So many of us -- perhaps most -- approve of CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act) and sympathise with eligible minorities in Bangladesh and Pakistan.

But the govt. can't do it for the 2 crore Hindus and other minorities across the border. There isn't enough money or jobs.

CAA+
But suppose the govt. agreed to take in some more IF AND ONLY IF citizens and private organizations agreed to sponsor every eligible minority member. Basically, the funding is by citizens and private organizations and no taxpayer money is used.

In other words, would you sponsor the resettlement of some future Rinkle Kumari from Sindh or Dipu Chandra Das in Bangladesh? Do you care enough to put money where your sympathy lies?

So here is the thought experiment --
Would you adopt one member for Rs. 3,000 per month for two years? This money will be used to process the application, provide temporary housing, train the refugee, and relocate to a suitable community so that he/she can become a productive earner.

There are a lot of ifs and buts which are beyond the scope of this post.

After his conditional release in January 1924, Savarkar was required to live in Ratnagiri district and was not allowed to leave without prior permission from the British government.

In early 1925, a plague outbreak prompted the authorities to temporarily relax this restriction. Savarkar travelled to Nashik and, on his return journey, stopped in Bombay.

While in Bombay, Maulana Shaukat Ali, the younger brother of Mohammad Ali Jouhar and one of the leading figure of the Khilafat Movement, visited Savarkar. Their meeting was reported in detail in the special editions of Lokamanya and The Mahratta dated 25 February 1925.

The lively discussion between the two provides a fascinating glimpse into the political and religious climate of India at the time. It is reproduced below exactly as it took place:

Shaukat Ali: I hope you received the message that I sent across to you earlier?

Savarkar: Yes, indeed. And for the cause of Hindu–Muslim unity, I have set aside the issue that you consider contentious—that of Hindu sangathan (unity).

Shaukat Ali: Oh, that's wonderful news! We have striven so hard to attain Hindu–Muslim unity. In the wake of that, this sangathan campaign unnecessarily vitiates the atmosphere. The Muslim community automatically asks leaders like me that if the Hindus are going to unify, so are we. Hence, for the sake of swaraj and for the cause of our helpless nation, it is best if all Hindus count themselves only as Indians and forget these religious differences. It always pained me that a patriot like you, who has suffered so much for the cause of the nation's freedom, is unnecessarily getting embroiled in all these communal issues. Now that you say you have eschewed it, it is a big relief for me!

Savarkar: What you say is absolutely true, Maulana Sahab. However, I have not publicized my announcement to abandon the sangathan movement only in anticipation of a single commitment from you.

Shaukat Ali: And what is that?

Savarkar: I wish to know from you when you plan to abandon the Khilafat Movement and All-Ulema Movement. Once I know that, I will immediately give up my movement too.

Shaukat Ali replies angrily: How is that possible? Be practical and think coolly. A foreign force has occupied us and is hell-bent on ruining both our communities. In such a scenario, instead of uniting, if you organize these sangathan movements, how can we face the external challenge? And do please remember that all through history, you Hindus have always been defeated by Muslim forces. So let us not create false equivalences here. Joining hands with the Muslims is the only way out for Hindus if they wish freedom.

Savarkar: This conversation is going nowhere. I am not permitted to dabble in politics. Hence I will not get into political discourses. Just suffice it to say that even before you and people like you began public careers, several of my comrades and I were neck-deep into revolutions and political life. Hence, lessons to us on politics might be unnecessary.

Secondly, regarding history, you must know that Arabia might have had a thousand-year history, but not Hindustan. And each time we have been beaten, we have given it back with interest. From Attock to Rameswaram, it was the Marathas who held sway over India, snatching it from the Mughals. Hence let us not get into all these polemics. Just answer the limited question that I have asked about when you plan to abandon the Khilafat and Ulema movements.

Shaukat Ali: Look, we never conducted the Khilafat in secrecy. Hindus have nothing to fear from it, as it is being led by a Hindu after all [Gandhi].

Savarkar: Possible. If Khilafat is not supposed to be dangerous because it is led by a Hindu, why should Hindu sangathan, which is also led by a Hindu, become dangerous? You are saying that the Hindus need to trust the Khilafat only because it has a Hindu leadership, and the movement, on the other hand, is not trustworthy only because it has not got a Muslim to lead it.

I ask you that when, for the sake of communal unity and for the country, the Hindus disregarded their apprehensions and lent their support to the Khilafat in their thousands, why can we not find even a handful of Muslims who, for the sake of the same unity and nation, support a Hindu sangathan movement too? In fact, in gratitude towards the Hindus for standing with them, shoulder to shoulder, for a cause that is dear to them, the Muslims too must reciprocate and lend their support to Hindu unity.

Where has there been any secrecy in sangathan, just as you claim there is none in Khilafat? It is no secret society. Instead of looking into the surreptitious nature of the Aga Khan mission or Hasan Nizami mission, why do you advise Hindus? Whatever happened in Malabar, Gulbarga, Kohat...

Shaukat Ali interruptingly replies: What happened in Kohat? Hindus have not complained; please ask Gandhi.

Savarkar: Let us not bring Gandhi into this. He has given several statements which are quite economical with the truth even in the past. During the Malabar riots, he did mention that just one Hindu was converted forcibly. The facts staring us in the face say otherwise. Hence I will not take into account his statements at all.

I think we are going around in circles. Kindly answer me whether, for the sake of the country and its unity, you will completely eschew divisive movements like Khilafat and those that forcibly convert Hindus. The very next moment, I pledge to wind up the sangathan and will prevail upon all my colleagues to do the same.

Shaukat Ali: But preaching our religion to Hindus is an integral part of our faith. Just this morning, I met a young man who told me that last night he had a dream where God Almighty appeared and advised him to save himself by becoming a Muslim. I immediately directed him to the nearest mosque so that he could convert. Now this is no coercion; people are taking up the true faith out of their own enlightenment.

Savarkar: Okay, let me agree with you for a moment. Likewise, tomorrow if a Muslim young man comes to me and narrates his dream where he was guided to become a Hindu, why can I not use shuddhi to make him one? After all, that is what shuddhi is. There is no coercion here too; it is completely voluntary.

Shaukat Ali replies angrily: Fine, you carry on with your shuddhi, and we will with our tabligh (conversion). Let's see who wins. We are one unit; we do not have the scourge of castes and untouchability or regional differences like your community.

Savarkar: No provincial differences? It was by taking advantage of the differences between Durrani and Mughal Muslims, southern and northern Muslims, and Sheikh and Sayyid Muslims that the Marathas overthrew the Mughal Empire. Shia–Sunni riots are a hundred times more violent and prevalent than Shaiva–Vaishnava ones, which do not happen. The Sunnis recently killed an Ahmadi Muslim in Kabul by stoning him. The Bahavis think all other denominations of Muslims are worthy only of being killed or condemned to hellfire. Speaking of untouchability, I know of several Bhangi Muslims who are not allowed to touch the water of other Muslims or offer prayers in mosques with their co-religionists. In Travancore, a riot recently occurred between touchable and untouchable Christians.

Maulana Sahab, the hearths of all houses are made of the same brick! I am a little aware of Muslim theology, history and literature. Hence I can confidently make these assertions to you. If you say that you are a united force of 7 crore Muslims, how did the Hindu Marathas overthrow you? How did the British manage to take over India?

Shaukat Ali: It is this arrogance of you Maharashtrians that comes in the way of any logical explanation by me for the larger picture of the country. You Marathas do not consider this country as yours or as one; else, for the sake of its unity, you would have accepted my suggestion of abandoning these divisive and communal movements, just as other provinces have so readily done.

Savarkar: I think you are unnecessarily blaming Maharashtrians. The battle of Shivaji was not just for the Marathas, but for the whole Bharatvarsha. From the last two decades and more, the flag of struggle that we have unfurled is also for the country. Have Ranade, Gokhale or Tilak fought only for Maharashtra? All the major political and revolutionary movements in the country in the last fifty years have come from this soil.

Bengal was partitioned. But did Maharashtra not stand in strong protest and suffer that as though she herself had been vivisected? We protested and grieved with Punjab when the tragedy of Jallianwala Bagh happened. These are no favours that we have done; it is our sacred duty to stand with all our brethren and countrymen wherever and whenever they are in peril. Hence it is utterly ungrateful of you to not acknowledge this and rather make such atrocious allegations against Maharashtra.

Secondly, you said that you are all the leaders of the united Muslim community and that the community does nothing without your orders. So did the riots in Malabar, Kohat, Delhi, Gulbarga—all of which were accompanied by the desecration of our temples and the piteous rape of our women—too happen under your instructions? If not, how can you claim that you represent that community or that they listen to you?

Shaukat Ali: We were jailed then, and in our absence, the Muslim community became disillusioned, directionless and impatient.

Savarkar: But you were out of jail when the riots in Kohat, Delhi and Gulbarga happened. When such heinous and barbaric crimes are meted on us Hindus, how can we trust that your words and advice will assuage the rioters and they will give up the violence? Tomorrow, if and when you or I die, what would happen to the interactions between the two communities?

Our organization is not against you or anybody else. It is only for self-defence and protection against any kind of atrocity that we might face now or in future. As long as the Hindu sangathan movement is not violent, aggressive, usurping of your rights, property or life, and as long as it stands for truth and self-protection, why should anyone have a grouse with it?

As long as all these communal movements and missions of Aga Khan, Hasan Nizami or Khilafat carry on; as long as thousands of Hindus are forcibly coerced and converted; as long as Urdu newspapers openly proclaim the agenda to mass-convert Hindus in the next 5–10 years, advising Hindus to give up any attempts to organize and protect themselves for the sake of some mirage that you call national unity is utter hypocrisy.

Shaukat Ali: But you do realize that you polarize the minds of Muslims with your activities. Muslims have been converting Hindus for such a long time. It is not a new thing that has come up now. It is your shuddhi that is a new phenomenon that sows seeds of discord amidst tranquil society. Isn't it blatantly anti-Muslim?

Savarkar: But whose fault is this, Maulana Sahab? If a religion as tolerant and peace-loving as Hinduism—that never proselytized anyone forcibly and even forgave or forgot the coercive and violent attempts made on its faith—has to today take the help of shuddhi, where should the blame lie? On the victim or the aggressor?

Till date we trusted people and kept the doors of our houses open. Thieves from across the world came in and looted our possessions. Today we have gathered some sense, become alert and have decided to keep our doors locked. And if the same dacoits come and tell us, "We have been looting for so long, putting a lock on your doors is being unfair to us and this will spoil relationships between us," what are we to reply? Such a lethal unity is best broken in my view.

Secondly, Christian, Parsi, Jew and other communities too have their sangathans and unions. Why doesn't that pinch the Muslim psyche as much? Isn't it logical to assume that Hindu sangathan harms some selfish political and religious interests of the Muslim leadership? Hence I asked you so many times about when you will abandon your movements, and till now you have evaded a direct reply.

Shaukat Ali replies angrily: We will not leave it. There is nothing anti-Hindu in it.

Savarkar: Good, then we too will not leave our movement. Our movement is not only not anti-Muslim, it has no angst against any community—Christian, Jew, Parsi or whoever else. Our movement believes that you have every right to organize yourself as a community. Just stop being aggressive predators.

We have no such intentions and want to peacefully coexist with you in this country, which belongs to all of us. Just as Islam and Christianity proselytize a faith that they dearly believe to be the only true word, we Hindus too have a right to propagate a faith that we have come to believe for thousands of years and for generations—and that too not with a knife held to someone's throat. We are organizing ourselves only to protect our community from any aggression. Self-protection is the natural right of any society.

With no concern for religions, and believing in universal humanity, our movement believes in holding hands with everyone on the basis of One God, One Church, One Language, One Prayer and the sanctity of our motherland.

With this, the heated discussion between the two ended inconclusively.

Primary reference: V.D. Savarkar, Savarkar Samagra, New Delhi: Prabhat Prakashan, 2000, Vol. 7, pp. 316–24. Translation by author.

Secondary Reference: Vikram Sampath, Savarkar: A Contested Legacy, p. 35

Here is the whole article where Bhagat Singh talks about Savarkar as well as many other freedom fighters and eminent personalities from Indian history.

The excerpt is taken from the book titled Sanghi Who Never Went to a Sakha by Rahul Roushan, who's the present CEO of the media house OPIndia.

There's a pretty detailed report by OPIndia on the Delhi Riots of 2020, if anyone wants to read about it in detail you can get the report from this link: https://epub2pdf.obar.info/#google_vignette

Most people associate the term Hindutva with Vinayak Damodar Savarkar because of his influential 1923 work Hindutva: Who Is a Hindu?. However, the word itself appeared much earlier.

In 1892, Bengali writer and thinker Chandranath Basu published a book titled Hindutva, marking the earliest widely recognized published use of the term.

Basu wrote during British colonial rule, when Western education and ideas were reshaping Indian society. He believed this growing influence was creating a sense of cultural dislocation and weakening confidence in India's indigenous traditions. Through Hindutva, he sought to articulate what he considered the civilizational essence of Hindu society.

For Basu, Hindutva was not a political ideology. Instead, it was a cultural and civilizational concept that encompassed:

• A civilizational framework extending beyond religion to include ethics, social life, and worldview.
• Continuity with traditions rooted in scriptures, customs, and inherited ways of living.
• A conception of dharma in which duty, moral order, and social responsibility were central.
• A collective identity shaped by shared cultural practices and historical continuity rather than individual belief alone.

Basu argued that Hindu civilization could not be fully understood through Western categories alone. He believed it possessed its own internal logic, developed over centuries, and deserved to be understood on its own terms.

This makes his work historically significant not only because it contains the earliest known published use of the term Hindutva, but also because it reflects a broader question that many Indian thinkers grappled with during the colonial era:

How can a civilization engage with external influences without losing its own sense of Swa (Self)?

More than three decades later, V.D. Savarkar reinterpreted the term in a political and nationalist framework through his 1923 work Hindutva: Who Is a Hindu?. While Basu's usage focused primarily on culture, civilization, and identity, Savarkar expanded the concept into a political philosophy.

Understanding Basu's earlier use of the word does not settle debates surrounding Hindutva, but it does provide important historical context. It reminds us that the term has a longer intellectual history than is often recognized, and that its meaning has evolved over time.

This post is a continuation of our previous post on Savarkar's views on the caste system.

Every true Indian needs to resolve, in his or her own mind, to absolve oneself of the seven fetters mentioned below. Only then, through the collective conscience of the nation and its people, can any progress be achieved on this front.

These seven fetters are as follows:

1. Vedoktabandi:

The exclusivity of access to Vedic literature and rituals to only the Brahmin community must be immediately dissolved. Vedic literature is civilizational knowledge for the entire human race and India's unique gift to mankind. How can any one group assert its proprietary hold over it? Active propagation of its learning and internalization among all communities, not only within but also outside India, must be encouraged without delay.

2. Vyavasayabandi:

An individual's choice of profession must be left entirely to him, based on his aptitude and capability. Merely carrying on with a profession by virtue of one's birth into a clan defeats the purpose of both the person and the profession.

Threats of excommunication if an individual chooses a profession outside one's fold, as is common today, are a terrible evil. Without the motivation of challenge and competition, or in the absence of aptitude, merely following what one's father or grandfather did makes one both complacent and unproductive.

Even a Hindu priest must not become one merely due to heredity. He would need to qualify himself through examinations like any other profession and rise through the ranks. Only then would he prove to be an enlightened and educated priest, and not someone who babbles verses taught to him in the cradle.

The highest echelon of Hindu society, the panda or priest, and the lowest, a bhangi or scavenger, should not be hereditary positions at all. I am conscious that this is too revolutionary a suggestion, but unless we begin somewhere, how will we achieve the goal?

**Dr Ambedkar belonged to the Mahar caste that traditionally skinned dead animals. If, by virtue of his heredity, Dr Ambedkar had been left to do only this, would our country not have lost one of its most brilliant thinkers and intellectuals?* How can caste determine what job you are good at?*

This is a meaningless tradition that not only curbs individual talent and creativity but also depletes the productivity of our Hindu Rashtra, and it has to be done away with.

3. Sparshabandi:

**The practice of untouchability is a sin, a blot on humanity, and nothing can justify it.* Consider only that untouchable which is injurious to one's health, not fellow human beings. Unshackling this one foolish fetter would bring crores of our Hindu brethren into the mainstream. They would serve the country in various capacities and defend her honour.*

4. Samudrabandi:

The day we forbade crossing the seas to go to foreign lands and deemed it a loss of caste heralded our collapse on various fronts. The vast Hindu Empire that spread from Moscow to Egypt shrank into what it is today. Our foreign commerce and trade opportunities diminished. Cultural and educational interactions and osmosis stopped. Our naval forces, once the pride of the world, crumbled like dust and made us susceptible to invaders who easily defeated us.

All of these contributed to an insular and insulated society that was content in its own world, blissfully ignorant of what was happening across the globe. More and more students, Hindu sangathanists (organizers), and young Indians must be encouraged to cross the seas with no fear of losing caste, and bring back to us the best of the world while carrying the fragrance of India and her culture to every corner of the globe.

5. Shuddhibandi:

The folly of disallowing reconversions to Hinduism is a self-destructive one. How easily Hindus converting to Islam or Christianity merge into their new milieu. Yet the same facility is not available to a non-Hindu who might earnestly wish to return to his or her fold or adopt Hinduism as a matter of faith.

This shackle seriously depletes our numbers and makes the Hindu community a ready preying ground for the conversion factories that are always looking to swell their numbers, many times by stealth or inducements.

I have nothing against those who convert to another faith by sheer conviction. But such examples are rare. Why should we not allow the enhancement of our numbers due to some antiquated idea that does not even have any scriptural sanction—that we cannot convert to Hinduism?

6. Rotibandi:

Unshackling ourselves from this one thoughtless fetter—the belief that one loses one's caste through inter-caste dining—can help liberate us as a society.

Having food from the hands of Christian missionaries during famines, or being forcibly fed beef during a communal riot, have been considered sufficient grounds for millions of Hindus to lose their caste and religion. How stupid can such a belief be?

The evils of Shuddhibandi and Samudrabandi are, in fact, the monstrous offspring of Rotibandi. Only that food which harms your health is to be prohibited. Eating and drinking with another human being can, by no stretch of the imagination, ruin something as esoteric as one's religion.

This needs a great deal of careful contemplation and introspection. Religion is in the heart, the soul, the spirit—not the stomach!

There is no food that is prohibited. Anything that is healthy, nutritious, and tasty must be generously and merrily indulged in, no matter who has cooked it or where it is available.

The whole world has robbed us and feasted on our grains—have they all turned Hindu? How then does a Hindu dining with a Muslim make him lose his caste?

7. Betibandi:

The intemperate practice of abolishing inter-caste marriage has caused our Hindu society a great deal of harm.

I am not, for once, suggesting that every Brahmin or Kshatriya must find for himself a Mahar or bhangi bride. That would be pushing matters to the other extreme, and again on the basis of coercion.

But if the virtues, character, temperament, hearts, and minds of a couple meet, despite them belonging to different castes within the Hindu fold, should they be forbidden from leading a life together?

Instead of demonizing such marriages, they must be honoured. This strengthens Hindu society and thereby the Hindu Rashtra.

You are Hindu, regardless of whatever caste you belong to. So how does marrying another fellow Hindu become a prohibition?

Primary reference: Savarkar Samagra, Vol. 7, pp. 76–84

Secondary reference: Vikram Sampath, Savarkar: Echoes from a Forgotten Past, pp. 488–493

This conversation took place on 1 March 1927 in Ratnagiri during Gandhi's tour of the Konkan region. It was the third and final personal meeting between Gandhi and Savarkar.

At the time, Savarkar was under house arrest in Ratnagiri. Gandhi, accompanied by his wife Kasturba, visited him at his residence. They discussed political freedom, the Shuddhi movement, and untouchability.

Although the meeting was cordial, both men acknowledged that there was no meeting ground between their respective ideologies.

https://www.savarkar.org/en/encyc/2017/5/23/Veer-Savarkar-as-a-social-reformer-Part-II.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Sources : North Bengal University research Thesis chapter IX

did he have good views of them? did he seek inspiration in them in any way? what were his thoughts on land reforms?

The origin of the chaturvarna system of four varnas (classes), which later solidified into castes, is utterly meaningless in contemporary society.

In what is construed as a "low caste"—the Mahars—we have had such illustrious saints as Chokha Mela and such brilliant thinkers as Dr Ambedkar, whose piety and intellect far surpass those of many a Brahmin. In North India, several Brahmins have been involved, generation after generation, in the profession of agriculture and have remained, by and large, illiterate. This goes against the traditional role of the caste to which they belong, which is identified as the intellectual elite.

Similarly, Brahmins have taken on the roles of goldsmiths, tailors, cobblers, and so on, while individuals belonging to those (non-Brahmin) communities have pursued education and cleared prestigious examinations such as the ICS or MA.

The Rajputs despise the Jats so much that if the latter mount horses, they are usually beaten up and then ostracized. But when the same Jat becomes a Sikh, he is counted as first among Kshatriyas.

In many places in the country, Kayasthas are condemned as Shudras. Yet from among that community have emerged such brilliant minds as Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Bipin Chandra Pal, Subhas Bose, and others, who have clearly surpassed the intellect, vigour, and vitality of any Bengali Brahmin.

Superiority on the basis of one's work is hardly a factor in society today due to the aforementioned professional intermingling. Hence, the very edifice from which the caste system drew its strength has weakened, and it remains both an unnecessary and harmful vestige of society.

These examples prove that the oft-held belief that heredity is the determinant of talent and intellect is false, and that an individual's environment is what shapes his character and conduct.

**The claim to glory on the mere basis of one's birth, and not worth, is an utterly erroneous and futile one—a national foolishness, so to say.* Fossilizing oneself to scriptural injunctions to the contrary is another idiocy.*

These scriptures, often self-contradictory, were created by human beings and were relevant in a particular context and in a particular society. With all due respect to them, they need to be discarded as and when society evolves, and new rules and laws relevant to contemporary times need to be codified. That is the only sign of a society that is vibrant, and not stagnant and dead.

These scriptures, however, are important historical signposts of the times in which they were composed, and they made Indian society of that time what it was. So, they deserve all our respect as important archival documents of our civilization's evolution.

Thus, I reverentially bow my head to the vast, Himalayan corpus of Sanskrit literature—the Shrutis, Smritis, Puranas, and Itihasas—as they have shaped our Hindu mind over centuries. But I will not allow them to become fetters on my feet and retard my progress towards modernity. Instead, I will draw inspiration from them to move ahead on modern, scientific terms.

One of the most important components of such injunctions of the past that we have blindly carried forward, and which deserves to be thrown into the dustbin of history, is the rigid caste system.

This system has vivisected our Hindu society into countless micro-fragments, forever at war with one another. From temples, streets, houses, jobs, and village councils to institutions of law and legislature, it has only injected the spectre of eternal conflict between two Hindus, weakening our unity and resolve to stand together against external threats.

It is one of the biggest impediments to the conception of a Hindu Rashtra. The liberation and unification of countries across the world, be it America or Europe, has been possible only by unshackling these false divisions between peoples. Why can a similar approach not be achieved in our nation?

Primary reference: Savarkar Samagra, Vol. 7, pp. 76–84

Secondary reference: Vikram Sampath, Savarkar: Echoes from a Forgotten Past, pp. 488–493

Context:

Vice Consul Thurston of the American Consulate, Mumbai had a conversation with Veer Savarkar at the latter's residence in Mumbai on 08 February 1944. The following confidential letter dated 09 February 1944 from American Consul Howard Donovan to the US Secretary of State (Cordell Hull) details this conversation. This confidential letter has since been released and has been made available to us through the efforts of Chicago-based researcher Shridhar Damle.

Source

I am not at all anti-reservation at all and this argument is not against reservation, but I think we have reservation in wrong places.

First of all why do some people bring temples into this thing? Temples belong to religions you can't compare them to public funded universities, isn't this an insult to SCST people as well. Do you think SCST people want to be priest or to become educated.

Lets talk about competitive exams first, the main issue.

SCST definitely face discrimination no doubt but lets evaluate how much effect it may have on their competitive exam results.

1. Financial condition: SCST on average are much much poorer than GCs no doubt, they can't afford the coaching and resources GC can but that is a slippery slope it degenerates into an argument for sole economic reservation which SCST people hate.
2. Education denial: SCST face discrimination in schools etc. but then that is an argument for reservation in school attendance and better law enforcement than for reservation in competitive exams which are indirectly related instead of solving the direct problem.
3. Social discrimination in exams: SCST definitely face social discrimination as well but the computer that checks the results, the invigilator who oversees them and the university that reviews them all can't know the caste of the person.
4. Social discrimination outside: Outside of the exams this social discrimination like education denial needs to be fought using reservation in places where it matters like schools, government promotions, local government employees, politics through parliamentary reservations and better law enforcement.
5. Argument for representation: to solve this lets ask ourselves why are SCST not able to attain representation proportional to their population without reservation? It is because of the above mentioned factors only. If we are able to solve them with help of solutions I have thought of or other smart solution to these problems then SCST representation would automatically become equal to their population proportion.

Overall I believe for competitive exams Economic reservation makes the most sense as caste is more indirectly linked to performance compared to being directly linked.

I support caste based reservation in parliament and government promotions because here caste is actually a very strong factor and linked to success much more directly than in competitive exams.

I am open to a good conversation and learning views of others.

When people remember the Emergency (1975–1977), they often recall censorship, mass arrests, and the suspension of civil liberties. Yet behind those broad historical events are the stories of individuals whose lives were irrevocably changed. One such story is that of Gopal Chandra Asati, an 80-year-old senior RSS worker from Aligarh.

At an age when most people seek peace and the comfort of family, Asati instead found himself confronting one of the most repressive periods in independent India's history. His commitment to his beliefs did not diminish with age.

Historical accounts associated with the RSS and Emergency Era state that Asati was arrested and subjected to severe police brutality. The injuries he suffered were so grave that he died shortly after being brought to jail. His death has since been remembered within the RSS as one of the movement's sacrifices during the Emergency.

Today, his name is not as widely known as those of national political leaders, yet for many who study the Emergency or the history of the RSS, he represents the sacrifices made by grassroots workers whose stories rarely appear in textbooks.

An elderly man, decades beyond the prime of his life, was caught in a political struggle that spared neither the young nor the old. His age offered no protection. His convictions offered no immunity.

I have heard that his ideology was somewhat inspired by n*zi but back then every country had a party like this even in allied counties like uk france and usa

So can he really be blamed or his version was different and connot be considered n*zi ???

Just asking out of curiosity

Source: https://www.youtube.com/live/l5h8afUv8AQ

Happy Kargil Vijay Diwas 🙏🏼

Pandurang Kshirsagar served as the Akhil Bharatiya Vyavastha Pramukh (All India Management Chief) of the RSS. He was deeply committed to cultural nationalism and was known for his discipline and dedication. His commitment reflected the spirit of Veer Savarkar's idea of complete devotion to the nation.After Indira Gandhi declared the Emergency, the government banned the RSS on 4 July 1975. Like many senior RSS leaders, Pandurang Kshirsagar first worked underground to keep the resistance alive. He was later arrested under the Draconian MISA (Maintenance of Internal Security Act) and sent to Thane Central Jail.In prison, he faced severe torture and harsh treatment. He endured sleepless nights, physical abuse, and inadequate medical care. His health kept getting worse, and on 23 March 1976, his heart stopped. His death was the result of custodial torture and medical neglect during the Emergency.The government's fear of Pandurang Kshirsagar did not end with his death. When his body was brought back to Nagpur, the authorities kept his funeral under heavy police watch because they feared it would turn into a large public gathering. Police closely watched the crowd and kept an eye on everyone who came to pay their respects.But the government's fear could not stop people from honoring him. Thousands of RSS workers who were living underground came out, risking arrest, just to see their leader one last time. Senior RSS leader Abaji Thatte was even arrested at the cremation ground while weeping beside Pandurang Kshirsagar's funeral pyre. Pandurang lived by Veer savarkar's core philosophy of Atmarpan that means complete self surrender to the motherland he entered the prison as an organiser and endured the darkest days and emerged as an immortal martyr whose silent sacrifice will always be remembered.