My amazing journey to finish the law school

Some journeys leave an everlasting impact on our minds. These journeys might be full of uncertainties, hardships, occasional anxiety and frustration, and a lot of hard work, but overall, they are rewarding experiences. My law school journey is one such journey. I started this journey back in August 2020 with many uncertainties and doubts. I did not know if I would be able to finish it, how hard it would be, and many other concerns. It was a risky move, some people even warned me against it, they cited some examples who tried this and failed or quit, but I was ready to take the risk. I am glad that I did. It turned out to be one of the best experiences of my life. Not only my friends and family but UConn Law School and its support staff, my professors, and my classmates also made this experience very special. I enjoyed every bit of it. I am not sad that I will be leaving the law school as it was supposed to be a four-year course. Every good thing is supposed to end, but the happiness and knowledge that I acquired will remain with me forever. Every experience teaches us something, it becomes a part of us, and shapes our personality and thinking. No doubt, this experience is one of those experiences which transformed me inside out.

Many times, we have a dream and also the desire to pursue that dream, but we postpone our efforts or put them on hold for many reasons. Some of the most common reasons are our familial responsibilities, monetary restrictions, personal doubts or lack of confidence, or a fear of what people will say if I fail. I also had some of these concerns. I fell in love with American educational institutions way back when I started working as a postdoc at Rutgers University. The kind of experience these institutions try to provide to their students is unmatched, there are very few places in the world that are so diverse and welcoming for students all over the world. I had a dream to attend an American college or university, but the problem was I already came to the USA after finishing my formal education. Also, I did not want to get enrolled in any online degree or a short certification course, not because I do not value them or consider them any inferior, but because these things would not have provided me with complete university experience, especially on-campus university life.

I came to the US as a postdoc after finishing my Ph.D. in organic chemistry, so it was tough to justify going back to college to pursue another degree. But my dream to attend an American university remained with me, and I was searching for an opportunity to fulfill it. It is always hard to deviate from a set route to do something different. It disturbs the regularity of our lives, we need to get out of our comfort zone and do something that we could avoid if we want. Also, to chase a dream, not only do you need to have a dream but you also need to have a plan to chase it, especially if you have a family to support. I decided to give it a try in 2015 while working as a research scientist in the pharma industry. I loved my job and was well settled in the drug discovery field, I thought that it was a perfect time for me to try something different. I got interested in intellectual property (IP), and my mentor and elder brother Dr. Dev Singh germinated an idea to study law with a specialization in IP in my mind. I loved that idea as it would help me to achieve my dream of attending an American university and started working towards it. I prepared for the LSAT exam and secured a score within my desired range on the first attempt. I went through the application process and got accepted in both the law schools where I applied for their part-time J.D. program, I decided to join UConn Law School in a class of 2020 J.D. program. This is how it all started, I embarked on this exciting journey in the fall of 2016.

This journey also made me realize the meaning of the proverb "It takes a village to raise a child." I could not have done this alone. Support from my friends and family was more than crucial. My wife Reena proved to be a great companion and supporter for me during this journey. She not only took on familial responsibilities but also helped me to make some important law school-related decisions. Her conviction and fearlessness were a great help to me whenever I was in doubt. My professors and classmates were other pillars of support for me. I was skeptical if I could survive the "Socratic method" of teaching in American law schools if I could manage my full-time job and rigorous law school curriculum which involves a crazy amount of reading. However, my classmates and professors offered me all the support that I needed. My professors encouraged me, they believed in my abilities, appreciated my struggle and hard work, helped me to work on my weaknesses, praised my strengths, and offered constructive criticism wherever and whenever required. My classmates were very supportive not only did they welcome me with an open heart but also offered to borrow their books and notes, welcomed me to study groups, and arranged those group sessions on time convenient to me. My friends and family, especially Dr. Dev Singh and his family encouraged me to keep on working towards my goal, they all acted as my cheerleaders. I am indebted to all these people for their contributions and efforts to help me succeed in my dream.

Monday, May 5, 2020, was the last day of my law school classes. Now, no more classes to attend, no more assignments, no pressure for exams, and no anxiety to tread through the heavy traffic after finishing my work to reach the class on time. The memories that I created during these four years are priceless. Thank you from the bottom of my heart to everyone who made my dream a reality. Yes, dreams do come true, just give it a try. 

Thanks for reading and please share your dream which came true.

If beef can be banned, then why not Jallikattu?

Jallikattu is a bull-taming sport practiced in some parts of the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu for centuries. Recently Indian Supreme Court banned this sport because of complaints about animal cruelty. Animal welfare activists complained that bulls are tortured by using various cruel methods and are forced to participate in this sport. The court took notice of their complaint and banned its practice after looking into all angles of it presented by both sides. But the problem is this sport has become a tradition in those parts of India, and many people are emotionally attached to it. So, as usual, this has become a very sensitive and controversial issue. Just like the beef ban, which was imposed by various state governments with the help of court decisions, in this case, animal activists were successful in getting a court order to ban this sport. But the problem this time is that both governments (center and state) are not in favor of this ban. In the case of beef imposing the ban was politically beneficial and in this case not imposing the ban is politically beneficial. In one case governments were in agreement with the court decision and in the other they didn't agree. To bypass this ban, the central government of India issued a special ordinance that was supported by all political parties of that state. This was a unique scenario where all political rivals who fought with each other even on many issues of national interest came together. The reason? There are state elections in Tamil Nadu soon and no political party wants to create a perception that they are against some religious tradition which can cost them votes. But now the problem is that the court has struck down that ordinance also, so it will be interesting to see what happens next. One interesting thing to note here is that people who supported the beef ban for animal cruelty and calling cows their mothers want to support this sport. Some who opposed the beef ban saying that what they want to eat is their personal choice are supporting this ban on Jallikattu for animal cruelty. It is very interesting to see how people switch their sides conveniently without even realizing sharp contradictions in their behavior. Actually, one can not equate the slaughtering of cows with bulls being tortured for some entertainment sports, in one case an animal is killed for food and in another case tortured to create some entertainment. But in both cases, one can argue that there is an element of cruelty involved and it should be the topic of discussion. Are we okay with both of them or we are okay with one but against the other and why?

In both cases, the emotions are involved. In the beef ban case, people are sensitive towards cruelty towards one particular animal (cow) and want to ban her slaughter but in Jallikattu's case, they want to uphold the tradition and continue that sport without being bothered by the animal cruelty involved in it. I personally appreciate the sentiments of people who love animals and work towards animal welfare. It is a great cause and many groups are committed to working towards this cause. But the truth is animal and human lives are judged differently. Humans use animals as objects made for their personal use: we eat their meat, keep them in zoos, attend various animal shows, have them as pets, domesticate them for farming or milk production, and even hunt them. Basically, we use them for our own personal benefit in whatever way we want. All these activities that I mentioned are legal. Cow slaughter might be illegal in many states of India but it is permitted in some states and many countries of the world but human killing is considered a very serious crime everywhere. We should understand that as a species humans value their own lives more compared to any other animal on this planet. Therefore we should not compare humans and animals using the same scale because our laws or our societies don't do this. The problem in these types of cases is that people are not consistent in their views and double standards are used either to justify or criticize exposing the hypocrisy of our society.

If the beef ban was required to save cows then how can you support the eating of meat of any other animal? If the beef ban was not for religious purposes but to stop animal cruelty then don't other animals also deserve the same protection?  How it is okay to support any sport where animals are tortured?  If we look at the other side, if beef eating is your right to choose your food then why you are against people's right to choose the sport which they want to play? If cow slaughter is okay then what's wrong with bull taming sport? Actually, my personal experience is that people who do such flip-flops don't like to face any such uncomfortable questions. Whenever they are confronted with such contradictions in their behavior, they either choose to justify their own hypocritical behavior by using their oratory skills or get very aggressive. Such issues also expose lame attempts of various political groups to exploit such sensitive issues for their own advantage. It is not fair to expect courts to pass judgments on every such issue, but unfortunately, governments and civil society make these things so complicated that eventually, these issues land in courts. Some of them like this one get resolved quickly but many such cases keep on dragging on for years as it is very difficult for courts to pass any judgment on very sensitive issues, Babri mosque demolition case is one such example. 

Actually, at some point in our lives, our double standards are exposed. We should learn from such incidents and try to improve our thinking. Such issues expose the hypocrisy of people in our society but somehow they are still not willing to learn any lesson. I am sure that soon there will be another sensitive issue and another similar passionate and emotional debate where people will argue based on their political and religious affiliations rather than having a logical discussion, there will be another deadlock followed by another protest and court case.

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

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

One more mass shooting and few more deaths, will this ever stop?

Another mass shooting happened in the USA, this time at Oregon Community College, killing nine innocent people and injuring a few. I know this is not shocking news or the first mass shooting incident of this decade. I also know that no one will get shocked to read about this incident, rather many might read the number of victims and try to compare it with the number of victims of the last incident to see which one was worse. This is what we have become now, such news no more shocks or disturbs us, these incidents have become so regular that we as a society are getting immune to the severity and seriousness of this heinous crime. I found a similar sentiment in President Obama's message about this incident. He also sounded upset, frustrated, and angry at the same time like me. He rightly pointed out that our response after all such tragic incidents is becoming very routine, so routine that we all know who will say what. This is such a sad state of affairs for everyone. Guns and gun laws have been very controversial and sensitive issues for public and political debate in the US for a long time. Some people are against any control over bearing arms (pro-gun lobby) and some people want to ban guns (anti-gun lobby). Both sides often behave like fanatics with little or no real concern towards such tragic incidents except for releasing some lip service to condemn such acts. I guess it should be clear to everyone that just condemning, expressing grief, and offering prayers and condolence to victims and their families is not enough. We are doing these things for long and we know that these things are not going to stop these murders. When any terrorist act happens do you think just condemnation of that incident or offering prayers and condolences to affected families is enough? Are we even interested in taking any concrete actions to make sure that such incidents don't happen in the future?

Guns are deadly weapons, they can kill multiple people in a short amount of time (mass murders) if they land in the wrong hands. We all know about these things, and as a society or country, we can take a few steps to stop or at least minimize these incidents. Every country including the US has strict laws for getting a driving licence. Yes, one may argue that driving is a personal right and the government is no one to stop anyone from buying a car with their own money and driving it on the road. But you can not buy a car and drive it just like that, there is a written test and then a road test, registration, and insurance requirements to drive a car on the road. The concerned authorities who grant driving licenses want to make sure that everyone who acquires a driving license is capable enough to understand the responsibilities that come along with driving. So, I don't understand why people are against introducing some precautionary rules and background checks before buying deadly weapons like assault guns? After all, these are dangerous weapons, no one is saying that you can't have them, just go through some screenings before you buy them. Do you complain when they checked or strip-searched you randomly before getting into an airplane? Do you complain when any liquid including drinking water was banned from taking onto planes? Do you complain when they do your background check before hiring for any job? Do you complain about background checks or even medical fitness tests which are part of the selection process for some types of jobs?  Why not? Because we all know that even though some of these things might cause some inconvenience to us personally they are necessary to keep everyone safe. Some of these measures are required to make sure that the right people are at the right places. Some precautions are necessary to make sure that wrong people don't misuse the rights and privileges offered to them by the state and society. Airport security or background checks before job hiring are not there to ban you or stop you from traveling by plane or hinder your job application process, but these things are there to make sure that some lunatic or criminal doesn't enter the plane or get a critical job and cause some irreparable harm or some devastating tragedy. Is it difficult to understand? If I am a law-abiding citizen who wants to own a gun legally and responsibly then I don't think any investigation or background check can stop me from doing this, why I should be worried about these things? After all, these things are implemented for public safety, not for banning anyone from buying guns. I don't know why these points fail to make sense to people from both sides.

 
As Mr. Obama said, if as a country US doesn't take any steps to control this, then it means we as a society chose to allow such incidents to happen, then we must take responsibility for these murders. If we can do something to control such crimes and choose not to do anything, then directly or indirectly we are responsible for these crimes. Arming everyone is not a practical option to stop the violence in society. Maybe this was an option when there was no law and order with a very poorly equipped and inefficient police force. Guns are not toys, they are deadly weapons, wrong people armed with them can kill innocent people, and not everyone is comfortable handling them. Surprisingly, most of these so-called pro-life people are very vocal about issues like abortion, but totally mum about gun control and mass shootings. This is when this is not at all about banning guns, but just introducing more safety measures so that only responsible people can buy and own guns. Any constitution or law needs to be updated or tuned as per changing times, every era needs some adjustment in some of the laws. If any society fails to take these steps, then people suffer, imagine if the tradition of sati had not been banned in India, and imagine if amendments to ban slavery got stuck in a similar deadlock. Sounds really scary, right? We are facing a similar situation related to some issues today, as we refuse to act. I hope better sense among our society and politicians prevail and we make the right decision. Otherwise, we will be discussing the same issues and mourning for the same tragedies as a mute spectator to the sufferings of our fellow citizens. We can't blame anyone for this because this is our choice, this is what we choose when we elect people who refuse to do anything to change this. Please think over this and then decide.

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

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

Religious Freedom Restoration Act - A regressive step to allow discrimination

As expected, the recently passed "religious freedom restoration act" created a lot of debate and controversy in the US media and political circles. Depending on which political party they support, people are busy either criticizing or fiercely defending this controversial law which allows public businesses to deny services to its customers if they feel that it conflicts with their religious beliefs or teachings. Actually, most countries allow their citizens to practice the religion of their choice. Countries like the US derive this freedom from their constitution, so, it is not that in the US it is legal to discriminate against people based on their religion or people find it difficult to practice their religious beliefs. The constitution gives complete freedom to every citizen to choose and practice their chosen faith. I believe that anyone's religion or faith is a personal matter. But it is a problem when people start bringing their faith or religion in public places or at their work and mixing it with work and politics. It is further complicated when lawmakers start making laws to favor a particular religion or to appease some minority community. Such appeasing behavior either by the public or lawmakers creates some problems and disturbs social disharmony.

This current law of Indiana is clearly designed to appease conservative communities of all religions (especially Christians) who might want to use this law to express their displeasure towards certain groups or communities. It is believed that this can be especially discriminating towards the LGBTQ community as certain businesses might refuse to serve them as their religious beliefs allow them to discriminate against these groups. This is why we specifically have anti-discriminatory laws, to stop some people who for whatever reason try to discriminate. Most of them do these things with a lot of conviction and belief because they think that they are doing the right thing taught by their religion and culture. So, they discriminate or hate certain groups because they believe their religion requires them to do this. However, if you are in the public sphere, your personal beliefs don't supersede the law of the land or common sense and decency. People should follow common decency in the public domain and show compassion and kindness towards fellow humans. You might think your religion is the greatest thing human beings ever discovered but that doesn't mean you can abuse other religions; you might think that people, especially women, should only dress in a certain way because your religious holy book says so but that doesn't mean you can force everyone to follow that dictate; you might believe marriage should be between a man and woman, but that doesn't mean homosexuals don't have right to marry. The point is, if you are a public business then you are out there to serve customers, and those customers can come from different races, abilities, genders, nationalities, religions, or sexual orientations. One can use any tag to describe those individuals but they all are "customers," and your business is to serve those customers. Any business's job is not to judge their customer's personal beliefs or character, not to discriminate against them based on their sexual orientation, race, gender, or any other personal trait. These types of discriminatory things used to happen just a few decades back, those terrible memories must be still fresh in many people's minds. Many brave people fought tough and long battles, some even sacrificed their lives to eliminate (or at least reduce) those ugly things from our society. I won't say that discrimination or racism doesn't exist today but at least it doesn't have the protection of the law, people can be questioned and punished by law if they do these things openly. But if the state starts designing any law that encourages any type of discrimination, then it sets up a bad precedent, it is taking our society backward in that horrible discriminatory era that we overcame with a lot of struggle and difficulties. This can open the floodgates where political institutions can try to bring similar legislation which can go to any extent to appease the majority or minority depending on their political interests. In India already these things happen regularly, and they create a lot of legal mess and social polarization, but I never expected that such a thing could happen even in the USA. But I think I was wrong in thinking like this, I can see religious fanaticism is on the rise everywhere, even the US is not an exception to this, so, I am disappointed, but I think this was expected. Even conservative parties are nowadays accused of not being conservative enough by their core supporters, so, they are forced to push the envelope more to make their base happy. Radical conservatives or liberals are only interested in appeasement when they try to push their agendas using political platforms.

This law if it lives up to its expectations is definitely a regressive step that might legalize certain types of discrimination. Most religious institutions and their followers are not happy with the growing acceptance the LGBTQ communities are getting in societies across the world. The same opposition and resentment were displayed when racism or gender discrimination was questioned. There were attempts to continue those discriminatory practices under the name of culture, religion, or traditions. But now we all agree (even conservatives) and know that those practices were wrong. I wonder, why some people are so eager to destroy those things that took so much effort and sacrifice to achieve? Just for some political gain? Why to pass any law that discriminates against some people based on their sexual orientation? How do these things identify with the USA being known as a developed nation? If we all agree that any type of discrimination is wrong, then why not stand together against anything that encourages discrimination in any form? I hope a better sense from both sides prevails and necessary arrangements are made so that there is no possibility of any discrimination based on the personal traits of people. We as a society are already struggling to get rid of discriminatory practices, if any law is needed it is needed to stop discrimination not to encourage it in any form. 

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

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

Rohtak brave hearts and issue of eve teasing

The Video of two sisters thrashing eve-teasers in Rohtak city bus has gone viral in Indian news and social media. Everyone must stand up for their own rights, against any injustice, torture, or harassment. These girls did the right thing if these boys were continuously harassing them and were not willing to listen even after repeated warnings or requests. When I heard their interview on NDTV then it was disturbing to know that in a city bus full of men and women no one dared to help these girls when a few boys were trying to molest them. This bystander approach is really worrisome, and we see this attitude almost everywhere where people silently witness wrong things happening in front of their eyes. They choose to ignore them or choose to keep silent because they think it is not their business, after all, they are not victims so why should they react. It was also disturbing when during the interview one of the sisters advised all the girls that if they face a similar situation then they should beat the guy who dares to tease them as much as they want or until they are satisfied before taking him to the police. I think this advice is more emotional than practical. Violence is not the only option to resist any harassment, there are many other nonviolent ways to resist. Also, there should be a proper investigation of this incident before jumping to any conclusion by knowing only one side of the story.

The real issue here is the teasing and harassment of girls in public places. The problem of eve teasing or taunting in public places is very common in India as well as many other countries (I even see it in the US also). This is a serious issue and needs attention from people as well as law enforcement agencies. Confronting the wrongdoers like eve-teasers or molesters is the right thing to do. Every boy or girl has the right to stand up for their rights and fight for their safety. Under extreme situations where nothing else works use of force should be exercised as an option. There is no doubt that wrongdoers should be confronted so that they don't think that they can get away with such behavior easily. But to thrash them every time is not a solution to stop these things from happening. I think this girl might have said this because she was very angry because of this episode, but whenever the media telecasts something like this they should also give warnings about the dangers of violence. This interview should not send the wrong message to the youths of India that they can take the law into their own hands and punish people if they think that something wrong is happening. Every effort should be made to handle the situation by avoiding violence. This is why we have rules and laws. If people make their own decisions and try to punish wrongdoers on the spot then why do we need to have any law or justice system?  We can just let people punish wrongdoers in whatever way they feel appropriate, but we all know that this is not a practical and logical approach to handling any crime. 

Violence might look like a viable solution to solve any issue temporarily but hardly it works to find a long-term solution. Right to use force should be exercised whenever the situation demands it, but if possible, it should be considered as the last option. One can be assertive and forceful without the use of any physical force. If many boys and girls take inspiration from this incident and stand up or speak up whenever they see any such misbehavior then it is a good thing. But if they start indulging in physical fights to solve issues like this then one can only imagine the chaos which we might have to deal with. So, let's ignore this particular sentence from the interview and focus on the courage to fight misbehavior and stand up against any harassment. Hopefully, this incident will inspire people in the right way. Once we all start raising our voices against such things then automatically it will send a strong message to these molesters or wrongdoers.

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

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

Links:
1. Rohtak sisters thrash men who harassed them on moving bus
2. OTHER SIDE OF ROHTAK BRAVEHEARTS

Crook Rampal and his goons should be punished

The recent drama that happened in Haryana during the process of following the High Court's order to arrest a self-styled godman Rampal has raised some serious questions about some of these religious organizations and their work. This fella Rampal and his supporters dared to stop the entire police force from following the court order to arrest Rampal and present him in court as he failed to appear before the court even after repeated summons issued in his name. The resistance shown by his supporters to stop his arrest was shocking. It was a blatant show of contempt for the law. They believed that their guru Rampal was someone above the law, they also expected state and law enforcement should treat him differently than they treat common people. This type of unreasonable expectation is not uncommon, in India politicians, celebrities, and such babas expect this type of treatment and many times they get it. So, it was not unreasonable for this baba who has a couple of million followers to expect the same special treatment. This mentality is created and perpetrated by people in India, they think that politicians and babas or gurus are above the law. These supporters think that all these are special people who should be treated differently no matter what crime or mistake they commit.

Rampal and this incident is just an example of to what extent this human worship mentality can push people. People are willing to die to defend their idol who they think can do nothing wrong. This is worrisome as well as pathetic. I used to get angry at the foolishness of these people but now I only feel pity for such people. Failure of government and administration to stop these types of incidents from happening is another serious issue here. Very often political parties and politicians make use of these babas and imams for their own political benefit. This nexus between politics and religion is beneficial for both as they try to help each other whenever possible. This nexus makes both of them powerful and allows them to control people's minds. It is difficult to bring any law to stop such things, only proper education and mass awareness might put an end to such blind following but that is also not guaranteed. Even so-called educated people fall for such babas and corrupt politicians. The basic principle that everyone must be treated as equal in front of the law is not followed when the culprit is some politician, religious leader, or celebrity. But at the same time, many common people suffer at the hands of the law just because they don't have the proper knowledge or resources. If the government claims that the law is the same for all then they walk the talk and demonstrate it. "Justice for all" and "everyone is equal to law" should not just remain slogans. I hope in the future such incidents are avoided and no politician or any influential person is given any special treatment in front of the law. 

News reports say that at least six people died inside the ashram during this whole standoff. If people died because they were held hostage and didn't receive proper medical treatment then this should be considered a murder. This crook Rampal and his goons should be booked for obstructing the justice and murder of these innocents, no one involved in this incident should escape the clutches of law. Even people who made the mistake of risking the lives of their own children by bringing them to the site of conflict should be tried for negligent parenting. Strict action taken against all of them, this might stop others from repeating the same in the future. If the administration for any reason fails to take any strict action against people involved in this episode, including the police who were involved in beating the journalists who were trying to cover this incident then it will set a bad precedent and encourage others to repeat this blatant disregard for the law. Let's see what choice the administration makes.

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

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

Links:
1. 'Very tough operation' under way in Rampal's ashram, over 100 injured
2. प्राइम टाइम : हिसार में सरकार का सरेंडर!
3. Rampal Lives in 12-Acre Ashram, Owns BMWs, Mercs

Why is this collective silence?

Very disturbing news of gang rape and murder of two sisters after almost one and half years of Damini incident has made me realize that nothing has changed so far. I wrote a post after Damini's case (Nirbhaya, these are not her real names to protect her identity). Now, I am writing another post after this incident. I am as disturbed as I was after reading the news about the brutal rape and murder of Nirbhaya. Yes, the first incident was in Delhi this is in some small village of UP, the chief ministers of both states are different, and they belong to different political parties; in the center also that time there was the government of UPA now it is NDA but apart from that nothing has changed. Then also a few fanatic men brutally raped and killed a girl this time two innocent girls were brutally raped and killed. WHY? What was their mistake? Why does our administration consistently fail to protect its citizens and act swiftly when any such crime happens? There was a huge uproar and widespread protests to support Nirbhaya and her fight for justice, why there is collective silence about this case?

Now as this news is reported in the media, few arrests will be made, few policemen will be suspended for lack of swift action, the blame game will start, the center govt will blame the state govt, the state will blame the police, and political parties will criticize each other to take political mileage from this heinous incident. A usual circus will be performed. This circus will go on for a few days like a ritual which they do after every such incident. Then people, government, and political parties will forget about this incident as if it never happened. Administration and government will become complacent until the next incident when this circus will happen once again. During Nirbhaya's case, there was widespread protest all over the country, and this forced the administration to take some steps not only to solve that case but also to reduce the suffering and humiliation of rape victims. Amir Khan's TV show Satyamev Jayate telecasted one episode related to this issue which offered many good suggestions to deal with this issue. How many of those suggestions were implemented or even seriously discussed? What is the reason for this collective silence? Is the frequent occurrence of such incidents numbed our sensitivities so much that now any such news doesn't surprise or shock us anymore? Have we become immune to such incidents? Many questions like this come to my mind when I see the insensitivity of current and past administrations toward such incidents. 

I can understand that there is a new government at the center and for the past few days there was celebration time for BJP and its allies for their impressive victory in general elections. Because of all this media has many more things to report. They are trying to report each and every step the new government is taking, which is good, people should be informed about the actions and plans of their government but was this news not important enough? Doesn't such incidents indicate the ugly reality of our society that needs urgent attention? How many more boys and girls need to die like this until this issue becomes as important as Article 370 or reservations or educational qualification of some minister? I don't know what will it take to make sexual violence a major national issue? Does the place of incident matter in such cases? Whether it's Delhi or Badaun the seriousness and cruelty of crime are the same, so they should get the same response and same treatment from administration and people. 

Incidents like this are not only about rape or murder, they are about caste, the attitude of the administration towards their citizens, efficiency, and accountability of the administration, and society's views towards such crimes. These issues involve many such aspects and at each level, we have some serious problems, that is the reason these incidents happen so frequently. The major problem is society's attitude towards women. Men who feel they are superior to women as well as women who think they are inferior to men need to realize basic faults in their thinking, they both need to understand the concept of gender equality. I hope talk of equality and women empowerment doesn't only remain on paper or in discussion forums, political parties and ruling governments show will and courage to implement policies that can make this happen in reality. We must raise our voices from whatever forum we can, blogs, FB, Twitter, protests, or whatever. Make the government realize that we are serious about such crimes and need very swift and appropriate action from the government. Criminals need to get punishment at least to show that no one can get away from crimes like these. Legal action will be the first step in this direction and then we also need many social and political reforms to remove gender bias which still exists in our society. I hope that I don't have to write another post on any such incident again. It's not easy to read about these things. Silence is not an option. Let's not wait for another Nirbhaya to die or another Badaun to happen, let's raise our voices against any such incident no matter where it happens and who is the victim.

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

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

Links:

1. Sisters Killed After Alleged Gang-Rape In UP

2. Outrage over gang rape, murder of cousins in U.P. village

3. Yes, We all are guilty..

Khurshid Anwar - Guilty or victim of media trial

I read news about the suicide of Mr. Khurshid Anwar, a social worker and director of an NGO called the Institute for Social Democracy on my Facebook wall. I didn't know about him before reading the news about his death. The reason why this news caught my attention was because of the cause of his suicide, which was the depression caused because of sexual assault charges leveled against him by a 23-year-old girl who worked for some other NGO. Another reason was, that many women who knew Mr. Anwar personally were really surprised and shocked by this allegation and believed that there might be something fishy going on in this case. They think these charges might be false and someone was trying to implicate him in a crime he did not commit. If this is true, then, this may not be a suicide but a sort of murder. Maybe after a detailed investigation, the real truth will come out, but life is already lost. The role played by some news channels who accused Mr. Anwar of rape is also questioned. Can the media pass on the verdict of guilty or nonguilty without any trial? Such media trials can put a lot of stress on concerned people and results can be devastating as in this case. Media has the right to report the news but do they have the right to take sides and deliver verdicts without any substantial evidence?

Any victim of sexual assault should get all the possible support and help, and the guilty should not be spared in such cases no matter who they are. But at the same time, we should also need to make sure that such laws are not misused for personal or professional gains. Nowadays many cases of misuse of anti-dowry and anti-casteism laws are reported, and there are also cases of false sexual harassment or rape charges, because of the nature of these crimes victim immediately gets all the sympathy, and the accused is immediately painted as evil or declared guilty. No doubt that the victim should get all the required support but at the same time accused should also get the chance to defend and prove his/her innocence. The process should be fair for both of them. The rights of both the accused and the victim should be respected and honored. Media, social networks, and other electronic mediums also should deal with these types of cases sensibly and responsibly. Media plays a very important role in any civilized and progressive society. They are responsible for communicating correct and nonbiased information to people but nowadays we hardly see them doing this. Most of them are becoming like any other entertainment channels that cater to whatever their audience likes to watch, this is really pathetic.

Social and news media also played a very important role in some cases like the Jessica Lal murder case to get justice for the victim. However, tough competition between various news channels to grab the sensational news and report it first has created a situation where there is hardly any time to authenticate the information. Many times the channels broadcast the news as received before validating it or even checking the source and sometimes this creates a lot of damage to concerned parties. Recent sting operation tapes against AAP which were broadcasted on many news channels is another such example. I am against censoring media by any government organization, they should be independent, then only they can do their job without any fear of adverse government actions, but at the same time, they need to be responsible, with complete freedom also comes a lot of responsibility. They need to be really careful with the authenticity of the contents of their reporting when a large section of society depends on them as a source of authentic information. I hope this sense of responsibility prevails in current media houses that are controlled by some of the big corporations. I hope this doesn't become just another business but remains an independent pillar of democracy. If not, then we might see more victims like Khurshid Anwar who were declared guilty before any fair trial.

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

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

Links:
1. What Khurshid Anwar's suicide should tell the media
2. NGO director jumps to death as rape charges are levelled against him by 23-year-old woman

Why daughters hesitate to claim their share in ancestral property in India?

This issue is somewhat sensitive in many families and people don't want to discuss it because of the possibility of tension it might create and also the possibility of spoiling relations, but I have been always curious about this issue. I am discussing this subject exclusively in the Indian context because I have seen this problem there, maybe it is also present in many other cultures but I am personally aware of this problem in India. Fight for equal rights for women is going on all over the world and India is no exception to this. Like everywhere else property rights of Indian women are unequal and unfair. A lot of improvements have been made on paper, some laws are also introduced to protect their rights but they are hardly followed. So, even on paper, the situation looks better but in reality, nothing has changed much. In India now at least by law daughters are legally eligible for an equal share in the ancestral property. However, many of them don't want to exercise this legal right, they worry about their family's reaction, society's reaction, and also about spoiling relationships, all these things make them very reluctant even to think about this important right given to them by law. Implementation of this law on the ground is still a very far-fetched dream.

Why daughters don't want their share? Why do they hesitate to claim it? What is stopping them? As far as sons are concerned they all think that it's their birthright to inherit ancestral property and they fight for it if they feel any injustice has been done to them but daughters hardly react if their share is not offered to them. Daughters don't bother to ask for it even if they are in financial difficulty and really need that share, they just think it's not their right, and even if this right is offered to them by the law it's not appropriate to exercise it. This is the effect of years of female suppression and brainwashing. No matter what rights the law is offering to them they are still hesitant to use most of those rights. To make things more complicated, there is a lot of confusion about women's property rights law and many people don't even know where to look for details. As Shruti Pandey (see link 3) said in her article there is no single body of property rights of Indian women, they get determined by which religion she follows, is she is married or unmarried, which part of the country she comes from, whether she is tribal or non-tribal, etc. All these factors along with a lack of awareness and desire result in many daughters not getting their share in ancestral property. This issue may sound very trivial but as far as women's independence and equality are concerned I think this is a very important matter.

I think the dowry system must have started to tackle the problem of offering shares to daughters in ancestral property, but this system itself became a big problem rather than solving the problem of equitable property distribution. The problem of dowry became so big that the government has to introduce a separate law to stop it, it's another issue that it's still practiced in some form all over India. Any girl asking for her share in the ancestral property is considered greedy and often faces the wrath of other family members (like brother and sister-in-law) who feel that she is unfairly trying to grab their share of the property. The feeling of guilt is also very strong in many girls' minds, most of them believe that the true heir to property has to be a male and hence it's not fair for daughters to ask for any share in ancestral property. The dowry system is not an answer to this problem, this system itself has created many troubles for women. The current system of dowry creates a lot of trouble for brides whenever their in-laws feel that they didn't get enough dowry and then demand more and torture the girl. Offering legal and proportional shares to daughters in ancestral property might be a better solution as this practice might help to remove the ambiguity associated with how much share a daughter can get. Often the dowry is demanded out of greed, so there is no limit on how much the other party (the groom's side) can demand, whereas a share in property is calculated as per law so there are fewer chances of unreasonable demands. This law would not stop all atrocities against brides but at least it would eliminate the social evil of dowry from their lives. But this needs a lot of courage and determination from daughters who normally hesitate to ask for their rights, and their families who don't bother to make sure that daughters get their share. Daughters need to prepare themselves for all the criticism and badmouthing, they need to believe that their rights are as important as their brother's rights. This will be a test of their patience, diplomatic skills, and courage, but in the end, this is their choice. After all, this is a question of their rights and no one can force them to do this if they don't want to, and the choice is entirely theirs. 

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

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

Links:
1. Daughter's rights in new amendment
2. Daughter’s rights in ancestral property in India
3. Property rights of Indian women By Shruti Pandey

Mosque wall and the statue of Shivaji

I read these two news articles on the same day, first was the report of the suspension of IAS officer Durga Shakti Nagpal by the UP government to avoid communal tension after she ordered to demolition of the wall of an illegally under-construction mosque, and the other news was about objection on removal of statue of Shivaji Maharaj from entrance of one new museum in Pune. In both cases the officers responsible for the maintenance of law and order acted to remove unauthorized structures, I believe that both acted according to present law and there was no other intention behind these actions. In the first case, the officer became a hero for acting according to the law and not bowing to political pressure but in the second case police officers who ordered the removal of that statue are treated like villains. Religion plays playing a huge part in both cases. Depending on their faith people react differently if an illegally constructed temple is demolished instead of a mosque and vice versa. There are people who support the destruction tomb of Afjal Khan (a Mugal officer who was killed by Shivaji), but the same people are against the removal of an unauthorized Shivaji statue. Ironically, the tomb that they want to destroy was built by Shivaji himself. This is an ideal example of a double standard and hypocritical behavior by people who want to bring religion, especially Hindu-Muslim conflict, in each and every issue (as it polarizes people which in turn brings a lot of media attention).

Both these actions are actually very routine incidents that happen every day as regular administrative processes. Demolition of illegal structures is not a new thing, but it always creates a lot of controversy if some religious structure is involved. Most people switch off their common sense and logical thinking when they deal with religion and politics. Both these institutions love to control people's minds and people oblige in large numbers, which gives them a lot of power and strength. These news articles clearly show how difficult it is to create religious harmony in Indian society, as long as these narrow-minded elements from all religions are present in society this task is going to be very challenging. I already wrote about the "secular and communal trap" that most political parties use to fool their voters and hide their own failures and corruption. Equal blame is on all voters and citizens who allow these parties and religious institutions to exploit them. These institutes are thousands of years old and their effect is very strong on the human psyche.

When the administration starts thinking about whether to implement a law just because of fear of hurting the religious sentiments then definitely there is a problem. According to me this can happen only because of two reasons, either the administration is not strong enough or courageous enough to act against these anti-social elements or they are only interested in playing politics of appeasement, the politics of divide and rule. This policy of divide and rule is used by various rulers to control their masses because they know that if the masses unite they will discover the truth and then it's not good for them.

I think it's up to us to decide how long we are going to allow them to divide us and exploit us. There will be always people who fall prey to these divisive politics but we need to try our best to make more and more people aware of this trap. Only voters can make these politicians realize that this divisive politics won't work anymore and they should do the work that they are supposed to do. We need to change ourselves first then only politicians will be forced to change, let's hope every one of us contributes their share to bringing that change.

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

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing)

Links:
1. Shivaji Maharaj statue removed from the entrance gate of FACT museum
2. U.P. IAS officers, Opposition slam Nagpal’s suspension
3. Furious IAS officers protest against Durga Shakti Nagpal's suspension

We need gender unbiased harassment laws

The recent case of the suicide of actress Jiah Khan and the subsequent happenings created a lot of stir in media and social networks. There were a few posts criticizing the way the case was handled and also some people believe that there was an attempt to accuse a man (in this case someone named Suraj Pancholi, her boyfriend) of her suicide. Many also feel that some of the laws like dowry law or sexual harassment laws are heavily biased toward women and they often misuse them to blackmail men and their families. Some of these posts take the familiar route of accusing the victim of her actions and feeling sympathy with the accused. In this case Jiah, no doubt is responsible for what she did but it's also necessary to investigate what made her take this step. This case is an ideal example of our attitude towards these types of problems. Some people want to blame men for whatever wrong happens with women and some people always want to blame women's behavior for whatever wrong happens to them, these two polarized groups always fight with each other. We see somewhat similar attitudes when people try to accuse victims in most rape cases and blame their dress or behavior for a crime committed against them, by doing this they are not helping to solve this problem but they are making things more complicated.

In the last few years, there have been some laws introduced in many countries to curb the number of cases related to sexual harassment. Mainly these laws are designed to protect women's rights and deliver justice if there is a crime committed against them. Some laws are purposely made very strict to make sure that perpetrators of these crimes don't make use of loopholes to escape the punishment. At the same time, we also see that some of these laws can be misused, so there seems to be a two-fold problem here. We need very strict laws to control crime against women but at the same time, we need to make sure that there is no misuse of these laws. Another important point is that it would be a big mistake to assume that only women are sexually harassed or physically assaulted, these crimes are also committed against males, so we must have gender-unbiased harassment laws. This will provide protection to both genders from any harassment crimes against them and also reduce the feeling that some laws are very biased towards a particular gender. There is no doubt that we need these laws but also they need to be unbiased, crime committed against women is as bad as crime committed against men. Victims need justice and proper support to deal with these situations. Our social structure is such that currently women are more prone or vulnerable to these incidents that's why we see most of these laws designed particularly to protect them. It is the responsibility of lawmakers to make sure that laws related to sexual harassment and torture (like dowry) are gender unbiased so that all people feel that they are not unfairly targeted or neglected purposely. Path to seek justice and protection should be offered to all and its availability should not be based on a person's gender, religion, caste, or something else.

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

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing)

Guns are not toys, they kill people

Today is a very sad day for people in the US. One more massacre. A mentally sick person armed with an automatic or semiautomatic assault weapon opened fire on unarmed innocent people, including young kids, at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown CT, killing 20 kids and 7 adults including himself. This is not one isolated incident, similar incidents happened not that long ago, there was the Colorado theater shooting, the Virginia Tech massacre, and many more. In all these incidents one thing is common people with unstable states of mind get access to dangerous assault weapons very easily which they should not have gotten. Many innocent people got killed in all these incidents, it was not their fault they were just living their normal lives and it was cut short by some senseless violent act by some mentally unstable person. Yes, I know that we can not control anyone's mind, we can not predict anyone's behavior under stress or depression or any other mental trauma but we can definitely try to restrict their access to these assault weapons. These weapons multiply the danger associated with their unpredictable behavior.

Why do we need to sell automatic or semiautomatic assault weapons to the general public? Why do they need them? How can a right to carry dangerous weapons capable of mass murder be a fundamental right in a civilized society? Many questions like this need answers. I hope that this incident is not also brushed aside as one unfortunate incident where a few unlucky kids lost their lives, followed by condolence meetings, a lot of tears and prayers, a candle march, and then slowly people forget it until something like this happens again. All they are suggesting on TV is to pray. I know that this will help to tackle the grief associated with the tragic loss but any amount of prayers won't help to stop incidents like this. Any amount of prayers, condolences, candles, or flowers is not going to bring back those kids and adults who died in these massacres. They are gone for no fault of theirs. God didn't kill them, and people who survived were not saved by God. So, please don't ask God why this happened, rather ask lawmakers, people who are in charge of this country. They must have answers to these questions. WHY THIS HAPPENED? WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS? Please tell them to give some sensible answers this time. How many more people should die to make them realize that they need to modify the gun possession laws to save the lives of thousands of innocent unarmed people? A country where the sale of Marijuana is illegal but lethal assault weapons that can be used to kill hundreds of people can be purchased legally by almost anyone. Does this make any sense?

I know many people feel it's their fundamental right (awarded to them by their constitution) to carry a weapon of their choice. But why a civilized person living in a very civilized country would like to buy a semiautomatic or automatic assault weapon? Just for fun? Is it a toy? No, it's not a toy. Gun kills people, once a bullet is fired it doesn't care who is getting hit, kids, adults, or animals, it doesn't matter. Whether it was fired by mistake or purposely also doesn't matter, once the trigger is pressed the matter is not in anyone's hand. Do people want these weapons for personal protection? A semiautomatic rifle for personal protection? A weapon with so much destructive power for personal protection? Protection against who? That too in a country where the law and order situation is not bad and police respond very well. I think one can not justify possession of such a destructive weapon unless one is expected to get attacked by a mob or armed goons very frequently in their daily lives. I don't think people in any part of the US face these types of situations in their daily lives. 

This is not the time to have a gun debate or to play a blame game but this is definitely the time to take some action. We need some concrete steps to stop these types of incidents. Senseless acts of extreme violence are not new to humans but in today's world where we have so much control over our lives, we can definitely minimize risks associated with such type of senseless behaviors. Making the availability of assault weapons more difficult or impossible can be definitely one of the possible solutions to this problem. In many of these cases, the person who carried out this senseless act was found carrying multiple weapons as it's that easy to get them. We should do something to stop this easy access to dangerous weapons. Gun regulation may not be able to stop these types of acts altogether but it will definitely help to reduce them. Any step necessary towards saving innocent lives should be taken doesn't matter which party is ruling the country.

My heart goes out to all those families who lost their loved ones on Friday. We need to make sure that people with uncontrolled emotional behavior can not get access to lethal weapons so easily. We need to protect ourselves, and our children. Giving guns in everyone's hands is not a solution to protect our society. 

Thanks for reading and please raise your voice to express your concern about this issue.

Reference:
1. http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2012/12/14/news/doc50cb434cac3ab117605387.txt