manny shaw

[manny shaw @MannyShaw]

Dear Shri Priyank Kharge,

Your letter raises questions about transparency, legality and accountability. Those are legitimate subjects in any democracy.

However, before demanding registration of the RSS, it is important to understand both the legal position and the nature of the organisation.

The RSS is not a commercial enterprise, a charitable trust, a political party, a company, or a government-funded NGO. It is fundamentally a voluntary association of individuals who gather for social, cultural and nation-building activities.

Indian law does not mandate that every voluntary association of citizens must register itself merely because it is large, influential or old.

If registration itself is the test of legitimacy, then the question arises: under which specific law is RSS required to register?

A demand without a corresponding legal obligation becomes a political opinion, not a constitutional argument.

The institutions inspired by the RSS—schools, colleges, hospitals, service organisations, publications, trusts, research institutes and charitable bodies—are already registered under the applicable laws.

They file returns, undergo audits, pay taxes wherever applicable and comply with statutory requirements. Their legal existence is not hidden from any authority.

Your letter repeatedly suggests that scale creates an obligation for registration.

Yet constitutional rights in India do not depend upon the size of an organisation. Citizens have the right to associate freely under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution.

That right belongs equally to ten people, ten thousand people or ten million people.

The RSS neither contests elections nor receives government grants. It does not enjoy any special exemption from the law.

Whenever public events, route marches or gatherings are conducted, permissions are sought from local authorities under existing regulations.

If there has ever been a violation of law, the state already possesses adequate powers to act.

The deeper question is this:

Should an organisation be subjected to additional legal requirements merely because some politicians disagree with its ideology?

If the answer is yes, then the same principle can be applied tomorrow to religious groups, social movements, trade unions, student organisations and civil society platforms across the political spectrum.

Transparency is desirable. Accountability is desirable. But selective scrutiny directed at one organisation because of its influence or ideological orientation is neither transparency nor accountability—it is politics.

The RSS has survived governments of every party for a century. It has been examined by courts, investigated by administrations, banned, scrutinised and yet repeatedly emerged within the framework of law.

Its continued existence is not the result of legal ambiguity but of the constitutional freedoms available to every citizen of India.

The true test of democracy is not whether organisations agree with those in power.

The true test is whether constitutional freedoms are respected even when political disagreements exist.

A hundred years of voluntary service, social work, disaster relief, nation-building and character development cannot be dismissed by implying illegality where no court or law has established any.

If there exists a legal provision requiring RSS registration, please cite it.

If no such provision exists, then the demand remains political rhetoric rather than a constitutional necessity.

India's democracy is strengthened not by targeting organisations one dislikes, but by applying the same legal standards to everyone.

"The Constitution guarantees freedom of association; it does not require citizens to seek political approval before exercising it."

[manny shaw @MannyShaw]

@ShivAroor सयोनी, सयोनी, सयोनी सयोनी..!

चैन एक पल नहीं
चैन एक पल नहीं
चैन एक पल नहीं

और कोई हल नहीं
सयोनी, सयोनी, सयोनी, सयोनी

[manny shaw @MannyShaw]

@AadeshRawal कब तक गलत बातों को जस्टिफाई करते रहोगे

कितना झूट बोलना पड़ता है, खुद ही जानते हो..!

आप भी पार्टी बदल लो..!

अभी भी टाइम है..!!

[manny shaw @MannyShaw]

India–France AI Cooperation: Building the Future Through Open and Collaborative Innovation

Recent developments in the global Artificial Intelligence (AI) ecosystem indicate that access to the most advanced AI models and computing infrastructure is increasingly becoming a matter of national strategy.

Some countries and AI companies are adopting stricter controls on the availability of cutting-edge technologies, particularly for reasons related to national security, export controls, and strategic competitiveness.

Against this backdrop, France has emphasized a different approach—one based on international cooperation and trusted partnerships.

French President Emmanuel Macron has consistently advocated that India and France should work together to build the next generation of AI through innovation, research collaboration, and development of multilingual technologies that serve diverse societies.

For India, this partnership is strategically significant because:
It promotes co-development rather than dependence on foreign technologies.

It supports the creation of AI models trained in Indian and European languages, making AI more inclusive and accessible.

It encourages collaboration in research, high-performance computing, startups, education, and digital public infrastructure.

It provides opportunities for joint work on ethical, trustworthy, and responsible AI, balancing innovation with safeguards.

It strengthens technological sovereignty by reducing over-reliance on any single country or company.

The focus on multilingual AIis particularly important for India, where hundreds of languages and dialects are spoken.

AI systems capable of understanding and generating content in Indian languages can transform governance, education, healthcare, agriculture, and citizen services.

The broader message is that while parts of the global AI landscape may become more competitive and restricted, India and France are seeking to build an open ecosystem based on collaboration, shared innovation, and mutual technological advancement.

Such a partnership can accelerate India's ambition of becoming a global AI leader while ensuring that AI benefits are accessible to all sections of society.

In essence, the India–France AI partnership represents a vision where technology is developed through cooperation rather than exclusion, enabling both nations to shape the future of AI together.

[manny shaw @MannyShaw]

@BobGolen Just did

[manny shaw @MannyShaw]

@AMIT_GUJJU Full video.
Stand up by Sudeep Rawat.

[manny shaw @MannyShaw]

@yadavakhilesh Pl join the WhatsApp group Kejriwal has made.

he asked Mamta ji to join it - today.

#Lost CM Group

[manny shaw @MannyShaw]

@Mohansinha @NBDwrites @sanjeevsanyal @TheEconomist https://t.co/Jwt4XTfG0M

[manny shaw @MannyShaw]

The recent article by The Economist, titled “The Republic of Uncles,” attempts to explain contemporary India through a caricature.

Unfortunately, in doing so, it reveals far more about the limitations of the observer than the reality of the society being observed.

The article's central premise is simple:

India's older generation—particularly middle-aged and elderly men—constitutes a self-appointed class of overbearing "uncles" who suppress the aspirations of the young.

It is a clever literary device.

It is also a profoundly superficial one.

India is not a republic of uncles.
India is a republic of families.
And that distinction matters.

A Cultural Misreading Disguised as Analysis

The article takes a uniquely Indian social archetype—the meddlesome uncle, the strict aunt, the opinionated elder—and interprets it through a Western ideological lens of generational conflict.

Every society has such figures.

In America, there is the "angry old man."
In Britain, the "grumpy boomer."
In India, there is the "uncle."

But in India, the term is rarely political. It is usually affectionate, humorous, and self-deprecating.

Every Indian family joke about the overly opinionated uncle at weddings.

Every Bengali family laugh about the eternally irritated pishi or the stern jethu.
Every Punjabi household has its version of the all-knowing phuphaji.

The joke is not an act of rebellion.
It is an expression of familiarity.

The same "uncles" being mocked are often the people who financed education, supported families through crises, built businesses from scratch, and sacrificed personal comforts so that their children could have opportunities they themselves never enjoyed.

To convert this cultural banter into evidence of systemic oppression is not insight.
It is cultural illiteracy.

The Cockroach Metaphor Reveals the Problem

More troubling than the text itself is the illustration accompanying the article.
The image depicts a cockroach perched atop India's Supreme Court.

The article references a satirical online movement that adopted the cockroach as a symbol.

Yet the visual message transmitted to readers unfamiliar with Indian context is unmistakable:
India's youth are represented as cockroaches confronting Indian institutions.

This is an unfortunate choice.
India's youth are many things.

They are engineers building global technology platforms.
They are scientists contributing to space missions.
They are entrepreneurs creating startups at unprecedented scale.

They are doctors, researchers, athletes, artists, soldiers, and innovators.

They are not cockroaches.

A nation that sends missions to the Moon, leads the world in digital payments, builds one of the largest startup ecosystems on Earth, and produces millions of skilled professionals every year deserves a more respectful depiction of its younger generation.

India's Youth Are Not Waiting for Revolution
Perhaps the most curious aspect of the article is its underlying assumption that India's young are simmering with revolutionary anger against an aging establishment.

This assumption reflects a familiar Western narrative.

For years, many commentators predicted that India's youth would become a force of permanent political instability.

Yet the evidence suggests something very different.
Indian youth are among the most entrepreneurial, aspirational, and future-oriented populations in the world.
They deb
ate politics vigorously.
They criticize governments freely.
They challenge institutions when necessary.

But they also value family, social cohesion, and national stability.

They do not generally view society as a battlefield between generations.

Unlike many Western societies experiencing acute inter-generational fractures, India's young remain deeply connected to parents and grandparents.

Three generations often live under one roof.

Advice from elders may be ignored, argued with, laughed at, or mocked—but rarely viewed as an act of oppression.

The Real Issues Deserve Serious Discussion

India undoubtedly faces serious challenges.
Youth unemployment deserves attention.
Education reforms deserve attention.
Skill gaps deserve attention.

The quality of public institutions deserves attention.
These are legitimate subjects for debate.

But reducing these complex structural issues to a simplistic morality play of "old people versus young people" contributes little to understanding.

It merely provides a convenient narrative.
The easier story is to blame "the uncles."

The harder—and more useful—task is to examine economic transitions, technological disruption, educational quality, labour-market dynamics, and governance challenges.

Serious journalism chooses the harder path.

India's Story Is Larger Than Imported Frameworks
One of the recurring mistakes made by foreign observers is the assumption that every society must fit into intellectual categories developed elsewhere.

India is not Europe.
India is not America.

India's social structures, family systems, cultural relationships, and political dynamics have evolved over thousands of years.

The country's story cannot be understood solely through frameworks of class warfare, identity conflict, or generational resentment imported from Western political debates.

When observers insist on viewing India through those lenses, they often end up describing an India that exists primarily in their imagination.

A Final Word
India's older generation is not perfect.
Nor is its younger generation.
Both criticize each other regularly.
Both learn from each other constantly.

And together they have transformed a poor post-colonial nation into one of the world's most dynamic economies and democracies.

The Indian grandfather who remembers scarcity, the middle-aged parent who worked through liberalization, and the Gen-Z entrepreneur building the future are not adversaries in a civilizational struggle.

They are participants in the same national journey.
The strength of India has never been a war between generations.
It has been a conversation between them.

A society that respects its elders without silencing its youth, and empowers its youth without discarding its elders, possesses something increasingly rare in the modern world: continuity.

India's future will not be built by "uncles" alone.
Nor will it be built by Gen Z alone.

It will be built by both—arguing, laughing, disagreeing, advising, innovating, and moving forward together.

That may not fit neatly into a provocative magazine headline.
But it is far closer to the truth.

[manny shaw @MannyShaw]

@NBDwrites @sanjeevsanyal @TheEconomist https://t.co/Jwt4XTfG0M

[manny shaw @MannyShaw]

The recent article by The Economist, titled “The Republic of Uncles,” attempts to explain contemporary India through a caricature.

Unfortunately, in doing so, it reveals far more about the limitations of the observer than the reality of the society being observed.

The article's central premise is simple:

India's older generation—particularly middle-aged and elderly men—constitutes a self-appointed class of overbearing "uncles" who suppress the aspirations of the young.

It is a clever literary device.

It is also a profoundly superficial one.

India is not a republic of uncles.
India is a republic of families.
And that distinction matters.

A Cultural Misreading Disguised as Analysis

The article takes a uniquely Indian social archetype—the meddlesome uncle, the strict aunt, the opinionated elder—and interprets it through a Western ideological lens of generational conflict.

Every society has such figures.

In America, there is the "angry old man."
In Britain, the "grumpy boomer."
In India, there is the "uncle."

But in India, the term is rarely political. It is usually affectionate, humorous, and self-deprecating.

Every Indian family joke about the overly opinionated uncle at weddings.

Every Bengali family laugh about the eternally irritated pishi or the stern jethu.
Every Punjabi household has its version of the all-knowing phuphaji.

The joke is not an act of rebellion.
It is an expression of familiarity.

The same "uncles" being mocked are often the people who financed education, supported families through crises, built businesses from scratch, and sacrificed personal comforts so that their children could have opportunities they themselves never enjoyed.

To convert this cultural banter into evidence of systemic oppression is not insight.
It is cultural illiteracy.

The Cockroach Metaphor Reveals the Problem

More troubling than the text itself is the illustration accompanying the article.
The image depicts a cockroach perched atop India's Supreme Court.

The article references a satirical online movement that adopted the cockroach as a symbol.

Yet the visual message transmitted to readers unfamiliar with Indian context is unmistakable:
India's youth are represented as cockroaches confronting Indian institutions.

This is an unfortunate choice.
India's youth are many things.

They are engineers building global technology platforms.
They are scientists contributing to space missions.
They are entrepreneurs creating startups at unprecedented scale.

They are doctors, researchers, athletes, artists, soldiers, and innovators.

They are not cockroaches.

A nation that sends missions to the Moon, leads the world in digital payments, builds one of the largest startup ecosystems on Earth, and produces millions of skilled professionals every year deserves a more respectful depiction of its younger generation.

India's Youth Are Not Waiting for Revolution
Perhaps the most curious aspect of the article is its underlying assumption that India's young are simmering with revolutionary anger against an aging establishment.

This assumption reflects a familiar Western narrative.

For years, many commentators predicted that India's youth would become a force of permanent political instability.

Yet the evidence suggests something very different.
Indian youth are among the most entrepreneurial, aspirational, and future-oriented populations in the world.
They deb
ate politics vigorously.
They criticize governments freely.
They challenge institutions when necessary.

But they also value family, social cohesion, and national stability.

They do not generally view society as a battlefield between generations.

Unlike many Western societies experiencing acute inter-generational fractures, India's young remain deeply connected to parents and grandparents.

Three generations often live under one roof.

Advice from elders may be ignored, argued with, laughed at, or mocked—but rarely viewed as an act of oppression.

The Real Issues Deserve Serious Discussion

India undoubtedly faces serious challenges.
Youth unemployment deserves attention.
Education reforms deserve attention.
Skill gaps deserve attention.

The quality of public institutions deserves attention.
These are legitimate subjects for debate.

But reducing these complex structural issues to a simplistic morality play of "old people versus young people" contributes little to understanding.

It merely provides a convenient narrative.
The easier story is to blame "the uncles."

The harder—and more useful—task is to examine economic transitions, technological disruption, educational quality, labour-market dynamics, and governance challenges.

Serious journalism chooses the harder path.

India's Story Is Larger Than Imported Frameworks
One of the recurring mistakes made by foreign observers is the assumption that every society must fit into intellectual categories developed elsewhere.

India is not Europe.
India is not America.

India's social structures, family systems, cultural relationships, and political dynamics have evolved over thousands of years.

The country's story cannot be understood solely through frameworks of class warfare, identity conflict, or generational resentment imported from Western political debates.

When observers insist on viewing India through those lenses, they often end up describing an India that exists primarily in their imagination.

A Final Word
India's older generation is not perfect.
Nor is its younger generation.
Both criticize each other regularly.
Both learn from each other constantly.

And together they have transformed a poor post-colonial nation into one of the world's most dynamic economies and democracies.

The Indian grandfather who remembers scarcity, the middle-aged parent who worked through liberalization, and the Gen-Z entrepreneur building the future are not adversaries in a civilizational struggle.

They are participants in the same national journey.
The strength of India has never been a war between generations.
It has been a conversation between them.

A society that respects its elders without silencing its youth, and empowers its youth without discarding its elders, possesses something increasingly rare in the modern world: continuity.

India's future will not be built by "uncles" alone.
Nor will it be built by Gen Z alone.

It will be built by both—arguing, laughing, disagreeing, advising, innovating, and moving forward together.

That may not fit neatly into a provocative magazine headline.
But it is far closer to the truth.

[manny shaw @MannyShaw]

The recent article by The Economist, titled “The Republic of Uncles,” attempts to explain contemporary India through a caricature.

Unfortunately, in doing so, it reveals far more about the limitations of the observer than the reality of the society being observed.

The article's central premise is simple:

India's older generation—particularly middle-aged and elderly men—constitutes a self-appointed class of overbearing "uncles" who suppress the aspirations of the young.

It is a clever literary device.

It is also a profoundly superficial one.

India is not a republic of uncles.
India is a republic of families.
And that distinction matters.

A Cultural Misreading Disguised as Analysis

The article takes a uniquely Indian social archetype—the meddlesome uncle, the strict aunt, the opinionated elder—and interprets it through a Western ideological lens of generational conflict.

Every society has such figures.

In America, there is the "angry old man."
In Britain, the "grumpy boomer."
In India, there is the "uncle."

But in India, the term is rarely political. It is usually affectionate, humorous, and self-deprecating.

Every Indian family joke about the overly opinionated uncle at weddings.

Every Bengali family laugh about the eternally irritated pishi or the stern jethu.
Every Punjabi household has its version of the all-knowing phuphaji.

The joke is not an act of rebellion.
It is an expression of familiarity.

The same "uncles" being mocked are often the people who financed education, supported families through crises, built businesses from scratch, and sacrificed personal comforts so that their children could have opportunities they themselves never enjoyed.

To convert this cultural banter into evidence of systemic oppression is not insight.
It is cultural illiteracy.

The Cockroach Metaphor Reveals the Problem

More troubling than the text itself is the illustration accompanying the article.
The image depicts a cockroach perched atop India's Supreme Court.

The article references a satirical online movement that adopted the cockroach as a symbol.

Yet the visual message transmitted to readers unfamiliar with Indian context is unmistakable:
India's youth are represented as cockroaches confronting Indian institutions.

This is an unfortunate choice.
India's youth are many things.

They are engineers building global technology platforms.
They are scientists contributing to space missions.
They are entrepreneurs creating startups at unprecedented scale.

They are doctors, researchers, athletes, artists, soldiers, and innovators.

They are not cockroaches.

A nation that sends missions to the Moon, leads the world in digital payments, builds one of the largest startup ecosystems on Earth, and produces millions of skilled professionals every year deserves a more respectful depiction of its younger generation.

India's Youth Are Not Waiting for Revolution
Perhaps the most curious aspect of the article is its underlying assumption that India's young are simmering with revolutionary anger against an aging establishment.

This assumption reflects a familiar Western narrative.

For years, many commentators predicted that India's youth would become a force of permanent political instability.

Yet the evidence suggests something very different.
Indian youth are among the most entrepreneurial, aspirational, and future-oriented populations in the world.
They deb
ate politics vigorously.
They criticize governments freely.
They challenge institutions when necessary.

But they also value family, social cohesion, and national stability.

They do not generally view society as a battlefield between generations.

Unlike many Western societies experiencing acute inter-generational fractures, India's young remain deeply connected to parents and grandparents.

Three generations often live under one roof.

Advice from elders may be ignored, argued with, laughed at, or mocked—but rarely viewed as an act of oppression.

The Real Issues Deserve Serious Discussion

India undoubtedly faces serious challenges.
Youth unemployment deserves attention.
Education reforms deserve attention.
Skill gaps deserve attention.

The quality of public institutions deserves attention.
These are legitimate subjects for debate.

But reducing these complex structural issues to a simplistic morality play of "old people versus young people" contributes little to understanding.

It merely provides a convenient narrative.
The easier story is to blame "the uncles."

The harder—and more useful—task is to examine economic transitions, technological disruption, educational quality, labour-market dynamics, and governance challenges.

Serious journalism chooses the harder path.

India's Story Is Larger Than Imported Frameworks
One of the recurring mistakes made by foreign observers is the assumption that every society must fit into intellectual categories developed elsewhere.

India is not Europe.
India is not America.

India's social structures, family systems, cultural relationships, and political dynamics have evolved over thousands of years.

The country's story cannot be understood solely through frameworks of class warfare, identity conflict, or generational resentment imported from Western political debates.

When observers insist on viewing India through those lenses, they often end up describing an India that exists primarily in their imagination.

A Final Word
India's older generation is not perfect.
Nor is its younger generation.
Both criticize each other regularly.
Both learn from each other constantly.

And together they have transformed a poor post-colonial nation into one of the world's most dynamic economies and democracies.

The Indian grandfather who remembers scarcity, the middle-aged parent who worked through liberalization, and the Gen-Z entrepreneur building the future are not adversaries in a civilizational struggle.

They are participants in the same national journey.
The strength of India has never been a war between generations.
It has been a conversation between them.

A society that respects its elders without silencing its youth, and empowers its youth without discarding its elders, possesses something increasingly rare in the modern world: continuity.

India's future will not be built by "uncles" alone.
Nor will it be built by Gen Z alone.

It will be built by both—arguing, laughing, disagreeing, advising, innovating, and moving forward together.

That may not fit neatly into a provocative magazine headline.
But it is far closer to the truth.

[manny shaw @MannyShaw]

Kya baneye

[manny shaw @MannyShaw]

Jarasandha attacked 17 times to kill Shri Krishna and Balarama, but each time Krishna destroyed his entire army and left only Jarasandha alive.

Every time Jarasandha used to contact Anti-Krishna Kings all over the World and bring them to fight with Krishna.

Once Balarama got angry that why does Krishna leave Jarasandha alive every time.

Hearing this question, Krishna replied, "I purposely leave Jarasandha alive. There is a reason behind this.

Jarasandha gathers All the Unrighteous & our Rival Kings from all over the Earth and brings them to us so that we can kill those evil kings in one place.

If we kill Jarasandha, then we ourselves will have to go to every corner of the Earth to kill our Evil Enemies.

Jarasandh is making our work easy.

When all our Evil Enemies in the world are Finished, we will destroy Jarasandha as well."

Who is Jarasandha of Indian Politics Today.
😌

[manny shaw @MannyShaw]

Girlfriend: I'm miserable in our relationship.

BF: For real?

Girlfriend: Yes. I can't sleep. I can't eat. I've lost 10 Kgs.

BF: So, you're saying it's over?

Girlfriend: Well, not yet. I want to lose 15.
😌

[manny shaw @MannyShaw]

Simplicity..