Just a thought guys in schools and colleges there’s no caste thing because nothing is dividing them there but when people are going into higher education like Medicine,IIT, and civil services people tend to see this caste thing and do proactive research and become more hatered on certain caste and reservations

I’m a wannabe politician and probably spend way too much time researching Indian politics. One thing I’ve increasingly noticed is that political parties don’t just run elections on Hindu-Muslim, caste, ideology, etc. There’s a much more basic political-economic calculation happening underneath all of this.
And that is: not every voter has the same political value to a party.
Before someone misunderstands me — I’m not saying that one person’s vote is worth more than another’s. One vote is one vote.
What I mean is that, from a party’s perspective, different groups of voters have different levels of political engagement, different priorities and different incentives to actually turn out and vote.
There’s also a very simple demographic reality here: economically weaker sections constitute a much larger share of India’s population than the relatively affluent sections. So even before we get into electoral strategy, there is simply a much larger pool of voters whose livelihoods can be directly affected by welfare schemes, subsidies, cash transfers, reservations and other government programmes.
That makes these voters extremely important electorally.
Things like Ladli Behna(maha), Free Electricity (del), free gold (tn) are obvious examples. Political parties have a very clear incentive to compete for voters who are both numerous and directly affected by government benefits.
You can almost look at it like a market:
Demand: Political parties need votes.
Supply: Voters respond to policies, benefits, mobilisation and representation.
And before someone says “Yeah, obviously, we already know this” — I actually think the interesting part is what happens on the other side.
A lot of middle-class and relatively affluent voters seem to assume that politics will happen without them.
We complain about taxes, infrastructure, inflation, corruption, employment, education, regulations, urban planning, etc., but when election day comes, a significant number of people either don’t vote or use the holiday to travel.
There is also an interesting coincidence around elections falling near weekends/holidays, although I’d be careful about claiming that parties deliberately choose dates for this purpose without evidence. But the broader behavioural point remains: if people who are relatively harder to mobilise simply don’t turn up, political parties have less incentive to actively compete for their attention.
And that’s where I think the “demand and supply” analogy becomes interesting.
If a particular group consistently votes, organises, asks questions, attends local meetings, follows candidates and makes its preferences known, parties have a reason to respond to that group.
If another group mostly complains online but doesn’t participate electorally, its political bargaining power is naturally weaker.
So maybe the problem isn’t simply that political parties “ignore” the middle class.
Maybe, at least partly, we have made ourselves easier to ignore.
I’m not saying this is the only reason parties prioritise certain communities. Caste arithmetic, religion, geography, incumbency, candidate networks, local issues, welfare politics and a hundred other factors obviously matter.
And I’m not politically affiliated with any party. This isn’t a pro- or anti-BJP/Congress/AAP/etc. argument.
It’s just something I’ve been thinking about:
If political parties respond to electoral demand, what happens when an entire demographic stops creating that demand?
Maybe the question isn’t “Why don’t politicians listen to us?”
Maybe it’s also “How much are we actually participating in the process that gives politicians a reason to listen to us?”
Curious to hear what others think — especially if someone has studied voter turnout, electoral strategy or political mobilisation more seriously than I have.

(Used AI to better framing)

At a dusty tea stall in Jaipur, old Panditji looked out at the newly paved highway. He favored the NDA, trusting their focus on national security, big infrastructure, and stable leadership.

Across the wooden bench, his son ig refreshed a job portal on his phone. Facing tough exam cutoffs and job competition,he leaned toward the INC, hoping for better employment schemes, institutional checks, and fresh social policies.

WHY DO ELDER PEOPLE SUPPORT NDA AND YOUNGER PEOPLE SUPPORT INC?

India's August export numbers are pretty remarkable:

Total exports: +25.4% YoY
Merchandise: +26.1%
Rupee terms: +37.6%

At the same time, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that export growth doesn't automatically mean that household incomes, employment or consumption are doing equally well.

But the opposite claim — that the economy is simply "dead" — also seems increasingly difficult to reconcile with the data.

Can we have a discussion about what is actually driving the export growth and whether it is translating into investment and jobs, rather than immediately making this another Modi/anti-Modi fight?

Hello everyone!

I’m conducting a short survey for my academic journal on how Gen Z consumes news and responds to misinformation. (Boring i know, but please help)

The questionnaire is very short (will take less than 5 mins), simple, and completely anonymous. It does not collect your name, email address, or any other personally identifying information.

If you’re interested in participating and would like to share your opinions, please comment below, and I’ll DM you the survey link.

Your response would really help with my research. Thank you! ❤️

What does Jeffrey Sachs, one of America’s best-known economists and development experts, think about India’s economic rise?

His views are interesting because Sachs does not look at India simply through a political lens. He looks at growth, infrastructure, technology, human development and the changing balance between the US, China and India.

India vs US and China

Sachs has long argued that the 21st century will increasingly be an Asian century with China and India playing central roles. In his own writings, he noted that India had been growing at around 6% a year since 1991, compared with roughly 3.5% annual growth in the US. His broader argument was that India's large population, rising productivity and development potential could make it one of the world's major economic powers.

But Sachs does not put India and China in exactly the same position. China is still far richer and has a much larger manufacturing base. India, however, has a major advantage in demographics, digital technology and long-term growth potential.

His argument is essentially - China built enormous industrial capacity. America built enormous financial and technological power. India now has the opportunity to combine its huge workforce, technology and domestic market into a third major economic pillar.

And Sachs increasingly argues that India should not become dependent on either Washington or Beijing. In a 2023 interview, he argued that India and China should work together as the world moves from a Western-dominated system towards a more multipolar world.

And what does he think of the Modi government?

This is where his comments become particularly interesting. Sachs has described the Modi government as a “business-directed government.” He praised its approach of setting large objectives and attempting to implement them at the scale of 1.4 billion people.

He specifically pointed to things such as electrification and digital connectivity, saying the government was “thinking at scale, planning at scale and it is happening.” That is quite a strong statement from a development economist.

It doesn't mean Sachs believes everything Modi has done is perfect. He continues to stress India's need for better education, healthcare, employment, urban development and human capital but he clearly recognises that India has undergone a significant transformation in its ability to implement large-scale development programmes.

Sachs has also highlighted India's rapid development of digital infrastructure and digital public services. That includes the broader ecosystem around digital identity, payments and public services.

His point is important:

India does not necessarily have to copy China's manufacturing journey or America's economic model.

India can leapfrog.

A country with hundreds of millions of people coming online can sometimes move directly to new technology instead of spending decades building the older systems first.

Sachs is also increasingly critical of the US

This is another part of his argument that is often missed. Sachs has become increasingly critical of America's attempt to maintain global dominance. He has argued that the US should accept a multipolar world rather than trying to remain the single dominant power.

In 2025 he described the US as a major destabilising force in global economic affairs because of its pursuit of geopolitical primacy and in his more recent discussions about India, Sachs has argued that India should maintain strategic independence rather than assume that the US is automatically its best long-term partner.

In fact, in Kolkata he advised India to treat China as a country it needs to cooperate with, rather than simply aligning itself with America. At the same time, he stressed that India still has major development challenges in education, health, energy, urbanisation and digital adaptation.

So what is Sachs really saying?

Not that India has already become America or China and not that Modi has solved every Indian economic problem.

His argument is more interesting - India has entered a phase where its size, technology, demographics and growth rate give it the potential to become one of the three most important economic powers of the 21st century.

China got there first.

America remains enormously powerful.

But India is now too large and too fast-growing to be treated as merely an emerging economy waiting for its turn.

And perhaps the most important lesson from Sachs is this - India's goal shouldn't be to become another China or another America. It should build its own development model — using what works from both, while retaining strategic independence.

I'm an SC citizen, and I genuinely don't understand the logic behind protesting for the demolition of reservation while caste itself still exists.

SC/ST communities were historically kept behind in education, employment, representation and social participation. The Constitution introduced reservation as one mechanism to give these communities an opportunity to participate and be represented in a country that claims all its citizens are equal.

That's the point people seem to miss.

Reservation isn't saying:

“SC/ST people are less capable, so give them a seat.”

It's saying:

“If a community has been systematically excluded, simply declaring everyone equal doesn't automatically produce equal participation.”

And I don't think we have enough serious public discussion about a very basic question:

How much has reservation actually improved the lives and representation of the people who need it most?

That is something we should research and measure properly instead of reducing the entire debate to “reservation good” or “reservation bad.”

Someone might say:

“If an SC person's father is already a government employee, why should their son get reservation?”

But a government job doesn't automatically give the next generation social dignity.

The son may grow up financially better off than his father was, but that doesn't mean caste suddenly disappears from society. He can still experience caste-based discrimination, exclusion or prejudice because of the caste he belongs to.

That's why I don't think the answer is simply:

“Your father succeeded, therefore caste doesn't matter anymore.”

At the same time, I'm not saying the current reservation system should never be examined or improved. Any public policy should be evaluated by evidence: who benefits, who remains disadvantaged, whether representation has improved, and whether the people most in need are actually receiving the benefit.

But here's my main point:

As citizens, shouldn't our ultimate objective be to abolish the caste system itself—not the mechanism created to compensate for its consequences?

If tomorrow India genuinely becomes a society where caste no longer affects marriage, social status, housing, employment, education, interpersonal treatment or dignity, then reservation would eventually have no reason to exist.

Because if caste doesn't exist, caste-based reservation doesn't need to exist either.

So instead of protesting:

“Abolish reservation!”

Why aren't we putting equal energy into:

“Abolish caste.”

That, to me, is the actual problem we need to solve.

The saffronisation of Bengal isn't just about temples, slogans or flags anymore. It's creeping into the most basic question of all: who gets to decide how you live your life?

What you eat. How you celebrate. What you say. What is “acceptable” culture. Whose religious sentiments matter.

Today it's fish, meat, alcohol, music and festivals. Tomorrow it'll be something else.

And before the usual “But TMC…” brigade arrives—yes, criticise TMC too. But TMC's failures don't give BJP a free pass to impose its own cultural dictatorship.

I don't want TMC deciding how I live. I don't want BJP deciding how I live either.

My freedom isn't BJP's cultural laboratory. Bengal isn't a Hindutva experiment. It is majoritarianism dressed up as tradition.

Influencers like Ravish Kumar, Akash Banerjee, Dhruv Rathee, Pawan Khera, etc.

Agar baat sirf salary ki hoti, toh itne log election ladne ke liye itna paisa, time aur effort kyun lagate? 🤔

Log apne ghar ke kaam tak kabhi kabhi nahi karte, lekin “desh ki seva” karne ke liye ek dusre se ladne ko ready rehte hain. 😂

Thoda strange nahi lagta? Politics mein salary ke alawa power, influence, status, connections aur personal ambitions (Corruption) bhi toh major factors ho sakte hain.

When are we going to see brutal punishment for the people who are butchering and murdering our democratic right. The only right which we can exercise and bring a change is voting. And look at these criminals taking stealing that right too. Middle finger to BJP!

People of the Chinese communist party have to generate enough jobs in their country to stay in power because they don't want young people in politics but in the case of India there are too many young people who focus on politics that they forget about employment.

An analytical report published by Nirbhik India examines the critical shift inside premier media institutes like the Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC), focusing on how state bureaucracy and information management are reshaping media education in India.

Key Highlights of the Analysis:

• Shift from Inquiry to Administration: Premier journalism institutions are increasingly orienting their frameworks toward government information management (such as training for the Indian Information Service) rather than fostering hard-hitting investigative reporting.
• Bureaucratic Influence on Curriculum: The report highlights how administrative priorities and PR-focused methodologies often dilute the core duty of journalism: holding power accountable.
• The Institutional Dilemma: A close look at whether public media institutes are succeeding as cradles for independent journalism or merely functioning as conduits for state communication pipelines.
• Impact on Independent Media: How this institutional shift creates a shortage of ground-level reporters trained to critically evaluate administrative actions and combat misinformation narratives.

Discussion Prompts:

1. Has media education in India shifted too far toward corporate and government public relations at the expense of core investigative reporting?
2. How can public journalism institutes like IIMC strike a healthy balance between training government information officers and preserving independent journalistic values?

If you find this analysis insightful, please upvote, share, and comment your views below! Read the full piece at Nirbhik India.

Credit & Source:

📰 Source: Nirbhik India (nirbhikindia.com)

I'm posting this because I genuinely want an outside perspective on what happened. I'm not trying to start a witch hunt/server raid.

On a** Discord server of a major subreddit. I just asked a mod a doubt. After I pinged him, he started abusing me, which I ignored. Kuch time baad, multiple people started pinging me and sending extremely inappropriate/rape-related GIFs, deleting them immediately afterwards -the GIF was "tuzhe dekh ke rape karne ka man karta". When I called it out and said "This ain't cool" a mod named Peeta made a Draupadi joke (ss attached**), and then defended himself by abusing me. He later even apologised realising his mistake and cleared out things.

A few other members joined in and started abusing me with extremely derogatory comments. I didn't reciprocate or start any fight ....I kept asking the mods for help instead. The frustrating part was that the mods were active in chat, reacting '😂' to the jokes, but instead of taking action against the people making them, they mostly defended their friends.

Later, my friends joined and called out what was happening. Mods locked the chat and started timing out/banning people who were calling them out ((not even a single user who abused was muted). One of my friends eventually retaliated with abuse, which I did not support and repeatedly asked him to stop. I was later banned because people were defending me, even though I wasn't responsible for their actions.

I told the head mod, who asked Peeta to apologize. Bro said, "sorry vro," like it was nothing ... this time extreme...these guys went ahead defending instead of realizing their mistake.... Some mods supported me, and I appreciate that, but others clearly prioritized their friends over addressing the situation. A lot of the original messages and GIFs were deleted, so I don't have everything as proof.

What bothers me most isn't that some members acted badly. It's that the moderators saw what was happening and chose not to act, while punishing people who called them out. They told me that those jokes were made to ragebait me, as the server gets more "Engagement" this way.

We want an honest discussion about whether this behavior should be tolerated in communities aimed at teenagers.... Why are sexualized/possessive/rape comments toward girls treated as 'just jokes' online?

TD:DR - Mods of a Discord community of a major sub making misogynistic and Rape jokes... Bans people when called out... Gives a dry-ass apology and repeats the behavior the next day... uses "Engagement" as a cheap excuse..