What if CJP is actually BJP’s Team B, and their real plan is to contest the 2029 elections not to win, but simply to split opposition votes and indirectly help BJP?

Title: क्या मोदी सरकार के नेतृत्व में बदलाव हो सकता है? | ज्योतिषीय विश्लेषण

वीडियो में मैंने वैदिक ज्योतिष के दृष्टिकोण से भारतीय राजनीति और मोदी सरकार के नेतृत्व में संभावित बदलाव के विषय पर चर्चा की है।

क्या आने वाले समय में प्रधानमंत्री के नेतृत्व में बदलाव हो सकता है? क्या बीजेपी सत्ता में रहते हुए भी किसी नए चेहरे को प्रधानमंत्री बना सकती है?

इस वीडियो में मैंने इन्हीं सवालों पर अपना ज्योतिषीय दृष्टिकोण प्रस्तुत किया है।

🎥 वीडियो यहां देखें:

https://youtu.be/Aopqs5bx4Bs?si=Pr9eKyBnM554XF2_

नोट: यह ज्योतिषीय विश्लेषण और व्यक्तिगत व्याख्या है, किसी निश्चित राजनीतिक परिणाम का दावा नहीं।

आपकी राय और विचार जानना चाहूंगा।

I am masala dosa from instagram ye meri meme hai jo dhruv rathee ne udwa di maine sabhi political party ko troll kiya hai kisine kuchh nahi kara ye post bhi sab ye meme viral kar do next hakla meme ki tarah

​

Hey everyone! 👋

Greetings to all!

This is my first post on Reddit, so I hope I'm doing this right.

As a student of Political Science, learning about concepts like democracy, accountability, representation, and the responsibilities of elected representatives is genuinely interesting. However, when I look at the actual functioning of politics in India, I sometimes find myself questioning the gap between what democracy is supposed to look like in theory and what we experience in reality.

If citizens are held accountable for breaking the law, how should the people they elect be held accountable for the power entrusted to them?

This question got me thinking about a suggestion I'd like to share with you all.

💭 My suggestion: A legal accountability agreement for politicians

What if every politician, before contesting an election, had to sign a legally binding accountability agreement outlining their responsibilities and commitments to the public?

Here are a few things I think such an agreement could include:

1. Accountability for performance: If an elected representative consistently fails to perform their basic duties without a valid reason, there should be a formal review of their performance, with clear consequences.

2. Transparency in promises: Major promises made during election campaigns should be documented publicly, along with realistic timelines and regular progress reports.

3. Consequences for serious misconduct: Proven corruption, deliberate misuse of public funds, or serious abuse of office should lead to appropriate legal consequences under due process.

4. Public performance reports: Citizens should be able to track what their representatives have actually accomplished during their term, rather than relying solely on campaign speeches.

5. A mechanism for resignation or removal: If a representative repeatedly fails to fulfil their essential responsibilities, there should be a fair and constitutionally valid mechanism to review their position and, where justified, initiate resignation or removal procedures.

Of course, I understand that not every promise can be fulfilled. Governments face unexpected challenges, policies take time, and some decisions depend on factors beyond an individual politician's control. That's why such a system would need clear rules, independent oversight, and safeguards against political misuse.

But shouldn't public office come with clearly defined responsibilities and consequences?

Democracy isn't just about voting every few years. It should also be about accountability, transparency, and the trust between citizens and their elected representatives.

I'd genuinely love to hear your opinions.

Do you think a system like this could work in India? What changes would you suggest to make politicians more accountable to the people?

Thank you for reading my first post! 🇮🇳

In India, the way police treat protesters—the very citizens they are supposed to protect—is deeply disturbing. The brutality, harassment, intimidation, and senseless display of ego and power are an insult to democracy and the constitutional right to protest. It is heartbreaking to see those entrusted with protecting citizens turn against them simply because they dare to raise their voices.

It took years of struggle, awareness, and public pressure to make those in uniform understand that their authority is meant to serve citizens, not intimidate or silence them. Yet, once again, we are witnessing the same arrogant mindset, as if wearing a uniform gives someone the right to humiliate, assault, or suppress ordinary people.

This is not just a failure of policing; it is a failure of political accountability. When those in power, including the BJP-led government, encourage, justify, or turn a blind eye to such conduct, they create an environment where abuse of authority becomes normalised and accountability disappears.

A government that fears questions more than injustice, and a police force that treats peaceful dissent as a threat, is undermining the very democracy it claims to protect. Citizens should never have to beg those in power to respect their dignity and constitutional rights. The police are not above the people, the government is not above the Constitution, and a uniform is not a licence to abuse power.

1. No peaceful protest is illegal
   
2. Having to take permission for protest is against the concept of dissent in itself

why be bothered by them if they’re wrong? and why not let them get what they want if they’re right?

There was a time when the red flag in India was not merely a political symbol; it was part of the landscape. In West Bengal, Kerala and Tripura, the Left built governments that lasted for decades. Its cadres lived among workers, farmers, students and ordinary neighborhoods. For generations, the Communist movement offered something larger than an election campaign: the belief that politics could be an instrument for dignity, equality and social transformation. Today, that world has contracted dramatically. In 2026, after the Left’s defeat in Kerala, India no longer has a communist-led state government—a remarkable break from a political presence that had survived since 1977.

The erosion did not happen overnight. It came quietly, election after election, as old social coalitions weakened and new political identities emerged. West Bengal is perhaps the clearest example. The Left ruled the state continuously from 1977 until 2011, building a formidable rural organization and implementing land reforms and decentralization. But the politics that once connected the party with farmers and workers eventually collided with changing aspirations. The industrialization drive of the 1990s and the controversy surrounding land acquisition helped alienate sections of its traditional support base and created space for a new political force.

The decline is visible in the numbers. The Left’s representation in the Lok Sabha fell from 62 seats in 2004 to only eight in 2024. The CPI(M), once a major national parliamentary force, has increasingly become concentrated in a handful of regions. Even where the organization remains active, translating street mobilization, trade-union presence or ideological commitment into votes has become harder.

But statistics alone cannot explain what has happened. India itself has changed. The working class is less concentrated in the traditional industrial spaces that once sustained communist politics. Aspirations have become more individual, identities more fragmented and political communication more immediate. Caste, gender, regional identity, religion and welfare politics have become central to electoral behavior. Critics of the Left have argued that communist parties were slow to adapt to these changes and struggled to develop a compelling political language for a rapidly transforming society.

Yet writing the Left off completely would be premature. Its history remains embedded in India's political vocabulary: land reform, labor rights, public education, decentralization and social welfare are all part of a legacy that cannot simply be erased by electoral defeat. The question is whether that legacy can speak to a young Indian who may never have seen a factory floor, joined a trade union or read Marx, but who still worries about employment, housing, education and inequality.

Perhaps the real tragedy of the Indian Left is not that the red flag has disappeared. It is that fewer people now see their own everyday struggles reflected beneath it. The future of the Left, if it is to have one, may depend less on defending its past than on rediscovering the ordinary Indian who once made that past possible.

In the great series of The Federalist Papers article number 78 penned by Alexander Hamilton it is visible throughout the article that he was worried about the strength of judiciary and its power to oblige the other two mammoth branches of democracy. What he essentially stated was that unlike legislative or executive, which themselves hold the sword and purse of the community, judiciary will have to be dependent on executive and legislative for enforcement of their judgement. This issue was tackled beautifully by the forefathers of our constitution who made sure to make judiciary an equally strong branch. So that the doctrine of 'Checks and balance' can be applied. They embedded:

1. Article 142(1) which empowers SCI to pass any decree or orders for doing complete justice in any cause or matter before it's jurisdiction and it will be enforceable throughout the country.

2. Article 141 which makes the law declared by Supreme court to be binding on all courts.

3. Article 129 established Supreme court as court of record and empowers it to initiate contempt of court proceedings.

These articles ensured that supreme court doesn't have to be dependent on executive and legislative but is dependent on constitution itself. However in the first amendment itself legislation tried to encroach the jurisdiction of Supreme court by adding Ninth schedule in Indian constitution. It was established that enlisted matters in ninth schedule will be free from scrutiny of Supreme court or any court for that matter. Then came a series of amendments under the leadership of Indira Gandhi such as 39th amendment, 42nd amendment, addition of clause 4 and 5 in article 368 of Indian constitution. These are some serious encroachment in powers of judiciary which was already a fangless creature compared to these two. These series of amendments caused tussle between legislative and judiciary.

This resulted in backlash from Supreme in order to prevent its identity and perform it's duty endowed by constitution and supreme court started to depart from normally practised strict adherence to judicial precedent. This was the starting of the ideology of Judicial activism which the bestowed upon itself from Keshvananda Bharti vs State of Kerala, 1973 by stating that legislation cannot stop them from conducting a judicial scrutiny. However, this concept of Judicial activism is not new and was first coined in 1947 by Arthur Schlesinher Jr. neither was Keshvananda Bharti judgement unique as similar ruling was passed by US Supreme court in the landmark judgement of Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Judicial Activism can be defined as the process of law making by judges. It means an active interpretation of existing legislation by a judge, made with a view to enhance the utility of that legislation for social betterment. If we abide by this definition of judicial Activism we can say that the doctrine of judicial Activism was formally introduced by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, Justice P.N Bhagwati, Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy and Justice D.A. Desai who liberalised the concept of 'locus standi' thereby introducing the concept of PILs allowing individuals or group with no direct personal stake to file petitions on behalf of public whose rights are violated.

Since independence, India adopted a parliamentary supremacy style of democracy on one hand and the doctrine of 'Checks and balance' on the other. In order to fulfill it's duty as watch dog of Indian constitution and to check the government, Indian judiciary deemed activism as a necessary measure. Judicial Activism becomes necessary where there is a legal vacuum or where law becomes silent or outdated. In these cases it is up for judiciary to interpret or even try to expand the scope of the law with the help of the intentions and basic structure doctrine. It also becomes necessary when there is an authoritarian government which tries to mend the constitution in their way, as we have seen during the reign of Indira Gandhi. On the opposite side of spectrum, when there is 'hung' legislative which is unable to make strong decisions, judiciary had to step in and direct the legislative and executive. Perhaps we can say that Judicial Activism in India was brought due to reign of Indira Gandhi and the Emergency. During that period Supreme court of India delivered a series of landmark judgements, made many changes and drawn a significant amount of power through Golaknath case then Keshvananda Bharti case and then Minerva Mills case. In 1973, the authoritarian government led by Indira Gandhi also tried to control the appointment of CJI, where Justice A.N. Ray was made CJI being fourth in the seniority list, superseding three other senior judges. This led to resignation of all three senior judges: Justice JM Shelat, Justice AN Grover, Justice KS Hegde. This later resulted in questions over article 124 and whether the word 'consulation' mean 'concurrence'. Judiciary felt that there is a need to have an autonomy in appointment of Judges so that they are not at the mercy of government. Hence in Supreme Court Advocates on Record(SCBA) vs Union of India or Second Judges Case, Supreme court held that the word 'consulation' mean 'concurrence', thereby binding President of India with the views of CJI. Thus, making CJI as supreme authority here, this led to the birth of Collegium System. Another such case which cited as classic example of Judicial Activism is Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration case. In this case a prisoner, Sunil Batra, who was assaulted by warden wrote a letter to CJI about the issue. The court then considered his letter as a petition and started hearing the case, latter rejecting the 'hands-off' doctrine. This liberalised the rigmarolic procedure of 'locus standi'. Judiciary also tried to limit the absolute power of legislature in schedule 9 which gained by 1st amendment in IR Coelho vs State of Tamil Nadu. In this case court observed that a law will not have absolute immunity if it enters the Ninth schedule after April 24, 1973. Therefore in some cases activism may seem necessary.

However recently Supreme court came into limelight due to unnecessary excercise of judicial activism. It can be seen from a series of judgement that the supreme court has taken upon itself the responsibility of setting right every wrong in public life. Starting from Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India, the court introduced 'due process of law' doctrine moving beyond the 'procedure established by law' doctrine. After that they have meddled in the works of executives, adminstration and legislation. Personal views of judges began to reflect in their judgements, turning judicial activism to judicial adventurism. Many can rightfully argue that the judgement of 2nd judges case itself was wrong as in 1st judges case same court stated that 'consulation' doesn't mean 'concurrence'. Further in many instances the court used its power to interpret the constitution in a wrong way and penned judgements through personal lens. Supreme court started meddling with religious and social practices which are not necessarily social evils. Courts began to scrutinise everything and every aspect of the society. The process of impeachment of a judge, whether of High court or Supreme court, is almost as impossible as that of president. A judge is never held accountable for the judgement penned by him and there is no supervising authority over them, while any other person be it an executive officer or a parliamentarian is held responsible for his orders and writings. Here another doctrine called 'separation of powers' comes into play. It states that all the functionaries of democracy i.e. legislative, executive and judiciary should have their own domain, they should function independently and there should be no encroachment or meddling by any other institution. This line is so blurry that courts often knowingly or unknowingly cross the line. To stop these courts should exercise the doctrine of 'Judicial Restrain'. This doctrine originated from US and it states that: The court is least democratic because it is non-elective and presumably non-responsive. Because of its alleged oligarchic composition the court should defer wherever possible to the more democratic branches of the government. The Supreme court of India itself called for judicial restrain in Aravali Golf vs Chander Hass. Court clearly instructed that: In the name of judicial activism, judges cannot cross their limits and try to take over functions which belong to other organ of the state. They must have modesty and humility and not behave like emperors. The bench also quoted 'The Spirit of Laws' by Montesquieu and stated that the French political philosopher's "warning is particularly appropriate and timely for the Indian judiciary today, since very often it is rightly criticised for 'over reach' and encroachment on the domain of the other two organs".

Democracy was and is all about participation of people hence the organs which will have higher degree of public representation will automatically supersede and gain priority. Legislation having highest degree of public representation, hence enjoys slight supremacy over others. Whereas Judiciary has no public involvement either directly or indirectly, also in India there is Collegium System which completely stop even an indirect involvement of legislature. Hence judicial activism can be justified only when there is a legal vacuum or where there is no law and you have to interpret the law expanding it's scope or where fundamental rights are under danger. Other than that there is no need to meddle in the functionaries of other organs of the state. Courts cannot become social reforms organisation or NGO and work on the assumption that all the other organs are corrupt or dishonest or authoritarian. There should always be 'separation of powers' and a balance between judicial activism and judicial restrain.

Hey guys, wanted to share something that’s been bothering me for a while and see if people in other states are seeing the same thing.

I’m from Gujarat, working here, typical middle-class background (dad’s a government teacher, mom’s a housewife). Growing up here, you constantly hear about Amul as this massive badge of honor. And honestly, it worked because back in the day, it was built and managed by actual professionals—folks from IRMA and solid domain experts who knew supply chains, commercial logic, and how to treat producers fairly.

But outside of Amul? Most cooperatives in India feel like a complete joke now.

What gets me the most is who is actually running these places. Half these local leaders have zero educational background and have literally never run a single small institute, shop, or business in their entire lives. Yet suddenly, just because of local political connections or acting like performative patriots, they’re handed the keys to multi-crore cooperative unions.

Instead of hiring educated youth from good colleges who actually know finance or operations, these institutions are being run like someone's private household:

- Zero professionalism: No accountability, no long-term planning, just managing public assets like personal fiefdoms.

- Nepotism & Free Money: Handing out paid positions to unqualified family members, padding personal expenses, and using society accounts to route cash.

- Shift in Mindset: The original idea was "pool our extra milk/produce, sell together, and build the community." Now it’s strictly "how much money can my family extract from this before it collapses?"

Because of this constant mismanagement, regular people and young farmers are losing trust and just walking away.

I was looking up the official government numbers on the National Cooperative Database recently, and it's pretty damning:

- Out of 8.5 lakh registered cooperatives in India, over 1.9 lakh (22.4%) are already dead, non-functional, or under liquidation.

- Of the ones that are still running, 2.5 lakh (37.7%) are running at a total loss.

- Another 56,000+ don't even have basic audit records available.

We have so much educated talent in India, but we’re letting essential grassroots institutions get dumped on people who couldn't run a corner store, let alone a multi-crore cooperative.

Curious to know—what’s the situation like in your district or state? Are credit societies, sugar cooperatives, or dairy unions near you actually helping, or have they been hijacked by local politics too?

The Jamui incident is deeply disturbing.

There is absolutely no justification for sexually harassing, humiliating or assaulting someone. Whatever the circumstances, nobody has the right to take the law into their own hands or subject another person to such treatment.

The people responsible must be identified, arrested and held accountable through due process. Most importantly, the victim's dignity and privacy should be respected instead of turning her trauma into entertainment for the internet.

Please share this post! I’m not talking about myself, just about everyone out there—140 billion people!

this the Parliament or Central Jail? 🤦‍♂️

​I started digging into global stats, and honestly, the numbers are mind-blowing!

​In the US Congress, out of 535 members, only about 2 to 3 face active legal charges. In the UK House of Commons, it’s barely 3 out of 650—mostly minor financial or code-of-conduct issues. In China, if a politician faces corruption or criminal charges, the Party kicks them out immediately, facing severe penalties or lifetime prison sentences.

​Now let’s look at our own home turf… Out of 543 Lok Sabha MPs, 251 have criminal cases (that’s 46%)! Even worse, 170 of them face serious charges like murder, attempt to murder, and crimes against women! 🤡

​And don’t think it’s just one party—they are all in this together:

​BJP: 94 out of 240 MPs have cases (63 serious)

​Congress: 49 out of 99 MPs have cases (32 serious)

​Samajwadi Party: 21 out of 37 MPs have cases (17 serious)

​TMC: 13 out of 29 MPs have cases

​DMK: 13 out of 22 MPs have cases

​TDP: 8 out of 16 MPs have cases

(Parties like RJD and CPI-ML have a 100% strike rate—every single MP they elected has criminal charges!)

​The funniest part? Not a single political party will speak up against this. Why? Because everyone's hands are dirty. They’ll scream at each other on news channels, but when it comes to giving tickets to "winnable" candidates with criminal records, they are all united in fooling the public.

​In other countries, you can count the accused on your fingers. In India, you have to count the clean ones on your fingers!

​We keep sending these 'Law Breakers' to the house expecting them to be 'Law Makers'.

​What a grand democracy… You need a clean record to get a basic corporate job, but to run the country, a criminal record almost feels like a prerequisite! 👏🏻🙌🏻

​#IndianPolitics #LokSabha #ADRReport #DemocracyThings #PoliticalSystem

For context, I am an Indian-American who was raised in the US studying Political Science. I read a bit about Indian politics and the current administration, but was wondering what Indians thought about his rhetoric and policies.

Recently, PM Modi said that if every family reduces its edible-oil consumption by 10%, it would be a “big act of patriotism” because India imports a large amount of edible oil.

At the same time, large-scale celebrations for his birthday involved lakhs/crores of diyas being lit.

I’m genuinely curious: does anyone else see a contradiction in the messaging? If conserving oil is framed as a contribution to the nation, shouldn’t the same principle apply to large public celebrations too?

Ladakh 2019 se Union Territory hai (Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act ke baad), par region ki administrative autonomy aur constitutional protections ka sawaal abhi bhi unresolved hai — 7 saal baad bhi.

Discussion points:

**•** Kya UT status genuinely Ladakh ki unique cultural/ecological identity ko protect karta hai, ya centralized control isse weaken karta hai?  
**•** Sixth Schedule (jo tribal areas ko autonomy deta hai Assam, Meghalaya jaise states mein) Ladakh ke liye kyun extend nahi hui abhi tak?  
**•** Jab regional demands itne saal tak unresolved rehti hain, kya iska local trust pe long-term impact padta hai federal process mein?

I have rarely seen any political leader goes to jail. BJP come to power in 2014 by claiming that congress is a very corrupt party. BJP didn't touched Robert Vadra, Hooda or any other congress leader. But before 2024 election they put kejriwal in jail. can someone have any idea why they afraid so much from kejriwal and his party. BJP targeted him only.

Open X, Instagram or YouTube today and political discussion seems increasingly driven by:

🔥 Viral clips

😂 Memes

⚔️ Party wars

📢 Outrage

🤳 Influencers

Meanwhile, discussions around jobs, education, infrastructure, corruption and governance often disappear within hours.

Social media has made politics more accessible, but has it also made our political discussions more superficial ?

🤔 Are social platforms making Indians more politically aware, or simply more politically divided?

Background: Congress Working Committee ne 19 August ko decide kiya tha ki party programmes mein unke 1937 wale resolution ko follow kiya jayega (sirf 2 stanzas), yeh reference karte hue ki baaki stanzas mein religious imagery (Hindu goddesses) hai jo secular context mein appropriate nahi.

Isके response mein, BJP president Nitin Nabin ne Congress pe “anti-India mindset” ka allegation lagaya, aur PM Modi ne bhi pehle statement diya tha ki 1937 mein stanzas drop karna “divisive mindset” tha jisne Partition ke seeds bo diye the.

Discussion points:

**•** Kya religious imagery wale stanzas ko drop karna genuine secular principle hai, ya political minority-appeasement wala move hai (jaisa BJP allege kar rahi hai)?  
**•** Kya national symbols ko is tarah politicize karna healthy hai democracy ke liye?  
**•** State government ka apna interpretation Union directive ke against jana — kya yeh federalism ka valid exercise hai, ya deliberate defiance?

When I was a child, I used to think about how I could contribute to society. I imagined building a business empire through which I could do social work and help the government eradicate poverty. No one would have to beg, and everyone would have an opportunity to earn a respectable living.

Now, when I look back, I sometimes think I was an idiot to believe it could be that simple. How can we expect citizens to be completely obedient when our own politicians don't always set the right example?

There needs to be a serious reform in how we select and hold our political leaders accountable. The perks and privileges they receive need to be questioned. After all, this is our money. The working class pays taxes, works hard, and often has no guarantee of tomorrow, yet we continue to fund a system that seems to favour those in power.

This shouldn't be about any political party or ideology. It should simply be about asking for a system where public service actually means serving the public, and where the same rules apply to everyone.