Adore you

you've seen the jokes. india is "dirty", indians are "everywhere", why don't they fix their own country. ok. let me tell you why, and what's happening right now while nobody's watching.

first, the history you skipped: britain ruled india for two centuries and drained it. economist utsa patnaik's research estimates around $45 trillion in today's money was taken. the india that got independence in 1947 was one of the poorest countries on earth. every "why is india like this" question starts there. you don't get to profit off a robbery and then mock the crime scene.

now, what's happening RIGHT NOW:

in may the question paper for NEET leaked. that's the national medical entrance exam. over 2.2 million students took it. cancelled. years of studying, families' savings poured into coaching, gone overnight because someone sold the paper. students died by suicide after. these were kids who wanted to be doctors.

and out of that came a protest movement. a gen z group called the cockroach janta party, started by a 30 year old named abhijeet dipke, got 22 million instagram followers within DAYS. they've been doing a sit-in at jantar mantar in delhi demanding education minister dharmendra pradhan resign.

and then there's sonam wangchuk. if you've watched 3 idiots, he's the real engineer the character was based on. built solar schools in ladakh. invented ice stupas so himalayan villages have water. spent his whole life on education. he's 59 and he's been on hunger strike for 17+ days now. reporters went to see him this week and he was too weak to talk. and the troll armies are calling him "anti national" and "foreign funded". a man starving himself for other people's children. that's the thing here, anyone who asks a question is suddenly a traitor.

it's not one incident, it's everywhere you look:

• infrastructure worth thousands of crores failing within months of the ribbon cutting. tunnels collapsing in regions where heavy rain is a guarantee, not a surprise.

• youth unemployment near 10% for ages 15 to 29, 13.6% in cities. in a country of 1.42 billion where more than half the population is young.

• only about the top 3% of indians earn above 10 lakh a year. meanwhile billionaire wealth keeps ballooning and the headlines celebrate it.

• manipur burned for over two years. an ethnic conflict, tens of thousands displaced, and the prime minister barely said the word manipur while it happened.

• journalists raided. critics' houses bulldozed. activists sitting in jail for years without trial under laws like UAPA. our press freedom ranking has cratered.

• even the petrol is a fight now, ethanol blending pushed through while drivers complain about their engines and get no straight answers.

and through all of it, the PM, who came to power on religious polarisation (americans, sound familiar?), travels abroad for photo ops and has not held one single open press conference in over a decade. not one.

what i'm asking:

if you're not indian: share this. our media mostly won't cover any of it because the big outlets are owned by the same billionaires the government serves. the only reason wangchuk's fast is getting any coverage is people refusing to look away.

if you ARE indian: speak up even if you're comfortable. especially if you're comfortable. join the protests. add to this, correct me, translate it. staying quiet is a choice when nothing in this post touches your life.

india is not "dirty". india was robbed, and it's being robbed again, from the inside this time. but it's also the country where a 59 year old will starve for strangers' kids and 22 million young people will rally behind a party literally named after cockroaches, because cockroaches survive everything.

we can still save her. but only loudly.

I am incredibly proud of those who came together and raised their voices... not only in Delhi, but in every corner of the country.

I am also proud of those who continue to speak up online, spread awareness, and refuse to stay silent under the excuse that they "don't want to get involved in politics."

And to those saying, "If this were a dictatorship, you wouldn't be able to post about it online," I am tired of hearing that argument. If people are being beaten for demanding their rights, what would you call that?

Is the spread of false narratives through paid media not a concern? Is the deployment of RAF personnel without visible name tags while on duty not something worth questioning? This is not the democracy I was taught about in school.

I know many of you here may not be Indian, but I felt it was important to share this so more people understand what is happening in my country.

Asking for a better education system is not a crime. Demanding accountability for paper leaks in national-level competitive examinations is not a crime. Yet students and their supporters were treated as though they were terrorists.

They deserved to be heard, not silenced.

Khushi was never shown wearing the sari Arnav picked out for her during Aakash and Payal’s wedding.

However, Sanaya Irani wore it as Chhanchhan :) 

I’ve always been confused about Khushi’s behavior in the Diwali track in Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon?. After the almost-kiss with Arnav, she acts surprisingly normal around Lavanya, even though Arnav is still Lavanya’s boyfriend/fiancé at that point.

Then later, Khushi strongly criticizes Arnav for breaking Lavanya’s heart and ending the engagement. But if Arnav had openly confessed his love for Khushi earlier, do you think Khushi would really have stepped away knowing Lavanya would be heartbroken? Or would she eventually have accepted the relationship despite feeling guilty?

At the same time, Khushi was also under pressure from Buaji to marry Shyam, and she was desperate to get out of that alliance too. So emotionally she was already trapped and confused.

I know this storyline never actually happened in the show, but I sometimes wonder how Lavanya would realistically feel if she knew about the emotional tension and almost-kiss before the engagement ended. Would she still have been as understanding and graceful as the show portrayed her?

It feels like the show wants Khushi to be morally upright while also pushing the Arnav-Khushi romance, and sometimes those two things clash. Was this intentional writing, or just inconsistent characterization?

Hello Anon!

Okay let me get going into this *cracks fingers*

None of this was inconsistent characterization. Rather, in my eyes, this is when we got to see the meat of the show because it treated each character as multi dimensional - the way people are. And spoke about contradictories.

Arnav - the man who is always clear - made a dubious choice. Now, he has always had great foresight and barely makes impromptu decisions (barring Khushi). Yet he's been on a disaster serious of impromptu decisions. He's also always been a man who has exactly spoken what's on his mind, even straight up cancelling an alliance in front of the family stating the obvious - this would lead to a very unhappy marriage and it's unfortunate his grandmother wasted everyone's time. Yet... yet... with Khushi and this situation he didn't have any answer or almost control over his actions. He literally panics when later the whole family - justifiably - start planning the wedding, that's when it dawns to him on what he has said yes. And when he's able to get back his rationale, he breaks off with La because no matter what, no matter how bitter, he never steps away from the truth. And the truth is Lavanya deserves better, and not be a consequence of his confused mind.

Khushi - who is always morally making the right choice (it's the one of the few dignities she has) - has started a soft emotional affair with a committed man and is trekking on absolute grey waters. She tries to dramatize, fantasize, separate her reality from what she's doing (even in her head) but she's not being the always right heroine we're sold on. She's actually being human. Desire has taken its ugly root in her stomach and there's nothing she can do about it.

And dearest Lavanya - typically the childish, self obsessed woman - for a change knows exactly what's going on but is not verbalizing it. Like Khushi, she knows as long as she does not speak it out loud, it's not real. She knows Khushi means something more because of Khushi's effect on Arnav but she'd rather - happily - have Khushi around her as a band aid solution to her broken relationship with Arnav. Which is why she's not surprised when Arnav breaks off with her. She's just sad that what she feared is what happened.

So as you can see, this is when all of these characters got another dimensionality to them. Delicious!

--

Diwali Khushi is my favorite Khushi because post the guesthouse/resignation/teej sequence do we see her fleshed out as a complete human being.

I like to think that somewhere down the line given Arnav's own disinterest in pursuing this relationship to marriage, Khushi felt that the relationship between La and Arnav was not going anywhere - so the subconscious fantasy of attraction + pull found a dubious ethical loophole to grow in.

He's not committed - he said so. Lavanya will actually not get married here. Whatever is happening is almost an act by Anjali to keep the peace between Chotte + Nani.

And mind you, it's subconscious, not an active thought of Khushi.

Almost like building a sandcastle - you know it's not a real thing at all but you indulge in it full heartedly with all your passion.

Now Arnav publicly declaring Lavanya as his fiancé hits like a whiplash. In the sense that Khushi's romance was the sandcastle fantasy - not Arnav and La's relationship. And sometimes the easiest way to deal with intense grief is to never speak a word about it.

Pretending that things didn't happen is the only way to heal. Because it also keeps up Khushi's morality. And of course with reality in front of her eyes - Khushi is correctly angry on Arnav.

What was the point of committing to Lavanya if the whole intention was to humiliate her? It's the only time also where she can get angry at him, hate him, for hurting her. Cause this entire situation has been incredibly, socially, terrible for La.

Now if La had seen them almost kiss - of course she would have been angry. Her little reprieve in this entire matter is that Khushi does not know. And Arnav knows, but does not want to accept. This gives her dignity that neither of their two are working on deceiving her actively.

This is a rather lengthy response - hope it answers your questions.

Best,

War is bad guys, WAR IS BAD!!! When your father is imprisoned, there are other ways of getting him out!! Send a raven to the king or his mother demanding to know what act of treason was committed!! Call upon your allies to put political pressure on the crown!! THREATEN war instead of actually launching into it and marry someone from a powerful house so you have someone to provide the support of another great family!! Maybe even LISTEN TO YOUR MOTHER!! How about that!!

Even if you’re 15-16, war is bad!! People die!! When you lead people into battle, you’re leading people to their death!! No matter how honorable your cause is, raiding castles in the Westerlands isn’t exactly moral!! Taking Casterly Rock (which he doesn’t do, though he tries to get there)?? Fine, whatever. But random castles in the Westerlands that belong to families who have nothing to do with the interpersonal issue you have with House Lannister?? I don’t think so. Not to mention your men are still acting just as badly as the Lannister men, raping and pillaging and whatnot, at the end of the day. Teenagers have the mental capacity to grasp all of this. They can weigh the costs of war, they’re not incapable little babies. But when dany kills SLAVERS, people who deliberately inflict pain and suffering on thousands if not HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of innocent people throughout their lives in a direct fashion (not people who are merely affiliated with the enemy, by the enemy themselves), her choices must be dissected and moralized.

Robb Stark can do whatever he pleases— start wars and break vows and disregard his sisters’ claims to their own family’s lands— and still be seen as morally good/be perceived as “just a little boy who is trying to keep it all together” but if Daenerys does something to protect and lend support to her people she’s EVIL and wouldn’t make a good monarch or she’s cruel and commits unnecessary violence. What are we doing here people.

The point GRRM is trying to make with the War of Five Kings isn’t “Stark good Lannister bad” like everyone seems to think. He’s trying to point out that highborn men, even the good ones, pointing their finger over here and people dying over there is BAD. Daenerys is meant to break away from that system and protect the people that high lords like the Starks and the Lannisters think very little of. Robb may be a little boy, but he is also a feudal monarch. The fate of his soldiers didn’t exactly occupy the forefront of his mind. The smallfolk mattered VERY LITTLE.

And yet: Robb.

Robb is the one place where all their fractures point in the same direction. Catelyn would die for Robb because he is the embodiment of everything she did “right” the son who is lawful, loved, secure, unquestioned. He is proof that her sacrifices meant something.

Jon would die for Robb because Robb never made him feel lesser. He didn’t need to. Robb loved him without hierarchy, without condition, without politics. Robb is the brother who never asked Jon to apologize for existing.

And Theon would die for Robb because Robb is the only person who ever treated him like he belonged without needing him to perform. Not a hostage, not a pet, not a rival just a brother-in-arms. Robb’s trust is the purest thing Theon ever had, and losing it destroys him.

What makes this so brutal is that Robb doesn’t even know how much weight he’s carrying. He’s the emotional load-bearing wall for three people who cannot coexist otherwise. He is the axis that keeps the household from flying apart. Once he’s gone, the entire structure collapses immediately and catastrophically.

And GRRM is cruel enough to let us see that this loyalty doesn’t fix anything.

Catelyn’s love for Robb doesn’t make her kinder to Jon. Jon’s love for Robb doesn’t save him. Theon’s love for Robb doesn’t redeem him. It just proves that even deeply damaged, mutually resentful people can still agree on one thing: this boy matters.

Then there’s all that nonsense with confronting her with Sansa for no real reason, and tangentially Arya too, which sets up two camps between her and the Stark sisters, with Jon as the poor guy stuck between the women in his life which, to me, is first-grade-level mishandling of female character dynamics. But beyond that, the confrontation is very symbolic because all three are pillar characters in the story and women, and instead of handling their problems civilly, they decide to mess with each other in passive-aggressive ways, which falls into super misogynistic gender tropes. But okay.

Then there’s Daenerys’s “madness,” which comes straight out of the creators’ asses, because over seven fucking seasons there’s not even a HINT that she’s starting to unravel or that her mental health is deteriorating. And no, the genetic argument doesn’t cut it, reaching the level of psychosis required to burn an entire CAPITAL is not something you can just drop suddenly; it needs its own arc to feel realistic. But on top of that, the downfall of one of the most important female characters in the series being “she was so ambitious she went completely mad” is literally the most sexist stereotype for women with goals in fiction. The trope of the ambitious woman being evil, crazy, or both has been repeated constantly in patriarchal narratives.

If we look at it, both Daenerys and Cersei end up “punished” for being ambitious; Arya and Brienne don’t because they’re not ambitious in terms of seeking power, and Sansa is ambitious but wins the crown only after enduring the worst atrocities and becoming a “woman of ice.” Since she’s suffered the worst of the worst, they let her have a nice ending. But Daenerys, after years of freeing cities and slaves, suddenly has a psychotic break and destroys a city? She’s become so power-hungry that the only possible outcome is that she’s psychotic? It’s such a sexist cliché, it’s horrible.

And there’s another layer, too: how women with mental health struggles are treated in media. Even if Daenerys really inherited the Targaryen mental health issues, so what? What about women with mental health struggles? Can’t women have moments of instability? Can’t they experience episodes? Can’t they feel rage and express it? Is the only option for a woman who doesn’t suppress a mental breakdown to be a goddamn genocidal maniac?

It was your first year at Hogwarts and you were quite excited to learn everything there was about magic and make friends. You were on the Hogwarts Express and you tried to find an empty compartment when you finally stumbled upon a compartment with a guy who looked a few years older than you and had raven black curls on his pale skin as he lazily flipped through the pages of one of his books in his hands. You opened the door and you entered the compartment as you asked him whether you could sit inside with him. His eyes met yours and his gaze surveyed your features with a calculating sharp look. He had a look of slight annoyance in his eyes but beckoned for you to sit without saying a word. You smiled and thanked him and sat opposite towards him and when you pulled your 'A History of Hogwarts' book out, his lips curved into a cheshire like grin. "I'm guessing you're a first year?" he asked you. "Well yes, I'm reading more about Hogwarts so I can learn more about it and it's actually quite fun'' you said with a smile. For a while only the sound of the train on the tracks was heard along with the chatter of the other students from the other compartments and there was a peaceful silence between the two of you 

"I didn't get your name'' you said and looked at the guy in front of you. "Tom Marvolo Riddle, 3rd year'' he replied with a smirk as you shook his hand and introduced yourself. He liked how soft your hand felt in his, you looked so...innocent and docile and so gullible with that silly yet slightly endearing grin etched across your face. He couldn't wait to have more of you. The two of you were talking with each other when the compartment door slid open as a few Ravenclaw students entered and they stared at you. "You're new eh? Well if you ever need anything lemme know, I'll be more than willing to be your...guide'' said one of them as he licked his lips and his eyes travelled down your body hungrily which you were unaware of. It didn't go unnoticed by Tom though as he had a fake smile plastered across his face and asked him to step out of the compartment for a few moments with him. As the both of them stepped out, he immediately grabbed him by the tie and glared at him. "If I ever see your filthy gaze on Y/N again, by Merlin I will torture you till you fall at my feet and BEG me for death as I gouge your bloody eyes out...now get lost'' he snarled as the guy in front of him whimpered in fright. "Bloody pathetic...I'll kill you in your sleep at some point'' said Tom and smirked at the guy while the guy hobbled away in fright. Tom wasn't going to let anyone take you from him, you were his little prey, a little lamb meant to be devoured by him 

He returned back to the compartment and you kept talking to him while he listened and absorbed every word you said. The train finally reached the station as you and the other First Year students headed into the Great Hall ready to be sorted. You spotted Tom sitting with the rest of his other friends at the Slytherin table and you could feel his eyes on you. You were nervous and started fidgeting with the hem of your robes, anxiously waiting for your name to be called to be sorted as Tom took pleasure in watching you squirm from afar. He thought you looked rather amusing and slightly endearing, his desire to make you squirm for him even more grew as he kept watching you. Your name was finally called upon and you sat down on the stool as the hat was placed on your head and after a few moments of deliberation from the hat, you got sorted into the Hufflepuff house as you smiled and joined your house. Tom's fists clenched as his knuckles  as he watched you join those insignificant pests when you were supposed to get sorted into Slytherin so you could be by his side 

…

Red and gold was the house of the bold

with fiery swords of molten gold

and with a lion’s heart they stood apart

to defend and protect the hurt and neglect

to breathe and to fight for the dying light

and to give their best to end the quest.

…

Bronze and blue was the house that knew

with the quickest minds of all that was true

and with their eagle eye they always knew why

to sing and to write of pleasure and plight

to hum and to spin a tale for the win

and to give their all so no other shall fall.

…

Black and yellow was the house of the mellow

with their soothing love for each drowning fellow

and with their constant calm they held in their palm

to safe and to heal all one could feel

to create and to cope even the faintest of hope

and give their heart to make a new start.

…

Silver and green was the house of the keen

with the sharpest words of a rising queen

and with their broken soul they took controll

to honour and uphold their vows untold

to die and to give so others could live

I just realized how many inbox messages I have. Gosh, I need to address those...

It's hard to choose but if I had to choose:

In the story itself

The morality of an action depends on who the character is. The purebloods like the Malfoys and Blacks are bigots for scorning mudbloods but it's A-ok for the Gryffindor characters to discriminate against and endanger muggles and magical creatures. If Draco disrespects Hagrid it's a sin, but when Hermione disrespects Trelawney she's a girlboss. Draco objectively and simply points out that Molly is fat in a relatively mild Yo Mama joke and it's framed as bullying (no complaints there). But Harry describes how obese Dudley is in excruciating and needless detail, it's funny. This is the same Harry who regularly compares people to animals when he describes appearances. Draco bullies Neville - it's wrong (as it should be). Harry and co. bully and degrade Neville - it's funny and ok. There are many more examples. JKR is a disgusting and mean-spirited writer. I have several 'Double Standards' posts because of this.

In HP fandom

This extends to how HP fandom views certain fans. In particular, some Hermione, Romione and other Gryfindor stans will sneer and condescend to you if you happen to like characters like Draco and other Slytherins like the Death eaters. And if you criticize their darlings, they discredit your criticisms because you like the 'morally questionable' antagonist. It's hilarious how these people refuse to admit that THEIR characters are morally questionabletoo. Almost every HP character is morally questionable. They act as if the golden trio and the other Gryffindor characters are heroes who are justified in all their crappy actions. I have seen a disgusting Hermione stan (whom I blocked) condone and justify Hermione kidnapping and imprisoning Rita, erasing her parents' memory, attacking Ron with canaries and scarring Marietta for life. If stans like that don't outright say Hermione was right, they downplay it by saying she's a young girl and/or she had no choice. They say the criticism is overblown. Yet, they have no issue overblowing the actions of the unlikable characters like Draco and Rita. For example, they act as if Draco calling Hermione 'mudblood' is such a devasting crime. When wonder witch herself could care less about Draco's stale taunts. And Hermione being muggleborne has little impact on her for the most part. Total hypocrisy.

Honestly, I would like JKR's 'good' characters more if not for these atrocious double standards in the fandom and the narrative. But it's fine, I'll just enjoy my HP babies like Neville and Draco in my corner.

This analysis will delve into Tom Riddle's narcissism, heritage, and my own hypothesis that a mental breakdown led to the ultimate murder of his family.

Before I begin, it's important to define some key psychological terms for anyone unfamiliar with the subject. I'll try to simplify things down, but if anything doesn't make sense don't worry too much.

Krishna: Dharma is something everyone discusses but doesn’t know of it.

Karna: Then you tell us, what is the path to know what dharma is?

Krishna: Dharm gives respect, King of Anga. If one gets disrespect in one’s life, one must deam that he did not lead a righteous life.

Me: What about Karna huh? :(

Karna: And the one who has got nothing but disrespect since birth? What should he do, Vasudev?

Me: Yea, Vasudev, what then? :( :( 

Krishna: He should struggle for respect….but not side with adarma.

Me: OMG please Karna just listen to Krishna!

Krishna:  ……He must certainly fight for his rights… but not desire something over which he has no right.

Me: oh dam, he has a point. To much ambition does lead to your own downfall. Mahabharat’s own Macbeth :’( 

Karna: What do you mean?

Krishna: It means even the biggest mountain should not desire the smallest river. The mountain that tries to stop a river ends up breaking. The right to the river only belongs to the ocean.

Me: Wait, is the mountain karna? He’s a strong warrior… wait what’s the river? His small kingdom? River=respect? I’m so lost…. What?! Now there’s an ocean. Who’s the ocean?!

Karna: Are you talking about the strength of the ocean, or the weakness of the mountain, Vasudev?

Me: ocean= pandavas?…….mountain= karna?……. umm did Krishna already choose his favourite?

Krishna: I am talking about the fate of the river, King of Anga.

Me: *LIGHT BULB TURNED ON* OMG Krishna you’re words are PURE GOLD!!! mountain=Karuvas, ocean=pandavas, river= Karna…..    :’)  awwwww you always cared.