Doubt Clearance Thread: UPSC 2021 - ForumIAS

Doubt Clearance Thread: UPSC 2021

"When in doubt, observe and ask questions. When certain, observe at length and ask many more questions."

Created this thread as a one stop solution for all members so that all the doubts wherein any conceptual clarification is required can be solved here. 

jack_Sparrow,curious_kidand122 otherslike this
977.3k views

4.2k comments

For Ethics case studies, is Vision VAM module good?

Haven't seen it. Found Lukmaan IAS material good.

4k views
Repeal of progressive farm laws proves how India was rightly called a 'soft state'. I hope this doesn't set a precedent for aggressive street behavior.
Villanelle,KingSlayer23and13 otherslike this
5.1k views
Repeal of progressive farm laws proves how India was rightly called a 'soft state'. I hope this doesn't set a precedent for aggressive street behavior.

Agreed to some extent. 

But doesn’t it also tell us of the importance of consensus building and limitations of top-down approach to law making in a democracy in general…

MikeWozniak,SAand6 otherslike this
3.7k views
Repeal of progressive farm laws proves how India was rightly called a 'soft state'. I hope this doesn't set a precedent for aggressive street behavior.

Agreed to some extent. 

But doesn’t it also tell us of the importance of consensus building and limitations of top-down approach to law making in a democracy in general…

That is there, but usually such decisions are not driven by the substantive essence underlying democracy but electoral calculations. That's why its problematic.

MikeWozniak,Villanelleand6 otherslike this
3.8k views
Repeal of progressive farm laws proves how India was rightly called a 'soft state'. I hope this doesn't set a precedent for aggressive street behavior.

More worrying part is the approach any future  government would take on reforms that has wide impact (equally positive and negative)

Goes on to show that process of implementation is as equally important as the content of reforms. That’s the lesson here not the actual reform part, which in any case, many would agree that it was needed with some modifications. 

One can only wonder if they had taken a different approach, would this reform be successfully implemented. But you would have to assume everyone acts rationally which is not the case most of the time (read political considerations)

AzadHindFauz,SAand3 otherslike this
3.6k views

Despite me arguing in GS answers otherwise, I feel an individual’s vote has zero value in a democracy like India. You vote with a vision, can so easily be overridden by tyranny of a minority. A vote only has value if you are a part of a group, be it on the basis of caste, religion or economic identities. Thus, I will not be casting my vote anytime in the near future.

It was foolish to believe that governments in India will do anything good when there’s politics at stake. That’s what the current PM cares about, just election victories. Their actions have set a very bad precedent now, labour laws next?

Minimal outreach at the onset of the legislations, minimal outreach when false narratives run amok, pathetic damage control when things go sour. My arguments with people on why ‘Zameen chhen lenge humari’ is wrong because there’s specific built in protections have resulted in what exactly now?

Well, instead of ‘government has taken a right step with the farm laws to push agricultural reforms to’, time to go back to ‘governments should work towards reforming the agricultural sector to capture the immense potential offered’. 

brownianMotion,Rashmirathiand4 otherslike this
3.4k views

When you shove laws down everyone's throat by weaponising mandate without any form of consensus building , grassroot movements are bound to emerge. The parliamentary supremacy has come to mean Executive Domination, less than 20% bills are refered to committees, opposition's views are not sought , parliamentary debates if they ever happen have become an exercise in denigrating each other rather than debating the rational of bills, ab aise me street politics nhi hogi toh kya hoga ? This is not setting any new precedent, rather it's only a reiteration of Gandhian Politics that began in 1920s and has periodically made its presence felt in form of JP movement, Anna movement, movement for FRA, and RTI etc. More than worrying about the outcomes of centres capitulation , we should be deliberating about the causes that have led to a revival of street politics again. The lesson is stop treating yourself as shensha and get down to doing things the democratic way , even if it means a spirit of give and take and takes its own sweet time to bear fruits. The spirit that characterized passge of GST needs to be resuscitated. Thats the only way to govern this vast land. It's when Leaders come to believe that only they know what's the right thing that a state becomes perverse and dysfunctional.

** Besides it's a matter of timing , govt has not capitulated as far as my understanding of politics is concerned. It has only furthered its political propspects in UP. Power is the means and power is the end here. Everything else is secondary. Yes even national interest whatever that nebulous word means. Aisa toh hai NHi PM uthe or Guru Purnima ke din suddenly decide kar liya laws repeal krne ka.

Wese ye Ambedkar vs Gandhi debate ho gya, Ambedkar loathed street politics, for him any kind of political expression should happen through parliamentary processes , he even went on to sya if Gandhian Politics continue into Modern Independent india , democracy will be imperiled. I don't know which side I am on , because to me both are complementary. Whenever the balance tilts in favour of one the other comes in to balance it ,and this balancing of forces can be observed in all kind of political questions . Like theres a view that Ashoka launched policy of Dhamma because of competition and conflict between Hinduism and Buddhism, that's why he says at nyoneone place anyone who disparages others religion not only harms himselff but also the cause of his religion. Nehru's Non alignment was also a way to find a middle path between factions withing congress that advocated pro US and pro Soviet stance respectively, and Mandal emerged to balance Kamandal or vice versa. So not polarised pluralism but middle path, should be pursued.

-- opinionated piece, consider skipping to not waste your precious time. 


Villanelle,Newton981and6 otherslike this
3.2k views

Based on my limited understanding of this issue, Idid not see anything transformational in the farm laws.They in their very essence wereagainst federal structureas Agriculture is a state subject. Though of course, you can always fit in the clause under some or other subject like trade and commerce in this case. 

They wereundemocraticas not referred to any parliamentary committee and suppressing voice of opposition in Rajya Sabha, passed amidst a ruckus. The government tried to suppress the protests in all ways, running full time propaganda on the TV. It was only the resolute of farmers that they stood fast for over a year. 

Further itleft vulnerable farmers to market forces, there areno great success storyof contract farming or outside market sales for farmers in India. Even though prior to these laws, 18 states had allowed establishment of private markets outside the APMC; 19 states had allowed the direct purchase of agricultural produce from farmers and 13 states had allowed the establishment of farmer’s markets outside the APMC.

If the central government so deeply believes in these laws, then it should have passed such legislations in all BJP ruled states and acted as a role model. 

Besides, Idon’t think private players will work in interest of small and marginal farmers(86% of all farmers). Check the stories on PM FBY or the private healthcare in India (check case of Indraprastha Apollo, Incurable India documentary). In my viewgovernment should intervene in public interest goodslike health, education and agriculture where by market forces interest of poor will be severely hampered.

In support of MSP, 70% of sales on MSP for paddy was by marginal and small farmers whereas only 1% by large farmers and 29% for medium farmers. For wheat 3% by large farmers and 56% by small and marginal farmers (less tha 2ha) 

Besides, Idon’t think it is possible for agriculture to be viable without subsidiesand MSP. The markets are so distorted internationally. For instance,Indian subsidy on agriculture in 2018-19 were $56 billion for about 50% of population. Whereas Subsidy in America was $131 billion in 2017 and farmers are about 2% of US population. Indian farm subsidies were 12.4% of agriculture value add, while for the US is 91%.


I don’t understand why each time they just want to create transformation (as per government) in a day like demonetisation or the lockdown.  In my view, government should innovate on existing systems like rationalise crops within MSP to ensure sustainable agriculture.

Edit copied from comment above: -- opinionated piece, consider skipping to not waste your precious time


D503,Villanelleand3 otherslike this
3.3k views

D503said

When you shove laws down everyone's throat by weaponising mandate without any form of consensus building , grassroot movements are bound to emerge. The parliamentary supremacy has come to mean Executive Domination, less than 20% bills are refered to committees, opposition's views are not sought , parliamentary debates if they ever happen have become an exercise in denigrating each other rather than debating the rational of bills, ab aise me street politics nhi hogi toh kya hoga ? This is not setting any new precedent, rather it's only a reiteration of Gandhian Politics that began in 1920s and has periodically made its presence felt in form of JP movement, Anna movement, movement for FRA, and RTI etc. More than worrying about the outcomes of centres capitulation , we should be deliberating about the causes that have led to a revival of street politics again. The lesson is stop treating yourself as shensha and get down to doing things the democratic way , even if it means a spirit of give and take and takes its own sweet time to bear fruits. The spirit that characterized passge of GST needs to be resuscitated. Thats the only way to govern this vast land. It's when Leaders come to believe that only they know what's the right thing that a state becomes perverse and dysfunctional.

** Besides it's a matter of timing , govt has not capitulated as far as my understanding of politics is concerned. It has only furthered its political propspects in UP. Power is the means and power is the end here. Everything else is secondary. Yes even national interest whatever that nebulous word means. Aisa toh hai NHi PM uthe or Guru Purnima ke din suddenly decide kar liya laws repeal krne ka.

Wese ye Ambedkar vs Gandhi debate ho gya, Ambedkar loathed street politics, for him any kind of political expression should happen through parliamentary processes , he even went on to sya if Gandhian Politics continue into Modern Independent india , democracy will be imperiled. I don't know which side I am on , because to me both are complementary. Whenever the balance tilts in favour of one the other comes in to balance it ,and this balancing of forces can be observed in all kind of political questions . Like theres a view that Ashoka launched policy of Dhamma because of competition and conflict between Hinduism and Buddhism, that's why he says at nyoneone place anyone who disparages others religion not only harms himselff but also the cause of his religion. Nehru's Non alignment was also a way to find a middle path between factions withing congress that advocated pro US and pro Soviet stance respectively, and Mandal emerged to balance Kamandal or vice versa. So not polarised pluralism but middle path, should be pursued.

-- opinionated piece, consider skipping to not waste your precious time. 


Not related to this issue, but the writing skills in this piece of writing of yours has impressed me. 

Coherency and flow was spot on... 

Essay mei accha likhoge!! 

SA,THE_MECHANIC
3.1k views

D503said

When you shove laws down everyone's throat by weaponising mandate without any form of consensus building , grassroot movements are bound to emerge. The parliamentary supremacy has come to mean Executive Domination, less than 20% bills are refered to committees, opposition's views are not sought , parliamentary debates if they ever happen have become an exercise in denigrating each other rather than debating the rational of bills, ab aise me street politics nhi hogi toh kya hoga ? This is not setting any new precedent, rather it's only a reiteration of Gandhian Politics that began in 1920s and has periodically made its presence felt in form of JP movement, Anna movement, movement for FRA, and RTI etc. More than worrying about the outcomes of centres capitulation , we should be deliberating about the causes that have led to a revival of street politics again. The lesson is stop treating yourself as shensha and get down to doing things the democratic way , even if it means a spirit of give and take and takes its own sweet time to bear fruits. The spirit that characterized passge of GST needs to be resuscitated. Thats the only way to govern this vast land. It's when Leaders come to believe that only they know what's the right thing that a state becomes perverse and dysfunctional.

** Besides it's a matter of timing , govt has not capitulated as far as my understanding of politics is concerned. It has only furthered its political propspects in UP. Power is the means and power is the end here. Everything else is secondary. Yes even national interest whatever that nebulous word means. Aisa toh hai NHi PM uthe or Guru Purnima ke din suddenly decide kar liya laws repeal krne ka.

Wese ye Ambedkar vs Gandhi debate ho gya, Ambedkar loathed street politics, for him any kind of political expression should happen through parliamentary processes , he even went on to sya if Gandhian Politics continue into Modern Independent india , democracy will be imperiled. I don't know which side I am on , because to me both are complementary. Whenever the balance tilts in favour of one the other comes in to balance it ,and this balancing of forces can be observed in all kind of political questions . Like theres a view that Ashoka launched policy of Dhamma because of competition and conflict between Hinduism and Buddhism, that's why he says at nyoneone place anyone who disparages others religion not only harms himselff but also the cause of his religion. Nehru's Non alignment was also a way to find a middle path between factions withing congress that advocated pro US and pro Soviet stance respectively, and Mandal emerged to balance Kamandal or vice versa. So not polarised pluralism but middle path, should be pursued.

-- opinionated piece, consider skipping to not waste your precious time. 


democracy is a slippery slope, there cannot be enough democracy....anyway democracy is good only till it is led by benevolent elites in a parliamentary system.. when people start exercising their democratic rights in the true sense anarchy erupts.

3.1k views

D503said

When you shove laws down everyone's throat by weaponising mandate without any form of consensus building , grassroot movements are bound to emerge. The parliamentary supremacy has come to mean Executive Domination, less than 20% bills are refered to committees, opposition's views are not sought , parliamentary debates if they ever happen have become an exercise in denigrating each other rather than debating the rational of bills, ab aise me street politics nhi hogi toh kya hoga ? This is not setting any new precedent, rather it's only a reiteration of Gandhian Politics that began in 1920s and has periodically made its presence felt in form of JP movement, Anna movement, movement for FRA, and RTI etc. More than worrying about the outcomes of centres capitulation , we should be deliberating about the causes that have led to a revival of street politics again. The lesson is stop treating yourself as shensha and get down to doing things the democratic way , even if it means a spirit of give and take and takes its own sweet time to bear fruits. The spirit that characterized passge of GST needs to be resuscitated. Thats the only way to govern this vast land. It's when Leaders come to believe that only they know what's the right thing that a state becomes perverse and dysfunctional.

** Besides it's a matter of timing , govt has not capitulated as far as my understanding of politics is concerned. It has only furthered its political propspects in UP. Power is the means and power is the end here. Everything else is secondary. Yes even national interest whatever that nebulous word means. Aisa toh hai NHi PM uthe or Guru Purnima ke din suddenly decide kar liya laws repeal krne ka.

Wese ye Ambedkar vs Gandhi debate ho gya, Ambedkar loathed street politics, for him any kind of political expression should happen through parliamentary processes , he even went on to sya if Gandhian Politics continue into Modern Independent india , democracy will be imperiled. I don't know which side I am on , because to me both are complementary. Whenever the balance tilts in favour of one the other comes in to balance it ,and this balancing of forces can be observed in all kind of political questions . Like theres a view that Ashoka launched policy of Dhamma because of competition and conflict between Hinduism and Buddhism, that's why he says at nyoneone place anyone who disparages others religion not only harms himselff but also the cause of his religion. Nehru's Non alignment was also a way to find a middle path between factions withing congress that advocated pro US and pro Soviet stance respectively, and Mandal emerged to balance Kamandal or vice versa. So not polarised pluralism but middle path, should be pursued.

-- opinionated piece, consider skipping to not waste your precious time. 


democracy is a slippery slope, there cannot be enough democracy....anyway democracy is good only till it is led by benevolent elites in a parliamentary system.. when people start exercising their democratic rights in the true sense anarchy erupts.

India has 'too much of democracy'! 

MarcusA,SergioRamos
3.2k views
» show previous quotes

democracy is a slippery slope, there cannot be enough democracy....anyway democracy is good only till it is led by benevolent elites in a parliamentary system.. when people start exercising their democratic rights in the true sense anarchy erupts.

I don't think democracy means a state lead by benevolent elites in parliamentary system. Democracy is govt by the people and for the people, so people do and should exercise all the rights to voice their opinion. It is the work of the so called elected leaders to actually find a middle ground as its the people who get effected by those decisions. Something that impacts me should have my consent. 

 In the recent years we already have brought reforms, but what is more problematic is the lack of consensus between govt, parties and pressure groups. Its due to lack of consensus and lack of ability on the part of the govt to accommodate various views and go by what they think is right. Conceding to the demands of the farmers should not have been done the way it is done, there should have been more consensus building, I believe more discussions on part of govt, shedding some parts and keeping some would actually would have made farmers to also tone down their demands and also would have allowed the govt to go for reforms. Reforms are needed but I believe until the section effected is taken into confidence, reforms are not possible.

This step should be used as a reminder to the govt do build consensus across political and social groups when such tough ( and sometimes neccessary) reforms are sought. 

D503,Villanelleand1 otherslike this
2.7k views
Rather than repealing the farm laws, if govt could have given legal guarantee to MSP (by enacting the law on it) the farmers protests would have ended
2.7k views
Rather than repealing the farm laws, if govt could have given legal guarantee to MSP (by enacting the law on it) the farmers protests would have ended

Nervous Sweating GIFs | Tenor

MikeWozniak,
2.6k views

*le upsc

Caesar,Villanelleand3 otherslike this
2.5k views
I could not hold myself from commenting on Farm laws. My comment may seem far too left leaning, but these are observations from ground level, from my personal experience. 

I live in a state which had implemented the farm related reforms back in 2006. Where people don’t even know what APMC market or what MSP is, because it never existed. People are still exploited by the middle men. No farmer feels that the farming is remunerative anymore. That’s why so much of migration.

The very purpose of reforms is to diversify farm produce, and not only production of wheat and rice. But the farmers don’t want to take risk of producing any other thing. Simply because they don’t find market. Even if they find one, they don’t get a good bargain. Many a times the produce gets rotten simply because they don’t find buyer, can’t afford cold storage, price crash etc. The payoff is heavily against farmers. 

According to me, making laws cannot solve the problem. Green revolution was not introduced by bringing any law. It was simply undertaken by an executive will power, driven by a crisis situation. The things mentioned in the laws are already in practice. The need is to build trust between the people and private sector.

Taking case study of my own. We have made agriculture sustainable by integrating our MSME activities with farming. Our staff work in field in their free time. We produce our own cereals, vegetables, pulses and Milk (from cow). They get the share of the produce, plus wages extra. This way they are able to increase their disposable income. However, I must mention here that agriculture is still not remunerative. It’s a loss making activity. But it earns the trust and dedication of workers. They devote their extra energy and time to work. It proved especially beneficial during Covid. (I must also mention here that even we can’t afford to take risk of producing any other thing, because there’s no infrastructure or any other support structure)

Agricultural activity should be made self- sustainable. Improving infrastructure and ensuring market access to farmers should be the duty of the government. Private players can’t be the core of this system, because people don’t trust them. 

I rest my case here. Because it’s too late now. Wanted to write many more things, but I guess I was able to convey my message. Crux is: There’s a trust deficit. That’s why the demand of MSP. 


D503,DMand4 otherslike this
2.2k views
I could not hold myself from commenting on Farm laws. My comment may seem far too left leaning, but these are observations from ground level, from my personal experience. 

I live in a state which had implemented the farm related reforms back in 2006. Where people don’t even know what APMC market or what MSP is, because it never existed. People are still exploited by the middle men. No farmer feels that the farming is remunerative anymore. That’s why so much of migration.

The very purpose of reforms is to diversify farm produce, and not only production of wheat and rice. But the farmers don’t want to take risk of producing any other thing. Simply because they don’t find market. Even if they find one, they don’t get a good bargain. Many a times the produce gets rotten simply because they don’t find buyer, can’t afford cold storage, price crash etc. The payoff is heavily against farmers. 

According to me, making laws cannot solve the problem. Green revolution was not introduced by bringing any law. It was simply undertaken by an executive will power, driven by a crisis situation. The things mentioned in the laws are already in practice. The need is to build trust between the people and private sector.

Taking case study of my own. We have made agriculture sustainable by integrating our MSME activities with farming. Our staff work in field in their free time. We produce our own cereals, vegetables, pulses and Milk (from cow). They get the share of the produce, plus wages extra. This way they are able to increase their disposable income. However, I must mention here that agriculture is still not remunerative. It’s a loss making activity. But it earns the trust and dedication of workers. They devote their extra energy and time to work. It proved especially beneficial during Covid. (I must also mention here that even we can’t afford to take risk of producing any other thing, because there’s no infrastructure or any other support structure)

Agricultural activity should be made self- sustainable. Improving infrastructure and ensuring market access to farmers should be the duty of the government. Private players can’t be the core of this system, because people don’t trust them. 

I rest my case here. Because it’s too late now. Wanted to write many more things, but I guess I was able to convey my message. Crux is: There’s a trust deficit. That’s why the demand of MSP. 


Which district in Bihar?

2.4k views

D503said

When you shove laws down everyone's throat by weaponising mandate without any form of consensus building , grassroot movements are bound to emerge. The parliamentary supremacy has come to mean Executive Domination, less than 20% bills are refered to committees, opposition's views are not sought , parliamentary debates if they ever happen have become an exercise in denigrating each other rather than debating the rational of bills, ab aise me street politics nhi hogi toh kya hoga ? This is not setting any new precedent, rather it's only a reiteration of Gandhian Politics that began in 1920s and has periodically made its presence felt in form of JP movement, Anna movement, movement for FRA, and RTI etc. More than worrying about the outcomes of centres capitulation , we should be deliberating about the causes that have led to a revival of street politics again. The lesson is stop treating yourself as shensha and get down to doing things the democratic way , even if it means a spirit of give and take and takes its own sweet time to bear fruits. The spirit that characterized passge of GST needs to be resuscitated. Thats the only way to govern this vast land. It's when Leaders come to believe that only they know what's the right thing that a state becomes perverse and dysfunctional.

** Besides it's a matter of timing , govt has not capitulated as far as my understanding of politics is concerned. It has only furthered its political propspects in UP. Power is the means and power is the end here. Everything else is secondary. Yes even national interest whatever that nebulous word means. Aisa toh hai NHi PM uthe or Guru Purnima ke din suddenly decide kar liya laws repeal krne ka.

Wese ye Ambedkar vs Gandhi debate ho gya, Ambedkar loathed street politics, for him any kind of political expression should happen through parliamentary processes , he even went on to sya if Gandhian Politics continue into Modern Independent india , democracy will be imperiled. I don't know which side I am on , because to me both are complementary. Whenever the balance tilts in favour of one the other comes in to balance it ,and this balancing of forces can be observed in all kind of political questions . Like theres a view that Ashoka launched policy of Dhamma because of competition and conflict between Hinduism and Buddhism, that's why he says at nyoneone place anyone who disparages others religion not only harms himselff but also the cause of his religion. Nehru's Non alignment was also a way to find a middle path between factions withing congress that advocated pro US and pro Soviet stance respectively, and Mandal emerged to balance Kamandal or vice versa. So not polarised pluralism but middle path, should be pursued.

-- opinionated piece, consider skipping to not waste your precious time. 


democracy is a slippery slope, there cannot be enough democracy....anyway democracy is good only till it is led by benevolent elites in a parliamentary system.. when people start exercising their democratic rights in the true sense anarchy erupts.

This statement is wrong at many levels. If people stop exercising their democratic rights or they stop participating in political activities, there is a threat of rise of Totalitarianism. I would want to quote Hannah Arendt here.


 She was studying the rise of Totalitarianism and atrocities against Jews. She was searching for 2 answers:

1. How do these totalitarian systems ascend to power?

2. How do they maintain power despite doing unthinkable things?

 To answer these questions, she goes back to Renaissance Period, when the seeds of modernity was sown. She thinks that modernity has produced a world where there is no actual public realm for people to engage in. We started getting our sense of identity through our job. This led to alienation of people. People starve for a sense of identity or how they contribute to a global economy. When they are starving for this identity, a political group comes along and gives people something meaningful to feel a part of.

 Answer to the first question:

Nazis did not seize power in Germany, they were elected because a wordless alienated population dying to move for something devoid of a political realm where they could establish their own values. They were given something to move for.

 Answer to second question:

Totalitarianism needs a unified homogenous society, which lacks diversity. This is why they often don’t allow for political dissent, this is why they don’t like the idea of equal citizens engaging in an open form of discussion. According to her, the enemy of the Totalitarianism is plurality. The political realm is the only place where a plurality of voices can be heard.

She would want us to understand that not living the active life can take on many different forms. You could surrender your responsibility to think, fall into identity given to you by someone else. 


Of course this is an another opinion. But you can’t deny someone’s right to dissent, even if it’s wrong. 

D503,sstarrr
2k views
» show previous quotes» show previous quotes

This statement is wrong at many levels. If people stop exercising their democratic rights or they stop participating in political activities, there is a threat of rise of Totalitarianism. I would want to quote Hannah Arendt here.


 She was studying the rise of Totalitarianism and atrocities against Jews. She was searching for 2 answers:

1. How do these totalitarian systems ascend to power?

2. How do they maintain power despite doing unthinkable things?

 To answer these questions, she goes back to Renaissance Period, when the seeds of modernity was sown. She thinks that modernity has produced a world where there is no actual public realm for people to engage in. We started getting our sense of identity through our job. This led to alienation of people. People starve for a sense of identity or how they contribute to a global economy. When they are starving for this identity, a political group comes along and gives people something meaningful to feel a part of.

 Answer to the first question:

Nazis did not seize power in Germany, they were elected because a wordless alienated population dying to move for something devoid of a political realm where they could establish their own values. They were given something to move for.

 Answer to second question:

Totalitarianism needs a unified homogenous society, which lacks diversity. This is why they often don’t allow for political dissent, this is why they don’t like the idea of equal citizens engaging in an open form of discussion. According to her, the enemy of the Totalitarianism is plurality. The political realm is the only place where a plurality of voices can be heard.

She would want us to understand that not living the active life can take on many different forms. You could surrender your responsibility to think, fall into identity given to you by someone else. 


Of course this is an another opinion. But you can’t deny someone’s right to dissent, even if it’s wrong. 

i am not suggesting what you are assuming,I am not anti-democrat... anway, Arendts philosphy is grounded on the base where people are not bounded by their labor condition and are free from necessities of life, sadly this never happens...when people not driven by constitional morality start exercising their absolute rights, society breaks down. 

i would have argued more but  i believe now is not the right time..

2k views
Write your comment…