Dilemma of NRIs about moving back to India

I immigrated to the United States in 2003. It was a life-changing decision for me and my family. There is a strong presence of the Indian community in the USA. I meet many NRIs most of them work in the science and technology field as I also work in the field of science. During most of the meetings, the subject of whether to go back to India or settle in the US comes more often. Many NRIs have been in a dilemma for a very long time about whether to settle in the USA or go back to India. A few days back, I read an article on Quora about this subject. The article is a good attempt to tackle this subject. The author tried to offer his take on this subject based on the opinions of people in his friend circle and his own experience. One thing that I found missing in the article is that the author didn't compare the data gathered in the US with the data of people in similar age groups who migrated back to India, this would have given some comparative picture. The article only presents one side of the story and draws conclusions based on only one set of data. What if people in the 21-28 age group are generally happy and enthusiastic about their work and social life, what if people who are 50 and above are generally worried about their kid's future and somewhat unhappy about their surroundings? If that's the case, then one cannot say that the feelings of NRIs are only due to the geographical location, but it could be also because of their age group, irrespective of where they live.

I want to share my own experience in this area. Maybe it will add something to this debate or help some NRIs to make up their mind to resolve their own dilemma. I immigrated to the USA to get some professional experience in the area of drug discovery and earn some money. Lack of access to sufficient money even for necessary things like education was a big hurdle for my family's economic progress. It was practically impossible for me to earn enough money by doing a job in my field in India and uplift my family's economic status. Moving to some other country was the most common path taken by many researchers back then to solve this money problem and this also helped to increase their job prospects if they returned to India, and that's what I did. My initial plan was to work in the US for 3-4 years and then go back to India and work in the area of drug discovery. As per my plan, I seriously considered moving back to India in 2007, but it didn't work out. There were two main reasons why I didn't move back. First, I didn't see any benefit in doing that, and second, I fell in love with the USA.  

I met some incredible people in the US who introduced me to a great working culture and a plethora of opportunities that are available for everyone. I also met my mentor and a great human being, Dr. Devraj Singh during my initial stay in New Jersey and it was another turning point in my life. I not only found a very good mentor, but also a caring elder brother who advised me on various aspects of life, introduced me to some great books, and encouraged me to take on new challenges. I am eternally grateful to him for this. His guidance helped me to smoothly transition into this new life. I wish every immigrant to meet with a mentor like him in this country who can introduce them to the good things this country has to offer to every immigrant. I also consider myself extremely lucky to work with some great people in my area of research, my all bosses in academia as well as in Industry are extremely talented and helpful people. They all contributed something meaningful to my life and taught me something that helped me a lot to become a better person. 

Apart from all these personal experiences, my wife and kids got incredible opportunities that were impossible for them in India. This is especially true in my case due to my social and familial background. I understand that this may not be the case with everyone, but in my case, this was a huge plus factor for me. The kind of evolution I witnessed in my wife's personality and the way my kids enjoyed their schooling in the US education system made me love this country even more. So far my stay in the USA is an extremely enjoyable journey. As far as relatives in India are concerned, this is a big concern for most NRIs. This is one factor that makes most NRIs worry as they feel that the geographical separation and lack of their presence in India might affect and weaken most of their relations with their relatives in India. This concern is not unwarranted, this is a very genuine concern. I consider myself an introverted person, and I also went through this worry. But for me, this geographical separation helped to strengthen my bond with my parents. I was born and brought up in a very conservative and patriarchal environment. There was no culture of having any meaningful conversations with parents. The parent-child relationship was very formal, there was a lot of fear (labeled as respect), and also gratitude because of all the hard work parents did. But, there was no frankness in that relationship. There used to be very minimal and only necessary conversations between parents and kids in the society where I grew up. But now, I am in regular touch with my parents in India. I must mention that our relationship has become more strong and deeper than ever. I talk with them regularly on various subjects. Subjects range from women's rights, politics, superstitions, casteism in India, many family issues, as well as their own personal issues. I don't know how much my moving to the US contributed to this, but this happened only in the last 10-12 years. No matter how busy I am with my work or studies, I make it a point to find some time to call them or video chat with them multiple times a week. This is a snapshot of my own story. 

The subject of moving back to India is a big dilemma for many NRIs. It is regularly discussed in Indian gatherings and I also participated in many such discussions. My own observation is that people want to have all the comfort and advantages that life in the US offers them, and at the same time, they also crave for so-called Indian culture and geographical proximity of their relatives. Many NRIs also believe that India today is the same India that they left several years back. They willfully ignore all the socio-economic changes India has gone through during all those years since they moved out of India. The main reason why many NRIs don't want to move back is the same laundry list of problems like corruption, lack of opportunities for their kids, pollution, lack of discipline in social and public life, and many other day-to-day hassles of life in India. They complain about these things as if these things originated only after they moved out and hence India has become inhabitable for them, so they can't go back even if they want to. This reasoning doesn't make any sense to me. All these problems were present more or less when each one of us left India for better opportunities, maybe the intensity of some of the problems might have increased or decreased over the years since we left, but these problems were still there when I was contemplating to move back to India, but they were not the deal breakers for me. So, I can't cite these as a reason for my decision not to move back to India. Another reason is many NRIs keep on worrying about the effect of the US culture on their kids without even understanding what is the US culture. The US is extremely successful today because of its culture, not despite it. The freedom, individual rights, protection of the law, and opportunities that it offers to every individual are not available in other parts of the world (definitely not in India). Calling the US culture materialistic and Indian culture spiritual is foolish. Indian society is as materialistic as the US society and there is nothing wrong with being materialistic. This unnecessary fear of an invasion of the US culture adds unwarranted tension to the lives of many NRIs. The irony is that they fear moving back to India and they also worry about the consequences of not moving back to India, it seems many of them feel like they have two worse options to choose from.   

Many NRIs waste so much time in contemplating what to do that by the time they reach any conclusion it is too late, and they feel trapped. They feel trapped due to their kids, career, or some other reason. This feeling of entrapment brings sadness, but this can happen even in India as well. You don't have to be outside India to fall into this trap. My parents moved from one part of India to another (from UP to Maharashtra), and they faced the same dilemma. Many people in India live away from their families because of their jobs and face the same anxieties. I love the freedom that life in the US offers to me. I am involved with my work, and I am interested in politics as well as the social and cultural life of the US. This is why I don't miss India as much as I used to during my initial days in the USA. This doesn't mean that I don't care about India or I have forgotten everything about it. I just can't because it's my birthplace and I have spent a significant part of my life there. It is always in my thoughts and will remain forever. But, the big change is that I love the USA as much as I love India. 

I have a simple advice for all NRIs who are trapped in this dilemma. First, decide what are your priorities (caution: this is not as a simple task as it sounds). Second, decide which country fits best to achieve those priorities. Third, don't compare your situation with others as you don't know what are their problems and priorities. Everyone's needs and problems are different. Finally, there is no guarantee that what we plan will work for sure, but without implementing that plan we will never know, so work on your plan with full confidence. For some NRIs, India might be the best place to live and excel in professional life, and for others, it might be some other country. There is no universal solution that can work for everyone to resolve this dilemma. Each individual needs to decide what is best for his/her family and act accordingly. One last thing, Steve Jobs said, "It's easy to connect the dots backward," don't fall prey to the hindsight bias. Learn from mistakes and move forward, don't worry too much about the past, and look at the future as that's the only thing we can possibly change. 

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

Are we getting too political on social media?

There is no doubt that social media has changed the way we communicate in today's world. I don't think anytime in the history of humans, there was a time when so much of our communication was in a written form rather than in a spoken form. The easy availability of the internet and smartphones has made social media accessible to many, and this has revolutionized the way we share our views with each other. A vast number of people are connected with each other via the internet than any other medium before. This number is huge compared to what telephone or radio managed to connect when they were at their peak. Various social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, and Instagram have made instant broadcasting of information very easy. Today, we can broadcast any event of our life if we want to do so, and there is an audience for it from all over the world. I also notice that people are more eager than ever to share with the world what's going on in their lives, and the concept of privacy is not the same as it was just a decade ago. Many gigabytes of data about our textual, audio, or video are generated every moment and stored in various places in the cloud. We don't even know where are our footprints on the internet, it is impossible to track them. This is all a recent phenomenon, we still don't know the pros and cons of this. Eventually, we should be able to figure this out in the coming years, but for the time being, we all are witnessing this explosion of data generation and sharing.

Another thing that I noticed is how much people discuss politics on social media. I see that many friends from my Facebook friend post only something related to politics on their personal walls. No doubt, politics is an important part of our lives as it affects all of us. It is also important to share our political opinions and voice our views on various political and social matters. But, if all we share is our political opinion and nothing else, then that conversation becomes extremely monotonous and boring, and nothing remains surprising in our posts as most people know what are our political views and what are we going to post based on our political leanings. Such postings might help in initiating some fierce political discussions or arguments, but definitely, they don't help to expand our social circle or to have some meaningful conversations on social media. Such repeated political postings make our social media account look like an unofficial mouthpiece of some political party or leader. It seems that for many people there is nothing worthwhile to discuss apart from politics on social media. This trend really bothers me a lot, this is one of the reasons why I reduced my presence on Facebook. 

I do recognize the relevance and use of social media in keeping in touch with friends and relatives with whom it is impossible to interact in person. This is why I joined all these platforms and I am still active on most of them. Social media is of great help to bridge the distance gap and makes it possible to interact with people who are miles apart from us. I wish people use it to discuss various other things apart from politics. I want to have meaningful conversations about other issues as well, I want people to be less political and more social on social media. Let politicians discuss only politics, it is their profession and they have a job to do. We are not professional politicians and our social media posts should show this diversity. We need to be conscious about not becoming the unofficial spokesperson of any political party. This might also help to reduce the spread of fake news and rumors through social media. The increasing political nature of social media makes it possible for some people to use it to spread fake news and disturb social harmony. Only vigilant and alert social media users can stop such misuse, let's be more social and less political.

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

Prevalent sexism on social media

I have noticed prevalent sexism in social media conversations, especially on WhatsApp. Unfortunately, I notice sexism very easily and I am very sensitive to it. I notice it multiple times a day, in many WhatsApp messages. I receive, jokes which people forward to me, comments they make on various social media platforms, traditions they talk about, traditions they praise about, and many other things. I tirelessly try to point it out to people around me, especially to people from my own family because first, I should make my own family aware of this prevalent sexism before I try to change rest of the world. Many times people who forward or say those things don't even realize that there is something sexist in it. The main reason behind this mindset is a deep cultural history of sexism in every society. Developed nations are taking conscious efforts to remove this sexist mindset but in countries like India with strong patriarchal culture, these things still go unchallenged. To give a simple example about this, yes I have to receive a single husband-wife related joke in Indian groups where a wife is not depicted as a money spender, totally dependent on the husband, non earning partner. By default, every joke or message has this image of the wife, occasionally there might be a message to praise sacrifice of women and laud their tolerance and dedication towards their partner, but this is again very stereotypes description of women.

I always wonder why people don't try to offer somewhat different perspective? Why even women don't take notice of such stereotyped depiction of their image? Maybe it is true that in developing countries like India there are still many wifes who are dependent on their husbands. It is not because they are any less capable of working outside their homes, but because their family structure or social and cultural settings doesn't allow them to accept any job. They are so consumed by household work, which is equally important and valuable that they can't do any other work. Traditionally, household work is valued as much as it should have been, and hence the image of stay home wifes is that they don't earn anything. This notion also results in the image of wifes as a creature who survives on husbands hard earned money without doing any hard work of their own, and all these jokes and sexist TV serials just reinforce this image on men and women's mind generations after generations.

This sexist behavior and attitude need to be questioned, I do it from my side. I get into trouble because of this, many times people get annoyed because of my net picking small small things. But the reality is, that these small things slowly build a sexist attitude in boys and girls which subsequently becomes part of cultural nuances of our society. These things then create rigid barriers, glass ceilings, gender stereotypes, and many other things which stereotype gender roles. The only way to remove sexism is to point it out and make people aware of it. If even after that they want to continue with those jokes and that attitude it's their choice, but at least make them aware that they are being sexist. This is one basic thing we all can do to curb the prevalent sexism around us and our own family or freind circle or social group is a good place to start this.

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

My first experience with American healthcare system

In my 14 years of stay in the USA, I never had to visit any hospital for any emergency. Whatever good or bad things I read about the American healthcare system I read through social media, news articles, and other people's experiences. But this year, in September I had to visit the emergency room because my wife got a bad infection from India and she had a high fever that refused to go below three digits. This was my first real encounter with the "American Health Care" system. I agree that American healthcare needs some urgent attention. Some areas need the attention of lawmakers, policy experts, and all other stakeholders of this system so that something can be done to make health care affordable to everyone in this country. This USA really has all the resources and capabilities to make this happen, it just needs a little bit of social and political will to fix the system. I firmly believe that, if the USA can't make health care affordable to its people, then no other country can even dream about any such thing (I am talking about countries of similar size and population).  

I have seen two different types of healthcare systems, one in India and one in the USA. The best part of the Indian health care system is there are many choices of different doctors so most of the middle class and even lower middle class can afford to bear the health care treatment costs for nonemergency health issues. The most messed up part of the Indian healthcare system is emergency care. Hospitals can refuse to admit or treat a patient until the required amount of money is deposited, this is the case with most of the private hospitals where most people go in the case of emergency. Government hospitals are free in India, but hardy people choose this option because of a lack of proper facilities or overcrowdedness. This is where the USA's health care differs from Indian health care. In the US emergency room treatment is offered without any questions about the ability to pay for it. But, the downside of this is that emergency rooms are unnecessarily crowded as many people who don't have health insurance go there to get treatment even for nonemergency reasons, and hospitals can't refuse to treat such patients as it's against federal law. 

My wife received all the required treatment, medicines, and other things (food, etc.) without depositing any single dollar at the hospital. They did ask for health insurance information, but that didn't affect the quality of her treatment. Of course, the treatment is not free and we did receive the bill in the mail a couple of weeks after her discharge. But hospitals don't refuse to discharge the patient for nonpayment or an outstanding bill or stop the treatment in the middle if they sense that this patient may not be able to pay for this treatment, this I feel is a big plus for the American health care system. No doubt, that like many other good laws and policies, this law is also abused by some people who purposely misuse this system to get the treatment for free. I think this is one of the main reasons why health care is so expensive, as people who can pay have to bear the cost of all nonpaid bills. Hospitals don't even ask for your immigration status, they don't care whether you are a visitor, an American citizen, or an alien (someone on a visa), they treat every patient visiting the emergency room irrespective of their legal, social, or economic status. 

American health care attracts a lot of bad press, and many people complain about this system. But at the same time, there are many good things about this system. The emergency care aspect of this system is amazing, saving someone's life when they need medical help in a medical emergency can't be valued in money. I wanted to share my personal experience to highlight this very important aspect of American health care. Of course, health care in America is very expensive and something should be done about it, but just because there are some problems with this system it shouldn't stop me from praising some good aspects that are absent in many other countries (like India).

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

What happened to civilized social communication?

There is no doubt that social media has brought significant changes in the ways we communicate with each other. Most people are constantly in conversation with someone on some online platform. This explosion in communication technology has opened many channels of communication for many people in the world. This was supposed to create some positive revolution in the connectivity of human beings as most of us now have a very convenient medium to connect not only with our immediate surroundings but also with the rest of the world. Geographical boundaries which used to be a limiting factor don't matter much as far as verbal and written communication is concerned. All this should have brought us closer and opened many new ways to understand each other in a better way. But, what I find is that people are becoming more and more exclusive in the way they want to interact with others. They are moving away from each other by forming exclusive groups. There are many exclusive message groups, chat rooms, forums, and whatnot where only like-minded people come together and criticize people who don't agree with them. It has become harder to communicate with each other in a thoughtful, civil, and constructive way. I am not denying that there are many groups where there is very thoughtful and useful discussion, where people help each other or support victims of various problems, but it is really hard not to notice the polarization of opinions on social media.

Maybe, I am noticing this polarization more because I am part of many different groups as I don't subscribe to any particular ideology or religion. This might be true, but I see that there are many who are complaining about the same problem. What I noticed is, that all these groups are constantly engaged in ridiculing each other, each want's other group to get lost from this planet, and they absolutely don't see any positive thing in the other side's argument. The communication in such groups is very partisan, and rarely any dissent is encouraged or even tolerated. After reading messages from many of these groups, sometimes I wonder whether social media is uniting or dividing the world?

There is no doubt that social media has made it easy to communicate with people who are not in our immediate physical vicinity. Now we can pick and choose people from all over the world and form a group to discuss something that we like or endorse. We don't have to find like-minded people within our friend circle or family to have a group chat. However, this doesn't mean we should become totally ignorant or dismissive about the opinions and views of people around us or people who don't agree with us. This newly found technological tool should not be the reason to shut the doors for alternative views and only engage with people who affirm or validate our opinions. This should not be the reason to conveniently ignore all the facts that don't support our argument and shut the door for anyone who sounds contrary opinion to our views and points out some factual mistakes in our argument. But, it seems many people are busy doing these types of things. Open minds are getting rare, and highly emotional conversations have replaced rational conversations. Very few are interested in finding the areas of mutual agreements. People are quick to make assumptions based on limited data. They are in a rush to judge others, there is a lack of empathy, and most people are not willing to assume any positive intent in other parties that disagree with them.

If it continues like this, I don't know how many political groups within a political group, or religious sects within a religion we will have. The danger is very clear, polarization of our society at an unprecedented level. Now, we have to decide whether we want to continue like this or would like to bring some civility to our online interactions, especially, while interacting with people who disagree with us on various topics. The choice is ours, as we are the ones who are going to enjoy or suffer the consequences of our choices.

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

When The President questions constitutional right of a citizen

Kneeling of some NFL players during the national anthem created quite a bit of controversy last year. President Trump's recent speech and tweets injected fresh life into this controversy once again. NFL player Colin Kaepernick started protesting by kneeling during the national anthem last year, his reason for the protest was police brutality and inequality faced by people of color. Now, we may or may not agree with his reasons or the way of protest, but, if he is exercising his constitutional rights to express himself, we need to respect his rights, without agreeing with his actions. I personally stand for any national anthem played during any function, but it is also true that no one can compel me to stand for it unless I want to stand. I voluntarily respect national anthems of all countries and it is my individual right to choose if I want to stand or not. Real respect has to be earned, it should be spontaneous and not forced or coerced. If someone is coerced to show respect for anything, it is not a display of respect, it is obedience. Obedience out of fear of losing something is not respect. Do we really want such respect from anyone?  

A few years back, during one of the functions at my daughter's school American national anthem was played, and in the entire auditorium, one third grader was sitting during the national anthem. I was surprised to see this, as I was not used to witnessing anything like this. In India, I was used to seeing everyone standing for the national anthem and prayers. It was a rule and there used to be a strict punishment for violating that rule. There was no choice or freedom for students. I was impressed by the way the individual liberty of that student was respected in this country (he was just a third grader). I really got curious about this incident, and when I read more about constitutional rights, I came to know that many expressions are protected under the First Amendment and the freedom to protest is one of them. In one of the very pivotal Supreme Court decisions (Texas v. Johnson), the Supreme Court held that burning the national flag during a political protest was a protected expression under the First Amendment. 

Now, when the President of the country questions NFL players' right to protest and asks the owners of the team to fire them for exercising their constitutional right, that too when he does that using very derogatory language and abusing their mothers, it is really sad. It poses a very serious question, if the President of the country won't respect the constitutional rights of its citizens then who else will? Of course, Mr. Trump has the right to express himself under the same constitutional provision under which these players have that right. People should respect the President's right to express himself, but it is also true that every position or job comes with certain obligations and responsibilities, and definitely, the US President's job comes with a lot of responsibilities and obligations. As a President of a country like the USA, Mr. Trump has the responsibility to uphold the core values and principles of this great country. Individual liberty and respect for constitutional rights are part of the core identity of the USA, and if anyone dilutes these rights, this great nation might lose its unique identity. We need to respect others' rights not only when we agree with them, but especially when there is a serious disagreement, that is when our respect for others' rights is really tested. I hope President Trump understands this, he may not agree with the choice of method to protest of these NFL players, but he should stand to protect their constitutional rights. If not, then tomorrow our constitutional rights will be abridged. Please remember, we need to protect other's rights so that our rights also remain protected.

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

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

Men need to save themselves

"Men need to save themselves," my friend, Anand Pawar said in one of his interviews related to gender issues. He is an expert on gender-related issues, and I learned so many things about this subject during my interactions with him. This particular line resonated with me a lot because I saw men (including myself) struggling under a burden to fulfill the expectations of society, their family, and their own expectations. The definition of masculinity is very stereotyped in most of the societies. Men need to fit into that definition, and if they don't, they struggle with social and personal contempt, rejection, frustration, and many other things. Many men put themselves under this burden of expectations that their society or culture hands over to them, and there is no easy way for them to escape this trap. Very few dare to challenge the stereotypes or traditional definitions of masculinity. Men really need to save themselves from this burden. It is crushing many of them, and only they can help themselves to break free from its shackles.

Expectations and traditional notions about gender roles are embedded in our social culture. These norms are part of many cultures. We don't have to choose them as we are born into these traditions. Some of these things have been part of traditions for so long that they have become sacrosanct principles. This is the very reason why even after feeling the burden of these expectations very few dare to challenge them, or worse, very few even feel that these are unnecessary or burdensome expectations. But, because of people like Anand, these definitions are being challenged. I know Anand personally that's why I am mentioning his name, I am sure that there are quite a few people like him who are working in this area to help men come out of this prison of patriarchal culture, and I appreciate all these efforts. It is a wrong notion to assume that patriarchy only hurts women. In reality, it equally hurts men, they just don't realize it. Patriarchy puts an unjustified burden on women by putting so many restrictions on them, at the same time, it also puts a burden of so many unreasonable expectations on men. In the end, it results in a society where both men and women live under some kind of burden of expectations, which they can't reject even if they want to. Their roles get rigidly defined and the scope of the exchange of duties is nonexistent.

What is the solution to this complex problem? The only way is to challenge the traditional notions of masculinity and femininity. A woman can be a bread earner of a family and a man can be a stay-at-home dad. There is nothing shameful if your wife earns more than you. Women should get equal rights to choose what they want to wear, and women don't have to carry the burden of sacrificing their interests for the sake of their families. A woman's career is as important as a man's. There are so many things that one can add to this list, but I guess you now know what I mean. The central point is, don't define gender roles rigidly, a suitable person in the family or society should perform the available role, their gender should not be a factor in deciding whether they qualify for it or not. Men don't have to live under the pressure of fulfilling the roles of a caretaker of the family, they can take whatever role they feel suits them, and it can be a role of house-husband or stay-at-home dad. I think the present generation is well equipped with all the tools it needs to tackle this problem. I am hopeful that they will do far better as far as achieving gender equality is concerned compared to my generation. Women have been challenging their stereotyped image for decades, and they are immensely successful in it. Now it is the time for men to challenge their stereotyped image because MEN NEED TO SAVE THEMSELVES.

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

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

Charlottesville - Lessons to learn from this tragedy

Whatever transpired in Charlottesville on August 12th, 2017 should disturb any sensible person. It was not a pleasant sight to watch those violent protests. Peaceful protests and marches are an integral part of any democratic society. There is no doubt that everyone has a right to express their views and can do so in a legal and peaceful manner. As a supporter of freedom of expression, I agree with everyone's right to express their views on any topic, but this right to express doesn't involve the right to threaten or perpetrate violence against any group or person. This is why events in Charlottesville were very disturbing for me. The way mobs attacked each other was not the way to express your ideas. The way one man drove his car into the mob killing one innocent woman and injuring 19 others was an act of terrorism, no other word can be used to describe that murder. One can disagree with another's views or political ideology, but no matter how strong is the disagreement, no one has the right to attack anyone or even threaten anyone because of that disagreement. Three lives (one protester and two state troopers) were lost during these ugly protests, this should ring a warning bell in everyone's mind who is concerned about this country. Is this the way we want to move forward? Are we going to learn any lessons moving forward after this tragedy or still we are going to get consumed by our political ideology and hatred?

Hatred propagated by white supremacists and neo-Nazis was disturbing, but President Trump's failure to condemn these groups specifically during the press conference after the incident was more disturbing. When, as a leader of a country someone fails to condemn a violent act that is an act of domestic terrorism just because the perpetrator was allegedly a supporter of that leader, it paints a very scary picture. This means the condemnation of any crime will be selective and based on the political or ideological positions of the perpetrators. This stuff happens in India all the time, and I am surprised to see it happen in the US also. Political and ideological disagreements are very common, I have seen them in the US all the time. I have seen pro-life and pro-choice supporters protesting side by side passionately trying to propagate their viewpoints. I have also seen them debating with each other very passionately, but I haven't seen them attacking each other due to ideological differences. Freedom to express and debate is a basic tenet of American society, and any erosion in this philosophy can prove very dangerous to the future of the USA. I hope everyone who loves this country realizes this danger and acts accordingly before it's too late.

Everyone is entitled to have their own opinion and express it on any public platform, it is their constitutional right. These opinions can be challenged and debated, but violence can't be an answer to resolve any disagreement. We can agree or disagree or condemn other's opinions, but we can't suppress their voices just because we don't like them. Freedom of expression is an important constitutional right granted by the First Amendment to everyone living in the USA and all Americans need to protect this valuable right. As a leader of the nation, the President should be upfront to condemn hatred propagated by White Supremacists and other related groups. He should not mince words while calling spade a spade, but sadly this didn't happen. All Americans need to learn a lesson from this ugly display of hatred by racist groups. Make sure you make your voices heard, make sure your President knows that hate-propagating groups will be challenged, and he needs to stand on the right side when there is a question of racism and bigotry. Make sure that love wins over hatred, and social fabric of this nation doesn't get destroyed by a few bad elements. Let's move forward with more resolve and determination to fight against discrimination, racism, hatred, and bigotry, this will be our true homage to all three people who died in Charlottesville on August 12.

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

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

Diversity in communication

"She sounds very grumpy."
"Be careful while talking with him, he doesn't like to talk with people."
"You have a very strong Indian accent."

Many of us either make such statements or hear them daily during our day-to-day interactions with people around us. We all expect to have some homogeneity in our surroundings as far as communication styles are concerned. Most progressive societies welcome diversity of race, gender, and socioeconomic background; but when it comes to communication they want some homogeneity. Maybe this desire comes for the sake of maintaining clarity or making sure that the message is delivered effectively. In my family, my parents and I spoke different languages with each other. We perfectly understood each other, but never felt the need to communicate in the same language. I know this is not very common, but we managed to do it seamlessly. Actually, I never realized we were doing this until one day I realized this unique aspect of my family. My parents never forced their mother tongue on me, I also didn't insist that my kids should speak my mother tongue. My mother tongue is Marathi, and my wife's Bhojpuri, but our kids speak Hindi and English. They don't know either Marathi or Bhojpuri. Diversity in communication is not only a noticeable fact in today's world, but it is a need of today's world. Mobility of people has increased a lot, people move around the world for their education and employment, in search of a better and safer place. This results in a formation of very diverse societies. Such societies are not only diverse in race, culture, and religion but also in the ways people communicate with each other. 

Different people have different styles of communication. Some like to talk a lot, and some are very stringent with their speech. Some people are loud, and some are very soft-spoken. Everyone has some sort of accent, either it is a local accent or a nonlocal one, therefore, I never considered having an accent a barrier in communication. Our accent is our identity, that's the unique way we speak. I never tried to change my accent and never expected that someone else should change their accent just to sound familiar to my ears. In a same way, different people have different ways to express themselves. Some might appear aggressive, and some really mild. But, this doesn't mean that one way is better than the other. These all are different ways in which people choose to communicate with others. Each way has its own flavor and its own specialty. We should learn to enjoy this diversity rather than trying to bring forced homogeneity. Try to understand others, be patient, recognize the beauty of diversity in communication, and then you will start enjoying every accent and every style of communication. Diversity in communication is a very beautiful thing, as beautiful as diversity in opinions and diversity in population, let's embrace it.

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

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

Be curious, it is immensely rewarding

Curiosity is one of the reasons why humans managed to advance so much compared to any other species on this planet. It is built into our minds, if our surroundings don't curb it, we can remain curious throughout our lives, but in reality, rarely this happens. Many things contribute to diminishing our curious nature as we grow older. Children are way more curious compared to adults, and many times the curious nature of adults is labeled as being childish. Maybe adults think that they know it all and there is no need to be curious anymore. I am fortunate enough not to fall into that group. I am gifted with a permanent curiosity, my curiosity remained fairly constant since my childhood, and this has played great dividends for me. I remember my kids used to watch a TV show "Curious George," a story of a curious monkey who used to land in various troubles due to his hyper-curious nature. I loved that show as I am also a curious person. My curiosity might have landed me in trouble on a few occasions, but by far it has benefited me way more than it put me in trouble. 

Curiosity helps me to remain active. I get interested in different things, some interests remain forever, and some wane with time and new interests replace them. This continuous flow of curiosity keeps me away from chronic boredom. It helps me to find something to read, watch, or do where I can learn something new, helps me to explore ideas or things that I have never done before. It helps me to study various issues including the opinions that I don't support or agree with. I can do all this because I am curious about many things including why people believe in certain ideologies, why they need religion, how science can help to solve our problems, what is the role of the law in our society, and many more things. My curiosity led me to read many different books, listen to many seminars, and research many topics. In this process, I got to know many amazing personalities, either through books, seminars, or personal interactions. I would not have known these people without my curiosity, many of them taught me things that I value a lot, and I credit my curiosity for all this. 

I encourage my kids to remain curious about various things and try to find answers on their own. I encourage them to make efforts to gather information before forming any opinion about any issue. We should not follow any path blindly, don't be a Hindu just because your parents were Hindu, don't be a Republican (in the USA) or Congress supporter (in India) just because your parents used to support that party. Do your own research, analyze things on your own, and then decide for yourself. This is a time-consuming process and a difficult route, but this is what I did, and this process has taught me many valuable lessons. The rewards of this process outweigh the difficulties associated with it. Remember, there is no substitute for hard work, readymade answers are easy to get, but they are not the product of your own mind. If you want to churn out something from your own mind, then you need to go through the repetitive process of collecting and processing vast amounts of information on your own, and without being curious one cannot perform this task enthusiastically. One of the lessons that I learned was that there can be many right answers for social and political issues, and there is no single ideology that can provide solutions for all the problems. This also taught me the importance of diversity of opinion, the importance of appreciating disagreement, and encouraging debate. One cannot appreciate or understand diverse opinions without being curious about them. One can allow counter opinions to exist by being tolerant, but to really benefit from the diversity of opinions and ideas one needs to be curious about the views and ideas that are not our own. 

My curiosity has taken to me new areas and exposed me to ideas and views to which I may not have been exposed if I had remained complacent. It prompted me to take risks and challenge my traditional surroundings and my own beliefs It encouraged me to charter a different path than what most people chose to follow. I am not claiming that everyone's curiosity will produce the same result, but if it makes you remain active and enthusiastic about life, why not give it a try? Be curious and be happy.

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

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

Don't allow someone else to define the meaning of happiness for you

We all live under various psychological pressures. We have pressure from our family to perform certain duties and fulfill their expectations. We have pressure from society and from our peers to confirm their expectations, there is also pressure from social media, the pressure created by different advertisements, and different products marketed which seem to be necessary if we want to be happy, and so on. The point is, that someone is continuously telling us what to do to look beautiful, they want to explain to us what it means to be a cool person or a happy family. These things are explained in a very vivid and glossy way. Advertisements tell us how one should enjoy life, many vacation package-offering companies insist on why we need to go on vacations to strike a balance between work and life. These messages are very tempting and often irresistible, not easy to ignore as a lot of effort and research goes into making these advertisements. Many such things are going around us in the real world as well as the virtual world which try to define happiness for us. If you believe in all these things, then you have to have the latest phone to be cool, you should look a certain way and wear fashionable clothes to look beautiful, you need to have a certain type of body or complexion, you need to go on vacation to fancy places, buy a home, get a new car as your old one is junk, and the list can go on depending on your need to fit in. The question is do we really need others to define what it means to be happy for us?

Maybe many of us do need some advice about how to be happy as we may not know what we really want. In that case, these advertisements can be of help as they can help you to find something which you like. But, there is a catch, these advertisements are made by very talented professionals using the information from the research and data based on human behavior. This is why they are so compelling that you end up liking what advertisement makers want you to like, not what you really like. This whole process is very confusing because it is very difficult to figure out whether what we really want is a product of our own needs and desires, or a result of influence from all these external factors. Many people, including me fall for these tricks. We all are bombarded on social media with such messages, and our online search is continuously tracked, whether we are watching a movie or a TV we are continuously exposed to such messages that want us to do something or buy something. 

These messages are very useful if we use them to our advantage, but they are very problematic if we get consumed by them. When we start chasing the dreams designed by others for us, we may not get that feeling of fulfillment even after living that dream. It is better to spend time looking for our own needs and dreams rather than trying to be successful in society's eyes or in the eyes of people around us. At the same time, let me acknowledge that it is not easy to resist the pressure to fit in. It is not easy to walk a different path when most people around us try to follow the path paved by these consultants of happiness. I have learned to evaluate most of my needs and desires objectively to see if I really need them or if they are the product of pressure created by all the messages which my brain knowingly or unknowingly receives from my surroundings. Many times, I reject these things as I can't justify their presence in my life, and many times, I chase these ideas and try to fulfill those desires. Technically, I am not a minimalist. I don't own only what I need, but I do try to limit as much as possible as per my own wish. If the pressure to be a minimalist is created by some undue external guilt, then it is as bad as the pressure to buy something or to spend on something that you may not need but are buying just because everyone else has it. 

The pursuit of happiness was comparatively easy for our previous generation, for us it is more complex and it is going to be even more complex for our future generation. This is why we all need to come up with our individual plans to pursue our own happiness. Humans are complex organisms, and our happiness is even more complex (because our brain is a very complicated organ). It is not necessary that we all must enjoy or dislike the same things, our choices can vary a lot, and there is nothing wrong with it. Try to define your own happiness, don't let these external pressures dictate terms to you. Don't go on vacation unless you really want to go, there is nothing wrong with enjoying your work so much that you don't need a vacation. There is nothing wrong in loving your own body the way it is, or working out hard to change its shape, provided you are doing these things as per your own wish, and to make yourself happy. Don't allow your surroundings to define happiness and force you to work for it. Define your own style, your own happiness, needs, and desires yourself, and then take the help of people and resources around you to fulfill them. 

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

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

Sunita Deshpande - A woman who introduced me to feminism

People around me, especially Indians and even many of my American friends wonder why I am so passionate (and even sometimes adamant) about the issues related to gender equality and woman empowerment. Sometimes people ask, from where I was introduced to the concept of gender equality? My family in India thinks that it is because I came to the USA my traditional views about women got spoiled by the Western influence, but this is not at all true. The USA did influence me a lot, it helped in my understanding of concepts of liberty, freedom of expression, as well as feminism, but it didn't introduce me to all these ideas, especially feminism. I started expressing my views about gender equality before my daughter was born (in 2000), and I came to the USA in 2003. So, my immigration to the USA is not the reason for my feminist views, maybe it is the reason why I express those views so strongly, but the USA didn't introduce me to this idea.

India might claim pride in its glorious tradition of having a progressive and liberal society where individual freedom was celebrated and books like Mahabharata and Kamasutra were written, but today's India is completely different and has a lot to learn from developed countries about gender equality and individual rights. Gender equality didn't exist in the culture in which I grew up. There was complete male dominance. I can only think of two major reasons why my views are so radically different from the society in which I lived and the family in which I was born. These are also the reasons why I revolted against the male-dominated atmosphere around me. First, I saw a tremendous amount of suppression of women around me, and as a teenager, it affected me a lot. Women were treated differently than men, there were hardly any rights or freedom given to them, they were abused for no reason, and they were considered physical objects of lust and physical enjoyment. For the name's sake, society worshiped female goddesses, but when it came to equal rights for them, there were completely different standards. These things raised many doubts and questions in my mind. I always wondered why women don't revolt against this subjugation and discrimination. I was too young to know about the patriarchal culture, but all these things made me very uncomfortable and angry.

The second reason might shock many of you, it was a book by Sunita Deshpande. Yes, this lady introduced me to the concept of gender equality. When I read her book "Aahe Manohar Tari," (meaning: even though it's beautiful), I was blown off to know about a woman who was so independent, strong, and powerful to fight against the patriarchal system and live life on her own terms. The book is a very impressive and sincere narration of her own story. In a true sense, in her autobiography, she introduced me to the concept of feminism and I am very grateful to her for this. Since then, some other books, and my immigration to the USA confirmed those ideas and made them stronger. I am a flag bearer of gender equality, and I take immense pride in supporting this cause and this cause is a part of my identity. I am sure for everyone who supports the idea of gender equality there must have been some incident that triggered the thought process or some person who introduced them to this idea. In my case, it was Sunita Deshpande. Since then this idea has become part of me, and I have become part of this cause. 

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

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

The basic concept of "Liberty"

How do you explain the concept of liberty to anyone? Do we need to explain this term in today's world where we believe that humans have progressed so much that we all understand and respect individual rights? If we look around, I am sure we will find many occasions where the term liberty or freedom is used to curb human rights rather than to protect them. It is also true that many societies, like the USA, have shown tremendous progress towards creating an atmosphere where individual rights are respected considerably, but the basic concept of liberty is still very hard for many to get a complete grasp of. I agree that it is a difficult concept to grasp, it sounds very easy, but the real meaning of liberty is not that easy to fathom, especially if you are not exposed to the real benefits of it. I value individual freedom more than anything else and that is why the concept of liberty is so dear to me.

Liberty is a basic tenet of any progressive society. Human minds and efforts flourish when they have the freedom to think and express their thoughts. I got attracted to the concept of liberty when I realized the importance of having the ability to express my thoughts and live life on my own terms. The feeling of having individual freedom brought a radical change in my life and thinking, and I try my best to practice that within my own family. I sincerely believe that if we all create an environment of liberty within our homes, our society will automatically have individual liberty. The problem is, that most of us believe that our ideas, values, belief systems, religion, or political ideology are the best and others should also follow it, and if they don't follow then at least they should not criticize it. Without the freedom to criticize there can't be freedom to express. Criticism is one of the essential processes through which every idea and concept should go to prove its mantle. 

Actually, the basic concept of liberty is very simple. If you care and value your own individual rights, then you should equally care and value other's individual rights also. Unless other's rights are not protected, there is no guarantee that your rights will remain protected. I and my wife are poles apart as far as our religious and social views are concerned, but her freedom to practice the religion of her choice is equally important in our home as much as my freedom not to practice or even criticize any religion. If you can't imagine these things living side by side in harmony then you will find it very difficult to understand the concept of liberty. This concept has nothing to do with tolerance, that is another, separate virtue where we tolerate something even though we don't agree, and we don't need to encourage or protect those views that we tolerate. For liberty, you not only tolerate, but go one step further we protect the rights of people with whom either you don't agree or even strongly disagree. As a person who values liberty, I stand for not only my own rights but also others whose ideas and views might hurt my feelings, challenge my views, or offend me. Other's right to express their ideas is as absolute and important as mine, no more, no less.

I wish that in this growing atmosphere of political polarization and racial and religious divide, people understand the importance of protecting individual rights. I would like to end the post with a very famous quote by Voltaire which is shared widely, but hardly practiced in real life, "I disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it." If we all understand the real meaning of these words and try to practice them in real life, this world will be a more beautiful place for each one of us.

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

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

Some serious flaws associated with the way science fairs are judged

Science is not just an academic discipline or a subject from the school curriculum, but it is a liberating tool available to anyone and everyone. It liberates our minds from the darkness of ignorance and enables us to question things. It encourages us to learn by observation and also teaches us that there are many things that we don't know, and it's okay not to know about things and continue to look for answers. This is why I love basic elements of science, which encourage questioning, analysis, data generation and verification, and critical thinking. All these elements are not only helpful while we study science during our school or college days, but these things are extremely useful in our day-to-day lives. This is why I love the idea of conducting a science fair for school children. The main intention of these fairs is not just to attract talented students to the discipline of science, but also to introduce school kids to all these elements of scientific analysis at a very young age so that they can use them in their day-to-day lives. This is the reason whenever possible I try to volunteer as a judge in the city and state science fairs.

While judging these fairs I observed a few things which somewhat disturbed me. I saw kids whose parents belonged to the science field taking undue advantage of resources available to them to perform science projects way beyond their grade level, whereas other kids who didn't have access to such resources lacked that sophistication and couldn't compete with this elite class of kids from families of parents from a science background. There is nothing wrong with encouraging your kid to take up challenging science projects or brainstorming with them to generate some relevant ideas for their project. I am a scientist and I do that with my kids, but my role is limited to raising questions and making sure that they try to find something on their own which suits their level of understanding of science. Neither I generate an idea for them, nor do I help them to select the topic, my role is limited to providing them with materials required for the experiment and making sure that they do it safely.

When there is no level playing field the competition becomes one-sided, heavily biased towards kids with scientific privileges, and this thing bothers me. But, the question is how to balance this imbalance of resources so that all students get a fair deal? How to make sure that all students are competing on a level playing field? There is no easy way, it is not the fault of these students that their parents are scientists and they are helping these kids in a way they shouldn't be. We can't punish these kids for the well-intended help offered to them by their parents, but then how can we watch these other kids with no scientific help apart from their teachers and schools fail regularly in front of kids from scientifically privileged backgrounds? The only way out is to make disclosures of all help received mandatory: from where you got the idea, where you conducted the experiment, who helped you, and whether any of your parents belong to the science field. The list is not exhaustive, but these questions might give us an idea of the scientific privilege of such kids, and let them compete with each other, this will be the real test for them and it will be better for them. Maybe others have better suggestions to tackle this issue, but I feel this should be discussed before many kids move away from science just because they can't compete with a few kids who come from scientifically privileged families. We need bright and creative kids to choose science as their profession, science needs creativity and imagination like any other field. It is the responsibility of the scientific community to make sure that we create a conducive environment to attract such talent.

The USA has a great tradition of scientific endeavors, and we cannot afford to lose this advantage, this is why we need to stop this field from becoming a monopoly of a few privileged families. The USA is a leader in science and technology and this is one of the main reasons for its world dominance. If the scientific community doesn't make serious efforts to increase the diversity and reachability of scientific knowledge to each and every corner of society, this country might lose this edge to others who are rapidly closing this gap. Let's start with fixing the science education and the way many of these science fairs are judged. Please remember, that prevention is always better than cure.

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

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

To understand is not to condone

If I understand why people need religion, do I support it? If I understand why religion makes people kill other human beings without having any remorse, do I support such killings? If I argue for some issues propagated by some particular political party, do I support that political party? During regular discussions, while discussing various social and political issues whenever I try to argue about a less popular side or another side of the issue, people often misunderstand that I support the side about which I am arguing. The explanation, that I don't support that side, but I understand it and I want to bring those points into discussion doesn't register very well with most people. Many think that you cannot argue for any side unless you support it. Well, this may be true with many people, but not with me. During any discussion, if there is no representation for another side of the issue then there is no point in discussing that topic. There are very few topics about which there is universal condemnation but for all others, it is very important to know about all sides before drawing any conclusions. As Alan Dershowitz puts this in his book, Letters to a Young Lawyer, he writes, "To understand is not to condone, but to enlighten and perhaps to prevent the same mistake others have made." It is very important to understand that "to understand is not to condone." There is a huge difference between understanding any issue, arguing about it, or representing it in any debate, and wholeheartedly supporting it. 

For me monotonous discussions are boring. I am not interested in praising any political party or political leader unconditionally to the level of worshipping them and projecting as if things what I support are the ONLY right things. I also don't like venomous one-sided criticisms without much rationale and logic to an extent to project things in an extremely bad light. I like to have a representation from another side, if there is no one, then I volunteer to represent that side. In a liberal group, I try to represent the conservative side, and in a conservative group, I try to bring up the liberal point of view. This makes it possible to see why people criticize some particular ideology and how rational their criticism is. Very often people consider me a supporter of that particular ideology or political group (the group they oppose), which is wrong. Yes, I do have certain political preferences, but I don't support any particular political party.

Many people don't understand the importance of having a representation from another side in a discussion. This is particularly challenging in political discussions, as a politically independent person, if you try to argue the good and bad points of each political side, people often get confused. The normal expectation is that a person will choose a particular political party or a leader and defend or attack them vehemently. People try to support their chosen party, no matter what, and try to criticize their opponents, no matter what. But, if they don't see such a clear loyalty or animosity, they get confused. I have been the victim of such confusion many times. I don't mind this, as many times this is an unavoidable situation. I feel that if people understand and learn to look at both sides and try to understand the good and bad points of both the sides in any argument or debate, we will see much less political polarization and much more bipartisan collaboration.

There is no ideology or political party which is perfect with answers to all the problems. Very often best answers to questions are scattered through all over the political spectrum and we need to consider many issues before making a final decision on any major policy issues. But very often the political supporters of these leaders and parties don't understand this and fall in a trap of political polarization to the advantage of these parties and leaders. Polarization always helps someone to win an election, but it rarely helps a nation to move forward. Please understand the need to be fair to people whom you criticize, it is very necessary to understand the opponent's points of view clearly to be able to criticize it properly. Otherwise, that criticism has no value other than political rhetoric or angry passionate rants, which can be used in politically charged speeches for the supporters of that own party but are useless for any conducive political policy discussion. Try to understand opponents' views first, before commenting about them, maybe it will help to shape your own views in a much better way.

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

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

Déjà vu - the politics of hatred

The murder of an Indian immigrant in Kansas City was a very disturbing incident. This unfortunate incident got a lot of media coverage in India, obviously, this was due to a strong Indian connection to this event. Many relatives from India of people living in the USA got concerned because of this incident and I am sure it created a situation of panic in some people's families back in India. It is very sad to see anyone killed like this. Many feel that this murder was the result of an atmosphere of hatred or resentment against immigrants. There is a strong perception that the current administration is anti-immigrant, which I don't think is true. This anti-immigrant perception is created based on some strong statements made by Mr. Trump during his presidential election campaign. For me personally, these things are like a replay of a similar migrant resentment phase that I witnessed in the state of Maharashtra in India. I even wrote a post about the politics of pitching one section of society against another and expressed concerns about it before the presidential election. This political gamble worked in Maharashtra and there was no reason why it wouldn't work the same way in the USA. The statements made during the election or the rhetoric used during campaign speeches help leaders and their parties to win elections. They substantiate and solidify their support by creating a very polarized political environment. But, after winning that election some leaders and parties find it difficult to control that anger and contain the hatred of the supporters who voted for them just due to those feelings. After the election, somehow these people who voted just for that particular rhetoric of hatred feel vindicated and get the notion that their feelings are now legitimized and they have the right to execute their agenda.

These types of incidents are disturbing, but they don't define the character of this great nation. The USA is a very immigrant-friendly country. Immigrants feel safe and welcomed here and most of them try to contribute positively to the society and community where they live. The person who risked his life to save two immigrants from this murder was also an American, and I have no doubt that many in this country will try their best to protect their fellow residents. Whether to attribute this incident to a change of regime or not is can be debated Even in India, few people were killed for being a Muslim (Pune techie murder) or for allegedly eating beef (Akhlak murder). When my mom came to know about this incident, she freaked out and asked me why I wanted to stay in the USA? My simple answer was, I love this country, my kids are citizens of this country, and I don't think there is any better place than this country for people like me. Due to my political and social views, I can be a target in any country that doesn't encourage freedom of expression. I don't subscribe to ANY ideology, I am not a member of ANY political party and I don't follow ANY particular religion, and this makes me vulnerable to attack from anyone who doesn't like my views or feels offended by them. In this country at least I have the freedom to express my views without being threatened just for expressing my opinion. The recent case of Gurmehar Kaur might explain what I mean.

As far as feelings of hatred and resentment are concerned, I understand their origin and reasons behind them, and they are common no matter where you live in the world. Resentment will get diluted once the economy gets going, but the politics of hatred is what worries me. If some group gets targeted just because of who they are, then they don't stand any chance to defend themselves. No one should be forced to change their identity just to survive. If people have to change their name, religion, or skin color just to survive then I don't think that country is a free country anymore. I hope this murder was an isolated incident and that the people of the US still believe in their inclusive and tolerant tradition of welcoming immigrants. 

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

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

Five years!

Today is the fifth anniversary of my blog. The last five years of my journey with this blog have been an amazing experience for me. I wish to thank all blog readers for their encouragement and appreciation, your feedback and shared experiences made this blog more special. Last year I wrote 40 posts, which was almost half compared to the previous year. It was not because I didn't want to write, but I got busy with my studies and there was not much time to spend on writing the blog. This trend might continue for some time. It is not easy to manage full-time work, part-time studies, and family responsibilities together. I am trying to strike that sweet balance and at the same time enjoying this phase a lot. It is stressful and demanding but at the same time very good learning experience. The main reason I can do this is because I always enjoyed learning about new subjects and new areas. This adds new perspectives to my life and improves my knowledge. It is difficult to balance so many things at the same time but at the same time, it is a very exciting and rewarding experience. I do plan to continue writing blog posts on relevant topics as time permits.

A lot is happening around us socially and politically. We need to continuously register our opinions about things that we care about, the values we hold dear to our hearts, and protest against any injustice. Many times it's not easy, it feels like our one voice won't make any difference, but remember that many revolutions started with that one voice that dared to resist. Anyone of us can be that one voice that can initiate the change, we just need to have that courage and commitment. My blog is one small step in that direction, the aim is not just to share my views, but also to start a healthy discussion, germinate a seed of independent thinking in the readers' minds, and hope that it will create a novel stream of thoughts which might help to initiate the change for better tomorrow. This effort will definitely continue from my side. At this junction, when I pause and look back on my efforts to initiate that change, I feel quite good about it and want to thank the readers of the blog once again for encouraging me to continue this amazing journey. I am deeply honored by your support and encouragement. I always try my best to answer your questions and will continue doing so. I am glad to read that many of you have got something useful from this blog and I hope you continue to benefit by reading this blog in the future also.

This journey will continue from my side, I invite all of you also to share your opinions and voice your concerns on whatever platforms you can. Let's try to make this world a better place, full of more love, more compassion, more tolerance, and more people who value the liberty and freedom of others.

Thank you very much for your cooperation and happy reading.

Indian American's political dichotomy

During recent Presidential elections in the USA and the last general elections in India, there were a lot of political discussions and debates on social media. Especially due to the heavy use of social media in both elections, these debates didn't have regional and geographical restrictions, one could discuss with anyone available on social media. I guess this is the new trend that started from this election and will continue in the future. I also participated in a few of them. I noticed one critical thing during all those interactions with my Indian American friends (who are either residents or citizens of the USA), many Indians living in the US have very contradictory political views and they don't even realize this dichotomy in their political thinking. In India, there is growing support for the right-wing national party BJP. I am calling the BJP a right-wing due to their social policies, as far as economic policies are concerned, all parties in India are socialist, and surprisingly, this is not one of the major concerns of Indian voters. Based on the history of India and the rest of the world Indian voters should know that for such a large population socialism never works, you need some hybrid system with as little as possible governmental interference in the market.

Many Indian immigrants in the USA support BJP wholeheartedly back in India, they passionately debate to support the current Prime minister Mr. Modi, and his political party BJP. But, in the USA when Mr. Trump used similar rhetoric during his election campaign, most Indian Americans didn't like that. Many with whom I talked were worried about his stance against immigrants (even though he didn't target Indians specifically) and Republican's pro-Christian views. As a minority, most of them are Democrat supporters, and many of these people are concerned about their religious freedom under Republican rule. They want as much freedom and support government can provide for their activities. They want to celebrate their festival in the Indian way, some even boast that now they can immerse Ganesh idols in American lakes and rivers, just like they do in India. They felt this all might be threatened if some conservative party and some unconventional leader like Trump came into power. They loved the same combination in India but are very apprehensive about similar prospects in the US.

This contrast surprised me a bit. I asked many of them what is the difference between the campaign style of Trump and Modi? They both used the same rhetoric, they both targeted a certain group of minorities and tried to make use of feelings of resentment among certain sections of society against each other. So, why Modi was fine, and Trump not? Is it because in India they all represent a majority group, and that is why they want someone who asserts majoritarianism, and as they are a minority group in the US they want the party who is perceived as a pro-minority? When I pointed out this contrast (or hypocrisy), only some of them agreed that indeed there is a contrast and very few of them offered any explanation for it. One of the explanations offered was that this is a survival tactic to survive in a nation where they are not in the majority. I really appreciate this honest confession, it is not easy to accept such a contradiction in your own behavior. I requested some of them to think about the behavior of minorities in India as far as political affiliations are concerned and compare that with their own behavior here and maybe they can find some similarities.

One can choose whatever political party or leader they want to support. But, when there is a sharp contrast between people's political choices based on their demographic status, it is a very interesting phenomenon for an observer like me. I hope Indian Americans realize this dichotomy present in their political views and give some thought to finding some reasons why it exists. This might help to bring some political harmony between minority and majority groups back in India as well as reduce their own anxiety and fears due to their minority status in the US.

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

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

Trumpophobia

Recently I attended a conference where there were panel discussions about changes in the government's position and other aspects of American society after the election of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States. I can understand the apprehensions and concerns of people to see a nonconventional candidate registering a surprise victory over a well-qualified candidate, but I didn't understand the irrational fear and phobia associated with Mr. Trump and some of his policies. It was pretty clear from the beginning that Mr. Trump is not a conventional candidate, the way he conducted his campaign and his speeches were enough to prove this. In the end, people from more number of states preferred his rhetoric over Mrs. Clinton's and he won a bitterly fought election. Quite understandably Hillary's supporters were shocked to witness this, but I thought that they would get over this defeat and try to search for reasons why this happened so that they can fight back next time. This is what any political party should do after facing a defeat in any election. Reflecting on what went wrong is very important to make sure that we don't repeat the same mistakes again.

The general tone of most of the panel discussions was that the USA is moving towards a dictatorship, minorities will be targeted with the government's tacit approval, and there is a fascist regime in the White House. There is a change of regime and it is very clear that the current administration has a different outlook compared to the previous one. But, this is what happens when one party replaces another, that's why we get to choose which party (hence, which policy) we want the country should adopt. This time people thought Trump might do a better job to forward American interest, let's give him a chance. Others, who don't agree with the President, definitely have democratic means to protest against his policies and resist in peaceful ways. At the same time, it is wrong to spread unnecessary fear and phobia about a person who has not even completed 100 days in the office. In a democracy, we need to respect people's choices, free and fair elections are the backbone of any democracy, and we should honor the results of such elections. 

I also registered my strong opposition to Trump's comments about women and his general attitude toward them. I still have reservations about most of his policies, but I also know that he has a clear mandate to be the President of the USA and will need the support of all its citizens and residents to run it successfully for the next four years. In 2020, there will be another election and there will be another chance for all Trump opponents to fight another electoral battle until then they need to watch his actions closely. Political opposition is necessary to make sure the voices of all sections of society are being heard and the interests of each and all groups are represented, but this opposition should not become such a hindrance in governance that nothing moves forward. Sonner the people get over this Trumpophobia, better for the country. There was an Obamaphobia in certain sections of political circles for the last eight years, and now there is an emergence of a Trumpophobia, I believe such phobias are bad for the political and social health of a country like the USA. Let's give the new President some time to prove his capabilities and be vigilant about the country's interests first. There will be another election soon to take care of political interests, but let's focus on the country and its welfare for now.

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

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

Women's march done - Now, what next?

Last week, there were quite a few protests that created a lot of buzz on social media as well as in mainstream media. Depending on their liberal or conservative inclination various media houses either reported these events aggressively or totally ignored them as if they didn't happen. I was a little confused about the protests on the day of Mr. Trump's inauguration. He won a democratically contested election, the same system of the electoral college which declared Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama, and all other previous Presidents winners declared him the next President of the USA, people need to acknowledge it and accept the reality. This is the beauty of democracy, it would be hypocrisy to praise the democratic process only when it works in your favor. The Constitution gave Mr. Trump the right to contest the election and he won it, he has a constitutional right to serve as the President of the USA. I didn't understand the main intention behind the protest on inauguration day. If it was just to oppose Mr. Trump's victory because some people didn't like him personally then it sets a dangerous precedence for everyone. Oppose his policies if you don't agree, challenge his decisions if you feel they are wrong, criticize his statements, and demand an apology, but don't try to question his rights. It is dangerous to question someone's fundamental rights because tomorrow someone might question your rights also.

But, I do understand the intentions behind the women's march. Some of the comments made by Mr. Trump about women are derogatory, his so-called locker room talk was disgusting. The excuses and the apology offered by him for some of these things are lame and inadequate. So, the women's march had a valid reason. It was good to see so many women coming together and marching to protect their rights and challenge misogynist views. The culture of patriarchy still exists in some form or other in all parts of the world and the USA is not an exception. It shows its ugly face in the form of sexist jokes, discriminatory rants, prejudiced statements, or so-called locker room talks. Such things need to be challenged. Many people might feel that this is a very hypersensitive reaction, or protestors are cherry-picking things just for the sake of making a big deal out of nothing. But, the truth is that things like patriarchy are so deeply rooted in the psyche of our culture that it will need a lot of mental cleaning to get rid of it completely. Women need to be vigilant about any behavior that even remotely tries to propagate such a mindset because they are the main victims of such a mindset. Sexual harassment is still a huge problem both for men and women, but women are disproportionately victimized and that's why this protest was necessary.

Based on news reports it seems that the women's march was a huge success, not only in the US but in many other countries it was noticed. Now, what next? Just conducting one huge march or registering a protest once is not going to solve these problems. This huge protest should not be the end, but the beginning of a new movement. Marches or protests are good methods to highlight any issue or spread awareness about the problem. But efforts should not end with a one-time protest or one march. People (both men, women, and other genders) should resist any attempts to demean any group by anyone. It is going to be a long march to achieve equality and I hope that everyone in support of equality is willing to walk that long.

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

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