Is it enough to be a democracy?

Recently, during the visit of Indian Prime Minister Mr. Modi, India and the USA patted each other's backs for being the largest and the oldest democracies. This was such a pathetic display of self-praise without recognizing the respective problems these democracies are facing. Just because regular elections are held and people vote doesn't make any country a true democracy. If we consider the criteria of regular elections and voting, then many countries could qualify or claim themselves as democracies, but we all know that this is not true. Yes, elections and voting are important aspects of any democracy but they are not the only aspects of it. Freedom of expression, political prosecution of opponents, uniformity of voting rights, subjugation of minorities by the majority, and transparency of the electoral process are some of the other factors that can tell whether it is a functioning democracy or just a paper democracy.

When politicians, especially elected ones, behave in an autocratic manner like kings and queens, is it a real democracy? When the economic fortune of elected politicians multiplies by orders of magnitude after their elections and no one, either the government or the people, questions this, is it a real democracy? When people vote for a bottle of liquor and some money, is it a real democracy? When the voting rights of some people are suppressed because of their social or economic status, is it a real democracy? When voters are continuously misinformed and fed with propaganda and religious fanatism, is it a real democracy? The questions are many, and the point is when some sections are systematically suppressed can we call that system a true democracy?

Agreed, with all its flaws and problems, democracy is still the best system we have. It is messy and not perfect, but this is the reason it is not a big deal to be a paper democracy, where the processes are present but the effect is autocracy. Implementing some democratic process is the minimum any country can do, and the US and India do a great job at it. Also, there are many countries that do not even have these processes, but they also don't claim to be the largest or the oldest democracies. This is why it becomes more important for any country that wants to flaunt its democratic credentials to make sure that its process is not ridden with loopholes and problems making it inefficient and undemocratic. This chest thumping can be a good public relations event or may mesmerize respective political bases, but beyond that, it does not have any meaning. FIX the broken system. It looks pathetic when leaders of two important democratic countries praise each other while their countries are ridden with problems that need their immediate attention. Optics are great for PR, but go and fix the real problems. It is not enough to be a paper democracy, make sure that every eligible person gets the right to vote and no voices are suppressed either directly or indirectly, and then, let's have a party.   

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

Since when the US is scared of opinions and facts

I was a little taken back by reading phrases like "cancel culture," or other similar related terms where a group of people tries to ban or boycott a person, organization, product, brand, or anything else due to an issue that this group of people disapproves or finds offensive. Nothing is surprising in people getting offended, hurt, or angry because of something said by someone, this has happened before, and this is happening more often and on a larger scale due to social media. What is surprising is that a country like the USA is trying to stifle freedom of expression because someone is offended or disapproves of something said by someone, that too on college campuses where such exchanges should happen frequently and in a civilized manner. Any society where the freedom of expression is stifled blocks its way toward progress. Yes, freedom of expression comes with a price, it includes the risk of getting offended or hurt, and it includes the duty to protect others' right to express themselves so that our own rights are protected. Imagine a society where only nice things that everyone agrees or feels happy about are said and heard, does anyone think such a society exists anywhere? No. It doesn't. Not even in mythological books. 

We can't agree on everything all the time. Also, if we all agree on everything all the time we won't need the fundamental right of freedom of expression, we need this right only when something offensive or derogatory is said, when someone disagrees and needs legal protection to express that disagreement without being intimidated by the government or any other public entity. The USA has done a great job so far in protecting this right and this is also one of the reasons for its progress. This is why it is concerning when a country like the US behaves in a way as if it is scared of unpopular opinions or facts that do not validate some popular perceptions. This behavior of stifling freedom of expression is happening from both sides of the political spectrum, maybe one is doing more than the other, but supporters of both the major parties in the US are behaving as if the other has no right to express their opinions. This phenomenon is concerning for someone like me who has been impressed by the freedom of expression offered in the US. In fact, this is the major aspect that made me fall in love with this country. There are many other aspects that one can admire about the US but freedom of expression is the top one in my list. Also, don't interpret my statement to mean that there is nothing to criticize about the US. As there are many aspects to admire, there is ample opportunity for growth and many aspects that could be and should be criticized, and this is why the right to freedom of expression needs to be protected at every level, especially in colleges and universities. 

So, if you are an American and want to preserve and capitalize on the progress made by this country, then don't let your own biases and prejudice come in the way of limiting the right of freedom of expression of your opponents. As we have the right to say things we want, our opponents also have the same right, nothing more, and nothing less. Yes, it will be great if people don't say offensive stuff, but they do. Yes, it will be great, if people don't behave like jerks, morons, or bigots, but they do. Yes, it will be great if our opponents behave and don't say nasty things about us, but they do. And as long as all these things are within the allowed legal boundaries they should be protected no matter who is doing or why are they doing it. Remember, any civilized society is not scared of opinions and facts no matter how unpleasant or offensive they are, and a strong country is not offended by criticism directed towards it, rather, it uses these things to become a better and stronger country. I am sure irrespective of their political affiliations all Americans want their country to be a better and stronger country.

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 

Ideas are ineffective without skills to use them

The Internet and social media platforms have provided an excellent platform to express and propagate different thoughts and ideas. There are many great ideas and concepts introduced by people from different backgrounds. These ideas are mainly propagated through books, talks, social media posts, or blogs. Most of these ideas have great potential to influence our lives in a positive way. This is why they get attention and recognition from a wide audience pool. Many of these concepts are very well received and people are intrigued to learn about them, but unfortunately, things don't proceed beyond this point. 

I am no different, I also get impressed by many talks and books by many thinkers. However, even though these concepts are appealing and sound useful, in most cases, there needs to be some practical guidance on how to use them effectively in our day-to-day life. Without any demonstrated public use people find these ideas and concepts interesting but fail to use them in their real life. The ideas get popular, people introducing them become popular, and we get some new influencers, but hardly anything changes at the workplace, in homes, or in society. Many of these potentially useful ideas (or social and personal tools) remain just ideas that are discussed and debated, but not practiced, and this happens not because people don't want to use or practice them, they just don't know how to do it. That is, without the proper skills to use these ideas, they remain only interesting and appealing theoretical concepts without much practical use. The only positive gain from this process is that the innovators of these concepts get popular they get invitations to deliver talks as these talks motivate people, but beyond that nothing much changes. These useful tools remain in their infancy forever or just remain interesting topics for debates and discussions.

So, how can we change this so that all these ideas or tools are effectively used for the betterment of our personal and social lives? One way is to learn the skills that are needed to practice and implement these new ideas. For example, just saying vulnerability is a strength and not a weakness is not enough, people clap and continue judging anyone showing their vulnerable side. We need to not only appreciate these new ideas but also seriously practice or encourage anyone who is trying to practice them, no matter how uncomfortable or storage we feel in the beginning. As a matter of fact, we are going to feel uncomfortable in the beginning as some of these concepts are completely alien to our society. There is resistance to even a small change that challenges the status quo, imagine the reaction to something radical and new. Therefore, it becomes the responsibility of all who appreciate or introduce these ideas to make sure that they and all others who consult with them are equipped with the required skills to use these ideas. Once again taking the example of vulnerability, it becomes our responsibility to accept and respect when someone displays or shares their vulnerability with us. It is difficult not to judge, but we need to learn the new skill of not judging if we want to change the existing system that is a legacy of patriarchy, misogyny, and racism. Without being equipped with new skills we cannot defeat old social evils that have robust and well-functioning mechanisms to propagate exploitory culture. So, don't just be a cheerleader for new ideas be a practitioner and the agent for the change you want, be that "someone" you always wanted should initiate the change, and be the listener as well as a doer. All the very best.   

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

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

Good colleges or just elite colleges?

If you ask anyone for a list of good colleges or universities, you can predict what will be on their list. Most lists include colleges featuring in the popular top-ranking systems used in various regions and most of these colleges will have extremely low acceptance rates, less than 10%, some even less than 5%, that is, these institutions reject most students that apply to them. At the same time, there are colleges that accept most people who apply to them. Recently I heard a TED talk by Cecilia M. Orphan, that was about what makes a good college. She made a very excellent point that got me thinking, why colleges reject most of the students who apply to them are considered good colleges, and colleges that accept most of the students, give the opportunity to students to get a college education that none of these so-called good colleges offer, are not included in the list of good colleges of many people. She rightly flags our skewed perception. The perception we all have developed through relentless advertising and deeply flawed college ranking systems. 

Why do we think that colleges that only select top-ranked students, the students that can go anywhere and excel or students who have resources and privilege to attend any college are considered good colleges; but colleges that give opportunities to all students that may not get an opportunity to attend a college or get a college degree unless admitted to that state or regional state university are not in the list of good colleges? Honestly, in the US, I fell in love with every educational institute I visited, the infrastructure and campus just blew me away, since then I had a dream to attend a US educational institution as a student and I fulfilled that dream when I attended UConn Law School for the JD program. Celilia's talk raises another great point about already super-rich institutions getting more grants and growing their endowments in the billions of dollars, whereas other colleges provide educational opportunities to many more deserving students struggling to balance their budgets. Most donations and grants flow to institutions that already have enough money to support their programs, this inequality gets worse over time and the result is rich colleges getting richer whereas colleges with less money keep on struggling for funds. Both, raise tuition, but the tuition raised by colleges that need funds to balance their budgets affects more students and creates a bigger uproar compared to tuition raised by rich colleges. 

The point of this post is not to say that colleges that consistently feature on top in various college ranking systems are not good. They are good institutions and there are good reasons why they score high in most ranking systems, but many more colleges are doing a much more difficult job and serving a much wider student community that needs the same amount of recognition and support. Craving for a luxury brand is not a bad thing. Even in education, there are luxury brands, and parents and students do crave these brands and are willing to do whatever it takes to get into these branded institutions. However, there are many other brands that are more inclusive and diverse that need to be recognized for what they do best, which is to provide educational opportunities to many underprivileged and struggling students who may have to drop out without this opportunity. Public universities, regional public schools, and many small colleges are doing this great work, they are serving much larger and more diverse communities and as a society, we need to appreciate and value this. We all can show this appreciation by supporting them financially, by giving money where it's needed most and can have a wider effect. Let's redefine what makes a good college.      

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

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

Patriarchy and motherhood

"This feminism has really messed up our traditions and culture, many women are avoiding being mothers," one of my friends said with a tinge of remorse in his voice. He knew that I am a proud feminist and was trying to score a point. 

"Women are not avoiding anything, they are choosing whether they want to become a mother and if they want when to become mothers, motherhood is neither an obligation nor an imposed burden for many feminist women, and I think that's good for both, men and women," was my reply. This didn't make my friend happy as he insisted every woman has a fundamental duty towards her family to bear at least one child, he just couldn't fathom a scenario where a woman could have a choice of rejecting motherhood, this was an unthinkable aspect to him. He is not alone who think like this, many men as well as women think that motherhood is an inherent part of being a woman, such is the stronghold of patriarchy over our thinking.

Now, you may ask, "what's the relationship between patriarchy and motherhood?" There shouldn't be any, right? But there is, patriarchy has glorified motherhood so much to make women feel that without motherhood they are incomplete. This is one of the greatest scams successfully pulled off by the patriarchy. When I pointed out this, my friend strongly disagreed and recited the usual stuff related to the glorification of motherhood. However, he did not have any answers to why motherhood defines women, but why fatherhood is not necessary to define any man. There are many men from history who left their wives, and kids, for some other pursuit and still considered great, but one can hardly find similar examples of women. No society or culture dares to glorify a woman who abandons her kids and family and goes in search of something else. Her act of abandonment of her family and kids will overshadow everything else, however, men are immune from such treatment. 

Most cultures around the world still consider motherhood an essential element of being a woman, but fortunately, this is changing fast. Thanks to contraceptives, many women voluntarily chose their time to be a mother, and many women chose not to be a mother. In places where access to contraceptives is limited for whatever reason motherhood is imposed on women against their will. Whether they choose to be a mother or not, they all are women. Glorification of motherhood is a well-planned strategy to trap women in childbearing and childcare so that they remain engaged in other household work. To make this entrapment permanent and secure concepts like divinity, the superiority of a mother's love compared to a father's love, and how motherhood makes a woman complete were introduced. This also added a guilt factor. Any woman not following this well-guarded and exploitative path was riddled with impending guilt and shame for not fulfilling her duties as a woman. These tactics have worked stupendously so far, many women are the flag bearers of the idea that a woman is not complete unless she becomes a mother. Motherhood has to be a matter of choice, without choice, it becomes a burden as it is imposed and not by choice. 

In reality, motherhood is purely a biological incident. Like every other species we need to reproduce so that we don't become extinct, motherhood and fatherhood both result from this reproduction process. Nature has given one of the genders in every species the ability to be a host for the initial phase of the reproductive cycle. However, now with the availability of modern technology, the entire process of reproduction, starting from fertilization (union of an egg and sperm) to the development of a deliverable baby can be carried out in a lab, without the need for any host. This will become a reality sooner or later once society gets over its moral guilt about outsourcing child production. Yes, society will achieve a comfort level where kids can be produced outside the human body, same the way it did to outsource childcare. The glorification of motherhood was mainly to instill the feeling of guilt in women so that they don't complain about the imposed motherhood. Even today, if any woman decides not to have a child to advance their career or goes back to work by her own choice immediately after delivering their baby, she is shamed and made feel guilty whereas men are totally immune from such attacks. 

One may expect that after all this imposition and hard work, the woman gets all the credit, and the child at least carries her name and legacy. No, never. The child still bears only the father's name, even father dies before the birth of the child or had zero contribution to upbringing, the child still bears the father's identity, not the mother's, this is the masterstroke by patriarchy, making women bear all the pain and do all hard work but give the product of all this man's label. So, women do all the hard work, including putting their lives at risk (many women used to die and still die during childbirth), and in return, they only get a hollow glorification, the man gets to attach his name just for being a man. This is also why women's sexual freedom was heavily guarded whereas men were free to have multiple relationships or marriages. Before DNA testing, there was no way for men to confirm that the child from their relationship or marriage was their genetic child. Women didn't need any proof to confirm their genetic link to their baby as they literally produced that baby, but the men had no other way to confirm this without prohibiting other sexual intercourse until the initiation of the pregnancy. This is how the concept of purity and sanctity of the female body arose, just to prohibit females from engaging in the same type of sexual behavior that men freely engaged in. Even today, in many cultures, it is abuse to say that someone has multiple fathers, but the other way (having multiple mothers) is perfectly okay. 

Patriarchy affects both, men and women, but the way it affects women is very complex. Many traditions that look harmless and fun are designed to keep women in only certain roles and stunt their personal and professional growth so that many areas exclusively belong to men. Guilt and shame are often used to attack women who dare to break these traditional boundaries imposed on them. The sooner women realize this better it is for them. Being a parent is a choice, parents share the joy and burden of bringing a child into this world. Putting the entire onus of love and tenderness on women is unfair and brutal. Mother or father, any parent can provide childcare, just because of one's gender no one should be forced to bear a child or take care of a child, or compromise their professional ambitions, the day we realize this we move one step closer to gender equality. Until then, keep supporting feminism, because that's the best mechanism we have currently to counter all the nonsense against women.         

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

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