The power to influence people and responsibility

Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @vimohlive
Support the show at / vimoh
Make a one-time donation at vimoh.stck.me/profile
Please read these rules before commenting. Follow them to the best of your ability. The rules are meant to keep the comment space clean and a safe space for anyone who wishes to participate in good faith.
1. No advocating violence of any kind against anyone for any reason. People doing so will get banned from the channel.
2. No praising or abusing any religion for any reason. Proselytising is not appreciated, nor is making generalised statements about the followers of any religion. People doing so will get banned.
3. No casteism, racism, or sexism. Discriminatory language will get you banned too.
4. Trolling, spamming, use of fake accounts to deceive people about your identity, will also get you banned.

[@p2messia]

Hey Vimoh..
It would be interesting to hear of your thoughts on J Saideepak & some of his arguments. If such discussions already exist, could you please, link up :) thanks

[@vinnes_sawyer]

Right

[@ahnafazizict7684]

Do people always know what's good for them?
For example, a westerner might say that science is good for Indians. But an Indian might come and say " don't want science. Science is western. Blah blah."
I am not saying all Indians will say bullshit like this. Surely, many Indians are good science minded people, including you.
But my point here is that, we don't always realise what's good for us unless some outsider comes and advices us about what's good for us.
So is an insider ruler always a good idea?
Maybe, if the insiders have consent, an outsider can lead them better than the insiders for the time being.
Regarding Rudyard Kipling, if he called Indians "inferior" then what he said was wrong cause Indians are not inferior to westerners in terms of merit. However, my point is that due to cultural differences in attitudes towards science and Humanities and all, westerners were faster than Indians to achieve renaissance. Hence, an average western man was in a position of privilege compared to the average Indian man. The reason was not that westerners were more meritorious. No that wasn't the reason. The reason was the difference in opportunity. Westerners had more cultural opportunities to learn science compared to Indians. I would say, westerners were in a position of privilege. Hence, I would say it was the duty of westerners to teach Indians science.
So in that sense, the white man's burden was true to some extent.
However, the problem is in the fact that white men used this as an EXCUSE for colonialism and all. Maybe instead of colonialism, they could try and teach science like fellow brethren. Which they didn't unfortunately.

[@udhayveersingh1855]

Vimoh, do you think our constitution is needed to be updated for present context of situation? This question always kepps me busy thinking.

[@vimohlive]

That always happens through amendments

[@udhayveersingh1855]

@@vimohlive ok thanks

[@LetsbeHonest97]

@@vimohlive why can't it be rewritten entirely for the changing times

[@vimohlive]

@@LetsbeHonest97 There's no need to do so. Amendments suffice.