From Bamiyan to Delhi: The BJP’s Hypocritical Embrace of the Taliban

 

From Bamiyan to Delhi: The BJP’s Hypocritical Embrace of the Taliban

How India’s Ruling Party Shifted from Condemning Buddha’s Destruction to Hosting Taliban Leaders — and Why Questioning It Makes You an Enemy

In March 2001, the world watched in horror as the Taliban regime in Afghanistan dynamited the ancient Bamiyan Buddhas — two towering statues carved into cliffsides in the 6th century, symbols of Afghanistan’s rich Buddhist heritage. The act was not just cultural vandalism; it was a deliberate erasure of history by religious extremists. India, under the BJP-led government of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, was among the loudest voices in condemnation. The Ministry of External Affairs issued statements urging the Taliban to protect the relics, and India co-sponsored a UN General Assembly resolution decrying the destruction.

Protests erupted across the country, with Sangh Parivar affiliates — often vocal defenders of Hindu heritage — taking to the streets to decry the Taliban’s barbarism. Fast forward to October 2025, and the same BJP government, now led by Narendra Modi, is hosting a high-level Taliban delegation in Delhi. Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar shakes hands with Taliban FM Amir Khan Muttaqi, and India announces the reopening of its embassy in Kabul.

What happened to the outrage? Apparently, it’s all “diplomacy” now.

This isn’t just a policy shift; it’s a glaring example of political hypocrisy, where principles bend to the winds of power. The same “sanghis” who once burned effigies of the Taliban are now defending the regime’s visit as strategic necessity. Question it, and you’re dismissed as ignorant of geopolitics — or worse, anti-national. But let’s unpack this turnaround, because it reveals a deeper rot: the demand for unconditional loyalty to the government, no matter how contradictory its actions.

The 2001 Outrage: When the Taliban Were the Ultimate Villains

Back in 2001, the Taliban’s edict to destroy “idols” like the Bamiyan Buddhas was met with global revulsion. Mullah Omar’s regime justified it as Islamic purity, but it was widely seen as an assault on shared human heritage.

In India, the BJP government didn’t mince words. On February 27, 2001, it condemned the decree and called for the protection of the statues.

Reports from the time describe widespread protests, including in Buddhist communities and among right-wing groups who framed it as an attack on ancient Indic civilization.

The Sangh Parivar, with its emphasis on cultural preservation, was particularly vocal. RSS affiliates organized demonstrations, drawing parallels to historical invasions that targeted temples. It was a moment of unity: the Taliban were the bad guys, pure and simple.Even years later, BJP leaders referenced the Bamiyan destruction as evidence of the Taliban’s fanaticism. In a 2021 speech, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath equated support for the Taliban with anti-humanity and anti-India acts, warning against sympathizers and even jailing people accused of celebrating the group’s takeover of Kabul.

The message was clear: The Taliban represented everything the BJP claimed to oppose — religious extremism, destruction of heritage, and threats to India’s security.

2025: From Protests to Protocol

Cut to October 2025. Taliban Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi arrives in India for a groundbreaking week-long visit — the first by a senior Taliban official since the 2021 takeover.

He’s greeted warmly, meets with Jaishankar and NSA Ajit Doval, and discusses trade, humanitarian aid, and regional stability.

India upgrades its Kabul mission to a full embassy, signaling deeper ties.

Muttaqi even visits Deoband in Uttar Pradesh, home to a prominent Islamic seminary, under heavy security provided by the state government.

The irony? This is the same Yogi Adityanath who, in 2021, accused Deoband clerics of backing the Taliban and arrested Muslims on flimsy charges of Taliban sympathy.

Now, his administration is rolling out the red carpet, complete with Z-plus security and transportation for the delegation.

Critics like PDP leader Mehbooba Mufti have called out the hypocrisy, noting how the BJP embraces the Taliban abroad while targeting Indian Muslims at home.

When questioned, the response is predictable: “It’s diplomacy.” “Geopolitics demands it.” India needs to counter China’s influence in Afghanistan, secure trade routes via Chabahar, and isolate Pakistan amid its tensions with the Taliban over the Durand Line.

Fair points, perhaps. But why the selective amnesia? The Taliban hasn’t changed — women’s rights are still curtailed, minorities persecuted, and terror groups like TTP find safe havens. Engaging them might be pragmatic, but pretending the 2001 outrage never happened? That’s gaslighting.

Yogi’s U-Turn: From Jailing Supporters to Guarding Leaders

Yogi Adityanath embodies this flip-flop. In September 2021, he declared, “Supporting Taliban means backing anti-India, anti-humanity acts.”

His government cracked down, arresting young Muslims for alleged pro-Taliban posts or celebrations.

Fast forward to 2025, and Yogi’s UP police are providing security to Muttaqi’s delegation during their Deoband visit.

Old videos of Yogi’s rants have gone viral, sparking debates on social media.

This isn’t isolated. It’s part of a pattern where past condemnations evaporate when convenient. The Taliban, once equated with terror, are now partners in “regional stability.” And if you point out the inconsistency? You’re told to trust the government’s wisdom.

The Bigger Picture: Trump, China, and the Cult of Unquestioning Loyalty

This Taliban tango isn’t unique. Look at Donald Trump. In 2020, BJP supporters built a temple for him in Telangana and organized havans across India praying for his election win.

Modi called him “my friend,” and crowds chanted “Namaste Trump” at rallies. But by 2025, with Trump back in power and slapping 50% tariffs on Indian imports, he’s the villain.

Relations have soured over trade, Kashmir mediation offers, and energy disputes. Overnight, the narrative flips — no questions asked.

Same with China. For years, Xi Jinping was the enemy — border clashes, economic boycotts, apps banned. Yet in August 2025, Modi meets Xi in Tianjin, shakes hands, and calls for partnership.

“India and China are partners, not rivals,” they declare.

Tomorrow, it could be Pakistan: “Oh, they’re friends now.” And the faithful are expected to nod along.

This is the essence of “andhbhakti” — blind devotion. You’re not supposed to think independently. If the government says Taliban bad, echo it. If it says good, pivot. Spread the WhatsApp forwards, defend the Godi media’s mental gymnastics, and shut down dissent. Questioning isn’t critique; it’s betrayal. The real message: Loyalty to the party trumps principles, history, or logic.

In a democracy, diplomacy should be debated, not deified. The Taliban visit might serve India’s interests, but erasing the Bamiyan memory to justify it insults our intelligence. If “geopolitics” excuses everything, what’s left of accountability? Perhaps it’s time to stop being sheep and start asking why the shepherds keep changing direction.

The CJI Gavai Shoe-Throwing Incident: Unpacking the Controversy, Selective Outrage and Misplaced Anger in India

In a brazen act of courtroom disruption on October 6, 2025, 71-year-old lawyer Rakesh Kishore attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan Ram Gavai during a Supreme Court hearing.

Shouting slogans about the “insult to Sanatan Dharma,” Kishore was swiftly detained by security, but the incident has since spiraled into a national conversation on judicial respect, communal tolerance, and the double standards in India’s socio-political landscape.

This event, rooted in Kishore’s fury over a prior judgment by CJI Gavai, not only exposes the volatility of religious sentiments but also reveals how certain groups weaponize them while others exercise restraint.

Amid this chaos, the Supreme Court has issued numerous judgments in recent years that have been perceived as challenging Muslim practices, yet no Muslim has ever resorted to such violence against the judiciary. This stark difference underscores the Muslim community’s tolerance in the face of adversity. Meanwhile, the lack of stringent action against Kishore — despite his act — highlights how Hindutva fanatics often evade accountability, potentially emboldening further extremism.

The Prior Judgment: A Misconstrued Remark on Lord Vishnu and the Role of ASI

The shoe-throwing incident was not spontaneous but stemmed from simmering resentment over a Supreme Court judgment delivered by CJI Gavai in mid-September 2025, in what has come to be known as the Khajuraho case.

The plea, filed by a devotee, sought directions to reconstruct and reinstall a seven-foot idol of Lord Vishnu, which had been beheaded during the Mughal era and was discovered as an archaeological artifact in Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh.

Dismissing the petition, CJI Gavai emphasized that the matter fell squarely under the jurisdiction of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), an expert body responsible for preserving historical artifacts.

He noted, “It’s an archaeological find, whether the ASI would permit such a thing to be done or not… there are various issues.”

In a light-hearted aside to the petitioner, who professed deep devotion to Lord Vishnu, the CJI suggested, “If you are saying that you are a strong devotee of Lord Vishnu, then you pray and do some meditation.”

This remark was misconstrued by elements within the Hindutva ecosystem as an insult to Sanatan Dharma, with critics accusing the CJI of mocking Hindu beliefs and deities.

However, the comment was far from insulting — it was a pragmatic redirection to the appropriate authority, underscoring the judiciary’s role in deferring to specialized bodies like the ASI for matters involving historical preservation.

CJI Gavai later clarified his stance, affirming, “I respect all religions” and emphasizing his belief in true secularism, while noting that his words had been taken out of context.

The judgment itself was neutral, avoiding judicial overreach into archaeological decisions.The ASI, established in 1861, operates under the Ministry of Culture, which is part of the central government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

As such, any policy on restoring or altering artifacts like the Vishnu idol ultimately falls under the executive branch’s purview. If the Hindutva ecosystem is dissatisfied with the ASI’s potential reluctance — due to guidelines protecting the integrity of historical finds — they should direct their ire toward the Modi government, which has the authority to influence or amend such policies through legislative or administrative means.

Yet, the outrage has been disproportionately aimed at CJI Gavai, perhaps because deferring to the ASI disrupts narratives seeking judicial validation for religious restorations. This misplaced anger ignores the government’s role, raising questions about whether the criticism is truly about devotion or a strategic attack on judicial independence.

Supreme Court Judgments and the Muslim Community’s Restraint

In contrast to this aggressive response, the Supreme Court has handed down several rulings in recent years that have directly impacted Muslim communities, often reshaping their religious and cultural practices. The 2017 ban on instant triple talaq, the 2022 upholding of hijab restrictions in certain educational institutions, and ongoing discussions on a Uniform Civil Code have all been met with criticism from Muslim groups for encroaching on personal laws.

Despite these setbacks, Muslims have channeled their dissent through peaceful protests, legal appeals, and democratic engagement — never through physical assaults on judges.

No Muslim has thrown a shoe at a CJI, even amid judgments perceived as biased or intrusive. This pattern of tolerance, rooted in a commitment to non-violence and institutional respect, stands as a testament to the community’s resilience. As social media users have pointed out, “Muslims face rulings on talaq, polygamy, and more, yet respond with petitions, not projectiles.”

The shoe incident, conversely, exemplifies how some Hindutva proponents resort to extremism when faced with even mild judicial pushback.

Hindutva Fanatics Roam Free: No FIR, Muted Response

Following the incident, Kishore was questioned and released without an FIR being filed, as CJI Gavai personally directed officials not to press charges, opting instead for composure and continuity in proceedings.

The Bar Council of India suspended his license, but Kishore expressed no regret, claiming a “divine force” compelled him.

This leniency is telling: Had the perpetrator been Muslim, the fallout would be immense — multiple FIRs under contempt and assault charges, nationwide condemnations from BJP leaders, and a barrage of dehumanizing campaigns by the party’s IT cell.

In reality, while PM Modi called the act “utterly condemnable,” there have been no statements from the President or governors. BJP figures have issued measured rebukes, but online, Hindutva supporters defend Kishore as a “hero” defending faith. Critics like Nupur J. Sharma have shifted blame to the CJI’s “loose tongue.”

This asymmetry grants a free hand to Hindutva extremists, normalizing violence under religious pretexts.

A Broader Implication: Erosion of Secular Fabric

The episode, intertwined with caste dynamics given CJI Gavai’s Dalit heritage, signals deeper biases.

By targeting the judiciary while sparing the government, the Hindutva narrative risks undermining institutions. India’s Muslims have shown exemplary tolerance; it’s imperative that all communities follow suit to preserve the nation’s democratic ethos. Unchecked, such incidents could pave the way for more “Hindutva terrorism,” where fanaticism trumps law and reason.

The Carrot of Caste Census and the Stick of Anti-Reservation Propaganda

 

The Carrot of Caste Census and the Stick of Anti-Reservation Propaganda

Disclaimer: The views expressed are those of the user alone and are shared here for discussion purposes only. No legal liability is assumed, and readers are encouraged to form their own judgments based on independent research.

In the intricate chessboard of Indian politics, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) appears to be employing a classic carrot-and-stick strategy when it comes to caste dynamics and affirmative action. On one hand, the party has dangled the promise of India’s first comprehensive public caste census since independence, slated to begin in 2027, as a sweetener to woo lower-caste voters. 

On the other, a surge in anti-reservation rhetoric — often amplified by the BJP’s IT cell and affiliated social media handles — seems designed to stoke resentment among upper castes and dilute demands for expanded affirmative action once the census results emerge. This duality raises questions about the party’s long-term intentions: Is this a genuine step toward social justice, or a tactical maneuver to maintain power without upsetting its traditional upper-caste base?

The Carrot: Promising a Long-Awaited Caste Census

The BJP-led central government announced in June 2025 that the 16th national census, delayed multiple times due to the COVID-19 pandemic, would commence on March 1, 2027, and for the first time in nearly a century, include a detailed enumeration of castes. This move, described by sources as focusing on “caste, not class,” requires individuals to declare their caste and religion, marking a significant shift from previous censuses that only tracked Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). The process is set to unfold in two phases, with data collection wrapping up by 2030 — conveniently after the 2029 Lok Sabha elections.

For lower-caste communities, including Other Backward Classes (OBCs), SCs, and STs, this census represents a potential game-changer. It could provide empirical data to address longstanding disparities, potentially justifying demands for increased reservations in education, jobs, and even the private sector. BJP leaders have positioned this as a fulfillment of social justice commitments, with party campaigns in states like Uttar Pradesh emphasizing it as a tool for equitable representation. Critics from opposition parties, such as the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), have claimed credit for pressuring the government into this decision, but the BJP has framed it as a proactive step under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership.Heading into the 2029 elections, this announcement could serve as a powerful electoral carrot. The party might rally lower-caste voters by highlighting its role in conducting the census, portraying it as a pathway to “equitable representation.” Gullible or hopeful sections of these communities might buy into the narrative, believing that post-census reforms will follow. However, with results not expected until 2030, any substantive changes — like raising the 50% reservation cap or introducing private-sector quotas — would come after the polls, allowing the BJP to secure votes without immediate commitments.

The Stick: Fanning Anti-Reservation Flames on Social Media

Contrasting sharply with this promise is the relentless anti-reservation propaganda flooding social media platforms, particularly X (formerly Twitter), which has intensified since late 2024 and early 2025 — coinciding suspiciously with the census announcement. BJP-affiliated accounts and IT cell operatives have been accused of amplifying content that blames reservations for everything from infrastructure failures to societal ills, reaching what many describe as “delusional levels.”

Examples abound: In one viral incident, an Indian-American professor sparked outrage by attributing a deadly Air India crash to India’s reservation policies, claiming “freeloaders are more important.” Social media posts link reservations to brain drain, with users lamenting that talented individuals flee abroad due to “unfair” quotas. Even mundane issues like potholes or bridge collapses are absurdly pinned on affirmative action, as if meritocracy alone could pave roads or build sturdy infrastructure. X searches reveal a pattern: Queries for “anti reservation” or “blame reservation” yield posts tying quotas to unrelated crises, often with high engagement and from accounts echoing BJP narratives.

This rhetoric isn’t organic; it’s amplified by organized efforts. Reports from 2024–2025 highlight a spike in hate speech and divisive content on social media, peaking during elections and policy announcements. BJP IT cell members have been caught sharing edited videos or misleading claims to portray opposition leaders as anti-reservation, while subtly undermining the system itself. The pace has quickened post-census reveal, suggesting a deliberate strategy to desensitize the public to quota demands. By 2030, when census data might reveal stark inequalities, the ground could be prepared for upper-caste outrage to suppress calls for reform, ensuring the status quo persists.

The Underlying Realities: Persistent Backwardness Among SC/ST/OBC

This speculated strategy hinges on ignoring — or downplaying — the harsh realities faced by SCs, STs, and OBCs, who remain economically backward and under-represented despite decades of reservations. Data from recent surveys paints a grim picture.

Economically, these groups lag significantly. In Bihar’s 2023 caste survey (a precursor to the national one), OBCs and Extremely Backward Classes comprised 63% of the population but faced disproportionate poverty. Nationally, indicators from the Mandal Commission and recent reports show higher poverty rates among SC/ST/OBC, with limited access to quality education and jobs. For instance, systemic exclusion manifests in “deep-rooted deprivation,” as argued in a Madhya Pradesh Supreme Court affidavit defending OBC quotas. Estimates suggest that if the census confirms 75–80% of Indians belong to backward classes, demands for breaching the 50% quota cap could intensify — but only if propaganda doesn’t preempt them.Under-representation is equally stark. In central government jobs, OBCs hold about 22% of positions as of 2022–23, below the 27% mandate, while SCs and STs often fill lower-rung roles but remain below 11% and 5% in teaching posts, respectively. Thousands of reserved vacancies go unfilled annually, signaling inequality rather than abundance. In private higher education institutions, representation of marginalized students is “abysmal,” with calls for mandatory quotas unmet. Population-wise, OBCs, SCs, and STs make up over 70% of India, yet their share in elite jobs and education doesn’t reflect this.

BJP’s Balancing Act: Appeasing Bases Without Real Change

Historically backed by upper castes, the BJP has expanded its reach among OBCs and lower castes through figures like Modi (an OBC himself). Yet, this carrot-and-stick approach suggests a desire to placate lower castes with symbolic gestures like the census while using propaganda to ensure upper-caste “savarna” outrage mutes any push for meaningful reforms. In an ideal scenario for the party, the census proceeds, but demands for private-sector reservations or quota hikes are drowned out by anti-reservation noise.

This speculation isn’t without precedent. Past BJP moves, like lateral entry in civil services or privatization drives, have been criticized as anti-reservation. If the pattern holds, the 2027 census could be a masterstroke: Win 2029 votes with promises, then leverage built-up resentment to stall action by 2030.

Ultimately, this strategy risks alienating both sides if exposed. Lower castes might see through the delay tactics, while upper castes grow wary of endless appeasement. As India hurtles toward 2029, the true test will be whether this duality fosters unity or deepens divisions. For now, the carrot dangles enticingly, but the stick looms large.

The Trust Trap: How the People Closest to Us Fool Us the Most

 

The Trust Trap: How the People Closest to Us Fool Us the Most

In a world overflowing with information, misinformation, and outright deception, we’d like to believe that our inner circle — friends, family, and those who share our worldview — serves as a reliable shield against falsehoods. After all, these are the people we trust implicitly. Yet, paradoxically, it’s often these very individuals who fool us the most. Not necessarily through malicious intent, but because our defenses drop when information comes from familiar sources. We accept their words at face value, bypassing the critical thinking we reserve for outsiders. This blind spot isn’t just a personal quirk; it’s a cognitive vulnerability that permeates our relationships, politics, and society at large.

The Psychology of Unquestioned Trust

At the heart of this phenomenon lies a simple truth: we don’t question what aligns with our existing beliefs. When a friend shares a story that reinforces our views — whether it’s about a cultural tradition, a political scandal, or even a health tip — we let it slide through our mental filters unchallenged. Why? Because it feels right. It echoes our biases, providing that comforting sense of validation. Seeking a second opinion feels unnecessary, even disloyal. After all, if they’re like us, how could they be wrong?

Contrast this with how we respond to information from “the other side.” If someone with an opposing ideology or political leaning makes a claim, our skepticism kicks into overdrive. Driven by the innate human desire to be right (and to prove them wrong), we dig deep — scouring articles, fact-checking sources, and dissecting arguments until we find even a shred of evidence to dismiss it. This selective scrutiny creates an imbalance: we’re hyper-vigilant against external threats but blind to internal ones.

This dynamic plays out vividly in personal relationships. Friends and family, sharing similar values and backgrounds, become unwitting carriers of misinformation. A relative might pass along a family myth or a biased anecdote without verification, and we absorb it as gospel. Over time, these unchallenged narratives shape our worldview, entrenching biases we might otherwise question.

The Political Echo Chamber: Fooled by Our Own Side

Nowhere is this trust trap more evident than in politics. Supporters of a particular party or ideology are most susceptible to deception from within their own ranks. Right-wing individuals, for instance, often get fooled by right-wing sources precisely because those narratives bolster their preconceptions. False claims about immigration, economic policies, or cultural threats circulate freely in these circles, unchecked by criticism. Why bother fact-checking when it feels so affirming?

Meanwhile, the same people will scrutinize left-wing information relentlessly. Every statement from the opposing side is dissected, often until a minor inconsistency allows for outright dismissal. This isn’t unique to one side; it’s a universal bias. Left-leaning individuals fall prey to their own echo chambers just as easily. The result? Polarization deepens, and truth becomes secondary to tribal loyalty.

In India, this issue is amplified by the country’s diverse social fabric. Many live in self-imposed bubbles — offline and online — surrounded by people who mirror their religious, caste, or gender identities. Hindus in predominantly Hindu circles rarely engage with Muslim perspectives, leading to unchecked stereotypes and Islamophobia. Conversely, those immersed in Muslim communities might develop Hinduphobic views without exposure to counter-narratives. Upper-caste groups, insulated from lower-caste experiences, perpetuate casteist attitudes, while male-dominated friend circles foster resistance to feminism.

Social media exacerbates this. Algorithms feed us content that aligns with our likes, creating digital silos where diverse voices are algorithmically excluded. The more time we spend in these bubbles, the harder it becomes to escape. Obnoxious, narrow-minded views thrive in isolation, unchallenged and self-reinforcing.

Breaking Free: The Power of Diversification

The antidote to this deception isn’t cynicism toward those we trust — it’s a deliberate pursuit of diversity. Just as diversification in investing spreads risk and yields better returns, applying it to our social and informational diets builds resilience against bias. This means actively seeking opinions that differ from our own, even when it’s uncomfortable.

Cognitive dissonance — the mental discomfort of holding conflicting ideas — will arise, but it’s a necessary growing pain. Start small: If your network is mostly Hindu, befriend Muslims and listen to their stories. Upper-caste individuals should connect with those from lower castes to understand systemic inequalities. Men in male-heavy circles ought to engage with women to grasp feminist perspectives. And vice versa — the principle applies universally.

In politics, follow sources from across the spectrum. Read critiques of your favorite party; they might reveal blind spots you didn’t know existed. Offline, step out of homogeneous groups: attend interfaith events, join mixed-caste discussions, or participate in gender-diverse forums. Online, curate your feed to include opposing viewpoints rather than muting them.

This isn’t about abandoning your beliefs but enriching them. By exposing ourselves to “the other,” we sharpen our critical thinking, reduce susceptibility to deception, and foster empathy. In a divided world, especially in multicultural societies like India, this diversification isn’t just wise — it’s essential for personal growth and societal harmony.

Stepping Out of the Bubble

Ultimately, the people we trust fool us not because they’re inherently untrustworthy, but because we let them. Our biases create the perfect environment for unchallenged ideas to flourish. Recognizing this is the first step toward liberation. The next is action: break the cycle of narrow-mindedness by embracing discomfort and seeking diverse perspectives.

In doing so, we don’t just avoid being fooled — we become wiser, more compassionate versions of ourselves. After all, true wisdom isn’t found in echo chambers; it’s forged in the friction of differing worlds. So, reach out, listen, and question — even those you hold dear. Your mind, and your relationships, will thank you.

Conservatism or Reactionary Politics: What Defines India Today?

 

---

Conservatism or Reactionary Politics: What Defines India Today?

Politics in India has always been a delicate balance between the pull of tradition and the push of reform. In this tension, two closely related yet distinct currents often appear: conservatism and reactionary politics. While they are sometimes confused, they carry different implications for democracy, society, and governance.

Conservatism in India

Conservatism refers to the preference for continuity, gradual change, and respect for tradition. It is not necessarily anti-reform, but it resists sudden or radical transformation. In India, conservatism manifests in several ways:

• Social sphere: Reluctance to rapidly accept changes in gender roles, LGBTQ rights, or interfaith marriages.
• Economic sphere: Skepticism toward aggressive privatization, with greater comfort in a mixed economy and welfare-oriented state.
• Political sphere: Commitment to constitutional democracy and parliamentary traditions, even amidst turbulence.
• Cultural sphere: Deep respect for festivals, customs, and family structures, with selective adaptation to modern lifestyles.

Conservatism is thus woven into India’s societal fabric, guiding how reforms are absorbed over time.

---

Reactionary Politics in India

Reactionary politics, unlike conservatism, is not about preserving the present but about reversing reforms and restoring a perceived “golden past.” In India, it has taken several forms:

• Colonial era: Resistance to reforms like widow remarriage or the abolition of Sati.
• Post-Independence: Opposition to progressive initiatives like the Hindu Code Bill or caste-based reservations.
• Recent decades: Mobilizations around religious nationalism, backlash against globalization, and moral policing against Western cultural practices.

Unlike conservatism, which accepts change slowly, reactionary politics thrives on confrontation and nostalgia.

---

Which is More Prevalent Today?

Indian society largely functions on conservative instincts — slow adaptation, negotiation between tradition and reform, and preference for incremental change. However, in the political sphere, reactionary currents have become more visible in recent decades.

• Religious majoritarian movements, rewriting of cultural narratives, and caste-based backlash politics reflect reactionary impulses.
• Yet, everyday life — from acceptance of technology to gradual shifts in gender relations — shows that conservatism, not reaction, is the dominant social force

---

Conclusion

India is defined by a coexistence of conservatism and reactionary politics. Conservatism shapes the rhythm of social change, ensuring continuity amidst reform. Reactionary politics, on the other hand, erupts when groups feel threatened, often amplifying polarization and nostalgia-driven politics. The challenge for Indian democracy is to ensure that conservatism evolves into constructive reform, while preventing reactionary tendencies from undermining pluralism and constitutional values.

The Doctrine of Karma: A Tool for Justifying Caste Discrimination in Hinduism, Past and Present

 

The Doctrine of Karma: A Tool for Justifying Caste Discrimination in Hinduism, Past and Present

In Hindu philosophy, karma represents the universal law of cause and effect, where an individual’s actions in one life determine their fate in subsequent rebirths. This concept, intertwined with the caste system (varna), has historically served as a mechanism to rationalize social hierarchies and discrimination. The caste system divides society into four primary varnas: Brahmins (priests and scholars), Kshatriyas (warriors and rulers), Vaishyas (merchants and farmers), and Shudras (laborers and servants), with those outside often labeled as Dalits or “untouchables.” Proponents argued that one’s birth into a specific caste reflects accumulated karma from past lives — good deeds leading to higher castes and bad deeds to lower ones. This framework not only perpetuated inequality but also discouraged social mobility, framing discrimination as a form of cosmic justice.

While ancient texts like the Manusmriti and Bhagavad Gita provide scriptural backing for this view, modern interpretations and societal attitudes reveal how these ideas remain deeply ingrained, despite legal prohibitions on caste discrimination in India.

Historical Justification Through Scriptural Texts

Ancient Hindu scriptures explicitly link karma to caste, portraying social status as a direct outcome of past actions. This interpretation justified discrimination by suggesting that lower castes deserved their plight as penance for previous sins, while higher castes enjoyed privileges as rewards for virtue.The Manusmriti, a foundational Dharma Shastra text dated between the 2nd century BCE and 3rd century CE, is particularly explicit. In Chapter 12, it details how actions (karma) dictate rebirth into various forms, including castes. For instance, Manusmriti 12.9 states: “In consequence of (many) sinful acts committed with his body, a man becomes (in the next birth) something inanimate, in consequence (of sins) committed by speech, a bird, or a beast, and in consequence of mental (sins he is re-born in) a low caste.”

This verse directly ties moral failings to rebirth in a “low caste,” implying that Shudras or outcastes are paying for past transgressions.

Further, Manusmriti 12.3 explains: “Action, which springs from the mind, from speech, and from the body, produces either good or evil results; by action are caused the (various) conditions of men, the highest, the middling, and the lowest.”

Here, “highest” and “lowest” conditions refer to caste positions, with virtuous actions leading to elevated rebirths and sinful ones to degradation. Manusmriti 12.40–41 elaborates on the three gunas (qualities): “Those endowed with Goodness reach the state of gods, those endowed with Activity the state of men, and those endowed with Darkness ever sink to the condition of beasts; that is the threefold course of transmigrations. But know this threefold course of transmigrations that depends on the (three) qualities (to be again) threefold, low, middling, and high, according to the particular nature of the acts and the knowledge (of each man).”

Sudras are associated with the middling state of Darkness (Manusmriti 12.43: “Elephants, horses, Sudras, and despicable barbarians, lions, tigers, and boars (are) the middling states, caused by (the quality of) Darkness”), reinforcing their inferior status as karmic punishment.

The Bhagavad Gita, part of the Mahabharata (circa 400 BCE–200 CE), also connects karma and guna to caste duties. In Gita 4:13, Lord Krishna declares: “I created mankind in four classes, different in their qualities and actions; though unchanging, I am the agent of this, the actor who never acts!”

This verse attributes the four varnas to divine creation based on gunas and karma, not birth alone, but it has been interpreted to justify hereditary castes. Gita 18:41–44 outlines duties: “The actions of a brahmana arising from his own nature are serenity, self-control, austerity, purity, tolerance, honest, knowledge of the Vedas, wisdom and firm faith… The actions of a sudra born of his own nature consists in service to brahmana, ksatriyas and vaisyas.”

Gita 18:47 reinforces adherence: “It is better to engage in one’s own svadharma (occupation), even though one may perform it imperfectly than to accept another’s occupation and perform it perfectly. Duties prescribed according to one’s nature are never affected by sinful reactions.”

Such passages encouraged acceptance of one’s caste role as karmically ordained, perpetuating discrimination.

Justification of Brahmin Privilege

Brahmins, positioned at the apex of the varna system, were granted extensive privileges, justified as rewards for superior karma from past lives. Texts portray them as spiritually elite, with their high status reflecting accumulated merit.

Manusmriti I-31 states: “For the welfare of humanity the supreme creator Brahma, gave birth to the Brahmins from his mouth, the Kshatriyas from his shoulders, the Vaishyas from his thighs and Shudras from his feet.”

This origin myth elevates Brahmins symbolically and karmically. Manusmriti VIII-20 to 22 asserts: “Any country, where there are no Brahmins, of where they are not happy will get devastated and destroyed.”

Privileges include exemptions from harsh punishments and rights over others; Manusmriti VIII-50,56 and 59 allows Brahmins to enslave Shudras without remuneration, as “the Shudra is created by Brahma to serve the Brahmins.”

Karma theory amplifies this: Being born a Brahmin indicates “good past life karma,” granting “direct access to religious learning and to the Law (Dharma).”

Manusmriti 12.48 places Brahmins in the highest rank of Goodness: “Hermits, ascetics, Brahmanas, the crowds of the Vaimanika deities, the lunar mansions, and the Daityas (form) the first (and lowest rank of the) existences caused by Goodness.”

This karmic justification framed Brahmin supremacy as divine and unassailable, allowing them to monopolize knowledge, rituals, and social power.

Justification for Shudra Oppression

Conversely, Shudras were depicted as the lowest varna, their status rationalized as punishment for poor karma, condemning them to servitude and exclusion.

Manusmriti 1–91 declares: “God said the duty of a Shudra is to serve the upper varnas faithfully with devotion and without grumbling.”

Education was forbidden; Manusmriti IV-78 to 81 states: “A Shudra is unfit of receive education. The upper varnas should not impart education or give advice to a Shudra… Violators will go to as amrita hell.”

Punishments were severe and discriminatory: Manusmriti VIII. 270: “A Shudra who insults a twice born man with gross invectives shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of low origin.”

Intercourse with higher castes invited death (Manusmriti VIII. 374).

Karma provided the rationale: “A person of bad deeds [is reborn] as a dog or a Chandala (a lower caste).”

Manusmriti 12.9 and 12.43 link sins to rebirth as Sudras or worse, justifying their subjugation as self-inflicted through past actions.

This discouraged resistance, as enduring hardship was seen as a path to better rebirth.

Persistence in Modern India

Though India’s 1950 Constitution outlawed caste discrimination and implemented affirmative action, karma-based justifications remain embedded in cultural attitudes. Surveys show belief in karma correlates with support for caste hierarchies, including opposition to inter-caste marriages and reduced aid for the poor.

In rural areas, lower castes face exclusion from jobs, education, and neighborhoods, often rationalized as “karmic fate.”

Critics argue karma is “fundamentally casteist,” blaming victims while absolving systemic oppression.

Reform movements, like those led by B.R. Ambedkar, challenge these views, but ingrained beliefs perpetuate subtle discrimination in marriage, employment, and social interactions.

Conclusion

The use of karma to justify caste discrimination, as enshrined in texts like the Manusmriti and Bhagavad Gita, created a resilient ideological framework that privileged Brahmins while oppressing Shudras. This not only historical but persists today, hindering social equality. Addressing it requires reevaluating scriptural interpretations through a lens of justice and humanity.

The Trifecta of Success: Hard Work, Talent, and the Elusive Luck

 

The Trifecta of Success: Hard Work, Talent, and the Elusive Luck

In an era dominated by hustle culture, motivational quotes plastered across social media, and endless streams of productivity hacks, the narrative around success has been distilled to a single, unyielding mantra: hard work. Grind it out, show up every day, and the universe will reward you. It’s a comforting story — one that empowers us to believe we hold the reins of our destiny. But peel back the layers, and the truth is far more nuanced. Success isn’t a solo act; it’s a symphony played by three instruments: hard work, talent, and luck. While the first gets endless airtime, talent gets occasional nods, and luck? It’s the quiet virtuoso that few dare to applaud.

This oversight isn’t accidental. Hard work is the one variable we can control, a beacon of agency in a chaotic world. Talent, often dismissed as a birthright or “natural gift,” feels unfair — like cheating the system. And luck? Admitting its role risks unraveling the myth of meritocracy, suggesting that even the most diligent efforts can fizzle without a favorable wind. Yet, ignoring these elements distorts our understanding of achievement, breeding burnout for the overworked and false hope for the untalented. Let’s unpack this trifecta, with a closer look at talent and luck, to reveal how they orchestrate true triumph.

Hard Work: The Reliable Foundation

No deep dive needed here — hard work is the bedrock everyone agrees on. It’s the daily discipline, the late nights, the sacrifices that build skills and resilience. From Silicon Valley coders pulling all-nighters to aspiring authors churning out 1,000 words a day, effort is the great equalizer. Or so the saying goes: “Hard work beats talent when talent doesn’t work hard.” It’s inspiring, motivational, and mostly true… until talent does show up to the party.

Talent: The Innate Edge That Defies the Grind

Talent isn’t just “being good” — it’s the spark that ignites from day one, the unfair advantage wired into your physical and mental framework. Think high IQ, exceptional hand-eye coordination, or a body built for speed. It’s the reason some people pick up a violin and compose symphonies while others strum chords after years of lessons. Talent allows you to achieve more with less effort, scaling heights that sheer willpower alone can’t touch.

Consider Usain Bolt, the lightning bolt of track and field. Before the 2012 London Olympics, Bolt’s coach, Glen Mills, reportedly calculated that the sprinter’s penchant for skipping workouts amounted to nearly six weeks of missed training per year. Yet, Bolt stormed the games, clinching three gold medals in the 100m, 200m, and 4x100m relay — defending his titles with world-record ease. His raw, genetic gifts — a 6'5" frame optimized for explosive power — meant he could afford the lapses that would derail lesser athletes. As one profile notes, Bolt relied on talent and occasional partying until a wake-up call before the 2008 Games forced more discipline; even then, his innate edge carried him through 2012’s glory.

The same script plays out in the brutal octagon of mixed martial arts. Jon Jones, widely hailed as the greatest MMA fighter ever, has openly admitted to partying hard — sometimes just a week before fights, indulging in everything from alcohol to cocaine — yet emerging to dominate opponents with surgical precision. In a 2016 interview, Jones reflected on beating Daniel Cormier “in the prime of my partying,” underscoring how his prodigious physicality, fight IQ, and reflexes turned potential self-sabotage into legendary wins.

His 22–1 record (with the loss by disqualification) isn’t just grit; it’s talent so profound it absorbs the shocks of indulgence.

The adage holds until talent works hard too — then it’s game over. Imagine a genius with an IQ north of 140 studying 12 hours a day. You can’t outwork that; there are only 24 hours in a clock, and the body has hard limits. Push beyond, and you hit overtraining: fatigue, injury, diminished returns. Elite performers don’t just grind harder; they glide higher because their baseline is elevated. Talent isn’t optional — it’s the multiplier that turns effort into excellence.

Luck: The Invisible Hand We Pretend Doesn’t Exist

If talent feels elitist, luck is downright heretical. It’s the random convergence of timing, circumstance, and chance — the “right place, right time” factor that no amount of preparation can guarantee. Yet, in high-stakes arenas like exams, interviews, or career pivots, luck can be the swing vote between mediocrity and mastery.Picture this: You cram for an exam but spot two key problems in a 15-minute YouTube clip right before the test. They appear verbatim on the paper. That’s luck — pure, unadulterated serendipity. Scale it up to make-or-break moments, like college entrance exams or job interviews, and it becomes a massive booster. A glitch-free Zoom call, a lenient grader, or a question pulled from your strongest topic? These micro-fortunes compound.Few admit it, but the evidence mounts. In India’s grueling UPSC civil services exam — where millions vie for a handful of spots — toppers routinely credit luck alongside their Herculean prep. One analysis calls success a “delicate interplay between hard work and luck,” noting how unpredictable paper patterns or evaluation quirks tip the scales.

Even physics YouTuber Derek Muller (Veritasium) crunched the numbers in a viral video, arguing that extreme success often boils down to luck more than merit. Using models of talent distribution and random opportunities, he shows how the ultra-elite aren’t just harder workers — they’re the luckiest draws in a vast lottery of variables.

Watch it here for the mind-bending math.

Take high school toppers scoring 99+% in board exams. Everyone in the 97–99% bracket studies like fiends — coaching classes, mock tests, the works. What catapults a few to perfection? 

Luck: a benevolent examiner, questions aligning with their pet topics, or just avoiding that one tricky curveball. Retake the exam a year later, with extra prep? They might hold steady or dip. At those rarified percentiles, variance reigns; hard work sets the stage, but luck steals the show.Why the silence on luck? In the top 1%, effort levels converge — everyone’s grinding. What separates the pack is that elusive break: a mentor’s timely nudge, a market boom, or dodging a recession. Acknowledging it humbles us, reminding that success isn’t earned in isolation but enabled by forces beyond our grasp.

Harmony Over Heroics: Embracing the Full Equation

Success = Hard Work + Talent + Luck. It’s not a formula for defeatism but for realism. We lionize hard work because it’s our lever — the one thing genetics and fate can’t touch. Talent? Hone it if you have it; seek environments that amplify it if you don’t. Luck? Cultivate serendipity: network widely, stay adaptable, and show up often to increase your odds.

In a world obsessed with control, this trifecta frees us. It excuses the diligent who falter (not every story has a happy ending) and celebrates the outliers without deifying them. Next time you hear a rags-to-riches tale, look beyond the sweat. There, in the shadows, you’ll find talent’s gleam and luck’s whisper. True greatness? It’s the rare soul who wields all three — and knows it.