Public Intellectual Masturbation

What does “intellectual masturbation” mean?

The phrase is vulgar, deliberately so. But sometimes a vulgar phrase is the only way to describe a vulgar habit.

Masturbation, in the ordinary sense, is a private act done for personal pleasure. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. It is private, self-contained, and largely harmless. But when a private act becomes a public performance, the reaction changes. What was once merely self-indulgent becomes embarrassing, grotesque, even offensive.

That is the metaphor I have in mind when I talk about public intellectual masturbation.

By it, I mean the performance of intelligence for vanity, power, and self-gratification rather than for truth, justice, or understanding. It happens when someone uses rhetorical skill, education, irony, technical language, or debating talent to defend what is plainly cruel, degrading, or indefensible. The point is not inquiry. The point is display. Not illumination, but exhibition. This is not the same as disagreement, or a serious debate, or as taking an unpopular position in good faith.

A healthy society needs free expression and constructive arguments. It needs people to test assumptions, challenge popular opinion, question sentimentality, and expose lazy thinking. It needs devil’s advocates at times. It needs people willing to ask difficult questions and present uncomfortable facts. But there is a difference between complexity and corruption, between argument and performance, between intellectual honesty and moral exhibitionism, and this difference matters.

When someone argues over tax policy, constitutional interpretation, migration levels, welfare design, or the limits of state power, they may be right or wrong, but they are at least operating within the normal field of political and moral disagreement. The same is true when people debate difficult ethical questions, legal doctrines, or wartime strategy in good faith.

But something else is happening when a person uses intelligence to sneer at victims of sexual violence, rationalize the killing of civilians, sanitize state brutality, or dress naked cruelty in the language of realism, order, civilization, deterrence, tradition, or law. At that point, what is being displayed is not intellectual courage or rigor. It is the public display of pleasure in cleverness detached from conscience.

Some people plainly enjoy showing that they can argue for anything. They enjoy demonstrating that no crime is too ugly to be reframed, and no victim too broken to be discredited. Their satisfaction comes from the performance itself: from sounding sharper than everyone else, colder than everyone else, more “rational” than everyone else. They mistake moral numbness for sophistication and verbal dexterity for depth, and in many cases, they are rewarded for it. News panels invite them because outrage drives attention. Social media promotes them because cruelty and contrarianism travel faster than nuanced kindness. Documentaries and public discussions feature them because every issue is now expected to have “two sides,” even when one side is simply manufacturing legitimacy for the sake of argument. Power welcomes them because every regime, institution, and ideological machine needs people who can make violence sound necessary, inequality sound natural, and abuse sound misunderstood. Propaganda needs to sound legitimate, and these intellectuals provide that channel.

This is why the phenomenon feels increasingly visible. The public sphere no longer merely tolerates these performances; it often incentivizes them. The person defending the indefensible is rarely doing so in a vacuum. There is almost always an audience, a platform, and a reward structure. Airtime, attention, notoriety, invitations, patronage, access, influence, online fame, the approval of ideological tribes, the favor of the powerful: these are all forms of compensation. Some do it for money. Some for proximity to power. Some for relevance. Some for the thrill of being seen as fearless thinkers. And some, perhaps most disturbingly, do it for the private pleasure of domination disguised as public reasoning.

This is why I call it masturbation rather than argument or debate.

The act is self-serving. What matters is the performer’s own gratification: the delight of saying what others recoil from, the thrill of demonstrating superior detachment, the ego-stroking satisfaction of turning intellect into spectacle. 

You can see it when sexual violence becomes an occasion for “nuance” that somehow always lands against the victim. You can see it when mass death is translated into abstractions about strategy and inevitability. You can see it when human suffering is treated not as suffering, but as raw material for someone’s career in contrarian posturing. You can see it when the language of reason is used not to reduce harm, but to anesthetize the conscience. It imitates seriousness. It uses the vocabulary of philosophy, law, history, realism, skepticism, and free inquiry. It presents itself as brave truth-telling against emotional mobs. But in reality, it is often little more than vanity wearing academic clothing.

That is what makes it vulgar and dangerous.

People assume that intelligence makes a person more trustworthy, more humane, or more responsible. But intellect by itself guarantees none of these things. Intelligence can clarify, but it can also obscure. It can liberate, but it can also rationalize domination. It can expose lies, but it can just as easily become a highly sophisticated instrument for producing them. The clever person is often more capable of justifying evil than the stupid one. The stupid person may simply repeat a slogan. The clever person can build an architecture around it and convert it into effective propaganda. 

That is why public intellectual masturbation deserves contempt, not admiration.

Not because the argument itself is bad. Not because difficult questions should be banned. Not because every controversial position is morally corrupt. But because there are moments when the issue is not complex at all. The issue is whether a person has decided to turn intelligence into a tool of degradation.

When that happens, we should stop pretending we are watching a brave debate. Often, we are watching moral cowardice disguised as sophistication. Often, we are watching someone derive personal pleasure from defending the indefensible. A society that confuses this with seriousness will eventually lose its ability to distinguish intelligence from wisdom, argument from manipulation, and analysis from cruelty.

Public intellectual masturbation does not merely insult the victims whose suffering it trivializes. It also degrades public thought itself. It turns discourse into spectacle, and intellect into a grotesque performance for applause, access, and self-satisfaction. Remember, some things are not made better by being argued more cleverly; they are merely made uglier.   

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

The Power of Relationships: Choosing Connections That Nurture Your Well-Being

Our relationships are more than just social interactions; they are profound connections that directly impact our mental, emotional, and even physical health. Each bond we form creates a unique social and emotional environment that affects our well-being. Strong, meaningful relationships are the cornerstone of a happy and fulfilling life. That’s why it’s so important to develop meaningful and strong relationships, but they don’t happen by accident. Building these connections requires time, effort, and a mutual commitment from both sides.

A thriving relationship is a two-way street. It flourishes when both parties invest sincerely, showing mutual respect and care. This process involves:

• Quality Time: Relationships grow stronger when we prioritize meaningful interactions, this can be done through heartfelt conversations or shared experiences.
• Sincere Effort: A genuine desire to understand and support one another is vital.
• Encouragement and Reciprocity: Positive feedback and acknowledgment from the other side keep the connection alive and meaningful

When these elements are present, relationships become sources of joy, comfort, and strength. But when one side stops reciprocating, even the most well-intentioned efforts can feel futile.

Sometimes, despite your best efforts, a relationship may not flourish. If your commitment and sincerity are met with indifference and dismissiveness, the connection may begin to feel mechanical and burdensome. Such relationships might endure due to societal pressures or personal obligations, but they often fail to bring true fulfillment; they may survive, but people involved in them don't thrive.

However, the hard truth is this: not all relationships are meant to last. If a connection becomes toxic, if it drains your energy, affects your mental health, or fails to reciprocate your efforts, it’s okay to step away. Walking away from a relationship you’ve invested in is never easy. It’s natural to feel a sense of loss or even guilt. However, prioritizing your well-being is not selfish; it’s essential.

Here’s why choosing yourself matters:

• Protecting Your Peace: Toxic relationships can disrupt your mental and emotional balance. Stepping away helps restore your sense of peace.
• Making Space for Healthy Connections: Letting go of draining relationships opens the door for new, uplifting ones.
• Honoring Your Worth: You deserve relationships that value and support you.

Strong, positive relationships nurture your mind and enhance your overall well-being. As you navigate your connections, remember that it’s okay to set boundaries. It’s okay to expect reciprocity. And it’s okay to walk away when a relationship no longer serves you. Your happiness, peace, and sanity are worth the effort it takes to protect them. Choose relationships that uplift and inspire you, and never hesitate to let go of those that hold you back. Remember, choosing yourself is not selfish; it’s necessary. Your happiness and peace matter.

You deserve to be surrounded by love, support, and positivity. Choose wisely, and never forget that your well-being comes first.

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

*Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com 

Don't underestimate the power of dissent

It is not easy to raise your objection when no one seems to be bothered by that issue. It is not easy to question when it is only you who feels that whatever is happening is wrong, but everyone seems to be okay with it. It is not easy to fight against powerful institutions like traditions, culture, religion, society, and political parties alone. It is not easy to stand up against your family and friends. It is not easy to question our employer, especially, when our family depends on that job. It is not easy to speak up in a silent forum. It is not easy to resist a bully. I can add many more items to this "it is not easy" list, but I think you get my point, it is not easy to register your dissent when no one else is dissenting.

Dissent is not easy, it is scary and intimidating to go against the flow. It is hard to ignore that many chose not to speak and there must be some rationale behind it. However, if you are a sensitive person, it is hard to escape the guilt of not speaking up when you must have. It is impossible to look another way when you know whatever is happening is wrong. We only keep quiet if we underestimate the power of dissent. A single dissenting voice may not be enough to stop injustice at that moment, but it may be enough to catalyze something that may manifest into some movement in the near future. We should not underestimate the power of our dissent, even when we feel scared or intimidated. Things are not always smooth for people who choose not to ignore and speak up instead of keeping mum. Even if we gather all our courage and stand up, we may find ourselves without any support, or worse, surrounded by people who are not very receptive to our questions and objections, that is, we get attacked rather than being supported. These situations are not easy to handle. It sucks to be alone while taking on a powerful entity. Therefore, it is important to be convinced about our own stand and be sure about our own beliefs and strengths before testing them. We should test our beliefs regularly, read about them as much as possible, get to know all sides, verify, and get convinced that challenging the status quo is the right thing to do. Once we do our due diligence and conclude that we need to stand up, then what we do depends on our strength and courage. If we really believe in our values and principles, we don't worry if we are alone and no one supports us. Many changes and movements started because some courageous people decided to speak up. Remember, Galileo was alone when he challenged age-old beliefs, but he was sure about his ideas and knew that the prevailing beliefs were wrong. In the end, he was proved to be right, this is an example of the power of a single dissenting voice. Don't underestimate the power of dissent, we all can be Galileo in our own way, we just need that conviction and courage to speak up.

Change takes time. Often, it is a slow and painful process, some changes we desire may not be possible in our lifetime, but someone needs to initiate it, and that someone can be us. Voice of dissent is a powerful weapon to initiate change. When someone decided to speak up about voting rights for women the women's suffrage movement started the decades-long fight for women's right to vote in the United States. When someone decided to speak about segregated schools, the fight to outlaw school segregation began. There are countless examples of such courage and conviction where a dissenting voice catalyzed a movement that resulted in a mass movement to force the change that was once deemed impossible. Believe in yourself and your convictions. Believe in the power of your dissent, you might be at the cusp of starting a revolution.  

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

© Vinay Thakur, All rights reserved, Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com   

Romanticizing poverty

"Poor people are happier," "There is more empathy and compassion among the poor compared to the rich," or "Money can't buy happiness." There are many such statements that either romanticize poverty or vilify wealth. I feel both, either romanticizing poverty or vilifying wealth, are gross generalizations. People who romanticize poverty or try to paint its rosy picture normally have never been poor in their life, or if they were, they are no more living in poverty. Most who tell rosy stories about the benefits of being poor definitely won't leave their comfortable life and live among the poor if given a choice. Of course, there will be some exceptions, but this is my general observation. It is true that money can't buy you happiness but it can give you access to resources and that's the whole purpose of having money and poverty robs your access to these resources.

I can tell from my personal experience that being poor is no fun, and no one stays poor by choice. Also, there is a difference between living a simple life and being poor. Living a simple life is a matter of choice, a simple person chooses not to use or exploit the resources that we have, but in poverty, there is no such choice, as there is no access to resources in the first place. Poverty not only affects your economic state, but it also affects your social and mental state. Many times it dictates your choices and makes you feel helpless, targeted, and angry. These feelings of helplessness and anger can manifest in many different ways. Poverty affects our personal choices, and it limits our personal and professional growth. At the same time, poverty teaches you how to deal with a lack of resources. How to live with limited access to critical resources like food, education, healthcare, shelter, and some basic enjoyment like watching movies and stuff like that. Poverty affects the entire family, kids get affected differently compared to adults and there are different effects on genders depending on the culture and society where we live. This does not mean that people living in poverty never ever feel moments of happiness. As kids, we had our moments of joy, but to generalize or paint them as a life of fun and exuberance would be a gross and unjust exaggeration. Among those rare and precious moments of joy, there are moments of extreme pain and helplessness. It is no fun to watch someone being addicted. There is no fun to watch daily physical, verbal, and sexual abuse. There is no fun to watch people dying due to a lack of decent healthcare. There is no fun to watch kids drop out of school to support their families. There is no fun to watch kids getting entangled in vicious circles of crime and addiction. And it is no fun to know that this vicious cycle will keep on repeating unless we as a society can take conscious and deliberate steps to intervene. 

Some think that poor people are poor because of their faults, laziness, or lack of effort. This is a very ignorant and superficial view. As I already mentioned, no one remains poor by choice, most living in poverty try really hard, to the best of their capabilities to come out of it, but their path is riddled with many hurdles that are difficult to understand for anyone who has not lived or experienced poverty. Looking from the outside, it's easy to find faults or provide some unpractical or ignorant solutions. One simple example is related to education. There is data that shows there is a gap between the academic performances of students coming from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Students coming from well-to-do families perform better compared to students coming from underprivileged families. Based on this if someone concludes that students from well-to-do families are more intelligent or more hard-working compared to students coming from underprivileged families, it will not only be wrong but also a socially devastating conclusion. Accessibility to resources is a huge factor in this. Factors like having enough space at home to study, enough quality food to eat, access to books, access to mentors, access to pay time or free time (yes, kids need that, they are not machines to study day and night), and a supportive peer group, they all contribute to the success of any student. As long as we don't understand the impact of each and every factor on the socio-economic development of underprivileged families we are neither going to understand their problems nor going to offer any viable solution. 

In many societies, poverty has a direct correlation with race or caste. This is the result of years of suppression and discrimination. This cannot be denied, historical facts and data both support this. People to refuse to accept this are either living in denial or are ignorant or are racist or casteist. This is not a perfect correlation, it's not a mathematical formula, but it is very clear. Therefore, equity and equality both matter equally. Our social and educational programs need to focus on equity as much as they focus on equality. There is no harm or shame in recognizing our privileges and acting accordingly. Being privileged is not wrong or anything to be ashamed of, but not recognizing it and behaving as if others who don't have access to the same resources should compete with us on the same level only shows our ignorance and lack of social sensitivity. Let's be more sensitive and compassionate towards each other. Let's try to understand each other's struggles, acknowledge the difficulties we all face, and try to help each other. Let's try not to look at everything from a political or religious angle. Let's try to be more compassionate humans.

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

Education can work either way

Education is empowerment for many, it is an extraordinary tool, and it gives great power of knowledge which has been and in the future also can be used to achieve various great things for the betterment of our society. However, like any tool, its utility depends on the user and the results can vary radically based on the way the tool is used. Actually, it can work both ways, good or bad. Falsehood and evil can be taught as easily and as efficiently as the truth, kindness, and love.

Similar to atomic energy which can be used to generate electricity to improve the lives of many or can be used to destroy civilizations, education could be used in radically different ways. All the techniques and tools related to education are available to everyone to teach and propagate whatever they want, good or bad. The tool itself cannot differentiate between the contents, it will work effectively irrespective of contents as it's a very potent tool. The Internet has not only connected kind and good people but also has given a global network and platform for evil-minded people, and both groups can use it the way they want. This can be one of the reasons why we see the re-emergence of some of the divisive movements. This is one of the reasons why societies and countries all over the world are getting more polarized and divided. There is more resentment and anger. I am not arguing that disagreement or resentment among different political or social groups never existed before. It was very much there, people always argued passionately about politics, religion, or any other sensitive issues, but the level of propaganda, falsehood, and the amount of factually incorrect information shared is unprecedented in today's world. That too when almost everyone who is consuming this information can verify it easily, but they choose not to verify and believe it blindly. People are getting conditioned to listen only to what they like to listen to, only what validates their thinking, only good things about their own political party and leader, and only bad things about their opposition.

Enough of explaining what's the problem. Now, the more important stuff, what can we do about it? It is our responsibility to educate ourselves and others around us about the dangers of misinformation. We need to be conscious not only about the quality of food we eat but also about the information we consume. This is why a well-rounded education is not only necessary at colleges and universities but also inside homes. After all, we still spend considerable time in our homes. True that now even when people are in their own homes they are in front of some screen rather than talking face to face with each other, but this is a new reality and we need to accept that screens in various forms are going to be integral parts of most people's lives. We need to learn the value of dissent and opposition, and the value of criticism.

Without opposition there is no democracy, without criticism, there is no progress, and without disagreement, there is no discussion. We should learn to question not only other's ideas but our own ideas and be ready to answer questions about our political ideologies or social policies no matter how tough and uncomfortable these questions are. If not, we might start living in a bubble where we surround ourselves with people who agree with us all the time. If we care for our unity, we need to communicate with the other side. We need to listen and understand each other. If not, we will lose the battle as divisive forces will make use of the same tools better to spread their message of division and hatred and we will keep on wondering what happened. 

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

Why homemakers don't get employment benefits?

Household management is not an easy task. It takes a lot of time, effort, and dedication. Apart from a regular and stable income to support various needs and activities, a family also needs a person who can take care of many other day-to-day responsibilities. The management of these things can test a person's limits as these tasks vary in their nature and difficulties, tasks like cooking, house cleaning, making sure everything is in its place, and taking care of guests, not only require various skills but are also physically exhausting and time-consuming. Anyone who has tried their hand at this work will agree with me when I say that it is not easy to manage an entire household single-handedly. But this work doesn't generate any official income, no one gets paid for taking care of their own family members. Household work, no matter how important it is doesn't generate any official salary or other benefits for the person who does it for their own family. Official income tax returns of all families where only one partner is officially employed and the other partner is a homemaker contain income details of that 'employed' person even if that return is filed jointly by both partners. I always wondered why the work of a person who is a full-time homemaker is not valued in monetary terms as much as other types of work? Why there is no mechanism to attach a monetary value to the work of countless housewives and househusbands? In most countries, including many developed countries this workforce mostly consists of women who tirelessly work towards the welfare of their families. Some of them even sacrifice their careers to take care of their family. Some of them have to do this work even after doing a full-time regular job. It is good to see that there is a growing trend where both partners try to share equal responsibilities towards the housework, especially in cases where both have a full-time job. If the same work is performed by someone outside the family like a maid or nanny they get paid but this work has no monetary value if it is performed by a family member. Women get a lot of praise, they are hailed as epitomes of sacrifice, kindness, dedication, and love for taking care of their families but beyond such emotional lip service, this very important work doesn't receive any recognition. It is not enough to say that this is a great service to their family or value of this type of work can not be measured in monetary terms because these workers also should get rights and benefits like other workers, at least within their own families. Someone needs to speak for their rights like they speak for all other workers. They are not organized that doesn't mean they don't have a voice. There is no retirement benefit or social security or any other benefit offered to these people that comes with most full or part-time jobs, why? If we don't see this as a problem then we should reexamine our understanding of value-added work and try to change its definition if necessary. We have neglected these people for a very long time, and just because they don't complain about this discrimination we should not allow this malpractice to go on. This work needs some official recognition to empower millions of homemakers. Homemakers and their work are critical for the betterment of our society, it is equally important as any other type of work therefore should be entitled to compensation and benefits like any other type of work.

I understand that this can introduce a lot of technical and legal difficulties but our society has dealt with more complicated and sensitive issues successfully. So, I don't think that this issue is so complicated that we can't come up with some practical solution for this. Why don't these women (as well as men) claim half or some percent of their family income amount as their own wages in joint income tax returns? Why can't they get half a share of the Social Security and Medicaid tax so that they can generate their own benefits rather than depending on benefits as a spouse? It is unfair for them to depend on their spouse's social security benefits when they also work equally hard to support the spouse who generates the income. These people offer a great amount of support to their partners so that they can work out of home.

One may ask, why it is necessary to attach a monetary value to housework? A very short and quick answer to this can be, simply because it is also a work, a very important work that requires a lot of effort, time, and energy, therefore, it should be treated as any other type of value-generating work. The lack of any monetary value has generated a very wrong perception of this work, so wrong that this work is not at all considered value-generating work. If someone says that his or her partner is a homemaker, then it is assumed that they don't work or are not employed or they are a stay-at-home parent, which is a very wrong perception. The main reason for this perception is the lack of any monetary value attached to this work. We need to change this perception and attaching some monetary value to this work might help in changing it. The statement, "I am a stay-at-home parent" doesn't actually reflect the amount of effort that person takes to maintain that home. I request all concerned agencies to look into this matter with all sincerity and try to come up with some practical way to remove this shortcoming. For centuries this work did not get its deserved due and if we can do something to change, it will be a great achievement. It will definitely strengthen our social fabric, and this will also bring dignity and respect for all these dedicated homemakers which they totally deserve.  

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

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

The power of symbolic acts

Champaran or Kheda satyagraha were not very big events in history when they happened in the 1920s. Dandi march or salt march was also not that big deal when it actually happened in 1930 After all, how important was the salt law to the British Raj? Their empire didn't depend on that tax money for survival that's why they didn't bother to stop a political leader from breaking it. With all the power and force in their hands why the administration chose to be a mute spectator even after knowing what Gandhi was capable of doing? When Mahatma Gandhi marched for around 240 miles to break that law what did he achieve by breaking such trivial law? But today this event is considered an important event of the Indian independence movement. This salt march in a way was responsible for initiating the civil disobedience movement on a national level. Through this long and unusual salt march and by breaking a simple law like salt law, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi showed to the common people of India that the British empire could be challenged by using nonviolent protest. He proved to them with an example that such a mighty empire with all power in its hands could be challenged by nonviolent, unarmed common people. This was the power of that symbolic act. Symbolism plays a very important role in every society. It inspires people, gives them hope, and encourages them to dream the impossible. But why I am suddenly talking about this subject today? This is because of some incidents that happened in India and around the world during the last few months which reminded me of a few of these incidents from Indian history that had a huge impact on the thinking and behavior of common people. People may or may not agree with my views but I see many parallels between some incidents that happened recently and with few pivotal incidents from the Indian freedom movement.

When people from all over India and across the party line stood behind a group of people who started the India Against Corruption (IAC) movement, it resulted in a unique movement. It was one of the scenarios which India never witnessed in a long time. There was no caste, no religion, and no common hatred for any single person or party that united all these people. It was their anger against rampant corruption and the failure of the system to deliver which united them. This movement resulted in the formation of a new and very nonorthodox political party called Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). It won 28 seats in the Delhi assembly elections and even formed a government in the presence of two big and powerful national parties. Then we witnessed some unseen incidents like ministers of the AAP government traveling by public transport for a swearing ceremony, Delhi's chief minister (CM) sleeping on the roadside to protest against the central government, people doing their own sting operations against corrupt officials, etc. These scenes were never witnessed by people before. Delhi CM even resigned after he realized that he could not fulfill the main promise made by their party in their election manifesto. Many people were shocked by these things, and many were angry because they thought CM should never do such things. There is no doubt that these incidents created varied responses and a lot of controversy.

Many of these acts were very symbolic, this was the first time a CM was protesting against the nonaccountability of the police force in his own state. This was the first time in many years any political leader visited his attacker to know the reasons why that person attacked him. But these actions can be considered political stunts or drama by some people, and maybe they are right, only time will give answers to these doubts and concerns. Mahatma Gandhi himself was criticized and ridiculed not only by Britishers but people from his own country for many of his actions, even for his appearance (especially his dress). Some called him a naive politician who didn't know the ground reality in India, a dreamer who was trying to fool people by showing some impossible dream of achieving independence through a nonviolent movement. They called his dressing like the poor of India a political stunt. He also failed in many of his initial endeavors, many times movement took totally unexpected turns and he had to retreat (like the Chauri Chaura incident in 1922). But finally, his struggle helped to achieve India's independence. Along similar lines this movement against rampant corruption in India may take many twists and turns, there may be some failures and setbacks but I hope that finally it achieves its goal.

Symbolism is of great significance in every society. Symbolic acts have the power to inspire millions. These acts can mobilize the masses, and inspire many to participate in the struggle. One simple step like wearing khadi inspired millions to spin charkha during the independence struggle. But the truth is it's relatively easy to start a movement but very difficult to sustain the intensity of movement. It is very difficult to maintain the same level of commitment and transparency. It will be interesting to see in which direction this anti-corruption movement goes, whether it will progress slowly and steadily towards its goal, lose its way and flounder on its own, or these big and powerful parties successfully crush it before it becomes too big and create problems for them. When you don't have money and muscle power to support your cause such symbolic acts can help you to deliver your message. The power of symbolic acts is amazing and currently, we are seeing its effect in India.

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

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

Power of non-violence

2nd October is Gandhi Jayanti (birth date of Mahatma Gandhi), on that day many people all over the world pay tribute to this great leader from India who played a key role in India's Independence struggle. The unique feature of his movement was the role that non-violence (अहिंसा) played in it and he is remembered as the ultimate icon who demonstrated the power of non-violence to fight against injustice or violence. Violence or armed struggle played a major role in most of the freedom struggles or revolutions all over the world, till now we fought two world wars where millions of people died which is why Gandhiji's movement is considered unique and its success is still a point of discussion and debate. Many people around the world were inspired by the success of his movement and implemented it in their own movements some of the more recent examples are Dr. Nelson Mandela from South Africa and Suu Kyi from Myanmar.

This does not mean that non-violence is a very popular method for protest or fight against injustice violence is very much there but I think more people are using this method over violent options. Unfortunately, it's not happening on the scale on which it should happen. I hope it happens in the near future but it doesn't look like it will, still, there is a huge majority in the world that believes a violent path is the only way to achieve their targets, it's unfortunate and sad but it's true. Gandhi's name is somehow associated with non-violence and anyone advocating non-violence philosophy is branded as a believer in Gandhian philosophy. Gandhi had many beliefs one of them was the power of non-violence as an effective tool to fight against injustice. His book 'My Experiments With Truth' gives a general idea about the principles he believed in and one can realize that non-violence was just one of them for which he became world famous. I am quite impressed by his personality, I love his conviction and beliefs in his own ideas and principles but I am not his blind follower. I know that Gandhi was a politician and a lawyer also and above all he was also a human like us, full of great qualities and some not so great. He played a major role in achieving India's freedom from the British by using non-violent protest as an effective tool. He was instrumental in motivating masses of India who were not part of the freedom struggle before he entered Indian politics. One has to give him credit for taking this freedom struggle movement to the masses and making them believe that they could also fight with the powerful British empire.

Non-violence doesn't mean total surrender and it's definitely not a sign of weakness. A person who tolerates violence in any form because he/she can not fight or is scared to fight is definitely not following non-violence. Such a person is forced to follow it because of a lack of options or courage, but when a person chooses a non-violent path over other options available then only it can be said that he/she is following it truly. Non-violence works only when it is followed by choice, not because of lack of options. Many people make fun of non-violence philosophy and say it won't work everywhere, they cite many examples to prove their point. Indeed, it may not work everywhere but there is nothing that is guaranteed to work everywhere. Everyone is aware of the power of violence, no one can deny it but the problem is that it also doesn't work everywhere and I think there are ample examples around us to demonstrate this fact. The problem with violence is, once it starts it becomes uncontrollable, and even if it works it leaves a lot of negative emotions and damage behind. It leaves a permanent scar on the minds of the people involved. There are no winners or losers in violence but that's the not case with non-violence, it may not work always but it won't lead to mass destruction or riots.

It's not that we need to wait for Gandhi Jayanti every year to pay tribute to Gandhiji and remember the power of non-violence. I think people should make this philosophy an integral part of their lives, let's try to choose non-violence over violence wherever it is possible. I am not talking only about physical violence here but violence in any form, for example, even thinking bad about someone or verbal abuse, racial or gender discrimination, are some sort of acts of violence. I know it's not that easy for many of us. We are one of the animal species on this planet and will always have that animal instinct in us. So, I know that it will be difficult to totally irradiate violence from our lives. But as humans, we know that we are very different than other animals of this universe, we have created such a beautiful world around us and only our violent acts can destroy it from our side, so let's try to control it as much as possible. Remember, an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.

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

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