The results of the same-sex marriage plebiscite in Australia was released at 10:00 a.m. on 15-Nov-2017. The result was important for me and millions of others in multiple ways. I want to break down my views, expectations and the results. Overall, I am relieved with the result.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/australia-decides-live-coverage-of-samesex-marriage-survey/news-story/f03c276c28cc9073fefd92bd9bed7f9d

My Views

This is the twenty-first century and certain topics are not to be still debated like the earth is not flat, evolution, universe, the earth is not 5000 years old. Homosexuality being normal is one such. Individual or even majority is not a reference for normalcy. We should not be understanding the world with our cognitive biases. Scientific methods have given us the answers to some of these questions, and they challenge our understanding and our biases. So, it was bothering me that in this era, we are still debating whether to give equal rights to a set of people. In the age where we recognise and shut discrimination, rights of the homosexuals should not be for public debate.

Further, I was sceptical that this might give a floor to the nitwits to share their hatred. The community which has been marginalised doesn’t need more hatred. Also, I felt it has created an equivalence between the bigots and the liberals. The dichotomy is true but there is no equivalence between them. One is right and the other is wrong, so there is no middle ground between the two. To come up with a policy which accommodates both is like trying to balance one group with says the Universe is 13.6 billion years old and the other which says it is 5000 years old. The final answer cannot be 6.749999 billion years.

My apprehensions

However, in spite of all the logic and the right being on one side, I was still scared of the result. The past few years of world politics, the return of fascism or right-wing nationalism to the mainstream, the election of populist right-wing leaders across the globe, the rapidly diminishing support for human rights have made me wary of people’s ability to think beyond themselves. I strongly believe we have exhausted the conditions of the past and what I am seeing is not a revival of the fascist forces but a new set of conditions resulting in a fresh problem. It is a conditionality problem.

The below quotes of Søren Kierkegaard, the famous Danish philosopher always kept coming to my mind. I used it to convince myself that what we are seeing is a fresh problem by a different set of conditions which has led to a reality which we need to experience.

I did some rough back of the envelope calculation. With every bi-party election, I always expect 30% of people to be on either end of the spectrum. 30% who will for sure vote Yes and 30% who will for sure vote No. I wondered about the remaining 40%, which is where most elections are decided. The No campaign didn’t lack any conviction apart from talking about scriptures and freedom of religion. The postal voluntary vote was a clever move from the pseudo-liberals. The 30% people who wanted to vote for No will always vote. For the No campaign to win, they need to convince the east number of people on the other side to come to vote. I expected people to stand up and do what is right. Further, I wanted people to see through the facade of the No campaign. When they talk about infringement to their freedom to practice their religion of their choice in this context, what they are actually saying is they want the freedom to discriminate. The expectation from the far right is not that they are allowed to follow their religion in the private space, they want their personal views to be

Further, I wanted people to see through the facade of the No campaign. When they talk about infringement to their freedom to practice their religion of their choice in this context, what they are actually saying is they want the freedom to discriminate. The expectation from the far right is not to follow a religion in their private space, they want to impute the public space with their medieval biases.  I expected people to understand and reject this.

The Result and my analysis

Overall Result
79.5 %(12,691,234) of the eligible people responded
7,817,247 people – or 61.6% – voted ‘yes’.
4,873,987 people – or 38.4% – voted ‘no’.

I am happy and rather relieved at this result. I am not elated for the below reasons.

1. 20.5% of people didn’t want to respond to this survey. Either they were indifferent towards the issue or felt one side is going to win over the other comfortably. Whatever be the reason, it is a significant majority. Such a percentage have the ability to tilt scales in any direction. The total number of people who didn’t vote amoung to 3,172,808 (approx). The difference between the two sides is 2,943,260. This is too close for comfort. Depending on how they voted, it could have tilted the scales.
2. 38.4% of people who voted or 30.7% of the total eligible population have actually thought that it is fine to side with discrimination and infringing in other’s liberties, even if it doesn’t affect me. As much as it validates my hypothesis that 30% of the people will always be on the wrong side of all issues, it is a rather disturbing thought.

This result is a resounding success for the community which has been marginalised. I now hope that same-sex marriages are legalised without any hurdles. We have lived through the past and there is no point in wanting to relive it. Quoting Baruch Spinoza, the famous Dutch Philosopher,

“If you want the present to be different from the past, study the past”. 

We should also not try to recreate the conditions thinking it will lead us to the past. It is not possible and in the search of recreating the past, the far right will create a future not worth living. This issue should not raise its ugly head again. No one deserves to be treated unfairly and one cannot cry for fairness when their right to discriminate is taken away. The battle for a progressive future should continue and has to continue. Now, we have some breath of fresh air and gained some momentum to fight this battle.

As I am sitting down to write this blog, my predominantly Hindu family is celebrating Varalakshmi Pooja, a festival to appease the Hindu god of wealth. This delineates association between two of the most diabolical thoughts, the desire for individual wealth & theocracy. I started to wonder about this rather despicable groups of plutocrats and theocrats.

As I explored the connection between the two groups, I could see a lot of pictures emerging and how they target each of the groups to maintain power. I also realised how concepts like libertarianism are nothing more than a bad joke. These two groups not only have common traits but their philosophies are mutually beneficial.  This coalition of the morally depraved leechers has not only naturalised the disparities in the society but also justified the inequalities. so, I wanted to explore the below.

• Why has the political right has been in bed with the social right for ages?
• How do they operate?
• What does the playing field look like?
• What’s their approach?
• How to navigate through this?

It is definitely about power

As most philosophers have already said, this strictly is a game of power. This is the most obvious point. The need to have power is a fairly innate nature of humans. In the current social structure, power can be got by wealth and wealth can be retained by developing morals around the wealthy. The morals can be defined by religion through seduction and fear. Now, the only open piece of this is who should be wealthy? If the system is designed to control who can be wealthy and not let wealth distribute, then the job is done.

Over the human history, one group has used wielded of this power over others. However, not all groups have been equally ravenous. This voracity for power is a commonality between plutocrats and theocrats. They always hide behind social justice and righteousness. Both these philosophies need the power to keep people in check so that the effects of their practices can be negated.

Let’s start with the plutocrats. These people are advocates of the free-market capitalism. The popular misconception is that free-market capitalists don’t want any rules and this will drive meritocracy. This red herring is intended to distract people from understanding the actual point which is they want to power so that they can form the rules. Political Economics is a game and like any other, it needs rules. There is no game without rules and order. Hit the capitalists hard, they will be the first one to cry for rules in any society. The capitalist rulers have done this well by transferring the key portfolios to the parties of god. The key portfolios which the faith parties demand are always, education and health. They never ask for water, natural resources, mining as that requires a certain degree of expertise which isn’t in the scriptures.

Religion, on the other hand, helps capitalism by bringing in servility and credulity into the system. Religion also needs power so that the society continues to trust their myths and absurdities. Once religion has the power they create the rules through god’s will. The powerful capitalists support religious faith with their wealth. There is a strong case of mutual benefit group. You won’t find many theocrats using Mark’s gospel “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God”. Apart from the original figures of every religious cult, the subsequent ones have required money to propagate. They have supported the patronage of the wealthy as part of their mutual support group. The two key areas which the theocrats want to corrupt our education and healthcare. The former is the source of development and critical thinking and the latter develops an understanding of diseases. If they lose these two, they cannot seduce people into their system or scare them to join. This is a partnership of true evil.

The field for the power game – our social fabric

I want to deconstruct my opinions to understand the fabric better. So, I have decided to break the social structures in pyramids, with each pyramid having levels. There are two such pyramids, one economic pyramid or class pyramid and the second one is the religious pyramid. The reason these pyramids are important is that they highlight the alignment of the people and thereby their motivations. Just to be clear, these are my observations from my research and I did not go around getting statistics. There will definitely be exceptions to this. The class pyramid has the upper class or the wealthy, the middle class or the white collar earners with a steady income and the lower income earners, who do not have a steady income stream or have low-income stream below sustainable levels. The religious pyramid has the fundamentalists on top. These are people who are holding extremely strong religious views, evangelising those views or driving policies through those views. Some of them might be extremists but most of them aren’t. Then there are moderates, who believe in all the religious principles,  have faith that it is for the collective good and peace. It gives them comfort to lead their lives. The last group are the sceptics.

However, if we coalesce these to create a mix of our society, this is what I see.

Now, I will break each of these groups down and talk about which parts of the pyramids constitute this group.

Right wing Extremists

Extremism is a fringe force in most societies. The right wing extremists are generally the literal interpreters of the religious texts, who have an inclination to use force to spread the view of their favourite fiction. These people include the KKK, the Boko Haram, Al -Qaeda, Shiv Sena, Lakshar-e-Taiba etc.

Religious Pyramid: Fundamentalists
Class Pyramid: Any of the three

Left wing Extremists

Just like their right-wing counterparts, the left wing extremists take a hardline stance to implement a certain Marxist economic theory but use do it by the use of force and in general quite indiscriminately. Where they differ extremely from the right-wing group is they start as a revolution to change the state of the oppressed. They always take the name of a Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Karl Marx or Mao Zedong to drive their ideology. However, they quickly drift into a unit which can’t get violence out of their system. The Maoists in India, the Communist forces in other parts of the world are an example of this group.

Religious Pyramid: Skeptics
Class Pyramid: Any of the three

Neo-Liberals / Libertarians

These are the people who will fight against racism, fight for individual liberty, fight for marriage equality, legalisation of drugs and at the same time fight for free market enterprises, privatisation and elimination of the state from public affairs. These are the followers of Adam Smith and David Ricardo. They believe social welfare schemes prevents collective human development and somehow individuals through free markets will magically work. The high profile examples for this are the Jeff Bezos and Peter Thiel on the business side or Rand Paul on the political side.

Religious Pyramid: Predominantly Skeptics, some moderates
Class Pyramid: Predominantly upper middle class, some upper class

Leftist Corporate sellouts

These are people who claim to the on the left but have been bought over by the special interest groups and lobbies. They are for women’s rights, minority rights, human rights but are on the side of corporate powerhouses. They want to have government intervention through private partnerships in the fields of Health Care, Education. We can see them fight against climate change but not against wall street intervention. These are mostly educated upper middle class who are working at big corporations. The high profile examples of this group include Barrack Obama, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. These are also people who feel staying left is incorrect and generally, prefer to call themselves commonsensical.

Religious Pyramid: Moderates
Class Pyramid: Predominantly middle class

Social, progressive Democrats

These are people who believe in the democratic system, a welfare state, economic redistribution and capitalism with controls. They are not against Capitalism but do not want it to have a free run. They want the government to run for the benefit of everyone. They are keen on key government initiatives like health care, education and transportation to be available to everyone. They are keen on maintaining individual liberties and are big proponents of human rights and equality. They are vocal against the growing income and wealth inequality and the rampaging private corporations. People like Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn, Elizabeth Warren, famous linguist Noam Chomsky, economists like Thomas Piketty and Mark Blyth are examples of this group. Most of these people are well educated social activists.

Religious Pyramid: Predominantly Skeptics, some moderates
Class Pyramid: Predominantly middle class, some upper class and lower class

The ugly coalition (Free market capitalists + Theocrats)

This group is Conservative party of every country in the world. They use fear and seduction to gain power and control everyone. They form a big percentage of the tip of both the pyramids. The attributes you see with these people are

• Trickle down economics – Tax breaks for the rich
• Get Government out of Health Care & Education
• Restrict civil rights to the minorities under the pretext of individual liberties and freedom of religion

Religious Pyramid: Predominantly Fundamentalists
Class Pyramid: Predominantly middle class, some upper class and lower class

Average Working Class

This is the group of the commons. People who work to earn income and sustain a living. These are people who do not possess any special power like extraordinary intelligence, wealth, access to privileged information. They are affected deeply by the policy changes, outsourcing, increase in bills. This is the average consumer who is scared of automation taking away their jobs.

Religious Pyramid: Predominantly Moderates, some fundamentals, some sceptics
Class Pyramid: Lower class and Middle class

Religious Reformers

These people want to take the principle of God, clean up the religion and use it to reform the society. They are smart enough the understand the issues but still have to believe the existence of a supernatural. They believe in a God but they do not despise people of other faiths or atheists. I put people like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, Dr. Cornel West, Raif Badawi etc in this list.

Religious Pyramid: Moderates
Class Pyramid: Lower class and Middle class

Theocratic Supremacists

This is a fringe group of people who are economically quite social but are extremely theocratic. The Hamas, people like Steve Bannon etc fall into this category. They want to create a welfare state only for their religion and state. As much as this group is a fringe they are one of the deadliest threat to civilisation, as they will affect pluralism, cultural evolution and individual liberties.

Religious Pyramid: Fundamentalists
Class Pyramid: Upper Class

Understanding the players in the game

The game is all about who rules the average working class group. The average working class will never be economically right if they fully understand what it means. This is how the society looks like for the Ugly Coalition.

Right wing Extremists: These people can be used to spread the fear of god, continue to instil credulity and servility in the system. However, they have to be kept at arm’s length as they might divide the society.
Neo-Liberals/Libertarians: These people fall for the greed of money. These are ivy league educated people, who can be seduced by neo-spiritual movements.
Leftist Corporate Sellouts: These people are the fake opponents who are needed to ensure that the working class get a fake sense of choice. They will never rock the boat.
Socialists, Progressive democrats: These people have grown out of grass root development programs. This population has to be minimised and in the long run, such programs which create them should be eliminated.
Left wing extremists: This is a self-destructive group. These people can be controlled by the use of military and by instilling fear of communism all across the society.
Religious Reformers: This is a group to worry about. Dr. King wasn’t assassinated when he was fighting for the rights of the blacks, but he was killed when wanted to fight against the class system in the US. This group are generally the target of violence from the right wing extremists.
Theocratic Supremacists: This group is again a partner group which gets used wisely. They are used by the rich to get the working class continue to be interested in the party of the god and also keep them divided by race, religion, nationality etc.

So, as marked above, the target group for the coalition is the group of the working class, corporate sellouts and neo-liberals. As long as they control this group through money and religion, they will continue to remain in power. With time they can move the axis more and more to the right.

What’s the strategy?

This is truly a game where the intent is to remove the rules to gain power. The democratic is looked at as hindrance as they add rules to the game. Now that we understand the arena, the game and the target persona, let’s move forward to look at the steps taken by this coalition to stay in power.  In order to do that we need to understand, what will make the working class move towards the left or be more informed. There are three key areas which will move the working class more towards the left. They are

• Education
• Empowerment of women
• Economic Certainty
  • Steady flow of sustainable income
  • Ability to save and in the process accumulate wealth
  • No fear of untoward expenses like healthcare
  • Will create unity, pluralism and culture of sharing growth

So, here is the strategy as I see it being employed.

Keep people ignorant

Education provides knowledge and knowledge drive rationale. Religion needs believers and capitalism need a steady supply of human labour at the bottom of the pyramid who are ready to do anything for little to nil cost. The plutocrats who want to run the society through markets as a ‘free enterprise’ want the people to believe it is for their good. Religion has to eliminate education to suppress critical thinking. Who in their full sanity will believe any of the below?

1. Earth is 5000 years old
2. We are descendants of Adam and Eve, who were created in the image of God
3. There was a monkey god with his army ruling a kingdom with a human god ruling another one next to him
4. A Prophet flew to heaven on a winged horse
5. There a god of knowledge who needs you not to think for yourself and is married to the god of creation

Adolf Hitler, a dictator of the worst order had a division of power agreement with the Church. He gave the Catholic Church complete control over education in Germany and in return had the Christian Democrats will stay out of politics to give him control over the state.

This is why they always attack education. Anytime a conservative government gets to power, you will see two policies.

1. Reduction in investment in private school
2. Development of faith-based schools under the pretext of balanced education

Both these corrupt generations of people by destroying critical thinking and scientific questioning.

Naturalise the status quo through entitlements

Recently Donald Trump Jr took a dig a socialism on Twitter. This tweet epitomizes the rather disturbing notion of socialism and the entitlement people feel about their wealth. Does it take special skill to be born son of a rich spoilt dad? Most people on the right would defend this through what I called entitlement theories.

Here are the popular right wing entitlement theories.

• People are rich because God wanted them to be rich.
• Being poor is God’s punishment for your sins.
• Being poor is a test by God to see if you are still faithful.
• I am rich because I worked hard.
• I have the right to have my wealth to myself and give it to my children.
• You are poor because you are lazy.
• No one asked you not to be wealthy.
• Women are meant to do this as per the scripture.
• God doesn’t like homosexuals.

Someone, not being wealthy is either made a punishment of God or a result of laziness. The sense of entitlement to their capabilities, inheritance, and achievements is a very common trait in humans, without understanding the context of that entitlement. The naturalisation of the liberal economics or commonly referred to as the fiscal conservative is the biggest success of the neoliberal movement. It justifies the entitlement towards individual success and a reverence of wealth in this form. There is no acknowledgement of the genetic advantages gained through centuries of well-being, education and accessibility to opportunities created by inherited wealth. The argument for entitlement of inheritance and the free market are not only mutually exclusive but also grossly contradictory. However, for the proponents and admirers of these theories, it is for some reason not visible.

Keep people divided

“Divide and rule” is a very very old method used by ruling class over the population. The scriptures give a way to discriminate against women and the homosexuals. Most scriptures also legalise slavery. The Hindu scriptures promote division through caste system. In the modern era, we have added race, ethnicity and nationality have been added to the mix. So the scriptures have done with work for creating the divide. However, in order to rule, they need tension between the parties. Economic uncertainties will create those tensions. If there are economic uncertainties which are morally justified by their faith, then the tensions will grow naturally. As long as there are tensions within the working class, the ruling class will continue to flourish.

How do we arrest this flow?

The collusion between the theocrats and the plutocrats is not that much of a secret. However, it is a question of how do we overcome this rampaging force to prevent civilisation from regressing. Here are my thoughts.

Joint activism between progressives and religious reformers to do the following.

1. Eliminate money from politics and ensure it stays that way for generations
2. Invest in public education, and make education scientific, secular and free
3. Join hands with the workers to create unions. Ensure there are minimum wages which will provide sustainable living
4. Work on steps which will eliminate economic uncertainties
   1. Public and free healthcare including mental health
   2. Developmental programs for women’s education and health
   3. Make employers focus on re-skilling and training employees
5. Promote free speech and let the bigotry come out, instead of arresting it
6. Re-structure tax system
   1. Tax inheritance and wealth to fund public programs
   2. Income across the board should be taxed, with the high-income earners taxed more
   3. Eliminate loopholes for the rich and the corporates

Religion is a favourite toy for people and as the late Christopher Hitchens put it, it will continue to remain their favourite toy till they fear death. We cannot eliminate it but have to keep it out of the public sphere. In order to do that, it is important to invest in developing critical thinking, development of people over a sustained period to see the impact of this ghastly system erode. It is a multi-generation promissory note and something we owe to the future of our civilisation.

As a child growing up in India, I loved attending wedding ceremonies of my family friends and relatives. It had everything that a child loved, new clothes, amazing food and a venue to play. As years passed by I started getting uncomfortable with the prospect of attending weddings. It required me to have uncomfortable conversations with people who didn’t respect my private space. Finally, as I understood what an Indian wedding involves, I believe it is a religious propaganda event with lots of financial ramifications.

India is a land of multiple religions and each religion has various sects. However, it doesn’t change the underlying culture of all these people. The deep-rooted cultural, racial, gender and class biases still remain. So what is applicable to one is truly applicable to the other. Further, secular weddings or court weddings as they are referred in India are genuinely rare. Here are the observations of the draconian impacts of these weddings.

Tradition

The traditions behind marriages are deeply disturbing. The tradition of weddings is equally callous. All of a sudden everyone around you starts to pick up a position in your life. The society feels the right to feel privileged. The traditions range from identifying dates which suit everyone, inviting hundreds of people in person, purchasing gifts for everyone, preparing for a 3-day event and above all dealing with sissy fits of people I generally refer to as “irrelevants” in the marital life. Then comes the traditions associated with religion, satisfying the priests who perform the wedding and invoking god in almost all aspects of it.

Social Pressure

There is a very high degree of social pressure in ensuring that your son gets married by the time he turns 28 or your daughter gets married by the time she turns 25. Sadly, the words used by even parents in this context is ‘saleable age’. It is very common to hear parents say, “everyone is asking me why I am not getting you married”, “you will not get options if you cross this age”,”no one will want you, you will be too old”. The social pressure turns parents into beings you truly despise.

The wedding is where the social pressure literally peaks. The event thrives on inducing jealousy, vitriol and fear. The common themes are

1. I want to do all this for everyone to see  – Inducing jealousy in others
2. I want to do this as someone else did it – I have been made to feel jealous
3. I have to do this as people around me expect to do – I fear the result if I don’t meet everyone’s expectation
4. I have to do this otherwise everyone will speak badly about the wedding – I have experienced or seen people experience this vitriol

So, invariably people who are conducting the wedding are forced to meet all these unrealistic social expectations.

It’s all about procreation

One cannot get through a wedding without people advising the bride and the groom about procreating. Most Hindu weddings are a segment where prayers are said for effective procreation. In crude terms, it is about praying to god to give you sexual powers. In Muslim and Christian weddings, the priest or imam gives advice on the sins of contraception. It never ends. In a year or two, if you don’t have a child, the entire society pitches in. They psychologically burn you down with feelings of remorse and regret. It starts off by making you feel inadequate and moves to shaming.  I always maintain god and society are two entities which always wants a share in your bedroom.

Here are the common points you will hear from the most disingenuine people around you.

1. “Do you have any good news?” – like any news other than having a baby is not a good one.
2. “You have to ensure your blood line continues” – they never say why.
3. “Someone has to take care of you when you get old” – this is the most selfish and possibly immoral reason to have a child
4. “Life is all about sacrifice” – This comes from people who would not have sacrificed a breath.
5. “Did you check with a doctor?” – these are people you should think of never talking again.
6. “I know a good astrologer” – these are people too dumb to give you advice.
7. “I want you to have a child, it will complete you” – These are narcissists. Their happiness depends on your behaviour,  so they essentially want control over you.

Dowry

The dowry is the most despicable part of the Indian wedding.  Dowry refers to the transfer of wealth from on side to the other, predominantly from the bride’s side to the groom’s side. There are multiple theories on the origins of this ugly practice. The neo-spiritual leaders want to project like this is a malice developed by the Britishers to rule India.  While it is definitely true that Britishers exploited the inherent differences, it is a very inaccurate statement to make. I definitely want to write about the impact of the British colonial rule in India but attributing dowry to them is extremely evasive and unreal. The transfer of wealth and inheritance to the groom is a very ancient practice in Hindu culture going with references and justification in Manu Smriti – the code of Hindu ethics.

There are three types of this which are happening in the modern world.

1. Groom’s family demanding dowry
2. Bride’s family thrusting it
3. Transfer of wealth happens with neither party thinking about it in great detail

The first and the most common one is where the groom’s side of the family lay out a set of demands. I have personally witnessed this cringe-worthy, outrageous and inhumane act. It always starts with the senior most member of the family and in most occasions a deeply religious crack head initiating these proceedings. Any humanist watching this will feel a deep sense of discomfort and anger. You can compare this situation to a hostile boardroom negotiation for a takeover, just that this involves trading humans. The worst part of all is when both sides end up thanking the initiator for mediating the proceedings.

The second one is increasingly becoming common among middle-class people in cities. The families have developed this need to showcase their love by forcefully handing over wealth. Since it is done under the name of love, it is a difficult point to refute. However, if one digs a level deep this point collapses like a house of cards. This is not done for love towards their daughters but love for themselves, the needs to be seen as loving parents. If you look at it, what is the love if giving something to your daughter which she doesn’t need or in most situations will never need.

The third one is a wealthy class behaviour but is increasingly being seen in upper middle-class families. They don’t even realise or question it. The bride’s family gives, both the bride and the groom don’t feel uncomfortable with it. It has become innate.

If we investigate the propagation of any social malice, we can see a pattern here. The three points give us the idea of how this evil has evolved to a state where it has become part of the system.  If polio doesn’t get eradicated and everyone is affected by it, no individual will ever know the concept of walking properly. That is the state to which dowry is going in India.

Religious laws

While most cultures in the world have made it a norm for the girl to lose her identity after marriage, the Indian culture takes it to a new level. The primitive minds of the scum who came up with the religious rules were very careful in embedding deeply disturbing concepts after giving girls a semblance of liberty.  Some of the horrific concepts you will hear quite commonly are below.

• Kanya Dhan: This practice is not just immoral and disturbing but is to me the fabric which binds this entire society of credulity and servility. It means charitable donation of an unmarried (I think it can be substituted for virgin) daughter. It is an act of registering a transfer of deed.
• Husband is equivalent to god: The phrase ‘pati parameshwar’ is very often heard not just in real life but also in movies. It is often given a good connotation signifying the importance of treating husband as god. While I do agree that both god and husband need not be treated with reverence, that is not the context where this phrase is used.  The girl is expected to submit to will of the husband. This comes up irrespective of the religious background. It requires the girl to surrender her critical faculties and get treated like a slave.
• Pativrata: The girl is always respected being loyal to her husband and accepting him irrespective of his behavior. The concept of  chastity and loyalty is reserved only to the girl, while her husband is not measured on that. It is quite understandable considering a sizable majority of the country worships the mythological figures Rama and Sita. Rama even going by the books was a cruel and irresponsible husband, while Sita is a submissive, loyal wife. She doesn’t stand up for herself till the last line of the last book, post which the epic ends.

In summary, the well documented and rather celebrated Indian weddings are nothing more than shows for the rest of the society. This pompous exhibition much like what happens in Vatican, covers up the underlying filth, lies and deceits. As a person who has experienced it, I strongly feel it should be ripped off and replaced with simple acts which acknowledges mutual love and respect. As I went through his horror personally, that is what I kept telling myself. I am happily in a relationship with my wife but that happiness stems from our love for each other and the fact that we have overlooked the meaning of the event completely.

History of the marriage

1. Still the women don’t get equal rights
2. Gay people can’t marry in most countries
3. In India alone one girl is burnt every 90 minutes for dowry
4. It still continues to remain a massive financial burden on people
5. It is a source of social policing and harassment

Why is marriage as an institution a legacy?

As I look around the world, I see societies and organisations talking a lot about diversity. Every organisation is claiming and competing to have the most diverse workforce. The company I work for has got a more two-pronged approach, top-down for support and bottom-up for implementation. There are others who try different measures. I do not want to write about how companies should do. I want to talk about my observations and learning from other spaces which can be used in this topic. I should admit my learnings are from seeing the mistakes made in embracing diversity in India.

Diversity is not a policy, it is the culture

Policies have a strict implementation guideline while culture is something ingrained into the DNA of an organisation. Policies are prescriptive while culture is ubiquitous. If you make policies around diversity, over a period it becomes constraining and thereby counter productive. The biggest con of such a policy is that it results in policing. Diversity is best embraced when there is appreciation and admiration and respect for each other. That comes with lot of empathy and less of reprimand. The other issue with making diversity into a policy is that it results in poor measurement and sub-optimisation.

Diversity is not what you see, it is what you don’t

It is very easy to understand diversity based on what you look. The result creates two types of problems. One is we start to label and the other is we ignore the crux of diversity, which is thoughts. It is extremely important to have diversity in thinking as that creates a forum for intellectual exchanges and social progress. Two people looking exactly similar will have totally diverse viewpoints and approaches. People associate themselves lot more with to others of similar thought than colour, race, gender or nationality. Even if those reasons help people create an initial bond, it is very temporary. Diversity should embrace and accommodate multiple thoughts.

Diversity is not how you segregate, it is how you unify

As someone talks about diversity, it is extremely easy to fall into the trap of identification. As pattern seeking mammals, we look out for patterns in different people. The trouble with this is that it never stops. Segregation results in the creation of groups. The last thing any organisation needs is groups of people isolating themselves. What they need are open forums which will unify people. Diversity should always be, how we collectively operate and representation of different groups. It is about how to make everyone comfortable with who they are and respect others for similar reasons.

Diversity is not about listing topics to avoid, it is able enabling free speech

One of the well-documented pitfalls of incorrectly looking at diversity is identifying topics which shouldn’t be discussed. The problem with that approach is, it doesn’t bring change, it just creates a facade of unity. Only free speech and open environment will bring up topics and clear the air. Unless people understand viewpoints, it is difficult for them to coexist. When free speech is prevented and enquiring minds are arrested, it results in a fractured society.

Diversity is not a CSR, it is a social construct

Corporate Social Responsibilities are predominantly marketing or legal compliance activities. It is catastrophic to look at diversity in that angle. It would be better to not bother about diversity than put in the same bucket. It is not like a donation to a charity or a visit to an orphanage. Diversity is a social construct and is paramount for the peaceful coexistence of different people in this society. It is not a program of work which can be picked up for a certain timeframe, achieve certain objectives within a budget. It is a continuous process with immense challenges.

The corner stone for any civilized society is free speech and dissent. The right for the citizens to express themselves orally, it critical for information flow and decision making. If the fundamental rights like free speech, freedom of press, freedom to protest and right to an attorney are suspended, then you end up in an Orwellian society or a dictatorship like North Korea. Much like the labour laws, these rights have been introduced after immense struggle against the monarchies and theocracies of the past. I feel the present generation is frivolously giving it away to save themselves from being offended.

The famous comedian George Carlin, once came up with the seven dirty words which no one uses in the media. Some radio listener decided to get offended by it instead of changing the channel. As result, George Carlin fought a high profile legal battle for a year and finally won it.

George Carlin – Seven Dirty Words Youtube Link

Recently you hear instances of people protesting against others with whom they do not essentially agree. The one for me to remember is people at UC-Berkeley blocking Milo Yiannopoulos from talking in their campus. As much as I am for people protesting, this is not an equivalent situation. Instead of protesting against Milo, an idiot with little scientific knowledge on most subjects, one should focus on showcasing his work. This would bring his bigotry, xenophobia and racism to the front. By preventing him from talking, people have given a bigger forum for him to play a victim. The protesters have lost the opportunity to make the organisers listen to Milo and realise their mistake. The way I would protest this is by making Milo speak, and doing things outside that would drive him and his supporters insane, like showing their love for other human beings, supporting minority rights etc. These are two instances spread of 4 decades of how both the left and right behave. This is a very dangerous trend.

This insanity is not just limited to the United States. One can take plenty of example of the same globally. The furore in the Muslim world over cartoon and a badly made movie on Prophet Mohammed, is another example of stupid reactions preventing freedom of expression. I see that a lot in India, where artworks get banned to prevent people from getting hurt. Any public speech against a movement is brought down by a series of litigations which, will last your life time. Countries like China and North Korea just prevent freedom of speech under the disguise of treason.

I was once sent out of a government building in India, because I referred to a government employee by her name, instead of her role. Apparently in their context, it is not offensive for me to use someone’s name. My point was, if you don’t want people to call you by your name, why do you need one. This is another growing epidemic. People getting offended for everything that behaving like a child. There is no boundary on what will offend people and it is not for the offender to get into their mind to find it out. If you are offended, you should find a way to address it. India lost two of its greatest artists because of this sick attitude, one was painter M.F. Hussain and another was writer Salman Rushdie. The former was to appease offended Hindus and the latter was for Muslims. Art has the power to push boundaries and if people don’t like it, they have an option to walk out.

In Summary, free speech is paramount for opinions to come irrespective of whether they are acceptable or not. In the recent years the left have become more critical of dissent than the right, in the quest of equality and pluralism. It is important to note that what we have today is a result of people who have risked lives for such fundamental rights. It is easy to give them away and land in Orwell’s 1984.