Immigration Is a Privilege, So Is Holding Elected Office

It is widely accepted that immigration is a privilege, not an entitlement. A country extends this privilege after determining that the presence of immigrants will benefit its economy, society, culture, or intellectual ecosystem. Acknowledging immigration as a privilege, however, should never be used as a justification to treat immigrants as second-class citizens.

Immigrants understand that they do not possess all the rights reserved exclusively for citizens, such as voting or holding certain public offices. That reality is neither controversial nor unreasonable. At the same time, fundamental human and civil liberties: freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom to practice or not practice religion, and protection from discrimination, should never be conditional on citizenship status. These values are not just moral ideals; they are core democratic principles and among the very reasons immigrant-friendly countries attract global talent in the first place.

People do not leave their homelands lightly. Contrary to popular rhetoric, only a small fraction of immigrants leave because of war or extreme distress. Most leave with heavy hearts, separating from family, culture, and familiarity in search of opportunity, dignity, and a safer future for their children. Starting over in a new country requires courage, resilience, and enormous sacrifice. I can attest to this from personal experience.

I chose to come to the United States not only because of the professional opportunities it offered me as a researcher, but also because of its social values. I was drawn to America’s commitment to freedom of expression, its openness to self-criticism, and its willingness to confront uncomfortable truths. I admired an education system that encouraged debate and challenged entrenched ideas, and a society that, at its best, strives to address systemic problems such as racism, gender inequality, income disparity, and unequal access to resources.

For decades, this intellectual openness helped make the United States a magnet for global talent, not merely for economic advancement, but for the freedom to think, question, and innovate. That openness strengthened the country scientifically, economically, and culturally.

In recent years, however, immigration has become a highly polarized political issue. Immigrants are increasingly viewed with suspicion simply for being immigrants, regardless of their contributions or conduct. This approach is deeply counterproductive. No nation can attract, or retain, the world’s best talent if it makes people feel unwanted, distrusted, or targeted. Skilled individuals will either choose not to come at all or will leave as soon as the environment becomes hostile.

Political hatred, once unleashed, is notoriously difficult to control. Even when leaders claim they are targeting only a specific group, such rhetoric often spirals into broader hostility that engulfs entire communities. Polarization based on identity is a powerful political tool, but it is also profoundly destructive. It weakens social cohesion, corrodes democratic norms, and ultimately harms the very country it claims to protect. Like an autoimmune disease, it causes a society to turn against itself.

This brings me to an equally important point: holding elected office is also a privilege.

Just as immigration comes with responsibilities, so does public office. Being elected is not merely a position of power; it is a public trust. Elected officials are granted authority by the people and are accountable for how they use it. Exploiting fear, vulnerability, or legal status, especially of immigrants and minorities, for political gain is an abuse of that trust.

Immigrants are not outsiders who arrived unlawfully or accidentally. They come through rigorous and often exhausting legal processes. They work hard, pay taxes, raise families, and put down roots in the communities they choose to call home. If they are willing to contribute and play their part, it is only fair, and morally necessary, that those in power do not weaponize their vulnerability for political spectacle.

Immigration and elected office are both privileges. One should not be used to undermine human dignity, and the other should not be used to inflame fear or target the most vulnerable members of society. The strength of a nation is measured not by how it treats the powerful, but by how responsibly it governs and how humanely it treats those who seek to belong.

I hope we recognize this before the damage becomes irreversible.

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

What is America?

What is America? 

Is it just a country with geographical boundaries like any other country? Is it a superpower, the most powerful country in the world? Is it the most important economy? Is it the most attractive market in the world? Is it the most preferred country for immigrants all over the world? Is it all of the above or is it something else? America is much more than its borders or its economic and military power, it is an idea that has been manifested to include all of the above characteristics. It is an experiment in diversity, democracy, and freedom—an idea that has inspired many and attracted people worldwide, it is an idea that no other country dared to implement on such a scale. It was built on the bold idea that individuals should have the liberty to make their own choices about religion, occupation, relationships, and expression. However, believe it or not, this idea of America is under attack by none other than Americans themselves.  

Even though one can argue that the US is the best country to live in compared to any country of this size and diversity, it has always been a work in progress, continuously tested and refined as the nation evolved, and it has its own problems. Racism, misogyny, and bigotry still exist in the US, comparatively less, but to an extent where one can see and feel it. The basic idea of America was the freedom to choose. The freedom to choose your religion or not to choose any religion, freedom to choose your occupation, freedom to choose a place to live, freedom to marry a person you love, freedom to express, and freedom from unreasonable interference from the government. I agree that the US Constitution was far from perfect when it was written as all these freedoms were not granted to everyone when it was written. However, in the following decades through 27 amendments, some of them resulting from civil rights and feminist movements, at least some of those mistakes were corrected. For example, the Reconstruction Amendments, the 13th (ratified in 1865), 14th (1868), and 15th (1870) Amendments, abolished slavery and granted men the right to vote irrespective of race; and the 19th Amendment (Women's Right to Vote) was ratified in 1920, granting women the constitutional right to vote (50 years after all men got that right). Note that the Child Labor Amendment to empower the federal government to limit, regulate, and prohibit child labor, and the Equal Rights Amendment which was supposed to grant equal rights irrespective of sex, failed to be ratified by more than 3/4ths of states. Apart from these amendments, some laws like The Civil Rights Act of 1964, and US Supreme Court Decisions like Brown v. Board of Education (1954), and Loving v. Virginia (1967), helped to control if not completely remove racial discrimination. Most of these problems still persist and the struggle is still on especially for women's reproductive rights and systematic racial and gender discrimination, I would say that the US is the best place to live compared to all other places. This is not because it is perfect or has no problems, but because it has fewer problems compared to most other places.

So, why are the ideals that America purports to represent under attack by many of its own residents? One of the reasons is that America is much more diverse due to immigration all over the world and some Americans see this as a threat to their supremacy. This fear is understandable but their actions are not. America's diversity is indeed one of its most powerful assets. It fosters innovation, resilience, and a dynamic society where different perspectives blend to create something unique. Diversity of race, national origin, age, culture, gender, or sexual orientation is not a threat to any nation, religion, or culture, rather it is an opportunity to learn more and build a more diverse and equitable society. America has benefitted immensely because of immigration and immigrants; its success story cannot be written without highlighting the contributions and sacrifices of immigrants. Yes, illegal immigration is an important issue and should be handled urgently with utmost care and sensitivity, but economic disparity and women's reproductive rights are equally important if not bigger issues that need to be addressed. 

The core spirit of America, the freedom to choose is getting attacked, ironically from within. It reflects a desire by some to return to a homogeneous society. They want a homogeneous society that thinks alike and behaves alike, where one religion is superior to others, and where women's rights can be decided based on the religious faith of the majority. But this version of America—a singular, monolithic culture—goes against the nation’s progressive vision, that had made it what it is today. The real challenge America faces is internal: whether it will embrace its identity as a pluralistic nation or regress toward a restrictive vision of conformity. If we want to move forward and make America better, we can't go back, we need to move forward and realize that America's greatest strength lies in embracing differences, finding unity in diversity, and understanding that pluralism, not uniformity, is America's greatest legacy. Balancing individual freedoms with a cohesive national identity is a continuous challenge, yet achieving it is essential if America is to fulfill its promise to itself and to the world, the sooner we realize this better it is for us and for America.     

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

Can money buy happiness?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fear of being judged

Fear of being judged is a real fear among individuals. We fear being judged based on various parameters, some examples are being judged based on our gender, age, religion, nationality, education, job, sexual orientation, political views, marital or familial status. Getting judged based on our parenting or the way our kids perform is one of them. 

A survey of parents revealed that about 90% of mothers and 85% of fathers feel judged, and almost half of them feel judged all the time by people they know and even by complete strangers. This fear makes them try various things so that they can overcome feelings of their own insecurities and avoid being labeled as irresponsible parenting. Tiger parenting, free-range parenting, liberal parenting, conservative parenting, and whatnot, parents look in every direction and source to find some tips to raise successful kids. They all intend that their kids will become successful and be happy. However, in this process, parents don't realize that they are engineering the life of their child as per their own wishes and inclinations, they are shaping their child's thinking, even dictating choices based on their own prejudices, and for a considerable time, that child has no say in his or her own life. Parenting is complex, and these aspects make it more complex and confusing, this is one of the reasons why most parents choose the prescribed or most popular format, at least that format guarantees a certain outcome in most cases, a so-called successful child, who is going to have standard education and a well-paying job. 

So, how to deal with the fear of being judged? Well, you can't stop people from judging you, but you can stop your actions from being influenced by the fear of that judgment. It's not easy and in practice, no one accepts that their actions are influenced by what others will say, but in reality, they are. When in any society most people follow a certain pattern, it establishes certain norms. One can sense that these norms are based on the way certain behavior, let's call it a confirmative behavior, is rewarded and praised, and other behaviors not fitting in the set pattern, a non-confirmative behavior, is criticized or called a risky behavior. It is really up to individual parents how they want to parent their children. Every child is different, even between two siblings one cannot expect the same behavior even after being raised in the same household with the same parents, it is that uncertain, but as parents, we want to bring certainty as it comforts us. However, parents' desire to play safe, or have a certain outcome has resulted in homes becoming factories for raising standardized kids, who conform to their parent's desires and choices. Legally child labor is banned, but now school work and extracurricular activities have become a legal form of child labor, kids are forced to do these things to an extent their parents want them to do, it really doesn't matter whether the kids want or not. Therefore, it's really up to parents to notice what they are doing as kids have very little say in all this, there are risks associated with every parenting style as nothing guarantees the desired outcome, but at least parents can choose not to be a dictator but be a facilitator. Let's be a facilitator as much as we can because no matter how good, dictatorship is after all a dictatorship with no freedom for a non-dictating party and our kids do deserve the freedom to be themselves, not our own shadows or not what we can't become but wanted to become.

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

The basic concept of "Liberty"

How do you explain the concept of liberty to anyone? Do we need to explain this term in today's world where we believe that humans have progressed so much that we all understand and respect individual rights? If we look around, I am sure we will find many occasions where the term liberty or freedom is used to curb human rights rather than to protect them. It is also true that many societies, like the USA, have shown tremendous progress towards creating an atmosphere where individual rights are respected considerably, but the basic concept of liberty is still very hard for many to get a complete grasp of. I agree that it is a difficult concept to grasp, it sounds very easy, but the real meaning of liberty is not that easy to fathom, especially if you are not exposed to the real benefits of it. I value individual freedom more than anything else and that is why the concept of liberty is so dear to me.

Liberty is a basic tenet of any progressive society. Human minds and efforts flourish when they have the freedom to think and express their thoughts. I got attracted to the concept of liberty when I realized the importance of having the ability to express my thoughts and live life on my own terms. The feeling of having individual freedom brought a radical change in my life and thinking, and I try my best to practice that within my own family. I sincerely believe that if we all create an environment of liberty within our homes, our society will automatically have individual liberty. The problem is, that most of us believe that our ideas, values, belief systems, religion, or political ideology are the best and others should also follow it, and if they don't follow then at least they should not criticize it. Without the freedom to criticize there can't be freedom to express. Criticism is one of the essential processes through which every idea and concept should go to prove its mantle. 

Actually, the basic concept of liberty is very simple. If you care and value your own individual rights, then you should equally care and value other's individual rights also. Unless other's rights are not protected, there is no guarantee that your rights will remain protected. I and my wife are poles apart as far as our religious and social views are concerned, but her freedom to practice the religion of her choice is equally important in our home as much as my freedom not to practice or even criticize any religion. If you can't imagine these things living side by side in harmony then you will find it very difficult to understand the concept of liberty. This concept has nothing to do with tolerance, that is another, separate virtue where we tolerate something even though we don't agree, and we don't need to encourage or protect those views that we tolerate. For liberty, you not only tolerate, but go one step further we protect the rights of people with whom either you don't agree or even strongly disagree. As a person who values liberty, I stand for not only my own rights but also others whose ideas and views might hurt my feelings, challenge my views, or offend me. Other's right to express their ideas is as absolute and important as mine, no more, no less.

I wish that in this growing atmosphere of political polarization and racial and religious divide, people understand the importance of protecting individual rights. I would like to end the post with a very famous quote by Voltaire which is shared widely, but hardly practiced in real life, "I disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it." If we all understand the real meaning of these words and try to practice them in real life, this world will be a more beautiful place for each one of us.

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

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

Public shaming for external appearance: Kejriwal and his sandals

I read news about Mr. Kejriwal wearing sandals during India's Republic Day function with some dismay. Initially, I ignored this news item thinking it was just an attempt to sensationalize a very trivial issue. I don't think even this event is worthy of any discussion, but during the following days, I noticed more discussions about this incident that too with photos, and now it seems one person sent him a check to buy some decent shoes. It looks like some people are deeply hurt by Mr. Kejriwal wearing sandals instead of shoes during this function. These hurt Indians are claiming that Mr. Kejriwal by doing this terrible act that too in front of the French Prescient embarrassed the entire India. I really wonder what is the logic behind this? This looks like an ideal case of intellectual bankruptcy. But I am still trying to figure out why they think like this? Let me first say that I am personally not a big fan of any dress codes and myself faced this problem so many times in my life when people were not happy with what I wore on some occasions. I always wondered what was their problem as long as I was not coming naked and wearing clean, non-stinky clothes of my choice. I know very well that any leader of Mr. Kejriwal or Mr. Modi's stature is capable enough to take care of any such attacks. They both have an army of devotees who are willing to fight for them and defend their each and every action. I am not writing this to defend any one of them but I personally went through these experiences myself, and this is why I am making an effort to discuss this issue on my blog.

I know that this type of public shaming of people for their external appearance is real and in this age of the internet, it has become more common. First of all, why do I or anyone else have to follow others as far as the choice of dress is concerned? I am not forcing anyone to dress like me, so why people should have any problem with my dress? People have the freedom to express their opinions in whatever way they want. They are free to object, free to criticize but to ridicule anyone like this is not a criticism but a case of public shaming. To ridicule someone's choice of dress, food, or profession is not something we should be doing. There is no doubt that people like Mr. Kejriwal or Mr. Modi are public figures and their every action is open for public scrutiny but to comment about their or for that matter anyone's external appearance is something we should refrain from doing. It seems that few people want to force their choice on some individual who is choosing his own way to dress. It doesn't affect these powerful public personalities but such behavior becomes a real problem for common people who want to express themselves but then face such public wrath. One should take note that these people are not objecting to Mr. Kejriwal not wearing a suit or a tie but they are very particular about him not wearing shoes. They might be okay with a dhoti-kurta or any other Indian dress but not with sandals or chappals as according to them these things display cheapness or poverty and thus embarrass India. 

Why wearing sandals is so embarrassing to these people? Is it because it displays the poverty or cheapness of that person or the poverty of the entire country? Is it because there is some official dress code for these government functions and he made a serious mistake by violating that dress code? Or is it because it doesn't go very well with current fashion or doesn't suit the dress he was wearing (but how this can be a matter of embarrassment for the entire country)? I am sure all these people know that Mr. Kejriwal is not a poor or deprived person by any standards. He and his family earn more than enough money to afford expensive shoes, phones, or cars, and based on some photos shared by these groups it also seems that he owns some of this expensive stuff like an iPhone. Information about his salary and other wealth is available in the public domain so one cannot also claim that he is trying to hide his wealth by living a simple lifestyle. So, it is very clear that he was wearing those sandals out of his own desire and choice, lack of money or display of fake modesty are not possible reasons behind it. I wonder why these people have a problem with that? Do these people also feel embarrassed to see Mahatma Gandhi's dress? He went to England or to all official or nonofficial functions without wearing any shoes or formal dress. Gandhi always traveled in his single-piece dhoti. Was his dress choice in any way embarrassing for India as a country? Is it difficult for these people to understand that Mr. Kejriwal or Mr. Manohar Parrikar or for that matter any individual has complete freedom to choose what dress or footwear they want to wear. It is within everyone's personal rights to decide what they want to wear on any occasion. We don't elect CMs and PMs to display their fashion sense but we elect them to govern properly. What Mr. Modi, Kejriwal, or anyone else wears during any function is their personal choice. Public shaming of anyone for their appearance is not good and I wonder how these people forgot about this simple etiquette. I also wish that instead of sending money to Mr. Kejriwal, which is a cheap publicity stunt and a total waste of that money as he doesn't need it this person should have sent it to some struggling farmer or some underprivileged person who is in real need of it. Public displays of hunger and poverty and news of farmers committing suicide because of lack of money are more embarrassing for India a politician in slippers. What anyone is wearing during any function is not even a topic worthy of any discussion in mainstream media for a country like India. It can be a time-pass topic but definitely not something to report in national media. I hope we understand our priorities and act accordingly.

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

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

Can there ever be absolute freedom of expression?

The recent attack on people associated with the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris has initiated discussions about whether there can be absolute freedom of expression? Terrorists killed people associated with this magazine to take revenge for publishing a cartoon of Prophet Mohammad. Many Muslim people found these cartoons offensive and insulting to their faith. This was not the first time any publication, book, picture, or article came under attack for insulting any religion. India is very well known for banning books, attacking authors, or making their lives difficult just for publishing something that hurts people's religious sentiments. So, the question is can there be an absolute right of freedom of expression? If not, then who decides where to draw the line and on what basis? Can there be a general consensus on what should be allowed and what shouldn't?

Every country claims to give the right of freedom of expression to their citizens, but if we check carefully there are some ifs and buts attached to this right. These ifs and buts differ from country to country. I can understand that anyone is not allowed to preach violence, child pornography, or obscenity under the name of freedom of expression. One can very well understand this type of restriction but apart from that why put so many other restrictions. Many people agree that there should be freedom of expression but they also say that in the case of religious sentiments, there should be some limit that should not be crossed. But the problem with this argument is who will decide that limit? Everybody's religious sensitivities are different, whatever is considered blasphemous in one religion is perfectly fine in another, so, in any diverse society how can one draw a line, and how many lines does one need to draw to cover each and every religion and sect so that nobody's religious feelings are hurt? People's sentiments are going to get hurt by something or other as each artist presents their work in different forms and styles. Art in some forms such as satire, paintings, or cartoons can be sometimes offensive, and not everyone can digest them but that doesn't mean that form should be banned or censored. We can not depend on people's level of sensitivities to design any policy related to freedom of expression as sensitivities keep on changing. It will be good to have complete freedom of expression or at least as much as people have in countries like the USA, it should be very clear what is allowed and what is not.

In today's world with so much connectivity and resources to verify any information we should be becoming more broad-minded and tolerant, but it seems our civilization is going in the reverse direction as far as tolerance and liberty are concerned, people are becoming more narrow-minded and less tolerant. They get offended by trivial things like a book, movie, or cartoon and react in a very violent way. To protest or express disagreement with anything is perfectly fine, but it should be done in a lawful and peaceful manner. Whenever people try to question freedom of expression after such a violent attack on a publication for publishing something objectionable then actually they indirectly justify such violent acts. Freedom of expression is not an easy thing to handle. People who feel offended also have the right to express their feelings, people who dislike anything can openly say that, and they can insult or say offensive things but in any case, violence can not be a part of freedom of expression. As Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Said, "Your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins." To threaten someone with physical harm is not freedom of expression but an act of violence. We are far away from achieving absolute freedom of expression, and since India has a very poor record in this area (still it is better than most of its neighbors), it needs to improve a lot. The USA has a much better record in this area and I think it is one of the best countries as far as the right of freedom of expression is concerned. Other countries like India should try to follow their example. 

I support the absolute right of freedom of expression except freedom to propagate violence. This will allow societies to become more tolerant and exchange their ideas more freely. Banning something only increases people's curiosity about those things and makes them more popular. Let's not ban any book, movie, article, or magazine just because some people find it offensive. This is a difficult task to achieve but at least let's try to work towards it, maybe one day we will have a society where there is absolute freedom of expression and everyone is using it with great care and responsibility. 

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. Faith vs Freedom: Is Right to Free Speech Absolute?

Paris terrorist attack - it is a attack on human liberty.

The attack on Charlie Hebdo's office in Paris by some fanatic Islamic militants is a barbaric and cowardly act of violence. This is not only an attack on the free press and freedom of expression, but it is an attack on our liberty. It is an attack on the basic framework of our modern society where disagreement and differences of opinion are not only tolerated but encouraged and respected. Just words are not enough to condemn this cowardly act. It is not a brave thing to attack unarmed, harmless, peace-loving people, this is a display of ultimate cowardliness and bigotry.  Charlie Hebdo is a well-known satirical magazine that is known to attack religion and politicians. It can be called anti-establishment, so, it is not that it only mocked Mohammad or Islam and spared other religions. One can debate whether the cartoons published were in good taste or bad taste, this discussion is in relative terms because whatever is in good taste for me might be a bad taste for someone, so, none of us have the right to decide what is in good taste or bad taste for everyone. We all have the right to have our own opinions. People who feel angry or offended can protest peacefully. Every civilized society gives its people the right to protest, but no one has the right to use violence to settle any disagreement. As I wrote previously in my blog, I believe that freedom of expression comes with the freedom to offend. If you have the right to practice your religion, then I also have the right to criticize that religion. We may or may not agree with each other but we both have equal rights and we both need to respect that, this is a very simple and basic thing to understand in any civilized society, but it seems we are yet far from being a civilized society and these type of acts prove this point.

I don't know who said it but I read somewhere the sentence "The country which can't laugh on itself can't survive for long." Satire is a very special form of humor, not everyone can handle it as it can be crude and brutally offensive sometimes. But this brutality is its specialty and makes it a very effective way of commenting on any issue and not an easy art to learn. Islam is allowing itself to be dragged by some radicals into a highly intolerant zone where even a disagreement or satire is not tolerated. Any criticism, no matter how small or big, is considered so offensive by some radical groups or countries that they resort to violence against any dissenting voice. This is not only religious fanaticism but this is an attack on human liberty, an attack on basic principles of civilized society and it should not be encouraged. The use of religion to spread terror or hatred should be challenged by all religions at every level. Everyone including all Muslims who believe in humanity and tolerance should speak up in one loud voice so that all these terrorists get the message very loud and clear. It is of no use to say that these terrorists don't belong to any religion or they are not humans, the truth is that they do belong to some religion and they are humans. Unfortunately, in today's world, many terror activities are directly or indirectly associated with some religion. Islam is being used as a terror tool by many radicals, so, it is time for all Islamic moderates and liberals to stand up against this bigotry. Every religion has gone through phases of intolerance that have taken a huge toll on human life, this is why we cannot allow that to happen again. 

Violent attacks on innocent people are barbaric and disgusting no matter who does it and why they do it. No religion, country, group, sect, or holy book can justify any such attack. If any group finds something offensive, derogatory, or insulting, then they have the right to protest peacefully or they can put up counterarguments but they absolutely have no right to use violence to silence any dissenting voice. Any book or prophet is not above the rule of law, killing innocents can not be justified by using any verse from any book no matter who wrote that book. Any such acts or statements that justify such violence should be challenged and condemned in the strongest possible words, doesn't matter if they come from any holy book or somewhere else. If we ignore them, then we will be facing many scenarios where such bigots from some religions kill innocents in the name of defending their religion. Unfortunately, religion has been used to propagate fear among its nonbelievers. We can not live in denial mode anymore by saying that there is no relationship between religion and terror, clearly, there is a strong relationship between the two. I agree that it is unfair to target any single religion for this. However, if we see some people misusing Islam for terrorism we all especially the Muslim community need to confront this misuse and take a strong stand against it. Hindus, Christians, and Jews also need to condemn very strongly any acts where these religions are used to spread fear or propagate violence. Unless we all speak together against these things our message is not going to have any effect. As long as people base their reactions to such incidents depending on who did it, where it happened, or who killed who, such barbaric acts will continue. So let's stand together, let's pay our respects to these brave cartoonist who sacrificed their lives to protect our liberty. These people died to protect our freedom of expression, they chose to die rather than compromise with their right to express themselves freely. They command our respect and our commitment to continue their mission. If we hesitate then we will be equally responsible for their deaths as those terrorists are. I choose to stand with my friends who lost their lives to protect my right to freedom of speech. 

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

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

Links:

1. What's use of freedom of speech without freedom to offend?

2. Salman Rushdie criticises 'a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam'

3. 23 Heartbreaking Cartoons From Artists Responding To The Charlie Hebdo Shooting
4. Terrorist do have a religion.
5. Images for charlie hebdo-Google

If you are not happy with this one, go make your own pk

As expected Raju Hirani's recent movie 'pk' created a lot of controversy because of the subject it dealt with, the bad practices in religion. Some lunatics are claiming that it hurts their religious sentiments (no surprise here). As expected these people are demanding to ban this movie, but their argument has no legal or logical sense. So, as usual, they are trying to attack movie theaters and attack the messenger rather than the message. This is not the first time any movie has been targeted like this or people are demanding to ban something because their so-called sentiments are hurt. Surprisingly these are the same people who also like to claim that India is a very tolerant country and Hinduism is a very tolerant religion. The good thing is that this time apart from some right-wing Hindu groups some Muslim and Christian groups are also against this movie, so it seems every religious group is feeling offended by this movie. Maybe this is because pk is not against a particular religion or section of society but it attacks on commercialization of religion and exposes attempts to scare people in the name of god. This movie also like another similar movie 'Oh My God' doesn't attack the concept of God or doesn't question the existence of God, I guess in a country like India no commercial filmmaker can dare to do that. The movie just raises some uncomfortable questions about the way people practice their faith in today's world. These questions try to expose the way religion is marketed today. I guess this is why many people and organizations who depend on such things to make their living or who are addicted to such marketing are getting offended. 

I always wonder why don't these people or organizations make some movie that can counter the points raised in 'pk'? Many of these organizations are very rich, they collect a lot of money from donations from various sources, and they even have very strong political backing, so all resources required to make a movie is definitely not a problem for them. These people also claim to know everything about their religion. If this is the case, then for them it should not be a big deal to write a good script that can prove a movie like 'pk' wrong, and expose every lie. If they are so sure then they should be able to expose the lies propagated by Raju Hirani and company easily. There is no need to damage public or private property, no need to create a law and order situation. Just one movie or even a documentary exposing 'pk' is enough. If they don't want to make a movie because it is too much of a hassle then they can even challenge people associated with this movie for civilized debate or drag them to court. They also have the right to protest or raise their objections but in a lawful and civilized way, why don't they do that? Does their religion teach them to use violent ways for such trivial things? If yes, then what type of religion is that which can not tolerate disagreement or questions? If not, then why they are going against the teaching of their own religion?  

The main purpose of any movie is to entertain people, they sometimes also try to deliver some message using this platform of entertainment. If any such attempt provokes discussion or raises some questions in people's minds then any such attempt should be welcomed, not attacked. Many mythological movies show many nonscientific things under the name of miracles but scientists or atheists who don't believe in such things don't go and attack cinema halls showing these movies or demand to ban them. In any civilized and tolerant society, everyone has freedom of expression. This freedom should be protected and cherished. The freedom of expression is very important for the progress of any society or country. People of every country have to decide in which direction they want to take their country; conservative and intolerant or liberal and tolerant, choice is theirs.

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. 'Oh My God'- A courageous attempt in main stream Hindi cinema.
2. My favorite scene from movie OMG.

Kiss of love - protest against attack on individual freedom not against any culture

Recently protest movement against moral policing, "Kiss of Love" was in the news. This protest was given this name because people decided to kiss each other as a form of protest against moral policing. Interestingly, this protest started in the state of Kerala and rapidly spread to other parts of India. As expected many organizations associated with Hinduism and Islam opposed these protests calling them against Indian culture and a violation of the civic code of conduct. Moral policing is not a new phenomenon in any country, some fanatic, self-declared culture protectors try to impose moral or cultural values which they think are right. These organizations don't care whether it is legal or illegal to impose these things on other people against their will, they do it in the name of protecting ancient culture or traditions. Very often protests like Kiss of Love are blamed on the influence of Western culture, however, ironically India is the country that has produced works of Khajuraho and texts like Kamasutra. The extreme response of these organizations to these protests is not surprising to me but their violent reactions and justifications offered for such violent attacks are major concerns.

Actually, protests like Kiss of Love are not in any way an attack on any culture. These protests are not meant to insult anyone or hurt anyone but this is a way of protesting against unjust moral policing. This protest is a simple way of conveying the message that you can't force your values on others. If someone is breaking the law arrest them and punish them legally, torturing them or harassing them in public is not the solution or a way to protect any culture. Moral values differ from person to person, for some eating non-vegetarian food can be an immoral thing to do, but that doesn't mean they go and beat all people who choose to eat non-vegetarian food. They have the right to propagate the benefits of vegetarian food and the drawbacks of non-vegetarian food but they don't have any right to force their dietary choices on others. In the same way, someone might think females not wearing a burqa is an immoral thing, or drinking alcohol is a sin, or eating beef or pork is a sin, these people are entitled to have whatever beliefs they want but they have no right to force it on others. There is a machinery and system in every state and country to take care of things that are against the law and let them do their job. In a democracy, people even have the right to protest peacefully against any law if they feel it is an unjust law. Peaceful protests, debates, and discussions are signs of a healthy and inclusive society. Moral policing is not a sign of a progressive, tolerant, and open society rather it is a sign of a regressive, intolerant, and backward society. India claims itself to be a very tolerant and progressive country so people should be ashamed of such attacks on the personal liberty of people in their own country.

Indian culture or for that matter any culture is not so weak that it can be threatened by people kissing in public. It is the same culture that has produced Khajuraho temples and books like Kamasutra, so why such a violent stand against a mere protest? And if any culture has some bad elements or repressive traditions then what is wrong in changing those traditions? What is wrong in protesting against any regressive practices that are still practiced? Such protests should be welcomed rather than condemning them, and any attack on personal liberty should be opposed. I hope these types of protests are taken in the right spirit rather than considering them as an attack on any culture. Individual liberty is a very important aspect of any society. I hope individual liberty and fundamental rights are respected and protected, if not then as a society we should be ready to witness many more such protests. Let's see how many attempts are made to crush such protests and what is the ultimate result of such bold protests.

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

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

Patriarchy is one of the oldest surviving ideology

The title of the blog is from a sentence taken from this video which delivers another tight slap on the world's, especially India's patriarchal culture. I really don't know how many slaps like this our society needs to wake up and realize that our culture is outdated and we need to change. Actually, it would be unfair to blame only India for having a patriarchal society or culture, it is prevalent more or less in all parts of the world, but I am going to discuss this only about Indian society as I come from that society and can comment about it based on my personal experience. In ancient times when the development in science was not much, most jobs or even day-to-day tasks used to require a lot of physical stamina and power men became superior in every society due to their physical strength compared to women. This superior physical strength gave them a natural advantage and dominance, they seized this advantage and made all rules and traditions which heavily suited them. Patriarchy is dominant in all cultures and religions. This natural advantage allowed men to design society as per their own needs and slowly role of women was reduced to support them, satisfy their needs, and help in reproduction. This system continued for many many years until we saw the emergence of feminist movements where women started demanding fair and equal treatment. For many cultures this demand for equality was a shocker, they couldn't believe that women could demand something like this, and this is why feminists are still targeted all over the world, to protect patriarchy.

Some people might ask the question, what is wrong with patriarchal ideology? Why do we want to change this ancient culture? Patriarchy has been going on for years and society survived with those values and customs so why do we need to change? Actually, even today many people want to preserve or continue with these types of traditions in the name of culture or religion, they defend them because this thing was invented by their great-forefathers. They believe that as their forefathers were very farsighted and intelligent so how can anything practised by them be bad? Somehow they fail to see that these practices are discriminatory and biased in nature, most of these traditions favor men and put women and other genders at the receiving end with unequal rights. Just because something is old is not a good reason to discard anything, one has to evaluate and test before making any decision. If the system is old, seriously malfunctioning, and harmful to certain sections of society then definitely we need to discard it. A system that treats nearly half of our population as secondary citizens definitely needs to go, no matter how old it is.

This patriarchal culture is directly or indirectly responsible for many traditions or rules that are biased against women. These types of rules are present in every culture and religion. Their influence is so strong that not only men but many women also defend them and oppose any reforms. Because of years of suppression, women are brainwashed to believe that they are the weaker sex and need the presence of men in their lives for protection and survival in our society. This all needs to change, but this change is not easy, as even many women believe that by nature they are inferior to men and they have to be dependent on men for social recognition. It will take a lot of awareness to change this mentality, challenging any age-old belief is not an easy task. Consistent efforts from feminist groups and more participation of women are necessary to make this possible. As long as women don't help themselves no amount of external help will be enough to elevate their status in society. the fight for equality is not easy and equality comes at a cost and women need to be ready for that. Women need to prepare themselves to bear this cost and carry the burden of responsibility that comes along with this, if not, then patriarchy is here to stay forever. If women are not willing to take control of their own lives, men will keep their control of almost every aspect of their lives, this is what patriarchy is. Patriarchy is as strong as organized religion, and it is an integral part of every religion. During the past few decades, feminist movements have made a big dent in it due to their consistent efforts but still lot needs to be done. I am glad to see that many women are coming forward now to challenge patriarchy, this is a good sign. Patriarchy might be one of the oldest surviving ideologies but the time has come for it to go. Just imagine lifting barriers from the minds of half of the world's population, imagine lifting the burden of '"being a man" from the minds of other half of the world's population. People will be free from social pressure to fit into stereotypes associated with their gender. If this happens it will be one of the greatest events in the history of human civilization. With our consistent efforts I am sure this will happen, so let's keep trying.

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. A Group Of Women Speaks Up To Send A Very Powerful Message To The Indian Male Dominated Society

Sorry Mohsin, my city failed to protect you

My last post was related to increasing incidents of Hooliganism where people or groups are targeted just because of something they expressed. I have expressed my concern about the low tolerance level and violent reactions in India so many times on my blog and elsewhere. Any country that aspires to become a developed nation and attract world-class talent needs to value freedom of expression. Such a society needs to have an atmosphere where different opinions are encouraged and disagreements are welcomed. Only in such conditions attract real talent. The brutal murders of Dr. Narendra Dabholkar and Mr. Mohsin Shaikh don't indicate that India is moving in that direction. These two incidents that too in one of the most progressive cities of India (Pune) indicate that the country is moving in a reverse direction. There is an atmosphere in the country where people are scared to speak their opinions because they feel threatened. This is such a sad state for a country that claims to be tolerant, inclusive, and open to all cultures and beliefs. These claims are now questionable on so many levels.

What was Mohsin's fault that he deserved to get killed like this? Followed Islam was his fault? Is it his fault that he dressed or looked different than many others in that neighborhood? Are these things enough to kill a person? What was Dr. Dabholkar's fault? He was not a Muslim or dressed anything differently. Why was he attacked and murdered? Both incidents are somewhat related as both these people were targeted because they expressed something. In Dr. Dabholkar's case, he was targeted for opposing religious superstitions and other religious malpractices. There are some inhuman practices that some people want to protect in the name of tradition and culture, he was killed for fighting against such inhuman practices. In the case of Mohsin, he was targeted without even any mistake from his side. Someone distributed some objectionable content on Facebook and WhatsApp related to Shivaji Maharaj. This created a lot of controversy and communal tension, and he was killed due to suspicion. Even if we assume that Mohsin was in any way related to generating those images that created so much controversy, is this the way to deal with such issues? Can anyone with a rational mind justify such type of behavior? Taking the law into own hands to disrupt society, destroying public property in the name of protest, or attacking certain groups is a sign of uncivilized behavior. These acts only deserve condemnation in the strongest possible words and very strict action should be taken against all culprits involved in any such incidents. But all this sounds meaningless when Members of parliaments like Mr. Anil Shirole justify some of these acts by calling them the natural reaction of people whose feelings get hurt. The same excuse was offered by Mr. Modi after the Godhra violence and we all know how many people lost their lives because of that so-called natural reaction which was nothing but cold-blooded genocide. None of these reactions are natural, they are purposeful, planned crimes, nothing else.

It is not important how many people died or who died to judge the seriousness of such types of crimes.  The numbers and names don't matter much, if this mentality prevails then these things will happen regularly only the names of people and places will change. If more and more people go unpunished for these types of crimes, if they find any sympathizers among our politicians then they will get more aggressive and brutal in their attacks. That is why any statement that even remotely tries to justify such brutal attacks on innocent people or the destruction of public property should be interrogated and punished. There should not be any compromise on freedom of expression and any violent anti-social activity should not be encouraged. Politicians have greater responsibility in all this as any sympathetic statement from their side acts as an encouragement for these goons. We cannot afford to have another Godhra in India, enough is enough, already many people have lost their lives because of this fanaticism. We need to fight these anti-social goons no matter which party or organization they belong to, absolutely nothing can justify such violence and destruction. 

The death of Mohsin is really shocking for anyone belonging to a city like Pune. I belong to that city and we Punekars take pride in calling our city one of the most progressive cities in India. I am also surprised that there was no candle march or any protest against Mohsin's murder like it was in the case of Nirbhaya who was gang raped and killed in Delhi. Mohsin's death is not any less shocking to me than Nirbhaya's death, both crimes are equally brutal and heinous. That is why I wonder why people's reactions are so different to both. Mohsin, please forgive my hometown for its inability to protect you. Punekar like me is deeply shocked as well as ashamed because of this incident, I have no words to express my feelings. I never imagined that within so short time after Dr. Dabholkar's death, we would witness another such heinous crime in Pune. I hope that now our politicians and administration take a lesson from it and take all measures to avoid any such instances in the future. I know this is too much to ask for but I just hope that at least people step up and try to stop this madness. If this doesn't happen then I don't know how many more Mohsins or Nirbhayas will have to die before our society wakes up and takes any action. The culture of hooliganism must go before it destroys the social fabric of our society.

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. In Pune, ‘Hindu zealots’ kill man over ‘offensive’ Facebook post
2. Pune techie murder: BJP MP says some repercussions to derogatory FB post 'natural'

Reduced public tolerance level in India - where are we heading?

During the last few months, there has been an alarming increase in physical and verbal attacks on people expressing political disagreements, especially against the BJP. Any difference of opinion or alternate view is not welcomed, any negative comment is not taken in the right spirit, and even constructive criticism is ridiculed or attacked for no reason. There are organized efforts not to allow discussion on any topic which raises some uncomfortable questions, every attempt is made to shoot the messenger. Recent physical and verbal assaults of some people opposing BJP's policies are examples of such extreme intolerant behavior. Many people justify these actions, they try to justify these violent physical and verbal assaults by using whatever reasoning they can come up with. This attitude is not only dangerous but also harmful for any civilized society, it is especially bad for a country like India which is aiming to become a superpower or a developed nation. Without a free and fearless society, it will be impossible to achieve real development and progress. Without an open and fair exchange of thoughts, and debates on every subject it is impossible to become a developed nation.

These types of incidents have become very common during this election season, especially because supporters of the BJP are very aggressive in attacking people who oppose their ideology or question their leader (Mr. Modi). Respective parties do condemn such incidents if the issue gets too much media attention but no apology is offered or warning is issued to perpetrators not to repeat such mistakes. Maybe they think this helps their campaign that's why they provide their tacit approval as they can't support such attacks openly. This time I also experienced such verbal attacks on a few occasions on social networking forums like Facebook. Some of my comments questioning BJP's agenda or Mr. Modi's performance as CM in Gujarat received some hateful comments from some BJP supporters. They used derogatory language and called me various names (sickular, pseudo intellectual, communist, AAPtard, etc.), and their tone was threatening and insulting. I deleted many of these comments from my wall after warning them not to use such language. I deleted these things because I didn't want such filth to stay on my Facebook wall, but their tone was alarming and threatening. I stopped engaging in such types of discussions as I realized the futility of engaging in such useless conversations. Then I read many reports in the media about many such attacks in the cyber world and even many physical attacks on people. Fortunately, no one was seriously injured in those attacks but the occurrence of such incidents is very alarming. In the past none of the political discussions I was involved in reached to threatening or derogatory level. This is a very organized effort to silence political opponents.

Tolerance and patience are very necessary attributes of any civilized society. Without free and fair discussion about various topics and issues, we can not find proper solutions to our problems. Differences of opinion should not only be tolerated but also be encouraged, it's always good to see both sides of any issue before making any conclusions. The role of opposition is very crucial in any functioning democracy. Such political violence should not be encouraged, everyone has the right to express their opinion and share their ideas. People involved in such acts of violence should be charged and punished for violating the right of freedom of expression of other people. True democratic society debates over issues and chooses the path of discussion and peace over violence to solve political problems or to settle differences of opinion. When such people don't get punished by law, don't get reprimanded by their own party's top leaders they get encouraged to repeat such acts. Top leaders don't engage in any such acts, they are not affected by these things but their silence and willful ignorance of such acts is considered as tacit approval. If such incidents are so rampant before the elections then people have every reason to be concerned about what will happen if such parties (BJP in this case) come in power. Such attacks are especially dangerous for minorities and people who choose to voice disagreement against the majority. Bullying in any shape or form is wrong, everyone in society should be treated with equal dignity and respect. I hope that better sense prevails among people and they show more mature behavior. I hope that political leadership in respective parties take all necessary steps so that their party workers and followers don't engage in any such acts in the future. There is a serious concern that such attacks may increase if the BJP and its allies come into power in the center, I hope these concerns and worries don't become a reality. I want them to prove me wrong and demonstrate that no matter which party forms the government differences of opinion, and alternate views are always welcomed, and freedom of expression won't be curbed for anyone.

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

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

What's use of freedom of speech without freedom to offend?

I read disturbing news related to Penguin withdrawing a book on Hinduism (The Hindus: An Alternative History) written by American Indologist Wendy Doniger from India. This action was a result of an out-of-court settlement with some Delhi-based complainants who blamed the book for insulting Hindu traditions and culture. Some people took this matter to court and to avoid all legal hassles and controversies Penguin decided to take this action. Banning any book, movie, play, or even a person for some offensive remarks against some community, religion or God is not a new thing in India, it happened many times in the past and sadly it will happen again. Some books like Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses are still banned in India. In any free, progressive, and truly tolerant society, freedom of speech is very important, and as Salman Rushdie once said freedom of speech has no meaning without the right to offend. Anyone who understands the real meaning behind this statement will also find some sense in this wonderful article written on this subject Kenan Malik, from that article I want to quote one paragraph, 

"The notion of giving offence suggests that certain beliefs are so important or valuable to certain people that they should be put beyond the possibility of being insulted, or caricatured or even questioned. The importance of the principle of free speech is precisely that it provides a permanent challenge to the idea that some questions are beyond contention, and hence acts as a permanent challenge to authority. Once we give up on the right to offend in the name of “tolerance” or “respect,” we constrain our ability to challenge those in power, and therefore to challenge injustice. The right to “subject each others’ fundamental beliefs to criticism” is, in other words, the bedrock of an open, diverse, just society."

In the same article, he also says that it's impossible to bring any major social change or reform without offending someone's sentiments and I completely agree with this. Many people want some social reforms but they don't want to start it from their own home just because they don't want to hurt or offend their loved ones. I am sure someone's sentiments must have been hurt when child marriage was opposed, when a girl's right to get educated was advocated by Savitribai Phule, when widow marriage was performed, and when sati tradition was banned, but all these things were necessary to bring much needed social reforms. All those people who participated in these social reform movements experienced fierce opposition from people around them including their own families. They did hurt many people's sentiments but fortunately, their resistance survived and they could bring the desired reforms in society. All these things happened many years ago, but it seems even now our society's mindset in India has not yet changed. We are not yet tolerant of any criticism towards our leaders, Gods, religion, community, traditions, country, or even a political party. Any movie, book, or article criticizing anything related to these subjects immediately gets attacked, boycotted, or banned. Why? Just because some section of society claims that their feelings are hurt. Authors or movie makers face problems and sometimes these protests are very violent, where public and private property is destroyed. This is not a sign of a tolerant or progressive society. This is true when the matter is related to any religion, political party, or caste they all behave in the same way, it seems this is the problem of the entire society and any particular religion or community can not be singled out for this. As a country, India needs to improve its tolerance level towards criticism. I don't say that such things don't happen in other countries. There are more conservative and sectarian societies than India where there is absolutely no freedom of expression at all, but I am not interested in comparing India with them. When we Indians claim to have an open-minded and inclusive culture and a history of tolerating dissent, then this type of behavior contradicts this claim, rather it exposes our extremely narrow-minded and intolerant attitude.

I believe better common sense will prevail in all these matters and Indians will understand the true meaning of freedom of expression. Freedom of expression comes with a certain amount of risk but with a lot of benefits. The benefits outweigh all the risks. In the name of not hurting people's sentiments, we can not curb freedom of expression. People need to understand that with rights also comes responsibility and for every book that offends someone they have the freedom to publish a rebuttal that disproves the offensive material, this is the way to deal with such things, also, banning anything only makes it more popular. I was not even aware of Wendy Doniger's name and her work before reading this news, now I am going to read her book to see what it says about Hinduism and I am sure many came to know about this book only because of this controversy. Also. in the era of internet it's not possible to ban anything from getting distributed once it's available online, this controversy will be the biggest advertisement for this book. To all people who get offended by some book or movie, my simple advice is just don't read them or watch them, banning them or bullying people associated with those creations only displays a timid intolerant mindset. 

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

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

Links:

1. Penguin withdraws book on Hinduism

2. Changing landscape of free speech- Kenan Malik

The curious case of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose

I don't need to give any introduction to Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, at least in India almost everyone knows him. We studied his heroics in history books in our schools, and some of us also read about his tussle with Mahatma Gandhi when Bose became president of the Indian National Congress. He took a different path of armed freedom struggle when the rift between him and Gandhi widened because it was difficult for him to remain in Congress and pursue his agenda. Stories of his journey outside India and his struggle to obtain support from other countries for India's freedom struggle are very interesting and the story of his life is the subject of many books and some movies.

Many people think India would have performed better under his leadership instead of Nehru's or Gandhi's. They all also feel armed struggle (even if it didn't produce any desired results) was a better approach than Gandhi's nonviolent movement. Many of them ridicule Gandhi for his non-violent approach and think that he was weak and pro-Muslim compared to other leaders like Bose and Sardar Patel. All these assumptions are very biased, because Patel and Bose were leaders from the same political party (Indian National Congress) to which Gandhi belonged, and they always respected Gandhi. Patel was with Gandhi till Gandhi was murdered by a Hindu fanatic terrorist. Having a difference of opinion is not a bad thing at all, and both these leaders didn't criticize Gandhi or Congress in their lifetime but their supporters or people who want to use their name for political gains propagate these things about them.

I find Netaji's case unique because he was the only leader from India who tried to get military help from other countries to fight against the British. He traveled to countries like Germany and Japan (two very strong enemies of Britain during World War II) to get their direct or indirect military support. He even did not hesitate to ask for help from a leader like Hitler. I have no idea whether he knew at that time about Hitler's attitude towards Jews or not, but for him, Japan's aggressive attitude towards some countries in Asia or Hitler's attitude towards Jews was not a deterrent for asking for their help. I wonder whether Netaji Bose's supporters are fine with this aspect of his personality. I am asking this because many other leaders like Gandhi and Nehru are criticized for many things like their so-called pro-minority attitude, India's partition, or not saving a few freedom fighters from capital punishments, but I don't see any criticism directed towards Bose for asking help from these countries with very barbaric attitude towards their own people and neighbors during the World War II.

It seems Bose used very simple logic, the enemy's enemy is a friend. He never bothered what the enemy was doing or what were ethical and moral implications of taking help from countries with questionable human rights records. There is no doubt about his good intentions behind this, he was very passionate about winning freedom for his motherland, and it seems for him the end justified the means he wanted to use. Unfortunately, he died untimely death before one can see the final results of his efforts but I always feel curious about the scenario of what could have been the result if allied forces had demanded his trial after World War II because he sided with Hitler and others. How could have he defended himself? Actually, these all are hypothetical questions and it's very difficult to find answers, and answers will vary from person to person. These are the things that make me curious about Netaji Bose's life.   

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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subhas_Chandra_Bose

Cultural Terrorism

Kamal Hassan's recent movie "Vishwaroopam" is in the news because of protests against it by some Muslim groups. It seems they believe that the movie shows their religion in a bad way. The Tamil Nadu government promptly banned it even though it was cleared by the censor board. This is not the first (and I am sure not the last) time some movie, book, article, or painting is facing this problem. There were similar incidents in the past, by people from all religions. Please don't get the impression that only conservative Muslim groups indulge in these types of activities. There are no exceptions to this type of behavior. All religions and their agents who claim that their religion teaches love, compassion, and tolerance behave in such intolerant and violent ways when there is a time to display some of these qualities. These groups are so sensitive that their religious feelings get hurt by any small unfavorable comment made about anything related to their religion in any context.

All these incidents raise many questions. Why do we have a censor board in place if the fate of any movie is decided by some fundamentalist organizations that can create a law and order situation? Why the government doesn't honor the decision of its own body like the censor board? Why does the government surrender to the pressure of some of these groups who openly blackmail them? Why courts don't want to give clear verdicts about such issues? If the court is not willing to get involved in these types of matters or is not the place to settle such sensitive/controversial issues then why do they accept such petitions in the first place? Finally, Is India really a secular republic? 

These issues tend to become so sensitive and complicated that even courts, government bodies, or even governments (state or national) are not willing to deal with them directly. The common policy is to delay the decision indefinitely and allow the problem to die its own death. It happened with M F Hussain when people objected to some of his paintings. So many cases were filed against him in so many different courts all over India, and finally, he had to leave the country and take shelter in some other country. Now even Kamal Hassan is thinking of leaving his home state (Tamil Nadu) and is looking for another secular state, and if he can't find any state in India he is thinking of leaving India and settling somewhere where he won't face such a problem. One can feel the agony and frustration of these artists or citizens who are feeling betrayed by the system which is supposed to protect their fundamental rights and make sure that vandalism or this type of cultural terrorism doesn't dictate what people should write, wear, think, or what type of films they should make.

Most feature films are made exclusively for entertainment and business purposes. They don't intend or claim to change society. At most, they reflect some current sentiments of society or culture. This medium has its own strengths and limitations. Any artist or writer tries to express through his/her creation. They have the fundamental right of freedom of expression given to them by the constitution of India. There are various bodies and legal departments to keep a watch on these things, but these issues arise even after having so many checkpoints and they get heavily politicized. The ultimate sufferer is not that religion that is claiming being targeted or people who are protesting against these movies or books but these artists and our social values suffer from these actions. When a society that claims to be liberal, secular, patient, and peace-loving reacts in this way it contradicts its own image and values. After all, no film, book, painting, or article has the power to destroy any religion or country that survived for so many centuries. For every book or film which says something bad about any person or religion there are so many other films or books which say something good. So, what's the problem?

Followers of all these religions, sects, or people forget that directly or indirectly the freedom of expression was responsible for the origin of all these things. It helped various religions and cults in their survival and propagation. These philosophies or people who proposed new ideas contradicted views and clashed with current belief systems when they were introduced. All these sects and religions cherish their own struggle and feel proud about their own fight with the establishment but are not willing to allow contradictory thoughts to be expressed when they are in control. Then, what is the difference between them and people who tried to suppress their messengers or Gods when they were delivering different messages that contradicted the current belief systems of that time? These people are so blinded by their faith and power that they don't even realize this contradiction in their own history.

I hope these people who are threatening to take a violent path understand the meaning of tolerance and peaceful coexistence, the values that everybody claims that their religion teaches. They show some respect towards the law of the land and try to reform their own religion or culture rather than worrying about some movie or book damaging them. The question is not only about this one movie or one artist, the question is about allowing this form of cultural terrorism to take control of our society and dictate the terms. This is not acceptable at any cost and we should oppose it wherever we see such incidents happening.

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

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

References:
1. The Hindu- About ban on Vishwaroopam
2. Kamal Hassan- Tamil Nadu wants me out
3. Salman Rushdie-Jaipur literary festival
4. M F Husain and controversy related with his paintings
5. The Politics of Deepa Mehta's 'Water'

Don’t Tell Me How to Dress, Tell Them Not to Rape

'Don't tell me how to dress, tell them not to rape' 'Nazar Teri Buri Aur Parda Mein Karoon?'

These lines caught my attention while reading a news article in the Times of India. The article was about the protest against the relentless stream of rape cases that have rocked the National Capital Region (Delhi) in recent times. With 465 rape cases registered in Delhi in 2011, 489 in 2010, and 459 in 2009 (on average, more than one rape per day), one can see that something is not right. No one can justify the occurrence of so many sexual assault-related crimes in the capital of India. The slogans above are not only against rape but also against moral policing, which many times blames women for the crimes committed against them. Many people advise females to dress up properly; they insist that females should dress in a ‘proper’ way to avoid unnecessary attention or not to provoke the emotions of males around; they should control their behavior and limit interactions with males. So, the problem of males not being able to control their animal instincts is conveniently blamed on females. In any civilized society, everyone has the right to dress up in a way they like. Most societies give freedom to males to dress up the way they want, but put restrictions on females in as many ways as they can. This practice has been going on for generations.

The use of dress codes is not uncommon in society; many events or functions have a dress code associated with them, and people follow it gladly. Normally, this dress code is recommended for certain functions and parties, and people can choose not to follow it. But the dress code I am talking about is forced upon certain sections of society and often sanctioned by government institutions. In many countries, these compulsory dress codes (especially for women) are enforced by armed groups, self-declared moral police, or other non-state actors. According to international human rights law, every person has the right to freedom of expression and the freedom to manifest their religion or beliefs. Many times, the way people dress can be very important for them to express their religious, cultural beliefs, or personal identity. As a general rule, in many countries where rights to freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression exist, it means that all people should be free to choose what they do or don’t want to wear. Governments must ensure that every individual’s fundamental rights (such as freedom to express their beliefs and identity) are protected and respected. Religions and cultures can be interpreted in many ways; many people have interpreted so-called holy books (scriptures) in many different ways. Interpretation of culture or religion or these holy books cannot justify imposing a dress code on people; this is unjust to people who want to dress differently. It is the government’s responsibility to create a healthy environment where every person can exercise their basic rights. People’s religious belief is their personal thing; they cannot be imposed on the whole society.  I know that there are many more important issues for the government to look after than how people should dress. But when the situation goes out of hand, and statistics clearly indicate that there is a problem, then they should do something to protect their citizens. They should take measures to protect individuals or communities from being forced to dress in specific ways by their family members, religious groups, leaders, or the community.

Normally, ideas associated with dress codes are also one of the ways to stereotype gender identity; most of the time, victims of this are women because, somehow, society, family members, and even the state believe that they are entitled to regulate women’s dress and behavior. They consider women’s image as the symbolic reflection of the community’s values and culture. People who think like this don’t even care or bother to check whether these beliefs are shared by the people on whom they are enforced. Enforcement of dress codes can be a result of age-old biased views against women, which resulted in discriminatory attitudes towards them, and also reflects a desire to control women's sexuality and behavior. I wonder whether society or people who are doing this even realize that they are objectifying women and denying them their personal freedom. Many times, when women are victims of violence, sexual or physical assault, or are stigmatized for not abiding by dress codes, they are told that the blame lies with them. These incidents are often used as a reason to emphasize the importance of the dress code. The victim is blamed for perpetuating the crime against them rather than the offender.

I can understand this rebellious attitude of women who are targeted continuously and forced to carry the moral burden of society on their shoulders. It seems that males are free to do whatever they want, but women should not cross their line. Our society and culture have evolved enough to understand that we need to respect others' beliefs and choices. Everyone has the right to practice their right to express themselves in whatever way they want. Let's stop judging others by their external appearance, let's not stereotype any gender, community, culture, or country. Along with our body, our thinking should also evolve; we can not live in the 21st century with the 1st-century mindset. Respecting our fellow citizens' feelings and rights is not such a big expectation to have. Let's try to become a law-obedient, respectful, and aware world citizen.

Thanks for reading, and please share your comments.

Reference:

1. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-05-05/delhi/31586102_1_protest-march-jantar-mantar-house-station

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