Politics and compassion: Can they go together?

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

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

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

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

Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com

My turbulent teenage years

Teenage years are not easy, even though they are one of the best and most interesting phases of our lives, the journey through these years can be rocky and bumpy. Those were turbulent times for me and the lack of access to information did not make it easy. People of my generation love to roast today's generation about internet addiction and social media dependence, but they fail to recognize that there is a huge positive side to this connectivity, it allows one to access useful information. I could not access the information that I needed as there were no resources available for me. Concepts like personal choice, passion, feminism, equality, justice, and privacy were neither part of my vocabulary nor did anyone around me care about these things. Also, I grew up in a sexually suppressed society, even a benign kiss or a hug on the screen was taboo. The interaction with the opposite sex was neither encouraged nor easily possible. Even in my college days, my interaction with girls was very awkward and I tried to avoid it as much as I could, not because I didn't want to interact, I just didn't know how to interact. I was confused from the inside but acted confident from the outside. Turbulent from the inside, but calm from the outside. Angry but did not know why and on whom. With many questions but with no way to find any answers.

As a teenager, I was also very confused about things happening around me. I did not understand why we struggled for money even after my parents really worked hard and did not have any conventional bad habits like drinking or gambling. I struggled to understand why females were treated differently than males. I and my brothers were expected to do good in school, but there was no such expectation from any of my sisters. It is not that these things started happening around me when I entered my teenage. They have been happening around me since I was born, but I started getting affected by them only during my teenage. As a male, I was conditioned to think and behave in a certain way, even in the poor neighborhood, I had many privileges just because of my gender. Females were looked at and treated in a certain way, almost like some object. There were strict boundaries for them that they were not supposed to cross, and if they crossed, there were serious consequences. Even their own families did not spare them if they dared to cross those boundaries. 

Education for me was only a key to coming out of poverty, nothing more than that. I was desperate to get out of poverty and education was the only option available to me. I did not go to school and college because I loved it or enjoyed it, but because I had to as it was my ticket to the outside world. The world that I saw around me but didn't belong to. I desperately wanted to be rich, rich enough so that I didn't have to think about how to get things that I needed. During my high school and college days, I started reading books outside my study books. Reading was not my hobby of choice, but it just happened that it was the only option available once my other friends went their own ways pursuing different options that economically underprivileged neighborhoods offered. It was sad to part ways, but it was also unavoidable. As I did not have much to do, I started reading newspapers beyond sports and film portions, and from there I got introduced to politics, religion, and other subjects. I wanted to know more and this is how I started borrowing books from libraries around me. This is when my life changed. 

My family thinks that I am a feminist or have liberal social values because I came to America, but this is not true. I was like this even when I was living in Pune but I did not talk about it much. I also never used to stay much at home and at home, I never used to talk much. For example, my daughter is named Sara, which is not a name considered for a girl in Hindu families, not because I visited America or knew anything about America, but because I wanted her to understand that people may judge you just based on your name and she should not the one doing this. It was this simple, I was not looking for anything else. I learned this from the book I read about Dr. Shriram Lagoo, a famous Marathi, and Hindi movie/stage actor. I read so many books that I don't even remember their names or authors. I just remember what I read not who wrote it or where I read it. I just read whatever came into my hands, even at the cost of my academic performance. The education system in which I studied never encouraged any outside reading, rather it was considered a waste of time. I am sure my academic performance would have been much better if I had not listened to Hindi movie songs or read as much as I did. I might have become an engineer, a doctor, or even a government officer that my parents desperately wanted me to become, but definitely would not have learned about feminism, casteism, gender discrimination, communalism, socialism, communism, capitalism, hate politics, secularism, and many other things. I do not regret wasting my time in reading at all, it provided some answers to the questions that I had but did not who to ask. Books saved me from being a narrow-minded, patriarchal, casteist, communal male, they made me a better person than I was. All the books I read and the Hindi film music made my teenage years less bumpy and turbulent than they could have been. It also saved me from various addictions that were common in my neighborhood. I was so addicted to reading books, watching movies, and buying audio cassettes that I had no money left for cigarettes, alcohol, or gutkha (a chewing tobacco product that was a craze during my college days).  

I hope at least some of the readers will relate to my teenage years. These years are years of internal and external changes. Along with our body and hormone levels, our understanding of our surroundings also evolves. It is good to find some channel or mechanism to cope with this change. I found that channel in movies, music, and books. Some may find it in performing arts or sports. Some may find it in writing or cooking. Find that channel that will make your ride less bumpy and turbulent. It will be still shaky, but not as much to knock you off the road or throw you off the cliff. You will be fine, just find the channel that works for you. These are our formative years, if my experience helps you to find some solace and guidance, I am happy. 

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

Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com

Resentment against immigrants - Why?

I have lived my life as a part of an immigrant family in India and I am an immigrant in the USA. I have experienced a build-up of resentment against immigrants, but so far I never suffered any harm because of it. This problem is very real and I want to share my perspective on it. My family migrated from one state of India to another in search of better opportunities (from Uttar Pradesh to Maharashtra). In India, each state is like a different country, with its own language and culture. It is not that easy to adjust, especially, if the native language is totally alien to you. One can cook their own food or eat whatever is available, but it takes quite a bit of time and some effort to learn a new language and get to know a new culture. My parents went through this struggle and I witnessed that. The good part of this struggle was, that they never forced any of their kids to learn their own native language (Bhojpuri). I and my brothers learned to speak Marathi instead of Hindi or Bhojpuri. I give total credit for this to my parents. I don't know if they did it on purpose, but this is how it happened. We used to speak three languages simultaneously in our home, Bhojpuri, Hindi, and Marathi. Until recently my parents used to speak with us in Hindi or Bhojpuri and we used to answer in Marathi. It happens even now, but not that much, because now they are very comfortable with Marathi also. This arrangement worked very flawlessly, it was so smooth that we didn't even realize that we were using three languages simultaneously. The point here is, that they didn't stop us from learning the local culture, language, or customs. They allowed us to mingle with our surroundings, form friendships, and do whatever other kids from the neighborhood were doing. As a kid, I never felt that my family came to Maharashtra from some other state. Maharashtra is my home state and Marathi is my mother tongue. We grew up and became a proud Maharashtrians in a family that migrated from UP. This does not mean that we were totally disconnected from our native place, Uttar Pradesh. We can speak Bhojpuri quite well, love food from that region, and visit there whenever possible. I feel lucky that I belong to two states in India. Maharashtra now has a sizable population coming from northern states like UP and Bihar. As normally happens, some resentment got built against these people among native Maharashtrians, and some parties tried to encash these feelings. This feeling is so strong that some political parties and leaders owe their existence to it. Who supports political parties that spread hatred against migrants or immigrants and why? Why this feeling of resentment against fellow residents, which is almost like hatred becomes such a powerful political weapon? It is a powerful weapon that even in a developed country like the USA, this issue is one of the major issues of the presidential election and it is one of the major reasons for Mr. Trump's popularity.

Why do immigrants go through this phase in any society? Why doesn't it happen when they start immigrating, but only when they become a sizable minority group, and their presence can be seen and felt by the majority? I tried to get answers to these questions based on my own experience. Maharashtra and the USA are very cultured and civilized societies, these places are not alien to the presence of immigrants or migrants. Why a country like the US, which is known to be very friendly towards immigrants is facing this problem?

There is no doubt that the cultural clash is one of the reasons for this problem. When immigrants become a sizable minority, they start registering their presence on various platforms and this disturbs some native people. At the same time, current residents (including the original natives and immigrants who moved in before the current immigrants) start feeling that their culture is under attack or threat, as immigrants start asserting their own culture and traditions. The native population starts feeling that one day their own traditions will disappear. Now, no one cares or bothers to think whether these concerns are real or not, they don't bother to check their validity, but these fears start creating a feeling of resentment in some of the native population. This fear slowly builds up. A bad economy or poor employment rate fuels more insecurity among people and these feelings start showing their ugly effect in some stray incidents, where some immigrant gets attacked for no reason. Some political leaders take advantage of this fear and make it a hot political issue. This is what happened in Maharashtra and this is what is happening in the USA, and unfortunately, I am a witness to both.

Who is right and who is wrong? Who should be blamed for this situation? Are immigrants responsible for not adapting to their new place and appreciating the new culture and values which has given them so much? Are native people responsible for not being flexible enough and accommodating to include new values and cultural norms in their existing culture? I think the problem is from both sides. Remember, it takes two to tango. If you wanted to create another UP in Maharashtra then why did you migrate from UP? If you wanted to create another India in the USA, why not live in India itself. After all, the original is always better than the duplicate, right? What's the point in creating another Mexico in the USA? On the other hand, why not welcome and adapt some great values from all these cultures into the US culture and make it more diverse? Why can't we respect each other without threatening the existence of each other?

All people who think that this resentment against immigrants is unreal or is a totally misplaced feeling, are themselves living in a denial mode. A presidential candidate like Mr. Trump or a leader like Mr. Thackerey doesn't get support for no reason. People may feel that these leaders are not qualified to hold any public office, but they should not make the mistake of ignoring them or the issues they use for their political gain. They all are not deplorable people, labeling such a big part of the population stupid won't help. If any mainstream politician don't address their concerns, they will choose someone who they think is best to handle their issues, and then we really can't complain, it will be too late. I don't think Mr. Trump is their solution for their problems, but he is their answer to the political class for ignoring their concerns, for ridiculing their fear. Now they see someone who can speak for them, he is far from perfect, but at least he is recognizing their problems, and this is enough for most of them. The current political class is trapped in too much political correctness, they prefer ignoring difficult issues. They prefer to wait and watch rather than tackle the problems head-on. The point is, that someone should listen to these concerns and try to find solutions, ignoring or ridiculing is not going to help.

I am not here to judge whether this feeling of resentment is justified or not, one can debate about it. Maybe they really feel threatened about their culture or employment. Maybe they are really concerned they will become a minority and their kids will face problems. Maybe all this fear is totally misplaced, but someone needs to discuss these things. These people should feel that their concerns are also being considered as mainstream problems. The country is not only facing problems related to guns, abortion, terrorism, and unemployment; but illegal immigration is a serious problem and should be discussed. If not, then someone will take advantage of this anger. Today it's Trump, tomorrow it may be someone else, and please don't make the mistake of thinking that elections can't be won or lost on such polarizing issues. I have seen it happening in India and it can very much happen in the US. Discussing such sensitive issues openly is good for both sides, especially political opponents of Mr. Trump. After all, everyone living here loves this country. It is already a great country and let's make sure that it remains one.

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

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

Smriti Irani ko gussa kyon aata hai?

Yes, believe it or not, I am also going to discuss now very famous speech by the HRD minister Mrs. Smriti Irani. She delivered a very charged, emotional, and extremely dramatic speech in the Indian parliament. It became a talking point of various debates and a highly watched event on the internet for a couple of days. Finally, someone from the current breed of Indian politicians broke the monopoly of Mr. Narendra Modi and Mrs. Sushma Swaraj to give charged and emotional speeches in Hindi. The effect of this speech was so much that most people including opposition party members of parliament were completely stumped by it. There were mostly two types of reactions to it. People who opposed her went on the complete back foot and didn't know how to counter this furious attack on them. People who supported her started celebrating the way she annihilated opposition mercilessly without even bothering to check what she actually said. No doubt that it was a treat to watch, it is always a pleasure to watch a good orator in action. She used all her strengths to her advantage, she used all her experience from theater to deliver punch line after punch line effectively. The content was very emotionally charged. After listening to such speeches people hardly bother to check the facts, most of them get overwhelmed by the way the speech is delivered. In this case, the same thing happened. Maybe now slowly after coming out of that spell, they might ponder on what she actually said. I am sure opposition parties must be wondering, "Smriti Irani ko gussa kyon aata hai?"In the storm created by that speech people totally ignored two very sensible speeches delivered on the same issue, these were from Mr. Sugata Bose and Tathagata Satpathy. Maybe because both these people spoke right up to the point and without any unwanted drama and theatrics. 

I still don't understand why these two issues which are respective university's internal matters are being discussed in the Indian parliament. One case is about a Hyderabad University student's suicide and it is alleged that the university administration was directly or indirectly responsible for creating the situation that forced that student to take such an extreme step. The other case is an anti-India sloganeering by some group of students at JNU. Both these issues could have been dealt with at the university level, but I don't know why and how the government of India got involved in this mess. I also wonder how a country like India can afford to spend so much of its resources and energy on such issues when it has so many more burning issues that need urgent attention from its citizens as well as the government. 

There is no point in analyzing the entire speech or commenting about both issues as it will take a lot of time and space. I already wrote one post about the JNU issue a few days back, in this post I just want to discuss a few points from her speech. She repeatedly referred to Rohith Vemula as a 'baccha' (a kid), but Rohith was a 26-year-old man doing her Ph.D. research. Of course, for any parent their child is a kid no matter how old he or she gets, but I don't think she was addressing him as a parent, she was speaking as an HRD minister of a country, so she should have addressed him properly but I don't think anyone noticed this and even if they did it didn't bother them.
Another interesting thing that she said and got away with was that according to her this suicide case was not important because of the caste of Rohith (he comes from the Dalit section of society). Sorry madam, this issue is so fiercely debated and discussed specifically because of the caste of the student who died. Otherwise, tell me when many students die in India every day for various reasons, some of them commit suicides, but how many of these incidents manage even to make it to the front page of newspapers and forget about being discussed in the parliament. Just a few days before 13 students from Pune drowned at some beach in Maharashtra, did anyone bother to look into the real reasons behind it? Just a few days back one young man associated with your own organization (RSS) was killed in Kerala, did anyone bother to discuss the reasons behind it? So, I wonder why she said that caste is not an issue in this case. Rather caste is 'the issue' in this case, and both sides are playing very pathetic politics over it. Sadly even today caste plays a very important role in Indian politics and all political parties make use of the caste card whenever and wherever it suits them. No one was debating the problems of students or struggles of Dalits or university campus-related issues in parliament, it was a tragic display of political wrestling by major national parties that are only interested in political gains and nothing else, so, please don't try to fool us.
I was also surprised when she retorted that she was taking some of the allegations and remarks personally. She said it in a very dramatic way, it almost reminded me delivery mode of my favorite actor Amitabh Bachchan. But seriously Mrs. HRD minister, you take criticism or allegations personally? That too after being in politics for so long? Just imagine if Sonia or Rahul Gandhi or Mr. Modi or Mr. Sharad Pawar or any political leader who is being targeted on a daily basis in parliament and outside start taking things said to them or about them personally. Just imagine the scenario if they start reacting to every allegation or criticism or even abuse thrown at them in as strident manure as she did. I want to offer one unsolicited advice to her from my side, please don't take anything personally in the future because even if you do take it personally no one will give a damn about it, people will keep on throwing those things at you and I wonder how many times you will react like this?
The last point is about this facetious line said by her, "My name is Smriti Irani, I challenge you to tell me my caste." This was again a very dramatic peak point of her speech. I guess she was trying to be cynical here, but anyway who cares about her caste, how does it relate to any of these two issues. It sounded like a lame attempt to deliver a punch line by using famous dialogue from a popular Bollywood flick, but I didn't expect to hear it in the Indian parliament that too from the HRD minister of India. I must say it sounded really dramatic and I am sure it had some desirable effect on some of the audience who watched her speech.

The entire speech was largely condescending and strident with very few relevant or logical arguments. It sounded like an emotional outburst rather than a balanced reply from some responsible and sensible minister. I might be wrong but this is my personal opinion. But on the performance level, I must admit that it was a stellar performance, worthy of grand applause. As per public perception, she clearly won this debate hands down. Mr. Modi and Mrs. Sushma Swaraj now have some serious competition from their own party colleague. I am sure her speech will give many sleepless nights to key opposition party leaders, they will be wondering how to counter her rhetorical arguments with equally pompous statements. They must be desperately looking for someone from their side to match that pitch. I am sure people are waiting to watch this spectacle on the floor of parliament.

But somewhere deep down in my mind, I still hope that in the future some sensible and logical discussions will take place in the Indian parliament without any excessive theatrics and drama. I hope that to hurt the opposition, our Minister didn't inflict some serious wounds on her own government. I hope that in the future Indian parliament will try to discuss more relevant and pertinent issues that affect the citizens of the country rather than only focusing on some political controversies. 

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://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PlGs8NCMWE

2. http://www.scoopwhoop.com/tathagata-satpathy-sugata-bose-speech/

3. http://selfrealization-vinay.blogspot.com/2016/02/jnu-oh-jnu.html?spref=tw

Why so much anger against Wall Street?

While listening to a recent Democratic party presidential candidate debate I noticed that candidates were really trying hard to distance themselves from Wall Street and project it as some sort of very dangerous or evil entity that needs to be destroyed or at least controlled using additional rules and regulations. I am not an expert on finance and trade-related laws and regulations, but I think I understand the political aspects of targeting Wall Street. More socialist-leaning candidates were more revengeful towards Wall Street organizations, so out of three candidates on the dais obviously Mr. Bernie Sanders was the one who was at the forefront of criticizing the symbol of the financial might of the US. I wonder what is the reason for so much anger which almost sounds like hatred towards Wall Street (abbreviated as WS henceforth in post)? Why do some of these candidates feel so compelled to criticize WS to please their supporters? I am sure all of them have some investment or links that are part of WS business and they all earn part of their income from those investments, but then why do they focus only on negative aspects of WS without even acknowledging that there are many good things happened because of the presence of free market?

WS is the result of a free market system, it is supposed to be a place to trade and raise capital for your business. No doubt that so many scams or bad things have happened in the past. Many people as well as organizations tried to misuse some loopholes in the existing system which resulted in economic crises. The economic disaster of 2008 is still fresh in our memories and whenever the share market starts dipping down sharply many of us who don't understand it very well worry if another 2008 is about to happen or what? So, there is no doubt that there are some concerns and apprehensions about the manure in which WS operates, but isn't this true with any system with so much power associated with it? That power can be financial, political, or military, we all look with doubt at all powerful entities. Even a democratically elected President is not spared if they don't belong to a political party that we support, so we all have some bias towards the rich and powerful and let's acknowledge it. But this doesn't mean we should paint a totally wrong picture of powerful people by completely neglecting any good things achieved by them. I don't think there is any doubt that economic prosperity is one of the major reasons why people get attracted to the US and want to emigrate here. The free market system where people feel that they will be successful entirely based on their talent and capabilities attracts many talented people from all over the world to this amazing country. I am not saying that there are no problems in this system and discrimination doesn't exist, but by and large system works well to do justice to its people. WS is an important part of this system. It allows people to build organizations and helps them to make them big, this is supposed to help in wealth creation and distribution. Many people are direct or indirect beneficiaries of this ecosystem. Definitely, uneven wealth distribution is a serious problem and something must be done about it, but at least wealth is created and the truth is that currently there is no better alternative that seems to be as reliable as this. Many of the objections raised by these people who seem to be fierce opponents of WS about the unequal distribution of wealth and rising economic disparity are true and valid, but some of the solutions offered by them are equally horrible and unpractical. It seems they intend to destroy this working system that has some glitches without even having an alternative that can be at least as good as the current system. It is very easy to criticize and destroy, but then at least provide some viable alternative to the present system before ordering its destruction. There are no examples of successful countries or societies based on any single ideology, let it be capitalism, socialism, communism, or any other "ism." What works best is always a mixture of good things from each ideology based on the requirements of that particular society. Therefore, I don't understand why are we so eager to draw so rigid lines and reject something because it belongs to some other "ism" that we don't support. Why call socialism evil or capitalism evil when both of them have some good aspects and some bad? Why not take the best ideas from all ideologies that suit our society and make something good for most people in our society?

I always wonder how long this fight between different ideologies will continue? Why can't be there interdisciplinary collaboration between all these ideologies like scientists do between different disciplines of science? Is it so difficult or humiliating to accept that there can be some bad and outdated elements in socialism, communism, and capitalism? Is it so difficult to understand that communism is not a very practical idea in today's aspirational world? None of these ideas are completely right or wrong, the only thing is that some parts of them are no longer relevant today, some parts are not practical anymore, or some parts are bad and not acceptable in a democratic society with freedom to choose and express. Is it so difficult to accept the shortcomings of any "ism" for its supporters? Maybe it is difficult, but we need to acknowledge these things and move on, if we become adamant about accepting or rejecting any system completely, then we will never solve this deadlock and keep on arguing endlessly about who is right and who is wrong. Please don't hesitate to highlight any drawbacks associated with any system, capitalism or WS is not an exception to this. Highlight loopholes in the law, highlight its misuse, and question policies based on data and logic, but not based on populism and appeasement. The way it is done now sounds like hatred and anger directed toward the rich and powerful, this attitude is only going to create a social divide and nothing else. Maybe it will help to win some elections, but definitely, it won't help to solve the real problem. So, it will be better if we use this anger to offer constructive criticism and not to vilify any entity. Before destroying the current house, at least propose a viable plan for a new house, let's discuss rather than fight.

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

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

Intolerance was always there in India

Nowadays there is a lot of debate going on in India about intolerance and tolerance. Some people claim that since this new government came into power (in 2014) incidents of intolerance have increased, they also claim that there is a feeling of fear and insecurity among minorities and some intellectuals. The other side claims that nothing of this sort is happening, rather the very fact that these people are allowed to protest is a sign of a tolerant environment, some irrelevant fringe groups are responsible for whatever ugly incidents are reported, but overall everything is fine. Both sides are busy attacking each other and proving each other wrong, putting on a splendid display of tolerance. Another point that is highlighted again and again during all these discussions is that India was and still is a very tolerant society. I really don't know what is the real basis of this claim, but surprisingly both sides agree on this particular point, the only point of disagreement is whether it is becoming intolerant now or not? The history of Indian civilization is very old and one can dig into its history and try to figure out whether it was a historically tolerant society or not. I am not interested in that aspect of this argument, I can only talk about what I saw and experienced personally during my stay in India. As far as my personal experience is concerned, I never saw a very tolerant atmosphere during the 30 years of my life in India. I always feel surprised when someone claims that India is a very tolerant society, they may have some different definition of "tolerant," but at least I never experienced it. Now before people jump on to attack me personally and label me as anti-India or anti-Hindu or traitor or whatever other name they want to use to display their tolerant nature, let me first explain why I say this.

Any tolerant society is sensitive to the needs and rights of all sections of society and by all sections, I am not talking about all religions and castes that dominate Indian political discussion forums. I am talking about kids, teenagers, men, women, other genders, disabled people, all minorities, etc. I never saw that sensitivity at appreciable levels and still don't see it in India, till recently, transgenders and homosexuals were forced to live in closets, women are still struggling to get equal status and property share, caste is a very important factor in marriage and politics, and one can list many other examples here, but I guess readers mush have got my point. Now let me continue with my personal experiences as my statement is mainly based on my personal experience. First, as a kid, punishments for mistakes in school were very brutal and physically abusive. I am sure anyone who went to school in the 1980s and 1990s can confirm this. Getting slapped by a teacher was not a big deal, getting hit by a stick, duster, or ruler was a very common phenomenon. Even outside the school situation was not much different, it was considered as birthright of parents to smack their kids as much they want and for whatever reason they felt appropriate. Second, any sort of dissent was not encouraged. As a kid, it was normal to get snubbed by elders for asking any uncomfortable question. One could not dare to question many traditions and rituals without being verbally or worse physically reprimanded. Obedience was considered as a virtue and dissent was openly ridiculed and punished. Finally, gender discrimination was blatantly overt and everywhere, within families, in schools, on the streets, in movies, everywhere. These were some of the things that I experienced and witnessed as a kid. I am sure there might be exceptions to this and there might be some people, especially those with very privileged backgrounds who lived in totally different social atmospheres, but whatever I described above was the general environment around me and many others. People must have realized that I am talking about a poor or lower middle-class section of society which constitutes a very large section of the Indian population. Even as a teenager, we were aware that friendship and all were okay but we couldn't marry outside our caste without disturbing our parents or other family members. Tension between various religions and occasional violent communal riots are still a possibility like in the past. All these things used to make me wonder where is that tolerance about which I hear on every intellectual forum? Fights between supporters of different political parties or religious groups were very common. There used to be fights during processions during different religious festivals like Ganeshotsav, and many times between two mandals on trivial issues like who should get to go first in line. It was and still is very trivial to call someone anti-national or traitor or Pakistani (especially to Muslims). Books were and still are frequently banned, movies land in trouble for hurting some group's sentiments, paintings and painters are troubled for creating some objectionable art, authors are attacked for writing something offensive or derogatory about someone, moral policing was very common and still happens to some extent even today. Many of these things are still part of public behavior, we can see these things even in social media, and still, Indians don't hesitate to call ourselves very tolerant!

But there must be some reason why most Indians claim that our country is very tolerant. One reason might be India did not invade any country in recent history or maybe by claiming to be tolerant many of these people mean "less violent" compared to some neighboring countries. It is quite possible that tolerance people may mean at least we don't kill each other as frequently as some other societies do. Maybe there is some truth in this line of argument even though frequent incidents of communal riots don't support this claim, but this might be the only reason for making this claim. But for me, this is not good enough to declare any society as a tolerant society and anyway, the standards of those countries are not worth following for a country like India with such a diverse population if it really aspires to become a superpower. It needs to show more inclusive behavior than merely being less violent or better than some of our neighbors. Intolerance has always been there in India, sometimes it is more visible than at other times that's the only difference. I really feel strange about this debate of India becoming intolerant now, please let me know when was it very tolerant? One can make an argument that India is becoming more intolerant, and there is some truth in that, but to claim that it was tolerant before is hard to accept. 

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

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