Paris attacks: Are we going to learn any lessons?

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

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

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

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

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

Why so much anger against Wall Street?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intolerance was always there in India

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

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

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

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

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

Women are made, not born

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

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

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

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

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

We all are transgenders in someway

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

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

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

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