Religion is like a personal medication, don't brag about it

During one of my discussions on Facebook, someone said that "religion is also good when taken like medicine." This statement might sound strange to some people but in a way it is true. I always believed that religion and religious beliefs are very personal matters of any individual much like their personal medication. Many people need some type of medication for some health issues, these issues can be physical or mental. Every patient who visits any doctor for some problems gets their personal prescription to improve their health. Apart from prescription medications, people can buy over-the-counter medicines on their own for a variety of conditions that are not that serious. Many people have to take these medications daily, some medicines suit them which they continue to take and some do not which they discontinue or find a substitute medication. But very few discuss these things openly in public, we don't go on telling people around us what medication we take and how good we feel because of that medicine. We don't start recommending those medicines to everyone without knowing their health condition. We don't do this specifically because we feel that it is not appropriate to share a very personal matter in public and also because we know whatever medicine is good or suitable for us may or may not suit another person. There are also very strict laws in many countries to protect the personal medical history of patients. People do share these things with their close ones which is a normal thing to do, but most refrain from boasting about their list of medications in public. Religion is also a very personal thing, many people need it for their personal well-being. This need is very genuine for them, and it is quite reasonable that such people try to satisfy this need by following one or more religions. There are many options available in the market of religion, we all get one option by default, the one in which we are born, but we can shop around and change to whatever other religion we like. One can compare religion with personal medication, people use religion for their personal well-being as they use medicines to improve their health. Many of them get some benefits and enjoy the many good things that come along with it. As long as they keep it personal and use it for their own benefit, things are fine and no one should have any issue with this practice.

Things start getting complicated when people start to force their religion on others, that too without bothering to know if other people need it or not. When a deeply personal thing like religion is forced to homogenize society, it creates a lot of problems. People who don't like it start resisting it, and some launch their own products which creates competition and a lot of competition in the market of religion. This competition creates a lot of rivalries, like rivalries between various pharmaceutical companies. The only difference is pharma company rivalries ultimately help patients as it results in more medicines and cheaper prices, but religions hate rivalries, they either try to destroy other religions or make every effort to convert people to their own religion. Religious rivalries did create more religions, but it also resulted in violent communal conflicts. So far, millions of people died in such conflicts all over the world. Even after all this people fail to understand that religion is a very personal matter, there is no need for a public display of it. 

Maybe like medicines we need a regulated market for all religions. Now one can ask why something like religion needs rules and regulations like pharma products. This is specifically because like every medication, religion also has many side effects and some of them are really serious. The tendency of many religious groups to indulge in communal violence is one of the fatal side effects. Gender discrimination, suppression of certain classes, and superstitions are a few other noticeable and serious side effects. People who practice religion should be aware of these things as they directly affect them. It would be a really good idea for every religion to publish a list of side effects that it may cause. It will be a good idea to make such a list mandatory as it is for every approved medicine. It can help people to choose a religion that suits their needs and minimize its side effects on them. Various religions can list these side effects based on their history. Most of them have very well-documented history which can easily give them such a list of various issues and problems. The point I am trying to make here is, in today's world religion is a very personal matter, please don't try to make it into some sort of social movement. In the past, it was used as a social tool as nothing else was available, but that need doesn't exist anymore, so the time has come for religion to become a private matter, just like our medications.  

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

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

Let go of the need to be right

We all like to be right all the time, in every situation, in every discussion, and during every argument. We all assume that we are right while pursuing any argument, and I don't think there is anything wrong with it. Most of us feel that it is not only important for our reputation, but it is our duty to be right, and most of us hate when someone proves us wrong. Some of us are so convinced by our beliefs and thoughts that we feel that whatever we say is always right and people opposing us are always wrong, this belief is especially very predominant and strong among fanatics. It is all so good and nice if everything goes according to our expectations, we feel happy if we manage to win arguments, and score points over our opponents during discussions and debates. This feeling of being right drives us to participate in many debates and discussions passionately. We expect ourselves to be on the right side all the time and many of us take the easier route we start believing that whatever side we support is the right side. This makes us defend our religion, political party, ideology, and political or religious leader, no matter what they do or what they say, we use all our talent and intellect to defend them. This need to be right all the time has created rigid walls within our society. People are not willing to find any common ground to solve many important problems that we are facing today. People are more interested in proving themselves right and others wrong rather than finding solutions. I think that no single ideology, religion, political party, or any other discipline has the answer to all the questions and problems that we face today, we need to take the best from each field and try our best collectively to solve the issues in front of us. But the need to be right all the time is one of the major hurdles in bringing all interested parties on board to create some amicable solution for many solvable problems.

As a person who has both political and social views, I participate in a variety of discussions, some of them very fruitful and rewarding where I learn some new things, and some of them total waste of time leading to useless arguments. I try to enjoy both types of discussions and participate in them as long as I have some fun and get some knowledge. I always say that I like it when people prove me wrong, especially when they do it by producing reliable and verifiable evidence against the points which I am arguing for. I like it not because I love being proven wrong, but because when it happens, I learn something new, I learn something that I ignored or failed to notice, it teaches me something, and allows me to grow and improve my knowledge. I would be lying if I said that I don't feel bad or disappointed when this happens, but in the end, I feel good to learn something new, after all, I don't know everything and I don't have answers to all the questions. Because of my desire to learn something new, I don't feel the need to be right all the time, rather I am always looking for updated data to update my views and opinions. My aim in participating in any discussion or watching any debate is to know more about various facts associated with that topic. As humans we all are bound to make some mistakes, we all are bound to mess up or say something which is not right. The best way is not to deny it or sulk over it if someone proves us wrong, but to look at the evidence and accept the mistake, learn from it, and move on.

I have to be prepared to accept that I might be wrong. This is one of the basic understandings one should have while participating in any discussion. Thinking that we are always right puts a lot of pressure on us as well as makes us lose our ability to learn any new things from our opponents. Once we let go of the desire to be right or stop thinking that we are always right, then we become more tolerant of new ideas and views. Once we get rid of this desire to be always right, we become more receptive and open to alternate views. It is very difficult to get rid of our bias of being right all the time, but at least we should try. Please broaden your horizons and let go of the need to be right. Don't be afraid to commit mistakes or accept that you were wrong, but also don't forget to learn a lesson from them and move on.

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

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

Why I don't participate in campaigns like #Selfiewithdaughter

Why I don't participate in campaigns like #Selfiewithdaughter?

I read the news that #selfiewithdaughter is trending on Twitter since India's PM Mr. Modi asked people to share selfies with their daughters along with the line 'beti bachao, beti padhao' (which means, save daughters, educate daughters). I understand that the intention behind this is to spread awareness about decreasing male to female ratio in Indian society. The tagline "save daughters" is directed towards female feticide, where gender-selective abortions are very common. But I see a problem with this, many people who are concerned with dropping male to female ratio or female feticide issue try to project females or girls as something special, something precious which needs extra protection or attention or care. They all forget that this is the same attitude that resulted in gender discrimination and the perception that females are the weaker sex or a liability to the family. Such campaigns, no matter how well intended, fail to produce any desired results. They do create some media coverage, the issue gets discussed in some debates but hardly anything changes on the ground. There are enough government programs and laws in India like the anti-dowry law, there is even a law that gives daughters an equal share in ancestral property, but still, dowry is a very common practice and very few people bother to give girls their legal share in ancestral property. They all consider their daughters very special, treat them very nicely, and all love them, but they are not considered as EQUALS. Always or in most cases son is considered as heir of property or leader of the family, and there is a different set of rules for sons compared to daughters. I agree that the situation is changing slowly but not at the speed with which it should. It is also true that the situation of women in many Western countries is comparatively much better than in countries like India, India has a lot of ground to cover and this campaign is not going to help in that direction. Problems on the ground are very different, the situation and status of women in society needs a major revamp. Unless women are made equal partners in each and every decision-making process, their situation is not going to improve. One doesn't need to respect only their mothers, sisters, or daughters but also their wives, neighbors, and colleagues. We should stop looking at women only through the prism of some personal relationships, and treat them as equal individuals. 

So, why do I think that such campaigns are not useful, or why I don't participate in such campaigns especially when I claim to be a feminist and someone who believes in gender equality? Actually, I am against any special treatment offered to women or men just because of their gender, this is against the basic concept of equality. My daughter is just one of my kids, she is not any more special than my son. She is like any other member of my family with EQUAL rights; no more, no less. She gets all the privileges and rights that my son or I get in my family. She is allowed to party the same way my son is allowed, she is allowed to hang out with her friends (male or female doesn't matter) the same way my son is allowed to do it, she is allowed to watch the movies or TV programs which are suitable to her age (based on ratings), she is allowed to use words which I am allowed to use while speaking in home or in public, she is expected to do chores like everyone else, she or my son are not treated any different based on their gender. We don't offer any concession or privilege to her just because she is a girl. The same is true for my son, he doesn't get anything extra just because he is a boy. My daughter is not assigned any chores just because this is what girls are supposed to learn or do; it is her choice if she wants to learn cooking or not, she has to decide whether she wants to learn driving or not and the same is true for my son also. Equality doesn't come with any special privileges, rather equality means that there should not be any special privileges for anyone. If we want to teach our daughters the meaning of equality first and basic thing we need to do is to treat them as equals. If we don't practice equality in real life then just talking about it will not make any difference. Equality means giving equal respect, freedom, opportunity, and responsibility.

Whether it is positive or negative both types of discrimination are bad. Daughters are not special, they are equal and responsible members of any family. They deserve equal status, not some special treatment. Such special treatment offered to them for centuries is the very reason that they are discriminated against. Many societies worship female gods, they treat them as special and show extra protectiveness and concern. What is the result of all this? Women are not treated as equals, many restrictions are forced upon them just because of their gender, and they are considered as weak or less capable. Now the time has come not to give any special treatment, but to give them equal resources, opportunities, freedom, and responsibilities which they deserve. Any society or country is not doing any favor by giving women equal rights, rather societies should be ashamed that still women have to demand equal rights for them. These types of campaigns might create some media buzz, but we need a change in the mentality of people, let parents take oath that they will give equal share to their daughters in their property, they will let her choose her career and life partner, and they will not restrict her from doing something just because of her gender. Let them promise that they will make sure that daughters will have all the freedom that any other male member of her age from their family enjoys. Parents can post selfies with their daughters on the internet, it is a very easy thing to do but I hope they go many steps further and treat her as an equal human being, not something fragile, weak, and inferior. Gender inequality is a very big problem across the world, and it is even bigger in countries like India. Even though I don't think that any such campaign has any capacity to bring any real change, I will be happy if this initiative helps to create awareness about gender equality. I also hope this doesn't send the wrong message that daughters are in any way special because they are not, they are equals, and please treat them as equals.

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

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

Is teenage parenthood very different than child marriage?

This question came up in my mind during one of my discussions with my daughter. We were discussing the merits and demerits of high school kids dating each other. Teenage dating, especially in high schools is a part of the modern-day culture in many developed countries, even in developing countries like India it is becoming very common. In countries like the US, dating starts during high school or middle school, and in countries like India, it used to start during college. The main reason for this time difference is that in India high schools still have a very restricted environment with a requirement of uniforms, a lot of rules and regulations about appearance and many of them are not even co-ed schools whereas in the US there are relatively unrestricted and free environment in schools. Teenage is a very important phase of any individual's life, many physical and psychological changes take place in us. We get transformed physically and well as mentally during these years. This can be called the transition phase of our transformation from child to adult. Many of us become aware of our own sexuality, this is also the time when we start getting attracted to other people sexually. I guess dating is a result of all these changes and in many Western countries, it is a socially accepted phenomenon. Most TV shows or movies propagate this culture, and because of all this aggressive marketing dating has become a necessary activity during high school days for most kids. There is tremendous peer pressure on kids to fit into this culture, and many kids desperately seek a partner as their boyfriend or girlfriend. Relationships are formed and destroyed, and this eventually leads to things like breakups and frustrations associated with it. Kids have to deal with all these things along with their studies, homework, college preparations, and expectations of their parents. Some of them manage these things very well, some just can't handle this all and suffer from depression, anxiety, panic, and many other problems. This has also created a very serious problem of teenage pregnancies. This issue of underage (less than 18 years) girls becoming pregnant and eventually teenage moms is a very important issue. This is important for the future of those newborn infants as well as their underage parents. School kids becoming parents has to be a serious matter for any society. How can a kid bear the complete responsibility of another kid? Many people might say that teenage pregnancy and dating are totally separate issues but according to me they are very closely related.

Fortunately, child marriage is illegal in most parts of the world today, it used to be a very common thing not very long ago. But today many countries have strong laws against child marriage and it has reduced significantly. In this case, kids are coerced to enter into a romantic relationship without even knowing what that relationship actually means. This coercion is not overt, but subtle through movies and other social channels. In the case of child marriage, everything was done under the family's guidance as kids used to be very young and there was no age limit to get married. This was a socially accepted phenomenon in many societies (India was one of them), but we all agree that it was a terrible practice. This ridiculous practice stopped because it created many social problems like the issue of child widows. These young girls used to become widows before even knowing that they were married and then they were forced to live very restricted lives for no fault of theirs. Many old men used to marry girls much younger than them by misusing this system, this all resulted in social uproar against this system, and slowly it was abolished socially and legally.

Friendship is a very beautiful thing and an essential part of our lives. Many of our serious and long-lasting friendships are formed during school and college days. But it seems someone felt that for high school kids, just friendship is not enough they also need to have more serious relationships, and teenage dating was invented. During the teenage years there are a lot of hormonal and physical changes in the human body, and physical attraction to others normally starts at that age. Therefore, no wonder that social acceptance of unmonitored teenage dating was an instant hit among teenagers. There are merits and demerits associated with this approach, especially when there is a possibility of sexual encounters in these types of relationships. As kids, many times they don't understand the consequences of their acts, sexual intercourse is a physical act but it can have many biological, social, and emotional consequences. Emotional and social consequences might differ from person to person but biological consequences are the same for all. Biology doesn't care whether you are a teenager or an adult, whether it is consensual sex or rape, any careless or unprotected sexual act can result in a pregnancy that can ultimately result in parenthood, and being a parent is a huge personal and social responsibility. The teenage pregnancy issue is a byproduct of this uncontrolled dating culture which starts too early in kids' lives, so early that many of them don't even know what a relationship means and what are the consequences of some of their actions. Proper sex education and spreading awareness about these issues is the only way to handle this problem of teenage parenthood. There needs to be a sense among today's youth about what is proper and what is improper sexual behavior. School years are a very important part of anyone's life, this is the time to learn new things, get ready to face new challenges of the future, and form long-lasting friendships, school is not a place to look for a life partner or indulge in unsafe sexual acts.

The culture of child marriage was abolished because many people started misusing it, this rampant misuse made some people protest against it, and slowly that protest created a big social movement that abolished that practice from many societies. I always feel sorry for kids who are busy thinking about their partner's likes and dislikes, how to get over breakups, or whether someone is sexually attracted to them or not. They all do these things at the age when they should be enjoying their school life without thinking about such complicated things. We all get ample time in our lives starting from our college days to worry about these things but school days are not the time to worry about these things. School life has its own style of romance but depression, breakups, and anxiety are not supposed to be part of that romance. I know that teenage parenthood and child marriage are totally different subjects but somehow I see some parallels in both of them, maybe I am wrong that is why I would like to know what others feel about this issue.

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

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

Yoga is beyond any religion

International Yoga Day was celebrated on 21st June, and whereas the whole world participated enthusiastically in this event in India some people and politicians managed to create controversy over this event also. Actually, there is a section of the political and social class who have the habit of looking at everything through the prism of religion. Somehow they try to link each and every issue with their own or some other religion and start debating over it from a religious angle. Because of this, they are often successful in converting even a simple and benign event like International Yoga Day into a controversial subject. There is a section of society that is very eager to link whatever originated in the Indian subcontinent to Hinduism. This is the same section of society that starts saying that Hinduism is not a religion but a way of life when someone objects they can't force Hinduism practices on people from other religions. I personally believe that Hinduism is a combination of many different faiths practiced in Indus Valley civilizations. It was not like Abrahamic religions which have some sort of written manuals in the form of holy books with clear instructions about what to do and what not to do, but eventually, it has become indistinguishable from all other religions as far as practiced Hinduism is concerned. Therefore, in today's world, the term Hindu or Hinduism represents a particular faith or religion not just a way of life. As far as the way of life argument is concerned all religions in one way or another are supposed to be a way of life. Some people like to link Yoga with Hinduism, I don't know what is the logic behind it except that this is also a very ancient practice like Hinduism. I also don't understand what they get out of it apart from some false sense of ownership. Then, there are people from other religions in India (especially Islam and Christianity) who buy this argument and try to oppose these things without understanding the intentions of people who try to claim appropriate Yoga. This creates communal tension or religious conflict, this is how some people managed to turn an international Yoga Day into a communal controversy. 

According to me, it is completely wrong to associate Yoga or for that matter any form of exercise with any particular religion. Any physical exercise like Yoga, martial arts, gym, or any other activity is performed to remain healthy, the aim is to have physical and mental workouts. The main aim is to achieve good health, there is no need to mix any religion with any of these physical activities. The main controversy associated with Yoga is because of the use of some chants like "OM" during some pranayanamas, as many Hindu shlokas also contain this word, some people try to create an impression that the word Om is something special and as it is exclusively associated with Hinduism, and if you practice Yoga you might be indirectly practicing Hinduism. This is such a silly argument. Actually, if anyone feels that by chanting Om they jeopardize their religious identity then they are free not to do it, they can choose any other word they are comfortable with. The main aim of pranayama is to focus and calm the chaotic mind, one can use any word which helps to do that. There is absolutely no need to put special emphasis on one word Om, insisting its use is as ridiculous as opposing its use. People perform Yoga for their own benefit, if they think it is not suitable for them then definitely they can choose any other form of physical activity that suits them more. Yoga is not just chanting Om or a few aasanas, it is a whole body and mind workout, and it can be very beneficial if performed properly and regularly. The same is true for any other form of exercise. Another very important thing to keep in mind is that these things can be extremely harmful if not performed properly they can result in serious physical injuries. Yoga is not for everyone, also, it is as good or bad as any other form of exercise.

I hope that when the whole world gladly accepts Yoga as one of the useful physical activities to maintain a healthy lifestyle, people from India will also accept it as a form of exercise not as some religious ritual. Whether they practice it or not is their personal choice and they have complete freedom to choose whatever form of physical activity they feel is more suitable for them to maintain a healthy lifestyle. If Yoga can unite the rest of the world, then I am sure all Indians also can unite or at least not fight with each other over this simple issue. Yoga or something else, remain physically active, stay healthy and stay happy.

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

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

Conflict of interest

Indian external affairs minister Mrs. Sushma Swaraj issued a no-objection statement to clear the travel documents of Mr. Lalit Modi, who is considered a fugitive in a financial irregularities case. This has created a lot of controversy and political turmoil. Now the name of the current chief minister of Rajasthan Vasundhara Raje Scindia also surfaced in this controversy as it seems that she wrote a confidential letter in support of the immigration application of Lalit Modi. Both these people occupied some constitutional posts, Mrs. Swaraj wrote that note as an external affairs minister and Mrs. Scindia was the leader of the opposition of the Rajasthan state assembly when she wrote that letter. This whole controversy is because of the legal troubles of Mr. Lalit Modi in India, he is supposed to face an inquiry about some money laundering scam related to the cash-rich cricket tournament IPL, but instead of that, he escaped from the country and now living in London. Both Mrs. Swaraj and Scindia have very close ties with Mr. Lalit Modi, they both personally know him, and some of their close family members are directly or indirectly associated with him in a professional capacity. Mrs. Swaraj is claiming that she helped him on humanitarian grounds. It seems that Lalit needed those travel documents so that he could be with his wife who was undergoing some treatment related to cancer in Portugal. Whereas Mrs. Scindia still has not clarified whether she issued any such letter or not. Both these cases are ideal examples of conflict of interest. Conflict of interest is a big deal in all developed countries where one has to disclose any conflict of interest as part of a compliance requirement. Even in research, I remember that we need to sign a conflict of interest form declaring that we don't have any interests which can create any conflict in our research work, if there is any such thing, then we have to declare it so that concerned authorities know about it in advance, failure to do so can have some serious professional and legal consequences. 

So, what is this conflict of interest that is given so much importance? Actually, it is a very simple thing to understand, if there is anything (especially any financial or personal interest) that can affect your professional behavior, then it should be properly disclosed before engaging in that professional activity. I can cite some examples based on my personal experience; for example, if I am acting as a judge in my city's school science fair and there are projects from the same school or same grade in which my kids study or projects by kids who I know personally (like my friend's or neighbor's kids), then I have to disclose this, so the organizers know about it. Most probably, they might want me not to judge those projects as there is a conflict of interest from my side. But even after this disclosure, if they want me to judge those projects then I must impartially judge them, but I need to disclose the conflict first. If I don't do that, then no matter how much I claim to be impartial, people will question my intentions as I didn't disclose my conflict before proceeding with my actions. If I fail to disclose the conflict for whatever reason and it gets discovered after I finish my duty as science fair judge, then I give others the opportunity to question the impartiality of my actions, that is why it is better to disclose it beforehand. It is not only required because I might show some favoritism but because it can have a negative effect also, I might be extra strict with those students just because I might have unreasonably high expectations from students I know personally. This is why disclosure of conflict of interest becomes a very important matter.

When you put tobacco business people on a committee that is supposed to decide tobacco's impact on human health, how can you expect an impartial and unbiased opinion from them? At the same time, you cannot put an openly anti-tobacco activist for the same reason, both cannot be impartial due to their conflicts with the issue under discussion. These types of things will keep on happening in India unless people understand and follow the policy of declaring conflicts of interest. If these two political figures had followed some simple steps of declaring their relationship with Lalit Modi and stayed away from issues related to him, then there would not have been question marks on their intentions. Hope that people learn from these incidents and take care not to engage in similar activities in the future.

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

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

Science is NOT my religion

I have written quite a few posts about science and religion. I know some people who call science their religion, and whereas I do understand their intention behind saying this, I don't subscribe to that idea, for me it is very clear that science is NOT my religion. I say so because of one basic fundamental difference, religion demands total surrender and requires complete faith (blind faith), it allows questions but only to a certain limit and there are certain areas in almost all religions that are unquestionable and their authority is considered as supreme, but science has none of these things. Science is not my faith, I don't believe anything that comes from that field blindly, I need data to accept or reject anything no matter who is the scientist behind that theory or experiment. This basic difference is the key to understanding why both of these disciplines are poles apart from each other.

So, when someone says that science is their religion, they might mean that they believe in science in the same way people believe in religion. But then there is one basic problem in this argument, science does not demand any belief or faith, rather it teaches us to be skeptical about everything. One of the basic requisites for being a good scientist is the ability to question things around us and challenge well-established facts to test if they are still right or if we need to update them. There is nothing in science that demands any belief or surrender, experiments and data collected from those experiments supersede any rules or theories. Anything can be proven right or wrong by experimental evidence. Scientists don't believe in the validity of one of the most famous scientific equations, E=MC2, just because a great scientist like Albert Einstein proposed it, they accepted it because it was proven to be true by experimental data. The same is true for theories proposed by Newton, Galileo, or any other scientist of any era. Certain statements or theories might get some recognition in the beginning just because some famous or successful scientist proposed it but eventually, it has to pass the test of experimental validity. Someone needs to produce the data to prove or disprove them and this can be done by anyone without being threatened or heckled by supporters of that theory. Any such effort where a certain theory is proven right or wrong by experimental evidence is welcomed by the entire scientific community, even students of the scientist whose theory is proven wrong welcome any such effort as it improves their knowledge. This is the basic reason why there is no enmity between different branches of science. There is competition between various branches but at the same time, there is a vast amount of inter-disciplinary collaborations.

Challenging well-established theories, questioning hypotheses, and demanding data to prove any claim are some of the basic things that people learn in science but it is exactly the opposite in religion where one is taught to accept the supremacy of some entity and then asked to follow certain book (or set of books). Questioning is highly restricted and often sensitivities of followers of that religion get hurt if anyone questions their beliefs beyond a certain point. At the same time, there is tremendous tension between various religions. Human history is full of gory violent incidents because of communal conflicts between two or more religions. I do understand the need to have religion for many people, as many of us need some emotional support and religion acts as a pillar of strength for many. Maybe science partly does that job for me as it answers many questions that I get from time to time. Actually, science is a very useful tool for me to navigate through my life but nothing more than that, it can never become a religion for me just because I don't agree with the way religion is practiced in today's world. Even today religion fails to come any close to science as far as openness and tolerance are concerned. Because of this tolerance which I learned during my training as a scientist, I don't mind people questioning whatever I say or write, they have the freedom and right to do that. My sensitivities and beliefs are my problem, and people don't have to worry about them while questioning me or criticizing me. That is why I can categorically say that science is not my religion.

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

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

Despite being a woman

During his Bangladesh visit in one of his speeches Indian Prime Minister Mr. Narendra Modi said, "I am happy that Bangladesh prime minister, despite being a woman, has declared zero tolerance for terrorism." There is no doubt that he wanted to praise Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina for doing a commendable job in dealing with terrorists in her own country. So, what is wrong with this statement of Mr. Modi which created some controversy in social media and became the subject of some TV debates? The use of the term "despite being a woman" is highly objectionable to many including me. I don't think there is any doubt that he should have chosen better words to praise her, and there was absolutely no need to mention her gender while complimenting her for her stance against terrorism. Special mention of her gender displays the typical patriarchal mindset of our society, even our PM did not think that it is wrong to compliment anyone by highlighting their gender. This also shows a stereotyping of women as gentle, nonaggressive, soft gender who can not deal with tough situations like terrorism the way men can. It would be unfair to say that Mr. Modi is the only politician or person who thinks like this, this mindset is present in many societies including many developed countries, even in India many politicians across party lines say insulting or derogatory comments about women regularly. Whenever there is a huge uproar against such comments they are brushed under the carpet by labeling them trivial remarks not to be taken seriously or they cite the usual excuse that they were taken out of context.

Why I am picking this statement? Does this single line diminish all other achievements of this foreign tour of Mr. Modi? This tour is very successful and I am sure there will be many media releases and advertisements by the Indian government to highlight these things, I don't have to do that. But the reason why I am picking up this statement is that this displays deep-rooted prejudice against women in our society. Mr. Modi's supporters will of course downplay this incident, actually not only his supporters but every political leader's supporters are very forgiving towards anything done by their own leader.

Now let's see how the following statements sound,
It is great that despite being a woman you learned how to drive. It is very admirable that despite being a woman you are doing an industrial job. It is nice that despite being a woman you earned a college degree. I am glad to see that despite being a woman you are in the military. It is good to see that despite being a woman you play football (soccer). I am happy to see that despite being a woman you are a writer. And so on.

Actually, I can go on offering these so-called compliments to women for the many achievements that they managed to achieve despite being a woman, but the question is, are these really compliments, or these are insults in a very subtle way exposing my patriarchial and misogynist mindset? Because of this deep-rooted bias, some people feel that women can only do a certain type of work and if they excel in any other field it is an exception and therefore it deserves special praise, this is why they specially mention their gender and use the phrase "despite being a woman" she did this or that. We need to ask these questions to expose this patriarchal mindset of our society. Why do some of us still think that being a woman is like having some sort of disadvantage? If any woman becomes successful then why do some of us feel that it is an exception and not a normal incident? Actually, because of such a mindset, women have to face many hostile situations in their day-to-day lives. Because of this narrow-mindedness, some people don't welcome women's presence in many professional spheres as they think they don't belong there. Women need to fight against this prejudice which is why it is not proper to compliment them like this. There are many examples of successful women from all fields including politics (both from present and past eras), we know many strong female political leaders, so, it is not a strange or unusual phenomenon anymore. The time has come to get rid of this narrow mindset and stop using phrases like despite being a woman you did this and you did that while praising the achievements of any woman. Women have fought hard and still fighting hard for equality in our society, they still face uphill battles and such statements don't help their cause. I hope we all realize this and next time complement any person and judge their achievements not based on their gender but purely based on the merit of their work and achievements.

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

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

Let's look beyond the bias

We all have some sort of bias, whether we accept it or not but we all have it. One can debate if our biases affect our thinking or not, whether we make our decisions based on that or not but we all have our biases. I really try hard to overcome my own biases, sometimes I am successful and sometimes I am not. It is not an easy thing to do, many times I struggle, but at least I know that I have a bias and I also know that this struggle is going to be a long and never-ending battle with my mind. To understand why I try so hard to overcome my bias first, we need to understand what bias does to our thinking. The first thing it does is, direct our mind in a particular direction. I realized it during the phase of my life when I was learning to think independently. Our bias can be helpful or harmful to our thinking process, it depends on which direction it directs us and how strong that push is. It is also true that whatever type of bias we have slowly it becomes a part of our thinking process, based on whether we have positive or negative bias we focus on only positive or negative aspects of that particular person or issue. For example, if I don't like Mr. Obama as a president for some reason then I will have very strong negative bias against him. For example, if I don't like him because I don't support his political party, then there is a high chance that I will focus only on the negative aspects of his speech, action, or policy. I will find it really hard to notice any positive parts in his personality and actions. This happens because my dislike for his political party automatically transforms into a dislike for his personality as he represents the political ideology against which I have a strong negative bias, my bias automatically directs my mind to look only for negative aspects or flaws in each and everything he does. The same thing can happen with any other person or issue. If I don't like any particular religion or race I might find only negative things associated with them, I might overlook all the positives associated with it as my mind has already decided that this thing is supposed to be bad, so, for me it can not have anything good. This is what bias does to our thinking and that is why we need to be aware of it and try to overcome it as much as possible. It may not be possible to completely overcome all our biases, but we can definitely minimize them by being aware of the fact that they exist and that is why we need to be careful before completely accepting or rejecting anything.

Now, what is the difference between conscious bias and unconscious bias? Even though both result in the same end result, they are different. Conscious bias can be called plain discrimination, where people knowingly behave in a biased manner because of some prejudice, hatred, or ignorance. We see this type of behavior in many blind supporters of religion, political parties, and some leaders or cult movements. It is easy to point out and recognize this type of biased behavior, politics and religion are fertile grounds for conscious bias. But unconscious bias is rooted somewhere deep in our minds and many times we are not even aware of it. This can be the result of our upbringing, our surroundings, our culture, or the country we come from. We might dislike some religion or some race without even knowing why we dislike it, or we might favor certain food just because we are accustomed to eating it from childhood without even knowing the merits and demerits of that food. This type of bias also affects our thinking in certain ways, as we don't do it purposely, it becomes an integral part of our personality. The first and foremost thing one needs to do is to acknowledge that there is a bias in our thinking, then only we can work towards eliminating or reducing it. Many people refuse to accept that their views are biased, there is nothing wrong in accepting it, but people just don't feel comfortable in accepting this. Taking a particular stand or supporting some political party or ideology doesn't mean that that person is necessarily biased. One can get associated with any ideology without being biased. But criticizing all other things blindly which doesn't agree with your views or opposing something without any rational reasons or data means there is some kind of bias. I personally support certain views and oppose some, but I don't try to silence people opposing me or ridicule them. I always acknowledge that one issue can have many sides or a problem can have many solutions. We need to recognize this diversity of opinion, then only there can be any useful discussion. In today's world, everybody has some opinion almost about everything, the era of the majority is always right doesn't exist in many countries, in a way this is a good thing and this is why we have many ongoing debates about various issues. All of us need to look beyond our biases so that we listen to each other, without cooperating with each other we will only end up arguing without solving any major problems. Let's try to look beyond our bias and try to have meaningful discussions.

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

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