Democracy

There is a kind of social engineering so elegant that it requires almost no maintenance once set in motion. No ongoing conspiracy, no shadowy coordination, no continuous effort from whoever designed it. It just runs. The genius of it is that the very people it is used against become its most reliable operators. Understanding how this works requires setting aside the usual framework of oppressor-and-oppressed narratives, and instead looking at the mechanism underneath them — the actual lever being pulled and why it never stops moving.

There’s a predictable pattern in how social and cultural movements evolve. They begin with conversation—small groups gathering to discuss ideas, share grievances, and articulate visions. This phase is necessary. It’s where consciousness forms, where people realize they’re not alone in their concerns. But here’s the problem: most movements get stuck here. They mistake the beginning for the destination. The discourse phase feels productive. There’s energy in the room when four or five people sit together and talk through complex issues.

There’s a persistent narrative in certain political circles that goes something like this: identity politics is a distraction, a tool of division that keeps the masses from recognizing their shared class interests. If only people would stop fighting over race, gender, religion, and other identity markers, they’d see that the real enemy is economic inequality, and unite as the 99% against the 1%. This narrative is seductive in its simplicity.

Markets emerge naturally wherever humans gather. This is not a political claim but an observation about human nature itself. When people recognize each other’s property rights and engage in voluntary exchange, something remarkable happens: time-preference rates fall. People become more future-oriented. They save, they invest, they build. The farmer who knows his harvest belongs to him plants seeds for next season. The craftsman who owns his tools perfects his technique over years.

The casual observer might blame India’s civic dysfunction on cultural deficiency or innate selfishness. The streets are filthy, systems are routinely exploited, and apathy seems universal. But this explanation is too convenient—it mistakes symptom for cause. The real answer lies not in the character of Indians, but in the nature of the system they inhabit. The Paradox of Rational Selfishness Consider a simple game theory experiment: two players must independently choose between options A and B.

There’s a peculiar phenomenon that runs through the fabric of contemporary Indian society—an overwhelming emphasis on appearance over substance, on the performance of values rather than their practice. From religious observance to professional life, from political discourse to educational pursuits, the culture has become profoundly ornamental. The talk is loud, but the sincerity is thin. The Politics of Symbols Nowhere is this performative tendency more evident than in political discourse.

TLDR - Summary: Large democracies face unique challenges that smaller nations avoid. India’s billion-plus population hasn’t created mathematical impossibility of consensus—it has culturally chosen to grant permanent veto power to street protests, making electoral democracy meaningless when any small group can endlessly occupy public spaces without consequence. While America demonstrates that democracies can be agile despite polarization (swinging between extremes every four years), India remains paralyzed by its need to accommodate everyone, ultimately accommodating no one.

TLDR - Summary: The Jugantar revolutionary movement in early 20th-century Bengal exemplifies a recurring pattern in Hindu resistance: initial promise grounded in authentic cultural foundations, followed by secular dilution and organizational fragmentation. Founded on Sri Aurobindo’s vision of spiritual nationalism, these gymnasium-based revolutionary cells achieved tactical sophistication—publishing influential newspapers, organizing funding through ideologically-sanctioned robberies, and coordinating international conspiracies—yet ultimately dissolved into the Indian National Congress and various secular political factions.

Read the Main Article here - A Comprehensive Indictment of the Anti-Hindu Judiciary of Modern India Judicial Views on Hinduism/Sanatana in India The Indian judiciary’s record on Hinduism and Sanatana Dharma is mixed. Supreme Court benches have often described Hinduism/Hindutva in broad, inclusive terms, but in practice some judges have made controversial remarks or rulings affecting Hindu practices. Critics point to instances of alleged bias or anti-Hindu actions. Below are key examples (with sources) of judges’ statements or rulings relating to Hinduism or religion:

TLDR - Summary: The Systematic Judicial Assault on Sanatan Dharma: Three Centuries of Institutional Colonization This comprehensive analysis exposes the shocking truth: India’s judiciary has operated as an instrument of cultural colonization for over 250 years, systematically dismantling Hindu religious autonomy while masquerading as neutral arbiters of justice. The Colonial Foundation (1757-1947): British rulers didn’t merely govern India—they reconstructed Hindu law itself. Warren Hastings’ “codification” project and the 1864 dismissal of native religious authorities marked the beginning of epistemological warfare against dharmic jurisprudence.