is willing to take the risk, and he thinks that rewards are high if it works in his favor. I am sure he also knows that it can backfire on him, but if he is also like the rest of the politicians, then why the heck people should choose him? He wants to set him apart from the rest, and I guess so far his strategy seems to be working. Pressure and obligation to be politically correct all the time has made many politicians very defensive, they hesitate to attack any problem aggressively because of fear that it might disturb their core constituency. Fear of being sidelined or hammered by the press and the public who are just looking for one loose statement to finish someone's political career is very real among all public figures. Mr. Trump seems to be immune to this fear and it seems many people are appreciating this. 

One can agree or disagree with Mr. Trump's statement or even dismiss him as publicity publicity-hungry businessman or call him an insignificant candidate who is not going to make it to the finish line, but there is no doubt that this man has created a lot of waves in the political arena. If it is good or bad only time will tell, but I think people should ponder over the fact that why is he getting so much support? Maybe it will help us understand many issues that are stuck in deadly partisan politics in such a way that it seems they can not be resolved no matter how long both parties try. But there is no doubt that this is a dangerous path to achieve power, this is not a sustainable approach. You can not create a rift in society and then expect peace and unity. A similar thing happened in India last year. Current Indian prime minister Mr. Modi made use of a huge vacuum created by indecisive leadership and the inability of politicians to address some real problems like corruption, black money, poor infrastructure, communal tension, etc. He rose to the charts of the popularity index day by day by making many statements and promises which seasoned politicians in India hesitate to make. He said whatever people wanted to hear, whether it was about taking on Pakistan or China, about black money, the so-called pink revolution, or about dynastic politics. He used all rhetoric and theatrics, never apologized for any of his mistakes, or never minced his words while attacking someone and it all worked in his favor. Voters of India saw a ray of hope in him and gave him an unprecedented mandate, but since coming into power he has been struggling to clear his image as a divisive leader. He is finding it hard to rein in some elements of his own party who totally believe that it's okay to spread hate and make inflammatory statements as such things are validated by their top leader. Almost a year and a half has passed but the current government is still finding it very hard to pass some key reform bills in parliament in spite of having a clear majority as the opposition is just refusing to cooperate. It is easy to win elections by polarizing the society, but then it is not easy to neutralize that polarization when you want to run the country. While filling the vacuum created by indecisive political leadership, Mr. Trump is setting up the same dangerous precedence in the US that Mr. Modi did in India. Their intentions might be good, and they might be sincerely trying to do something good for their country, we should give both these leaders the benefit of the doubt, but then the method they are using has some serious side effects which cannot be ignored. Today he is targeting Muslims, what if tomorrow he says the same thing about Hindus or Africans? What is a guarantee that his supporters won't target other minority immigrants who according to them are taking up American jobs? A polarized and divided society can go in any direction, it is very difficult to predict. Purposely cultivated hatred can manifest in several ways, it is very dangerous to play with this fire. Divide and rule is the well-tested and best strategy if you just want to rule any society without having any concern about its welfare. This trick has been successfully used in the past many times to exploit many regions, but these regions are still struggling with those divisions, they are still grappling with problems like a lack of trust and perpetual communal tension. It is a very tempting strategy as it seems to provide immediate short-term gains, many political parties and leaders still use this in India. Does Mr. Trump want to see a similar situation in the US? We can find faults with other methods and ways used by other politicians or political parties, policies like minority or majority appeasement are also not good, but a clear agenda of divisiveness or hatred is the most dangerous among all. So, I hope people try to understand what's really going on. I hope even Mr. Trump will realize that he doesn't need to make such divisive statements to stay in the limelight or ahead in the polls. After all, no election win should be more important than the unity and prosperity of the nation. Please note one thing here, I am not at all objecting to the right of Mr. Trump to say those things, he has the freedom to say those things and others can criticize him for that as much as they want, I am just trying to discuss the merits and demerits of his divisive approach. If Mr. Trump doesn't change his ways, I hope voters realize that his approach is dangerous for the country and act accordingly. One should not underestimate his candidacy and approach, this has worked in countries like India and I see no reason why it may not work in the US. I hope each one of us understands this and thinks over these things logically, no matter in which country we reside, or which party or person we support.

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

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

Chennai floods and story of unplanned development in Indian cities

The entire world watched the floods in Chennai on various news channels, the international coverage was not as prominent as it should have been but it was somewhere there in every news portal. Even most of the Indian media responded very late to report this natural calamity with the attention and sincerity it deserves. There can be various reasons for this lack of coverage in the Indian media, maybe they thought that useless debate on tolerance and intolerance going on in parliament was more important, or maybe they thought Chennai is not Mumbai or Delhi so not many people will be interested in that coverage, or maybe they had no clue that it was that serious, so we don't know what was the reason but national media was very late to show up on the scene, but finally they did show up. There were reports of severe damage to people's homes and other personal property, day-to-day lives of thousands of people were affected in a way they never imagined. Some scenarios were terrible and beyond imagination. My few relatives live in Chennai, and from them, I came to know how bad was the situation and how people managed to survive mostly by helping each other. In India, the government machinery is either unprepared for such a massive disaster or it gets crushed under the huge demand for help. There were also various stories of common people, celebrities, and rescue workers' heroics, and their brave acts during these moments of crises which managed to save many lives and helped many in distress. No doubt that these stories need to be highlighted, but they should not overshadow the real reasons behind this human-made natural disaster. 

We all saw what happened and how people were fighting to overcome the problems caused by this disaster, but we also need to ask the important question, why this happened, and who is to blame? We all know that we can not control rain, drought, or any other natural calamities like earthquakes or tsunamis, but we can take some preventive or precautionary measures to minimize the damage and reduce casualties. We need to be better prepared for such types of incidents so that they don't create havoc in people's lives. Then, why doesn't any government in India whether it is a state or central make it their priority? To understand why I am saying this please go and visit any growing city in India like Pune, Bengaluru, or any other city, and observe what is going on in the name of development. It is literally unplanned construction on a massive scale, people are building something on each and every vacant land legally or illegally. Not only builders but also common people, and various institutions are occupying each and every available piece of land and constructing something on it, it feels like these cities are on steroids as far as construction is concerned. Land prices are skyrocketing in each and every city, town, or village where even a little bit of wind of development has reached. People are selling and buying land and apartments like stocks in the stock market, prices fluctuate daily, there are land millionaires who became rich just because they had huge ancestral land which is worth more than they ever imagined. These things are good for the economy and people if they happen in a planned way, but there is absolutely no planning in all this, the real estate boom just happened and exploded. There was no pre-planning about how to design and sanction new constructions and no one was even interested in any such planning as the system is deeply corrupt and inefficient. Illegal construction is not a new problem for Indian cities, this has been going on for decades, and the real estate boom has just made it worse. However, the real issue is that no government wants to do anything about it, even after disasters there is no action to correct any mistakes, if at all, they play politics at the cost of suffering people. I lived in one such very crowded neighborhood of Pune for most of my life, so I know firsthand how these neighborhoods come into existence and grow without any legal planning and approval. They are so crowded that in many places even ambulances or firetrucks can't reach if there is any emergency, so, just imagine what might happen in case of flood or earthquake. The amazing part is all these neighborhoods originate and flourish right under the watch of government and elected members of the legislature of every political party, and there are no exceptions to this. These people and corresponding government departments purposely ignore this dangerous situation until it becomes an unmanageable humanitarian problem, there are thousands of colonies like these in each city of India. This is not development, but this is like having a ticking time bomb that is waiting to explode. 

Why so much unplanned development is allowed when they could develop a city with proper planning? Two main reasons come to my mind. The first reason is the pressure of the growing population in cities, people migrate in large numbers to cities in search of better living, migration happens especially from northern states of India to cities like Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore, Pune,, Chennai, and many others where there are better job opportunities for unskilled labor. The second reason is rampant corruption in government offices and political parties that encourage such illegal settlements. Illegal construction is massive in all these cities and the government knows right from the time when it starts. There are colonies where thousands of people live with hundreds of homes, all of them constructed illegally. People already occupied dry lakes, shrunken river beds, hills, and canals, even they covered up drainage lines and built their residence on top of it. Whenever there is a significant amount of rainfall there is no proper drainage for that water to go. It has to flood neighborhoods, enter people's homes, and damage their properties. Does anyone know how to manage this mess? Can we just blame excess rain for this problem? This water has nowhere to go as all its natural paths are blocked by massive construction by this so-called development. We saw this happening in Mumbai, Delhi, and now in Chennai, but did we ever bother to take any steps to correct these mistakes? Did we ask ourselves why this is happening so frequently in major cities? Is nature screwing us up or we are paying the price for screwing up nature? Unless and until we ask these questions we are not going to find any solution to these problems. Next time it might be some different city or state, but the same scenario of destruction and loss of life will be repeated.

Thankfully natural disasters like earthquakes, floods, or hurricanes don't strike us every day or every year, but that doesn't mean we should not be cautious or prepared for them. Because when they strike and we are not prepared, then the loss is catastrophic, and tragedy is humongous. We can not control the occurrence of rain or earthquakes, but we can definitely prepare ourselves to minimize their impact. I hope these floods initiate some discussion about the need for planned development in Indian cities. I hope people and governments don't forget this tragedy and move on without taking any corrective measures. I hope other growing cities learn from this and plan accordingly. If nothing changes, then we all are waiting for another Chennai to happen and I don't think any of us want to witness this again.

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. Actor Siddarth's amazing efforts with his team to carry out relief work in affected areas.
2. आखिर चेन्नई में बारिश से बाढ़ क्यों?

Circus called tolerance and intolerance debate

Nowadays heated discussions are going on in India on the issue of tolerance and intolerance. Every news channel is having some panel discussion to decide whether India is getting more intolerant or not, on social media some people are busy proving that intolerance is on the rise and some are fiercely contesting this claim by abusing them for raising this issue. The issue has become so important that it is being discussed in parliament also! I personally value tolerance a lot and have written a couple of posts related to this topic. One is about why we need a tolerant society and another is about my own experience of intolerance in Indian society. Now let's come back to this topic of debate over the issue of intolerance (or tolerance). If you listen to most of these debates, then any sensible person can easily understand how misplaced these people's expectations are about tolerance and intolerance. Somehow tolerance is equated with complete acceptance, objectionless, and submissive type of behavior, and intolerance is equated with any objection or strong comment or dissent against your own views. So, if I object to anyone's statement, then I am intolerant, if I say anything against any religion or person, then I am intolerant, on the contrary, if I don't react to an abusive statement, then I am tolerant, if I don't express any dissent about anything, then I am tolerant. Basically, either you are with me or against me, there is no middle ground. Also, there is huge confusion about where the "freedom of expression/speech" fits into all this? I don't even know if these people know that there is something called freedom of expression. So, the first question everyone should try to ask is, do we accept that people have freedom of expression or not?

Now let's proceed in step-wise manure as this topic seems to be very complicated. If there is freedom of expression, (with some reasonable restriction like no incitement of violence), then, anyone can say anything as long as it is not an incitement to engage in a violent act. People need to agree on this first, if people have freedom of expression, then they can express their opinion. That opinion can be anything, like some people should leave this country or I don't feel comfortable about the current atmosphere in this country, or whatever. Any Yogi, Sadhvi, minister, writer, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, atheist, actor, or whoever it may be can say whatever they want and no one should challenge their right to say those things as they are not doing anything unconstitutional or illegal by using their basic right of freedom of expression. Making any statement or agreeing or disagreeing with someone doesn't make anyone tolerant or intolerant. It all depends on our actions and behavior towards people who say nasty and offensive things, it depends on how we react to those statements with which we disagree or feel offended. Just look at the reactions from both sides and you will understand what I am talking about and why I call this debate a big circus. I personally have no objection to any Yogi, minister, or actor expressing their opinions, they have the right to do that. I cannot question that right. I may or may not agree with their statement, and I may have very strong objections to those statements, but that person has equal rights to express them just like I have. But it seems people don't understand this simple thing, most of the reactions are like, how dare he or she say this? He or she should be punished or kicked out of the country for saying this or let's boycott them for expressing their opinion. Common, at least first try to understand what that person said, debate and discuss that topic in detail, and then come to any conclusion. But it looks like people are more interested in delivering verdicts of guilty or nonguilty rather than resolving the issues and having any meaningful discussions. The atmosphere is getting so polarized that it seems there is no possibility of any middle ground where people can agree to disagree and move on. Even in parliament, the discussion is pathetic, it is not that I expected it to be any different than whatever is going on in TV studios, but if you are putting some circus then at least make it somewhat entertaining and watchable. The recent protests and this 'award wapasi' movement were actually to protest against the increase of physical violence which is the ultimate form of intolerance. I don't think it has anything to do with the change of government or who is PM or who is president. The government should have taken these protests in the right spirit rather than taking them personally and trying to dismiss them altogether thereby giving them a lot of media coverage. Addressing the concerns of these people might have stopped this issue from becoming a national time pass. I also don't know why people complaining about intolerance want to paint the picture as if today in India you can not say anything against the current government, it seems both sides are only interested in going to any extreme just to prove their point. Tolerance or intolerance shows in our behavior. A tolerant person, society, or country doesn't have to say that they are tolerant or give any proof to prove that, their behavior is enough to prove it. Similarly, an intolerant society or person doesn't have to accept that they are intolerant their behavior is the ultimate proof of who they are. Our actions speak louder than our words, so, I think people should focus on their actions and let those actions speak whether they are tolerant or intolerant. I don't think this shouting at each other is going to bring any desired change, each person should correct their behavior and automatically it will bring change in the country. I hope both sides understand this, otherwise, this issue will become another never-ending topic of Indian politics like secularism and communalism.

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

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

Paris attacks: Are we going to learn any lessons?

I watched with dismay and shock news about the brutal attack on Paris by terrorists. I am not going to bother by mentioning the names of organizations or terrorists who carried out these attacks as they don't deserve any recognition. These violent groups only know how to kill people and spread violence, this is their only motive, they take shelter from some religion or ideology, but their ultimate goal is to spread hatred and violence. Religion indeed has some inherent weaknesses which makes it a very easy and attractive tool for fanatics to attract and misguide youth. They try to use it to spread fanaticism, and it is very easy to incite people to do violent things using their religious emotions. Today, we are witnessing it prominently in the name of Islam, and have seen it happening with many other religions in the past, so, no religion is spared from fanaticism. But what is the solution? Why do so many people get attracted to these radical terrorist groups who just want to spread hatred and violence? Why people are willing to kill innocents just because they follow some different faith, belong to some other group, eat some different food, worship some different god, or dare to break some age-old social or religious norms? Why do they do this?

Actually, this question comes to my mind every time I read news about any terrorist attack, mob violence, communal riot, or any other violent incidents. I also wonder what is the ultimate aim of all this violence? Is it to spread terror? Definitely, spreading terror has to be their major goal, because for sure they are not spreading any religion or delivering any divine message from any book by killing innocents, and to some extent, they are successful in spreading terror temporarily. But this also doesn't last long, we humans can overcome our fears and accept the challenge and there are ample examples from the recent past where we did this. New York and the US stood firm and strong after the devastating 9/11 attacks, Mumbai and India didn't budge after terrorists attacked innocents in Mumbai and I am sure Paris will also come back to normal very soon. But still one can not ignore the loss of precious lives of innocents during all these attacks, and I am including the attacks on innocents during military operations carried out as a response to these terrorist attacks also in this. The loss of every innocent life is condemnable and we should regret it, we cannot trivialize the loss of innocent lives by calling it collateral damage. Also, we can not be selective in our outrage, otherwise, we will look like total hypocrites who care about some people more than others. Is there any solution to end this violence? Who is funding all these terrorists? From where do they get all these sophisticated deadly weapons and vast amounts of money to carry out these attacks? How come the arms and weapon industry is so powerful that no country or government can stop the sale of these weapons to such dangerous terrorist outfits? How come so many powerful countries fail to control these terrorist groups? Why did these superpowers create or support one terrorist group to fight another terrorist organization even after knowing that the former would replace the latter in the future and create the same problem? How long they are going to play this game of good terrorist organization and bad terrorist organization? We can go on asking so many questions like these, but I don't think any government or agency will bother to answer any of these questions. Some of us offer very logical-sounding explanations blaming some country or religion depending on where we live and which religion we belong. But all this blame game and ugly drama of politics, religion, and money has been going on for decades without any result. In the end, innocents are murdered regularly, either on planes, in music concerts, in restaurants, on roads, in train stations, or in their homes. I don't think we common people can do much about it. Religion, politics, and business are too big and powerful entities that have been controlling humanity for ages and all these violent incidents are byproducts of the selfish interests of one or more than one of these entities.

Terrorism is a tool used by various organizations to control regions and civilizations, it is a relatively easy method that some fanatics believe produces instant results. This is why many fanatic groups are prone to use it as a means to achieve their aims. Sadly every religion or sympathizers of their own group try to justify all atrocities or mistakes committed by that group and we see this trend everywhere. No one is willing to admit their own mistakes, but at the same time, they never fail to point out other's mistakes. It seems people are only interested in pointing out other's mistakes, they want only to hold others accountable and don't want any scrutiny of accountability for themselves. I don't know if we are going to learn any lessons from all these incidents, I don't think anyone is in the mood to reflect on what might have gone wrong. The whole emphasis is on taking revenge and beefing up security, but we all know that this is not a permanent solution. Security and defense are very important things, there is no doubt about that, but at the same time talks and negotiations to bring peace in conflict-affected regions are also necessary. After each and every tragic incident like this, I always remember this line, "an eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind." We all know this quote, but very few of us understand the real meaning behind it, and until we all understand this we can only hope that we are not adamant on making the whole world blind.

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

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

Why so much anger against Wall Street?

While listening to a recent Democratic party presidential candidate debate I noticed that candidates were really trying hard to distance themselves from Wall Street and project it as some sort of very dangerous or evil entity that needs to be destroyed or at least controlled using additional rules and regulations. I am not an expert on finance and trade-related laws and regulations, but I think I understand the political aspects of targeting Wall Street. More socialist-leaning candidates were more revengeful towards Wall Street organizations, so out of three candidates on the dais obviously Mr. Bernie Sanders was the one who was at the forefront of criticizing the symbol of the financial might of the US. I wonder what is the reason for so much anger which almost sounds like hatred towards Wall Street (abbreviated as WS henceforth in post)? Why do some of these candidates feel so compelled to criticize WS to please their supporters? I am sure all of them have some investment or links that are part of WS business and they all earn part of their income from those investments, but then why do they focus only on negative aspects of WS without even acknowledging that there are many good things happened because of the presence of free market?

WS is the result of a free market system, it is supposed to be a place to trade and raise capital for your business. No doubt that so many scams or bad things have happened in the past. Many people as well as organizations tried to misuse some loopholes in the existing system which resulted in economic crises. The economic disaster of 2008 is still fresh in our memories and whenever the share market starts dipping down sharply many of us who don't understand it very well worry if another 2008 is about to happen or what? So, there is no doubt that there are some concerns and apprehensions about the manure in which WS operates, but isn't this true with any system with so much power associated with it? That power can be financial, political, or military, we all look with doubt at all powerful entities. Even a democratically elected President is not spared if they don't belong to a political party that we support, so we all have some bias towards the rich and powerful and let's acknowledge it. But this doesn't mean we should paint a totally wrong picture of powerful people by completely neglecting any good things achieved by them. I don't think there is any doubt that economic prosperity is one of the major reasons why people get attracted to the US and want to emigrate here. The free market system where people feel that they will be successful entirely based on their talent and capabilities attracts many talented people from all over the world to this amazing country. I am not saying that there are no problems in this system and discrimination doesn't exist, but by and large system works well to do justice to its people. WS is an important part of this system. It allows people to build organizations and helps them to make them big, this is supposed to help in wealth creation and distribution. Many people are direct or indirect beneficiaries of this ecosystem. Definitely, uneven wealth distribution is a serious problem and something must be done about it, but at least wealth is created and the truth is that currently there is no better alternative that seems to be as reliable as this. Many of the objections raised by these people who seem to be fierce opponents of WS about the unequal distribution of wealth and rising economic disparity are true and valid, but some of the solutions offered by them are equally horrible and unpractical. It seems they intend to destroy this working system that has some glitches without even having an alternative that can be at least as good as the current system. It is very easy to criticize and destroy, but then at least provide some viable alternative to the present system before ordering its destruction. There are no examples of successful countries or societies based on any single ideology, let it be capitalism, socialism, communism, or any other "ism." What works best is always a mixture of good things from each ideology based on the requirements of that particular society. Therefore, I don't understand why are we so eager to draw so rigid lines and reject something because it belongs to some other "ism" that we don't support. Why call socialism evil or capitalism evil when both of them have some good aspects and some bad? Why not take the best ideas from all ideologies that suit our society and make something good for most people in our society?

I always wonder how long this fight between different ideologies will continue? Why can't be there interdisciplinary collaboration between all these ideologies like scientists do between different disciplines of science? Is it so difficult or humiliating to accept that there can be some bad and outdated elements in socialism, communism, and capitalism? Is it so difficult to understand that communism is not a very practical idea in today's aspirational world? None of these ideas are completely right or wrong, the only thing is that some parts of them are no longer relevant today, some parts are not practical anymore, or some parts are bad and not acceptable in a democratic society with freedom to choose and express. Is it so difficult to accept the shortcomings of any "ism" for its supporters? Maybe it is difficult, but we need to acknowledge these things and move on, if we become adamant about accepting or rejecting any system completely, then we will never solve this deadlock and keep on arguing endlessly about who is right and who is wrong. Please don't hesitate to highlight any drawbacks associated with any system, capitalism or WS is not an exception to this. Highlight loopholes in the law, highlight its misuse, and question policies based on data and logic, but not based on populism and appeasement. The way it is done now sounds like hatred and anger directed toward the rich and powerful, this attitude is only going to create a social divide and nothing else. Maybe it will help to win some elections, but definitely, it won't help to solve the real problem. So, it will be better if we use this anger to offer constructive criticism and not to vilify any entity. Before destroying the current house, at least propose a viable plan for a new house, let's discuss rather than fight.

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

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

Please don't play a victim's card during fight against racism, it won't help

I read a few news items about protests by some students against alleged racism-related incidents on campuses of reputed American universities like Yale University and the University of Missouri. No matter how much we criticize racism, casteism, or any discriminatory traditions the truth is that they still exist in some form or other. Another ugly truth is that many people still believe in some of these discriminatory practices, so we need to argue with them, discuss with them, debate with them, and try to change their opinions through dialogue and discussions. This is the only way, we already have enough laws and regulations to check these things and even after all this if this doesn't stop, then we need to continue dialogue and discussions along with other efforts. People living in societies or countries where freedom of expression exists understand that every one of us no matter how stupid or outrageous we are, we all have the same right to express our opinion. The only exception is that no one should be allowed to preach violence, but apart from that in most of these societies anyone is free to express their opinion. The United States is one such country, I don't think there is as much freedom of expression practiced anywhere in the world as it is in the USA, at least based on the population size. So, I was really surprised when this group of students at Yale demanded to ban some Halloween costume parties and demanded the resignation of some administrators for defending the right of some students to express themselves. One can disagree with someone's opinions or views, and one can even feel offended by someone's costume or statement, but in a free and democratic society how can one object to that person's right to say or wear those things? As those students who say or wear something with offensive messages are free to express their opinions, other students are also free to raise their objections and protest if they are feeling hurt. Both are using their freedom of expression right so how one group can object to the rights of another group? Another question is, is it right to use the argument of hurt feelings to justify banning something? Is this the right approach to solve this issue? Can this help us to curb discrimination without taking away the fundamental right of freedom of expression? What if some other group tomorrow gets hurt by these protests and demands a ban on students who are currently demanding the ban, are these students going to support them? There are many issues and questions like these, the battle against racism or any type of discrimination has been going on for decades, it is a long ongoing battle but losing patience and playing the victim's card is not going to serve any purpose.

We can definitely raise our voices against any form of offensive messages, but asking to ban them just because they are offensive or hurt someone's emotions is wrong. It can open another Pandora's box where any group can come up with their demand to ban something because it hurts their sentiments. Suppose tomorrow Hindus ask to ban the sale and consumption of beef because it hurts their deep religious sentiments and also claim that cow slaughter is very offensive to them, are these students going to support any such demand for a beef ban? This is just one simple example to demonstrate that mere claims of hurt sentiments can not be a valid reason to curtain someone's fundamental right like freedom of expression. Racism is a result of ignorance, wrong teachings, and lack of social awareness. Bigots behave in a racist way. Most discriminatory practices are deeply rooted in some cultural or historical traditions that are passed from one generation to another. These traditions are outdated and even illegal, but somehow that mindset still exists among some people. Some people still believe in the superiority or inferiority of races and castes. This feeling of inherent superiority based on their birth can manifest in their behavior in so many ways. But in any free society, these people also have the right to express their opinions. We need to challenge this behavior and question them, we need to expose their ignorance and bigotry, to allow our anger to take over our logical sense is not good. Intolerance doesn't solve any problems rather it can create a few more problems that can be more serious than the original one. Freedom of speech/expression is a very important right we all have and we should not try to take it away from anyone, not even from our fierce opponents. Freedom of speech should come with the freedom to offend. The only option we have is to increase our tolerance and question things, but please don't try to silence people just because it hurts your sentiments. I hope students who want to fight against discrimination don't become a reason for some type of discrimination where some people are targeted or punished just for expressing their opinion (whatever that opinion is doesn't matter as long as it is not inciting violence). I wish all the strength, patience, and courage to these students who are fighting against discrimination because they will need these things. Playing a victim's card is of no use, it can only generate some media attention and temporary sympathy but won't help the cause in the long run. This disease of racism or casteism or any other discrimination is very old and serious, generations are affected by this problem, and fighting against these things is not that easy. Sentiments will be hurt, and offensive language or images will be used by opponents to hurt feelings, but this is part of this struggle, and anyone who wants to fight for any cause should learn to deal with these things, as these tactics are used to derail such movements and label them intolerant and anarchist. I hope these students focus on their real cause and struggle rather than getting involved in trivial things such as the demand to ban something which is a direct assault on freedom of expression.

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. At University of Missouri, Black Students See a Campus Riven by Race
2. Massive Yale student rally makes call for inclusiveness on New Haven campus

It is wrong to paint all pharma companies with the same brush

Drug discovery is a very high-risk and expensive business, according to recent data, it takes more than 1 billion USD  and almost 12 to 13 years to launch a new, successful drug in the market. One can debate and discuss why this process is so low-yielding, expensive, and inefficient, but people who work in this area know that it is not that easy to point out any single factor responsible for this bleak scenario. It is also true that we need new drugs to stay ahead in our battle against many bugs and deadly diseases like infectious diseases and cancer. Industry and academia are equally engaged in the research aspect of drug discovery, many initial leads come from academia that result in small biotech firms which then go on to develop some novel drugs in that therapeutic area. Even though industry and academia are both equally involved in basic research, commercialization, and drug development part of drug discovery is exclusively with industry. One of the main reasons is that it is a very expensive and tedious process with a very high failure rate and only industry has funds and resources to handle this process. So what is my point behind mentioning all these things? The point is the question of "drug pricing," an ever-debated and very controversial topic all over the world, especially, in America. I think everyone will agree that people should be able to access life-saving drugs if they need them, but the question is who will pay if they can't afford them? If we look at the pricing of some of the new drugs in developed countries, especially in the USA, then one can easily understand what I am talking about. For example, the price of Gilead's new hepatitis-C drug Sovaldi is 84000$ for a 12-week course, almost 1000$ per pill. No doubt, it is an expensive drug by any standards, but it is also a very effective and lifesaving drug that has changed the treatment regime for that disease remarkably. This drug is just one example to show how effective and expensive some of these medicines are. Drug development is a profit-making business and like any other business, this industry also tries to make as much profit as they can from their products. There are shareholders and a stock market and each pharma company has to make sure that it stays ahead in the game by making as much profit to its shareholders as it can.

It is always debated what can be the optimal pricing for any life-saving drug? Who can decide how much a drug company should or can charge for their new lifesaving drug? How expensive is too expensive? How about third-world countries where most people can not pay for such expensive drugs but need them as much as people from any developed country? There are many questions like this but hardly any satisfactory answers. In the US there is a very good drug discovery culture and basically, they subsidize drug discovery for the rest of the world. In most developing countries like India, drug discovery is considered a waste of money and there is no proper mechanism to encourage it. So, basically whole world is dependent on a few handful countries for the development of new drugs in any therapeutic area. Hopefully, this scenario might change, but currently, only developed countries are expected to carry the financial burden of developing new drugs. And as the pharma sector is also a business and like all other businesses, it also needs investments and has to generate enough profits to attract those investments. So, all factors that play a major role in any other commercial industry also play a part in this industry also. Whatever is not financially attractive is not pursued no matter how important it might be, the recent exit of most major pharma companies from the antibiotic sector is one very good example of this. It is very expensive to develop new drugs, and above that it is very risky, only 1 in 10 drugs that enter in clinical phase get FDA approval, and someone has to pay for all those failures. The industry has to recover all the money lost during the development of other drugs that failed from that one successful drug. This is one of the major reasons why some of the drugs are so expensive. However, this is not an attempt to justify the high pricing of all the drugs, but just an effort to explain things so that people know the other side of the coin also.

I am sure everyone will agree that the best possible scenario will be to have affordable drugs for all major illnesses available all over the world. They should be accessible to every patient who needs them, irrespective of their nationality or financial status, but we all know that this feat is not possible to achieve in the near future. With increased life expectancy all over the world, we are going to see many more people who will need some sort of medicine to maintain their health. There are no easy solutions for this very complicated problem, but maybe if we try to understand the cause of this problem then we can understand the position of the pharma industry a little better. It is wrong to paint all of them as villains and accuse them of being insensitive and selfish money-mongers. Drug discovery is a business so like all other businesses it needs to be profitable, it needs to compete with other businesses to attract talented and hard-working people so that innovative ideas keep on coming. This business also needs to adjust and survive different pressures and trends of a market-based economy. Society, the government, and all companies need to devise some formula that can make medicines more affordable for everyone. The Pharma industry is just one part of this complicated puzzle of drug pricing. At the same time, any sort of criticism should be welcomed by industry insiders as it will make them correct some of their mistakes, but it is unfair just to blame them or target them every time. It is wrong to look at only one side of the problem and draw final conclusions. Please try to study every angle of this issue before coming out with any final conclusion. I am sure it can be possible to keep on inventing new drugs and make them affordable also, we just need a proper system and political and corporate desire to achieve this goal.

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

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

Intolerance was always there in India

Nowadays there is a lot of debate going on in India about intolerance and tolerance. Some people claim that since this new government came into power (in 2014) incidents of intolerance have increased, they also claim that there is a feeling of fear and insecurity among minorities and some intellectuals. The other side claims that nothing of this sort is happening, rather the very fact that these people are allowed to protest is a sign of a tolerant environment, some irrelevant fringe groups are responsible for whatever ugly incidents are reported, but overall everything is fine. Both sides are busy attacking each other and proving each other wrong, putting on a splendid display of tolerance. Another point that is highlighted again and again during all these discussions is that India was and still is a very tolerant society. I really don't know what is the real basis of this claim, but surprisingly both sides agree on this particular point, the only point of disagreement is whether it is becoming intolerant now or not? The history of Indian civilization is very old and one can dig into its history and try to figure out whether it was a historically tolerant society or not. I am not interested in that aspect of this argument, I can only talk about what I saw and experienced personally during my stay in India. As far as my personal experience is concerned, I never saw a very tolerant atmosphere during the 30 years of my life in India. I always feel surprised when someone claims that India is a very tolerant society, they may have some different definition of "tolerant," but at least I never experienced it. Now before people jump on to attack me personally and label me as anti-India or anti-Hindu or traitor or whatever other name they want to use to display their tolerant nature, let me first explain why I say this.

Any tolerant society is sensitive to the needs and rights of all sections of society and by all sections, I am not talking about all religions and castes that dominate Indian political discussion forums. I am talking about kids, teenagers, men, women, other genders, disabled people, all minorities, etc. I never saw that sensitivity at appreciable levels and still don't see it in India, till recently, transgenders and homosexuals were forced to live in closets, women are still struggling to get equal status and property share, caste is a very important factor in marriage and politics, and one can list many other examples here, but I guess readers mush have got my point. Now let me continue with my personal experiences as my statement is mainly based on my personal experience. First, as a kid, punishments for mistakes in school were very brutal and physically abusive. I am sure anyone who went to school in the 1980s and 1990s can confirm this. Getting slapped by a teacher was not a big deal, getting hit by a stick, duster, or ruler was a very common phenomenon. Even outside the school situation was not much different, it was considered as birthright of parents to smack their kids as much they want and for whatever reason they felt appropriate. Second, any sort of dissent was not encouraged. As a kid, it was normal to get snubbed by elders for asking any uncomfortable question. One could not dare to question many traditions and rituals without being verbally or worse physically reprimanded. Obedience was considered as a virtue and dissent was openly ridiculed and punished. Finally, gender discrimination was blatantly overt and everywhere, within families, in schools, on the streets, in movies, everywhere. These were some of the things that I experienced and witnessed as a kid. I am sure there might be exceptions to this and there might be some people, especially those with very privileged backgrounds who lived in totally different social atmospheres, but whatever I described above was the general environment around me and many others. People must have realized that I am talking about a poor or lower middle-class section of society which constitutes a very large section of the Indian population. Even as a teenager, we were aware that friendship and all were okay but we couldn't marry outside our caste without disturbing our parents or other family members. Tension between various religions and occasional violent communal riots are still a possibility like in the past. All these things used to make me wonder where is that tolerance about which I hear on every intellectual forum? Fights between supporters of different political parties or religious groups were very common. There used to be fights during processions during different religious festivals like Ganeshotsav, and many times between two mandals on trivial issues like who should get to go first in line. It was and still is very trivial to call someone anti-national or traitor or Pakistani (especially to Muslims). Books were and still are frequently banned, movies land in trouble for hurting some group's sentiments, paintings and painters are troubled for creating some objectionable art, authors are attacked for writing something offensive or derogatory about someone, moral policing was very common and still happens to some extent even today. Many of these things are still part of public behavior, we can see these things even in social media, and still, Indians don't hesitate to call ourselves very tolerant!

But there must be some reason why most Indians claim that our country is very tolerant. One reason might be India did not invade any country in recent history or maybe by claiming to be tolerant many of these people mean "less violent" compared to some neighboring countries. It is quite possible that tolerance people may mean at least we don't kill each other as frequently as some other societies do. Maybe there is some truth in this line of argument even though frequent incidents of communal riots don't support this claim, but this might be the only reason for making this claim. But for me, this is not good enough to declare any society as a tolerant society and anyway, the standards of those countries are not worth following for a country like India with such a diverse population if it really aspires to become a superpower. It needs to show more inclusive behavior than merely being less violent or better than some of our neighbors. Intolerance has always been there in India, sometimes it is more visible than at other times that's the only difference. I really feel strange about this debate of India becoming intolerant now, please let me know when was it very tolerant? One can make an argument that India is becoming more intolerant, and there is some truth in that, but to claim that it was tolerant before is hard to accept. 

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

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

Women are made, not born

The title of this post is a famous quote by French philosopher Simone de Beauvoir on womanhood. I don't know in what context he said it, but when I heard it I immediately thought, wow, he described it so correctly. For me, this quote means that we as a society condition the minds of people into believing what men and women should do, how they should behave and what are their roles in society and family. In reality, no gender is supposed to do only certain types of things or behave in a certain way, we define it and it is a human creation. This quote is actually equally applicable to men, all genders are told what it is supposed to be a man or woman or a transgender and then we all try to fit into one of these roles. In the modern world, many people are trying to challenge these definitions and break the traditional gender perceptions but still, it is not that easy. The characteristics assigned to different genders are so stereotyped that people involuntarily follow them. Men without even knowing subscribe to traditional notions of masculinity, they come under tremendous pressure to perform and succeed to demonstrate their manliness. Similarly, women are forced into certain roles, and their minds are conditioned to teach them what they can do and what they can't. Once this task is successfully achieved, then it is easy for a patriarchal society to dictate what men can do and what women can do, and everyone follows. This biased environment then creates ample examples to support this hypothesis, and most people agree with these things as they see many examples validating these notions. That is why such quotes are important, they tell us the inherent flaw associated with such classification. Such quotes and thoughts force us to think and ask some uncomfortable and difficult questions. One of those questions should be, whatever we see around or believe is natural or manufactured by centuries of tradition and suppression of certain genders?

Our sex is determined by our DNA and now we very well understand the science behind it. But once we are born and start our journey in this world, society and people around us start conditioning our minds about what our gender should and shouldn't do. Many traditions, rituals, and cultural or religious beliefs start shaping our minds in a particular way. We are told about our gender and also how our gender must behave. We are also told about the responsibilities and limitations of our gender roles, what boys should like, and what girls are supposed to like. There are rewards for obedience and punishments for disobedience of these restrictions and slowly these things become part of our personality. They get embedded deep in our psyche. Rarely do we think about questioning these things. Many of us don't ask, why only women cook in the family? Why do only men have to go and work outside? Why it is considered the responsibility of man to be the breadwinner of a family? Why polygamy is more accepted in some societies but not polyandry? Why do only women change their last names after marriage? Why there is no equal recognition of any third gender? Nowadays these types of questions are being asked and many people are trying to challenge gender discrimination at various levels, but one can easily feel that society is not yet very receptive and accommodative of many of these reforms. There is still a reluctance to break the traditional stereotyped definition of men and women, but the pot is being stirred, things are being challenged and something good is going to come out of all this.

Many people including many women still believe that women are incapable of doing certain things, but they don't question why? Is it because they are women or because for centuries they were told that they couldn't do these things and now suddenly we expect them to match men on every level or go back to their traditional role. Providing an opportunity is just a first step, once the opportunity is provided one has to give enough time to master those skills. Men didn't become powerful in one day, they got preferred treatment and a favorable social atmosphere for centuries to become the so-called stronger or dominant sex. Actually, many women have already proven that they can take up any challenge thrown at them but still, many of them are way far behind as they are caged in age-old stereotyped boundaries. Slowly they are also becoming aware of their rights and capabilities, and even with limited resources and additional household burdens, they are competing strongly. As this awareness spreads across the world, we will see more and more women entering the mainstream and taking up responsible roles. If society and people around them don't try to suppress their potential, then I am sure in years to come we will see many more women in key leadership roles. Until then, let's try to create an environment where they get a fair shot to prove their talent.  

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

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

We all are transgenders in someway

While watching this program on NDTV about the situation of transgenders in Indian society, I was wondering what is the reason these people are so stereotyped that they can't live a normal life in most societies around the world. By normal life, I mean getting the same treatment and opportunities that most of us so-called "normal" or "cisgender" people get. In India, most of them are forced into the sex trade or live in ghettos because of the way society treats them. Why it is so difficult for any society to accept them as equal citizens or for that matter why we are so apprehensive about anything that doesn't fit the age-old definition of "normal"? Who decides what is normal and what is not? Is most common mean normal and something uncommon becomes abnormal? We need to ask such questions to counter this narrative which has been going on uninterrupted for centuries. It is really sad to see that some people among us get discriminated against for something natural. They face various difficulties and problems not because of their mistakes or actions, but just because of who they are. This attitude of they are different than us or they are not normal, so they can't be with us or our kids will become like them needs to be questioned, everyone needs to get a fair chance to fulfill their ambitions and desires, as a society it is our responsibility to create such environment. Most of us agree with this statement, but as a society, our behavior doesn't match this statement.

Sex is determined by DNA and gender is something how we present ourselves in society, both don't need to match. We are taught and conditioned on how men or women should behave or conduct themselves in society. We are taught what is masculine and what is feminine, based on this conditioning we develop our own perception of our own gender and also try to define other's gender. This perception and stereotyping also decide what we call normal and what we consider abnormal. We are also trained to reject, denounce, or stay away from these so-called abnormal people. Most of us follow all these traditions or rules without even giving any serious thought or consideration about their logic and relevance. Many of us fail to question these perceptions which are passed on to us by our society. We follow them as part of tradition or culture, but we never bother to check their relevance or validity. Once anything whether it is good or bad becomes a part of tradition or culture it stays there for a long time. Many societies also develop some protective attitudes towards such traditions as they consider them an integral part of their identity. This is one of the main reasons why many people hesitate to question these things openly. I agree that it is not easy to challenge or fight against ancient traditions and rituals, but if they are wrong someone needs to challenge them. But the problem is that there is not a very conducive environment in most societies that can encourage questioning or dissent, rather few who dare to question have to face many hostile reactions. Transgenders are victims of such wrong traditions and misconceptions. According to me, we all have some transgender qualities in some way or other, therefore, it should be easy for all cisgender to relate with transgenders, provided we overcome all our prejudices and biases. We all possess a unique set of qualities, there is no defined set of masculine and feminine qualities which are exclusive to any one particular sex. A variety of feelings or characteristics can be found in both sexes. We all are sensitive, tough, stupid or intelligent, fearless or cowardice, strong or weak, introverted or extrovert our gender doesn't define these things. We all are capable of displaying feelings of tenderness, vulnerability, fear, jealousy, and envy to different extents on different occasions. We all have many characteristics that people associate only with transgenders we are a mixture of qualities that are normally classified as masculine or feminine. We just don't fit into that stereotyped definition of transgender that people have created by combining some emotional and physical characteristics. But just because some people show physical or emotional characteristics of both sexes more than others, we should not label them as abnormal. These people are as normal as any of us, just maybe not as common as many of us. Uncommon doesn't mean abnormal. They are in the minority, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve equal rights and recognition. We need to remove this prejudice and bias, we all need to recognize that there is nothing wrong or abnormal in being cisgender, transgender, or any other gender. Most common doesn't necessarily mean normal and uncommon doesn't mean abnormal. Let's remove these barriers and become a more inclusive society where every individual is accepted regardless of gender or sexual orientation. Let's start with ourselves, let's embrace and understand our fellow humans irrespective of their gender, sexual orientation, religion, race, or any other thing that we use to categorize us. Let's show love and respect towards each other, after all, we all are humans, and let's behave as humans. 

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

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

Let's remove taboos associated with Menstruation

In my post about worshiping while menstruating, I tried to address the stigma associated with menstruation and participation in religious functions. This post gets maximum views during the Hindu festival seasons when there are a lot of occasions where women might face this dilemma. Many people have expressed different views and concerns in the comments section of that post. Some even asked for advice about what to do if they face a dilemma where their culture and tradition contradict their logic. When I read this article I decided to write one more post related to this topic of menstruation and various misconceptions associated with it. Actually, taboos associated with menstruation are not only a problem of any one religion or any one culture, they exist all over the world, in all regions and religions. Many developed societies have broken these barriers to a large extent, but still, this issue is a taboo subject in many societies all over the world. Why there is so much secrecy around this subject that people hesitate to discuss it in the open? Why there is so much ignorance and lack of information about this very important biological phenomenon that is directly related to our procreation? It is a simple biological process that we have known for ages. A lot of progress has been made in the area of sanitation and hygiene which can remove all concerns and doubts associated with hygiene-related questions related to menstruation. Then even after all this why do some societies or cultures continue to treat it as some contagious disease?

The root cause for all this stigma and discomfort associated with menstruation is some age-old beliefs, customs, and traditions. One can clearly see that even in societies where proper sanitation and hygiene methods are available women are treated differently during their periods. Somehow it is still believed that they are impure or not normal during "those days." Many times women fall prey to all this stereotyping and cultural pressures, they practice such traditions out of guilt or to not to make others upset and angry. Very few who dare to go against the norm then face severe criticism and are made to feel guilty about their behavior. Menstruation is not something they choose or do on their own willingly, they cannot be blamed in any way for it as it is a simple biological phenomenon. They should not be discriminated for a natural process over which they don't have any control.

It is good to see that things are improving, the rate of improvement is definitely slow but for sure things are changing. Many females are questioning this unfair treatment, and many of them are willing to challenge this stigma and confront discriminatory practices. All this is bound to bring that desired change, after all, how long unfair discrimination will last if the entire gender affected by it rebels against it? The more protests come out against such discrimination the more these things will be discussed. These discussions will slowly spread more information and more awareness about issues related to menstruation and will help to get rid of the stigma associated with it. Surprisingly people don't want to discuss or talk about such an important issue within their own family, we must give proper information to our kids about all these things, especially about things related to their body and sexuality. This is an essential part of their learning which will make them better human beings. This subject definitely doesn't need any stigma or taboo associated with it, females have suffered enough discrimination because of these things. We need to remove any stigma and hesitation associated with the subject of menstruation and related issues from all societies and cultures. This is an important subject for half of the world's population, we can't brush it aside or push it under the carpet as if it doesn't exist. I am glad to see that now females are taking the lead themselves to remove the stigma associated with many such issues. I am sure they will create space for their issues in discussion forums at all levels. I request the rest of us to join them in this quest.

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. A Girl Gets Her Period And Is Banished To The Shed