Effect of gender equality on relationships

Like our society, our personal relationships are also heavily influenced by patriarchal traditions. As feminist movements are pushing for more gender equality, it is bound to affect our personal relationships. Exploitation, domestic abuse, and toxic relationships are all results of gender inequality where one partner dominates and exploits another partner. Due to the patriarchal nature of our world in most of these cases victims of exploitation are females. 

Patriarchy is a default setting for all of us, we all are born in patriarchy, it is the system that has been prevalent in all cultures, societies, and countries for centuries. Generations have lived in patriarchy and there is a strong social, cultural, and religious culture that propagates it in various ways. We don't have to do anything special to propagate patriarchy, it exists around us, and we all become part of it as that's the culture we inherit in all societies. Individual families sometimes may differ, but even those families live in societies that are patriarchal. The patriarchal mindset has been challenged by the gender equality movement, also called feminism. Feminism has challenged gender discrimination at every level and in this process, it has also affected the dynamics of male-female relationships. For most men, it is not easy to live with a strong-minded and/or opinionated woman. Men not only feel threatened but also feel the loss of power and control of the relationship that they had for centuries. At the same time, it is a big challenge for women to find a partner who understands the changed dynamics and is comfortable with the situation that none of our previous generations encountered as far as male-female relationships are concerned. This is also why many men are hesitant to say that they are feminists, they mistakenly feel that they are subscribing to some ideology like communism or capitalism, they completely miss the point that feminism is not about any ideology but it is about gender equality, nothing more. 

When one partner shares his/her complaints and expresses what he/she expects the other partner to improve or do, this should be treated as an invitation to make that relationship stronger, not as a sign of a dysfunctional relationship. Ignoring this invitation is a sign of the dismissal of the other partner's feelings. Couples argue over many things, and the more candid the relationship more arguments as two reasonable people can have different views on many subjects. This is also why many couples go for counseling. There are increased rates of divorce not because couples are fighting more but because females are more aware of their needs and rights. The current generation of females is more financially independent than any other previous generations of females in the history of humankind. As females are getting more independent they are less tolerant of misogynist and patriarchal behavior. They object more and take firm stands, and they are not hesitant to walk out of a toxic relationship. This has resulted in more standoffs between couples, and I don't see this necessarily as a bad thing. Previously, females had no bargaining power in a relationship because of their financial dependence. Women were forced to stay in a relationship devoid of any love and respect just because there never used to be an option to leave. Feminism and financial independence have provided more independence for women, they don't have to be in a relationship where there is nothing but exploitation for them. The shift of bargaining power, increased financial independence, and the ability to walk away if the situation doesn't improve are three of the biggest effects of gender equality on relationships. 

Candid conversations in a relationship and expressing each other's concerns and complaints is a good thing. This is a sign of a functional and breathing relationship where partners are not silent over things that matter to them. As females are becoming more vocal, more debates happen in any balanced relationship. However, this exchange requires some amount of maturity and understanding from both sides. No one likes to have endless arguments and go in circles. When two people feel that they both are right and the other is wrong, there is a need for a third objective person who can help to decide which direction to move, hence therapy and counseling help in these situations. Even after seeking professional help and giving their best, if a couple can't find any common ground, then it is better to move on rather than stay together and resent each other. Expressing our complaints and what we need from our partner is not nagging or putting a strain on our relationship, rather it is an invitation to make that relationship stronger. If we can't accept this invitation then it is better to have an open discussion to see if there is any common ground or if both need to go in different directions. Not all things need to work, but at the same time, not all breakups need to be ugly and messy. Life is a beautiful gift from nature, if we can avoid resentment and grudge we should choose that path rather than moving on with bitterness. Respect disagreements, learn to listen and understand before you speak and counter, try to get an objective opinion before you conclude, and move on with a positive note before you slam the door shut. It may be hard to deal with gender equality but if you give it a chance you won't regret it.   

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

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

Commingling is India's strength

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

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

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

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

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

How to deal with hateful comments on social media?

Some people must have personally experienced or witnessed some of my recent blunt comments on social media, either on Facebook or WhatsApp. I am very blunt to call on people who express implicit hatred towards a particular religion, especially Islam. I do not have many Muslim friends in my friend list and whoever is there does not post any communal posts, at least I never saw anything implicitly or explicitly hateful posts directed towards Hinduism or any other religion from them. If I see anything from their side I will be equally confrontational and blunt towards them as well, there is no doubt about that. But I see many such posts targetting Muslims in general from some of my Hindu friends, this is also a statistical phenomenon, many of these posts are factually wrong and are specially designed to target Indian Muslims. 

Posting comments or posts targeting any particular religion is not new on social media. This has been going on since social media-originated. However, the frequency and vitriol of this post have definitely increased in recent years. I do not normally react to such posts. But if they become regular in WhatsApp groups where I belong or I see such comments on my own posts from my Facebook friends, sometimes, it's hard to ignore. I directly confront such commentators and ask them to explain their comments. If they can't provide any logical explanation, I ask them openly if they hate that religion or have some bias against people following that religion, and can they explain it to me. I would definitely appreciate their honesty in accepting that they dislike some religions rather than posting implicitly hateful comments targeting people of a particular religion relentlessly. It's very simple, if you dislike something, have the guts to say it openly.  Many of these people show symptoms of xenophobia. Many become very defensive and try to explain that they don't hate or dislike any religion, however, they fail to provide any justification for their hateful comments. I ask very simple questions. Why do their posts consistently target only one religion for things that are common in most religions including their own? Why do they justify or defend when it is pointed out that people from their own religion are engaged in the same acts? Why do they target people of that religion rather than those practices or rituals? Many such people become mute when even one of these questions is posed. Some resort to personal attacks and try to call me names by using whatever superlative terms they can. I have unfollowed many such people if their behavior doesn't change and they keep on spreading communal hatred on my Facebook wall, I don't miss their posts as I don't need a daily dose of communal venom. They are still free to comment, but I don't see their posts on my wall, and I am very blunt in replying to biased comments as I know from where they are coming.

The feeling of communal hatred is so deep-rooted. For example, when I pointed out to one person that "all" his posts targeting Indian Muslims were factually incorrect. He didn't feel bad for posting lies, rather, he asked me why such posts are there only about a particular religion on social media. I was amazed by his ignorance. Actually, such posts are available about every religion on the internet, and people get regular feeds about the posts in which they are interested. There are silos on social media where people constantly share and consume content only related to topics of their likening. This is a disturbing trend, but it's growing day by day and it seems there is very little one can do to stop this. I know that my attitude may not be able to curb any such type of behavior in general, but it has definitely reduced such content significantly on my Facebook wall and in WhatsApp groups, people are more cautious when posting such things as they know that they will be exposed. People know that there is at least one person who might challenge or confront them. This is not a solution, but I don't see any other way as I have tried discussing with these people a lot and I have realized that it's not my job or even in my capacity to change their mind. There is a cost associated with this, some people are bound to get hurt and feel bad, and this is unavoidable. If I can reduce their opportunities to spread such hatred then I think I have done my bit to curb this nonsense. 

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

It is in their blood

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

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

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

Is there a democracy in your family?

Democracy is the most desirable social and political structure that most of the world prefers as their way of social and political governance. I agree that it's not a perfect system, but there is nothing better available, it is the best system among all that we can consider. We all (or most of us) love to live in a democratic society, a society where we are free to express our views, free to dissent with powerful people and organizations no matter who we are. We value our democratic rights and expect our governments and society to provide a proper environment to practice those rights. Wherever we feel disagreement we raise our dissenting voice without any fear, this is the ideal picture of any vibrant and working democracy. The topic of today's blog is about democracy at home. Is there a democratic environment in your family where dissent and disagreement are encouraged, or there is a dictatorship where elders or a particular elder makes all the decisions for every member of the family?

The first question people might ask, is why we need to have democracy in our homes? Why do kids who are minor and non-earning members of the family need to have the power to oppose or challenge decisions taken by the earning members of the family? The answer is very simple, for the same reason why everyone needs to have a right to express their views in a society, the reason is, to have a safe and welcoming environment. I agree that it's very easy to run the family when one person has all the decision-making power and others just follow without asking any questions, but then it will be easier to run a country like that, with no opposition and no dissent, just one voice for all. Do we want to live in such a country where someone else speaks for us all the time?

Allowing people to express their views does create some chaos and one needs to spend a lot of time in discussions and debates, but this process also makes everyone understand each other's needs and viewpoints. The democratic environment encourages the exchange of ideas within the family.  Sometimes it may lead to a polarized environment, but if the process of discussion continues eventually family members learn how to agree to disagree. This also teaches each member of the family to speak up and stand for their and other's rights. We should not expect that schools will teach the value of dissent and disagreement to our kids, it is our responsibility as parents to teach them the meaning and value of dissent. Democratic families result in a vibrant democratic society, where there can be disagreements but at the same time, there is collective decision-making and space for alternative opinions. 

Please encourage kids and all other members of the family to share their views and ideas. This will not only make them feel at home but also make them feel a valuable member of the family. This will not only increase understanding of each other but also increase happiness and remove the feeling of fear and suppression. Give it a try and let me know your experience with this. A democratic family is also a happy family.

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

Circus called tolerance and intolerance debate

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

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

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

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

Intolerance was always there in India

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

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

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

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

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

Why it is important to have a tolerant society?

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

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

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

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

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

Fanaticism is dangerous, avoid it

We can find fanatics in each and every field. The reality is that no field can claim to be untouched by fanatics. Fanaticism is spreading so rapidly that even so-called liberals and tolerant people seem to be so aggressive that they sound fanatic about their views and their attitude leaves no scope for discussion. The mindset that "you are either with us or against us" is rapidly becoming very popular among people across the world. Very few are interested in real exchange of ideas, most people are interested in delivering their own views and ideas. They don't want any feedback, counter-arguments, or alternate views, but only want agreement or acceptance. Even so-called big political leaders are falling prey to such a mindset, that is why I say that this increasing spread of fanaticism is dangerous. Especially on social media, this attitude is clearly evident. The public platform that social media has provided us is an amazing opportunity to have various discussions with people across the world. One can discuss any topic with anyone, from anywhere if they have a simple internet-connected device like a computer or smartphone. Many people are making use of this technology and sharing their ideas with each other, but at the same time, many are not open to any scrutiny or questioning. People want to share their opinions but are seldom interested in listening to others. Discussions quickly turn into arguments and arguments into verbal fights. This reduces the scope for any sensible discussion. The major signs of fanaticism are that people don't like disagreements, they are not very welcoming or tolerant towards alternate views and ideas, and they show contempt towards the other side's views. Another aspect of fanatics is that they are not interested in knowing the other side's arguments, they are only interested in defeating the other side and proving them wrong at any cost. Normally, these people are very passionate about their beliefs, there is nothing wrong with being passionate about anything, but to become overly aggressive and intolerant is definitely not right.

Free exchange of views or ideas is one of the necessary features of any tolerant and progressive society, but I think slowly we are losing this very good quality. Tolerance is not a sign of weakness, it requires a lot of strength and patience to be tolerant of others' views even if you don't agree with them, but liberals and conservatives both are failing to display any tolerance. This attitude leads to intolerance and that results in a highly polarized society. Polarization stops the flow of ideas, it creates barriers that are often difficult to break. People stop talking with each other and start talking about each other that too only bad stuff. This creates a very unhealthy and regressive environment as people start living in their own silos. I understand that many people are very passionate about many issues and they want to convey their ideas as assertively as possible, but there is a difference between being assertive and fanatically aggressive, one can be assertive without being overly aggressive. Actually, people should understand that fanaticism doesn't help their own cause, rarely do people from the other side yield to fanatic arguments. Discussions and arguments are integral parts of any progressive society, but they need to be carried out in a very healthy and conducive environment. Previously radicalism was limited to certain people who used to be brainwashed by certain religions or cults, but now this habit is spreading rapidly all across the sections of society and we need to spread awareness about this. We need to be aware of our own behavior and check from time to time that we are not becoming fanatics while propagating our own views. Discussions and negotiations are the best way to solve any complicated or sensitive issue, but fanaticism shuts the doors for both of these options. As a society we need to talk to each other and discuss our differences, then only we can solve the many complicated problems we face today. I hope people become more tolerant towards each other's views. Tolerance doesn't mean one has to accept those views, but just try to listen to them and try to understand the reason behind those views. I know it is not an easy task but it is worth our time and effort, it is easy to become a fanatic, so, please don't take the easier route as easy doesn't always mean good.

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

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

One more murder and another glaring silence - wake up India

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

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

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

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

Sorry Mohsin, my city failed to protect you

My last post was related to increasing incidents of Hooliganism where people or groups are targeted just because of something they expressed. I have expressed my concern about the low tolerance level and violent reactions in India so many times on my blog and elsewhere. Any country that aspires to become a developed nation and attract world-class talent needs to value freedom of expression. Such a society needs to have an atmosphere where different opinions are encouraged and disagreements are welcomed. Only in such conditions attract real talent. The brutal murders of Dr. Narendra Dabholkar and Mr. Mohsin Shaikh don't indicate that India is moving in that direction. These two incidents that too in one of the most progressive cities of India (Pune) indicate that the country is moving in a reverse direction. There is an atmosphere in the country where people are scared to speak their opinions because they feel threatened. This is such a sad state for a country that claims to be tolerant, inclusive, and open to all cultures and beliefs. These claims are now questionable on so many levels.

What was Mohsin's fault that he deserved to get killed like this? Followed Islam was his fault? Is it his fault that he dressed or looked different than many others in that neighborhood? Are these things enough to kill a person? What was Dr. Dabholkar's fault? He was not a Muslim or dressed anything differently. Why was he attacked and murdered? Both incidents are somewhat related as both these people were targeted because they expressed something. In Dr. Dabholkar's case, he was targeted for opposing religious superstitions and other religious malpractices. There are some inhuman practices that some people want to protect in the name of tradition and culture, he was killed for fighting against such inhuman practices. In the case of Mohsin, he was targeted without even any mistake from his side. Someone distributed some objectionable content on Facebook and WhatsApp related to Shivaji Maharaj. This created a lot of controversy and communal tension, and he was killed due to suspicion. Even if we assume that Mohsin was in any way related to generating those images that created so much controversy, is this the way to deal with such issues? Can anyone with a rational mind justify such type of behavior? Taking the law into own hands to disrupt society, destroying public property in the name of protest, or attacking certain groups is a sign of uncivilized behavior. These acts only deserve condemnation in the strongest possible words and very strict action should be taken against all culprits involved in any such incidents. But all this sounds meaningless when Members of parliaments like Mr. Anil Shirole justify some of these acts by calling them the natural reaction of people whose feelings get hurt. The same excuse was offered by Mr. Modi after the Godhra violence and we all know how many people lost their lives because of that so-called natural reaction which was nothing but cold-blooded genocide. None of these reactions are natural, they are purposeful, planned crimes, nothing else.

It is not important how many people died or who died to judge the seriousness of such types of crimes.  The numbers and names don't matter much, if this mentality prevails then these things will happen regularly only the names of people and places will change. If more and more people go unpunished for these types of crimes, if they find any sympathizers among our politicians then they will get more aggressive and brutal in their attacks. That is why any statement that even remotely tries to justify such brutal attacks on innocent people or the destruction of public property should be interrogated and punished. There should not be any compromise on freedom of expression and any violent anti-social activity should not be encouraged. Politicians have greater responsibility in all this as any sympathetic statement from their side acts as an encouragement for these goons. We cannot afford to have another Godhra in India, enough is enough, already many people have lost their lives because of this fanaticism. We need to fight these anti-social goons no matter which party or organization they belong to, absolutely nothing can justify such violence and destruction. 

The death of Mohsin is really shocking for anyone belonging to a city like Pune. I belong to that city and we Punekars take pride in calling our city one of the most progressive cities in India. I am also surprised that there was no candle march or any protest against Mohsin's murder like it was in the case of Nirbhaya who was gang raped and killed in Delhi. Mohsin's death is not any less shocking to me than Nirbhaya's death, both crimes are equally brutal and heinous. That is why I wonder why people's reactions are so different to both. Mohsin, please forgive my hometown for its inability to protect you. Punekar like me is deeply shocked as well as ashamed because of this incident, I have no words to express my feelings. I never imagined that within so short time after Dr. Dabholkar's death, we would witness another such heinous crime in Pune. I hope that now our politicians and administration take a lesson from it and take all measures to avoid any such instances in the future. I know this is too much to ask for but I just hope that at least people step up and try to stop this madness. If this doesn't happen then I don't know how many more Mohsins or Nirbhayas will have to die before our society wakes up and takes any action. The culture of hooliganism must go before it destroys the social fabric of our society.

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. In Pune, ‘Hindu zealots’ kill man over ‘offensive’ Facebook post
2. Pune techie murder: BJP MP says some repercussions to derogatory FB post 'natural'

Reduced public tolerance level in India - where are we heading?

During the last few months, there has been an alarming increase in physical and verbal attacks on people expressing political disagreements, especially against the BJP. Any difference of opinion or alternate view is not welcomed, any negative comment is not taken in the right spirit, and even constructive criticism is ridiculed or attacked for no reason. There are organized efforts not to allow discussion on any topic which raises some uncomfortable questions, every attempt is made to shoot the messenger. Recent physical and verbal assaults of some people opposing BJP's policies are examples of such extreme intolerant behavior. Many people justify these actions, they try to justify these violent physical and verbal assaults by using whatever reasoning they can come up with. This attitude is not only dangerous but also harmful for any civilized society, it is especially bad for a country like India which is aiming to become a superpower or a developed nation. Without a free and fearless society, it will be impossible to achieve real development and progress. Without an open and fair exchange of thoughts, and debates on every subject it is impossible to become a developed nation.

These types of incidents have become very common during this election season, especially because supporters of the BJP are very aggressive in attacking people who oppose their ideology or question their leader (Mr. Modi). Respective parties do condemn such incidents if the issue gets too much media attention but no apology is offered or warning is issued to perpetrators not to repeat such mistakes. Maybe they think this helps their campaign that's why they provide their tacit approval as they can't support such attacks openly. This time I also experienced such verbal attacks on a few occasions on social networking forums like Facebook. Some of my comments questioning BJP's agenda or Mr. Modi's performance as CM in Gujarat received some hateful comments from some BJP supporters. They used derogatory language and called me various names (sickular, pseudo intellectual, communist, AAPtard, etc.), and their tone was threatening and insulting. I deleted many of these comments from my wall after warning them not to use such language. I deleted these things because I didn't want such filth to stay on my Facebook wall, but their tone was alarming and threatening. I stopped engaging in such types of discussions as I realized the futility of engaging in such useless conversations. Then I read many reports in the media about many such attacks in the cyber world and even many physical attacks on people. Fortunately, no one was seriously injured in those attacks but the occurrence of such incidents is very alarming. In the past none of the political discussions I was involved in reached to threatening or derogatory level. This is a very organized effort to silence political opponents.

Tolerance and patience are very necessary attributes of any civilized society. Without free and fair discussion about various topics and issues, we can not find proper solutions to our problems. Differences of opinion should not only be tolerated but also be encouraged, it's always good to see both sides of any issue before making any conclusions. The role of opposition is very crucial in any functioning democracy. Such political violence should not be encouraged, everyone has the right to express their opinion and share their ideas. People involved in such acts of violence should be charged and punished for violating the right of freedom of expression of other people. True democratic society debates over issues and chooses the path of discussion and peace over violence to solve political problems or to settle differences of opinion. When such people don't get punished by law, don't get reprimanded by their own party's top leaders they get encouraged to repeat such acts. Top leaders don't engage in any such acts, they are not affected by these things but their silence and willful ignorance of such acts is considered as tacit approval. If such incidents are so rampant before the elections then people have every reason to be concerned about what will happen if such parties (BJP in this case) come in power. Such attacks are especially dangerous for minorities and people who choose to voice disagreement against the majority. Bullying in any shape or form is wrong, everyone in society should be treated with equal dignity and respect. I hope that better sense prevails among people and they show more mature behavior. I hope that political leadership in respective parties take all necessary steps so that their party workers and followers don't engage in any such acts in the future. There is a serious concern that such attacks may increase if the BJP and its allies come into power in the center, I hope these concerns and worries don't become a reality. I want them to prove me wrong and demonstrate that no matter which party forms the government differences of opinion, and alternate views are always welcomed, and freedom of expression won't be curbed for anyone.

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

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

Meaning of being liberal

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

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

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

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

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