Empty nest?

Both my kids are in college now. Graduating from high school and going to college is a milestone in every student's life. The student and their parents give their best to achieve this moment. Going to college is an emotional moment for parents, they are happy to see their child graduate from high school and also a little sad because most kids leave their homes to attend the college of their choice, hence the metaphor of the "empty nest." Nests and homes have something in common, both are places where families live. Generally, nests are built to protect the eggs and newborn birds until they can fly on their own and feed themselves. However, there is one significant difference. Homes are not temporary residences, of course, people move and change their homes, but this is just a shift from one home to another. But the nests cease to be useful for birds once the newborn birds learn to fly and feed themselves. This is why I feel the metaphor of an empty nest makes sense but doesn't show the complete picture. Hence the question mark in the title.

Every phase of life changes the dynamics of our relationships. Every relationship, for example, between child and parent, friends, spouses, our surroundings, or our colleagues changes over time. Kids start their lives completely dependent on their parents or guardians, but slowly they get independent and pursue their own journeys. Parents are supposed to facilitate this process, but the journey has to be the kids' own. Unfortunately, not many parents are brave enough to allow their kids that free choice. Most instill them with their fears and insecurities, force their religious and political values, brainwash them with their cultural and social biases and prejudices, pass on their own stereotypes, and worst, use them as vehicles to fulfill their own unfulfilled dreams and expectations. Even after all this, every parent-child relationship is special in its own way as most parents do these things thinking that they are doing good for their child. 

When kids graduate high school, they are supposed to embark on their own journey. This journey is supposed to be special as they will be living out of their homes for the first time. In the US most colleges require living on campus for at least part of their four years of college as they believe that living separately from parents is a part of a student's growth. I did not get to do this, I lived with my parents until I left for the US to pursue my postdoctoral work. It had its own pros and cons. I never got to live an independent life outside the shadow of my parents until my late twenties, whereas most kids in the US start doing this in their teens, at the age of 18 or 19. Now back to the empty nest metaphor. Even though it is a beautiful metaphor, our homes don't get empty, my kids are very much part of our home, even though they stay 8-9 months of the year on campus and are busy with their friends during their vacations. So, the nest is not really empty, just relationship dynamics have changed, we have entered a different phase and it has its own charm and fun. 

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

Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com

Four types of political participants: Which type are you?

Generally, it is assumed that there are three types of political participants: supporters, opponents, and independents. But I feel there are four, based on what I see on social media and in real life, I divide supporters into four groups. According to me, the four groups are as follows:

1. Hardcore supporters: These are the core base or the most loyal voters of any political party. These people support the party no matter what, they believe in the ideology of the party and are the most conservative core of the party who up their loyalty to the party and its leaders ahead of anything else, even their country. These supporters don't care whether the acts of their political leaders are moral or immoral, they are not bothered about corruption, internal democracy, nepotism, dynasty, or anything happening within their own party, that is, they don't see any difference between their religion and political affiliation. Many of them are willing to die or kill someone for the sake of political leaders and parties.

2. Hardcore opponents: These are the ones who oppose some political party no matter what. They do not see any merit in any of the actions of their opponents, their whole purpose is to attack the opponent, no matter what. This habit creates an amazing spectacle where someone is attacking another for doing the same thing that they did when they were in power.

It is no surprise that these two groups often include the same people, that is, hardcore supporters of one party are often hardcore opponents of their opposition. These are the people who flock for rallies, they participate in communal or other riots, defend their leaders no matter what, or attack their opponents no matter what. Nowadays some of them even become party spokespersons and appear in TV debates to create some drama and excitement for their support base.

3. Loyal supporters: This is an interesting category. They are the type of person who might question the party that they support, might oppose some of their actions, or occasionally even express dissent, but in the end, they stand with their party. They cannot see themselves supporting any other party. They are not the ones who participate in riots or physical alterations for their party, but they are the ones who justify these things as much as they can in their posts on social media or TV debates. Some of them are labeled as "intellectuals." These people design very interesting and intelligent rationales to justify the support and actions of their party. Many of these do not have mass appeal, but parties need such people to look mature and sophisticated, and these people also need some platform to broadcast their views. Some loyal supporters are the silent ones, they really do not bother to comment or say much, if they do speak or comment, they do it occasionally, but as far as their support is concerned it is solidly aligned with one political party.

4. Independents: These people do not have any fixed political ideology. They do have their principles and ideas but the problem is that they cannot find a single party that subscribes to their ideas. These people like some ideas from each political party but disagree with some core ideological issues of each party. They often offer their support based on what they feel is the most important issue for them during that election cycle. These are also the people who get trolled by the hardcore supporters of every party because they are bound to criticize each one of them at some point.

Now, the most interesting part, political parties do not care about the first three groups. You might ask, Why? Aren't they the most loyal supporters of the party? Yes. However, parties know where the loyalties of these three groups lie. They know that hardcore supporters and loyal supporters are not going to leave them no matter what, and hardcore opponents are not going to join them, no matter what.

Therefore, ideally, independent players can be game-changers, a difference between a win, and a loss. However, the independent players in this game matter only when their support matters in deciding the result of crucial elections. If hardcore and loyal supporters considerably outnumber hardcore opponents and independents combined, why the heck any party will care about the independents, as they are not required to win any elections. For obvious reasons, the party will entirely focus on catering to their support base (the current situation in India).

However, if the opinion of independent voters matters in deciding key elections (like the senate or presidential election), then the parties will try to design their campaign that does not drift too much towards either right or left (the current situation in the US).

The readers must understand that this is not a scientific analysis or hypothesis. It is quite possible that people can switch their political allegiance if they want and whenever they want. So, which type of political participant you are? Remember, it's not an easy analysis, many love to declare themselves as independent, but fail to behave like independents when it matters.

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

When everything is looked through a political prism

What happens when everything you say, write or do is looked through a political prism even though you didn't intend it to be political? I see this happening increasingly, especially on social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp. No matter what you post, whether it's a joke, comment, news, or an opinion, people either support or criticize it based on their political leanings, and not only that, they also link you to a particular political ideology or party based on the tone of the post. For many, this is not a problem as most people associate themselves with a certain political leader, party, or ideology. However, for someone like me who does not find any political party suitable to pledge my allegiance, this is a very annoying situation. When I don't intend any political connotation in my posts and people start dragging petty politics into it, it just destroys the intent behind that post. This made me be very blunt and confrontational while dealing with such comments (which I am, but only during in-person discussions not on social media). Now, whenever I see that people are showing islamophobia, I call them and request to say openly that they hate Muslims rather than galvanizing their words and implying something hateful. I flag the sexiest jokes and comments. To my surprise, these things are so common and rampant that I find myself incapable of answering every comment or flagging every sexiest joke, but still, I try my best. 

I will give one example of how things get lose their importance or get twisted when they are looked through a political frame all the time. Suppose, I post a link commenting about a heinous rape incident, depending on the religion or caste or race of the accused, which people guess quickly based on their names, people start commenting. They only comment about the religion of those people than discussing the problem of rape culture in that society. The discussion drags towards political mudslinging and blaming that particular community or political party. It is true that if we want we can link everything going on in our lives with politics because theoretically, it can influence every aspect of our lives. I never imagined that people will become so politically polarized that they start condemning or justifying murders, lynchings, rapes, riots, and wars only based on their political ideologies. This is not just happening in bipartisan political systems like the US, but it's happening even more in multipartisan systems like India. I never imagined that people would either love or hate their political leaders and that they would either justify everything or condemn everything they did, and both of these scenarios are equally deplorable. My problem is that I receive crossfire from every political supporter as I can find some serious flaws in some of their policies and actions. I also strongly feel that just because you voted for a certain political party you don't have to justify each and every action. Similarly, just because the party which you voted for lost an election you don't have to criticize each and every action of the current ruling party. Strong opposition is needed, but it should be effective and issue-based, opposing just for the sake of opposing is a meaningless endeavor to pursue. 

I am quite frank and open with my opinions. When I want to make a political comment or share my political views, I make it clear in my posts, I don't hide it behind any news or sugarcoat it. I am not someone who is allergic to blunt remarks, I make such remarks and totally get it when people direct similar remarks towards me, but such remarks should be on point, if they are off the topic, they are neither blunt nor deserve my attention. So, what's the solution? Please stick to the topic of discussion, one can bring related topics into a discussion, but when the initiator of the discussion says that he or she wants to keep the discussion limited to a certain topic, respect that, or start your own discussion. And finally, not every post is intended to make a political statement. Maybe your thinking is overshadowed by your political beliefs, but that's not the case with everyone, please keep this in mind when you drag politics into the completely apolitical discussion.

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

The journey of Reena - from a shy village girl to an independent woman

Reena and I got married 18 years back and ours was an arranged marriage, full of all the uncertainties and concerns that any arranged marriage brings along with it. The journey was not an easy ride, we had our ups and downs and went through our own struggles to understand each other and adjust to each other. I learned a lot from her and I am sure she feels the same. I lived most of my life in a patriarchal society in India, where the status of women was not equal to men. I must also mention that in the USA situation is much better, but still, a lot of work is needed even in the USA so one can imagine the situation in India. I was raised in an environment of male superiority, but fortunately, it had the opposite effect on me. Patriarchy and rampant misogyny around me made me a feminist. I realized the importance of making a woman an equal partner in any relationship. I realized that in the modern world women are an equal stakeholder and they need to to treated like that.

Reena lived in a small village in Uttar Pradesh until her sixth grade and then she moved to Varanasi. Varanasi is one of the biggest cities of UP, but the situation of women is not that different compared to other parts of UP. Definitely, it is better than many villages, but the difference is not that much. So, when we got married, my first task was to make my wife independent of me. She came from a culture where the husband had the status of a demigod - the provider for her needs, the protector of her honor and dignity, and the controller of her life and destiny. I needed to break all these myths. This was not an easy task for me as well as for her. It was confusing for her and very complicated for me. There was no easy way for both of us to maneuver through the maze of cultural mess that arranged marriage and patriarchal culture brought into our lives. When I told her that she is an equal partner in our relationship, which means she has equal rights and has to share an equal responsibility. The second part was more confusing and complicated for her (about the responsibilities). I stressed both, rights and responsibilities because rights without responsibility is a useless endeavor. But I must say that she responded with a lot of courage and perseverance. She took on this challenge head-on after initial hesitation. Initially, she thought her responsibilities were limited to traditional household work which women were expected to perform, this was the way she was raised. But when she realized that her scope of duty involved many tasks that she never thought were women's jobs, she was a little hesitant. There was a struggle, and I witnessed that struggle. I refused to help on many occasions, but that was necessary for her to realize her own potential. She overcame many obstacles on her own, with no or very little help from anyone around her. I was just her companion, once she decided to take on this challenge, she did things on her own, and she deserves the credit for all her successes.

When we moved to the USA, it opened many more new doors for her. She was free from all the social and familial constraints that were present in India. This made her embark on an exciting and rewarding journey. Today, I live with a totally transformed person, she is a much more confident and independent person. We both support each other, and our relationship is more balanced now compared to what it was at the time of our marriage. She is a very confident person and an independent woman who doesn't need her husband's support for her survival, and I am glad to see that she can manage her life on her own. She is a pillar of strength and support for me along with the rest of my family and friends. We both complement each other as husband and wife rather than having a typical husband-dominated marital relationship. It is not easy to write about your partner or parents or for that matter any person in just one blog post, but I want my readers to get the idea that it doesn't matter who we are or from where we come, if we decide and get enough support we all can achieve many things which may look impossible.

Reena's journey so far is not only a success story in its own way but also a source of inspiration for me. She still has many more challenges and many more obstacles to cross, but now she can do these things on her own. There are many successful people around us, but we fail to notice them. Normally we only recognize success or failure based on media reports and very often ignore many inspiring stories of people around us. Many times, no one bothers to tell stories of common people like us. Many times, we fail to notice some inspirational struggle or success story happening right in front of our eyes. We ignore that just because these people don't become celebrities or they don't end up making millions of dollars. I am fortunate to notice and appreciate many such success stories around me. My family members, friends, and colleagues faced many challenges and fought hard to overcome them. For me, all these struggles and triumphs are very inspiring. All these stories along with many others provide me the required self-confidence and optimistic outlook towards life. Reena's journey is one such story. We all have someone around us who is making progress day by day and if we learn to recognize that struggle and draw inspiration from their struggle, life will be beautiful. My life is more beautiful because of Reena and I hope she feels the same.

Thanks for reading.

[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.]

I understand your difficulties Mr. Tharoor

The speech by Mr Shashi Tharoor which he gave during a debate at Oxford University went viral on the internet. In this speech, he rebuked the argument that India was in no way benefited by British rule rather he argued that it was Britain who was the beneficiary at the cost of India's development. As expected, this speech won praise from all quarters in India, even Indian Prime Minister Mr. Modi made a special mention of this speech. There is no doubt that Mr. Tharoor is a very good writer and excellent orator, especially in English. I love the way he presents his arguments and conducts himself during any debate or discussion. His mannerisms and grasp of various issues are very impressive. Even after being in Indian politics, he shows courage to view his opinions about sensitive issues like juvenile justice bill or capital punishment. Many political parties and their leaders stay away from saying anything contrary to the general public perception about these sensitive issues but so far Mr. Tharoor has shown the courage to express his views boldly on these matters. I hope he continues to do this even in the future. I personally may or may not agree with all of his views and ideas, but I really appreciate his willingness to express opinions on matters that most other political leaders try to avoid.

Unfortunately, his own party (Indian National Congress) is crippled by its own insecurities and therefore can not make use of this brilliant public speaker as their spokesperson. According to them, it seems he has a tendency to speak some of the things which are logical and most of the time correct but not fit for messy Indian politics. Many times, some of his statements put his own party in a difficult situation because they want spokespersons who speak only politically convenient language not logical or rational things. It seems no political party in India likes this type of free mind or independent thinker to speak on behalf of them. Mr. Tharoor landed in such trouble just a few days back when he said that he is not in favor of using the disruption of parliament as a tool to corner the government. Actually, there is nothing wrong with what he said, there is no use in disrupting the parliament and stalling the important work that parliament and its members are supposed to do. It is true that the current ruling coalition NDA (mainly BJP) did this in the past, but their wrong actions of the past can not justify the same actions performed in the present by any other party. So even though Mr. Tharoor was right he faced the wrath of some of his party members for objecting to the party's political tactics. I am glad that even after all this snubbing and scolding people like him or Nandan Nilekani are trying to stay in politics. I also understand why these people have to go with the Indian National Congress rather than any other political party, the secular ideas and values represented by this party match these people's thinking which is why even after all the problems and drawbacks associated with this party they have to go with this party as there is no other equally suitable alternative for them. This explains their political choice. I consider myself politically independent and I support any political party based on issues, that is why I also face the same problems when I have to choose any single political party to cast my vote during any election. I face the same dilemma and always have to settle for the lesser evil rather than the ideal choice. Unfortunately, there is no legal choice in politics, it doesn't have to be, we need to find a party that aligns well with our basic values. This is why I say that I understand the problems of people like Mr. Tharoor, I really appreciate their efforts to remain in this system and also be able to protect their identity. Many people after entering this very robust and old political system become part of it, the system changes them, rather than them changing in the system. There are many examples of this from past and present to prove this. It is very easy to criticize the system, get frustrated, and say nothing can be done to change it, but it takes a great amount of patience, determination, and stamina to enter into it and try to swim against the current. Very few dare to do it, most of the people enter to swim with the current and reap the benefit. So don't worry Mr. Tharoor, I understand your problems but don't get disheartened by temporary setbacks, please keep on expressing your opinions and initiating discussions on various topics. Let's keep the fire of independent and free-thinking minds burning, we owe at least this much to 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. Dr Shashi Tharoor- Britain Does Owe Reparations
2. Dr. Shashi Tharoor on the Juvenile Justice Bill, 2015
3. http://www.ndtv.com/opinion/hanging-yakub-memon-makes-us-murderers-too-1202042

Sania Mirza is an individual first then a daughter or daughter in law

Recent obnoxious statements by some BJP and Congress MLAs in Telangana about questioning the Indianness of a very successful and celebrated tennis player Sania Mirza created a lot of uproar. This totally unnecessary controversy started when the newly appointed government of the newly formed state of Telangana appointed her brand ambassador of the state. Maybe some politicians were not happy with her appointment or maybe they were not happy that she was being paid money to do this job. They have the right to raise their concerns or objections but there is a civilized way to raise objections to these types of issues without making any personal obnoxious remarks. BJP leader K. Laxman called her "daughter-in-law" of Pakistan and questioned her credentials for this particular honor. Calling her daughter-in-law of Pakistan was not required to question her appointment for this job. These lawmakers are looked at as role models by their supporters, if they use this type of language then it sends a wrong message to their supporters. But it was good to see so much support for Sania and condemnation of this statement from many people. These statements show at least two problems present in Indian society. First, it shows their attitude towards women, where many people fail to look at them as individuals, women are always looked at as someone's daughter, sister, wife, daughter-in-law, or mother. Why can't they consider a woman as an independent person with no labels or any relations attached to her? Second, it shows an unjustified bias against certain communities by doubting their patriotism, particularly Muslims or in some cases Christians. Both these problems are a result of ignorance of people and stereotyping of particular gender or community.

I still remember the way they used to teach us why to respect women (or girls), we were taught to respect them because they are also someone's sister, mother, or daughter; the point they wanted to make was to respect other women as you respect women with whom you are related. It was always because she was someone's sister, mother, daughter, or wife not because she was a woman or an individual irrespective of any relationship tag. Why can't we respect everyone just as an individual, just for what they are rather than bothering about who they are? How long do we want to continue with this patriarchal mindset? This mindset is reflected in such comments where many men as well as women fail to look at women as individuals with no tags of relationship or social status attached to them. Another disturbing trend that has been going on for decades in Indian politics and which doesn't show any sign of going away is that whenever any such statement is made political parties either try to justify it or just distance themselves without condemning it or taking any action against the individual in question. I support absolute freedom of speech so according to me these individuals have the right to say whatever they want to say. I have no objection to their right to say these things. If their parties believe in freedom of speech then I welcome their stand of not taking any action against that person for making such statements. But these parties don't believe in freedom of speech, at least their past actions do not indicate this, so, I wonder what is stopping them from condemning such statements. Aren't they indirectly supporting these statements by not condemning them? Do they believe in the bystander's approach? 

Sania is a well-accomplished sportsperson in her own field. She has won many competitions for her country and also has been decorated with many awards and honors. If anyone has any problems with her suitability for the job of brand ambassador, then they should have raised their objections by asking relevant questions, not by questioning her patriotism, personal life, or relationships. These other things are not relevant to the matter of her being a brand ambassador. Just because Sania is married to a Pakistani national she doesn't become a Pakistani, it doesn't give anyone a license to question her patriotism. She is an accomplished Indian and doesn't need to prove this to anyone. She is an individual first and then she is someone's daughter or wife or daughter-in-law. If people can not respect her as an individual or independent woman then they won't respect her no matter she is who's who. I don't have any hope from these traditional political parties who cite hundreds of political compulsions for not criticizing such statements, they keep pointing figures at each other as if pointing out others' mistakes to legitimize their own mistakes. But I expect all rational Indians to object to such behavior. This patriarchal mindset and this bias against any religion or community need to be challenged. No one needs to prove their patriotism just because of their gender or religion, this must stop.

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. Sania Mirza controversy: All that has happened till now