Living in unauthorized colonies - my own experience

While watching this report on prime time by Ravish on NDTV I went back in my memory lane when we used to live in a similar colony. Our colony was also unauthorized, which means it was constructed without proper permission and paperwork from the municipal authority which is necessary to have an authorized construction to pay a property tax. Authorized construction is also registered under the owner's name in government records and one can sell it legally and government can't demolish it just like that. As ours was an unauthorized colony government didn't provide necessary infrastructure like water, sewage, proper roads, etc. Our only hope was our corporator Mr. Shashikant Sutar who used to help us get some of these things from the municipal corporation and he also used to take care of all the legal notices of demolition sent to all of us by the municipal corporation. During the initial days, water was supplied by water tankers. It used to be literally a war-like situation to get a bucket of water. People used to fight hard to reach the tanker tap first to make sure that they got enough water for them until the next visit of the tanker. Normally, women and kids of the family used to do this water fetching business as men used to be at work. My mom hated this ordeal because first of all, as she was a recent immigrant from another state she could not speak the local language (Marathi) very well, and by nature, she doesn't like to argue or confront anyone so she used to hate this, but there was no other way to get water. All homes in such colonies shared common walls on both sides, and only homes at the end of the lane had the luxury of having windows on side walls otherwise only option was to have windows on the front wall or on the back wall. Normally these colonies grow over time as people construct their own houses depending on their financial capacity so some homes can be two-storied and some can be just one storey and they both stand side by side. Local politicians play a key role in keeping things in order in such colonies as everyone goes to them to solve their disputes and for any legal trouble from the municipal corporations.

Life in these places is not that easy but it is not like that people living there don't enjoy or have fun. I had a pretty good time during my childhood. I agree that our parents were under constant threat of losing their home constructed with hard-earned money but we also had a very supportive politician to help us. In return for this protection, we elected him as our corporator and MLA until he retired from active politics. Our colony stood on private land, every family bought a piece of privately owned land and constructed their home. We just didn't have proper approvals to build homes on that land. This was due to a lack of knowledge, a lack of money to get this approval, and a very corrupt approval process where it was impossible to get approval without paying bribes. The colony was not on some government land, so, there was no issue of land encroachment and still, it took more than two decades to get it authorized. So whenever these political parties make promises like authorizing illegal colonies, they sound unreal and they do it only to fool those residents for their votes. Now, our colony is authorized with all the required paperwork and we all pay property tax on it but it took almost 20-30 years to get this done and still it is very unsafe with narrow lanes and no space for parking. So, making them authorized does solve a few problems, the threat of demolition is gone, and you get water and electricity, but issues about safety still remain. This is a very lucrative topic for vote bank politics as all voters living in these colonies entirely depend on political leaders to protect their homes from the clutches of law. The issue is very complicated and deeply political, many political parties want such issues to last forever so that they can reap benefit from these vote banks in every election. I guess the time has come for people living in such colonies to unite and then negotiate with the government some proper plan that can improve living conditions in such places. They deserve better treatment from the government. 

I have very fond memories from the time I spent living in an unauthorized colony, but I know that there was a lot of uncertainty and stress for my parents to protect their home. I really hope that this issue can be resolved and our political parties care for the well-being of people living in such colonies.

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. प्राइम टाइम : अनियमित कॉलोनियों का ये है हाल

Parental leave - right or privilege?

The topic of parental leave is very sensitive, it is debated in many political and professional forums, and even President Obama mentioned it during his State of the Union address on January 20th. People always debate whether it is a right or a privilege? People argue very passionately either in favor or against these things, and there is also a disagreement about how much parental leave is enough; 2 weeks, 2 months, 6 months, or one year? One might find some of these numbers irrational or ridiculous but if we accept that parenting is a full-time job then it is often difficult to decide how much time is required for parents to leave their kid with someone else and come back to work. I personally believe that parenting is a personal responsibility of respective parents, after all, they decide to become parents based on their own priorities. Once they decide to become a parent, it is their job to figure out how to take care of their child. There is no doubt that any help from their employer or government is going to definitely help them to go through the initial demanding days of parenting and that is where this issue runs into rough waters. How much help is enough? Is this one of the reasons many small businesses (or even big ones) hesitate to hire women? Can this gap due to maternity leave be harmful to the progress of any woman's professional career? Can this policy of mandatory parental leave affect the productivity of small businesses? There are many questions related to this issue that are up for debate. I think policymakers need to take into consideration these questions before making any law regarding this issue.

Every parent needs some assistance during the initial days after childbirth as the work is both physically and mentally challenging. Women also need time to recover physically so there is no doubt that they need maternity leave before they come back to work. Parenting is the responsibility of both parents so the father also needs to have an option of paternity leave so that he can take care of his responsibility as a parent during those initial days. I am sure policymakers must have done research before deciding on the duration of parental leave. There are also professional childcare options available for parents who don't want to take any leave. It should be entirely their choice. If parents, especially mothers chose not to take their entire maternity leave and join work much before then they should not be looked upon as insensitive parents (recent controversy related to Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer is an example of this). Everyone should be free to use or not to use the option of parental leave based on their own needs and priorities. There is no gold standard that everyone should follow, we should respect every parent's style of parenting without being judgmental. It is okay to offer recommendations and suggestions but it is up to the respective parents to accept or reject them. Every parent has a right to develop and follow their own style of parenting. I have seen personally some parents inventing new ways to deal with some of the problems they faced during parenting and it helped them to reduce the stress of parenting.

I personally believe that parental leave should be a part of every professional package so that prospective parents (especially mothers) don't have to choose between parenthood and career.  It should be considered as a right but even if for some reason it is not then it can be offered as a special privilege, especially by big organizations who can afford to implement this policy. Doesn't matter how it is offered; a right or a special privilege it will help organizations to keep talented people in their workforce. It will help women to plan their careers without worrying about the effect of their pregnancy on their professional life. Parents also need to use this option responsibly. They need to plan in such a way that it doesn't hurt their company's productivity. If both parties involved behave responsibly then I think parental leave can benefit both, organizations as well as parents equally.  

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

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

Can there ever be absolute freedom of expression?

The recent attack on people associated with the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris has initiated discussions about whether there can be absolute freedom of expression? Terrorists killed people associated with this magazine to take revenge for publishing a cartoon of Prophet Mohammad. Many Muslim people found these cartoons offensive and insulting to their faith. This was not the first time any publication, book, picture, or article came under attack for insulting any religion. India is very well known for banning books, attacking authors, or making their lives difficult just for publishing something that hurts people's religious sentiments. So, the question is can there be an absolute right of freedom of expression? If not, then who decides where to draw the line and on what basis? Can there be a general consensus on what should be allowed and what shouldn't?

Every country claims to give the right of freedom of expression to their citizens, but if we check carefully there are some ifs and buts attached to this right. These ifs and buts differ from country to country. I can understand that anyone is not allowed to preach violence, child pornography, or obscenity under the name of freedom of expression. One can very well understand this type of restriction but apart from that why put so many other restrictions. Many people agree that there should be freedom of expression but they also say that in the case of religious sentiments, there should be some limit that should not be crossed. But the problem with this argument is who will decide that limit? Everybody's religious sensitivities are different, whatever is considered blasphemous in one religion is perfectly fine in another, so, in any diverse society how can one draw a line, and how many lines does one need to draw to cover each and every religion and sect so that nobody's religious feelings are hurt? People's sentiments are going to get hurt by something or other as each artist presents their work in different forms and styles. Art in some forms such as satire, paintings, or cartoons can be sometimes offensive, and not everyone can digest them but that doesn't mean that form should be banned or censored. We can not depend on people's level of sensitivities to design any policy related to freedom of expression as sensitivities keep on changing. It will be good to have complete freedom of expression or at least as much as people have in countries like the USA, it should be very clear what is allowed and what is not.

In today's world with so much connectivity and resources to verify any information we should be becoming more broad-minded and tolerant, but it seems our civilization is going in the reverse direction as far as tolerance and liberty are concerned, people are becoming more narrow-minded and less tolerant. They get offended by trivial things like a book, movie, or cartoon and react in a very violent way. To protest or express disagreement with anything is perfectly fine, but it should be done in a lawful and peaceful manner. Whenever people try to question freedom of expression after such a violent attack on a publication for publishing something objectionable then actually they indirectly justify such violent acts. Freedom of expression is not an easy thing to handle. People who feel offended also have the right to express their feelings, people who dislike anything can openly say that, and they can insult or say offensive things but in any case, violence can not be a part of freedom of expression. As Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Said, "Your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins." To threaten someone with physical harm is not freedom of expression but an act of violence. We are far away from achieving absolute freedom of expression, and since India has a very poor record in this area (still it is better than most of its neighbors), it needs to improve a lot. The USA has a much better record in this area and I think it is one of the best countries as far as the right of freedom of expression is concerned. Other countries like India should try to follow their example. 

I support the absolute right of freedom of expression except freedom to propagate violence. This will allow societies to become more tolerant and exchange their ideas more freely. Banning something only increases people's curiosity about those things and makes them more popular. Let's not ban any book, movie, article, or magazine just because some people find it offensive. This is a difficult task to achieve but at least let's try to work towards it, maybe one day we will have a society where there is absolute freedom of expression and everyone is using it with great care and responsibility. 

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. Faith vs Freedom: Is Right to Free Speech Absolute?

Baba Amte - My superhero

In a post about my visit to Snehalaya and other similar institutions during my last India trip, I briefly mentioned Baba Amte. These institutions are doing some great humanitarian work in various areas and they all consider Baba Amte as their inspiration. He is one of the people who always impressed me and inspired me since my college days. Unfortunately, his name is not very popular outside Maharashtra and I don't know why. I am still trying to figure out how such a great personality can not be known to the entire India, his work is so inspiring that each and every Indian can take immense pride and inspiration from it. I have read about many people who were inspired to do some social work for religious or political purposes but this was the man who dedicated all his life just to humanitarian purposes, not to get any salvation or place in heaven or any sainthood or any government award or any election victory. He served people because he felt their pain and really loved them as just humans irrespective of their age, caste, religion, or nationality. His project Anandwan (which means garden of happiness) is an ideal example of his vision and dedication towards humanitarian work. Amazingly not only did he and his wife dedicate their lives to this work, but he was lucky enough to have kids who carried forward his work with equal sincerity and dedication. Dr. Prakash Amte, his younger son's work at Hemalkasa (Lok Biradari Prakalp) is well known. Dr. Vikas Amte, his elder son, takes care of Anandwan. It is really amazing to see how this whole family is involved in helping people in need and distress.

I am not going to go into details about the work done by these people, I request readers to read more about them on the internet or from books published about them and read more about Anandwan and other projects to know about their work. The best way to know about their work is to visit these places and interact with the people who are living there and working there. I also understand that it may not be possible for everyone to find time and resources to visit many of these places which is why the internet is a great place to know as much as possible and then if possible grab any opportunity that allows you to visit these places. I feel extremely lucky and privileged to know a few people who are very closely involved in helping these projects, they keep me aware of what is going on and I am really thankful to them for all their efforts to educate me about the work done by such amazing people. 

But for some reason, the work of Baba Amte and his sons didn't get much recognition in India. People know about their work but they don't know like they know about the work of Mother Teresa or the work of some political organizations like RSS or the work of some cult movements like ISKON or Art of Living. Maybe because Baba Amte never sided with any particular religion or political party, rather at times he stood against the state government like in the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan. I think all this might have made him a not-so-attractive option for any political party and media as they can not use his name to attract any vote bank. He did not even get Bharat Ratna, actually, people like Baba Amte don't need that award but I think that award needs people like him so that its dignity and honor are elevated. But I am glad that he is not on that list of Bharat Ratna awardees, even Mahatma Gandhi is not on that list so I think it's fair that even they didn't consider Baba for this award.

He didn't even claim to be a superhuman or incarnation of some god or messenger of some god who landed on this earth or was sent by God to serve his people. Many so-called babas or gurus use these tactics to get money and power. He stayed away from all these gimmicks that many political and religious groups use to popularize themselves, he just did his work silently with dedication and selflessness. I respect him for this. He showed me the path that you don't need any religious, political, or any other affiliation or support to do any good work. I may not believe in any god or religion, and I may not also subscribe to any political ideology or cult but still can help my fellow humans as I really don't need any affiliations to feel compassion and love for my fellow humans. I can feel their pain and help them just because I love them and respect them as humans. We all know this but very few dare to set an example for others as it is not an easy thing to do. Baba Amte was one such person who proved it with an example of his own work. Baba Amte is my real-life superhero he did something that was considered impossible for normal humans. Thank you sir for showing us the path. Sadly he is no more but his work and legacy will live forever and keep on inspiring many people to carry out selfless service to humans in distress.

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

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

Paris terrorist attack - it is a attack on human liberty.

The attack on Charlie Hebdo's office in Paris by some fanatic Islamic militants is a barbaric and cowardly act of violence. This is not only an attack on the free press and freedom of expression, but it is an attack on our liberty. It is an attack on the basic framework of our modern society where disagreement and differences of opinion are not only tolerated but encouraged and respected. Just words are not enough to condemn this cowardly act. It is not a brave thing to attack unarmed, harmless, peace-loving people, this is a display of ultimate cowardliness and bigotry.  Charlie Hebdo is a well-known satirical magazine that is known to attack religion and politicians. It can be called anti-establishment, so, it is not that it only mocked Mohammad or Islam and spared other religions. One can debate whether the cartoons published were in good taste or bad taste, this discussion is in relative terms because whatever is in good taste for me might be a bad taste for someone, so, none of us have the right to decide what is in good taste or bad taste for everyone. We all have the right to have our own opinions. People who feel angry or offended can protest peacefully. Every civilized society gives its people the right to protest, but no one has the right to use violence to settle any disagreement. As I wrote previously in my blog, I believe that freedom of expression comes with the freedom to offend. If you have the right to practice your religion, then I also have the right to criticize that religion. We may or may not agree with each other but we both have equal rights and we both need to respect that, this is a very simple and basic thing to understand in any civilized society, but it seems we are yet far from being a civilized society and these type of acts prove this point.

I don't know who said it but I read somewhere the sentence "The country which can't laugh on itself can't survive for long." Satire is a very special form of humor, not everyone can handle it as it can be crude and brutally offensive sometimes. But this brutality is its specialty and makes it a very effective way of commenting on any issue and not an easy art to learn. Islam is allowing itself to be dragged by some radicals into a highly intolerant zone where even a disagreement or satire is not tolerated. Any criticism, no matter how small or big, is considered so offensive by some radical groups or countries that they resort to violence against any dissenting voice. This is not only religious fanaticism but this is an attack on human liberty, an attack on basic principles of civilized society and it should not be encouraged. The use of religion to spread terror or hatred should be challenged by all religions at every level. Everyone including all Muslims who believe in humanity and tolerance should speak up in one loud voice so that all these terrorists get the message very loud and clear. It is of no use to say that these terrorists don't belong to any religion or they are not humans, the truth is that they do belong to some religion and they are humans. Unfortunately, in today's world, many terror activities are directly or indirectly associated with some religion. Islam is being used as a terror tool by many radicals, so, it is time for all Islamic moderates and liberals to stand up against this bigotry. Every religion has gone through phases of intolerance that have taken a huge toll on human life, this is why we cannot allow that to happen again. 

Violent attacks on innocent people are barbaric and disgusting no matter who does it and why they do it. No religion, country, group, sect, or holy book can justify any such attack. If any group finds something offensive, derogatory, or insulting, then they have the right to protest peacefully or they can put up counterarguments but they absolutely have no right to use violence to silence any dissenting voice. Any book or prophet is not above the rule of law, killing innocents can not be justified by using any verse from any book no matter who wrote that book. Any such acts or statements that justify such violence should be challenged and condemned in the strongest possible words, doesn't matter if they come from any holy book or somewhere else. If we ignore them, then we will be facing many scenarios where such bigots from some religions kill innocents in the name of defending their religion. Unfortunately, religion has been used to propagate fear among its nonbelievers. We can not live in denial mode anymore by saying that there is no relationship between religion and terror, clearly, there is a strong relationship between the two. I agree that it is unfair to target any single religion for this. However, if we see some people misusing Islam for terrorism we all especially the Muslim community need to confront this misuse and take a strong stand against it. Hindus, Christians, and Jews also need to condemn very strongly any acts where these religions are used to spread fear or propagate violence. Unless we all speak together against these things our message is not going to have any effect. As long as people base their reactions to such incidents depending on who did it, where it happened, or who killed who, such barbaric acts will continue. So let's stand together, let's pay our respects to these brave cartoonist who sacrificed their lives to protect our liberty. These people died to protect our freedom of expression, they chose to die rather than compromise with their right to express themselves freely. They command our respect and our commitment to continue their mission. If we hesitate then we will be equally responsible for their deaths as those terrorists are. I choose to stand with my friends who lost their lives to protect my right to freedom of speech. 

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. What's use of freedom of speech without freedom to offend?

2. Salman Rushdie criticises 'a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam'

3. 23 Heartbreaking Cartoons From Artists Responding To The Charlie Hebdo Shooting
4. Terrorist do have a religion.
5. Images for charlie hebdo-Google

Is pk anti-Hindu, anti-religion, or anti-religious stupidity?

Somehow controversy related to the movie "pk" refuses to die, and discussions are still going on in various social media forums and news channels. One interesting point that I found many people repeatedly mentioned is that they don't have any problems with pk talking about the bad practices of religion but they have a problem with the movie targeting Hinduism unfairly. They cite various scenes from the movie to prove their point, but at the same time, they conveniently fail to mention scenes where it also comments about other religions like Christianity and Islam. But they do have a point that the central theme of the movie is to comment on hypocrisy associated with religious practices in India, mainly about scams these babas and gurus are running in the name of spirituality and god. So, in this post, I am looking at the allegation of pk being an anti-Hindu movie in a very sympathetic way and see if there is any truth in it. May be there is but let's analyze it first before jumping to any conclusion.

The movie is targeted towards the Indian audience. This is not a Hollywood movie that is targeted at a world audience but it is a commercial Hindi movie whose audience is mostly people belonging to India (where the majority follows Hinduism). So I think one should understand the reason why it talks about religion by taking Hinduism as a prime example, simply because it connects to more customers and helps to generate more revenue. After all, movies are commercial products, designed and produced to make money. If one is going to invest so much money to make any product for any market then it makes perfect sense to make a product that appeals to most customers of that region. Another main reason is, that cinema as a medium itself has its own limitations. Apart from being a commercial product a movie also has a time constraint, it can be two or three hours long. People are not going to sit in a theater for five or six long hours to watch a movie no matter how entertaining or educating it is. I don't think any movie maker can comment or criticize equally about wrong practices from each and every major religion in one movie. So, the matter of fact is that they have to pick and choose and Raju Hirani chose his pick. If someone is not happy with this movie and wants to make a similar movie using Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or some other religion as a central theme then they are most welcome to do it. It is every artist's choice what they want to use in their artistic creation. One can criticize their work, debate about it, discuss or even protest about it. But questioning why they chose to talk about A and not about C or D is a bit too much, let the artist decide that. Everyone is not an expert in every field, I know more about Hinduism because I was born in a Hindu family and lived my most of life in Hindu-dominated surroundings. So, if I decide to comment about religion I may use Hinduism as an example because of my familiarity with it, someone may use Islam or Christianity because they know more about it. It is a personal choice. I think it is very simple to understand. You make your own choice and let others make their own.

Another point that I see that various people make many times is that foreigners feel that India is the only country they know where the majority is mocked by the minority. In any other country if you are the majority you will never be able to make a movie like pk. I don't understand where they got the impression that in India minority mocks the majority. If we look at the makers of pk itself, its producer, director, and scriptwriter all seem to belong to the Hindu religion. So, the first part of this argument that in India minorities mock the majority is not correct. Based on my personal experience I can say that in the USA, I see a lot of criticism directed towards Christianity which is the majority religion. People make many documentaries that attack these religious beliefs and make fun of Christianity but there is no attempt to ban them or attack the makers. So, it is false to say that India is the only place where minorities or the majority are mocked, it happens everywhere.

Each of these allegations and attacks on pk seems to be out of some anger and emotional outburst but without any rationale or logic. People have the right to feel angry and protest but they don't have the right to force their own beliefs on others. Freedom of expression is the fundamental right of everyone. If people have the right to protest then people also have the right to express themselves freely. I don't find pk anti-Hindu or anti-religion, rather it hesitated from attacking on concept of God. It supports the existence of God, it only attacks on hypocrisy propagated by these so-called agents of God. If these people who are attacking this movie think that these agents and their theatrics are real Hinduism, then they are right in saying that pk is anti-Hindu because the movie specifically attacks these things. But, if they feel that Hinduism is something beyond these babas, gurus, and their theatrics then they don't have to worry about this movie as it doesn't say anything about other aspects of religion. It only attacks hypocrisy and stupidity. It is not anti-Hindu or anti-religion but it is anti-stupidity.    

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

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

Happy New Year

2014 is over and now we are already in 2015. As we need occasions to celebrate and get together. We have created the new year as another festival to celebrate and enjoy. The good part of this festival is that it is not a religious one, it is not associated with any particular faith or belief so everyone can participate in it with equal enthusiasm. This is the reason New Year is celebrated all over the world, across all communities, and by people of all ages.

People who celebrate life every day or don't wait for any particular day or occasion to have fun don't need any special day to celebrate anything, their whole life is a big celebration and every day is like a big festival for them. But most of us can't live like that because of so many reasons, for many living like this is practically not possible. New Year, birthdays, or anniversaries are just like any other day in life but we try to make them special, we celebrate them to add more flavor to our daily lives. We need something to look forward to and these occasions or many other festivals give us this opportunity. Actually, when the year changes mostly nothing changes except the calendar. This is an opportunity to pause in our busy lives and look back at what we did in the last year and what we should plan for the next year to make it better. That is why people try to make some new year resolutions, they may or may not try to complete them but they at least make them.

I personally don't celebrate these occasions if I am alone, I am not a party person. I prefer solitude over chaos (crowded gatherings), I really feel out of place at big functions or parties. But if I have to attend them then I prefer to spend time with friends and family. I prefer small gatherings where we can chitchat and eat tasty food. I feel happy to see cheerful people who are in a celebration mood and are looking forward to the coming days with positive enthusiasm. These occasions are also about taking a break from our regular routine and rejoice. We need some break from our regular routine so that we can recharge our batteries. 

Celebrate these occasions if you like, have fun, party hard, and then work hard. At the same time, please also be considerate of people who don't like to be part of these types of functions. Surround yourself with people you are comfortable with, and interacting with talented people improves your own qualities. Let us make a resolution to make this coming year more peaceful than last year, let's try to be more tolerant and compassionate towards each other. Let's celebrate life, let's pay tribute to all who left, and remember their sacrifice and contributions. I wish everyone a very prosperous, healthy, and happy new year.

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

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