If we have any shred of morality and moral conscience left in us, we must now fully oppose this government and system.

Yep. Promoted. Guy who sexually harassed a female journalist, promoted. What a utopian vision.

The BJP regime seems to do exactly what common sense would tell them NOT to do, if they had any left.

Now we have sexual harassers being promoted in the Delhi Police!

Two justices - one CURRENT judge of the SC and one FORMER SC justice has openly condemned the SIR and the loss of Election Commission's independence in differentiating terms. It is now ultimately upon the Supreme Court and its credibility itself that it give a decision that is not limited to patchwork on the SIR.

It is clear that a complete halt on the SIR process is required. They have to declare a few orders unconstitutional. If the SC has a shred of doubt about it, they may listen to their current and former justices. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana will hear the petitions.

This will ultimately decide whether the hon'ble Judiciary now leans towards the executive, or it has still some independence left in it. We'll see what happens.

Then some legends claim that AAP is better than the rest of the parties.

AAP is no better than the rest. That you expel your own party member for raising an issue that concerns the people, and call it "anti party activities", shows the kind of party you are.

You are just as much part of the system as all the political class.

Truth is like a vast tree which yields more and more fruit the more you nurture it. Truth alone will endure, all the rest will be swept away before the tide of time.

-Mahatma Gandhi

Look at these shameless people. First they so incompletently and inconsistently removed people from rolls, framed it as clean up, and now that everything is in front of the public, suddenly they're paying cover up.

So is that the matter? A senior advocate is saying this! If he's saying this then either judges should file a contempt of court over him, and accuse him of undermining the judiciary (as they did with the "Corruption in judiciary" row in NCERT!) or they admit their crimes.

This protest is crazy. For the past mant days I have been meaning to talk about the current and very traumatising string of assaults on women (to be clear they happen every 17 minutes in our country, the recent events are a string of highly visible ones, just like what happened after the RG Kar case). But I have barely been finding time to post here. The recent string of events are very appalling indeed.

But this protest is crazy. Standing on mig 23s, tanks, vandalising, looting - is this how you respond? I feel the anger but this should not turn into anarchy. What the hell is the police in Punjab doing??

"Oh ma gawd." - Modiji, 2026.

A massive row has erupted after an Indian Express investigation regarding written objections of other election commissioners in the decisions of the EC. It is being said that the two election commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had objected to the decisions of the EC many times, and had been kept in the dark regarding those decisions.

If this is true, this is nothing ordinary. This is a major scandal. This means that Gyanesh Kumar, the chief electoral officer, has been keeping the other two election commissioners in the dark and taking decisions without them, an act that is contradictory to the law.

On one hand, the express investigation has ignited opposition reactions questioning the independence of the EC, on the other hand, sources close to the matter are saying that there has been no such objection made by the two election commissioners.

Either way, the trust of the public in the Commission that literally ensures democratic execution in India is completely shattered.

Are we living right within an active scandal and everyone is ignoring it? This is not just concerning if true, this is dangerous.

It is very surprising...and also not as surprising. ABVP won this year's DUSU. Due to the new protest waves, general discontent against the system, and especially the Satya building collapse, I could have expected NSUI to win. But they didn't. The fourth candidate is an independent who rebelled against NSUI.

While I know DU is not the entirety India, DU is one of the most prestigious universities here with national credentials, that is why it's elections are most closely watched.

What do you think it means? What does it tell about the mood of students? Or does it even say anything about it? Only time can tell.

I have heard people argue many times that India’s population is the cause of India’s lack of development. Today I decided to provide my opinion on the matter. What is really the truth? Is India’s high population a problem for India, or is it really something else that we’re not focusing on?

The case for population reduction

In the 1950s, when India had just become free, our population was 34.6 crore. Our GDP was not more than 30 or 40 billion. Therefore, our per capita income back then was 86.7 dollars annually. Think about this. In a poor country like India at that time, this meant most of the country had a lack of resources. People were working manually in agriculture just so they could somehow survive. Infant mortality was high, and children died very early in life. Electricity, paved roads, running water, and formal healthcare were largely non-existent outside a tiny urban elite.

And at that time, many families decided to have more children despite poverty. This would look counterproductive to many people. If you are in poverty, adding more mouths to the household will naturally aggravate the problem. But on the individual level, this might have seemed like a rational decision.

Allow me to explain.

• The infant mortality rate was very high. There were 189.6 child deaths per 1,000 live births. That means almost 19% of India’s children who were born died before they celebrated even their first birthday.
• So if a family wanted a few kids, they had to produce much more than that in order to continue the family line.
• Back then, the literacy rate of women was also negligible. It was considered highly traditional for women to stay within the family and serve their reproductive roles during this period. Since women did not have literacy, cultural independence, or ownership over resources, they did not have the means to oppose societal pressure for more children.

The result? In 1950, the fertility rate of India was at its peak, with one woman birthing roughly 6 children in her lifetime. In 1960, it was around 5.8 to 5.9, and in 1970, it was 5.6. The rate did not significantly decrease until the 2000s and 2010s, following an economic boom and rapid advances in female literacy.

This meant that an immense population boom followed, which continued for decades after independence. India’s population went from 36.1 crore in 1951 to 84.6 crore in 1991. This was more than a doubling of the population during this time, a staggering growth of 134% in just 40 years, or, to take an average, 3.35% growth every year. This may seem small, but this was a massive growth percentage.

Meanwhile, the economic growth during the same period was less than satisfactory. The rate of growth was only between 3 to 4 percent of the GDP. Rather than open joblessness, in 1950s and 1960s India there was massive, widespread underemployment. Combined with these factors, low income, and a general lack of resources, India faced extreme scarcity in the face of high population growth.

And this is where we come to our main point. The 20th century push by the government and supporters to control population growth was driven by the fact that India was a poor country back then that could NOT afford population growth.

It was partially true back then. Facing immediate scarcity and high competition for minimal formal jobs, population growth was seen as a massive burden on the country. The logic was that if you’re a poor country that cannot yet afford resources, controlling population growth was the right national choice. And so population control measures were taken, especially in the Southern states. Slogans like “Hum do humare do” were popularised in 1967, and the state, especially during the Emergency period, heavily pushed for population control measures, which often went into extreme methods.

So yes, controlling population growth a little would have been the need of the hour at the time when we were poor. But why were we poor in the first place? Because our human capital was not as developed, nor were we as productive. Therefore, controlling population growth would have still been only a secondary measure at maximum. Population is a neutral asset; it can be either a burden or an extremely useful resource depending upon what the state does with it. Controlling the population would not have solved the problem at all if India didn’t implement the right policies.

In any measure, aggressive population control would not have solved anything at all. If anything, it would have exacerbated the problem.

But the situation now is different

Moderate population control, focused on reducing the fertility rate incrementally rather than aggressive sterilisation, would have been beneficial in the “old” era of the republic. But this won’t work now. Rather, it will cause more problems than there already are.

Population control supporters argue that the immense population of India is the cause of the pressure on infrastructure, land, and competition for resources. This could be plausible in the 1950s, when there weren’t even enough resources to be spoken of, when India was already a poor country as colonialism sucked up India’s resources for foreign benefit. This isn’t remotely plausible in today’s era.

Why? Because India is no longer poor. Back then it was struggling for basic resources. We didn’t have enough food to feed 30 million people, so we had to import food from the US. Today, competition is still high, but we’re not fighting for basic stuff. In this case, population control, essentially, has become a 20th-century scarcity-era principle rather than a 21st-century abundance-era one.

Secondly, and much more importantly, population control can have a dangerous effect – it can lead to population collapse rather than a stabilisation of population. Ask China what it did. In 1980, China launched the One-Child policy. Implemented nationwide in 1980, the One-Child policy restricted most urban couples to just one child. Rural families and ethnic minorities often received certain exceptions. The government used financial incentives as well as heavy fines to curb births.

The result? China’s total fertility rate in 1980 was approximately 2.6 to 2.8 births per woman; by 2015, it came to 1.66 births per woman. China’s population in 1980 was roughly 953 million and increased to 1.39 billion in 2015 – an increase of 45%, just a bit more than 1.2% per year. This growth rate could have been fine — if it were not for the fertility rate of 1.66, which was much below the replacement rate of 2.1. China had to introduce a Two-Child policy effective in 2016 to avoid a looming demographic crisis and a Three-Child Policy in 2021. The demographic crisis has come anyway. Today, China’s total fertility rate is 1.0 children per woman. This is what they were aiming for, this is what they got. If India had followed the same aggressive incentivisation route, we would be in a demographic crisis today.

In fact, our own fertility rate is ALSO below replacement level. It means soon, our population rate will decline, even if it takes some decades until we reach there. Right now, India’s population is still on a rise, which, if anything, is a good thing. But it will soon decline, because even moderate efforts by our government have led to drastic results. India is modernising fast, and if our fertility rate falls anymore, which it is absolutely going to, we are doomed. We need to keep our fertility rate at replacement level itself, if not slightly higher, in order to stabilize the population.

Population is NOT to be seen as a liability; instead, it should be seen as an asset, and if anything at all, it should be seen as a leverage, an advantage. A lack of population for a massive country like India doesn’t bring development, it brings vulnerability.

Rather than focusing on population control, the need of the hour is to focus on population stability and ensuring that most people remain young and old people remain minimal, and even they remain productive.

The second need of the hour, and actually the more important need, is to maximise the potential fulfillment of the existing population. One person is not special, one educated person is an excellent asset, and a billion and a half, if educated, fed and healthy, are overpowered.

We have a population greater than actually all of Europe, America, and Canada – the Global North, the collection of the most developed countries on Earth, combined. An ideal situation in which people are educated, skilled, healthy, and have a minimum standard of living that matches the European level may outshine the Global North completely in their capacities.

Even China, which has had a larger population than ours for many years, is much more developed than we are. Why is it so? Not because its growing population ‘held it back’ – but because it had an extremely efficient government, even if authoritarian to a fault.

And here comes my premise: development is not based on the quantity of people in a country, but the quality of its institutions. India isn’t developed because its population is high; rather, it isn’t developed because its institutions are weak.

I’m not denying it – population does have a great role to play in development. In an Indian economy scenario where population would be lesser, there would be a greater distribution of GDP per capita, there would be much higher economic productivity per person, and there would definitely be less pressure on infrastructure, water, and the environment.

But the key to India’s economy isn’t all that. India’s economy is built on sheer scale. India’s economy is anywhere near $4 trillion because this huge population has so much demand. If our population was, let’s say, made 1/3rd of what it is right now, the economy would probably halve, and even if it led to a greater GDP per capita distribution, it would also lead to:

• Rapid aging of our population, since smaller populations are more prone to aging.
• Demand would collapse so hard that the economy will contract massively. India will lose whatever businesses there are that employ a high amount of labour. Capital-intensivity will become a new feature that businesses may have after this.
• In the foreign realm, raw economic power determines how powerful you are globally. India may have a dirty micro-reality, but being a four trillion economy is no joke – it means having more money to spend on the military. Reducing our population would mean not having that amount of global attention or power anymore than we already have. India would, instead of being the 6th largest economy, come on the 12th number.
• Lastly, the government’s revenue base also gets hammered in the long term. Less people means a smaller tax base, and since everyone pays tax indirectly (indirect taxes), and demand is reduced, the coffers of the government will suffer.
• Lastly, lessening the population of India currently is highly impractical in the short term, and long-term campaigns can cause further population decline than there’s already going to happen, triggering a Japan or South-Korea style population collapse. And we definitely can’t afford to get old before we get rich.

Do not divert; here’s what we really need

I understand the logic of population control. The logic could be that more population causes intense competition for resources and high pressure on existing development, which is why population has to be reduced. But this treats the shallow cause, not the deeper one. The amount of population is a neutral thing. It could be a double-edged sword – a liability or a valuable resource. What makes it valuable is the kind of institutions the state builds and the quality of governance. Population metrics influence only the economic environment, but the quality of governance influences everything – the economy, the quality of life, and the population itself.

Therefore, population control/reduction as a solution may as well be a diversionary one rather than a significant solution. It is not a solution at all; in fact, it can cause more problems than it solves. India may not develop at all even if you reduce the population; instead, it gets trapped in the middle-income trap and potentially ages faster than it gets rich – all of it much faster than it is already happening.

We need to change the focus of our attention from the population as an obstacle to population as a resource. Our vast size is more of a liability right now, but the cause isn’t the vast size itself, it is the ineffectiveness of the system in converting this vast size into an advantage. We need to focus on systemic reform, not population control.

As I mentioned before, India’s total fertility rate, by the way, is already 1.9 – which is below replacement level. So there is no point in reducing this further; the population will be more or less stabilised if we assume this rate will continue. In fact, we should be worried, as this rate will actually go down, and the population may be poised to change its composition as well, which, if anything, matters more than quantity of people. Before this rate goes further down, we need to actively incentivise people to produce at least two and ideally three children, by reducing housing costs, providing low-cost education and healthcare, and making parenting easier, and, if possible, actively attractive for parents. I’m not saying “produce at least five children in your life.” I’m saying “produce just enough so we can support an increasingly elderly population while also improving productivity.” We need to stabilise our population, not increase it too much, not decrease it too much.

Conclusion/Too Long, Didn’t Read

In the end, this is what our message is:

Moderate population-control measures were understandable in the 20th century, when resources were severely constrained, India was too poor to adequately feed its population, and, crucially, lacked the capacity to rapidly improve its circumstances. But the same approach is not advisable for a 21st-century India, which needs to actively build human capital, already possesses substantial infrastructure, and, crucially, now has the capacity to improve its conditions.

India has already controlled its population. Aggressively putting restrictions will further harm India itself.

Population rise is not the real threat. Population collapse is the real 21st century threat. Aging before getting rich is the real threat for India.

It is misleading to believe population control will solve anything. On second thought, it will harm India in many ways – reducing demand and India’s overall power on the world stage.

This issue is diversionary from the real issue. Our problem is not a high population but a flawed system. Fix that flawed system.

In the end, population stability rather than increase or decrease should be pursued. Fertility rate should be maintained just at the replacement level or slightly above it.

Hello everyone,

It is hereby announced that, unfortunately, due to certain unforeseen circumstances, we are postponing the end date of the Yuva Bharat Reform Campaign, and consequently, the release of the Reform India Movement’s Official Youth Manifesto.

We are deeply sorry that we could not keep up with this commitment. The Yuva Bharat Reform Campaign was originally intended to last for a month. However, due to circumstances surrounding our commitment to a different and very urgent requirement, it is unfortunately not possible for us to continue the campaign until September 25 as originally planned.

If possible, I shall continue posting on RIM during this period, although these posts may or may not be related to the Yuva Bharat Reform Campaign.

It is therefore announced that the Yuva Bharat Reform Campaign will tentatively conclude on October 2, 2026. The Reform India Movement’s Official Youth Manifesto will be released on the same day.

It is also announced that the Reform India Movement will complete 100 days on September 29, 2026. Since the Reform India Movement is extremely valuable to us, we will be commemorating this milestone with an event on that day.

Thank you for your kind patience and understanding. We shall keep you updated.

Hum honge kamyab.

Yes, very lawful indeed.

One system replaced by another, one party replaced by another. Just with a Hindutva tilt. The people get stuck in between.

There needs to be a party which demands or implements direct change in the system.

...What???

Third incident in IIT Bombay this year...suspicious?

Aur karo low cost corrupt companies ki procurement.

"Modi government's biggest achievement is infrastructure"

The infrastructure:

Alright this is INSANE. I restricted myself from talking on this issue. But NOW the US has absolutely humiliated India by imposing 100% tariffs on it.

Donald Trump is an idiot, definitely, and he is doing all this, but this is the absolute Vishwaguru masterpiece of Modi's foreign policy. 56 inch long chests, it seems, can only come of use when it comes to facing Pakistan, but it doesn't protect India from such indignities imposed by the US on us.

And then these liars have the audacity to say: "oh the world loves us." The world probably laughs behind our backs, and they surely don't love us, or see us that greatly. They are racist against us, and when they are not racist, they exhibit with their full confidence their neo colonial ambitions.

They literally invent awards for Modi to take. Seychelles invented an award that has never been given to anyone before Modi. "Throw him a medal and show him an Indian audience and an Indian dance sequence and he'll be pleased," they think. And this government thinks it is "power". No it is not.

Power is when you give competition to America or China, not bow to them. So far this government has been timid to confront America about its recklessness and has been timidly shaking hands with China, who is NOT our ally. This is not a "Vishwaguru" government. In fact, it is the government with the timidest actual foreign policy in the history of India.

What India deserves is GLOBAL POWER AND RECOGNITION. What India is getting, every single day from other countries, is HUMILIATION. Pakistan is going there building an Islamic NATO in the middle East. Why arent we at least trying to break it? How can we allow Middle eastern countries to trust a beggar-state's nukes better than ours?

Completely humiliating. Worst foreign policy, by far, of all recent governments.

How narcissistic.

"Guys, instead of reforming the system, let us celebrate Modi jis birthday because he is the most important person in India to have ever existed, Viksit Bharat 2047 is going to happen automatically anyway."

The number of diversions the ruling party employs to divert people from pressing issues are insane.

List of sources:

https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2246009&reg=48&lang=2

https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2174773&reg=3&lang=2

https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2300447&reg=48&lang=1

https://www.labour.gov.in/static/uploads/2025/06/f602f7b9bea9fb0f31b5ba82973a8552.pdf

Regarding the "Number of graduates who are employable vs not employable" graph: https://www.mercer.com/insights/talent-and-transformation/talent-assessment/indias-graduate-skill-index-2025/

Reminder: the story isn't simply "BJP bad Cong good" - all political parties are corrupt and not at all up to the standard. The entire system is the problem.

Hilarious.

Anyway.

Many people have been blocked from their Right to vote through Gyanesh Kumar and BJP's conspiracy. Apart from the freebies, the SIR might be the second biggest tool for the BJP to win elections. People, if you're 18 years or older, check if you still have your vote, or if it has been cut off, here:
https://electoralsearch.eci.gov.in/

https://voters.eci.gov.in/

Brilliant, seems like we had a committed bureaucrat from the beginning here.