War For Peace

“Every single empire in its official discourse has said that it is not like all the others.” — Edward Said

That quote resonates with us even today because it exposes a pattern that repeats across history. Every regime that wages war insists its war is different. It is framed as necessary, defensive, moral, reluctant, and even noble. Again and again, violence, whether in the form of war or abrogation of fundamental rights, is packaged as responsibility. Destruction is sold as a necessity to bring order. War is renamed peace.

But war, by its nature, brings ruin. It destroys infrastructure, uproots families, erases history, and kills innocent civilians who pose no threat to anyone. And even when declared objectives are supposedly achieved, the destruction often continues. The bombingd do not stop even when the justification has run out. The suffering goes on, and somehow it is still defended in the language of strategy, security, and national interest. Even communities and countries that have themselves endured profound inhuman tragedies can later subject others to pain and suffering in the name of peace. What is most difficult to comprehend is how those shaped by such suffering can inflict pain and suffering on others.

That is what makes modern war so grotesque: not only the violence itself, but the lies used to sanitize it.

While the world debates terminology, some of humanity’s oldest civilizations are reduced to rubble. Civilians are buried under collapsed buildings. Schools, hospitals, historical sites, and essential resources are destroyed. The loss is not accidental or collateral in any meaningful moral sense once it becomes repeated, normalized, and excused. At that point, it is no longer a tragedy alone. It is a choice.

We are told that institutions such as the United Nations exist to preserve peace, prevent escalation, and create space for negotiation. Yet when massive destruction unfolds in full public view, these institutions often appear paralyzed. Statements are issued. Concerns are expressed. Meetings are held. But the destruction continues. The world watches without doing anything to stop the deaths of innocent civilians.

Why?

Why, despite diplomacy, international law, and endless channels of negotiation, are wars still allowed to expand across borders and consume countless innocent lives? Why does the violence continue even after its stated objectives have supposedly been achieved? Is it because the attacked refuse to submit? Or because those who unleash war are not seeking security at all, but submission?

History will record the answer. It will also record the silence.

It is easy to speak when nothing is at stake. True courage begins when speaking carries a cost — when careers, alliances, reputations, and material interests are on the line. That is precisely where much of the world is failing now. The destruction itself will be remembered, but so will the calculated quiet of those who had a voice and chose not to use it.

Most wars are dressed up in the language of honor, defense, and necessity. But beneath that language, the real motives are power, money, influence, political survival, and control. Human life becomes secondary. The deaths of ordinary people become statistics, acceptable losses, background noise. This is mainly because the powerful are immune to the destructive effects of the war. All the risks are borne by other people and their children, while the rewards are collected by those who authorized the violence and those close to them. The pattern is painfully simple: let others die so that power may be preserved, expanded, and enriched. This is why the war is sold as necessary, so that no questions are asked, and dead soldiers are celebrated and honored as martyrs without raising questions about who was responsible for their deaths.

But there is nothing necessary or noble about bombing a school full of children. There is no moral sophistication that can justify the slaughter of innocents. There is no avoidance of danger in raping or sexually torturing prisoners or helpless civilians. That is not a strategy. It is not peacekeeping. It is not civilization defending itself. It is cruelty with political cover.

Bombing children is tyranny. Destroying civilian life and calling it peace is tyranny. Replacing one tyrant with another does not end oppression; it merely changes its face. Every war-mongering ruler insists that this war is different. This one is unfortunate but required. This one is for stability. This one is for peace. But peace built on the bodies of children is not peace. It is domination. It is terror.

So what is all this for?

What logic can justify such immense human and material loss? What political objective can outweigh a generation traumatized, cities shattered, and innocent lives erased? Listen carefully to the statements made by those on all sides of these wars. Too often, they reveal no real reverence for human life, only calculation, messaging, and blame management.

Perhaps the deepest moral failure is not only in the decision to wage war, but in the refusal of societies to condemn inhumanity when it is committed by their own side. We have become skilled at selective outrage. We mourn some children and rationalize the deaths of others. We always condemn brutality in enemies and excuse it in allies. We measure the worth of a life by the flag under which that life was born.

And still we call ourselves civilized.

If we cannot hold our own side accountable, then our morality is hollow. If conscience speaks only when convenient, then it is not conscience at all. It is performance. The least we owe the innocent is honesty. Honesty about what war is. Honesty about what is being done in our name. Honesty about the lies leaders tell when they wrap violence in the language of peace.

Any war that brings mass destruction, civilian suffering, and the devastation of entire societies cannot be casually excused as a path to peace. When leaders knowingly unleash such horror, and when others enable or ignore it, what we are witnessing is not peace in the making. It is an assault on humanity.

If we fail to name it honestly, then the loss is not only of lives, homes, and history. It is also the loss of our moral credibility. And if that loss means nothing to us, then perhaps the most frightening question is no longer what war has made of the world, but what silence has made of us.

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

How to deal with a busy and chaotic mind?

Our brain is one of the most complex organs developed by nature. We are still trying to explore various ways through which our brain functions, with the help of incredible work from many scientists and other experts we could solve some mysteries about the way our mind works and we are still working to solve many others. One unique feature of our brains is that at any given moment countless thoughts compete to flood our brains. It's like an ocean of thoughts with countless waves rising and falling every second. Some of them become big storms and overwhelm us, the more we try to resist, the more they persist. Many times, it's not easy to deal with our busy mind, especially when it starts dishing out difficult emotions like fear, shame, guilt, inferiority, and anger, just to name a few. Some of us turn to medications and some to various techniques like meditation with the hope that it may help us to control our minds. Sometimes we are successful but many times we don't get any respite. How to deal with a busy and chaotic mind? Is it possible to control our thoughts? Can meditation help and is that the only or best option? If yes, how much? There are many questions like these that come to our mind whenever we get overwhelmed due to its overactivity.

Meditation can be one of the ways to deal with a busy and chaotic mind. One common perception people have about meditation is that it's all about controlling our minds and thoughts. While meditating people try really hard to resist their thoughts. We think mental peace means a thoughtless and clear mind. However, as per my experience meditation is not about controlling your flow of thoughts but about learning the skill of observing them objectively. Most of our problems are not because of the nature of thoughts that come to our mind but because of the way we react to them. We need to learn to control our reactions, thoughts are bound to come to our mind, many times, randomly, and we may or may not have any control over them. Remember, the more we resist, the more it persists. However, we can control our reactions to our thoughts, this is how I approach meditation and it helps. I suggest whoever is struggling to see any positive results from their meditation practice try this approach. I hope meditation trainers and practitioners also take into consideration the idea that one does not have to control their mind while meditating. Controlling our flow of thoughts is like trying to capture air or water in our fists, we might be able to do it for a while but it's going to slip away eventually. Our brain never stops thinking, as long as we are alive. 

The benefit of this approach is that slowly we train our minds to be objective about our own thoughts and learn to pause before taking any action based on the uncontrollable flow of thoughts. This training of the mind is the key because we cannot be in a continuous state of meditation, therefore, if we do not train our mind how to react (or not to react) then we may face the same issues once we finish our meditation session. Meditation is supposed to provide benefits beyond our meditation sessions not just during those sessions. The aim is not just to have mental peace and calmness during the meditation session but to extend that calmness to the rest of our day, therefore, during the meditation our mind needs to be engaged and not disengaged. The engagement should be passive because the aim is not to react but to observe the thought process. A peaceful mind is not a thoughtless mind, but it is a mind that is at peace in spite of many thoughts in it as it has learned how to observe them and allow these thoughts to flow without getting affected by it. It is not easy, but that's why not everyone succeeds in getting benefits from meditation, the reasons for success or failure may lie in the approach they take. Also, there are many ways and methods of meditation, we should try as many as we can and choose whichever suits our lifestyle and needs.    

Remember, meditation is not medication, it's not a pill that will show an instant effect and offer immediate relief. Meditation is like a game, you win some and lose some, but to win the game you need to play it first, if you don't play you don't win. It is also important to give our 100% and enjoy the play, then only our chances of winning increase. If we play any game for the sake of winning without enjoying the game, it won't benefit us whether we win or lose, the same is true for meditation, jump into it only when you are ready to enjoy the process, and the results will follow eventually. Also, keep in mind that medication and meditation are not mutually exclusive, they are not either-or options, one can select both and benefit from both options. Many people commit this mistake and reject the other path thinking they cannot go together. Medication is an important option, it should be on the top of our list and must be given the respect it deserves, it can do wonders and change lives, but we can ignore it only at our own peril. 

There are many ways available to deal with a busy and chaotic mind, consider all options, and choose whichever suits you best, there is no one-size-fits-all solution for our mental health. Find your path and follow it sincerely. Good mental health is not a destination but a lifelong journey, enjoy the journey without worrying about the destination because there is no destination, all the very best. 

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

It is in their blood

How many of you have heard someone saying "It's in their blood" while referring to some undesirable social or criminal behavior by some individual to blame that entire community, religion, race, or country for that one person's behavior? This is a deeply prejudicial and biased statement, full of underlying hatred. I have heard it many times since I can remember. This line is often used to insult a particular community, religion, or country rather than for anyone's praise. I heard people using it against Muslims, Christians, Hindus, and within Hindus so-called upper caste people using it against so-called lower caste groups, and so on. Recently, I heard this line while attending a social function sometime before India was expecting a major decision from its supreme court in the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid land dispute case. This dispute dragged on for decades and was used by the BJP and some other political parties as an effective political pool. Finally, when the Supreme Court of India decided to declare its judgment about this dispute, there was a concern about the effect of this judgment on the communal harmony of the country. During this social gathering, the discussion drifted toward this topic, one of my friends sounded pretty sure that there would be communal riots in India, and I asked him what made him believe that riots would happen for sure. He thought that Muslims of India wouldn't take the count's decision in the right spirit and start rioting. My next question was why was he so sure that Muslims would initiate the riot and not the Hindus? What if the decision goes against the Hindus? My question was more theoretical than practical, it was clear to everyone in whose favor the court would rule, but I wanted to know why he was so sure to blame Muslims for communal riots. His quick reply was that it was in their blood to do such things. I was stunned, not because I heard this for the first time, but because of where I heard this. So far, I have not heard such a statement from some literate person who knew quite a few Muslims and someone who lived in the US and some other countries for many years.

Even though it was shocking that someone could make such a statement about some community, it should not have surprised me considering I had some of these biases until my college days. Over a period of time, I also realized that for many people it is impossible to get rid of some of their prejudices and biases. This is the reason why the politics of hate still work, why some religious leaders from all religions can propagate hate and still get many followers. Why do some organizations openly propagate race or gender supremacy and still find many who subscribe to their bigotry? Also, anyone can be a bigot, starting from an illiterate to a Ph.D. or a Nobel laureate. I did not feel anger or frustration but felt pity for my friend that he is living with such a deep prejudice against Muslims. However, I couldn't do anything to cure it, I tried it but I failed. This friend is just an example, I do not want to single this person out for such behavior, there are many who think and believe in such things. Any social trait or criminal behavior is not in anyone's blood, people act in a certain way for a variety of reasons. It is not only wrong to accuse someone as a born violent or born criminal, but it also shows how screwed up our own thinking is. I wish such people a speedy recovery from their prejudice and bias. To a certain extent, we all are affected by certain prejudices and biases and we all must try first to consciously find them, and make every effort to overcome them by continuously educating ourselves. It is not easy, it is not comfortable, but it is necessary. If we dream of a peaceful and tolerant world, we need to eliminate our own biases as much as possible. My own journey in this direction is quite rewarding and fulfilling and I hope everyone who reads this will start their own journey to de-clutter their mind to remove things that act as a poison for our consciousness.

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

Science and Religion

Do science and religion go together?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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