Maragatham

69 posts

Maragatham banner
Maragatham

Maragatham

@bhoomiputraa

Find my books @ https://t.co/YXqELEgT5y Light In The Forest (4 Hindu Kids) + Its Not For Nothing That We Stand For Something (4 Hindu Parents)

[email protected] Katılım Haziran 2019
946 Takip Edilen3.3K Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Maragatham
Maragatham@bhoomiputraa·
Friends, I'm back for a cheesy ad campaign. I need help hitting some bare minimum targets- 1. Please Buy/Gift the books 2. Post a review if you've got the books (& if u liked them😊) 3. Leave comments/ratings on Amazon Thank u all 4 yr support over the yrs... Links are below 🙏🙏
Maragatham tweet media
English
1
1
12
374
Maragatham
Maragatham@bhoomiputraa·
Hey Audrey, Caldwell, Wendy, Pollock, self-hating Hs, We see thro you...
Maragatham tweet media
English
1
1
6
119
Maragatham retweetledi
Upword
Upword@upword_·
Everyone asks why BJP has turned Ambedkarite. We already showed in an earlier Pinpoint video that they’re trapped in a Nash Equilibrium. But what are the immutable laws of political power that forced them into it? This video explores the issue: youtu.be/b0FUf5cyB_8
YouTube video
YouTube
English
2
45
95
9.1K
Maragatham
Maragatham@bhoomiputraa·
Thank you ReadwriteInc 🙏
Maragatham tweet media
English
1
1
3
290
Maragatham
Maragatham@bhoomiputraa·
Do you wish you could do something for all the HINOs in your life?
Maragatham tweet media
English
1
1
6
234
Maragatham
Maragatham@bhoomiputraa·
@CivitasSameer nice one. at every instance we hv 2 specify that the 'historic injustice' was done by the colonial state & not tradition. it was the IR that impoverished communities of hand & land. it was the colonial state that nationalizd their natural resources & criminalized their activities
English
0
0
0
65
Sameer Rao
Sameer Rao@CivitasSameer·
Here's an interesting question: What is the defining metric for the abolition of caste-based reservations? What is the exit threshold, beyond which the state does not interfere in society? The contemporary debate on reservations in India reveals a profound structural contradiction within the republic, where a policy originally conceived as a temporary corrective mechanism for historical injustice has gradually hardened into a permanent feature of the political and institutional landscape. Reservations were envisioned, in the spirit articulated by B. R. Ambedkar, as a form of institutional band-aid, a necessary but provisional remedy applied to a deep civilizational wound, intended to stabilise society while more fundamental healing took place. However, a band-aid that is left in place indefinitely ceases to serve its purpose and instead risks aggravating the very condition it was meant to treat. In the Indian context, what was meant to be temporary has acquired permanence, transforming reservations from an instrument of justice into an embedded structure within the political economy of democracy. This transformation has far-reaching consequences because it alters political incentives, encouraging actors across ideological lines to treat caste identities not as social divisions to be dissolved but as electoral resources to be mobilised, thereby producing a system of caste-mediated competitive populism. Democratic competition in such a framework becomes less about universal policy articulation and more about the strategic consolidation of caste blocs, which entrenches caste consciousness within the functioning of the state itself and creates a paradox in which a constitutionally egalitarian republic operates through deeply stratified social logics that resemble feudal patterns of organisation in the persistence of inherited status, group loyalty, and ascriptive hierarchy as determinants of political power. This structural condition is further reinforced by the failure of the post independence state to undertake the foundational transformations necessary to weaken caste as a social force. There has been a persistent lack of investment in universal public education, equitable urbanisation, labour-intensive industrialisation, and meaningful mechanisms of social integration, all of which are essential for dissolving entrenched social hierarchies. In the absence of such structural reforms, reservations have come to function as a relatively low-cost substitute for deeper socio-economic transformation, allowing the state to signal a commitment to social justice while avoiding the far more demanding task of dismantling the underlying conditions that reproduce inequality. Yet any argument that proposes to simply tear off this band-aid without first healing the wound is both analytically flawed and politically reckless. Caste remains a lived and materially consequential reality that continues to shape access to opportunity, social mobility, occupational patterns, and exposure to violence, particularly outside insulated urban environments. Removing reservations under such conditions would not produce a neutral or meritocratic order but would instead risk reopening the wound in a more severe form, exposing historically marginalised communities to the full force of structural inequality without institutional protection. The debate must therefore move beyond the simplistic binary of retention versus abolition and instead confront the more rigorous and intellectually honest question of defining the conditions under which the band aid can be safely removed. This requires the articulation of clear and measurable criteria grounded in empirical reality, including parity in higher education representation, convergence in income and wealth across caste groups, the erosion of caste-based occupational segmentation, a sustained decline in caste-targeted violence, and tangible indicators of social integration such as inter-caste marriage and residential mixing. Without such benchmarks, the discourse on reservations remains politically charged but conceptually hollow, driven more by rhetoric than by a serious engagement with structural transformation. While proponents of rapid modernisation often invoke figures such as Vinayak Damodar Savarkar or historical transformations such as those led by Emperor Meiji during the Meiji Restoration to argue that industrialisation and urbanisation can dissolve traditional hierarchies, such comparisons must be approached with caution because economic transformation, while necessary, does not automatically eliminate deeply embedded social identities in a society as complex as India. The most coherent position, therefore, is one that avoids both cynical reductionism and idealistic naivety by recognising that reservations are neither a permanent solution nor an expendable policy that can be discarded at will. They are a band-aid that has remained in place because the deeper surgery has not yet been performed. The real critique is not directed at the existence of reservations alone but at a state that has substituted the management of symptoms for the resolution of causes, thereby allowing a temporary remedy to become a permanent negotiation with an unresolved historical condition. The central and unavoidable question that must guide future policy is not simply whether reservations should continue or end, but what precise and measurable threshold of social equality must be achieved before the band-aid can be removed without tearing the fabric of the republic itself.
Sameer Rao tweet mediaSameer Rao tweet mediaSameer Rao tweet media
English
9
7
38
3.6K
Maragatham
Maragatham@bhoomiputraa·
This. and to piggyback on this ->
Maragatham tweet media
English
1
1
5
267
Maragatham
Maragatham@bhoomiputraa·
Thank you Rahul Ji and Suketu Ji 🙏🙏
Maragatham tweet media
Indonesia
0
0
3
117
Maragatham
Maragatham@bhoomiputraa·
Do you have an extra 500 bucks to donate today to a dharmic cause? Get Renewing Eternity from NotionPress and 100% of the proceeds goes to INDICA. You *dont* have to read my book. Give it away if you want. Just donate to INDICA here 🙏🙏-> notionpress.com/in/read/renewi…
English
0
1
4
131
Benny Johnson
Benny Johnson@bennyjohnson·
Vivek Ramaswamy Is Dead Wrong on What it Means to Be an American Yesterday, Vivek said you can’t just move to France and become French or Japan and become Japanese or Italy and become Italian etc. He’s right. BUT then… Vivek makes the obscene argument that all 9 billion people on earth can all move to America and magically become “American” No. This ideology is cancer. 1. Being an American is not about how quickly the government can issue you paperwork. It's a heritage. A tradition forged in centuries of sacrifice of our forefathers who settled and built this land. Who built America? The answer is European Christians. For the first 200 years +90% of the American population were Christian settlers from the European continent. We also fought in the wars, built the infrastructure, created the economy and culture. These are facts. To ignore them is intellectual dishonesty and disrespect. What’s worse than ignoring our founding culture is the argument that other cultures are worth preserving and ours is not. 2. Why is Chinese, French, Japanese or German culture distinct and sacred, yet American culture, which has been the dominant force here since the 1600s, is to be discarded and replaced? A Nation is its people. If you took all the Japanese out of Japan, it wouldn’t be Japan anymore. If Japanese people became a vanishing minority in Japan, it wouldn’t be Japan anymore. If America becomes a UN refugee camp of infinite foreign enclaves, each one with their own alien traditions and allegiances and languages, we will atomize American culture. These comments reveal a worldview that America is simply an economic taxation zone to be strip mined of all resources by globalists and foreign fraudsters. I disavow this. To be an effective leader you must first love and treasure the people that you are leading. It’s ok to want to keep America American. 🇺🇸
English
1.3K
1.8K
8.3K
748.4K
Maragatham
Maragatham@bhoomiputraa·
Yes
Maragatham tweet media
SANATAN@Eternaldharma_

His body had wasted away piece by piece. His ribs had begun to show. He no longer had the strength even to move. When the British saw that this 25-year-old young man would not break, they tried to force-feed him by thrusting a tube through his nose. The tube entered his lungs instead of his food pipe. Milk filled his lungs. He writhed in agony, vomited blood, but still refused to end his hunger strike. On 13 September 1929, inside Lahore Jail, a revolutionary gave his life. For 63 days yes, 63 days he had not eaten a single grain of food. History often remembers the hanging of Bhagat Singh, but forgets the comrade who died in Bhagat Singh’s arms. That revolutionary was Jatindra Nath Das known across India as Jatin Da. He was an expert in making bombs, but in the end, his greatest weapon became his own body. He could have apologized. He could have accepted food. He could have saved his life. But he had only one demand: “Stop treating Indian political prisoners like animals.” The British believed hunger would crush his spirit. They did not realize that this was not a body made of flesh alone it was forged in iron. As his condition worsened, the British crossed every limit of cruelty. Prison doctors and guards pinned him down. They forced a tube into his nose. He screamed in pain, but his resolve never trembled. When news of his martyrdom reached the public, the nation wept. It is said that as his body was carried from Lahore to Calcutta, thousands stood at every railway station with flowers in their hands. In Calcutta, more than 600,000 people joined his funeral procession. Subhas Chandra Bose himself helped carry his body on his shoulders. But today, how many still remember that 63-day sacrifice? Before his death, Jatin Da reportedly said: “I am no saint. I am simply an ordinary man who wishes to die for the dignity of his country.” People may debate how India won freedom. But one truth cannot be denied: The foundations of that freedom were laid upon the withered bones of young men like Jatin Da. India’s freedom was not charity. Someone paid for it with his youth, his pain, and 63 days of unimaginable suffering. Every Indian should know the price of the air they breathe today.

1
1
4
294