Don't confuse confidence for competence

Confidence is good, it gives a person the power to do things that a person with low or no confidence may not be able to do easily. This is also one quality that many desire to see in their leaders. However, many times, confidence is confused with competence. People tend to forget that both things are completely different and have no relation with each other. That is, it is not necessary that a competent person will also be confident and it is also not necessary that a confident person will also be competent. Of course, it will be great if a competent person is confident, but unfortunately, this is not the case. But there are many confident people whose competence can be questioned, especially in the field of politics. I don't think I need to cite any names here, just look around the world. In many countries, some leaders are elected or extremely popular because they are excellent orators, they speak with all confidence and conviction, but there is no real change, they just keep on giving speech after speech. People love their confidence and confuse it for competence. Such leaders develop an image of charismatic leaders, developing a cult-like following, but no real change happens, but their supporters don't care, they are mesmerized by the magic this leader creates, for them the image in their mind is more important than the reality on the ground.  

Confidence is good, but it is not everything. We should try to look beyond confidence, to see if it is accompanied by competence or exists as a trait to shield incompetence. Just because someone dominates the room or conversation, occupies the stage with ease, entertains the audience, knows how to push their point with force and conviction, and can say unpopular things does not make them a good leader. Also, being confident is not a red flag per se. But being confident without being willing to be accountable, without accepting any mistakes, taking all the credit all the time, demeaning people or team members for disagreeing, or behaving like an autocrat are red flags and signs of a terrible leader, these can be signs of a dictator but not a leader. This world has seen many confident and popular leaders who did tremendous harm not only to their own countries but to the entire world. I don't think we have learned our lessons from those events as it seems we fall for the same trap again and again. Somehow divisive politics seem to appeal to us even in the twenty-first century. Somehow hate-mongers still get elected as lawmakers. Somehow religion still divides people rather than uniting them. If you look at all these problems, you will find some extremely confident but utterly incompetent leaders. These leaders know how to use people, but don't care for them. They are okay with people fighting among themselves, hating or killing each other, but seldom put themselves or their families in the line of fire. These leaders want to be popular and win at any cost, even at the cost of human life or the unity of their country. I am not calling these leaders incompetent because they lose elections or fail to inspire, many of them keep on winning elections and inspire their supporters to do unimaginable things. I am calling them incompetent because any good leader is supposed to unite and lead, bridge gaps within their country, and create harmony, but they don't do this, rather they do the exact opposite. Therefore, my humble request, please don't confuse confidence for competence. 

Thank you for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

© Vinay Thakur, All rights reserved, Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com 

Risks of ignoring underlying sadness and anxiety

Human emotions are complex. They are complex not because there are many, but because many times they confuse us and our conditioning doesn't allow us to acknowledge some emotions. Anxiety, stress, sadness, or feeling low in life is unavoidable. We all go through some or all of these emotions from time to time. It is not easy to embrace these emotions as they are uncomfortable feelings, and this is why we tend to avoid them. Many try to ignore them, bury them under some other emotions. Some try to dilute them with the use of drugs, alcohol, or some other addiction. Sometimes we feel that keeping ourselves busy may make them go away and we immerse ourselves in some activities. Some take shelter from work and become a workaholic, forgetting that addiction to work can also be bad. Sometimes we are so confused that we don't know how to react. Sometimes we take out all our frustrations and anger on people who we love and hurt them, damage relationships, and end friendships. One thing is clear, ignoring these emotions is not a good strategy. Rather, ignoring these emotions may be risky, especially when these emotions push us toward some addiction. Once we start walking the path of addiction, there is a slippery path of getting trapped where it is hard to come out without any professional help. It is better to embrace these emotions and deal with them, try to find out their roots, and address them rather than ignore them. 

Emotional distress or trauma is common for all of us. It's a spectrum, some of us suffer more compared to others. The words "trauma" and "distress" have so much negativity associated with them that no one wants to say that they are in emotional distress or trauma. Just acknowledging these emotions doesn't make us weak or sick, it allows us to recognize them and deal with them. It also allows us to seek help if needed, and this help can be in many ways and forms. It can be in the form of counseling, therapy, medication, meditation, or just talking with someone we trust. There are many ways to get help, provided we recognize that we need help and we figure out what we need help with. Also, once we acknowledge these emotions we can try controlling them, ignoring them only allows those emotions to control us. Ignoring them may also make us sick. Please don't ignore underlying sadness, anxiety, or any other emotion that bothers you. Seek help and begin your journey towards better emotional well-being. All the very best.

Thank you for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

© Vinay Thakur, All rights reserved, Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com 

My phone and me

I like my phone, it is the one thing I carry everywhere. By phone I do not mean the make or model that I am using, I mean the phone as an instrument, a smartphone with all its features and apps. I find it a handy gadget as it helps me in many ways, especially to get over boredom, it provides me with something to do, wherever I am and whenever I want. At the same time, I also understand the criticism directed toward the excessive usage of smartphones. I see the point, but I disagree with the sweeping criticism directed toward phone usage. In many conversations, the smartphone is projected as an evil gadget, the source of all our problems while ignoring all the benefits. I understand that like many inventions that transformed our lives the smartphone is also like a double-edged sword, it all depends on how we use it. Smartphones and the internet come with some inherent risks, but so do sugar and caffeine, didn't we learn how to use them to our advantage? Similarly, why can't we do this with our smartphones?

Today's smartphones are amazing devices, they are more powerful than the desktops that were in use just two decades back. They allow us to make calls, message our contacts, do our office work, take photos, record videos, use it as a navigation device, read books, watch movies, play games, and many other things. Just a few years back we used to have separate devices for each of these things, now we can do it all on one device that can fit into our pockets, such is the power of smartphones. Yes, occasionally we get distracted, many of us are getting addicted to it and this is bad. Just because the gadget is super cool and useful does not mean we should overuse it. Just because we can connect with anyone, anywhere using our phones we should not disengage from our immediate surroundings. I am sure we will learn how to adjust and accommodate the presence of smartphones in our lives, any resistance is futile. In the same way, resistance to the TV was futile, it did enter almost every household that can afford it. Initially, when TV was launched it was ridiculed as an "idiot box" and blamed for all the problems including weight gain to increasing violence in society. Similarly, smartphones are going through that blame phase. 

People who criticize smartphones conveniently overlook the benefits it offers. My phone allows me to read books, and listen to podcasts, even in the middle of the night when I can't sleep, many times it helps me to sleep while listening to some music or podcasts. It keeps me engaged when I am waiting for someone, helps me to check things during travel, and I can stay connected with my kids and parents. The list is too long to mention everything. For many who need something to keep their mind engaged, a smartphone is like a boon, something that keeps our hyperactive brain in control. I am sure, there are many like me who thank their phone for this. Also, there are many who overuse smartphones so much that it starts affecting their day-to-day lives. In such cases, the user needs to be trained to monitor the use and make sure they are not overdoing it. The Internet is like an ocean, we will get lost in it if we try to navigate without any control and guidance. Please be conscious of all these things and use your smartphone to your advantage. I and my phone are going to stay together, we both benefit from each other. I love this relationship and have no plans to break up. I wish you all a rewarding and fulfilling relationship with your smartphone.

Thank you for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

© Vinay Thakur, All rights reserved, Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com  

Capitalism and inequality

First a disclaimer from my side, I am a capitalist and I do believe that capitalism is the best economic system we have today, all other options like socialism and communism are much worse. However, this does not mean that I am not receptive to any criticism of capitalism. Rather, I think capitalism, in its current form, needs a lot of work and it also needs to evolve with time to suit the needs of changing socioeconomic situations. Increasing inequality is one of the most common and valid criticisms that capitalism cannot ignore. It is hard to explain, why women are paid less than men for doing the same work, and how in the same society, some people have so much that they don't know what to do with their resources, and some struggle even for the basic necessities of life. 

Inequality was common in ancient times when royals used to live a filthy rich life and many of their subjects used to struggle for basic needs. The royals benefited from the sweat and blood of their subjects and were rarely cared to elevate the social status of the working class. I believe we have moved away from those times, and I hope most readers will agree. I also know that socialism and communism, or any other system do not have answers to this problem, but I expect capitalism to do better than them and look for some solutions to tackle increasing inequality. Also, this is not a theoretical discussion for the sake of discussion. It sucks to struggle for money. I was on the other side, I have experienced what it means to live where money is scarce and the root of all your problems. The income gap is not just an economic issue, it becomes a social and law and order issue if not taken care of.

Until I moved to the USA, I lived in a poor neighborhood in India. Resources have always been scarce and demands were more. I remember that most of the arguments between my parents were about money, almost every problem could be traced to the lack of money. I did not realize back then that it was a structural problem, my parents were trying their best, and they worked really hard, but even after all their efforts, there was not enough to live comfortably. Even buying a tape recorder or a blender was not possible for us for many years. It seems we were trapped in a poverty trap, no matter what we did there was no way out. In our neighborhood, there were households where everyone worked, irrespective of their age and education. Even alcoholic adults and kids of all ages used to do some work that fetched some money, but they were still poor. Back then India was a socialist country and the government controlled almost everything, still, poverty and hunger were rampant, and socialism clearly didn't eliminate or even reduce poverty. There was neither enough wealth generation nor proper wealth distribution.

In most developed countries, income inequality is not the result of poor wealth generation, but a wealth distribution problem. Capitalism does a great job in wealth generation but seems to be failing miserably as far as wealth distribution is concerned. When I say wealth distribution, I am not talking about government handouts. I am not talking about so-called freebies by the government irrespective of any need or due diligence. Any populist scheme launched without proper data and due diligence is an invitation for an economic disaster. In any democracy is easy to launch beneficiary schemes, but it is extremely difficult to withdraw them as there are consequences like losing an election. 

Disparate wage structure is a glaring problem with capitalism. Proportional incentives at every level are not part of the existing pay structure. The short-term gain takes precedence due to high personal rewards to executives. Nonsustainable perpetual growth to increase stock prices has become a norm, and rewards of any market success are disproportionately distributed. True, the markets should decide the compensation, but where is the bargaining power with the workers to negotiate? The big fish eats the small fish leaving only a few big players that control and dictate the market. Competition is a hallmark of capitalism, but the presence of just a few big players and a tacit understanding between them hardly create any competition. The hourly rate of any CEO is orders of magnitude higher than the hourly rate of any temporary employee. Health coverage offered to lawmakers at the cost of taxpayers' money is much much better compared to the health coverage of many citizens who work as hard as these lawmakers. It is widely perceived that business and morality do not go together. Why can't we make money and also do the right things? Why can't we increase the stock prices and distribute the income fairly? Why can't there be job stability as well as income growth? Why can't a woman get the same salary as a man for the same work? These are some of the questions for which capitalism has to provide solutions, blaming everything or leaving everything to market is not enough anymore as it is clearly not working. I hope upcoming leaders will address these issues. While being profitable, they won't hesitate to do morally right things. If capitalism remains silent about these issues, then it has no right to complain if the society leans towards socialism, after all, if you don't offer any solution people are free to consider other options. It's not too late, capitalism can address the inequality issue, the only question is does it want to?

Thank you for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

© Vinay Thakur, All rights reserved, Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com  

Depiction of intimacy and violence in Indian movies

Entertainment today is full of countless choices. The variety and amount of content are so vast that one life is not enough to consume it all. This was not the case just a couple of decades back, especially in India. As kids, we had very limited options available to us. Watching limited programs on the national TV channel and movies shown on weekends were the only entertainment available for us during our initial childhood years. Then came the VHS tapes and VCRs, few video theaters started in our neighborhood where the charge was Rs 1 per movie. Of course, they were illegal, but we didn't care about their legality, there was another option to watch movies and it soon became very popular in underprivileged neighborhoods like ours where very few could afford their own TV, forget about having your own VCR. 

I grew up in India and spent my entire childhood and part of my adult life there. The 1980s and 90s were the eras of action movies, and the angry young man Amitabh was ruling the Indian box office. As a teenager, I was a fan of these action movies. I loved the way an underprivileged hero fought against the corrupt and unfair system and won, it gave me the feeling as if I was fighting those battles. Most romance genre movies of that era had a typical rich boy and poor girl or vice versa type of storyline, except for songs and sometimes fresh faces there was nothing much to watch in those movies. As expected, violence was an integral part of all action movies. However, intimacy and romance had a minimal presence, even in the movies of the romance genre. Therefore, it seems as kids it was okay for us to watch slaps, murders, and anything in between but a kiss on the screen was a big NO. Any intimacy on the screen was forbidden for some reason, except, rape. So, kids were not allowed to watch a kiss but were okay to see a rape scene. Rape was an essential part of most action movies, especially if the hero had a sister. In most action movies the character of the sister of the hero was written to get raped and killed. Interestingly, none of them survived after being raped, rape was like a death sentence for them. The rape scene was an essential ingredient of most action movies, it was used to add fuel to the fire of revenge. The effect of all this was that even though India faced the problem of population explosion people cringed watching a kissing scene on the screen. I still wonder what was the logic behind the policy for allowing a rape scene and other violence but not a kiss. How it was okay for a child to see a man slapping a woman, but not okay to see a man kissing a woman? I wonder what was the rationale if there was any. It seems they were okay with allowing children to watch violence compared to love, they were scared that after watching a kiss on screen people may start kissing each other but after watching violence they will not have any reaction. The censor board of India is not only a joke but it is heavily influenced by the government and curtails freedom of expression as much as it can. I mean, imagine, a kiss is not okay but murder and rape are, that too in a country where overpopulation is a problem.

It's not that Indian movies never used to have any intimate scenes. Movies of the pre-independence era used to include on-screen kissing scenes. Something happened when India gained independence and this policing of movies started by establishing a censor board. However, the situation is much different now after the arrival of various OTT platforms and the lack of censorship for these platforms. Some people complain about the excessive sexual content on the OTT platform. One of the reasons is that for the first time in many decades, creators from India are feeling the freedom of expressing something like this on the screen and are flying like a free bird. I have no complaints about the depiction of violence or intimacy as long as it is a part of the storyline. I enjoy the current content compared to the rubbish that was served to us under the name of entertainment during my childhood. I hope the OTT content doesn't come under the censorship of the Indian government, otherwise, we will go back to the sanitized version of everything where two flowers kiss each other on the screen instead of two people.

Thank you for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com