Elections and democracy

Are elections enough to demonstrate that the country is a liberal democratic country? 

Many may answer in the affirmative and they won't be entirely wrong. But are only elections enough? Not really. There are many countries where elections are held, and governments claim to represent their people, but they can't be called democracies, for example, Russia and China. India claims to be the largest democracy. If we go just by claims, China should be considered the largest democracy, India may overtake them soon, but currently, China is the most populist country and claims to be democratic. However, many don't accept China to be a Western-style liberal democratic country, and hence India is considered the largest democracy in the world. I have participated as a voter and witnessed Indian elections since my childhood until I left for the US. It is true that elections are held regularly in India at various levels, starting from the local city or village level elections to national elections. Voter bribing, voter intimidation, or voter fraud allegations are leveled after every election. At some point booth capturing and violence during campaigning and voting used to be common. Even today after shifting to so-called more secure voting machines, voting fraud is regularly alleged, and some constituencies need to go for repoll due to voting-related issues. Even after all this, the election is not an issue, what happens during and in between elections is a better indicator of the health of any democracy. Whether personal rights are protected and respected across society, how vocal is the opposition and how much coverage it gets in the media, and whether there is any opposition intimidation (like in China and Russia) are some of the parameters that can be used to check the health of democracy at any given time. India does not perform well on many of these parameters consistently. These things happened in the 70s during the regime of Indira Gandhi, there was an official emergency declared curbing many personal rights and opposition intimidation. Not surprisingly, these things still happen after more than four decades. When the voters don't question the party they vote for, they defend each and every action of their party, and then there is no incentive to do the right things. When there is no accountability and repercussions, why any government or party will change? In a democracy, the majority gets the right to govern and implement its election manifesto, however, it does not get any rights to suppress or intimidate the minority. When personal rights are subjective and depend on who you support and who is in power, and the judiciary fails to step in and check this abrogation of personal rights, then society lives in fear and intimidation. The illusion of democracy is not a democracy. 

Therefore, conducting elections is not enough for democracy, many times, what happens in between the elections is more important than the elections. 

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 

Sports rivalry and a life lesson

The FIFA World Cup recently got concluded. The world witnessed one of the best finals played ever. Keeping aside issues related to the organization of this World Cup and corruption charges against FIFA, it was an entertaining event. Messi, who was desperately trying to conquer the only remaining frontier in his illustrious career, helped his team win the much-coveted title after 36 years. And how can we forget another rising star, Mbappe, who plays for the same club as Messi, at the age of 23 already played in two World Cup finals, and was part of the French team that won the last World Cup. The final did not disappoint, it lived up to the hype and excitement. The game was a roller coaster ride after the first 80 minutes when Argentina looked like cruising towards their much-awaited World Cup triumph with a 2-0 lead. The way Mbappe brought his team back into the game by nullifying Argentina's leads was amazing. Unfortunately, the finals can have only one winner, so even though both teams played a great game, Argentina beat France on penalties to win their third World Cup title. 

I started watching football after learning about the magical skills of Maradona when Argentina won the World Cup in 1986. I was heartbroken when Argentina lost in the 1990 World Cup finals. When it comes to playing, I prefer cricket, another team sport, I have played cricket since my childhood and even play now also whenever I get a chance. Competitive sports always amazes me. People watch them not only for fun but also for inspiration, they try to look for heroes and icons that can inspire their generation or country. Many times, such icons get elevated to the status of a cult, Pele, Mohammad Ali, Michael Jordan, Maradona, Sachin Tendulkar, Zidane, Ronaldo, and Messi are just a few examples of such cult sports icons. Also, rivalries in sports are intense. However, I like it when players play intensely against each other and shake hands at the end of bitterly fought contests. There are exceptions where teams fight and things get ugly or when teams mock their opponents. I love the spectacle where winners try to console losers and shake hands acknowledging their efforts. Appreciating the efforts of your opponent after a bitterly fought contest is not an easy task, no matter on which side you are. I wish people learned an important life lesson from competitive sports. Respecting and appreciating the efforts of our opponents is something for everyone to learn. Try to give everything when you are on the field, but once the final whistle is blown and the match is over, shake hands with each other and move on, no matter what is the result. If you win, acknowledge the efforts of your opponents and wish them better luck next time. If you lose, congratulate the winners and resolve to come back and try harder next time. Come out of that game with some lessons and resolve. Try to come out not only as a better player but also as a better person. 

Sports and rivalry go hand in hand, but rivalry does not teach us to hate our opponent. It teaches us to make every effort to defeat our opponent, to be better than them, and to try to do our best. It doesn't teach us to hate our opponent, it doesn't teach us to throw them out of the arena, it doesn't teach us not to play by the rules, and it doesn't teach us that there should not be any opponent. We live in a world with diverse opinions and views. It is impossible that we all will agree all the time. There will be disagreements, many times, on very sensitive issues. Sometimes, we lose or win bitterly fought battles either in elections or in courts. In both cases, we should understand that the other team was also fighting for their team and is part of our society, we need to live with them and not without them. This is why it is necessary to respect our opponents. Respecting does not mean agreeing with them, it does not mean not opposing them, and it does not mean not pointing out their flaws and mistakes. Respecting means acknowledging their right to fight for their cause, acknowledging their efforts, and agreeing that even after defeat they also have the right to exist and build their team as much as we have. These simple steps will reduce the amount of hatred and polarization that we are witnessing around us. I hope as we talk and cherish memories of grand sporting events, we also learn the lesson to appreciate our own victories and defeats and treat our opponents with the respect they deserve.  

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 underestimate the power of dissent

It is not easy to raise your objection when no one seems to be bothered by that issue. It is not easy to question when it is only you who feels that whatever is happening is wrong, but everyone seems to be okay with it. It is not easy to fight against powerful institutions like traditions, culture, religion, society, and political parties alone. It is not easy to stand up against your family and friends. It is not easy to question our employer, especially, when our family depends on that job. It is not easy to speak up in a silent forum. It is not easy to resist a bully. I can add many more items to this "it is not easy" list, but I think you get my point, it is not easy to register your dissent when no one else is dissenting.

Dissent is not easy, it is scary and intimidating to go against the flow. It is hard to ignore that many chose not to speak and there must be some rationale behind it. However, if you are a sensitive person, it is hard to escape the guilt of not speaking up when you must have. It is impossible to look another way when you know whatever is happening is wrong. We only keep quiet if we underestimate the power of dissent. A single dissenting voice may not be enough to stop injustice at that moment, but it may be enough to catalyze something that may manifest into some movement in the near future. We should not underestimate the power of our dissent, even when we feel scared or intimidated. Things are not always smooth for people who choose not to ignore and speak up instead of keeping mum. Even if we gather all our courage and stand up, we may find ourselves without any support, or worse, surrounded by people who are not very receptive to our questions and objections, that is, we get attacked rather than being supported. These situations are not easy to handle. It sucks to be alone while taking on a powerful entity. Therefore, it is important to be convinced about our own stand and be sure about our own beliefs and strengths before testing them. We should test our beliefs regularly, read about them as much as possible, get to know all sides, verify, and get convinced that challenging the status quo is the right thing to do. Once we do our due diligence and conclude that we need to stand up, then what we do depends on our strength and courage. If we really believe in our values and principles, we don't worry if we are alone and no one supports us. Many changes and movements started because some courageous people decided to speak up. Remember, Galileo was alone when he challenged age-old beliefs, but he was sure about his ideas and knew that the prevailing beliefs were wrong. In the end, he was proved to be right, this is an example of the power of a single dissenting voice. Don't underestimate the power of dissent, we all can be Galileo in our own way, we just need that conviction and courage to speak up.

Change takes time. Often, it is a slow and painful process, some changes we desire may not be possible in our lifetime, but someone needs to initiate it, and that someone can be us. Voice of dissent is a powerful weapon to initiate change. When someone decided to speak up about voting rights for women the women's suffrage movement started the decades-long fight for women's right to vote in the United States. When someone decided to speak about segregated schools, the fight to outlaw school segregation began. There are countless examples of such courage and conviction where a dissenting voice catalyzed a movement that resulted in a mass movement to force the change that was once deemed impossible. Believe in yourself and your convictions. Believe in the power of your dissent, you might be at the cusp of starting a revolution.  

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   

Difficulty of getting out of abusive relationships

Whenever news related to an abusive relationship becomes public, people start wondering why the person getting abused didn't quit the relationship when the abuse started. Why stay in an abusive relationship for so long? How difficult it is to understand that serial abuser is not going to change? These are the few questions asked to the victims of abuse. Maybe these questions are well intended and arise from the frustration and helplessness of seeing the victim suffer, but many times such questions are asked to question the intent of the victim. In most of these cases, a woman is the subject of abuse and some of these stories end with a tragic murder or a suicide where the woman pays with her life the cost of staying in that relationship. Why do people find it difficult to come out of abusive relationships? Is it a matter of choice, social conditioning, society's attitude, fear, or something else? Unfortunately, the answer is not that simple, it may involve any one, all, or more than the aspects mentioned here.

A few glaring problems that make it difficult to come out of an abusive relationship are financial dependence and patriarchal culture. In most households, even today, it is the woman who has to make compromises with their career for the sake of the family. Many women find it difficult to re-enter the job market after taking breaks to fulfill family responsibilities, most of the time these responsibilities are related to parenting. This makes them dependent on their partners for financial stability and their partners take full advantage of this dependency. Where will you go and how will you survive alone are the two questions asked to the victims of abuse if they are financially dependent on the abuser. This is not an easy question to answer. Not everyone is educated about the legal process of divorce and their rights under family law. Even in the legal process, the more financially resourceful party tries to game the system and play every trick to pay the fair share to the other party. Many abusers manipulate their victims by taking advantage of the victim's dependency and vulnerability.

Another reason is the patriarchal culture, where a single woman is forced to feel insecure and targeted as a vulnerable target. This situation is changing in some developed countries but in many countries even today it is not easy to live as a single woman. This forces many women to tolerate their abusive partner. Many of them feel that it is better to tolerate a known abuser rather than deal with a new one every single day. Even the families of many victims advise them not to quit such relationships and try to adjust and this advice to adjust is mostly offered to the victim. Many times victims are advised that having a child will resolve the relationship troubles, or in the beginning things are a little rocky and they will settle as time passes, these are other reasons why people get stuck in such relationships. This is a shameful situation, but it is a reality in many places around the world. 

Whenever abuse victims fail to challenge abusers or come out of an abusive relationship we as a society need to introspect. Yes, whether to quit or take some other corrective action is the victim's choice, but do we make it easy for them to make this choice, in some cases, do we even offer them this choice? Why can't we offer a safe environment where these victims can raise their voices without being worried about the repercussions? Why can't we make these victims feel confident that society will stand behind them if they come out and expose their abuser? Why can't we stop questioning the intent of the victim rather than making sure of their safety and mental well-being? Until we take such steps we are not going to make it easy for victims of abusive relationships to come out of those relationships. It is not just the abuser, but we as a society are also equally responsible for making it difficult to quit abusive relationships. Whenever you see such situations please try to offer as much help as you can, many times, offering moral support can build confidence to take corrective actions. Let's make it easier for abuse victims to make the choice to end the abuse, as a civilized society we can at least do this much.   

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

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