Instead of anti-abortion protests fund some path breaking research ideas

I always see a few people outside of Planned Parenthood centers on weekends and also on some days during weekdays protesting against abortion. They carry some posters and banners with pictures of babies or human fetuses. Some of their posters claim that the life of every baby is important, I don't think there is anyone who can disagree with this statement. Most people love babies, and most of the world thinks that every born individual should get to live in a peaceful and civilized world that is why we care about our environment and society so much. One of the aims behind all our efforts is that we want to give a better society for future generations. Even though humans are one of the animal species living on this planet, we are radically different than all other animals and we are also on a continuous quest for improvement on many fronts. So, no one disagrees with all babies' lives being important, but the main point of disagreement is not babies or their lives after they are born, but the right of women to have a choice of abortion. It is a sensitive political and social issue in American politics, it is so polarizing that there are very extreme opinions about this. According to me, it is utterly stupid to call someone pro-abortion or anti-abortion, after all, it is the personal decision of that particular female (or couple) whether they want to give birth to a child or not. Who am I, the government, or anyone to decide about their parenthood? After all, that female has to bear the pain of childbirth and once someone becomes a parent, then they need to take care of their born child. Some people want to take that responsibility of parenthood and some don't, some are just not yet ready for this, so, it is their personal decision. Also, fertilization and reproduction are a routine biological phenomenon that happens in every animal species, there is no divinity or any supernatural power involved in this process. A sperm fertilizes an egg and an embryo is formed, we know this process, it happens with other animals also, and we study about this in biology class. I wonder what is other's problem if any female decides to terminate the pregnancy for personal reasons. There could be so many reasons starting from some personal reasons, some health issues, pregnancy because of sexual abuse or rape, or even some economic reasons, it differs from case to case why someone takes this decision. We are really struggling on social and political levels to find an acceptable solution for this problem. Some groups are dead against abortions, some support with some conditions and some consider it as women's right to choose what they want to do. There are some valid points with every side but unfortunately, there is no common ground on which all parties seem to agree.

According to me, there is a strong possibility that science can help to resolve this complex issue. Especially, it might help these pro-life people to solve their difficulty of worrying about every embryo formed. If the concern for every embryo is so important then they should aggressively fund research to develop techniques that can make it possible to carry out the entire pregnancy and childbirth outside the human body. So, in this technique, once an embryo is formed, either inside a human body or in a lab, and concerned people don't want it, they can donate it anonymously and it can be processed in a lab independently in the same way as the body normally develops into a baby. This will eliminate most of the troubles or inconveniences associated with pregnancies and these pro-life people can take care of all these embryos and resulting babies on their own and everyone is happy. People who don't want to become parents can get rid of unwanted pregnancies and people who are so concerned about those embryos can take care of them, both sides get what they want. This research will definitely put an end to the need for abortion. It will also avoid other troubles like going through the trouble of pregnancy followed by childbirth and then putting that child up for adoption, these new centers run by pro-life groups can take the fertilized egg and develop it into a baby and take care of it till they become adult, just as parents do. Even this can be beneficial for other parents who want to have their own biological child but don't want to go through the hassle of pregnancy and stuff related to it. This idea might sound like science fiction, but I am sure this is achievable. Every day new frontiers are conquered in the scientific world and I am sure with proper funding and backing this also can be achieved. This has the potential to solve a major social and political issue of our times. Once we solve this issue then we can focus on many other important issues that require our attention like education, poverty, the economy, etc. I hope this suggestion finds some takers at least from the pro-life groups, after all, this is about saving those embryos for which they are tirelessly protesting for so many years. I am not joking or being sarcastic here, I really thought about how to resolve this issue so that lawmakers of this great country don't waste time debating about this personal health issue of women. Also, I am not at all against these protests, I completely support their right to express their disagreement. I absolutely have no issues with their protests or any other protest as long as it is peaceful. I am just interested in finding some permanent solution for this long-standing problem. Out-of-body pregnancy and childbirth are bound to become reality sooner or later, so why not consider this possibility now itself which can help us to resolve one very sensitive issue. This idea has the potential to solve this problem for everyone. I am sure some people might have other ideas also which I hope they share openly. Efforts of all of us might help to eliminate the rift between these so-called pro-life and pro-choice groups so that we can focus on other important social issues.

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

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

Why it is important to have a tolerant society?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Murdered for eating beef - this is where polarization leads

Ironically, I am writing this post which is related to mob violence on the day of the birth anniversary of the two most peace-loving leaders from India M K Gandhi and Lal Bahadur Shastri. I was deeply shocked and disturbed to read the news of the mob lynching of a man because of suspicion that his family consumed and stored beef in their home. This incident happened in a village called Dadri in Uttar Pradesh. I wonder how come many people in India don't find this news deeply disturbing, I still remember the protests and public outrage when the Delhi gang rape and brutal murder happened, this incident is equally bad if not worse than that. A person's house was attacked by a mob, they beat him and his son brutally, the man succumbs to injuries and his son is recovering in hospital. Shockingly, the reason for all this was that people had a doubt that this person ate and stored beef in his home. Assuming that he did eat beef, who are these people to kill him like this?

Who is to blame for all this? The mob that became violent for such a trivial reason? Few people who actually attacked and killed that man? Politics of polarization which most political parties of India have been playing for decades to create such a divisive atmosphere? Administration and law and order that fails repeatedly to investigate such incidents and punish the culprits? Bystander's attitude of people who prefer to watch such things in silence rather than raising their voice against it? Or all of this? One can keep on playing the blame game but the the truth is that one innocent human lost his life for no reason. If only a few people were involved in attacking that family as many villagers claim, then how come a mob of almost a thousand people couldn't stop these few people from committing a murder? If most of the mob was non-violent then why did they allow lynching to happen in front of them?

Such mob violence or riots are heinous acts like terrorism. Terrorists also kill innocent people and rioters also do the same thing, but in India rarely do people responsible for riots get caught and punished. Very often riot or mob violence cases result in very shabby investigations and a very poor rate of conviction. This happens mainly because of the heavy political interest involved in such incidents. Political parties reap heavy political benefits from such tragic incidents, but I am surprised at how long people want to go on with such nonsense. I wrote a post about how a meat ban or beef ban in India is not at all about meat, it has some deeper political meaning than the claim of saving any animal. Such bans are intentional political ploys specifically designed to create polarization in society. The Muslim community is not the only community in India that consumes beef, rather many Muslims don't eat beef as it is not easily available in India, but still, somehow they are targeted every time for eating beef because of some malicious propaganda by certain right-wing organizations. These organizations are only interested in creating a deep rift between two communities, they don't care if this results in some riot, lynching, or murder, they just want to spread hatred. They want to create a homogeneous and non-diverse society where everyone follows the same religion, diet, dress code, and thought process. Any deviation from this is a problem, if you dare to object or question, then it doesn't matter who you are, you will be targeted and silenced if necessary. Such mentality was there in the past also, but it seems these people are getting more powerful day by day and others keeping silent is serving their purpose. Disturbing silence from the top leadership of India is puzzling, in the US the Presidents at least share their thoughts in the wake of any such tragedy, but in India, any such expectation is like living in a fool's paradise, and this seems especially true with the current government. Based on history, I know that nothing much will come out of any investigation of this incident, the government will give some monetary compensation, there will be communal politics played over this death, and then everyone will go back to their usual business until the next death or riot. This is somewhat becoming a routine, just like mass shootings in the USA. I hope people dare to look beyond politics on this issue and punish the culprits to make sure such incidents don't happen in the future. After all, we humans create these problems so we should be able to find solutions for them. I am deeply hurt and ashamed by this incident and hope there is some lesson for everyone to learn from this incident. If not, then we all are going to suffer, remember intolerance can affect each and every one of us who love our freedom, it is just a matter of time. Please fight to protect the freedom of others if you want to be free, today it's them, but tomorrow it can be you.

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. Dadri: Mob kills man, injures son over ‘rumours’ that they ate beef
2. Hindu man brutally killed for marrying a Muslim girl in Bihar
3. प्राइम टाइम : अफवाह पर एक शख्स की हत्या

I don't miss festivals like Ganeshotsav at all

Ganapati festival or Ganeshotsav was recently concluded in India. It is a very big festival in Maharashtra from where I come. As a kid and part of my teenage years, I was actively involved in this festival. Like most of the kids, I also enjoyed dancing during visarjan processions, singing aartis (devotional songs), shouting slogans, etc. But as I grew older and saw the real face of these festivals, observed what goes on behind the scenes, how much inconvenience it causes to people, and how much waste of resources it results, I ultimately understood its impact on the environment. I was shocked and I got disconnected from all these types of festivals. In our neighborhood, there were two major festivals Ganapati festival and Durga pooja, I have stayed away from my hometown for the last 12 years, but I never felt their absence in the last 12 years or so, rather I really feel happy that I don't have to witness all that nonsense which was carried out in name of these festivals. When I was in Pune, it really made me angry and resulted in a lot of frustration to watch all these things happening right in front of my eyes. Before anyone jumps to any conclusions let me also mention that I know that some celebrate these festivals in a very simple and private manner with utmost care not to hurt the environment around them, and I am not talking about these people. These are honorable exceptions, but I am talking about the majority, especially these public mandals who want to create some facade to display their bhakti and devotion. I am against this grand display of anything at public inconvenience, using public money, be it some political rally, religious ceremony, or anything. Why do people feel the need to demonstrate their love or devotion in a way that can result in tremendous inconvenience to others and a waste of resources? Even during some marriage processions in India music is too loud, people dance like crazy, and they block the traffic for no reason, it is good to know that they have some rules and regulations now to control all this nonsense, I hope they are implemented strictly.

I am sure there are ways to express devotional or religious feelings peacefully or in a manner that won't cause any inconvenience to others. I would love to be a part of such celebrations. I understand that community gatherings and celebrations are an important part of our social life. But somehow people don't like such peaceful ways, in the name of culture or religion or tradition they want to follow the rituals that have very little concern about their surroundings or about people who don't want to be part of that particular event. Many people feel inconvenienced due to chaos and noise pollution due to these festivals, but very few date to object. The problem is any objection results in some kind of law and order situation, the celebrating group claims that their religious feelings are hurt, and many times this results in communal tension. This is why almost all governments prefer to ignore these things and allow them to continue. For me, it was really torture to watch these things, I always wondered how those loud songs or excessive lighting, crazy dancing and shouting, and hooliganism while collecting donations for these festivals display the feeling of devotion in any way. Why do these people fail to think about infants and senior people who might suffer because of the loud noise that their speakers are making? Why do they fail to understand that it is not proper to block the road to raise tents and cause inconvenience to hundreds of commuters every day? Why do many of them insist on immersing those idols in the sea, river, or pond even after knowing that it causes water pollution? There are many questions like this, and I am glad that now there are many people who are raising these questions. I am also happy to see that some are working towards persuading people to donate these idols rather than immersing them in water. There is no doubt that all these festivals need serious reforms, they need to adapt to the needs and requirements of the current era, no matter from which religion they belong. But I know that it is not easy and is not going to happen so soon as many people want to continue with these things without any concern about others around them or about the environment. I am glad that I am away from all this. I wish all the best to all the people who are working hard to reform these traditions, they are really doing a very difficult and important job, and I salute them. I don't miss Ganeshotsav or any other festival celebrated in a way to cause inconvenience to others. I am more than happy to stay away from these things. But I still feel sad to see the wastage of resources and really hope that these reformist people will be able to convince the government to implement some laws that can minimize the effect of such behavior on the environment and reduce the inconvenience of people.

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

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

Please don't trivialize abortion, it's already a very difficult decision

The next US presidential election is going to be held next year, and the candidate selection process in both major parties (Democrats and Republicans) has already started. It is always interesting to listen to primary as well as presidential election debates. They cover a lot of political, social, economic, and health-related issues. Abortion is one of the favorite topics of all these debates, especially in republican debates where somehow this topic is not discussed in the health or medical section but discussed along with faith and religion. I don't understand why they or for that matter, anyone wants to link this medical or public health issue with religion or faith? What does one's religion have to do with the decision of abortion? Does anyone think about their religion before having sexual intercourse with anyone?  Then how come a byproduct of unprotected sexual intercourse becomes an issue of faith? There are pro-life and pro-choice people, some groups oppose abortion altogether, some allow it if the mother's life is in danger, and some support it as a personal choice. There are various views on this particular topic, and most of them trivialize this very serious and difficult personal choice to achieve their political motives.

The issue of abortion and state or federal funding of clinics where this procedure is performed is so sensitive and touchy that there are very polarized opinions about this. Some conservative people are so sensitive that they go to the extent of calling each and every abortion a "murder"!! Actually, each and every sexual intercourse between a sexually mature male and female has a probability of conception. Therefore, it is comforting to see that these people at least don't call the use of contraceptives a murder because contraceptives also interfere with the natural fertilization process as they avoid unwanted pregnancies. Fertilization is a natural biological process, and as far as humans are concerned, it happens whenever sperm fertilizes the egg, it doesn't matter how, when, and where. Whether it is consensual sex or rape, incest, or marriage, any sperm can fertilize an egg. Sex between underage kids can also result in this, heinous crimes like rape can also result in the fertilization of eggs, or one can do this in a lab (in vitro fertilization). There is nothing divine or supernatural in this process, like all other animals we also mate and reproduce, it is as simple as that. But unwanted pregnancies can have a huge effect on the physical and mental health of that woman, she must at least get a choice to decide about her own body and health.

To have a child or not must be entirely that woman's choice, nature has given her that right, and this includes her choice to continue with pregnancy or not. After all, it is her body that has to carry that burden, it is her life that gets affected by this, and as it is about her body, it must be her choice. Who is the society or government to decide about it? What rights does society have on women's or men's bodies? Society can offer counseling, sex education, and run awareness programs to avoid unwanted and underage pregnancies but in the end, it should be that individual's choice. Just because there is a possibility of biological reproduction, society and government don't get the right to have control over women's bodies and health. The decision to abort a pregnancy is not an easy one, it is an extremely painful and difficult decision for all people involved in it, especially for that woman. This decision takes a toll on the physical and mental health of that couple, especially, the woman. Very few can imagine or understand the stress and trauma associated with making this decision. By making it a part of political debate we are not making things easy for them, but as a society, we are giving some people a chance to use this personal and emotional turmoil of some people as a political tool. Trivializing the issue of abortion on a political platform is one of the most disgusting things I ever experienced. People have the right to raise any issue they want there is no doubt about it, this is an integral part of any democratic society, but health issues should be discussed in health forums with all concerned parties involved, not in religious or political forums. I really find it amazing to see a bunch of men making decisions about women's health or talking about the moral aspects of abortion. Let women decide about the issues related to their bodies and health. Pregnancy is a biological phenomenon, it is a personal health issue, not a political problem. I hope people understand the difference between a political issue and a health issue and act accordingly. I am sure no one takes any pleasure in going for an abortion, as it is already a very tough and painful decision, so, if you can't provide any comfort or help, then at least please don't make it more painful and difficult, and please don't play with someone's health for your political gains. 

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

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

Ravish Kumar - a rare sensible voice from Indian news channel

It is more than a couple of years since I started following NDTV anchor and journalist Ravish Kumar, the only program from any Indian news channel show that I watch consistently is his show called "Prime Time." I also follow his blog Kasba, which is a Hindi blog where Ravish shares his personal opinions and experiences. His TV show is so familiar in our home that if my kids see me watching something on my tablet they by default think that I am watching Ravish's program, they also know his name, voice, and face very well. I guess he is the only Indian news anchor that they can recognize by name and face. So, what is so special about this person? Why the heck I am praising him so much and bothered to write a blog post about him? He is not even an English journalist or someone to whom so-called powerful and popular politicians from India even grant a one-to-one interview. Many anchors from the same channel are known to be very powerful and influential, they can call so-called big ministers and key people on their show. No doubt that they all have earned their reputation by their hard work and dedication, but none of them are as unbiased as Ravish is. Actually, it is not easy to be unbiased as more power comes into your hand, be it power via politics, power via journalism, or power via anything else. Many journalists are active members of some political parties and still hold positions like editors in media houses. There are media houses whose political inclination is clearly known and one can easily see this bias in their reporting. There are also people from the media who are members of Rajyasabha from some political party.

There are quite a few reasons why I got attracted to his show and watch it regularly, one of the major reasons is the diversity of the subjects he chose for his show. He dares to touch very simple but important subjects for common people which many other anchors don't even bother to mention because they are not controversial. Even during the 2014 general elections in India, his reporting was very different than all others. I think he is the only anchor who clearly says that in his show he is going to present only one side of the story and requests people to go and check the other side of the story as it is important to know both sides. I think he is one of the rare TV anchors who consistently accepts the futility of having TV debates where people either shout at each other or give sanitized politically correct answers, both hardly result in any informative discussions. He is one of the rare people who says not to believe in whatever he says just because he is a TV anchor, he requests his audience to go and verify themselves and form their own opinions. He shares many interesting views, maybe I got attracted to his show because I also share somewhat similar views. I guess if someone is looking for motivation to learn Hindi, then his show is one of the great reasons to learn it, as this show is exclusively in Hindi. His fearless reporting is another interesting aspect, he dares to touch the subjects that many others don't, and this makes his show unique in its own way. He raises many uncomfortable questions that very few politicians like to face, maybe this is the reason why very few of them dare to give him an interview. When I heard about recent personal attacks on him on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter, I really felt bad. This is also a sign of increasing intolerance and fanaticism in our society. Any sane voice which dares to raise difficult questions is not welcomed, rather every attempt is made to silence it. I am sure that Ravish won't get perturbed by such attacks, but I can see that he is bothered about them. He sounds disturbed sometimes in his blog posts which is a normal reaction from a sensitive person like him.

I have one personal request for Ravish, I know it is tough to be an independent voice, but please keep on doing what you do best, write your blog and express your opinion fearlessly. Please carry on with your TV show by reporting on various issues that are important for our society. I also understand that it is really hard to relax when you and your family get attacked on social media for no fault of theirs. These goons are dangerous, and I hope you have the strength to deal with them. You know very well that there are very few independent and sane voices left in the Indian media and you are one of them, so, it is very important for people like you to stay there. Please don't even think of quitting, many people like me are willing to stand behind you. Maybe you can set an example for many misguided people, maybe by watching you one day they all will realize that there are peaceful, democratic, and civilized ways to raise their questions and resolve differences. Maybe they will realize that it is not a good idea to become a fan of anyone (including you). So, for all this to happen people like you should stay and continue doing their work. Thank you very much for your efforts, I and many people really appreciate it.

In general, very few independent voices are left in Indian media and I hope Ravish continues to be independent. I am not his fan, rather I am no one's fan to support or follow anyone blindly. It can become really tough and sometimes really frustrating, but carry on with your journey my friend. I expect to hear these lines regularly for many more years "नमश्कार, मैं रविश कुमार."

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://naisadak.org/
2. http://www.ndtv.com/video/list/anchor/ravish-kumar?pfrom=home-nri_anchors

Fanaticism is dangerous, avoid it

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

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

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

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

Please don't bring morality in diet

Food habits are an evergreen topic for many debates and discussions. We all debate which food is healthier and which is not, the advantages and disadvantages of a vegetarian, nonvegetarian, or vegan diet, the health effects of processed food, and things like that. A lot of research is also going on about the effects of various types of diets and food habits on human health. There are many types of dietary habits in the world, but they can be mainly divided mainly into two classes; vegetarian (people who don't eat meat) and non-vegetarian (people who also eat meat). The nomenclature of nonvegetarians is utterly misleading, it implies that nonvegetarians only eat meat, but this is seldomly true, most nonvegetarians eat a vegetarian diet, but they also eat meat that's why they get included in this category. Actually, if we look at human history, as a species we are mostly omnivorous, which means we can eat both plants as well as meat. The ability to eat almost anything is a huge advantage for humans and can be considered one of the major reasons for being the most dominant species on this planet. Herbivorous and carnivorous animals have very specialized teeth, jaws, and digestive systems, it is not that easy for them to switch their diets but we can shift from one to another very easily. But this is not the topic of my post today. My argument is that it is inappropriate to bring morality while discussing various food habits. Very often vegetarian people argue on this point, somehow they feel that there is no killing of any living thing while preparing vegetarian food, and the fundamental basis of nonvegetarian food is violence, so, they have the moral upper hand as far as diet is concerned. Many of them argue that because of moral reasons, it is not appropriate to eat meat. If anyone argues about diet based on health benefits, then it is a reasonable argument, but I have a problem when people bring morality in judging the food habits of others. Eating meat is a widely accepted food habit all over the world, this has been a part of human culture for thousands of years, and judging it based on a moral compass is wrong. The truth is that every living thing survives at the cost of other living things, life feeds on life, and there are no exceptions to this rule so far.

I have observed that most nonvegetarian people try as much as possible to take care of the convenience of vegetarian people, they make sure that there are some vegetarian options available in case someone doesn't eat meat. But rarely favor is returned from vegetarians to nonveg people. The main reason is that most veg people make the diet a part of their belief system, not a personal choice, most of them think it is not moral to serve or eat nonveg food, so, there is a sort of contempt and rejection towards nonveg food from their side. Also, most nonveg people are fine with this discrimination and hardly they complain. Anyone can check this themselves if they want, any nonveg person easily eats a veg diet if there is no nonveg option available, but it will be tough to find an example the other way around. Anyway, it is not good to force anyone to eat any type of food if they don't want to, but somehow this sentence is interpreted as it is not proper to force anyone to eat meat but it is perfectly fine to force someone to eat vegetables. One can hear about several meat bans, but has anyone ever heard about some vegetable bans? Isn't it an example of a double standard or do we really think that meat-eating is such an evil habit that meat-eating people deserve to be discriminated against? If it is an evil habit, then why there are so many meat eaters on our planet, and why it is not illegal? I understand the appeal and protest of animal lovers against animal killings. They have the right to do so. In the same manure, I know many people who love plants, I wonder what will be the reaction of all of us who eat plants if plant lovers object to plant killings for food?

I am personally 99% vegetarian, I eat meat rarely and mostly outside my home. My diet is strictly my personal choice, several factors like geographical location, availability of food, my likes, dislikes, and health concerns dictate what type of food I eat. I don't judge anyone based on what type of food they eat, I don't force my food habits on anyone, and don't like anyone to force theirs on me. I respect other's food choices and expect the same in return, if they are not willing to respect my choices, I feel no obligation to respect their choices. It is a matter of mutual respect, rather respect has to be mutual in every case, one way respect or love never works. Many of these animals and plants are produced because there is a huge demand for them in the market, if there is no demand all these plant and animal farms will be closed, either way, their survival is in danger no matter if people eat them or not. I don't think many people who argue against veg or nonveg diets understand this reality. What I eat or wear is my personal choice and as I am free to choose these things others are also free. I have no right to impose my choices on others and others also should not do this. This is a very simple rule to follow, let's eat and allow others to eat.

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

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

It's not about meat ban silly!

The recent controversy about the meat ban in Maharashtra is an ideal example of how appeasement politics works in India. Actually, this is not the first time anything has been banned in India, we have a long history of banning books, movies, authors, different types of meats, etc. This is all done by different governments in the name of not hurting the sentiments of a particular community or religion. Sometimes it is about sentiments attached to some animal like a cow. Sometimes it is about the insult of some revered historical figure like Shivaji. Sometimes it is about the insult of some religious icons like Mohammad or Jesus or some goddess. And sometimes it is about some religious festivals or rituals. In the current case, it is about respecting the Jain ritual called 'Paryushan', as Jains are vegetarians and are against any type of violence some municipal corporations in Mumbai imposed a ban on the butchering of animals and selling meat for a few days during Paryushan time to respect their sentiments. Surprisingly killing and selling of fish is not included in this ban, so, I wonder if Jains consider fish as living things or not, or is there any different logic that allows fish killing but not of chickens or goats? One can find many technical mistakes in these types of bans, but this is not the main point, this particular incident along with many other similar incidents in the past exposes the prevalent hypocrisy of our society. 

The same political parties who were supporting the beef ban to its core are now on roads opposing this particular meat ban, they are so adamant in their opposition that they are going to the extent of selling meat on their own on streets to register their protest against this ban. Now just imagine what would have been the reaction of the same people if beef eaters who are again a minority in India had done the same thing. But we can ignore this for the time being as I already said this is not about a meat ban at all, people who think the issue is about meat or religious sentiments are living in a fool's paradise. There is already freedom to practice any religion guaranteed by the constitution in India. This is all about appeasement politics, not about any meat. Every political party has played this game and shamelessly says that they don't do any appeasement politics. Each one of them makes a huge hue and cry if someone else does this for political gains, but shamelessly justifies their own similar acts that too by citing instances in the past which they opposed. NDTV anchor Ravish has coined the very proper term "is equal to theory" for all these actions where every political outfit tries to justify their acts by claiming that in the past so and so has also done this. The sad part is that supporters of these parties participate in this drama without even realizing that they are becoming a part of a deeply hypocritical and regressive system.

These types of bans set up another dangerous precedence, if you ban one book to appease a certain section of society then what is going to stop some other communities from asking to ban another book or attack another author for hurting their sentiments? If you agree to one unreasonable or stupid demand to ban anything then automatically you give legitimacy to many other similar demands. This drama has been going on from last so many years without any interruption. India is already facing so many problems because of appeasement politics but still, people are refusing to learn from their past mistakes, rather, they are adamant about committing the same mistakes just because someone did it and got away with it. Every time it is expected from courts to bring some sense in such matters and unfortunately, they are also not very consistent on these types of sensitive issues. But I have to agree that they are doing a much better job than all political parties who are only interested in exploiting public sentiments.

Divide-and-rule politics is not new, Britishers used it to create a rift between Hindus and Muslims as well as between different castes of Hindus for their own benefit. All these bans are part of the same legacy and mindset, the intention is to appease certain sections by doling out certain unreasonable favors or to hurt some sections by banning something, which in turn creates polarization, and reaping the political benefit of this polarized atmosphere. There is no exception, all political parties are guilty of playing appeasement politics. Only common people, if they want, can stop this nonsense. But if they are okay with it, then this stupid drama will continue endlessly. This is not at all about any book or meat or movie this is about liberty, freedom, and appeasement. Religion is a very personal matter and everyone is free to practice their own faith, but no one has the right to impose their own beliefs or lifestyle on others. This is a simple fact that everyone should understand in any tolerant and progressive society. If they can't stop this nonsense, then at least please stop claiming that you are a tolerant nation. There are Islamic countries in the world where there is a ban on eating food in public places during the month of Ramadan, this is a very regressive thing, but if people think this is wrong, then please explain to me on what basis this meat ban or beef ban can be justified?

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

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