As the title asks, what are some news outlets or reporters based in Maharashtra or focused on Maharashtrian politics from a left perspective, in any language (English/Marathi/Hindi/other) or platform? Socialist left preferred but left-liberal is fine too.

I'm aware of Sohit Mishra (ex-NDTV now independent Hindi Youtube-based reporter in Mumbai) but I was wondering who/what else is out there. Your thoughts and opinions on the biases and perspectives of traditional MH and national media houses are also welcome.

Hey, Indian Lefts what is your opinion on Dravidian politics ?

Dravidian ideology paved way for Dravidian politics and your opinion on tamil as language.

What do you people think about armed struggle for tamil eelam in Sri Lanka ?

Do you Lefts are aware of those struggles ?

I have post this question in one more indian left Subreddit , so can anyone explain me about what is left wing communism ?

Once again, I point out from the start that I am a foreigner.

I hope that I can find some resources on development economics that are not written by liberal idiots. Until then, let me ask you a general question.

How much do you think can be done for the poor people of India with only a shift in domestic policy,

i.e. without any assurances from the United States of favouring India when it comes to technology transfers, investment, capital inflows etc?

My fear is that the main reason for China's improvement from the 1980s is that for its own geopolitical reasons the US happened to find China useful and therefore allowed China to earn some US dollars.

(Of course, it also has to do with China's own decisions at the time, some good, some bad. But I think that foreign policy was the main driving force. Do you agree?)

My secondary fear is that de-dollarisation is going to be a very, very slow process, so that the US factor will remain.

Finally, to amuse you, here's a delicious clip of garbage Nobel laureate Abhijit Banerjee explaining how China just made lucky guesses and we could not predict that state-owned banks could do so well and India can't really learn from China. Achchha, so because right-wing economists can't understand state-led growth, it follows that it was all an accident? How convenient for your career.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaeQQniOlGw

Hie everyone.

This is u/Nihilistic_Nymph and I made a post about how being neurodivergent/being disabled is not taken seriously.

I posted it in two subreddits - this one and another prominent left leaning subreddit (or so it claims).

My comments were being downvoted because apparently a left leaning sub is not the right place to talk about disabilities.

I joined the community chat to ask people what exactly irked people off because I usually have trouble understanding cues or framing my ideas as well as I want to. It might be because of my own disabilities.

Now, I have unfortunately interacted with the chat before and have had an awful experience. To sum it all up - I was invited to the chat purposefully (?) and my unrelated posts and comments were shared in a discord server.

It was pretty bad, and it made me very upset cause all I had done was ask for some books to read on Anarchism since the sub did call itself left leaning.

I understand not everyone agrees with the Anarchist way of thought, but to bully someone for just asking a question and comparing them to Mussolini felt like an overkill.

I wish I could have taken more screenshots before deleting the account, but oh well.

https://preview.redd.it/pxi68lskmk3e1.png?width=1124&format=png&auto=webp&s=31646f0b617573297f5a4931c85c21458d6c10a8

https://preview.redd.it/v166zn7smk3e1.png?width=1142&format=png&auto=webp&s=864be2be4ff413616c84a057c569bf52eb5f6b8c

This is a post that I made which did not concern them, yet for some reason they felt the need to share it and make fun of it even though I wasn't present.

https://preview.redd.it/s3x76bxknk3e1.png?width=1025&format=png&auto=webp&s=1af7f86d57347a859b4843df74f61986b50ee560

Some people were kind of enough to reach out to me and made sure I was okay.

Anyway the following screenshots are from yesterday's conversation. I have not included ALL of the screenshots because the messages can be easily accessed from their community chat. I have simply added the relevant ones.

https://preview.redd.it/9gyr7i8znk3e1.png?width=1512&format=png&auto=webp&s=d029a67e9c43517d4efae96d5fee7c84b1e2d75e

https://preview.redd.it/xf3ypmp0ok3e1.png?width=1505&format=png&auto=webp&s=be8e0a27374df5e72594c6ec7483b1d2a9d39ee4

https://preview.redd.it/86sivf92ok3e1.png?width=1535&format=png&auto=webp&s=e22fe2f07bc6c24bbe00d0876ca2f20d48e79bc3

https://preview.redd.it/kl5fomz3ok3e1.png?width=1439&format=png&auto=webp&s=9c50967aa2ad2f10442c237986a148410ab73c36

https://preview.redd.it/1p1oaap5ok3e1.png?width=1423&format=png&auto=webp&s=e6863e07def6a95cab399a8404fc84a8b0cce335

https://preview.redd.it/3uzukhj8ok3e1.png?width=1134&format=png&auto=webp&s=38c113507a434d8543607a65d98fcf639887eb2b

I was saying sorry throughout the conversation or thanking them because that's how I cope in these situations. I fawn to get out of what my brain perceives to be danger since I have a long history of being bullied and picked on irl.

How dare I have a feminine pfp or username? I must send nudes.

Also, I had mentioned on a comment under an entirely different subreddit about my history of being groomed at 13 by a 26 year old man. For some reason this person thought it was appropriate to bring that up out of nowhere.

I understand I shared it on a public platform, but this is not it.

I have seen a couple of comments on there making fun of other people who are simply not present in the chat, but I have decided not to use those screenshots since it is not my story to tell.

I wish I had taken some more before deleting my account, esp from what happened the last time around but oh well.

A person did reach out to me last time and called me autistic because apparently I type like one (whatever that means), and me not understanding their sarcasm just said oh I haven't been diagnosed with it but I might be bipolar and they essentially said "you're too nice to be bipolar".

I don't have the screenshots for that conversation any more. You are free to not take my word on that, but I had to get it off my chest.

I am just a random kid on the internet who was trying to learn more. You are free to draw your own conclusions.

I will go and get some sleep now.

Peace out.

Please stop pretending to understand what it’s like to be neurodivergent. Our brains process the world differently, shaping experiences you can’t fully grasp. And that’s okay. What’s not okay is trivializing or dismissing our struggles.

Saying you have ADHD because you hate studying or claiming you’re autistic because you missed sarcasm once isn’t just wrong, it’s harmful. These are real challenges, not quirks or trends. When you say “everyone feels that way sometimes” or suggest I just need to try harder, you invalidate the daily struggles I face in a world built for neurotypical people.

Curiosity about mental health is great, but don’t self-diagnose based on memes or romanticize neurodivergence because a famous figure was neurodivergent. It’s dismissive and makes it harder for us to be taken seriously. You wouldn’t tell someone in a wheelchair, “We all feel tired of walking.” So why say that to someone with ADHD or autism?

This world was designed by and for neurotypical individuals, and neurodivergent people are left to navigate systems that weren’t made for us. That’s why conversations about intersectionality and class consciousness must include neurodivergence and mental health. These aren’t separate issues. They are deeply interconnected and impact our ability to survive and thrive.

Our struggles are real, and all we ask is for you to listen, respect us, and stop using our reality as a quirk or a punchline.

Sincerely,
A Neurodivergent Person.

new video just came out on north korea's evil dictatorship and how their government keeps their boots on the necks of their people. what maddens me is the sheer amount of propaganda he's spreading, no credible sources apart from independent personal opines, and its so low effort, he literally just says "the government decides what they wear and how they cut their hair" the so common dogma with no fucking proof to back it up, they cant even fucking decide if the haircut thing is "all men are only supposed to have kim jong un's haircut" or "no man is supposed to have kim jong un's haircut" . and sooo many things are just straight up wrong, "america jaise desh ne apna haath aage badhaya unko poverty se uthane ke liye par sirf iss condition pe ki woh apne nuclear weapons give up karde", america was one of the main reasons why north korea suffered poverty. "inme itni humility bhi nahi thi ki apni janta ki madad karne ke liye compromise kar sake" thats like telling hamas to give up its arms to protect its citizens from incessant bombing, IT WOULD JUST MAKE IT EASIER FOR ISRAEL TO CARRY ON WITH THEIR GENOCIDE. the majority of his sources are just "defectors" people like yeonmi park, with ridiculous claims, and yet again, no proof to back it up. how do you call yourself an educator and rely on ad populum to formulate an argument? And the conviction with which he just declares the dogma is just maddening. how does someone supposedly educated in journalism allow themselves to be this dishonest? he's talking about policy changes that would encourage military action against the dprk, or literally facilitate its collapse. how tf does this qualify as educational content?

Posting here cause mods from certain indian leftist sub removed it for being defensive of a totalitarian regime. Very ironic. Hopefully it does better here.

On the sad occasion of the passing of Sitaram Yechury
(unless you are from a faction that hates the CPI-M, I've interacted with one such on Reddit LOL)

Kapil Sibal and two other liberals sat down for a seemingly polite conversation with Nilotpal Basu.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_-giUg0n0E

I have a vague understanding of Indian politics, but it's hard to know who to trust in terms of deeper readings. After all, most famous historians are liberals.

How should I understand the role of Congress, liberal media etc.?

The video characterises an atmosphere of alliance between them and the Marxist left. Is it realistic?

(As you know, in the American context, it is not possible for Marxists to ally with the Democratic Party and its lapdogs - maybe except on a small number of social issues - since the Democrats are genocidal, imperialist etc. etc.)

A few days ago, two posts were made on r\librandu about hijab/burqa. People raised some very valid points there. This is my attempt at countering those points, and I have decided to share them with y'all.

I did not touch on the comparison with sati as I find it to be quite a heavy topic and it doesn't fit into the themes of counter points I am raising.

Here are those posts for reference:

1. Change my mind: Both of these represent women empowerment.
2. my two cents on the constant debate around a "hijab ban"
3. Change my view: Both Illustrations Represent Women's Empowerment

It's not their choice—they have been conditioned to think that way.

Say, you are a huge Spider-Man fan—and you see some Spider-Man clothing and you decide to buy it. Well, is it really your choice?—or are you just conditioned to think that way—all that time you spent on those fandom chat boards must've had some effect on you—it might have nudged you into liking stuff like these; had you not spent time in that fandom—you probably wouldn't have bought that T-shirt. Now, imagine someone comes along and forcefully asks you to remove that Spider-Man T-shirt—saying that they want to safeguard your freedom of choice—that you never had the freedom in the first place—that you were "brainwashed" into liking these things from all the time you spent in that fandom. How would you feel?

Most of what we do is conditioned—our mannerisms—our way of speaking—our way of writing—what clothes we wear; the spicy food, we Indians are so proud of, is the consequence of India being a hot country—thus requiring the need to spice our food as a means of preserving it; when we say that we like spicy food—is that really our choice?—or are we conditioned to think that way by the cosmic dice at play? Heck, even our genetics—what we find intetesting and not interesting are determined to an extent by our genes and our environment we grew up in; when Samrita says that she want to become a doctor—is it really her choice at play—or is it the effect of being brought up in a home where both of her parents are doctors—and medicine is revered as a profession? We can drag this further—which gender we are attracted to is determined by our hormones and shaped by our environmnet—heteronormativity, which we should totally get rid off. And even after doing all that—who we will fall in love with will heavily depend on on our brain chemistry and our environment. So, you wanting to stay with your SO—is it really your choice?—or were you conditioned to think that way?

Is choosing to wear saree not cultural conditioning? Is choosing to wear a turban not cultural conditioning? Office apparals—which are mandated and pushed by our coorporate culture—is that not cultural conditioning?

Policing people's freedom of choice is a futile task, and it takes away whatever semblance of agency (or illusion of it) that they may have had. While playing Ludo—or any kind of dice game—people don't usually like it when someone else (exceptions—loved ones—"lucky people") rolls their dice—even though it has no effect on the outcome. You may walk them through all the factors affecting their choice, so that they can make a better decision. But to belittle people, or as in this case, to outright strip their right to wear what they want under the pretext of "safeguarding their freedom of choice," is a little sadistic to me.

Veiling is rooted in misogyny.

Halloween’s roots trace back to the ancient Celtic festival of Samhain (pronounced “sow-in”), celebrated over 2,000 years ago in what is now Ireland, Scotland, and parts of Britain. Samhain marked the end of the harvest season and the beginning of winter, a time associated with death and the supernatural. The Celts believed that during Samhain, the boundary between the living and the dead became thin, and the spirits of the deceased could return to the world of the living. This made it a time for honoring ancestors, but also a time when people feared that malevolent spirits could cause harm. To appease these spirits, the Celts would offer sacrifices and food, and light bonfires to guide the spirits. To protect themselves from these wandering spirits, people wore costumes and masks to disguise themselves as fellow spirits or to scare away evil ones. This is one of the traditions that evolved into the modern practice of dressing up for Halloween. Bonfires were central to Samhain, as they were believed to purify and protect people from evil spirits. People also offered sacrifices, both animal and sometimes crops, to the spirits of the dead, hoping to ensure a good harvest in the coming year.

But—the meaning has changed—what was once seen with reverence and fear is now seen with a sense of celebration and fun. Originally, jeans were associated with the working class and the poor. Youth culture in the 1950s, inspired by rebellious icons like James Dean and Marlon Brando, began wearing jeans as a symbol of defiance and individuality. Over time, jeans evolved into a global fashion staple worn by people from all social classes. Veiling was historically considered a status symbol in many societies and was often associated with the upper classes. In several ancient and medieval cultures, veiling signified wealth, modesty, and exclusivity, as it marked women who were privileged enough not to engage in physical labor or be exposed to the public. Here are a few examples. (Pulled from ChatGPT)

1. Mesopotamia: In ancient Assyria, veiling was a privilege reserved for noblewomen, and laws even forbade slaves and prostitutes from wearing veils, reinforcing its association with status and respectability.
2. Ancient Greece and Rome: Elite women often used veils to signify modesty and virtue. Veiling distinguished them from lower-class women who had no such societal expectations or rights.
3. Byzantine Empire: Wealthy women and royalty commonly wore veils as part of their elaborate attire, showcasing their rank and seclusion.
4. Islamic Societies: In early Islamic history, veiling (hijab) was often adopted by wealthy and aristocratic women, imitating Persian and Byzantine customs. It symbolized both religious piety and social status, as poorer women or slaves were less likely to veil.
5. Victorian England: While not full veils, face-covering accessories like veiled hats were popular among the upper classes during the 19th century, symbolizing refinement and social distinction.

We have seen the 💀 emoji change meaning right in our own lifetime. Cultures are never static; they are always evolving in our ever-changing world. Especially in our post-industrial world.

Likewise—veiling—which was once a symbol of misogyny has taken on a new meaning—that of—identity—culture—and fashion (this bit always riles up the conservative mullahs, which is always fun to watch, ngl); and in Indian context—an act of resistance—a form of cultural defiance against the right-wing government—which wants to...you know. The government's attempt to ban hijab has only springboarded its adoption—with many people embracing it as a form of cultural and political autonomy. For many people—mostly rich, educated Muslims—veiling is a choice—and they choose it for various reasons, like to come closer to their faith or due to social anxiety. The veil has also become a symbol of femininity—many Muslim trans women also veil—they are not being oppressed into doing it. Which brings us to oppression—what I said above mostly applies to privileged people who actually do have a choice (who often flip-flop between Western clothes and hijab); for them, veiling does not signify oppression—but many are not that fortunate. For many—veiling still retains its misogynistic character—cultures are not monolithic.

Veiling is oppressive to some—especially to those in the lower socioeconomic strata.

Say, Mumtaz grew up in city with a poor, conservative family—there were strict restrictions put on her—she was not allowed to talk to boys in her area—she was only allowed to go out with her sisters or her mother—values of honor and modesty were ingrained into her mind right from her childhood; her cousins constantly bully her if her hair seeps through hijab; her family follows religion as a means of "escaping the wrath of God." Many often tend to forget that people's relationship with God is transactional (some of the earliest gods of agricultural humans were harvest gods)—motivated by fears and anxieties brought on by the insecurities of their lives—this fear often manifests itself as the fear of eternal damnation in Christianity and Islam. Fear (or the lack of it) is also a big reason why people often let go of their religion once their material conditions are met. Why do you think atheism has only exploded recently—were the people of the bygone era stupid? Why do you think that explosion is limited to (mostly) Western countries—are people of the global south stupid? Many atheist right-wingers think so (and their numbers have only increased); this is not the first time the ideas of progressiveness are used to justify bigotry; they were also used during the segregation era—Whites were deemd progressive and civilized, whereas Blacks were deemed regressive and uncultured; the British also used similar reasoning to justify their exploitation of Indians; and now—the atheism sub (the big one) has become an apolegia for Israeli war crimes. They use a similiar reasoning—Arabs are religious and regressive, therefore deserve to be bombed; and we, Indians, have adopted a similar attitude—veiled women are regressive, therefore don't deserve education. When we think about it—our bigotry has not changed—it has only shifted form; earlier, we discrimimated on the basis of racial superiority—now, we discriminate on the basis of progressiveness, whithout ever acknowledging that racial differences in the past and regressiveness in the present both stem from harsh material conditions. White supramacists continue to use the progressivism of Western Civilization—a dog whistle for White Power—to channel their bigotry.

Mumtaz's father had planned to get her married right after her class 10th exam, but after getting really good marks—she and her family persuaded her father to continue her education in a girls-only junior collage, where hijab was allowed; her sisters were not as fortunate—they were married right after their class 10th exam. She completed her class 12th exam with really good marks and now wants to pursue graduation. Her father is, of course, highly reluctant to this—he keeps up the news: he knows how right-wing thugs harass Muslim girls. A relative also suggested that she was possessed by a demonic jinn for wanting to go to college. By the way—Mumtaz also veils. The oppression faced by Muslim women, like all women, is multifaceted. It is almost laughable that many people, especially those on the left, brush all of that aside, and make hijab a focal point for playing identity politics. The terms of discourse are set by the BJP, and many on the left are sleepwalking right into the trap of identity politics.

Say, you want to confront Mumtaz's father—how would you do it? Would you tell him that what he had been believing—his religion—is all just made up? Which it is—don't get me wrong—but people, especially old people, are too ingrained in their ways to change course this late in their life. Also, this will raise massive red flags in his mind—he will never send his daughter to college if he suspects there is any possibility of her turning into an atheist. He only has good interests of his daughter in mind—because from his perspective—he is saving her from eternal damnation—and her not going to college is a small price to pay. Hardline approach seems like a bad idea when your goal is to help people—shocker! How about instead you give out a helping hand. How about instead of ostracizing him and patronizing him, you give him a ground of empathy to stand on and feel safe. To say that you will always be there to defend the rights and identity of his daughter. People are more willing go listen when you talk to them on their level. I say this because many "rational" atheists often employ a condescending tone when talking to "irrational" religious people—reminiscent of how "civilized" Whites would speak to "uncivilized" Blacks. I have also gone through the edgy atheist phase—I feel nothing but shame when I look back at myself.

Mumtaz completes her graduation, gets married and has a girl child. She is much, much less restrictive to her child because she has seen the horrors of conformity—both internal and external—firsthand.

This clash between Mumtaz and her father may seem like a cozy melancholic story to us, but to many, it is a horrid reality. That jinn part is something I have seen happen with a friend of my friend—in that same context. It is highly ironic that we, as leftists, who are against class discrimination often end up discriminating on the basis of religiosity, which is one of the best markers of class. Religion is a drug; and just like drugs—religion is a symptom of deeper societal problems. To strike at religion itself is to target symptoms—which does nothing but set the stage for more identity politics. Like drugs, we cannot stop it at the supply end. We need to strike at the heart of the issue—unjust material conditions—which make the adoption of religion inevitable.

Why don't men wear burqa?

Effeminophobia: An irrational fear or aversion toward traits, behaviors, or expressions associated with femininity, especially as exhibited by men; a social or psychological discomfort with qualities that are stereotypically perceived as feminine.

The same reason why men are so averse to wearing bangles, even though bangles don't carry that oppressive connotation with it—at least not in our time.

It is because of its effiminate connotation—burqa is embraced by a lot of Muslim trans women—that doesn't seem oppression to me.

Why don't men wear skirts—we never question that. Are men not choosing to wear skirts their own choice or just cultural conditioning? Men should have more varied clothing options, right? How would you feel if someone came along and asked your father to strip his regressive attire for a nice skirt? All the while standing on a moral high ground—patronizing him how it was not his choice in the first place—sounds pretty sadistic, right? Because it is, and that's how Muslim women feel when asked to take off their burqa after having worn them for a long time. You are, from their perspective, stripping them naked.

To withhold education and work from people unless they UNWILLINGLY conform to your notions of progressivism is the textbook definition of sadism. It is all the more ironic given that education and financial independence can actually help them move beyond their regressiveness through exposure to different cultures and different perspectives.

Translated from 'अछूत समस्या' (Problem of Untouchability)

Bhagat Singh's take on the issue of untouchability, which he wrote at his age of 16 in June 1928 which was later published in Kriti (Punjabi) in 1929 under the pen name 'Vidrohi'. In 1923 during Indian National Congress's special session held at Kakinada. Muhammad Ali Jauhar in his presidential speech suggested to divide 'untouchables' (then used common name for scheduled castes of present time) among Hindus and Muslim missionaries. Hindu and Muslim capitalist classes were eager to support this suggestion as this would deepen the class division. In this manner the so called 'friends' of the untouchables were attempting to divide them on basis of religion. At the time when this topic was highly debated, Bhagat Singh wrote an article 'Question on Untouchables'. In this article he estimated power and limitations working classes and suggested concrete progressive development of them.

Our country is in a really bad shape; here strangest questions are asked, the foremost concerns the untouchables, who count 6 crores in population of 30 crores.

For instance :- Would the contact with an untouchable mean defilement of an upper caste? Would the gods in the temples, not get angry by the entry of untouchables there? Would the drinking water of a well not get polluted if the untouchables drew their water from the same well? That these questions are being asked in the twentieth century, is a matter which makes our heads hang in shame.

We Indian boast of our spiritualism, but then, we avoid accepting every human being as a fellow being just like ourselves. Western people on the other hand, who carry a reputation of being money minded, had unequivocally affirmed their faith in the principle of equality. This they did during the revolutions in America and France and above all in Russia, these days which is committed to the extension of this principle to all aspects of life and to ending of discriminations in any form whatsoever, thereby fulfilling the ideals of May Day declaration. But we Indians on our part who never tire of boasting about our gods and godliness are, yet seriously debating whether to permit the untouchables to wear the sacred thread or the janeu and whether the untouchables be permitted to read Vedas / Shastras. We often complain about our maltreatment in other countries, and particularly when we are maltreated by the whites, do we have any moral right to voice such a protest?

In 1926, Sindhi Muslim gentleman, Mr. Nur Mohd member of Bombay Legislative Council aptly remarked:-

"If the Hindu society refuses to allow other human beings, fellow creatures at that, to attend public schools, and if .... The president of the local board representing so many lakh of people, in his house, refuses to allow his fellows and brothers, the elementary human right of having water to drink, what right have they to ask for more rights from the bureaucracy? Before we accuse the people coming from other lands, we should see how people... how can we ask for greater political rights when (we ourselves) deny elementary rights of human beings?"

How true! But since this had been said by a Muslim, Hindus lost no time in alleging that the Muslim's real intention was to convert the untouchables to Islam and thus assimilate them into their own brotherhood. But then, it amounted to an open admission of the harsh truth--that if you (the Hindus) treat them worse than your cattle, they shall desert you, join to the fold of other religions where they hope to enjoy more rights, where they are treated as fellow beings.

Would it not then be pointless to blame the Christians and Muslims, that they were undermining Hinduism?

How fair and true! Yet the Hindus tremble in anger on hearing this plain truth. In any case, it had shaken Hindus from their complacency in the matter. Orthodox Brahmins too started re-thinking about it, also joined by some self-proclaimed reformers. At Patna a gala Hindu meet was held. Lala Lajpat Rai, known for his longstanding sympathy for the untouchables was presiding. A lot of hot arguments were exchanged as to whether the untouchables are eligible to wear sacred thread, the janeu? Could they read Vedas / Shastras? A number of social reformers lost their temper but Lala ji was able to persuade them to compromise on these two matters and thereby saved the prestige of Hindu religion; otherwise, what would have been the consequences?

Just imagine how shameful! Even a dog can sit in our lap, it can also move freely in kitchen but if a fellow human touches you, your dharma is endangered. So much so, even a reputed social reformer like Pandit Malviya ji, known for his soft corner for the untouchables, first agrees to be publicly garlanded by a sweeper, but then afterwards regards himself to be polluted till he bathes and washes those clothes. How ironical! In the temples meant for worshipping God, who lives in us all, once a poor man enters it, it gets defiled and God gets annoyed. When this is the state of affairs within the Hindu fold, does it behave us to quarrel and fight in the name of the Brotherhood? Above all, this kind of our approach to the question amounts of an ingratitude of the degree; those who provide us the comforts by doing menial jobs for us, we shun them. We could worship even animals, but would not tolerate fellow humans to sit beside us.

This is an issue of hot debate these days, the poor creatures getting special attention in this way. In the context of our advance towards national liberation, the problem of communal representation (seats in the legislatures allotted in proportion to Hindu/ Sikh/ Muslim population) may not have been beneficial in any other manner but atleast Hindu / Muslim / Sikhs are all striving hard to maximize their own respective quota of seats by attracting the maximum number of untouchables to their own respective folds. Accordingly Muslims started by providing them equal rights after converting them to Islam.

This naturally hurt the Hindus. Bitterness mounted, riots too broke out. By and by Sikhs, too woke up lest they be left behind in this race. They too started administering Amrit; tension mounted between Sikhs and Hindus over the removal of janeu or hair shaving. All in all, all the three are trying to out do the others, resulting in widespread disturbances. Christians sitting on the fence are quietly consolidating their hold. Be as it may, this turmoil is certainly helping us to move towards the weakening of the hold of untouchability.

As for themselves, when they discovered that all this great turmoil was on their account and Hindus / Muslims / Sikhs, all were trying to profit at their cost, they have also started thinking, "Why should we not organize on our own?" No one is certain whether they are doing so as a result of official prompting or at their own but once this line of thinking had taken roots, certainly this trend is being fully backed up by official quarters. "Adi Dharam Mandal" and the like are the end result of this trend.

Here, the basic question arises, how precisely can we solve this tangle? The answer is quite obvious; above all, it needs to be settled for good, that all humans are equal without distinctions of birth or vocation. In other words since someone is born in a poor sweepers' family, he shall continue cleaning toilets all his life and thus getting deprived of all chances of progress in life, all this nonsense. Historically speaking, when our Aryan ancestors nurtured these practices of discrimination towards these strata of society, shunning all human contact with them by labeling them as menials, and assigning all the degrading jobs to them, they also, naturally started worrying about a revolt against this system. All this is the result of your past sins; what can be done about it? Bear if silently! and with such kinds of sleeping pills, were they able to buy peace for quite some time. All the same they were guilty of a great sin on this account, since this amounted to the negation of core human values like self-esteem and self-reliance; a grossly cruel conduct by all means. Yet present is the moment of its atonement.

In a broader social perspective, untouchability had a pernicious side-effect; people in general got used to hating the jobs which were otherwise vital for life. We treated the weavers who provided us cloths as untouchable. In U.P. water carriers were also considered untouchables. All this caused tremendous damage to our progress by undermining the dignity of labour, especially manual labour. We have thus to accept it, once for all, that in order to move forward we have to give up either considering or calling them untouchables.

Everything else shall fall in place by itself.

In this regard strategy adopted by Naujwan Bharat Sabha and the Youth conference is, most apt--to seek forgiveness from those brethren, whom we have been calling untouchables by treating them as our fellow beings, without making them go through conversion ceremonies of Sikhism, Islam or Hinduism, by accepting food / water from their hands. On the other hand quarrelling among ourselves in the race to win them over, without restoring to them their human dignity is futile.

But the moment we went to villages with our message of human equality and brotherhood mentioned above, Government agents started inciting the Jat community saying that this would embolden these menials to refuse serving you. This was sufficient to provoke the jats, to oppose our efforts in the right direction.

But the upper castes should also realise that their own status in life cannot change for the better as long they persist in considering these people as inferiors, calling them menials, and keep them under their heals. It is argued, they are unclean. The harsh truth is that they are poor; remove their poverty and they shall be clean. Don't we find that the poor even among the upper castes are no less unclean? Besides doing unclean jobs is no bad; for example mothers perform all the unclean duties for their children. Do they become unclean?

However, ultimately the problem can not be satisfactory solved unless and until untouchable communities themselves unite and organize. We regard their recent uniting to form their distinct identity, and also demanding representation equal to Muslims in legislatures, being equal to them in number, is a move in the right direction. Either reject communal representation altogether, else give these people too their due share! In principle, Councils, Assemblies are duty bound to ensure full and free access for all these communities to schools, colleges, wells and roads; that too not only on paper but by actually accompanying them to wells, schools and get them admitted there. But can these legislatures, where a lot of hue and cry is raised even over a bill to ban child marriages, on the grounds that it shall be a threat to their religion, dare to bring the untouchables to their own level on their own? No, never, that is why we plead that they must persist in pressing for their own distinct representation in legislatures in proportion to their numerical strength. We mince no words in proclaiming: Arise! So called untouchables, the real sustainers of life, awake and reflect over your past, you were the backbone of Guru Gobind Singh's army. Shivaji was able to achieve all that with your participation which made him ever shining in history. Your sacrifices are worthy of being embedded in golden letters. The way in which you sustain us and add to our comforts ought to make us feel grateful to you. It is we who fail to appreciate. The land Alienation Act (banning transfer of land to non-agriculturist communities, defined as per caste) does not permit you to buy land ever if you manage the necessary amount of cost. The way you are being oppressed had prompted Miss Mayo of U.S.A. to label you "less then man." As a matter of fact, without your own efforts, you shall not able to move ahead.

"Those who would be free must themselves strike the first blow." It must be kept in mind that every one belonging to the privileged class, strives to enjoy his own rights, but would try his utmost to keep on oppressing those below him, and keeping the underprivileged under his heel. Thus might is held to be right. Then waste no time and unite to stand on your own feet and challenge the existing order of society. Let it then be seen as to who dares to deny to you your due. Do not be at the mercy of others and have no illusions about them. Be on guard so as not to fall in the trap of officialdom, because far from being your ally it seeks to make you dance on its own tunes. The capitalist bureaucratic combine is, truly speaking responsible for your oppression and poverty. Hence always shun it. Be on guard about its tricks. This is then the way out. You are the real working class. Workers unite – you have nothing to lose but your chains. Arise and rebel against the existing order. Gradualism and reformism shall be of no avail to you. Start a revolution from a social agitation and gird up your loins for political economic revolution. You and you alone are the pillars of the nations and its core strength. Awake, O sleeping lions! Rebel, raise the banner of revolt.

In Iran, a woman protested harassment for not wearing a hijab "modestly" by rejecting the imposed dress code. She stands against a repressive society. She is indeed a brave woman. In India, some Muslim women were harassed for wearing the burqa. A group of men chanted religious slogans (Jai shree Ram) disregarding women's right to choose their attire.

Both cases highlight that women should have the freedom to decide what they wear. Why is this basic right still contested?

I have trouble reading the communist manifesto, my english is pretty decent but my vocabulary is not that good. Are there any books which I can read on socialism or communism that don't assume I know everything or every term? pls suggest