The Lack of Debates about Individual Liberties

The Lack of Debates about Individual Liberties​

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 21st Oct. 2018

There is this interesting debate regards religious belief on account of judgment of the Apex Court. This is about ‘freedoms’ of religious communities on how the belief should be practiced and has vigorous participation of the Panda-Maulavi-Neta complex. The commercial news media is playing its natural stewardship role by closely circulating the behind the scene thought lines around the events. We have champions of gender equality jumping up (Pl. note that yours’ truly also considers himself to be amongst this category, but has refrained from participation in the debate). The reason for such activist involvement is to open up the double-speak of the Netas in government in which they may have achieved considerable success. Earlier, the debate was about some ‘select community’ and champions of the gender equality may have again taken a vigorous political stand (while ‘Game’ had largely refrained) with some notable coverage from commercial news media. It is interesting that we do not seems to get any coverage about the bank defaulters and their political donations/affiliations including changing affiliations, while the Panda-Maulavi complex with Netas remain in focus and that continues to happen with every election. Yes, a few select businesses are suing some select media, but even those stories hardly gets any coverage from any other corner. Some other businesses and news media may be managing it by avoidance of such stories.

What such debates depict is a blackout around any discussions regards ‘individual liberties’, but pushing the case for Panda-Maulavi’s interpretation and implementation of ‘societal norms’ and backing of this by the political Netas with no political party being any exception. This complex has always been active, but is in much discussions now, since the complex had always suppressed ‘individual liberties’ especially of the ‘women’ in some form or the other, with active support & backing of Pandas & Maulavis. The political parties and Netas seem to be only working on selective expose of each other, rather than any genuine concern about ‘individual liberties’ that sets the ‘Game’ whereas yours’ truly follows a very balanced version of the same. The women, shrines and personal (societal) codes in contention should basically be empowered with some defined norms as per ‘Laws and Social Justice’ and Panda-Maulavis should either be able to convince people or allow them to pursue ‘individual liberties within Law and Social Justice’. To feel that some shrine will lose its prominence on account of some additional visitors, is something that might be only deplorable. In fact it only enables somewhat greater opportunity for the Panda-Maulavis to increase their followership, but somehow they seem to believe that holding women captives is a better idea which is unlikely in this century or the ‘Yug of the Game’.

We have issues like pollution and burning of ‘parali’ with nearly all parties including common people’s party wanting to subsidize farmers and no one really wanting to create ‘jobs for the jobless youth’ to solve such issues. This while no party has any implementable idea on how to pursue such issues while distributing subsidy to farmers or no party wants to ‘address the issue’ but only ‘maintain the issue’ with commercial news media in cohorts. No wonder parties find their calls for support of public for votes or funds gets them little response which they claim turns/forces them to big businesses and therefore silence of the political Netas/parties as well as the news media. However, again that is an economic resolve to keep backing the politically influential farmer community in the helm, rather than allowing any less empowered community and this has little challenge from the political parties championing the land-less classes. This might be on account the land-less classes are dependent on landowners and can manipulate votes while the Netas want monetary support which comes along by following the ‘line’, free debates are hence avoidable. This again is likely to be tested in ‘Yug of the Game’ which has forecasted about the ‘Third Flush’. It is going to be about how fast Netas shun ‘pattern thinking’ and are able to embrace the ‘Game’ and this is likely even in scenarios where the Netas may be hoping for a ‘different (read possibly reverse) outcome. Let the ‘Game’ evolve….

 

[Dhruv Bindhani]

The Lack of Debates about Individual Liberties​

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 21st Oct. 2018

There is this interesting debate regards religious belief on account of judgment of the Apex Court. This is about ‘freedoms’ of religious communities on how the belief should be practiced and has vigorous participation of the Panda-Maulavi-Neta complex. The commercial news media is playing its natural stewardship role by closely circulating the behind the scene thought lines around the events. We have champions of gender equality jumping up (Pl. note that yours’ truly also considers himself to be amongst this category, but has refrained from participation in the debate). The reason for such activist involvement is to open up the double-speak of the Netas in government in which they may have achieved considerable success. Earlier, the debate was about some ‘select community’ and champions of the gender equality may have again taken a vigorous political stand (while ‘Game’ had largely refrained) with some notable coverage from commercial news media. It is interesting that we do not seems to get any coverage about the bank defaulters and their political donations/affiliations including changing affiliations, while the Panda-Maulavi complex with Netas remain in focus and that continues to happen with every election. Yes, a few select businesses are suing some select media, but even those stories hardly gets any coverage from any other corner. Some other businesses and news media may be managing it by avoidance of such stories.

What such debates depict is a blackout around any discussions regards ‘individual liberties’, but pushing the case for Panda-Maulavi’s interpretation and implementation of ‘societal norms’ and backing of this by the political Netas with no political party being any exception. This complex has always been active, but is in much discussions now, since the complex had always suppressed ‘individual liberties’ especially of the ‘women’ in some form or the other, with active support & backing of Pandas & Maulavis. The political parties and Netas seem to be only working on selective expose of each other, rather than any genuine concern about ‘individual liberties’ that sets the ‘Game’ whereas yours’ truly follows a very balanced version of the same. The women, shrines and personal (societal) codes in contention should basically be empowered with some defined norms as per ‘Laws and Social Justice’ and Panda-Maulavis should either be able to convince people or allow them to pursue ‘individual liberties within Law and Social Justice’. To feel that some shrine will lose its prominence on account of some additional visitors, is something that might be only deplorable. In fact it only enables somewhat greater opportunity for the Panda-Maulavis to increase their followership, but somehow they seem to believe that holding women captives is a better idea which is unlikely in this century or the ‘Yug of the Game’.

We have issues like pollution and burning of ‘parali’ with nearly all parties including common people’s party wanting to subsidize farmers and no one really wanting to create ‘jobs for the jobless youth’ to solve such issues. This while no party has any implementable idea on how to pursue such issues while distributing subsidy to farmers or no party wants to ‘address the issue’ but only ‘maintain the issue’ with commercial news media in cohorts. No wonder parties find their calls for support of public for votes or funds gets them little response which they claim turns/forces them to big businesses and therefore silence of the political Netas/parties as well as the news media. However, again that is an economic resolve to keep backing the politically influential farmer community in the helm, rather than allowing any less empowered community and this has little challenge from the political parties championing the land-less classes. This might be on account the land-less classes are dependent on landowners and can manipulate votes while the Netas want monetary support which comes along by following the ‘line’, free debates are hence avoidable. This again is likely to be tested in ‘Yug of the Game’ which has forecasted about the ‘Third Flush’. It is going to be about how fast Netas shun ‘pattern thinking’ and are able to embrace the ‘Game’ and this is likely even in scenarios where the Netas may be hoping for a ‘different (read possibly reverse) outcome. Let the ‘Game’ evolve….

This political article is a masterclass in architectural writing, where every element serves to construct a compelling argument. The writer's writing style is both authoritative and exceptionally precise, cutting through the common obfuscation of political discourse to reveal the core issues. There's an intellectual rigor evident in the prose, yet it remains remarkably accessible, guiding the reader through complex ideas without condescension. The structure of the piece is its backbone, meticulously designed to build a logical and unassailable case. Each paragraph and section is placed with strategic intent, creating a seamless flow that naturally leads to a profound understanding of the political landscape being discussed. Crucially, the unwavering clarity of the analysis is the article's greatest strength; every nuance of policy and every facet of political strategy are laid bare with such lucidity that the implications are undeniable and instantly graspable, making it an invaluable resource for informed citizens.