The Heroes We Choose, the Society We Become

"Show me the heroes that the youth of your country look up to, and I will tell you the future of your country." Idowu Koyenikan

When our idols are politicians who lie without consequence and remorse, celebrities and influencers who propagate curated illusions, and athletes whose expertise rarely extends beyond their sport, rather than teachers, scientists, and thinkers who demonstrate independent judgment and moral courage and work for the betterment of society in general, we reveal the kind of society we are becoming. Our heroes are reflections of our values and aspirations. They do not create us; we create them.

I am struck by how often people speak of celebrity CEOs, Elon Musk among them, as singular geniuses responsible for breakthroughs that were in fact achieved by teams of hard-working scientists, engineers, and workers. The same pattern appears in politics. Certain leaders cultivate a cult-like status, eager to claim credit for every success but quick to deflect blame, deny responsibility, or rewrite events when serious mistakes occur. We elevate one figure as a messiah and ignore the collective intelligence, discipline, and integrity that is the actual driving force for any achievement. At the same time, it has become a common sight to see supporters defend politicians who reject even the most basic accountability. In today's world, loyalty matters more than truth.

And then we wonder from where children are learning hate and bias; why they hesitate to speak truth, why they are not honest, why they don't admit mistakes, or take responsibility for their actions? What example are we setting for them?

If we celebrate power over principle and charisma over character, we should not be surprised by the culture that follows. The standards we normalize today become the character of our society tomorrow.

That is why it is so telling that Virginia lawmakers recently passed a bill requiring that, if schools teach students about the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, they teach what happened as fact, without presenting false claims that the 2020 election was stolen or that the attack was merely a peaceful protest. The fact that legislation is now needed simply to protect basic factual instruction in schools says something deeply unsettling about where we are as a society. Misinformation spread by politicians, partisan media, and self-styled influencers has become so normalized that much of the public consumes it uncritically, with little concern for the consequences.

The Epstein case exposes another related moral failure. This case is not only about the depravity of one man. It is also about the tolerance, cowardice, and convenience of many others around him. Some powerful people were associated with a convicted sex offender, visited his homes, socialized with him, and benefited from his access and proximity, knowing very well his conviction as a child molester. That reality should trouble any serious society. I agree that association alone is not proof of criminal guilt, and public records are not the same thing as proven complicity. I am not implying that everyone named in the released Epstein materials is guilty or knew the full extent of his crimes. Still, the broader pattern remains disturbing. Again and again, wealth, power, and status seem to purchase justice and immunity where ordinary people would face immediate condemnation and serious consequences. Even though these examples are from the USA, this pattern is observed all over the world, including countries like India and Pakistan.

What is most revealing is not only the wrongdoings themselves in such outrageous cases, but the selective outrage that follows. If the accused belongs to “our side,” many people rationalize, minimize, and deflect. Principles suddenly become negotiable when loyalty, status, or political advantage is at stake. A society that cannot hold the powerful accountable, regardless of ideology, influence, or social rank, is a society that has surrendered its moral spine. We say we value justice, integrity, and the protection of the vulnerable. But when those values demand courage, consistency, and inconvenience, too often we bow down to power and influence. The rich and powerful go scot-free for the most vulgar crimes, but the poor and weak languish in jails for the most trivial offenses or no offense at all. 

Moral decay rarely manifests dramatically. More often, it arrives quietly: when we excuse what we would otherwise condemn, when we look away because the truth is uncomfortable, when influence matters more than innocence, when we debate rather than take action, and when we stand divided rather than act together.

The scandals, like the Epstein scandal, are horrific. But our willingness to soften our judgment for the well-connected, to fragment outrage according to politics or personal interest, and to suspend moral standards when they become inconvenient, are signs of deep moral decay. If we cannot demand accountability consistently and without fear, then the problem is no longer merely criminal. It is cultural. And that should trouble all of us.

Imagine, for a moment, how a society like ours might respond if evidence of some of history’s most monstrous crimes against humanity first surfaced today.

Would the horror unite us? Or would we fracture instantly along ideological lines? I fear the latter.

It is not difficult to imagine the response. Some commentators would minimize the scale. Some influencers would turn clear evil into moral gray zones. Partisan voices would look first for political advantage, not truth or accountability. Some would go so far as to justify the loss of innocent lives as a necessary evil, simply because those suffering did not belong to their own race, religion, or nation. Others would insist that certain individuals should be spared judgment because they were “otherwise decent people,” or because association supposedly proves nothing, even where the cruelty was systemic and impossible not to see.

That possibility is disturbing precisely because it does not feel far-fetched. We already see this pattern whenever powerful people are implicated in serious wrongdoing. Our outrage is filtered through identity and ideology. Too often, the first question is not, “Is this true?” or “Was this wrong?” It is, “Whose side are they on?” And the reactions are based on whose side the perpetrators are from. That is the deeper problem.

The true test of a society is not how loudly it condemns evil when condemnation is easy or politically useful. It is whether it can stand together against cruelty, exploitation, and crimes against humanity, regardless of who commits them, who benefits from them, or who is embarrassed by the truth. When a civilian is shot by law enforcement for protesting against brutality, it is not the time to look for political convenience; it is time to demand accountability and justice.  

When we cannot do that, we are not as morally evolved as we claim to be. We are merely comfortable. And comfort has always been one of injustice’s most reliable allies. History’s greatest tragedies did not happen because evil persuaded everyone. They happened because too many people rationalized, minimized, deferred, or remained selectively silent. If we cannot develop the courage to confront injustice consistently, irrespective of ideology, influence, or identity, then we are not nearly as immune to the repetition of tragic crimes from history as we like to believe.

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

The myth of the "varna system"

If anyone has ever participated in a discussion related to the caste system and casteism in India, then they know what is meant by "varna system." The basic argument goes like this, the current caste system which is as disgusting as racism is not the original system, the original one, the Varna system was a much better and smart idea. Casteism, where one gets discriminated against just because of the family in which they are born is impossible to defend, but it still exists, people just label it as a derivation of the Varna system. The original system, the varna system divided society into four broad categories. Varna (वर्ण) was considered to be a noble, well-intended, flexible, efficient, and just system that was designed for the smooth functioning of a society. The blame for spoiling the original idea is put on the invaders by many supporters of the Varna system. It seems the invaders messed up that system which resulted in horrendous caste-based practices like untouchability. The argument is that the horrendous caste system is what's in practice, not the so-called original well-intended varna system, and that too even after India celebrated its 70th Independence Day a couple of years back. Some people blame it on the British, some on the Mughals, but I have not found a person who can accept that the original system itself was prone to exploitation and misuse, and it never worked as people claim it to work for any significant period of Indian history.

Now, why I am blaming the concept of the varna system for the current casteism in India? Aren't all societies have some social class or divisions based on economic status? Yes, they do, but none of them have resulted in something as ugly as the caste system in India and none of them justify such division as a well-intended and genius creation for the smooth functioning of a society. I always ask people who argue that the Varna system was a brilliant idea and it was a flexible arrangement that allowed people to move from one Varna to another based on their education and profession to give me a single example of a period of history when this system was functional like this in the real world. Even in mythological epics like Ramayana and Mahabharata, all we see is the rigid caste system, where people get a birthright to become a king or queen just based on the family in which they were born not by their virtues or education. The point to be noted is, that all these epics were written well before invaders even knew about India. So, tragically proponents of the varna system can't blame invaders for polluting or manipulating these books. People who really bothered to study or read about the varna system might cite some example of some Shudra king and claim that it was because of the varna system that a Shudra could become a king. Shudra was supposed to be the lowest strata of the four layers of the Varna-based society (Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras). Ironically they still address that king as a Shudra king and claim that his becoming a king shows that the system was flexible. If the system was flexible, there would have been many more examples of this, not just a few exceptions. There are always some exceptions in any society who break the conventional ranks and achieve something extraordinary, not because society encourages it, but because they achieve great things despite society being hostile towards them. If any reader knows about any time period from the ancient history of Indian civilization when this Varna system was at work as people claim it to be, I am interested to know about it, please share the factual data with references. It will give me another perspective to analyze what went wrong that the Varna system got converted into a caste system and if the original system was so great why people did not revert back to it.

According to me, the original system is as flawed as the caste system. As I said the division of society based on economic status and profession is not something new. It happens on its own and people do move from one economic layer to another based on their income, education, inheritance, and other things. This is not a system but just a way how people feel comfortable to associating with a group of people to whom they relate most. Rather, to make such an association into some kind of a system is a horrendous idea. It is like encouraging and legitimizing segregation, and this is why I feel the Varna system, like a caste system, was wrong. Once again, if anyone thinks I am wrong, please provide factual evidence so that I can correct myself. I hope the caste system goes away. It has been diluted in certain parts of India due to economic progress, but in general, it is still strong and very much present in most parts of India. The ways and methods that people use to discriminate based on caste have evolved, but sadly it still exists. I hope that defenders of the Varna system work to eradicate the caste system instead of wasting their energy to defend the system that never delivered its promise.

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

Don't allow someone else to define the meaning of happiness for you

We all live under various psychological pressures. We have pressure from our family to perform certain duties and fulfill their expectations. We have pressure from society and from our peers to confirm their expectations, there is also pressure from social media, the pressure created by different advertisements, and different products marketed which seem to be necessary if we want to be happy, and so on. The point is, that someone is continuously telling us what to do to look beautiful, they want to explain to us what it means to be a cool person or a happy family. These things are explained in a very vivid and glossy way. Advertisements tell us how one should enjoy life, many vacation package-offering companies insist on why we need to go on vacations to strike a balance between work and life. These messages are very tempting and often irresistible, not easy to ignore as a lot of effort and research goes into making these advertisements. Many such things are going around us in the real world as well as the virtual world which try to define happiness for us. If you believe in all these things, then you have to have the latest phone to be cool, you should look a certain way and wear fashionable clothes to look beautiful, you need to have a certain type of body or complexion, you need to go on vacation to fancy places, buy a home, get a new car as your old one is junk, and the list can go on depending on your need to fit in. The question is do we really need others to define what it means to be happy for us?

Maybe many of us do need some advice about how to be happy as we may not know what we really want. In that case, these advertisements can be of help as they can help you to find something which you like. But, there is a catch, these advertisements are made by very talented professionals using the information from the research and data based on human behavior. This is why they are so compelling that you end up liking what advertisement makers want you to like, not what you really like. This whole process is very confusing because it is very difficult to figure out whether what we really want is a product of our own needs and desires, or a result of influence from all these external factors. Many people, including me fall for these tricks. We all are bombarded on social media with such messages, and our online search is continuously tracked, whether we are watching a movie or a TV we are continuously exposed to such messages that want us to do something or buy something. 

These messages are very useful if we use them to our advantage, but they are very problematic if we get consumed by them. When we start chasing the dreams designed by others for us, we may not get that feeling of fulfillment even after living that dream. It is better to spend time looking for our own needs and dreams rather than trying to be successful in society's eyes or in the eyes of people around us. At the same time, let me acknowledge that it is not easy to resist the pressure to fit in. It is not easy to walk a different path when most people around us try to follow the path paved by these consultants of happiness. I have learned to evaluate most of my needs and desires objectively to see if I really need them or if they are the product of pressure created by all the messages which my brain knowingly or unknowingly receives from my surroundings. Many times, I reject these things as I can't justify their presence in my life, and many times, I chase these ideas and try to fulfill those desires. Technically, I am not a minimalist. I don't own only what I need, but I do try to limit as much as possible as per my own wish. If the pressure to be a minimalist is created by some undue external guilt, then it is as bad as the pressure to buy something or to spend on something that you may not need but are buying just because everyone else has it. 

The pursuit of happiness was comparatively easy for our previous generation, for us it is more complex and it is going to be even more complex for our future generation. This is why we all need to come up with our individual plans to pursue our own happiness. Humans are complex organisms, and our happiness is even more complex (because our brain is a very complicated organ). It is not necessary that we all must enjoy or dislike the same things, our choices can vary a lot, and there is nothing wrong with it. Try to define your own happiness, don't let these external pressures dictate terms to you. Don't go on vacation unless you really want to go, there is nothing wrong with enjoying your work so much that you don't need a vacation. There is nothing wrong in loving your own body the way it is, or working out hard to change its shape, provided you are doing these things as per your own wish, and to make yourself happy. Don't allow your surroundings to define happiness and force you to work for it. Define your own style, your own happiness, needs, and desires yourself, and then take the help of people and resources around you to fulfill them. 

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

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

Casteism, suicide of a student and politics of death

Hyderabad University student Rohith Vemula committed suicide. Based on his suicide note and some previous letters it looks like he was unhappy with the education system or society in general because of some incidents in his life. His being a Dalit might have played a role in this frustration, which resulted in a loss of all hope of justice, and in that frustration, he might have taken this extreme step. These things may or may not be true and may not be the real reason behind his suicide, but this is what everyone is predicting based on events that transpired before and after his death. In his suicide note, he doesn't blame anyone in particular for his death but there are many hints to conclude that the system's failure to make him believe that justice can be done with him might be one of the reasons for this extreme step. Casteism still exists in India in various forms. People still suffer from caste discrimination and it is really sad. There are many attempts from all quarters of society to remove this evil but somehow it still exists. It is a form of discrimination like racism in Western societies, so it is a very serious issue that doesn't get as much attention.

Caste starts playing its role in a person's life in India since their birth. School and college admissions depend on it. Therefore, which field they can choose for their career also depends on it. During marriage, many people are very rigid about the caste criteria so the choice of a life partner also depends on caste. It is still a very important factor in Indian politics. So, no matter how much people deny it, the truth is that caste and casteism still very much exist in Indian society and it plays a major role in people's behavior. But one thing has definitely changed, the way this discrimination is practiced now is very different compared to fifty years back. Now there are no separate wells for Dalits or they are not treated as untouchables publicly as they were in the past but discrimination is practiced in a very subtle way. One can feel it in people's behavior, one can feel it during elections but superficially everything looks very normal until something tragic like this happens. 

Maybe we will never know the real reason behind Rohith's suicide, but we know that caste-based discrimination still exists. When I say caste-based discrimination I am not just talking about so-called lower castes discriminated by so-called upper castes but it happens the other way around also. Discrimination is discrimination it doesn't matter who is a perpetrator and who is a victim. It should be treated with equal seriousness. These castes are nothing but one crude criterion to measure the social status of a particular community. Every society has this system in some form or another. In some countries, it is in the form of race, where only people from certain races occupy certain spaces and hold powerful positions, in India it took the form of a caste system. In some countries, it is in the form of economic class. For this tragedy, instead of trying to find real reasons behind it very ugly politics is being played by every group involved in it. The death of one university student has become a big political capital. Many parties are trying to reap as much political mileage as possible from this tragic incident. University student organizations are involved in politics, so some sort of political power play was expected but the way the HRD minister tried to present wrong facts to cover up their mistakes and other political parties are trying to take advantage of this situation is really sickening. The press conference of the HRD minister was one such horrible scenario where she said that this issue should not be looked at as Dalit vs non-dalit and then went on to mention the word 'Dalit' so many times in her statement. The fact is that a student committed suicide, one can blame him for taking this step but we need to ask was this tragedy preventable? Is the current social, political, and educational system in any way responsible for this? If they are, then we need to look at the system and check what are the things that can be improved to avoid such incidents in the future. The government should recognize its mistakes and try to take corrective action rather than offering some lame excuses. In any progressive society, there should be ample scope to express dissent against anything, if dissenting voices are crushed then it can result in something tragic incident like this.

After Rohith's death, everyone from our PM to ministers, to the general public, and even the media seemed to be concerned about his family and his problems but why no one bothered to look into his problems when he was still alive? Why university administration was so insensitive towards him? Why do farmers, students, or any common person become so important only after their death? All concerned people need to give answers to all these questions. 

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

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

Circus called tolerance and intolerance debate

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

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

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

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

Intolerance was always there in India

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

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

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

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

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

Women are made, not born

The title of this post is a famous quote by French philosopher Simone de Beauvoir on womanhood. I don't know in what context he said it, but when I heard it I immediately thought, wow, he described it so correctly. For me, this quote means that we as a society condition the minds of people into believing what men and women should do, how they should behave and what are their roles in society and family. In reality, no gender is supposed to do only certain types of things or behave in a certain way, we define it and it is a human creation. This quote is actually equally applicable to men, all genders are told what it is supposed to be a man or woman or a transgender and then we all try to fit into one of these roles. In the modern world, many people are trying to challenge these definitions and break the traditional gender perceptions but still, it is not that easy. The characteristics assigned to different genders are so stereotyped that people involuntarily follow them. Men without even knowing subscribe to traditional notions of masculinity, they come under tremendous pressure to perform and succeed to demonstrate their manliness. Similarly, women are forced into certain roles, and their minds are conditioned to teach them what they can do and what they can't. Once this task is successfully achieved, then it is easy for a patriarchal society to dictate what men can do and what women can do, and everyone follows. This biased environment then creates ample examples to support this hypothesis, and most people agree with these things as they see many examples validating these notions. That is why such quotes are important, they tell us the inherent flaw associated with such classification. Such quotes and thoughts force us to think and ask some uncomfortable and difficult questions. One of those questions should be, whatever we see around or believe is natural or manufactured by centuries of tradition and suppression of certain genders?

Our sex is determined by our DNA and now we very well understand the science behind it. But once we are born and start our journey in this world, society and people around us start conditioning our minds about what our gender should and shouldn't do. Many traditions, rituals, and cultural or religious beliefs start shaping our minds in a particular way. We are told about our gender and also how our gender must behave. We are also told about the responsibilities and limitations of our gender roles, what boys should like, and what girls are supposed to like. There are rewards for obedience and punishments for disobedience of these restrictions and slowly these things become part of our personality. They get embedded deep in our psyche. Rarely do we think about questioning these things. Many of us don't ask, why only women cook in the family? Why do only men have to go and work outside? Why it is considered the responsibility of man to be the breadwinner of a family? Why polygamy is more accepted in some societies but not polyandry? Why do only women change their last names after marriage? Why there is no equal recognition of any third gender? Nowadays these types of questions are being asked and many people are trying to challenge gender discrimination at various levels, but one can easily feel that society is not yet very receptive and accommodative of many of these reforms. There is still a reluctance to break the traditional stereotyped definition of men and women, but the pot is being stirred, things are being challenged and something good is going to come out of all this.

Many people including many women still believe that women are incapable of doing certain things, but they don't question why? Is it because they are women or because for centuries they were told that they couldn't do these things and now suddenly we expect them to match men on every level or go back to their traditional role. Providing an opportunity is just a first step, once the opportunity is provided one has to give enough time to master those skills. Men didn't become powerful in one day, they got preferred treatment and a favorable social atmosphere for centuries to become the so-called stronger or dominant sex. Actually, many women have already proven that they can take up any challenge thrown at them but still, many of them are way far behind as they are caged in age-old stereotyped boundaries. Slowly they are also becoming aware of their rights and capabilities, and even with limited resources and additional household burdens, they are competing strongly. As this awareness spreads across the world, we will see more and more women entering the mainstream and taking up responsible roles. If society and people around them don't try to suppress their potential, then I am sure in years to come we will see many more women in key leadership roles. Until then, let's try to create an environment where they get a fair shot to prove their talent.  

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

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

We all are transgenders in someway

While watching this program on NDTV about the situation of transgenders in Indian society, I was wondering what is the reason these people are so stereotyped that they can't live a normal life in most societies around the world. By normal life, I mean getting the same treatment and opportunities that most of us so-called "normal" or "cisgender" people get. In India, most of them are forced into the sex trade or live in ghettos because of the way society treats them. Why it is so difficult for any society to accept them as equal citizens or for that matter why we are so apprehensive about anything that doesn't fit the age-old definition of "normal"? Who decides what is normal and what is not? Is most common mean normal and something uncommon becomes abnormal? We need to ask such questions to counter this narrative which has been going on uninterrupted for centuries. It is really sad to see that some people among us get discriminated against for something natural. They face various difficulties and problems not because of their mistakes or actions, but just because of who they are. This attitude of they are different than us or they are not normal, so they can't be with us or our kids will become like them needs to be questioned, everyone needs to get a fair chance to fulfill their ambitions and desires, as a society it is our responsibility to create such environment. Most of us agree with this statement, but as a society, our behavior doesn't match this statement.

Sex is determined by DNA and gender is something how we present ourselves in society, both don't need to match. We are taught and conditioned on how men or women should behave or conduct themselves in society. We are taught what is masculine and what is feminine, based on this conditioning we develop our own perception of our own gender and also try to define other's gender. This perception and stereotyping also decide what we call normal and what we consider abnormal. We are also trained to reject, denounce, or stay away from these so-called abnormal people. Most of us follow all these traditions or rules without even giving any serious thought or consideration about their logic and relevance. Many of us fail to question these perceptions which are passed on to us by our society. We follow them as part of tradition or culture, but we never bother to check their relevance or validity. Once anything whether it is good or bad becomes a part of tradition or culture it stays there for a long time. Many societies also develop some protective attitudes towards such traditions as they consider them an integral part of their identity. This is one of the main reasons why many people hesitate to question these things openly. I agree that it is not easy to challenge or fight against ancient traditions and rituals, but if they are wrong someone needs to challenge them. But the problem is that there is not a very conducive environment in most societies that can encourage questioning or dissent, rather few who dare to question have to face many hostile reactions. Transgenders are victims of such wrong traditions and misconceptions. According to me, we all have some transgender qualities in some way or other, therefore, it should be easy for all cisgender to relate with transgenders, provided we overcome all our prejudices and biases. We all possess a unique set of qualities, there is no defined set of masculine and feminine qualities which are exclusive to any one particular sex. A variety of feelings or characteristics can be found in both sexes. We all are sensitive, tough, stupid or intelligent, fearless or cowardice, strong or weak, introverted or extrovert our gender doesn't define these things. We all are capable of displaying feelings of tenderness, vulnerability, fear, jealousy, and envy to different extents on different occasions. We all have many characteristics that people associate only with transgenders we are a mixture of qualities that are normally classified as masculine or feminine. We just don't fit into that stereotyped definition of transgender that people have created by combining some emotional and physical characteristics. But just because some people show physical or emotional characteristics of both sexes more than others, we should not label them as abnormal. These people are as normal as any of us, just maybe not as common as many of us. Uncommon doesn't mean abnormal. They are in the minority, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve equal rights and recognition. We need to remove this prejudice and bias, we all need to recognize that there is nothing wrong or abnormal in being cisgender, transgender, or any other gender. Most common doesn't necessarily mean normal and uncommon doesn't mean abnormal. Let's remove these barriers and become a more inclusive society where every individual is accepted regardless of gender or sexual orientation. Let's start with ourselves, let's embrace and understand our fellow humans irrespective of their gender, sexual orientation, religion, race, or any other thing that we use to categorize us. Let's show love and respect towards each other, after all, we all are humans, and let's behave as humans. 

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

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

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar - Most used but least understood political and social icon of India

April 14th, 2015 was the 124th birth anniversary of one of the great thinkers of modern India, Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, also known as Babasaheb. I don't think I need to introduce him to anyone from India, but for others who don't know him, he is considered a great political and social leader who started an awareness campaign and mass movement among suppressed classes of India (mostly Dalits) for their equal rights and social upliftment, especially his work to eradicate the social evil of untouchability. His contribution towards the social upliftment of the suppressed classes of Indian society is more than any other leader of his time. His name and image are used by almost all political parties in India to reap political benefits, but hardly do they bother to read his books, understand his views, and follow his advice. Even political parties who claim to carry on his legacy lack the clarity of thought and level of his thinking that he displayed almost six to seven decades back.

Babasaheb was a Maharashtrian and because I was born and went to school in that state, I was introduced to him at a very early age as there were lessons about him in our school textbooks. I was impressed by his writings and personality in my teenage years mainly because of his rebellious nature. He was not scared to take on well-established traditions, customs, or ideas. He challenged them not just out of emotional rage but argued rationally, with logic, and by producing a lot of evidence to support his argument, which is a very rare thing even today in our political class. Rarely do we see such a spirit of scholarship and rational thinking now not only in a political class but across the board. I think he was one of the greatest thinkers that India ever produced who was way ahead of his times. Unfortunately, his teachings and thoughts didn't get the importance that they deserved in Indian social and political circles, maybe because even his so-called followers were not willing to accept many things that he wrote or said. His name and his image are reduced to tokenism to show empathy and sympathy towards a particular class of Indian society. No doubt that Babasaheb cared a lot about the situation of Dalits in Indian society, he was against casteism and the practice of untouchability which was rampant during that time (unfortunately, it still exists in one form or another). He fought really hard for their rights but to brand him only as a Dalit leader is a gross injustice to the intellect and scholarship of this great man. His scholarly work covers various aspects of social and political life, he was a very well-read and well-educated person. One should read his books and articles to understand how well-read he was and how much research he did to question many discriminatory practices that were socially accepted back then. Sadly, after his death, there was a big leadership vacuum and there was no capable leader of his caliber to fill that vacuum. That vacuum was filled by many political parties who claimed to be caretakers of the suppressed classes of Indian society, they used this class as a vote bank for years, but none of them matched the intellect and conviction of Babasaheb. There is no doubt that the policy of reservation and other social welfare schemes has brought some change in the social and economic status of these communities but still lot more work needs to be done.

If you roam around India, you will see many statues of Dr. Ambedkar and many streets named after him. His name is well known, and he is used by all political parties to exploit political gains. I feel Ambedkar's name is used more than Gandhi's name for political gains. Even though he is one of the most used political icons in Indian politics, he is least understood. When I look at the reason why they ignore his writings or messages, I find it is not because he was not very clear about what he thought about Hinduism, casteism, or reservation, but because it is very inconvenient for them to follow his advice. Even his so-called followers don't care to read his books and follow most of the things recommended by him. It is ironic to see that despite being one of the most used political icons in India his teachings are least followed. I hope people who take his name day and night and all political parties who claim to carry on his legacy at least make some serious efforts to read his writings and reflect on them. If they really care about Babasaheb, then they should show courage to discuss all the issues raised by him openly, they should dare to question the things which he dared to question. Many things that he questioned are still in practice, celebrating his birth anniversary is a great thing, and tokenism has its own importance in our society and culture, but if we really want to honor this great man, then we need to discuss and debate all issues which he raised in his books and articles. If we can remove the evil of casteism from Indian society, it will be a real tribute to this man.

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

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

Links:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._R._Ambedkar
2. प्राइम टाइम : बाबा साहब अंबेडकर का लोक रूप

Depression is real and it hurts, let's talk about it

Recently I watched this very interesting discussion on NDTV where famous Hindi movie actress Deepika Padukone and her mom discussed the problem of depression that Deepika faced very recently. In this discussion, they touched on various topics associated with mental health, including the huge stigma or taboo associated with discussing such issues openly in many societies. The stigma associated with any type of mental issues is so huge that not only society but the families and many times people themselves who suffer from such problems refuse to accept that there is any such problem and as a result, many people suffer silently. Depression is not uncommon, it is more common than we think. Most of us have to deal with it at some stage of our lives. I think depression and anxiety are two of the most common mental health issues that almost every one of us goes through the only difference is to what extent they affect our day-to-day life. Many of us live our entire lives trying to battle with these problems, we are so scared about what people might think about us that we don't even mention these issues to anyone, not even our close ones.

I think we need to accept one thing first, mental health-related issues like depression and anxiety are common, and they affect many people, so, it is better to acknowledge this and talk about them without any reservations. Today's high-pressure, fast, and somewhat isolated lifestyle has made all of us more prone to face these issues. It is not that people from previous generations never faced any such problems but maybe they never had proper platforms to discuss and debate any such issues, fortunately, we have such platforms and we should make good use of them. When I was in India I always thought that having a mental health issue meant something very shameful and one should try as much as possible to hide these things, this is what I was taught. I have seen many families (including my own) trying to hide any such issues even from people within the family because they think that if people know about this thing their family will get a bad reputation and society might look differently to all members of their family. This fear and concern is often reaffirmed by the very negative attitude of society towards mental health-related issues.  

Without proper knowledge of any issue, it is very dangerous to react just based on some common perceptions, this is what happens all the time in this case. Mental health issues are like any other health issue, people facing such issues need the same type of attention, support, and medical care that others facing any nonmental health problem. We don't consider people having flu or cold or cancer or diabetes or high blood pressure weird and crazy, we don't socially boycott them. We don't treat them with contempt or act like something is wrong with them, so, why do many of us react differently when we see someone who is going through depression or panic attacks or some other mental health issue? First of all, we need to remove this stigma, this is the biggest hurdle in dealing with this issue. Let's accept that we all (or most of us) face some degree of mental health issues, therefore, we all need to work towards getting rid of this stigma which has done more harm than good for our society. Sooner we learn to talk about mental health-related issues without any bias or prejudice better for all of us. Mental health issues are real and people suffering from it don't need prejudice, stigmatization, or sympathy. They need everyone's support, acceptance, and unbiased medical as well as social treatment. Let's hope that we as a society can come out of our own mental weakness and learn to accept that mental health issues are like other health issues, there is nothing special or weird about them.

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

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

Links:
1. 'I Felt Empty And Directionless': Deepika Padukone on Her Battle With Depression
2. Read The Heart-Wrenching Open Letter To Deepika Padukone

"India's Daughter" is not an insult to India but an eye opener

I managed to watch BBC's documentary film 'India's Daughter' as it might be soon withdrawn from YouTube as the Indian government has raised objections over this film and wants to ban its telecast all over the world. They are trying their best to pull this film from the internet so that no one can watch it because they think it is a conspiracy by some foreigners to defame India all over the world. Somehow the current central government of India thinks that this documentary shows India and Indians in a bad light, and they drew these conclusions without even watching the documentary. Actually, this documentary doesn't reveal anything which is not already known to many people around the world. Also, it would be wrong to assume that this documentary is only representative of the mindset which only prevails in Indian society, some things might be India specific but in general it should be seen as a harsh reality of gender bias prevalent in most parts of the world. This bias might manifest in different ways, and the methods and techniques might differ but I don't think that anyone can deny that gender bias still exists in many parts of the world and is a serious social issue even today. 

It seems that many ministers from the current central government of India are unhappy after watching only some parts of this documentary. They are especially upset to know that there is an interview with convicted rapist where he expresses his views about rape and is seen blaming the victims for whatever happens to them. No doubt that these things are disgusting to watch but the ugly truth is that there are many who think like this, I have heard similar statements made by many people I know, and each time I feel disgusted but the bitter reality is that even today some people think like this. Views similar to that rapist are echoed by some politicians of India and also in other parts of the world. Gender bias is a stark reality. The documentary tries to show a mirror to our society but it seems when some people don't like what they see in the mirror they want to break the mirror rather than try to work on changing the image. This is an escapist mindset that likes to live in continuous denial mode by either denying the reality or shooting the messenger when a bitter truth is revealed. Such people like to push inconvinient or sensitive issues under the carpet, they want to ignore it purposely and expect that people may forget or get used to the problem. Unless we courageously admit that the problem exists and we all are responsible for it we are not going to move an inch in the direction of solving it. One can have differences of opinion about the contents of the documentary, and one can question why rapist interview is there. One can definitely ask such questions or even disagree with the message that this film wants to propagate, but it is necessary to face the bitter truth that this documentary conveys.

As far as banning the documentary is concerned it is another pathetic decision to ban something without even watching it or having any reasonable discussion over it. According to me, only people who even remotely think like the rapist in the documentary will demand to ban it. Only people who sympathize with that rapist's mindset will feel threatened that they will get exposed and that's why demand a ban on it. Only people who don't want to expose filthy mindset of some people about women would like to ban it. Only those who want to live in denial mode as if these things don't happen around us will worry more about tourism in India rather than worrying about sexual assault incidents which happen on a daily basis. There is nothing anti-India in this documentary, actually, the documentary is not at all about India it is about the issue of sexual harassment and the attitude of some men towards women in our society. People are free to like or dislike it, it is their choice. Rape or sexual harassment is a global problem, if any incident in India or any protest in India is helping to highlight this issue or helping to create awareness about this problem why would anyone have an objection to that? Anyone who cares about this issue should watch this film. If anyhow you find that you sympathize with any of the thoughts expressed by some misogynist men in this documentary, then it's time to ban those thoughts from your mind not this documentary.

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

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

Links:
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUvlwmIfyx0

Mr. Prime Minister please don't mess it up this time

When the BJP won a decisive majority on its own in the general elections of 2014, I was a little surprised. I wasn't surprised that NDA won the elections, it was quite clear that the government of that time had no chance to come back to power, but many didn't expect a clear majority for BJP as a single party. They won 282 seats on their own (with ~31% vote share) and NDA in total won 339 seats with ~39% vote share. Actually, it was good to see that a single party won the majority so the excuse of coalition dharma to justify any decision or lack of decision must disappear now. Many governments from 1989 suffered decision paralysis because of this coalition politics. There was one person largely responsible for BJP's impressive success, it was Mr. Narendra Modi. His presence made all the difference as other parties did not have anyone to counter the challenge posed by him, he rode on a wave of his popularity with enormous resources at his disposal to execute a very well-planned campaign to secure an absolute majority for his party. It must be noted that this has happened for the first time since 1984. In the 1984-85 general elections Congress won the election with an absolute majority under the leadership of the Late Mr. Rajiv Gandhi. It was a landslide victory, they won 414 seats with ~49% of the vote share, it was the biggest victory margin for any party to date. I don't think that record is easy to break in the near future. Mr. Rajiv Gandhi had the majority which no one enjoyed ever in the Indian parliament, many expected that he would bring much-needed changes in the style and functioning of Indian politics. But sadly, it didn't happen, a golden opportunity was missed. Mr. Rajiv Gandhi started on a very positive note and made very impressive speeches about bringing changes at the beginning of his tenure but somehow lost his way somewhere in between and ended his tenure with corruption charges (Bofors scandal), the Shah Bano case disaster, and Ram mandir issue. Rather than Rajiv changing Indian politics, Indian politics changed him. This was really sad, I really feel bad whenever I look back to this part of Indian history, it is not that his government didn't do any good work but the expectations that people had were not fulfilled. The defeat of the Congress party in the 1989 general elections started a new era of coalition politics, which resulted in many weak and unstable governments. So, after 30 years now we have another prime minister and party with an absolute majority in parliament. Like Rajiv, Modi also started his tenure on a very positive note, his speeches include all the right things, and people have a lot of expectations from him and his government. I hope he is serious about changing the ways politics and political parties work in India. I believe he wants to create a bipartisan style of political decision-making, bring more transparency to political funding, and reduce corruption.

Mr. Modi has a very unique opportunity in his hands, the same opportunity that Mr. Rajiv Gandhi had and missed 30 years ago. Indians have waited almost three decades to get a government with decisive mandate. Hopefully, he remembers whatever promises he made during his election campaign. One thing that I am looking forward this government to implementing is a uniform civil code (not a Hindu civil code which RSS wants). India calls itself a secular country but there is a very complicated system of personal laws. Each religion has its own set of personal laws, especially in cases of marriage, divorce, and adoption. BJP has been talking about a uniform civil code for a long, and I think it is time now for them to implement it. I am sure the youth of the country across the party lines will support this. Mr. Modi has the majority on his side at least in one house of parliament and it is just a matter of time his party gets the majority in the other house as well. He should initiate this process to show his commitment to his party's promises. This one change can initiate a big social change. This is also a unique opportunity to change the long tradition of politicization of different institutions and government bodies. If the NDA or BJP keeps repeating the same mistakes that the UPA or Congress did in the past then what is the use of changing the government? If the current government behaves in the same way as previous governments then it is just a change of name not a change of governance style. Initial signs don't look that promising but may be they need some time to adjust and will get their acts together soon after initial hiccups.

I don't expect these changes to happen overnight or even during the first year of this government, but they have enough time to prove themselves. This opportunity came after 30 long years and if it is missed this time then I don't know how many more years Indian people have to wait to see this happen again. Delhi assembly elections showed that voters don't have the patience to wait, they want results and I hope Mr. Modi doesn't mess up this unique opportunity that history has offered to him. They are not going to get 60 years like Congress. Congress has already done its work to establish a strong democratic foundation for India, let's see not how the BJP builds on it. India's secular fabric has always been weak and I hope the BJP remains careful about not destroying it, after all, progress without equality and equity is not progress at all. 

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

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

Links:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_civil_code_of_India
2. Uniform civil code: will it work in India?

Why rights of minorities matter in any civilized society?

The rights of minorities in any society are very often a controversial or sensitive issue. This minority can be a particular gender, religious group, people of a particular sexual orientation, people with different abilities, or any group that belongs to the majority. Historically, most rules and traditions are designed to suit the needs of the majority. If we look at various cultures around the world we can easily notice that the majority rules, their needs, and concerns always prevail. A few examples to cite in this regard are; most musical instruments or electronics are designed keeping in mind right-handed users, in some sports (like boxing, football) the commercially available kit is designed mostly suitable for males, the laws related to food and marriage are mostly reflect majority's preferences, one can look around and can find many examples like this. The main point here is that the majority always gets their way just because of their statistical dominance, one can not ignore them just because of their number. But then what happens with the minority? Who will care for them and why? Don't they also have their own needs and requirements like the majority? Of course, they do, and these are as relevant as the needs or requirements of the majority. At least a civilized society thinks in this way, and that is why it is the job of the majority to be sensitive towards the minority's needs and requirements. But this doesn't mean there should be a policy of minority appeasement. Appeasement of any section of society is wrong, doesn't matter if it's for the majority or minority. Being sensitive towards the rights and needs of some sections of society is different than appeasement.

As I said, most of the time majority's rights are protected just because of their statistical dominance but the minority doesn't have this number advantage, so they are always dependent on the goodwill of the majority. Even in any democracy majority always rules, they have the strength of numbers on their side. In a scenario where there is a substantial majority and a weak minority (as far as numbers are concerned), it is easy for the majority to ignore the rights of the minority. But fortunately, this is not what happens in most of civilized and developed countries. We can see that in most cases enough care and attention is given to protect the minority's rights and address their grievances. Actually, the treatment offered to minority groups is often an indicator to see how developed, civilized, and sensitive that culture is. Another issue related to this is that minority communities tend to live in more cohesive manure to protect their identity or for the sake of their security. Knowingly or unknowingly they form a minority vote bank which becomes a politically attractive option for political parties. Every party tries to lure such vote banks as they know their votes come in a bunch. This may start minority appeasement and vote bank politics. There is nothing wrong with sticking together to protect your interests but when this turns into vote bank politics then things become complicated and may turn ugly. Often this vote bank politics creates polarization in society where every party tries to cater demands of their own vote bank. No matter how rational or irrational those demands are they become part of local or national politics and then the whole political battle is turned into pity vote bank politics. Many irrational demands are accepted just to keep their vote bank happy and this becomes a vicious cycle from which neither political parties nor voters come out. As much as I support minority groups for their demand to have equal rights in any society I oppose this vote bank politics, no matter which party is engaged in it. Also in the name of protecting your own identity any group or religion should not pressure the government to allow some age-old, outdated, and discriminatory traditions. Any type of discriminatory practices and animal cruelty should not be allowed under the name of religion, traditions, or culture. 

The rights of minorities are a very important issue in any country. It represents tolerance and inclusiveness. All minority groups should get proper representation so that their voices are also heard while making any important decisions. A clear distinction also should be made between protecting minority's rights and minority appeasement, both are not the same. I hope that our political fraternity and common people both understand the importance of this issue and act accordingly. Our society will be more vibrant, progressive, and tolerant if we learn to listen and respect each other's values and ideas. The sooner it happens better for us.

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

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

Patriarchy is one of the oldest surviving ideology

The title of the blog is from a sentence taken from this video which delivers another tight slap on the world's, especially India's patriarchal culture. I really don't know how many slaps like this our society needs to wake up and realize that our culture is outdated and we need to change. Actually, it would be unfair to blame only India for having a patriarchal society or culture, it is prevalent more or less in all parts of the world, but I am going to discuss this only about Indian society as I come from that society and can comment about it based on my personal experience. In ancient times when the development in science was not much, most jobs or even day-to-day tasks used to require a lot of physical stamina and power men became superior in every society due to their physical strength compared to women. This superior physical strength gave them a natural advantage and dominance, they seized this advantage and made all rules and traditions which heavily suited them. Patriarchy is dominant in all cultures and religions. This natural advantage allowed men to design society as per their own needs and slowly role of women was reduced to support them, satisfy their needs, and help in reproduction. This system continued for many many years until we saw the emergence of feminist movements where women started demanding fair and equal treatment. For many cultures this demand for equality was a shocker, they couldn't believe that women could demand something like this, and this is why feminists are still targeted all over the world, to protect patriarchy.

Some people might ask the question, what is wrong with patriarchal ideology? Why do we want to change this ancient culture? Patriarchy has been going on for years and society survived with those values and customs so why do we need to change? Actually, even today many people want to preserve or continue with these types of traditions in the name of culture or religion, they defend them because this thing was invented by their great-forefathers. They believe that as their forefathers were very farsighted and intelligent so how can anything practised by them be bad? Somehow they fail to see that these practices are discriminatory and biased in nature, most of these traditions favor men and put women and other genders at the receiving end with unequal rights. Just because something is old is not a good reason to discard anything, one has to evaluate and test before making any decision. If the system is old, seriously malfunctioning, and harmful to certain sections of society then definitely we need to discard it. A system that treats nearly half of our population as secondary citizens definitely needs to go, no matter how old it is.

This patriarchal culture is directly or indirectly responsible for many traditions or rules that are biased against women. These types of rules are present in every culture and religion. Their influence is so strong that not only men but many women also defend them and oppose any reforms. Because of years of suppression, women are brainwashed to believe that they are the weaker sex and need the presence of men in their lives for protection and survival in our society. This all needs to change, but this change is not easy, as even many women believe that by nature they are inferior to men and they have to be dependent on men for social recognition. It will take a lot of awareness to change this mentality, challenging any age-old belief is not an easy task. Consistent efforts from feminist groups and more participation of women are necessary to make this possible. As long as women don't help themselves no amount of external help will be enough to elevate their status in society. the fight for equality is not easy and equality comes at a cost and women need to be ready for that. Women need to prepare themselves to bear this cost and carry the burden of responsibility that comes along with this, if not, then patriarchy is here to stay forever. If women are not willing to take control of their own lives, men will keep their control of almost every aspect of their lives, this is what patriarchy is. Patriarchy is as strong as organized religion, and it is an integral part of every religion. During the past few decades, feminist movements have made a big dent in it due to their consistent efforts but still lot needs to be done. I am glad to see that many women are coming forward now to challenge patriarchy, this is a good sign. Patriarchy might be one of the oldest surviving ideologies but the time has come for it to go. Just imagine lifting barriers from the minds of half of the world's population, imagine lifting the burden of '"being a man" from the minds of other half of the world's population. People will be free from social pressure to fit into stereotypes associated with their gender. If this happens it will be one of the greatest events in the history of human civilization. With our consistent efforts I am sure this will happen, so let's keep trying.

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

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

Links:
1. A Group Of Women Speaks Up To Send A Very Powerful Message To The Indian Male Dominated Society

Why is this collective silence?

Very disturbing news of gang rape and murder of two sisters after almost one and half years of Damini incident has made me realize that nothing has changed so far. I wrote a post after Damini's case (Nirbhaya, these are not her real names to protect her identity). Now, I am writing another post after this incident. I am as disturbed as I was after reading the news about the brutal rape and murder of Nirbhaya. Yes, the first incident was in Delhi this is in some small village of UP, the chief ministers of both states are different, and they belong to different political parties; in the center also that time there was the government of UPA now it is NDA but apart from that nothing has changed. Then also a few fanatic men brutally raped and killed a girl this time two innocent girls were brutally raped and killed. WHY? What was their mistake? Why does our administration consistently fail to protect its citizens and act swiftly when any such crime happens? There was a huge uproar and widespread protests to support Nirbhaya and her fight for justice, why there is collective silence about this case?

Now as this news is reported in the media, few arrests will be made, few policemen will be suspended for lack of swift action, the blame game will start, the center govt will blame the state govt, the state will blame the police, and political parties will criticize each other to take political mileage from this heinous incident. A usual circus will be performed. This circus will go on for a few days like a ritual which they do after every such incident. Then people, government, and political parties will forget about this incident as if it never happened. Administration and government will become complacent until the next incident when this circus will happen once again. During Nirbhaya's case, there was widespread protest all over the country, and this forced the administration to take some steps not only to solve that case but also to reduce the suffering and humiliation of rape victims. Amir Khan's TV show Satyamev Jayate telecasted one episode related to this issue which offered many good suggestions to deal with this issue. How many of those suggestions were implemented or even seriously discussed? What is the reason for this collective silence? Is the frequent occurrence of such incidents numbed our sensitivities so much that now any such news doesn't surprise or shock us anymore? Have we become immune to such incidents? Many questions like this come to my mind when I see the insensitivity of current and past administrations toward such incidents. 

I can understand that there is a new government at the center and for the past few days there was celebration time for BJP and its allies for their impressive victory in general elections. Because of all this media has many more things to report. They are trying to report each and every step the new government is taking, which is good, people should be informed about the actions and plans of their government but was this news not important enough? Doesn't such incidents indicate the ugly reality of our society that needs urgent attention? How many more boys and girls need to die like this until this issue becomes as important as Article 370 or reservations or educational qualification of some minister? I don't know what will it take to make sexual violence a major national issue? Does the place of incident matter in such cases? Whether it's Delhi or Badaun the seriousness and cruelty of crime are the same, so they should get the same response and same treatment from administration and people. 

Incidents like this are not only about rape or murder, they are about caste, the attitude of the administration towards their citizens, efficiency, and accountability of the administration, and society's views towards such crimes. These issues involve many such aspects and at each level, we have some serious problems, that is the reason these incidents happen so frequently. The major problem is society's attitude towards women. Men who feel they are superior to women as well as women who think they are inferior to men need to realize basic faults in their thinking, they both need to understand the concept of gender equality. I hope talk of equality and women empowerment doesn't only remain on paper or in discussion forums, political parties and ruling governments show will and courage to implement policies that can make this happen in reality. We must raise our voices from whatever forum we can, blogs, FB, Twitter, protests, or whatever. Make the government realize that we are serious about such crimes and need very swift and appropriate action from the government. Criminals need to get punishment at least to show that no one can get away from crimes like these. Legal action will be the first step in this direction and then we also need many social and political reforms to remove gender bias which still exists in our society. I hope that I don't have to write another post on any such incident again. It's not easy to read about these things. Silence is not an option. Let's not wait for another Nirbhaya to die or another Badaun to happen, let's raise our voices against any such incident no matter where it happens and who is the victim.

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

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

Links:

1. Sisters Killed After Alleged Gang-Rape In UP

2. Outrage over gang rape, murder of cousins in U.P. village

3. Yes, We all are guilty..

The war from within - struggle of women to break internal barriers

I wrote quite a few posts about gender discrimination against women happening in various societies and cultures. This discrimination can be in many forms, it can be in the form of some rituals or customs, it can be in the form of some religious beliefs that put some restrictions on women just because of their gender, or it can be in the form of some laws which prohibits women from doing something just because they are women (like driving in Saudi Arabia). All these examples are just a few among many, if readers are interested they can find more information about these things on the web. Women all over the world are trying to fight against many of these discriminatory practices. They along with all feminist movements managed to achieve a lot of progress in this area but still, a lot of work needs to be done. When I wrote a few posts related to this subject I came across a few comments where women commented in favor of some of the very common prejudices against them (like women are inferior to men or less capable than men). All these women were educated and working women. I was a little surprised by this but not shocked because I have seen in my personal life many women who somehow believe that they are not as capable as men just because they are women. Years of male-dominated society and patriarchal culture have made them believe this. Many of them also believe that they need the support of some man in their life to be safe and survive in this world. Many also think that when you live in society, whether you like it or not you need to follow all these social norms. One of the norms of patriarchal society is that women are inferior to men and this thought is propagated directly or indirectly. The idea that women are born to serve men is propagated in various ways in different cultures. There are also many discriminative traditions or rituals. Even some stories that are part of great epics or holy books try to propagate these types of views either directly or indirectly. Social norms that encourage any form of discrimination either directly or indirectly should be challenged and questioned no matter from where they come and how old they are.

These views have been propagated for centuries and slowly they have become part of our society's mindset. Many people think that this is our culture and tradition. They think this needs to be preserved at any cost because these things were designed by our ancestors for the betterment of our society so why should we change them? The strong influence of this type of patriarchal culture has resulted in many internal barriers and self-doubts in women's minds. I would like to quote from the book Lean In where author Sheryl Sandberg writes about the barriers women face from within "In addition to the external barriers erected by society, women are hindered by barriers that exist within ourselves. We hold ourselves back in ways both big and small, by lacking self-confidence, by not raising our hands, and by pulling back when we should be leaning in. We internalize the negative messages we get throughout our lives—the messages that say it’s wrong to be outspoken, aggressive, more powerful than men. We lower our own expectations of what we can achieve."

Years of brainwashing and suppression have created an element of self-doubt not only in the minds of many women but also in the minds of many other suppressed communities. These internal barriers created by self-doubt are not that easy to break as they are supported by traditions that reinforce them from generation to generation. Maybe there was a need for some of these traditions back then for the safety of women, but we live in a totally different world today and many of these barriers need to go. In today's world, every gender and section of society should be given equal opportunity to explore their potential. Why it's always a woman who has to choose between family and career? Why this unfair dilemma is only forced on them? As a society what are we doing so that women don't have to face this dilemma (most men don't face it, right)? Even though all these questions are relevant it is also true that first women need to overcome their own internal barriers. Society and culture's attitude is so hostile towards them, with these internal barriers they cannot expect any special favors from society. If they fail to break these barriers then it will be very difficult for them to break the external barriers set by society and culture. They first need to win the war from within to win this war against gender discrimination. Once they overcome internal barriers then it will be just a matter of time before they break external barriers.

I would like to end this post with another quote from the book Lean In, "Internal obstacles are rarely discussed and often underplayed. Throughout my life, I was told over and over about inequalities in the workplace and how hard it would be to have a career and a family. I rarely heard anything, however, about the ways I might hold myself back. These internal obstacles deserve a lot more attention, in part because they are under our own control. We can dismantle the hurdles in ourselves today. We can start this very moment."

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

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

The effect of social media on us

Today the presence of social media (Facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc.) is felt by everyone in our lives. No sector or section of society has managed to remain unaffected by them. The revolution in communication technology in the last few years and the spread of mobile phones to the remotest corners of the world have made these things accessible to a vast number of people. Social media has changed the way people communicate with each other, it has modified the ways we interact with each other, and for the first time in history, we have written or recorded data for conversations of common people. All those tweets, FB posts, blog posts, comments, or chats are written records of our conversations with each other which never happened before in the history of our civilization. For the first time in our history, we are talking to each other so much by writing rather than speaking. In the past also people used to write long letters but the percentage of literacy was not that high in many places around the world and this mode of communication was limited for special reasons and occasions, but now we mostly chat with each other by recording our conversations in some form (SMS, FB, Twitter, Orkut or whatever). This is really unique, today we have the power to communicate anytime with anyone, anywhere in the world who has access to an internet-connected device. Anything we communicate today is recorded somewhere, stored somewhere, there is proof of what we express whether we know it or not doesn't matter, it's stored somewhere. We are generating a tremendous amount of data every day, that information is enormous and the speed with which we share our thoughts with each other is also phenomenal. One tweet, a blog post, or an FB post can reach millions all over the world in just a few seconds. This was not possible in the pre-social media era even in the presence of TV or radio. TV and radio also revolutionized our lives but that was mainly in the area of entertainment and news, but social media took the level of our communication with each other to a completely different level. We now live in a virtually well-connected world.

Politicians, celebrities, and even common people like you and me are using social media to communicate our thoughts to our friends and to people who don't know personally. We can share our thoughts more easily now, and many serious discussions can be done without meeting each other personally. Some political parties or organizations who ridiculed these things in the beginning as some temporary internet craze and didn't take these things seriously are also trying really hard to make their presence felt in this virtual world. Establishments and big corporates are using this medium as an efficient tool to attract new customers. Social media websites (like Facebook) are highly valued (worth a few billion USD) this is just because number of users associated with them. Nowadays many debates discussions and business transactions take place online, where actual debaters or buyers and sellers don't interact with each other directly or don't even know each other, but things work out smoothly. This is an amazing transformation of our society. Just a few decades back these things were considered impossible or can be seen only in fiction movies or books, but now it's reality and we all are living it, we all are part of it.

Social media and the internet have given us a parallel virtual world, which is very different from our real world. This virtual world is a place where two strangers can interact with each other at various levels of intimacy. Where relationships can be formed or broken, bonds can be developed, and almost every emotion can be shared privately or publicly, such is the power of this medium. Technically, one can spend their entire life interacting with people they will never know or will never see in their entire life personally. This was only possible in dreams or for very few people (like popular writers or actors who respond to fan mails) but now anyone can do this. This is a tremendous change that is already having a huge impact (positive as well as negative) on our personal and social lives. There are some similarities between the virtual and real world, like in a real-world in the virtual world also there are predators as well as saviors, people can transform each other lives positively or negatively, and they can torture and abuse. The only difference is that in the virtual world, they can do this anonymously without coming into physical contact with the victim, and this is the most dangerous aspect of this medium.

This technology has given us the ability to expand our horizons. We can be in touch with people who are physically far away from us, we can chat with them, and see them in real time. At the same time, some people indulge in this too much, they are so absorbed in this virtual world that they don't even realize that they are neglecting their real world, sometimes families suffer, and relationships break because of this. This medium is so powerful that's why its effects are also very powerful. It can even assist in creating mass movements against ruthless or corrupt establishments, and it can spread rumors faster than ever before. These are a few of the reasons why many governments are worried and concerned about the power of this medium and some of them are even thinking of censoring or controlling these things (like Facebook and Twitter). I guess they think if they can control this medium effectively they can have better control over their citizens, such is the impact of this medium.

This medium has also given us a unique platform and opportunity to create or invent new things. It was never easy to become a writer, storyteller, or inventor before as it is now. Now we have this very powerful tool in our hands and we are free to use it in whatever way we want. The choice is entirely ours, we can use it either to connect with friends and relatives, spread awareness, spread love, freedom, a message of equality, fight discrimination, or spread hate, fanaticism, inequality, and polarize society. The choice is all ours, the medium will work in a way we make it to work, so let's use it to bring positive change.

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

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