u/ronig_abc0819

A surprisingly large number of people in the 21st century — including Americans — still believe the Earth is flat and covered by a firmament. Some go further and push Hollow Earth theory: hidden cities and advanced civilizations living inside the planet. Others talk about stargates that let people travel across space.

A lot of these ideas seem to come straight from cartoons and sci-fi (The Simpsons, Doraemon, movies, etc.). Those were clearly made for entertainment. Yet a section of young people treat them as real science. Some even claim Elon Musk is an alien. He might be cloned, he might be a lot of things, but an alien? Come on.

It may be a striking paradox where they use a smartphone, GPS, satellite internet and AI every day while simultaneously believing that satellites are fake or that Earth is enclosed by a physical firmament.

It doesn’t stop there. There are also the usual conspiracy layers involving Zionism, Baal worship, elite clubs sacrificing children, and the idea that one day Baal will rule the world while their messiah arrives to save them. Following a religion and treating every ancient story as literal scientific fact are two completely different things.

This isn’t just an American problem. You see similar beliefs in parts of Europe and South Asia too. I can understand why people in poorer regions with limited access to modern scientific education (parts of Africa, Central Asia, etc.) might hold onto medieval or religious explanations.

What’s genuinely concerning is when people from developed or rapidly developing countries — places that build rockets and satellites — still buy into this stuff.

Are we actually heading backward?

India is a country that continues to confront an alarming crisis of sexual violence. Even if we take the official data of National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), —more than 80 rape cases are registered every day, excluding many of them still going underreported. Over 2 lakh rape cases remained pending in courts that year, with nearly 90% unresolved and conviction rates stuck at around 24% of completed trials. These are not abstract numbers; they represent survivors failed by systems that prioritise containment over justice.

What is more troubling is the official response. Governments across states increasingly favour “protective” measures that limit women’s mobility instead of preventing crime. In Bihar, Chief Minister Samrat Choudhary responded to a molestation case by focusing on the accused’s decision to film and share reels, remarking that without the videos the perpetrators might have escaped arrest. The underlying message treats visibility of the crime as the problem rather than the crime itself.

In Delhi, after a teenage girl was gang-raped in a public park, authorities moved to restrict access after sunset and tighten closing times. Closing the park does not remove rapists; it simply denies women public space.

Even a year ago, In West Bengal, similar statement was delivered by former CM of West Bengal, Mamata Banerjee that girls and women should not be allowed out at night following a student rape case, placing the burden of safety on potential victims rather than on the state.

These reactions reverse the fundamental duty of government. The state exists to make public spaces safe for everyone, including women, at all hours. Advising women to stay indoors, closing parks, or blaming social media for exposing crimes shifts responsibility onto survivors and shrinks their freedom. It treats women’s presence in public as the risk factor instead of the absence of effective deterrence, policing, and justice. Thus, a genuine question comes to our mind:

"Why does the response to sexual violence so often target women’s freedom instead of perpetrators?"

prevention rooted in accountability.

Governments must prioritise fast-track courts for rape cases and ensure trials conclude within months, not years. Public telecasting of verdicts (with survivor privacy protected) can create real deterrence by showing that perpetrators face certain, swift consequences. Expanded CCTV coverage in public spaces, especially parks and poorly lit areas, combined with dedicated night-time police and community patrols, would increase the actual cost of committing these crimes. Sustained NGO-led awareness campaigns that challenge entitlement and educate boys and men from an early age are equally essential.

Rape is not inevitable. It is enabled by weak enforcement, delayed justice, and a political culture that manages women’s behaviour rather than men’s violence. Closing parks and issuing curfews for women is not protection—it is surrender. The state’s job is to guarantee every woman the right to move freely and safely, day or night. Anything less is a failure of governance and a betrayal of half the population.

​

I don't get it why the Pop Culture incl. Modern Entertainment world from TV series to Feature film are so desperate to present Karna as the ultimate tragic hero of the Mahabharata—abandoned by his mother, rejected by society, betrayed by fate and finally killed unfairly. But having a tragic life doesn't automatically make someone righteous. Karna certainly suffered, but his suffering doesn't erase the choices he made.

Karna was abandoned by Kunti, but he was raised by Adhiratha and Radha, not in the extreme poverty that many modern adaptations portray. The Sutas had an established social position, particularly as charioteers and people connected with royal courts. His biggest struggle was therefore not simply poverty, but his insecurity about his identity and status.

His obsession with proving himself against Arjuna gradually became central to his character. His pursuit of divine weapons was strongly connected to his desire to defeat Arjuna and establish his superiority. He even deceived Parashurama by pretending to be a Brahmana to obtain knowledge of divine weapons. His subsequent curse was therefore not merely “bad luck”—it followed from his own deception.

Duryodhana's friendship gave Karna the recognition he desperately wanted, but it also tied him to Duryodhana's ambitions. In his generation He was the youngest one from Hastinapur to become a King, the King of Anga. So in a way, he earned a lot more than he suffered.

Karna repeatedly encouraged Duryodhana's hostility toward the Pandavas rather than acting as the voice of reason. His loyalty was admirable in itself, but loyalty to someone pursuing adharma does not make the cause righteous. For example, he destroyed the entire Kalinga Kingdom only to please Duryodhana. Even in Draupandi' Swayamvara, he took participation only to win Draupadi for Duryodhana. However, he was outshined by Arjuna by a narrow margin.

The worst example is the humiliation of Draupadi. During the Chir haran episode, Karna actively supported her humiliation and used deeply degrading language (Veshya) against her. This is difficult to reconcile with the modern image of Karna as an exceptionally noble hero. A person can be generous and courageous while still committing terrible acts.

His role in Abhimanyu's death also matters. Karna helped disarm Abhimanyu, after which the young warrior was attacked collectively and killed. Later, when Karna himself was vulnerable on the battlefield, Krishna reminded Arjuna of the injustices committed against Abhimanyu and others. Karna's death was tragic, but tragedy is not automatically the same as injustice.

Even the famous “Danveer Karna” story is more nuanced than modern retellings suggest. Yes, Karna gave away his Raksha Kavach and earrings before the war, but he did not simply sacrifice everything and receive nothing. Indra gave him the Vasavi Shakti in return—a divine weapon capable of killing a chosen target, mortal or immortal.

In the battle of Kurukshetra, Krishna was a divine figure but he never took weapons in his hand. He only played as an advisory to Pandavas and suta to Arjuna. But Karna was a person born with boons of immortality, so if he is engaged in a battle, that battle already seems to be inclined to him , Lord Indra when took it away, he also gave him Vasavi Shakti which Karna reserved to kill Krishna-Arjuna duo. Karna eventually used it to kill Ghatotkacha. So the episode was an extraordinary sacrifice, but it was also an exchange in which Karna received an extremely powerful weapon.

He wasn't a pure villain, but neither was he the flawless hero popular culture often creates. He was brave, talented, generous and loyal—but his insecurity, pride and hatred repeatedly pushed him toward destructive choices.

Arjuna also suffered enormously, yet his suffering did not turn him against dharma. Karna allowed his humiliation to become resentment, resentment to become rivalry, and rivalry to become hatred.

Karna's greatest tragedy wasn't that society made him a villain. It was that his own choices gradually made him one.

Rahul Gandhi recently criticised the Manusmriti as a text responsible for the oppression of women. If someone wants to criticise a religious text, they absolutely have the right to do so—but the same standard should apply to every religion and every tradition.

For example, the Qur'an also contains passages that are legitimately debated when discussing women's status. Qur'an 24:31 instructs believing women to observe modesty and guard their private parts, while Qur'an 4:34 has traditionally been interpreted as giving husbands authority to discipline and punish their wives. The actual verse is given below

"As for those women from whom you fear rebellion (nushūz), first admonish them, then refuse to share their beds, and finally, strike them (wadribuhunna). If they obey you, do not seek a way against them..."

That doesn't mean modern Indian Muslims should be held responsible for a religious text written in the 7th century. They shouldn't. In exactly the same way, modern Hindus should not be collectively condemned for every problematic passage written in an ancient Hindu text.

There is another uncomfortable question for those who accuse Hindu traditions of systematically oppressing women: where was the same concern for Muslim women when the issue was triple talaq?

When the Modi government brought legislation to criminalise instant triple talaq, Congress opposed the criminal provisions and argued that the practice had already been declared void by the Supreme Court. Some Congress leaders even promised to repeal the law if they returned to power.

Yet triple talaq gave a Muslim husband the ability to unilaterally end a marriage through an instant form of divorce, leaving the woman with no equivalent power. The Supreme Court had already declared talaq-e-biddat unconstitutional in 2017, describing it as discriminatory and giving the woman no opportunity to reconcile.

So when Rahul Gandhi and his allies talks about protecting women from supposedly oppressive Hindu traditions, why shouldn't they also ask about the political history of protecting Muslim women from discriminatory practices?

If the principle is genuinely secularism, shouldn't the same intellectual standard apply to every scripture?

The same inconsistency can be seen in the discussion around ghoonghat and hijab.

Rahul Gandhi has described ghoonghat as a symbol of women's oppression. Fine—people can certainly criticise practices that restrict women's freedom. But then why should hijab and Burqa automatically be treated as empowerment? If a woman voluntarily chooses to wear it, that choice should be respected. But the same principle should apply to ghoonghat as well: a woman should have the freedom to choose, rather than politicians deciding which traditional clothing represents oppression and which represents empowerment.

If the argument is that Hindu society uniquely oppresses women, then why aren't we equally discussing problems such as child marriage, female education, women's employment and restrictions on women's freedom within other communities?

For example, in parts of rural Bengal, child marriage remains a serious social problem, and it disproportionately affects disadvantaged communities. And most of these child marriages in rural bengal are done within the Muslim Community, while in case of Rajasthan, it is most of the Hindus who face child marriage cases..Rather than turning this into a Hindu-versus-Muslim competition, politicians should honestly ask: which social practices are restricting women's freedom, and how do we eliminate them?

There is another issue that deserves discussion: interfaith marriage and individual freedom.

A Hindu woman can legally marry a Muslim man, Christian man or man from another community under India's secular marriage laws. But when a Muslim woman wants to marry outside Islam, the social and religious consequences can be considerably more complicated in many conservative families and communities. If women's autonomy is the principle, then it should be defended equally in both situations.

And finally, this is where the Congress and the broader Left should answer a legitimate question.

The BJP openly identifies with Hindutva politics. People therefore understand that it has a particular ideological relationship with Hindu culture. But Congress and Left parties repeatedly present themselves as flag bearer of secularism, equality and minority rights.

Then their standards should be universal.

If a Hindu tradition is criticised for allegedly restricting women, the same scrutiny should be applied to restrictive practices within Muslim, Christian, Sikh or any other communities. Conversely, if a woman freely chooses a religious practice, her choice should be respected regardless of whether that practice is ghoonghat, hijab or something else.

You don't defeat patriarchy by selectively attacking one community's traditions while treating another community's conservative practices as automatically progressive.

A genuinely secular position is not "Hindu traditions are oppressive" or "Muslim traditions are oppressive." It is: individual freedom comes first, and the same standard applies to everyone.

Reservation exists for a reason. Generations of social discrimination and unequal access to education cannot be erased simply by declaring everyone equal today. For historically disadvantaged communities, reservation remains an important tool for representation and social justice.

However, the system needs reform. Reservation should be sub-categorised so that its benefits reach the most disadvantaged groups within reserved communities rather than being concentrated among relatively better-off sections.

At the same time, the government must address the concerns of poor students from the general category. Poverty affects educational opportunities regardless of caste. Scholarships, free coaching, better government schools, affordable higher education and skill-development programmes should be provided based on economic need, so that no poor student is left behind.

The anger behind anti-reservation protests should also not simply be dismissed. General-category students face intense competition, unemployment and financial pressure, and their concerns deserve to be heard.

The solution is therefore neither to abolish reservation nor to ignore its shortcomings. India needs social-justice-based reservation alongside strong economic and academic support for the poor, regardless of caste.

The goal should ultimately be to build a society where someone's caste or economic background does not determine their opportunities — and where reservation becomes less necessary as genuine inequalities decline.

India is rapidly emerging as a major global data-centre and AI hub. Data-centre capacity has grown from around 375 MW in 2020 to more than 1,500 MW in 2025, and projections suggest it could cross 4,500 MW by 2030.

This is undoubtedly important for India’s digital economy, AI ambitions, cloud computing and technological sovereignty.

But there is one resource that deserves much more attention: water.

Data centres generate enormous amounts of heat, particularly AI facilities with high-density GPU servers. Traditionally, cooling systems can require significant quantities of water. Some estimates put water consumption at roughly 25.5 million litres per year for every 1 MW of IT load, although actual consumption varies enormously depending on the cooling system, climate and facility design.

And here's where the issue becomes worrying.

A large proportion of India's data centres are being concentrated in cities such as Mumbai, Chennai, Bengaluru and Hyderabad, many of which already experience serious water stress. WRI India reported in 2026 that more than half of India's data centres are located in water-stressed regions.

At the same time, India is expected to reach its population peak of around 1.7 billion in the early-to-mid 2060s, according to UN projections.

So my question is:

Do we have the technology and long-term planning to expand our data-centre industry without putting additional pressure on freshwater resources?

It is quite true that India is progressing with technologies like direct to chip liquid cooling or Immersion cooling or more water efficient systems but can they curb out the water crisis that we are going to face in the next lines of decades?

After listening to the newly released Toxic BGM, especially 'the father–son' themed piece, I genuinely started wondering: are we looking at India’s answer to Hans Zimmer?

I know comparisons like this can sound exaggerated, but hear me out.

What stood out to me in the Toxic theme is the way the music creates a huge cinematic atmosphere while still carrying an emotional relationship between the characters. There are moments where the scale and texture reminded me of the kind of emotional, atmospheric scoring we hear in Hans Zimmer’s Dune. Obviously, Basrur has his own identity and musical language, but the sheer cinematic weight of the score makes the comparison interesting.

And this isn't based on Toxic alone.

Look at Salaar (especially, the wrath of salaar background score). Basrur's score uses massive percussion, brass, orchestral layers and sound-design elements to make the world feel much larger than what is actually on screen. The score was recorded with international musicians, including a 60-member brass ensemble, and Basrur was involved in the sound-design side as well.

Then there's Marco.

The Marco background score shows another side of him — aggressive, dark, industrial and almost relentlessly intense.

And of course, we cannot forget KGF(especially the background score of the teaser of Chapter 2).

That's why I think the Hans Zimmer comparison isn't necessarily about musical similarity.

It's about the role he is beginning to play.

The trailer has already been released in multiple Indian languages, but I haven't seen an official English version yet. If the filmmakers are aiming for a worldwide audience, wouldn't an English-language trailer help attract international viewers who don't understand Indian languages?

Do you think they're saving it for a later marketing phase, or is there another reason behind this decision?