I Used to Ask How Genocides Happened—Now I Know

I used to wonder how genocides like the Holocaust could ever happen. I used to ask what kind of world, and what kind of leaders, would allow such crimes to unfold. I looked at the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, the Bengal famine of 1943, the Rwandan genocide, and felt anger toward the leaders of that time, and toward the people who knew, yet remained silent. These were not hidden crimes. They happened with the full knowledge of world leaders, institutions, and societies. I believed that such moral collapse belonged to the past.

Now I know better. I am living in that same world.

Today, I feel the same anger, pity, and frustration, but this time directed at our own leaders and ourselves. I see how mass killing, especially of civilians, is once again being tolerated, justified, and rationalized. I used to wonder how people could stay silent, or worse, defend the killing of innocent people. Now I see exactly how it happens. Every civilian death is filtered through ideology, religious, political, or otherwise. Compassion is conditional. Outrage is selective. Humanity is negotiable.

If the violence is carried out by a government we support, or a leader we voted for, we find ways to minimize it, explain it away, or justify it. We use familiar language: orders were followed, national security required it, this is the price of safety. These are not new arguments. They are recycled excuses. The same moral evasions that once enabled the worst crimes in history are alive and well today, only more polished and more confidently expressed.

What is most disturbing is not just that civilians are being killed in the twenty-first century, but that this is happening openly, on camera, in real time, with the full awareness of elected leaders, global media, and millions of ordinary people. And yet, the death of a civilian is no longer treated as a humanitarian failure. It is debated as a policy choice. It is weighed, defended, dismissed, or weaponized depending on which “side” one belongs to.

Even tragedies that should unite us in grief are pulled into political combat. The suffering of parents who lost children has been mocked, denied, or turned into talking points, for example, look at what happened with the Sandy Hook incident. Human loss has become ideological currency.

How did we reach this point? Why did we learn nothing from history? Why do political loyalties so easily override compassion, empathy, and basic human decency?

I don’t have clear answers. What I see instead is a frightening trend: our tolerance for innocent death has increased. We have become more articulate, more strategic, and more ruthless in justifying violence carried out in our name. We no longer even pretend to feel guilt or shame. There is no acknowledgment of wrongdoing, only aggressive defense and the vilification of anyone who dares to question it. Dissent is treated as betrayal. Objection is framed as disloyalty. Protests are labeled as mutiny. 

It is moral decay, not strength. Every unnatural death has become political capital, used either to seize power or to protect it. This is not strength; it is moral decay. It is not strong leadership, but cruelty wrapped in political language and sold as a necessity. It is not national security when civilians pay the price; it is national shame. There is nothing great about justifying innocent deaths, nothing courageous about silencing dissent, and nothing patriotic about abandoning basic human conscience. What is presented as resolve is often cowardice, the fear of accountability disguised as power. A society that normalizes such violence does not become stronger; it becomes complicit.

This is not strong leadership. It is cruelty wrapped in political language, brutality justified by slogans, and violence laundered through ideology. Calling it national security does not make such violence honorable. Security that is built on the bodies of civilians is not security at all; it is a confession of failure. When the protection of the state requires the abandonment of humanity, what is being defended is not a nation, but power itself.

I once believed that the world would not repeat the worst mistakes of the past, that the mass killing of civilians under indifferent or brutal leadership was a lesson permanently learned. I was wrong. This world is fully capable of repeating the same horrors, with the same intensity, the same indifference, and the same justifications, and then moving on as if nothing happened.

That realization leaves me deeply saddened and profoundly disappointed. I still hold onto a fragile hope that somewhere, some country, some society will prove me wrong, not with words or statements, but with moral courage and actions. Until then, we are not better than the past we claim to condemn. 

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

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

Politics and Violence: A Marriage of Convenience

In today’s world, politics and violence are no longer separate ideas. If you look closely at the rhetoric of modern politics, across countries and parties, you will see that hate and aggression are woven into nearly every radical populist political movement. Violence is no longer confined to unstable or developing nations with ethnic conflicts; it has become a global political currency.

Why? Because hate and polarization deliver tremendous dividends. They guarantee long-term power without the burden of accountability. This is why almost every government or political party is tempted to use this method either to win an election or stay in power without doing any public good. A divided society does not ask its leaders for jobs, education, or healthcare. Instead, it demands revenge. Citizens begin to rejoice not in their own well-being, but in the suffering of their opponents. This is the enduring “divide and rule” strategy: fear and hate for those who look different, pray differently, or think differently. It is one of the oldest tricks in politics, and in the age of social media, it has become more potent than ever.

You may ask: aren’t people smart enough to recognize when they are being manipulated? You wish. In the age of social media algorithms, echo chambers have become impenetrable. People are now fed only what they already believe. Rarely do they challenge their views; instead, they consume one reel, one meme, one outrage post at a time until bigotry feels like truth.

This brainwashing has consequences. Racism, sexism, misogyny, and xenophobia are dressed up as nationalism, populism, or patriotism. The freedom of expression is invoked to defend hateful propaganda, but when others use the same freedom to dissent, they are silenced or branded as traitors. Even parties that claim to champion freedom of speech remain silent when their opponents are silenced through government force or intimidation, such is the blinding effect of the lust for power. What we see is not freedom, it is propaganda masquerading as liberty. The echo chambers of hate are not only created by powerful algorithms, but they are actively reinforced by the tactful monitoring of human behavior and tacit approval from all parties who benefit from it. 

The tragedy deepens when governments themselves deploy propaganda. When hate becomes a policy, instead of debating ideas for the public good, politicians weaponize communities against one another to mask their own failures and corruption. We see working-class citizens cheering for tax cuts for billionaires, believing that the “enemy within” is to blame for their struggles.

Take immigration. It is a serious problem that requires solutions, but instead of policy, politicians fuel hatred against entire communities. The result? Citizens are fighting among themselves while those in power escape scrutiny. In this system, every death becomes political capital, not a human tragedy. Citizens are not valued as members of society but used as political weapons, activated, manipulated, and discarded.

History is full of examples: empires, kings, colonizers, and dictators have always relied on hate and violence as tools of control. What is alarming today is that even democratically elected governments are adopting the same playbook, ruling less like representatives of the people and more like autocrats. And disturbingly, citizens are not just tolerating it; they are cheering it on. Many celebrate the erosion of fundamental rights when it happens to their opponents, convinced that it will never touch them. But when genocides are glorified as heroics and propaganda is consumed as fact, society loses its moral compass. Bigotry may start as an opinion, but repeated often enough, it calcifies into “truth.” Once that “truth” is amplified by media and algorithms, propaganda doesn’t just shape the news, it becomes the news.

The saddest reality is this: we, the people, are allowing it to happen. Our silence, our complicity, and our willingness to stay in our comfort zones enable this cycle. It does not have to be this way. Politics need not be synonymous with violence and hate. Our political opponents are not enemies of the state. We can reject this toxic model. We can choose love, compassion, constructive criticism, and accountability as the foundation of politics.

The power of hate is immense, but so is the power of humanity. History shows that hate divides, but love unites. The choice is before us. The question is: will we wake up in time?

Thank you for reading. Please share your views on this topic. 

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

Depiction of intimacy and violence in Indian movies

Entertainment today is full of countless choices. The variety and amount of content are so vast that one life is not enough to consume it all. This was not the case just a couple of decades back, especially in India. As kids, we had very limited options available to us. Watching limited programs on the national TV channel and movies shown on weekends were the only entertainment available for us during our initial childhood years. Then came the VHS tapes and VCRs, few video theaters started in our neighborhood where the charge was Rs 1 per movie. Of course, they were illegal, but we didn't care about their legality, there was another option to watch movies and it soon became very popular in underprivileged neighborhoods like ours where very few could afford their own TV, forget about having your own VCR. 

I grew up in India and spent my entire childhood and part of my adult life there. The 1980s and 90s were the eras of action movies, and the angry young man Amitabh was ruling the Indian box office. As a teenager, I was a fan of these action movies. I loved the way an underprivileged hero fought against the corrupt and unfair system and won, it gave me the feeling as if I was fighting those battles. Most romance genre movies of that era had a typical rich boy and poor girl or vice versa type of storyline, except for songs and sometimes fresh faces there was nothing much to watch in those movies. As expected, violence was an integral part of all action movies. However, intimacy and romance had a minimal presence, even in the movies of the romance genre. Therefore, it seems as kids it was okay for us to watch slaps, murders, and anything in between but a kiss on the screen was a big NO. Any intimacy on the screen was forbidden for some reason, except, rape. So, kids were not allowed to watch a kiss but were okay to see a rape scene. Rape was an essential part of most action movies, especially if the hero had a sister. In most action movies the character of the sister of the hero was written to get raped and killed. Interestingly, none of them survived after being raped, rape was like a death sentence for them. The rape scene was an essential ingredient of most action movies, it was used to add fuel to the fire of revenge. The effect of all this was that even though India faced the problem of population explosion people cringed watching a kissing scene on the screen. I still wonder what was the logic behind the policy for allowing a rape scene and other violence but not a kiss. How it was okay for a child to see a man slapping a woman, but not okay to see a man kissing a woman? I wonder what was the rationale if there was any. It seems they were okay with allowing children to watch violence compared to love, they were scared that after watching a kiss on screen people may start kissing each other but after watching violence they will not have any reaction. The censor board of India is not only a joke but it is heavily influenced by the government and curtails freedom of expression as much as it can. I mean, imagine, a kiss is not okay but murder and rape are, that too in a country where overpopulation is a problem.

It's not that Indian movies never used to have any intimate scenes. Movies of the pre-independence era used to include on-screen kissing scenes. Something happened when India gained independence and this policing of movies started by establishing a censor board. However, the situation is much different now after the arrival of various OTT platforms and the lack of censorship for these platforms. Some people complain about the excessive sexual content on the OTT platform. One of the reasons is that for the first time in many decades, creators from India are feeling the freedom of expressing something like this on the screen and are flying like a free bird. I have no complaints about the depiction of violence or intimacy as long as it is a part of the storyline. I enjoy the current content compared to the rubbish that was served to us under the name of entertainment during my childhood. I hope the OTT content doesn't come under the censorship of the Indian government, otherwise, we will go back to the sanitized version of everything where two flowers kiss each other on the screen instead of two people.

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

Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com

Men need to save themselves

"Men need to save themselves," my friend, Anand Pawar said in one of his interviews related to gender issues. He is an expert on gender-related issues, and I learned so many things about this subject during my interactions with him. This particular line resonated with me a lot because I saw men (including myself) struggling under a burden to fulfill the expectations of society, their family, and their own expectations. The definition of masculinity is very stereotyped in most of the societies. Men need to fit into that definition, and if they don't, they struggle with social and personal contempt, rejection, frustration, and many other things. Many men put themselves under this burden of expectations that their society or culture hands over to them, and there is no easy way for them to escape this trap. Very few dare to challenge the stereotypes or traditional definitions of masculinity. Men really need to save themselves from this burden. It is crushing many of them, and only they can help themselves to break free from its shackles.

Expectations and traditional notions about gender roles are embedded in our social culture. These norms are part of many cultures. We don't have to choose them as we are born into these traditions. Some of these things have been part of traditions for so long that they have become sacrosanct principles. This is the very reason why even after feeling the burden of these expectations very few dare to challenge them, or worse, very few even feel that these are unnecessary or burdensome expectations. But, because of people like Anand, these definitions are being challenged. I know Anand personally that's why I am mentioning his name, I am sure that there are quite a few people like him who are working in this area to help men come out of this prison of patriarchal culture, and I appreciate all these efforts. It is a wrong notion to assume that patriarchy only hurts women. In reality, it equally hurts men, they just don't realize it. Patriarchy puts an unjustified burden on women by putting so many restrictions on them, at the same time, it also puts a burden of so many unreasonable expectations on men. In the end, it results in a society where both men and women live under some kind of burden of expectations, which they can't reject even if they want to. Their roles get rigidly defined and the scope of the exchange of duties is nonexistent.

What is the solution to this complex problem? The only way is to challenge the traditional notions of masculinity and femininity. A woman can be a bread earner of a family and a man can be a stay-at-home dad. There is nothing shameful if your wife earns more than you. Women should get equal rights to choose what they want to wear, and women don't have to carry the burden of sacrificing their interests for the sake of their families. A woman's career is as important as a man's. There are so many things that one can add to this list, but I guess you now know what I mean. The central point is, don't define gender roles rigidly, a suitable person in the family or society should perform the available role, their gender should not be a factor in deciding whether they qualify for it or not. Men don't have to live under the pressure of fulfilling the roles of a caretaker of the family, they can take whatever role they feel suits them, and it can be a role of house-husband or stay-at-home dad. I think the present generation is well equipped with all the tools it needs to tackle this problem. I am hopeful that they will do far better as far as achieving gender equality is concerned compared to my generation. Women have been challenging their stereotyped image for decades, and they are immensely successful in it. Now it is the time for men to challenge their stereotyped image because MEN NEED TO SAVE THEMSELVES.

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

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

Charlottesville - Lessons to learn from this tragedy

Whatever transpired in Charlottesville on August 12th, 2017 should disturb any sensible person. It was not a pleasant sight to watch those violent protests. Peaceful protests and marches are an integral part of any democratic society. There is no doubt that everyone has a right to express their views and can do so in a legal and peaceful manner. As a supporter of freedom of expression, I agree with everyone's right to express their views on any topic, but this right to express doesn't involve the right to threaten or perpetrate violence against any group or person. This is why events in Charlottesville were very disturbing for me. The way mobs attacked each other was not the way to express your ideas. The way one man drove his car into the mob killing one innocent woman and injuring 19 others was an act of terrorism, no other word can be used to describe that murder. One can disagree with another's views or political ideology, but no matter how strong is the disagreement, no one has the right to attack anyone or even threaten anyone because of that disagreement. Three lives (one protester and two state troopers) were lost during these ugly protests, this should ring a warning bell in everyone's mind who is concerned about this country. Is this the way we want to move forward? Are we going to learn any lessons moving forward after this tragedy or still we are going to get consumed by our political ideology and hatred?

Hatred propagated by white supremacists and neo-Nazis was disturbing, but President Trump's failure to condemn these groups specifically during the press conference after the incident was more disturbing. When, as a leader of a country someone fails to condemn a violent act that is an act of domestic terrorism just because the perpetrator was allegedly a supporter of that leader, it paints a very scary picture. This means the condemnation of any crime will be selective and based on the political or ideological positions of the perpetrators. This stuff happens in India all the time, and I am surprised to see it happen in the US also. Political and ideological disagreements are very common, I have seen them in the US all the time. I have seen pro-life and pro-choice supporters protesting side by side passionately trying to propagate their viewpoints. I have also seen them debating with each other very passionately, but I haven't seen them attacking each other due to ideological differences. Freedom to express and debate is a basic tenet of American society, and any erosion in this philosophy can prove very dangerous to the future of the USA. I hope everyone who loves this country realizes this danger and acts accordingly before it's too late.

Everyone is entitled to have their own opinion and express it on any public platform, it is their constitutional right. These opinions can be challenged and debated, but violence can't be an answer to resolve any disagreement. We can agree or disagree or condemn other's opinions, but we can't suppress their voices just because we don't like them. Freedom of expression is an important constitutional right granted by the First Amendment to everyone living in the USA and all Americans need to protect this valuable right. As a leader of the nation, the President should be upfront to condemn hatred propagated by White Supremacists and other related groups. He should not mince words while calling spade a spade, but sadly this didn't happen. All Americans need to learn a lesson from this ugly display of hatred by racist groups. Make sure you make your voices heard, make sure your President knows that hate-propagating groups will be challenged, and he needs to stand on the right side when there is a question of racism and bigotry. Make sure that love wins over hatred, and social fabric of this nation doesn't get destroyed by a few bad elements. Let's move forward with more resolve and determination to fight against discrimination, racism, hatred, and bigotry, this will be our true homage to all three people who died in Charlottesville on August 12.

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]

One more mass shooting and few more deaths, will this ever stop?

Another mass shooting happened in the USA, this time at Oregon Community College, killing nine innocent people and injuring a few. I know this is not shocking news or the first mass shooting incident of this decade. I also know that no one will get shocked to read about this incident, rather many might read the number of victims and try to compare it with the number of victims of the last incident to see which one was worse. This is what we have become now, such news no more shocks or disturbs us, these incidents have become so regular that we as a society are getting immune to the severity and seriousness of this heinous crime. I found a similar sentiment in President Obama's message about this incident. He also sounded upset, frustrated, and angry at the same time like me. He rightly pointed out that our response after all such tragic incidents is becoming very routine, so routine that we all know who will say what. This is such a sad state of affairs for everyone. Guns and gun laws have been very controversial and sensitive issues for public and political debate in the US for a long time. Some people are against any control over bearing arms (pro-gun lobby) and some people want to ban guns (anti-gun lobby). Both sides often behave like fanatics with little or no real concern towards such tragic incidents except for releasing some lip service to condemn such acts. I guess it should be clear to everyone that just condemning, expressing grief, and offering prayers and condolence to victims and their families is not enough. We are doing these things for long and we know that these things are not going to stop these murders. When any terrorist act happens do you think just condemnation of that incident or offering prayers and condolences to affected families is enough? Are we even interested in taking any concrete actions to make sure that such incidents don't happen in the future?

Guns are deadly weapons, they can kill multiple people in a short amount of time (mass murders) if they land in the wrong hands. We all know about these things, and as a society or country, we can take a few steps to stop or at least minimize these incidents. Every country including the US has strict laws for getting a driving licence. Yes, one may argue that driving is a personal right and the government is no one to stop anyone from buying a car with their own money and driving it on the road. But you can not buy a car and drive it just like that, there is a written test and then a road test, registration, and insurance requirements to drive a car on the road. The concerned authorities who grant driving licenses want to make sure that everyone who acquires a driving license is capable enough to understand the responsibilities that come along with driving. So, I don't understand why people are against introducing some precautionary rules and background checks before buying deadly weapons like assault guns? After all, these are dangerous weapons, no one is saying that you can't have them, just go through some screenings before you buy them. Do you complain when they checked or strip-searched you randomly before getting into an airplane? Do you complain when any liquid including drinking water was banned from taking onto planes? Do you complain when they do your background check before hiring for any job? Do you complain about background checks or even medical fitness tests which are part of the selection process for some types of jobs?  Why not? Because we all know that even though some of these things might cause some inconvenience to us personally they are necessary to keep everyone safe. Some of these measures are required to make sure that the right people are at the right places. Some precautions are necessary to make sure that wrong people don't misuse the rights and privileges offered to them by the state and society. Airport security or background checks before job hiring are not there to ban you or stop you from traveling by plane or hinder your job application process, but these things are there to make sure that some lunatic or criminal doesn't enter the plane or get a critical job and cause some irreparable harm or some devastating tragedy. Is it difficult to understand? If I am a law-abiding citizen who wants to own a gun legally and responsibly then I don't think any investigation or background check can stop me from doing this, why I should be worried about these things? After all, these things are implemented for public safety, not for banning anyone from buying guns. I don't know why these points fail to make sense to people from both sides.

 
As Mr. Obama said, if as a country US doesn't take any steps to control this, then it means we as a society chose to allow such incidents to happen, then we must take responsibility for these murders. If we can do something to control such crimes and choose not to do anything, then directly or indirectly we are responsible for these crimes. Arming everyone is not a practical option to stop the violence in society. Maybe this was an option when there was no law and order with a very poorly equipped and inefficient police force. Guns are not toys, they are deadly weapons, wrong people armed with them can kill innocent people, and not everyone is comfortable handling them. Surprisingly, most of these so-called pro-life people are very vocal about issues like abortion, but totally mum about gun control and mass shootings. This is when this is not at all about banning guns, but just introducing more safety measures so that only responsible people can buy and own guns. Any constitution or law needs to be updated or tuned as per changing times, every era needs some adjustment in some of the laws. If any society fails to take these steps, then people suffer, imagine if the tradition of sati had not been banned in India, and imagine if amendments to ban slavery got stuck in a similar deadlock. Sounds really scary, right? We are facing a similar situation related to some issues today, as we refuse to act. I hope better sense among our society and politicians prevail and we make the right decision. Otherwise, we will be discussing the same issues and mourning for the same tragedies as a mute spectator to the sufferings of our fellow citizens. We can't blame anyone for this because this is our choice, this is what we choose when we elect people who refuse to do anything to change this. Please think over this and then decide.

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

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

Nagaland mob lynching: an unacceptable act of public violence

A very disturbing event happened a few days back in Nagaland. An angry mob of around 7 or 8 thousand people attacked Dimapur Central Jail, they dragged a rape accused out of jail, paraded that person naked, and then beat him to death. Many people participated and witnessed this mob lynching incident. Many were also seen recording this event or taking photos of the dead person to post on social media. This mob didn't stop after killing the accused, they displayed his body at the local clock tower supposedly to teach a lesson to all people who commit such type of crimes. Many people shared this incident with gruesome photos to justify the punishment offered to the accused and demanded that only this type of punishment deter people from committing such crimes. I have seen many people advocating punishments like public hanging or public torture till death as ways of teaching a lesson to criminals, they all feel that such punishments will serve as deterrents and stop such crimes. 

Frustrated and misguided people taking the law into their own hands is always a dangerous sign for any society. A lawless society is a dangerous place to live and there are so many reasons why any society might choose to use such desperate means to deliver what they think is speedy justice. In India, the ridiculously lengthy and slow process of delivering justice in each and every case is one of the major reasons why people don't have faith in the police and judiciary. I guess everyone will agree that heinous crimes like rape and murder need speedy trials and strict punishments so that they can create fear in the minds of perpetrators of such crimes. The slow and tedious process of justice with many loopholes that allow criminals to escape the law or delay the process indefinitely puts victims in a very disadvantageous position. Victims of rape especially suffer a long and agonizing journey to get justice from such a severely impaired judiciary of India and one must include investigating agencies also in this. We all know that justice delayed means justice denied and when it becomes a chronic problem people start losing their faith in the system. The result is that people take the law into their own hands and there is a jungle raj. Unfortunately, none of the state or national governments tried to do anything substantial to correct this problem. Judicial or police reforms are not even a topic of discussion during any state or national elections. Sexual violence is such a serious issue but it hardly gets the attention it deserves in any political or social forum in India. Everyone knows that rapes happen very frequently and many rapists escape the law using muscle, power, money, or influence. This problem is not going to disappear on its own, there is no point in pushing the issue under the carpet. It is also wrong to assume that this is only a women's issue. Sexual violence is as much a men's issue as it is women's as both of them are involved either as victims or perpetrators. 

Any incident like this is a result of a serious failure of government machinery at various levels. I don't think that any such violent act can be justified by using any logic or reasoning, it is totally unacceptable behavior. Public lynching of any accused or convict is not a way to deliver justice in any civilized society. There is a system to deliver justice and execute punishments. I hope this acts as an eye-opener for all concerned agencies dealing with law and order in India. They need to create a sense of trust in people's minds that justice and investigating machinery are fair and efficient. They need to provide proof by their actions that these systems are working for people to solve their issues and problems not to exploit their helplessness. If victims of any crime get all the required support from all these departments they won't be at the mercy of mobs to protest and demand justice for them. Why do these departments only get active after huge protests or nationwide outrage after any rape or murder? Why do some case gets really shoddy handling which results in the acquittal of all accused just because they belong to some powerful or influential families? Such incidents create a serious dent in the credibility of all these departments and create fertile ground for violent and desperate reactions from people. Let's hope that this incident doesn't inspire people from other places to use similar methods to deliver their own justice, if this happens it will be a catastrophic situation at every level and I hope the concerned authorities are aware of it. This act of public lynching is unacceptable and so is the inability of the justice system to deliver timely resolution to heinous crimes like rape and murder.

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. Mob drags alleged rapist out of jail in Nagaland, thrashes him to death

Rohtak brave hearts and issue of eve teasing

The Video of two sisters thrashing eve-teasers in Rohtak city bus has gone viral in Indian news and social media. Everyone must stand up for their own rights, against any injustice, torture, or harassment. These girls did the right thing if these boys were continuously harassing them and were not willing to listen even after repeated warnings or requests. When I heard their interview on NDTV then it was disturbing to know that in a city bus full of men and women no one dared to help these girls when a few boys were trying to molest them. This bystander approach is really worrisome, and we see this attitude almost everywhere where people silently witness wrong things happening in front of their eyes. They choose to ignore them or choose to keep silent because they think it is not their business, after all, they are not victims so why should they react. It was also disturbing when during the interview one of the sisters advised all the girls that if they face a similar situation then they should beat the guy who dares to tease them as much as they want or until they are satisfied before taking him to the police. I think this advice is more emotional than practical. Violence is not the only option to resist any harassment, there are many other nonviolent ways to resist. Also, there should be a proper investigation of this incident before jumping to any conclusion by knowing only one side of the story.

The real issue here is the teasing and harassment of girls in public places. The problem of eve teasing or taunting in public places is very common in India as well as many other countries (I even see it in the US also). This is a serious issue and needs attention from people as well as law enforcement agencies. Confronting the wrongdoers like eve-teasers or molesters is the right thing to do. Every boy or girl has the right to stand up for their rights and fight for their safety. Under extreme situations where nothing else works use of force should be exercised as an option. There is no doubt that wrongdoers should be confronted so that they don't think that they can get away with such behavior easily. But to thrash them every time is not a solution to stop these things from happening. I think this girl might have said this because she was very angry because of this episode, but whenever the media telecasts something like this they should also give warnings about the dangers of violence. This interview should not send the wrong message to the youths of India that they can take the law into their own hands and punish people if they think that something wrong is happening. Every effort should be made to handle the situation by avoiding violence. This is why we have rules and laws. If people make their own decisions and try to punish wrongdoers on the spot then why do we need to have any law or justice system?  We can just let people punish wrongdoers in whatever way they feel appropriate, but we all know that this is not a practical and logical approach to handling any crime. 

Violence might look like a viable solution to solve any issue temporarily but hardly it works to find a long-term solution. Right to use force should be exercised whenever the situation demands it, but if possible, it should be considered as the last option. One can be assertive and forceful without the use of any physical force. If many boys and girls take inspiration from this incident and stand up or speak up whenever they see any such misbehavior then it is a good thing. But if they start indulging in physical fights to solve issues like this then one can only imagine the chaos which we might have to deal with. So, let's ignore this particular sentence from the interview and focus on the courage to fight misbehavior and stand up against any harassment. Hopefully, this incident will inspire people in the right way. Once we all start raising our voices against such things then automatically it will send a strong message to these molesters or wrongdoers.

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. Rohtak sisters thrash men who harassed them on moving bus
2. OTHER SIDE OF ROHTAK BRAVEHEARTS

Hinduism and today's Hindutva are totally different

Some self-proclaimed Hindutwa forces are in full swing nowadays in India, they are smelling a fresh ray of hope because of the emergence of BJP's prime ministerial candidate Mr. Narendra Modi in the political arena. Mr. Modi is leading the race for the job of the next prime minister of India, his RSS background and image of a Hindu nationalist leader have made these people very optimistic about their future. There are many religious or cultural organizations all over the world, and they all try to propagate the agenda of their own religion. There are many organizations like RSS, VHP, and Bajrang Dal in India, that claim to be flag bearers of Hindu ideology. Many others focus on propagating ideas of other faiths also but in this post, I want to focus on some organizations that claim to propagate the message of Hinduism. They all claim that their ideology is synonymous with Hinduism, which is considered one of the oldest-practicing religions of the world. All these organizations have a very sizable number of followers in India. Religion plays a very important role in day-to-day life for many Indians and because of this it is also widely used in politics.

Organized and aggressive campaigning by all these organizations, their strong cadre base, and supply of sufficient amount of funding from various sources help these organizations spread their message. They claim to be the protector of Hinduism, they create a perception that Hinduism is under threat by some invaders and other religions (like Islam or Christianity) are trying to destroy it. A similar line of thought (threat from other religions) is used by almost all religions all over the world, it helps them to polarize society in favor of their own religion (if they are in the majority). If they are in the minority, it helps them to instill feelings of insecurity among their followers which in turn increases their dependence on such organizations. This type of propaganda is especially dangerous in plural societies like India as it creates communal tension and religious animosity. This divide-and-rule policy can take an ugly turn which results in incidents like communal riots, forceful religious conversions, casteism, and other discrimination based on religion. There are many examples of such incidents from history to support this hypothesis.

The perception created by these organizations has worked very well for them, we can see that at least to some extent they were successful in propagating some of their hard-line Hindutwa ideology among people and creating polarization based on religious beliefs. The coexistence of many religions at the same time (pluralism) is a central feature of India. Hinduism is a very good example of a pluralistic religion, a religion where a variety of traditions and beliefs coexist without having any single book or saint dictating the terms. Some countries from southeast Asia after their gaining their independence chose to follow a religious path (for example Pakistan) and we all can see what is their situation today. India, fortunately, chose to follow a secular path that keeps religion and state separate, there is freedom to choose and practice any religion, and state laws are not biased towards any single religion. Many people still need religion and their religious beliefs play a very important role in their lives, many associate their identity with their religion. Because of such a strong influence of religion on people, many politicians use it as a tool to attain their political goals. For this purpose, many of these organizations twist and turn the facts as per their convenience, they try to propagate very biased views of certain cultures to instill feelings of hatred or fear. They try to create as much animosity among people as possible as it helps them to polarize people's opinions. This game has been going on for a very long time everywhere in the world, and India is one of the victims of this type of politics. The British rulers started it and now Indian political parties continue to play the same game. The politics of polarization has resulted in some gruesome communal riots but still, neither political parties nor people are willing to forego this approach.

This hard-line Hindutwa philosophy that these organizations are preaching is totally different than Hinduism. Many people don't consider Hinduism as a religion but consider it as a way of life or call it by some other name like Sanatan Dharma. Like all other religions, Hinduism has its own pros and cons. But in general, it is a very tolerant and inclusive religion. But it also has its own share of bad traditions like casteism, untouchability, discrimination of women, and many superstitions. Like any other religion, there are hardliners that propagate hate under the name of protecting Hinduism. These hardliners are the people who create problems in every religion, they are the ones who are always interested in conflicts. They are the ones who think that some conflict is always necessary to keep their religious movement alive and active. To keep their religious movement alive they can go to any extent, even to the extent of creating a communal riot which results in the loss of many innocent lives. There is no strong deterrent that can stop these people from using politics of hatred and divisiveness. It's entirely up to people to understand this dirty trick and oppose these efforts to divide society on religious grounds. 

Hinduism and this so-called Hindutwa are totally different things. Hindutva is a political ideology and is designed to suit some particular organizations and their aim is to target minorities. Any religion which targets minorities can not be considered tolerant or inclusive. Let's oppose this fake ideology which is trying to camouflage its divisive agenda under the banner of Hinduism. Hinduism and this Hindutwa are totally different things. The sooner we understand this better it is for our country and society, otherwise, we don't know how far this communal polarization will go and how many lives it will claim.

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

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

Violence and silence

I listened to this TED talk by Jackson Katz, this talk was a total revelation for me, by far the best TED talk I heard to date. This guy said almost everything which I think but struggled to express in words (actually he told much more than I think) about the problem of domestic violence and sexual abuse in such an effective way. Jack said all this with such clarity and simplicity that I could not have done it in 100 blog posts, a very big thanks to him for doing this. I am really impressed by the way he communicated his ideas and emotions so effectively.

I liked the way he proved that domestic violence or sexual abuse is not only a women's issue but mainly it's men's problem as many perpetrators are men. He raised very valid points like how the dominant majority always gets the privilege to remain unexamined, and how the entire blame is put on the victim in most of these cases. Because of the exclusion of the dominant majority most of these issues get stereotyped. For example, people think gender issues mean women's issues, and racism means things related to minorities. I am also impressed by the way he objected to our silence to many of these racist jokes or rape jokes or all other stories or jokes who are in some way demeaning to a particular gender or to people with a particular sexual orientation. We all hear these types of jokes or posts somewhere, many times we protest, or many times we ignore them considering them harmless, but every time we ignore any such incident we silently give our approval for that incident to get repeated (he calls this a bystander approach). Many people offer this type of silent approval and slowly these things spread, and communities are stereotyped. People suffer and get discriminated against, but most of us prefer to take a bystander approach. We can stop or minimize all these things if we stop silently encouraging such incidents. By keeping quiet if something wrong is happening in front of us we give our silent approval to that thing. People keep quiet for so many reasons, some of us are scared of name-calling or getting labeled as man-haters or any other insulting term (shoot the messenger attitude). We need more courageous men and women who break their silence and become vocal about these issues. Jack also reminds us that this is not easy to challenge these things in a powerful male-dominated culture. It's not easy to question this type of behavior when most people choose to ignore or to keep mum, raising our voice against such things requires courage. We need to create an environment where such abusive behavior is unacceptable in peer culture, where remaining silent is not an option. Most of these perpetrators are normal people in most aspects but this type of environment where others remain silent encourages them to commit these types of acts. He also calls this problem not a sensitivity issue but a leadership issue, and nicely explains this in his talk. I also like when he says that only caring deeply about these issues is not enough anymore, I also want to stress his point that we need more gutsy people who not only care but also take some action to break this complacent silence.

I think Jack mentioned many thought-provoking points in his talk and we all should think about them. Next time any of us hear any racist joke or insensitive remark about any gender or community we should protest or at least express our disagreement to indicate this is not acceptable. I think this will at least make people around us aware that these things are not funny or that it's not okay to say these things. Our job is to tell them that these things are not only not funny but also disgusting and insulting. If we can take away just this one message from his talk and work on it I think it will serve the purpose of his talk. I encourage everyone to listen to this talk, also please watch this brilliant video and let me know your opinion about this topic.

Thanks for reading.

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

Links:
1. http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/Violence-Silence-Jackson-Katz-P
2. This Powerful Video Shows Men What It Feels Like To Be Subjected To Sexism And Sexual Violence

How can we justify any war?

Recently I came across this article (warning: graphic images) about the effects of weapons used during the Iraq war on the general public. The images make you feel really sick and tell us how devastating war can be even to its survivors. Any war or armed struggle on a domestic or international level results in a lot of physical and emotional damage to people directly or indirectly associated with it, but still people choose violence to settle disputes. People kill each other for very trivial reasons (communal riots are an ideal example of this). Violence is not new to humans. We have seen many wars and massacres at various levels (including two world wars), and each time when it happens we feel sad and devastated. After each war, we talk about the futility of using violence to solve any dispute but again next time people forget everything that happened in the past and engage in fresh violence in the name of God, country, or whatever reason they can find, expecting that it will produce better results this time. People do not realize that it is futile to try the same thing again and again and expect different outcomes, they do it all the time. Many great epics (like Mahabharat) are also full of stories of war heroics and bravery which directly or indirectly inspire people to think that violence is a very legitimate and effective option to settle disputes or to achieve justice.

Any war results in pain and suffering, the use of violence to curb violence rarely works, and even if it works or brings peace most of the time it's temporary, it's just a matter of time before violence in the form of revenge erupts. All groups involved in war often justify their position using their own logic, normally both sides claim that they are fighting for self-defense, justice, and peace. This is what happens in most of the wars and communal riots, both sides feel they are killing others for the right cause, no one is willing to compromise and ultimately everyone suffers, but they still refuse to learn the lesson. People think that the use of violence can bring a quick solution to a problem. Somehow, people believe that the use of devastating weapons like atomic bombs can save many lives. People also think that long, tedious, and complicated negotiations cannot settle complicated issues between two nations and that war is an attractive option to settle issues quickly. However, in reality, rarely does it work like this. Lengthy wars, ethnic clashes, and continuous communal tensions between two communities are examples to prove that violence rarely brings any permanent solution to a problem.

Nations kill people to show that killing people is wrong, there is so much contradiction in this that's why the use of violence to stop violence rarely works. There are a few crazy dictators in this world, a few fanatic religious leaders who don't hesitate to put their entire country or community at risk just for their own personal selfish motives. These people somehow hypnotize people from their countries or communities who support their crazy ideas without even thinking about the consequences. Any war is an unfortunate event and its result is always tragic. No matter which side declares itself as a winner, there are tragic scenes on both sides, precious lives are lost, bitterness is created between countries or communities that last generations and people from both sides suffer for a long time.

Many people who support the use of wars or violence use a lot of reasoning and logic to justify it. They feel it's perfectly fine to lose some lives to save some. There is also a feeling that some people don't understand the language of peace and only violence is the way to teach a lesson to them. But this is not always true, there are rarely completely right or wrong sides in most conflicts that result in war, most often the winner is always right, and the loser is evil. But most wars rarely produce the result they are supposed to deliver. For me any war is a story of pain and failure of humanity, they leave permanent scars on our psyche.

I wonder when people will realize the futility of using violence to settle any dispute? I wonder when they will realize that every human life is equally precious no matter which religion, race, caste, or country they belong to. After reading about any war I always wonder how people can justify any war? Every war kills many innocent people for no fault of theirs, I can understand that sometimes on rarest of rare occasions, we can not avoid war or violent conflict but I still wonder how can we justify violence on such a large scale that takes many innocent lives? And if wars can solve disputes, why do we still have so many of them even after fighting so many wars to settle the same disputes? Why every time some new dispute emerge after each war? As I said, I know that sometimes it's really hard to avoid war or the use of violence (especially for self-defense), but I fail to understand when people glorify and justify it as if they did something great by killing some innocent people during this process. Loss of innocent lives is called collateral damage and I think this collateral damage itself should force us to avoid any war. Questions are many but answers are difficult to find. I am still trying to find a proper explanation and understand why two sides want to engage in an act of war and how people can justify it? 

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

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

Links:
1. Iraqi birth defects worse than Hiroshima (warning: graphic images)

Violence breeds violence

The murder of Mahendra Karma, the Chhattisgarh Congress leader in a terror attack by the Naxalites has initiated discussion about how to tackle this very complicated issue of Naxal violence in India. I am no expert in this area and I recommend readers to read some excellent articles mentioned in the links section which express very balanced views about this subject. These are very complicated socioeconomic and political issues for a country like India. There are many people who either support or oppose either side involved in this conflict. They all are very emotional about their beliefs but this argument about who is right and who is wrong has been going on for decades without producing any result. I think the time has come to stop that argument and think about the possible solutions all over again. Violence only breeds violence. We have seen it many times in human history, no matter for what purpose it is used, violence always results in more violence. People suffer, generations fight with each other for no reason, and different communities, countries, or religions hate each other without even knowing why they are doing this. This violence exists in many forms before it erupts as a full-scale bloody war and hatred or animosity between groups of people is one such form.

I think I have mentioned this before in some of my posts but let me say this once again, we humans are a very intelligent species and we very often use that intelligence to justify our questionable acts like war, murder, or any other controversial thing. There are so many examples from history or even from some scriptures where violence on a massive scale is justified or even glorified, celebrated and many people are very much okay with it as long as it is a part of their scripture. I agree that sometimes it is impossible to avoid war but to glorify it is an altogether different thing. One thing is for sure, we humans are no strangers to violence and we have been involved in it from the beginning of our civilization. But this doesn't mean that violence is the only option available for us to settle any major dispute. I agree that it is the most used option by many communities but we have also seen nonviolent ways to achieve great things. Many of these people who propagated nonviolent conflict resolution methods are ridiculed for their passive thinking and attitude. However, even after all the odds against them they were successful and were able to leave their mark on history, for example, Mahatma Gandhi. Unfortunately, they failed to generate loyal supporters who can take their beliefs to the next level and make sure that they become part of day-to-day lifestyle. I agree that it is not an easy way to follow, maybe that's why it failed to attract many followers. In today's world, these examples are looked at as kind of exceptional cases where this strategy worked somehow. Mahatma Gandhi is a very good example of this. He was instrumental in getting India's independence by using nonviolent protests but after getting the independence India is continuously battling with one violent conflict or another. Even in India, Gandhi's ways of resolving conflicts are considered outdated and nonpractical. Violence comes very naturally to animals. Even though humans are also animals, we call ourselves civilized animals, so we cannot behave purely based on natural instincts just like any other animal. However, many times our behavior doesn't justify the civilized tag for us, we need to work harder to call ourselves a civilized community.

In most cases, violent conflict is a result of false propaganda (especially in the case of communal riots). Some people mislead the masses for their own selfish political or personal benefits or gross negligence by the government (Naxal problem) creates situations where people engage in violence. Both these scenarios are totally avoidable with proper planning and education. People need to be aware of their rights and all resources available to them to practice those rights. At the same time, they should also be aware of their responsibilities, it is very important to be aware of both things to be a responsible citizen of any country. Rights and duties are different sides of the same coin. One cannot demand only rights without fulfilling their duties, and one can not fulfill their duties completely without having those rights, so both of these work together. Wherever we see any imbalance between the two a conflict is bound to emerge sooner or later. For any society to have a healthy atmosphere it needs to make its people aware of their rights and duties.

If we start arguing about who is right and who is wrong then it will become a topic of endless discussion. People from both sides can argue very passionately to justify their approach but ultimately we only see a lot of emotions, passion, and drama but no real solution. We need healthy dialogue not just arguments about this issue, and one should keep emotions in control during any discussion otherwise it turns into an argument and defeats the whole purpose.  Ultimately common people suffer in all this, so they need to take control of the situation. Once common people realize that they are being used by both sides as prawns to play power games I think they will look for a solution, until this happens this bloody game will continue.

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

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

Links:
1. The continuing tragedy of the adivasis- Ramachandra Guha
2. दन्तेवाड़ा की जड़ें- सुनील

India and Pakistan - a tale of two siblings

Tension or violence at the line of control (LOC) between India and Pakistan is not something unusual. People from both countries are used to reading news about firings or killings at the LOC and this has been going on since these two countries became independent. Political leaderships from both countries failed to find some mutually agreeable solution for problems that exist between the two nations, even after so many attempts, and so many meetings still most of the problems remain as they were. 

The major issue between these two countries cannot be looked at only as a border dispute. There are a lot of emotional, political, and international angles to it. The issue of Kashmir is very sensitive for people from both countries. The biggest sufferers of this problem are Kashmiri people who are deprived of any stability in their state. This instability has affected everything in Kashmir, day-to-day life, economic development, tourism, and education. Thousands of Kashmiri Pandits are displaced from their native land and are living like refugees in their own country. Sadly this problem very rarely gets reported whenever the problem of Kashmir is discussed at any level. Both countries have invested so much in the Kashmir issue that it's almost impossible for both of them to back off from their stand. This standoff will continue indefinitely unless both of them acknowledge that there is a problem and they need to make serious efforts to solve it. Right now both of them claim Kashmir as their own territory and blame each other for creating this issue. This has been going on for decades and I think will continue in the future also because many political parties survive because of this issue in both countries. Both these countries refuse to accept that it's their fault that this problem still exists. They just blame each other and do nothing substantial to resolve the issue. This issue is also one of the major reasons for the arms race between these two countries (which involves the interest of many other countries that sell arms).

The hatred between the people of these two countries is also something that keeps these issues hot and politically relevant. One very good example of this is India Pakistan cricket match. For many people, it's not just a cricket match, but it's a war on the cricket field. It is a chance to show that we are superior to you, we can beat you, and these matches are full of tension. There are always very high expectations from fans of both teams. The unwritten rule is to "lose against anyone but not against Pakistan/India." For me, it took quite some time to get over these feelings and realize that a loss against Pakistan is not such a big deal. Now I look at it as just another cricket match but this was not the case during my childhood. I still remember that anxiety, agony, and anger after India's loss against Pakistan, now I laugh at it but at that time it was really serious and I used to consider all Pakistanis as our enemies.

Despite these differences and such a bitter rivalry there is so much similarity between these two countries. People from both countries enjoy similar movies and music. They share many cultural and social customs and more Muslims live in India than Pakistan. Many Pakistani artists work on Indian television and also in the Hindi movie industry but unfortunately reverse doesn't happen. Indian artists are not allowed to work or perform in Pakistan that's why I wonder how long this unilateral cultural exchange will continue. So far, this cultural exchange and bilateral sports tournaments are not proving any useful. The tension prevails, soldiers are dying and still terrorists have safe heaven in many places of Pakistan. Sometimes these cultural and sports exchanges are successful in creating a friendly atmosphere but then something very ugly happens at the LOC and things derail again. Political instability in Pakistan and a very dominant military regime complicates the issues more. Now Pakistan is also facing the fear of extremist terrorism and many tragic incidents are happening regularly there. Hopefully, at least not Pakistani government will take some serious steps to curb acts of terrorism at least to protect their own citizens. I hope that now both countries realize that they have a common enemy and come together to fight against it, but I wonder whether this long history of conflicts will make things any easier or difficult.

If both these countries settle their issues and try to bring peace it will be like a blessing for the people of both these countries. It will be like a dream coming true, but many people don't want this to happen because then their political careers will vanish. Many countries that sell arms to both countries will also suffer huge losses and I am sure all these forces will try their best to prevent anything like this from happening in the near future. This is very sad but it's a bitter truth. People from both countries also have very wrong images of each other. I met some Pakistanis here in the USA and they all are not very different than us, I enjoyed talking with them and I am sure many Indians had similar experiences and feel the same way. I want my fellow Indians to realize that our neighboring country is not full of only Islamic extremists or India haters. It's a very wrong image formed by some of the actions of the military and some politicians of Pakistan. We need to clear this misconception. One thing is clear these two countries can not avoid each other they are destined to be neighbors as long as both of them exist, so why not live peacefully and stop the blame game that has been going on for the last six decades or so. The time has come to stop this hate game, take a pause, think rationally not emotionally, and then take one step at a time, firmly, boldly making sure that we are going in the right direction. This is the only way we can resolve issues between these two nations and bring some peace. I think people from both countries need it more than anything else and their leaders owe at least this much to them. 

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

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

1. To fight India, we fought ourselves-Mohsin Hamid
2. In Britain, the ‘Enemy’ Was Just Like Me- RAHUL JOGLEKAR

Violence is not an option

One police constable (47-year-old Subhash Chand) who was said to be injured during the protests against the Delhi gang rape case died because of injuries he sustained during police action against these protests. This is very sad news, as sad as the rape case itself. One police officer who was performing his duty died at the hands of a mob that was trying to protest against the inability of their government to protect their citizens. Now whose fault it is? There are already photos on social media, and on the internet that show protesters, especially women protesters getting brutally attacked by police. Now, people might think posting these photos is an attempt to justify the attack of protesters on police but I don't think the matter is so straightforward here. The blame game in this case has already started. Police arrested a few youths in this case and Arvind Kejriwal came out to defend these youths saying that there is no proof against them. I hope that both these tragic events don't get politicized, and no one should use these events for political gain because the issue of the safety of the citizens of any city or country should be above any politics or political party. The constable is dead and something must have caused his death. They should find the real reason for his death, then find the criminals who committed this act and punish them. 

During many protests in India, the crowd tends to get violent because they can not control their anger, or get too emotional about the issue. This is a very common case in India. It's very easy to organize protests but very difficult to control the crowd. The most infamous incident like this happened in 1922 (pre-independent India) during the non-cooperation movement that Mahatma Gandhi started. The angry mob burned a police station in Chauri Chaura (a town in UP) after police firing. Records say that 48 people died (26 in police firing and 22 because of the burning of the police station, police firing happened first). Gandhi wanted this movement to be strictly non-violent so because of this incident he called this movement off. He received a lot of criticism for taking this step as many leaders felt that the non-cooperation movement was working very well and the violence was not started by protesters. Such incidents happen regularly, not always resulting in deaths but many times resulting in public property damages, disturbance in public life, and inconvenience to the general public. It's very strange that this all happens in a country like India achieved her freedom via a non-violent freedom struggle movement. 

So the question we need to ask here is, do these violent protests work? Do they produce the desired result? What good do they do for our country? Do they help in creating awareness about the issue or just help in spreading hatred and anger? The answer to all these questions is a big 'NO.' Violence only results in more violence nothing else, it spreads hatred and anger, and it spreads fear not peace. Our own freedom struggle movement has demonstrated the power of non-violent protests to us, so why we don't use the same method? How come we are losing faith in the same method that we used successfully to win our freedom from foreign regimes? People definitely have the right to express their anger against their government, and they have full right to protest and register their demands, but they absolutely don't have any right to disrupt public life which creates unnecessary inconvenience to many people, damage public property, or attack police for no reason. Violence is not an option in any democratic country. I hope that our government, the people who are protesting as well as the police department all understand this and act accordingly. 

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

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

References:
1. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/constable-injured-in-india-gate-protest-dies-in-hospital/article4237638.ece
2.  http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/policeman-death-no-evidence-against-arrested-youth-says-kejriwal/article4238310.ece
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauri_Chaura

We should have zero tolerance for violence against women and kids

Two recent incidents in two different countries one here in Newtown, CT, USA,  and one in New Delhi back in my home country India, both incidents left me sad and disturbed. In the first incident, 20 innocent 1st graders lost their lives at the hands of some insane young kid who got access to guns easily and used them to execute this heinous crime. In a second, equally gruesome act six men gang-raped an innocent girl in a moving bus on the streets of the Indian capital New Delhi. The girl was not only gang raped but badly beaten with blunt objects and is battling for her life as I write this blog. 

Both these incidents raised many questions. First, are we failing to protect women and kids from the danger they face from such erratic behavior by some senseless individuals? Second, are our personal and political beliefs more important than our social responsibilities like protecting the lives of innocent civilians? There are many questions like these and I wrote my concerns about gun policy in the US in my last post related to the first incident (shooting inside a school in Newtown). Along with the gun law society's attitude towards mentally challenged people should be improved, and more resources should be made available to them to deal with their mental health. Problems like this don't have only one reason or solution. We have to look at all angles associated with it and try to act accordingly. If we fail to do this then incidents like this will keep on occurring again and again in some form or other and after every incident, we will engage in the same debates, the same deadlocks, and the same conclusion that something should be done, but no one knows what that 'something' is. These issues need to be discussed and debated openly. Only through proper discussion and consideration of all aspects we can expect to find any solution to these problems.

The second incident related to the gang rape is equally disturbing. It's also not the first case of this type of crime. New Delhi is on the verge of getting labeled as a 'rape city' of India where incidents of crime against women are becoming a regular event. It seems that statistically one rape case is reported every 14 hours in Delhi alone and we are only talking about reported cases here. After looking at these numbers it clearly seems that there is no fear about the law and punishment associated with rape or sexual harassment. They are pretty dam sure that they can run away from the law or if get caught they can escape using loopholes in law or after lengthy trials in Indian courts if at all they get convicted they can get away with very lenient punishment. All this is happening in a country that claims to respect women and worships female goddesses like Lakshmi, Sarasvati, Durga, and many others. In reality, our society has drifted away from even normal standards of treating women with dignity or equality. The country where female idols are worshiped is slowly becoming one of the most unsafe places for women, so ironic. 

Where did we mess it up? What is responsible for this scenario where female idols are worshiped but living females are humiliated and insulted on streets, in homes, and other places. The physical and mental trauma associated with any sexual abuse is terrible, and surprisingly in India, we don't have very strict laws to deal with these types of offenses. One can easily get bail in all cases related to sexual abuse. Very recently I saw an episode of the reality show KBC (Kaun Banega Crorepati) which Amitabh hosts on TV where they showed a victim of an acid attack, Sonali Mukherjee. Her story was horrible, but the brave lady survived that attack and is still fighting to get justice and the most horrible part was the culprits who committed that crime are roaming free in society (they are out on bail). This raises a few very serious questions about the way law and order machinery works in India. Why we don't have strict laws to punish these criminals? If we already have proper laws in place then why they are not followed in many cases? How these culprits can get away in many cases with very minor punishment (if at all they are convicted)? Why do victims have to wait for so many years to get justice in these types of cases? If there are loopholes in law then why can't lawmakers work towards removing them? In India parliament has amended the constitution so many times for so many reasons, isn't any form of violence against kids and women in strong enough reason for them to sit and discuss another amendment?

We as a people and society also have to think about this issue. When are we going to say enough is enough? In many of these cases, it was noticed that common people hesitate to offer any help. They just witness the crime as mute spectators. They think it's not their business to interfere. When are we going to change this mentality? Why common people are still scared to contact the police department? In cases dealing with child sexual abuse also situation is very pathetic. Very few cases of child sexual abuse that actually happen get reported to the police, very few of them manage to reach the court and only a small percentage of them result in actual conviction.

I received a very hard hitting post on my Facebook wall I am going to share it,

You stay silent when your mother is treated like shit by your father,
You stay silent when your friend takes dowry from his wife's family,
You stay silent when your classmates sits at a nukkad whistling 'maal' at passing women saying it is innocent fun.
You stay silent when a million women every year in this nation are murdered before birth or their breath dunked in milk before god after it, 
You don't report the drunkard husband who beat up your maid servant because it is not your business, 
You stayed silent when your boss hit upon a female colleague and you told her to grin and bear it because it happens everywhere, 
You sing along with your favorite male stars as they call their 'items' chikni chameli and halkat jawani etc., 
You stay silent when our police and paramilitary gang rape tribal and lower caste women and shove stones inside their rectum saying that that's an aberration of the system,
You did not protest the lower pay that your female colleagues got just because of their sex, 
You helped your parents arrange a marriage for your sister against her wishes saying she doesn't know her mind,
You stayed silent when in a family discussion a woman’s voice was silenced by the cacophony of male voices, 
You force a woman to wear burqa in the pretext of sharia law or justify their domesticity because some asshole called Manu wrote some asinine laws hundreds of years back, 
You think feminism is shit and feminist loud mouthed 'bitches' who have not better work to do than cry victim,
You applaud as Hindu right wing men barge into a hotel and slap ‘immoral’ women with the intention of ‘reforming’ their ‘maa’ ‘behen’
You stay silent when females in a party are sent away to discuss 'childish' things even as you discuss 'important' things like politics and all in their absence,
You stayed silent when your father directly and sarcastically showed your mother that she's lower then men in intelligence time and again,
You objected loudly when your girlfriend, wife wanted to put her life and career ahead of yours saying yours was more important,

And now suddenly you have become a man because ONE woman was brutally beaten and raped while you conveniently forget the hundreds of women whose psyche you were responsible for brutally beating and raping directly, or indirectly through your inaction... and now you evoke the same 'maa' and 'behen' argument to protect them... 

Thanks to the serpent of your awakened manhood, that woman in Delhi will perhaps get justice. But what about the millions of other women in the country of different religion, region and sect united by their shared injustice who will perhaps never get justice precisely for the same reason - your manhood?

This message is like a very tight slap on our faces. If this doesn't make us think then I don't know what will. Perpetrators of this particular crime and any such crimes should be punished severely so that people will think multiple times before engaging in any of such acts. We should have zero tolerance for any type of violence. We worship many Gods, and there are many religions out there that teach love and compassion towards our fellow humans but seldom it's practiced. Now it's time to practice all these teachings of love and respect in real life. Let's show the same compassion and love towards everyone around us that we show towards our loved and dear ones regardless of their gender, age, race, or nationality. Maybe one day we won't need any posts like this, any messages like this, and let's hope that day will come very soon.

Thanks for reading please share your views on this topic.

References:
1. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/gangraped-in-moving-bus-girl-fights-for-life-in-delhi-hospital/article4208833.ece 
2. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2174288/Sonali-Mukherjee-Acid-attack-victim-pleads-justice-let-die.html
3. Story of child sexual abuse victim who bravely fought legal battle for six years to get justice,
http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/tamil-nadu/girl-gets-justice-after-a-longdrawn-struggle/article4216829.ece

Is banning a solution or a problem?

I wrote my last post about the movie or video clip which is creating a lot of controversy nowadays. While writing that I was thinking about many other movies, books, articles, or cartoons that created similar reactions or uproars in the past and were banned in various countries. I was wondering what purpose these bans served? Did they solve any problem? Did these banned things disappear because of the ban or did they become more popular? Did banning these things serve any purpose or create more trouble or problems? 

The Satanic Verses was banned for some objectionable content and it made Salman Rushdie a world-famous author and celebrity. Lajja made Tasleema Nasreen a permanent refugee in India and also a celebrity. Arun Shourie was already a celebrated author but his book 'Worshiping False Gods' resulted in him getting mobbed and attacked in his own country. All these books are still very popular and are still in very high demand and some people read them just because they are curious about these books because of the ban imposed on them. There were bans issued against many other books, movies, cartoons, etc. Protests, fatwas, and whatnot followed but in the end, what happened? Who won or who lost?

This reminds me of some incidents in history, even Jesus was mobbed and attacked, many people wanted to kill Muhammad, and Budhha was also not very popular because he challenged many established religious beliefs and faiths. I am not comparing these people with anybody but just comparing the situations and mentality of a mob. Some people, organizations or establishments were always against new thoughts or ideas which doesn't fit in their ideology and the interesting part is that they don't try to oppose these things with better thoughts or ideas but rather they try to attack these people, try to kill them and think that by killing a person they can kill their ideas. It never worked with anyone in history, rather whenever these authors, books, or even a crappy movie like 'Innocence of Muslims' were attacked they became more famous, they got more attention, more followers, and generated more curiosity. These bans and violent protests help to make these things more popular. Some of these books or movies (like Innocence of Muslims) are made or written to create trouble and these protesters help to fulfill that by their behavior and they don't even realize it. So my question is why don't people understand that by attacking people, books or any ideology by violence they are not going to achieve anything other than destruction and trouble? They indirectly help to make these things more popular. I agree that sometimes these articles, films, or ideologies need to be criticized or questioned but definitely, violence in any form is not required to oppose them. One can register their protests in many forms which don't require any sort of violence and are equally effective or if they don't agree with contents of any of these things then just ignore them.

I personally love to read and it is one of my favorite hobbies but till now I have not read anything where I thought it required violence to register my protest against it. Humans claim to be different than other animals and very often believe it or not we behave like or worse than other animals. Can't we behave more like humans than animals while registering our protests, can't we understand that there is bound to be a difference of opinion among us and we should learn to live with it? Is it that difficult? I don't think it is. 

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

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