Let's revisit our past - 1949 September - the debate to make Sanskrit as the national language of Bharat...

In September 1949, the Indian Constituent Assembly witnessed some of its most intense sessions—often referred to as the "stormy days"—over the question of India’s national language. While the primary debate was between Hindi, Hindustani, and English, a significant and surprising movement emerged to make Sanskrit the official language of the Union.

The debate peaked between September 12 and 14, 1949, eventually resulting in what is known as the Munshi-Ayyangar Formula.

The Case for Sanskrit

The proposal for Sanskrit was not merely a sentimental gesture; it was presented as a strategic "neutral" solution to the deadlock between the Hindi-speaking North and the non-Hindi-speaking South.

The Proponents: 

The amendment to make Sanskrit the official language was sponsored by Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra and supported by figures like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (then Law Minister) and Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed.

The Support Base: 

Interestingly, a large number of the 16+ signatories were from non-Hindi-speaking provinces, including Madras (now Chennai).

The Arguments:

Impartiality: 

Since Sanskrit was not the mother tongue of any specific region at the time, it was argued that no province would feel dominated by another.

Linguistic Root: 

Advocates pointed out that Sanskrit is the "grandmother" of most Indo-Aryan languages and has heavily influenced Dravidian languages, making it a common thread across India.

International Prestige: 

Proponents cited Western scholars like Max Müller to argue that Sanskrit was one of the world's most perfect and scientific languages.

"What is wrong with Sanskrit?" — Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, when asked by reporters about his support for the Sanskrit amendment on September 11, 1949.

The Counter-Arguments

The opposition to Sanskrit was based primarily on practicality rather than cultural dislike:

Lack of Spoken Base: 

Many members, including Jawaharlal Nehru, argued that while Sanskrit was a "magnificent" language, it was not a living, spoken language for the masses and would be impractical for modern administration.

Exclusivity: 

Some feared that adopting a language primarily known by scholars and certain castes would create a new form of "linguistic elitism."

The Resolution: The Munshi-Ayyangar Formula

Ultimately, the assembly realized that neither Sanskrit nor Hindustani could bridge the divide. They adopted a compromise named after K.M. Munshi and N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar:

Hindi (in Devanagari script) was declared the Official Language (not the National Language) of the Union.

English would continue to be used for all official purposes for a period of 15 years.

Sanskrit was given a prestigious place in the Eighth Schedule (List of recognized languages) and Article 351, which directs the state to draw upon Sanskrit for the development of Hindi's vocabulary.

Summary Table: The Language Contenders (Sept 1949)

Language	Primary Supporters	Outcome
Hindi	Purushottam Das Tandon, Govind Das	Adopted as Official Language.
Sanskrit	B.R. Ambedkar, L.K. Maitra	Included in Eighth Schedule; used for vocabulary.
Hindustani	Mahatma Gandhi (legacy), Maulana Azad	Rejected in favor of "Sanskritized" Hindi.
English	Non-Hindi states (Madras, Bengal)	Retained as Associate Language for 15 years.

Hey people of Bharat - it's time to rectify our past misdeeds.

Please wake up now...

Read... my take on the subject that i wrote in 2022...

Canada China bonhomie, Australia China friendship, Bharat Germany alliance, EU Bharat FTA - the New World Order is being created in front of our eyes. USA administration knowingly or unknowingly creating a multipolar Universe they themselves are afraid of...

We are living through a quiet but irreversible transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world order, and paradoxically, the United States is both the architect and the casualty of this shift.

Let’s unpack this carefully.

1. The Pattern Is Not Accidental

• Canada–China engagement, despite security tensions
• Australia–China reset, after years of strategic hostility
• Bharat–Germany deepening alliance, beyond symbolism into manufacturing, defence, and green tech
• EU–Bharat FTA, pursued with unusual urgency

These are not isolated diplomatic gestures. They reflect a systemic hedging behavior by middle and great powers.

The message is clear:

“We will not put all our eggs in the American basket anymore.”

2. Why the US Is Unintentionally Creating Multipolarity

(a) Overuse of Sanctions as a Weapon

The US turned the dollar, SWIFT, and trade access into coercive tools. This worked—once.

Now it has triggered:

- De-dollarization efforts

- Local currency trade

- Alternative payment rails

- Strategic autonomy doctrines (EU, Bharat, ASEAN)

Power, when weaponized too often, teaches others how to live without it.

(b) Alliance Fatigue

Traditional allies have learned that:

- US administrations change every 4 years

- Policy continuity is no longer guaranteed

- Domestic politics now dictate foreign commitments

So nations hedge—not against America, but against American unpredictability.

(c) Strategic Myopia: “With Us or Against Us”

The post-Cold War moral binary no longer works:

- Bharat refuses bloc politics

- EU wants strategic autonomy

- Australia wants security and trade

- Canada wants values and market access

The world has moved from ideology to interest-based diplomacy.

3. Bharat’s Role: The Quiet Axis Power

Bharat is not forming an empire. It is becoming an axis around which multiple poles rotate:

- Trusted by the West, not subservient

- Engages China, without surrender

- Part of QUAD, yet trades with Russia

- Democratic legitimacy + civilizational continuity

This makes Bharat uniquely suited to a post-hegemonic order.

Germany understands this. So does France. So does the EU bureaucracy.

4. Multipolarity Is What the US Feared—but Also Needed

Ironically:

- A unipolar world made the US complacent

- Multipolarity forces restraint, negotiation, and realism

- It reduces proxy wars and regime-change temptations

The US strategic community knows this—but domestic politics prevents long-term thinking.

5. What Is Emerging Is Not Chaos—but a “Civilizational Balance”

This is not Cold War 2.0.

It is closer to a 19th-century balance of power—without empires, with economics replacing armies.

- Trade corridors > military bases

- FTAs > ideology

- Supply chains > spheres of influence

6. The Core Irony

The United States feared a multipolar world because it meant loss of control.

But control was never sustainable—only leadership was.

By choosing coercion over consensus, dominance over diplomacy, it accelerated the very future it fear.

The new world order is not being announced—it is being assembled quietly, deal by deal, corridor by corridor.

History will likely record this period not as America’s fall, but as the end of American singularity—and the beginning of a far more complex, negotiated world.

Detachment: Beyond Avoidance, Toward Freedom...

Avoidance of negativity is often mistaken for spiritual growth, but it is only a partial step. When we avoid something, we implicitly accept its power over us. Avoidance says, “This exists, and it can disturb me, so I must escape.” In doing so, negativity remains central to our inner life, even if only as something to be resisted.

Detachment operates at a fundamentally different level. It does not deny the existence of negativity, nor does it struggle against it. Instead, detachment alters our relationship with experience itself. What is seen is allowed to be seen, but it is no longer permitted to bind the mind or dictate the inner state. There is awareness without entanglement.

This distinction is crucial. Avoidance is reactive; detachment is liberating. Avoidance strengthens the ego by constantly defending it, while detachment loosens the ego’s grip by refusing to identify with passing emotions, thoughts, or circumstances. In detachment, negativity may arise, but it finds no anchor.

True salvation does not come from running away from darkness, but from standing in clarity. When the mind neither clings nor resists, suffering loses its authority. Detachment is not indifference—it is freedom. And in that freedom lies peace that is untouched by the presence or absence of negativity.

দ্বার বন্ধ করে দিয়ে ভ্রমটারে রুখি। 

সত্য বলে, আমি তবে কোথা দিয়ে ঢুকি?

The above aphorism means

If we shut down the doors of our minds to keep out Lies, even Truth cannot enter.

What happens when an ancient civilization like Bharat (Hindu civilization) forgets her stories - the people become target for conversion...

Have you ever wondered what happens when an ancient civilization like Bharat (Hindu Civilization) forgets her stories? We become the targets for conversion. Conversion - then becomes not merely a religious event, but a civilizational consequence.

In search of WhoAmI...

Stories are not entertainment — they are civilizational memory

In Bharatiya civilization, Itihāsa–Purāṇa were never “mythology” in the Western sense. They served as:

• Moral frameworks (Dharma vs Adharma)

• Identity anchors (Who am I? Where do I belong?)

• Cognitive maps for life decisions

• Transmission of values across generations

When these stories are forgotten:

• People lose context

• Values become abstract rules instead of lived wisdom

• Identity becomes fragile

A civilization without stories becomes amnesic.

And Bharat Mata without her stories of strength and resilience appears meek and feeble.

Forgetting stories creates a vacuum — conversion fills vacuums

Human beings cannot live without meaning.

When indigenous narratives weaken:

• External narratives rush in

• Conversion offers:

  • Clear identity (“you belong here”)

  • Simple moral binaries

  • Strong community reinforcement

  • Certainty instead of inquiry

Conversion often succeeds not because the new faith is superior, but because the old one stopped being transmitted with confidence.

Colonial rupture: the break in storytelling continuity...

One of the deepest root causes:

a) Delegitimization of native knowledge

• Stories labelled as “myths”, “superstition”

• Western historical standards imposed on oral traditions

• Sanskrit knowledge restricted to academia or ritual specialists

b) Education divorced from civilizational roots

• Children learn Newton, not Aryabhata

• Learn Greek philosophy, not Upanishadic inquiry

• Learn Western heroes, not Bharatiya exemplars

Result:
A child grows up educated but unrooted.

Reduction of Dharma to ritual

Another critical failure:

• Dharma reduced to:

  • Temple visits

  • Festivals without meaning

  • Mechanical rituals

But Dharma is:

• Ethics

• Cosmology

• Psychology

• Ecology

• Governance

• Personal responsibility

When Dharma is not explained as a way of life, people seek a belief system instead.

Forgetting stories = losing immunity

Stories act like civilizational antibodies.

Ramayana teaches:

• Ideal relationships

• Sacrifice without resentment

• Moral complexity

Mahabharata teaches:

• Ambiguity of Dharma

• Power, politics, and ethical dilemmas

• Consequences of action (karma)

Upanishads teach:

• Self-inquiry over blind belief

Without these, people become vulnerable to:

• Dogma

• Absolutism

• Imported moral frameworks unsuited to local realities

So... is there any Hindu listening?

We must go back to our original source of knowledge. Our Gita... our Ramayana... and our MahaBharata... our Vedas... Our Upanishads...

We must revive our Sanskrit language.

The TIME is NOW...

No more dilly dally ... please...

We, as a progeny of such a vast knowledge base, must not forget that 

A people who forget their stories will borrow someone else’s—and live inside it.

The dwindling hype of EV Cars - the life span of EV cars are of concern - and then we just look for a dump yard to get rid of it - the lies that EV cars are environment friendly...

EV Lifespan & End-of-Life Problems

1. Battery lifespan isn’t forever

Most EV batteries last 8–15 years depending on:

• heat

• charging habits

• mileage

• manufacturing quality

After that, range drops — sometimes dramatically — and battery replacement can cost ₹4–10 lakh+ (or more globally $5,000–$20,000).

So older EVs often become economically unrepairable.

Meaning → scrapyard.

2. EV batteries are NOT eco-friendly to produce

They require:

• Lithium

• Cobalt

• Nickel

• Graphite

• Rare-earth metals

Which means:
✔ Deep mining
✔ Groundwater depletion
✔ Chemical pollution
✔ Deforestation
✔ Child & unsafe labour in some regions

So yes — the “green” EV depends on some very dirty realities.

3. Recycling batteries is still a big unsolved problem

Battery recycling today is:
❌ Expensive
❌ Technically complex
❌ Energy intensive
❌ Done at very small scale globally

Many early EV batteries have already ended up in:

• landfills

• informal scrap markets

• developing countries for cheap disposal

And when damaged → they can catch fire.

The concern about “dump yards” is real — especially as millions of EVs age out together.

So are EVs really environmentally friendly?

The honest answer:

📌 They are better than petrol cars — only if:

• electricity comes from clean energy

• battery life is long

• recycling improves

• supply chains are ethical

📌 But today…
many countries still use coal-based power, weak recycling systems, and dirty mining.

So calling EVs fully green is misleading.

They are a partial improvement — not a clean cure.

5. What’s not talked about enough

🚫 EVs don't solve:

• traffic

• resource depletion

• over-consumption

• urban planning failure

They simply replace one type of machine with another.

Meanwhile:
✔ Smaller vehicles
✔ Public transit
✔ Walking + cycling
✔ Local economies

…have far greater environmental benefit.

But those don’t generate billion-dollar profits — EV hype does.

Why the “EV = Green” narrative exists

Because it benefits:

• automakers

• tech companies

• governments seeking climate credit

• investors

And it gives consumers a guilt-free way to keep buying cars.

It’s not a conspiracy — but it is convenient marketing.

7. What’s the fair, nuanced truth?

🌱 EVs:

✔ reduce city air pollution
✔ reduce oil dependency
✔ reduce lifetime CO₂ emissions (in many regions)

❌ But they:

✘ still damage the environment
✘ still create waste
✘ still require global extraction industries
✘ still end up in scrap yards if policies fail

So:

EVs are “less bad,” not “good.”

And pretending otherwise is dishonest.

8. The real sustainable direction looks like:

• durable long-life batteries

• modular replaceable parts

• standardized recycling systems

• second-life grid storage

• renewable power

• fewer cars overall

• better public transit

• urban planning that reduces car dependence

So... here we go...

global  automakers hit the brakes on their electric vehicle plans

Major manufacturers have scaled back ambitions that once targeted rapid electrification:
- Ford took a $19.5 billion charge in December 2025 to cancel or delay several EV programs (including large three-row SUVs and reducing focus on the F-150 Lightning), shifting resources elsewhere.
- General Motors (GM) paused expansions, reduced output at key EV factories (e.g., Spring Hill, Tennessee), and took $1.6 billion in charges, while deprioritizing rapid scaling.
- Stellantis canceled the Ram 1500 REV electric pickup, delayed the Ramcharger extended-range EV to later in 2026, and trimmed lower-trim EV versions (e.g., Dodge Charger Daytona).
- Volkswagen discontinued models like the ID.7 and paused ID. Buzz production in the U.S., citing challenging EV market conditions.
- Mercedes-Benz axed entry-level EVs like the EQB for 2026 and paused U.S.-bound EQE/EQS production.
Other cancellations include Chevrolet BrightDrop vans, Nissan Ariya (paused in U.S.), and various planned models from Honda, Kia, and Dodge.
Overall, most major automakers launched no significant new EVs in 2026—a sharp contrast to prior years—and EV market share growth has stalled, with sales declining in late 2025 after incentives ended.

All That Glitters Is Not Gold — A Public Appeal on Bill Gates funded Apeel - “Apple-Style Peel Coatings” for Fruits & Vegetables

For centuries, fresh fruits and vegetables have nourished human civilization in their natural form — washed, prepared, and consumed as nature intended. Today, however, a new trend is being promoted globally: synthetic “peel-like” coatings applied to fruits and vegetables to increase shelf-life. These coatings — backed and promoted by powerful corporate figures like Bill Gates — are marketed as innovative, eco-friendly, and food-safe.

But as the saying goes:

All that glitters is not gold.

This appeal is not against innovation. It is a call for awareness, transparency, and caution — especially when our food, health, and farmers’ livelihoods are involved.

What Are These Coatings?

These new coatings are thin chemical or bio-polymer layers applied to fruits and vegetables to:

- prevent moisture loss

- delay ripening

- increase storage life

- make produce look “fresh” longer

They are often described as:

> “Edible, tasteless, plant-based, and safe.”

But the real questions remain:

What exactly are the ingredients?

How are they processed?

What are the long-term health effects?

Who benefits most?

Who Really Wins?

Supermarkets and global supply chains gain huge profit advantages:

Longer storage

Longer transport

Less waste

Better visual appearance

But do consumers win?

Do small farmers win?

Does health win?

Or do we slowly drift into a world where natural food is replaced by engineered commodities?

Potential Concerns That Deserve Answers

This appeal is simply asking for clarity:

1. Transparency

Consumers deserve:

Full ingredient disclosure

Independent safety testing

Clear labelling

If the coating is harmless — why hide details?

2. Health Over Profit

Long-term exposure studies must be independent — not industry-funded.

Food is not software. Human biology is not a corporate lab.

3. Choice

People should be free to choose UNCOATED produce.

Natural food should not become a luxury.

4. Farmers’ Rights

Will local farmers be forced into licensing systems? Will dependence on corporate supply chains increase? Will traditional markets be sidelined?

Innovation must empower farmers — not capture them.

Why the Old Ways Worked

Fresh seasonal produce: 

- supports local farmers

- avoids unnecessary chemicals

- respects nature’s rhythm

- keeps food simple

Not everything needs to be “engineered.”

Sometimes the best technology is wisdom.

This Is a Call for Awareness — Not Fear

Technology is powerful.

So is money.

So is marketing.

But the public must remain alert.

We have already seen:

processed food epidemics

chemical agriculture dependence

microplastics in everything

lifestyle-driven health crises

Do we really want our fruits and vegetables to become another experiment?

A Simple Request to the Public

Before accepting glossy promises — ask questions. Before trusting billion-dollar narratives — think independently. Before believing that everything “new” is “good” — remember history.

Because truly…

All that glitters is not gold.

Healthy food should be: simple, natural, honest, local — and human-centered.

Let’s protect that.