Our Differences Don't Have to Divide Us

I can understand why people get surprised or shocked to meet people who are different from them. The difference can be of any type, different race, nationality, religion, gender, sexual orientation, beliefs, or political ideology. It is not easy to understand why people don't think like us, why they don't believe in the same set of values, don't support the same political party and leader, follow the same religion, or hate the same enemy. Humans have always lived with such differences; there was no single religion, language, or political ideology that everyone followed; there were always differences. These differences have led to many gruesome and barbaric massacres of humans by humans. Statistics may tell us that far more humans are killed by other humans than by natural calamities. After this phase of barbarism, we entered a process of learning to live with differences, which is how countries like the USA and many other progressive nations came to exist and prosper by welcoming people from different parts of the world who, along with their talent and hard work, brought their languages, cultures, and beliefs with them. However, I feel that we are again deviating from this path, where our differences are no longer mere differences; they are becoming the primary reason to divide us. How did we reach this point? Are we going back to an era where political and ideological opponents will be prosecuted simply because they think differently? 

I can offer some examples from my own life to demonstrate that it is possible not only to live peacefully but also to build something beautiful and lasting alongside people who think and believe differently from you. 

The first example is my wife, Reena, and me. We both come from different states in India and spoke different languages when we got married. We share a common language, Hindi, that connected us, but our primary languages were different: Bhojpuri for her and Marathi for me. At some point in my life, I was as religious, maybe not as religious as Reena is, but I did follow some Hindu rituals. But I gradually drifted away from religion and completely dissociated myself from traditional religious beliefs, but Reena is very religious and follows many rituals and practices that traditional Hinduism calls for. Does this result in any friction? Do we clash and argue over things we don't agree on because of our different beliefs? Do we each wonder how the other cannot see that they are wrong? Do you want each other to change certain beliefs so that we can avoid confrontational situations? Of course, we do. These things are unavoidable when differences exist. But none of this divides us to the point where we no longer want to live with each other or feel compelled to change the other into a version of ourselves. Rather, we support each other so that neither of us feels attacked or threatened when we are in a space where one person's beliefs dominate. More often than not, it is Reena who shields me from being drawn into religious rituals, and she is usually in the majority across most of our social circles. Our differences make us very different people, but at the same time, they have helped us understand and support each other. Our unity does not demand uniformity. We try our best to convince each other about our points of view, but we both know that there will be some topics where we are not going to agree, and that's okay. If we can do this, I wonder why a society or a nation cannot replicate the same understanding, regardless of the hate politics played by self-serving politicians.

The second example is about my parents and me. My parents come from a very conservative background. Their ideas about family, religion, caste, and tradition are rooted in their upbringing in the rural parts of the northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh. I grew up surrounded by these conservative values, where gender bias and casteism were prevalent. My parents inherited these values from their surroundings, and I inherited more or less the same set of values from my surroundings. This is what normally happens: we all inherit our religious and cultural beliefs that ultimately shape our personal beliefs. But eventually, slowly, I grew out of them, mainly through reading, as my horizons broadened. As my thinking started to differ radically from theirs on many issues, which led to frequent arguments, some very heated, where our beliefs collided. There is discomfort and uneasiness during confrontational situations. But none of these arguments have weakened my relationship with them as my parents. I have not stopped challenging them when I believe they are wrong; at the same time, they have not stopped emphasizing the importance of tradition and religion to me. I know I may not be able to change all of their beliefs or make them see the world as I see it. I may carry the regret of never fully convincing them why gender bias is a terrible thing, but that is my regret to live with and my battle to fight. They have their own limitations that prevent them from changing, and I have my own limitations in persuading them. But none of this will make us hate each other. We argue over things; that does not mean we wish the other did not exist.

Different sets of values can coexist within the same marriage, family, society, or country. This is not difficult; rather, this is how we coexist and flourish. I thought this was obvious, and that most people understood it, but in recent years, this understanding seems to be fading. I hope people come to see that our differences make us who we are; they give us the opportunity to understand one another, and they should not make us enemies. Different colors make a rainbow, and a rainbow is as beautiful as each individual color within it; many would even argue it is more beautiful than any single color alone. Let's keep the conversations going and put animosity on pause. Unity is not about becoming like each other; unity is about standing together despite our differences and defending each other's rights even when we disagree. We have always been different; we don't have to be divided.

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

My Journey from Conservatism to Liberalism

I proudly call myself a feminist and a socially liberal person today, but this identity did not come to me naturally. I did not grow up in a liberal household or society. Liberal ideas were not a part of the culture, community, or environment in which I was raised. In fact, they were foreign to me, sometimes even threatening, because they challenged almost everything I had been taught to believe.

And yet, once I began examining those beliefs with honesty, there was no going back. It took me quite some time to gather the courage and intellect to examine my cultural and social conditioning, but I am glad that I was able to do this. I know that for many, this is not even possible; they spend their entire life living in a bubble and fighting to protect that bubble with all their intellect and power. I could not imagine a world where discrimination and oppression were excused as “culture,” “tradition,” or “religion.” My journey to this realization was slow, difficult, uncomfortable, and ultimately liberating.

---

Growing Up in a Conservative World

I was born and raised in Pune, in a family that had migrated from Uttar Pradesh to Maharashtra. My childhood environment was deeply conservative. Religion and culture shaped every aspect of our lives, so intensely that people were willing to harm each other in the name of protecting “honor,” “faith,” or “tradition.”

Patriarchy was not subtle where I grew up.
Misogyny was not hidden.
Casteism was not questioned.

Religious bigotry and hatred were not just taught but were expected as a part of your affiliation with your religion. These weren’t just social norms; they were considered virtues. And like most children, I absorbed all of it. I had no alternative worldview, no exposure to anything different, and no one around me who would challenge the system.

---

The First Cracks: Movies, Books, and Questions

Things began to shift only when I started watching movies of my choosing and reading books outside the school curriculum. Those stories introduced ideas that were almost revolutionary for my conservative mind:

• Caste discrimination was real

• Gender inequality was everywhere

• Religion was used as a tool for dominance and polarization for political gains

• “Honor” was often a mask for oppression

These books and films planted doubts, small at first, then louder. 

Questions began forming:
Why are women treated as second-class citizens?
Why do we claim to worship goddesses but deny respect to real women?
Why are some people considered inferior just because of their last names?
Why was I told to dislike Muslims without knowing anything about them?

Growing up during the Ram Mandir movement added fuel to the confusion. Like many teenagers around me, I fell for the rhetoric. I sympathized with the movement simply because I believed it was my duty as a Hindu. I was so immersed and impressed by conservative rhetoric and propaganda around me that I even wrote a letter to Mr. P. N. Oak, author of the controversial book, Taj Mahal-The True Story (I read the Marathi version of the book). I completely believed his conspiracy theory about the Taj Mahal being a Hindu temple, and proudly treasured his postcard reply where he praised my commitment to the Hindu cause.

At that time, I thought I was doing something noble and great. I was really proud of my anger and hatred against people whom I didn't know, just based on unverified statements by someone whom I believed to be intelligent. 
Looking back, I realize how easily young minds can be influenced when they grow up in environments that encourage obedience and subjugation, not questioning.

---

Understanding Gender: The Most Painful Realization

Of all the discriminatory practices around me, gender inequality was the most visible and the most disturbing once I learned to see it. It was everywhere, in my home, in my neighborhood, the rest of society, in most movies that I watched, and in the country. I watched women’s lives shrink after marriage. Young girls who had a little freedom as teenagers were suddenly expected to:

• cover their faces

• speak softly or not at all

• avoid going out alone

• defer to any male relative, including boys younger than them

Even in my own home, when important family matters were discussed, men sat in the main room while women listened from the other room. Their opinions, even when the issue affected them directly, were neither asked for nor welcomed.

This wasn’t considered oppression.
It was “culture.”
It was “tradition.”
It was “how things are supposed to be.”

I was told to be proud of these things and protect them at any cost. And yet, something in me was deeply uncomfortable.

---

Breaking the Mold: Marriage, Books, and Self-Reflection

When the time came for my own marriage, a simple request, to speak to the girl before saying yes, was considered a bold act. Reena’s extremely modest expectations from her future husband startled me. They exposed how deeply unfair the system was to women.

This moment acted like a mirror. I realized how much I needed to change, both around me and within me, if I wanted to break the conservative mold I had inherited.

As there was no one around me to whom I could talk or ask any questions, books became my biggest teachers.
They validated my doubts.
They challenged my assumptions.
They held up a mirror to parts of my belief system that I had never examined.

Every new concept: feminism, equality, social justice, representation, challenging traditions and superstitions, human rights, was like learning a new language. Slowly, liberal values entered my life, one step at a time.

---

Becoming a Parent: The Final Transformation

If books opened the door, my children pushed me firmly through it.
Becoming a father, especially wanting a daughter so desperately, forced me to confront the biggest taunt I used to receive:

“You will understand the importance of these rules/traditions when you have a daughter.”

I wanted to prove, to others and to myself, that I truly believed in equality. My children made me revisit every belief I had inherited. They made me examine my unconscious biases. They pushed me to imagine a world where they could grow without fear, limitations, or discrimination.

Parenthood turned questioning into responsibility.

---

Letting Go of Hate and Rediscovering Myself

My shift from conservatism to liberalism had nothing to do with political ideology, left or right.
It had everything to do with empathy, justice, and self-awareness.

It is not easy to admit that everything you once believed in, things your family, religion, and community glorified, can be wrong. It is not easy to stand against practices that people around you consider sacred. Most of them were good people; they simply followed what tradition told them. When culture and religion justify discrimination, people no longer see it as wrong.  

But the moment you start questioning, the entire structure begins to unravel.

You realize how ideologies manipulate you into becoming a loyal follower instead of a critical thinker. As Dr. Ambedkar wrote, a Hindu is a casteist not because he is a bad person but because he wants to be a good Hindu. You realize how prejudice is taught, not inherited. You realize how privilege can blind you to the pain of others.

This realization was painful, but liberating.
And once I embraced it, I could never go back.

---

Where I Stand Today

Today, I still care deeply about politics and society. I vote in every election. But I am not a blind supporter of any political party. I am a deliberate supporter of equality, dignity, representation, and justice.

I take pride in calling myself a feminist.
I actively work on recognizing and correcting my biases, both conscious and unconscious.

Living in the U.S. exposed me to topics like LGBTQ+ rights and mental health, which were not part of my upbringing. These were shocking at first, but slowly, through listening and learning, I understood their importance. I am still learning.

And that, perhaps, is the biggest lesson of my journey:
Liberalism is not a destination. It is a continuous process of self-reflection.

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 

Am I still a Hindu?

When people ask me which religion I follow, my answer is simple: I don't follow any particular religion. I take whatever good I find from any religion or any other source and try to practice those things. Relevance and rationality matter more to me than the source. If something resonates, I adopt it, whether it comes from a book (any so-called holy book or countless other amazing books published every day), a conversation, or even a quote on a wall. What matters is the principle and the impact it has on my life, not where it originated.

But for some people, that’s hard to accept. They say, “You must follow something; you don't seem like an atheist.” And they’re right, I’m not an atheist, at least as in popular culture. But I also don't subscribe to any formal religion. I understand it doesn't fit neatly into the usual boxes, but not everything has to. Life doesn’t always align with conventional definitions and stereotypes.

Yes, I was born into a Hindu family and practiced Hinduism for the first 25 years of my life. Back then, if I had to align myself with any religion, it would’ve been Hinduism. Why? Possibly because I was born into it and was brainwashed to believe that it was the best, but also because, at least in theory, Hinduism allowed space for multiple viewpoints, even for atheists and skeptics. Philosophical schools like Charvaka once thrived within its umbrella. That kind of tolerance felt unique. Even though the reality is that none of the original works of people like Charvaka survived, and their teachings are not part of any mainstream Hindu philosophy. 

Historically, Hinduism didn’t have a single founder, a definitive holy book, or rigid rituals that applied across the board. There were countless gods, a variety of practices, and no universal rulebook. That lack of structure once gave it a flexibility not seen in many other organized religions. It was like a cultural and spiritual marketplace where people could pick what suited them. This diversity could be a strength or a weakness, depending on how you look at it. However, things have changed over time. Hinduism today feels far more structured, dogmatic, and rigid. Rituals are standardized, identities are more politicized, and dissent is often silenced. There's an increasing emphasis on creating conversion-like rituals and defining who qualifies as a "real Hindu." And while some celebrate its ancient openness to debate, that spirit seems to be fading in practice. Also, what cannot be ignored is the fact that casteism and the varna system, deeply discriminatory constructs on their own, are still very much a part of practiced Hinduism. No matter how often people deny or justify them, their presence in the lived reality of millions is undeniable. These are not fringe issues; they are central to the way the religion functions socially, even today. Dr. Ambedkar has written extensively about this, and this was the main reason why he left Hinduism. 

I no longer feel I belong to this version of Hinduism. My departure from religion wasn’t out of rebellion, but out of conscious reflection. It was a gradual process resulting from countless incidents of discrimination, suppression, and religious violence around me. I know that some fanatic supporters of some religion might argue that their religion only teaches peace and love and is the most tolerant religion, but the amount and scale of violence practiced in the name of religion is astounding, and any religion, including Hinduism, is no exception to this. Therefore, I realized that I don't need a label, a scripture, or a divine figure to practice kindness, empathy, or compassion. I don’t need a ritual to validate my moral compass. I’d rather be a good human than a good follower of any religion.

Does that mean I reject religion entirely, the way most atheists do? Not at all. I still find wisdom in religious teachings across traditions, and believe that even today, many people need religion for their personal needs. I respect some aspects of all religions, and I question all of them equally. I approach them with open-minded curiosity rather than blind faith or allegiance. Nothing dominates my thinking, and my door is always open to ideas that uplift and empower, regardless of their source. The truth is, the space outside of organized religion is expanding. More and more people identify as nonreligious, spiritual-but-not-religious, or simply humanist. Religions are adapting in response, trying to become more inclusive and accommodating. That’s a good thing. It reflects a growing recognition that rigid structures don’t work for everyone.

Religion is deeply human; it's one of the oldest human inventions. God, divinity, spirituality, all are human inventions invented to satisfy different aspects of human curiosity. They try to fulfil psychological and emotional needs, and are not going away anytime soon. But not everyone needs to subscribe to these ideas to live a meaningful, ethical life.

So, am I still Hindu? In the cultural sense, maybe. But ritually and philosophically, I’ve moved on. I am a nonreligious person who believes in humanity and love. I’ve found more freedom, more perspective, and more responsibility outside the walls of any one religion. I see clearer now, without the blinkers of exclusivity. I may not belong to any religion anymore. But I belong more fully to myself, to reason, to compassion, and that feels like the right path for me.

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 is the product of religion

Religion is one of the oldest enterprises humans are engaged in. All religions are man-made. I am purposely using the phrase "man-made," because they all are conceived by men Don't believe me, verify yourself, the easiest way to verify is to glance at some famous books from any religion and check the gender of the authors of those books. Therefore, all religions are misogynist as they are conceived through the mind of men of that era who were shaped by the misogynist society of that respective era. Even religion like Hinduism that makes tall claims about worshipping female gods and giving women higher status was and still is cruel and barbaric towards women. Claiming to worship female gods and treating women like humans and not like property are totally different things. In all countries where women are treated better compared to any point in human history, it is because of modern laws and not because of any religion. Rather, in some places where tremendous progress was made, there is a pushback on women's rights citing religious beliefs as one of the reasons. Religion is always used to curb women's rights but never to expand them.  

I know this is a sensitive issue and will ruffle many feathers. Believers of all religions will feel hurt and will argue that their religion cares about women and it is the other religions that are responsible for all mistreatment offered to women. This is an expected and age-old reaction by all religions whenever the topic of misogyny is raised. Also, worshipping or having female gods or prophets, or trying to protect women by sheltering them, or giving them higher or special status (and in return restricting their freedom) are usual lame excuses offered by all religions to laminate their real agenda of controlling women and their bodies. No religion has shown courage so far to apologize and accept their mistreatment of women, they all do offer some lame excuses or even shamelessly justify the injustice delivered to women. It is not that the history of misogyny associated with every religion baffles me but the impunity and shameless defense of that history by their believers, even today.   

Convincing women that religion is good for them is one of the greatest marketing scams of human history, there is nothing equivalent to this scam. I also must mention that product like religion is necessary for many people, it provides them some comfort and solace psychologically, and it was the only option in the era when there was no other help available for any mental health-related issues. The availability of other resources that can calm our nerves is one of the reasons why religion is losing some ground, but it is still one of the strongest forces that control the human mind and behavior. Therefore, it is important to analyze and scrutinize all of them and force gradual changes. Many religions have mended their ways silently without accepting any wrongdoings, this is good and definitely a step in the right direction, but still not enough, they also need to acknowledge their contribution to misogyny and apologize. They can at least do this much for all the suffering and mistreatment directed toward women in the name of that religion. I hope women will take up this cause and make them accountable.

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

Is our work becoming the new religion?

Religion is still one of the biggest institutions. It is still relevant because it gives many the group identity that humans crave so desperately. It gives people the feeling of belonging and offers social and emotional support to a group that is bound by common beliefs. However, recent trends and surveys indicate that more and more people are moving away from organized religion. There can be many reasons to move away from organized religion, and society's intellectual and economic progress is one of them. But the need for that group identity still remains, and it seems our jobs are filling that void. If we look carefully, for most of us, our careers define our identities, we are known as doctors, scientists, actors, lawyers, diplomats, teachers, nurses, coders, or whatever job we are doing. This identity is no longer limited to our workplace, this is how people know us even outside our work circle. This begs a question, is our work becoming the new religion?

This question is a more hypothetical one at this stage, but I find it very intriguing. When we start deriving our friend circle, social life, thinking patterns, and other aspects of life from our work, our work becomes the most dominant part of our lives. It is no longer just an economic support vehicle, it also becomes our social and intellectual support system. This can have its pros and cons. One of the pros is that life will be structured as our work is going to be in the center, everything will be dictated by the demands and concessions of the work. But the flip side is that work controls everything, our family and social life. Almost every work, especially if it is a high-paying job involves stress, anxiety, and deadlines, this stress and anxiety going to spill over into our personal lives. This is why I think there is a lot of talk about work-life balance, as if when we work there is no life in it, life only exists outside of our work. 

Are we giving too much importance to our jobs? Are we dependent on our source of income so much that it controls every aspect of our lives? Yes, that's where we are as a society at this juncture. For most, our jobs and income control the quality of our lives. I agree that money is a necessity, and being poor sucks. But we have been brainwashed about our needs. Most of the time desires are presented as needs to live a happy life. This is where our income attains paramount importance. There is nothing wrong in chasing our desires and working hard to fulfill them. But when desires are presented as a basic tenant for happiness, and we all buy this logic, we are in a continuous mode of chasing. As desires are endless, the chase becomes endless. As the chase is endless our want for money becomes endless. As our job provides that money, it becomes the central and most controlling factor in our lives. Once we are trapped in this it is hard to come out as it is an endless cycle of a race with constantly shifting goalposts. As long as this phenomenon persists, I can safely say that our job has become the new religion. To come out of this cycle one needs to perform an objective evaluation of their priorities and create an independent space for other key aspects like family, friends, social work, and other hobbies along with the job. 

Job is important, but it is not everything. Do your job with the utmost sincerity and honesty. Work hard when at work. But also set boundaries and respect them. Go on that backpacking trip you always wanted to go, visit your friends and relatives whose company you enjoy and cherish, write that blog you were planning to write for many years, read the book you wanted to read, binge-watch the web series whose first episode you loved and can't wait, and spend some quality time to decondition yourself and unlearn that brainwashing. In short, do the stuff that makes you happy. Once religion ruled every aspect of human life and we all know how that turned out for most of society, let's not make the same mistake again with our jobs.    

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

Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com

It is in their blood

How many of you have heard someone saying "It's in their blood" while referring to some undesirable social or criminal behavior by some individual to blame that entire community, religion, race, or country for that one person's behavior? This is a deeply prejudicial and biased statement, full of underlying hatred. I have heard it many times since I can remember. This line is often used to insult a particular community, religion, or country rather than for anyone's praise. I heard people using it against Muslims, Christians, Hindus, and within Hindus so-called upper caste people using it against so-called lower caste groups, and so on. Recently, I heard this line while attending a social function sometime before India was expecting a major decision from its supreme court in the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid land dispute case. This dispute dragged on for decades and was used by the BJP and some other political parties as an effective political pool. Finally, when the Supreme Court of India decided to declare its judgment about this dispute, there was a concern about the effect of this judgment on the communal harmony of the country. During this social gathering, the discussion drifted toward this topic, one of my friends sounded pretty sure that there would be communal riots in India, and I asked him what made him believe that riots would happen for sure. He thought that Muslims of India wouldn't take the count's decision in the right spirit and start rioting. My next question was why was he so sure that Muslims would initiate the riot and not the Hindus? What if the decision goes against the Hindus? My question was more theoretical than practical, it was clear to everyone in whose favor the court would rule, but I wanted to know why he was so sure to blame Muslims for communal riots. His quick reply was that it was in their blood to do such things. I was stunned, not because I heard this for the first time, but because of where I heard this. So far, I have not heard such a statement from some literate person who knew quite a few Muslims and someone who lived in the US and some other countries for many years.

Even though it was shocking that someone could make such a statement about some community, it should not have surprised me considering I had some of these biases until my college days. Over a period of time, I also realized that for many people it is impossible to get rid of some of their prejudices and biases. This is the reason why the politics of hate still work, why some religious leaders from all religions can propagate hate and still get many followers. Why do some organizations openly propagate race or gender supremacy and still find many who subscribe to their bigotry? Also, anyone can be a bigot, starting from an illiterate to a Ph.D. or a Nobel laureate. I did not feel anger or frustration but felt pity for my friend that he is living with such a deep prejudice against Muslims. However, I couldn't do anything to cure it, I tried it but I failed. This friend is just an example, I do not want to single this person out for such behavior, there are many who think and believe in such things. Any social trait or criminal behavior is not in anyone's blood, people act in a certain way for a variety of reasons. It is not only wrong to accuse someone as a born violent or born criminal, but it also shows how screwed up our own thinking is. I wish such people a speedy recovery from their prejudice and bias. To a certain extent, we all are affected by certain prejudices and biases and we all must try first to consciously find them, and make every effort to overcome them by continuously educating ourselves. It is not easy, it is not comfortable, but it is necessary. If we dream of a peaceful and tolerant world, we need to eliminate our own biases as much as possible. My own journey in this direction is quite rewarding and fulfilling and I hope everyone who reads this will start their own journey to de-clutter their mind to remove things that act as a poison for our consciousness.

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

No one said sorry to my Nani

The title of this post is slightly confusing as it does not convey the subject matter of the post clearly. Who was or is Nani? Why anyone should have said sorry to her? If at all anything wrong happened to her, why didn't she expect an apology? These are some of the questions that might come to the reader's mind after reading the title of this post. Nani was my mother's mom, in the part of India where my parents came mother's mother is called Nani, and mother's father called Nana. I have not seen my Nana as he died very young, even my mom does not remember seeing her father as she was just a few months old when he died in a boat accident in the river Ganga near her village in the state of Uttar Pradesh. This was the first tragedy that struck my Nani and her life changed permanently after this tragedy. I do not know how old was she when my Nana died, my guess is she was in her teens as people used to get married quite young during those times. The death of Nana left my Nani only with her daughter to look after. There was no chance of remarriage. In that society, it was an unthinkable idea for a woman to get remarried after the death of her husband. If she had been a man, for example, my Nana, then it would have been not only easy but the entire family would have forced him to remarry. However, this option was not there for my Nani. No one even thought that there was any need for her to remarry even though she didn't have any source of income and was not educated so that she could work on her own to take care of her daughter. No one thought that this young girl also deserved to live a normal life like any other girl of her age. No one thought that it was not Nani's fault that her husband died in an accident at such a young age. No one thought that she should get a chance to restart her life. No one thought that it is wrong to force a young girl to spend her entire life without a life partner. I don't think even my Nani thought that it was proper to remarry, she just accepted her fate and continued her colorless, joyless, celebrationless life.  

I remember my Nani only wearing plain sarees, she never wore any makeup or fancy clothes. Also, I never saw her pallu coming off her head (pallu is the part of sari which women os that part us to cover their head and sometimes face). Nani always used to cover her head even in front of kids which other women never used to do. My Nana had four other siblings, and it was a joint family for a long time, Nani became part of one of the brothers' family and she took the responsibility for taking care of that household. She used to work very hard. I think that's how she maintained her relevance. She used to do all the daily chores and look after the kids of that family. My mom also became part of that family and it was a mutually beneficial existence. She was happy to see her daughter getting married and especially happy that her daughter had three kids, that too all boys. We used to visit her during our summer vacations and she used to treat us like the prince of some kingdom. No one in the entire village could say anything to us, no matter what we do, and if someone dared to say something, Nani would create havoc. She used to defend us like a lioness, this shows that she was not afraid of people or society or scared of arguing if she wanted to. She just didn't know that she had any rights and, hence never argued for herself the way she did for us. Even when my Nana's joint family divided their familial assets Nani did not get any share. Even though technically Indian law allows for a share for a daughter and a widow, Nani didn't get any, and it is not still uncommon for not giving a share in familial assets to daughters or widows without any son in many parts of India. She did not protest against this illegal act and gross injustice because she thought that without her husband and any son, she had no right to ask for any share in the family property. It seemed as far as personal rights were concerned, she didn't exist, neither for herself nor for society. The day her husband died her life became devoid of any self-enjoyment, for the rest of her life all she cared about was her daughter and grandkids.

WHY? Why did this happen to her and many women like her? Only one answer comes to my mind, just because she was a woman without a living husband and her only child was also a woman, there was no question of giving any property share. I know many Indians will not like this answer, especially when a country claims that it worships women. No doubt, women are worshipped in India, but it is also true that they are not given equal rights and freedom, they are discriminated against and judged with different standards. I did not see any man who lost his wife at such a young age living a life that my Nani lived. Also, it would be wrong only to single out India for such a discriminatory attitude towards women, but I grew up in India and I know from my personal experiences that gender discrimination is rampant there and I do not see any point in justifying it in name of culture, traditions or even offering an excuse other countries also do it.

Some traditions are bad and there can be no justifications for them, and my Nani was the victim of many such traditions. The problem was neither she nor the people around her thought that those were terrible traditions, their culture was deeply flawed. People sympathized with her, felt bad about her husband's untimely death, tried to help her as much as they could, and respected her, but they never thought that there could be an alternative to the life in which so-called traditions, religion, and culture forced her to live. Traditions and culture were more important than the right of a woman to live a normal life. As I grew older, I came to know about other women who lost their husbands at a much younger age than my Nani, some even didn't get to see the faces of their husbands and lived their entire lives as a widow of a man who they didn't even know personally. No one said sorry to my Nani for all this, I don't think she even expected an apology, and this is the ultimate tragedy. My Nani was not only the victim of this openly discriminatory and abusive culture of patriarchy which was supported by religion and traditions, but she was also a propagator of it. She didn't think whatever was forced on her was a fault of religion or culture. She was made to believe and she did believe that it was all her destiny's fault or something bad she did in the last birth that unfortunate things happened with her. This is how patriarchy survived so long, by taking support from religion and turning its victims also into supporters who were not only made to believe in that system but were brainwashed to willingly abide by it.

Nani passed away when I was in my first year of college. Her death didn't impact me that much as I was too naive and young to understand the impact of her loss. But on my subsequent visits, I realized that my maternal village was never the same for me after her death. I missed her presence there, without her I felt like an orphan, it's not like I was not welcomed there, her legacy is such that people still remember her and offer lots of love to me just because I am her grandson, but she was not there, and I always notice that. And as I know about it, it also reminds me of the gross injustice which happened to her. I am grateful to her for one thing which could have changed the course of my life. When it was clear that she wouldn't live long, people started coming to her with my marriage proposals thinking that if Nani said yes, no one could object to it. Nani did want to see the marriage of her grandson, one of the rare occasions of happiness in her life, why she would want to miss that. My mom told me that Nani was really happy to see that many so-called rich or respected people from her society were coming with marriage proposals and a good amount of dowry, but she refused all of them. Nani told them that my grandson is in college and he is going to become a "saheb" (a generic term used by her for educated people). I can't imagine how my life would have turned out if I had got married at the age of 18. I do not know how she avoided the temptation of witnessing her grandson's marriage? But I am eternally grateful to her for this.

As I grew older and read more about discrimination against women in various societies, I realized the injustice that happened with my Nani, I felt sorry for her, not because she didn't remarry, marriage is a personal choice and it's understandable if a person does not want to remarry after losing his or her partner, but because she was not allowed to enjoy even simple joys of life like wearing fancy clothes, having fun by forgetting that a big tragedy happened in her life. All symbols around her and her own appearance were tailored to remind her every moment about her tragedy, this was a psychological abuse that she tolerated for her most of life and I am sorry for that. No one said sorry to Nani, maybe she did not even expect it, and maybe none of the people who find all kinds of justifications for that discriminatory and suppressive culture will ever apologize to her as they might feel that nothing wrong happened to her, and it was all her destiny to endure all the pain and suffering, but I must say sorry to her, sorry for not understanding and acknowledging her sufferings and sorry for being part of that culture which made her to go through all this. I am determined to change that culture and challenge each and every tradition that discriminates. I know this journey is long and challenging, but I can at least do this much in her memory so that no one at least in my family suffers the same way she did.

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

None of the religions are scientific, and they don't have to be

I find it very interesting when various religions try to claim that they are the most scientific ones among all other religions. Amazingly, such an old institution like religion feels compelled to demonstrate that it also possesses some or all characteristics of a much younger academic discipline like science. I am not saying that science didn't exist when religion originated as a personal and social wellness product for human civilization, but back then science was not an organized and well-defined discipline as it is today. Scientific facts and phenomena exist whether we know about them or not. But this fight among all religions to claim how scientific they are demonstrates how science has become a more reliable discipline than religion. So reliable that even ancient institutions like organized religion feel the compulsion to demonstrate their alignment with science.

The compulsion to prove how scientific they are is not limited to any particular religion. If you look at any major religion in the world today, you can find various articles, books, blog posts, and even research papers published in some scientific journals where they claim how various scientific facts or phenomena were already explained in their religious scriptures. There seems to be competition among all religions to show who is more scientific, whereas none of them can pass the rigorous test of producing verifiable data to prove their religious claims. I always thought that most religions could stand on their own without demonstrating any association with science or claiming how scientific they are. Religion satisfies a unique need of the human mind, it puts an end to your questions about the unknown by convincing you that there is some supreme power that controls everything and hence you don't have to worry. Religion commands people to follow the path recommended by whatever scripture is prescribed by that particular religion. By putting an unverifiable and unrecognizable entity as a supreme controller it puts an end to all questions. This approach is supposed to put an end to all the anxiety about the unknown to all people who are willing to accept the existence of any such power. On the contrary, science is an endless pursuit of knowledge. It is a never-ending journey, science not only searches for solutions to existing problems, but it also searches for new problems. The quest to find answers to existing problems and new problems from existing answers is an endless voyage. No book in science can claim that it has all the answers to all human problems because that's not what science is supposed to do. Science doesn't hesitate to accept that it doesn't know answers to many questions, but hardly any religion dares to accept this. This is one of the major differences between science and religion, and as long as religions don't gather the courage to accept this simple fact they cannot claim themselves to be scientific. 

So far, I have not come across any scientific discipline claiming that they are the most religious. I don't think they ever felt the need to claim any association with any religion to demonstrate their validity and relevance. But somehow religion feels insecure because of the popularity and rapid spread of scientific knowledge. As they can't stop this, they figured it out that it is better for them to claim an association with it. It is an unnecessary tactic. As I mentioned, religion satisfies a unique need of a very large number of humans on this planet, this need is going to remain as long as people fear the unknown and don't accept the role of randomness in our lives. It is tough not to worry about the unknown because as a human we are innately curious and want definite answers to our questions. No matter how illogical that answer is, we want an answer and religion does a very good job of providing answers to these types of questions. The need for religion is going to remain no matter how much science progresses as there will be always something that we don't know. Fear of the unknown is not easy to overcome. It is also true that many of the religious scriptures do mention some scientific facts, but this is not enough to validate their claim to be scientific. Even some fiction books contain elements of scientific facts, but that doesn't mean those stories are scientific. The presence of verifiable data is one of the important requirements of any scientific experiment and religion doesn't believe in presenting any such data. None of the current religions are scientific, they don't have to be and they don't have to claim that they are, they should leave science out of their mess, the same way science leaves religion out.

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

When religion of the rape victim becomes more important than her pain, there is a serious problem

Two rape cases created a big splash on India news channels and on social media. One was the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl, and another was the rape of a 17-year-old girl by a lawmaker from the ruling party of that state. Both cases are equally horrible and condemnable. But, surprisingly on social media, there was extensive discussion about the religion of one of the victims and perpetrators of the crime. Some people accused people who were protesting about this case of their selective outrage. I wonder how these people come up with such twisted logic. There was huge outrage in India after the Nirbhaya rape case. At that time no one was accused of selective outrage. No one said that there are so many rapes happening in the country so why are you just protesting about this one case. But it seems just because in one of these cases rapists and the victim are from different religions this question about the religious identity of the victim and accused suddenly became relevant.

I wonder in which direction society is moving where the religion of a rape victim becomes more important than the crime of rape? In which direction society is moving where lawyers and lawmakers participate in a protest march in favor of accused rapists? There is no doubt that every accused of any crime must get a fair and transparent trial, the law should treat everyone equally. Every accused deserves a fair legal representation for their defense. But this is not even an issue here, some people are not only questioning the motives of people who feel outraged by such incidents but they are also trying hard to justify this heinous act, and this should worry any society. What do you call a society where outrage over heinous crimes depends on from which religion the victim or accused comes? Reactions on social media and some debates on news channels should stir the consciousness of every Indian no matter which religion they belong to or which political party they support. 

I hope polarization created due to political propaganda doesn't create such an unbridgeable gap between different sections of society that they can't even come together even to protest against overtly criminal acts. When all your discussions end up getting connected with the religion, then there is a problem. When we look for a person's caste, nationality, race, or religion before showing our outrage at a crime, then there is a problem. We all are humans first, and then political supporters or religious followers. If we forget our basic human qualities of empathy and compassion towards our fellow human beings and look at everything through the prism of politics or religion then we must evaluate what type of people are we becoming? I think we all need to question ourselves about this and look for the answers within. Maybe our consciousness might help us more than these social media posts, news channel debates, or statements from some senseless politicians. I request everyone reacting to this issue to see if they are reacting like a compassionate human, a responsible citizen, a blind political supporter, or a blind religious follower. In the end, the choice is always ours, and I hope humanity is still the most attractive choice for most of us.

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

Dr. Ambedkar - A visionary whose vision India failed to follow

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar was the first Law and Justice Minister of independent India. However, this description is not enough to describe the greatness of this man. He was not only a scholar, a very well-read and informed person, but also a social reformer, and is known for his legendary work in the area of the equal rights movement for untouchables (known as Dalits) of India. Dr. Ambedkar was a born Dalit, so he knew firsthand what it meant to live as a Dalit person in Indian society. His education and intelligence gave him a unique perspective towards the social and political environment of Indian society of that time. He used his experience and knowledge to fight for equal rights for all people who were struggling because of years of discriminatory traditions. He used each and every platform available to him to highlight the issue of untouchability and even fought with leaders like Mahatma Gandhi for their political rights. Many books and articles that he wrote about the religion or the social condition of untouchables or about the Indian constitution are very informative. Anyone interested in any of these subjects or interested in knowing more about Dr. Ambedkar should read his books and articles or listen to his speeches. Without reading his work it is not possible to understand the greatness of this scholar, political leader, and greatest social reformer of India.

He was also a chairman of the constitution drafting committee, even though the constitution was drafted with the help of various scholars who served as members of that committee, Dr. Ambedkar is given credit for various constitutional provisions as he was the chairman of the committee. He wrote extensively about his vision related to social reforms in India, which were necessary to bring required social change for the upliftment of socially backward sections of society. If we look at the current political and social environment of India then we can see that there is definitely some social change that he envisioned. We should credit him for initiating it, but still, there is a lot of work that is required to implement the social reforms that he envisioned as Indian society still suffers from evils like casteism and gender discrimination. He fought against both these evils, but sadly people claiming his legacy are indifferent towards his ideals. The worst part is all current political parties and their leaders are only interested in using his image as a political tool to garner votes or appease a certain section of society, but none of them are really interested in implementing his real vision. Even political parties who claim to represent backward sections of society are not totally honest to implement the vision and ideas of this man whose name they use as if they own him. There is no doubt that the political class of India has failed to grasp the real essence of social reforms that Ambedkar imagined. Maybe they all are doing this purposely, as they all are busy using his name and image to suit their political gains. Even the social class for which he fought till the end of his life failed to understand his message. Most of them worship him like God, without following his message. Most Indians failed to follow his vision. People like Ambedkar or for that matter any visionary personality should not be converted into a demigod. It is the worst thing their supporters can do to them. Whenever people do this, they create a cult, where the person is worshipped but not studied or critically analyzed and this results in the tragic end of all good ideas of that person. Tragically this is happening in India with people like Dr. Ambedkar, Mahatma Gandhi, and others.

For me, Dr. Ambedkar was a great scholar and social reformer. He was an expert in many fields like economics, constitutional matters, religious studies, etc. I learned many things by reading his articles which are now available online. I hope people look at his work and study about him rather than garlanding his photos and erecting his statues. Symbols have their own place and importance in any society, but mere symbolism without any substantial action is useless. Understanding his ideas and discussing them objectively will be the greatest tribute to this scholar. I am sure he would have loved to see his ideas being used rather than his images or statues. So, let's discuss the issues that he raised, let's debate about them, and try to find solutions rather than making him and his ideas a political weapon.

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

Let's see if age old discriminatory traditions withstand the challenge posed by modern women.

Women empowerment is still a subject of debate in many societies. Many developed countries are still trying to work out many policy changes which can help women to be a part of work force and contribute equally in all sectors of country's development. Many developing or undeveloped countries are still battling with many issues where discrimination against women is still practiced without any remorse or guilt. Recent issues related with entry of women in some temples or mosques of India is ideal example of it. Actually struggle for rights of some oppressed class is not new for any civilization, many great people have fought for causes like these, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar is one such example. This time it is good to see that the challenger to these age old traditions is the group of women, they themselves are fighting for their rights, there is not some political party or some charismatic leader leading their cause but it is a group of women who are leading this fight. I believe that this is really good thing, unless and until women themselves realize about discrimination against them and fight against it any number of laws or policies will have very limited effect. In reality there are already many rules, laws and constitutional rights which forbid any type of gender discrimination but in reality all those things just remain on paper and some age old traditions or beliefs take precedence over any law or rights. So it is good that women themselves decided to take on this task to challenge some of these discriminatory traditions. If they are really serious about this challenge then I am sure these traditions are facing the toughest threats they ever faced.

In reality, every religion has some discriminatory practice or tradition against women, it doesn't matter what their book or manual says one can easily notice that men and women are treated differently by every religion. For centuries most of these discriminatory practices were unchallenged but in last few decades things started to change. Many of these movements which challenge such traditions started on really small scale but they gained momentum as more and more women became aware of this discrimination. I guess they realized that just having an academic discussion about equality or conducting debates about feminism is not enough to change the things on ground. Many of these beliefs are centuries old, very strong opposition from section who is suffering because of them is required to change these things, just discussion and debates are not enough. I am glad that this is happening in India, I am sure things will change. Already many things have changed so this movement also will bring some desirable change. It might take some time but governments and courts can't ignore these protests for long, they definitely need to do something about this. I hope there will be some discussion about these issues with involvement of both parties and something positive will come out of all this. Actually it is not just about right to pray or enter the temple, this is a question about equality. One issue related with entry in temple is already in supreme court, this decision might act as a catalyst to change things across India, so a lot depends on what decision supreme court of India gives in this matter. Historically courts have always been more progressive compared to respective governments in such matters. On some occasions government reversed court orders on some sensitive matters for short term political gains, so it will be interesting to see what happens in this case. 

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

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

Religion and terrorism

The issue of terrorism is not new to humans, our society has dealt with various forms of terrorism since its existence. The most ugly form of terrorism is violence inflicted on innocent people, but it can also manifest itself in so many other forms which are equally detrimental. There is no doubt that any form of terrorism is harmful to any society or civilization. The arms and weapons industry is a huge player in this area and it has a tremendous influence on how world politics works, the revenue of this industry depends on feelings of fear and there is nothing better than terrorism to infuse this feeling among people of any country. Any society suffering from any form of terrorism faces so many problems, first of all day-to-day lives of its citizens are severely affected in many ways, many people live in constant fear of attack and it creates feelings of insecurity and distrust among its people. All these things are not signs of a healthy society, they affect its growth, stability, and productivity. So, it is always better to address problems related to any sort of terrorism on a priority basis. Ignoring such problems doesn't make them go away on its own, rather they can give rise to so many other problems which can be very damaging to any country in the long run.

Many countries have been battling with the issue of terrorism in various forms for years. As an Indian, I know very well how it feels to live in a country that is at the receiving end of terrorist attacks regularly. The situation in India is not as bad as many other places in the world, but still one can feel the heat of terrorism. People try to label these acts of terrorism in so many ways, many times these terrorist groups label themselves, they choose to attach themselves to certain regions, ethnic groups, or religions to create an impression that they are fighting for that particular group's interests. In the last few years, there has been increasing use of terms like "Islamic terrorism" all over the world or "saffron terrorism" in India. These terms try to link some particular religion with terrorist activities happening in that region. The clear intention behind this is to indicate that that particular religion is used as an instrument to incite people to perform acts of terrorism. So, the question we need to ask is, is there any relationship between religion and terrorism? Especially, when almost everyone claims that all religions teach peace, why there is so much hatred and violence in the name of religion? Why are people willing to kill each other in the name of religion? Is this a fault of those people or does religion give them this opportunity by being ambiguous about the use of violence? Is it possible that in reality, almost all religions teach both, hate and love, peace and violence? When such extreme options are available people conveniently use the one that suits them to justify their actions of love as well as hatred and violence. I know some of these questions might make some people feel very uncomfortable and might even offend some devoted followers of religion, but nevertheless, we need to ask them. It seems people very easily get offended nowadays, I was surprised to hear that speakers need to give a "trigger warning" before saying anything that might be contrary to some popular belief or against some widely accepted ideology. But we need to ask these questions so that people can understand about this very complicated and sensitive issue. Religion or aspects are religion are regularly exploited to propagate terrorism, therefore, we all should be very careful in defending everything associated with religion, especially, the aspects that are used to trigger violent reactions should be recognized and appropriately handled on intellectual and social levels.

Most religions have gone through various forms of struggles to establish themselves in this world, one can easily read the history of different religions on the internet. Some religions originated in a very hostile environment and had to fight bloody wars to defeat their enemies and establish their presence. This might be the reason most of them include recommendations to fight wars against their opponents (enemies) until the opponents are wiped out from that region. These recommendations might have been necessary at that time as that was the time of the "might is right" era, but such conditions don't exist anymore. Most of us now understand that all these religions are like personal choices and different people can have different religions as it suits their requirements and needs. Most of us also understand that there is no imminent threat to any religion in most countries. Most civilized countries offer their residents the right to practice any religion of their choice. If that particular religion is relevant and useful it will survive, and if not, it will fade away with time. This is a simple rule of the market, if the product is popular and sellable it will stay in the market or something else will replace it. The point I am trying to make is, that any violence propagated in the name of some religion is under attack or in extreme danger is a false narrative and a lame attempt to justify the hatred and violence.

Also, every religion needs to own things happening in its name, it doesn't matter if they are good, bad, or ugly, they need to take responsibility for all these things. The propagators and followers of any religion can not be selective in only owning good things about their own religion. They just can't only talk about good things about their religion and purposely ignore all the bad and ugly things. This is called hypocrisy, where someone tries to project only one side conveniently ignoring other sides as they don't suit their purpose. At least, violence in the name of religion must be confronted in the strongest possible terms by people of that religion to demonstrate that they don't support any violence in the name of their religion. Historically, every major religion has been used to commit autocracies on nonbelievers at some point in time. Some sort of discrimination was practiced or still is in practice against nonbelievers of all religions. Rather than accepting these things, various explanations are offered to justify these acts either directly or indirectly. This is one of the reasons why most people don't hesitate to justify violence in the name of their own religion as almost everyone other religion has done it. As others have done it, so, why not us, this is the simple but ridiculous logic they follow. Many of these heinous acts get some sort of legitimacy if they are committed in the name of some religion. 

It seems religion can generate extremely good or extremely bad emotions in people. Some groups use both these extremes to serve the purpose of their organizations. But the problem is most followers are really prompt and attentive in praising good deeds by people from their own religion, but at the same time, they are hesitant or completely reluctant to accept many bad acts committed in the name of their religion. People need to own these bad acts and criticize them in the strongest terms if they care about their religion. Strong criticism from outside of that religion doesn't act as a deterrent, it helps to radicalize some of its supporters and it helps the purpose of groups who want to misuse that religion. Because no religion takes criticism from outsiders very kindly, because it is assumed that outsiders will criticize mainly out of their hatred or jealousy. This is why strong criticism must come from within the same religion, and then only any positive reform is possible. Until these things start happening on a large scale, religion will be vulnerable to misuse by some bigots from their own fraternity. Today it is Islam, tomorrow it might be something else, or even some new religion. Our social and political class needs to show courage and commitment to address this problem without getting into a trap of not hurting anyone's sentiment type of mentality. Please remember that as most saints belong to some religion, most terrorists claim to belong to some religion and they make their motive clear. As religion owns these saints, they need to own these terrorists and take up the challenge of refuting their narrative assertively, a meek denial or refusal won't work. It is the job of everyone to reject these violent ideas no matter which holy book or religion is used to justify them. Unless we all unite to fight this evil, we will continue to suffer because of it, so, let's unite and fight this evil of terrorism together.

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

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

Paris attacks: Are we going to learn any lessons?

I watched with dismay and shock news about the brutal attack on Paris by terrorists. I am not going to bother by mentioning the names of organizations or terrorists who carried out these attacks as they don't deserve any recognition. These violent groups only know how to kill people and spread violence, this is their only motive, they take shelter from some religion or ideology, but their ultimate goal is to spread hatred and violence. Religion indeed has some inherent weaknesses which makes it a very easy and attractive tool for fanatics to attract and misguide youth. They try to use it to spread fanaticism, and it is very easy to incite people to do violent things using their religious emotions. Today, we are witnessing it prominently in the name of Islam, and have seen it happening with many other religions in the past, so, no religion is spared from fanaticism. But what is the solution? Why do so many people get attracted to these radical terrorist groups who just want to spread hatred and violence? Why people are willing to kill innocents just because they follow some different faith, belong to some other group, eat some different food, worship some different god, or dare to break some age-old social or religious norms? Why do they do this?

Actually, this question comes to my mind every time I read news about any terrorist attack, mob violence, communal riot, or any other violent incidents. I also wonder what is the ultimate aim of all this violence? Is it to spread terror? Definitely, spreading terror has to be their major goal, because for sure they are not spreading any religion or delivering any divine message from any book by killing innocents, and to some extent, they are successful in spreading terror temporarily. But this also doesn't last long, we humans can overcome our fears and accept the challenge and there are ample examples from the recent past where we did this. New York and the US stood firm and strong after the devastating 9/11 attacks, Mumbai and India didn't budge after terrorists attacked innocents in Mumbai and I am sure Paris will also come back to normal very soon. But still one can not ignore the loss of precious lives of innocents during all these attacks, and I am including the attacks on innocents during military operations carried out as a response to these terrorist attacks also in this. The loss of every innocent life is condemnable and we should regret it, we cannot trivialize the loss of innocent lives by calling it collateral damage. Also, we can not be selective in our outrage, otherwise, we will look like total hypocrites who care about some people more than others. Is there any solution to end this violence? Who is funding all these terrorists? From where do they get all these sophisticated deadly weapons and vast amounts of money to carry out these attacks? How come the arms and weapon industry is so powerful that no country or government can stop the sale of these weapons to such dangerous terrorist outfits? How come so many powerful countries fail to control these terrorist groups? Why did these superpowers create or support one terrorist group to fight another terrorist organization even after knowing that the former would replace the latter in the future and create the same problem? How long they are going to play this game of good terrorist organization and bad terrorist organization? We can go on asking so many questions like these, but I don't think any government or agency will bother to answer any of these questions. Some of us offer very logical-sounding explanations blaming some country or religion depending on where we live and which religion we belong. But all this blame game and ugly drama of politics, religion, and money has been going on for decades without any result. In the end, innocents are murdered regularly, either on planes, in music concerts, in restaurants, on roads, in train stations, or in their homes. I don't think we common people can do much about it. Religion, politics, and business are too big and powerful entities that have been controlling humanity for ages and all these violent incidents are byproducts of the selfish interests of one or more than one of these entities.

Terrorism is a tool used by various organizations to control regions and civilizations, it is a relatively easy method that some fanatics believe produces instant results. This is why many fanatic groups are prone to use it as a means to achieve their aims. Sadly every religion or sympathizers of their own group try to justify all atrocities or mistakes committed by that group and we see this trend everywhere. No one is willing to admit their own mistakes, but at the same time, they never fail to point out other's mistakes. It seems people are only interested in pointing out other's mistakes, they want only to hold others accountable and don't want any scrutiny of accountability for themselves. I don't know if we are going to learn any lessons from all these incidents, I don't think anyone is in the mood to reflect on what might have gone wrong. The whole emphasis is on taking revenge and beefing up security, but we all know that this is not a permanent solution. Security and defense are very important things, there is no doubt about that, but at the same time talks and negotiations to bring peace in conflict-affected regions are also necessary. After each and every tragic incident like this, I always remember this line, "an eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind." We all know this quote, but very few of us understand the real meaning behind it, and until we all understand this we can only hope that we are not adamant on making the whole world blind.

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

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

Population growth - a glaring problem which India needs to tackle urgently

India's recent census data reveals continuous growth of its population. The trend that was observed in all previous census data has continued in this one also. With only 2.4% of the world's surface area, India accounts for around 17.5% of its population. Obviously, this puts an enormous strain on the available natural resources and infrastructure of the country. The only relief from this data is that the population growth rate among both dominant religions of India (Hindu and Muslim) seems to be reduced compared to the past which is a good sign. Actually, it is wrong to look at the population data from the perspective of any religion, but anyone knowing about India and its politics understands that whenever this data is released it is aggressively used by political parties to reap political benefits by creating communal divide by polarizing sections of society. Religion definitely plays some role in deciding family structure and social behavior of people, but it would be utterly wrong and stupid to account growth or lack of growth of a particular section of society only to their religion. Many newspaper headlines also report census data in the form of Hindu growth or Muslim growth, this type of interpretation or presentation is utterly misleading and doesn't help in educating people about the population growth problem.

Uncontrolled population growth and declining male-to-female ratio are among some of the very serious problems India has been facing for decades. A lot of efforts are being made on the government level to deal with these issues without much success. Actually, in one way large population can be an asset as it creates a bigger consumer market and large workforce. But if this asset is not managed properly, then it can create liabilities like unemployment and the need for govt support. The current PM, Mr. Modi, always mentions India's huge population, especially its younger people as the nation's asset and he is right in doing so. But this asset, if not engaged in meaningful activities, can cause a lot of chaos and disturbance, one recent example of this is the huge unrest caused in Gujarat by the demand for reservation by youths belonging to the Patel community. Ever-growing population means an ever-growing demand for infrastructure, food, and energy. The problem is by the time infrastructure projects are finished (say in 10 years or so), the population growth makes that project inadequate, so, the purpose for which that project was started is not normally met. This is the problem of India's government-run schemes and projects, the burden of population makes most of them useless or ineffective.

Spreading awareness about the use of contraceptives and communicating the benefits of family planning effectively are the only options to control population growth, many previous governments have done a good job in this sector, but this needs to be a continuous process. Blaming any particular community, caste, or religion is not going to help, this attitude might benefit politically certain political parties, but it is definitely not going to solve this issue. Actually, there are certain issues on which all political parties should work collectively as these are important issues for India, and population control is definitely one of them. I hope that this data is used to make good governance policies and programs and not to play some dirty politics to win some elections. If properly analyzed and studied such data can be very useful in formulating and implementing various types of social and educational programs which can produce long-term positive results for all sections of society. Such data is a very important tool for any government, but the unfortunate part is governments rarely use it effectively for this purpose. Population growth is a very serious problem, and very important for India if it wants to transform into a country with proper infrastructure and better opportunities for all its citizens. The burden of an ever-growing population can derail many ambitious plans and projects. If we are at all serious about the welfare of their country, then we need to tackle this glaring problem with all seriousness and honesty, otherwise, no matter what we build the unbearable weight of the growing population is bound to brush it.

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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Census_of_India

Religion is like a personal medication, don't brag about it

During one of my discussions on Facebook, someone said that "religion is also good when taken like medicine." This statement might sound strange to some people but in a way it is true. I always believed that religion and religious beliefs are very personal matters of any individual much like their personal medication. Many people need some type of medication for some health issues, these issues can be physical or mental. Every patient who visits any doctor for some problems gets their personal prescription to improve their health. Apart from prescription medications, people can buy over-the-counter medicines on their own for a variety of conditions that are not that serious. Many people have to take these medications daily, some medicines suit them which they continue to take and some do not which they discontinue or find a substitute medication. But very few discuss these things openly in public, we don't go on telling people around us what medication we take and how good we feel because of that medicine. We don't start recommending those medicines to everyone without knowing their health condition. We don't do this specifically because we feel that it is not appropriate to share a very personal matter in public and also because we know whatever medicine is good or suitable for us may or may not suit another person. There are also very strict laws in many countries to protect the personal medical history of patients. People do share these things with their close ones which is a normal thing to do, but most refrain from boasting about their list of medications in public. Religion is also a very personal thing, many people need it for their personal well-being. This need is very genuine for them, and it is quite reasonable that such people try to satisfy this need by following one or more religions. There are many options available in the market of religion, we all get one option by default, the one in which we are born, but we can shop around and change to whatever other religion we like. One can compare religion with personal medication, people use religion for their personal well-being as they use medicines to improve their health. Many of them get some benefits and enjoy the many good things that come along with it. As long as they keep it personal and use it for their own benefit, things are fine and no one should have any issue with this practice.

Things start getting complicated when people start to force their religion on others, that too without bothering to know if other people need it or not. When a deeply personal thing like religion is forced to homogenize society, it creates a lot of problems. People who don't like it start resisting it, and some launch their own products which creates competition and a lot of competition in the market of religion. This competition creates a lot of rivalries, like rivalries between various pharmaceutical companies. The only difference is pharma company rivalries ultimately help patients as it results in more medicines and cheaper prices, but religions hate rivalries, they either try to destroy other religions or make every effort to convert people to their own religion. Religious rivalries did create more religions, but it also resulted in violent communal conflicts. So far, millions of people died in such conflicts all over the world. Even after all this people fail to understand that religion is a very personal matter, there is no need for a public display of it. 

Maybe like medicines we need a regulated market for all religions. Now one can ask why something like religion needs rules and regulations like pharma products. This is specifically because like every medication, religion also has many side effects and some of them are really serious. The tendency of many religious groups to indulge in communal violence is one of the fatal side effects. Gender discrimination, suppression of certain classes, and superstitions are a few other noticeable and serious side effects. People who practice religion should be aware of these things as they directly affect them. It would be a really good idea for every religion to publish a list of side effects that it may cause. It will be a good idea to make such a list mandatory as it is for every approved medicine. It can help people to choose a religion that suits their needs and minimize its side effects on them. Various religions can list these side effects based on their history. Most of them have very well-documented history which can easily give them such a list of various issues and problems. The point I am trying to make here is, in today's world religion is a very personal matter, please don't try to make it into some sort of social movement. In the past, it was used as a social tool as nothing else was available, but that need doesn't exist anymore, so the time has come for religion to become a private matter, just like our medications.  

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

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

Yoga is beyond any religion

International Yoga Day was celebrated on 21st June, and whereas the whole world participated enthusiastically in this event in India some people and politicians managed to create controversy over this event also. Actually, there is a section of the political and social class who have the habit of looking at everything through the prism of religion. Somehow they try to link each and every issue with their own or some other religion and start debating over it from a religious angle. Because of this, they are often successful in converting even a simple and benign event like International Yoga Day into a controversial subject. There is a section of society that is very eager to link whatever originated in the Indian subcontinent to Hinduism. This is the same section of society that starts saying that Hinduism is not a religion but a way of life when someone objects they can't force Hinduism practices on people from other religions. I personally believe that Hinduism is a combination of many different faiths practiced in Indus Valley civilizations. It was not like Abrahamic religions which have some sort of written manuals in the form of holy books with clear instructions about what to do and what not to do, but eventually, it has become indistinguishable from all other religions as far as practiced Hinduism is concerned. Therefore, in today's world, the term Hindu or Hinduism represents a particular faith or religion not just a way of life. As far as the way of life argument is concerned all religions in one way or another are supposed to be a way of life. Some people like to link Yoga with Hinduism, I don't know what is the logic behind it except that this is also a very ancient practice like Hinduism. I also don't understand what they get out of it apart from some false sense of ownership. Then, there are people from other religions in India (especially Islam and Christianity) who buy this argument and try to oppose these things without understanding the intentions of people who try to claim appropriate Yoga. This creates communal tension or religious conflict, this is how some people managed to turn an international Yoga Day into a communal controversy. 

According to me, it is completely wrong to associate Yoga or for that matter any form of exercise with any particular religion. Any physical exercise like Yoga, martial arts, gym, or any other activity is performed to remain healthy, the aim is to have physical and mental workouts. The main aim is to achieve good health, there is no need to mix any religion with any of these physical activities. The main controversy associated with Yoga is because of the use of some chants like "OM" during some pranayanamas, as many Hindu shlokas also contain this word, some people try to create an impression that the word Om is something special and as it is exclusively associated with Hinduism, and if you practice Yoga you might be indirectly practicing Hinduism. This is such a silly argument. Actually, if anyone feels that by chanting Om they jeopardize their religious identity then they are free not to do it, they can choose any other word they are comfortable with. The main aim of pranayama is to focus and calm the chaotic mind, one can use any word which helps to do that. There is absolutely no need to put special emphasis on one word Om, insisting its use is as ridiculous as opposing its use. People perform Yoga for their own benefit, if they think it is not suitable for them then definitely they can choose any other form of physical activity that suits them more. Yoga is not just chanting Om or a few aasanas, it is a whole body and mind workout, and it can be very beneficial if performed properly and regularly. The same is true for any other form of exercise. Another very important thing to keep in mind is that these things can be extremely harmful if not performed properly they can result in serious physical injuries. Yoga is not for everyone, also, it is as good or bad as any other form of exercise.

I hope that when the whole world gladly accepts Yoga as one of the useful physical activities to maintain a healthy lifestyle, people from India will also accept it as a form of exercise not as some religious ritual. Whether they practice it or not is their personal choice and they have complete freedom to choose whatever form of physical activity they feel is more suitable for them to maintain a healthy lifestyle. If Yoga can unite the rest of the world, then I am sure all Indians also can unite or at least not fight with each other over this simple issue. Yoga or something else, remain physically active, stay healthy and stay happy.

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

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

Science is NOT my religion

I have written quite a few posts about science and religion. I know some people who call science their religion, and whereas I do understand their intention behind saying this, I don't subscribe to that idea, for me it is very clear that science is NOT my religion. I say so because of one basic fundamental difference, religion demands total surrender and requires complete faith (blind faith), it allows questions but only to a certain limit and there are certain areas in almost all religions that are unquestionable and their authority is considered as supreme, but science has none of these things. Science is not my faith, I don't believe anything that comes from that field blindly, I need data to accept or reject anything no matter who is the scientist behind that theory or experiment. This basic difference is the key to understanding why both of these disciplines are poles apart from each other.

So, when someone says that science is their religion, they might mean that they believe in science in the same way people believe in religion. But then there is one basic problem in this argument, science does not demand any belief or faith, rather it teaches us to be skeptical about everything. One of the basic requisites for being a good scientist is the ability to question things around us and challenge well-established facts to test if they are still right or if we need to update them. There is nothing in science that demands any belief or surrender, experiments and data collected from those experiments supersede any rules or theories. Anything can be proven right or wrong by experimental evidence. Scientists don't believe in the validity of one of the most famous scientific equations, E=MC2, just because a great scientist like Albert Einstein proposed it, they accepted it because it was proven to be true by experimental data. The same is true for theories proposed by Newton, Galileo, or any other scientist of any era. Certain statements or theories might get some recognition in the beginning just because some famous or successful scientist proposed it but eventually, it has to pass the test of experimental validity. Someone needs to produce the data to prove or disprove them and this can be done by anyone without being threatened or heckled by supporters of that theory. Any such effort where a certain theory is proven right or wrong by experimental evidence is welcomed by the entire scientific community, even students of the scientist whose theory is proven wrong welcome any such effort as it improves their knowledge. This is the basic reason why there is no enmity between different branches of science. There is competition between various branches but at the same time, there is a vast amount of inter-disciplinary collaborations.

Challenging well-established theories, questioning hypotheses, and demanding data to prove any claim are some of the basic things that people learn in science but it is exactly the opposite in religion where one is taught to accept the supremacy of some entity and then asked to follow certain book (or set of books). Questioning is highly restricted and often sensitivities of followers of that religion get hurt if anyone questions their beliefs beyond a certain point. At the same time, there is tremendous tension between various religions. Human history is full of gory violent incidents because of communal conflicts between two or more religions. I do understand the need to have religion for many people, as many of us need some emotional support and religion acts as a pillar of strength for many. Maybe science partly does that job for me as it answers many questions that I get from time to time. Actually, science is a very useful tool for me to navigate through my life but nothing more than that, it can never become a religion for me just because I don't agree with the way religion is practiced in today's world. Even today religion fails to come any close to science as far as openness and tolerance are concerned. Because of this tolerance which I learned during my training as a scientist, I don't mind people questioning whatever I say or write, they have the freedom and right to do that. My sensitivities and beliefs are my problem, and people don't have to worry about them while questioning me or criticizing me. That is why I can categorically say that science is not my religion.

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

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