Not speaking against and countering the offered presentation and not recognizing its contrary image shows your complicity in the same which you give unconsciously, as your subconscious mind accepts the perspective of the image only the way it is offered and accordingly resists to examine it critically.

Repetitive presentations designed using specific vocabulary have the potential to make us listen, see, and absorb all the injustices. Such processes leave us not reactionless, but we do react unknowingly the way we have been motivated to do so. We internalize such acts to such an extent that they become part of our subconscious habitual behavior, and we stop recognizing the incidences of injustices, a response that is least not expected at all from living humans, and start involving ourselves in the process of making them normalized. Despite this process being visible and noisy, it works so silently, making us no other than blind and deaf, and has the power enough to change the responses our consciences naturally make.

________________

29-08-2024

Rahul Khandelwal 

Note: The picture used in this blog is taken from internet.

The state, using its tools, has produced the "margins" and sidelined them, whom we do recognize, but do we seriously and impartially listen and answer to these "margins"?

The majority of people may agree with the proposed arguments posed by some intellectuals that "margins" as a category is the imagination of the state and the national public, and the same is the result of epistemological construction also. Having no doubt, I agree with this theory. The state might have a purpose (irrespective of whether its purpose is right or wrong; this can be discussed separately) to do so, without which it rarely acts. But what disturbs me is the fact that on one hand, these intellectuals say this, and on the other, they do accept some of the remnants of this imagination and behave accordingly too.

What is hard to recognize is the fact that, to some extent, we have subconsciously accepted this imagination and inherited the ideas associated with it. Our definition of "margins" might differ from that of the state or may remain the same as well. But what should be deliberated upon is this factual reality that accepting and recognizing the issues first, followed by providing solutions to them, is more important.

It is also rightly argued that such categories are externally produced using various mediums, including the state and its apparatuses like legal laws, propagation of a kind of discourse, law enforcement, etc., and not internally produced. Yes, I do agree with this. But we shouldn't forget also that this production, backed by external factors and not internally produced, is somehow subconsciously accepted deep inside by these people, who claim to be the voice of the voiceless. Adaptation of critical outlook and observation, if carefully done, helps in seeing and analyzing such elements in human behavior. Sometimes our gestures and verbally spoken words, in the form of reactions and responses we make, speak more loudly. The same can be seen too when some intellectuals are asked the questions framed in a local dialect by the people coming from these "margins," which remain unanswered or, if answered, not very well by the moderators.

The state, using its tools, has produced the "margins" and sidelined them, whom we do recognize, but do we seriously and impartially listen and answer to these "margins?"

___________________

21-08-2024

Rahul Khandelwal 

Note: The picture used in this blog is taken from internet.

It is probable that your perception and acceptance of certain things as good and bad may not reflect your own perspective. Is it not that you choose the good and the bad according to 'yourself and social constructions' in particular, without taking into account 'what is universally good and bad' in general?

Have you ever realized or tried to notice that some of the things you consider right and wrong, true and false, and justifiable and non-justifiable might also be because of the fact that you are under the influence of imposed prejudices and have preconceived notions about them?

Some ideas have been positively and negatively accepted universally by humans. But the process of normalization and denormalization with regard to certain ideas might be the result of creations shaped by the thoughts of humans having tendencies of 'taking sides', 'tilting towards specific positions more', and 'taking care of their interests' resulting in the emergence of a biased outlook. Humans, as a part of social structures, have made you think this way, ensuing the development of your consciousness accordingly, the corollary of which can be seen in the responses you choose to make.

On the very same hand, this also needs to be kept in mind, deliberated upon, and taken into consideration that there might be some things that are actually good and bad in nature, but the above-mentioned tendencies of humans as part of social structures make you acknowledge their contradictory meanings only, and so you do accept them with these contrary interpretations most of the time knowingly and less of the time unknowingly, despite the fact that you know the distinction between good and bad, truth and untruth in general, but your mind has accepted the created notions regarding this fundamental moral question associated with good and bad, truth and untruth in particular, subconsciously.

Have you realized this?

___________________

14-08-2024

Rahul Khandelwal 

वक्त का अंतराल गुज़र जाता है कुछ प्रश्नों के जवाब देने में, इतना कि कई बार जवाब देने वाले के पास इसका जवाब नहीं होता कि प्रश्नकर्ता तक जवाब पहुंचे भी है या नहीं।

बेफिक्र ज़रा हुए। फिर डाकिया हर दिन एक डाक के साथ आने लगा।

क्या जवाब दें इस परिवर्तन का?

कुछ पुराने खतों को जवाब के लिए इंतज़ार करना पड़ता है। आंखों से ओझल होना, मन की गहराइयों में परतों पर जमी स्मृतियों से ओझल होना नहीं होता।

"सुनो! उनसे कह देना जाकर कि कुछ परिवर्तनों के जवाब नहीं दिए जाते। अगर फिर भी जवाब चाहिए तो उनसे कहना कि ख्याल रहें कि खोज की पहली और आखिरी शर्त 'निरंतर किए गए परिवर्तन' ही होती है", पीछे मुड़कर उसने खाली हाथ वापस जाते हुए डाकिया से कहा।

उसे उम्मीद है कि आज डाकिया के हाथ खाली नहीं थे, आखिरकार उसने ख़त का जवाब दे ही दिया। क्या पहुंच पाएगा ये जवाब?

___________________

10-08-2024

Rahul Khandelwal 

Are the intentions behind your gestures, including giving applause and showing silence over someone's remarks, real and justifiable based on truth?

"One should be very cautious and adopt sceptic behavior while witnessing the choices one makes in the form of such gestures, for instance, giving applause and showing silence reflecting one's appreciation and depreciation respectively over the remarks, arguments, and counter-arguments made by academicians, public intellectuals, thinkers, philosophers and politicians in order to validate whether one's choice of giving applause is the result of something really commendable one has listened to or because of one's agreement with the said arguments ensuing enjoyment of intellectual luxury and; whether one's choice of showing silence is the consequence of disagreement one has with the proposed reasoning or because of one's encounter with the truth."

_______________

07-08-2024

Rahul Khandelwal

Note: This photo was taken at the book launch event of Prof. Mujibur Rehman's "Shikwa-e-Hind: The Political Future of Indian Muslims," and this thought came after having a discussion over the proposed arguments made by the speakers at the event on the same day.