Commingling is India's strength

For the last few years, there has been an ongoing debate about India becoming an intolerant country, especially because of certain reported incidents against minorities and the growing popularity of the Hindutva ideology which propagates a homogeneous identity for all Indians. This perception may or may not be true, but they made me dig deeper into the question, was India a tolerant country in the first place? India has a history of casteism, and communal riots, and was the ideal place to implement the famous strategy used by British rulers called "divide and rule." How does tolerance fit into all these, what is the reason for the perception that India is a tolerant country? The reason is India's diversity, the presence of almost each and every religion or sect, and much more. Most of India's provinces have different languages, food habits, dress, festivals, literature, and cultural attributes, and some of them have their own movie industry that can even compete with Bollywood. Of course, there are many commonalities, Hinduism is a majority religion, and skin color and visual appearances are similar except for the northeast region which gets ignored in each and every aspect. All these aspects make India a very interesting case to analyze. Many places in the world are diverse, the US or Europe does have a diverse population where different people from different parts of the world coexist. However, there is one major difference between India and other places. India is neither like a melting pot where people from different places come together and begin to mix and form one homogeneous identity, nor it is a place where individuality or privacy is valued to give separate space to each and every identity so that they can thrive without being threatened by the majority.

Indian society either intentionally or unintentionally allowed the comingling of different religions and cultures, that is why I said that there are many differences as well as similarities. Different states of India despite being different borrowed food habits from each other, and their languages have common origins, even the most popular organized religions like Judaism, Christianity, or Islam the way they are practiced in India is different compared to the rest of the world. This comingling did not threaten the existence of any religion, they all exist and occupy their own space in Indian society so far. Britishers took advantage of this diversity by using the tactic of "divide and rule," either by creating the perception that the majority is threatened by the minorities or the minorities are under attack by the majority. The strategy worked and even after independence is used by different political parties at different times to reap political dividends. 

India survived all such attacks so far, especially because of the uniqueness of India where diversity was considered as its strength, not a weakness. However, in today's world that mostly thrives on a unique identity this obscure, not-so-uniform, multireligious, and multicultural identity is projected as something weak or nonindigenous, and not unique. This perception is solidified by the rise of Hindutva ideology where being Indian means something homogeneous, definite, and deeply rooted in traditions of Hinduism. This narrative fits with most of the neighboring countries of India which are mostly homogeneous societies with a single religion dominating, social, political, cultural, and legal space. India was unique among all these countries specifically because of the reason that there was no easy way to define its identity. It was not a Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Buddhist, or any other religious or non-religious identity that defined India, it was at the same time all of these and none of these. I never understood this uniqueness until I left India and I don't think many Indians understand the value of this even today, that is why most of them agree with the propaganda that such a hybrid identity needs to be transformed into something definite and uniform. That's why I now feel that tolerance was not India's uniqueness but commingling was, this is because comingling is a step further than tolerance. Tolerance is when we tolerate our differences and decide to coexist despite those differences. Whereas commingling is where we not only tolerate the differences and coexist but despite our differences exchange and borrow each other's practices and incorporate them into each other's traditions and culture as our own, and still maintain our identity without being threatened by the presence of another. 

This is not to say that tolerance is any better than commingling, or vice versa. I am aware that my impressions could be completely wrong and someone can offer a better explanation than what I offered above, I tried to articulate what my current understanding is about this issue.

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

Circus called tolerance and intolerance debate

Nowadays heated discussions are going on in India on the issue of tolerance and intolerance. Every news channel is having some panel discussion to decide whether India is getting more intolerant or not, on social media some people are busy proving that intolerance is on the rise and some are fiercely contesting this claim by abusing them for raising this issue. The issue has become so important that it is being discussed in parliament also! I personally value tolerance a lot and have written a couple of posts related to this topic. One is about why we need a tolerant society and another is about my own experience of intolerance in Indian society. Now let's come back to this topic of debate over the issue of intolerance (or tolerance). If you listen to most of these debates, then any sensible person can easily understand how misplaced these people's expectations are about tolerance and intolerance. Somehow tolerance is equated with complete acceptance, objectionless, and submissive type of behavior, and intolerance is equated with any objection or strong comment or dissent against your own views. So, if I object to anyone's statement, then I am intolerant, if I say anything against any religion or person, then I am intolerant, on the contrary, if I don't react to an abusive statement, then I am tolerant, if I don't express any dissent about anything, then I am tolerant. Basically, either you are with me or against me, there is no middle ground. Also, there is huge confusion about where the "freedom of expression/speech" fits into all this? I don't even know if these people know that there is something called freedom of expression. So, the first question everyone should try to ask is, do we accept that people have freedom of expression or not?

Now let's proceed in step-wise manure as this topic seems to be very complicated. If there is freedom of expression, (with some reasonable restriction like no incitement of violence), then, anyone can say anything as long as it is not an incitement to engage in a violent act. People need to agree on this first, if people have freedom of expression, then they can express their opinion. That opinion can be anything, like some people should leave this country or I don't feel comfortable about the current atmosphere in this country, or whatever. Any Yogi, Sadhvi, minister, writer, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, atheist, actor, or whoever it may be can say whatever they want and no one should challenge their right to say those things as they are not doing anything unconstitutional or illegal by using their basic right of freedom of expression. Making any statement or agreeing or disagreeing with someone doesn't make anyone tolerant or intolerant. It all depends on our actions and behavior towards people who say nasty and offensive things, it depends on how we react to those statements with which we disagree or feel offended. Just look at the reactions from both sides and you will understand what I am talking about and why I call this debate a big circus. I personally have no objection to any Yogi, minister, or actor expressing their opinions, they have the right to do that. I cannot question that right. I may or may not agree with their statement, and I may have very strong objections to those statements, but that person has equal rights to express them just like I have. But it seems people don't understand this simple thing, most of the reactions are like, how dare he or she say this? He or she should be punished or kicked out of the country for saying this or let's boycott them for expressing their opinion. Common, at least first try to understand what that person said, debate and discuss that topic in detail, and then come to any conclusion. But it looks like people are more interested in delivering verdicts of guilty or nonguilty rather than resolving the issues and having any meaningful discussions. The atmosphere is getting so polarized that it seems there is no possibility of any middle ground where people can agree to disagree and move on. Even in parliament, the discussion is pathetic, it is not that I expected it to be any different than whatever is going on in TV studios, but if you are putting some circus then at least make it somewhat entertaining and watchable. The recent protests and this 'award wapasi' movement were actually to protest against the increase of physical violence which is the ultimate form of intolerance. I don't think it has anything to do with the change of government or who is PM or who is president. The government should have taken these protests in the right spirit rather than taking them personally and trying to dismiss them altogether thereby giving them a lot of media coverage. Addressing the concerns of these people might have stopped this issue from becoming a national time pass. I also don't know why people complaining about intolerance want to paint the picture as if today in India you can not say anything against the current government, it seems both sides are only interested in going to any extreme just to prove their point. Tolerance or intolerance shows in our behavior. A tolerant person, society, or country doesn't have to say that they are tolerant or give any proof to prove that, their behavior is enough to prove it. Similarly, an intolerant society or person doesn't have to accept that they are intolerant their behavior is the ultimate proof of who they are. Our actions speak louder than our words, so, I think people should focus on their actions and let those actions speak whether they are tolerant or intolerant. I don't think this shouting at each other is going to bring any desired change, each person should correct their behavior and automatically it will bring change in the country. I hope both sides understand this, otherwise, this issue will become another never-ending topic of Indian politics like secularism and communalism.

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

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

Intolerance was always there in India

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

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

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

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

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

Why it is important to have a tolerant society?

I always write about the importance of tolerance and how any progressive and civilized society needs to be tolerant. I found that many people somehow believe that showing tolerance is a sign of weakness. Somehow there is a perception that being tolerant means being weak or submissive. I wonder from where they get this notion, actually tolerance or registering your protest in a nonviolent way is not an easy thing. Gandhi himself said that the option of nonviolence is only for strong people, weak people can not follow this path because it is very tough for them to control their anger and animal instincts. The same is true for tolerance, for being tolerant one requires a lot of patience and strength. Any society or government should learn to tolerate dissent if they want any progress. It is very rare for any diverse group or society to agree completely on any issue, there will always be some difference of opinion or some opposition no matter what is the topic of discussion. This is where tolerance comes into the picture. I think every individual, group, or society needs to ask this question to themselves, are they willing to accept that there can be a difference of opinion or counter-view to their own view or not? They may or may not agree with it, but do they support the right of that person (or group) to express those views? Are they willing to protect other's right to disagree? Because in any tolerant society scope for disagreement is very important, if I am scared to express my views because I might get attacked for expressing them as they don't align with the majority, then it is for sure that I am not living in a tolerant and civilized society. If freedom of expression is important to you, then you must care about tolerance.

Many people think that being tolerant means accepting everything, keeping quiet when wrong things happen around you, or not registering protest against anything at all. These are behind the prception that being tolerant means being weak. The truth is that tolerant people are also very passionate about their views and their ideas, but the only difference is the way they express those views and ideas. They can be very assertive about their opinions, but they are not physically or verbally aggressive. They also get angry and frustrated, but the difference is what they do when they get angry. The way they express their anger is very different from that of intolerant people. It is very natural to get angry or frustrated after seeing anything which is contrary to our set of beliefs, but what matters is what we do when we face such sitaution. Any tolerant person doesn't abuse the person expressing a different opinion than them, they don't attack or kill that person just because the person believes in some different ideology or belongs to some other group. But they engage in dialogue and discussion and want to debate the issue rather than force their opinions on others. Tolerance doesn't at all mean that accept all and reject nothing, the only difference is in the way you reject, and it makes a huge difference. This difference can result in peaceful protest vs riots, picketing vs mob attacks, so, the point I want to make is that this difference is huge and it can be the question of life and death for some individuals. 

It takes tremendous courage to tolerate or to protect rights of toerhs to oppose our ideas, it requires listening to people who criticize us even without any substantial proof or logic. These things can only happen in a very civilized, developed, and progressive society which understands the importance of dissent and of open debates and discussions. Ask yourself a few questions to check if you are living in a tolerant society or not, if not then please make some efforts to improve your own behavior first so that at least you take the first steps towards making of tolerant society which you desire. There are very rich and so-called developed places in the world where there is little or no tolerance for so many things. Especially criticism of religion, rulers, or ruling party are not tolerated. I am sure many of us don't want to live in such a society, so, it is our job to make sure that this important aspect doesn't get lost among the noise of power-hungry politicians or fanatic religious organizations and their supporters. Protect this tolerance as it is a lifeline of any civilization if it wants to progress intellectually. 

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

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

One more murder and another glaring silence - wake up India

Indian writer, scholar, and rationalist Mr. MM Kalburgi was murdered a few days back outside his residence. He was under the radar of some fanatic organizations for his views on religion, especially Hinduism. Finally, he was murdered like some other thinkers like Dr. Narendra Dabholkar and CPI leader Mr. Govind Panse. These three murders symbolize the recent disturbing trend of prevailing intolerance in Indian society where people who dare to challenge the status quo or whose thoughts are not in alignment with the majority are attacked or eliminated. As if these murders are not serious and disturbing enough there is a glaring silence about these barbaric acts, it looks like people expect these things to happen. Only a certain section of society is questioning these acts, the media and most people are busy debating some celebrity kid murder or some other issues. No doubt that any murder should be condemned and covered by the media, but one can easily see the purposeful ignorance of media which shows which direction we are moving as a society.

Disagreeing with someone's ideas or thoughts, criticizing them, or questioning them is an acceptable way of debate and discussion in any civilized society. But physically attacking people, threatening them, forcing them to resign from their jobs,  and forcing them to withdraw their articles and books are signs of an intolerant and barbaric society. The environment of fear and unwanted aggression is not conducive to the intellectual growth of any society. Many countries in this world live in this type of environment, and we can see what is their situation today. India by large is perceived as a very tolerant and inclusive society, the very diverse nature of its population is proof of this. Whatever success it achieved as a country can be largely attributed to this tolerant nature where intellectuals were not scared to express their opinions and ideas. But the occurrence of such incidents put a big question mark on this claim. A society that fails to protect its intellectuals will also fail to protect its intellect. The display of such unwanted aggression towards intellectuals is totally unwanted and I am amazed that respective governments didn't react strongly against any of these murders. The whole of India was on the roads after that infamous Delhi gang rape and people protested against that inhuman crime, these murders are also in the same category. They are equally shameful, disturbing, and inhumane acts. The protection and safety of intellectuals of society is important, especially when in such a hostile environment. If this aggression and attacks are in any way a result of the recent change of political situation in India, then it should be a matter of big concern to the current ruling party of India (BJP). They should not hesitate to take all required actions to remove this atmosphere of fear and insecurity. I hope these incidents are not taken lightly, I know that these murders won't make any media headlines or won't find a place on the front page of national newspapers, but these things are concerning. Such incidents can decay the social fabric slowly and if ignored they can result in serious damage to India in the long term. 

I strongly register my protest against these attacks. I am deeply hurt and pained to see that some people are attacked and murdered just for expressing their thoughts. These murders are no different than the recent killings of some bloggers in Bangladesh. I hope people from India (as well as Bangladesh) take serious note of this attack on freedom of expression and act to bring back that tolerant and fearless environment. I hope people learn to agree to disagree and carry on discussion rather than choosing the path of violence. I offer my sincere tribute to these brave free thinkers who dared to express themselves even in a very hostile environment, I salute their braveness and courage with which they fought against all odds, I hope the society for which they sacrificed their lives won't forget their sacrifice and their thoughts.

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

Meaning of being liberal

I read this message on someone's Facebook wall. This message does a pretty good job of explaining the meaning of being liberal as well as some problems liberals face in our society, it also tries to clear some misconceptions about the term tolerance. Being tolerant doesn't mean being weak or submissive, rather one needs to be very strong-minded to be tolerant and liberal. Most people who make fun of the non-violence philosophy try to equate tolerance with weakness or cowardliness but in reality, it's exactly the opposite. I consider myself a liberal and open-minded person, by this I mean a person who respects other individuals on equal terms regardless of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or any other difference; and who is willing to listen to others' views and share my views in a democratic and civilized way. I believe in discussions, debates, and dialogues rather than forcing my opinion on others. I also believe that there can be more than one right answer or solution to the same problem. Behaving as if my way is the only right way is not my habit but that doesn't mean I accept whatever others say even if I don't agree. If I don't agree with certain things I make sure to express my disagreement in a civilized way, being liberal and tolerant doesn't mean agreeing and accepting each and everything thrown at you.

I also believe that people can live peacefully and work for the betterment of society even if they don't agree on some issues or have differences of opinion. We can always agree to disagree with each other and move on. This is very important for any civilized society. Many people, especially in the comment section of some blog posts expect that as I claim to be liberal and open-minded I should accept their views as correct views and also accept my mistakes (that I was wrong as my views didn't match with theirs). They wish me to align my views with theirs because I claim to be liberal. They also question me objecting to some famous personality's opinion, they claim it's an insult to that person. According to them, being liberal means arbitrarily respecting everyone and accepting everything. Basically, they want liberals not to challenge anyone and respect each and everything. As an open-minded person, I am willing to listen to their views and ideas but I have no obligation to agree with them or with anyone if I don't find those things right. I also believe that there are some things that no one should tolerate like gender discrimination, racism or casteism, sexual abuse, terrorism, etc. But people support these things directly or indirectly and I am willing to listen to them but I just can not agree that these things in any form are acceptable.

I guess many people have serious misconceptions about what is meant by being liberal. It does mean being open to all ideas and views but that doesn't mean one should also accept them. Liberals can very much disagree and oppose views and ideas with which they don't agree but the major difference is they don't just want to silence the people who voice ideas by force but want to debate and challenge those views. They believe in change via debates and discussions. They believe in constructive criticism and dialogue but at the same time, there are certain things on which they can't compromise. They also have their own beliefs. But according to me the major difference between liberals and hardcore conservatives is, that liberals acknowledge that there can be differences of opinion and there can be disagreements on some issues, we can have debates or discussions about them and we can live together peacefully even with all our differences. A tolerant society is a type of society where everyone has the right to express their opinion, and at the same time, everyone has the right to question. People are allowed to question anything and everything. Once we understand this then no matter who we are, liberal or conservative, we all can live together peacefully.

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

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

Is there really tolerant religion?

There are so many religions in this world, I don't know the official count, but I am sure there are many. There is also fierce competition among them to recruit as many subjects as possible, this helps them to increase their popularity and in turn, their income and influence on people's lives. All these religions claim to teach kindness and tolerance, despite this claim, if we look at the history of every major organized religion, we can find many bloody conflicts in the name of God. So, the question that comes to my mind very often is, is there any religion that really teaches tolerance? If yes, then why people following that religion don't practice it? Are all these claims about tolerance and love fake? Do they say this just for marketing and fooling people? It seems they are tolerant and kind as long as you listen to them and follow their rituals without asking any questions, once you do anything against their wish or start asking some uncomfortable questions, then the tolerance evaporates quickly and you face their anger and hate.

Islam and Christianity are very aggressive in their marketing, and because of this, they are very successful. They believe a lot in individual or mass conversions, this is one of the major reasons for their popularity and rapid spread all over the world in such a short time (compared with other major religions like Hinduism and Buddhism). I think once they feel the need to convert somebody that means they are not okay with their original faith or beliefs, they feel those beliefs are wrong, otherwise, what's the need to convert people? All religions are not very kind towards each other's values and traditions. What is called sacred in one religion can be considered as totally blasphemous in another (for example, idol worship). They also claim to teach basically the same thing just because they all believe in the presence of some God, however, this is the only common factor (belief in god) but the rest of everything is radically different from one religion to another. Some of these things are so different that these differences have the potential to create communal riots which result in mass killings in the name of God and this is all done by people practicing religion which they claim teaches tolerance and love. I think these bloody communal conflicts started when a second religion (a competitor to the first) originated and are still going on with no end in sight.

Hinduism claims to be a very tolerant and inclusive religion, it also claims that atheism was also part of it, and this is true only to some extent. It doesn't believe in any conversions, almost each and everything is considered as God (river, mountains, sun, trees, etc.). One can list many good points about Hinduism like many other major religions but it is not free from any blemish. The history of Hinduism is also full of discrimination and violence. The biggest question mark is the issue of casteism. A particular class of society was exploited and tortured in the name of caste for thousands of years. Surprisingly some people still try to defend and justify this system, they refuse to accept that the system was terrible to begin with and allowed shameful exploitation of one class by another class. Buddhism and Jainism give a lot of importance to ahimsa (nonviolence) but then they were associated with some violent regimes and are not willing to consider that some people can have different dietary choices.

Discrimination against women and narrowly defining their role in society is common in the history of all religions. They all try their best to confine women only to particular roles and put very strict rules for their code of conduct. The effect of these teachings is so strong that still we don't see any women occupying any top positions in almost all organized religions or cult movements.

So, the point here is, that I don't see any truly tolerant religion around me. There is no religion that is tolerant of all genders (with equal rights and status), all races, and people with different sexual orientations. Every major religion practiced in the world today definitely has the potential to become inclusive but only if they are willing to get rid of their rigid mindset and sectarian views, but this sounds like an impossible task looking at the way they function now. In their present form most of them have very rigid rules (which are dictatorial in nature) these rules are only useful to exclude, criticize, or ban certain types of people who either don't fit their definition of normal or don't follow their dictate. Many of them have some dark spots in their history and they don't even accept any responsibility and forget about getting an apology.

There is no doubt that religion provides a support system and peace of mind for many even today. Many people need it for the normal functioning of their lives as they feel lost without it. It acts as a lubricant for many and gives them answers to currently unanswerable questions (right or wrong doesn't matter). It reduces their fear of death and does many other things. But in its current form, it does that job only for people who choose to believe in it blindly, without questioning anything, almost like slaves. Many times for others it creates problems and difficulties. There is no place for nonbelievers, skeptics, or people who don't follow all their rules or don't fit into their description of normal or good (like same-sex couples, working women, atheists, critics, etc). One quick glance at the history of any religion should be enough to understand what I mean. Somehow all these religions that claim to teach tolerance and patience are not so patient or tolerant towards criticism directed to their Gods.

So, my wait for a truly tolerant religion that will include everyone, with equal rights for everyone continues, my hope is that maybe one day someone will invent it, and we all will be happy. Some constitutions of democratic countries are very close to this (very inclusive) but unfortunately, no religion in its present form even comes close to them as far as tolerance is concerned. Many of these constitutions provide better rights and protection to everyone and are very tolerant of different views and opinions compared to any scripture out there. I hope major religions will someday take some clue from them and change their attitude, if not then I don't know even if their God can save them from becoming extinct.

 
Thanks for reading and please share your views.

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

You’re Either With Us, or Against Us

This is a very popular line, used by many people many times. This line and its variations are used by many leaders and their followers in polarized situations. This line represents a philosophy that is also present in religion, politics, and part of the human psyche, especially during any debate or discussion about some sensitive subject or topic. Often, this means that if the person or a group is not interested in joining your team, then they are considered enemies. This can turn into a very rigid attitude and also propagate hatred towards people who don't agree with our views. Nowadays, we see this attitude a lot in various forums and discussions; people are becoming intolerant towards others' views and opinions.

President Bush used a similar line after the tragic incident of 9/11. People were very emotional at that time, and this statement polarized world opinion. It's not that terrorism never existed before or was not an issue before 9/11, but that incident resulted in taking this issue to a totally different level. Terrorism is a very complex issue and has many reasons and angles associated with it; it's not easy to see it in black and white. This statement unfortunately polarized opinions about a particular religion (Islam) rather than highlighting the issue of terrorism and looking for the reasons behind it. 

During our course of life, we come across many situations that teach us many things. These teachings, along with our formal education, form our beliefs and opinions. Everyone doesn't go through the same experiences in life; people also come from different regions and places, so it's obvious that different people can have different opinions about the same thing. The problem of conflict of interest and clash of opinions between individuals and civilizations has happened many times in the past. It also resulted in many wars and massacres, and it's still happening; it seems we still haven't learned our lesson from them. 

Why do people feel so upset if someone challenges their views and beliefs? Debates and discussions are ways to share our knowledge. Normally in debate, no one is right or wrong; people are just sharing information by making a rational argument. Everyone has freedom of expression; they can express their views and opinions in democratic ways at the same time, others also have freedom either to agree or to disagree with them. Most people know about their rights, but very often they forget that others also have the same rights. We should understand that sometimes there can be more than one truth, more than one correct answer to the same questions. If some group insists that only their version of the truth is the absolute truth and all other versions are wrong, then a situation of confrontation arises. This rigid attitude is the reason for whatever hatred we see in today's world. One group of people hates other groups just because they don't subscribe to their views and ideas. The conflict between capitalism and communism, issues between countries with nuclear arms and countries that want to acquire them, and communal riots are a few examples of this intolerant attitude towards each other.

I think recent outbursts by some social groups in the media and on Facebook against some of the episodes of Amir's show Satyamev Jayate fall into this type of attitude. We should understand that some articles, posts on blogs, movies, or shows like Amir's ongoing show on TV have certain purposes; they want to highlight some issues or problems, or want to discuss only certain aspects of a big issue. Many times, it's not possible to cover all aspects of certain issues in one single article or episode because of so many reasons, and people should understand this. They have full right to disagree with the contents or put their side or even prove the contents of the show or article wrong by giving counter-evidence. But just to criticize that particular person for bringing out that issue or highlighting that problem is totally wrong. In all these emotional outbursts, that particular person becomes the target, and the main issue gets sidelined. I have seen this happen many times. If people don't agree with anyone's opinion, just show the proof and prove that he/she is wrong; it's a very simple thing to do, but people choose to shut that person up. It's easy for them to try to shut that person up rather than solve the issue, accept the mistakes, or tackle the problem. I don't know when people will mature enough to understand that we have many issues in this world that need to be addressed. Rather than trying to cover it up or take criticism personally, we should try to encourage debates and discussions about these problems and try to solve them together.

Whatever work Amir or any other person or many organizations throughout the world are doing is not easy; they are highlighting some sensitive issues, and want to have debates about these things. Sweeping the issue under the carpet and pretending that nothing wrong is happening or has happened in our society, religion, family, or country is a very easy thing to do, but unfortunately, that doesn't solve the problem. It takes courage to show the mistakes of our ancestors and take on some established institutions or beliefs. Many topics are sensitive, and people don't feel comfortable discussing them, but that doesn't mean they should not be discussed. Let's stand in support of such individuals or organizations, and if we don't agree with their views, then let's try to prove them wrong by showing proof against their argument rather than shutting them up.

Thanks for reading, and please share your views.

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