The number one reason is the most important. I quote a part of it:

News misleads us systematically

News reports do not represent the real world.

Our brains are wired to pay attention to visible, large, scandalous, sensational, shocking, people- related, story-formatted, fast changing, loud, graphic onslaughts of stimuli. Our brains have limited attention to spend on more subtle pieces of intelligence that are small, abstract, ambivalent, complex, slow to develop and quiet, much less silent. News organizations systematically exploit this bias.

News media outlets, by and large, focus on the highly visible. They display whatever information they can convey with gripping stories and lurid pictures, and they systematically ignore the subtle and insidious, even if that material is more important. News grabs our attention; that’s how its business model works. Even if the advertising model didn’t exist, we would still soak up news pieces because they are easy to digest and superficially quite tasty.

The highly visible misleads us.

By any estimate, at least 100 children die of tuberculosis in India every day. That is only tuberculosis.

These 100 children are victims of violence. Violence of kinds we don’t even call violence.

On October 10, at least 100 children died due to violence.

On October 11 too.

On October 12 too.

Every day in the past many years and in the coming many years these deaths will continue.

Our brains are wired to get emotionally provoked when we see violence plays out in very physical ways — like someone hitting someone. The more gore it is, the more violent it is, for our brains.

Most news outlets and algorithms are designed to amplify what our brains are wired to see — immediate emotion-evoking events.

But a lot of the violence in our society is not so visible to the untrained eye — caste, gender, capitalism, elitism.

This violence take the shape of physical assault, sexual assault, verbal assault, forced homelessness, forced landlessness, forced hunger, forced drinking of contaminated water, forced eating of unsafe food and nutrition-less food, forced breathing of polluted air, exclusion from schemes, exclusion from employment, underpayment, discrimination, exclusion from urban design, exclusion from public transport, hostility from healthcare system, hostility from education system, hostility from police, hostility from judiciary, hostility from bureaucracy, forced exposure to unsafe working conditions, forced exposure to unsafe work, forced work, forced lack of rest, forced choices, forced relationships, forced co-existence with unsafe people, parental neglect, social neglect, intergenerational trauma, exclusion from friendships, exclusion from opportunities, exclusion from desires, exclusion from dreams, and so on….

These rarely become news.

Even when these do, these rarely get noticed.

Even when these get noticed, these rarely get inside public consciousness.

Even if these are inside public consciousness, these rarely get addressed collectively or even individually.

In Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky apparently describe how media “carry out a system-supportive propaganda function, by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion”. They speak about factors like profit orientation that indirectly (or directly) make mass media automatically create an environment where certain ideas become truths.

I am making a more fundamental allegation against our society. I’m saying that content-creation of any form (including the so-called “independent media”, individual content creators, podcasters, bloggers, whoever they are) is influenced by similar incentives to cater to the biases of our social brain.

Even when advertisers and money are not in play, content creation is influenced by engagement. Content that receives less likes and shares are systematically discouraged. At least unconsciously, there’s encouragement to create content that gets more reach.

And as a rule, content that showcases high levels of drama will get more engagement.

This seems fundamental to how human brain works.

As long as some people are willing to game that, they will get more engagement. And engagement is limited. There are only so many viral videos that can be there in a day. So, whoever doesn’t play the game will be left behind. They’ll lose engagement, they’ll lose audience, and eventually they’ll lose motivation.

This means, that there is an underlying tendency in our society that corrupts all content creators.

How to fight this corruption?

Content creators need to pledge to themselves that they won’t fall prey to chasing the hype. They need to have a vision and they need to work towards that.

Content consumers need to pledge to themselves to introspect on their consumption habits. They need to actively question their biases. They should pause in the middle of scrolling sessions and see what they’re consuming. They need to be intentional about what they consume. They should compensate for their biases by actively seeking out less engaging, more important content.

All of us need to promise each other that we won’t encourage gaming our psychology. We should promise ourselves that we won’t fall into the trap of letting everyone else change before we change ourselves.

It is not going to be easy. But it is necessary if we want a fairer world.

If you look closely, you can see something interesting about it.

For reference, here is how the original preamble looks in the 1950 Constitution, from the copy preserved by ServantsOfKnowledge on archive.org:

The words “socialist”, “secular”, and “and integrity” were added only in the 42nd amendment of the Constitution in 1976. And therefore, the original preamble doesn’t have it.

The original preamble came with beautiful artwork as you can see. According to Lalit Kala Akademi, the art work on this page is by Beohar Rammanohar Singa. They also say how the calligraphic writing in the Constitution is by Prem Behari Narayan Raizada, but I’m not sure who among them wrote the text on the preamble page. In any case, it is handwritten.

So, after 1976, people had two choices when they had to show the preamble anywhere. Either use the original preamble with the artwork (which would be outdated because of the amendment), or show the updated preamble without the artwork.

If you’ve seen NCERT textbooks, you’ve probably seen one version like this:

You may also have seen some variants that try to preserve as much art

It is in this context that on 21 April, 2024, I wanted to run a campaign to put preamble as profile picture for Indian general election.

I wanted to preserve as much art from the original preamble as possible and decided to do my own editing in GIMP.

I noticed that all the letters I needed for SOCIALIST and SECULAR where already present in SOVEREIGN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC JUSTICE EQUALITY. Similarly, “and integrity” could be built from nearby words.

By hand-picking letters and constructing words, one could do justice to the handwritten original.

The watermark had to be restored which I did by picking up a vector of the emblem of India and placing it in places where the original didn’t have it (because of text overlay).

Eventually, I ended up with this:

My friend Subin had made a fun video of me explaining this process.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by lnstaɡram User (@subins2000)

When I started the profile picture campaign, Vinay Kumar of Reclaim Constitution immediately noticed what I had done.

After a few months, I received this message from Vinay:

Here is the link to the Wikimedia Commons file.

Since Wikipedia comes up when people search for preamble, and the page has been edited to include this edited preamble version, people are now using this for making preamble themed gifts.

And yesterday, Swathi spoke at the book discussion organized by APCR.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by APCR Karnataka (@apcrkarnataka)

After the talk she received the framed preamble as a memento.

And that is now adorning the wall of our clinic.

I was thin all my childhood.

When I was in medical college (2011-2017) my hostel was near Kukkarhalli Kere in Mysuru and I used to run around the lake in the mornings. That loop was 3.8 km in my memory and I used to be able to finish it without stopping. I also used to cycle from hostel to college and back throughout the college days.

In internship and later in Vivekananda Memorial Hospital, I was always running around in patient care. Moreover, in VMH, there was a ground where I would occasionally go running too, especially preparing for a running race that was held to raise awareness on road accidents.

When I moved to Bengaluru in 2018, for the first couple of years, I was moving around a lot juggling my career in clinical medicine and software development, often visiting two offices on the same day, and usually taking public transport everywhere.

When COVID lockdown started in 2020, the sedentary part of my life started. By the end of 2022 with all the COVID lockdowns, I had developed myopia and started wearing glasses, and also developed a potbelly and a rounder face

I was clearly consuming more energy than I was spending. On March 12, 2024 my HbA1c was 5.9%. This put me in prediabetes. Something had to change.

Changing things

By April, I got a gear cycle from my brother. At that time I was often going to SOCHARA giving them a strategy and vision for digital humanities. It was 8km from my home.

On April 10, 2024 I started riding cycle on that commute.

By October that year, I had done this route about 22 times in each direction. This streak broke when I fell from scooter (should have stuck to cycle) once and started getting backache.

In 2025 I didn’t have this commute anymore and it was very difficult to convince myself to go to the park near my home for walk/jog. That’s when I developed the second part of my fitness regime and started doing jogs in the evenings (or whenever my mind allowed). I also did some rock climbing sessions. Lots of walking. Basically, I was active wherever possible.

I also started eating 1 chappatti less (from 3 to 2), only taking 1 serving of rice, and in general being only 70-80% full.

I got some gear too. A smart watch with GPS, running shoes, phone armband, running clothes.

Initially (let’s say August 2025) I could barely run 1km. I was running in wooden park in Indiranagar where a loop is just under 400m. So, I was running 2 rounds.

By a month, I was able to consistently run 2-3 rounds (in about 10 minutes).

By the end of 2025, I would try to run 4 continuous rounds (about a mile?) and it would take me around 20 minutes.

By Februrary 2026 I was able to increase to 6 rounds (2.5km) in about 30 minutes.

On 21 February, 2026 my HbA1c was 5.6% (not prediabetic anymore). But the journey is no longer about that.

By April 2026, I was able to run the same in about 20 minutes.

The first time I ran 7 continuous rounds in wood park was in May 2026 (24 minutes).

Then in July 2026, I did a 5k around Kukkarahalli Kere with daktre.

This gave me the confidence to run longer in wood park too, and I ran 10 rounds in 35 minutes. I repeated this yesterday (September 2026).

I feel a bit lighter around my belly, and also have no difficulty in climbing stairs, or having a long day of walking around nowadays.

Goals

Strava automatically tags other people running with us. In wood park sometimes I get strangers tagged with me. When I began running, I had once noticed someone like this, who had run 10 rounds (while I was running 4). At that time, it seemed like I would never be able to run 10 rounds. But here I am.

My pace now is about 41 minutes for 5K (if I extrapolate my 10 rounds), which is 8:20 per km.

Daktre routinely runs about 35 minutes for 5K. (7:00 km).

Yesterday I saw Thejesh’s goal of running 5K under 30 minutes, which is 6:00 per km.

The present world record for 5K is 12:35.36 which is 2:31 per km.

When Sabastian Sawe broke marathon (42.195 km) world record in 2026 London Marathon, he ran 5K in 14:14 (which is 2:51 per km).

I’m definitely not breaking any world records soon. But I will keep progressing till I plateau.

I’m also starting to progress in pull-ups and weights. Let’s see where we go from here.

But then there are more sensible people. They think of activism in a better light, as essential work for a fairer world. For example, among progressive public health practitioners.

But even within such public health circles, there’s sometimes an opinion that activism is just another type of useful activity, like public health research. That they are somehow on equal footing.

Take this message from a friend for example:

There is a polarity or what we could call parallel tracks in the archetypes […] – one of the political, rights based advocating common sense activist. The other of the researching evidence generating, publishing or even service providing public health practitioner …

My feeling is they don’t see eye to eye because of perceived fallacies in modus operandi …

In this message, there’s a particular judgement implicit that public health practitioners do equal amount of service as activists do. That the work of generating “evidence”, disseminating, etc are as important as activism. That it is a mistake for activists to not see the importance of the work of public health practitioners.

When equation of activism and public health work is right

There are a few places where this equation is useful.

One, when an activist is making this statement (like my friend above) and they want to project an image of humility and “respect” towards others’ work, then they can make such an equation.

Two, when the public health work in question is itself activism, just disguised as public health work for practical purposes, then it is both the same.

Three, when talking to activists who are doing something obviously wrong and not listening to the science, it is useful to bring this perspective and humility within those activists.

Most public health practitioners are not doing anything useful

If you haven’t read it, read what I wrote in Public Health is Bullshit.

If you think I’m too arrogant to trust my words, here’s the excrept from an event invite from JNU CSMCH:

The Oration will be delivered online by Dr. Seye Abimbola, Professor of Health Systems, School of Public Health, the University of Sydney, and founding editor of the BMJ Global Health. He is well known for his writings on decolonisation of health knowledge and public health practice.

His talk is titled: ‘Ignorance Allied with Power: How to Overcome Epistemic injustice in Public Health’. There’s often a “we need more evidence” appeal in public health which is sometimes genuine, but is often not innocent, especially when it is an excuse for inaction, a distraction, or the powerful’s invitation to a wild goose chase made possible by epistemic injustice. The more we’re able to ignore knowledge, learning, and sense-making that already exists, the more we are able to claim ignorance of what we have reason to know and act upon, and then repeatedly proceed to set up studies to find. This oration will explore this problem and ways to overcome it.

Why activism should be explicitly recognized as being more important than public health practice

It is natural to ask “why should we be so explicit in dissing public health?”.

It is about the urgency of how many activists we need today. Activism has a very bad rep, that even people who might be activists themselves don’t want to be called an activist.

When activism is equated with more socially accepted things like public health work, it is much easier for people to choose those other careers and ignore activism. Those who do take up activism then start feeling like they have made a mistake. Slowly activism becomes unacceptable to even progressive folks.

And that is why I declare with no doubt that activism is better than public health practice (until the day public health becomes political and merges with activism).

Any suspicion that activists hold about public health practitioners is 100% right. There is enough evidence for everything that we need to change in our society. What is lacking is enough activists to cause such change.

WP:AGF

Editing Wikipedia can sometimes become a political battle. Especially when there are disagreements which stem from larger political differences. In these situations, Wikipedia editors try to arrive at a consensus through reasoned debates. There are several principles which guide them during these debates.

WP:AGF is one among them. It is summarized as:

Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.

Why WP:AGF works

Assume good faith works in two ways.

1: It helps editors humanize other editors and give them space to be imperfect. WP:AGF helps people overcome their impulse to characterize opponents as malicious and allows them to listen to each other.

2: WP:AGF creates a framework for coming together in the long term despite disagreements. It allows people to lose an argument and still feel like there is consensus.

It is the second mechanism which breaks down when people try to apply AGF elsewhere.

Where AGF is never encouraged

Think about the “not all men” argument. At its core what it says is the same: “assume good faith, not all men are monsters”. The feminist answer to this is that in a world where men are constantly acting in bad faith, there is a constant price being paid in assuming good faith and being wrong, and therefore it must be on the men to prove they are not problematic. Assuming bad faith from men seems to be the practical way forward in feminist politics.

A similar situation arises in anti-caste movement where people are forced to assume bad faith actions from privileged caste folks (even when they speak “progressive” language). People from privileged caste backgrounds repeatedly fail to demonstrate their anti-caste “intentions” when it comes to things that actually matter.

WP:AGF vs AGF in general

In editing wikipedia:

• There’s a stated common goal of building an online encyclopedia.
• There are mechanisms to ensure that everyone works towards that goal and stopping bad actors is a shared responsibility. There are external mechanisms to ensure justice.

In such an environment, AGF is easy to practice and often useful too.

But in politics,

• Different people have different goals (often hidden goals).
• There are no reliable “external” mechanisms to deliver justice, the debate is often tied to the justice mechanisms itself.

In such an environment AGF is not merely harmful; it is even unclear what the shared commitment is towards which the assumption of good faith is being made.

What should happen instead?

In politics, there should be no compulsion to assume good faith. Rather, people should freely assume bad faith. And it must be on everyone to demonstrate what they stand for through loud and clear actions.

Look at what Suraj Yengde wrote in Caste Matters:

There were radical anti-caste Phuleite and Ambedkarite Brahmins who laid their lives in the service of the upliftment of Dalits and in the project of the annihilation of caste. I uncover these figures in Chapter 6 by analysing what prevents contemporary Brahmins, the progeny of Ambedkarite Brahmins, from taking an active stand against caste-based discrimination. Many liberal Brahmins and ‘upper castes’ do express their disagreement with casteism but their disapproval of such a system does not change the situation of Dalits. This has to do with passive liberalism rather than the radical humanist position of being a ‘cultural suicide bomber’ willing to blow up the oldest surviving edifice of discrimination.

A radical humanist position will be unambiguous. Such a position will be clear to everyone, and there won’t be the need for “assuming” anything anymore.

Post-script

This post has been going on in my mind for a long time. The caste-class elite in India living a fake life of “progressiveness” and even “radicalism” on social media and not even bothering to think about whether there’s any change in material reality. I have people whom I extend AGF to in those circles, and one of them, a Wikipedian I first came into touch through Wikipedia, has actually used the Wikipedia policy to talk me out of assuming bad faith from some actors.

Recent events in Wikimedia Foundation’s anti-union tactics and gaslighting about it has prompted me to finally get this down in words. It is no coincidence that 11 years ago Jimmy Wales’ self-serving politics itself prompted me to reconsider my irrational trust in other people’s virtues.

Process

Use your voter ID EPIC number to find your BLO details.

Call the BLO, visit them and get the form (It is impractical to think that the BLOs will visit you).

Read and fill the form. For the 2002 section, if you are in 2002 SIR roll, fill your details, otherwise, fill your parent/grandparent details (hoping that they are in 2002 SIR roll).

An unusual beginning

CJP as an opposition movement was very much unlike the usual in the beginning.

Millions of followers for a political campaign. What?

Publicly announcing protest and not getting arrested. How?!

Strategy of non-ideology

I agree with the approach CJP used of not articulating an ideology. They knew that their mass was not ideological. They wanted to remain accessible and acceptable to liberals and other centrists. If they started talking about class, caste, gender, etc on day 1 they would have been non-existent now.

As far as strategy goes CJP has played it reasonable. Like MK Gandhi went to Champaran on a single issue, Abhijeet Dipke went to Jantar Mantar on a single issue.

Practical politics for idealists

CJP has done well in creating momentum behind one political issue. They have dedicated time, effort, and resources to the cause. They are persisting on the issue. What CJP is doing now is the maximum that good people in India can do now.

And the results are proportional.

There is some synergy, some noise, some hope, etc. It might achieve something. A minister might resign. An exam pattern might change.

Visibility as power

If I have 22M followers on Instagram, am I powerful?

That is a question which will give us access to many layers of what’s happening in front of us.

It is now evident that 22M followers is not enough power to get a BJP minister to resign in a few weeks.

What power does follower-count / visibility have then?

In Ravikant Kisana’s out-of-context words, “it is not nothing”.

In the attention economy, having a platform where you can rise above the noise and be heard is almost a prerequisite for impact. And that platform is what CJP has.

How you accumulate power determines what you can do with it

This is where the means vs ends debate comes into practice.

Whatever little power CJP has accumulated, it has accumulated through:

• being viral
• focusing on a burning issue (of NEET)

These are fragile forms of gathering power. There’s no formula to be viral. Your luck might run out any moment.

The burning issue will stop burning.

The power that CJP started with is not a sustainable fuel. It will run out. Especially if they try to use it for anything it is not designed for.

…unless you manage to leverage what you have and gain more power

This is what AAP did. They leveraged the India Against Corruption credentials to launch a political party. I do not know all that went into that transformation, but transformation they did. And by becoming a non-joke political party in India they were able to become much more powerful than what they would have been as IAC movement.

Can CJP do such a transformation? I believe it is unlikely.

How can CJP become a political party? BJP will use Abhijeet Dipke’s past ties with AAP to discredit this new party. And having flown in from America, it will be difficult for AD to build an image of a nationalist. Sonam Wangchuk might seem like an Arvind Kejriwal, but the persona SW has built is that of an intellectual and so SW is unlikely to enter party politics. Unless someone else hijacks the control of CJP, a political party can’t come out of it.

CJP as a youth movement

A viable option is for CJP is to rebrand (with or without a rename) themselves to something more serious and continue as a socio-cultural movement/campaign/organization. In this process they can articulate their ideology more clearly.

If they go this route, Abhijeet will be forced to take an anti-caste ideology. And consequentially, some of AD’s present friends will leave. They might establish themselves as cultural observers, or join political parties.

In any case, CJP will become a shadow of its past.

What did it achieve?

I think CJP is a valuable exercise in keeping Indian democracy alive. CJP made protests cool again. CJP has given a front-row lesson to a whole generation on how a protest/campaign is organized, sustained, etc. Whatever happens at the end of the current protest, it will also teach a lot of people how activism works.

CJP also provides real world data on how much/little influence Instagram has on real world politics. As per my calculations, it is a wake-up call for those who are spending all their time doing conscientization on Instagram.

Why CJP is real now

CJP has crossed its initial euphoria now. In the euphoric stage, a lot can happen and there’s no way to predict what will or what will not. But now, after the initial enthusiasm has gone, is time for re-evaluation. For outsiders and for insiders.

Let’s hope for the best and assume that Dharmendra Pradhan will move aside. Then the protestors will be able to take a breather and reevaluate their life. Incomplete degrees, unpaid bills, pending tasks, other priorities, unfulfilled political goals, meaning of life. It is at that point that we will know how CJP will continue.

Tiring life of activists

I don’t follow CJP on Instagram. I follow Neha of AISA.

Regardless of how cheerful an activist presents themselves as, activism is tiring. It is an unpaid job with very rare rewards. One can reframe it mentally and find joy in the day-to-day. Especially when people show up in solidarity.

But fundamentally the activist is dedicating their life for the benefit of others. And it’s not very pleasurable.

In solidarity

It is in this hungry, exhausted phase of CJP that I feel affectionate towards it. There is relatability here. There is now the feeling that we are all together in this mess. There is now a sense of solidarity.

Hum Honge Kaamyaab.

It is built on the idea that the pillars of fitness are:

• diet
• exercise
• self-image
• sleep
• mental peace

Diet

I follow the habit of mindful eating.

I don’t do any kind of fasting or restrictions (I’ve done intermittent fasting and keto-diet in the past). I just eat mindfully.

By that I mean, I eat when I’m hungry, I eat only to satisfy the hunger, and I avoid eating too much when there’s too many nice things to eat.

I cut chappattis from three to two and found that that’s enough. I avoid snacking. I eat just like a regular day when I’m part of a feast (conference lunches, weddings, celebrations, etc).

Even if I crave a biriyani or some porotta and beef, I don’t order like in my 20s. I share a biriyani with Swathi, or order just two porottas.

And I drink a lot of water.

Exercise

I exercise 3-4 times a week. Mostly it takes the form of jogging in a nearby park. These days I run a minimum of 1.5 km, and on some days 2-3km.

It was a struggle for me earlier when I would jog only in the morning. But nowadays I allow myself to run in the evenings. And I find it much more easier to get myself to the park in the evenings. I also am able to run farther in the evening.

What’s made it the easiest for me is that I have relaxed my approach to maintaining streaks. I try to run every day. If I miss a day, I try to run the next day. If I miss two days, I try to run the day after that. Sometimes I get sick and can’t run for a whole week. I then shift to walking. And then I get back to running as soon as I can. I don’t beat myself up. So I get to run much more.

It’s also helpful that I’ve gotten a smart watch with GPS as a birthday gift this year. I have a Redmi Watch 5 Lite (referral link). I’ve connected it to my Strava account. And so every time I am doing any sort of exercise, it gets logged. And that is nice.

When it is not running, it is some or the other activity — weights, climbing, badminton. Something to keep myself active.

Oh, we also got a pull-up bar (referral link) and it is the best investment ever. I keep hanging on it whenever. And I can almost pull myself up now.

Self-image

I think of myself as an athletic person.

I don’t think of myself as lazy. I don’t think of myself as having no energy. I don’t allow myself to feel like my body is not fit for exercising.

I think of my body as an elite athlete’s body.

I also was gifted some running clothes. And running shoes.

And a phone armband.

The whole package!

I wear all of them and I walk out and already feel good about myself.

Sleep

I have to sleep before midnight. My brain needs that.

And I try to ensure that.

It’s somehow become easier to fall asleep sooner. (Maybe the exercise, etc helps).

I think what helped me the most was giving myself the freedom to have not accomplished much in the day. It is 9 o’clock, it is time for bed. Whatever needs to be done can be done tomorrow.

I also don’t do revenge procrastination now.

For many months now my sleep cycles have been sane.

Mental peace

This required a lot of work with my therapist, a lot of reflection, reading, and discussions with Swathi and others.

I think I’m a lot less anxious now about things. I am okay with doing things slowly, doing things one at a time.

I am able to stop myself in the middle of something I’m immersed in, and cook or exercise.

I am able to breathe in and think about what my body needs — water? food? burn some calories? rest? silence? connection?

I am able to sit simply.

I am able to get bored.

Results

It’s been pretty good. My HbA1c went from 5.9 (prediabetic) to 5.6 (normal). From being able to barely run a kilometer without dying, I can now comfortably run perhaps 2, sometimes even 3km. My belly is visibly smaller. I’m able to climb up the stairs of my house without having to drag myself. I don’t have random aches and pains.

I don’t think this is the greatest fitness regime on the planet. But this is working fine for me.

This was written at an IndieWebClub Bangalore meetup.

I’m glad that my reciting of how wealth is distributed in India hit (some of) the audience and provoked this response. I had said my thumb rule of knowing where you are:

The elites live in a cognitive distortion

When you live in a country with crores of people, you tend to lose the big picture. If you live amongst a particular category of people, you tend to become absorbed in the thoughts and discussions of that category.

When you live among the elites, you tend to think that most people are elites, and that poor is just a small population. At most, you see the middle class workers who run around for the elites and think that most people are at least middle class. You tend to forget that middle class life itself is a struggle. You also tend to forget that poor people exist. You completely forget that there is a very very large number of poor people.

Human beings already can’t make sense of big numbers.

And when they’re living in a capitalistic value system and have imbibed a casteist lens of looking at society, they won’t even try to make sense of big numbers.

The elite is you

The distortion works in the other direction too. When you’re in the top 1%, when you’re an engineer, doctor, government officer, entrepreneur, lawyer, etc, you think about people much richer than you as the elite. The Ambanis and Narendra Modi’s benami (Adani) becomes the only elite. In your mind there are 10 people who are elite in this country and the rest (including you) are middle class. How distorted!

The elite is you. And I’m not even adding a conditional because if you read this post till here on the internet, you’ve enough English and enough time to be in the top 20% Indians.

As my friend Subin recently posted on LinkedIn, “touch grass”.

When you see the scale of the problem, you inevitably get a sense of urgency

The elites are not just conditioned to accept the status quo, they also excel in defending it. If you say the truth you get labeled as “too radical” and “immature”. You are thrown out of places because you’re “too naive”.

But the elite will never stop sounding like they’re all for changing the system. They will keep talking about “policy engagement”, “nudging the system”, “advocacy”. They will talk about “T” shaped change. They will talk about decentralization. They will talk about intersectoral coordination.

They will even talk about poverty.

But they won’t talk about “class”. They won’t talk about “elites”. They won’t mention “caste”. If they are women elites, they will talk about patriarchy, but not about brahmaniacal patriarchy or capitalist patriarchy.

When you see how generations after generations people are being made to wait (for a better life), how the rhetoric of the elite is always against revolutionary/radical change, then your body sends a signal of urgency to your brain.

And that’s how a radical is born.

That’s when people start demanding radical transformation of the system. That’s when they reject the system altogether and fight from outside. That’s when they call out the performativity of “bold statements”. That’s when they get irritated with the moderate elites. That’s when they start getting nausea in elite campuses and the bullshit that gets discussed to death in their auditoriums. That’s when they become unlikable in the elite circles.

If you are someone who can’t stand criticism of the elite circlejerk around you, then probably you have to ask yourself — “Whose side are you on?”

*I learned after writing this blog that the comment was made by Tarun Seem, someone who knows how the system needs radical transformation and have been doing their bit for bringing that change in. No wonder!

Silence inside, not outside.

Earlier I used to write to get clarity. Now my fingers aren’t able to keep up with my thoughts.

I wrote a poem the other day.

Can you believe it? I. Wrote. A. Poem.

I was like, aren’t poets supposed to be the tortured souls? Don’t they write when the agony hits the roof?

I took the “Notes” app on my phone and just wrote:

Anger
First you're angry at the world
Then you're angry at the people who are not angry at the world
Then you're angry at yourself that you're not able to do anything about your anger
So you bottle up all your anger and swallow the bottle
The bottle will try to stay at the bottom of your chest
But you push it down further, somewhere deeper inside, near your rectum
As far away from your mind as you can
And then you start to think
Think about what you can do
And that's when you realise you're all spent now
There's nothing left to do but weep
Weep at what we could have done if only more people were angry enough
Weep at the irony of it
The people who need you don't need you
And you are here figuring out where you took the wrong turn
Maybe you should have never woken up from the dream
Stay in a 9-5 job and excuse yourself from everything
At least then your mind will be protected
It'll be frozen in a corporate refrigerator
Far away from anger
Maybe you need sleep
Eternal blissful sleep
Go back to sleep, mind
Anger is everywhere
But not the anger you wanted.

Impossible jigsaw puzzles

What is clear by now is that I’m living too far from the present. Nobody’s fault. Not my fault that I thought that everything would be obvious to everyone and that all it needs is a moment of collective articulation. Not their fault that they don’t open things and look inside to see the “obvious”.

I feel like Rancho in 3 idiots. Opening up everything and learning. But unlike machines, society doesn’t move forward without collective work. (Or does it?). Just me learning is not enough. Others have to learn. And my impatience helps nobody. But how patient can one be?

Imagine you’re in a burning house. And you run out. And you see others sitting inside and saying “oooh, it’s getting hot in here”. How many expletives are you allowed to call them?

Is it hypocritic to call out hypocrisy when you don’t have the alternative?

What hurts is the hypocrisy.

Siddhesh (popularly known as @bakeryprasad) wrote that in this blog called: “Loneliness in the Left-wing politics“.

I’ve been too afraid to say this in public.

Not exactly. I’ve said this in public and gotten reprimanded several times. And so I’ve stopped saying this in public.

The so-called “progressive” or “left” spaces are dominated by people who are too happy to continue “questioning” the status quo without changing it.

Things that are completely in their control, they refuse to change.

Things that are not in their control, they’re happy to criticize.

All problems are outside them.

And when you call this out, they play the reverse Uno card.

They’re like “Oh, what have you done so radical that you’re speaking to us with condescension?”

I wonder if nobody has put Siddhesh on that spot. Maybe Siddhesh can claim their whole family has been resisting. Maybe Siddhesh will say “I’ve been producing art”.

And then they will ask/say, “Oh, but how many people can do what you’re doing? We’re all trying to do what we can!”

So then you’re suddenly put in a position where you have to demonstrate to them how you might do what they do, in a better (more radical) way.

And you can never be in another person’s shoe. You will always do things your own way. Your constraints and capacities will be different. And so it can never be a blueprint for them.

So it becomes an impossible jigsaw puzzle.

You want people to be radical. When you demand it from them, they show their (self-imposed) shackles. And you’re then left looking like an arrogant person who don’t understand where people are and what difficulties they face.

What to do with panel discussions?

I’ve been invited to a panel discussion next month.

How do I tell people that the problem is that we do too many panel discussions and people end up thinking that panel discussions are themselves radical change?

I’ve said “no” to many discussions in the past.

I’ve said “yes” to many “movements” that turned out to be just discussions.

I’m now confused what to say.

Whose responsibility is it to organize change?

Whose responsibility is it to compensate for other people not taking up their responsibilities?

Whose responsibility is to break the cycle first?

Paradox of humility

You’ve heard of the paradox of tolerance, right?

The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical concept suggesting that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance, thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance. ~Wikipedia

Well, let me introduce you to paradox of humility.

If you want people to have humility to listen, you’re gonna have to have the arrogance/hubris to tell them that they don’t have the humility to listen. And they’re going to use that as an excuse to say that you’re the one without humility to listen to their issues.

Good judgement

It’s very easy to figure out who are the bad people in this society — those people who believe in patriarchy, caste, religion, and/or capitalism and make it obvious.

We call them right wing for short.

But where judgement is required is to judge those who are not clearly in the right wing, but could as well be.

Those are the people who talk about revolution and change and never once asks “But how?”

If you are an honest left-wing person, you’re bound to be confused:

• What to do with savarna feminism?
• Is identity politics doing good or bad? How to even measure that?
• How do we make people stop needing god (and all of god’s conditions on them)?
• How much criticism of capitalism is possible in today’s society? Where to get bread from while criticizing capitalism?

Let me make it more concrete:

• Algorithmic feeds are screwing up democracy. Do we continue to use Instagram for “reach”?
• Do we give up perfectionism and settle for the good?
• Do we take money from billionaires/millionaires?
• How do we pay people well without taking money from rich people?
• Is volunteerism exploitation?
• Do we work with toxic people if the output may be good for the world?
• What if those toxic people then get visibility and keep doing more toxic things?
• What to do when nobody seems to know the answers?

And so many more questions!

So, when you see people talking about change without asking these questions, can we consider them part of the problem?

Pardon the differences arising from uncertainty

When things are certain and people choose to do things differently — that’s their politics. That’s unpardonable.

But when things are uncertain, unclear, confusing, and then people choose to do things differently (because of the uncertainties), then that’s a matter of randomness. That’s pardonable. That needs to be pardoned.

We can’t cancel people just because they are doing something different from us. If they share our values, and they share our uncertainties, and they choose a different path simply because there’s no telling which path is better, then they have to be considered community.

If I draw the line such that the only person on the good side is me, then I’ve over-fitted the criteria.

I need to draw the line slightly looser. To allow for differences in personalities and preferences and skills and capacity.

When we do that we end up with slightly more people. Maybe not millions, maybe not thousands. Maybe tens. Maybe a handful.

That is where I find companionship.

What about differences arising from ignorance, what about people’s potential to change?

Who remains ignorant? Whom do we allow to remain ignorant?

I have a simple rule. If someone is 25 or more years old, have been using internet since 5 years, can read/write English, and has had some sort of formal education, then no matter what identity they carry, I don’t afford them the excuse of ignorance.

People have the potential to change. Yes. It’s always possible, at whatever age. People can always learn. They can have life-altering experiences. All that’s true.

But the chances of such change is very rare. If there’s a chance, it’ll show up as green flags. And then you can make an exception for those individuals.

Akshay, you are probably going to fail the criteria of other people

I’m not afraid. I know exactly the measure of my humility-arrogance ratio, my praxis, my privileges. (Except my blindspots).

But none of that matters! Because it is not about me!

The problems of the world are so huge that it doesn’t matter if I get qualified as “bad” by someone else. I’m happy as long as people are making these judgements and move forward with their politics.

The task before the left

The to-do list for the left is rather straightforward to list down, and perhaps slightly difficult to do.

1. Call out the hypocrisies. Debate on what being “left” or “progressive” truly means.
2. Draw the line more strictly. Do not lower your standards simply because things appear too difficult.
3. Realize that things are difficult, especially because the alternatives have to be created (unlike status quo which needs to merely be sustained).
4. Give space for slack. Revolutionaries need rest too.
5. Don’t let perpetual slackers claim that they’re revolutionaries taking rest. Notice patterns. Rest of the restless looks different from comfort of the status quo.
6. Continue building the alternative without fear of failure.
   • Organizations that don’t exploit.
   • Platforms that don’t exclude.
   • Power that doesn’t get corrupted.
   • Ideology that doesn’t lose its vision.
   • Smash brahminism. Dismantle capitalism. Fuck patriarchy. (And religion will disappear automatically then).