Why don't I subscribe to any of these "isms"?

There are many sets of ideologies in the world, for example, there are so many 'isms' with which people like to associate themselves; communism, socialism, capitalism, theism, atheism, and so on. These isms include some sets of principles and ideas. These associations result in labels like communist, capitalist, theist, or atheist. Most people who follow these ideologies try to defend their own ideology as if that is the only best way for the progress of the entire human civilization. Many of them try to convert it into some sort of cult movement. This is what I don't like about any organized religion or cult movement or for that matter any of these isms, they all try to impose their own values and principles believing that they are only right and whatever others believe is wrong. Capitalists think any welfare scheme is socialism, socialists and communists think that every industry sucks worker's blood and loot customers, atheists think that all who believe in the concept of god and religion are stupid, theists think that all atheists are evil, etc. These boundaries and differences between these isms are becoming so rigid that many times people belonging to different groups can not come to any consensus even for the betterment of their country. They keep on fighting with each other just because some of the proposed solutions or ideas don't align with their ideology. Actually each one of these ideologies or 'isms' has some good and some very bad aspects, one can pick good points from each of them and implement them for the betterment of our society, but this can happen only when people who associate themselves with these ideologies learn to listen to each other's ideas patiently and try to find a common middle ground.

All these 'isms' or different religions or groups are human-made things. We created these ideologies during various stages of human civilization. Some of these were needed at that time because of particular situations in society, and many of them served their purpose when they were introduced. But slowly these things were converted into some 'ism' or some cult movement and they became rigid, almost like an organized religion with rules for dos and don'ts. Once this rigidity is introduced then there is no scope for discussion as any serious question is considered a challenge to the basic fundamentals of that ideology. Any questions about the core principles of that "ism," no matter how relevant, are considered blasphemy. Once questioning is barred these 'isms' are no different than any cult movement and I don't want to be a part of any cult movement. Every ideology or 'ism' is full of some great ideas, together they can deliver a lot of good for our society but only some populist features are used that are only beneficial to limited sections of society. This only helps to create a loyal political base (a vote bank). As every coin has two sides, every policy can be used for the betterment of society or just for political gains. When the focus shifts from society's benefit to political benefit then we witness the disaster where a certain policy that was introduced with noble intentions becomes a populist measure just for political gains. 

I like many ideas that come from many of these "isms," and I endorse them without being bothered about from which ideology they come. For me, the idea is important not its source. I choose to follow principles that I find logical. I use very simple criteria to review them, maybe this is the reason I don't subscribe to any of these "isms" because I believe in something from each one of them. I am a capitalist who supports the open market, I am a socialist who supports social welfare schemes for the needy sections of society, I am a communist also who believes in the rights of workers and in their fair share in profit, etc. If we think of ourselves as humans first and also look at all others as humans without associating any tags or labels with them then I think we can look beyond these artificial boundaries created by all these "isms" or ideologies. This will help us to listen to each other without getting mad at each other and maybe we can agree on many points. Each of these groups claims to work for the betterment of society, so, they should collaborate rather than fight with each other. Fighting just to prove each other wrong is definitely not going to do any better so let's unite and go forward, we have a lot of work to do.

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

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

What is this Love Jihad?

When I heard the term "Love Jihad" for the first time a few weeks back, I thought it was from some movie based on terrorism or something like that. I didn't know that this was the term coined by some members of the BJP in Uttar Pradesh. When I came to know that this is a political issue, then I got curious, and I read more about why they are using this term or what is the logic behind it. I also came to know that this was not the original creation of UP's BJP unit, but it was also used previously in other states like Kerala, Karnataka, and Gujarat. So, what does the term "love jihad" refer to? Currently, it is used to propagate that there is some group of Muslim young boys who get trained in some institutions especially to target young girls from other faiths (especially Hindu girls) and convert them to Islam by luring them into a love trap. This is the whole concept behind this love jihad political drama. Yes, it is a purely political drama, that is why it is specially used in states that are prone to communal polarization. 

Forceful conversions of people from one religion to another religion is a serious matter, and there is a law against such forceful conversions. So, forceful conversions are already illegal and there is a law to prosecute people who engage in such activities. I wonder what this love jihad stuff is going to achieve apart from religious polarization and harassing people doing inter-religious marriages. At the same time, we should also know that the Indian constitution gives every citizen the freedom to choose their own religion. Every conversion is not forceful but it is also true that forceful conversions do happen and this issue should not be taken lightly. It is really sad to see that this issue is getting heavily politicized. If any issue gets heavily politicized many other unrelated dimensions are added to it and then it becomes very difficult to find any solution to it as involved political parties don't want to settle the issue for their own political benefit.

The word 'Jihad' means struggle or resisting according to Wikipedia. It seems this word is mentioned many times in Quran but I wonder how people managed to link love with this word? No doubt that many times there is struggle or resistance involved in a process of winning someone's heart but this term is definitely not referring to that process. It seems the purpose behind the creation of this phrase was to attract media attention and target Muslim youth. Concealing one's social or religious identity to win someone's love is not a new phenomenon, there are many movies where central characters do these things and during my teenage and college years, even I have seen many people doing such things. The point I want to make is that this is not something new or something associated with only a particular religion or community. People do all kinds of silly things in love, it is even said that "everything is fair in love and war" but forcing anyone to change their religion is neither love nor jihad. 

Forceful religious conversions or cold-blooded murders of people because of inter-caste or religious marriage are very serious issues. Forcing anyone to change their religion against their will or killing anyone just because they married someone out of their community is a crime. These things should be dealt with under respective laws. Politicizing these issues to create communal tension is not going to help anyone but political parties. So let's look at the real problem and try to solve it rather than make it another unresolvable political dispute that only divides people based on religious lines.

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

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

What is the main purpose of education?

I read this interesting article which raises some very interesting questions about the current academic environment in the USA, but I guess the same is true for any country's education system. Today's education system is heavily oriented towards acquiring skills required to get a job, they are becoming like vocational courses. The cost of education is very high today, so it is obvious that after going through this process of attending schools and college one should be able to secure a job that can pay off all the investment. One can ask, what is the real purpose of education? The question is very general and different people might answer it differently. For some, education might mean acquiring a new skill, for some, it might mean acquiring knowledge, and for some, it might mean getting a degree so that they can get a good job and social status. One of the major purposes of education is to acquire the skills to secure a job to survive in this world. But I guess the real crux of the question is, is this becoming the sole purpose of today's education? Are we trying to produce good workers, managers, and CEOs but somehow ignoring that we also need good humans?

In its true sense education is a continuous process. We start learning new things when we come into this world and keep on discovering something new, learning something new until we depart from here. But for now, let's focus only on school and college education. There is no doubt that today's education system is much better than what we had in the past, and credit must be given for the efforts to improve the system. I personally believe that my kids are exposed to a much better education system than I was. The system is very student-friendly, it tries to support the interests of students. The curriculum is heavily biased towards the job market, actually, this is not a problem in itself as one needs to acquire vocational skills, but at the same time, we need to train students to deal with many other important issues. The world is facing many problems like religious fundamentalism, stress, depression, lack of compassion and kindness towards other human beings, unequal distribution of wealth, political polarization, etc. These issues are very important and affect our society in many ways but unfortunately, the current education system doesn't take any concrete steps to educate students about many of these topics. At the same time, today's parents have become so busy that they can't devote enough time to educating their kids about these topics. In this changed scenario, there is much more responsibility on our education system not only to produce trained and skilled workers but also sensible humans who are good citizens of the world. If our education system can instill compassion and tolerance in its students, if it can stress the importance of equality and equity, if it can educate them about their rights and responsibilities then we will have a generation of sensible and sensitive citizens.

However, there is no easy solution to this problem, as I said current education system is much better than what we had in the past but the changed scenario of our society has made its job much more difficult and complicated. What I feel today is that parents or guardians of any student, who are a very important and critical component of this education system are not doing their part. Today's parents have many reasons starting from their business due to work, day-to-day stress of modern-day lifestyle, and pressure to fit into society's definition of a successful life for not having enough time to interact with their children. This is why I am saying that we can't depend on parents anymore to educate their children in an unbiased way. First, they don't have enough time and normally they try to instill only their own beliefs in their children. This is not wrong in every case but this is also not how we should be educating our kids. Kids need to know all sides of any problem or issue so that they can think of solutions to the problems independently which they will face in their lives. If parents bias the minds of their children we will lack free thinkers in the next generation and already we do not have many of them. With the easy availability of information, I expected more free thinkers, but somehow that is not happening, people are more siloed and read only that validates their beliefs, and stay away from everything that challenges them. I hope that current education also focuses more on the overall general development of students along with technical skill development. We need leaders who are free thinkers, we need entrepreneurs, engineers, scientists, and artists who are also good humans. This is a very challenging task and there is no set formula to achieve all this but I believe that experts from the education field will come up with some design that will allow us to build a curriculum that will focus on the overall development of every student. I hope parents start realizing their responsibility and playing their part in this process. I believe that the main purpose of education is to produce intelligent, compassionate, skillful, and sensitive individuals and I really hope that we will be able to achieve this one day.

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. Don't Send Your Kid to the Ivy League

Why a movie with a central woman character is titled "Mardaani"?

The first time when I saw some news related to this movie called "Mardani," I thought this was some B or C-grade masala film. The news was about the first "A" rated film from Yashraj production and I was a little surprised that how come such a big production house like Yashraj is producing such a movie. I was wondering why some movies getting an "A" certificate (equivalent to the R rating in the US) is such a big deal. But then I came to know that this is a Rani Mukharjee starer film, that too produced by Yashraj so definitely it was going to be in the news for some reason. After reading some reviews I also came to know that Rani's character is based on a real-life police officer from the Mumbai crime branch who was instrumental in solving various child trafficking cases in the city. The title Mardaani means "manly" or "mannish." So, why a movie with the central character of a woman cop is titled "Mardaani"? Why do the makers of the movie feel the need to use a male-specific adjective to describe a brave lady? Why can't they use a female-specific word to describe a brave female cop or a brave woman? Actually, there is a dearth of female adjectives that describe qualities like bravery, even I can't think of any but I am not an expert in Hindi or English, I am interested in knowing if there are any such adjectives.

The issue is not what should be the title of the movie, the makers of this movie have the freedom to give their movie whatever name they want, it is their right to name their product. I am sure the reason they labeled this product like this is because they know that in popular culture there is no parallel world that can project the bravery of a woman, even the famous poem to praise the great queen of Jhansi Rani Lakshmi Bai goes something like this, 'Khoob ladi mardani, woh to Jhansi wali rani thi (खूब लड़ी मर्दानी, वह तो झाँसी वाली रानी थी). They know that our society associates bravery with adjectives that project masculinity. Somehow our society never bothered to invent words that can project the brave side of females. We have many words that describe female beauty, love, compassion, dedication, tolerance, obedience, but not bravery. I am sure no one can imagine that the movie with the title "Janani" (opposite of mardani, meaning feminine) would be associated with the bravery of a female or male character, they just cannot associate being feminine and brave together. This is the problem of stereotyping both genders and exclusively associating certain attributes with a particular gender. Because of years of brainwashing our minds have become so conditioned that we don't see anything wrong in associating particular characteristics only with a particular gender. The title of this movie specifically projects this mindset. This movie is a commercial project so of course they will follow the trend which allows them to market it well. But I am glad that at least a story of a brave woman police officer is shared in this movie. We need to have more female superheroes, and we need to have more stories where the princess also rescues the prince so that this concept of bravery associated exclusively with male characters goes away and bravery becomes gender-neutral. 

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. Mardaani: Packs a punch

What is so obscene or vulgar in this PK poster?

Recently the poster of Raju Hirani and Amir Khan's upcoming movie PK was released. I am sharing the poster below for readers to see so that they understand what I am talking about.

Now I don't understand what is there is this poster to term as obscene or vulgar or against Indian culture? How this poster is any different than many undergarment ads that we see posted on big hoardings, displayed in many magazines, and played on TV? I am sure people who are attacking this poster or objecting to it in the name of an attack on their culture are doing so just for the sake of getting some media coverage. I also wonder if there could have been a similar reaction if this would not have been Amir's movie? They all (especially political parties) know that as Amir is a big star and any news related to his movie is bound to catch media attention, they want to encash this opportunity and grab media headlines. Male or female nudity is not new to any culture, there are nude statues in Khajuraho and also in many other parts of the world. Many people visit all these places, so I am sure as Indians we are not strangers to these types of images. In the era of the internet and smartphones where one can browse any website on their mobile phone what are these people trying to achieve by objecting to these posters? This poster is purely for the promotion of a movie and there is no intent to offend anyone, it is as simple as that. There is also a question of artistic freedom in this, as artists these movie makers are free to display their art within the allowed legal framework. If they are not breaking any law then I wonder why these people are objecting to it, and if they want to object they should take the matter to the court. Sadly it will be a waste of the court's valuable time as there are already many important matters pending for years in Indian courts but that will be a more logical route rather than protesting on the road.

There is another issue of objectification of the male body involved in this and this is a somewhat concerning issue. Already objectification of women is very common in movies and advertising. So, this question needs some attention but no one seems to be asking this, everyone is focused on obscenity or vulgarity or how this is against Indian culture. Except for the point of objectification of the male body, nothing else sounds objectionable to me. Any culture that survived for thousands of years is not so weak that it will get threatened by a movie poster. 

I was also surprised to see that some leaders from political parties also joined protests against this poster. They are doing this to get some publicity and media headlines. Many more important issues in India need urgent attention from these political parties and their leaders and this is definitely not one of them. This poster is just for the promotion of the movie, many people are just going to laugh at it or ignore it. People who don't like this poster or have some objection to it are free not to watch the movie. I don't think there is a need to create any controversy over this. We have many other serious issues which need our attention and time so let's focus on that.

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

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

Hinduism is a religion, and all Indians are not Hindus

In one of his recent speeches RSS chief Mr. Mohan Bhagwat asked "why all inhabitants of Hindustan (another name for India or Bharat) are not known as Hindus?" This question is not asked for the first time, especially by anyone associated with RSS or other organizations directly or indirectly associated with it. The logic he puts to support his argument is, if residents of America are called Americans, residents of Germany are called Germans, France-French so why not Hindustan's residents are called Hindus? So, what is wrong with this question? Why all Indians cannot be called Hindus? After all,  they all share some common cultural heritage. Indian Muslims are culturally different than Arab Muslims, and so are Christians and Jews. Sikhism, Jainism, and Buddhism originated in India. So, why can't we call all of them Hindus? The main and flawed assumption for all these assumptions is that Hinduism is not a religion but a lifestyle. Amazingly many even today claim that Hinduism is not a religion but is a way of life. To substantiate this claim they even cite the judgement of Justice Verma's bench in which the bench tried to define the meanings of the terms Hinduism or Hindutwa (delivered in 1995). For some reason this judgement is known as the Hindutwa judgement and Supreme Court panel is going to review it again. Superficially nothing appears to be wrong or mal-intentioned in this statement, but we need to dig a little deeper to understand the real intention behind this argument.

The problem is not with the question itself but the intention behind it. Today Hinduism is considered as third largest (after Christianity and Islam) and oldest practiced religion in the world. Its followers are spread all over the world, majority of them live in India. The term "Hindu" refers to a particular group of people who follow a particular faith, Hinduism, is like any other religion with rituals and gods. A Hindu can be from anywhere in the world, there are American, German, French, or even Pakistani and Bangladeshi Hindus. As far as the argument of 'Hinduism not a religion but lifestyle is concerned', aren't all religions fit into this definition? In fact which religion is not a lifestyle? Just look at the people who practice any religion, it dominates their lifestyle. It controls the way they think, behave, and treat their family and other people, most religions including Hinduism have rules about what food to eat, what clothes to wear, etc. So, every religion can be considered as lifestyle, rather it can be said that they were designed to be a lifestyle and that is why they are so popular. This argument of lifestyle and not religion is conveniently used whenever it suits to broaden the base of Hinduism by RSS. When they want to label an entire country using a single term (Hindu) then it's not a religion but it is a cultural term or a lifestyle. However, when a cow is slaughtered or a temple is demolished then only the religious sentiments of Hindus get hurt. Now there must be a difference between these two Hindus, right? If not, then why communal riots are termed as Hindu-Muslim riots, why not Hindu-Hindu riots? So it is very easy to understand the game of words here. The truth is that Hinduism is a religion and Hindus are people who follow Hinduism. Hindu is not synonymous with terms like "Hindustani," "Hindavi," "Bharatiya," or "Indian." These other terms indicate the regional or cultural identity of a person but the terms "Hindu" or "Hinduism" are religious. It would be inappropriate for anyone to try to force this label on citizens of a secular country like India. No matter how inclusive or tolerant Hindus claim to be people may not like to be associated with this label. Like every other religion Hinduism also has many dark chapters in its long history. Once it was a dominant religion or faith in Southeast Asia but this is not the case anymore. Today there are many religions and cultures that exist side by side in this region, one just cannot label all of them as "Hindu cultures." It is not only wrong but also insulting to all other cultures to merge their identities with Hindus because they have separate identities.

If the intention of Mr. Bhagwat was to propose some term that can unify or define all citizens of India then what is wrong with terms like "Bharatiya" or "Indian" or "Hindustani"? Why didn't he use any of these terms which may not have created any confusion among people from other faiths and in the minds of his detractors. This is why his intention behind this statement is questioned. I am sure he was well aware of what he was saying and what impact it would have. I am sure he also knew that being BJP in power his statement would be interpreted differently. I hope that Mr. Bhagwat and RSS now accept the reality that the term Hindu represents a single religion and it can not be used to label the cultural heritage of a diverse country like India. We have many other terms that could be used to represent the cultural heritage of India, let's use them if required. I hope the leaders of India won't try to create unnecessary controversy and communal tension in a country that is already struggling to deal with this problem.

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

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

Purpose of language is to unite people please don't use it to divide them

Our ancestors invented language to use it as a useful tool for communication. Like every animal on the planet, we also need to communicate with each other, and efficient communication is the key to our survival. Spoken languages were invented to satisfy our need to communicate with each other. Humans are social animals and we like to communicate with each other more compared to other animals. Our body language might be universal, but there are thousands of spoken languages and different dialects. Spoken languages differ from country to country and region to region. The spoken language is a very good medium to form bonds between people and communities. India is such a diverse country and pluralism in every sense whether it is language, religion, food, clothing, or culture is a unique feature of India. Even today in India, most states speak different languages and have very unique cultural features, even within the state there are different dialects of the same language. Diversity and pluralism are unique features of India but these things also pose very unique challenges. India doesn't have any national language, so sometimes, it is difficult to manage in states where people don't speak and understand the local language. Hindi is spoken by more than 40% of people in India, and it has the status of the unofficial national language of India. But there are many states (especially in the south and northeast) where they don't understand and speak Hindi. I don't think India needs any national language because of its unique diverse nature. Hindi is already one of the most popular languages in India and its use can be encouraged without making it a national language.

English is also a very popular language in India, especially among the educated class, this is mainly because of its demand in the job market and its status as the international language. The dominance of English in higher education (especially in the area of science and commerce) has created unique challenges for students who get their primary education in a regional language. They face the mammoth task of getting familiarized with the English version of various concepts and terms when they enter college. I faced a similar problem when I started my higher education and believe me it was not an easy task, for the first few months I had no clue what my teachers were teaching in class. Current protests of UPSC aspirants against aptitude tests in the English language is another example of a complicated language problem in academia. Students coming from regional language medium schools feel discriminated against when they see unfair advantages offered to students from English or Hindi medium schools. This issue is very complicated but is also a very important one and I hope our government can come up with some viable solution where students from regional language schools don't feel discriminated.

The Belgaum border dispute between Maharashtra and Karnataka is also because of language problems, in spite of Marathi being a spoken language among the majority of its residents Belgaum was included in Karnataka rather than Maharashtra. This has created a border dispute between these two states which is still going on. The matter is pending in the Supreme Court, no one knows when this issue will be resolved but a lot of politics is already being played using this topic. A recent lathi charge by Karnataka police on a protesting mob confirmed once again the urgent need to attend to this issue. The purpose of any language is to connect people, not to divide. Language was invented to communicate with each other not to discriminate each other, this politics using language to divide people should stop. I always wonder why two states belonging to the same country fight over a piece of land, after all that part is a part of India how does it matter if Belgaun is with Maharashtra or Karnataka. Trivial matters like this get stuck in a political deadlock. Even though the state governments from both states belong to the same political party there is no progress in resolving this conflict. Ultimate sufferers in all these types of issues are common people, they suffer as their daily lives get disturbed by all these protests and actions taken by the government to curb the agitation movements. Various political parties try to reap benefits by instigating people's emotions and sensationalizing the issue. They should take some concrete steps to resolve this issue rather than sensationalizing it.

Border disputes or exam issues related to language are avoidable or easily resolvable but the wasted interest of some political parties or organizations doesn't allow any resolution. People who are suffering because of these issues need to realize this and act to protect their interests not the interests of selfish political parties. Respective governments also should stop their attempts to crush any peaceful demonstrations by using brutal force. People have the right to express their grievances peacefully and as a government, they have to listen to people's problems and try to find some reasonable solutions. Ignoring any problem only aggravates it, no authority (government or private) should discriminate against people, and discrimination on any basis should not be used as a political tool to divide people. The role of language is to unite people, please let it do its job of uniting people.

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

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

Stop gender policing

Recently I saw this excellent video advocating the message "STOP GENDER POLICING." The video is very well made and illustrates their point by using the example from the blockbuster Hindi Movie "Kuchh Kuchh Hota Hai," where a girl is taunted initially for not being girly enough because of her dress and behavior. Slowly she realizes her mistake and starts behaving according to her gender? Then, the hero of the movie falls in love with her and the fairy tale begins. These types of movies cater to preconceived notions of gender-associated characteristics. The audience loved this movie, this is just one example and many movies portray similar scenarios. Actually, I don't expect these mainstream movies to advocate any social change in society but these movies and their popularity also show the current mindset of our society. Movies reflect the values and culture that we practice as a society. Criticizing girls for not being girly enough or rewarding them when they change their not-so-girly mannerisms to so-called girly ones is still very common. It seems there are very rigid rules in people's minds about how people from a particular gender should behave, and what they should like and dislike. People still comment about what type of jobs girls should or shouldn't do, and how a man should behave in a manly manner. These things are still going on in our society which is why such videos, blog posts, and seminars are necessary to spread awareness about gender policing.

Stereotyping anything is bad, and stereotyping genders is worse. There is an urgent need to update concepts of masculinity of femininity. It is wrong to associate these qualities only with a particular gender. People associate these characteristics so rigidly with one gender that it is considered abnormal, bad, or weird for any other gender to possess even part of that quality. Girls not wearing so-called feminine dresses or boys who don't like sports or who like to play with dolls are considered abnormal. People are labeled abnormal just because their likes and dislikes don't match with the likes and dislikes that society normally associates with their gender. This is wrong and unfair to kids who are perfectly normal but are forced to change their ways just because it doesn't fit into the stereotype of their gender. We see this happening around us all the time where girls are told not to be bossy, and boys are told not to play with dolls but play with action figures. People do it without even knowing that they are forcing gender stereotypes on their kids. They insist on gender-specific behavior because they think this is the right way.

Gender policing is so widespread and common that many parents do it by thinking that they are doing a great favor to their children by correcting their gender-related behavior. They believe that it is their duty to make their kids realize how to behave according to their gender. They try to educate their kids about what should be their likes and dislikes based on their gender. This stereotyped mindset is passed from generation to generation, and people who don't fit into this are forced to mend their ways to fit into it or are labeled as weird or abnormal. Many lives get ruined by such an environment because they start thinking that something is wrong with them. They are made to feel guilty for being the way they are, and this takes a toll on their mental and physical health. People should feel comfortable expressing themselves without feeling fear of being ridiculed. Our society needs to evolve to accommodate expanded definitions of gender and sexuality. This evolution is required for almost every culture and society to survive in the long run. It is good to see that many people are working towards spreading awareness about these things this video is a very good example of this attempt. I hope that people realize that knowingly or unknowingly they are doing "gender policing" in the name of culture, religion, or traditions and they should stop this. Likes, dislikes, or hobbies don't depend on the gender they differ from person to person. Forcing kids to mend their ways just because they don't fit into our definition of normal can have disastrous effects on their personalities. It can shatter their self-confidence and self-esteem. Let's pledge to fight against any type of gender policing, this will be a positive step towards making our society more inclusive, tolerant, and progressive. Let's not associate any gender with hobbies or personality traits, this way gender policing will automatically disappear. 

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

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

Links:

1. http://www.storypick.com/rape-always-sex-video-will-change-way-look-rapes-forever/

Please don't mess up with education

Recent news about the introduction of some of Dinanath Batra's books in the recommended reading list for primary and secondary schools in the state of Gujarat created a lot of controversy. Name of Mr. Batra is very well known in the circles of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and BJP, he was General Secretary of Vidya Bharati, the school network run by RSS. He is a retired school teacher and now claims to be an educational activist. It seems the purpose of introducing his books for recommended reading is to instill national pride, self-esteem, and cultural identity among students. There is nothing wrong in teaching students about their ancient culture, and presenting them with facts and figures from the past but do these recommended books do this in an unbiased manner? Mr. Batra's links with RSS or BJP should not be the issue here, his books should be discussed without any bias or prejudice. Whenever things are presented with some bias, there is selective appropriation. I feel that authors of some of these books (including Mr. Batra) try to do selective appropriation and their views present only one side of the story. They try to present Indian culture in a very narrow way, only the selected era from the past is defined as Indian tradition. These authors try to pick up very selective points and try to paint things either in a positive or negative way rather than giving a comprehensive view. Selective appropriation of facts often projects a one-sided image. This type of material is not appropriate for kids of so young age, and if they are presented with such things then it obviously creates doubts about the real intention behind this plan.

Only exposing one person's (or one-sided) view to highly impressionable minds presents its own dangers. Every society's history has some positive and some negative points, and we need to present both of them as objectively as we can. Religion, culture, and traditions have been used by many governments to propagate their own ideology. After all, politics and religion are about controlling people's minds and education is a very good resource to achieve this. This approach poses a danger of producing conditioned and biased thinkers rather than free thinkers. Decolonization of Indian education is necessary but that should not mean de-westernization. There is a need for open debate on this issue where all viewpoints are considered. People like Mr. Batra definitely have the right to express their views and concerns, their points should be taken into account, merits and demerits of all proposals should be discussed before making any final decisions. Educational institutes are a very important aspect of any society, and the government should not mess with them. These institutes should not be used to push any particular agenda, they should not be a tool in the government's hands. Imposing any language (like Sanskrit) or any culture (Hinduism) is not the way to Indianize the education system, there must be a better way of doing all these things without imposing anything on students which might affect their confidence.  Students should be made aware of the good parts of their culture as well as the bad parts of it so that they learn good values and don't repeat the same mistakes. Pluralism and diversity in India are part of its glorious culture, one cannot ignore this aspect of India's culture. I guess this is one of the reasons why there are some strong voices against the introduction of such books in schools.

India has a very rich cultural heritage. Some things mentioned in these books like cars were invented in the Vedik period or Ram traveled in the Pushpak airplane (implying that the airplane was first invented in ancient India), are factually wrong and can create very wrong impressions in student's minds. One should not mix mythology with history or science as it will harm the scientific aptitude of students. I am sure the Gujarat government doesn't want to raise a generation of misinformed students who have a false sense of cultural pride and are devoid of any scientific aptitude. This issue has attracted so much attention because the current prime minister Mr. Narendra Modi has written forewords to some of his books recommending them to current students. He did this when he was chief minister of Gujarat and as he is now the PM of India people think that this agenda might be implemented on a national level. I hope the think tank in BJP would not do this considering the resistance they might face nationally but as they have an absolute majority in parliament concerns of the people are valid. My only hope is that some better sense prevails in all concerned authorities and they stop messing with the education. 

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

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

Was Manjunath stupid to sacrifice his life?

I recently watched the movie "Manjunath" which is based on events in the life of Shanmughan Manjunath, who was a marketing manager of Indian Oil Corporation (IOC). He was murdered in November 2005 for sealing one petrol station in UP which was selling adulterated fuel. The movie specifically deals with this particular incident in Manjunath's life. Two years before (in November 2003) this incident there was another shocking murder of Satyendra Dubey which shocked the nation. Both these young professionals were murdered for opposing the corrupt practices which are very rampant all over India (especially in the public sector). They paid with their life for their desire to do their job with honesty and sincerity. The movie is very well made, it is not like other regular entertaining movies as it is not supposed to entertain you. The movie is supposed to disturb, shock, and force its audience to think and I think movie makers are reasonably successful in this. I especially liked the conversations between the dead Manjunath and his killer Monu Mittal. The dialogue between both of them when Monu is locked in jail is the highlight of the movie according to me. During these conversations, Monu tries to make fun of Manjunath's values and his courage to stand for them by teasing him for his stupidity to risking his life for his principles. He also tells him that everyone wants to have someone to change this rotten system, but they do not want this person from their own home, they want in their neighbor's house. People want the change but not at the cost of their own comfort. Many of us don't want to sacrifice our own lives or risk our own jobs to eradicate corruption from the system. We want the system to be fixed but don't want to make our own hands dirty. Because of this attitude, the corrupt system has become so strong and robust that it ruthlessly crushes anyone who even by mistake tries to challenge it. People who dare to challenge this are so few in number compared to people who meekly surrender to it that it is easy to crush these challengers without even getting into much trouble. It is not easy to be a parent of a rebel or a martyr, it takes a lot of emotional toll on the family. Manjunath's family must have faced a lot of pain and trauma after his death. They must have felt the disgusting feeling that the killers of their son might get away with their crime because of the corrupt system in India. They must be wondering why their son risked his life to stand for the principles he believed in? Fortunately, some better sense prevailed in this case, maybe because of tremendous pressure created by people, justice was delivered and perpetrators got punished. But not every case is resolved in this manure, at the end of the movie watch the names of people who were murdered or tortured just for trying to do their job honestly.

Actually, many of us see wrong things happening around us, but most of us choose to ignore them or tolerate these things. Forget about risking our lives to stop them we don't even register a protest. Social evils like discrimination, sexual harassment, and bullying keep on happening right in front of people's eyes and many choose to ignore them rather than at least register a protest. Slowly these things become systematic and very few dare to oppose them. Manjunath exactly faced the same dilemma, whatever he learned in class and whatever values he believed in were different than the ground reality he saw after starting his job. He was shocked to see such a blatant and shameless act of corruption, he was shocked that even after several warnings there was no effect. Many people surrender after witnessing systematic corruption, they accept current norms and think that one person cannot change things but Manjunath didn't and that's why we are talking about him. During one of their conversations, Monu calls him 'stupid' for risking his life for such a small thing. Was Manjunath stupid? Or was he the only sane person in the insane environment around him? Are we as a society taking any steps towards creating an environment where Manjunaths don't feel suffocated and murdered? What do murders of people like Dr. Dabholkar tell us? The movie raises many questions like this. Recent support to movements like India Against Corruption (IAC) or Aam Adami Party (AAP) showed us how serious is the problem of corruption in India. But the progress in the direction of eradicating this social menace or even controlling it is very slow, there is a lack of political will from all political parties and it seems for voters corruption is not an election issue. So it seems our society is only interested in candle marches or protests after each incident like this but they are not yet ready to force political parties to reform the entire system. I really don't know how many Manjunaths or Satyendras have to sacrifice their lives to open our eyes to see the monster of corruption. Political parties are not going to do anything on their own until people force them to do it. I hope this movie and the story of people like Manjunath inspire many young people who can at least dare to ask some tough questions to the current establishment. Initiating some change toward controlling widespread corruption will be the biggest tribute to these people who sacrificed their lives to clean this system.

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

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