On the Occasion of the 14th Anniversary

I can hardly believe that this blog has completed 14 years. When I started it on March 5, 2012, I never imagined, even in my wildest dreams, that I would be writing and publishing regularly for this long. Yet here we are: at least one post every month for the past 14 years. That realization fills me with quiet pride and genuine surprise.

This is not self-praise or self-promotion. It is simply amazement at the journey itself.

The blog began as a space to express my thoughts on a wide range of topics, political, personal, and social. I wanted a platform where I could articulate ideas that often felt very different from those around me. Over time, something unexpected happened. Readers, from places I never anticipated, found value in what I wrote. My wife and children, along with many others, shared thoughtful feedback, encouragement, and perspectives of their own. Knowing that my words resonated with people, or helped them reflect and think more deeply, gave me the motivation to continue.

I want to be clear about one thing: I do not expect followers, nor would I want anyone to accept my views uncritically. Blind agreement is never the goal. Instead, I hope this blog helps readers engage with the complexities of the world around them and supports them in their own search for answers. If my writing encourages independent thinking, questioning, and reflection, then it has served its purpose.

To me, true success lies in fostering critical thinking, challenging assumptions, understanding nuance, and striving to make our surroundings just a little better than we found them. We need a kinder, more compassionate world for humanity to truly flourish. This blog is only a small step in that direction, but it is a step I am grateful to have taken.

Thank you to everyone who has read, reflected, commented, or simply spent time engaging with these words over the years. Your support and encouragement have meant more than you know.

Happy reading.

History is always incomplete and biased

History is important. It is important to know about past mistakes and learn from them to avoid repeating them. However, history is rarely used for this purpose. Mostly, history is used to boast about the past, instill feelings of unreasonable pride, fuel perpetual hate among communities by using some tragic and unpleasant incidents from the past, or glorify certain characters to create a cult. There are several examples to demonstrate that we refuse to learn lessons from history and purposely repeat the same mistakes to inflict the same wounds. For example, communities who suffered genocide or societal hate don't hesitate to do the same to other communities when they get power; communities whose religious structure was demolished to build another religious structure don't hesitate to do the same when they get power in their hands. History as well as our present is full of examples like this. 

The reason why I am saying history is incomplete and biased is because not even a tiny fraction of what actually happened is recorded in written history. What we read is only recorded and preserved by winners and subsequent rulers. Also, what was recorded were the views and perspectives of people who could be interviewed, were willing to talk, and by people who had the privilege to speak and write. This all made history an important but very biased and incomplete account. Basing our present views and opinions only based on historical accounts completely ignoring the present situation is what makes us repeat that history again and again. The danger of seeking revenge for historical conflicts only results in creating more conflicts for future revenge, this cycle is endless unless one of the sides decides to take a higher moral stand and settle the issue amicably through peaceful negotiations. Most historical accounts don't say anything about the masses, they completely ignore nuances of human suffering and resilience.  

Does this mean we should not study history? No, we should study history. We must critically study history and interpret it with context. History without context is just a list of events and dates, nothing more. The context needs to be broad enough to make historical events relevant for everyone affected by those events in the past as well as the present. If we do this, even incomplete and biased historical accounts may help us to resolve complicated conflicts that have been going on for decades or centuries. Without such reasonable use of history, it will remain another tool that had the potential to benefit humanity but like nuclear power, we converted it into a deadly weapon and are only using as a deadly weapon against each other. We are not perfect, and neither is history, we can make use of imperfect history to make our present and future perfect. If not, we will be busy creating more imperfect and divisive history, the same way as our ancestors did. The choice is ours. 

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 

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

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

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

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

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

Paris attacks: Are we going to learn any lessons?

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

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

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

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

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

Terrorist do have a religion

The Peshawar school massacre by the Taliban shook many people across the world. It was not the worst massacre by terrorists and it was not the first time schools or children were attacked by terrorists, but even after that, the brutality of this attack is really disturbing. Whenever any such attack happens, we start hearing phrases like "terrorists don't belong to any religion" "terrorists don't have any religion" "these people are not humans," etc. I always wonder how much truth is there in these statements. All these statements are mainly used by people to try to dissociate the religion (especially their own religion) from such barbaric acts but to me, these statements sound too hollow and meaningless. If we look carefully some of these terrorists who kill innocent people and others who spread hatred against certain communities do use religion as a tool to attack and spread fear and hatred. They do claim to represent the true form of some sect or religion. I am not talking about Islam or Hinduism or any other particular religion as most religions have fanatic elements in their teachings which are misused by some people to create fundamentalists some of which manifest themselves in various forms of terrorism. Politicians as well as terrorists use religion as a tool to divide people. One wants to divide and rule while the other wants to spread fear and rule. This has been going on for many years, and no religion has been able to dissociate itself completely either from politics or terrorism, only the intensity and level of involvement differ from time to time.

What is there in religion or some of these ideologies (like communism or Maoism) that people are willing to kill hundreds of innocents in the name of protecting or propagating it? Why these people don't feel the guilt or shame of doing such barbaric acts in the name of religion or their ideology? Why religion is such a powerful force that it makes people go blind and makes them hate others just because others belong to some different religion? Can we really dissociate religion from these barbaric acts? Why there is so much communal violence if all religions teach peace and love? Why scriptures are quoted to justify violence, discrimination, or gender bias? The truth is that terrorists who use religion to kill people do belong to some religion. They all derive their justification from some holy book, they all claim that they are killing to protect the word of their God. Many of these terrorist organizations brainwash young and impressionable minds, misguide them by using some religious teachings, and convert them into lethal terrorists. This has been going on for so long and various religions have not done enough to curb this.

Followers of any religion are not willing to question or object strongly to any content from scriptures that are used to justify violence. Once it is claimed and accepted that that particular book is a word of God very few dare to question it. Most of these books contain something that could be misinterpreted but these things are ignored because it is understood that as these books also teach love and peace so few minor things don't matter. However, some anti-social elements make use of some of these objectionable or outdated messages and propagate hate and violence. As no one dares to condemn these sections of any of the books, these things get taught, and people interpret them to suit their own propaganda. That is why I think now the time has come to ask some serious questions to keepers of all religions. They need to make it clear that there is no place for any violence or hatred under the name of their religion. If there is some outdated or objectionable material in their own holy book they need to make it clear that it is outdated and no more applicable. They need to be very strong about this message and condemn any group that tries to propagate hate in the name of their religion. Religion might be a need for many but communal violence or hatred should not have any place in any civilized society.

Isn't it a time to think about whether there is some inherent flaw in organized religion? The time has come for all of us to unite and stand against such criminals. The time has come to question religion and holy books, whenever they are used to justify any violence and hatred. The time has come for all civilized humans to speak up and ask questions. We can not just wait for our turn to become victims of such violence, it will be too late by that time, so speak up NOW.

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://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30507836

Does Religion Divide or Unite People?

This is a very complex and challenging topic and includes many layers. What makes me ask this question? Why was religion created? What is its situation today? Is there any need for religion in today’s world? These are very relevant and important questions.

Many centuries ago, we didn't have a proper understanding of things like nature, life, and its complexities, and many other things. People at that time needed a system that could help them solve these mysteries, and religion was born to explain these things. It tried to do the same thing that science does for us today, that is, to offer some explanation about the questions and concerns of society. Religion did it without much experimentation or empirical evidence on which today's science is based. Another important question is if God/truth is one, then why do we have so many religions in the world? Before the beginning of the modern era, modes of communication were not well developed, and knowledge or information generated was difficult to communicate and transfer, so people living in different regions developed their own way of understanding nature and its functioning. This gave birth to so many religions that we see around us today. They are very different in their approach, but all try to explain the world through some superpower that they think created and controls this universe. Religion is nothing but a belief system that was created to help people understand the mysteries of the universe. It helped to satisfy people's curiosity about uncertainty and unpredictability in life. People who believe in a certain set of ideas about the creation of the universe and its creator associate themselves with a certain type of religion.

Now let’s try to understand why every religion claims that its way or method is correct/better than others and is their claim right? Suppose we assume that number 4 is the ultimate truth (or God). Someone who discovers 2+2=4 will think he/she found the secret of the ultimate truth, and that’s the way to go; in a way, he/she is right. However, if he/she think (as most religious groups who believe in their scriptures blindly think) that’s the only way to reach 4, then they are definitely wrong, 1+3=4, 5-1=4, 10-6=4, and like that, there are so many ways to reach that ultimate target, and each of them is unique and correct in its own way. By this logic, I think that every person is entitled to have his/her own religion. What most of us do is stick with one method that we like or feel is correct and say all other methods are wrong. All religions agree that god is one, but then again fight over ways to reach or please that god. This simple math example shows that there are many ways to reach the same destination.

When I came across different faiths and tried to understand them, I didn’t find anything fundamentally different in any of them; rather, it amazed me that there are so many ways to teach basically the same philosophy. The presence of many religions should make humans happy. If someone doesn’t like one particular religion, just choose another, pretty simple. Either everyone is right, or all are wrong. When we understand this, then there won’t be any problem in understanding each other's faiths and beliefs. The world will be a beautiful place with no hatred no fight based on religion, and there will be at least one less reason to kill each other. Hinduism is often criticized for its idol worship and having many Gods-demigods, or seeing god in everything (trees, fire, air, stones, etc.). It's written in the Vedas that the creator of the universe is a formless, imageless, and genderless entity. However, if you assume there is some creator or god, then what’s wrong in having some image of that god using our imagination and giving it some name? Already, we created religion, so what’s wrong with creating God, and then why not have many forms of it? It’s like having a vending machine from which one can choose whichever God he/she likes. If they are different forms of the same thing, then what’s the problem? If you like, nothing wrong in worshiping God as a formless entity, and also nothing wrong in worshiping it in some form; everyone is entitled to have their own God, it's a personal thing. If we agree that all religions lead to the same ultimate truth, then why question others' methods? In science, there are different branches, and all try to look for scientific facts. However, a chemist doesn't ridicule a physicist or try to convert them to a chemist. This is because they both know that even though their ways are different, they are leading to the same destination. If everyone is heading to the same destination but just taking a different path, then what's the problem? 

Why don’t humans wonder if religion was created to unite us and make us more civilized and tolerant towards each other? Why are we doing exactly the opposite?  Today, religion divides more than unites people, and we have to blame ourselves for this situation. This is why I asked in the beginning, do we even need religion anymore? We converted religion into exclusive societies, where people believing certain sets of principles are welcomed but not others. Let’s stop this division and hatred based on religion and live like civilized humans are supposed to live. Humanity is the only religion everybody is born with; let's not try to divide more.

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

Related links for further reading:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Science and Religion

Do science and religion go together?

For me, the answer is ‘Yes, very much’ rather than they are made for or made from each other. There was no difference between science and religion when humanity started; they were one and the same. According to me, the Vedas are the first and oldest scientific journals or scientific societies formed. They used to get updated and debated, and people from all sections of society used to contribute their ideas and views during those debates and discussions.  Humans needed this process of generation of knowledge to explain and understand many things around us, which used to confuse people in those times, and science does the same thing today. But somehow this was discontinued at some stage for some reason.

Every society or culture, from time to time, benefits from the presence of very intelligent personalities who become sources of fresh, new ideas and knowledge. Their message acts like fresh air and inspires many people who then become their followers. Some of the groups of these followers decided to make their own exclusive societies (which in many cases get converted into new religions) to preach the teachings of their teacher (or guru or messenger), and they converted those teachings into a set of rigid rules, a complicated structure of dos and don’ts. I don’t think the original person delivering this knowledge even desired to have something like this (the religions that we have today). When we declare particular knowledge sacred and the ultimate truth, then there is no scope for debate. This made science and religion part their ways, and they became separate fields. Science is all-inclusive in its approach; nothing is sacred or holy there, it can’t be rigid or static, everything can be challenged, it encourages asking questions, performing new experiments, and new theories, and keeps on adding new knowledge. 

Knowledge is a continuous process, and it changes over time as new discoveries are made and it gets updated regularly. Science corrects itself; something which seems to be true today may not be true tomorrow as new technologies come and new theories also come. There is nothing wrong or insulting to prove old theories wrong or find some error in them and correct them. Those scientists who discovered old theories are still considered great scientists with phenomenal minds as they could achieve that feat with such limited technology and resources available at that time. Scientists have disagreements all the time, but scientists don't kill each other over scientific disagreements. However, the same cannot be said about religion; history shows us numerous occasions where people kill each other because of religious differences, even though all religions claim to teach love and peace. 

Followers of all religions closed doors for any new knowledge, believing that all knowledge has already been delivered and that everything to be said is already said. Eventually, they started finding it difficult to accept or cope with the new knowledge that was pouring in. Knowledge is a continuous process it won’t stop as long as the human race or living beings exist on this planet. We will keep on learning new things every day. Religion became a separate, sacred entity that then became stationary as nothing was allowed to change (even the wrong assumptions or concepts), and nothing was allowed to be added (not even clearly proven facts). At this point, science and religion started confronting each other more often. Nowadays, science is used to criticize religion and vice versa. Even after not adopting any scientific aptitude, different religious groups try to claim that their religious texts include many scientific facts, but there is no close relationship between these two fields. 

We need to understand that for the welfare of human beings, science and religion may have to go together; then only both can perform their duties; otherwise, this unnecessary confrontation will continue. We should be ready to correct many rules or concepts that are outdated in many religions, accept new ideas, and move forward. This approach won’t hurt any religion or reduce its dignity. Whenever people understand this, this whole debate of science vs religion will become meaningless. 

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

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