Farmer suicide - please stop this politics on death

There is an intense battle going on between the ruling party (BJP and its allies called NDA) and the opposition party (mainly Congress and its allies called UPA) in India. The main reason for this current political battle is the issue of the recent land acquisition bill and the farmer suicide issue. The opposition is trying to get maximum benefit from this issue, and the ruling party is trying to dodge the issue of farmer suicide by painting the rosy picture as if everything is under control and suddenly everything will change by the new land acquisition bill that they want to implement. Actually, both the issues, the land acquisition bill and debt-ridden farmers committing suicide are not new. These issues are being exploited for political gains in every election. The land acquisition bill has become a more controversial subject in the last few months mainly because of the bullying attitude of the current government which brought an ordinance to implement the bill rather than choosing the path of discussion and bipartisan collaboration as happened in 2013 to pass a similar bill. Now they have to get it passed through parliament and this is where opposition parties are sensing an opportunity to put the government in a difficult spot as they don't have the majority in the upper house (Rajya Sabha). But the more serious issue here is of situation of many farmers who are forced to commit suicide because of reasons like crop failure, poor weather, and lack of proper value to their crops which results in huge and unmanageable debt on them. There are so many reasons why many Indian farmers get into deep financial trouble where they feel no hope of revival of their situation and are forced to end their lives. Most farm lands are owned by men so they are the ones who are dying, no doubt that their families also go through tremendous trauma and hardships but normally farmer who commits suicide is the male head of the household.

BJP used the issue of farmer's suicide in previous general elections along with many other issues against the ruling UPA government, now Congress is returning the favor by attacking the NDA government on the same issue by linking it with the land acquisition bill. I studied this issue briefly and found that there are many reasons why some farmers choose to take the extreme step of suicide, but the main reason is that they lose hope in a system that is supposed to help them in distress. This system looks reasonably good on paper but its implementation on ground level is so pathetic that it is almost useless for these farmers. The farm sector in India is very ignored and unreformed sector, all other industrial sectors get some reforms and assistance to increase their income but the farm sector and farmers are always treated as a liability. It seems they are continuously asking for help and subsidies to rescue them from endless debt. The attitude of all political parties towards farmers is not very kind, they all exploit them as vote banks or use them as instruments to trouble the government but rarely do they take any substantial steps to help this distressed class when they come into power. This crisis reached its worst point when a farmer committed suicide right in front of the media, police, and thousands of people including the chief minister of Delhi during an AAP rally in the national capital. Since this death, India has witnessed a pathetic display of political opportunism where political parties are busy playing a political blame game over the dead body of a farmer. This blame game which started immediately after this tragic incident doesn't seem to end which displays the pathetic face of all political parties who want to politicize this issue to their advantage. The death of farmers is a result of a failure of the political, economic, and social systems at every level. It is a problem of years of neglect by successive governments to implement their schemes efficiently on the ground level. They declare so many schemes but rarely do they bother to check if those schemes are producing the desired effect or if the benefit of these schemes is reaching the people who really need it.

As per available statistics, more than 60% of people in India are dependent on the farm sector, so it is the largest private sector of the Indian economy. But the truth is that it hardly gets attention proportional to its size from Indian political and economic experts. Farmers and farm laborers are worst affected by this neglect. Every government announces so many schemes for them. Based on political slogans and government announcements one may think that this class is the biggest beneficiary of subsidies and relief packages from all governments, but then the question is, why they are still in distress? If such a large section of the population is dependent on farming and related things why union budget of India do not reflect that percentage in resource allocation for them? Why it is so difficult for farmers to get a loan even from nationalized banks whereas any salaried person whose job is equally uncertain can get a loan easily? Why do relief packages declared by all state and national governments from all political parties fail to reach their most deserving beneficiaries? Why a dead farmer is more valuable than a living one? "Jai jawan, jai kisan" is a very popular slogan, so, why does jawan's (soldier) death trigger completely different emotions among political and social classes compared to kisan's (farmer) death? Instead of discussing this issue seriously, and trying to come up with practical and viable solutions, why our political class is busy playing endless blame games for years? There are many questions like this, but there is no one who is even willing to listen to them, and this is a very scary scenario for those farmers who entirely depend on this broken system for help. This problem is political, economic, and social. But political and economic angles are most important as both can change the situation. Respective governments in state and center need to work towards making farming a profitable enterprise. Today it is not considered a profitable business for most farmers, among the social classes that benefited from the economic boom in India for the last two decades farmers are not one of them. Governments need to design policies that help in increasing farmer's income so that they are not dependent on rescue packages. I request my readers who understand Hindi to watch this brilliant report by Ravish to understand what difficulties farmers face on the ground level even after the declaration of so many schemes by the government to help them.

If we look beyond this political farce and endless TV debates where only the blame game is played we can see the sad face of an Indian farmer who is confused and wondering why his fortunes are not changing even after all the hard work. Why his family is excluded from the picture of shining India? They are already practicing the mantra of "make in India" so why they are not getting the attention and care that they need and deserve? Why their death is required to initiate all this discussion which every time ends in nothing but a blame game? I am sure there are many WHYs in the minds of many farmers and their families but unfortunately, I don't have any answers to their questions. I hope people who can answer them bother to look beyond their party politics and think at least for once about farmers and not about their own political fortunes, until then, there will be one more prime-time show, one more blog, one more headline, one more debate, one more chaotic parliament session but among all this, somewhere, in some village, a farmer will be preparing to end his life and we all will be guilty of allowing that suicide to happen.

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

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

Links:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_acquisition_in_India
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers%27_suicides_in_India
3. क्यों कर्जे से नहीं लड़ पाता किसान?

This is case of child sex abuse, please don't romanticize it

A few days ago while watching a TV show 20/20 on ABC I watched an interview of Mary Kay and her child sex abuse victim (now her husband) conducted by very celebrated American broadcast journalist Barbara Walters. I didn't know about this scandal as I was not in the US when this all happened (back in 1996), but when I came to know about it during this show I felt sick and disgusted. When I saw the way this whole interview was conducted I was shocked to see that TV channels can glamorize or commercialize some disgusting incident like this just to attract viewership and earn revenues. This particular case was a clear case of child rape. When Mary Kay indulged in illegal sexual activity with her 12-year-old student, it was not out of any love or anything it was a clear case of child sexual abuse. It was not a sexual encounter between two consenting adults, but she took advantage of the ignorant mind and adolescent age of that boy and abused him sexually. She got a mild punishment for this crime (six months in jail) and even after that she got sexually involved with the same person when he was just 14. I request readers to read a very powerful account by Bobbi Parish, a child rape survivor herself about this whole scandal and this infamous interview broadcasted on ABC. She has written a very powerful article and I think it covers almost all aspects related to this issue.

Child sex abuse is a very serious problem in our society, but it is very rarely discussed because of the sensitive nature of the subject and the various social and cultural taboos associated with it. If we look at the statistics from various parts of the world it is not difficult to understand that this is a very serious and growing problem everywhere, even so-called sacred institutes like temples and churches are also not free from this problem and because of the easy accessibility of the internet and social media, this problem has become more complex. Any attempt to legitimize or romanticize this crime should be questioned and criticized in the strongest possible words. I don't know what ABC and Barbara Walters were thinking before scripting some program like this to telecast on national TV but it is clear that they got many things wrong in this case. I know that the media loves such scandals as they give them an opportunity to sensationalize the issue and attract maximum viewership, this in turn generates maximum revenues but they also need to think about the social impact of these things. Another very important question that Bobbi also raised in her article is, did they dare to make a program like this because the victim in this particular case was a male and not female? Will they dare to telecast a similar program if the victim is female? Isn't this a case of gender bias where the attitude towards looking at heinous crimes like child rape is completely different because the victim is male and not female? There are many questions like these which need answers. I am not questioning ABC's right to telecast this type of interview, they have the right to choose what type of program they want to make and when they want to telecast it. ABC has the right to decide the contents of its own channel, at the same time people have the right to question and criticize the contents of their program if they find it objectionable and derogatory.

It would have been better if ABC and Barbara could have used this unique opportunity to highlight the issue of child sex abuse and take a firm stand against perpetrators of such crimes but shockingly they chose to portray a romanticized version of this crime committed by Mary Kay. These types of programs give the impression that such things are okay if you can escape the law by using tactics like marrying the victim. When societies are trying to discuss issues like marital rape, this program gives the impression that marrying a rape victim makes the crime less culpable. Also, this program doesn't even come with a warning that it is not appropriate for kids, it may send a wrong message to impressionable kids and I don't think even Barbara Walters wants this to happen. If ABC and Barbara are serious about the issue of child sex abuse then they should telecast another program highlighting this issue and clarify their stand about this infamous Mary Kay interview. Let's see if they have the courage to correct their mistake.

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. Mary Kay LeTourneau is Not a Lover, She’s a Rapist

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar - Most used but least understood political and social icon of India

April 14th, 2015 was the 124th birth anniversary of one of the great thinkers of modern India, Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, also known as Babasaheb. I don't think I need to introduce him to anyone from India, but for others who don't know him, he is considered a great political and social leader who started an awareness campaign and mass movement among suppressed classes of India (mostly Dalits) for their equal rights and social upliftment, especially his work to eradicate the social evil of untouchability. His contribution towards the social upliftment of the suppressed classes of Indian society is more than any other leader of his time. His name and image are used by almost all political parties in India to reap political benefits, but hardly do they bother to read his books, understand his views, and follow his advice. Even political parties who claim to carry on his legacy lack the clarity of thought and level of his thinking that he displayed almost six to seven decades back.

Babasaheb was a Maharashtrian and because I was born and went to school in that state, I was introduced to him at a very early age as there were lessons about him in our school textbooks. I was impressed by his writings and personality in my teenage years mainly because of his rebellious nature. He was not scared to take on well-established traditions, customs, or ideas. He challenged them not just out of emotional rage but argued rationally, with logic, and by producing a lot of evidence to support his argument, which is a very rare thing even today in our political class. Rarely do we see such a spirit of scholarship and rational thinking now not only in a political class but across the board. I think he was one of the greatest thinkers that India ever produced who was way ahead of his times. Unfortunately, his teachings and thoughts didn't get the importance that they deserved in Indian social and political circles, maybe because even his so-called followers were not willing to accept many things that he wrote or said. His name and his image are reduced to tokenism to show empathy and sympathy towards a particular class of Indian society. No doubt that Babasaheb cared a lot about the situation of Dalits in Indian society, he was against casteism and the practice of untouchability which was rampant during that time (unfortunately, it still exists in one form or another). He fought really hard for their rights but to brand him only as a Dalit leader is a gross injustice to the intellect and scholarship of this great man. His scholarly work covers various aspects of social and political life, he was a very well-read and well-educated person. One should read his books and articles to understand how well-read he was and how much research he did to question many discriminatory practices that were socially accepted back then. Sadly, after his death, there was a big leadership vacuum and there was no capable leader of his caliber to fill that vacuum. That vacuum was filled by many political parties who claimed to be caretakers of the suppressed classes of Indian society, they used this class as a vote bank for years, but none of them matched the intellect and conviction of Babasaheb. There is no doubt that the policy of reservation and other social welfare schemes has brought some change in the social and economic status of these communities but still lot more work needs to be done.

If you roam around India, you will see many statues of Dr. Ambedkar and many streets named after him. His name is well known, and he is used by all political parties to exploit political gains. I feel Ambedkar's name is used more than Gandhi's name for political gains. Even though he is one of the most used political icons in Indian politics, he is least understood. When I look at the reason why they ignore his writings or messages, I find it is not because he was not very clear about what he thought about Hinduism, casteism, or reservation, but because it is very inconvenient for them to follow his advice. Even his so-called followers don't care to read his books and follow most of the things recommended by him. It is ironic to see that despite being one of the most used political icons in India his teachings are least followed. I hope people who take his name day and night and all political parties who claim to carry on his legacy at least make some serious efforts to read his writings and reflect on them. If they really care about Babasaheb, then they should show courage to discuss all the issues raised by him openly, they should dare to question the things which he dared to question. Many things that he questioned are still in practice, celebrating his birth anniversary is a great thing, and tokenism has its own importance in our society and culture, but if we really want to honor this great man, then we need to discuss and debate all issues which he raised in his books and articles. If we can remove the evil of casteism from Indian society, it will be a real tribute to this man.

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

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

Links:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._R._Ambedkar
2. प्राइम टाइम : बाबा साहब अंबेडकर का लोक रूप

I respect people but not all their views and opinions

Gandhi once said, "Hate the sin, not the sinner," I totally agree with this statement, but it is also true that it is very difficult to follow this advice. Many times, we find it very difficult to isolate beliefs and acts (good or bad) from any person and look at them independently of their behavior. If we see some person doing good things we start liking them, and we like or love them so much that many times we even try to defend their bad things as we believe that such a nice person can not do anything wrong (hardcore devotees and fan clubs come in this category). Similarly, if we have a negative image of some person in our mind we develop such a negative attitude towards them that we don't want to offer any words of appreciation even towards good deeds done by them (we see this attitude very often in politics). I personally believe in respecting people no matter who they are, I think as humans we should first learn to respect each other irrespective of our religion, nationality, color, race, sexual orientation, or any other personal trait. According to me, this is a basic requirement to call anyone a human, we all need to have mutual respect and kindness. But this mutual respect doesn't mean that we need to respect each other's views, beliefs, opinions, or sentiments. All these things differ from person to person, people have different types of opinions about the same issues, they follow different religions or no religion, some are sensitive and some are not. There is tremendous diversity among all of us as far as our emotions, beliefs, and thinking patterns are concerned, it is impossible that everyone will agree with each other on everything. If we are compelled to respect each and every sentiment of others, we have to be careful all the time not to hurt them, then we can not question, discuss, or argue about any issue as these actions may hurt someone's sentiments. No matter how careful we are, our questioning or criticism is bound to hurt someone's sentiments or make someone feel uncomfortable. So, the expectation to respect every sentiment, belief, or view is unreasonable and against the spirit of having an open discussion.

Let me make clear what I mean in the title of this blog post: I respect all people and as a human being I consider it my duty to do that but I am not obliged to respect all their beliefs, opinions, or sentiments. As I am allowed to challenge other's opinions and question their beliefs or sentiments, they are also free to do the same with my beliefs or sentiments. Others have the right to offend me and I also hold the same right. Let me also make it clear that questioning someone's opinions or beliefs or commenting on their sentiments positively or negatively does not mean showing any disrespect to that person. One should question and argue without being disrespectful. Also, people must understand that just because someone is questioning or arguing does not mean they are being disrespectful. When I question I am trying to challenge or object to those beliefs or opinions not the existence of that particular person, there is a difference between challenging a person and challenging their beliefs. Many cultures or religions consider obedience as a necessary virtue and a very important sign to show respect towards seniors. But obedience doesn't mean blind faith or total devotion without any right to question, this type of obedience is total surrender, a form of slavery, which is dangerous for any human being as it shuts their thinking process off and takes away their ability to question things. Any human without any logical or rational thinking of their own will become like a robot which can be used to carry out any good or bad work, recruitment of young kids for terrorism is an ideal example of this. We have enough devotees in this world, we need many more rational and independent thinkers who are willing to challenge and question things around us. These are the people who can initiate change and who can go against the flow.

So, next time when you see someone questioning your sentiments, views, or beliefs don't think that it is a sign of disrespect or insult but take it as a challenge to validate your thoughts, take it as a challenge to prove your point with evidence and data, it will only improve your own knowledge and help that other person also understand your views better. Let's show respect towards each other as a person but feel free to challenge each other's thoughts, this is the only way we can keep making progress.

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

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

Cyber bullying - a cruel side of digital revolution

The digital revolution brought many changes in our lives. In the last two decades or so digital technology has changed how people interact with each other, it has revolutionized information generation and information sharing. At the same time, it has also created a parallel universe like our real universe, which is called the cyber or virtual world where many good and bad things happen like they happen in our real world. Cyberbullying is one such ugly phenomenon that is spreading rapidly in this virtual world. Because of the immense popularity of social networking sites and the easy accessibility of the internet and gadgets, many people spend a lot of time in this virtual world. They make many friends in this world and interact with many known and unknown people which is not possible in the real world. Bullying is a common incident even in the real world and in the cyber world, it is even more common due to the option of remaining anonymous. People get bullied for so many things, they get bullied for their appearance, expressing their thoughts, or sometimes bullying is in the form of sharing some derogatory material about them. The point is bullying happens in many forms and they all have detrimental effects to various degrees on people who are the victims of bullying. The major difference between bullying in the cyber and the real world is that in the cyber world, it spreads very rapidly, and mass bullying is very common. It really takes a few minutes or hours to make a video, photo, or post viral. People not at all related to that person or issue can comment and harass that person without revealing their identity. These cyberbullies are more aggressive and brutal as many of them think they cannot be caught, so they can say anything to anyone. It is also very difficult to design any effective laws to curb this behavior which makes it a very complex and difficult problem to handle.

I consider cyberbullying comparatively more dangerous because often it happens in a virtual world where the environment doesn't offer any protection to victims. The victim suffers in isolation as virtual world interactions are through a personal device like a smartphone, there are no physical bystanders who can intervene. It is very difficult to detect this problem, many times by the time people close to the victim know that something like this is going on it is too late as the damage has already been done. People who go through this hesitate to talk about this for the same reasons that people who get bullied in real life don't like to talk about it. But in real life, there is the possibility that some bystanders might inform authorities or even intervene to stop it or the victim might try to relocate to some other place to avoid facing those bullies but in the cyber world, both things are not that easy. It is really easy for bullies to chase the victim and intimidate them in the cyber world. This is why we need to educate our kids about cyberbullying and teach them ways to deal with it. If we don't counter this evil, then it will spread very rapidly. Any form of bullying should not be tolerated and if we all stand together against it then only we can put any brakes to these incidents. I hope no more lives are lost because of bullying, we already have enough pressure and problems in real life, and we should not make it more difficult by adding cyberbullying to that list. 

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

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

Religious Freedom Restoration Act - A regressive step to allow discrimination

As expected, the recently passed "religious freedom restoration act" created a lot of debate and controversy in the US media and political circles. Depending on which political party they support, people are busy either criticizing or fiercely defending this controversial law which allows public businesses to deny services to its customers if they feel that it conflicts with their religious beliefs or teachings. Actually, most countries allow their citizens to practice the religion of their choice. Countries like the US derive this freedom from their constitution, so, it is not that in the US it is legal to discriminate against people based on their religion or people find it difficult to practice their religious beliefs. The constitution gives complete freedom to every citizen to choose and practice their chosen faith. I believe that anyone's religion or faith is a personal matter. But it is a problem when people start bringing their faith or religion in public places or at their work and mixing it with work and politics. It is further complicated when lawmakers start making laws to favor a particular religion or to appease some minority community. Such appeasing behavior either by the public or lawmakers creates some problems and disturbs social disharmony.

This current law of Indiana is clearly designed to appease conservative communities of all religions (especially Christians) who might want to use this law to express their displeasure towards certain groups or communities. It is believed that this can be especially discriminating towards the LGBTQ community as certain businesses might refuse to serve them as their religious beliefs allow them to discriminate against these groups. This is why we specifically have anti-discriminatory laws, to stop some people who for whatever reason try to discriminate. Most of them do these things with a lot of conviction and belief because they think that they are doing the right thing taught by their religion and culture. So, they discriminate or hate certain groups because they believe their religion requires them to do this. However, if you are in the public sphere, your personal beliefs don't supersede the law of the land or common sense and decency. People should follow common decency in the public domain and show compassion and kindness towards fellow humans. You might think your religion is the greatest thing human beings ever discovered but that doesn't mean you can abuse other religions; you might think that people, especially women, should only dress in a certain way because your religious holy book says so but that doesn't mean you can force everyone to follow that dictate; you might believe marriage should be between a man and woman, but that doesn't mean homosexuals don't have right to marry. The point is, if you are a public business then you are out there to serve customers, and those customers can come from different races, abilities, genders, nationalities, religions, or sexual orientations. One can use any tag to describe those individuals but they all are "customers," and your business is to serve those customers. Any business's job is not to judge their customer's personal beliefs or character, not to discriminate against them based on their sexual orientation, race, gender, or any other personal trait. These types of discriminatory things used to happen just a few decades back, those terrible memories must be still fresh in many people's minds. Many brave people fought tough and long battles, some even sacrificed their lives to eliminate (or at least reduce) those ugly things from our society. I won't say that discrimination or racism doesn't exist today but at least it doesn't have the protection of the law, people can be questioned and punished by law if they do these things openly. But if the state starts designing any law that encourages any type of discrimination, then it sets up a bad precedent, it is taking our society backward in that horrible discriminatory era that we overcame with a lot of struggle and difficulties. This can open the floodgates where political institutions can try to bring similar legislation which can go to any extent to appease the majority or minority depending on their political interests. In India already these things happen regularly, and they create a lot of legal mess and social polarization, but I never expected that such a thing could happen even in the USA. But I think I was wrong in thinking like this, I can see religious fanaticism is on the rise everywhere, even the US is not an exception to this, so, I am disappointed, but I think this was expected. Even conservative parties are nowadays accused of not being conservative enough by their core supporters, so, they are forced to push the envelope more to make their base happy. Radical conservatives or liberals are only interested in appeasement when they try to push their agendas using political platforms.

This law if it lives up to its expectations is definitely a regressive step that might legalize certain types of discrimination. Most religious institutions and their followers are not happy with the growing acceptance the LGBTQ communities are getting in societies across the world. The same opposition and resentment were displayed when racism or gender discrimination was questioned. There were attempts to continue those discriminatory practices under the name of culture, religion, or traditions. But now we all agree (even conservatives) and know that those practices were wrong. I wonder, why some people are so eager to destroy those things that took so much effort and sacrifice to achieve? Just for some political gain? Why to pass any law that discriminates against some people based on their sexual orientation? How do these things identify with the USA being known as a developed nation? If we all agree that any type of discrimination is wrong, then why not stand together against anything that encourages discrimination in any form? I hope a better sense from both sides prevails and necessary arrangements are made so that there is no possibility of any discrimination based on the personal traits of people. We as a society are already struggling to get rid of discriminatory practices, if any law is needed it is needed to stop discrimination not to encourage it in any form. 

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

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

Depression is real and it hurts, let's talk about it

Recently I watched this very interesting discussion on NDTV where famous Hindi movie actress Deepika Padukone and her mom discussed the problem of depression that Deepika faced very recently. In this discussion, they touched on various topics associated with mental health, including the huge stigma or taboo associated with discussing such issues openly in many societies. The stigma associated with any type of mental issues is so huge that not only society but the families and many times people themselves who suffer from such problems refuse to accept that there is any such problem and as a result, many people suffer silently. Depression is not uncommon, it is more common than we think. Most of us have to deal with it at some stage of our lives. I think depression and anxiety are two of the most common mental health issues that almost every one of us goes through the only difference is to what extent they affect our day-to-day life. Many of us live our entire lives trying to battle with these problems, we are so scared about what people might think about us that we don't even mention these issues to anyone, not even our close ones.

I think we need to accept one thing first, mental health-related issues like depression and anxiety are common, and they affect many people, so, it is better to acknowledge this and talk about them without any reservations. Today's high-pressure, fast, and somewhat isolated lifestyle has made all of us more prone to face these issues. It is not that people from previous generations never faced any such problems but maybe they never had proper platforms to discuss and debate any such issues, fortunately, we have such platforms and we should make good use of them. When I was in India I always thought that having a mental health issue meant something very shameful and one should try as much as possible to hide these things, this is what I was taught. I have seen many families (including my own) trying to hide any such issues even from people within the family because they think that if people know about this thing their family will get a bad reputation and society might look differently to all members of their family. This fear and concern is often reaffirmed by the very negative attitude of society towards mental health-related issues.  

Without proper knowledge of any issue, it is very dangerous to react just based on some common perceptions, this is what happens all the time in this case. Mental health issues are like any other health issue, people facing such issues need the same type of attention, support, and medical care that others facing any nonmental health problem. We don't consider people having flu or cold or cancer or diabetes or high blood pressure weird and crazy, we don't socially boycott them. We don't treat them with contempt or act like something is wrong with them, so, why do many of us react differently when we see someone who is going through depression or panic attacks or some other mental health issue? First of all, we need to remove this stigma, this is the biggest hurdle in dealing with this issue. Let's accept that we all (or most of us) face some degree of mental health issues, therefore, we all need to work towards getting rid of this stigma which has done more harm than good for our society. Sooner we learn to talk about mental health-related issues without any bias or prejudice better for all of us. Mental health issues are real and people suffering from it don't need prejudice, stigmatization, or sympathy. They need everyone's support, acceptance, and unbiased medical as well as social treatment. Let's hope that we as a society can come out of our own mental weakness and learn to accept that mental health issues are like other health issues, there is nothing special or weird about them.

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. 'I Felt Empty And Directionless': Deepika Padukone on Her Battle With Depression
2. Read The Heart-Wrenching Open Letter To Deepika Padukone

Hashimpura Massacre case - Justice delayed as well as denied

I read about this gruesome incident very recently when the court verdict on this case was delivered after a long agonizing wait of 27 years. The Hashimpura massacre happened on 22nd May 1987, when 42 Muslims were brutally massacred by police during communal riots. It was the Congress party government in power back then, that government and all the subsequent governments did nothing to pursue this case seriously so that the culprits are punished. Rather, they all tried each and every method to protect the culprits and the ultimate result of all this was that the court acquitted all sixteen Uttar Pradesh police officers who were accused in this case. So even after a long agonizing and painful wait for justice relatives of victims and survivors received a tight slap on their face from our judiciary, investigating agencies, and all political parties who claim to care about these victims. It seems no one killed those 42 people, that massacre happened on its own. If this is not a sad and pathetic state of affairs, then I wonder what it is? And please make no mistake of assuming that there is some particular political party that is to blame for this shameful episode, all of them are equally involved in sabotaging this investigation and protecting the culprits.

The scariest part of any riot is when police start taking sides based on the identities of the people involved in it. Police are supposed to be impartial and perform their duties of protecting citizens of their state. It is always dangerous for any state when its police force or investigating agencies become communal or racial. When they start taking sides then one side is bound to face some dire consequences irrespective of what they have done, and this is what we see in this case. Police turned their guns on those innocent people whom they were supposed to protect. The justice system should have been more diligent when one of its departments is accused of committing a serious crime like murder, but it failed miserably. Also, this is not the only case that failed to deliver justice to victims, there are quite a few cases like this some of them were not even reached to court, and they were not even reported in the media. This is such a horrible record of human rights violations. When political parties (in power as well as in opposition) and investigating agencies form an illegitimate alliance then no court can punish culprits as it won't have enough evidence to punish the culprits. In this particular case, no political party whether in power or in opposition bothered to pursue this matter seriously. Most of India was not even aware that any such massacre happened, it was ignored to that extent.

There is no point in playing the blame game here, it is a useless exercise, and it only benefits political parties. They just love to play the blame game, it happened in the 1984 riots case and the 2002 Godhra riots case both were covered widely by national and international media. Most culprits, especially state employees (policemen and politicians) accused in such cases are released for the lack of evidence. This is terribly sad and shameful but this is the bitter reality. Even after so many people get killed for no fault of theirs no one gets punished for these heinous acts. Where is the justice and where is the law? I don't think there will be huge public outrage like it was in the case of Jessica Lal murder case. Unfortunately, such massacres fail to generate widespread public sympathy as people react based on who got killed by whom. Nowadays, people choose their sides based on their own religion and this really makes me feel sick. Many also justify such killings directly or indirectly just because people who got killed didn't belong to their own religion. I hope someday we all learn to respect every human life irrespective of their age, gender, race, or religion. Until that day, we have to bear the pain and frustrations of reading about such incidents and the failure of our entire political class to do something to control such incidents. I hope families of victims and all survivors of such tragedies get some type of closure so that they can forget these horrific incidents and move on with their lives.

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. क्यों हार गया हाशिमपुरा?
2. A Young Muslim's Take On Hashimpura, The Forgotten Massacre
3. Hashimpura killings: 10 of those freed still in UP Police

The importance of simplicity in my life

It is said that simplicity is a virtue, and many of us also believe that we are living a simple life. People loved the simplicity of Mahatma Gandhi, the way he dressed, the way he lived, and the way he presented himself. He is perceived as one of the icons of simplicity in real life. I am personally not a big fan of lavish or exuberant lifestyles, I prefer simplicity, but I don't do it just for the sake of showing it off but I really like it as a way of life. Let me say in the beginning that this is going to be a very personal post, I will be talking a lot about myself, so, anyone who is not interested in reading about my life should feel free not to read this post. Simplicity can be defined by different people differently and here I am discussing my interpretation of it.

I remember reading a comment about Gandhi's lifestyle, "it costs a great deal of money to keep Gandhi living in poverty." This statement may or may not be true, and I am not very sure about the intention of the person who said it. But it is also a fact that simplicity is more appreciated or noticed more when it is practiced by people who can afford to live lavish or exuberant lives. So, the simple lifestyle of celebrities or business tycoons or any famous person is appreciated more than the simple life of some common person who is not well known. The simplicity of life which poor people are forced to practice is not something we talk about as we know that they don't have any other choice. I do recognize that Gandhi really believed in simplicity and his life is a great example of that, I am also one of the people who are greatly influenced by some of his thoughts. But in today's world, it is not easy to live that type of life unless you really believe in it. I am telling this from my personal experience. In today's world of consumerism and aggressive advertisement, where markets and corporations dictate almost everything in our lives, it is not easy to escape the force of consumerism. Today we live in a world where everything is judged by perception created by many alternate realities. Aggressive and attractive advertising creates many different perceptions about many things in people's minds. People are told what it means to be happy, how to live a perfect life, what it means to be beautiful, and so on. People all over the world are literally bombarded with messages where others tell them how to live their lives. This is how we get attached to a particular brand or crave only a particular model of phone, car, or clothing. It is not easy to escape this, these advertisements are designed to be very effective and are based on a lot of research about human psychology and data based on how the human mind works and responds to different stimuli. Slowly but steadily we start believing in these ideas. We start thinking about what these institutions want us to think. Having our own car becomes a need but not a luxury, going on a family vacation is considered a basic element of a happy family life, and owning our own home becomes a social necessity it is not enough just to have a reasonable comfortable accommodation. These are just a few examples I am citing to give an idea about the point of how we are slowly brainwashed by different elements of society. Many perceptions like these become an integral part of our lives and we start judging the world around us based on these standards prescribed to us by the market. 

I come from a very humble background, and my parents really worked hard to keep us afloat. They immigrated from their home state to a totally new state with a different culture and language in search of a better life. They tried their best to provide us with everything and I believe they did a great job within their own limitations. They wanted their kids not to face the same struggles and problems that they faced in their lives. For us, there was no other option than living a very simple life as we couldn't afford anything more, so, for us back then, simplicity didn't seem like a virtue but it felt like a forced thing, a bad joke by destiny on us. But slowly as I read more and as I matured as an adult I realized that it can be a virtue and can be a purposely chosen way of life, since then I decided to live as simple a life as possible, simple in terms of thinking and simple in terms of living within my own limits. It was a very conscious decision which was influenced by some great people about whom I read that time. I also understand that everyone can make their own definition of simplicity. Simplicity can differ from person to person. Therefore, let me make it clear that whatever I am talking about here is my interpretation of simplicity, my own definition of what I think is simple, others can define simplicity based on their own experiences. At the same time, I must also clarify that I don't judge people by their choice of lifestyle. According to me, everyone has the right to choose how to live their own life, it is a matter of personal choice. I totally understand that everyone's needs are different and we all have the right to pursue what we think is best for us. So, my advocacy of simple life should not be taken as criticism or condemnation for any other type of lifestyle. 

As I said, it is easy to live a simple life when you don't have any choice. Back in the days when I used to tell people that I liked this simple way of living and would try to live like this even if my financial situation changed, very few people believed me. Most of them thought that I was advocating simplicity just because I was forced to live that type of life because of our financial situation. It was the same when people didn't believe me when I talked about gender equality. They all said to me that I was talking about this just because I didn't have a daughter and that my thinking would change once I had a daughter of my own. Fortunately, our first child is a daughter and I still believe in gender equality. So far, I managed to hold on to my core beliefs but the truth is things can change any time. I am writing this based on where I stand today and what I believe today, one can argue that there is no guarantee that things will remain the same in the future and I totally acknowledge this concern. But things like equality, simplicity, freedom of expression, and kindness are very important to me and I value them immensely. People around me also help me by giving their continuous feedback which keeps me on track. I love my choice and I hope everyone gets to live the type of life they want, after all, happiness and success are all about the freedom to make our own choices. Simplicity is my choice, what is yours?

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

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

Nagaland mob lynching: an unacceptable act of public violence

A very disturbing event happened a few days back in Nagaland. An angry mob of around 7 or 8 thousand people attacked Dimapur Central Jail, they dragged a rape accused out of jail, paraded that person naked, and then beat him to death. Many people participated and witnessed this mob lynching incident. Many were also seen recording this event or taking photos of the dead person to post on social media. This mob didn't stop after killing the accused, they displayed his body at the local clock tower supposedly to teach a lesson to all people who commit such type of crimes. Many people shared this incident with gruesome photos to justify the punishment offered to the accused and demanded that only this type of punishment deter people from committing such crimes. I have seen many people advocating punishments like public hanging or public torture till death as ways of teaching a lesson to criminals, they all feel that such punishments will serve as deterrents and stop such crimes. 

Frustrated and misguided people taking the law into their own hands is always a dangerous sign for any society. A lawless society is a dangerous place to live and there are so many reasons why any society might choose to use such desperate means to deliver what they think is speedy justice. In India, the ridiculously lengthy and slow process of delivering justice in each and every case is one of the major reasons why people don't have faith in the police and judiciary. I guess everyone will agree that heinous crimes like rape and murder need speedy trials and strict punishments so that they can create fear in the minds of perpetrators of such crimes. The slow and tedious process of justice with many loopholes that allow criminals to escape the law or delay the process indefinitely puts victims in a very disadvantageous position. Victims of rape especially suffer a long and agonizing journey to get justice from such a severely impaired judiciary of India and one must include investigating agencies also in this. We all know that justice delayed means justice denied and when it becomes a chronic problem people start losing their faith in the system. The result is that people take the law into their own hands and there is a jungle raj. Unfortunately, none of the state or national governments tried to do anything substantial to correct this problem. Judicial or police reforms are not even a topic of discussion during any state or national elections. Sexual violence is such a serious issue but it hardly gets the attention it deserves in any political or social forum in India. Everyone knows that rapes happen very frequently and many rapists escape the law using muscle, power, money, or influence. This problem is not going to disappear on its own, there is no point in pushing the issue under the carpet. It is also wrong to assume that this is only a women's issue. Sexual violence is as much a men's issue as it is women's as both of them are involved either as victims or perpetrators. 

Any incident like this is a result of a serious failure of government machinery at various levels. I don't think that any such violent act can be justified by using any logic or reasoning, it is totally unacceptable behavior. Public lynching of any accused or convict is not a way to deliver justice in any civilized society. There is a system to deliver justice and execute punishments. I hope this acts as an eye-opener for all concerned agencies dealing with law and order in India. They need to create a sense of trust in people's minds that justice and investigating machinery are fair and efficient. They need to provide proof by their actions that these systems are working for people to solve their issues and problems not to exploit their helplessness. If victims of any crime get all the required support from all these departments they won't be at the mercy of mobs to protest and demand justice for them. Why do these departments only get active after huge protests or nationwide outrage after any rape or murder? Why do some case gets really shoddy handling which results in the acquittal of all accused just because they belong to some powerful or influential families? Such incidents create a serious dent in the credibility of all these departments and create fertile ground for violent and desperate reactions from people. Let's hope that this incident doesn't inspire people from other places to use similar methods to deliver their own justice, if this happens it will be a catastrophic situation at every level and I hope the concerned authorities are aware of it. This act of public lynching is unacceptable and so is the inability of the justice system to deliver timely resolution to heinous crimes like rape and murder.

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. Mob drags alleged rapist out of jail in Nagaland, thrashes him to death