New Year’s Eve - A Festival of Unity

 

We have seen large numbers of festivals are related to some or the other religion, I have seen people hesitate to celebrate these festivals, not because they are boring, perhaps they don’t relate others God or the mythology. 

 

Living in a world where even the existence of God is uncertain, criticizing someone else’s faith or mythology feels hypocritical. Until we find the ultimate truth, I believe each and every individual must enjoy festivals not because of faith but for people, joy, food, music, and togetherness. 

 

On New Year’s Eve, something interesting happens across the world. Families gather at home, friends meet for dinner, and strangers dance together in clubs or on the streets. For these few hours, identity becomes less important. Music replaces arguments, laughter replaces labels, and hope replaces old grudges. Even people who disagree on the concept of God, religion, or politics raise the same glass and make the same silent wishes for a better tomorrow. The joy is simple and shared.

 

Nobody asks which religion you follow, or which caste or community you belong to, or whether you believe in God at all. For a few hours, people are just people.

 

This itself makes us ask an important question. If we can celebrate together without caste, creed, or religion for one night, can the world survive without them every day?

 

Caste, creed, and religion were created long ago to give people identity, order, and meaning. In early societies, religion helped people only to explain nature, death, and morality. Communities formed around shared beliefs, and rules were made to keep society stable. But over time, these systems also created divisions. Caste decided high and low caste in its structure, Religion divides in "Us" Vs "Them".” Instead of uniting people, these identities often became tools of power, control, and exclusion.

 

Is religion necessary today?

 

Many think without religion or caste, society will lose morals and order. But morality does not only come from religion. Values like kindness, Compassion, honesty, empathy, and justice are human values. An atheist can be moral, just as a believer can be immoral. History shows that crimes and violence have happened both in the name of religion and in its absence. So, the real question is not belief, but responsibility.

 

A world without caste and rigid religious identity does not mean a world without culture or tradition. People can still celebrate festivals, pray, meditate, or follow personal beliefs. Our constitution give us full freedom to practice. The difference is that these choices would be personal, not forced, and not used to judge others. Identity would come from shared humanity & not by birth.

 

New Year’s Eve gives us a small glimpse of this possibility. For one night, we wish strangers “Happy New Year” without knowing anything about their background. We laugh, dance, eat, and hope for a better tomorrow together. If humanity can do this even for a few hours, it proves something important, the world can survive without caste and creed. More than that, it may actually become more peaceful, fair, and good place for  human to live.

Why Caste-based Reservation Refuses to Die? - Part II

                                                            Cultivator's Whipcord

Thank you to everyone who took time to read my previous blog "Why Caste-based Reservation Refuses to Die?"

 

Even after decades of independence, caste based reservation continues in India because social and economic inequality has not disappeared. One key reason is the failure of land reforms to break caste control over land and resources. Although laws changed, power largely remained with upper castes, leaving Dalits and Adivasis landless. This unfinished reform helps explain why reservation is still necessary today.

Land Reforms after Independence

 

After India got independence in 1947, one of the biggest problems the country faced was unequal land ownership. Most land was controlled by a small group of landlords, while farmers were tenants or landless labourers. This situation was created during British rule through systems like Zamindari, which focused on collecting revenue rather than helping farmers.

 

The then new Indian government believed that land reforms were necessary for economic development, social justice, and democracy, with the aim was to remove feudal systems and give land rights to those who worked on the land.

 

Zamindari System

 

The first big step was ending the Zamindari system. Between 1950 and 1956, many states passed laws to remove landlords and give land to farmers who worked on it. This helped some tenants become landowners and ended a very old system.

 

But the reform was not fully successful. Zamindars got compensation and used legal tricks to keep land. Many tenants were also removed before the laws were applied. So, even after the law, village power mostly stayed with the same rich people.

 

Land reforms were expected to help Dalits and Adivasis, who had been historically denied land ownership.

 

Most Dalits remained landless. Even when land was allotted, it was often infertile or under dispute. Land reforms failed to break caste-based control over land, which remains a major issue in rural India.

Pre Land reforms 19th Century

In his book Shetkaryacha Asud, July 1881, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule exposes how the revenue system under both Brahmin bureaucrats and British authorities entrapped farmers. He strongly criticised the caste based control of land in Indian society. He argued that land was historically taken away from Shudras and Ati-Shudras through religious authority, social customs, and violence.

 

According to Phule, Brahmins and upper castes used religion and tradition to justify land ownership while forcing lower castes to work as farmers and labourers without rights. He believed that the main problem of Indian agriculture was not lack of effort by farmers, but systematic exploitation by landlords, moneylenders, and priests.

 

Phule supported the idea, that those working on the land should own it. He opposed the zamindari system and criticised the British for protecting landlords instead of farmers.

 

Long before independence, His critique shows that land reform is not only an economic issue but also a social and caste issue. Without breaking caste dominance over land, Phule believed that true equality and justice were impossible.

 

Jyotirao Phule (19th Century) pioneered cooperative establishing mutual aid for farmers and workers (like his Shetkari Sahakari Mandali in 1883) to counter exploitation, laying foundational principles of collective strength and social justice that influenced the later movement. Even before India's cooperative credit system started formally with the Cooperative Credit Societies Act, 1904.

 

 

Contemporary India  

 

The land reforms after independence failed to bring complete social change. Land redistribution was limited, tenancy continued in hidden forms, and caste based inequality remained.

 

Land reform in India also shows that laws alone cannot create equality. Without strong political will and social reform, especially against caste hierarchy, land reforms remain incomplete. Even today, farmer distress and rural inequality prove that this issue is still unresolved.

A 2006 survey by the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) showed that OBCs made up about 40.94% of India’s population, SCs 19.59%, and STs 8.63%. Together, this comes to around 69.16% of the total population.

This means nearly 70% of people fall under reservation categories. At the same time, around 800 million people depend on government support for basic food grains, receiving 5 kg per person. This clearly shows that a large section of the population especially economically weaker and backward groups is still struggling to meet basic needs like food, education, and livelihood. 

All this happeing in a counrty where 54.6% of the population engaged in agriculture and allied activities.

 

Ending this blog with a quote:

 

विद्या विना मती गेली,
मती विना नीती गेली,
नीती विना गती गेली,
गती विना वित्त गेले,
वित्त विना शूद्र खचले,
इतके अनर्थ एक अविद्येने केले.

-            महात्मा ज्योतिबा फुले

 

Without education, wisdom is lost.
Without wisdom, morality is lost.
Without morality, progress is lost.
Without progress, wealth is lost.
Without wealth, Shudras are crushed.
So many injustices are caused by lack of education alone.

-            Mahatma Jyotiba Phule

 

A Debate on “Does God Exist?”

The debate on “Does God Exist?” was interesting and engaging. It is always good to see such topics discussed openly. However, I was honestly disappointed with Javed Saheb’s performance in this debate. His arguments were not strong enough, and he failed to properly challenge or counter Mufti Saheb.

At the same time, I must say that Mufti Saheb was very smart in setting the rules of the debate. The rules themselves shaped the discussion in his favour.

First, he clearly said that religious books should not be discussed, because many claims in holy books have already been questioned & debunked by science. Fair enough. But at the same time, rejecting the existence of God without referring to religious books, when they are the only source that talk about God, also feels biased. If God is known only through scriptures, how can one deny or prove God without referring to them at all?

Second, Mufti Saheb argued that God should not be examined through the lens of science, because science demands evidence, repeated experiments, and testing of hypotheses. But this raises a serious question. If God cannot be proven by science, and religious texts are also kept out of the discussion, what exactly is left as proof?

Third, He also insisted that emotions should not be used as an argument. But realistically speaking, if God cannot be proven through science or scriptures, the only thing that connects believers to God is emotion and faith. Ignoring this fact weakens the entire argument.

Another common claim made was that God created time and space. This statement itself is based purely on assumption. There is no independent evidence to support it. Once a wise man said - When you Assume you make an ASS (a donkey) of U and Me.

In my opinion, the appreciation for Mufti Saheb came too early. This may have happened because the hall was full of believers, and Javed Saheb did not offer strong counter arguments to challenge those assumptions effectively.

In short, Javed Saheb clearly lost the debate.

That also says, Mufti Saheb also did not prove that God exists. What he offered were assumptions and possibilities in the arguments meant to keep belief alive, not to establish proof. These points mainly have strengthened discussion among believers.

As an atheist, I would honestly be the happiest person if Mufti Saheb actually proved God’s existence. If that proof showed that this God belongs to Islam, I will accept it.

At least then there would be one God, one truth, and the rest of the religious marketplaces could shut down. Maybe then, the world might see some peace at least on religious grounds without any conflicts

Overall, the debate was entertaining, but intellectually, it left many important questions unanswered.

 

Why Caste-based Reservation Refuses to Die? - Part I

Reservation has continued much longer than expected. People sometimes talk about ending it, but the issue is not simple. It involves history, identity, economics, and social hierarchies that still have not disappeared.

 

Historical Context vs. Present Reality 

 

For a long time, Brahmanism blocked lower castes from getting education, land, jobs, and access to government. Because of this, they needed strong support to become equal members of society. The plan was not charity, but a way to undo the damage caused over many generations.

 

Land has always been a big issue in many parts of India, and Dalits and Shudras faced the most challenges in getting it. Upper caste groups often controlled the villages, the revenue records, and even the local politics. Brahminical ideology & British authorities entrapped dalits through unfair assessments, corrupt measurement practices, arbitrary taxation, and clerical manipulation. The Dalits, often were excluded from literacy, had no way to verify land records or revenue demands. Because of this, many people from lower castes were stopped, threatened, or pressured when they tried to claim land that was legally theirs. These problems did not come from law, but from social power. Even today, the struggle for fair land ownership continues.

 

It is only because the Dalits has been kept away from reading and writing that looting them has become so easy.

 

Dr. BR Ambedkar who led the Committee responsible for drafting the constitution must have thought reservation would only be needed for a short time. They believed that once caste became less important, this system could be removed. But this idea did not work out, because caste did not really disappear. Even though India changed a lot with economic growth, cities, and democracy, caste still decides people’s status, marriages, social circles, and chances in life.

 

Inequality is still common. People from lower castes face problems getting jobs, they are less seen in top colleges and offices and still experience violence. This shows that society and the market did not fix the old disadvantages on their own. If discrimination continues to exist, ending reservation may not create fairness. It could bring back the same unfair situation that existed before.

 

This argument is not about morality or some political belief. It is about how society is built. Big inequalities do not disappear in a few years. They take many generations to slowly change.

Even today, upper caste owns land from the colonial period still tells us which community has more wealth. So, asking reservation to end while these big differences still exist does not make sense. It is not logically consistent, because the basic problems are still there.

 

 

Why don’t beneficiaries give it up once financially well-off?

 

People often say reservation is still there because some lower caste people who became financially well do not want to leave their benefits. This idea assumes reservation is only for people who are poor, so if a person becomes rich, they are misusing it.

 

But this mixes up money problems with social problems.

 

Even if a lower caste person has money, they can still face discrimination in marriage, social respect, job networks, and public status. Caste inequality is not only about income. It is built into culture, power, and how people treat each other. This does not mean the system is perfect. For OBC groups, the “creamy layer” rule removes the financially stronger from reservation, but for SC/ST groups, this rule is not used, considering the atrocities and in equality in the society persist.

 

Many people argue about whether income limits or other filters should be made stronger.

 

But saying that “reservation continues only because financially well to do family don’t give it up” ignores a bigger truth of the existence of social in equality.

Expecting oppressed groups to behave like saints, while everyone else acts selfishly, is not realistic politics.

 

The government here should reform government schools and try to give education free till the class 10^th irrespective of caste and creed, I believe in the large number of our politicians and their parents in their childhood must have enjoyed the benefits of welfare state with free basic medical treatment & free education, which has stopped now in the name of privatisation. I believe, It’s the failure of current & previous government.

 

Expecting oppressed groups to give up support while society keeps its biases is not justice, it’s hypocrisy.

 

The Persistence of Caste Hierarchy

 

Certain groups still believe in caste hierarchy and use religious books like Manusmriti to justify it. This idea has some history behind it, because caste was once defended using religion and ideas of purity.

 

But today, we don’t have numbers, how many people truly believe in Manusmriti. But it promotes things like marrying only within caste, using caste surnames, or judging people by their caste jobs are not forced by religion now. These are kept alive by families and communities.

 

Even so, it is true that if dominant caste groups keep acting like they are higher or more “pure,” then the system needs to step in to balance things.

 

In the name of Manusmriti, Shudra farmers were turned into slaves for centuries.

 

 

Caste Pride

 

Many groups today still show pride in adding caste before or after the word Hindu. This shows that caste identity still has emotional value. Even communities that were historically disadvantaged now also make use of caste identity, maybe not use it to dominate, but to feel dignity and to get political power.

 

When socially weaker groups express pride, it often functions as a defence against exclusion or humiliation. By contrast, when dominant or intermediate castes express pride, it will reinforce earlier hierarchies. This can end up hardening caste boundaries rather than weakening them.

 

In the varna system, it’s not just Brahmins who acted superior. Kshatriyas and Vaishyas also treated Shudras and Dalits as lower and behaved in the same way. When every group keeps looking down on the ones below them, the caste system keeps surviving. If people don’t change this attitude, it becomes extremely difficult to annihilate caste.

 

As long as caste pride matters more than human equality, caste boundaries will remain unbroken

 

 

Why don’t people identify as Hindu or Indian first?

 

A large size of population continues to identify with caste before thinking about their religion or the country. Big reform movements like Hindu reform groups, Navayana Buddhism, Sikhism, or even the ideas of Vivekananda couldn’t completely end caste. Instead of disappearing, caste just changed and fitted itself into new identities. Even when people converted to Christianity or Islam, caste didn’t fully go away. It continued in different forms.

 

The Varna system didn’t disappear with new religions or reforms, it simply changed shape and lived on.

 

Politicians and Vote Banks

 

People often say politicians keep reservation only to get votes. There is some truth in this. Elections push leaders to promise more freebees or quotas & avoid any reforms. Caste politics during elections can twist the original purpose of helping the disadvantaged.

 

Politicians should focus more on properly enforcing laws against Dalit atrocities and making the welfare system work in real life. They should restart strong welfare programs, especially for education and basic healthcare, and make sure every village or district has working schools and primary health centres.

If politicians cared about equality, they would have strengthen welfare system and stop atrocities, not just promise more quotas.

 

The Unfinished Reform of Hinduism

 

Reservation will end only when a major reform changes Hindu religion and its varna system. This kind of change is usually slow and full of conflict. Instead of waiting for society to fix itself, the government should use strong policies and laws to reduce inequality, even if some religious ideas don’t support it.

 

If India waits for a perfect social reform before ending reservation, it might never happen. But if reservation is removed while caste inequality is still alive, things could get worse instead of better.

 

Until caste hierarchies fall, removing reservation only deepens inequality

 

Why Reservation Has Not Ended

 

Reservation persists because:

1.         Structural inequality remains.

2.         Caste identity remains socially valuable.

3.         Economic mobility has not replaced social mobility.

4.         The state has failed to provide universal education and healthcare.

5.         Political incentives discourage reform.

6.         Social hierarchies adapt faster than legal intervention.

 

Eliminating reservation without transforming society is not social reform, it is rollback.

 

The Real Problem: Inequality of Opportunity

 

In the reservation debate, people often ignore the fact that India never built a strong welfare system. Since public schools and healthcare are weak, reservation ends up acting like a replacement for basic support that the state should have already provided.

 

If India invested in good schools for everyone, equal opportunities, and strong public services, reservation wouldn’t matter so much. People keep talking about “merit,” but they pretend everyone begins from the same starting line. The playing field is completely uneven, so the idea of pure merit doesn’t make sense.

 

If schools and healthcare worked for all, the reservation debate would matter far less

 

Where we stand today – The ultimate reality

 

Reservation in India continues not for one reason but because of a mix of identity, politics, history, and inequality. Some criticisms are valid, while others are biased or overly simple. If reservation is removed without ending caste discrimination or building a strong welfare system, old caste privilege will simply come back.

 

The system isn’t perfect and does need reform but ending it out of frustration won’t create fairness. It would just recreate the old hierarchy. The real question isn’t “why is reservation still here?” but “why hasn’t Indian society made it unnecessary yet?”