u/BadeLandwale12

I've been wondering about something I've noticed both in our caste and in other castes as well.

I often see men being quite vocal about caste identity—caste pride, discussing our history, community organizations, caste activism, defending the community, etc. But I don't seem to see the same level of visible caste pride or activism among modern women.

I've also noticed that modern women sometimes seem more open to inter-caste relationships and marriages, while men can be more concerned about maintaining caste boundaries.

Even on this subreddit, when I scrolled through older posts, I noticed that I rarely came across women posting or commenting. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean women aren't interested in our caste identity—it could simply mean they participate in different ways or don't discuss it publicly.

So I'm curious: do women in our caste generally have a weaker attachment to caste identity than men, or do they simply express their caste identity differently?

And do you think this is actually a broader pattern among modern women across different castes, or is it just my personal observation?

I'm genuinely interested in hearing different perspectives, especially from women here.

​

I want to start a genuine discussion about the growing practice of VIP darshan in Hindu temples.

In many major temples, devotees can pay extra for faster darshan, shorter queues, or special access. I understand the practical argument: temples receive enormous crowds, VIPs may have security concerns, and paid arrangements can generate revenue for temple administration.

But there is also a deeper question: Should money determine how quickly or closely a devotee gets to have darshan of the deity?

One of the things I find meaningful about Hindu traditions is the idea that the divine is not supposed to be restricted to the wealthy or powerful. A poor devotee who has travelled hundreds of kilometres, stood in line for hours, and come with genuine bhakti should not necessarily be treated as less deserving than someone who can afford a ₹1,000, ₹5,000 or ₹10,000 ticket.

At the same time, I don't think the issue is as simple as saying "all paid darshan is wrong." Large temples have massive crowds, security requirements, maintenance costs and administrative challenges. Some form of crowd-management or paid service may be reasonable.

So perhaps the real question is:

Where should we draw the line between reasonable crowd management and turning darshan into a privilege that can effectively be purchased?

Would it be better if temples offered paid facilities such as accommodation, prasadam, guided tours or special services while keeping the actual darshan experience broadly equal for everyone?

I'd especially like to hear perspectives from people who regularly visit temples and understand the traditional and practical sides of this issue.

What do you think—does VIP darshan violate the spirit of Hindu worship, or is it simply a practical system for managing huge crowds?

Why do some people in the Bhumihar community praise Anant Singh when, arguably, he has done more harm to his own people than good?

His reputation has long been associated with allegations of land grabbing, intimidation and violence. And the disturbing part is that many of the people allegedly affected were from his own community.

What exactly is there to celebrate? If someone builds power by using fear and violence against his own people, he doesn't represent the community—he harms it.

Rather than glorifying such figures, we should demand accountability and the strongest punishment available under the law for anyone who commits serious crimes. Criminality should never become a source of community pride. He deserves bullet in head not a seat in legislative Assembly. Also he did harm people of bhumihar community, most people killed by him are bhumihars, he is basically a land grabber, nothing special.

I often come across discussions where men complain about women from their state or community dating or marrying men from another state. For example, I recently saw a subreddit from State X where some men were complaining about women from State X dating or marrying men from State Y.

It made me think about something—not as an attack on men, but as a genuine question.

Why do we become insecure when women choose men from a different state, culture, caste or community? And why can't we simply do the same ourselves—look beyond our own cultural background when choosing a partner?

When a person is attracted to someone, do they really start by checking their state, caste, language or culture?

If a man sees a woman he finds attractive, he may be attracted to her before even knowing where she is from. He may like her because of her appearance, personality, confidence, intelligence, humour, emotional connection, or many other individual qualities. Her state or cultural background may not be relevant at that stage.

The same should logically be true for women. A woman may find a man attractive because of his looks, personality, confidence, intelligence, financial stability, emotional connection, etc. His state or culture doesn't necessarily determine whether she can be attracted to him.

Of course, cultural compatibility can matter later, particularly when considering marriage. Language, family expectations, traditions, religion, lifestyle and other differences can create genuine challenges. So preferring someone from a similar background is completely understandable.

But attraction itself doesn't necessarily follow those boundaries.

So instead of feeling insecure when a woman from our state chooses a man from State Y, perhaps we should ask ourselves: why can't we also be open to women from different states and cultures? If we believe people should have the freedom to choose their partners based on individual qualities, shouldn't that apply equally to us?

Maybe the healthier approach is not to think of relationships as a competition between State X and State Y, but simply as two individuals choosing each other.

What do you guys think? Are we sometimes giving too much importance to state and cultural identity when discussing attraction, while simultaneously expecting women to look at us as individuals rather than representatives of our background?

Rahul Gandhi and Congress have strongly criticised paper leaks and examination irregularities when questioning the Central government. They have argued that such incidents seriously affect students and that governments should be held accountable.

But when similar allegations arise in Jharkhand, where Congress is part of the ruling alliance, I don’t see the same level of attention from Rahul Gandhi or the national Congress leadership.

I’m not claiming that the two situations are necessarily identical. Could someone explain whether there are important differences between the Jharkhand case and the cases Congress has highlighted against the Centre? If there are, what are those differences?

If the cases are comparable, then why does the issue appear to receive different levels of political attention? Is this an example of political parties applying different standards depending on whether they are criticising an opponent or dealing with a government involving their own allies?

I’d especially like to hear both sides of the argument. If Rahul Gandhi or Congress has publicly addressed the Jharkhand issue, please share the source. Conversely, if the cases genuinely aren't comparable, what makes them different?

Is this a fair criticism of political consistency, or am I making a false comparison?

​

I’ve noticed a pattern where, whenever someone does something considered blasphemous or deeply disrespectful toward Hindu gods or religious beliefs, some people respond by saying things like, “Then do the same thing to another religion” or “Why don’t you insult their religious figures too?”

I find this response confusing. If an act of religious disrespect is wrong, shouldn’t the focus be on condemning that particular act and, where appropriate, holding the person responsible accountable? Why does the conversation sometimes shift toward finding another religion or community to offend in retaliation?

Is this simply whataboutism, a tit-for-tat mentality, or a desire for revenge and perceived equality? Does retaliating against another religion actually defend Hinduism, or does it just create a cycle where every insult becomes a justification for another insult?

I’m genuinely interested in understanding the psychology behind this response. Why do people feel that the best way to respond to disrespect toward their own religion is by demonstrating that they can disrespect someone else’s religion too?

The recent controversy surrounding alleged theft/misappropriation of offerings associated with Ram Mandir made me think about this.

If money offered to a temple can be stolen, misappropriated, or diverted by people managing the temple, then is there really a point in continuing to offer cash?

Why not stop monetary offerings altogether and simply offer flowers, garlands, fruits, diya, etc?

If the offering ends up being misused by someone, is the devotee still performing daan, or are they unintentionally enabling a system where religious offerings can be exploited?

We have currupt people inside temple trust in almost all the temple in this country be it Tirupati Balaji to Ram Temple Ayodhya. In these scenario where we are surrounded by theives why to waste your money.

This is something I've been thinking about lately, especially with the increasing number of stories and discussions about infidelity and relationship breakdowns in India. I'm not sure whether this reflects reality or is simply the result of social media making such cases more visible.

It seems that people raised in more conservative cultures often grow up with stronger expectations around commitment, family, and long-term responsibility. In contrast, more liberal values emphasize personal freedom and individual choice.

Do you think conservative values actually help people become more loyal and dependable partners, or is that just a stereotype? Can greater personal freedom sometimes make long-term commitment harder, or does it simply allow people to make more authentic choices in relationships?

I'm genuinely curious about whether culture has a significant influence on relationship values. If you have personal experiences, observations, or research to share, I'd love to hear them.

Growing up, many of us were taught to see women as physically weaker, more nurturing, and less likely to commit violent crimes. However, with social media and 24/7 news, I regularly come across stories of wives killing their husbands, women committing violent crimes, false accusations, and other cases that challenge this traditional image.

I understand that social media algorithms often amplify shocking incidents, so these stories may not reflect overall crime patterns. But I'm curious whether this increased visibility is changing how people perceive women.

Do you think the internet is genuinely changing the "abla naari" perception, or is it simply making rare cases more visible than before? Has your own perception changed?

Since, I have this placement, I am curious to know about the significance of moon(specially when it's 2nd Lord).

I have seen much more posts about other planets like sun, saturn, jupiter but i think moon is not much discussed.