The Arguments within

Subramanian Swamy , a brahmin of South Indian origin , would never want us to understand how the socio-cultural-religious idea of SECULARISM connects with the fight of the common people against the dominance of the PREISTLY CLASS - that is, the BRAHMINS The present form of Hinduism is essentially the *Brahminism* - a system , which has it  been laid with such crooked morality - (the right word to speak of it is PERVERSITY ) - that it brings about a dominance of the Brahmin class over the lives of people. The judiciary , the executive and the legislation is actually already dominated by the Brahmins . This is thanks to the BRAHMINCAL MORALITY which works such as to assert that everything that AKHILESH YADAV or LALU YADAV have done in the field of public governance was but JUNGLERAJ whereas whatever YOGI ADITYABATH or NITISH BABU is doing is but NATIONALISM and PATRIOTIC . That kind of thought process , the exploitation of the belief of the common people in the devine powers , and th...

  मेरा ख्याल है कि भारत की आबादी मे आत्ममुग्धता इसलिए अधिक है क्योंकि लोगों का यह मानना है कि "घमंड" का सही उपचार होता है विनम्रता ।  "विनम्रता"   इसके अभिप्राय में औसत भारतीय क्या समझता है?  ये एक शोध करने वाला प्रश्न है।  मेरा नज़रिया है कि "विनम्रता" का अर्थ एक आम भारतीय मात्र यहां तक ही समझता है कि दूसरों से अच्छे से बातचीत करना, शायद "आप-आप" करके। लोगों से हँस कर बोलना, जमीन पर बेहिचक बैठ जाना, वो भी तब जब आपके पास बहोत अधिक पैसा हो, तब। खाना खा लेना, गरीब आदमी के जैसे। और उसको स्पर्श कर लेना, कर लेने देना, ख़ास तौर पर गले मिल कर , गले लगा लेना।  भारत के मौजूदा संस्कृति और फ़िल्मी नसीहतों के मद्देनजर यह सब आचरण पयार्प्त होते हैं खुद को "विनम्र" साबित करने के लिए।  औसत भारत वासी मे आत्म-मुग्धता के प्रति चेतना नही है। वो आलोचना सुनना और करना दोनो ही नापसन्द करता है। उसे कतई "आईना देखना " या कि "आईना दिखाना ", दोनों, ही घोर "नीच" अथवा "घमंडी" काम लगते हैं।  औसत भारतीय सदैव ही "प्रशंसा" तथ...

I often think if we have ever debated over the mandate on Safety Shoes, the Hand Gloves, and so. It is important that we begin to appreciate why people resist / may resist any attempt to make mandatory any of these 'safety gears'.  1) I think that one broad classification of reasoning will be that 'safety gears' hinder the body movements of the person to whom it has promised to give protection. In many situations, such restriction on his body movements may work to the disadvantage of the person.  2) Marine piloting will require person to be as much light as is possible to aid the climbing of the ladders and the gangway stairs.  3) The piloting company may see a cost on the maintenance of the equipment. Believe me, in the socialist models of the business, there are the Government Clerks sitting as the bosses of the company, and not well informed on the industrial practices. I can tell you, there are Government clerks as the boss who are debating why piloting is essential...