One-stop shop to make India 20 times richer | Liberty and opportunity for all | Science and truth.

Some of my views on religion – as posted on my Facebook page

I periodically post material against religion – all religions, no exceptions – on my FB profile page. I had wanted to compile some of these thoughts on this blog. I’ve spent 25 minutes or so digging up old posts, but a lot more remain. This should, however, give a flavour of my views:


Your weakness to face the truth is no reason to believe rubbish like religion.


Religion purports to provide knowledge as if by magic. It can’t.


We are already born steeped in total ignorance. Why increase it further through religion?


Religion casts an opaque veil of ignorance on its followers.


The mentally weak claim that religion is a necessity! They want to remain blind for ever.


Seeing the world clearly is its own reward. Each day for most of my life I have seen the world very clearly – and have never suffered from my lack of religion.


Religion is tolerable so long as it doesn’t fan the ego.

When people start feeling “great” just because of the TOTALLY random chance that they were born into one or the other religion, and then start fighting others who don’t consider their religion to be in any way “great”, then religion becomes pure poison.

Show your mettle through your OWN achievements, not because of some stupid random chance – and your associated stupidity and failure to understand that ALL religions are bogus.


Never trust anyone who makes a living from religion.


Religion arose when man was deeply ignorant. Now it has long outlived any utility.


Each day I get more angry with religions – all crooked – that are destroying humanity

Religions are morally corrupt, they have actively misled mankind.


The actual creation of the world is DRAMATICALLY different from what religions say. Religions are the biggest pile of rubbish invented by man.


I disrespect all religions equally.


People who spend their life defending a lie (religion) find it hard to stop even when all the facts deny their claims.


If defending blatant lies is what religion teaches, then it is a doubly shameful activity.

Let’s never teach our children this shameful self-destruction of the human mind.


Science is open to correction, hence to the truth. Religion is closed, hence a lie.


If its cosmology and biology is wrong, the rest of a religion must also be wrong.


The moment you say you have a religion, you’ve put out an invitation to be fooled.


The moment you say that you have a religion, you disclose your inability to think.


We need to get rid of all falsehoods; religions are the biggest of all.


I disrespect your religion but will fight for your right to nonviolent practice of your beliefs


All “religious believers” are atheists – for all religions but theirs. Just add one.


Falsehoods are not worthy of respect. That’s why no religion is worthy of respect.


The moment you say that religions must be “respected”, you directly support murder.


The day man rejects religion, a semblance of peace may finally come to earth.


Religion makes people blind. They can no longer see a tree, stone or cow for what it is.


Religion is the biggest hoax and only utter fools think that a cow is their mother.


You can continue supporting the hallucinatory drug called religion which causes people to go and kill innocents, or you can fight to get people off this drug, so they can start using their brain for the first time in their life.


Religion is the biggest falsehood we are earnestly taught.


Your religion is 100% man-made but I will fight for your right to believe in it.


Falsified traditions, like flat earthism or religions, don’t count.


Someone please tell these fanatic Muslims that ALL religion is 100% false.


If courts followed the standard of “evidence” of religion, the world would collapse.


There is no science, no religion. Only evidence based truth.

Hearsay is NOT ADMISSIBLE as evidence. ALL religion is hearsay. Q.E.D.


What could possibly be more evil than religion?


After first looking after oneself, one can incrementally help the billions of people in the world by showing them a clear vision for the world of the future – a world without religion, a world with a lot of liberty and a lot of science.


Be aware that it is your laziness in not understanding economics that contributes to chronic avoidable poverty and murder of innocents by governments.


Stop wasting time on religion and start learning economics.

Assuming you really care. – And are not focused only on the “salvation” of you non-existent “soul”.


One thing religions can never do is to provide a moral guide.


I judge all religions by my moral standards and they are all found wanting.


The moment you take a flu shot you have ACTIVELY denied all religion.


Religion is like a painting. Science is like a photograph.


Don’t tell me that socialism can’t be eradicated from India. That shows the nature of your own capabilities. Even the caste system – and religion itself – can be eradicated. That’s my firm belief.


Religion is like the emperor who had no clothes.



Well, just consider this.

You are what is left over (visible to the universe) after hundreds of thousands of generations of your predecessor **animals** (in all previous forms, starting with amoeba, all the way to reptile, primitive mammal, etc.) fought their way through life and survived billions (even trillions) of life-threatening events.

The only way to survive these trillions of life-threatening encounters was to be better than the competition in every possible way. Else you’d not exist today.

Naturally, in the process, you managed to develop sophisticated gadgets such as the human eye and the human brain, and also many other sophisticated survival tools.

If you run such a fierce competitive process for hundreds of thousands of generations (even millions of generations, since your predecessor animals didn’t survive more than a few weeks, initially), then why is it a surprise to be endowed with the powerful assets (brain, etc.) that we take for granted?

Clearly there was no “soul” that was evolving during this process.

It was merely a struggle for survival.

Your ancestors were fitter than their competition, so you live. They were more violent, more tenacious, more cooperative, whatever it took, to survive. They had NO SOUL and so also you have none.

I trust the believers in soul/ religion/ intelligent design will finally start using their brain and tell us why any such explanation is necessary to explain our existence and our endowments.

The end of religion is inevitable, only a matter of time.


I have lived without religion for most of my life since I was a little child, and don’t find any shortcoming in my life as a result of this total disregard for religion.

I’m more honest than most people I know (including most religious people), I’ve got more time on my hands since I don’t squander time on religious activity. And I’ve got more money to spend on REAL charity and liberty.

I’m more honest, more charitable, more knowledgeable – all because of my complete lack of religion. Surely this is a win-win situation for mankind.

If you’ve not already thought about it, consider abandoning religion. I promise you that “God” won’t bite you.


Religion is intended PURELY to boost the self interest and pockets of the thugs who are its leaders. It is full-fledged loot.

DO CARRY ON BELIEVING. As you look to the sky, your pocket will be deftly emptied.


It is IGNORANT people who are arrogant about their own “culture/ religion/ tribe/ nation” who divide the world.


Einstein’s insights have been pivotal (along with Darwin’s) in entirely pulling the carpet from below religions.

Once you understand the basic points that Darwin and Einstein made, you know infinitely more about reality than any religious cosmological theory.


A most detestable “religion” – Hinduism. I left it long ago. I’d be truly ashamed to be known as a Hindu, an oppressor.

But there are genuinely good things that some ancient Indians achieved, such as Charvaka and Chanakya. And Buddha wasn’t too bad.




You can simply say you believe in Quran, but don’t try to prove it contains any truth. Unfortunately, it is full of factual falsehoods. Your repeated assertions don’t change reality, I’m afraid.

The same holds true with all other religious books.

I don’t see why you are not content with believing in your book. Why do you want to prove it is true?

Most people get out of this situation by saying religion and science are separate realms. The moment you try to prove religion is true, you are attempting the impossible.

There have been 100,000 religions (this is an actual estimate cited by EO Wilson, not mine) invented by man till now. Islam is just one of them.

Hold on to your belief as strongly as you can, but you just can’t persuade others that it is true.


Religion makes TOTAL DUNCES out of otherwise sensible humans.


For God’s sake, end religion. This menace is a throw back from the time when man was DEEPLY IGNORANT and superstitious. Scared of the rustle of trees, the howl of the wind, of shadows.

With the kind of knowledge we now possess, the idea of religion is pure idiocy.


Christians believe that mobile phones have spirits. Hindus believe they are born from cows. Muslims believe that Mohammed recorded messages directly from God.

I can’t distinguish religions from the mumbo-jumbo of tribal medicine men.


Religions provide fun and entertainment to those who see through their delusions.

For God’s sake, stop being stupid, people!


All across the world, churches are shutting down. Other religions should follow suit. Religion is the most irrelevant activity for modern man, who is only convinced by reason and evidence, not assertions in “holy” books.


In modern society, religion is an anachronism, being ***entirely*** false and often deadly in its impacts.

Despite that, modern society tolerates religious belief as part of its commitment to Absolute Freedom of Speech.

Religious people are welcome to make all kinds of false, unproven claims and get away with these claims because in the modern free society, the government is not given any power to decide between what is right and what is wrong. All speech is permitted. People can then decide what they wish to do, so long as they don’t harm others. Despite religion being so harmful, it too is tolerated.


Whether others get offended or not is THEIR own mental problem. No one is obliged to respect anyone else’s beliefs.

No one’s opinions or religious beliefs deserve respect automatically. Respect has to be earned – on the basis of the PROVEN TRUTH. Religious belief can, and should be, pinned down for the falsehoods it contains.

And the Hindutva fanatics have nothing to offer except their silly (and wrong) interpretation of their own religion. They are welcome to their delusions, but can’t force them on others.



It is disconcerting to find such a huge gap between what we know about ourselves (as a biological species) and the imaginations of socialists and religious people.

I thought only children believe in Santa, but grown ups seem to be even more determined to live a lie.

A sorry situation – the education system has failed to instil the most basic critical thinking.

I think there is an unwritten rule – to not challenge people’s beliefs. But challenging stupid/ outdated/ false beliefs is the ONLY point of education.

Religion is a sacred cow, it would appear, even though it is PURE falsehood.


Religion is in its death throes. Every single religious leader on the run on social media. This loss of respect is irrevocable.


I left typical Hinduism a long time ago since it ALREADY a dead religion. Any religion that promotes caste discrimination is history as far as I’m concerned. I’d be really glad when ALL religions (including Hinduism) die, and people become HUMAN for the first time in their lives.



Continue Reading

Letter from Adam Smith to Dr William Cullen blasting doctors and all medical monopolies

Dr Cullen had written to Adam Smith seeking his opinion on proposals from the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh.  The petition suggested that doctors should be graduates, they should have attended university for at least two years and that they should present themselves for examination. Smith rejected the proposals from the Royal College. [Source]

Source for the letter:


My dear Doctor:

In the present state of the Scotch Universities; I do most sincerely look upon them as, in spite of all their faults, without exception the best seminaries of learning that are to be found anywhere in Europe.

You propose, I observe, that no person should be admitted to examination for his degrees unless he brought a certificate of his having studied at least two years in some university. Would not such a regulation be oppressive upon all private teachers, such as the Hunters, Hewson, Fordyce, etc.? The scholars of such teachers surely merit whatever honour or advantage a degree can confer much more than the greater part of those who have spent many years in some universities, where the different branches of medical knowledge are either not taught at all, or are taught so superficially that they had as well not be taught at all. When a man has learnt his lesson very well, it surely can be of little importance where or from whom he has learnt it.

The monopoly of medical education which this regulation would establish in favour of Universities would, I apprehend, be hurtful to the lasting prosperity of such bodies-corporate. Monopolists very seldom make good work, and a lecture which a certain number of students must attend, whether they profit by it or no, is certainly not very likely to be a good one.

… All those different causes of negligence and corruption, no doubt take place in some degree in all our Scotch Universities. In the best of them, however, those causes take place in a much less degree than in the greater part of other considerable societies of the same kind; and I look upon this circumstance as the real cause of their present excellence. In the medical College of Edinburgh in particular, the salaries of the Professors are insignificant. There are few or no bursaries or exhibitions, and their monopoly of degrees is broken in upon by all other Universities, foreign and domestic. I require no other explication of its present acknowledged superiority over every other society of the same kind in Europe.

To sign a certificate in favour of any man whom we know little or nothing about, is most certainly a practice which cannot be strictly vindicated. It is a practice, however, which, from mere good nature, and without interest of any kind, the most scrupulous men in the world are sometimes guilty of. I certainly do not mean to defend it. Bating the unhandsomeness of the practice, however, I would ask in what manner does the public suffer by it? The title of Doctor, such as it is, you will say, gives some credit and authority to the man upon whom it is bestowed; it extends his practice, and consequently his field for doing mischief; it is not improbable, too, that it may increase his presumption, and consequently his disposition to do mischief. That a degree injudiciously conferred may sometimes have some little effect of this kind, it would surely be absurd to deny: but that this effect should be very considerable, I cannot bring myself to believe. That Doctors are sometimes fools as well as other people, is not, in the present time, one of those profound secrets which is known only to the learned. The title is not so very imposing, and it very seldom happens that a man trusts his health to another merely because that other is a doctor. The person so trusted has almost always either some knowledge or some craft which would procure him nearly the same trust, though he was not decorated with any such title. In fact, the persons who apply for degrees in the irregular manner complained of, are, the greater part of them, surgeons or apothecaries, who are in the custom of advising and prescribing, that is of practising as physicians; but who, being only surgeons and apothecaries, are not feted as physicians. It is not so much to extend their practice as to increase their fees, that they are desirous of being made doctors. Degrees conferred even undeservedly upon such persons can surely do very little harm to the public. When the University of St. Andrew’s, very rashly and imprudently, conferred a degree upon Green, who happened to be a stage-doctor, they no doubt brought much ridicule and discredit upon themselves; but in what respect did they hurt the public? Green still continued to be what he was before, a stage-doctor, and probably never poisoned a single man more than he would have done though the honours of graduation had never been conferred upon him. Stage-doctors, I must observe, do not much excite the indignation of the faculty; more reputable quacks do. The former are too contemptible to be considered as rivals: They only poison the poor people; and the copper-pence which are thrown up to them in handkerchiefs, could never find their way into the pocket of a regular physician. It is otherwise with the latter: They sometimes intercept a part of what perhaps would have been better bestowed in another place. Do not all the old women in the country practice physic without exciting murmur or complaint? And if here and there a graduated doctor should be, as ignorant as an old woman, where can be the great harm? The beardless old woman, indeed, takes no fees; the bearded one does, and it is this circumstance, I strongly suspect, which exasperates his brethren so much against him.

There never was, and, I will venture to say, there never will be, a University from which a degree could give any tolerable security, that the person upon whom it had been conferred, was fit to practise physic. The strictest Universities confer degrees only upon students of a certain standing. Their real motive for requiring this standing is, that the student may spend more money among them, and that they may make more profit by him. When he has attained this standing, therefore, though he still undergoes what they call an examination, it scarce ever happens that he is refused his degree. Your examination at Edinburgh, I have all reason to believe, is as serious, and perhaps more so than that of any other University in Europe. But when a student has resided a few years among you, has behaved dutifully to all his Professors, and has attended regularly all their lectures, when he comes to his examination, I suspect you are disposed to be as good-natured as other people. Several of your graduates, upon applying for a licence to the College of Physicians here, have had it recommended to them to continue their studies. From a particular knowledge of some of the cases, I am satisfied that the decision of the College, in refusing them their licence, was perfectly just; that is, was perfectly agreeable to the principles which ought to regulate all such decisions, and that the candidates were really very ignorant of their profession.

A degree can pretend to give security for nothing but the science of the graduate; and even for that it can give but a very slender security. For his good sense and discretion, qualities not discoverable by an academical examination, it can give no security at all. But without these, the presumption which commonly attends science must render it, in the practice of physic, ten times more dangerous than the grossest ignorance, when accompanied, as it sometime is, with some degree of modesty and diffidence.

If a degree, in short, always has been, in spite of all the regulations which can be made, always must be, a mere piece of quackery, it is certainly for the advantage of the public that it should be understood to be so. It is in a particular manner for the advantage of the Universities, that, for the resort of students, they should be obliged to depend, not upon their privileges, but upon their merit,—upon their abilities to teach, and their diligence in teaching; and that they should not have it in their power to use any of those quackish arts which have disgraced and degraded the half of them.

A degree which can be conferred only upon students of a certain standing is a statute of apprenticeship which is likely to contribute to the advancement of science, just as other statutes of apprenticeship have contributed to that of arts and manufactures. Those statutes of apprenticeship, assisted by other corporation laws, have banished arts and manufactures from the greater part of towns-corporate. Such degrees, assisted by some other regulations of a similar tendency, have banished almost all useful and solid education from the greater part of Universities. Bad work and high price have been the effects of the monopoly introduced by the former. Quackery, imposture and exorbitant fees, have been the consequences of that established by the latter. The industry of manufacturing villages has remedied in part the inconveniences which the monopolies established by towns-corporate had occasioned. The private interest of some poor Professors of Physic in some poor Universities, inconveniently situated for the resort of students, has in part remedied the inconveniences which would certainly have resulted from that sort of monopoly which the great and rich Universities had attempted to establish. The great and rich Universities seldom graduated anybody but their own students, and not even them till after a long and tedious standing; five and seven years for a Master of Arts; eleven and sixteen for a Doctor of Law, Physic, or Divinity. The poor Universities, on account of the inconveniency of their situation, not being able to get many students, endeavored to turn the penny in the only way in which they could turn it, and sold their Degrees to whoever would buy them, generally without requiring any residence or standing, and frequently without subjecting the candidate even to a decent examination. The less trouble they gave the more money they got, and I certainly do not to pretend to vindicate so dirty a practice. All Universities being ecclesiastical establishments, under the immediate protection of the Pope, a degree from any one of them gave, all over Christendom, very nearly the same privileges which a degree from any other could have given; and the respect which is at this day paid to foreign degrees, even in the Protestant countries, must be considered as a remnant of popery. The facility of obtaining degrees, particularly in physic, from those poor Universities, had two effects, both extremely advantageous to the public, but extremely disagreeable to the graduates of other Universities, whose degrees had cost them much time and expense. First, It multiplied very much the number of doctors, and thereby no doubt sunk their fees, or at least hindered them from rising so very high as they otherwise would have done. Had the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge been able to maintain themselves in the exclusive privilege of graduating all the doctors who could practice in England, the price of feeling a pulse might by this time have risen from two and three guineas, the price which it has now happily arrived at, to double or triple that sum; and English physicians might, and probably would, have been at the same time the most ignorant and quackish in the world. Secondly, It reduced a good deal the rank and dignity of a doctor. But if the physician was a man of sense and science, it would not surely prevent his being respected and employed as a man of sense and science. If he was neither the one nor the other, indeed, his doctorship would no doubt avail him the less. But ought it in this case to avail him at all? Had the hopeful project of the rich and great Universities succeeded, there would have been no occasion for sense or science. To have been a doctor would alone have been sufficient to give any man rank, dignity and fortune enough. That in every profession the fortune of every individual should depend as much as possible upon his merit, and as little as possible upon his privilege, is certainly for the interest of the public. It is even for the interest of every particular profession, which can never so effectually support the general merit and real honour of the greater part of those who exercise it, as by resting upon such liberal principles. Those principles are even most effectual for procuring them all the employment which the country can afford. The great success of quacks in England has been altogether owing to the real quackery of the regular physicians. Our regular physicians in Scotland have little quackery, and no quack accordingly has ever made his fortune among us.

After all, this trade in degrees I acknowledge to be a most disgraceful trade to those who exercise it; and I am extremely sorry that it should be exercised by such respectable bodies as any of our Scotch Universities. But as it serves as a corrective to what would otherwise soon grow up to be an intolerable nuisance, the exclusive and corporation spirit of all thriving professions and of all great Universities, I deny that it is hurtful to the public.

What the physicians of Edinburgh at present feel as a hardship is, perhaps, the real cause of their acknowledged superiority over the greater part of other physicians. The Royal College of Physicians there, you say, are obliged by their charter to grant a licence, without examination, to all the graduates of Scotch universities. You are all obliged, I suppose, in consequence of this, to consult sometimes with very unworthy brethren. You are all made to feel that you must rest no part of your dignity upon your degree, distinction which you share with the men in the world, perhaps, whom you despise the most, but that you must found the whole of it upon your merit. Not being able to derive much consequence from the character of Doctor, you are obliged, perhaps, to attend more to your characters as men, as gentlemen, and as men of letters. The unworthiness of some of your brethren, may, perhaps, in this manner be in part the cause of the very eminent and superior worth of many of the rest. The very abuse which you complain of may in this manner, perhaps, be the real source of your present excellence. You are at present well, wonderfully well, and when you are so, be assured there is always some danger in attempting to be better.

Adieu, my dear Doctor; after having delayed so long to write to you, I am afraid I shall get my lug (ear) in my lufe (hand), as we say, for what I have written. But I ever am most affectionately yours,


London, 20th Sept. 1774.

Continue Reading

Excellent work being undertaken by the Bhadohi SBP team – a short video snippet

Those who follow SBP’s Facebook page and Twitter account will already know that Rabi Kant Bharti and his team is doing exceptionally well in Bhadohi.

The number of people who want to listen to Rabi’s message of liberty and good governance is beginning to increase substantially.

This Youtube video provides a small snippet:

The party’s message is simple – that the government runs from our taxes and is accountable to us to deliver basic services like security, justice and essential infrastructure.

We explain that without these basics, there can be no possibility of any progress. The people – long starved of these basics of good governance – are quick to catch on to the significance of what we are saying and soon realise that other political parties have long been fooling them by doling out freebies and crumbs – from money taken by the people themselves, after deducting huge administrative costs.

The people don’t need crumbs. They need basic governance. The government is our sevant and must be held to account.

We are effectively starting an accountability, or जवाबदेही movement, where everyone in government will have to explain what they have delivered and why they have failed to deliver (as is the case in all cases). Unfortunately, the current machine of government in India is incapable of delivering these core functions. And governments are busy dabbling in religion or attempting to bribe voters through freebies.

What business does the UP government have to promote a specific religion? It should provide basic governance services. The SBP manifesto shows how the machine of governance will be transformed in order to deliver these core functions.

Please join us at the grassroots. Till today, governments have failed to deliver basic functions to the people. Every system has failed: police, judiciary, administrative. This is no longer going to be accepted by the people.

Continue Reading

A new approach to political liberal action – workshops across India to find leaders at the grassroots

I had alluded to a fundamental change in approach in my recent podcast (see my blog post here). I’m now attempting to refine its mechanisms.

The key findings to date:

  1. A top-down approach is essential to start a new political movement. There has to be intellectual rigour and capacity at the top, to provide meaningful direction. We are doing that pretty well in SBP, particularly given how badly stretched we are for resources.
  2. Our goal must be to reach out to people at the grassroots. Liberals have hitherto never tried to reach out to people on the ground. We have largely remained in the cities and in English medium newspapers. But we now know that our message has greatest resonance at the grassroots. The poor in villages and slums care a lot about our approach. All reports from the ground are 100 per cent clear: our message is being picked up like a sponge soaks up water. The poor are really thirsty for good governance. The socialists indoctrinated Indians for a hundred years, RSS Hindutvas for 80 years. Let’s start spreading our message – right now.
  3. Our candidates must necessarily come from the lower middle class. We need 500 candidates for Lok Sabha elections but from where will we get them? In BFN I was naive and wrote: “Initially we have the simple task of finding only 1500 exceptionally good and competent people to form the Freedom Team of India”. But this has turned out to be a far from simple task, as the experience of the past ten years shows. Some learnings:
    1. The poor are our main voters but they are largely unable to offer leadership to the party both because of educational handicaps and limitations of time/ resources.
    2. The elites can help us financially, some may even write about us. But they will not contest elections, which involves really hard work in difficult circumstances. It is physically not possible for the elites to contest elections. A few can be invited to contribute in the Rajya Sabha in the future when we hold enough seats across the country.
    3. The android connected social media savvy middle class is also not going to lead. First, they are not motivated enough (most employ the poor as their servants) and their focus is on irrelevant issues like religion and empty “national pride”.  Even when they do get convinced about our ideology, they will not step forward to contest elections – indeed, most will never even vote.
    4. That leaves us with only one group: the lower middle class. That’s the kind of people like Modi and Amit Shah, who can’t speak English but can rise to the top from grassroots work. This is a very large group, close to a few hundred million people. From them will arise our leaders.
  4. Our initial candidates will have to be very young. It is extremely hard for people to unfreeze their mind after 35. So our initial candidates will largely be younger than 35 -in fact, we ought to target those younger than 30. Among these we need those who have fire in the belly and want to change things – even if they don’t know the path clearly right now. If they really want to change things, we can show them how to do it.

So what next?


We ought to immediately stop asking the upper middle class to contest elections. They have signalled REPEATEDLY and COMPREHENSIVELY that they won’t. (This includes most SBP members and FTI members; if some more come forward that’s good but they will need to do significant work on the ground to succeed). Instead, these people – who are otherwise quite capable – should become the SUPPORTING CAST for new leaders who must necessarily arise from the ground. We should forget the idea of being leaders and, instead, become facilitators of India’s youth and provide them with the support and mentoring they need to succeed.


Everything now points in one direction – to the grassroots.

Let’s issue a call to youth (from the Hindi speaking belt initially) who want to change India by contesting elections in 2019. They can be invited to attend a 2-day workshop in U.P. – at their own expense. We will organise the venue and tea/lunch for these two days. Of course, we will speak to each applicant in advance to work out suitability before issuing the formal invite to the workshop.

At the workshop we’ll ask our grassroots youth leaders like Rabi Kant Bharti and a few others to speak. If possible, I’ll also try to attend.

From amongst these youth we should hopefully be able to shortlist a few for further development (training/ mentoring). First of all, they should be sent to Bhadohi for grassroots training. The Bhadohi team is a trailblazer and we must learn from the team.

Thereafter, if these young leaders are found competent and clear-headed, we can announce their candidature for 2019 and support them financially. I suggest we set up goal-oriented projects and pay them a token honorarium (say, Rs.5000 per month – a bit more if possible) – subject to ongoing delivery of agreed outcomes.

If the first workshop works, we can hold many more such workshops across the country. Then, by end-2018 we should have 50+ highly talented, young Lok Sabha candidates from across the country.

Let’s aim to create thousands of leaders from the millions of Indian youth.

This is the new liberal strategy. The idea of FTI is dead. The idea of asking SBP elite leaders to contest is dead.


Any thoughts/ ideas welcome – including how to organise the workshop. Every level of detail needs to be thought about, so any suggestion/ question/ idea will be useful.  And if you wish to donate for this workshop, let me know.


My attention was drawn to an issue often found amongst the youth belonging to the lower middle class. These are relatively young grassroots activists and “leaders” who view politics purely as a source of income – with no desire to change the country.

They are generally paid by the big parties to “organise” rallies and can even organise votes. But they are not interested in the ideas of any party because the country doesn’t matter to them.

A great challenge – while shortlisting young leaders for the proposed workshop – will be to make sure that no such person is allowed to attend.

I suspect that there are very few young people who will actually attend such a workshop.

India is effectively jammed from all sides, no wonder we have such a big mess. Despite having a massive population, the real pool of leaders is exceptionally small.

Continue Reading