The Way Hate Politics Works

Hate politics is on the rise across the world. To illustrate this disturbing trend, I often point to two large democracies, India and the United States, where political polarization is not accidental but carefully manufactured. Political parties and leaders actively cultivate division because fear and resentment are easier to mobilize than reason, empathy, or long-term vision.

What amazes me most is how easily people fall for this blatantly misleading rhetoric, especially in an era where information is readily available and facts can be verified within seconds. Yet, truth has become secondary to emotion. Hate-driven narratives are repeated so often and so loudly that many stop questioning them altogether.

One striking pattern I have consistently observed is this: people who subscribe to hate politics almost always hate groups of people they do not personally know. Ask someone who claims to hate Muslims whether they have a Muslim friend, and more often than not, the response will be, “Yes, but they are different; they are not like the others.” Ask a racist white person about a Black or Hispanic friend, and you will hear the same justification. Ask someone who harbors antisemitic views about a Jewish acquaintance, and suddenly that individual becomes an “exception.”

This pattern exposes the fundamental dishonesty of hate. People instinctively recognize the humanity, complexity, and decency of individuals they personally know, yet they willingly dehumanize millions of others they have never met. Entire communities are reduced to caricatures, stereotypes, or worst-case examples, while personal acquaintances are conveniently excluded from that same judgment. This is not logic; it is prejudice dressed up as reasoning.

The truth is simple and uncomfortable: no society, religion, country, or identity group is monolithic. There is no such thing as a uniform culture or a homogeneous community. Every group, without exception, contains a wide spectrum of people: kind and cruel, ethical and corrupt, generous and selfish. To take the worst examples from any group and apply them universally is intellectual laziness at best and moral failure at worst.

Diversity is not a threat to any society; it is the very fabric that makes societies resilient, creative, and humane. Differences in belief, culture, language, and identity are not weaknesses to be feared but strengths to be protected and celebrated. A society that demands uniformity eventually suffocates itself, while one that embraces diversity learns, adapts, and grows.

Politicians understand the power of hate all too well. They know it is a potent weapon, one that can be deployed quickly for short-term political gains. Winning elections “at any cost” has become so normalized that the cost itself - social trust, communal harmony, and even human lives - is treated as collateral damage. Politicians behaving like vultures is nothing new, and frankly, it does not surprise me anymore. What truly troubles me are the people who enable and amplify this kind of politics. Ordinary individuals become foot soldiers for hate, repeating slogans, justifying cruelty, and defending leaders who thrive on division. I do not say this from a place of moral superiority; I was once guilty of this myself during a highly ignorant phase of my teenage years. But learning, unlearning, and growing out of hate is possible. I know this because I have lived it.

Unfortunately, many do not stop at passive support. They actively empower hate-mongering leaders and help create a volatile, hostile environment for anyone who refuses to conform to the dominant narrative. This is how democracies erode, not overnight, but gradually, as empathy is replaced with suspicion and disagreement is treated as betrayal.

Hate is a slow poison or wildfire; it does not discriminate, and it does not stop at its intended targets. It corrodes everything it touches, including those who propagate it. History has shown us this lesson repeatedly. We have seen where unchecked hate leads, and we have paid a horrifying price in the past, including during the two World Wars. One would hope that humanity has learned something from those tragedies. If not, we risk repeating them yet again. 

Despite this bleak reality, I remain an optimist. I sincerely hope that those participating in hate-driven movements will eventually recognize the futility and danger of their actions. My hope is simple: that people will begin to see how hate operates, how it manipulates fear, and how it destroys trust, compassion, and love, the very foundations on which societies are built. When that realization comes, perhaps we will finally choose leaders who unite rather than divide, and values that heal rather than harm.

Until then, the responsibility lies with each of us to resist hate, question narratives, and protect the diversity that makes us human.

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

Why don't politicians stand up against bully from their own party?

Political cult is not a new phenomenon. History has ample examples of political cults that not only rule any specific political party but also captivate an entire country with their charisma and rhetoric. Often, these political leaders develop a cult-like following, and they attain the status of messiah or become a divine figure for their followers, just like God. There are good examples like Gandhi, and there are bad examples like Hitler, but one thing is clear: political cult is not new, and it seems that we have not learned our lessons from the dangers of harboring political cult. No matter what its origin or intention is, a political cult ultimately turns into relentless bullying without exception. The leader who attains such a status doesn't like any dissent or alternative views; rather, any dissent or objection is treated as defiance or rebellion. Often, other leaders and supporters surrender to this political bullying. Such leaders have no need to be objective, accountable, or transparent, as no one, absolutely no one, from their support sphere is willing to stand up against any action taken by them or any word spoken by them. This begs a question: why don't politicians or supporters stand up against a bully from their own party? There can be only a few reasons for this; most politicians are scared of losing power, and are spineless and opportunistic, who want to cling to power at any cost. 

Advocating for their own vision and agenda is a prerogative of every leader, and there is nothing wrong with it. However, taking the entire administration hostage and stifling any dissent is not leadership or democracy; it is a dictatorship and bullying. This is what is happening in many countries, including the USA. There are just a couple of voices in each political party that dominate, and the rest all meekly surrender. If someone needs an endorsement of the Prime Minister or the President for a local election that should be centered only around local issues, there is a serious political cult problem that needs to be addressed. In any dictatorship, power is centralized, decision-making is centralized, and everything must go through the dictator or the dictator's coitre. One cannot displease the dictator and get away with it, but true democracy cannot and should not function like this. In any decentralized federal structure, every election serves a different purpose and addresses a different constituency. Presidential election is different than a ward election, which is different than a governor election, which is different than a senator or congressman election. The names and terminologies can differ, but this is how different democratic governments are structured, where there is a separation of powers, and independent institutions exist. However, if political cult and bullying dominate, these structures crumble, and one gets into a democratic dictatorship, where elections serve to fulfill the ego of one person who dominates the discourse. This is no longer a democracy but an authoritarian regime. 

Whenever and wherever political cult and bullying prevail, it illustrates the point that elected officials of that administration and party are a spineless and power-hungry bunch. When power is centralized, and one person's endorsement means everything, there is neither separation of powers nor individual accountability. But the main tragedy and worrisome part is that people are equally enabling this degradation. People are not only participating in this debacle but also actively making sure that this system becomes a new norm. Democracy is messy and imperfect, but this does not mean authoritarian or elected dictatorship is better. Any authoritarian regime is more harmful than a democratically elected government, as it stifles dissent, curbs fundamental rights, and encourages hate and resentment to harbor polarization. This is why it is dangerous when people and elected officials don't stand against political cult and bullying. It is dangerous when we allow narcissistic leaders to take center stage and control the narrative rather than working on our differences through discussions and constructive criticisms. People and politicians are trading dangerous waters in many parts of the world, and I hope they know what they are doing. I hope true democracy survives this political cult and bullying phase. If not, we all know what the consequences are, and I am not willing to go back to those dark days when the world witnessed immeasurable harm inflicted by democratically elected dictators. 

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

From Playfields to Battlefields: The Death of Sportsmanship

Sports have been an integral part of human civilization for centuries. It is an expression of strength, spirit, and unity. From the ancient Olympics to modern-day tournaments, sports have transcended borders and ideologies, bringing people together through shared passion. Even today, teams command cult-like followings, and rivalries, whether between schools, clubs, or nations, ignite intense emotions. Yet, when the whistle blows, and the final score is called, tradition demands one thing above all: respect.

A handshake at the end of a match, whether between boxers, wrestlers, or cricketers, symbolizes that the competition was in the spirit of the game, not a personal battle. That simple gesture reminds us that sport is not war, that winning and losing are temporary, but dignity and respect endure. 

At the same time, there are many dignified ways for athletes to express dissent or solidarity without compromising the spirit of the game or disrespecting opponents. History offers numerous examples like players taking a knee to protest racial injustice, wearing black armbands or colored ribbons to honor victims of violence or disease, or making symbolic gestures that draw attention to humanitarian causes. Such acts do not target rival teams or nations; instead, they use the visibility of sport to promote awareness and compassion. These moments remind us that athletes can be both competitors and conscience-bearers, capable of challenging injustice while still upholding respect, discipline, and fairness on the field.

Sadly, that line has begun to blur.

The recent India-Pakistan cricket controversy is a troubling reminder. Reports that Indian players refused to shake hands with their Pakistani counterparts and refused to accept the winner’s trophy from a Pakistani official reflect a disturbing trend, the politicization of sport. What should have been a celebration of skill turned into a performance of political symbolism. Commentators and social media voices, including the Prime Minister of India, went further, comparing India’s cricket victory to a military triumph, reducing the sacrifices of soldiers and victims of terrorism to the level of a game score.

This is where the spirit of sportsmanship dies.

If sports become extensions of political agendas, they cease to be sports. Players become pawns in a nationalistic spectacle where rivalry replaces respect. When we equate a game to war, we cheapen both—the discipline of the athlete and the sacrifice of the soldier. Even in actual warfare, military personnel are trained to respect their adversaries, dead or alive. Shouldn’t athletes, who represent the best of human discipline and grace, be held to at least that standard?

If a nation feels so strongly against playing another for political or moral reasons, the dignified course is simple: boycott the match altogether. Decline to participate rather than demean opponents who, like our own players, are ambassadors of their nation, not its politicians or generals. To show disrespect on the field is to insult the very principles of sportsmanship we claim to uphold.

Imagine if the roles were reversed, if Pakistan had won and celebrated it as a “victory” over India in warlike terms. Wouldn’t the outrage be swift and loud, condemning it as immature, provocative, and offensive? Then why do we excuse the same when it comes from our side?

Sport is meant to unite and inspire, not to divide and demean. The field, court, or pitch should never become a stage for political theater. True maturity lies not in shouting louder than your rival, but in walking off the field with grace, whether you win or lose.

If we continue down this path, where sports become war and war becomes sport, then both will lose their meaning. The cheers in the stadium will echo hollow, not with pride, but with propaganda.

Let’s bring back the handshake. The spirit. The respect. Because if that’s lost, then no victory will ever be worth celebrating.

Thank you for reading. Please share your views on this topic. 

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

Politics and Violence: A Marriage of Convenience

In today’s world, politics and violence are no longer separate ideas. If you look closely at the rhetoric of modern politics, across countries and parties, you will see that hate and aggression are woven into nearly every radical populist political movement. Violence is no longer confined to unstable or developing nations with ethnic conflicts; it has become a global political currency.

Why? Because hate and polarization deliver tremendous dividends. They guarantee long-term power without the burden of accountability. This is why almost every government or political party is tempted to use this method either to win an election or stay in power without doing any public good. A divided society does not ask its leaders for jobs, education, or healthcare. Instead, it demands revenge. Citizens begin to rejoice not in their own well-being, but in the suffering of their opponents. This is the enduring “divide and rule” strategy: fear and hate for those who look different, pray differently, or think differently. It is one of the oldest tricks in politics, and in the age of social media, it has become more potent than ever.

You may ask: aren’t people smart enough to recognize when they are being manipulated? You wish. In the age of social media algorithms, echo chambers have become impenetrable. People are now fed only what they already believe. Rarely do they challenge their views; instead, they consume one reel, one meme, one outrage post at a time until bigotry feels like truth.

This brainwashing has consequences. Racism, sexism, misogyny, and xenophobia are dressed up as nationalism, populism, or patriotism. The freedom of expression is invoked to defend hateful propaganda, but when others use the same freedom to dissent, they are silenced or branded as traitors. Even parties that claim to champion freedom of speech remain silent when their opponents are silenced through government force or intimidation, such is the blinding effect of the lust for power. What we see is not freedom, it is propaganda masquerading as liberty. The echo chambers of hate are not only created by powerful algorithms, but they are actively reinforced by the tactful monitoring of human behavior and tacit approval from all parties who benefit from it. 

The tragedy deepens when governments themselves deploy propaganda. When hate becomes a policy, instead of debating ideas for the public good, politicians weaponize communities against one another to mask their own failures and corruption. We see working-class citizens cheering for tax cuts for billionaires, believing that the “enemy within” is to blame for their struggles.

Take immigration. It is a serious problem that requires solutions, but instead of policy, politicians fuel hatred against entire communities. The result? Citizens are fighting among themselves while those in power escape scrutiny. In this system, every death becomes political capital, not a human tragedy. Citizens are not valued as members of society but used as political weapons, activated, manipulated, and discarded.

History is full of examples: empires, kings, colonizers, and dictators have always relied on hate and violence as tools of control. What is alarming today is that even democratically elected governments are adopting the same playbook, ruling less like representatives of the people and more like autocrats. And disturbingly, citizens are not just tolerating it; they are cheering it on. Many celebrate the erosion of fundamental rights when it happens to their opponents, convinced that it will never touch them. But when genocides are glorified as heroics and propaganda is consumed as fact, society loses its moral compass. Bigotry may start as an opinion, but repeated often enough, it calcifies into “truth.” Once that “truth” is amplified by media and algorithms, propaganda doesn’t just shape the news, it becomes the news.

The saddest reality is this: we, the people, are allowing it to happen. Our silence, our complicity, and our willingness to stay in our comfort zones enable this cycle. It does not have to be this way. Politics need not be synonymous with violence and hate. Our political opponents are not enemies of the state. We can reject this toxic model. We can choose love, compassion, constructive criticism, and accountability as the foundation of politics.

The power of hate is immense, but so is the power of humanity. History shows that hate divides, but love unites. The choice is before us. The question is: will we wake up in time?

Thank you for reading. Please share your views on this topic. 

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

Why it is dangerous to be a fan of any government

One thing that most politically engaged people seem to agree on today is this: the world is becoming more polarized and divisive. Whether left or right, conservative or progressive, across democracies worldwide, people acknowledge this growing rift, but still, somehow, fail spectacularly to address it.

Why? There is only one reason that comes to my mind: too many people have become fans of their political parties, leaders, and governments. This is why we are living in the Age of political fandom and the decline of constructive dialogue at every level of society.  

When you become a fan, you are no longer just a supporter; no matter what you call yourself, you are a devoted follower. The first thing fans do is they begin to idolize. As a fan, your loyalty becomes so strong that you no longer see faults, or worse, you explain them away by pointing fingers at others: “They did worse,” “What about them?” or “This is not even a real problem.” This is what's going on around us, that too on a massive scale. In this atmosphere, public discourse has turned into a battleground of superfans, shouting, abusing, demeaning, and scoring points, often with more passion than purpose. And the biggest beneficiaries of this environment? Political leaders and governments across the board. 

There’s no denying that every elected government in a functioning democracy works toward fulfilling its promises, and those achievements deserve recognition. But that doesn’t mean we become cheerleaders for the government or the leader we voted for. Supporting a government is not the same as suspending our critical thinking. It does not mean we become their fan and stop questioning or criticizing them. Also, not being a fan of any government does not mean to dispute all progress or work done by them or to question their every action consistently. Being a responsible citizen means holding our leaders accountable, continually asking what more needs to be done, pointing out harmful policies, and challenging populist measures that disproportionately hurt vulnerable sections of society. It means to reflect on a broader behavioral pattern that tries to make use of certain loopholes of the democratic process to stifle opposition. Criticism of a leader or government should not be mistaken for a rejection of all progress. Conversely, acknowledging progress shouldn’t mean ignoring ethical concerns or governance failures. Progress and a leader’s moral compass are not mutually exclusive, but they are distinct.

Unfortunately, what we see today is an alarming trend: people often justifying or even glorifying the questionable behavior of leaders they support, sometimes to the point of turning a blind eye to actions or rhetoric that may harm the most vulnerable or undermine democratic norms. The concern is not about disagreeing with voters' choices; that’s their democratic right. It’s about how those choices are defended. And here's the irony: when one group supports a leader fervently, it’s called “respecting the will of the people.” But when another group does the same for a different leader, for example, Trump, it’s mocked, dismissed, or viewed with disbelief. This double standard is troubling; it is not just intellectually dishonest, it normalizes hypocrisy. If we want our democracies to function well, we must strive for consistency. Be fair in your praise, and be fair in your criticism.

It’s also worth noting that economic progress is often championed most by the privileged classes, because they benefit most directly. But a democracy cannot be judged by GDP alone. Its true measure lies in how it treats its dissenters, its minorities, and its most marginalized citizens. That is where the real test of leadership begins, and where political fandom must end. Remember, without constructive criticism, your support becomes meaningless; you’re not a responsible citizen, just part of a fandom. And being a fan of any government is not just unwise, it's dangerous. 

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 

Our values, our politics, and our hypocrisy

Everyone claims to have some values and ethics. These values may come from family, culture, religion, or personal experiences, no matter what the source is, we all claim to have some values and stand by them. We also have our politics, we either support or oppose certain policies, some of us are openly aligned with a certain political party, and some are independent but are close to either liberal or conservative ideas. Irrespective of our politics, we claim that our political choices align with our values. After all, politics, especially in today's world, is omnipresent. However, it is easy to have values but it's not easy to stand by them when tested. Many of us are willing to compromise or dump our values when it doesn't suit us politically, exposing our hypocrisy. This is abundantly clear during this election in the US, and to make it clear, the US voters are not the exception, this is what happens in most places where you see some questionable candidates getting traction, hate, and divisiveness resulting in political dividends, it's not the politician, it's our hypocrisy that's must be blamed. When we compromise on values, especially for political convenience or out of tribal loyalty, it weakens our claim that we hold any real principles.

For me, alignment with values and politics is not that complicated, rather, I find it necessary to align personal values with political choices. In today’s politically charged environment, where politics is intertwined with every aspect of society, the disconnect between what people claim to stand for and whom they support becomes glaringly evident. Nothing exposes our hypocrisy more than our politics.

If someone claims to support women’s rights, constitutional integrity, or ethical leadership, but then endorses a candidate or party that actively undermines those values, their claims are false and they do not care about any of these things. It’s easy to profess values when they’re not being tested, but the true measure of integrity is whether one holds firm to those values when it's politically inconvenient or challenging to do so. Supporting a candidate or party that contradicts one’s professed values without holding them accountable reveals a fundamental gap between what we say and what we actually support. For example, if I claim to support women's rights, and then I extend my support to a candidate or party who does not care about women's reproductive rights, then my claim is not only false but I also support abrogation of women's personal rights; if I claim to support constitutional integrity including the independent functioning of various branches of government but support a candidate who attacks these values and demands personal loyalty rather than personal accountability, then, my claims are false and I support weakening the independence of various government branches by violating the constitutional values; if I claim to be against sexual harassment but extend my support to a candidate who openly says derogatory stuff about women and claims to sexually harass women, then, my claim of supporting women's rights is false and I also support that candidate's obnoxious behavior. The list can go on, but I think the readers understand what I am trying to argue. If we claim to have certain values, we need to stand by them and demand accountability when we see those values being violated. If not, we do not have any right to claim to possess those values, they are nothing more than hollow statements. This is directly related to one of the most dangerous justifications we see in modern politics: the “lesser of two evils” argument, where people excuse their candidate's harmful actions because "the other side is worse." This rationalization allows for a slippery slope where values are compromised, slowly but steadily until they lose all meaning. It's not the responsibility of the opposing side to demand accountability, but it is the duty of the supporters to raise the standards in politics.

Out hypocrisy is exposed most when we defend the indefensible behavior with selective outrage; when we use our intelligence and smartness to defend the derogatory and offensive actions of the candidate we support; when we criticize the opposition for actions we tolerate in our own side; when we believe blatant lies without verifying them just because it suits our side of the argument. Our politics exposes our hypocrisy more than anything else. So, if you claim to have some values and don't want to be hypocritical, then be careful about who you support and how you defend your political choice. It is not the job of the opponent to ask for accountability, supporters need to do that if we expect any change in the way politics has been conducted so far. It’s not enough to defend a candidate simply because they belong to “our side” while turning a blind eye to their faults. If voters truly care about the values they espouse, they need to look beyond party lines and tribalism, and they must be willing to critique their own side just as harshly as they would the opposition. 

If we want politics to change, if we want to rise above the hypocrisy that permeates the system, we must first hold ourselves accountable. Our political choices are personal, but they are also a reflection of the integrity—or lack thereof—behind the values we claim to stand for. In the end, it’s not just about who we vote for, but about whether our choices truly reflect the values we claim to embody. If not, it’s our hypocrisy, not just flawed candidates, that is to blame for the disillusionment in politics today. Remember, nothing exposes our hypocrisy more than our politics, be vigilant to protect your values and please vote.   

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 

Misogyny, racism, and politics

As a society, we would like to believe that we have moved away from misogyny and patriarchy. We would like to believe that in today's world, at least overtly politicians would refrain from making blatantly misogynist and patriarchal comments. No. Unfortunately, we are not even close. Not only do politicians, including the mainstream and popular politicians, make misogynist and sexist remarks, but they also benefit from such remarks, That's the reality we are living in even today, some battles that their grandmothers had won, or at least we thought that they have won, the granddaughters are forced to fight them all over again. For this, we can't just blame these misogynist politicians, people who support such individuals are equally responsible for perpetuating misogyny. The truth is that even today many don't feel that misogyny and patriarchy are bad, rather there are many who used to feel bad that these things are attacked and most politicians were trying to stay away from being labeled as misogynist and sexiest, now, these people are happy that such statements not only don't harm politicians but benefit them and are being made blatantly and confidently. 

The reality is that gender equality is still a distant target. We have achieved a lot, but these achievements have also resulted in a strong pushback and resurgence of racist, sexiest, and misogynist behavior. When power acquired through gender, racial, or social dominance starts slipping away people don't take this lightly, they start making privileged arguments like meritocracy and try to label social justice as another form of racism. This is not new and we should not be surprised by such behavior. The surprising factor is that even after knowing not that distant history of racism and sexiest, people fall for it. They do not understand or maybe do not want to understand what they are risking by encouraging such a blatantly racist and misogynist agenda. It is utterly surprising to see when people who call themselves supporters of individual freedom ask for the abolition of women's reproductive rights. It is surprising when people who claim to support the free market question the existence of immigrants who work hard and most of the time earn less than minimum wage. It is surprising to see people who claim that they are not misogynists question someone's capabilities just based on their gender or biological motherhood. These things are happening in front of us right now, and there are many who are encouraging this behavior. Populism has its own place in politics, but misogyny and racism cannot be populist policies in any civilized society. I don't buy the argument of populism when misogyny and racism are part of it.

I don't care what's your political affiliation, it doesn't matter whether you are a conservative or liberal, if you are not bothered or concerned about this openly racist and misogynist behavior then you are risking whatever progress we have made so far in our fight against racism and gender discrimination. You are taking this country back to the era when racism and gender discrimination were a norm and not an exception. I hope you won't call any country with such a blatant form of discrimination great even if it's your own country. So, if you want to make America great, then, I am sure you don't want to go back to any era when racism and misogyny were more rampant than they are today. Let's move forward and to move forward we must challenge misogynists and racists, no matter which party they belong. If you put your country before your politics and political party, you will agree with me and challenge such people even if they are from the political party you support, and I hope you put your country before your politics. If not, then elections are won and lost, but the country and its values would lose every time such behavior finds mass support. 

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 did we get there?

My last post was about the effect of negative politics. Our society is getting increasingly siloed and polarized, that too in an era where information is available at our fingertips and we can connect with almost anyone, anywhere in the world who has access to the internet connection. How come we are so disconnected from each other when there are so many social media platforms available. We all need to ask at least one question to ourselves; how did we get there? 

Until recently, diversity was a desirable trait to have in our society. Initially, immigration was encouraged for cheap labor, but it resulted in bringing diversity to that society and such societies immensely benefitted from this phenomenon. Then, how come suddenly diversity became a bad thing? I feel we are convoluting diversity with threat, we are getting paranoid about our own perceived identities assuming that human culture is static and needs to be preserved from destruction. Anything different than our beliefs, culture, or political ideology is perceived as a threat rather than an opportunity to engage in conversation and learn something new. We are convoluting the opportunity to learn with the perception of threat. How did we get there? 

 
Human culture has always evolved, that's the only reason for our progress so far. If we compare any region, religion, culture, or country with what it was just a century ago, we will find how much it has changed. Agreed, now all changes are for good, but there are many positive changes. Most of these changes are the result of challenging the status quo, challenging old customs and traditions. Suddenly, it seems we are scared of change. We are scared to offer women their reproductive rights. We are scared to encourage diverse viewpoints related to sex, gender, sexual orientation, and many other topics. We are scared of social reforms that can help some of our fellow humans to live a dignified life. How did we get there?

Developed countries like the USA used to be a brave and experimental society. But it seems even we are now scared to experiment. We want to stick with every old tradition or belief no matter how negatively it affects some sections of our society. Issues like racism, casteism, and sexism that are universally condemned not only still exist in our societies, but they are openly used by popular politicians to appease their voter base and win elections. Social ills like racism, casteism, and sexism divide our society, they project diversity as a threat, not a strength. These things have resulted in suffering for large sections of our society for centuries. When we all agree that these divisive things are bad and must be condemned, I wonder how are we tolerating divisive politics that uses these things openly to divide us. How did we get there? 

Some of us detest and hate fellow humans just for who they are. They want to deprive others of living their lives on their own term. Somehow freedom to practice religion (which should be there) is considered as a more fundamental right than freedom to practice your sexual orientation. People are not angry by racist or bigotry comments by popular politicians but they are angry over the use of some pronouns. People are okay with voting for divisive and narcissistic leaders just because they feel their political agenda can be implemented. Despite having information and data, we are getting increasingly insensitive toward the social and emotional well-being of our fellow humans. How did we get there?

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

Don't confuse confidence for competence

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

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

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

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

Politics and compassion: Can they go together?

Social media has offered us a platform to share many things. People share their views and opinions freely on social media, so much so that everything seems to be a politically sensitive subject. Starting from a movie to the election result, many things generate politically colored comments from people. While becoming overtly political, are we losing our empathy and compassion toward each other? I feel that each one of us should ask this question ourselves. It is perfectly okay to be vocal about our political views, criticize our opponents, and argue against policies and regulations that we disagree with. But is it necessary to get personal while doing this? Is it necessary to bring politics into every issue we discuss? Is it necessary to ridicule others for what gender they identify with, what pronouns they use, what economic system they support, or what state or country they come from? Nowadays, I see people doing this regularly, even benign social media interactions end with some politically overloaded remarks. Some tasteless and crass jokes are made to make fun of gender or sexual preference about which people don't bother to educate themselves. People comment without having a basic understanding of a subject, just because we have a mouthpiece does not mean that we need to shout whatever comes to our mind. This shows how much anger and ignorance are out there. Yes, both anger and ignorance are required when you troll or ridicule someone without even knowing about them. Opposing something does not always mean showing contempt, there is a subtle difference between the two, and nowadays, people cross that line all the time. It also shows how much empathy and compassion are lost just because there is some disagreement. 

I do have my opinions on various topics, and I disagree with many around me about my political and social views. Sometimes these discussions and arguments get passionate and heated, but I never try to make them personal. I prefer to limit my arguments to the topic and take care not to make it about the person with whom I am arguing. I understand that it is difficult not to get personal in heated arguments, and it is difficult not to target personally anyone who is opposing our beliefs, especially when those beliefs are related to politics or religion. We see this happening on TV channels all the time. But just because somebody behaves like a jerk and insensitive person on public television does not mean that we should also do the same. It is better to move away from the discussion with a jerk than to compete to show who is the bigger jerk. 

Politicians talk about compassion and collaboration all the time, but in reality, rarely practice these things. Demonizing their opponents, pitching one group against another, and polarizing opinions so much that people hate each other are some of the common tactics used by politicians all over the world. Hate politics is not new and works very well in most countries. Politicians are to be blamed for this, but why do people fall for these things. Why do people don't realize the "divide and rule" ply which has been used for centuries to divert attention from the real issues and keep citizens engaged with each other so that no one asks tough questions? This also begs the question, can politics and compassion go together? According to me, yes, they can. It is up to us, the people, to make them go together. Our political adversaries are not enemies, they are our rival teams, we fight for the same trophy, that is, the opportunity to dictate and implement policies that we feel are right for our society. We are not there to eliminate each other, we are there to make each other better, to raise the level of competition, and to make our country and society a better place. If anyone does not understand these basic things they are not qualified to be called decent human beings. Let's show some compassion towards our opponents and compete with grace and dignity. After all, we are humans, we claim to be more civilized than animals, let's not put a question mark on this.

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

Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com

India's problem was never her politicians

Since my childhood, I regularly hear one theme in conversations about India, everyone talks about India's potential. Everyone says that India has a lot of talent, rich history, diversity, and whatnot, but somehow can't live up to its true potential. Most Indians also keep on repeating the same lines again and again without realizing that it is they who need to help their country realize its potential, not some outsiders. However, most are happy just debating these issues, blaming each other or their political opponents, and complaining about politicians and bureaucrats. However, most Indians are okay with corruption and corrupt politicians regularly get elected in various elections. It is a common perception that politics is a dirty game and that politicians are dishonest. To be fair, India is not the only country that has this perception about politicians, but it is definitely one of those countries that blame its politicians for all problems, for example, the problems of corruption, communalism, poor infrastructure, poverty, unemployment, brain drain, and whatnot is blamed to dirty politics. However, India's problem is not its politicians, but the people who elect these politicians, again and again, from different political parties. These people not only support such corrupt, many times, with criminal background people, but idolize them, worship them, and even after that, expect their society to be just and fair. Also, in India, it is very common to change political parties, unbelievable, but people thirsty for your blood can become your die-hard supporter once you switch to the party they support. Unbelievable, but true.

Once elected people with a criminal background become lawmakers, no matter how many laws exist in the law book, how many courts function, or how many police personnel work, it is impossible to have proper law and order. This is because no elected person will allow to law to take its proper course unless it hurts their opponents. When people of any country start reacting to crime based on who has committed it, not what is the nature of the crime, that country is sure to get doomed today or tomorrow. Once people see crimes through political, racial, religious, or any other bias, they are not looking at the crime, but at the criminal's identity and react based on that. That means the reactions are not based on the nature or gravity of the committed crime but on the identity of the accused. The same crime based on who has committed it generated drastically different reactions, people either try their best to downplay or justify the crime or try to demand the harshest possible punishment possible. Politicians make very good use of this, they instigate polarized emotions within society and benefit from dormant hate that many organizations silently brew within the society. Hate is a very potent social weapon, politicians, religious fanatics, and terrorists all use it very well. People knowingly fall into this trap so regularly that one can hardly blame anyone but the people themselves for being a toy in the hands of antisocial elements. This is the point of today's post, India's problem is not its politicians but people who support these politicians and don't dare to speak when a politician or the party they elected does something wrong. Things don't change overnight, but to start any change people first should start from themselves, only complaining about the system hardly initiates any change. Once people change their attitude and demand accountability from the politicians they elect, things will start changing. Until then, the evergreen argument of India has potential, this is how things are done in India would continue for many more decades.

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

Hate is politically potent currency that politicians use abundantly

Political polarization does not happen accidentally, it is a carefully planned and designed phenomenon by politicians who know for sure what are they doing. Hate is a very powerful emotion, it can shut rationality and logic, even for the most sophisticated minds, that is why it is a potent and valuable political currency and politicians use it abundantly. Politics is an intense and fiercely competitive field, that's why political battles are fought like wars with troops from opposite sides trying to defeat each other. However, there is one major difference between politics and other wars, in politics, the aim is to defeat your opponents' ideas or ideology, not to eliminate or kill them as individuals. Politics is all about the clash of ideologies and policies, it is not about people who convey those ideas. Yes, charismatic orators or personalities help to convey those ideas in a better way, but in the end, it's all about those ideas and not about the person expressing them. 

However, when ideas are not that strong, rather they are weak and full of objectionable motives, or the opposition also has equally good or even better ideas, then, hate helps. Hate is such a strong emotion that politicians are tempted to use it more often than any other emotion. It is used so often that many times, the hate itself becomes the agenda. It is easy to divide people between we versus they, nationals versus anti-nationals, pro-x versus anti-x, or any other division. Hateful propaganda reaps political dividends, and politicians enjoy success with the complete awareness that they are inflicting serious damage to their country or society. Political victories are addictive to politicians as well as their supporters, these victories not only give a sense of ideological triumph but also act as a validation of their tactics. It creates a perception that hate is justified because it is validated through a ballot box. 

When hate is mixed in politics with any ideology, the opponent does not remain only a political rival but becomes an enemy of the nation and society, worthy of exodus, all this just because of a political disagreement. However, people engaged in all this forget that hate is like fire, it burns indiscriminately after a certain point. A hateful campaign may reap political dividends in the short term, but the hateful society it creates always remains at a flashpoint. Once politicians legitimize hate and violence directly or indirectly it becomes an accepted method to resolve any conflict. People start using violence or spewing hate wherever they feel there is some conflict, and this cannot be controlled even by the same politicians who used hatred to come into power. Hateful societies can never be a healthy place to live as they become exclusive, they cannot allow flourishing for all types of talent, as there will be always a violent reaction to disagreements.   

The current trend of political polarization and making almost each and every debatable issue a politically sensitive topic is a new popular trend in world politics. People who participate in these campaigns are equally responsible along with the politicians that instigate them. After all, politicians get elected on votes, and if people support hate, politicians are shamelessly going to use it for electoral victories. The situation is getting so bad that there is no even pretense, hate is visible and felt during many political campaigns across the world, and may seem to be okay with this. These are testing times for humanity and everyone who thinks that diversity of opinion is necessary, minority opinion is valuable even when they are wrong, every voice needs to be heard and given space, and decent needs to be protected. Let's see who wins, hate and exclusiveness or love and inclusiveness.

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

Drug development is a science, not politics

First, a disclaimer, I worked as a drug discovery scientist for more than a decade working on different projects including anti-HIV and antibacterial. I was fortunate enough to work in such a creative enterprise with some of the best talents in the world in academia as well as in the pharma industry. So, this blog post is based on my training and experience as a drug discovery scientist.

Drug development is not an easy endeavor. It is a risky, expensive, and prolonged process with absolutely no guarantee of success. Many countries in the world where protection for intellectual property for drug development is non-existent or pathetically inadequate don't even engage in this endeavor even though their population needs new drugs for almost every lethal disease that exists in this world. These countries depend entirely on developed countries for drug discovery, even for the drugs for diseases like malaria and tuberculosis that are eradicated from most developed countries but are very much a public health concern in most other countries. Drug development is a scientific endeavor, a very challenging and complex problem, it's not politics and the two should not be mixed.

There are arguments on various social media platforms in India about different types of medicines like allopathy, homeopathy, Ayurveda, home remedies, alternative medicine, or whatever. This argument is more emotional or political than a scientific argument. There is no data, no experiments, or any scientific principles that are debated, there are just accusations and counter-accusations, just like most political discussions. The debate is devoid of any scientific spirit and temper. People engaging in the debate are not even interested in knowing how a drug is developed or approved, they only want to prove the other side wrong, by hook or crook. Once politics enters any argument the first two causalities are rationality and common sense.

Either something is a medicine (drug), or it's not. Over the period of time, the scientific community and governments have developed a reliable, reproducible, and verifiable mechanism to evaluate the approval of a drug. It is called clinical trials, and the data submitted for this purpose is publicly available, almost every country has a competent body to evaluate such data, for example, the US has Food and Drug Administration (FDA). If there is no such data, it cannot be called medicine, it is that simple, it can be anything else but not medicine or an approved drug. So, there is no secret sauce to develop any drug or medicine, there is no need for a statement of an expert, you just need clinical data that can be verified by an independent body. So, anyone or any company claiming anything as a drug doesn't need any celebrity, govt backing, or opinions, just producing clinical data, proving the drug's safety and efficacy, and getting the approval. You just need one reproducible experiment with verifiable data to prove or disapprove any scientific hypothesis right or wrong, it's that simple, but it's not at all easy as collecting such data may not be easy in some cases. Drug development is science, not politics.

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

When everything is looked through a political prism

What happens when everything you say, write or do is looked through a political prism even though you didn't intend it to be political? I see this happening increasingly, especially on social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp. No matter what you post, whether it's a joke, comment, news, or an opinion, people either support or criticize it based on their political leanings, and not only that, they also link you to a particular political ideology or party based on the tone of the post. For many, this is not a problem as most people associate themselves with a certain political leader, party, or ideology. However, for someone like me who does not find any political party suitable to pledge my allegiance, this is a very annoying situation. When I don't intend any political connotation in my posts and people start dragging petty politics into it, it just destroys the intent behind that post. This made me be very blunt and confrontational while dealing with such comments (which I am, but only during in-person discussions not on social media). Now, whenever I see that people are showing islamophobia, I call them and request to say openly that they hate Muslims rather than galvanizing their words and implying something hateful. I flag the sexiest jokes and comments. To my surprise, these things are so common and rampant that I find myself incapable of answering every comment or flagging every sexiest joke, but still, I try my best. 

I will give one example of how things get lose their importance or get twisted when they are looked through a political frame all the time. Suppose, I post a link commenting about a heinous rape incident, depending on the religion or caste or race of the accused, which people guess quickly based on their names, people start commenting. They only comment about the religion of those people than discussing the problem of rape culture in that society. The discussion drags towards political mudslinging and blaming that particular community or political party. It is true that if we want we can link everything going on in our lives with politics because theoretically, it can influence every aspect of our lives. I never imagined that people will become so politically polarized that they start condemning or justifying murders, lynchings, rapes, riots, and wars only based on their political ideologies. This is not just happening in bipartisan political systems like the US, but it's happening even more in multipartisan systems like India. I never imagined that people would either love or hate their political leaders and that they would either justify everything or condemn everything they did, and both of these scenarios are equally deplorable. My problem is that I receive crossfire from every political supporter as I can find some serious flaws in some of their policies and actions. I also strongly feel that just because you voted for a certain political party you don't have to justify each and every action. Similarly, just because the party which you voted for lost an election you don't have to criticize each and every action of the current ruling party. Strong opposition is needed, but it should be effective and issue-based, opposing just for the sake of opposing is a meaningless endeavor to pursue. 

I am quite frank and open with my opinions. When I want to make a political comment or share my political views, I make it clear in my posts, I don't hide it behind any news or sugarcoat it. I am not someone who is allergic to blunt remarks, I make such remarks and totally get it when people direct similar remarks towards me, but such remarks should be on point, if they are off the topic, they are neither blunt nor deserve my attention. So, what's the solution? Please stick to the topic of discussion, one can bring related topics into a discussion, but when the initiator of the discussion says that he or she wants to keep the discussion limited to a certain topic, respect that, or start your own discussion. And finally, not every post is intended to make a political statement. Maybe your thinking is overshadowed by your political beliefs, but that's not the case with everyone, please keep this in mind when you drag politics into the completely apolitical discussion.

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

More than 100 kids died, and the country didn't even blink

Last month, I read the terrible news about the death of more than 100 kids. It was a massive tragedy, with more than 100 kids losing their lives due to a totally preventable cause, terribly shocking news. What was more shocking was that this was happening regularly for quite some time and the administration never bothered to go to the root cause of the problem, never tried to find out what was the real cause of these deaths, and the most tragic part was that the entire country didn't even blink when such a massive tragedy was happening. I am talking here about a country that is roaring to claim its place among developed nations of the world. How a country can even dream about becoming a developed nation when 100 kids die regularly and no one, from the administration to the common people, even shows any concern? Was it because it happened in a state like Bihar? Was it because there were no elections around and therefore no political party was interested in this incident? Was it because all these kids belonged to poor sections of society, and therefore, there was no one to create enough media buzz about these deaths? I cannot find any reason which could justify why a country like India ignored this tragedy. Uttar Pradesh and Bihar are politically so important that any party who wants to dominate national politics exclusively focuses on them, probable candidates for the Indian Prime Minister position make sure that they fight their parliament election from one of these states, but when it comes to issues like health, education, crime, basic infrastructure these states are treated with so much contempt, ridicule, and ignorance that they are one of the most undeveloped states in India; and no matter who is in power this situation doesn't change.

Any developed country would have been outraged to witness the death of more than 100 kids due to administrative failure to take care of things in the area of public health. This tragedy did not happen due to sudden natural calamity, or due to something which never happened in so many years, but it happened due to something that they knew happens almost every year but no one cared about it. Even the death of more than 100 kids was not enough for a nation to stand up and question, WHY? A country where the injury to a cricketer from a national team can become a national issue, worthy of a newsroom debate and a tweet from the Prime Minister, but the death of so many children didn't produce any anger or concern. This tragedy only resulted in some stupid and encroaching journalism by some hyper and ignorant journalists who barged into the intensive care units where doctors and nurses were struggling to deal with this massive challenge with the help of severely limited staff and a more severely limited supply of medicines. These journalists not only defied all medical safety norms but also aggressively asked questions to the doctors who were in no position to answer them. Not one of them bothered to ask questions to people who really should be answering these questions, but poor doctors were made scapegoats as if it was their responsibility to have enough beds and medicines in the hospital, and as if they were in charge of the state's health ministry. This tragedy not only exposed the state and national government's failure at so many levels but also exposed how much public health is given priority in India, not only at the government level but also at the social level. The entire country moved on as if nothing happened.

I hope such a tragedy doesn't happen again, and if it does happen again, then at least India responds in the way any responsible country should because each citizen's life is precious.

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

The saga of RaGa

I think most people in India know what NaMo and RaGa mean. These are the brand names of two of the most famous national political figures Narendra Modi and Rahul Gandhi. Unprecedented branding of political figures started in India with the rise of Narendra Modi. Mr. Modi and his team aggressively developed his brand just like any other product, this started during his tenure as a chief minister of Gujarat. When that strategy worked superbly, every party started doing the same thing, no one could match the fire and force of the BJP for quite some time, but all are still trying and the RaGa brand is Indian National Congress's answer to BJP's NaMo brand. 

Rahul Gandhi belongs to the Nehru-Gandhi family. There is no doubt that one of the major reasons behind where he is today is the family to which he belongs. He recognizes it, acknowledges it and I don't think there is any doubt about the role his last name played in his political existence. But dynasty is not an uncommon thing, it is prevalent in many parts of the world and India is not an exception. It is common to see dynasties in Indian politics, business, or any other field where there is a scope to have a dynasty. In the Indian film industry, some dynasties are in their third or fourth generation, big corporations are run by families where top management consistently comes from the same family, and Indian mythological stories are full of dynasties. It is difficult to ignore the presence of dynasties in various fields including business, media, film, and politics. Dynasties are present in most political parties in India, the level and positions they occupy might be different in different parties, but they are there. This all is not to justify the rule of the dynasty but to show that the Nehru-Gandhi family is not the only dynasty in India, but it is the most famous one. I think Rahul got into politics out of compulsion rather than his own choice. His father, Late Rajiv Gandhi also got dragged into politics after the untimely death of his brother Sanjay and then the death of his mother Mrs. Indira Gandhi. Somehow the Indian National Congress feels the perpetual need to have someone from the Nehru-Gandhi family at the helm. Somehow the party and its workers feel safe and secure under their leadership. Many senior leaders acknowledge this thing and they feel it keeps the party united. This reasoning never made any sense to me, but this is what it is. 

Rahul didn't have a conventional upbringing, his uncle, grandmother, and father all died unnatural deaths. Two of them (grandma and father) were assassinated brutally by terrorists. He was very young when his grandma and father were assassinated. His mother was forced to enter politics and then he had to follow her. In the beginning, he was not even considered as a viable option. He was visibly uncomfortable during his political appearances. Congress party suffered humiliating loss after loss at the hands of BJP and other parties, and Rahul was projected as one of the reasons for these debacles. He was attacked for who he was (a Gandhi dynast), he was ridiculed as "Pappu," his lack of stage confidence, and fumbles during interviews were highlighted, his comments were edited so that they sounded utterly stupid, and eventually it was unimaginable for people to even compare Modi and Rahul. But, somehow he survived all these attacks from outside. The main reason was that no one within his party asked for his resignation due to all those failures. This is the advantage one gets when your position within the party is secure. There was absolutely no challenge to his position within his own party. He became president of the Congress party even though the party was not performing well in election after election. Recent victories in some state elections might justify his promotion and may turn his party's fortunes in another direction, and people might see him now as a national leader who can challenge Mr. Modi. But, this is too early to predict any such thing, and Rahul has a lot to prove before he can present himself as a serious contender for the prime minister's position. Actually, the BJP helped him a lot by constantly attacking him and ridiculing him, they always kept him relevant for some reason, they used him as a punching bag and it seems that the punching bag punched them back really bad. In the same way, the Congress party helped Mr. Modi to gain prominence on the national stage by attacking him relentlessly. I am not judging Rahul's political acumen and capabilities, he needs more time to prove himself. I was purely drawn to his story because of his unique background and his roller-coaster political journey. As I already mentioned there is no doubt that he got many privileges and advantages just because he was born in a particular family, but for the same reason, his life took many unexpected turns and presented him with unique challenges. It will be interesting to see his future progression. 

I had very high expectations from Mr. Modi's government. After all, the BJP secured a single-party majority under his leadership and this government had a golden opportunity to introduce some reforms which only a single-party majority government could implement in a country like India. However, instead of focusing on that, he focused all his attention on conquering all states of India. Let's see how RaGa compares to NaMo as far as delivering reformative governance is concerned. I am happy to see that at least Rahul is not talking about eliminating BJP from India. The presence of strong opposition is necessary for any democracy to be vibrant and functioning. I wish both brands RaGa and NaMo deliver what they claim, and people hold them accountable for their promises and not get blinded by their glitter and glamor. If this doesn't happen, then the same old musical chair circus will continue without much change in governance, RaGa and NaMo brands might become successful, but brand India will fail and I don't think any right-minded Indian would like to see this happen.

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

For good policies, you need good politics

Many countries in the world struggle to accelerate development or to make sure that the benefits of development can be enjoyed by most of the population. One of the main reasons for this problem is the lack of good policies. All these countries are not ruled by dictators or going through civil war or something other social or political crisis, many of them have well-established democratic election system that seems to be working, elections happen regularly, people seem to participate in the electoral process, and elected governments seem to enjoy people's support. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka are some such countries where it seems no matter who is in power nothing much changes on the ground, parties win or lose but it seems the country always loses in every election. Every party thinks about its own political future first rest is secondary. They all use the country and nationalism as tools to solidify their own political base, to win an election, to propagate a personality cult, to suppress opposition, but never to bring any positive reforms, never to take some forward-looking steps that might harm them politically but are good for the country's future. I was excited when the current Indian government came to power and even wrote a post about their historical election victory.

For good policies, you need good politics. For good politics, you need well-functioning institutions of various branches of the government that perform their work independently. This doesn't happen in most of the countries that struggle economically despite being democratic countries for so long. I have seen this happening in India. Corruption on various levels cripples most of these countries. When I say corruption, I am not just talking about the bribe culture, I am talking about the culture of corruption. In a country where not allowing the largest political party to form a government is not unusual, horse-trading to buy legislatures of other political parties to gain a majority is not considered a wrong practice, open collusion between various branches of the government doesn't disturb people, political opponents are not only ridiculed but branded as anti-nationals, where one political party talks about eliminating their oppositions from the country, good politics cannot exist. All these are not signs of good politics, and no wonder India still struggles to get a government that can dare to implement good policies. As I said I was hopeful about this government that they will implement some good policies but after five years all I can see is that they spent all their time in establishing their brand and winning state elections, nothing else. I am not bothered by mistakes that happen while taking some radical steps (like demonetization), but I am surprised that a government with so many resources at its hand can't figure out the possible outcomes of its actions before taking such a drastic step. Announcing any reform is not a big deal, making sure that it gets implemented to produce its desired result is where all the skills of governance and management are required and I am still waiting to witness this in India. One such opportunity was lost in 1984 when only a few reforms (like telecommunications and the introduction of computers) were performed, but nothing spectacular was done as far as political and social reforms are concerned, and now this is another opportunity that didn't live to its expectations. Please remember, "for good policies, you need good politics."

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

Déjà vu - the politics of hatred

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

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

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

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

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

Indian American's political dichotomy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it possible to be politically independent in today's world?

The current political environment in most countries is very polarized. I can speak about the USA and India as I follow political scenarios in these two countries more than any other country in the world. Both these countries are democracies, but the current political atmosphere is so charged and polarized it is almost impossible to remain independent and try to have a balanced and rational political discussion with any political party supporter. Most supporters of any party or leader are so passionate and blindly in love with their leader that they are not willing to hear anything even remotely against their leader. These people are very eager to brand their opponents anti-nationals, communal, secular (the term secular used in a derogatory way), racist, Islamophobic, misogynist, or by any other tag they can think of.  Because of these two things have happened, political discussions have become either like fist fights, where two parties fight against each other blow by blow without having any fruitful exchange of thoughts or it has become almost devotee like the singing of praise of their demigod leader, where every good thing happening around is attributed to some action taken by that leader.

Politically independent people, who can throw light on both sides of the issue, or can debate over the good and bad aspects of the same policy, political party, or leader have disappeared from these discussions. I understand why they don't want to participate in any such political arguments. But, these debates are so predictable and boring because of an absence of any sane voice among all political devotees. Such devotees are required, and all political leaders and parties survive and thrive due to the presence of such devoted supporters. However, the presence of such supporters only makes that party gain or lose elections, it doesn't help in moving political discourse any forward. In such a politically charged atmosphere, very often there is a possibility of political deadlock, where both sides try to block even good policies from each other just to display their political muscle power. The interest of the country or its people takes a back seat and that leader's ego or interest of that party's core voters becomes the most prominent factor. These things used to happen in the past also, but now it is happening even after an increase in the education level of people and an increase in accessibility of information due to the rapid spread of the internet.

I am a politically independent person. I don't support a single political party or a leader. In an election, of course, I have to choose one from the list, and I make my decision based on the important issues of that time and solutions presented by different parties, but at the same time, I know the weaknesses and drawbacks of my choice. I am willing to accept that the party for which I voted might have some terrible policies about certain economic and social issues, but in an election, you can vote only for one party, and not voting is not an option for me. If the party I voted for wins the election, then I should be ready to oppose any policy they try to implement that is either not on their agenda or is obviously harmful to a certain section of society. I am not obliged to support whatever they do, just because I voted for him. This is how I deal with politics. I don't think political parties would like to have voters like me, but this is how I protect my political independence. I am not bound by their core ideologies or their leader's demigod-like status. Current politics has become so personality-centric that it has become like a war between two cults.

Whenever I discuss politics in any group, I can see the desperation of people to defend their choices at any cost and their frustration when someone exposes weaknesses of their side or starts asking some uncomfortable questions. I am a republican sympathizer in a democrat group and vice versa. I play a similar role in India among BJP or Congress supporters. Politics is supposed to be there for the benefit of people. It is supposed to create healthy debates and discussions where something better for the nation comes out from such debates. It was not supposed to create a war-like situation within a country or a deadlock where the nation is stuck in policy paralysis, where nothing moves forward except vicious verbal attacks on each other. None of these things are healthy for any nation. Political differences and strong opposition should exist and no government should get an absolute right to do whatever they want. Every democratic country needs to have some checks and balances to curtail absolute power. The presence of a single ideology is dangerous no matter how good or rational that ideology sounds. I hope people understand the value and importance of dissent. I hope they understand that expressing dissent against the government doesn't mean that they are against the country. If a country needs to progress all of its people need to contribute, and political opponents need to have space for ideological or policy-based differences. Political opponents should not behave like enemies of each other and their existence should not be mutually exclusive. Politics needs healthy and efficient dialogue between different stakeholders. It doesn't benefit from monotonous, and vitriolic monologs.

I cherish my political independence and I am really proud of it. It is becoming a very rare trait day by day. I hope people understand the importance of constructive criticism and healthy dialog, until that this drama will continue and people like me won't find any difference between some news channels and channels that telecast dramatic soap operas. Protect your political independence if you can, and even if you become a supporter of some political party become a sensible supporter, not a blind devotee. Politics is not a place to be a devotee, for this religion is enough. 

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

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