ProjectDharma

To be clear — Pulte's sole qualification for this job is that he did abuses of power in an unrelated role overseeing federal mortgage programs.

Hit me with the dirtiest Political Sex Scandal you know!!

when will we as a country stop celebrating competitive exam toppers

No-one said Pāṇini or Yāska was “clueless”, only that they had missed some things or had an understanding of topics that can now be improved upon. Happens all the time in scholarship. If you actually thought of them as human scholars, rather than infallible prophets, this ...

Prime Minister Modi holds a postgraduate degree, but that is beside the point. The real issue is that some people, particularly Arvind Kejriwal, seem unable to reconcile themselves to the fact that a man from a humble background, with no dynastic privilege or elite pedigree, rose to occupy India’s highest elected office through hard work, political acumen, and immense public support. India’s political history is full of examples that prove leadership is not determined by degrees alone. K. Kamaraj, with limited formal education, transformed Tamil Nadu and pioneered the expansion of the Mid-Day Meal Scheme, bringing millions of children into schools. His legacy continues to shape India even today. On the other hand, many who proudly flaunt their educational credentials have little to show for them in public life. Arvind Kejriwal, who never tires of advertising his educational qualifications, left behind a government mired in corruption allegations and administrative failures, eventually losing both his own seat and his party’s grip on Delhi. Others who claim impressive academic pedigrees have spent decades in public life without producing outcomes remotely commensurate with the aura they seek to project around their degrees. The question is not whether a Prime Minister is “educated.” The question is whether he can lead, deliver, inspire confidence, and improve the lives of millions. By that measure, the verdict belongs to the people, not to self-appointed gatekeepers of intelligence. What makes Kejriwal’s remark particularly revealing is its underlying elitism. It reflects a belief that only those from certain backgrounds, institutions, or social circles are fit to lead. India has repeatedly rejected that mindset. Our democracy allows ordinary Indians to rise to extraordinary heights, and that is precisely what some among the entitled elite find difficult to accept. Kejriwal built his political career promising a “new kind” of politics. What the country witnessed instead was a familiar cocktail of hypocrisy, opportunism, and broken promises. He misled supporters, betrayed allies, and squandered the moral capital with which he entered public life. If anything, his political journey is a reminder that degrees may certify education, but they are no guarantee of wisdom, integrity, or leadership.

Once again today people are angry about a provocation on Shivaji Maharaj. But ask this - can you think one a single non-Western person who would ever be quoted like this as ‘authority’ on any Western historical subject? No. Now some will say because non-Westerners have no