It is wrong to paint all pharma companies with the same brush

Drug discovery is a very high-risk and expensive business, according to recent data, it takes more than 1 billion USD  and almost 12 to 13 years to launch a new, successful drug in the market. One can debate and discuss why this process is so low-yielding, expensive, and inefficient, but people who work in this area know that it is not that easy to point out any single factor responsible for this bleak scenario. It is also true that we need new drugs to stay ahead in our battle against many bugs and deadly diseases like infectious diseases and cancer. Industry and academia are equally engaged in the research aspect of drug discovery, many initial leads come from academia that result in small biotech firms which then go on to develop some novel drugs in that therapeutic area. Even though industry and academia are both equally involved in basic research, commercialization, and drug development part of drug discovery is exclusively with industry. One of the main reasons is that it is a very expensive and tedious process with a very high failure rate and only industry has funds and resources to handle this process. So what is my point behind mentioning all these things? The point is the question of "drug pricing," an ever-debated and very controversial topic all over the world, especially, in America. I think everyone will agree that people should be able to access life-saving drugs if they need them, but the question is who will pay if they can't afford them? If we look at the pricing of some of the new drugs in developed countries, especially in the USA, then one can easily understand what I am talking about. For example, the price of Gilead's new hepatitis-C drug Sovaldi is 84000$ for a 12-week course, almost 1000$ per pill. No doubt, it is an expensive drug by any standards, but it is also a very effective and lifesaving drug that has changed the treatment regime for that disease remarkably. This drug is just one example to show how effective and expensive some of these medicines are. Drug development is a profit-making business and like any other business, this industry also tries to make as much profit as they can from their products. There are shareholders and a stock market and each pharma company has to make sure that it stays ahead in the game by making as much profit to its shareholders as it can.

It is always debated what can be the optimal pricing for any life-saving drug? Who can decide how much a drug company should or can charge for their new lifesaving drug? How expensive is too expensive? How about third-world countries where most people can not pay for such expensive drugs but need them as much as people from any developed country? There are many questions like this but hardly any satisfactory answers. In the US there is a very good drug discovery culture and basically, they subsidize drug discovery for the rest of the world. In most developing countries like India, drug discovery is considered a waste of money and there is no proper mechanism to encourage it. So, basically whole world is dependent on a few handful countries for the development of new drugs in any therapeutic area. Hopefully, this scenario might change, but currently, only developed countries are expected to carry the financial burden of developing new drugs. And as the pharma sector is also a business and like all other businesses, it also needs investments and has to generate enough profits to attract those investments. So, all factors that play a major role in any other commercial industry also play a part in this industry also. Whatever is not financially attractive is not pursued no matter how important it might be, the recent exit of most major pharma companies from the antibiotic sector is one very good example of this. It is very expensive to develop new drugs, and above that it is very risky, only 1 in 10 drugs that enter in clinical phase get FDA approval, and someone has to pay for all those failures. The industry has to recover all the money lost during the development of other drugs that failed from that one successful drug. This is one of the major reasons why some of the drugs are so expensive. However, this is not an attempt to justify the high pricing of all the drugs, but just an effort to explain things so that people know the other side of the coin also.

I am sure everyone will agree that the best possible scenario will be to have affordable drugs for all major illnesses available all over the world. They should be accessible to every patient who needs them, irrespective of their nationality or financial status, but we all know that this feat is not possible to achieve in the near future. With increased life expectancy all over the world, we are going to see many more people who will need some sort of medicine to maintain their health. There are no easy solutions for this very complicated problem, but maybe if we try to understand the cause of this problem then we can understand the position of the pharma industry a little better. It is wrong to paint all of them as villains and accuse them of being insensitive and selfish money-mongers. Drug discovery is a business so like all other businesses it needs to be profitable, it needs to compete with other businesses to attract talented and hard-working people so that innovative ideas keep on coming. This business also needs to adjust and survive different pressures and trends of a market-based economy. Society, the government, and all companies need to devise some formula that can make medicines more affordable for everyone. The Pharma industry is just one part of this complicated puzzle of drug pricing. At the same time, any sort of criticism should be welcomed by industry insiders as it will make them correct some of their mistakes, but it is unfair just to blame them or target them every time. It is wrong to look at only one side of the problem and draw final conclusions. Please try to study every angle of this issue before coming out with any final conclusion. I am sure it can be possible to keep on inventing new drugs and make them affordable also, we just need a proper system and political and corporate desire to achieve this goal.

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

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

Intolerance was always there in India

Nowadays there is a lot of debate going on in India about intolerance and tolerance. Some people claim that since this new government came into power (in 2014) incidents of intolerance have increased, they also claim that there is a feeling of fear and insecurity among minorities and some intellectuals. The other side claims that nothing of this sort is happening, rather the very fact that these people are allowed to protest is a sign of a tolerant environment, some irrelevant fringe groups are responsible for whatever ugly incidents are reported, but overall everything is fine. Both sides are busy attacking each other and proving each other wrong, putting on a splendid display of tolerance. Another point that is highlighted again and again during all these discussions is that India was and still is a very tolerant society. I really don't know what is the real basis of this claim, but surprisingly both sides agree on this particular point, the only point of disagreement is whether it is becoming intolerant now or not? The history of Indian civilization is very old and one can dig into its history and try to figure out whether it was a historically tolerant society or not. I am not interested in that aspect of this argument, I can only talk about what I saw and experienced personally during my stay in India. As far as my personal experience is concerned, I never saw a very tolerant atmosphere during the 30 years of my life in India. I always feel surprised when someone claims that India is a very tolerant society, they may have some different definition of "tolerant," but at least I never experienced it. Now before people jump on to attack me personally and label me as anti-India or anti-Hindu or traitor or whatever other name they want to use to display their tolerant nature, let me first explain why I say this.

Any tolerant society is sensitive to the needs and rights of all sections of society and by all sections, I am not talking about all religions and castes that dominate Indian political discussion forums. I am talking about kids, teenagers, men, women, other genders, disabled people, all minorities, etc. I never saw that sensitivity at appreciable levels and still don't see it in India, till recently, transgenders and homosexuals were forced to live in closets, women are still struggling to get equal status and property share, caste is a very important factor in marriage and politics, and one can list many other examples here, but I guess readers mush have got my point. Now let me continue with my personal experiences as my statement is mainly based on my personal experience. First, as a kid, punishments for mistakes in school were very brutal and physically abusive. I am sure anyone who went to school in the 1980s and 1990s can confirm this. Getting slapped by a teacher was not a big deal, getting hit by a stick, duster, or ruler was a very common phenomenon. Even outside the school situation was not much different, it was considered as birthright of parents to smack their kids as much they want and for whatever reason they felt appropriate. Second, any sort of dissent was not encouraged. As a kid, it was normal to get snubbed by elders for asking any uncomfortable question. One could not dare to question many traditions and rituals without being verbally or worse physically reprimanded. Obedience was considered as a virtue and dissent was openly ridiculed and punished. Finally, gender discrimination was blatantly overt and everywhere, within families, in schools, on the streets, in movies, everywhere. These were some of the things that I experienced and witnessed as a kid. I am sure there might be exceptions to this and there might be some people, especially those with very privileged backgrounds who lived in totally different social atmospheres, but whatever I described above was the general environment around me and many others. People must have realized that I am talking about a poor or lower middle-class section of society which constitutes a very large section of the Indian population. Even as a teenager, we were aware that friendship and all were okay but we couldn't marry outside our caste without disturbing our parents or other family members. Tension between various religions and occasional violent communal riots are still a possibility like in the past. All these things used to make me wonder where is that tolerance about which I hear on every intellectual forum? Fights between supporters of different political parties or religious groups were very common. There used to be fights during processions during different religious festivals like Ganeshotsav, and many times between two mandals on trivial issues like who should get to go first in line. It was and still is very trivial to call someone anti-national or traitor or Pakistani (especially to Muslims). Books were and still are frequently banned, movies land in trouble for hurting some group's sentiments, paintings and painters are troubled for creating some objectionable art, authors are attacked for writing something offensive or derogatory about someone, moral policing was very common and still happens to some extent even today. Many of these things are still part of public behavior, we can see these things even in social media, and still, Indians don't hesitate to call ourselves very tolerant!

But there must be some reason why most Indians claim that our country is very tolerant. One reason might be India did not invade any country in recent history or maybe by claiming to be tolerant many of these people mean "less violent" compared to some neighboring countries. It is quite possible that tolerance people may mean at least we don't kill each other as frequently as some other societies do. Maybe there is some truth in this line of argument even though frequent incidents of communal riots don't support this claim, but this might be the only reason for making this claim. But for me, this is not good enough to declare any society as a tolerant society and anyway, the standards of those countries are not worth following for a country like India with such a diverse population if it really aspires to become a superpower. It needs to show more inclusive behavior than merely being less violent or better than some of our neighbors. Intolerance has always been there in India, sometimes it is more visible than at other times that's the only difference. I really feel strange about this debate of India becoming intolerant now, please let me know when was it very tolerant? One can make an argument that India is becoming more intolerant, and there is some truth in that, but to claim that it was tolerant before is hard to accept. 

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

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

Women are made, not born

The title of this post is a famous quote by French philosopher Simone de Beauvoir on womanhood. I don't know in what context he said it, but when I heard it I immediately thought, wow, he described it so correctly. For me, this quote means that we as a society condition the minds of people into believing what men and women should do, how they should behave and what are their roles in society and family. In reality, no gender is supposed to do only certain types of things or behave in a certain way, we define it and it is a human creation. This quote is actually equally applicable to men, all genders are told what it is supposed to be a man or woman or a transgender and then we all try to fit into one of these roles. In the modern world, many people are trying to challenge these definitions and break the traditional gender perceptions but still, it is not that easy. The characteristics assigned to different genders are so stereotyped that people involuntarily follow them. Men without even knowing subscribe to traditional notions of masculinity, they come under tremendous pressure to perform and succeed to demonstrate their manliness. Similarly, women are forced into certain roles, and their minds are conditioned to teach them what they can do and what they can't. Once this task is successfully achieved, then it is easy for a patriarchal society to dictate what men can do and what women can do, and everyone follows. This biased environment then creates ample examples to support this hypothesis, and most people agree with these things as they see many examples validating these notions. That is why such quotes are important, they tell us the inherent flaw associated with such classification. Such quotes and thoughts force us to think and ask some uncomfortable and difficult questions. One of those questions should be, whatever we see around or believe is natural or manufactured by centuries of tradition and suppression of certain genders?

Our sex is determined by our DNA and now we very well understand the science behind it. But once we are born and start our journey in this world, society and people around us start conditioning our minds about what our gender should and shouldn't do. Many traditions, rituals, and cultural or religious beliefs start shaping our minds in a particular way. We are told about our gender and also how our gender must behave. We are also told about the responsibilities and limitations of our gender roles, what boys should like, and what girls are supposed to like. There are rewards for obedience and punishments for disobedience of these restrictions and slowly these things become part of our personality. They get embedded deep in our psyche. Rarely do we think about questioning these things. Many of us don't ask, why only women cook in the family? Why do only men have to go and work outside? Why it is considered the responsibility of man to be the breadwinner of a family? Why polygamy is more accepted in some societies but not polyandry? Why do only women change their last names after marriage? Why there is no equal recognition of any third gender? Nowadays these types of questions are being asked and many people are trying to challenge gender discrimination at various levels, but one can easily feel that society is not yet very receptive and accommodative of many of these reforms. There is still a reluctance to break the traditional stereotyped definition of men and women, but the pot is being stirred, things are being challenged and something good is going to come out of all this.

Many people including many women still believe that women are incapable of doing certain things, but they don't question why? Is it because they are women or because for centuries they were told that they couldn't do these things and now suddenly we expect them to match men on every level or go back to their traditional role. Providing an opportunity is just a first step, once the opportunity is provided one has to give enough time to master those skills. Men didn't become powerful in one day, they got preferred treatment and a favorable social atmosphere for centuries to become the so-called stronger or dominant sex. Actually, many women have already proven that they can take up any challenge thrown at them but still, many of them are way far behind as they are caged in age-old stereotyped boundaries. Slowly they are also becoming aware of their rights and capabilities, and even with limited resources and additional household burdens, they are competing strongly. As this awareness spreads across the world, we will see more and more women entering the mainstream and taking up responsible roles. If society and people around them don't try to suppress their potential, then I am sure in years to come we will see many more women in key leadership roles. Until then, let's try to create an environment where they get a fair shot to prove their talent.  

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

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

We all are transgenders in someway

While watching this program on NDTV about the situation of transgenders in Indian society, I was wondering what is the reason these people are so stereotyped that they can't live a normal life in most societies around the world. By normal life, I mean getting the same treatment and opportunities that most of us so-called "normal" or "cisgender" people get. In India, most of them are forced into the sex trade or live in ghettos because of the way society treats them. Why it is so difficult for any society to accept them as equal citizens or for that matter why we are so apprehensive about anything that doesn't fit the age-old definition of "normal"? Who decides what is normal and what is not? Is most common mean normal and something uncommon becomes abnormal? We need to ask such questions to counter this narrative which has been going on uninterrupted for centuries. It is really sad to see that some people among us get discriminated against for something natural. They face various difficulties and problems not because of their mistakes or actions, but just because of who they are. This attitude of they are different than us or they are not normal, so they can't be with us or our kids will become like them needs to be questioned, everyone needs to get a fair chance to fulfill their ambitions and desires, as a society it is our responsibility to create such environment. Most of us agree with this statement, but as a society, our behavior doesn't match this statement.

Sex is determined by DNA and gender is something how we present ourselves in society, both don't need to match. We are taught and conditioned on how men or women should behave or conduct themselves in society. We are taught what is masculine and what is feminine, based on this conditioning we develop our own perception of our own gender and also try to define other's gender. This perception and stereotyping also decide what we call normal and what we consider abnormal. We are also trained to reject, denounce, or stay away from these so-called abnormal people. Most of us follow all these traditions or rules without even giving any serious thought or consideration about their logic and relevance. Many of us fail to question these perceptions which are passed on to us by our society. We follow them as part of tradition or culture, but we never bother to check their relevance or validity. Once anything whether it is good or bad becomes a part of tradition or culture it stays there for a long time. Many societies also develop some protective attitudes towards such traditions as they consider them an integral part of their identity. This is one of the main reasons why many people hesitate to question these things openly. I agree that it is not easy to challenge or fight against ancient traditions and rituals, but if they are wrong someone needs to challenge them. But the problem is that there is not a very conducive environment in most societies that can encourage questioning or dissent, rather few who dare to question have to face many hostile reactions. Transgenders are victims of such wrong traditions and misconceptions. According to me, we all have some transgender qualities in some way or other, therefore, it should be easy for all cisgender to relate with transgenders, provided we overcome all our prejudices and biases. We all possess a unique set of qualities, there is no defined set of masculine and feminine qualities which are exclusive to any one particular sex. A variety of feelings or characteristics can be found in both sexes. We all are sensitive, tough, stupid or intelligent, fearless or cowardice, strong or weak, introverted or extrovert our gender doesn't define these things. We all are capable of displaying feelings of tenderness, vulnerability, fear, jealousy, and envy to different extents on different occasions. We all have many characteristics that people associate only with transgenders we are a mixture of qualities that are normally classified as masculine or feminine. We just don't fit into that stereotyped definition of transgender that people have created by combining some emotional and physical characteristics. But just because some people show physical or emotional characteristics of both sexes more than others, we should not label them as abnormal. These people are as normal as any of us, just maybe not as common as many of us. Uncommon doesn't mean abnormal. They are in the minority, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve equal rights and recognition. We need to remove this prejudice and bias, we all need to recognize that there is nothing wrong or abnormal in being cisgender, transgender, or any other gender. Most common doesn't necessarily mean normal and uncommon doesn't mean abnormal. Let's remove these barriers and become a more inclusive society where every individual is accepted regardless of gender or sexual orientation. Let's start with ourselves, let's embrace and understand our fellow humans irrespective of their gender, sexual orientation, religion, race, or any other thing that we use to categorize us. Let's show love and respect towards each other, after all, we all are humans, and let's behave as humans. 

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 remove taboos associated with Menstruation

In my post about worshiping while menstruating, I tried to address the stigma associated with menstruation and participation in religious functions. This post gets maximum views during the Hindu festival seasons when there are a lot of occasions where women might face this dilemma. Many people have expressed different views and concerns in the comments section of that post. Some even asked for advice about what to do if they face a dilemma where their culture and tradition contradict their logic. When I read this article I decided to write one more post related to this topic of menstruation and various misconceptions associated with it. Actually, taboos associated with menstruation are not only a problem of any one religion or any one culture, they exist all over the world, in all regions and religions. Many developed societies have broken these barriers to a large extent, but still, this issue is a taboo subject in many societies all over the world. Why there is so much secrecy around this subject that people hesitate to discuss it in the open? Why there is so much ignorance and lack of information about this very important biological phenomenon that is directly related to our procreation? It is a simple biological process that we have known for ages. A lot of progress has been made in the area of sanitation and hygiene which can remove all concerns and doubts associated with hygiene-related questions related to menstruation. Then even after all this why do some societies or cultures continue to treat it as some contagious disease?

The root cause for all this stigma and discomfort associated with menstruation is some age-old beliefs, customs, and traditions. One can clearly see that even in societies where proper sanitation and hygiene methods are available women are treated differently during their periods. Somehow it is still believed that they are impure or not normal during "those days." Many times women fall prey to all this stereotyping and cultural pressures, they practice such traditions out of guilt or to not to make others upset and angry. Very few who dare to go against the norm then face severe criticism and are made to feel guilty about their behavior. Menstruation is not something they choose or do on their own willingly, they cannot be blamed in any way for it as it is a simple biological phenomenon. They should not be discriminated for a natural process over which they don't have any control.

It is good to see that things are improving, the rate of improvement is definitely slow but for sure things are changing. Many females are questioning this unfair treatment, and many of them are willing to challenge this stigma and confront discriminatory practices. All this is bound to bring that desired change, after all, how long unfair discrimination will last if the entire gender affected by it rebels against it? The more protests come out against such discrimination the more these things will be discussed. These discussions will slowly spread more information and more awareness about issues related to menstruation and will help to get rid of the stigma associated with it. Surprisingly people don't want to discuss or talk about such an important issue within their own family, we must give proper information to our kids about all these things, especially about things related to their body and sexuality. This is an essential part of their learning which will make them better human beings. This subject definitely doesn't need any stigma or taboo associated with it, females have suffered enough discrimination because of these things. We need to remove any stigma and hesitation associated with the subject of menstruation and related issues from all societies and cultures. This is an important subject for half of the world's population, we can't brush it aside or push it under the carpet as if it doesn't exist. I am glad to see that now females are taking the lead themselves to remove the stigma associated with many such issues. I am sure they will create space for their issues in discussion forums at all levels. I request the rest of us to join them in this quest.

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. A Girl Gets Her Period And Is Banished To The Shed

Haldi-Kumkum - discriminatory tradition

Haldi-Kumkum is a traditional or social gathering event celebrated in various parts of India by married women during the festival season. It seems that historically it was started as an occasion to give an opportunity for married women to interact socially. This sounds quite logical because, in a patriarchal society where women were not allowed to go out of their homes alone, there were not many opportunities for them to socially interact with other women. Due to such a restricted environment, it made perfect sense to have some function like this where women can gather in a relaxed environment, interact with each other socially, and discuss topics of their interest. So, why I am calling this gathering discriminatory? Is it because men are not invited to it, am I alleging gender discrimination here? Absolutely not, one can have male social gatherings as well as female social gatherings, and there is no question of gender discrimination when each gender is allowed to have its own gatherings. This is not about gender discrimination but about discrimination within the same gender. I witnessed this discrimination as a child, but at that time I didn't realize that this was discrimination as I thought it was a part of our culture and tradition. So, where is the discrimination, and what I am really talking about here? If you check about this function widows are not invited to this function. Now, you may ask why are they not invited? The simple answer is because their husbands are no more, they can't be a part of a function where still having a living husband is celebrated. Note that even though this gathering is of women, this is not about them, but it is about the presence of a man, their husband, in their lives, that's what they are celebrating. I am sure most readers know that in Hindu tradition only married women put kumkum on their forehead and widows are not allowed to put that mark on their forehead. Basically, that mark denotes that woman's husband is still alive,  note that no such mark or symbol is required for males to indicate whether their wife is alive or not. Actually, I was told that if widows are invited to this function, it can bring a bad omen for all other married women in that function which is why they are not invited. It seems due to the presence of widows somehow all those married women also might get widowhood, and it can spread like some contagious disease. Another reason might be that when being alive husband is celebrated these widows might feel bad that their husbands are no more, therefore, to spare them from this grief they are excluded. But if this is true, then why it is branded as a social function for women? Just accept that it is a celebration of having a living husband. Both cannot be correct, if it was supposed to be a social function then there is no reason why widows should not be allowed to be a part of it, they were also married and socially more isolated, rather, they need such social functions more than other married women. Also, not many years before widows used to be excluded from all these so-called auspicious occasions, things are changing slowly now but traditions like this show strong prejudice against widows and women in general.

As a child, I never realized that anything was wrong with any of these traditions. I was too naive and ill-informed, I observed these things silently with many questions in my mind and no one around to answer them. I saw widows like my maternal grandma (we used to call her nani) wearing really simple clothes and participating in very limited functions. Actually, I saw both my grandmas (nani and aaji) only as widows, but my nani lived a much more subdued or simple life than my aaji, maybe because nani had only a daughter as her only child but my aaji had 5 sons. I never realized back then the reason behind the lack of colors in their lives. I also never felt anything wrong about it as I never knew that these women also have the right to live life like any other married woman around them. I was trained to believe that it is part of our culture and tradition, so I accepted widowhood and their colorless lives as something these women have to live with rest of their lives. It was their bad luck or misfortune and their family or society can't do anything to change it. Fortunately, this ignorance didn't last long, slowly I realized that many of these traditions were discriminatory, misogynistic, and part of patriarchal culture to have complete control over women's bodies and their lives. I also realized that not only men but women are equally responsible for following and propagating these things and since then I have questioned and opposed any such ritual or tradition that is discriminatory. I am glad that some people are questioning these things and some are even modifying these traditions to make them more inclusive and non-discriminatory. Both things are necessary, as getting rid of these traditions altogether is not the only solution, one can modify them, remove the discriminatory rules and rituals, and keep on practicing them for social gatherings. For example, raksha bandhan is celebrated in our home in a gender-unbiased way where brother and sister both tie rakhi to each other. I hope this ritual also goes through some major reforms and women start inviting all women irrespective of their marital status. This will be a real social gathering and real interaction, having a living husband should not be the only criteria.

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

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

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