Are All People Really Equal?

Most constitutions across the world open with moral certainty: “We the people”, “all men are created equal”, equal protection under the law. These phrases sound reassuring and morally unassailable. They are meant to signal a break from feudalism, monarchy, caste, race, and inherited privilege that resulted in the exploitation of certain sections of society for centuries. But when measured against lived reality, they often sound hollow and perform well short of reasonable expectations. The uncomfortable truth is that people are not treated equally, and in many societies, some are demonstrably “more equal” than others. The constitutional equality is largely aspirational, not descriptive.

I have spent most of my life in India and the United States, countries that proudly describe themselves as the largest and oldest democracies, respectively. Both claim to be governed by the rule of law. Yet both offer striking examples of how constitutional ideals collapse under the weight of power, wealth, privilege, and political expediency.

Equality on Paper, Inequality in Practice

Both the Constitution of India (Article 14) and the United States Constitution (via the Equal Protection Clause) promise equality before the law. However, these promises are routinely undermined by explicit, legally sanctioned exceptions that place certain individuals above ordinary accountability.

Blanket immunities granted to diplomats, senior bureaucrats, and heads of state are a clear reminder that the law does not apply uniformly. While such protections are often justified as necessary for institutional stability or effective governance, they nonetheless contradict the foundational claim that all people are equal before the law.

A particularly troubling example is presidential immunity in the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States. This doctrine allows a sitting President to be shielded from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office, conduct that would lead to immediate investigation or prosecution if committed by any ordinary citizen. Whatever the legal rationale, the implication is stark: the same act is treated differently depending on who commits it. This creates a reality where the legality of an action depends not on the act itself, but on the office of the person committing it. No ordinary citizen enjoys this privilege. No teacher, nurse, immigrant, or factory worker can invoke “official capacity” as a defense against criminal prosecution. This is not equality; it is hierarchical citizenship.

Wealth, Power, and Legal Manipulation

Beyond formal immunity, wealth and power themselves function as informal shields.

In India, the problem is especially visible. Inequality before the law is not merely theoretical; it is statistically documented.

According to data published by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR):

• Over 40% of Members of Parliament in recent Lok Sabhas have declared criminal cases against themselves.

• A significant subset face serious charges, including rape, murder, kidnapping, and crimes against women.

• Despite this, many of these individuals are repeatedly elected, promoted to ministerial positions, and publicly celebrated.

Even more revealing is the financial data. Numerous politicians show exponential increases in personal and family wealth within a few years of entering public office, growth rates that far exceed any legitimate business or professional benchmark. Investigations are rare, convictions rarer still. This is not speculation; it is observable, widely discussed, and yet largely tolerated. Corruption among politicians and senior government officials is so normalized that it rarely shocks anymore. Even individuals accused, or convicted, of heinous crimes such as rape or murder can enjoy public adulation, electoral success, and cult-like followings. In India, criminal allegations are no longer political disqualifiers; they are often political credentials.

This is deeply disturbing in a society that claims moral superiority through reverence for women, tradition, and even inanimate objects. When convicted criminals are celebrated, and victims are dismissed or silenced, it exposes a serious moral and institutional failure, one that places power and identity above human life and dignity.

In the United States, the dynamics are subtler but no less real. The wealthy and politically connected are not entirely immune from scrutiny, but they are often insulated from its consequences. Access to elite legal representation, political influence, and financial leverage dramatically alters outcomes, whether in regulatory enforcement, criminal accountability, or civil liability. Justice may eventually arrive, but it often does so slowly, selectively, and unevenly, often looking like injustice.

The Myth of Equal Citizenship

The repeated assertion that “all people are created equal” survives largely because it is rhetorically powerful, not because it is empirically true. In reality:

• Power determines accountability: Justice depends on who you are, not what you did

• Wealth determines access to justice: The poor are punished quickly and harshly, and the powerful are judged slowly, or not at all

• Status determines how laws are interpreted and enforced

The Counterargument: “Equality Means Equal Laws, Not Equal Outcomes”

Defenders of the status quo often argue:

“Equality does not mean everyone is treated the same. Immunities and privileges exist to protect institutions, not individuals. Presidents, diplomats, and ministers need safeguards to function effectively.”

At first glance, this sounds reasonable. But it collapses under scrutiny.

Why This Argument Fails

1. Institutional protection has become personal immunity
   What begins as functional protection quickly turns into personal insulation from consequences, especially when oversight mechanisms are weak or politically compromised.

2. Power already comes with advantages
   High office already provides access to information, influence, resources, and elite legal defense. Adding blanket immunity compounds inequality rather than balancing it.

3. No meaningful accountability substitutes exist
   Impeachment, internal ethics committees, or electoral consequences are neither swift nor reliable. In practice, they often fail precisely when accountability is most needed.

4. Equality loses meaning when exceptions become permanent
   If the law bends for the powerful as a rule rather than an exception, equality ceases to be a principle; it becomes a slogan.

This does not mean constitutional ideals are meaningless, but it does mean they are aspirational rather than descriptive. The real problem is that we treat aspirations as achievements. Treating them as accomplished facts instead of unfinished goals allows inequality to persist unchallenged.

Constitutional equality was never meant to be self-executing. True equality requires more than elegant constitutional language. It demands limits on immunity, transparency in political finance and process, real consequences for corruption, and a justice system that works for all and does not bend under pressure from money or office. Instead, societies have grown comfortable confusing aspirational language with lived reality. The claim that “all people are created equal” is not just inaccurate; it is misleading.

Constitutions do not fail because they promise equality. They fail when societies pretend the promise has already been fulfilled. Until power no longer shields corruption and criminality, wealth no longer buys delay and accountability, and the most vulnerable are at the mercy of some good individuals rather than reliable institutions, equality before the law will remain what it largely is today in both India and the United States: a noble idea, honored more in rhetoric than in reality.

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 

Immigration Is a Privilege, So Is Holding Elected Office

It is widely accepted that immigration is a privilege, not an entitlement. A country extends this privilege after determining that the presence of immigrants will benefit its economy, society, culture, or intellectual ecosystem. Acknowledging immigration as a privilege, however, should never be used as a justification to treat immigrants as second-class citizens.

Immigrants understand that they do not possess all the rights reserved exclusively for citizens, such as voting or holding certain public offices. That reality is neither controversial nor unreasonable. At the same time, fundamental human and civil liberties: freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom to practice or not practice religion, and protection from discrimination, should never be conditional on citizenship status. These values are not just moral ideals; they are core democratic principles and among the very reasons immigrant-friendly countries attract global talent in the first place.

People do not leave their homelands lightly. Contrary to popular rhetoric, only a small fraction of immigrants leave because of war or extreme distress. Most leave with heavy hearts, separating from family, culture, and familiarity in search of opportunity, dignity, and a safer future for their children. Starting over in a new country requires courage, resilience, and enormous sacrifice. I can attest to this from personal experience.

I chose to come to the United States not only because of the professional opportunities it offered me as a researcher, but also because of its social values. I was drawn to America’s commitment to freedom of expression, its openness to self-criticism, and its willingness to confront uncomfortable truths. I admired an education system that encouraged debate and challenged entrenched ideas, and a society that, at its best, strives to address systemic problems such as racism, gender inequality, income disparity, and unequal access to resources.

For decades, this intellectual openness helped make the United States a magnet for global talent, not merely for economic advancement, but for the freedom to think, question, and innovate. That openness strengthened the country scientifically, economically, and culturally.

In recent years, however, immigration has become a highly polarized political issue. Immigrants are increasingly viewed with suspicion simply for being immigrants, regardless of their contributions or conduct. This approach is deeply counterproductive. No nation can attract, or retain, the world’s best talent if it makes people feel unwanted, distrusted, or targeted. Skilled individuals will either choose not to come at all or will leave as soon as the environment becomes hostile.

Political hatred, once unleashed, is notoriously difficult to control. Even when leaders claim they are targeting only a specific group, such rhetoric often spirals into broader hostility that engulfs entire communities. Polarization based on identity is a powerful political tool, but it is also profoundly destructive. It weakens social cohesion, corrodes democratic norms, and ultimately harms the very country it claims to protect. Like an autoimmune disease, it causes a society to turn against itself.

This brings me to an equally important point: holding elected office is also a privilege.

Just as immigration comes with responsibilities, so does public office. Being elected is not merely a position of power; it is a public trust. Elected officials are granted authority by the people and are accountable for how they use it. Exploiting fear, vulnerability, or legal status, especially of immigrants and minorities, for political gain is an abuse of that trust.

Immigrants are not outsiders who arrived unlawfully or accidentally. They come through rigorous and often exhausting legal processes. They work hard, pay taxes, raise families, and put down roots in the communities they choose to call home. If they are willing to contribute and play their part, it is only fair, and morally necessary, that those in power do not weaponize their vulnerability for political spectacle.

Immigration and elected office are both privileges. One should not be used to undermine human dignity, and the other should not be used to inflame fear or target the most vulnerable members of society. The strength of a nation is measured not by how it treats the powerful, but by how responsibly it governs and how humanely it treats those who seek to belong.

I hope we recognize this before the damage becomes irreversible.

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

Old and beautiful

Getting old is a privilege. Not everyone gets an opportunity to get old and live a fulfilling life. Of course, aging causes many changes to our bodies and minds. Our looks change, we don't look the same as we used to during our younger age, and our health also starts getting affected depending on how much attention we pay to it. We may become more fragile and forgetful, and no matter how careful we are our health may not be the same as it was in our twenties, and we may suffer some personal losses as older people around us die. This may make us more aware of our mortality. While this can be a very daunting realization, it can also act as a powerful motivator to do things that we like and live our lives to the fullest. Our increasing age can encourage us to take more risks and pursue our dreams, knowing that time is precious and not to be wasted.

Getting old offers some more privileges. We have a chance to use our acquired knowledge and wisdom for the benefit of our society. Through a lifetime of experience, we learn valuable lessons about how to navigate the world, and we can share this with others so that they benefit from our experience. If we keep our minds open, we develop a better and deeper understanding of ourselves and others and become better equipped to handle life's challenges. Passing on this wisdom to our younger generation can be a great source of satisfaction and fulfillment.  Many of us spend our younger years rushing from one thing to another, working like crazy to establish ourselves, always striving for success and accomplishment. Depending on our social and family background our struggles take very different paths, and many of us have to charter unknown paths to establish ourselves. But as we age, we learn to appreciate simple things in life and spend some quality time with our loved ones. As we age, we can also try to give back to our communities by volunteering, mentoring young people, or working toward causes we care about. For many, the realization that simple things in life can bring the greatest possible joy can be the biggest privilege of getting old. This sense of purpose and self-realization can be incredibly rewarding and can help us stay engaged and connected to others.

Old age also comes with different looks. Actually, we are supposed to look different at every stage of life, that's a natural process. As we grow old, we are supposed to become more comfortable in our skin. However, with constant brainwashing and stereotyping, most of us have been convinced that looking old is not cool. Most of us are convinced that we should consistently look younger than our age until we die, and looking old means looking sick or weak or whatever but not beautiful. This taboo associated with looking old has forced many to conceal their old-age looks. Especially, women are targeted for aging-related medical or cosmetic procedures. Because of all this, people go for cosmetic surgery or use medications to look younger than their actual age. I am not against using makeup or the desire to look beautiful, but I am against the notion that old is not beautiful and only the young can be beautiful. If this is not stereotyping age-related looks then I wonder what it is. People don't hesitate to display their wealth, knowledge, or heritage but they shy away from showing their age when there is nothing as natural as aging. So, be old and beautiful, and be comfortable about your own age and looks, after all, the world is moving towards more natural food, a natural way of living, then, why not more natural looks. 

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 

Privilege of getting old

Getting old is a privilege. Many of us complain about our aging process and lament that our days of youth are over without realizing that not everyone gets an opportunity to get old. Nothing in this universe is permanent, definitely, not humans, we all have an expiry date. Our life is divided into stages, starting from being born to our death, getting old is an important milestone in this process. We don't have to do anything special to get old, the same way as we don't have to do anything special to be born or to become a toddler or to become a teenager. These things happen as time passes after our birth. Among all this, getting old is a special phase, it shows we survived long enough to see our old age and hopefully, in that process gathered some valuable experience that we can share with our younger generation. That is why I say that getting old is a privilege.

Like any other phase of life, being old comes with its own pros and cons. If we are not careful, our health can be an issue in old age, we may find it hard to remain physically active if we remain careless about our health. We need to adjust our lifestyle as per certain conditions and health issues we pick up while getting older. But these are minor discomforts compared to the value we can add to our society while getting older. At older age our life experiences and wisdom are based on our own personal experiences rather than some hearsay, we are supposed to be more mature and wise. Also, we are supposed to understand the value of love and happiness more and behave accordingly. Unfortunately, not everyone behaves accordingly, there are many old people who behave like jerks, and they don't seem to have learned anything as they grow older. But if we learn from our experiences, and try to make this world a better place, this world will be a lot nicer place than what it already is.

Even though getting old is a privilege, people resist showing that they are getting old. Removing skin wrinkles, or hiding them, hair transplants, hair coloring to hide the grayness of hair due to aging, plastic surgeries to look younger, and use of other methods to hide age are no longer limited to film stars, most common people also use these techniques. I am not against the use of these things or using anything to enhance one's looks. However, people seem to equate looking old with looking ugly, I don't know why, but this seems to be the case. I don't see any other reason to hide our age other than the stigma associated with looking old. Cosmetics were supposed to help us to look better, enhance our looks of that age, and not to hide our real faces. Previously film stars used to hide their age to protect their screen image. Many film stars wanted their fans only to remember their young versions, somehow they thought their older versions would not get the love and adulation their younger version received. This is not true, there are many examples where film stars are as popular in their old age with their old looks as they were in their young age. Still, people are scared to show their age. This may sound like I am against cosmetics or people using makeup. However, this is not the case, I agree that people need to feel comfortable with their appearance, but stereotyping old age as an ugly look is not the way to make anyone comfortable with their appearance it is the opposite of it. If you are privileged, don't hide that privilege, let people know about it and benefit from it. There is no shame in displaying your age, remember, not everyone gets an opportunity to get old, if you get that opportunity, let people know about it. Age is just a number, not something to be ashamed of.

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    

Privileges conferred on me by patriarchy

During one of our discussions related to the subject of patriarchy, my daughter, Sara said that I should be aware of and acknowledge the benefits and advantages offered to me by this system to understand the real difference between the struggles of a man and a woman in any society. The discussion was especially related to Indian society because of some of her own experiences during her recent visit to India. Sara had a valid point. I have been fighting against patriarchal traditions since I became aware of their discriminatory nature, but I never openly acknowledged the benefits conferred on me by the culture of patriarchy. Sara's comment made me look back at my life and recognize some of the advantages and privileges offered to me just for being a man. This post is to acknowledge some of those privileges and show the terrible nature of this system where half of the population is systematically discriminated against and suppressed, and it is done with so much sophistication that most who get these privileges don't realize that they get an unfair advantage and those who get suppressed also don't realize that they are being mistreated or suppressed.

The string of privileges started at the time I was born. I was told that my birth was celebrated by not only my parents but by the entire family (my parents used to live in a joint family back then). The reason, I was the first boy born after six or seven girls, so it seems there was some sort of gloomy atmosphere within the family due to the birth of only girls and my family thought my birth would change this trend. The problem with this is that if it had happened the reverse way it would not have been celebrated or even deserved to be mentioned (a girl being born after seven boys with the hope that now more girls will follow). 

Second, this is about my skin color. I have the darkest tone in my family, my two brothers have a fairer tone than me. This was never an issue for me, but I remember that many people mentioned in front of me to my mom that she was lucky that I was a boy with dark skin, imagine a girl with my skin tone. According to many people, it would have been a nightmare for my parents to find a good match for me if I had been a girl. I never felt bad or inferior because of my appearance or skin color in my life even though I was reminded about it on countless occasions, but I realize that the big part of this immunity was because of my gender. India's obsession with fair skin is well known, products like Fair and Lovely or Fair and Handsome blatantly display this racist mindset, but I did not get affected due to this mainly because I was a boy, what a privilege to have.

Third, I never faced any sexual harassment or assault and I am dead serious about this privilege. Many might think that I am exaggerating by claiming that every girl goes through such harassment, but based on my personal experience I have seen that getting taunted, sexually harassed in various ways, and things like eve-teasing was a daily ritual for most females irrespective of their age. I never went through it, but this definitely saved me from the trauma and agony of dealing with such experiences daily. It's not that boys don't get sexually harassed, but in most societies, victims of such harassment are disproportionately females.

Fourth, my education was not discontinued for being perceived as a waste of money like it was done for all my sisters. The rationale behind this was, that a girl will anyway one day go to someone else's house, so why waste money on her education, rather than save that money for her dowry and marriage. I did not have to face this challenge to justify the expenditure for my education.

Fifth, I was allowed to go to late-night parties and remain outside of the home for an extended amount of time. This is a normal part of college life, this is how we form friendships, and create some of the memorable moments. There were very few restrictions imposed on me because I was a boy, girls were not allowed similar freedom, not even close. As a boy, there was no social stigma if I smoked, chewed tobacco, or even drank alcohol. I agree it was not encouraged, and kids get punished if get caught. I never indulged in any of these things, but I had the choice, people were OK if boys did such things, but for girls, forget about it.

Sixth, even though it was limited, I had a choice to reject marriage proposals. Yes, no matter how ridiculous it sounds, it's true. The system of arranged marriage used to be heavily biased in favor of boys, but slowly it's changing. However, at the time when I got married, and especially in the northern parts of India, if at all anyone had a choice it was the boy who could reject the girl, not the other way around.

Seventh, my wife was supposed to obey me just because I was her husband. Girls used to be trained to be obedient wives, but similar training was not offered to boys (to be obedient husbands). My wife has to face all the brainwashing and conditioning where girls got trained about their so-called duties and roles, not me, why, simply, just because I was a boy.

Eighth, I don't have to change my last name due to marriage. A big advantage that many men don't even recognize. Even today, if anyone has to change the name it's the wife, not the husband, the reason, patriarchy.

Ninth, my name was used as my kid's middle name. This is the flip side of the advantage of keeping your name after marriage. The husband's name becomes a family name or middle name, another systematically discriminative tradition that patriarchy has created to favor males.

Tenth, family inheritance is guaranteed for me just because I am a man, both, by law and by social tradition which is more powerful than the law. Technically, Indian law gives equal rights to sons and daughters, however, practically, most inheritance is passed ONLY through boys. Girls are not offered their share and they are also very hesitant to ask for it, even though it's their legal right. Patriarchy conditions many girls in such a way that they feel guilty even to ask for their legitimate, legal rights. They are made to feel greedy or selfish, but if it's a boy, then that right is not only automatically awarded, there is nothing wrong if they fight for it.

This list can go on and I can add many other things to it. Some people might argue that some of the listed things are not a privilege but part of the culture and tradition. But these are discriminatory traditions and once there is discrimination it doesn't matter how old these traditions are, they are biased. Once there is discrimination, there is a privileged party and there is a discriminated party, and the truth is that I was a privileged party just because of my gender. I need to recognize this privilege, no matter even if it dilutes some of my achievements. Thanks to Sara for flagging this out. I am against patriarchy for the privileges it conferred on me because of my gender, the system that suppressed almost 50% of the population just because of their gender cannot be a just system, no matter how old it is and from which culture it originated.

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

Some serious flaws associated with the way science fairs are judged

Science is not just an academic discipline or a subject from the school curriculum, but it is a liberating tool available to anyone and everyone. It liberates our minds from the darkness of ignorance and enables us to question things. It encourages us to learn by observation and also teaches us that there are many things that we don't know, and it's okay not to know about things and continue to look for answers. This is why I love basic elements of science, which encourage questioning, analysis, data generation and verification, and critical thinking. All these elements are not only helpful while we study science during our school or college days, but these things are extremely useful in our day-to-day lives. This is why I love the idea of conducting a science fair for school children. The main intention of these fairs is not just to attract talented students to the discipline of science, but also to introduce school kids to all these elements of scientific analysis at a very young age so that they can use them in their day-to-day lives. This is the reason whenever possible I try to volunteer as a judge in the city and state science fairs.

While judging these fairs I observed a few things which somewhat disturbed me. I saw kids whose parents belonged to the science field taking undue advantage of resources available to them to perform science projects way beyond their grade level, whereas other kids who didn't have access to such resources lacked that sophistication and couldn't compete with this elite class of kids from families of parents from a science background. There is nothing wrong with encouraging your kid to take up challenging science projects or brainstorming with them to generate some relevant ideas for their project. I am a scientist and I do that with my kids, but my role is limited to raising questions and making sure that they try to find something on their own which suits their level of understanding of science. Neither I generate an idea for them, nor do I help them to select the topic, my role is limited to providing them with materials required for the experiment and making sure that they do it safely.

When there is no level playing field the competition becomes one-sided, heavily biased towards kids with scientific privileges, and this thing bothers me. But, the question is how to balance this imbalance of resources so that all students get a fair deal? How to make sure that all students are competing on a level playing field? There is no easy way, it is not the fault of these students that their parents are scientists and they are helping these kids in a way they shouldn't be. We can't punish these kids for the well-intended help offered to them by their parents, but then how can we watch these other kids with no scientific help apart from their teachers and schools fail regularly in front of kids from scientifically privileged backgrounds? The only way out is to make disclosures of all help received mandatory: from where you got the idea, where you conducted the experiment, who helped you, and whether any of your parents belong to the science field. The list is not exhaustive, but these questions might give us an idea of the scientific privilege of such kids, and let them compete with each other, this will be the real test for them and it will be better for them. Maybe others have better suggestions to tackle this issue, but I feel this should be discussed before many kids move away from science just because they can't compete with a few kids who come from scientifically privileged families. We need bright and creative kids to choose science as their profession, science needs creativity and imagination like any other field. It is the responsibility of the scientific community to make sure that we create a conducive environment to attract such talent.

The USA has a great tradition of scientific endeavors, and we cannot afford to lose this advantage, this is why we need to stop this field from becoming a monopoly of a few privileged families. The USA is a leader in science and technology and this is one of the main reasons for its world dominance. If the scientific community doesn't make serious efforts to increase the diversity and reachability of scientific knowledge to each and every corner of society, this country might lose this edge to others who are rapidly closing this gap. Let's start with fixing the science education and the way many of these science fairs are judged. Please remember, that prevention is always better than cure.

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

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

Immigration is not a human right, but a granted privilege

Immigration is becoming a very sensitive and controversial issue in many developed countries. It is a very important issue during this US presidential election. Many countries like the US, Australia, and many European countries are favorite destinations for many immigrants from Asian countries as well as from other parts of the world. Actually, many of these countries benefit from the presence of immigrants, many immigrants work really hard to become successful in whatever field they choose and in that process help the country in which they reside. But this is not a one-way process, in return immigrants also benefit immensely. They get better opportunities and fair treatment, and many of them escape the troublesome social and political environment of their birthplace to find a peaceful dwelling in their adopted country. This process works very well as long as it is beneficial for both the parties involved, it mainly happens when the economy is doing really well, there are enough job opportunities for everyone, and in general country is in very good shape. But, does this process of mutual benefit can go on endlessly without having any side effects? Based on the current scenario, it doesn't look like that.

I am an immigrant to the USA. Even in India, my family migrated from one part (Uttar Pradesh) to another (Maharastra). So, I have first-hand experience with the issues that migrants within the same country or immigrants who move to different countries face. There is no doubt that my family benefited immensely from the places where we lived. We got better opportunities, better education as well a better social and economic environment. In turn, I am sure places or cities where we lived also got benefitted from our presence as law-abiding, responsible, and hard-working residents. We learned local culture and language, adapted to our surroundings, and contributed to the diversity and rich cultural heritage of all places where we resided. This mutually beneficial and harmonic relationship is the main reason that I have so much culturally diverse thinking in my own family. Three generations of my family can claim to have three different languages as their primary language (often referred to as their mother tongue). Immigration is a beneficial activity for the immigrants as well as the country or city where people are immigrating. But, I feel appalled when I see this ugly fight over the issue of immigration. I don't understand how both sides can be so ignorant and adamant about their arguments?

Whether we like it or not, the truth is that in today's world immigration is a legal process, you have to follow a legal process to immigrate to any country. I agree that it is cumbersome, lengthy, often very frustrating, and expensive, but it is illegal to enter any country without any proper documentation. So, anyone who has respect for the law of that country should follow this process or be ready to face the consequences of their illegal actions. I also understand that many people immigrate due to various reasons, many times they don't follow these legal requirements, but even after all this it is an illegal act, and if there is no law that takes into account all these factors then all these people can be in big legal trouble. One thing should be very clear to everyone, to immigrants as well as to citizens of that country, immigration is not a human right but a privilege granted by the host country. For all who face some humanitarian crisis in their own country, asylum is an option. Immigration is a special privilege, not a favor, help, kind gesture, or charity. It is also the responsibility of the host country to keep their immigration and asylum policies clear and simple so that people who need can understand and follow the rules. Immigrants come with certain rights and responsibilities, they need to be law-abiding residents and contribute towards the betterment of that society otherwise this privilege can be taken away at any time. Once both sides understand this simple thing, then I don't think there can be any issue that cannot be resolved by mutual discussion. The law of the land needs to be respected, any act encouraging violation of the law can result in long-term social and political crises which can affect the entire country. I hope better sense prevails from both sides fighting over this issue and they come to some mutually acceptable solution because once you make any issue a political hot potato it is almost certain that it will never get resolved. Political parties can use it to emotionally polarize their vote banks election after election without making any sincere efforts to resolve it. People also get emotional about these types of issues and give that opportunity to politicians to make fools out of them.

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

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

Parental leave - right or privilege?

The topic of parental leave is very sensitive, it is debated in many political and professional forums, and even President Obama mentioned it during his State of the Union address on January 20th. People always debate whether it is a right or a privilege? People argue very passionately either in favor or against these things, and there is also a disagreement about how much parental leave is enough; 2 weeks, 2 months, 6 months, or one year? One might find some of these numbers irrational or ridiculous but if we accept that parenting is a full-time job then it is often difficult to decide how much time is required for parents to leave their kid with someone else and come back to work. I personally believe that parenting is a personal responsibility of respective parents, after all, they decide to become parents based on their own priorities. Once they decide to become a parent, it is their job to figure out how to take care of their child. There is no doubt that any help from their employer or government is going to definitely help them to go through the initial demanding days of parenting and that is where this issue runs into rough waters. How much help is enough? Is this one of the reasons many small businesses (or even big ones) hesitate to hire women? Can this gap due to maternity leave be harmful to the progress of any woman's professional career? Can this policy of mandatory parental leave affect the productivity of small businesses? There are many questions related to this issue that are up for debate. I think policymakers need to take into consideration these questions before making any law regarding this issue.

Every parent needs some assistance during the initial days after childbirth as the work is both physically and mentally challenging. Women also need time to recover physically so there is no doubt that they need maternity leave before they come back to work. Parenting is the responsibility of both parents so the father also needs to have an option of paternity leave so that he can take care of his responsibility as a parent during those initial days. I am sure policymakers must have done research before deciding on the duration of parental leave. There are also professional childcare options available for parents who don't want to take any leave. It should be entirely their choice. If parents, especially mothers chose not to take their entire maternity leave and join work much before then they should not be looked upon as insensitive parents (recent controversy related to Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer is an example of this). Everyone should be free to use or not to use the option of parental leave based on their own needs and priorities. There is no gold standard that everyone should follow, we should respect every parent's style of parenting without being judgmental. It is okay to offer recommendations and suggestions but it is up to the respective parents to accept or reject them. Every parent has a right to develop and follow their own style of parenting. I have seen personally some parents inventing new ways to deal with some of the problems they faced during parenting and it helped them to reduce the stress of parenting.

I personally believe that parental leave should be a part of every professional package so that prospective parents (especially mothers) don't have to choose between parenthood and career.  It should be considered as a right but even if for some reason it is not then it can be offered as a special privilege, especially by big organizations who can afford to implement this policy. Doesn't matter how it is offered; a right or a special privilege it will help organizations to keep talented people in their workforce. It will help women to plan their careers without worrying about the effect of their pregnancy on their professional life. Parents also need to use this option responsibly. They need to plan in such a way that it doesn't hurt their company's productivity. If both parties involved behave responsibly then I think parental leave can benefit both, organizations as well as parents equally.  

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

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