Farmer suicide - please stop this politics on death

There is an intense battle going on between the ruling party (BJP and its allies called NDA) and the opposition party (mainly Congress and its allies called UPA) in India. The main reason for this current political battle is the issue of the recent land acquisition bill and the farmer suicide issue. The opposition is trying to get maximum benefit from this issue, and the ruling party is trying to dodge the issue of farmer suicide by painting the rosy picture as if everything is under control and suddenly everything will change by the new land acquisition bill that they want to implement. Actually, both the issues, the land acquisition bill and debt-ridden farmers committing suicide are not new. These issues are being exploited for political gains in every election. The land acquisition bill has become a more controversial subject in the last few months mainly because of the bullying attitude of the current government which brought an ordinance to implement the bill rather than choosing the path of discussion and bipartisan collaboration as happened in 2013 to pass a similar bill. Now they have to get it passed through parliament and this is where opposition parties are sensing an opportunity to put the government in a difficult spot as they don't have the majority in the upper house (Rajya Sabha). But the more serious issue here is of situation of many farmers who are forced to commit suicide because of reasons like crop failure, poor weather, and lack of proper value to their crops which results in huge and unmanageable debt on them. There are so many reasons why many Indian farmers get into deep financial trouble where they feel no hope of revival of their situation and are forced to end their lives. Most farm lands are owned by men so they are the ones who are dying, no doubt that their families also go through tremendous trauma and hardships but normally farmer who commits suicide is the male head of the household.

BJP used the issue of farmer's suicide in previous general elections along with many other issues against the ruling UPA government, now Congress is returning the favor by attacking the NDA government on the same issue by linking it with the land acquisition bill. I studied this issue briefly and found that there are many reasons why some farmers choose to take the extreme step of suicide, but the main reason is that they lose hope in a system that is supposed to help them in distress. This system looks reasonably good on paper but its implementation on ground level is so pathetic that it is almost useless for these farmers. The farm sector in India is very ignored and unreformed sector, all other industrial sectors get some reforms and assistance to increase their income but the farm sector and farmers are always treated as a liability. It seems they are continuously asking for help and subsidies to rescue them from endless debt. The attitude of all political parties towards farmers is not very kind, they all exploit them as vote banks or use them as instruments to trouble the government but rarely do they take any substantial steps to help this distressed class when they come into power. This crisis reached its worst point when a farmer committed suicide right in front of the media, police, and thousands of people including the chief minister of Delhi during an AAP rally in the national capital. Since this death, India has witnessed a pathetic display of political opportunism where political parties are busy playing a political blame game over the dead body of a farmer. This blame game which started immediately after this tragic incident doesn't seem to end which displays the pathetic face of all political parties who want to politicize this issue to their advantage. The death of farmers is a result of a failure of the political, economic, and social systems at every level. It is a problem of years of neglect by successive governments to implement their schemes efficiently on the ground level. They declare so many schemes but rarely do they bother to check if those schemes are producing the desired effect or if the benefit of these schemes is reaching the people who really need it.

As per available statistics, more than 60% of people in India are dependent on the farm sector, so it is the largest private sector of the Indian economy. But the truth is that it hardly gets attention proportional to its size from Indian political and economic experts. Farmers and farm laborers are worst affected by this neglect. Every government announces so many schemes for them. Based on political slogans and government announcements one may think that this class is the biggest beneficiary of subsidies and relief packages from all governments, but then the question is, why they are still in distress? If such a large section of the population is dependent on farming and related things why union budget of India do not reflect that percentage in resource allocation for them? Why it is so difficult for farmers to get a loan even from nationalized banks whereas any salaried person whose job is equally uncertain can get a loan easily? Why do relief packages declared by all state and national governments from all political parties fail to reach their most deserving beneficiaries? Why a dead farmer is more valuable than a living one? "Jai jawan, jai kisan" is a very popular slogan, so, why does jawan's (soldier) death trigger completely different emotions among political and social classes compared to kisan's (farmer) death? Instead of discussing this issue seriously, and trying to come up with practical and viable solutions, why our political class is busy playing endless blame games for years? There are many questions like this, but there is no one who is even willing to listen to them, and this is a very scary scenario for those farmers who entirely depend on this broken system for help. This problem is political, economic, and social. But political and economic angles are most important as both can change the situation. Respective governments in state and center need to work towards making farming a profitable enterprise. Today it is not considered a profitable business for most farmers, among the social classes that benefited from the economic boom in India for the last two decades farmers are not one of them. Governments need to design policies that help in increasing farmer's income so that they are not dependent on rescue packages. I request my readers who understand Hindi to watch this brilliant report by Ravish to understand what difficulties farmers face on the ground level even after the declaration of so many schemes by the government to help them.

If we look beyond this political farce and endless TV debates where only the blame game is played we can see the sad face of an Indian farmer who is confused and wondering why his fortunes are not changing even after all the hard work. Why his family is excluded from the picture of shining India? They are already practicing the mantra of "make in India" so why they are not getting the attention and care that they need and deserve? Why their death is required to initiate all this discussion which every time ends in nothing but a blame game? I am sure there are many WHYs in the minds of many farmers and their families but unfortunately, I don't have any answers to their questions. I hope people who can answer them bother to look beyond their party politics and think at least for once about farmers and not about their own political fortunes, until then, there will be one more prime-time show, one more blog, one more headline, one more debate, one more chaotic parliament session but among all this, somewhere, in some village, a farmer will be preparing to end his life and we all will be guilty of allowing that suicide to happen.

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

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

Links:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_acquisition_in_India
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers%27_suicides_in_India
3. क्यों कर्जे से नहीं लड़ पाता किसान?

This is case of child sex abuse, please don't romanticize it

A few days ago while watching a TV show 20/20 on ABC I watched an interview of Mary Kay and her child sex abuse victim (now her husband) conducted by very celebrated American broadcast journalist Barbara Walters. I didn't know about this scandal as I was not in the US when this all happened (back in 1996), but when I came to know about it during this show I felt sick and disgusted. When I saw the way this whole interview was conducted I was shocked to see that TV channels can glamorize or commercialize some disgusting incident like this just to attract viewership and earn revenues. This particular case was a clear case of child rape. When Mary Kay indulged in illegal sexual activity with her 12-year-old student, it was not out of any love or anything it was a clear case of child sexual abuse. It was not a sexual encounter between two consenting adults, but she took advantage of the ignorant mind and adolescent age of that boy and abused him sexually. She got a mild punishment for this crime (six months in jail) and even after that she got sexually involved with the same person when he was just 14. I request readers to read a very powerful account by Bobbi Parish, a child rape survivor herself about this whole scandal and this infamous interview broadcasted on ABC. She has written a very powerful article and I think it covers almost all aspects related to this issue.

Child sex abuse is a very serious problem in our society, but it is very rarely discussed because of the sensitive nature of the subject and the various social and cultural taboos associated with it. If we look at the statistics from various parts of the world it is not difficult to understand that this is a very serious and growing problem everywhere, even so-called sacred institutes like temples and churches are also not free from this problem and because of the easy accessibility of the internet and social media, this problem has become more complex. Any attempt to legitimize or romanticize this crime should be questioned and criticized in the strongest possible words. I don't know what ABC and Barbara Walters were thinking before scripting some program like this to telecast on national TV but it is clear that they got many things wrong in this case. I know that the media loves such scandals as they give them an opportunity to sensationalize the issue and attract maximum viewership, this in turn generates maximum revenues but they also need to think about the social impact of these things. Another very important question that Bobbi also raised in her article is, did they dare to make a program like this because the victim in this particular case was a male and not female? Will they dare to telecast a similar program if the victim is female? Isn't this a case of gender bias where the attitude towards looking at heinous crimes like child rape is completely different because the victim is male and not female? There are many questions like these which need answers. I am not questioning ABC's right to telecast this type of interview, they have the right to choose what type of program they want to make and when they want to telecast it. ABC has the right to decide the contents of its own channel, at the same time people have the right to question and criticize the contents of their program if they find it objectionable and derogatory.

It would have been better if ABC and Barbara could have used this unique opportunity to highlight the issue of child sex abuse and take a firm stand against perpetrators of such crimes but shockingly they chose to portray a romanticized version of this crime committed by Mary Kay. These types of programs give the impression that such things are okay if you can escape the law by using tactics like marrying the victim. When societies are trying to discuss issues like marital rape, this program gives the impression that marrying a rape victim makes the crime less culpable. Also, this program doesn't even come with a warning that it is not appropriate for kids, it may send a wrong message to impressionable kids and I don't think even Barbara Walters wants this to happen. If ABC and Barbara are serious about the issue of child sex abuse then they should telecast another program highlighting this issue and clarify their stand about this infamous Mary Kay interview. Let's see if they have the courage to correct their mistake.

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. Mary Kay LeTourneau is Not a Lover, She’s a Rapist

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar - Most used but least understood political and social icon of India

April 14th, 2015 was the 124th birth anniversary of one of the great thinkers of modern India, Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, also known as Babasaheb. I don't think I need to introduce him to anyone from India, but for others who don't know him, he is considered a great political and social leader who started an awareness campaign and mass movement among suppressed classes of India (mostly Dalits) for their equal rights and social upliftment, especially his work to eradicate the social evil of untouchability. His contribution towards the social upliftment of the suppressed classes of Indian society is more than any other leader of his time. His name and image are used by almost all political parties in India to reap political benefits, but hardly do they bother to read his books, understand his views, and follow his advice. Even political parties who claim to carry on his legacy lack the clarity of thought and level of his thinking that he displayed almost six to seven decades back.

Babasaheb was a Maharashtrian and because I was born and went to school in that state, I was introduced to him at a very early age as there were lessons about him in our school textbooks. I was impressed by his writings and personality in my teenage years mainly because of his rebellious nature. He was not scared to take on well-established traditions, customs, or ideas. He challenged them not just out of emotional rage but argued rationally, with logic, and by producing a lot of evidence to support his argument, which is a very rare thing even today in our political class. Rarely do we see such a spirit of scholarship and rational thinking now not only in a political class but across the board. I think he was one of the greatest thinkers that India ever produced who was way ahead of his times. Unfortunately, his teachings and thoughts didn't get the importance that they deserved in Indian social and political circles, maybe because even his so-called followers were not willing to accept many things that he wrote or said. His name and his image are reduced to tokenism to show empathy and sympathy towards a particular class of Indian society. No doubt that Babasaheb cared a lot about the situation of Dalits in Indian society, he was against casteism and the practice of untouchability which was rampant during that time (unfortunately, it still exists in one form or another). He fought really hard for their rights but to brand him only as a Dalit leader is a gross injustice to the intellect and scholarship of this great man. His scholarly work covers various aspects of social and political life, he was a very well-read and well-educated person. One should read his books and articles to understand how well-read he was and how much research he did to question many discriminatory practices that were socially accepted back then. Sadly, after his death, there was a big leadership vacuum and there was no capable leader of his caliber to fill that vacuum. That vacuum was filled by many political parties who claimed to be caretakers of the suppressed classes of Indian society, they used this class as a vote bank for years, but none of them matched the intellect and conviction of Babasaheb. There is no doubt that the policy of reservation and other social welfare schemes has brought some change in the social and economic status of these communities but still lot more work needs to be done.

If you roam around India, you will see many statues of Dr. Ambedkar and many streets named after him. His name is well known, and he is used by all political parties to exploit political gains. I feel Ambedkar's name is used more than Gandhi's name for political gains. Even though he is one of the most used political icons in Indian politics, he is least understood. When I look at the reason why they ignore his writings or messages, I find it is not because he was not very clear about what he thought about Hinduism, casteism, or reservation, but because it is very inconvenient for them to follow his advice. Even his so-called followers don't care to read his books and follow most of the things recommended by him. It is ironic to see that despite being one of the most used political icons in India his teachings are least followed. I hope people who take his name day and night and all political parties who claim to carry on his legacy at least make some serious efforts to read his writings and reflect on them. If they really care about Babasaheb, then they should show courage to discuss all the issues raised by him openly, they should dare to question the things which he dared to question. Many things that he questioned are still in practice, celebrating his birth anniversary is a great thing, and tokenism has its own importance in our society and culture, but if we really want to honor this great man, then we need to discuss and debate all issues which he raised in his books and articles. If we can remove the evil of casteism from Indian society, it will be a real tribute to this man.

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

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

Links:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._R._Ambedkar
2. प्राइम टाइम : बाबा साहब अंबेडकर का लोक रूप

I respect people but not all their views and opinions

Gandhi once said, "Hate the sin, not the sinner," I totally agree with this statement, but it is also true that it is very difficult to follow this advice. Many times, we find it very difficult to isolate beliefs and acts (good or bad) from any person and look at them independently of their behavior. If we see some person doing good things we start liking them, and we like or love them so much that many times we even try to defend their bad things as we believe that such a nice person can not do anything wrong (hardcore devotees and fan clubs come in this category). Similarly, if we have a negative image of some person in our mind we develop such a negative attitude towards them that we don't want to offer any words of appreciation even towards good deeds done by them (we see this attitude very often in politics). I personally believe in respecting people no matter who they are, I think as humans we should first learn to respect each other irrespective of our religion, nationality, color, race, sexual orientation, or any other personal trait. According to me, this is a basic requirement to call anyone a human, we all need to have mutual respect and kindness. But this mutual respect doesn't mean that we need to respect each other's views, beliefs, opinions, or sentiments. All these things differ from person to person, people have different types of opinions about the same issues, they follow different religions or no religion, some are sensitive and some are not. There is tremendous diversity among all of us as far as our emotions, beliefs, and thinking patterns are concerned, it is impossible that everyone will agree with each other on everything. If we are compelled to respect each and every sentiment of others, we have to be careful all the time not to hurt them, then we can not question, discuss, or argue about any issue as these actions may hurt someone's sentiments. No matter how careful we are, our questioning or criticism is bound to hurt someone's sentiments or make someone feel uncomfortable. So, the expectation to respect every sentiment, belief, or view is unreasonable and against the spirit of having an open discussion.

Let me make clear what I mean in the title of this blog post: I respect all people and as a human being I consider it my duty to do that but I am not obliged to respect all their beliefs, opinions, or sentiments. As I am allowed to challenge other's opinions and question their beliefs or sentiments, they are also free to do the same with my beliefs or sentiments. Others have the right to offend me and I also hold the same right. Let me also make it clear that questioning someone's opinions or beliefs or commenting on their sentiments positively or negatively does not mean showing any disrespect to that person. One should question and argue without being disrespectful. Also, people must understand that just because someone is questioning or arguing does not mean they are being disrespectful. When I question I am trying to challenge or object to those beliefs or opinions not the existence of that particular person, there is a difference between challenging a person and challenging their beliefs. Many cultures or religions consider obedience as a necessary virtue and a very important sign to show respect towards seniors. But obedience doesn't mean blind faith or total devotion without any right to question, this type of obedience is total surrender, a form of slavery, which is dangerous for any human being as it shuts their thinking process off and takes away their ability to question things. Any human without any logical or rational thinking of their own will become like a robot which can be used to carry out any good or bad work, recruitment of young kids for terrorism is an ideal example of this. We have enough devotees in this world, we need many more rational and independent thinkers who are willing to challenge and question things around us. These are the people who can initiate change and who can go against the flow.

So, next time when you see someone questioning your sentiments, views, or beliefs don't think that it is a sign of disrespect or insult but take it as a challenge to validate your thoughts, take it as a challenge to prove your point with evidence and data, it will only improve your own knowledge and help that other person also understand your views better. Let's show respect towards each other as a person but feel free to challenge each other's thoughts, this is the only way we can keep making progress.

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

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

Cyber bullying - a cruel side of digital revolution

The digital revolution brought many changes in our lives. In the last two decades or so digital technology has changed how people interact with each other, it has revolutionized information generation and information sharing. At the same time, it has also created a parallel universe like our real universe, which is called the cyber or virtual world where many good and bad things happen like they happen in our real world. Cyberbullying is one such ugly phenomenon that is spreading rapidly in this virtual world. Because of the immense popularity of social networking sites and the easy accessibility of the internet and gadgets, many people spend a lot of time in this virtual world. They make many friends in this world and interact with many known and unknown people which is not possible in the real world. Bullying is a common incident even in the real world and in the cyber world, it is even more common due to the option of remaining anonymous. People get bullied for so many things, they get bullied for their appearance, expressing their thoughts, or sometimes bullying is in the form of sharing some derogatory material about them. The point is bullying happens in many forms and they all have detrimental effects to various degrees on people who are the victims of bullying. The major difference between bullying in the cyber and the real world is that in the cyber world, it spreads very rapidly, and mass bullying is very common. It really takes a few minutes or hours to make a video, photo, or post viral. People not at all related to that person or issue can comment and harass that person without revealing their identity. These cyberbullies are more aggressive and brutal as many of them think they cannot be caught, so they can say anything to anyone. It is also very difficult to design any effective laws to curb this behavior which makes it a very complex and difficult problem to handle.

I consider cyberbullying comparatively more dangerous because often it happens in a virtual world where the environment doesn't offer any protection to victims. The victim suffers in isolation as virtual world interactions are through a personal device like a smartphone, there are no physical bystanders who can intervene. It is very difficult to detect this problem, many times by the time people close to the victim know that something like this is going on it is too late as the damage has already been done. People who go through this hesitate to talk about this for the same reasons that people who get bullied in real life don't like to talk about it. But in real life, there is the possibility that some bystanders might inform authorities or even intervene to stop it or the victim might try to relocate to some other place to avoid facing those bullies but in the cyber world, both things are not that easy. It is really easy for bullies to chase the victim and intimidate them in the cyber world. This is why we need to educate our kids about cyberbullying and teach them ways to deal with it. If we don't counter this evil, then it will spread very rapidly. Any form of bullying should not be tolerated and if we all stand together against it then only we can put any brakes to these incidents. I hope no more lives are lost because of bullying, we already have enough pressure and problems in real life, and we should not make it more difficult by adding cyberbullying to that list. 

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

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

Religious Freedom Restoration Act - A regressive step to allow discrimination

As expected, the recently passed "religious freedom restoration act" created a lot of debate and controversy in the US media and political circles. Depending on which political party they support, people are busy either criticizing or fiercely defending this controversial law which allows public businesses to deny services to its customers if they feel that it conflicts with their religious beliefs or teachings. Actually, most countries allow their citizens to practice the religion of their choice. Countries like the US derive this freedom from their constitution, so, it is not that in the US it is legal to discriminate against people based on their religion or people find it difficult to practice their religious beliefs. The constitution gives complete freedom to every citizen to choose and practice their chosen faith. I believe that anyone's religion or faith is a personal matter. But it is a problem when people start bringing their faith or religion in public places or at their work and mixing it with work and politics. It is further complicated when lawmakers start making laws to favor a particular religion or to appease some minority community. Such appeasing behavior either by the public or lawmakers creates some problems and disturbs social disharmony.

This current law of Indiana is clearly designed to appease conservative communities of all religions (especially Christians) who might want to use this law to express their displeasure towards certain groups or communities. It is believed that this can be especially discriminating towards the LGBTQ community as certain businesses might refuse to serve them as their religious beliefs allow them to discriminate against these groups. This is why we specifically have anti-discriminatory laws, to stop some people who for whatever reason try to discriminate. Most of them do these things with a lot of conviction and belief because they think that they are doing the right thing taught by their religion and culture. So, they discriminate or hate certain groups because they believe their religion requires them to do this. However, if you are in the public sphere, your personal beliefs don't supersede the law of the land or common sense and decency. People should follow common decency in the public domain and show compassion and kindness towards fellow humans. You might think your religion is the greatest thing human beings ever discovered but that doesn't mean you can abuse other religions; you might think that people, especially women, should only dress in a certain way because your religious holy book says so but that doesn't mean you can force everyone to follow that dictate; you might believe marriage should be between a man and woman, but that doesn't mean homosexuals don't have right to marry. The point is, if you are a public business then you are out there to serve customers, and those customers can come from different races, abilities, genders, nationalities, religions, or sexual orientations. One can use any tag to describe those individuals but they all are "customers," and your business is to serve those customers. Any business's job is not to judge their customer's personal beliefs or character, not to discriminate against them based on their sexual orientation, race, gender, or any other personal trait. These types of discriminatory things used to happen just a few decades back, those terrible memories must be still fresh in many people's minds. Many brave people fought tough and long battles, some even sacrificed their lives to eliminate (or at least reduce) those ugly things from our society. I won't say that discrimination or racism doesn't exist today but at least it doesn't have the protection of the law, people can be questioned and punished by law if they do these things openly. But if the state starts designing any law that encourages any type of discrimination, then it sets up a bad precedent, it is taking our society backward in that horrible discriminatory era that we overcame with a lot of struggle and difficulties. This can open the floodgates where political institutions can try to bring similar legislation which can go to any extent to appease the majority or minority depending on their political interests. In India already these things happen regularly, and they create a lot of legal mess and social polarization, but I never expected that such a thing could happen even in the USA. But I think I was wrong in thinking like this, I can see religious fanaticism is on the rise everywhere, even the US is not an exception to this, so, I am disappointed, but I think this was expected. Even conservative parties are nowadays accused of not being conservative enough by their core supporters, so, they are forced to push the envelope more to make their base happy. Radical conservatives or liberals are only interested in appeasement when they try to push their agendas using political platforms.

This law if it lives up to its expectations is definitely a regressive step that might legalize certain types of discrimination. Most religious institutions and their followers are not happy with the growing acceptance the LGBTQ communities are getting in societies across the world. The same opposition and resentment were displayed when racism or gender discrimination was questioned. There were attempts to continue those discriminatory practices under the name of culture, religion, or traditions. But now we all agree (even conservatives) and know that those practices were wrong. I wonder, why some people are so eager to destroy those things that took so much effort and sacrifice to achieve? Just for some political gain? Why to pass any law that discriminates against some people based on their sexual orientation? How do these things identify with the USA being known as a developed nation? If we all agree that any type of discrimination is wrong, then why not stand together against anything that encourages discrimination in any form? I hope a better sense from both sides prevails and necessary arrangements are made so that there is no possibility of any discrimination based on the personal traits of people. We as a society are already struggling to get rid of discriminatory practices, if any law is needed it is needed to stop discrimination not to encourage it in any form. 

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

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