Our comfort zones

"Get out of your comfort zone." This has become a cliche, we hear it all the time, but still, it resonates with many of us. Why? Why are we so scared of getting out of our comfort zones? One of the reasons is that it is scary to get out of our comfort zones. No matter how bad they are, we get used to our current surroundings because they are predictable. Anything unpredictable sounds riskier than our current situation, which is why most of us are scared to take risks. It must be noted that the word "comfort" used here has nothing to do with physical comfort it implies our familiarity with the situation and fear of the unknown rather than a feeling of material comfort. 

If we are exposed to any situation for long enough, we get used to it, and most of us behave this way. Whether it's our job, neighborhood, house, relationship, family, school, country, or anything. We know what to expect, we can guess the consequences of our actions and plan accordingly. This predictability gives us a sense of comfort, a zone in which we feel in control, at least on our own actions. Anything out of this zone is unpredictable and hence scary. Most of the time if we get comfortable in a bad situation we fear getting into a worse situation than the current one and hence hesitate to take any action. However, the truth is that nothing improves until we take the risk and move out of our comfort zone. We need to face that uncertainty and fear. We need to dare to challenge the status quo, the result may not be what we expect, but it is worth giving it a shot. If we are going to go down it is better to go down fighting. One example of such fear is to give enough time to find a suitable job or career. There is a huge pressure on us to work once we finish our education. The pressure is very high. People start asking about their future jobs while students are still in the last year of their college. This makes students anxious and forces them to have some job no matter whether they like it or not. They want a job offer just to show that they are on track, not because they want that job. Taking your time to figure out what you want to do is getting out of your comfort zone. Choosing a career of your liking and preference than opting for obvious and safe choices is getting out of your comfort zone. It's not always doing something that defines getting out of our comfort zone, not doing something, not following the traditional path, not falling for propaganda, and not opting for the so-called American dream is also getting out of our comfort zones. It takes courage to do things, and at the same time it takes courage not to do things that everyone expects from you but you don't want to do. 

Getting out of our comfort zone is an adventure, it is a personal choice and challenge. I understand that not everyone may want to do this. Being happy in our comfort zones is not a bad thing if this is what makes us happy. But if you are not happy or content, you want something more, or want to change things, then take that step, and get out of your comfort zone. Challenge yourself and test your abilities. Things will be unpredictable and a little scary. But this is what adventure looks like, unpredictable and a little scary. Remember, most people regret things they didn't do rather than things they did. So, if you are looking for some challenge, get out of your comfort zone, and chase the dream you always wanted to chase. Make sure to prepare yourself for this challenge, as any risk without preparation is a recipe for disaster. So, get ready and start your journey, you won't regret it.

Thank you for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

© Vinay Thakur, All rights reserved, Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com 

Don't confuse confidence for competence

Confidence is good, it gives a person the power to do things that a person with low or no confidence may not be able to do easily. This is also one quality that many desire to see in their leaders. However, many times, confidence is confused with competence. People tend to forget that both things are completely different and have no relation with each other. That is, it is not necessary that a competent person will also be confident and it is also not necessary that a confident person will also be competent. Of course, it will be great if a competent person is confident, but unfortunately, this is not the case. But there are many confident people whose competence can be questioned, especially in the field of politics. I don't think I need to cite any names here, just look around the world. In many countries, some leaders are elected or extremely popular because they are excellent orators, they speak with all confidence and conviction, but there is no real change, they just keep on giving speech after speech. People love their confidence and confuse it for competence. Such leaders develop an image of charismatic leaders, developing a cult-like following, but no real change happens, but their supporters don't care, they are mesmerized by the magic this leader creates, for them the image in their mind is more important than the reality on the ground.  

Confidence is good, but it is not everything. We should try to look beyond confidence, to see if it is accompanied by competence or exists as a trait to shield incompetence. Just because someone dominates the room or conversation, occupies the stage with ease, entertains the audience, knows how to push their point with force and conviction, and can say unpopular things does not make them a good leader. Also, being confident is not a red flag per se. But being confident without being willing to be accountable, without accepting any mistakes, taking all the credit all the time, demeaning people or team members for disagreeing, or behaving like an autocrat are red flags and signs of a terrible leader, these can be signs of a dictator but not a leader. This world has seen many confident and popular leaders who did tremendous harm not only to their own countries but to the entire world. I don't think we have learned our lessons from those events as it seems we fall for the same trap again and again. Somehow divisive politics seem to appeal to us even in the twenty-first century. Somehow hate-mongers still get elected as lawmakers. Somehow religion still divides people rather than uniting them. If you look at all these problems, you will find some extremely confident but utterly incompetent leaders. These leaders know how to use people, but don't care for them. They are okay with people fighting among themselves, hating or killing each other, but seldom put themselves or their families in the line of fire. These leaders want to be popular and win at any cost, even at the cost of human life or the unity of their country. I am not calling these leaders incompetent because they lose elections or fail to inspire, many of them keep on winning elections and inspire their supporters to do unimaginable things. I am calling them incompetent because any good leader is supposed to unite and lead, bridge gaps within their country, and create harmony, but they don't do this, rather they do the exact opposite. Therefore, my humble request, please don't confuse confidence for competence. 

Thank you for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

© Vinay Thakur, All rights reserved, Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com 

Risks of ignoring underlying sadness and anxiety

Human emotions are complex. They are complex not because there are many, but because many times they confuse us and our conditioning doesn't allow us to acknowledge some emotions. Anxiety, stress, sadness, or feeling low in life is unavoidable. We all go through some or all of these emotions from time to time. It is not easy to embrace these emotions as they are uncomfortable feelings, and this is why we tend to avoid them. Many try to ignore them, bury them under some other emotions. Some try to dilute them with the use of drugs, alcohol, or some other addiction. Sometimes we feel that keeping ourselves busy may make them go away and we immerse ourselves in some activities. Some take shelter from work and become a workaholic, forgetting that addiction to work can also be bad. Sometimes we are so confused that we don't know how to react. Sometimes we take out all our frustrations and anger on people who we love and hurt them, damage relationships, and end friendships. One thing is clear, ignoring these emotions is not a good strategy. Rather, ignoring these emotions may be risky, especially when these emotions push us toward some addiction. Once we start walking the path of addiction, there is a slippery path of getting trapped where it is hard to come out without any professional help. It is better to embrace these emotions and deal with them, try to find out their roots, and address them rather than ignore them. 

Emotional distress or trauma is common for all of us. It's a spectrum, some of us suffer more compared to others. The words "trauma" and "distress" have so much negativity associated with them that no one wants to say that they are in emotional distress or trauma. Just acknowledging these emotions doesn't make us weak or sick, it allows us to recognize them and deal with them. It also allows us to seek help if needed, and this help can be in many ways and forms. It can be in the form of counseling, therapy, medication, meditation, or just talking with someone we trust. There are many ways to get help, provided we recognize that we need help and we figure out what we need help with. Also, once we acknowledge these emotions we can try controlling them, ignoring them only allows those emotions to control us. Ignoring them may also make us sick. Please don't ignore underlying sadness, anxiety, or any other emotion that bothers you. Seek help and begin your journey towards better emotional well-being. All the very best.

Thank you for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

© Vinay Thakur, All rights reserved, Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com 

My phone and me

I like my phone, it is the one thing I carry everywhere. By phone I do not mean the make or model that I am using, I mean the phone as an instrument, a smartphone with all its features and apps. I find it a handy gadget as it helps me in many ways, especially to get over boredom, it provides me with something to do, wherever I am and whenever I want. At the same time, I also understand the criticism directed toward the excessive usage of smartphones. I see the point, but I disagree with the sweeping criticism directed toward phone usage. In many conversations, the smartphone is projected as an evil gadget, the source of all our problems while ignoring all the benefits. I understand that like many inventions that transformed our lives the smartphone is also like a double-edged sword, it all depends on how we use it. Smartphones and the internet come with some inherent risks, but so do sugar and caffeine, didn't we learn how to use them to our advantage? Similarly, why can't we do this with our smartphones?

Today's smartphones are amazing devices, they are more powerful than the desktops that were in use just two decades back. They allow us to make calls, message our contacts, do our office work, take photos, record videos, use it as a navigation device, read books, watch movies, play games, and many other things. Just a few years back we used to have separate devices for each of these things, now we can do it all on one device that can fit into our pockets, such is the power of smartphones. Yes, occasionally we get distracted, many of us are getting addicted to it and this is bad. Just because the gadget is super cool and useful does not mean we should overuse it. Just because we can connect with anyone, anywhere using our phones we should not disengage from our immediate surroundings. I am sure we will learn how to adjust and accommodate the presence of smartphones in our lives, any resistance is futile. In the same way, resistance to the TV was futile, it did enter almost every household that can afford it. Initially, when TV was launched it was ridiculed as an "idiot box" and blamed for all the problems including weight gain to increasing violence in society. Similarly, smartphones are going through that blame phase. 

People who criticize smartphones conveniently overlook the benefits it offers. My phone allows me to read books, and listen to podcasts, even in the middle of the night when I can't sleep, many times it helps me to sleep while listening to some music or podcasts. It keeps me engaged when I am waiting for someone, helps me to check things during travel, and I can stay connected with my kids and parents. The list is too long to mention everything. For many who need something to keep their mind engaged, a smartphone is like a boon, something that keeps our hyperactive brain in control. I am sure, there are many like me who thank their phone for this. Also, there are many who overuse smartphones so much that it starts affecting their day-to-day lives. In such cases, the user needs to be trained to monitor the use and make sure they are not overdoing it. The Internet is like an ocean, we will get lost in it if we try to navigate without any control and guidance. Please be conscious of all these things and use your smartphone to your advantage. I and my phone are going to stay together, we both benefit from each other. I love this relationship and have no plans to break up. I wish you all a rewarding and fulfilling relationship with your smartphone.

Thank you for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

© Vinay Thakur, All rights reserved, Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com  

Capitalism and inequality

First a disclaimer from my side, I am a capitalist and I do believe that capitalism is the best economic system we have today, all other options like socialism and communism are much worse. However, this does not mean that I am not receptive to any criticism of capitalism. Rather, I think capitalism, in its current form, needs a lot of work and it also needs to evolve with time to suit the needs of changing socioeconomic situations. Increasing inequality is one of the most common and valid criticisms that capitalism cannot ignore. It is hard to explain, why women are paid less than men for doing the same work, and how in the same society, some people have so much that they don't know what to do with their resources, and some struggle even for the basic necessities of life. 

Inequality was common in ancient times when royals used to live a filthy rich life and many of their subjects used to struggle for basic needs. The royals benefited from the sweat and blood of their subjects and were rarely cared to elevate the social status of the working class. I believe we have moved away from those times, and I hope most readers will agree. I also know that socialism and communism, or any other system do not have answers to this problem, but I expect capitalism to do better than them and look for some solutions to tackle increasing inequality. Also, this is not a theoretical discussion for the sake of discussion. It sucks to struggle for money. I was on the other side, I have experienced what it means to live where money is scarce and the root of all your problems. The income gap is not just an economic issue, it becomes a social and law and order issue if not taken care of.

Until I moved to the USA, I lived in a poor neighborhood in India. Resources have always been scarce and demands were more. I remember that most of the arguments between my parents were about money, almost every problem could be traced to the lack of money. I did not realize back then that it was a structural problem, my parents were trying their best, and they worked really hard, but even after all their efforts, there was not enough to live comfortably. Even buying a tape recorder or a blender was not possible for us for many years. It seems we were trapped in a poverty trap, no matter what we did there was no way out. In our neighborhood, there were households where everyone worked, irrespective of their age and education. Even alcoholic adults and kids of all ages used to do some work that fetched some money, but they were still poor. Back then India was a socialist country and the government controlled almost everything, still, poverty and hunger were rampant, and socialism clearly didn't eliminate or even reduce poverty. There was neither enough wealth generation nor proper wealth distribution.

In most developed countries, income inequality is not the result of poor wealth generation, but a wealth distribution problem. Capitalism does a great job in wealth generation but seems to be failing miserably as far as wealth distribution is concerned. When I say wealth distribution, I am not talking about government handouts. I am not talking about so-called freebies by the government irrespective of any need or due diligence. Any populist scheme launched without proper data and due diligence is an invitation for an economic disaster. In any democracy is easy to launch beneficiary schemes, but it is extremely difficult to withdraw them as there are consequences like losing an election. 

Disparate wage structure is a glaring problem with capitalism. Proportional incentives at every level are not part of the existing pay structure. The short-term gain takes precedence due to high personal rewards to executives. Nonsustainable perpetual growth to increase stock prices has become a norm, and rewards of any market success are disproportionately distributed. True, the markets should decide the compensation, but where is the bargaining power with the workers to negotiate? The big fish eats the small fish leaving only a few big players that control and dictate the market. Competition is a hallmark of capitalism, but the presence of just a few big players and a tacit understanding between them hardly create any competition. The hourly rate of any CEO is orders of magnitude higher than the hourly rate of any temporary employee. Health coverage offered to lawmakers at the cost of taxpayers' money is much much better compared to the health coverage of many citizens who work as hard as these lawmakers. It is widely perceived that business and morality do not go together. Why can't we make money and also do the right things? Why can't we increase the stock prices and distribute the income fairly? Why can't there be job stability as well as income growth? Why can't a woman get the same salary as a man for the same work? These are some of the questions for which capitalism has to provide solutions, blaming everything or leaving everything to market is not enough anymore as it is clearly not working. I hope upcoming leaders will address these issues. While being profitable, they won't hesitate to do morally right things. If capitalism remains silent about these issues, then it has no right to complain if the society leans towards socialism, after all, if you don't offer any solution people are free to consider other options. It's not too late, capitalism can address the inequality issue, the only question is does it want to?

Thank you for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

© Vinay Thakur, All rights reserved, Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com  

Depiction of intimacy and violence in Indian movies

Entertainment today is full of countless choices. The variety and amount of content are so vast that one life is not enough to consume it all. This was not the case just a couple of decades back, especially in India. As kids, we had very limited options available to us. Watching limited programs on the national TV channel and movies shown on weekends were the only entertainment available for us during our initial childhood years. Then came the VHS tapes and VCRs, few video theaters started in our neighborhood where the charge was Rs 1 per movie. Of course, they were illegal, but we didn't care about their legality, there was another option to watch movies and it soon became very popular in underprivileged neighborhoods like ours where very few could afford their own TV, forget about having your own VCR. 

I grew up in India and spent my entire childhood and part of my adult life there. The 1980s and 90s were the eras of action movies, and the angry young man Amitabh was ruling the Indian box office. As a teenager, I was a fan of these action movies. I loved the way an underprivileged hero fought against the corrupt and unfair system and won, it gave me the feeling as if I was fighting those battles. Most romance genre movies of that era had a typical rich boy and poor girl or vice versa type of storyline, except for songs and sometimes fresh faces there was nothing much to watch in those movies. As expected, violence was an integral part of all action movies. However, intimacy and romance had a minimal presence, even in the movies of the romance genre. Therefore, it seems as kids it was okay for us to watch slaps, murders, and anything in between but a kiss on the screen was a big NO. Any intimacy on the screen was forbidden for some reason, except, rape. So, kids were not allowed to watch a kiss but were okay to see a rape scene. Rape was an essential part of most action movies, especially if the hero had a sister. In most action movies the character of the sister of the hero was written to get raped and killed. Interestingly, none of them survived after being raped, rape was like a death sentence for them. The rape scene was an essential ingredient of most action movies, it was used to add fuel to the fire of revenge. The effect of all this was that even though India faced the problem of population explosion people cringed watching a kissing scene on the screen. I still wonder what was the logic behind the policy for allowing a rape scene and other violence but not a kiss. How it was okay for a child to see a man slapping a woman, but not okay to see a man kissing a woman? I wonder what was the rationale if there was any. It seems they were okay with allowing children to watch violence compared to love, they were scared that after watching a kiss on screen people may start kissing each other but after watching violence they will not have any reaction. The censor board of India is not only a joke but it is heavily influenced by the government and curtails freedom of expression as much as it can. I mean, imagine, a kiss is not okay but murder and rape are, that too in a country where overpopulation is a problem.

It's not that Indian movies never used to have any intimate scenes. Movies of the pre-independence era used to include on-screen kissing scenes. Something happened when India gained independence and this policing of movies started by establishing a censor board. However, the situation is much different now after the arrival of various OTT platforms and the lack of censorship for these platforms. Some people complain about the excessive sexual content on the OTT platform. One of the reasons is that for the first time in many decades, creators from India are feeling the freedom of expressing something like this on the screen and are flying like a free bird. I have no complaints about the depiction of violence or intimacy as long as it is a part of the storyline. I enjoy the current content compared to the rubbish that was served to us under the name of entertainment during my childhood. I hope the OTT content doesn't come under the censorship of the Indian government, otherwise, we will go back to the sanitized version of everything where two flowers kiss each other on the screen instead of two people.

Thank you for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com

Social media and our cult fetish

Social media has revolutionized the way we interact with each other. On one side, it has made the world more accessible, we can now reach almost anyone, living anywhere, anytime from the comforts of our homes. But on the other side, it has affected the way we think and behave, dependency on social media has reached the level of addiction in many cases. On the one hand, it improved our connectivity with the outside world, the world that was beyond our reach without letters and telephones, but on the other hand, it negatively affected our interactions with our immediate surroundings, we often get distracted and are not present during our one-to-one interactions. 

Validation offered by social media is one aspect that made it so powerful and popular. Many of us crave social media likes, followers, comments, and other validations that we feel define our lives. It seems social media satisfies our cult fetish. The race to increase the number of followers on various social media platforms is a testimony to this cult fetish. In general, social media does not cultivate authenticity. Once we consciously start posting things for people's approval, we perform for our audience, just like actors perform in the movies. We feel the need to entertain others so that they can like us, validate our performance, and say something nice about us. Statements, photos, controversies, and debates start looking choreographed and purposeful to grab maximum attention. Of course, there are exceptions, but the general trend is to put on a show under the name of sharing personal stories. The content has become so polished and well crafted that there are social media celebrities and influencers who seem to influence others about how to think and live life. In one way, this has democratized the celebrity sphere that was only reserved for politicians and movie personalities, but it has also brought all the toxicity and negativity that is associated with cultish behavior in the everyday lives of people. 

The term "followers" has a cultish connotation. Everyone is looking for followers, they are not looking for readers, like-minded people, colleagues, collaborators, or group members, but followers. Followers who can like, praise, and validate their existence on social media. Even social media platforms like Facebook which started as a friendship-oriented platform have the option of following someone without being friends. I don't know whether it was an intentional result or an unintentional byproduct, but social media has started countless mini-cults. Cults where people live in their own echo chambers, they are siloed from the rest of the world, where they only hear what they like, create their own facts and truths, and validate them for each other. There is no need to have any emotional relationship to be a follower having a common enemy is enough to be in that cult. These cults hate each other, each thinks that the other is an enemy of humanity and only their own cult can save this planet from moral destruction. Such cults mainly exist based on religion, political ideologies, political leaders, and racial, social, and personal beliefs. One can see the increasing polarization in all societies due to this cultish culture that is becoming dominant. People are eager to criticize, but not ready to face criticism, eager to point out flaws, but not willing to accept their own flaws, and eager to destroy the existing systems, but do not know what they want to substitute them with. If you are on social media, but free from this cult fetish, then you are lucky and among the very few who can make good use of social media without getting affected by its negative side effects, be vigilant, protect your independence, and save yourself from this cult fetish.     

Thank you for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com

Is our work becoming the new religion?

Religion is still one of the biggest institutions. It is still relevant because it gives many the group identity that humans crave so desperately. It gives people the feeling of belonging and offers social and emotional support to a group that is bound by common beliefs. However, recent trends and surveys indicate that more and more people are moving away from organized religion. There can be many reasons to move away from organized religion, and society's intellectual and economic progress is one of them. But the need for that group identity still remains, and it seems our jobs are filling that void. If we look carefully, for most of us, our careers define our identities, we are known as doctors, scientists, actors, lawyers, diplomats, teachers, nurses, coders, or whatever job we are doing. This identity is no longer limited to our workplace, this is how people know us even outside our work circle. This begs a question, is our work becoming the new religion?

This question is a more hypothetical one at this stage, but I find it very intriguing. When we start deriving our friend circle, social life, thinking patterns, and other aspects of life from our work, our work becomes the most dominant part of our lives. It is no longer just an economic support vehicle, it also becomes our social and intellectual support system. This can have its pros and cons. One of the pros is that life will be structured as our work is going to be in the center, everything will be dictated by the demands and concessions of the work. But the flip side is that work controls everything, our family and social life. Almost every work, especially if it is a high-paying job involves stress, anxiety, and deadlines, this stress and anxiety going to spill over into our personal lives. This is why I think there is a lot of talk about work-life balance, as if when we work there is no life in it, life only exists outside of our work. 

Are we giving too much importance to our jobs? Are we dependent on our source of income so much that it controls every aspect of our lives? Yes, that's where we are as a society at this juncture. For most, our jobs and income control the quality of our lives. I agree that money is a necessity, and being poor sucks. But we have been brainwashed about our needs. Most of the time desires are presented as needs to live a happy life. This is where our income attains paramount importance. There is nothing wrong in chasing our desires and working hard to fulfill them. But when desires are presented as a basic tenant for happiness, and we all buy this logic, we are in a continuous mode of chasing. As desires are endless, the chase becomes endless. As the chase is endless our want for money becomes endless. As our job provides that money, it becomes the central and most controlling factor in our lives. Once we are trapped in this it is hard to come out as it is an endless cycle of a race with constantly shifting goalposts. As long as this phenomenon persists, I can safely say that our job has become the new religion. To come out of this cycle one needs to perform an objective evaluation of their priorities and create an independent space for other key aspects like family, friends, social work, and other hobbies along with the job. 

Job is important, but it is not everything. Do your job with the utmost sincerity and honesty. Work hard when at work. But also set boundaries and respect them. Go on that backpacking trip you always wanted to go, visit your friends and relatives whose company you enjoy and cherish, write that blog you were planning to write for many years, read the book you wanted to read, binge-watch the web series whose first episode you loved and can't wait, and spend some quality time to decondition yourself and unlearn that brainwashing. In short, do the stuff that makes you happy. Once religion ruled every aspect of human life and we all know how that turned out for most of society, let's not make the same mistake again with our jobs.    

Thank you for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com

Our choices and their consequences

"Choice" is a very loaded word, we use it in many contexts. In our lives, we need to make many choices, almost every moment offers us a choice, and even in instances where we feel there is no choice, we do make a choice, knowingly or unknowingly. Apart from genetics and a few other things we need to make some choices daily, and our choices have consequences. The choice can be as simple as how many spoons of sugar to have to as complicated as who to marry or which job offer to select among the multiple options. Based on the results (consequences) of our choice, we decide whether it was a good or a bad choice. That is, most of us grade our choices based on their consequences, as it is always easy to connect the dots backward. 

However, I feel that there are some choices where you may experience unfavorable or bad consequences, but are still worthy to make, not because of the consequences we face but because of the stand we take and the impact it may have. Being right or being nice and saying no to various requests from our dear ones are two of the choices many of us hate to make. It is easy to say no to a stranger, but it is not easy to say no to friends and family or even to colleagues. We always struggle to value our own time and say yes to many things we don't want to do just not to hurt the feelings of our dear ones. We hesitate to reject requests that demand our time, attention, and resources, even for the right reasons. But, the ability to say no is very important for our well-being and personal growth. And if people really care for us, they should understand the reason behind our refusal, after all, what type of relationship it is if it cannot offer personal space to each other and the ability to say no. Similarly, it is not easy to decide which battle to pursue and where to yield, especially when we deal with our family members or when someone we know is being a bigot or racist and needs a reality check. It is easy to question or stand up against racism or discrimination when someone we don't know is doing it. It is easy to advocate for change in someone else's life and target some big and powerful organizations or celebrities for their objectionable behavior. But we hesitate or ignore the same behavior when the person is someone close or known to us, for example, our parents, friends, or partners. We try to downplay such incidents or find some reason to justify them as harmless acts. This makes us a hypocrite person, a person with double standards, but we are more comfortable being a hypocrite than being uncomfortable. Again, this is a choice we make. Being a hypocrite, bigot or racist is a choice and we do these things not only by doing such acts but by ignoring or supporting them.

It is easy to have principles and propagate them, but it is hard to live by them. It is easy to have standards, but it is hard to apply those standards to ourselves and evaluate our own behavior. It is easy to advocate for change, but it is hard to be the change. It is easy to criticize others, but it is hard to be a self-critic. Some choices are hard, but are necessary, especially if you have some principles and believe in them. If you believe in gender equality, you need to stand up if you witness gender discrimination. If you are against racism, speak up against racist behavior. It might sound easy to stand up against wrong things, after all, who doesn't want to do this, but it is not always that simple, especially when no one else is doing anything. People may hesitate to speak due to fear of losing a job, a relationship, or any other loss. If you choose to stand up, the chances are that you may find yourself standing alone. Being alone sucks, it is not easy to challenge institutionalized things like discrimination alone, and even standing against a powerful person or your own family and friends is not easy. There are consequences, loneliness is one of them, and that's a choice we need to make. Do we have our values just for display, or they are also for practice? Do our principles mean anything to us, or they are just topics of debate and discussion? If they do really mean something to us, then we should choose accordingly. Of course, consequences will follow, but then that's the choice we make.

Thank you for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com

Politics and compassion: Can they go together?

Social media has offered us a platform to share many things. People share their views and opinions freely on social media, so much so that everything seems to be a politically sensitive subject. Starting from a movie to the election result, many things generate politically colored comments from people. While becoming overtly political, are we losing our empathy and compassion toward each other? I feel that each one of us should ask this question ourselves. It is perfectly okay to be vocal about our political views, criticize our opponents, and argue against policies and regulations that we disagree with. But is it necessary to get personal while doing this? Is it necessary to bring politics into every issue we discuss? Is it necessary to ridicule others for what gender they identify with, what pronouns they use, what economic system they support, or what state or country they come from? Nowadays, I see people doing this regularly, even benign social media interactions end with some politically overloaded remarks. Some tasteless and crass jokes are made to make fun of gender or sexual preference about which people don't bother to educate themselves. People comment without having a basic understanding of a subject, just because we have a mouthpiece does not mean that we need to shout whatever comes to our mind. This shows how much anger and ignorance are out there. Yes, both anger and ignorance are required when you troll or ridicule someone without even knowing about them. Opposing something does not always mean showing contempt, there is a subtle difference between the two, and nowadays, people cross that line all the time. It also shows how much empathy and compassion are lost just because there is some disagreement. 

I do have my opinions on various topics, and I disagree with many around me about my political and social views. Sometimes these discussions and arguments get passionate and heated, but I never try to make them personal. I prefer to limit my arguments to the topic and take care not to make it about the person with whom I am arguing. I understand that it is difficult not to get personal in heated arguments, and it is difficult not to target personally anyone who is opposing our beliefs, especially when those beliefs are related to politics or religion. We see this happening on TV channels all the time. But just because somebody behaves like a jerk and insensitive person on public television does not mean that we should also do the same. It is better to move away from the discussion with a jerk than to compete to show who is the bigger jerk. 

Politicians talk about compassion and collaboration all the time, but in reality, rarely practice these things. Demonizing their opponents, pitching one group against another, and polarizing opinions so much that people hate each other are some of the common tactics used by politicians all over the world. Hate politics is not new and works very well in most countries. Politicians are to be blamed for this, but why do people fall for these things. Why do people don't realize the "divide and rule" ply which has been used for centuries to divert attention from the real issues and keep citizens engaged with each other so that no one asks tough questions? This also begs the question, can politics and compassion go together? According to me, yes, they can. It is up to us, the people, to make them go together. Our political adversaries are not enemies, they are our rival teams, we fight for the same trophy, that is, the opportunity to dictate and implement policies that we feel are right for our society. We are not there to eliminate each other, we are there to make each other better, to raise the level of competition, and to make our country and society a better place. If anyone does not understand these basic things they are not qualified to be called decent human beings. Let's show some compassion towards our opponents and compete with grace and dignity. After all, we are humans, we claim to be more civilized than animals, let's not put a question mark on this.

Thank you for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com