If you think your idea for survival must be valid in absolute terms, you may be a redneck

THIS POST MAY CONTAIN AFFILIATE LINKS. PLEASE READ MY DISCLOSURE FOR MORE INFO.

Political thought, by definition, is reactive. And follows a simple requirement: survival. Everything else, one would think, is a derivative. For example, to seek freedom there must be an absence of it. Or something like that.

Firstly, there is Nitin Pai. Picking on something that the Prime Minister said in a speech. The man (Dr Manmohan Singh that is, not Nitin Pai) makes about 60 speeches in a month. Then, there is Varma boy — who thinks a man in some trouble on the road should be well attended to by the Police because he (the said man, not Varma) pays taxes in some form. Finally, there is the Jagadguru who has always been saying the reason for all ills of all people is Hinduism.

Three people, across the spectrum, have put forward an ideology(actually three[1]) that does not fully explain status quo. Does Nitin think a Prime Minister has to be judged by the speeches he makes? And three of them at that? Does Varma boy believe taxes are paid only because one expects certain services and not because of existing power equations?

Those posts were not even paid for. I assume.

[1] — Lali, one crash course in subject differentiation wanted.

0 comments… add one

Leave a Comment

css.php