This amazing journey continues

Four years ago, my first post was published on this blog. I never imagined that I would continue writing regularly for so long, but with your support and encouragement I did manage to do that and here we are celebrating the fourth anniversary of this blog. This journey is one of the most joyful and rewarding experiences of my life. I want to thank all readers for making this experience so special. My special thanks to people who share their views by posting their comments, you all make this blog more meaningful. Please continue to share your views here or on whatever platform you feel appropriate as they all are important and valuable. I feel it is important for all of us to share our views so that various issues and problems get debated and discussed. Debates and discussions are important instruments of any democratic society that aspires to continuous progress. I guess we all agree that our world is still facing so many serious problems and only we can solve them by sharing our ideas. We all might propose radically different ways to solve some of these problems but unless we debate and discuss, we will never know which one is the best or most amicable way to tackle these issues. Please be vocal about your opinions and participate in discussions whenever possible. I agree that there is so much chaos on social media where many times discussion turns into some sort of street fight with a lot of mud-slinging and personal insults. It gets so bad that many times it is impossible to have any sensible discussion on those forums. We should not get discouraged by such a scenario, rather this is why we need to generate more forums where one can have sensible and rational discussions. We need to understand the difference between discussion and argument. Let's try to focus more on constructive discussions rather than verbal spats. There is nothing wrong with engaging in arguments as many times it can be fun and might help us to hone our argumentative skills but we should be also aware that rarely they contribute towards generating any meaningful outcome. 

I am sure readers must have noticed the reduced frequency of my posts during the last year or so. I did that purposely to avoid being repetitive and also as I got busy with some other things. I am passionate about certain issues but I understand that it will be very annoying if I keep on writing about those issues every week, that doesn't mean I will stop writing about them but I will try to do it in a way where I don't look very repetitive. I am also not interested in commenting about each and every sensational topic that is sensationalized beyond limits by various media houses. Many of these things don't deserve my attention and time. Nowadays every other day something sensational erupts from media houses all over the world. The battle for high TRPs and to attract maximum traffic on their websites has forced these many news organizations to present each and every piece of news in such a sensational way that even trivial incidents generate a hysterical public response. I think people need to relax a little and think rationally before reacting hysterically to such news items. Social media and various other online platforms have given us great opportunity and tremendous power to share our opinions, and we all need to make proper use of this opportunity. I am sure as people get acquainted with the merits and demerits of these discussions they will slowly become more mature and start using these platforms to their advantage. Once we pass through the transition phase and people learn how to use and not misuse these things then many of these side effects will wane away. Hopefully, these platforms will be more beneficial to our society, they may also help various governing bodies to feel the pulse of public opinion and act accordingly. This marvelous technological revolution has also allowed many writers to express their ideas freely without being dependent on any publisher to reach readers. I believe this has definitely helped to break the monopoly of those few gifted and powerful personalities who used to rule the opinion of the world as they only used to have access to very limited resources available back then like newspapers and book publishing houses to express their opinions. I think this is one of the biggest changes social media has brought in the field of opinion exchange. One can debate about the pros and cons of this changed ecosystem but this has definitely created a huge shift in the way public opinion is formed and used in today's world.

Please continue your support and encouragement, and also please continue to express your opinions. Let's debate and discuss. Let's try to fix what is wrong and try to preserve what is right. Let's ask questions and try to find answers. Let's learn to agree to disagree sometimes and let's also learn to respect everyone's right to express their opinions.

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

Smriti Irani ko gussa kyon aata hai?

Yes, believe it or not, I am also going to discuss now very famous speech by the HRD minister Mrs. Smriti Irani. She delivered a very charged, emotional, and extremely dramatic speech in the Indian parliament. It became a talking point of various debates and a highly watched event on the internet for a couple of days. Finally, someone from the current breed of Indian politicians broke the monopoly of Mr. Narendra Modi and Mrs. Sushma Swaraj to give charged and emotional speeches in Hindi. The effect of this speech was so much that most people including opposition party members of parliament were completely stumped by it. There were mostly two types of reactions to it. People who opposed her went on the complete back foot and didn't know how to counter this furious attack on them. People who supported her started celebrating the way she annihilated opposition mercilessly without even bothering to check what she actually said. No doubt that it was a treat to watch, it is always a pleasure to watch a good orator in action. She used all her strengths to her advantage, she used all her experience from theater to deliver punch line after punch line effectively. The content was very emotionally charged. After listening to such speeches people hardly bother to check the facts, most of them get overwhelmed by the way the speech is delivered. In this case, the same thing happened. Maybe now slowly after coming out of that spell, they might ponder on what she actually said. I am sure opposition parties must be wondering, "Smriti Irani ko gussa kyon aata hai?"In the storm created by that speech people totally ignored two very sensible speeches delivered on the same issue, these were from Mr. Sugata Bose and Tathagata Satpathy. Maybe because both these people spoke right up to the point and without any unwanted drama and theatrics. 

I still don't understand why these two issues which are respective university's internal matters are being discussed in the Indian parliament. One case is about a Hyderabad University student's suicide and it is alleged that the university administration was directly or indirectly responsible for creating the situation that forced that student to take such an extreme step. The other case is an anti-India sloganeering by some group of students at JNU. Both these issues could have been dealt with at the university level, but I don't know why and how the government of India got involved in this mess. I also wonder how a country like India can afford to spend so much of its resources and energy on such issues when it has so many more burning issues that need urgent attention from its citizens as well as the government. 

There is no point in analyzing the entire speech or commenting about both issues as it will take a lot of time and space. I already wrote one post about the JNU issue a few days back, in this post I just want to discuss a few points from her speech. She repeatedly referred to Rohith Vemula as a 'baccha' (a kid), but Rohith was a 26-year-old man doing her Ph.D. research. Of course, for any parent their child is a kid no matter how old he or she gets, but I don't think she was addressing him as a parent, she was speaking as an HRD minister of a country, so she should have addressed him properly but I don't think anyone noticed this and even if they did it didn't bother them.
Another interesting thing that she said and got away with was that according to her this suicide case was not important because of the caste of Rohith (he comes from the Dalit section of society). Sorry madam, this issue is so fiercely debated and discussed specifically because of the caste of the student who died. Otherwise, tell me when many students die in India every day for various reasons, some of them commit suicides, but how many of these incidents manage even to make it to the front page of newspapers and forget about being discussed in the parliament. Just a few days before 13 students from Pune drowned at some beach in Maharashtra, did anyone bother to look into the real reasons behind it? Just a few days back one young man associated with your own organization (RSS) was killed in Kerala, did anyone bother to discuss the reasons behind it? So, I wonder why she said that caste is not an issue in this case. Rather caste is 'the issue' in this case, and both sides are playing very pathetic politics over it. Sadly even today caste plays a very important role in Indian politics and all political parties make use of the caste card whenever and wherever it suits them. No one was debating the problems of students or struggles of Dalits or university campus-related issues in parliament, it was a tragic display of political wrestling by major national parties that are only interested in political gains and nothing else, so, please don't try to fool us.
I was also surprised when she retorted that she was taking some of the allegations and remarks personally. She said it in a very dramatic way, it almost reminded me delivery mode of my favorite actor Amitabh Bachchan. But seriously Mrs. HRD minister, you take criticism or allegations personally? That too after being in politics for so long? Just imagine if Sonia or Rahul Gandhi or Mr. Modi or Mr. Sharad Pawar or any political leader who is being targeted on a daily basis in parliament and outside start taking things said to them or about them personally. Just imagine the scenario if they start reacting to every allegation or criticism or even abuse thrown at them in as strident manure as she did. I want to offer one unsolicited advice to her from my side, please don't take anything personally in the future because even if you do take it personally no one will give a damn about it, people will keep on throwing those things at you and I wonder how many times you will react like this?
The last point is about this facetious line said by her, "My name is Smriti Irani, I challenge you to tell me my caste." This was again a very dramatic peak point of her speech. I guess she was trying to be cynical here, but anyway who cares about her caste, how does it relate to any of these two issues. It sounded like a lame attempt to deliver a punch line by using famous dialogue from a popular Bollywood flick, but I didn't expect to hear it in the Indian parliament that too from the HRD minister of India. I must say it sounded really dramatic and I am sure it had some desirable effect on some of the audience who watched her speech.

The entire speech was largely condescending and strident with very few relevant or logical arguments. It sounded like an emotional outburst rather than a balanced reply from some responsible and sensible minister. I might be wrong but this is my personal opinion. But on the performance level, I must admit that it was a stellar performance, worthy of grand applause. As per public perception, she clearly won this debate hands down. Mr. Modi and Mrs. Sushma Swaraj now have some serious competition from their own party colleague. I am sure her speech will give many sleepless nights to key opposition party leaders, they will be wondering how to counter her rhetorical arguments with equally pompous statements. They must be desperately looking for someone from their side to match that pitch. I am sure people are waiting to watch this spectacle on the floor of parliament.

But somewhere deep down in my mind, I still hope that in the future some sensible and logical discussions will take place in the Indian parliament without any excessive theatrics and drama. I hope that to hurt the opposition, our Minister didn't inflict some serious wounds on her own government. I hope that in the future Indian parliament will try to discuss more relevant and pertinent issues that affect the citizens of the country rather than only focusing on some political controversies. 

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

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

Links:

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PlGs8NCMWE

2. http://www.scoopwhoop.com/tathagata-satpathy-sugata-bose-speech/

3. http://selfrealization-vinay.blogspot.com/2016/02/jnu-oh-jnu.html?spref=tw

JNU oh JNU

Whatever is happening in India after the controversial protest at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) has raised many questions in the minds of people like me. This incident exposed deep-rooted hypocrisy in the minds of people belonging to both camps. I wonder why Baba Ramdev was not allowed to speak at JNU but shouting anti-India slogans is considered a right of freedom of expression? I also wonder why a trivial student protest is treated like some sort of terrorist attack by the Indian government? Questions are many but I don't think there is anyone who is looking for answers, most of them are busy delivering judgments. It is sad to see the sense and sensibility murdered like this. It also exposed once again the inability of the government to control mob violence and their desire to encourage the tendency to deliver mob justice whenever this type of behavior suits them. Let me first clarify that, I am not in any way sympathetic with any leftist ideology and not associated with any political party or ideology so I have no interest in justifying any side's behavior in this case. What was supposed to be a student agitation rally has now turned into a full-blown national crisis. It seems everyone is trying to judge other person's nationalism or patriotism using their own prism. 

Student life is and should be full of interesting things. We go through many phases during our student life, and passion for certain issues and causes is an integral part of it. People are prone to take risks at that age. As a student, I also went through these phases. At that age, we are very angry about so many things that we feel are wrong or unjust but have no idea about the reasons behind those things. This happens more in a country like India especially if you come from underprivileged background. I was angry about so many things and I didn't know whom to blame. I am sure this is still the case with many students. Students at that age already have highly impressionable minds when you add to it a lot of anger and unrest, there are very high chances of volatile behavior. During that age, we easily get attracted to rebellious behavior. Lack of patience and maturity can result in very immature or even foolish acts which we often misinterpret as rebellious or brave acts at that age. Therefore, a forceful and bitter attack on the government, a rival political group, or ideology is not something unusual at that age. Anger about the state, religion, or any other establishment is also not unusual. These types of things used to happen in the past also but because of the internet and mobile, we all can see these things now. Of course, there can not be any logical explanation for this but any sensible person should understand the reasons behind this indignant behavior. We can only blame it on ignorance, immaturity, or plain stupidity. But the question I am raising is not about the behavior of some students who acted foolishly, as it was no surprise to me, but the way government, media, and public responded to that immature or foolish behavior by even more immature and foolish actions. 

I am a supporter of freedom of expression, except in case of direct incitement of violence against anyone. I support the right of any person to express their feelings or opinions freely. I may or may not agree with what they say but I can not take away their right to express those things. I have the right to agree or disagree with anyone, and I have the right to oppose or support their argument but I have no right to silence anyone just because I don't like their views. It is amazing to see how various political outfits define 'nationalism' in a very narrow way, especially in a way that suits their own ideology. Not only do they define nationalism or patriotism at their own convenience, but they also start handing out certificates of patriotism. Both major political parties of India, Congress and BJP are guilty of this type of behavior. It is also sad to see that this drama of sedition, nationalism, and patriotism has been played on many national news channels. During most debates someone is branded as anti-national, news anchors are behaving as if they are sacrosanct judges and jury who are running some criminal trial. It is a pathetic display of jingoism and hooliganism in the name of journalism. In any democratic society expressing dissent in a peaceful way should not be considered as a crime. Actually, it should be encouraged and the right to express dissent should be protected. Any attempt to suppress any peaceful dissent is bound to create more disturbance, no matter how misguided that dissent is and how well-intended the action to suppress is. I wonder how and why the current Indian government committed this totally avoided mistake.  

The arrest of the JNU student leader was definitely a mistake. I think they have to release him ultimately but sadly this will not happen without a lot of political drama and chaos. There are so many other pertinent and serious problems that need urgent attention from the government and citizens of India but sadly they are busy focusing on the wrong issues. It is really distressing to see that so much energy and resources are being wasted to deal with such trivial issues. Politics should be played and there is nothing wrong in having bitter political rivalries but to take any political fight to such a low level is really pathetic. It is really disturbing to watch television debates and the kind of language used by some anchors and participants. It is also shocking to see that kind of aggression and violent behavior displayed on the premises of court where even sentenced criminals are also supposed to be treated with dignity. I hope some sense will prevail on both sides and they will stop all this drama.

JNU oh JNU I hope you forget this painful episode and get back to your normal routine. I hope educational institutes behave and remain like educational institutes. I hope they don't become political battlegrounds of various political parties to propagate their ideology at the cost of healthy debate and logical discussions. I hope we all try to listen and understand each other rather than judge and punish. I hope we apply the same rules to everyone and don't behave like hypocrites. I hope people stop perversion of terms like nationalism and patriotism. I hope the media behaves like media and not like the mouthpiece of some political party or ideology. I hope both sides realize their mistakes and try to correct them rather than playing the blame game, and I also hope that I am not expecting too much from the people and government of my country.

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

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

The real meaning of gender equality

"How dare you talk like this with a woman?"
"This is not the way you should behave with women"
"How can police be so brutal towards women?"

I read many complaints like these. No doubt that they all are very well intended and express feelings of empathy towards women. There is absolutely nothing wrong in objecting to rude behavior or unwarranted aggression by the police or anyone else. But all these complaints are very gender specific. Surprisingly, even people who claim to be feminists and vow to gender equality also voice such complaints which demand some sort of soft attitude towards women. It is puzzling to me on what basis while supporting the cause of gender equality some people feel that women should be treated differently under certain situations, especially when it comes to harsh criticism or some actions to maintain law and order. Doesn't the above complaints indirectly mean that 'if someone does those things against men then it's okay or less offensive but those things are not acceptable if women are victims?' Or do they mean that men can handle those things but women can't, so please spare them from any such behavior? Aren't such arguments defeat the whole purpose of the fight for gender equality? Any misbehavior or brutality should be objected to, no matter whether it is against women, men, or someone else. According to me "equality" means not just equal rights, but also equal responsibility at all levels. Equality doesn't come only with equal rights, but also with equal responsibility, suffering, humiliation, and pressure. It means you will get equal everything. One cannot demand equality and then ask for some preferential treatment. If it is so, then it is not true equality, but again some form of discrimination, and aren't all these movements like feminism or civil rights originated to fight against any such discrimination? Also, note that the discussion is not about equity, that is an altogether different and separate topic of discussion.

There are some minimum standards for public behavior. If it is wrong to speak with a woman in a certain way, then it should be wrong to speak like that with any man. If it is wrong to push or attack women while they are part of any protest or street march then it should be wrong to do these things with men as well. Both men and women are human beings and feel humiliation or pain in the same way. They both can be very sensitive so why single out women? If these complainants in any way mean that women are more sensitive to certain types of language or are in any way weak compared to men then knowingly or unknowingly they are confirming the widely prevalent stereotype of women being the 'weaker sex.'  This prejudice of 'women being weaker than men' is very old and deep-rooted. The fight to remove this prejudice has been going on for several decades and such objections don't help this cause. If women really want equality, then they should object to any such preferential or differential treatment. This is very typical of a patriarchal mindset where women are branded as very sensitive or weak and then offered some special protection and concessions at the cost of their freedom or right to choose. The practice of this type of mindset and preferential treatment is the root cause of such widespread gender discrimination all over the world.

I guess gender equality is a very complicated and confusing subject for many men and women. I think most who demand ' gender equality' know what they are asking for but they don't know what comes with it. It might be the case that many think that equality means getting all positive things like equal rights, equal pay, the right to choose, etc. But not all negative things like high levels of expectations to perform, work pressure, personal assessments, or many other things that men face in their day-to-day lives. I don't think that it can work like this, women need to be open to all criticisms and scrutiny that men go through every day. It is not that men live a very worry-free and trouble-free life. Men and women both are stereotyped in a certain way and we need to break these stereotypes for both of them. We all know that all genders (including transgenders) are discriminated against in various ways and we need to remove all that discrimination. Gender equality specifically means not asking or expecting any different treatment anywhere just because of our gender. This is what equality means and this is what equality is. It really means not to expect anything more or anything less, but to be equal at all levels. I hope that everyone who is against any type of discrimination tries to understand the real meaning of equality and act accordingly. It is not an easy task, we all need to fight against many prejudices, stereotypes, traditions, and cultures to achieve this task, many of which are very deeply rooted in our own psyche. If we flounder like this then we are going to make our task more difficult and complicated.

Let's make it very clear that if we shouldn't talk or behave in certain ways with women then we should not be doing those things with men. It is wrong to abuse a woman as well as a man. To understand what I mean by this, please check some of the videos where people react differently to physical abuse incidents in public places while males abusing females versus females abusing males. I know that these things cannot be generalized based on one study or one video, but we can sense that there is still a strong prejudice about both genders that exists in our minds. We need to stop such gender-based reactions, we need to be sensitive equally towards all genders. If not, then I am afraid that the notion of 'equality' will only remain on paper and in our blogs with no chance of becoming a reality on the ground. Let's work towards gender equality and not against it.

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

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

Public shaming for external appearance: Kejriwal and his sandals

I read news about Mr. Kejriwal wearing sandals during India's Republic Day function with some dismay. Initially, I ignored this news item thinking it was just an attempt to sensationalize a very trivial issue. I don't think even this event is worthy of any discussion, but during the following days, I noticed more discussions about this incident that too with photos, and now it seems one person sent him a check to buy some decent shoes. It looks like some people are deeply hurt by Mr. Kejriwal wearing sandals instead of shoes during this function. These hurt Indians are claiming that Mr. Kejriwal by doing this terrible act that too in front of the French Prescient embarrassed the entire India. I really wonder what is the logic behind this? This looks like an ideal case of intellectual bankruptcy. But I am still trying to figure out why they think like this? Let me first say that I am personally not a big fan of any dress codes and myself faced this problem so many times in my life when people were not happy with what I wore on some occasions. I always wondered what was their problem as long as I was not coming naked and wearing clean, non-stinky clothes of my choice. I know very well that any leader of Mr. Kejriwal or Mr. Modi's stature is capable enough to take care of any such attacks. They both have an army of devotees who are willing to fight for them and defend their each and every action. I am not writing this to defend any one of them but I personally went through these experiences myself, and this is why I am making an effort to discuss this issue on my blog.

I know that this type of public shaming of people for their external appearance is real and in this age of the internet, it has become more common. First of all, why do I or anyone else have to follow others as far as the choice of dress is concerned? I am not forcing anyone to dress like me, so why people should have any problem with my dress? People have the freedom to express their opinions in whatever way they want. They are free to object, free to criticize but to ridicule anyone like this is not a criticism but a case of public shaming. To ridicule someone's choice of dress, food, or profession is not something we should be doing. There is no doubt that people like Mr. Kejriwal or Mr. Modi are public figures and their every action is open for public scrutiny but to comment about their or for that matter anyone's external appearance is something we should refrain from doing. It seems that few people want to force their choice on some individual who is choosing his own way to dress. It doesn't affect these powerful public personalities but such behavior becomes a real problem for common people who want to express themselves but then face such public wrath. One should take note that these people are not objecting to Mr. Kejriwal not wearing a suit or a tie but they are very particular about him not wearing shoes. They might be okay with a dhoti-kurta or any other Indian dress but not with sandals or chappals as according to them these things display cheapness or poverty and thus embarrass India. 

Why wearing sandals is so embarrassing to these people? Is it because it displays the poverty or cheapness of that person or the poverty of the entire country? Is it because there is some official dress code for these government functions and he made a serious mistake by violating that dress code? Or is it because it doesn't go very well with current fashion or doesn't suit the dress he was wearing (but how this can be a matter of embarrassment for the entire country)? I am sure all these people know that Mr. Kejriwal is not a poor or deprived person by any standards. He and his family earn more than enough money to afford expensive shoes, phones, or cars, and based on some photos shared by these groups it also seems that he owns some of this expensive stuff like an iPhone. Information about his salary and other wealth is available in the public domain so one cannot also claim that he is trying to hide his wealth by living a simple lifestyle. So, it is very clear that he was wearing those sandals out of his own desire and choice, lack of money or display of fake modesty are not possible reasons behind it. I wonder why these people have a problem with that? Do these people also feel embarrassed to see Mahatma Gandhi's dress? He went to England or to all official or nonofficial functions without wearing any shoes or formal dress. Gandhi always traveled in his single-piece dhoti. Was his dress choice in any way embarrassing for India as a country? Is it difficult for these people to understand that Mr. Kejriwal or Mr. Manohar Parrikar or for that matter any individual has complete freedom to choose what dress or footwear they want to wear. It is within everyone's personal rights to decide what they want to wear on any occasion. We don't elect CMs and PMs to display their fashion sense but we elect them to govern properly. What Mr. Modi, Kejriwal, or anyone else wears during any function is their personal choice. Public shaming of anyone for their appearance is not good and I wonder how these people forgot about this simple etiquette. I also wish that instead of sending money to Mr. Kejriwal, which is a cheap publicity stunt and a total waste of that money as he doesn't need it this person should have sent it to some struggling farmer or some underprivileged person who is in real need of it. Public displays of hunger and poverty and news of farmers committing suicide because of lack of money are more embarrassing for India a politician in slippers. What anyone is wearing during any function is not even a topic worthy of any discussion in mainstream media for a country like India. It can be a time-pass topic but definitely not something to report in national media. I hope we understand our priorities and act accordingly.

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 see if age old discriminatory traditions withstand the challenge posed by modern women.

Women empowerment is still a subject of debate in many societies. Many developed countries are still trying to work out many policy changes which can help women to be a part of work force and contribute equally in all sectors of country's development. Many developing or undeveloped countries are still battling with many issues where discrimination against women is still practiced without any remorse or guilt. Recent issues related with entry of women in some temples or mosques of India is ideal example of it. Actually struggle for rights of some oppressed class is not new for any civilization, many great people have fought for causes like these, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar is one such example. This time it is good to see that the challenger to these age old traditions is the group of women, they themselves are fighting for their rights, there is not some political party or some charismatic leader leading their cause but it is a group of women who are leading this fight. I believe that this is really good thing, unless and until women themselves realize about discrimination against them and fight against it any number of laws or policies will have very limited effect. In reality there are already many rules, laws and constitutional rights which forbid any type of gender discrimination but in reality all those things just remain on paper and some age old traditions or beliefs take precedence over any law or rights. So it is good that women themselves decided to take on this task to challenge some of these discriminatory traditions. If they are really serious about this challenge then I am sure these traditions are facing the toughest threats they ever faced.

In reality, every religion has some discriminatory practice or tradition against women, it doesn't matter what their book or manual says one can easily notice that men and women are treated differently by every religion. For centuries most of these discriminatory practices were unchallenged but in last few decades things started to change. Many of these movements which challenge such traditions started on really small scale but they gained momentum as more and more women became aware of this discrimination. I guess they realized that just having an academic discussion about equality or conducting debates about feminism is not enough to change the things on ground. Many of these beliefs are centuries old, very strong opposition from section who is suffering because of them is required to change these things, just discussion and debates are not enough. I am glad that this is happening in India, I am sure things will change. Already many things have changed so this movement also will bring some desirable change. It might take some time but governments and courts can't ignore these protests for long, they definitely need to do something about this. I hope there will be some discussion about these issues with involvement of both parties and something positive will come out of all this. Actually it is not just about right to pray or enter the temple, this is a question about equality. One issue related with entry in temple is already in supreme court, this decision might act as a catalyst to change things across India, so a lot depends on what decision supreme court of India gives in this matter. Historically courts have always been more progressive compared to respective governments in such matters. On some occasions government reversed court orders on some sensitive matters for short term political gains, so it will be interesting to see what happens in this case. 

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 simple pedometer, but it changed my lifestyle

Nowadays various fitness devices are being launched every day in the market. Some of these are really popular, there are also many apps for cell phones which can measure and store your physical activity data. I guess there is a very compelling reason why these things are so popular and I can say this from my own experience. When I got this little device called a 'pedometer' as a gift from our company, I never thought that it was going to change my lifestyle so much. For people who don't know about this device, the pedometer measures the number of steps you take by sensing the motions of your body. It gives you a record of how much you move in a day. I consider myself a physically active person who prefers to walk or use a bicycle rather than using a car or scooter. I was under the impression that walking ten thousand steps per day would be easy for me but when I started using the pedometer, this belief was crushed. When I looked at the readings of my pedometer I realized how little people like me walk in their day-to-day lives. I was just hitting the mark of six thousand steps per day. To achieve my daily target of 10k steps I decided to walk to the office at least one way rather than taking the bus and also made sure that I do some exercise at home to make up the remaining steps. Since I can see my progress in numbers, it made me very conscious and I try to make sure that I walk enough every month or every week to complete whatever target I set. This was never the case before, I used to walk or do some exercise but there was no data for me to check if I was doing enough. With this device, I can quantify my physical activity and it made a lot of difference. Basically, this data pushes me to set new targets and work towards them.

Nowadays we all complain about how modern technology is affecting our lives. Most of the time modern technology is blamed for many bad things happening in our personal lives. Some of our health problems are also blamed on our addiction to many of these gadgets. Our sedentary lifestyle, changing modes of communication, or too much addiction to video games is often highlighted as a reason for some of our problems. However, it is also true that each of these things has contributed something positive to our lives. We can use these things for our own benefit, they assist us in staying informed or being more physically active, the choice is really ours. Lack of enough physical activity is really a problem for many of us. Compared to our previous generation there is a lot of physical comfort in our lives, and different modes of transportation are very easily accessible to our generation. Our children are going to face this problem more severely than we do, this sudden change in lifestyle has created a lot of health issues like obesity, high blood pressure (hypertension), type-2 diabetes, and other lifestyle-related health problems. Apart from an unhealthy diet, lack of enough physical activity is one of the reasons for these problems. We get tired without doing much physical work. Many of us don't find time because of our very busy schedules to go to the gym or to do some simple exercise at home. We all think that we have some genuine reasons for our inability to spare some time for physical exercise. Maybe those reasons are valid but definitely we all should try to incorporate some sort of physical activity in our day-to-day life. Walking is one such thing that most of us can include in our day-to-day life, just try to walk to any place that is at a walkable distance (20-30 minutes per day). No need to walk one hour or 10 miles per day and get really exhausted but instead of taking an elevator take the stairs, if the destination is just a couple of blocks away then walk instead of going by car. These small changes can reduce our need to take out separate time for daily physical activity. I am offering this suggestion as it worked for me, maybe everyone can't walk to the office or take the stairs instead of the elevator, everyone has to come up with their own way of being physically active. My pedometer has helped me a lot in this case, so much that every day I am eager to see that magical 10000 number on it which indicates that the target achieved for the day. It gives me some sort of happiness and a sense of achievement, and the next day I am on my quest to achieve that task all over again. I am sure everyone can find some driving force that can push them to become more active. After all, we have to do it for our own health. Let's try to become more active and more healthy. It is good for our body as well as our mind. Remember that old saying "A healthy mind resides in a healthy body."

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

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

Casteism, suicide of a student and politics of death

Hyderabad University student Rohith Vemula committed suicide. Based on his suicide note and some previous letters it looks like he was unhappy with the education system or society in general because of some incidents in his life. His being a Dalit might have played a role in this frustration, which resulted in a loss of all hope of justice, and in that frustration, he might have taken this extreme step. These things may or may not be true and may not be the real reason behind his suicide, but this is what everyone is predicting based on events that transpired before and after his death. In his suicide note, he doesn't blame anyone in particular for his death but there are many hints to conclude that the system's failure to make him believe that justice can be done with him might be one of the reasons for this extreme step. Casteism still exists in India in various forms. People still suffer from caste discrimination and it is really sad. There are many attempts from all quarters of society to remove this evil but somehow it still exists. It is a form of discrimination like racism in Western societies, so it is a very serious issue that doesn't get as much attention.

Caste starts playing its role in a person's life in India since their birth. School and college admissions depend on it. Therefore, which field they can choose for their career also depends on it. During marriage, many people are very rigid about the caste criteria so the choice of a life partner also depends on caste. It is still a very important factor in Indian politics. So, no matter how much people deny it, the truth is that caste and casteism still very much exist in Indian society and it plays a major role in people's behavior. But one thing has definitely changed, the way this discrimination is practiced now is very different compared to fifty years back. Now there are no separate wells for Dalits or they are not treated as untouchables publicly as they were in the past but discrimination is practiced in a very subtle way. One can feel it in people's behavior, one can feel it during elections but superficially everything looks very normal until something tragic like this happens. 

Maybe we will never know the real reason behind Rohith's suicide, but we know that caste-based discrimination still exists. When I say caste-based discrimination I am not just talking about so-called lower castes discriminated by so-called upper castes but it happens the other way around also. Discrimination is discrimination it doesn't matter who is a perpetrator and who is a victim. It should be treated with equal seriousness. These castes are nothing but one crude criterion to measure the social status of a particular community. Every society has this system in some form or another. In some countries, it is in the form of race, where only people from certain races occupy certain spaces and hold powerful positions, in India it took the form of a caste system. In some countries, it is in the form of economic class. For this tragedy, instead of trying to find real reasons behind it very ugly politics is being played by every group involved in it. The death of one university student has become a big political capital. Many parties are trying to reap as much political mileage as possible from this tragic incident. University student organizations are involved in politics, so some sort of political power play was expected but the way the HRD minister tried to present wrong facts to cover up their mistakes and other political parties are trying to take advantage of this situation is really sickening. The press conference of the HRD minister was one such horrible scenario where she said that this issue should not be looked at as Dalit vs non-dalit and then went on to mention the word 'Dalit' so many times in her statement. The fact is that a student committed suicide, one can blame him for taking this step but we need to ask was this tragedy preventable? Is the current social, political, and educational system in any way responsible for this? If they are, then we need to look at the system and check what are the things that can be improved to avoid such incidents in the future. The government should recognize its mistakes and try to take corrective action rather than offering some lame excuses. In any progressive society, there should be ample scope to express dissent against anything, if dissenting voices are crushed then it can result in something tragic incident like this.

After Rohith's death, everyone from our PM to ministers, to the general public, and even the media seemed to be concerned about his family and his problems but why no one bothered to look into his problems when he was still alive? Why university administration was so insensitive towards him? Why do farmers, students, or any common person become so important only after their death? All concerned people need to give answers to all these questions. 

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

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

If beef can be banned, then why not Jallikattu?

Jallikattu is a bull-taming sport practiced in some parts of the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu for centuries. Recently Indian Supreme Court banned this sport because of complaints about animal cruelty. Animal welfare activists complained that bulls are tortured by using various cruel methods and are forced to participate in this sport. The court took notice of their complaint and banned its practice after looking into all angles of it presented by both sides. But the problem is this sport has become a tradition in those parts of India, and many people are emotionally attached to it. So, as usual, this has become a very sensitive and controversial issue. Just like the beef ban, which was imposed by various state governments with the help of court decisions, in this case, animal activists were successful in getting a court order to ban this sport. But the problem this time is that both governments (center and state) are not in favor of this ban. In the case of beef imposing the ban was politically beneficial and in this case not imposing the ban is politically beneficial. In one case governments were in agreement with the court decision and in the other they didn't agree. To bypass this ban, the central government of India issued a special ordinance that was supported by all political parties of that state. This was a unique scenario where all political rivals who fought with each other even on many issues of national interest came together. The reason? There are state elections in Tamil Nadu soon and no political party wants to create a perception that they are against some religious tradition which can cost them votes. But now the problem is that the court has struck down that ordinance also, so it will be interesting to see what happens next. One interesting thing to note here is that people who supported the beef ban for animal cruelty and calling cows their mothers want to support this sport. Some who opposed the beef ban saying that what they want to eat is their personal choice are supporting this ban on Jallikattu for animal cruelty. It is very interesting to see how people switch their sides conveniently without even realizing sharp contradictions in their behavior. Actually, one can not equate the slaughtering of cows with bulls being tortured for some entertainment sports, in one case an animal is killed for food and in another case tortured to create some entertainment. But in both cases, one can argue that there is an element of cruelty involved and it should be the topic of discussion. Are we okay with both of them or we are okay with one but against the other and why?

In both cases, the emotions are involved. In the beef ban case, people are sensitive towards cruelty towards one particular animal (cow) and want to ban her slaughter but in Jallikattu's case, they want to uphold the tradition and continue that sport without being bothered by the animal cruelty involved in it. I personally appreciate the sentiments of people who love animals and work towards animal welfare. It is a great cause and many groups are committed to working towards this cause. But the truth is animal and human lives are judged differently. Humans use animals as objects made for their personal use: we eat their meat, keep them in zoos, attend various animal shows, have them as pets, domesticate them for farming or milk production, and even hunt them. Basically, we use them for our own personal benefit in whatever way we want. All these activities that I mentioned are legal. Cow slaughter might be illegal in many states of India but it is permitted in some states and many countries of the world but human killing is considered a very serious crime everywhere. We should understand that as a species humans value their own lives more compared to any other animal on this planet. Therefore we should not compare humans and animals using the same scale because our laws or our societies don't do this. The problem in these types of cases is that people are not consistent in their views and double standards are used either to justify or criticize exposing the hypocrisy of our society.

If the beef ban was required to save cows then how can you support the eating of meat of any other animal? If the beef ban was not for religious purposes but to stop animal cruelty then don't other animals also deserve the same protection?  How it is okay to support any sport where animals are tortured?  If we look at the other side, if beef eating is your right to choose your food then why you are against people's right to choose the sport which they want to play? If cow slaughter is okay then what's wrong with bull taming sport? Actually, my personal experience is that people who do such flip-flops don't like to face any such uncomfortable questions. Whenever they are confronted with such contradictions in their behavior, they either choose to justify their own hypocritical behavior by using their oratory skills or get very aggressive. Such issues also expose lame attempts of various political groups to exploit such sensitive issues for their own advantage. It is not fair to expect courts to pass judgments on every such issue, but unfortunately, governments and civil society make these things so complicated that eventually, these issues land in courts. Some of them like this one get resolved quickly but many such cases keep on dragging on for years as it is very difficult for courts to pass any judgment on very sensitive issues, Babri mosque demolition case is one such example. 

Actually, at some point in our lives, our double standards are exposed. We should learn from such incidents and try to improve our thinking. Such issues expose the hypocrisy of people in our society but somehow they are still not willing to learn any lesson. I am sure that soon there will be another sensitive issue and another similar passionate and emotional debate where people will argue based on their political and religious affiliations rather than having a logical discussion, there will be another deadlock followed by another protest and court case.

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

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

Malda and Dadri, what is the difference?

Malda, a district in the Indian state of West Bengal (WB) is tense, the reason is very trivial, some person said something about Prophet Mohammad and the Muslim community of India didn't like it. I don't know what was his intention behind saying those things, maybe he was just joking or maybe he really wanted to hurt the feelings of Muslims all over the world for me this is not really important. But this guy said something that Indian Muslims or some sections of them thought was very insulting and derogatory to their prophet, hence many of them decided to protest. I don't see anything wrong so far. The guy said whatever he wanted to say under his right of freedom of expression and people who protested used their democratic right to register their opposition to that statement. But the problem started when some people in Malda decided to attack the police station and destroy public property which resulted in a serious law and order situation. Now one can easily ask, what was the intention behind all these actions apart from spreading the terror? If it was just a protest against some statement then it should have been a peaceful protest. There was absolutely no need for any sort of violence. As expected this violent behavior created an atmosphere of fear and flared up communal tension in that region. This can not be called a protest but it is an act of communal violence with a clear intention of spreading terror, especially among minorities of that area (who are Hindus and other religious groups). Surprisingly, there is not proportional outrage about this incident like it was in the case of the Dadri incident, I wonder why? I agree that in Dadri someone died, and one innocent man was lynched by a violent mob. So far no casualty has been reported in Malda but is this the reason not to offer equally strong condemnation for this act?

Actually, such incidents are not rare, these things happened in the past and they will happen in the future too. This is an ugly truth that many people don't want to accept. Such incidents start occurring especially if some type of election is around the corner. In this case, there are state elections due in WB this year, so this may be a warm-up round to get ready for the final battle for some political parties who are looking to appease their respective vote banks. Minority or majority appeasement politics is very common in India. All political parties use whatever tactics they can to appease their core constituencies. If the beef ban can be considered as majority appeasement politics then calling riots like Malda a routine scuffle between people and police is an example of minority appeasement. Such dirty tricks are always used and respective political parties or governments justify their stands by using their resources and talented spokespersons. Riots like Malda are as deplorable as the Dadri attack, a library burning, or any other mob violence incident. Just because no one died in this particular incident can not reduce its severity or cruelty. It is quite possible that it would have resulted in full full-fledged communal riot like Godhra. Any such incident must be taken very seriously. But the truth is as long as people are going to be selective in expressing their opinions about such incidents Indian society is not going to see any change in the attitude of political parties who use such incidents as a tool to polarize voters for political gains. If people are interested in putting an end to the use of such dirty tactics to win elections then they need to condemn such incidents equally irrespective of their political or religious affiliations. This can only happen in politically and intellectually mature societies. If this starts happening in India then only political parties will get a clear message that any such act is not acceptable to people and it might hurt their prospectus of winning elections. But if the majority somehow believes in those lame justifications like 'this is a reaction to certain action' or 'religious sentiments are hurt' or 'our idol or hero was insulted' then such acts will be repeated. Unless we are ready to condemn every mob violence and communal strategy by any political party this dirty game will not stop. The choice is really in people's hands as they are very important players in this game. Please think rationally and logically before justifying any such act, beware that any justification offered today might become the reason for regret tomorrow.

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

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