In the Throes of Democracy

Democracy, as defined, is ‘a system of governance in which power is vested in the people, who rule either directly or through freely elected representatives’.

Let us dissect this definition for the purposes of understanding it better. What does democracy really mean?

At the outset, it is the power that the people possess to govern the state. However, since such a large number of people cannot possibly decide upon all matters of state regulation simultaneously, their powers are delegated to a few individuals, group-by-group. Constituencies are formed from which one candidate is elected by the people to then represent them in the legislative assemblies.

The main point that I am going to jump into right away is quite simple- the power belongs to the people. Representatives of all constituencies are just that- representatives. It is their responsibility to fulfil the wishes and solve the problems that the people of their constituency face. The people, who hold the real power, delegate that power to someone they believe is capable of voicing their concerns on a provincial or national level.

It is a simple question of logic- when does one delegate a task to another? It may be to promote efficiency, it may be because the power exists but the person(s) who hold it are unfit to exercise it. The real question then emerges- when should one not delegate their powers? Does it not seem counter-intuitive to delegate your power and authority to somebody who is doing poorly at handling his/her responsibilities? Why should you continue to give your authority to somebody else to exercise on your behalf if they are doing next to nothing on your behalf?

Democracy is not explained as ‘relinquishing your power and authority to somebody who will arbitrarily decide how to proceed in matters of state governance’. It is explained as ‘delegating your power and authority (which vests in the people, and the people only) to freely elected representatives to act on your behest’.

It is a matter of reflection- how much are we actually being represented? How well is this current system of delegating powers going? It does not seem to be going very well, if I may be allowed to comment.

The problem I see is that hardly anybody realises that they possess the power, and that the ‘leaders’ that they are so afraid of, are subject to them, not the other way around.

Why is it that the people of a nation are held to be unimportant in decisions of war and peace? Why is it that the ‘foreign policy’ of a nation (whatever that is supposed to mean) takes precedence over the wishes of the people? What is observable is that a nation’s elected representatives would rather uphold the ‘foreign policy’ of precedent governments rather than to hear the wishes of the people. I will go slightly off topic but will still remain relevant when I ask: how is a nation’s foreign policy any different from ordinary social customs that have been passed down generations? The day we say ‘this is how it is, period’ is the day we effectively halt further progress.

Why is it that the allocation of financial or material resources is decided arbitrarily without consulting the people? For instance, why is the military budget being increased while the budget for the education sector is being cut down? Why are there no long-term policies being implemented for the growth of the economy, education, energy and healthcare sectors?

One can safely assume that most people living in democratic nations are rather unhappy with the state of affairs. The level of unhappiness is perhaps more in developed countries because they understand their rights and see them being infringed. In developing nations such as ours, people are not even aware of the rights they possess.

The question that remains now, my friends, is whether you will continue to live with this continuous disregard of your position of power, or will you check how the power given by you is being used? It is rather silly to give your power to somebody willingly just to have them use it against your interests.

Democracy has become the benchmark for all nations of the world to live up to. Yet nobody asks ‘why is democracy the best way?’ There are compelling arguments against dictatorships because then the people have absolutely no right to governance. I concur. However, until the world does not realise that Plato’s idea of a democratic aristocracy is perhaps the ideal way to go, it can suffice to ask ‘how democratic is democracy, really?’

If democracy is portrayed as the saviour of all nations and people in the world, how is it that the people consider themselves powerless? Does the very definition of democracy not say ‘a system of governance in which power is vested in the people’? Where is this power exercised? If democracy is my ability to cast a vote every few years, then I would willingly shun democracy as a sub-standard, superficial and rather manipulative empty title. Saying that I have any practical rights by virtue of democracy is to say I can open and close the window shutter on an airplane. It is such a meaningless act when looked at in conjunction with the entire working of the airplane.

This is not meant to be a ‘Democracy vs. Autocracy’ argument. It is an analysis of how democratic democracy really is, if at all! The meaning of this is simple- if we are being sold the concept of democracy, are we in fact buying damaged goods?

The Belief Affair

Bear with me for a moment, lend me your attention for just a while.

Nothing is set in stone, except fossils. The world is not black and white. It is in countless shades of grey. Dualism is perhaps worst than the black plague. It restricts thought, destroys the creative process, and inhibits intellectual debate.

Every belief system we see in our world today is there by virtue of people. People follow, people propagate, people keep beliefs alive. Every idea, every thought, every expression is here because of people.

If you truly understood the meaning of the previous paragraph, you need not even read further: for now you know that criticism of anyone or anything barely has any basis. What makes one specific belief any more important than other?

You may hold very strong beliefs. I want this article to be interactive. I want you to think about a specific belief of yours which you hold to be true, factual, and irrevocable.

Done?

Now analyse the following paragraph with this belief of yours in mind, comparing what is written to what you feel.

I know this to be true. I conduct myself in a way which is in line with this belief I hold. This is the truth of my life. Something which makes me feel complete, whole and at peace. It is something I am willing to stand up for. It is something which I would want more people to believe in because I know it is right.

So far so good?

Now imagine this: every single person, just like you, has the same feelings about the things they believe in. Think about the feelings associated with beliefs which hold true for all people, regardless of what their beliefs actually are.

Now that you realise that you are indeed not the only person who is so attached to beliefs, there are a number of realisations that follow. First and foremost, you cannot fight somebody on their beliefs. Why? Because they can fight with you based on your beliefs using the same logic. What they are to you; you are to them.

Having reached this understanding, it is your responsibility to discourage belief-related conflict. You have grown up with certain customs and beliefs (or you may have discovered them on your own) much like every single other person on planet Earth. Fighting over beliefs is not unlike fighting over what colour a person is.

My dear friend, you are on this planet for 80-or-so years on average. There have been thousands of generations which have come before you, and thousands (hopefully) to come after you. All have died, all will die. Do you think your beliefs are worth creating inter-human dissonance for? If so, your beliefs must be re-evaluated.

Like I said previously, nothing is set in stone. You must re-evaluate anything and everything you think you know or believe in order to have a satisfactory answer as to 'why' you hold that belief or 'truth' per se.

To all budding intellectuals and bleeding hearts who want to make a difference, let me give you a practical way of doing so. You have a set of understandings. You realise that the world is imperfect. Do not settle for the status quo. Your life is more precious and the world is much too unfair to you personally. The quality of your life is directly related to the condition of our world and the people within. The first step you ought to take before anything is to embody the realisations that you have reached. By doing so, you will not only eliminate the hypocrisy within yourself (the difference between your thoughts and your actions) but you will also lead by example. All of us are leaders, if we choose to eliminate this hypocrisy. The second thing then is to disseminate that knowledge and understanding, just as I am now doing.

You are limitless. You have the capacity to change yourself. That is all you need. Imagine, if I inspire you with this piece to make a difference in yourself, and you in turn inspire one more to do the same, our world will know peace. Perhaps not in our lifetimes, but it will eventually attain a peaceful status quo. We must be a part of this historical movement.

We must do our part as cogs in the Great Machinery of the evolution of thought. If we expedite our efforts and attain our goals, the future history books will talk of our time as the moment where it all started becoming better. We will be pioneers of human history. We will change the world, one person at a time. Take this pledge, and you too can be a part of it in your own personal capacity. That is all you are required to do. The burden of the world is not on your shoulders; it is only your own burden that you carry. I would reiterate: first, embody the understandings you do have, and second, spread that knowledge to inspire others.

Here's to a new chapter in our lives!

Fear?

"I'm scared."
"Really, what's the worst that can happen?" 
"I'm not entirely sure."
"Do you fear death?"
"I don't believe I do."
"Do you fear being alive?"
"I'm not sure what you mean by that."
"Do you live in constant anticipation of something unknown occurring that is unpleasant?"
"I think so."
"What's the worst that can happen to you?"
"I could lose my family, friends, everything.."
"That's not an answer. What's the worst that could happen to you personally?"
"I could die."
"Are you afraid of death?"
"Not really. If it happens, it happens."
"Then what are you scared of?"
"Injury, I suppose."
"So you're scared of feeling pain?"
"Well now that you put it like that, I don't think I'm 'scared' of pain. I wouldn't enjoy it but I'm not exactly scared."
"Then what are you scared of?"
"I'm not sure actually."
"If you can't identify what you're scared of, is it worth being scared about?"
"Its the mysterious things that are the most terrifying."
"Where do mysteries lie?"
"I don't quite understand what you mean."
"Where do mysteries 'exist'?"
"In our minds, as unanswered questions."
"So you're afraid of unanswered questions?"
"I think so."
"Do these unanswered questions have an answer?"
"I believe there's an answer to everything."
"Do you know the answers to the unanswered questions?"
"I don't believe I do."
"Then accept the questions as they are- unanswered- and you will have nothing left to be scared of."
"I'm still scared."
"Of what?"
"I'm not entirely sure."
"Well, what's the worst that can happen?"

I have a few questions

These are not out of this world complex questions. They are rather simple everyday questions that an objective spectator to planet Earth might ask.

I have a few questions.

I witness death and disease and desensitization and destruction and an abhorrent lack of empathy amongst the people of this planet.

'What makes one man unavoidably the enemy of another?'

I have a few questions.

I see the beauty of architecture in the mosques, synagogues, churches and temples and I smile to myself at the amalgamation of human intellect with nature.

Then I see blood flowing from the eyes of the mountain as a church crossed paths with a mosque.

''Was the lesson of peace not enough to overcome your differences?'

I have a few questions.

I see people of the world laugh and cry together yet if one claims that a book can be interpreted differently from what the majority believe, it can lead to an early conclusion... of their life.

'Why are invisible beliefs more important than real people themselves?'

I have a few questions.

I see the earth, in all its infinite beauty and natural landmarks. I see the rivers and mountains and valleys and trees.

Then I see rivers of blood streaked arbitrarily on its surface. A crude demarcation of what belongs to whom.

'Who amongst you created the absolute evil that is 'ownership'?'

I have a few questions.

I see the smiles and eagerness on the faces of young children before they are told to hate the children that live on the other side of the river of blood.

'Why must you transfer hate down generations?'

I have a few questions.

I see a lot of happy groups, thriving together in an organized society.

Then I see the savage nature of humans when two groups cross paths.

'Why must you create divisions and sub-divisions when you are one and the same?'

I have a few questions.

I see people celebrating their successful 'independence' from people who do not match their belief system.

'Why are beliefs the reason for inter-human dissonance?'

I have a few questions.

I observe mass congregations to pray for salvation.

Then I see the same congregation propagating hate and spilling blood.

'How can you ask for salvation when you are doing everything in your power to spread evil?'

I have a few questions.

Human beings have transgressed through savage times, evolving out of the paradigm 'survival of the fittest' and into 'thriving in numbers' and further into an organized civil society.

'What then, took coexistence away?'

I have a few questions.

These are not out of this world complex questions. They are rather simple everyday questions that an objective spectator to planet Earth might ask.

I have a few questions.

What is Free Will?

What is free will? Before reading any further, let me get one thing straight- this piece is by no means religious, nor does it have any religious teachings as a pre-cursor. This is solely me pondering over this one question on the basis of fact, logic, and science. I do not mean any offence to anyone and I do not mean to disrespect anyone’s religious beliefs by means of this piece.

That being said let us explore the depths of what we would call free will. Have you really thought about how much ‘free will’ you actually possess?

There are certain things, however, which are imperative to acknowledge and understand before even asking ourselves the question.
First, the human gene pool, however it may evolve (or devolve), is the human gene pool; nothing less, nothing more. There can be no evolution/devolution/mutation beyond the ambit of what genes are already within this closed-system we call mankind.
Second, when we are born, our DNA defines who we are for the most part: appearance-wise, personality-wise and preferentially.
Third, the experiences we undergo in our developmental stages, together with our surroundings, institution, home, family, friends and countless other factors define who we are going to become.

There is quite a bit of interplay between the 2^nd

and 3^rd things. To put it simply (or actually really complicating it further, so if you are brave, continue reading), our DNA coupled with our experiences and all external and internal influences essentially mould who we grow up to be. What we prefer eating, drinking, which colour we like, what genre of songs we enjoy, what our past-times are, etc. (You kept reading. You brave thing, you. I like you). Essentially it defines who we are, so to speak.

Now, our choices and preferences are such that we tend to ‘choose’ something which is to our liking and discard something which is not.
Think about this: how many of these ‘preferences’ are really your choice? You are predisposed towards thing ‘X’. Why? It is based on your DNA, experiences and essentially all intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Where do you fit in? What part of it was really your choice?
You did not choose which parents you will be born to. You did not choose your 48 chromosomes. You did not choose how those 48 chromosomes would- with interplay- result in making you... you. (Interplay. Love that word. Interplay. Hehe). You didn’t choose what group of people would be your peers, you did not choose which of your peers would be inclined to be your friend; you did not choose which ones (out of whom were already inclined towards you) you would become friends with. You’re probably thinking that the last thing I said is utter hogwash- of course you chose your friends. Sadly, no you did not. Your personality (repeating: dictated by your DNA+ all other factors) and preferences make you feel more inclined towards certain people than others. Your compatibility, interplay of intellects (haha, gets me every time), and preferences attract you to that person, and there’s nothing you can do to change that. There is also nothing you can do about what you like to see in a person to consider being friends with them. All these ‘preferences’ that you possess are a result of all the factors discussed earlier.

This is pretty bizarre, isn't it? Well I won’t lie: it is. But think about it. What control did you actually have in the factors that surrounded you when you were born and grew up? You are simply moulded by whatever was handed to you. Later on, when you actually can (or think you can) choose your extrinsic factors, those ‘choices’ are dictated by the preferences you developed during your childhood. No matter which way you turn, you’re inevitably being dictated by who you are. That is who you are. That is your personality. That is you. But did you really have any control over how you became you?

You simply took in all the extrinsic factors and moulded yourself in accordance with your genetic predispositions.

It is not your choice what extrinsic factors will affect you in what way. Let us consider an example:
A and B are the only two passengers in a taxi driven by C. Same age, same gender, same school, same family background. They get into an accident. A and B are unharmed, but C is badly injured.
A gets out of the taxi and has a breakdown, sobbing hysterically at the sight of the blood and unable to be of any use. (Incoherent blabbing may or may not have been a part of his spaz attack).
B, on the other hand, whips out his cell phone, calls an ambulance, and tries to figure out the best possible way to tackle the situation.

Let us analyze what just happened. A was nowhere near composed, while B was the very definition of the word. Why? They went through the same ordeal. My point is: different situations have different effects on people. The effects are a result of the peoples’ personalities, tolerance, and composure. My point relating back to the topic: the experiences you had in your early developmental stages indubitably had an effect on you- an effect that you did not choose.

Anyway, I’m getting sort of tired of explaining the same thing in different ways. We can move on. We have now come to the conclusion that we are who we are by no real choice of our own. What is ‘our’ choice? Is it really just a word given to what our preferences dictate to us? The ‘people’ we become by no choice of our own- is that who we are? Where is the free will in our actions when everything is essentially just bound to happen, by our own ‘conscious’ choices which are already defined?

We have examined this phenomenon on a macro level. It is now time to examine an isolated occurrence of a demonstration of ‘choice’. Everything we do, say, think, choose, has a cause. Something or the other sparks it. On any normal day, I would wake up and have orange juice. Some random day I would not ‘feel’ like having orange juice but ‘feel’ like having apple juice instead. Isn’t that really my personal choice, and is definitely NOT dictated by my genetics and personality like I keep asserting?  Well, the answer is... not really. It still isn’t my choice. How

can this possibly be anything other than my own personal free choice? Well, it is- so to speak. It is the way you want it. But it is not necessarily coming from anywhere other than your mind. There is something or the other going through my mind that resulted in this anomalous choice of having apple juice instead of orange. Maybe I reached my neurological limit of having the same thing every day and now on this particular day my threshold for tolerating the same thing every morning has been crossed. Maybe I had a dream after which I woke up feeling not the usual way I would feel. Maybe I just wanted to taste apple juice. MAYBE I JUST WANTED TO TASTE APPLE JUICE. It seems like as though my hypothesis has a major flaw. It doesn’t. Not in this case, at least. Try to apply this here:
You do things because you want to do them. Your preferences make you ‘want’ to do those things. Anomalous preferences are always inevitably the product of a thought process- conscious or subconscious. Your preferences have already been defined in your development.

The core question is: how can you choose to want something that has already been added to your preferences without any intervention on your part from the very outset of your development?

Exceptions may be when you do something you would generally not prefer doing. You would ‘choose’ to do them. But, these exceptions are not really exceptions. They are governed by external or internal factors. Something, someone or a simple thought process will make you choose whatever it is you would not have normally chosen. There will always be a thought process involved. If you choose to do something against your preferences because, say, your best friend will look favourably upon it, it is really you bending under that social pressure of acceptance, desirability, or- on a less pessimistic note- just for the sole reason of making your best friend happy (which again is not really selfless; read my piece “Are we all Selfish?”). It is your personality that allows you to go against your preferences for so-and-so reason and that again, does not make it a ‘choice’.

I hope I have confused you sufficiently. Where is the ‘free’ part of free-will? Or is it just a name we call it for “all intents and purposes”, with its true meaning really not being satisfied? We call it free-will because this is just the way it has been, and this control of factors over who we become is conveniently disregarded in the context of free will.

What we have, is a controlled systematic algorithm that is flexible to accommodate all types of experiences and respond in its own unique way based on your DNA and personality. It cannot- by any means whatsoever- be called free will in the true sense of the phrase.

P.S: This has been bothering me for a really long time, and any answers I have received have not been able to make me see anything differently. Based on deductive reasoning and a bit of science, this seems quite probable. If, however, you have an explanation which will disregard this whole hypothesis, I would love to be made privy to it. I want to believe it. Convince me.

P.P.S: Interplay. Hehehe. Thanks for reading. Ciao!

Are we all Selfish?

Human beings are selfish creatures. It’s as simple as that. There is absolutely NO action a person takes without a selfish reason. Even seemingly selfless acts are inherently selfish. Let’s take a few examples to better understand what I mean.
“X” is a rich guy. Feeds a poor person “Y”, gives him a home.
Why?
Maybe he likes the praise he gets from people who witnessed his generosity. Maybe he likes the thanks he gets in return.
Seems simple enough. Not quite. Let’s twist it a bit. Let’s say “Y” never shows any signs of gratitude. Let’s say no one witnesses “X’s” generous act. What reason would he have now?
It’s simple. It’s the same rationalization that everyone has when they do something for someone else without looking for anything in return. The truth, my friends, is that they ARE getting something in return. It doesn’t have to be verbal, doesn’t have to be tangible. The answer, quite simply, is that they get satisfaction. We crave satisfaction, we crave happiness. The happiness one gets from doing a selfless act, in itself, is a selfish motive for doing that. Maybe we don’t pre-meditate doing it. We may even not think about the happiness we may or may not get. We do it anyway. Subconsciously, the idea of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are etched into our minds. Hence subconsciously we may convince ourselves to do a ‘good’ act because regardless of you consciously thinking about the sentiments attached to that act, you will always know at the back of your mind exactly how you will feel if you go through with it.
It’s a very simple concept. But it’s just as hard to understand and accept. No one wants to be told that their selfless acts are the offspring of a deep-rooted innate desire for satisfaction. No one wants to accept that they are just like every other human being on the planet, all doing things for selfish reasons. Let’s consider another example.
“X” is a letter in the alphabet.
Sorry. I couldn’t help it. Moving on…
 “X” is in the military. He saves “Y” at the cost of his own life.
Why?
There could be multiple explanations. None of which are selfless. Now at this point you’re probably thinking ‘how could this guy POSSIBLY claim that giving your life to save another is selfish’. Well, you’d be surprised.
The first explanation, like I mentioned before, may possibly be because “X” knows how war heroes are remembered, revered, almost idolized. He wants that attention, regardless of it being post mortem. The question arises, why would his subconscious still think it would make any difference to him if he is no longer alive? Ladies and gentlemen, humans have experiences most of what planet earth has to offer. We have been exposed to countless number of combinations and circumstances. But never have we been able to experience anything like death. We might claim to have had near death experiences, or thinking that sensory deprivation tanks take us into that feeling of not existing. Sure, plausible theories. However, no one can prove or disprove them. Which means, no one knows for certain what death feels like. Our minds do not have a fixed deep-rooted idea of death. We can merely speculate. And for that very reason, death is never a deciding factor in any of the judgments we make. What we actually do consider- and it is VERY important that you understand the difference- is pain, serious injury, and the fear of not knowing what will happen when we die. We are not afraid of dying. We cannot possibly be afraid of dying because none of us know what it even is. What we ARE afraid of is the UNCERTAINTY revolving around the concept of death. Of being unsure of what is going to happen.
That being said, I now realize how off-topic I went. Still, I think that was a pretty constructive hypothesis.
The second reason why “X” may save “Y” is, once again like I mentioned before, because of the ideas of ‘good’ and ‘bad’. The two reasons may co-relate to a certain extent but there is a thin line separating them. In essence, “X” knows it’s a ‘good’ thing to save another life, be it at the cost of his own. Subconsciously, we may convince ourselves to do that act knowing the satisfaction we will get at its completion. But then the problem again arises… at the cost of his own life? Reiterating once more what I said; we do not know what death is hence it is not a deciding factor in one’s decision making process. “X” may be apprehensive about serious injury, but he will go through with saving “Y” solely because he is convinced it is the right thing to do. Even if he is not ‘remembered’, the thoughts right before he dies would be ones of utmost satisfaction. For doing the highest service one can for a fellow human being.
Let’s take another example. Let’s bring love into the occasion. We all know emotions sometimes may defy logic. This just might get tricky.
We will now see what “Y” does to honour the fact that he was given a second chance at life.
First off, he pays his respects to “X”. Next, he does something ‘selfless’ for his spouse “Z” without anyone knowing.
Why?
Self gratification. He felt good about it. He loves “Z”. For some people, acknowledgment for doing something for their loved one gives them immense happiness. To others, just the mere knowledge that they did something selfless for their loved one without anyone else knowing is enough to keep them satisfied. This is a subjective standard; varies from person to person depending on their nature.
But in essence, everything everyone does has a selfish motive. The only ‘problem’ as I like to call it is that we have stereotyped some selfish motives to be selfless. Some things are seemingly more selfish than others, but in essence no act is completely selfless. It can be NEARLY selfless. But never quite gets there. Just like we can get to 99.9% the speed of light but never 100%, it’s the same thing with selflessness. You won’t ever get there. Some acts may seem COMPLETELY selfless to you, but not from the actor’s subjective view. Some things appeal to him, which may not appeal to you and vice versa.
Seems legit. Still, not quite.
What about sacrifices? Things people do which they do not personally like, but do them anyway for someone else?
Let’s break it down. Don’t look it as what act the person is doing and their preference. Look at it this way: by doing said act, that person is pleasing someone else. Subsequently, by pleasing that other person, the actor gets satisfaction. The chain of sacrifices can be as long as you want, but in essence the answer will always be simple. You just need to break it down.

I hope I’ve managed to provoke some thinking into the matter. Any arguments would be welcome. I don’t claim to be right. This is merely a hypothesis designed on the basis of rational thinking to help me comprehend the world the way it is. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Thanks for reading.
Cheers!

P.S: Thanks to Umair Khan, who inception-ed this into my head 2 years ago. Credit goes to him for the idea (which I heartily disagreed with at first).

Breaking Stereotypes

The glass is half full. Or is it half empty? The fictional world we create in our heads about the importance of petty things is commendable. We give meaning and authority to things that will otherwise have no affect on our lives whatsoever. Giving social and moral norms precedence over our own autonomy, it is us who ensure the propagation of this system that has been created. Breaking stereotypes is one of the most important matters that may be resolved, given the open-mindedness of individuals. Why must we associate certain things with certain emotions, why must we judge? What comes of it? Unproductive conversations, inefficient thought processes and a lack of personal autonomy are just a few of the byproducts of adhering to norms set by society and the world as a whole.

From what I have inferred, a situation seems much more foreboding than it actually is if you haven’t been exposed to it. Lack of knowledge about a certain matter is what instigates fear in our hearts. Associating Africa with famine, Middle-East and South Asia with terrorism, these connections are not our fault. The media plays a pivotal role in developing what we seem to think of as our own personal opinions. We are dictated by the mechanisms of “civilization” and we still seem to believe that we have individualistic concepts. At some point or the other, there is a common overlap between the mindsets of two “individuals”.

Coming back to the lack of information inciting fear in us, think about it for a minute. Let’s take an example for the purposes of understanding. Depending on what sort of background you come from, your opinions fluctuate accordingly. A person raised in the west may believe that consuming alcohol is morally fine, whereas someone who grew up in the Middle East may believe that consuming alcohol is palpably wrong and goes against their religion and social norms. Once again, by stereotyping the mindsets of people in their respective regions, I have proven that I am no different from the rest of the world. However, the point I am trying to make is that no individual is an individual. Our immediate surroundings define who we are.

The conflicting mindsets of the regions around the world subsequently result in generations to come to have conflicting ideologies. That being said, I still believe that we cannot have a Utopian world in which everyone is like-minded and doesn't fight about matters pertaining to fundamental belief. Through the ages, humans have evolved, not letting go of their beliefs. Co-existence, however, was lost somewhere along the way.

You have religious views, well; we all need a feeling of righteousness. What seems to be the issue with other people having differing religious views? By asserting your views and condemning other views are preposterous and incorrect, you don’t end up establishing supremacy. You just look like an insecure subject who needs to convince himself more than anyone else that his views are right.

We have planet Earth to live in. Nothing more, nothing less. Let’s downscale. Imagine that planet Earth is an apartment with 2 rooms and a living room which has an Xbox, LCD screen, and a really nice atmosphere to spend time in. Now you and your room mate both want to play Xbox and chill, right? What are you going to do? Beat him half to death, lock him in the bathroom, and then have a good time without feeling remorse? Or would you try to find middle ground in which no one is being oppressed?
Well whatever you may want to do, it’s too bad because presently the former is being implemented.

The oppressed will continue to be oppressed and may think that he has no real power over the oppressor. However, people are oppressed because they allow themselves to be oppressed. But then again, the idea of being weak is fixated in their mind similar to the way stereotypes are, and so there’s a slim chance they’ll ever be able to break the cycle.

Then there are those who overdo it. Being someone who believes in equality of all races, religions and both the genders, I couldn't help but notice a few things. When the oppressed begin understanding what “could have been”, they really overdo it. Individuals of an African-American descent have pushed so much for racial equality, and for this very reason they will never get it. There is a lawsuit filed every time a Caucasian individual gets something instead of an African-American one, if they are the only two eligible candidates for it.

Similarly, there are feminists. Sure, empower women, give them equal rights, stop sexual harassment, but where is the line drawn? Feminists push for all these things, yet demand special treatment. The concept they are pushing for, is reasonable, logical. However, overdoing it, wanting to be better, filing lawsuits left right and center for gender discrimination, it once again is a reflection of their insecurity and lust for supremacy.
My question is, if someone who is oppressed takes a stand based on moral high ground, how can they be so hypocritical as to take advantage of it and raise their stand one up and aim for higher than what even morality would agree with? Are they trying to turn the tables completely? Is it revenge? Or is it a way to strike a balance: the oppressed becoming the oppressor (and vice versa) for a certain period of time until the former oppressor gets what he deserves? Disproportional attacks will not stop this war.

Once again, we have proven that co-existence is but an idealistic concept. The psychological setbacks are too predictable, yet the world seems oblivious to them and how to tackle situations without being unreasonable.

Coming back to breaking stereotypes and what society has made us, I would feel purposeful if I managed to make people understand that whatever we think that we are ‘supposed’ to do, we really don’t. We feel morally inclined to do it because society has evolved in such a way that we were never given a choice to follow or not to follow. Being children, society’s views have been etched into our psyche, giving leeway only when we attain maturity. Question them, ponder over the reason that they are there in the first place, debate on whether you would be losing your genetic personality by adhering to it. Nothing ‘must happen’. Be yourself, don’t hesitate to disagree. Break the stereotypes that have been created, think outside the box, and be an individual.

Question everything. Apply logic. Infer.

P.S: There are exceptions to everything, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.