Public Intellectual Masturbation

What does “intellectual masturbation” mean?

The phrase is vulgar, deliberately so. But sometimes a vulgar phrase is the only way to describe a vulgar habit.

Masturbation, in the ordinary sense, is a private act done for personal pleasure. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. It is private, self-contained, and largely harmless. But when a private act becomes a public performance, the reaction changes. What was once merely self-indulgent becomes embarrassing, grotesque, even offensive.

That is the metaphor I have in mind when I talk about public intellectual masturbation.

By it, I mean the performance of intelligence for vanity, power, and self-gratification rather than for truth, justice, or understanding. It happens when someone uses rhetorical skill, education, irony, technical language, or debating talent to defend what is plainly cruel, degrading, or indefensible. The point is not inquiry. The point is display. Not illumination, but exhibition. This is not the same as disagreement, or a serious debate, or as taking an unpopular position in good faith.

A healthy society needs free expression and constructive arguments. It needs people to test assumptions, challenge popular opinion, question sentimentality, and expose lazy thinking. It needs devil’s advocates at times. It needs people willing to ask difficult questions and present uncomfortable facts. But there is a difference between complexity and corruption, between argument and performance, between intellectual honesty and moral exhibitionism, and this difference matters.

When someone argues over tax policy, constitutional interpretation, migration levels, welfare design, or the limits of state power, they may be right or wrong, but they are at least operating within the normal field of political and moral disagreement. The same is true when people debate difficult ethical questions, legal doctrines, or wartime strategy in good faith.

But something else is happening when a person uses intelligence to sneer at victims of sexual violence, rationalize the killing of civilians, sanitize state brutality, or dress naked cruelty in the language of realism, order, civilization, deterrence, tradition, or law. At that point, what is being displayed is not intellectual courage or rigor. It is the public display of pleasure in cleverness detached from conscience.

Some people plainly enjoy showing that they can argue for anything. They enjoy demonstrating that no crime is too ugly to be reframed, and no victim too broken to be discredited. Their satisfaction comes from the performance itself: from sounding sharper than everyone else, colder than everyone else, more “rational” than everyone else. They mistake moral numbness for sophistication and verbal dexterity for depth, and in many cases, they are rewarded for it. News panels invite them because outrage drives attention. Social media promotes them because cruelty and contrarianism travel faster than nuanced kindness. Documentaries and public discussions feature them because every issue is now expected to have “two sides,” even when one side is simply manufacturing legitimacy for the sake of argument. Power welcomes them because every regime, institution, and ideological machine needs people who can make violence sound necessary, inequality sound natural, and abuse sound misunderstood. Propaganda needs to sound legitimate, and these intellectuals provide that channel.

This is why the phenomenon feels increasingly visible. The public sphere no longer merely tolerates these performances; it often incentivizes them. The person defending the indefensible is rarely doing so in a vacuum. There is almost always an audience, a platform, and a reward structure. Airtime, attention, notoriety, invitations, patronage, access, influence, online fame, the approval of ideological tribes, the favor of the powerful: these are all forms of compensation. Some do it for money. Some for proximity to power. Some for relevance. Some for the thrill of being seen as fearless thinkers. And some, perhaps most disturbingly, do it for the private pleasure of domination disguised as public reasoning.

This is why I call it masturbation rather than argument or debate.

The act is self-serving. What matters is the performer’s own gratification: the delight of saying what others recoil from, the thrill of demonstrating superior detachment, the ego-stroking satisfaction of turning intellect into spectacle. 

You can see it when sexual violence becomes an occasion for “nuance” that somehow always lands against the victim. You can see it when mass death is translated into abstractions about strategy and inevitability. You can see it when human suffering is treated not as suffering, but as raw material for someone’s career in contrarian posturing. You can see it when the language of reason is used not to reduce harm, but to anesthetize the conscience. It imitates seriousness. It uses the vocabulary of philosophy, law, history, realism, skepticism, and free inquiry. It presents itself as brave truth-telling against emotional mobs. But in reality, it is often little more than vanity wearing academic clothing.

That is what makes it vulgar and dangerous.

People assume that intelligence makes a person more trustworthy, more humane, or more responsible. But intellect by itself guarantees none of these things. Intelligence can clarify, but it can also obscure. It can liberate, but it can also rationalize domination. It can expose lies, but it can just as easily become a highly sophisticated instrument for producing them. The clever person is often more capable of justifying evil than the stupid one. The stupid person may simply repeat a slogan. The clever person can build an architecture around it and convert it into effective propaganda. 

That is why public intellectual masturbation deserves contempt, not admiration.

Not because the argument itself is bad. Not because difficult questions should be banned. Not because every controversial position is morally corrupt. But because there are moments when the issue is not complex at all. The issue is whether a person has decided to turn intelligence into a tool of degradation.

When that happens, we should stop pretending we are watching a brave debate. Often, we are watching moral cowardice disguised as sophistication. Often, we are watching someone derive personal pleasure from defending the indefensible. A society that confuses this with seriousness will eventually lose its ability to distinguish intelligence from wisdom, argument from manipulation, and analysis from cruelty.

Public intellectual masturbation does not merely insult the victims whose suffering it trivializes. It also degrades public thought itself. It turns discourse into spectacle, and intellect into a grotesque performance for applause, access, and self-satisfaction. Remember, some things are not made better by being argued more cleverly; they are merely made uglier.   

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

Can money buy happiness?

Money is important for everyone. This is not because money has certain inherent health benefits like some vitamins or other essential dietary components that we need, but because of the way our society is structured. We have decided to make money not only a currency but an essential commodity for survival in society. Even though everyone agrees that money is important, this one question is difficult to answer: Can money buy happiness?

My answer is "maybe," it all depends on what that person wants from their life. The relationship between money and happiness is complex and that's why it is often debated. Money can definitely contribute to certain aspects of happiness, such as financial security, physical comfort, and most importantly access to power and resources, however, its ability to directly buy happiness is limited and conditional and it varies from person to person. 

On one hand, having an adequate income can alleviate financial stress, provide for basic needs and other desires, and offer avenues for personal and social enjoyment and fulfillment. It can also enable individuals to pursue their passions, indulge in experiences, and enjoy certain standards of living that enhance their overall well-being. Also, financial stability can contribute to peace of mind, reduce anxiety and uncertainty about the future, and enable a person to help others. However, the pursuit of wealth has its own pitfalls and comes with its own problems. The pursuit of wealth and material possessions as a means to happiness can come at the cost of personal time, resulting in strained relationships, added stress and anxiety, and total dependency on that source of money. The research has shown that beyond a certain threshold, additional money does not necessarily lead to a proportional increase in happiness. This threshold can differ from person to person, but once basic needs are met, factors such as social connections, purposeful work, and personal growth become more significant determinants of happiness and financial wealth alone. Sometimes, the relentless pursuit of money can lead to a sense of emptiness, as individuals may find themselves trapped in a cycle of consumption and comparison, always chasing after the next possession or achievement in search of fulfillment. Unless inherited, wealth needs to be earned, and this pursuit of wealth can come at the expense of other important aspects of life such as health, leisure time, and quality relationships. Many people already complain about the long working hours they spend to accumulate wealth which leads to stress and burnout and neglect of one's physical and emotional wellbeing. The problem is even after knowing all this, people can't stop chasing money as they are trapped in the cycle of consumption and comparison.  

So, the point is, money can do a lot of things for you and it really depends on an individual and their priorities and situations if money can buy happiness for them or not. There was a time in my life when every issue and problem was related to money and I used to think only money could resolve all the issues, this was true for that particular phase, but not every phase of life is the same, our questions change and so the answers also change. Money can contribute to certain aspects of happiness, but true well-being and fulfillment stem from a multifaceted approach that encompasses various dimensions of life including the money dimension. Apart from money, cultivating meaningful relationships, pursuing passions and interests, contributing to the community, spreading kindness and love, and nurturing a sense of purpose are all essential components of a fulfilling life. True happiness arises from a holistic approach and money can be an integral part of this approach. One needs to decide how much and to what extent money is important for them and act accordingly. As individuals, we need to strike a balance between our financial well-being and the pursuit of happiness in a broader sense. 

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 

How do you want to earn respect?

Humans are social animals. We live in groups, interact regularly, and seek continuous validation from each other. These interactions and feelings of community help us to maintain our mental and social health. Our perpetual need to seek validation from others is the major reason for the tremendous success of social media. We want our family, friends, and society to recognize and respect us. Earning respect and validation are fundamental aspects of human interaction. We find various avenues to seek this respect and validation. Power and wealth have become universal tools to command respect in every society. It is important to note that to respect power (wealth is also a form of power), is no different than what animals do, they also respect power, the might is right is the rule of the jungle. Knowingly (or unknowingly) we are following the same rule. Why are we inclined to respect power and wealth so much? Even after all these years of learning and progress why are we okay with obnoxious displays of wealth and power? Why do love, compassion, humor, and kindness not generate as much respect as wealth and power generate? I wonder if people ask these questions in today's fast-paced life.

In a world driven by materialistic pursuits and instant gratification, the quest for respect is often overshadowed by desires for wealth and power. Wealth and power are not bad things per se, it depends how a person uses them. Most, if not all rich, follow a typical lifestyle, some common elements are, living in lavish homes, having unique preferences about schools, colleges, and jobs, and noticeable use of luxury brands. Nothing wrong with any of these things. The problem is when these things become the hallmarks of earning respect and things like integrity, compassion, love, and authenticity are forgotten. In striving for respect, it is essential to acknowledge the pitfalls of a materialistic mindset. Material possessions are necessary and they do provide instant gratification, however, a life solely focused on wealth and power can lead to emptiness and a lack of fulfillment, and ultimately may fail to garner genuine respect. Also, it can foster superficial relationships based on what one has rather than who one is. Therefore, prioritizing material wealth and power as the only means to earn respect can be ultimately futile and shallow.

Another way to earn respect can stem from material wealth and power coupled with the choices we make and the values we uphold. Integrity, for instance, is one of the cornerstones of respect. Being honest, reliable, and principled in our actions establishes ourselves as individuals of character and cultivates trust and admiration from others. Compassion is another powerful quality that is becoming rare as people are getting more aggressively opinionated. Showing empathy and kindness towards others not only enriches their lives but also reflects positively on our own morals and character. When we teach others with dignity and understanding, we foster meaningful connections built on mutual respect and empathy. Many people forget this simple aspect of human interaction, especially on social media or while discussing sensitive issues, this is why we see so polarized society. Authenticity is one of the most important qualities to earn respect. Nowadays, we are so used to seeing the well-curated lives of others on social media that we forget the real colors and flavors of our own personal and social lives. Embracing our true selves, flaws, and all, demonstrates courage and vulnerability. Understanding that courage and vulnerability are two sides of the same coin is very important. Our authenticity invited others to see us for who we are, fostering genuine connections based on acceptance and mutual understanding. Authenticity deeply resonates with others because it acknowledges our humanity and allows for genuine relationships to flourish. Any relationship that is based on mutual respect and compassion helps us to form strong bonds that survive the east of time.

In essence, earning respect goes beyond the accumulation of material wealth, power, or superficial achievements. These things do have their own place in our lives, but they are not replacements for honesty, compassion, kindness, love, and authenticity. By living a life of making conscious choices aligned with these values, we not only earn the respect of others but also cultivate a sense of self-worth and fulfillment that transcends materialism. As we navigate life's complexities and our own challenges, let's strive not only for success but also for respect grounded in the richness of our character and the authenticity of our actions. 

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 

Try to improve your standard of life and your standard of living will automatically improve

We often talk about improving the standard of living. Many things contribute towards improving our standard of living: a big home, a luxury car, an exclusive wardrobe, the latest gadgets, comfortable footwear, perfumes, deodorants, makeup, other latest fashion stuff, and many other things. Most of us also have an illusion that improving our standard of living also improves our quality of life. Is this really true? Do we really get a better life with more physical or material comfort?

I don't think there is any doubt that the standard of living has increased in many parts of the world. Increased food production, access to education, and economic prosperity have contributed to increasing the standard of living across the social class all over the world. But, this improvement in the standard of living doesn't seem to translate directly to an improved standard of life. I understand that the answer to this question is not that straightforward. I am sure many of us will pause and think to answer a question about how much physical comfort has really contributed towards improving our standard of life. Are we so focused on improving our standard of living that we do not even bother to think about improving our standard of life? If this is the case, then it is time for us to take a pause and try to think about ways to improve our standard of living.

Material things contribute to improving the standard of living and this can many times translate into improving the standard of life. A more healthy and comfortable life could be a very desirable objective to achieve, but it seems we are going in the exact reverse direction. More and more physical comfort is somehow bringing more and more dissatisfaction. The problem is not more physical comfort, but our inability to deal with changing cultural and social surroundings. Our civilization is going through a radical shift in the way we communicate and interact with each other. Technology has become an integral part of our lives. For many of us, our day starts in front of a screen and ends in front of it. Our phones and computers are no more just gadgets but they are more like a trusted companion with whom we spend most of the time when we are awake. Definitely, technology has broadened our horizons, we get a lot more information than our brain can process or digest, and we can interact with a lot more people than we could have in the absence of this new technology. This all should have brought us together and bridged the gap, making us more social and less divisive, but it seems we are getting more isolated and more polarized. It seems with all the progress in each and every field our life is getting more messed up rather than getting peaceful.

Our standard of life is deteriorating and an increase in suicide rates is a warning signal for us. The truth is that we all are in a much better situation to help each other in every possible way, we can offer each other emotional support without the need to be in physical proximity of each other. Technology allows us to do this, but this will happen only if we are willing to extend a helping hand to each other. We can improve each other's standard of life by helping each other to overcome our personal problems, but somehow we are failing to do that. Probably, we could not figure out whether we are using the technology or technology is using us.

Improving our standard of life is not supposed to be such a hard task. Humans are master of it, this is why we dominate and control the world. But in all this progress somehow we lost our simplicity.  We need to enjoy simple things in life. We should pay equal attention to the people around us as much as we pay attention to the virtual world. We must realize that emotional well-being or comfort is as important as physical comfort. We must learn to give our best to our work and enjoy our free time equally. Try to give your best and enjoy the journey, not to worry too much about the destination. Give it a shot, try to improve your standard of life, and see that your standard of living will automatically go up.

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

Money can buy happiness

"Money can't buy happiness," we often hear this tagline repeated during many conversations, seminars, lectures, or motivational talks and the funny thing is that most people who offer this advice are rich and charge money to give those lectures. It is very easy to say that money can't solve all the problems or money can't buy happiness, but does lack of money solve all the problems or bring any happiness? Happiness is a state of mind that depends on so many factors and it differs from person to person. Every person defines happiness in their own way, unnecessarily people try to standardize the definition of happiness like we try to standardize beauty, success, and many other personal things, and such statements are the result of this standardization process. There was a time in my life when I used to think that money could solve all the problems, this was because of our financial and social situation at that time. During that phase of my life, the reason for most of our problems and troubles was lack of money. We continuously felt a shortage of money almost for everything starting from education, home, and travel, every issue used to end with having or not having money. I still think that money can solve many problems, it is better to have money than not to have it. But it is also true that money cannot solve all problems, and this is true for any other tool, there is not a single solution for all problems faced by any individual. Also, the desire to have or not to have money is entirely personal, some people are okay with not having material possessions and for them, money doesn't hold much significance, but for some money might be important, it is an entirely personal matter.

Actually, the statement "money can't buy happiness" is a result of money-oriented culture. In a consumerist society, we need money to buy almost everything. It is the ultimate currency that works everywhere, people may or may not believe in religion, god, science, government, or media but almost everyone believes in money. Because of the universal acceptance of money as a symbol of power and status, its possession is directly linked to happiness. People equate the amount of money with the amount of happiness. However, this is not the correct assumption, the amount of money is not proportional to the amount of happiness. Happiness is a personal feeling, and it depends on so many things and money is just one of them. Everyone has different needs and desires but in today's world because of aggressive marketing and brainwashing there is a very narrow definition of happiness, and everyone tries to fit into that definition. The ultimate aim for most people in society is to earn enough money to buy as many things as possible, thinking it will bring happiness in their lives. This desire to earn "enough" money then becomes the sole purpose of their life, and that "enough" is never achieved because as time passes the desires keep on changing and the definition of "enough money" also keeps on changing. This continuous chase creates many problems in a person's life, issues like stress, anxiety, frustrations, lack of free time, and health-related issues crop up, even relationships start getting affected and ultimately the happiness for which this quest was started remains a distant goal. At this junction, "money can't buy happiness" starts making sense, but it is not the fault of money that it can't buy happiness, it is the fault of that person that they forgot what happiness meant for them. There is nothing wrong with having the desire to make more money, this desire can result in a very successful and productive professional life, which in turn can generate a lot of happiness. Money does have the capacity to solve many problems, it can help people to achieve their dreams but only if those dreams were their own dreams, not some borrowed dreams. The presence or absence of money can cause a lot of issues, so one needs to strike the balance as per one's own needs and requirements. Many people struggle because of their inability to strike this balance.

Money holds certain status and power in today's world, and no one can deny this. Its proper use can result in a lot of happiness and comfort in anyone's life. But this needs a lot of clarity and proper planning. I believe that money can buy happiness and I am saying this based on my personal experience. How much money one needs to be happy differs from person to person, there is no standard chart to correlate money and happiness. I know that money can't solve all the problems but nothing else can do it, so, there is no use in blaming money for this. It all depends on how we use money, after all, money is like any other tool or weapon, and the results of its use depend on how we use it. Like any other tool and weapon, please remember that money can hurt us and others around us if not used properly. So, use money wisely, be prosperous, help others, and be happy.

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

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

What is the main purpose of education?

I read this interesting article which raises some very interesting questions about the current academic environment in the USA, but I guess the same is true for any country's education system. Today's education system is heavily oriented towards acquiring skills required to get a job, they are becoming like vocational courses. The cost of education is very high today, so it is obvious that after going through this process of attending schools and college one should be able to secure a job that can pay off all the investment. One can ask, what is the real purpose of education? The question is very general and different people might answer it differently. For some, education might mean acquiring a new skill, for some, it might mean acquiring knowledge, and for some, it might mean getting a degree so that they can get a good job and social status. One of the major purposes of education is to acquire the skills to secure a job to survive in this world. But I guess the real crux of the question is, is this becoming the sole purpose of today's education? Are we trying to produce good workers, managers, and CEOs but somehow ignoring that we also need good humans?

In its true sense education is a continuous process. We start learning new things when we come into this world and keep on discovering something new, learning something new until we depart from here. But for now, let's focus only on school and college education. There is no doubt that today's education system is much better than what we had in the past, and credit must be given for the efforts to improve the system. I personally believe that my kids are exposed to a much better education system than I was. The system is very student-friendly, it tries to support the interests of students. The curriculum is heavily biased towards the job market, actually, this is not a problem in itself as one needs to acquire vocational skills, but at the same time, we need to train students to deal with many other important issues. The world is facing many problems like religious fundamentalism, stress, depression, lack of compassion and kindness towards other human beings, unequal distribution of wealth, political polarization, etc. These issues are very important and affect our society in many ways but unfortunately, the current education system doesn't take any concrete steps to educate students about many of these topics. At the same time, today's parents have become so busy that they can't devote enough time to educating their kids about these topics. In this changed scenario, there is much more responsibility on our education system not only to produce trained and skilled workers but also sensible humans who are good citizens of the world. If our education system can instill compassion and tolerance in its students, if it can stress the importance of equality and equity, if it can educate them about their rights and responsibilities then we will have a generation of sensible and sensitive citizens.

However, there is no easy solution to this problem, as I said current education system is much better than what we had in the past but the changed scenario of our society has made its job much more difficult and complicated. What I feel today is that parents or guardians of any student, who are a very important and critical component of this education system are not doing their part. Today's parents have many reasons starting from their business due to work, day-to-day stress of modern-day lifestyle, and pressure to fit into society's definition of a successful life for not having enough time to interact with their children. This is why I am saying that we can't depend on parents anymore to educate their children in an unbiased way. First, they don't have enough time and normally they try to instill only their own beliefs in their children. This is not wrong in every case but this is also not how we should be educating our kids. Kids need to know all sides of any problem or issue so that they can think of solutions to the problems independently which they will face in their lives. If parents bias the minds of their children we will lack free thinkers in the next generation and already we do not have many of them. With the easy availability of information, I expected more free thinkers, but somehow that is not happening, people are more siloed and read only that validates their beliefs, and stay away from everything that challenges them. I hope that current education also focuses more on the overall general development of students along with technical skill development. We need leaders who are free thinkers, we need entrepreneurs, engineers, scientists, and artists who are also good humans. This is a very challenging task and there is no set formula to achieve all this but I believe that experts from the education field will come up with some design that will allow us to build a curriculum that will focus on the overall development of every student. I hope parents start realizing their responsibility and playing their part in this process. I believe that the main purpose of education is to produce intelligent, compassionate, skillful, and sensitive individuals and I really hope that we will be able to achieve this one day.

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. Don't Send Your Kid to the Ivy League

Overhead costs and NPOs

Recently I heard a TED talk by Dan Pallotta, about how the way we look at our charity is totally wrong and how we use double standards while looking at profit organizations (PO) and non-profit organizations (NPO). This talk was very informative and sort of an eye-opener for me. I am guilty of doing one of the things that he mentioned in his talk, I also used to judge any charitable organization based on how little they spend on overheads. I used to think overhead spending was a total waste of donated money, every donated penny should be used for the cause for which it was donated. People donate their hard-earned money towards causes they like because they want to see that change in society but can't devote enough time towards that cause therefore, they donate to some organizations to work towards such causes. This all requires a lot of infrastructure and people to make things work, and this is where this talk is very helpful, Dan does a really great job in explaining to us how we need to look at the spending of these NPOs.

I loved this talk not only because it demonstrated how flawed my attitude was but also because he made a very strong case about problems of non-profit organizations because of some unreasonable expectations from donors. Every donor has a full right to know how their money is spent and how it helped the cause for which they donated. At the same time, they all also need to understand that these organizations also need to hire talented and motivated people to work for them, for this they must compete with all these profit-making organizations to attract this talent and if donors expect them to work well then we need to accept that they are bound to have some overhead costs. We need to judge them based on their performance and not how much they spend. If they are working very well towards achieving their goals and spending reasonable money as overhead cost then we should not complain. In today's world social work can be a profession and like all professions, it also requires a lot of hard work, dedication, and commitment to become successful. People working with NGOs also need to have a normal life, they also need to have their own families and look after their needs and whether we like it or not this all requires some amount of money, and if they are engaged in full-time social work this work needs to generate that money for them and we must remember this context while looking at the overhead costs.

This talk has changed my outlook towards NGOs and all other socially active organizations. I do care about how much they pay to their employees and if it's a reasonable amount I don't feel cheated or feel that they are wasting my money. I do understand that they need talented and hard-working people to do this job and it's not easy to attract good talent without having a good or at least reasonable package. At the same time, these organizations need to be careful about how they spend their money as people like to see most of their money being used for the cause to which they donate. This can be a tricky exercise but these organizations need to do it to keep all donors invested in the mission. I hope this talk will help many people to understand better how these NPOs use or can use their money in a somewhat better or more efficient way by hiring talent that would work hard towards their missions.

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

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

Links:
1. TED talk of Dan Pallotta 

Do we need to build any more Temples?

Recently I read an article about a plan for the construction of a huge Vedik temple by ISKON at Mayapur in India. This temple is supposed to cost around 75 million USD, this is a huge amount of money as far as a country like India is concerned. Spending such a huge amount of money just for the construction of a temple is like a cruel joke on all who could benefit from all this money if it's spent for some relevant social cause. I also see a lot of photos of many temples, churches, or other religious centers which are constructed using very expensive materials, and decorated with precious metals like gold and silver. A lot of material and money is wasted to build and decorate them, they really look like grand and lavish displays of wealth, very often thought comes to my mind why can't this money be used to build other things that can be more useful to people? After I started writing this post there was huge controversy in the media when Mr. Modi said, "Pehle shouchalaya phir Devalay" (build toilets first then temples), a similar statement was made by Mr. Jairam Ramesh a few years back and then also it generated a lot of controversy for some different reason. So the question is, do we need any more lavish temples (I am using the temple as a general term for all religious centers like Mosque, Church, etc.) when people don't have access to some basic facility like a school, hospital, or a toilet?

I personally believe that we have enough religious monuments for all religions all over the world. One can find a temple, mosque, synagogue, church, or something equivalent in almost all major cities of the world, we don't need to build any more of these. Many people visit these places and some of them are big tourist attractions which attract millions of visitors every year. All the money from tourism is not reinvested in the community but it stays with that temple or private entities. The question is, in a country like India where many are living without home, proper medical care, food or education should any organization spend such an enormous amount of money to build a religious monument that will be just a tourist attraction? Can't they use this money to do something better, more useful thing, something like a hospital or a free school or college for the underprivileged or even toilets? On one side we all say that God is everywhere but then keep on building huge, expensive, and lavish structures just to host their images or for social gatherings (like prayers, etc.). Many religious institutions spend enormous amounts of money to build and maintain these buildings instead of helping people who are struggling for their basic needs. I am sure their God would love them more, and bless them more if they used this money for people's welfare instead of building another temple, Church, or any other religious monument.

Religion is a personal as well as social need for many and there are already many centers that can satisfy this need. If a temple serves as a place for social gatherings, to give shelter to the homeless, or to provide food and education for the underprivileged then it's a good thing. Some religious institutes do these things but to do such work I don't think we need any fancy structures with expensive decorations. One can build a simple structure and use all that extra money for some better social activity. A country like India needs more toilets than temples or churches, even though this thought was expressed by major political leaders from two big national parties of India, there are very few takers for this idea. Still, the construction of a temple or Mosque is considered more important than the construction of basic facilities like toilets. Isn't it ironic that in a country that hosts one of the richest temples in the world, many people still don't have access to basic facilities like toilets? Some of these religious institutes are so rich that if they want they can do wonders for society with all the money they have, but they behave just like big corporates, exclusively protecting their own interest without any real real social agenda. I think with all the problems our society is facing these institutes should put all their plans for the construction of Mosque, Church, or temples on hold, rather they should spend all that money on some social causes like building more medical care facilities, distributing medicines to poor, offer free education to needy, sanitation facilities (like toilets, especially for women), etc. There is a tremendous need for funds in all these areas and these institutes can play a very big role in funding such infrastructure projects. I hope they all think about this idea and give it serious consideration. One more temple, mosque, or church may not change anyone's life but one more school or hospital might change and save the lives of millions of people. Even a public toilet can make life easy for many and I believe doing this is no less than offering prayer to any god.

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. Mayapur to get largest Vedic temple
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padmanabhaswamy_Temple
3. http://luxpresso.com/photogallery-lifestyle/top-richest-temples-in-india/6249/2
4. Is the Catholic Church the richest organization in the world?
5. In Mumbai, a Campaign Against Restroom Injustice

Value and need of money

One thing I realized during my stay in India for the last few weeks is that the value of money has decreased but its need and importance have increased a lot. Things are getting expensive day by day. Real estate prices are increasing every minute in some big cities like Pune and Mumbai. There seems to be a race to earn money in whatever way one can. The competition is so fierce and tough that people don't even have time to relax and think which way they are going and what will be the consequences of their actions. India is known for spirituality, its simplicity as well as poverty. One can clearly see the effect of globalization on the Indian economy and its people. Things are changing and they are changing very fast, many things have improved, and at the same time, many have deteriorated. One can notice the speed of development by the amount of construction work going on around the Pune area. Huge multistory buildings are being constructed and trees are vanishing fast because of that, even beautiful hills are getting occupied by bungalows, and even after so much construction demand for apartments and land has not decreased a bit. I don't know if anyone has time to think about the environmental impact of this speedy development in Pune.

Many software firms have emerged and also many other private industries, this has created a huge job market for skilled workers. Government jobs have lost their status and importance. In my student days most brilliant students used to strive for careers in the government sector, because those jobs were considered secure (with all the extra money they could generate apart from their salary). The emergence of the private sector has changed this scenario completely, these jobs offer very attractive packages and this resulted in a change in the lifestyle of the middle class of India. The point of telling all this is that money has become a very essential commodity in India now, it's not like it was not but there never used to be such a blatant display of money in Indian society which we can see today. This development and uplifting of the middle class is very good, but at the same time disparity between rich and poor has become big. The gap has widened even more, there is only a certain class which is getting benefitted because of all this development. Along with these big apartment complexes, slums are also growing. Villages are shrinking, cities are growing beyond their capacity, they are overcrowded and all this is happening without any proper planning. This is what bothers me, it's all happening 'without any proper planning'. Currently, everyone is busy reaping the benefits of this phenomenon and is not bothered about its long-term effects.

People are feeling the need for money to match the lifestyle of other people around them. Competition is tough, pressure is immense and people are busy. It's good to compete but it should be a healthy competition, not a rat race where everyone is chasing others without knowing what the ultimate target is. One example of senseless competition can be seen in the car market. Today almost all major car manufacturers have their shops in India and one can see almost all expensive cars on Indian roads except hybrid car models. This is because it's not cool to have hybrids yet. BMWs, Mercedes, and Audis are status symbols and people like to have them but not the hybrids. No one even thinks about the environment while buying a car. This consciousness about our surroundings, about the impact of our actions on the environment should come along with the development of sustainable growth. Street vendors are still there and they still sell very good stuff but many people buy the stuff from malls, use of public transport has decreased significantly. All these social and economic changes have made people feel the need for more money even more.

Having the desire to earn money is not bad at all, living a comfortable life is good but it's also necessary to be conscious about energy consumption. The importance and need of money can not be denied or ignored but its necessity beyond certain limits can definitely be questioned. Everyone has to decide their own limits and work towards it, it can not be uniform for everyone. Pursuing our dreams is necessary, but we should check from time to time whether the dream we are pursuing is our own or forced on us by society. If we do this reality check from time to time then we all will realize the real value of money and can make our lives much more happy and comfortable.

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

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