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.

How Brahmins used fake interpretation to justify Sati in 19th century India

 

How Brahmins used fake interpretation to justify Sati in 19th century India

The following is an excerpt from Madame Blavatasky’s From the Caves and Jungles of Hindostan (1879). 

In the tent we found the Akali in the middle of a sermon, delivered for the edification of the “mute general” and Mr. Y — -. He was explaining to them the advantages of the Sikh religion, and comparing it with the faith of the “devil-worshipers,” as he called the Brahmans.

It was too late to go to the caves, and, besides, we had had enough sights for one day. So we sat down to rest, and to listen to the words of wisdom falling from the lips of the “God’s warrior.” In my humble opinion, he was right in more than one thing; in his most imaginative moments Satan himself could not have invented anything more unjust and more refinedly cruel than what was invented by these “twice-born” egotists in their relation to the weaker sex. An unconditioned civil death awaits her in case of widowhood — even if this sad fate befalls her when she is two or three years old. It is of no importance for the Brahmans if the marriage never actually took place; the goat sacrifice, at which the personal presence of the little girl is not even required — she being represented by the wretched victim — is considered binding for her. As for the man, not only is he permitted to have several lawful wives at a time, but he is even required by the law to marry again if his wife dies. Not to be unjust, I must mention that with the exception of some vicious and depraved Rajas, we never heard of a Hindu availing himself of this privilege and having more than one wife.

At the present time, the whole of orthodox India is shaken by the struggle in favor of the remarriage of widows. This agitation was begun in Bombay, by a few reformers and opponents of Brahmans. It is already ten years since Mulji-Taker-Sing and others raised this question; but we know only of three or four men who have dared as yet to marry widows. This struggle is carried on in silence and secrecy, but nevertheless it is fierce and obstinate.

In the meanwhile, the fate of the widow is what the Brahmans wish it to be. As soon as the corpse of her husband is burned the widow must shave her head, and never let it grow again as long as she lives. Her bangles, necklaces, and rings are broken to pieces and burned, together with her hair and her husband’s remains. During the rest of her life she must wear nothing but white if she was less than twenty-five at her husband’s death, and red if she was older. Temples, religious ceremonies, society, are closed to her for ever. She has no right to speak to any of her relations, and no right to eat with them. She sleeps, eats, and works separately; her touch is considered impure for seven years. If a man going out on business meets a widow, he goes home again, abandoning every pursuit, because to see a widow is accounted an evil omen.

In the past all this was seldom practised, and concerned only the rich widows who refused to be burned; but now, since the Brahmans have been caught in the false interpretation of the Vedas, with the criminal intention of appropriating the widows’ wealth, they insist on the fulfilment of this cruel precept, and make what once was the exception the rule. They are powerless against British law, and so they revenge themselves on the innocent and helpless women whom fate has deprived of their natural protectors. Professor Wilson’s demonstration of the means by which the Brahmans distorted the sense of the Vedas, in order to justify the practice of widow-burning, is well worth mentioning. During the many centuries that this terrible practice prevailed, the Brahmans had appealed to a certain Vedic text for their justification, and had claimed to be rigidly fulfilling the institutes of Manu, which contain for them the interpretation of Vedic law.

When the East India Company’s Government first turned its attention to the suppression of suttee, the whole country, from Cape Comorin to the Himalayas, rose in protest, under the influence of the Brahmans. “The English promised not to interfere in our religious affairs, and they must keep their word!” was the general outcry. Never was India so near revolution as in those days. The English saw the danger and gave up the task. But Professor Wilson, the best Sanskritist of the time, did not consider the battle lost. He applied himself to the study of the most ancient MSS., and gradually became convinced that the alleged precept did not exist in the Vedas; though in the Laws of Manu it was quite distinct, and had been translated accordingly by T. Colebrooke and other Orientalists. An attempt to prove to the fanatic population that Manu’s interpretation was wrong would have been equivalent to an attempt to reduce water to powder. So Wilson set himself to study Manu, and to compare the text of the Vedas with the text of this law-giver. This was the result of his labors: the Rig Veda orders the Brahman to place the widow side by side with the corpse, and then, after the performance of certain rites, to lead her down from the funeral pyre and to sing the following verse from Grhya Sutra:

Arise, O woman! return to the world of the living!
Having gone to sleep by the dead, awake again!
Long enough thou hast been a faithful wife
To the one who made thee mother of his children.

Then those present at the burning were to rub their eyes with collyrium, and the Brahman to address to them the following verse:

Approach, you married women, not widows,
With your husbands bring ghi and butter.
Let the mothers go up to the womb first,
Dressed in festive garments and costly adornments.

The line before the last was misinterpreted by the Brahmans in the most skillful way. In Sanskrit it reads as follows: “Arohantu janayo yonim agre….” Yonina agre literally means to the womb first. Having changed only one letter of the last word agre, “first,” in Sanskrit [script], the Brahmans wrote instead agneh, “fire’s,” in Sanskrit [script], and so acquired the right to send the wretched widows yonina agneh — to the womb of fire. It is difficult to find on the face of the world another such fiendish deception.

The Vedas never permitted the burning of the widows, and there is a place in Taittiriya-Aranyaka, of the Yajur Veda, where the brother of the deceased, or his disciple, or even a trusted friend, is recommended to say to the widow, whilst the pyre is set on fire: “Arise, O woman! do not lie down any more beside the lifeless corpse; return to the world of the living, and become the wife of the one who holds you by the hand, and is willing to be your husband.” This verse shows that during the Vedic period the remarriage of widows was allowed. Besides, in several places in the ancient books, pointed out to us by Swami Dayanand, we found orders to the widows “to keep the ashes of the husband for several months after his death and to perform over them certain final rituals.”

However, in spite of the scandal created by Professor Wilson’s discovery, and of the fact that the Brahmans were put to shame before the double authority of the Vedas and of Manu, the custom of centuries proved so strong that some pious Hindu women still burn themselves whenever they can. Not more than two years ago the four widows of Yung-Bahadur, the chief minister of Nepal, insisted upon being burned. Nepal is not under the British rule, and so the Anglo-Indian [=English colonial] Government had no right to interfere.

Everyone Knows George Soros. But Who Knows Charles Koch?

 

Everyone Knows George Soros. But Who Knows Charles Koch?

The world recognizes the name George Soros as the emblem of left-wing billionaire philanthropy, but far fewer know about Charles Koch and his massive political influence. Yet, when it comes to political funding and shaping policy agendas, Koch’s impact is equally — if not more — transformative on the right.

The Soros Name: Global Symbol of Left-Wing Philanthropy

George Soros, the Hungarian-American financier, is internationally infamous and celebrated for his support of democratic causes, liberal advocacy, and progressive movements. His Open Society Foundations have disbursed hundreds of millions every year. In 2021 alone, Soros donated at least $140 million through advocacy networks, and contributed nearly $170 million to electoral campaigns in the 2022 U.S. midterms. His advocacy for transparency, minority rights, and democratic freedoms has made him a hero to some and a bogeyman to others, often fueling conspiracy theories and political attacks.

The Koch Network: The Silent Giant of the Right

But while Soros receives the lion’s share of media attention, the Koch network quietly channels staggering sums into conservative, libertarian, and right-wing causes around the world. Charles Koch, CEO of Koch Industries, oversees a network that moved at least $176 million in 2022 alone into policy, advocacy, litigation, higher education, and media groups. This flows through a constellation of nonprofits such as Stand Together Trust, with total annual expenditures in recent years often exceeding $650 million and net assets amounting to hundreds of millions.

In fact, Koch’s influence reaches academic institutions (over $52 million in 2022 higher ed grants), drives state-level policy through think tanks, spearheads school privatization, funds litigation opposing progressive change, and bankrolls right-leaning media voices. Americans for Prosperity (AFP), his flagship operation, received $60 million in one year — several times more than many entire political advocacy organizations operate on annually.

Why Does Everyone Know Soros, But Not Koch?

The disparity in public recognition stems from several factors:

• Narrative Framing: Soros is routinely attacked in political rhetoric, especially by right-wing media. Koch has often preferred the shadows, leveraging multiple layers of nonprofits and donor conduits.
• Media Focus: Liberal mega-donors like Soros are covered by global outlets and conspiracy-minded channels; Koch’s operations, despite being as consequential, rarely spark the same headlines.
• Transparency and Disclosure: Much of Koch’s operation flows through so-called “dark money” channels, which reduces public scrutiny compared to Soros’s philanthropy that is largely public and documented.

The Real Numbers: Comparative Political Funding

Charles Koch’s network, on the right, donated between $176 million and $650 million per year in recent cycles, at times setting spending goals as high as $889 million for a single election season. These funds went into policy advocacy, litigation, higher education, state-level organizations, and media. On the left, George Soros contributed about $140 million in a typical year through his advocacy groups and up to $170 million directly in 2022 U.S. elections, with his total political giving since January 2020 exceeding $500 million. Both donor empires support not just direct campaign spending but also fund think tanks, legal initiatives, and media aligned with their ideological goals

The Stakes

Charles Koch’s empire is vast and quietly productive, supporting hundreds of policy groups, legal causes, and academic institutions with a focus on deregulation, libertarian economics, and conservative causes. Meanwhile, George Soros remains a visible lightning rod — his politics might be a household debate, but the pipelines and scale of someone like Koch rarely reach everyday discussion.

As public debates rage about the power of money in politics, it’s crucial to ask not only about the biggest names but also about those whose money shapes policy from the shadows. To understand the true nature of political influence, comparing high-profile philanthropists like Soros with equally impactful figures like Koch paints a far more complete — if unsettling — picture of modern democracy

Deep dive into Indian Savarna Merit Discussions Online

 

Deep dive into Savarna Merit Discussions Online

Oh man, here we go again with these Savarna upper-caste crybabies whining about “merit” like it’s some sacred cow that’s been slaughtered by reservations. As if merit was ever a thing in this country for the last 3000 years! Let me ask you: where the hell was this precious “merit” when temple priest positions were straight-up reserved for Brahmins? Generation after generation, locked in by birthright, no exams, no interviews — just “you’re born into it, congrats, you’re holy.” Sounds like the ultimate quota system, doesn’t it? But oh no, that was “tradition,” not nepotism or exclusion.

And don’t even get me started on education. Where was merit when lower castes were flat-out denied the right to learn? Beaten, ostracized, or worse if they dared pick up a book. For centuries, knowledge was hoarded like gold by the upper castes, while everyone else was told to clean their shit and stay in their lane. Now suddenly, when reservations try to level the playing field a tiny bit, these folks act like the sky is falling. “Merit is dead!” they scream. Bro, merit was never alive for most of India — it was a rigged game from day one.

But nowadays? It’s peak absurdity. These idiots blame EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM in India on reservations. There’s a pothole on the road? “Reservations did it!” Bridge collapses? “Damn those quota hires!” Someone leaves India for better opportunities? “Reservations pushed them out!” Hell, some poor soul tweets about going abroad for higher studies, and boom — some genius retweets it with “See? Reservations are killing talent!” Or lands a foreign job? “If not for reservations, more ‘meritorious’ people would stay!” Like, what? Do these people even hear themselves? It’s like reservations are the ultimate scapegoat for corruption, incompetence, and systemic failures that have nothing to do with it.

And let’s talk about what “merit” really means, because these clowns never stop to think. They peddle this fairy tale that merit is just pure hard work, like we’re all starting from the same line. Bullshit! Merit is shaped by privilege, plain and simple. Lakhs of rupees poured into coaching classes, fancy private schools, high-speed internet, world-class textbooks, tutors, libraries — stuff that lower castes and marginalized folks often can’t even dream of. Your “merit” is built on a mountain of resources handed to you on a silver platter. Ignore that (which is stupid AF), and what are you even implying? That only upper castes/Savarnas are hardworking and talented enough for success? That the rest are somehow inferior, lazy, or undeserving? Sounds suspiciously like what white supremacists spew in the US about Black people being “inherently lesser.” No difference, folks — these caste supremacists are just brown versions of the same toxic ideology.

Wake up, India. Reservations aren’t the villain; they’re a band-aid on a gaping wound caused by millennia of oppression. If you really care about merit, fight for equal access for everyone, not just your echo chamber. Until then, spare us the tears. #CastePrivilege #MeritMyth #EndCasteism