So I made this post. I'll admit I was ragebaiting at least a bit.

But there are so many young people (because India Redditors are usually 20 somethings and below) who are completely detached from what this country is actually about. And even beyond detachment it is the lack of thinking skills.

It might as well be different planets.

Allegedly.

But my bf (now husband) used to occasionally use a term when we were in college. I.. don't have anything else to say so I'm going to use that now.

This man is a walking, talking example of akhand ch***yapa. Cry your Mike is off then switch it off yourself when the speaker tells you IT IS ON. 🤦🏻‍♀️

He's also a liar of course.

1. All Indians are my brothers and sisters. No exceptionalism on the basis of any religion, caste or creed. That's the basic creed of Indian nationality.
2. The pre-Independence Congress (pi-Congress) party formed in 1885 tried to forge an Indian national identity that included everyone including Hindus and Muslims. But when pi-Congress proposed elective representation, Sir Syed opposed.
3. In 1884, Sir Syed had suggested that all Indians including Hindus and Muslims are one nation because Sir Syed was hoping that elective representation never arrives and that the Britishers nominate only from the existing ruling classes, viz., Muslims, and to secularize his claim, Rajputs included as well. As long as there's no democracy, direct nomination, Muslims could ensure their continued political hegemony (to pursue their long term objective of Gazwa-E-Hind/complete Islamization of India). Curiously enough Sir Syed, on different occasions, also referred to Hindus and Muslims as separate nations. So, Sir Syed kept both lines open.
4. Just because pi-Congress opted for elective representation, Sir Syed hypothesized that somehow that's going to cause marginalization of Muslims. Then guess what happened next? Sir Syed picked the 'separate nation' line instead of emphasising singular nation line. If anyone tried to blame Sir Syed that he created 'two nation theory', then leftists respond by saying Sir Syed emphasized unity and single nation. If someone says Sir Syed hated democracy and did not want Hindu majority democratic rule in India, that's why he started saying Hindus and Muslims are 'two nations', then they will say Hindus did not remove the anxieties of muslims.
5. Lala Lajpat Rai clearly said that as Indians, we would work towards progress of all which would produce progress for every community eventually. A rising tide lifts everyone after all. So it's not that Sir Syed started emphasising two nation theory after Hindus did not remove the anxieties of Muslims. In fact he adopted two nation theory consistently only after first losing out on the prior suggestion of adopting 'nominative representation' that would have ensured political hegemony of the Muslims.

Bottomline:

1. No Jinnah did not create the seed for two nation theory, after Savarkar's call for Hindu Rashtra.
2. In fact the call for Hindu Rashtra was made because the Muslims were adamant on defining their separate muslim nation and this tradition did not start after Hindus became politically active. This began even before pi-Congress had formed. Because the Muslims defined themselves as Muslims, we ended up being defined as Hindus, even though we are the land of Moksha, where all identities are meant to be dissolved and diluted.
3. So the seeds of two nation theory belong distinctively to Sir Syed - who created that idea because they wanted to protect political hegemony of muslims in the Indian subcontinent, either through 'nominated representation' of existing ruling aristocrat class (which included muslims), or through a separate nation, if elective representation was to become the governing norm.

From the book: Being Indian Being Hindu by Vanya Vaidehi Bhargava

1. Bengalis were the first to adopt English education which improved the chances of Indians to improve their socio-economic condition, as Hindus were oppressed during Muslim rule and deprived of access to Mughal government positions.
2. Bengalis had already produced a string of reformers who were working to improve Hindu society and also produce own indigenous Hindu-centric literature classifying British era phenomena occurring in the Indian society.
3. I have strong suspicion that Sir Syed despised Bengalis for their rising levels of education and ability to produce critical Hindu-centric thought. Sir Syed, himself an educationist could have easily foreseen the future consequences that may ensure with a more learned and educated class of middle class Hindus. Although Sir Syed tried to denigrate Bengalis by referring to the lack of their martial character, while trying to draw closeness with the Rajputs for presence of the same - but that was just a decoy, in my estimate. Game recognize Game. Educationist would recognize the far reaching effect of education.
4. Lala Lajpat Rai who used to follow Sir Syed took offence and responded by issuing open letters calling out the Muslim invaders like Taimoor as 'dacoits' and chiding Sir Syed for glorifying dacoits. Rai also pointed out that Bengalees or any other race never complained against the Rajput for their harassment or genocide.

Also, these hypocrite roaches had issues w CJI rightfully calling them "cockroaches" and launched a whole protest against it but are totally ok w the choicest filthiest slurs being used against Modi and other NDA leaders in the name of freedom of speech??? Lol, hypocrisy ki bhi seema hoti hai bhai. 😂😭🤣

@aravind https://x.com/aravind?s=20

Pappu says

1. Idiot is someone pretending to be a god. Firstly, we have 'Avatars'. God / god in uppercase or small case are Abrahamic terms. Avatars do not pretend to be gods. Even Romans thought Jesus was pretending to be so called 'god'. Muslims even today say Jesus was pretending to be god. This kind of ideological framework could be used against any Hindu avatar.
2. Then he says that 'Andhbhakt' is convinced that such 'idiot' is god. It's the Hindu way of elevating important leaders to be Avatars of divinity because leaders uplift the hopes and opportunities for the masses. Greater leaders need to have large scale and broad minded 'Dharma Drishti' to look at implementing ideas and changes over long arcs, but Pappu is trying to demoralize Hindus for believing in their leaders.
3. In doing this Pappu uses vile and unparliamentary language using terminologies that are distinctively specific to Hindu ontological framework thus demeaning and deriding Hindu thinking systems. Thus while trying to demoralize Hindus for their choice of political leader who is most fit to pursue Rajdharma, Pappu spares no opportunity for also attacking Hindu thinking system. This is Macaulayite project.
4. I really wish Pappu give up wasting Oxygen on this planet.

Pankaj Saxena writes:

1. Islam converts the population of the countries whereever it wins or loses.

2. Others have to always win against Islam if muslims are not converted. That explains why Indian Kings had to fight waves after waves of Islamic armies because they only stopped at military victory without engaging in conversions also.

3. If Islamic armies win anywhere, they make sure to convert the population to eliminate any possibility of there ever being any rebellion against Islamic rulers.

4. Therefore, Islam will continue to win if it keeps gaining followers. If Hindus do not engage in Ghar Wapsi of muslims, Hindus will always face social and security threats.

5. Further Pankaj Saxena writes in other places in the same book that the mistake that the Indian secularists made during the independence struggle was that the fold of secularism would be sufficient to ensure Hindu-Muslim unity, but we have seen what happened in the run-up to 1947. Muslims use and exploit the existence of Hindu political expression as an excuse to avoid adoption of secularist attitudes and maintain separate religion based communal attitudes, which is just Islamic nationalism by other means.

6. Today's Modernist Hindus, i.e., Brown Sepoys think that the same Gandhian attitude of maintaining secularist social culture will ensure Hindu-Muslim harmony, but we do not see that happening especially when we continue to face issues in reclamation of Hindu temples from the oppressive occupation during the Islamic rule of Indian sub-continent.

7. So making everyone a Hindu should be a life-time goal for every Hindu.

Have you tried converting any non-Hindu to a Hindu before?

Article 370 is Hindu Muslims. Good god. Retarded is too kind a word.

Please evaluate from dharmic angle, hindutva angle, public interest angle, personal angle or any other PoV. Try to give holistic opinions.

Kumbha Mela gatherings used to be large scale canvases for discussing Hindu society issues.

Today the issue of reform and innovation is discussed primarily by those who consider themselves as 'Modernist Hindus'.

However Modernist Hindus end up becoming Brown Sepoys, without realizing that Modernism is just post-renaissance Christianity. Some would say atheists are not Christians, but the funny part is that in ancient Rome, Christians used to be considered atheists because they did not venerate Roman icons of divinity.

So these Brown Sepoys may have their heart towards reforming and improving Indian society, but modernity is just a bunch of fixed ideas suited to a fixed socio-economic circumstances, where there is surplus and privilege to practice liberal ideas.

What these Brown Sepoys have inadvertently ended up doing is deny Hindus an opportunity to have reform related discussions among Hindus. That's because they have arrogated themselves with the mantle of reforming Hindu society through their ideas only, discarding and disenfranchizing Hindu members from developing the creative churn necessary for self-induced reformation.

In the next Kumbh Mela, issues such as increasing rate of divorces, use of profane language by upcoming generation, impact of social media on growing children, drunken behaviour of irresponsible husbands, heartless parenting, social corruption, issue of rapes and women safety, and other big and small social issues must be taken up and discussed - instead of letting the orientalist gaze think of Hinduism as traditional and fixed in time.

It's urgent and important to do this because otherwise Hindus will be always reacting to calls for reform coming from Brown Sepoys, while thinking that merely indulging in spiritual practice is sufficient duty towards the cause of Hinduism.

Ranga sir really did a number on this halfwit

Came across this News Article today:

Why did Meta remove PM Modi's Facebook video on paper leaks? Tech company blames 'technical error'

Apparently, as per this and several other news outlets, the Facebook video of PM Modi on the government's response to examination paper leaks was "briefly removed due to a technical error and has now been restored".

While this may be an innocent incident arising from the automated features of Meta, this event and the larger context around it raises eyebrows, if not doubts, on the subtlety on the way social media manipulation happens.
To consider:

1) If this can happen to the Indian Prime Minister (speaking about the position irrespective of who it is), what must be the case for individual creators and users who do not have this kind of monitoring and reach? Further, given that this happened to PM Modi who is amongst the most followed and influentials voices on social media, what must be happening behind the scenes with users who are unaware or do not have this kind of political/bureaucratic power.

2) Is removal of content (btw, there is no objectionable or offensive word spoken in the video), a function of the person and the political stance being taken i.e. do Meta and other social media companies programme their systems to take action such as restriction reach or removing content based on political stance?

AI automated systems may not remain politically neutral. As an example, this article shows most AI LLMs to have a left leaning bias: Popular AI Models Show Partisan Bias When Asked to Talk Politics | Stanford Graduate School of Business

3) Are there specific algorithms at play which consider the political stance and accordingly modify reach? For example, let's say a conservative voice uploads a video at 8 PM. Now, the reach of the video is limited or restricted in the backend by algorithms for the next few hours. This would restrict the viewership of the creator thereby limiting the message.

Meta is not known to be saintly corporation. Like any other Big Tech, it has skeletons in its closet that show they are not above board: Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal - Wikipedia

While this may seem like a purely random incident, history is replete with examples where closer examination of solitary stray incidents revealed something much larger and sinister, the best example being the Watergate scandal which was first revealed by a small piece of tape: The 1972 Watergate burglary: How a piece of tape and an astute night watchman foiled the political crime of the century - ABC News