I don't miss festivals like Ganeshotsav at all

Ganapati festival or Ganeshotsav was recently concluded in India. It is a very big festival in Maharashtra from where I come. As a kid and part of my teenage years, I was actively involved in this festival. Like most of the kids, I also enjoyed dancing during visarjan processions, singing aartis (devotional songs), shouting slogans, etc. But as I grew older and saw the real face of these festivals, observed what goes on behind the scenes, how much inconvenience it causes to people, and how much waste of resources it results, I ultimately understood its impact on the environment. I was shocked and I got disconnected from all these types of festivals. In our neighborhood, there were two major festivals Ganapati festival and Durga pooja, I have stayed away from my hometown for the last 12 years, but I never felt their absence in the last 12 years or so, rather I really feel happy that I don't have to witness all that nonsense which was carried out in name of these festivals. When I was in Pune, it really made me angry and resulted in a lot of frustration to watch all these things happening right in front of my eyes. Before anyone jumps to any conclusions let me also mention that I know that some celebrate these festivals in a very simple and private manner with utmost care not to hurt the environment around them, and I am not talking about these people. These are honorable exceptions, but I am talking about the majority, especially these public mandals who want to create some facade to display their bhakti and devotion. I am against this grand display of anything at public inconvenience, using public money, be it some political rally, religious ceremony, or anything. Why do people feel the need to demonstrate their love or devotion in a way that can result in tremendous inconvenience to others and a waste of resources? Even during some marriage processions in India music is too loud, people dance like crazy, and they block the traffic for no reason, it is good to know that they have some rules and regulations now to control all this nonsense, I hope they are implemented strictly.

I am sure there are ways to express devotional or religious feelings peacefully or in a manner that won't cause any inconvenience to others. I would love to be a part of such celebrations. I understand that community gatherings and celebrations are an important part of our social life. But somehow people don't like such peaceful ways, in the name of culture or religion or tradition they want to follow the rituals that have very little concern about their surroundings or about people who don't want to be part of that particular event. Many people feel inconvenienced due to chaos and noise pollution due to these festivals, but very few date to object. The problem is any objection results in some kind of law and order situation, the celebrating group claims that their religious feelings are hurt, and many times this results in communal tension. This is why almost all governments prefer to ignore these things and allow them to continue. For me, it was really torture to watch these things, I always wondered how those loud songs or excessive lighting, crazy dancing and shouting, and hooliganism while collecting donations for these festivals display the feeling of devotion in any way. Why do these people fail to think about infants and senior people who might suffer because of the loud noise that their speakers are making? Why do they fail to understand that it is not proper to block the road to raise tents and cause inconvenience to hundreds of commuters every day? Why do many of them insist on immersing those idols in the sea, river, or pond even after knowing that it causes water pollution? There are many questions like this, and I am glad that now there are many people who are raising these questions. I am also happy to see that some are working towards persuading people to donate these idols rather than immersing them in water. There is no doubt that all these festivals need serious reforms, they need to adapt to the needs and requirements of the current era, no matter from which religion they belong. But I know that it is not easy and is not going to happen so soon as many people want to continue with these things without any concern about others around them or about the environment. I am glad that I am away from all this. I wish all the best to all the people who are working hard to reform these traditions, they are really doing a very difficult and important job, and I salute them. I don't miss Ganeshotsav or any other festival celebrated in a way to cause inconvenience to others. I am more than happy to stay away from these things. But I still feel sad to see the wastage of resources and really hope that these reformist people will be able to convince the government to implement some laws that can minimize the effect of such behavior on the environment and reduce the inconvenience of people.

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 trivialize abortion, it's already a very difficult decision

The next US presidential election is going to be held next year, and the candidate selection process in both major parties (Democrats and Republicans) has already started. It is always interesting to listen to primary as well as presidential election debates. They cover a lot of political, social, economic, and health-related issues. Abortion is one of the favorite topics of all these debates, especially in republican debates where somehow this topic is not discussed in the health or medical section but discussed along with faith and religion. I don't understand why they or for that matter, anyone wants to link this medical or public health issue with religion or faith? What does one's religion have to do with the decision of abortion? Does anyone think about their religion before having sexual intercourse with anyone?  Then how come a byproduct of unprotected sexual intercourse becomes an issue of faith? There are pro-life and pro-choice people, some groups oppose abortion altogether, some allow it if the mother's life is in danger, and some support it as a personal choice. There are various views on this particular topic, and most of them trivialize this very serious and difficult personal choice to achieve their political motives.

The issue of abortion and state or federal funding of clinics where this procedure is performed is so sensitive and touchy that there are very polarized opinions about this. Some conservative people are so sensitive that they go to the extent of calling each and every abortion a "murder"!! Actually, each and every sexual intercourse between a sexually mature male and female has a probability of conception. Therefore, it is comforting to see that these people at least don't call the use of contraceptives a murder because contraceptives also interfere with the natural fertilization process as they avoid unwanted pregnancies. Fertilization is a natural biological process, and as far as humans are concerned, it happens whenever sperm fertilizes the egg, it doesn't matter how, when, and where. Whether it is consensual sex or rape, incest, or marriage, any sperm can fertilize an egg. Sex between underage kids can also result in this, heinous crimes like rape can also result in the fertilization of eggs, or one can do this in a lab (in vitro fertilization). There is nothing divine or supernatural in this process, like all other animals we also mate and reproduce, it is as simple as that. But unwanted pregnancies can have a huge effect on the physical and mental health of that woman, she must at least get a choice to decide about her own body and health.

To have a child or not must be entirely that woman's choice, nature has given her that right, and this includes her choice to continue with pregnancy or not. After all, it is her body that has to carry that burden, it is her life that gets affected by this, and as it is about her body, it must be her choice. Who is the society or government to decide about it? What rights does society have on women's or men's bodies? Society can offer counseling, sex education, and run awareness programs to avoid unwanted and underage pregnancies but in the end, it should be that individual's choice. Just because there is a possibility of biological reproduction, society and government don't get the right to have control over women's bodies and health. The decision to abort a pregnancy is not an easy one, it is an extremely painful and difficult decision for all people involved in it, especially for that woman. This decision takes a toll on the physical and mental health of that couple, especially, the woman. Very few can imagine or understand the stress and trauma associated with making this decision. By making it a part of political debate we are not making things easy for them, but as a society, we are giving some people a chance to use this personal and emotional turmoil of some people as a political tool. Trivializing the issue of abortion on a political platform is one of the most disgusting things I ever experienced. People have the right to raise any issue they want there is no doubt about it, this is an integral part of any democratic society, but health issues should be discussed in health forums with all concerned parties involved, not in religious or political forums. I really find it amazing to see a bunch of men making decisions about women's health or talking about the moral aspects of abortion. Let women decide about the issues related to their bodies and health. Pregnancy is a biological phenomenon, it is a personal health issue, not a political problem. I hope people understand the difference between a political issue and a health issue and act accordingly. I am sure no one takes any pleasure in going for an abortion, as it is already a very tough and painful decision, so, if you can't provide any comfort or help, then at least please don't make it more painful and difficult, and please don't play with someone's health for your political gains. 

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

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

Ravish Kumar - a rare sensible voice from Indian news channel

It is more than a couple of years since I started following NDTV anchor and journalist Ravish Kumar, the only program from any Indian news channel show that I watch consistently is his show called "Prime Time." I also follow his blog Kasba, which is a Hindi blog where Ravish shares his personal opinions and experiences. His TV show is so familiar in our home that if my kids see me watching something on my tablet they by default think that I am watching Ravish's program, they also know his name, voice, and face very well. I guess he is the only Indian news anchor that they can recognize by name and face. So, what is so special about this person? Why the heck I am praising him so much and bothered to write a blog post about him? He is not even an English journalist or someone to whom so-called powerful and popular politicians from India even grant a one-to-one interview. Many anchors from the same channel are known to be very powerful and influential, they can call so-called big ministers and key people on their show. No doubt that they all have earned their reputation by their hard work and dedication, but none of them are as unbiased as Ravish is. Actually, it is not easy to be unbiased as more power comes into your hand, be it power via politics, power via journalism, or power via anything else. Many journalists are active members of some political parties and still hold positions like editors in media houses. There are media houses whose political inclination is clearly known and one can easily see this bias in their reporting. There are also people from the media who are members of Rajyasabha from some political party.

There are quite a few reasons why I got attracted to his show and watch it regularly, one of the major reasons is the diversity of the subjects he chose for his show. He dares to touch very simple but important subjects for common people which many other anchors don't even bother to mention because they are not controversial. Even during the 2014 general elections in India, his reporting was very different than all others. I think he is the only anchor who clearly says that in his show he is going to present only one side of the story and requests people to go and check the other side of the story as it is important to know both sides. I think he is one of the rare TV anchors who consistently accepts the futility of having TV debates where people either shout at each other or give sanitized politically correct answers, both hardly result in any informative discussions. He is one of the rare people who says not to believe in whatever he says just because he is a TV anchor, he requests his audience to go and verify themselves and form their own opinions. He shares many interesting views, maybe I got attracted to his show because I also share somewhat similar views. I guess if someone is looking for motivation to learn Hindi, then his show is one of the great reasons to learn it, as this show is exclusively in Hindi. His fearless reporting is another interesting aspect, he dares to touch the subjects that many others don't, and this makes his show unique in its own way. He raises many uncomfortable questions that very few politicians like to face, maybe this is the reason why very few of them dare to give him an interview. When I heard about recent personal attacks on him on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter, I really felt bad. This is also a sign of increasing intolerance and fanaticism in our society. Any sane voice which dares to raise difficult questions is not welcomed, rather every attempt is made to silence it. I am sure that Ravish won't get perturbed by such attacks, but I can see that he is bothered about them. He sounds disturbed sometimes in his blog posts which is a normal reaction from a sensitive person like him.

I have one personal request for Ravish, I know it is tough to be an independent voice, but please keep on doing what you do best, write your blog and express your opinion fearlessly. Please carry on with your TV show by reporting on various issues that are important for our society. I also understand that it is really hard to relax when you and your family get attacked on social media for no fault of theirs. These goons are dangerous, and I hope you have the strength to deal with them. You know very well that there are very few independent and sane voices left in the Indian media and you are one of them, so, it is very important for people like you to stay there. Please don't even think of quitting, many people like me are willing to stand behind you. Maybe you can set an example for many misguided people, maybe by watching you one day they all will realize that there are peaceful, democratic, and civilized ways to raise their questions and resolve differences. Maybe they will realize that it is not a good idea to become a fan of anyone (including you). So, for all this to happen people like you should stay and continue doing their work. Thank you very much for your efforts, I and many people really appreciate it.

In general, very few independent voices are left in Indian media and I hope Ravish continues to be independent. I am not his fan, rather I am no one's fan to support or follow anyone blindly. It can become really tough and sometimes really frustrating, but carry on with your journey my friend. I expect to hear these lines regularly for many more years "नमश्कार, मैं रविश कुमार."

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://naisadak.org/
2. http://www.ndtv.com/video/list/anchor/ravish-kumar?pfrom=home-nri_anchors

Fanaticism is dangerous, avoid it

We can find fanatics in each and every field. The reality is that no field can claim to be untouched by fanatics. Fanaticism is spreading so rapidly that even so-called liberals and tolerant people seem to be so aggressive that they sound fanatic about their views and their attitude leaves no scope for discussion. The mindset that "you are either with us or against us" is rapidly becoming very popular among people across the world. Very few are interested in real exchange of ideas, most people are interested in delivering their own views and ideas. They don't want any feedback, counter-arguments, or alternate views, but only want agreement or acceptance. Even so-called big political leaders are falling prey to such a mindset, that is why I say that this increasing spread of fanaticism is dangerous. Especially on social media, this attitude is clearly evident. The public platform that social media has provided us is an amazing opportunity to have various discussions with people across the world. One can discuss any topic with anyone, from anywhere if they have a simple internet-connected device like a computer or smartphone. Many people are making use of this technology and sharing their ideas with each other, but at the same time, many are not open to any scrutiny or questioning. People want to share their opinions but are seldom interested in listening to others. Discussions quickly turn into arguments and arguments into verbal fights. This reduces the scope for any sensible discussion. The major signs of fanaticism are that people don't like disagreements, they are not very welcoming or tolerant towards alternate views and ideas, and they show contempt towards the other side's views. Another aspect of fanatics is that they are not interested in knowing the other side's arguments, they are only interested in defeating the other side and proving them wrong at any cost. Normally, these people are very passionate about their beliefs, there is nothing wrong with being passionate about anything, but to become overly aggressive and intolerant is definitely not right.

Free exchange of views or ideas is one of the necessary features of any tolerant and progressive society, but I think slowly we are losing this very good quality. Tolerance is not a sign of weakness, it requires a lot of strength and patience to be tolerant of others' views even if you don't agree with them, but liberals and conservatives both are failing to display any tolerance. This attitude leads to intolerance and that results in a highly polarized society. Polarization stops the flow of ideas, it creates barriers that are often difficult to break. People stop talking with each other and start talking about each other that too only bad stuff. This creates a very unhealthy and regressive environment as people start living in their own silos. I understand that many people are very passionate about many issues and they want to convey their ideas as assertively as possible, but there is a difference between being assertive and fanatically aggressive, one can be assertive without being overly aggressive. Actually, people should understand that fanaticism doesn't help their own cause, rarely do people from the other side yield to fanatic arguments. Discussions and arguments are integral parts of any progressive society, but they need to be carried out in a very healthy and conducive environment. Previously radicalism was limited to certain people who used to be brainwashed by certain religions or cults, but now this habit is spreading rapidly all across the sections of society and we need to spread awareness about this. We need to be aware of our own behavior and check from time to time that we are not becoming fanatics while propagating our own views. Discussions and negotiations are the best way to solve any complicated or sensitive issue, but fanaticism shuts the doors for both of these options. As a society we need to talk to each other and discuss our differences, then only we can solve the many complicated problems we face today. I hope people become more tolerant towards each other's views. Tolerance doesn't mean one has to accept those views, but just try to listen to them and try to understand the reason behind those views. I know it is not an easy task but it is worth our time and effort, it is easy to become a fanatic, so, please don't take the easier route as easy doesn't always mean good.

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 bring morality in diet

Food habits are an evergreen topic for many debates and discussions. We all debate which food is healthier and which is not, the advantages and disadvantages of a vegetarian, nonvegetarian, or vegan diet, the health effects of processed food, and things like that. A lot of research is also going on about the effects of various types of diets and food habits on human health. There are many types of dietary habits in the world, but they can be mainly divided mainly into two classes; vegetarian (people who don't eat meat) and non-vegetarian (people who also eat meat). The nomenclature of nonvegetarians is utterly misleading, it implies that nonvegetarians only eat meat, but this is seldomly true, most nonvegetarians eat a vegetarian diet, but they also eat meat that's why they get included in this category. Actually, if we look at human history, as a species we are mostly omnivorous, which means we can eat both plants as well as meat. The ability to eat almost anything is a huge advantage for humans and can be considered one of the major reasons for being the most dominant species on this planet. Herbivorous and carnivorous animals have very specialized teeth, jaws, and digestive systems, it is not that easy for them to switch their diets but we can shift from one to another very easily. But this is not the topic of my post today. My argument is that it is inappropriate to bring morality while discussing various food habits. Very often vegetarian people argue on this point, somehow they feel that there is no killing of any living thing while preparing vegetarian food, and the fundamental basis of nonvegetarian food is violence, so, they have the moral upper hand as far as diet is concerned. Many of them argue that because of moral reasons, it is not appropriate to eat meat. If anyone argues about diet based on health benefits, then it is a reasonable argument, but I have a problem when people bring morality in judging the food habits of others. Eating meat is a widely accepted food habit all over the world, this has been a part of human culture for thousands of years, and judging it based on a moral compass is wrong. The truth is that every living thing survives at the cost of other living things, life feeds on life, and there are no exceptions to this rule so far.

I have observed that most nonvegetarian people try as much as possible to take care of the convenience of vegetarian people, they make sure that there are some vegetarian options available in case someone doesn't eat meat. But rarely favor is returned from vegetarians to nonveg people. The main reason is that most veg people make the diet a part of their belief system, not a personal choice, most of them think it is not moral to serve or eat nonveg food, so, there is a sort of contempt and rejection towards nonveg food from their side. Also, most nonveg people are fine with this discrimination and hardly they complain. Anyone can check this themselves if they want, any nonveg person easily eats a veg diet if there is no nonveg option available, but it will be tough to find an example the other way around. Anyway, it is not good to force anyone to eat any type of food if they don't want to, but somehow this sentence is interpreted as it is not proper to force anyone to eat meat but it is perfectly fine to force someone to eat vegetables. One can hear about several meat bans, but has anyone ever heard about some vegetable bans? Isn't it an example of a double standard or do we really think that meat-eating is such an evil habit that meat-eating people deserve to be discriminated against? If it is an evil habit, then why there are so many meat eaters on our planet, and why it is not illegal? I understand the appeal and protest of animal lovers against animal killings. They have the right to do so. In the same manure, I know many people who love plants, I wonder what will be the reaction of all of us who eat plants if plant lovers object to plant killings for food?

I am personally 99% vegetarian, I eat meat rarely and mostly outside my home. My diet is strictly my personal choice, several factors like geographical location, availability of food, my likes, dislikes, and health concerns dictate what type of food I eat. I don't judge anyone based on what type of food they eat, I don't force my food habits on anyone, and don't like anyone to force theirs on me. I respect other's food choices and expect the same in return, if they are not willing to respect my choices, I feel no obligation to respect their choices. It is a matter of mutual respect, rather respect has to be mutual in every case, one way respect or love never works. Many of these animals and plants are produced because there is a huge demand for them in the market, if there is no demand all these plant and animal farms will be closed, either way, their survival is in danger no matter if people eat them or not. I don't think many people who argue against veg or nonveg diets understand this reality. What I eat or wear is my personal choice and as I am free to choose these things others are also free. I have no right to impose my choices on others and others also should not do this. This is a very simple rule to follow, let's eat and allow others to eat.

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

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

It's not about meat ban silly!

The recent controversy about the meat ban in Maharashtra is an ideal example of how appeasement politics works in India. Actually, this is not the first time anything has been banned in India, we have a long history of banning books, movies, authors, different types of meats, etc. This is all done by different governments in the name of not hurting the sentiments of a particular community or religion. Sometimes it is about sentiments attached to some animal like a cow. Sometimes it is about the insult of some revered historical figure like Shivaji. Sometimes it is about the insult of some religious icons like Mohammad or Jesus or some goddess. And sometimes it is about some religious festivals or rituals. In the current case, it is about respecting the Jain ritual called 'Paryushan', as Jains are vegetarians and are against any type of violence some municipal corporations in Mumbai imposed a ban on the butchering of animals and selling meat for a few days during Paryushan time to respect their sentiments. Surprisingly killing and selling of fish is not included in this ban, so, I wonder if Jains consider fish as living things or not, or is there any different logic that allows fish killing but not of chickens or goats? One can find many technical mistakes in these types of bans, but this is not the main point, this particular incident along with many other similar incidents in the past exposes the prevalent hypocrisy of our society. 

The same political parties who were supporting the beef ban to its core are now on roads opposing this particular meat ban, they are so adamant in their opposition that they are going to the extent of selling meat on their own on streets to register their protest against this ban. Now just imagine what would have been the reaction of the same people if beef eaters who are again a minority in India had done the same thing. But we can ignore this for the time being as I already said this is not about a meat ban at all, people who think the issue is about meat or religious sentiments are living in a fool's paradise. There is already freedom to practice any religion guaranteed by the constitution in India. This is all about appeasement politics, not about any meat. Every political party has played this game and shamelessly says that they don't do any appeasement politics. Each one of them makes a huge hue and cry if someone else does this for political gains, but shamelessly justifies their own similar acts that too by citing instances in the past which they opposed. NDTV anchor Ravish has coined the very proper term "is equal to theory" for all these actions where every political outfit tries to justify their acts by claiming that in the past so and so has also done this. The sad part is that supporters of these parties participate in this drama without even realizing that they are becoming a part of a deeply hypocritical and regressive system.

These types of bans set up another dangerous precedence, if you ban one book to appease a certain section of society then what is going to stop some other communities from asking to ban another book or attack another author for hurting their sentiments? If you agree to one unreasonable or stupid demand to ban anything then automatically you give legitimacy to many other similar demands. This drama has been going on from last so many years without any interruption. India is already facing so many problems because of appeasement politics but still, people are refusing to learn from their past mistakes, rather, they are adamant about committing the same mistakes just because someone did it and got away with it. Every time it is expected from courts to bring some sense in such matters and unfortunately, they are also not very consistent on these types of sensitive issues. But I have to agree that they are doing a much better job than all political parties who are only interested in exploiting public sentiments.

Divide-and-rule politics is not new, Britishers used it to create a rift between Hindus and Muslims as well as between different castes of Hindus for their own benefit. All these bans are part of the same legacy and mindset, the intention is to appease certain sections by doling out certain unreasonable favors or to hurt some sections by banning something, which in turn creates polarization, and reaping the political benefit of this polarized atmosphere. There is no exception, all political parties are guilty of playing appeasement politics. Only common people, if they want, can stop this nonsense. But if they are okay with it, then this stupid drama will continue endlessly. This is not at all about any book or meat or movie this is about liberty, freedom, and appeasement. Religion is a very personal matter and everyone is free to practice their own faith, but no one has the right to impose their own beliefs or lifestyle on others. This is a simple fact that everyone should understand in any tolerant and progressive society. If they can't stop this nonsense, then at least please stop claiming that you are a tolerant nation. There are Islamic countries in the world where there is a ban on eating food in public places during the month of Ramadan, this is a very regressive thing, but if people think this is wrong, then please explain to me on what basis this meat ban or beef ban can be justified?

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

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

One more murder and another glaring silence - wake up India

Indian writer, scholar, and rationalist Mr. MM Kalburgi was murdered a few days back outside his residence. He was under the radar of some fanatic organizations for his views on religion, especially Hinduism. Finally, he was murdered like some other thinkers like Dr. Narendra Dabholkar and CPI leader Mr. Govind Panse. These three murders symbolize the recent disturbing trend of prevailing intolerance in Indian society where people who dare to challenge the status quo or whose thoughts are not in alignment with the majority are attacked or eliminated. As if these murders are not serious and disturbing enough there is a glaring silence about these barbaric acts, it looks like people expect these things to happen. Only a certain section of society is questioning these acts, the media and most people are busy debating some celebrity kid murder or some other issues. No doubt that any murder should be condemned and covered by the media, but one can easily see the purposeful ignorance of media which shows which direction we are moving as a society.

Disagreeing with someone's ideas or thoughts, criticizing them, or questioning them is an acceptable way of debate and discussion in any civilized society. But physically attacking people, threatening them, forcing them to resign from their jobs,  and forcing them to withdraw their articles and books are signs of an intolerant and barbaric society. The environment of fear and unwanted aggression is not conducive to the intellectual growth of any society. Many countries in this world live in this type of environment, and we can see what is their situation today. India by large is perceived as a very tolerant and inclusive society, the very diverse nature of its population is proof of this. Whatever success it achieved as a country can be largely attributed to this tolerant nature where intellectuals were not scared to express their opinions and ideas. But the occurrence of such incidents put a big question mark on this claim. A society that fails to protect its intellectuals will also fail to protect its intellect. The display of such unwanted aggression towards intellectuals is totally unwanted and I am amazed that respective governments didn't react strongly against any of these murders. The whole of India was on the roads after that infamous Delhi gang rape and people protested against that inhuman crime, these murders are also in the same category. They are equally shameful, disturbing, and inhumane acts. The protection and safety of intellectuals of society is important, especially when in such a hostile environment. If this aggression and attacks are in any way a result of the recent change of political situation in India, then it should be a matter of big concern to the current ruling party of India (BJP). They should not hesitate to take all required actions to remove this atmosphere of fear and insecurity. I hope these incidents are not taken lightly, I know that these murders won't make any media headlines or won't find a place on the front page of national newspapers, but these things are concerning. Such incidents can decay the social fabric slowly and if ignored they can result in serious damage to India in the long term. 

I strongly register my protest against these attacks. I am deeply hurt and pained to see that some people are attacked and murdered just for expressing their thoughts. These murders are no different than the recent killings of some bloggers in Bangladesh. I hope people from India (as well as Bangladesh) take serious note of this attack on freedom of expression and act to bring back that tolerant and fearless environment. I hope people learn to agree to disagree and carry on discussion rather than choosing the path of violence. I offer my sincere tribute to these brave free thinkers who dared to express themselves even in a very hostile environment, I salute their braveness and courage with which they fought against all odds, I hope the society for which they sacrificed their lives won't forget their sacrifice and their thoughts.

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