How Mr. Modi is going to stop rise of another Modi?

The general elections of 2014 are going on in full swing, their results will be declared very soon (May 2014). Based on several opinion polls BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) is expected to emerge as the single largest party in this election. All credit for this performance is supposed to be given to the spectacular leadership of Mr. Narendra Modi, who also happens to be its prime ministerial candidate. Mr. Modi's name came into national news for the first time because of the infamous 2002 Godhra riots. These riots happened in Gujarat during his first year as chief minister and he faced a lot of criticism for the way he and his administration handled that incident which resulted in the killing of more than 1000 people in his state. He won three consecutive assembly elections in Gujarat since then, but his role in those riots is still debated and some survivors are still pursuing cases against him. These riots gave him a certain image that he hardly tried to change, he never even apologized to riot victims. He emerged as a conservative, right-wing politician, and a self-proclaimed Hindu nationalist leader. A very aggressive and well-planned media campaign, support of the organizational network of BJP, and lots and lots of money helped him to build this image. Now please don't ask about the source of all this money that these big national and regional parties use in India as political parties don't need to declare the source of all their donations. These organized efforts and extensive propaganda have a created certain image of him in people's minds. This campaign tried to maintain his image as a conservative Hindu leader but added another dimension of developmental messiah based on some recent economic developments in Gujarat. Based on the very much debated Gujarat model he is projected as a leader who can solve all the problems that India is currently facing. The dismal performance of the UPA-2 government headed by Dr. Manmohan Singh, the anti-incumbency factor along with the number of scams and corruption charges on some ministers helped Mr. Modi to become the front-runner for the next PM's post. 

No one can deny the role the 2002 Godhra riots played in helping Mr. Modi to emerge on the national scene of Indian politics, at least I heard about him for the first time after those riots. I also heard a lot of praise for him from many people for the way he handled those riots, most of the praise was from Hindu conservatives. They were happy that he gave time to Hindus to vent their anger about the killing of Godhra train burning incident victims by delaying any strict action against rioters. We all know that this cannot be proven in any court, but this was my personal experience while interacting with these people and I am writing it based on that, not based on something that I read. These riots helped him a lot to win the 2002 Gujarat assembly elections. Now the question that comes to my mind is how Mr. Modi is going to stop the emergence of another Modi, who might want to use a similar strategy to achieve political gains? And I am not talking here about something that never happened in Indian politics, there are some examples from the recent past where people from the same party (or same family) tried to use a similar formula used by their seniors to achieve their own political goals. Maybe these people thought why design any new strategy when they have something that has already been tested and proven to work. This happened with the firebrand leader of Maharashtra Mr. Bal Thackeray, he couldn't stop his nephew from becoming another firebrand leader and launching his own political party using a similar strategy that Balasaheb used to launch his own political career. Mr. Modi also used tactics similar to what his political guru and mentor Mr. L.K. Advani used in the past. Mr. Advani was a leading political figure in the Ram Mandir movement. That movement polarized India at that time and created a lot of disturbance and violence but it also helped BJP to gain power in center for the first time in 1996. The Ram Mandir movement polarized the country and so did the Godhra riots, both incidents helped a political leader to become a national figure. Recently even a young leader like Mr. Akhilesh Yadav (CM of UP) is also using similar political tricks that his father used to stay in power.

When aspiring leaders see that a particular formula worked very well for someone to achieve their political ambitions in a short time then at least some of them cannot avoid the temptation to reuse that same formula for their own political benefit and that's where lies the biggest danger. This creates a real possibility of the emergence of many such leaders who are ready to travel the same path to reach the same goals. Maybe Mr. Modi is a good administrator, maybe leaders like him or Mr. Thackeray are really good in decision making, maybe they know how to control their cadre but the question is, do we want to encourage others to use similar methods to become another Thackeray or Modi? If not, then how are we going to stop this from happening? Just hoping that nothing like this will happen in the future is not going to help. Why don't we question these leaders and make them come clean before they occupy any public office? Minority or majority appeasement both are wrong, there should not be any appeasement politics at all. We need to object whenever it happens no matter which party is playing such politics.

No one likes to remember these unfortunate incidents and argue about them again and again. This is not a very pleasant experience at least for me and memories of these incidents are also very painful for the victims, survivors, and their relatives. But if perpetrators of these types of crimes are not punished and worst if there is no hope that they will ever get punished then how come someone can forget these incidents? Because of this passive attitude of many people, these types of crimes repeatedly happen and every time people who complain or protest are targeted. They are advised to forget and move on or they are reminded that this is not the first time it happened so it's not a big deal that it happened again. Have we become so insensitive? Have we totally lost faith in humanity? Do we value human life only based on religion, race, caste, and political affiliation? Has politics become more important than human life to us? What is the reason that these types of incidents keep on happening and no big politician accused in these riots has ever been convicted? Do all these victims lie or there is a serious flaw in our investigating agencies and law system that allows the culprits to escape easily?

No one can undermine the need for economic prosperity for any nation, it is required for any country to remain competitive but it should not come at the cost of injustice to riot victims. Economic progress without humanity is no progress at all. This post is not about Mr. Modi, Mr. Thackeray, or Mr Yadav, I am using them just as examples because they are from the recent past. This is about our passive mindset which makes us keep quiet and ignore such crimes. We behave as if the death of 100s of people is not a big deal at all, it's politics and development that only matter. Maybe it is not a big deal for some people but for me, it's a big deal, and the fight for justice needs to continue until justice is done to Kashmiri Pandits, 1984 victims, 2002 victims, or any other riot victims. This is not about some individual or party or some election but about people who suffer in these incidents. If we can't protect them then at least we can fight for their justice and apologize to them so that their pain becomes bearable. No one can understand their pain but at least we can try to reduce it to as much as possible. Let the best candidate or party win this election but let's not try to trivialize serious incidents like riots which affect the lives of many people. Please remember what George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

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. The remaking of Narendra Modi- Shiv Visvanathan
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_violence

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_anti-Sikh_riots

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Muzaffarnagar_riots
5. BJP declares war on India

This is blatant and shameless display of male chauvinism

It seems there is some sort of competition among some Indian political leaders about making more derogatory comments about sexual violence against women. This blatant display of male chauvinism is sickening, unfortunately, this is not a new or recent phenomenon. Apart from Samajwadi Party leaders like Mr. Mulayam Singh, who said that young boys do these types of mistakes (rapes) in youth rage and should not be punished very harshly for this, or Mr. Abu Azmi, who said that women who have sex outside marriage should be punished, there are many whose outrageous statements are ignored for the lack of media coverage. There are some who suggest that Mr. Modi's wife must be happy that finally he accepted her publicly. These are not some isolated incidents, there are many people across the party lines who share similar views. Please remember that these leaders are not some new entrants in politics they are experienced and seasoned politicians who very well know the meaning of these statements and also know the political benefits associated with them. Such statements not only reflect the male chauvinist nature of society but also show the misogynist society that tolerates such behavior.  

Rape is a heinous crime, it hurts the victim not only physically but also emotionally, and it leaves a permanent scar on their minds, not taking this crime seriously is another crime. Only insane or insensitive people can trivialize it. Offenders who commit rape must be given harsh punishment by law, at the same time awareness should be spread among youths which can help to minimize these incidents. Strong and effective law along with aggressive awareness campaigns is the only way to tackle these types of problems. These politicians are not helping this cause by making these types of statements. Politicians can go to any extent to gain political benefit, they can justify riots, rapes, or any other heinous crimes, there are ample examples of these incidents. 

What prompts these people to make these types of statements? Why do people allow such politicians to win the elections even after making such misogynistic statements? The reason has to be that there is a large section of society that still agrees with these statements. They still believe in male superiority and support male chauvinism. These people don't come from some backward areas or belong to an uneducated class but there are highly educated or literate folks also who believe in all this. These are people who cite examples from mythology or from history to justify Mr. Modi's action of leaving his home which resulted in the abandonment of his wife. No matter for what purpose Mr. Modi left his house and what he achieved I wonder how people can justify his action of abandoning his wife, not bothering about her for so many years, and still, not providing any legal rights as a wife. I also feel dismayed over these people now telling that woman that she should feel honored and lucky that a person of Modi's stature finally accepted officially her as his wife. It is true that whatever happens between husband and wife is their personal matter but when anyone is running for public office then their past and present actions are scrutinized by the media and public, this is a common practice all over the world. Any such act by a prominent public figure can send a wrong signal to people. The same people who get influenced by such actions then try to justify rape as some trivial mistake committed in youth rage. These people might even expect the victim to pardon the offender if for whatever reason the rapist offers to marry the victim after a brutal rape and might even expect her to feel lucky that the rapist is doing this huge favor to her. 

This type of mindset is not only disgusting but also very dangerous, it not only tries to trivialize the crime but also encourages it. If people cannot stop these incidents at least they can try not to encourage them. Yes, sometimes some of these laws are misused for some selfish gains, this should not be encouraged and all such cases should be dealt with equal seriousness and sincerity. Sometimes people misuse certain laws but that does not diminish the need to have strict laws, we just need a more efficient, sensitive, and transparent system to deal with such cases so that these laws are effectively implemented. Women's issues are important in any society but they are more important in societies where male chauvinism is so predominant. If people like us don't oppose such actions then these people won't stop making such statements and demeaning women. Women need all the support and help to deal with these problems. No doubt that women need to empower themselves to fight this battle on their own but the support from all sections of society is equally important and crucial. We all can help to deal with these types of problems at least by strongly raising our objection to such statements and not voting for such people. These politicians also should not get away easily after making such mistakes or statements, at least they should face some electoral loss. Display of male chauvinism is always shameless but now it's becoming so blatant and widespread that we cannot afford to ignore it.

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. India’s pro-rapist lobby
2. Mulayam says ‘wrong’ anti-rape law should be amended
3. Women who have sex outside marriage should be hanged: SP leader Abu Azmi
4. Meet India's league of insensitive politicians

Silence is an enemy of social justice

We all must have seen something wrong happening around us sometime in our life, either directly or indirectly we all witness such things. Sometimes we choose to protest or object to these things and many times we decide to ignore them and move on for various reasons. Many times we are scared to protest or think that it's none of our business to interfere in these matters as they are not directly related to us. We all might have our own valid reasons for opposing or not opposing these things. But it is true that sometimes we do ignore social evils like bullying, discrimination, and harassment happening around us. One of the most common excuses people offer is that one person can not bring change, so what's the use of protesting? They think if these incidents don't directly affect us then why should we interfere? Many people also think that keeping quiet and not interfering in others' business is a good habit (yes, it is a good habit but not when some injustice is being done right in front of your eyes). I agree that losing patience is not a way of addressing any problem but that doesn't mean keeping quiet or ignoring them are any good options, rather I think they are worse. We must register our protest in some form whenever we witness injustice, we need to voice our opposition to such incidents in a very strong and clear voice. Many times silence is considered as an indirect approval for such acts, it encourages perpetrators to commit these crimes again and again. 

Ignoring such incidents purposely or choosing to keep silent is as bad as committing those crimes. This bystander approach is very dangerous. When we choose to remain silent we give a message to perpetrators that people are okay with such behavior. We tell them that they can do such nasty things and get away with it. They get the impression that they can bully others, harass others, or trouble them and no one will dare to protest or confront them. The bystander approach provides encouragement to them. In private many people express their displeasure and concern about such things but this doesn't really matter if they ignore these things when they personally witness the real incident. As I said different people have different reasons for not reacting or ignoring these things, but I believe there is a strong reason and duty not to ignore them. Many times, perpetrators of such crimes try to physically intimidate the victims and because of this other people also get scared of them, they do this to spread fear with the hope that no one will protest, and many times they succeed. But if even some of us show little courage to speak up they might not get away so easily and will think twice in the future before committing the same crime. No one likes confrontation or enjoys any unpleasant scenario but many times that's the only option we have to stop social evils like bullying, discrimination, or harassment. If anyone remains silent even after facing some unjust due to lack of support from their surroundings they offer themselves as easy targets for similar incidents in the future. Such silence is an enemy of social justice. 

We should raise our voices against any injustice or harassment. Nationality, race, religion, caste, political affiliation, gender, or anything else should not be the criteria behind criticizing any such crime. Mahatma Gandhi said once, "Hate the sin, not the sinner," we need to oppose injustice, not individuals, that individual is just a representative of that sick mindset we need to fight that mindset. So let's fight social evils together, silence is not an option, silence is an enemy of social justice.  

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

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

Democracy depends on informed electorate

Nowadays it is election time in India, a very charged atmosphere with political emotions flying high. All political parties are trying their best to woo the voters. India is considered the largest democracy in the world with a population of around 1.2 billion people. Politics and democracy are two different things according to me. Politics is played in almost every country, but there are very few places where true, healthy, and well-functioning democracy exists, the question here is, is India one of them?

True democracy doesn't only mean the right to vote, this is just one part of it (no doubt a very important part). True, healthy, and functioning democracy depends on the informed voting decisions of people involved in the democratic process. The process includes candidate selection by political parties, policy development, voting, governing, etc. All eligible citizens should be able to participate in every step directly or indirectly. There are very few countries in this world that have such a robust and transparent democratic process in place. India is a democratic country for sure, citizens have the right to vote but most voters have very limited information or knowledge about the policies of political parties or even about candidates contesting from their constituencies. This information is deliberately not provided to them. Until recently there was no Right to Information Act (RTI). Even now political parties and their funding sources are not revealed under this act, they don't even come under this act. Most political leaders prefer to deliver emotionally charged speeches rather than talking about their policy road map which will allow them to achieve promises they are making. There is no culture of debate or discussion between major political parties or their candidates which can allow voters to understand what they really stand for. People with serious criminal charges (like murder, rape, kidnapping, etc.) are given tickets by almost all political parties. All these political parties unite whenever there is an attempt to bring any reform or act that can minimize the criminalization of politics or make political funding transparent in any way. These things normally happen in the background, most voters/citizens are not even aware of these things and most political parties don't want voters to know about these things. The more ignorant and ill-informed voters are, more better for these political parties.

Because of tremendous development in information and technology in recent years and the presence of active media, nowadays people are receiving a lot of information from various sources. There is so much information inflow that it's really difficult to grasp all of it. Along with very useful information, there is a lot of junk also, people need to filter it and educate themselves about real issues and problems. Once voters get informed they realize the real power of their vote, and they get empowered. Without information and awareness, the votes of voters can be purchased or voters can be fooled by creating some wrong perception. All these things have been happening in India for so many decades. People are really frustrated and disillusioned with this system. This is the major reason for all the support that inexperienced parties like AAP (AAm Aadami Party) or any other new regional parties are getting. Whenever some group tries to reform the rotten system, major political parties don't appreciate such efforts. They all want the same old system in place, the same old style of opaque politics as it is very beneficial to them. People who are trying to bring these changes are targeted. Actually, these people are not that important but the reforms that they want to deliver are important. Some people are trying to shoot the messenger in the hope that the message doesn't get delivered. I hope voters of India look beyond personalities and try to understand the message. Who is delivering the message is not at all important, the message is important. If major national parties like Congress and BJP are willing to decentralize power, bring strong legislation against corruption, bring total transparency and accountability in political funding and governance, and encourage job growth then there won't be any need for any anti-corruption movement or any new party. Whenever the establishment neglects a certain section of society, corruption, and crime become rampant in society, some new movement starts, and some new political party is formed to fight against this injustice.

Informed voters are more powerful, they are aware of their rights as well as responsibilities. Informed voters are equipped to make informed choices, and political parties, and leaders can not fool them all the time by giving false promises. Democracy is not very useful for its citizens without well-informed voters. I hope this scenario changes in the near future. I hope candidates participate in civilized debate because these types of debates are very necessary and are essential parts of any democratic process. India never had them so far as a part of the electoral process I hope in future they try to conduct them. After all, democracy depends on an informed electorate, and without that, it's just a democracy for the namesake. I think most of us want true and functioning democracy, not something that just looks like it but doesn't feel or work like a true democracy. 

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

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

Mr. Modi, I wish it was only one party's fault

I heard the slogan "Congress mukta Bharat" (Congress-free India) during this year's (2014) general election campaign by BJP leader Mr. Narendra Modi. Many BJP supporters liked the idea, after all, who doesn't like to wipe out their political rival from the picture? Somehow every other problem that India is facing today is blamed upon the Congress party and its ideologies. This is because the Congress has ruled India for most of the time since independence (1947). Superficially, this claim looks very legit, but if we analyze it closely it doesn't look only one party's fault. BJP itself has been in national politics in some form or another for the last 40 years or so. They also got a chance to run the central government for ~ 9 years in between (six years on their own and three years as a part of the Janta Party govt). They have been a major opposition party for the last few years and also have their government in some states of India. So, part of the blame also goes to them, but they may not accept this as they want to put all the blame on Congress. No doubt Congress cannot escape the responsibility, they have to accept responsibility for their mistakes but there is more than one culprit who is responsible for all this mess.

Over the years India has developed a very corrupt, unaccountable political and bureaucratic system. Our politicians hardly tried to modify the structure of the police or the bureaucratic setup that the British designed for the rulers. India got the new constitution which promises so many great things but they didn't support it with system reforms which was required to deliver those promises to every citizen. This system is still running but it failed to deliver the expected results. Lack of transparency and accountability are major salient features of this system. This system also heavily depends on the people who are running it, if they are honest and sincere system might produce some desired results but if not then there is ample scope for corruption, and if they are caught there are many loopholes to escape. So, the failure of Congress or even the BJP to deliver great results is in part because of the nature of this system. As this system is very beneficial for rulers, it allows them to have complete control over the judiciary, investigating agencies, and police (after all British designed it to control India), so these parties are very reluctant to change it. Whenever they got the opportunity Congress or BJP both never showed any intent to introduce desired reforms to make this system more transparent and accountable. They both made many promises which were not fulfilled mostly because of widespread corruption in the entire system. 

This so-called Congress-free India promised by the BJP is not going to be any different with this same system. I wish a solution was so simple to all the problems that India is facing today. Actually, no matter which party comes into power, with the same system in place, and with the same loopholes, not many things are going to change for the common people of India. India needs independent agencies that can implement existing laws impartially and effectively to protect people's interests. India lacks truly independent government branches, almost everything is under the control of the government. There are many laws and rules that protect the interests of political parties and their leaders, they all fight for it and these rules are effectively implemented but similar treatment is not offered to common people. They are at the mercy of these leaders or parties to get anything from the government. In a true democracy, it's the government of the people, by the people, for the people but we don't see that picture in India. That's why people are frustrated with the current system. This is the main reason why new and inexperienced parties like AAP are getting so much support and attention. It's easy to blame one single party and it's easy to put all the blame on them, but actually, it's the fault of the whole system which involves all political parties and voters. We need some reforms in every sector, it doesn't matter who brings them but we need them for sure. I think all political parties are aware of this demand but somehow they are not willing to take any action as the current system suits them. After all, who wants to dilute their share in power, who wants to lose their control over each agency including the judiciary. Congress-free India is not an appealing idea Mr. Modi, I don't even want it because I know it is not going to change anything, but yes, corruption-free India is desirable. A transparent and accountable system is very appealing and if you want to talk about that then I am listening. Another request to you and all leaders from other parties is it would be great if you all could support your promises with some concrete actions because, for the last many decades, we have only listened to false promises, especially about dealing with corruption. So far it is just talk but no walk from all political parties and I expect to see some change this time.

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

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

Do Dr. Swamy really want to disenfranchise Indian Muslims?

I watched some of the interviews of Dr. Subramanian Swamy sometime back, and I didn't think that they were worthy of any serious attention. These interviews were largely ignored by mainstream media also and even all major political parties gave it a pass, no one really made any big deal out of it. But on second thought, I think these types of views should be questioned, especially when they come from some political figure who might play a key role in the major national party. I think Dr. Swamy gave these interviews as a part of a promotional campaign for a book he wrote recently. I can understand his desire to popularize his book to boost its sales, but any sane person with a rational mind would have thought twice before making any statements like the one he made during these interviews. Dr. Swamy is a well-known politician and educated person, nowadays he is also a prominent member of the major national party like BJP. There is a very high probability that if BJP comes into power he might hold some crucial ministerial position in the future government. It is really unfortunate to see that such a person is saying that all Indian Muslims (or all non-Hindus including Sikhs, Christians, etc.) should first acknowledge their Hindu ancestry to get their voting rights.

Only Dr. Swamy knows why he said these things and what he really meant, but his statements clearly display his intolerant attitude toward other religions and faiths. I wonder on what basis he links Hinduism with being Indian. I don't think there is any relation between these two things. Why does anyone have to accept or even acknowledge their ancestors if they don't want to? I personally don't care who were my ancestors, or what religion they followed. I am very happy with my present and willing to work hard for a better future. Does this make me any lesser Indian than others who prefer to acknowledge their ancestors? Being a law-abiding citizen who respects the law of the land is not enough to get a voting right? Why acknowledging my ancestry is important for my voting rights? Why government is interested to know my or my ancestors' religion? Can Dr. Swamy give any satisfactory answers to all these questions? Dr. Swamy's aim behind the insistence of this ancestry acknowledgment is clearly to create some unnecessary controversy. Imagine what will happen if a person with so much bias against a particular community or religion gets some cabinet portfolio that designs policies for the citizens of India. Will he be fair to all communities? I hope people who are going to vote in this election ask these questions to concerned people.

I believe this is an intentional move by Dr. Swamy to create polarization of votes during this election. He is a very clever and shrewd politician. I think he is playing this card to please the gallery, to make traditional BJP supporter happy, and to make them feel assured that their pro-Hindu ideology is not all lost in this development saga. I think Dr. Swamy himself knows that this policy is impossible to implement in India, but this is a political move to reap some short-term political benefits and some money by boosting his book sales by creating some controversy. But by doing this, he created a really pathetic image of himself. The government has no business to interfere in the private matters of law-abiding citizens. Citizens should be free to choose whatever religion they want to follow, they should be free to change it at any time, and any religious affiliation or acknowledgment of ancestry should not be a prerequisite for citizenship, voting rights, or any other fundamental rights of citizens. I hope Dr. Swamy understands this and will correct his mistake.

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

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

Links:
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVm-BhvKZw0#t=271
2. Swamy to head BJP’s action panel

Stop being offended

Many people get offended for very small, small reasons. They get offended during discussions, after reading a book, an article, or listening to someone's speech. You criticize or question their religion, they get offended; you criticize their political party or leader, they feel offended; you question their beliefs, they feel offended; the list can go on, the point I am trying to make is that people get offended because of many reasons. Such people develop a tendency to get offended, their tolerance level decreases, and their feelings get hurt very easily. Hurt feelings are one of the main reasons to feel offended. Whenever these people see that the next person doesn't agree with their logic and raises questions it, they don't like this. Many of them feel offended just because of disagreement with others with their views. Many try to convince others in various ways like discussion, debate, and argument but if nothing works and if the other person is still critical and disagrees with them, they feel offended. Some have a tendency to feel offended even by a small objection to some of their core beliefs, somehow they feel that everyone should believe in what they believe. Once people feel offended their behavior changes, and their tone, and language become different. This is not a very ideal situation for any discussion, that's why I try to avoid as much as possible any discussion with people who have a tendency to get offended. Once they feel offended they lose their sense of logic and then it's all about emotions without any sound logic or rationale. Even if someone feels offended, they should engage in discussion rather than trying to shut off another person. I can understand we can't control when and how we get offended, but we can definitely control what we do once we get offended. 

Some people mistakenly think that the feeling of being offended is directly linked with their self-respect, that is, they have self-respect that's why they feel offended. This is so wrong, there is absolutely no link between self-respect and feeling offended. This feeling of offense is actually a sign of frustration. Frustration because of inability to convince others. Frustration because of people questioning their views or rejecting them. This frustration then leads to the feeling of offense. No one can attack or diminish your self-respect in any discussion as long as you don't allow them to do so. Discussions and debates are not places to do any personal attacks on anyone. I personally don't feel offended by any remarks against my posts or views. Sometimes people call me names even use nasty words and get very personal in criticism during discussions or arguments but I don't mind all this because it displays their state of mind, not mine. During any discussion, my aim is always to share my views and get to know others. If there is any difference of opinion then it can be resolved via discussion in a polite and civilized way or we can always agree to disagree with each other. If everyone follows this policy then imagine how nice every debate or discussion will become. People won't be shouting top of their voices just to convey their message, they won't make any personal attacks while discussing ideologies and policies, and no one will get offended. Discussions or debates will sound like some civilized exchange of thoughts, not some street fight or bar brawl.

I hope people try to make efforts to increase their tolerance level and stop being offended. Imagine a world where people don't feel offended, it will have less anger, less violence, less hatred, and less grudge. Sounds amazing. Right? Let's try to bring that into reality. 

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

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

Self-discipline is the best discipline

Most of us struggle to bring some discipline into our day-to-day life. Few people can manage to live a very disciplined life, but most of us struggle. We all want to exercise regularly, but find some excuse not to do it, want to read books, but watch more TV, we want to eat healthy food, but can't resist the temptation of junk food. We try to get some motivation to bring this much-needed discipline which can make our lives better. Some find a remedy somewhere to overcome this problem, but most just keep on struggling for that much-needed discipline.

I feel the major problem here is that we always look for solutions outside as if the problem is imposed on us because of some external force. The actual problem is that I indulge in all these not-so-good (or bad) habits myself no one forces me to do these things. I prefer to eat unhealthy food, and I choose to watch TV instead of doing exercise so it should be me who need to believe that this is wrong and should be changed rather than someone else telling me to do this. As long as I feel that I am a victim of these bad habits and not the perpetrator who is doing this I will always blame those habits but not myself for whatever effect they have on me. Smoking, eating a lot of sugar, and watching a lot of TV can have a bad effect on health (sedentary lifestyle), we all know this. So, why do we still do these things? I agree that some of these things are really addictive and sometimes it's really difficult to control but the truth is we all know the bad effects of these habits and still, we do it. There are many articles, research papers, and books that explain the side (or bad) effects of these things on our health, most of us read about them, and we are aware of these things but still fail to act accordingly. Rarely any of us is forced into these habits, we all choose them ourselves. Aggressive marketing by food companies and heavy advertising affect our minds and influence our choices but I feel all this happens mainly because lack of self-discipline.

The initial part of our life is often spent under some adult supervision, they protect us, they also try to introduce some discipline in our lives. This external force imposes some rules and regulations on us. Most of us learn many good habits while going through this process. Once their control on our lives gets reduced (college days and life after that) we are free to do whatever we want. This is where self-discipline becomes really important. Self-discipline is very necessary when there is no external control. When there is no external force or pressure that can stop you from doing something (right or wrong) then self-discipline plays a major role. It's only our own mind which has ultimate authority, it controls our reactions to every stimulus from our environment. There are many laws, rules, and regulations but still, people commit crimes and break laws, that's why I feel self-discipline is a must for everyone as external constraints can only help so much. Self-discipline teaches us how to behave, and what is proper or improper under given circumstances. Patience, tolerance, and humility are some of the qualities that are becoming rare and rare. External force or pressure works only up to a certain extent, no one can force anyone to be humble or respect others' opinions. This has to come from that person's mind. Any number of rules or laws can not eradicate all corruption or discrimination from our society, only self-consciousness and self-discipline can do this, that's why self-discipline is the best discipline.

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

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

Thank you Kalki

When I watched the video by Indian actress Kalki Koechlin, it left me speechless. I was amazed by the way Kalki presented such a complicated and sensitive subject in an effective manner. Actually, I saw not only one but two amazing videos on that day second one was by Tracey Spicer. I suggest readers watch both of them, they deal with totally different subjects but believe me you won't regret watching them. The first one was more special because this was the first time I saw an Indian actress commenting so boldly about issues related to gender discrimination in our society. She touched on almost every area related to this issue (religion, politics). It's not the first time that I have seen or heard talk like this, there are many videos like this on the internet but mostly by some non-Indian celebrities or some feminist activists. Normally, Indian movie celebrities are very conscious and careful about their image. They don't want to comment on any sensitive issue that can become controversial or hurt someone's religious or political feelings. Somehow these religious and political feelings of many people get hurt by almost anything. They can get hurt by a book, a movie, a stage play, a painting, or even some cartoon. But surprisingly these feelings don't get hurt by communal riots, inflammatory speeches, fatwas, forceful religious conversions, discriminatory practices, or rituals. Somehow they get hurt only by some criticism directed to them in any form. I applaud the courage of Kalki, she dared to do something that no other Indian actor or actress dared to do in the beginning stages of their career. Maybe she will be branded as an atheist or feminist who is painting a negative picture of our society, maybe she will lose some of her fans because of some comments she made about religion and society but I think she cares little about all this. Actually, I read this monologue a few days before, but it was not that effective because it was too lengthy to read and it didn't have the same effect that it had when I watched it. The video is much more impactful, maybe because of the way she presented it. I have seen some plays like this in Marathi but this was the first act by some mainstream Bollywood actress. Please watch the video, and understand the message it wants to convey. Thank you very much Kalki for this, I hope you become a prominent voice against any type of discrimination in India.

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

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

Links:
1. An intense piece about the truths of womanhood kalki performance
2. AIB: It's Your Fault
3. The lady stripped bare: Tracey Spicer at TEDxSouthBankWomen

Is there life after death?

"Is there any life after death?" this question has been debated for centuries and still we don't have any conclusive answer. There are many speculations from different groups who believe in after-death, they also speculate about what might happen to a person after their death. Some of the descriptions sound very interesting, but at the same time, they sound more like fiction stories than reality. I never bothered about this question because it really never caught my attention. But recently I heard a few wonderful lectures by Professor Kagan from Yale University where the topic of death was discussed in somewhat detail and while listening to some of those lectures this issue came to my mind. I thought blog readers might be interested in this topic as it's closely related to most religions. Many religions talk very interesting things about life after death. I also see many people are worried about this, sometimes they worry about this more than their life before death. The curiosity of people in this subject prompted me to do some more reading in this area. Personally, I am not that much interested in this subject but as this subject is very closely related to organized religion I think it's worth discussing it here.

It will be interesting to see how we define death? Normally end of life is considered death. Whenever anything stops working completely (for whatever reason) and can not be revived under any circumstances we pronounce it as dead. Basically, death is considered the end of life, so how there can be life after the end of life? The question itself doesn't make much sense, it sounds very contradictory. According to Professor Kagan, this is like asking if is there any food on my plate after I finish my food or if is there any movie after the end of the movie or something like that? Either you have not finished your food (so it means it is still there) or you finished it (it's not there). Similarly,  either you are alive or you are dead. These two events are separate from each other, they are two ends of one linear thread. But many people still believe that there can be a life after the end of life, they don't see any contradiction in this belief. This means either definition of death as the end of life is wrong or no one really dies (as according to them life continues after death). For many people and religions, it is not a full stop (end) but a comma (intermission). Some religions (like Hinduism) believe in many cycles of life and death but in this case also there is no very clear definition of life and death. For many other religions, death is the end of life on this planet and there are no life-death cycles. According to them after death, there is an evaluation of our personal performance (about what you did in your life on this planet).  Based on your report card you get a reward or a punishment. So there are quite a few different theories about life, death, and what happens after death. They all try to tell us what happens after a person's death. Many of them also believe that there is something called soul, which continues to exist even after our death.

It will be also interesting to know how we understand the presence of life? On what basis do we say that particular person or thing is alive? We normally use certain parameters (like pulse rate and heartbeats), check for certain signs, and then based on them we can say whether that person is alive or not. Can we use similar tests to check the presence of life after death? The answer is "No."

According to most religions that believe in after-death events all these post-death events happen with our soul (because our physical body is destroyed after death). There is no scientific (direct or indirect) evidence about any of these theories no matter from which religion or scripture they come. These theories exist because people believe them blindly. There are some news reports and even published books that talk about the near-death experiences of some people. Based on these accounts authors of these books try to claim that their scriptures give accurate descriptions about heaven or hell. These books or interviews are often cited as proof of that religion's claim about the existence of after-death life or some extra-terrestrial world where the Gods live. But the truth is that there is no scientific evidence for any of these theories and claims. Even though some of these books are written by professional medical doctors, they lack unbiased verifiable scientific data about their claims. These types of books don't serve any real purpose other than making people believe in concepts like heaven and hell. So far, I haven't found any reliable evidence that confirms the presence of heaven, hell, or life after death. I think this is more of a philosophical debate rather than a scientific one. The concept of life after death offers people some solace in the event of death of loved ones. It also helps them to overcome the fear of their own death. This gives them a ray of hope that not everything is lost after the death of their dear ones, they are somewhere safe and sound, and one day they will reunite with them. This thought of after-death life is a very beautiful and comforting concept for many, and that's why people want to believe in it. This thinking or belief helps to take away some pain and suffering from tragic events like death, that's why I think it's very popular.

The purpose of this post is not to hurt anyone's feelings but just to have some discussion about this age-old question. I personally feel that whatever good or bad exists, it exists here on our planet. We live our entire life on this planet, our life begins here and ends here. We all, as an individual or as a group, create all good or bad things around us. Most of us face the consequences of our own actions. Our actions produce favorable or unfavorable results for us. I think that if people want to find they can find their own heaven (things that make them happy) or hell (things that make them terribly sad) on this planet itself, no need to look somewhere else. I feel we need to worry more about our lives before death than about any life after death.

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

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