Constant thinking and turning thoughts into articles—who
would have thought it could be this exhausting? I’ve realized that after every
two or three articles, I hit a limit and need to step away from my own mind for
at least a week. That’s why, despite my earlier commitment to publishing an
article every weekend, I haven’t been able to keep up with that schedule.
Nevertheless, I remain optimistic. I’m confident that I’ll soon find a way to
overcome this challenge and build consistency, ensuring I publish at least one
article every week. After all, progress is all about small, steady
improvements—Rome wasn’t built in a day, right? To those who have been
following my journey, I truly appreciate your patience. Just a little more
time, and I’ll have this figured out!
Ranveer Allahbadia caught my attention, though I was never a
fan. Nevertheless, being an extremist Hindu guarantees visibility without much
effort. Extremist Hindu leaders amplify such figures, using their fame to shape
public perception. I’m not against it—religion is a personal choice, and in a
democracy, everyone has the right to practice and discuss their faith. However,
Hinduism inherently carries extreme inequality and discrimination, which is
concerning.
Before the Constitution, our laws came from texts written by
upper-caste Brahmins, who proclaimed themselves as divine lawgivers. I struggle
to understand a god who is biased toward one group while discriminating against
others. Isn’t this a similar theme in Islam, where God favors believers and
orders violence against others? No matter how often one quotes the Bhagavad
Gita or says, "Krishna says," the reality is that Manu’s laws caused
immense suffering in Indian society—except for Brahmin men, of course.
According to Manu, even being a woman was considered an unclean jati. Dr.
Ambedkar highlighted this, stating, "Brahmins built a society so
distrustful," and that remains relevant today.
The rise of extreme Hinduism in recent years has shifted
society from unity to division once again. Whenever Hinduism becomes extreme,
every Indian becomes hyper-aware of their place in the Chaturvarnya system.
Groups like Jaats, Karni Sena, Sikhs, Valmikis, Marathas, Rajputs, and Dalits
also become more assertive, often reacting with their own form of extremism.
Hindu extremism, instead of uniting, ends up deepening divisions within Hindus
themselves. People start asking for last names, judging how to treat someone,
whether to offer work, and what kind of work to give. This is irony and it’s
undeniable.
I’m reaching out to various religious organizations, NGOs,
and caste-based ideological groups as part of my research on the Indian social
fabric. I’m also examining this issue through a historical lens—because history
tends to repeat itself if its flaws remain unaddressed. My goal is to assess
the levels of trust, cooperation, and collaboration in our society. I want to
see if these organizations truly practice what they preach—whether they
genuinely help people grow, provide support, and integrate them into mainstream
society, including participation in governance. So far, I haven’t received much
response; most have been rather hostile. But then again, no system or
organization likes being stripped naked.
I’m also initiating discussions with people from different
castes, and the responses have been quite interesting. Some are so consumed by
their daily lives that they have no clue what’s happening at the top. Others
are fully aware but remain indifferent, choosing to enjoy life without engaging
in any discussion. Then there are those stuck in the middle—confused, unsure of
what’s true or not. Dr. Ambedkar was absolutely right when he said,
"Democracy will not work in India because people are not aware." He also
knew that Brahminic tyranny would never willingly relinquish control. As I
engage in these discussions, I’m witnessing that firsthand.
I recently had a discussion with a Deshastha Brahmin. I wish I could share the screenshot, but I can't—and I won’t disclose his identity either. I understand that he is blinded by his ideology and likely doesn’t even realize who instilled those beliefs in him.
He said, “Why can’t you be one? Why don’t you stop complaining? You’ll never grow if you don’t stop complaining!” Firstly, he should answer who created this divide. You can say we want to be separated as one specific caste and stay united as Hindus? Does that even make sense?
Raising one’s voice
is not the same as complaining. People speak up when there’s a problem. How can you even ask people to just fall in line, know their place, and never ask
questions. You can’t silence people like that, especially when they are calling
out a system designed to make them suffer and hinder their growth. Silencing
dissent and demanding obedience—that’s not order, that’s tyranny.
This guy is a software professional who claims to be “very liberal.” He boasted about roaming half-naked in the U.S., having sex in the middle of the road, and being open to anyone. To him, that’s liberalism much like Ranveer Alhahabadias comment. But being liberal isn’t just about sexual freedom. Any kind of freedom comes with responsibility same goes to sexual freedom. There is very blur line between sexual misconduct and sexual freedom one that many selective liberals do not understand. Maybe he should take lessons from the same people who taught him “Why can’t you be one?” Seems like they forgot to warn him about being too woke. Their wokeism dig is always for others.
Apparently, sanskars are only for women—men aren’t told to wear dhotis, but women are constantly reminded to wear sarees and bindis. Men can “spread their genes” freely, while women must be pativrata, no matter how men treat them. Recent Atul Subhash case was a one-sided debate—perhaps an attempt to change alimony laws. Nothing against men, but from another perspective, it seems like a way to make it harder for women to leave marriages. I do agree there are toxic females out there, but alimony laws are also important as toxic masculinity is also truth.
Indian society needs proper education—one that teaches not just knowledge but also morals and ethics. However, lawgivers of India were always against education, and they still are. Instead of education they choose control, dominance and manipulation. When discrimination and manipulation are ingrained at home, how can we expect future generations to uphold high moral standards? Instead, we create emotionally damaged individuals living double lives—championing selective justice and equality in public desperately wanting to be seen as good while justifying their worst actions in private. You advocate ending Asian hate but want to continue hating lower caste. How twisted?
Because religion permits it, so it becomes justified.
Honestly, this dude got unnecessarily grilled—too much, in fact. I feel sorry for him because I’ve met many like him who are selectively liberal. For them, liberalization is just about sex. But sexual openness is just one aspect of being liberal and it does not mean twisted sexual fantasies. True liberalism means having open discussions about societal issues that includes sexual misconduct in society too. Liberalization means acknowledging problems and making necessary changes without bias. It means valuing scientific temper over religious blindness, having civic sense, and upholding ethics, morals, integrity, and above all justice. Being liberal means seeing things as they are.
Being liberal isn’t about roaming naked, sleeping around, or
wearing it as a badge—nor is it about talking nonsense like Ranveer Allahbadia. That’s just ego satisfaction, attention seeking behavior and nothing more.
0 Comments