Indian American's political dichotomy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where are the true liberals?

I consider myself an ardent supporter of liberty. Liberty, which means freedom to choose, express myself the way I want, and live life the way I like are among the most important things that I value. I consider myself a liberal, not the "liberal" in a way people understand in political terms, but a true liberal. Actually, I find the terms "liberal" and "conservative" quite misleading as far as their political usage is considered, they don't make much sense to me. These labels are used as alternate names for major political parties without any meaningful association with the real meaning of those words. Recently I had the following conversation with one of my friends.
He asked me, "You must be a supporter of illegal immigration and socialism, do you want the US to open its borders?"
I said, "What makes you think that? Why will I support illegal immigration?"
He seemed to be surprised by my reply and asked back, "Aren't you a liberal?"
I replied, "I am a liberal, not a moron to support illegal things".
This is the level of conversation between so-called liberals and conservatives nowadays. It is really amazing to see what type of impression they both have about each other. I can't associate myself completely with any of these groups. I found some really good and some really bad ideas coming from both these groups. I choose to call myself a liberal because, I am open to all new ideas, nothing is sacred or unquestionable for me, I am willing to listen to all ideologies and for me, only the good ideas matter not their source, so, I am a liberal, open to all possibilities. Unfortunately, I don't see these characteristics in many of these so-called liberals, these people have made the term liberal so restrictive and narrow that it means you are a Democratic party supporter. It is no more a description of an emotion or a trait that liberates you from barriers and makes you a free thinker. That's why I ask where are the true liberals?

Being a true liberal is not easy, and that is why there are very few true liberals around. Most people like to associate themselves with a certain religion, political ideology, or cult, they love the comfort and warmth of that community as it gives them a sense of belonging and provides a safety net that they need. This feeling of belonging to some group is a very important part of our social behavior. Actually, we all belong to some group or other, some of these groups are very huge (like country, city, or religion) and some are small (like school, friend circle, our workplace, etc.). This feeling of belonging is not wrong or bad, but to accept everything propagated or taught by that group without questioning it is something I don't like, I just can't do it. A true liberal will never reject or accept an idea just because it is coming from a political group that he or she supports or doesn't support. They will never bother about the source, but treat every idea or thought based on its merit. It is not an easy thing to do as we have to first acknowledge and then eliminate as much as possible our prejudices and think objectively. 

True liberals will always be fair to others, especially to people whom they criticize. They will support the freedom of expression for everyone, not just for themselves, no matter whether they agree or disagree with that group or person. They will never get offended by anyone's remarks as they will know that freedom of expression comes with the freedom to offend. They don't discriminate or judge people based on their food, dress, sexual orientation, religion, race, color, age, gender or any other thing. They also know that any type of bigotry cannot be curbed by silencing bigots, but by allowing them to express their stupidity and countering it with rationality and logic. They will not support or demand a ban on any book, movie, or speech. Any type of discrimination will not be acceptable to them, they also acknowledge that rights come with responsibilities. They support equality, equity, and justice for all. They not only support equal rights but also equal responsibility and equal accountability. They also accept that their views can be rejected, challenged, or even ridiculed as these things are part of any public debate or argument. They question or challenge opinions or ideas, not individuals. They understand that the freedom to choose is the right of everyone. True liberals also support feminism as it is about equal rights and eliminating gender discrimination. I would love to see these so-called liberals try to do justice to the real meaning of this word, until then I think I have no choice but to continue my search for true liberals.

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

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

Drawbacks of having politically polarized society

Political polarization is on the rise all over the world. In many countries, especially in the USA and India, we can feel that the political rift between major political parties is widening day by day. I don't think this is a very desirable development. Political differences are part of any healthy democratic setup, there is nothing wrong with debating any topic, but when it takes the form of strong animosity then it not only creates a very politically charged environment for politically relevant issues but also very trivial things turn into big political battles. A lot of energy and resources are wasted arguing about some trivial issues. This also creates extreme bitterness among general public who feel compelled to fight these battles to support their political organization. Ultimately this leads to serious political deadlock. As a result of all this many important issues get sidetracked or they get stuck between political deadlocks as no party is interested in a compromise because of fear of hurting the sentiments of their core supporters. Whereas political opposition, debates, discussions, and arguments are necessary, political polarization is not a very productive atmosphere for any country. It is impossible to achieve any substantial progress in such an environment. We can feel the effect of this in both countries where many important issues are stuck in serious political deadlock, all we see is an endless blame game.

Why too much political polarization is bad for any country? How does it affect its population and governance? These are the questions we need to ask to understand the detrimental effect of this phenomenon. Any political ideology has some core principles on which they are not willing to compromise at all, that is why we have different political groups. Many times these issues are part of the basic political identity of those political parties, this is why we give them labels like leftist, rightist or centrist, conservative or liberal, socialist or capitalist, etc. There are many issues on which bipartisan collaboration is possible as most political parties agree on some of these topics that are not part of their core political agenda. But in a politically polarized atmosphere supporters and leaders of these political parties create a war-like situation where each and every issue, no matter how trivial or relevant, becomes a matter of serious conflict and political prestige. They become more interested in defeating their opponents at any cost rather than working in collaboration to achieve something better for their country. Any sensible person can agree that this is not a very desirable situation. We all should recognize that political opposition is necessary, it is an integral part of any democratic setup. We all should not only expect that alternate views and ideas exist but should create an atmosphere where people are not scared to express their views. The ability to express dissent is a very important aspect of any democratic setup. If we curb this for any reason then this is bound to hamper the progress of any society, country, or organization. The health of any society can be measured by the extent it allows the free flow of ideas. When there are incidents where people get arrested under the charge of sedition just for delivering some speech or a political rally of some leader gets disrupted just because some people don't agree with the views expressed by that leader then it is a matter of concern. When public perception takes precedence over the law of the land then democracy starts getting suffocated. Political opponents should not be treated as enemies of the nation, especially when you are in power. Some people in the US may not agree with many views expressed by Mr.Trump but he has the right to express them like anyone else. The US Constitution gives him that right, one can express disagreement in the strongest possible words but to disrupt his rallies or try to shut him up or his supporters is not the right way to express the disagreement. Indians should be proud of their heritage of argumentative traditions, but somehow today people seem to be more interested in settling scores against each other rather than discussions and debates. Let's go back to healthy political debates. We should debate and discuss each and very thing but in a civilized matter. Let's try to bring sensibility, rational, common sense, and patience back on discussion tables, this is the only way to progress.

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

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

Why don't I subscribe to any of these "isms"?

There are many sets of ideologies in the world, for example, there are so many 'isms' with which people like to associate themselves; communism, socialism, capitalism, theism, atheism, and so on. These isms include some sets of principles and ideas. These associations result in labels like communist, capitalist, theist, or atheist. Most people who follow these ideologies try to defend their own ideology as if that is the only best way for the progress of the entire human civilization. Many of them try to convert it into some sort of cult movement. This is what I don't like about any organized religion or cult movement or for that matter any of these isms, they all try to impose their own values and principles believing that they are only right and whatever others believe is wrong. Capitalists think any welfare scheme is socialism, socialists and communists think that every industry sucks worker's blood and loot customers, atheists think that all who believe in the concept of god and religion are stupid, theists think that all atheists are evil, etc. These boundaries and differences between these isms are becoming so rigid that many times people belonging to different groups can not come to any consensus even for the betterment of their country. They keep on fighting with each other just because some of the proposed solutions or ideas don't align with their ideology. Actually each one of these ideologies or 'isms' has some good and some very bad aspects, one can pick good points from each of them and implement them for the betterment of our society, but this can happen only when people who associate themselves with these ideologies learn to listen to each other's ideas patiently and try to find a common middle ground.

All these 'isms' or different religions or groups are human-made things. We created these ideologies during various stages of human civilization. Some of these were needed at that time because of particular situations in society, and many of them served their purpose when they were introduced. But slowly these things were converted into some 'ism' or some cult movement and they became rigid, almost like an organized religion with rules for dos and don'ts. Once this rigidity is introduced then there is no scope for discussion as any serious question is considered a challenge to the basic fundamentals of that ideology. Any questions about the core principles of that "ism," no matter how relevant, are considered blasphemy. Once questioning is barred these 'isms' are no different than any cult movement and I don't want to be a part of any cult movement. Every ideology or 'ism' is full of some great ideas, together they can deliver a lot of good for our society but only some populist features are used that are only beneficial to limited sections of society. This only helps to create a loyal political base (a vote bank). As every coin has two sides, every policy can be used for the betterment of society or just for political gains. When the focus shifts from society's benefit to political benefit then we witness the disaster where a certain policy that was introduced with noble intentions becomes a populist measure just for political gains. 

I like many ideas that come from many of these "isms," and I endorse them without being bothered about from which ideology they come. For me, the idea is important not its source. I choose to follow principles that I find logical. I use very simple criteria to review them, maybe this is the reason I don't subscribe to any of these "isms" because I believe in something from each one of them. I am a capitalist who supports the open market, I am a socialist who supports social welfare schemes for the needy sections of society, I am a communist also who believes in the rights of workers and in their fair share in profit, etc. If we think of ourselves as humans first and also look at all others as humans without associating any tags or labels with them then I think we can look beyond these artificial boundaries created by all these "isms" or ideologies. This will help us to listen to each other without getting mad at each other and maybe we can agree on many points. Each of these groups claims to work for the betterment of society, so, they should collaborate rather than fight with each other. Fighting just to prove each other wrong is definitely not going to do any better so let's unite and go forward, we have a lot of work to do.

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

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