a. razique

Mass media plays a significant role in shaping the way people think and imagine. It encourages them to adapt to whatever it is showing. People start wearing and eating whatever they see through the lenses of the mass media. One of the impacts of the mass media on people's thinking is that it changed the way people imagine human body. It shifted the track as a whole, and now, people are heading towards something which is not the reality.

Go through movies, serials, posters, banners or any other this which is put for the purpose of advertisement, you will find that men who are portrayed all over, do not have a normal healthy body, instead they are showing abs and shapes of muscles. Sometimes six, sometimes eight and sometimes more than it.

Years before, actors were not used to be body builders, and then came the era of Salman Khan and Sanjay Dutt, and now, to make the matters worse, men get chances to act in movies, even though they do not know the basics of acting, provided they have an attractive body, adorned with some well swollen abs.

Scroll through the social media, especially Instagram, and then you will be like what have you done with your body. There will be actors and models with so well shaped bodies that you will think of your body to be a piece of junk. 

Days before, and actor - I don't remember his name - had put his two pictures on Instagram. In one of the pics, he was brandishing his well shaped body, and in the other body was same like that of a normal person. He wrote that people especially youngmen are misguided through advertisement, but the fact is that we the people, who work for this industry, also have bodies like all of you, and work to return it back in shape only when we have to shoot.

At least he tried to bust the myth, and remove the false facade, but the people who are ardent followeres of these models, have no intention to stop. Youngmen, be it a student or someone else, spend hours in gyms working out. The fact is that the workout itself is not a bad thing, but to spend hours on it is nothing but an act of foolishness. The models and actors who spend their time in gym are paid for it, but the common people get nothing but a reason to drench the thirst of being different.

The way men imagine women, when they see an extra beautiful actress or a model who became miss India, or miss world, or miss universe, and they expect the same beauty from their female partner.  In the same way, women also imagine their male partner to have a well shaped attractive body.

Advertisement agencies do not care about what they are doing. What that really matters to them is money, and nothing else. They do not care about the bad effect they are having on the psychological health of the people. When they compare themselves to what they are witnessing, they start suffering from inferiority complex, and they spend hours and bunch of money to achieve the body they have seen in the advertisement.

Honestly speaking, the advertisement industry works like the porn industry. Whatever you see, is amusing, but you can't implement it in real life. But even if you try to do so, you won't be able to realistically achieve it, because it is not normal, and everything that is not normal will not last for long. The disenchantment will happen sooner or later, but maybe it will be too late, and you have already spent your time and money in something which was not beneficial for you in anyway.

One of the many problems faced by our generation is the one which is being created by social media. Social media websites has managed to become an intrinsic component of our day to day lives. People spend a substantial time on these websites and applications. Even though spending much time on social media, is itself problematic, which may lead to precarious psychological complications, but the problem which I think is more menacing than others is the way social media is limiting the spectrum of knowledge for its users.

Social media doyens viz. Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and Twitter affirmed time and again that they are endeavouring to create a better world for all, a world where the information will flow seamlessly, and  people  were naive enough to believe them. Social media websites which were created with a business perception, and with a vision to connect people with each other, are gradually turning into the sources of information. As per the Pew research centre, as many as 68% of young adults get some sort of news through social media, out which 20% often use social media as news source. The given data only talks about news, and not about the information we come across on social media.

The problem here is not that the current generation is using social media as their source of information, but the way these social media companies operate. The AI algorithm that works from behind, is used to engage users as much as possible, and to make them spend as much time as possible on these websites and apps. What that this AI algorithm does is that, in order to engage a user, it uses his/her data to decide what that individual user will see and what s/he will not, and this interruption done by this AI algorithm, creates the phenomenon which is called as the phenomenon of alternative pictures of the same reality.

Before we carry on discussing the way social media creates this phenomenon, let's understand it first, with a lucid example.  Why does Mr. A believe in a particular religion or god? Did it happen that when Mr. A grew up, he chose it? No, He grew up believing in it, and the reason is that he saw each and everyone from his family and relatives believing in the same myths. Father, mother, uncle, aunt, and so on and so forth, they all were the alternative pictures, but the reality remained the same, which was to believe in a particular religion. When he  grew up, he saw these alternative pictures portraying a single myth, and he embraced it too, because so many people can't be wrong, until and unless Mr. A think and contemplate about it, which happens rarely.

Anyway, coming back to the main topic, social media creates this phenomenon in a very smart way. Let's start from YouTube, which is a video streaming social media service. If you don't remember your first homepage on YouTube, no matter, but just go through it, as it is today, and you find hardly anything which you hate to watch, and it is done by that AI algorithm which I had talked about earlier. It learns from your user experience, and recommends you only those contents which you have watched or searched earlier. If you watch Prime Time with Ravish Kumar, you are never gonna see DNA by Sudheer Chaudhary, but instead P.P. Vajpayee or NewsClickIn will be waiting for you to be watched next.  If you watch Aakash Banerjee, and go with the flow of YouTube recommendations, you will end up watching Dhruv Rathee. If you watch English songs, then a bhojpuri song will never appear in your recommendation.  The same goes for others like Facebook and Instagram. If you follow the first one, the second one recommended will be similar to that first.

Although prima facie this AI algorithm is making things easy for us , but the fact is that it is making things more and more complicated, as it is leading our generation to a more dangerous destination and precarious situation.

This era in which our current generation is living is called to be the era of the flow of information, and it implies that the era preceding it, was characterised by the concentration of information, but one the other hand, that era was also marked by diverse and wide spectrum of information  and also the sources which were most of the time reliable and authentic. A person who reads a newspaper will see there various kinds of information, for instance; there will be a report against the lack of  transparency of governance, and on the other page, you may see another report about the progress in human development index in the last decade. If you are reading a book, you will find many arguments around a specific topic. The diversity of information we come across while reading a book or flipping the pages of a daily newspaper, neither lets you fall prey to any specific ideology or a blind folded follower of a particular political party, nor lets you develop a hostile attitude towards it. You have a diverse range of information, which lets you create a balanced attitude, which is also a characteristic of an aware citizen who participates in the democratic process with an equilibrated corpus of information.

But this process of information dissemination doesn’t happen in case of social media. The wide spectrum of information, you come across, while flipping through the pages of a book or a newspaper, is being limited by AI algorithm of social media services. If you subscribe to the YouTube channel of a person who is pro-X, or the first videos which you watched when you started watching YouTube are from those channels which support X or propagate X ideology, then the other videos and channels which will appear on homescreen are likely to be replicas of that, or advocating the same ideology, for example, if you watch Sudarshan News, and you are most likely to end up watching other channels like it, which will internalize a particular ideology in you, and on the other hand if you watch a channel like Kunal Kamra, you will end up watching the videos Official PeeingHuman, which are vocal against that particular ideology.

I’m not here giving any judgment against any of these ideologies, but the concern which is created by this whole process. AI algorithm creates a vicious circle around its user, and don’t let it choose the sources, and thrust the synonymous sources before him. A user who followed a pro-X page will not be recommended a pro-Y page, and this process makes the ideologies rigid. Political parties and pressure groups take advantage of this process, and their IT cells create as many channels, pages and accounts as they can, people follow these accounts and then what that happens is called the phenomenon of  alternative pictures of the same reality. A user who has ended up subscribing to ten channels which support the ideology Y, followed ten pages on Facebook which also support the same ideology, and same on Twitter and Instagram. At the end, s/he will have forty sources of information, but ironically they all are the exponents of one ideology which is Y. The user watches videos, reads tweets and posts which all say that ideology Y is better than the ideology X, and whatever information he has about ideology X, is given by the pages which are proponents of the ideology Y, and furthermore s/he also meets the people in the comment section, where they are doing the same thing i.e. supporting Y and abusing X, and thus s/he will eventually create a defective perception of the ideology X, and it is not against the nature. Somewhere in his conscience, the fact is lying that if Y was not better than X, why would so many people say so. He believes in the said reality because he has observed it in many pictures and all represent the same, but the story doesn’t end here, but it has its brutal and barbarous repercussions. On social media, pages won't upload articulated articles with arguments, discussing the real discourse of the ideologies X and Y, but as this is era is the era of nanotechnology, and life is fast so most of the people don’t have much time to read a long article, and that’s why memes and pictorial graphics with one or two lines are enough to know about something. People are presented with facts and not with proofs, no matter if it is real or fake, and while doing this, pages of ideology X won’t talk about the good qualities of the ideology Y, and the pages of ideology Y won’t talk about the good qualities of the ideology X. They spread hate against each other, and the things which used to be done by religious leaders and communal leaders decades before, are being done by social media pages.

The dilemma is critical but it is not like it doesn’t have a remedy. There may be many remedies like how to use AI algorithm as it won’t create homogeneity which will ultimate lead to concretise and fortify ideology X and against Y,  whatever you know about Y is filtered which also includes spreading fake news against each other, but that’s something which needs deliberation and technical action, but here are some possible solutions which may help in the short term.

First of all, a user must have been following fact checking pages and websites so he would be aware that s/he is not getting false information about any ideology or community, which are most of the time, being spread to instigate communal hatred.  S/he should also unsubscribe and unfollow those channels and pages which are proven to be the harbingers of fake information.

The pages a user follows must be representing a balanced choice, like if s/he is following the pages of X, s/he should also follow some pages of Y, even if s/he doesn’t like that ideology, but just to get the information directly and not filtered.

The most important step is to develop the habit of reading books and articles. Ten pages of a book in an hour are most beneficial than hundred posts with just two lines of information, but the reader must also ensure that the books s/he is reading, and the article s/he is going through are representing well the arguments of both ideologies, and the author and writer is not notorious for his/er biases and prejudice.

These steps are a must to stop social media from limiting the spectrum of information for its users, otherwise users are being trapped, and the information they get is strengthening their religious and ideological patterns and the byproduct of this process is the hatred which is ensuing against other communities.

Dexter - Showtime’s hit drama - may have been very entertaining for people, otherwise why would it have been so popular with eight seasons comprising ninety six episodes, but unfortunately not for the poor Conner. At the age of ten, his body was found dumped in a park. His own seventeen years old brother, Andrew Conley was convicted in his murder case, who told police interrogators: "I don't know if you've heard of it, but it's called 'Dexter,' and it's on Showtime. And I feel like him because he's a serial killer of bad people ... but I just feel like him." He had already told his girlfriend that he wanted to be like the Tv murderer.

Some people may assert that on screen violence has nothing to do with the incidence of violence in real life, but the bitter truth is that it is somehow interlinked with the crime happening in our society. What happened with poor Conner is not unique, but there are ample incidences to be put forth as evidence to prove that it really inspires people to commit crimes.

Scream - a cult horror movie of 90s - which follows the story of a slasher, who terrorises a sleepy American town, wearing a black tunic and mask, inspired the twenty four years old lonely truck driver Thierry Jaradin, who murdered fifteen years old schoolgirl Alisson Cambier in November 2001. American Psycho which is also one of my favourite movies, inspired fourteen years old Michael Hernandez, who lured his school friend into a bathroom, and then stabbed him for more than forty times - a brutal murder that got him sentenced to lifetime imprisonment. Fight Club - another popular movie - led to the explosion of home made bombs across New York City on Memorial Day weekend in 2009.  The perpetrator was found to be Kyle Shaw, a seventeen years old boy, who was a member of a local boxing club. The teen later admitted that he was trying to launch his ‘Project Mayhem’ and thus he wanted to replicate the assaults on corporate America by a character in the movie Fight Club, which was released in 1999.

The Indian movies have also not left any stone unturned in their effort to portray violence on silver screen, which in turn inspired various criminal incidents in our society. In a movie titled Bunty and Babli, Abhishek Bachhan and Rani Mukarji pulled off con after con. They looted rich people dressed as local guides, religious priests etc. even fake selling of Taj Mahal at one point, and this inspired among others, Jagjeet and a woman, who were involved in over two dozen cases of attempt to murder, theft, robbery among others.

What causes people to be so much impacted by on screen violence is not much simpe, because there are various psychological and emotional reasons which may change in space and time, but some of them have got universal nature, and they may be helping on screen violence to inspire criminals to commit crimes in real life.

First possible reason behind people being inspired by on screen violence can be the glorification of violence on screen. If the character who is doing violence is the antagonist, then it doesn’t have that much impact, but the situation becomes grave when the protagonist plays the violent role, or the actor who is playing the role is a well established and very popular cinema star. Who can forget the abduction of SnapDeal employee  Deepti Sarna! She was kidnapped and the culprit admitted that he was inspired by the character of Shah Rukh Khan in  the movie Darr, which was released in 1993, and he played the role of a young psycho who is madly in love with a girl, but he has no courage to talk to her. He stalks her, turns her life into hell, and even tries to abduct her. So the impact is great when the antagonist  character was played by one of the charismatic actors of Indian cinema, and the same also goes for Andrew who wanted to replicate the protagonist of Dexter . When a protagonist does violence, the audience can absorb it and tolerate it easily, and here comes another reason behind the impact of on screen violence on society, which is the justification of violence.

Justification of violence on screen, may have two possible repercussions. The first one is that on one hand, it urges some people to commit violence, and on the other hand it prepares common people to tolerate the violence if it looks glorious, and resembles a protagonist’s acts of violence in a particular movie. What that happened in the brutal rape and murder case of a veterinary doctor from Hydrabad, named Priyanka Reddy. Hyderabad police shot dead the four persons accused in the crime, and for no surprise, people were praising and justifying the move of the cops, and the reason may be the frustration from the system and procedure of justice in our society, but the on screen violence by protagonists were also a possible reason behind that justification. I came across a post on Instagram written in the format which is in vogue on social media. It read: “Kids arrest. Adults  interrogate. Legends  deliver justice”.  The picture was portraying the character of Ranveer Singh in Simmba, where he does the same with person accused in rape and murder case, while playing the role of a cop.

 Another possible reason behind the people being inspired by movies to commit crime is that the movies are usually written by those writers who are doyens of creativity. They present the story and the actions within, which lead to the climax and its denouement, with unprecedented creativity. A normal person who could have never thought of planning such a trap, may now get an idea and a creative way, and may do similar to what happened in the movie. I am not saying it hypothetically, because Special 26, starring Akshay Kumar in lead role, inspired the armed robbers posing as CBI officials, struck the Hyderabad branch of Muthoot Finance, and left with 40kg of gold. "First one of them dressed as a traffic cop went inside and said officers from the CBI have arrived. Then another one posing as a CBI official said they were there for a search after receiving information that people were converting black money into gold post demonetisation," Cyberabad CP Sandeep Shandilya said. The modus operandi was very similar to the plot of Special 26, where a group posing as CBI officials raids a jewellery store in Mumbai.  A gang of cheats was busted in Delhi, who duped people by selling them the plots owned by DDA. It was inspired by the role of Kishan Khurana played by Boman Irani in the popular satire comedy movie, Khosla Ka Ghosla released in 2013.

The reason behind children being inspired by on screen violence is something different. They might be more vulnerable than adults, as they are often  unable to comprehend and understand the complexity and of many plots, and so may interpret the violence they watch, and its consequences in a different way to an adult watching the same material.

Despite the links between on screen violence and the violence being committed in our society, one can never say that all crimes or a particular crime was committed only because the perpetrator had watched a violent movie and then he did that violence, but as Anderson from Iowa State University stressed, “media violence is only one of many risk factors for later aggressive and violent behavior. Furthermore, extremely violent behavior never occurs when there is only one risk factor present. Thus, a healthy, well-adjusted person with few risk factors is not going to become a school-shooter just because they start playing a lot of violent video games or watching a lot of violent movies.”

6 September 2018, was a historical day when Supreme Court of India decided to announce that the application of Section 377 to consensual homosexual sex between adults was unconstitutional, "irrational, indefensible and manifestly arbitrary” but that Section 377 remains in force relating to sex with minors, non-consensual sexual acts, and bestiality. This was a good decision in the sense of individual freedom but the religious fanatic sects did not have the stomach for it. For the first time in our country, all religious sects despite all of their differences, came together at one platform, to condemn this judgement. Many political parties opposed it. And all of them, called it to be a major blow to the indian culture and society. But the question is, that is it rational to arrest and torture someone just because of his choice? Can we choose the social, religious, and cultural  norms as yardsticks to measure the height and length of the fundamental rights?

The common discourse: Every dissident contend with a same logic that, homosexuality is unnatural. Apart from all arguments, I will focus on it only, because be it a religion or be it a society, both says that, homosexuality is against nature, and this is why it must not be allowed to be practiced. But the question it arouses is that who has the ultimate authority to decide what is natural, and what is unnatural.

Determining natural and unnatural: When it comes to determine the authority which will determine what is natural and what is not, then those who oppose the decriminalization of homosexuality, split into various groups. Each and every one of them, put up his own religion and ideology as the ultimate authority to count homosexuality as an unnatural practice. Something which is common is that all of them are religions. But here is a question that is it valid to adopt religions as yardsticks to determine what is natural and what is unnatural.

Determining natural and unnatural with religions: If we agree that a state must illegalize the homosexuality, because religion holds it, as unnatural, then there are certain kind of problems associated with this debate, which must be unraveled. First of all, if religions are agreeing on the point that homosexuality is unnatural, then what about the other things, which are natural in one religion, but other holds it as unnatural. For instance, Islam says that idol worship is unnatural, but it is the base of Hindu religion now a days. They worship idols, and never thought of it to be unnatural. Not all but it is a common phenomenon in Hindus that they believe that consuming meat and non-veg is unnatural, but Muslims are not ready to give up, because they think of meat consumption as something which is natural according to their religion. Digambara saints roam naked, but both Hindu and Muslim scriptures won't allow it.

Why only homosexuality then: Why to criminalize only homosexuality then? Just because every religion agrees to ban on it, it is not right way to ban it. If the base we are using to create a superstructure has so many flaws, and the difference between religions regarding what is natural and what is unnatural has been observed, than is it optimal to ban only homosexuality. Why not idol worship, singing, non-veg and many other things. The difference between religions about determining the natural and unnatural, proves that it is not right to use them as yardsticks in this matter. But the question still remains that what is natural and unnatural then?

Natural and unnatural: As we can't trust religions to determine what is natural and what is not. We must adopt the science to determine it, because science is the only practical measure in this world. When it comes to the science, then everything which happens is natural, and unnatural are the things which can not happen. When Albert Einstein came up with the theory of relativity, no one said it to be unnatural. Living up to the age of 200 years can be something unnatural according the religions, but it is natural according to science. Unnatural is, according to science, is something which is not possible. Like you can't run with the speed of light, I mean with the speed of 299 792 458 m/s, but you will be able to do it, it will no longer remain as unnatural. Each and everything, which happens in this world, and each and everything, which humans can potentially do, is natural, according to the science.   

I am not saying to legalized to homosexuality, because it is due to a certain point of view. This point of view is the combination of two theories. 1 Individual freedom, and,  2 Human rights. 

Individual's freedom comes first, and it goes on till the boundaries of human rights starts, then it stops. You may well understand that with the following example. Butchering animals, is an individual's right, he may butcher as much animals as he wants, and consume as much as he needs. Because it is his individual freedom, and no one can stop him. But if someone is trying to slaughter the goat of his neighbour, then he will be stopped, first by his neighbour, and then by local authorities like police etc. And the reason is that he is exploiting the human rights of his neighbour, which are guaranteed by the state to protect him and his possessions. 

Here is another example. You can suicide and no one has a legal right to sue you in the court , as per the rules and laws, legislated by the government. Because the life is yours, and you have the absolute authority over it. But you will be imprisoned and in some cases, sentenced to death if you try to kill a person, because you are trespassing the threshold of his own personal circle of right to live. 

So as the examples have already shown, one has absolute right on himself. He can do what he wants, consume what he wants. He is free to practice anything if he doesn't violate others’ rights. He is free to follow a particular religion of his choice, and also free to be an atheist.  Just like that, the LGBTQ community is. If they are not exploiting our rights, they are not compelling us to practice what they are practicing, then who are we to stop them, and consider their practice to be illegal. 

The same rule applies on everything happening in our society, society has no rights, to stop an individual from practicing a particular thing, until and unless he exploits the others' rights. Society has no right to stop something just because it considers it to be unnatural, or it doesn't like it, or a particular religion doesn't allow it. Just imagine If Hindus will protest against consuming non-veg dishes, because they think of it to be unnatural. if Muslims will protest against idol worship, because Islam says it's against the nature. if Buddhists will start protesting against both Muslims and Hindus that they must renounce the worldly things, because it is unnatural to have possessions. if the Jains will start protesting against consuming garlic. And what if Digambars will protest against wearing clothes. Because all of them think that what their own religion has decreed is natural, and what that is against it, is unnatural. Can you imagine a country like India to survive in such a chaos. It will be a pandemonium rather than being a country of diversity, and a mosaic of various religions and cultures, which we are proud of.  We have to allow, even if we do not accept, different opinions, and various practices to live and exist, and not put legal barricades in their way, just because we think of them to be unnatural. Everyone has freedom right to live and exist until and unless they cause harm to others. Because the definition of right and wrong is respective. A same thing at the same time, can be right in one’s perspective and wrong in another's perspective, like consuming non-veg, worshipping idols, and believing in monotheism.

It is not about what is right, and what is wrong, it is solely about should be stopped, what should be allowed to exist.

Are crimes really banned because they are unnatural: If you ask whether crimes like, robbery, murder, rape, any any other activity is banned precisely because they are unnatural then, the question is a simple no. The reason to ban these activities or any other activity is not that it is unnatural, but it is a violation of individual's rights.

Robbery, murder, and rape all of them are banned not because some priest of a particular religion decreed that to be banned, but because they violate someone's right to accumulate wealth, someone's right to live, and someone's right to consent in person matters.

The problem lies in the ideology. Religion is all about to please an almighty, and supernatural God, who created everything, and controls everything. But the new ideology of human rights, doesn't adapt with religions, because it seeks to give humans their rights, no matter if it makes some omnipotent God angry. It believes that humanity is the base of every law, not the religion. If someone violates the basic right of a human being as he steals his money, he will be punished, but if someone violates the right of a God, as he doesn't offer prayers, which are according to religions, a birthright of Gods, he will not be sued in the court, because he didn't violate the right of a human being. So the reason to criminalize activities is not they are unnatural, as we already know that everything that happens is natural in its nature, but certain things are banned because they desecrate the human rights.

Natural but a disease: People often argue that homosexuality is some kind of disease, which can be cured. But it is not true, because homosexuality has been proved by various researches that it is not a disease. The shift in the understanding of homosexuality from sin, crime and pathology to a normal variant of human sexuality occurred in the late 20th century. The American Psychiatric Association, in 1973, and the World Health Organisation, in 1992, officially accepted its normal variant status. Many countries have since decriminalised homosexual behavior and some have recognised same-sex civil unions and marriage.

The new understanding was based on studies that documented a high prevalence of same-sex feelings and behavior in men and women, its prevalence across cultures and among almost all non-human primate species. Investigations using psychological tests could not differentiate heterosexual from homosexual orientation. Research also demonstrated that people with homosexual orientation did not have any objective psychological dysfunction or impairments in judgement, stability and vocational capabilities. Psychiatric, psychoanalytic, medical and mental health professionals now consider homosexuality as a normal variation of human sexuality.

Human sexuality is complex. The acceptance of the distinction between desire, behavior and identity acknowledges the multidimensional nature of sexuality. The fact that these dimensions may not always be congruent in individuals suggests the complexity of the issues. Bisexuality, both sequential and concurrent, and discordance between biological sex and gender role and identity add to the issues. Medicine and psychiatry employ terms like homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality and trans-sexuality to encompass all related issues, while current social usage argues for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT), which focuses on identities.

The prevalence of homosexuality is difficult to estimate for many reasons, including the associated stigma and social repression, the unrepresentative samples surveyed and the failure to distinguish desire, behavior and identity. The figures vary between age groups, regions and cultures.

Medicine and science continue to debate the relative contributions of nature and nurture, biological and psychosocial factors, to sexuality. Essentialist constructs argue for biology and dismiss personal and social meanings of sexual desire and relationships. On the other hand, constructivists support the role of culture and history. While essentialism and constructionism, on the surface appear contradictory, they may mediate orientation and identity, respectively.

Citizenship Education and the Debate of Being Natural and Unnatural, about Homosexuality:

The citizenship education and the debate of being natural and unnatural about homosexuality is has a much strong connection. This connection can be divided into two kinds.

If you are a homosexual: As described before, societies and religions don't want to put ban on homosexuality because they want to do so, but they argue that it is against the nature. This discourse has become so overwhelmed that people who practice homosexuality they themselves think that they are doing something offensive while this is not the case. They are afraid to talk about their sexuality lest they are punished. They themselves consider it to be some kind of disease, which must be cured. And when they go through this much internal conflict in their minds, it causes psychological disorders. They try to be what they are not, in order to please their family, and their society, and in order to do it, they suffer a lot. But if they come to know, that what they are doing is not unnatural, they will be able to claim their rights as what they are, and they won't feel ashamed to confess their true sexuality.

If you are not a homosexual: Never think that if you are not a Homosexual, then you don't have any obligation towards those who practice it. Every citizen of a state has to understand that homosexuality is natural, and this understanding must be used in to fields.

1: To legislate laws to ensure rights to those who practice homosexuality. The world has enough to understand and do towards homosexuals. There are still 72 countries – mostly in the Middle East, Africa and Asia – where homosexual activity between consenting adults is illegal, according to Equaldex, a collaborative LGBT rights website. Some countries only criminalize sex between men but a growing number have recently expanded their laws to include bisexual and lesbian women.

There are currently eight countries in which homosexuality is punishable by death, according to the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association's (ILGA) latest State-Sponsored Homophobia report. These are Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen; parts of Somalia and northern Nigeria, under sharia law. The death penalty is applied by non-state actors, including Islamic state, in Syria and Iraq.  In theory the death penalty could be handed down under sharia law in Mauritania, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, though it does not appear to have been implemented, the report says.

2: To respect other's right as homosexual: To recognize the rights of others is a crucial part of citizenship. But unfortunately people protect their own rights, but don't want to recognize the rights of others who are different from them, like vegetarians want to secure their right to consume veg, but they humiliate, and become violent against those who want to eat non-veg only. The same happens in the case of homosexuality.  In some nations where homosexuality has been decriminalized, LGBTI people can still face violence, arbitrary arrest, imprisonment and torture, according to Amnesty International.

Even state doesn't involve in these kind of practices, but a society where these people live, exercise bigotry against them. They treat them as offenders and heretics, this kind of notions stem from the inculcated belief in them, that homosexuality, is unnatural, in its every form. Members of a society need to respect this community with the respect they deserve as human beings. The discrimination based on the choice difference is nothing but as you hate your friend just because he wants to have Rajma Chawal, and you want to have chicken dinner. If you take a rational view then there is no reason to hate, but if you take as a frenzied fanatic then, there is a chance that your friend will end up slitting your throat, for you are consuming non veg, and his religion does not allow it, or you will end up thrusting a piece of chicken, in your friend’s throat, as you think that chicken is the most delicious dish, and your friend must taste it. In both of the cases, it is a simple case of personal choice and individual’s belief. You enjoy your chicken dinner, and he is enjoying his Rajma Chawal. The same applies to the homesexuality, if you are a heterosexual, no matter, enjoy yourself, but there is no way to hate those who have a different choice.

Those who ban homosexuality just because they think of it to be against nature, and those who do violence against homosexual, all of them have to understand, that what they are doing is nothing but negating the basic of rights of a citizen of state, which is soon or late, doomed to be given, and they will have to say what Justice Indu Malhotra said, after decriminalization of homosexuality, that “History owes an apology to members of the community for the delay in ensuring their rights,” 

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Consider, for example, the Taj Mahal, a famous ivory-white marble mausoleum on the south bank of the Yamuna river. You may behold it as the most adorable monument, you have ever seen, as it is a manifestation of love from a husband for his beloved wife. It is your perspective to observe the Taj Mahal, and of course you may be right, because it is the way you make of it.

But now flip the pages of the poems, composed by renowned lyricist Sahir Ludhianvi, and stop at the poem with the title of “Taj Mahal”. Go through the poem, and when you will finish that fascinating and breathtaking poem, you will end up, having another perception about the Taj Mahal. You will come to grasp another perspective about it. The Taj, which was earlier an adorable mausoleum, will now turn out to be a symbol of a tyrant king, who sucked the money out of farmers, and common people, and then, used it to build a mere building for his beloved wife, who was dead at the time. Squandering a lot money to build a building for two dead person, instead of spending that amount in the betterment of common folks. The poem will show you the cruel facts behind that splendid and marvelous building.

Anyway, I am not gonna discuss in this page, whether the Taj Mahal is an icon of love and courtship, or it is a paradigm of tyranny and oppression. The matter of concern is, the perspective we choose to observe the things and issues. The building of Taj remains same, but our perspective determines that what do you make of it. You might grind out a the perspective, which is in vogue now a days, that it is not Taj, but it is Tejo Mahalaya. Whatever, but your perspective matters.

I put up Taj, only as an instance, and what that is true of the Taj Mahal, is also true of almost everything, and every person. Each and every time, something that matters, is the perspective you choose. Whenever you think that Islam is one of the most dangerous things, world has ever witnessed, then it is not because Islam is the imminent peril for the world, and its peace. Never but rather the fault lies in the perspective you picked up, to look at Islam through that. The perspective which was developed mainly after 90s. If Islam was a threat to the world, it must have been so, before 90s also. Well you can easily find enormous reasons about why this anti-Islamic perspective, and anti-Islamic narrative was developed. Mostly it is the condescendence of those who believe, in the theory of the clash of civilizations, which says that just like humans, the civilizations and cultures are also going through evolution, and only the fittest will survive. So those who belong the different cultures, and now applauding on the every win, the westerners obtain against Islam, either in battle field, or in cultural circle, will not be happy and cheering up, forever, because the malevolent devil of west will head towards them, after it will finish the game, with Islam, and wins, and if Islam wins, then it will be the who will proceed forward to them. So in both of cases, they must be preparing for the impending hazard, rather than,  sitting on the cozy couches, and just cheering up, and getting excited.

Anyway, the perspective matters. If you look at Islam with the telescope of Sufism, you will end up declaring that, Islam doesn't vary from Hindu philosophy in a large degree, the same renunciation, and abdication for this ephemeral world. The same debat of pantheism etc. The cloak is different, but the person is same. And of course, after comprehending Sufism, you yourself will state, that Islam is the most peaceful religion in the world. So the religion is the same, but the perspective has altered the outcome.

Each and every time, when you are to examine an issue, make sure you have look at it, in every perspective possible. Lest you end up making wrong out of it.

What if I tell you that the everything we intend to do, or we simply do, is caused by only one reason. Maybe you won't believe me, or reject this argument on the very first stage, but this is the bitter fact. Every single action carried out by human beings, be it a trivial pursuit or a momentous triumph, every single activity is caused by only one thing, and that is, the happiness. We do one thing and abstain from other, precisely because we want to be happy, nothing else. Maybe a zealot religious devotee pops out from somewhere, shouting out, that his deeds are only for God, not for his own happiness, but the truth won't change, even if you change the way of narration. The black is black, even if you wrap it in blue.

As I have already emphasized in the first paragraph, that it is the happiness, which accounts for all of our actions, let's explore this fact through examples and some analysis.

Everyone has some ambitions in his life. Someone aspires to be a doctor, other yearns to be an engineer, and may be the third person draws a bead on the software development. Just take a pause and think, that why those people seek to attain these certain goals. Does these goals have some peculiarities, so they entice these people, or the motives are something ulterior. So take a step ahead and ask them, why do you want to be so and so, or this and that? They will definitely reply that they want to do these particular things. Ask again, “why do you want to do these particular things?”. Here comes the turning point. They will tell you that it makes them happy. Yes…! You got your answer, but there are enormous chances that someone will tell you that he wants to be a software engineer, because he needs money. When you ask him, so it's money that makes you happy? Maybe you will get the answer in yes, or maybe he will spun a story that his mother is suffering from cancer, and he wants her to go through proper treatment. So you're telling me that if your mom is cured, it will make you happy? No way to dodge you this time. You will  definitely get the answer in positive, that all of it was just to to attain happiness.

You might have noticed that those three people had three aims or goals, which they think of, that they will lead them to the happiness. This difference in the goals gives us the idea of “stimulators of happiness”. Happiness is an abstract, intangible subjective reality, but its stimulators are both objectives and subjectives, as they vary from person to person, and situation to situation. People whom we call greedy and insatiables are the best examples of those who are affected by objective stimulators, on the other hand people who indulge with spirituality are finest examples of those who are affected by subjective stimulators.

As stimulators of happiness may vary from person to person, so their effect is. If we agree upon to measure the happiness with a scale of from level one to level ten, then it will be much easier to understand it, the effect of happiness and the effect of our goals which we accomplish in our lives. As everyone has only one purpose in his life, which is happiness, then why not we understand it through someone's life story.

Suppose a child named John, is born. The infant John loves to suck milk. If he gets milk, he is happy, and if he doesn't, he cries. Then he grows up, and now he wants toys. He also needs milk, but milk doesn't make him happy now, but toys do. He grows up, and starts to go to school. Now, the toys don't make him happy, but he needs good marks in order to be happy. When he goes to college, he needs many more things to be happy, he wants a girlfriend, he wants a bike, and so and so. And now John thinks that when he will finish his studies, and find a job, he will be happy. He embarks on studying, and passes the final exams with good marks, and let's assume that he finds a job in a very prestigious company. Is John happy now? Yes he is, but this happiness will not last long, same as they the other happinesses which he achieved from his childhood till now. And now, John thinks that when he will be married to a decent girl, then he will be happy. Let's assume that he finds his girl, and marries her. Is John happy now? Yes he is, but this happiness is not last longer too. Now, John thinks that when he will have kids, he will be happy, and fortunately his wife gives birth to a healthy child. Is John happy now? Yes he is, but this happiness is not last longer too. And now John wishes that when his boy will grow up, it will make him happy. The boy grows up and John goes through toils and fatigue in order to make money for his child’s education and other necessities, so that he will be able to grows up as a good man. John’s son grows up as a handsome lad having admirable moral values, with a degree from a prestigious university. Is John happy now? Yes, but this happiness won't last long as previous experiences. Now John thinks that when his son will get married, it will make him happy, and so he does. Is he happy now? Yes but it fades as usual, and he aspires for more, like his grandchildren, then their lives, and so cycle goes on round.

In the story you read above, that the stimulators change frequently whenever we accomplish one thing, and the levels of stimulators change too. But the level of happiness doesn't change. If John enjoys 6th level of happiness when he gets milk, when he was a toddler, he will enjoy the same level of happiness when he enjoys a palatable dinner at his home, I mean the 6th level of happiness. So the stimulator translated from milk to chicken, but the level is same in both of the conditions, 6th level out of 10. If John get promotion to the post of assistant manager, suppose that the level of happiness goes to 8th level, but what if he get promotion after five years to the post of manager, will the level of the happiness will go up to 9th? No, it will be on 8th. But what if John was promoted to the post of manager directly, and not the assistant manager? Yes in this time the level of happiness, must have gone to the 9th level, as it was unexpected, this is the effect of situation mixed with stimulator.

But remember! We don't feel happy, because the stimulator has peculiar effects on us. No, but the happiness is solely our reaction to the stimulators, because the stimulators themselves, are abstract and have no effect. Let's understand it with an example. A man earning 10000 bucks per month and man who makes 100000 bucks per month. Both gets bonus of 10% of their income 1000 and 10000 respectively. What do you think? The man who got 10000 in bonus is happier than that who got only 1000? No, the bonus has lead them to the same level of happiness, because the extra amount they got will have the same impact on their minds, as both of them will think that he got 10% extra, and will have the impact of 10%, not 10000, or 1000. And now suppose a man, who is bust, and doesn't have a penny. What if you give him 100 bucks. Can you hypothesize the level of his happiness? Of course his level of the happiness will be higher than those who got 10000 and 1000 bucks, in bonus, even the amount he got, is only 100 bucks. The reason is the reaction against the certain stimulator. If you are used to a particular stimulators, it won't make you happy, like the person who always drinks water from water cooler. The chilled water won't make him feel something extraordinary, but take a person who lives in a village, deprived of electricity and its facilities. Give him a glass of chilled water and ask him, about his feelings, and then, you will realize the difference between the stimulator and the reaction of the person.

When you accomplish a particular stimulator, like earning 50000 bucks every month,  it becomes a usual thing to you, and this is why the feeling you had when you got your first salary, doesn't happen again again, because you are accustomed to it. And whenever you are accustomed to an stimulator, you don't react to it as it is something extraordinary, so it doesn't make feel as happy as it made you for the first time when you experienced that. But the stimulator which has no effect on you, may compel some another one to react in an unprecedented way, while you need an extra version of  stimulator to make you feel happy.

As we have discussed the stimulators, how people are affected and react to them, and we already come to the conclusion that the happiness is only our reaction towards different stimulators. But the problem of happiness is not yet unraveled, because the most critical question about happiness is yet to come. But before we discuss that, let's look into a situation.

We all agree that John was happy, when he got a job, but the question is that does this happiness last forever or just fades as the time passes? Why John got angry when he didn't find his socks in the next morning, when he was to set out for his office. Why John felt sad when his son suffered from fever on the next sunday? Why is he not happy forever? Why does he gets angry and sad, if we agreed upon that the job made him happy. What kind of happiness is that? Why do we try to pursuit this transitory happiness which can hardly breathe for some hours or some days. You may chime in and say that the happiness which John achieved when he got the job is always with him, as the John's life has been better than before. But this is not the fact. A better life doesn't give you more happiness, rather it makes the small stimulators incompetent, and compels you to acquire extra level of stimulators in order to be happy. The job didn't level up John's happiness, but it elevated the level of stimulators.

If this is the essence of the story, that our accomplishments doesn't make us happy, but rather they make the happiness more far from our reach, as they lift up the stimulators, then, why do we exert ourselves to chase our goals?

The reason of our happiness and suffering is only our craving. Craving is internalized in human nature, we crave to have what that gives us pleasure, and we crave to abstain from what that causes us pain. In order to achieve what that pleases us, we make efforts to achieve the stimulators which lead us to experience pleasure, and we want the stimulators, of pain and grief to stay clear of us. When we acquire the stimulators of level one, we enjoy it, and then we turn our eyes to the level two, as we have already enjoyed the stimulators of level, then level three, four and so on and so forth. But the level of happiness doesn't change according to the level of stimulators. If someone has not yet tried,  the level two of stimulators he may react to it with a level seven of happiness, and the one who is already accustomed with the level four of stimulators, is likely to react to it, with the level three of happiness, as we have seen before that the same 100 bucks can turn out to be a cause of immense pleasure for someone, and can be just as nothing for some another one, as the reaction to the stimulators differ from person to person and situation to situation.

This the whole story, of happiness, nothing else. But a person who is a zealot religious devotee may tell you, that what he wants is only to make his God happy, not himself, and that he is not even interested in this mundane happiness. Never let him mislead you with his bombastic and exaggerated way of narration. Just ask him a simple question, “ why do you want to make your God happy with you religious deeds?”...

On 20 January 1600, Pope Clement VIII declared Giordano Bruno -an Italian mathematician, poet and cosmological theorist-  a heretic and the Inquisition issued a sentence of death. On Wednesday, February 1600, in the Campo de' Fiori (a central Roman market square), he was hung upside down naked, before he was finally burned at the stake. His ashes were thrown into the Tiber river. The charges made against Bruno by the Roman Inquisition was to hold opinions contrary to the Catholic faith.

When you read the lines above, you must have felt a chill running through your spines. You must have thought of it to be malicious to burn someone solely because he holds a different opinion and faith. But haven't you wondered about  the people who issued the death sentence. Do you think that they would have been regretted after the verdict? and they would have felt remorse for poor Giordano Bruno? If this is what you have been supposing, then you must be a naïve. Let me explain for you. The jury must have gone to their homes, after  decreeing the death verdict for our fellow. They drunk vintage wines, and had a great night with their family, for it was time to celebrate, because they have executed a person who was an imminent peril to the society, and he might have turned out to be a hazard to the religion. No regret at all. Just sentiments of gladness.

Shocking? Yes it is! But the reason is very simple. The jury had a firm belief that the religion they have embraced is the ultimate truth, and every single idea, perception and belief except it, is false and a threat to human beings, as it will drag upon them the commination of God. So just before this catastrophe happens, we must put this pariah to death, in order to save the humanity. This kind of beliefs are much frequent in our society hitherto. People usually believe what their religion, their society and their families believe in. If anyone goes against that particular established order and belief, they boycott him, as they can't kill him just because the modern fabrication of social laws doesn't allow it. We can assume that if we would have been in the old times, we had enough chances to observe of all of it happening through our unaided eyes. Just for a moment, recall the persecution of of Buddhists in India which took place in the 2nd century BC by King Pushyamitra, persecution of Christians in 64 and 313 AD, in Rome by Nero Caesar and Edict of Milan respectively, and recently the persecution of Muslims in Myanmar. Go through the history, and you will come upon a bunch of examples of this kind of persecution. If you will generalize these  persecutions, the result will be shocking. You will see that at least each religion has tormented its rivals, and at least each religion has been tormented by its rival too. And the reason is simple only one. They hate others, because they believed that their religion is the ultimate truth, and the rival religion is just a heap of stinking dung, which must be wiped out of the world, where humanity is residing. Everyone thought only their religion has the ultimate solution for the impending doom of the human beings. Everyone must embrace their particular religion,and follow their established rules. The one who don't believe will be persecuted, because they won't allow him to infect others with this fatal epidemic.

The example I have put up above, are of universal nature and of bigger canvases. But the same problem of belief, in self completeness causes chaos in our individual and social lives. Father has dispute with his son, and son is grappling with his father. Both of them think that the truth is in his side. The same goes for each and every contention. Be it as larger as universal scale like religious and ethnic conflicts, or be it as small as an altercation between two people of different ideas. Here rises a question. why does it all happen? What accounts for all of it?

The reason of all the phenomena, we discussed above is only one. Let's embark on the arduous quest of the answer. When we analyse the examples given above, we come across that almost in all major genocide of the human beings, the upper class was involved. You can't make  excuse that they lacked education, because they acquired the best available knowledge of their times. They were mighty kings and significant priests. Despite of this all, they waged war against their opponent religions. The reason was that they believe in the supremacy of their ideas, and this belief stemmed from looking into the alternative pictures of same realities.  Let me explain it.

Think of a man, who was born to a Christian family. He was brought up, with a huge Christian dogmatic effects on him, from his parents side. They inscribed on his mind that Jesus Christ was the son of god, who was crucified in repentance for the human sins. And one who embraces Christianity will be having a particular and special place in paradise, otherwise he will cry and yell in the blazing hell and will be roasted at stakes like a chopped chicken. He believes in all of it. When he attends the preachings of the priest in the church, as he holds him to be the highest learned man in his village or town, he finds out that the priest himself is repeating the same things which his parents taught him, but in a more elaborated and logical way. His imagination of Jesus Christ to be the son of God now, takes form of a firm religious belief. And now he is curious to explore more about Christ and Christianity. He goes to the library and browses religious books. And surprisingly he comes across the same things which he heard from the priest, and was taught by his parents. He looks around him and noticed that his loved ones, like his uncle, aunt, cousins,the school teacher and so on and so forth, all of them believe in the same things which he found out in the big volumes written by the great minds of both ancient and medieval eras, heard from the priest who is likely to be the most enlightened person he met in his whole life, what he found his loved ones believing in, as they are they are his dearest ones, and of course what he was taught by parents who are the people who take care of him more than anyone in this universe. After going through all of this pictures, he concludes that Christianity is the best religion, and Jesus Christ was crucified to purify the people who will embrace his message. Determining that, our fellow will easily reject any dissenting opinion and different idea, which goes against his belief, precisely because he thinks that he has enough empirical and theoretical evidences to believe the Christianity to be the one only truth, and he holds it as a final word for human life, and he has firm belief, that he must make each and everyone follow this particular truth, in every way possible, by preaching, by debating, and on the gun point if there is no one to strangle him back. Not because he hates another people who don't believe in Christianity, but just because he thinks of them to be foolish if they don't do so, and as a yellow peril to his religion.

Our fellow is unlikely to give up, because as he asserts, he has enough reasons to believe in Christianity. The parents, the priest, the teacher, the books, the relatives, and the surroundings. Each and everyone was Christian. They love him, and it is utmost unlikely that they lied to him. What that is true of our fellow, is also true of us. We believe in what our parents taught us. What we heard the priest talking about, what we learned in the religious books, what our relatives believe in. And all of us think we have enough theoretical evidences to believe in a particular religion or idea, and hold him as  the ultimate truth, and final solution for all problems. And he won't regret if he does something obnoxious in order to establish his idea in people's minds.

Why do we do so? Is it true to say that our fellow has enough theoretical and empirical evidences. I think it's not as simple and as true as he takes it to be. The reason behind all of it is, that our fellow has gone through the alternative pictures of an ideology. His parents, his relatives, his teacher, and again the priest, and the books, everyone is an alternative picture on reality, which is of course Christianity. All of them represent the same idea. They're different in their structures, they have different way of narration, but all of them have the same story to tell. It is just like you searched on Google to show you the images of USA, clicked enter and Google put before you, a bunch of pictures from USA. Skyscrapers, well-dressed people, the president as the champion of liberty and Human rights, clean and well maintained roads. All this images will create in your mind that the US is the same as Google showed you, but the reality doesn't match it. There are slum areas in USA, like India, there are poor people too, and of course US president is not a champions of liberty and freedom, as it shows. It is called the alternative pictures of one reality. If someone wants you to believe in a particular idea, he will show you  alternative pictures which represent that very idea. Just like it happened to you while browsing pictures of USA.

When we look one reality in the different pictures, we holds that very reality to be universal, as it happens mostly, with people who follow a particular religion. The major side effect of this kind of beliefs is, that the believer loses his ability to criticize and analyse. He becomes blind-folded believer, and he always takes  defending position against every different idea. His belief urges him to reject any dissenting idea, in every way possible, and defend his own ideology with utmost effort, it doesn't matter, if it seems like stupidness even to him.