We need a portal who funds these and what are their connections with politicians

I will be turning 18 next year and i have decided to embark on a mission to deeply understand everything I can about indian political system, political science, all that. The reason is because I realize that I will have a responsibility when i am eligible to give vote and I don't want to vote for someone just because everyone around me is doing the same. So, I have decided that I want to research, study, learn, and decide on my own. Which means starting with the basics.

I am a science student, so the last time I read civics/history was back in 10 grade which I, frankly, don't remember. That is not to say that I don't like the subject.

So, for someone who would want to learn from the basics and build their way from up there about indian political system and all that (you must've realized i dont even know what i want to learn)

I would request anyone to help me with this. Yt videos, books, articles, anything that would be easy to understand for a beginner and obviously offers a non-biased point of view. I feel like I might also need to understand and know a lot of history for this. I am willing to. This is one of my side priorities that I am doing. Pls let me know!

One of the big promises made by the TDP Jana Sena BJP alliance during the 2024 Andhra Pradesh elections was Nirudyoga Bruthi.

A scheme that would give a monthly allowance of ₹3,000 to unemployed young people as part of the Super Six plan.

The alliance took power in June 2024, but almost two years later, there is still no clear plan for starting the scheme.

Officials have said it will be launched soon, but many unemployed graduates and diploma holders are still waiting for details on who is eligible, when it will begin, and how it will be rolled out.

This brings up a bigger question for voters: how should they judge large welfare promises that are a big part of election campaigns but are delayed or not carried out after a government comes to power?

Some supporters say governments face money and management problems when they are in charge.

Others argue that such delays show a failure to keep promises made to voters.

More generally, should political parties be held more accountable for promises in their election manifestos that are still not done years after the election?

One of the big promises made during the 2024 Andhra Pradesh election was *Nirudyoga Bruthi*, which is a monthly payment of ₹3,000 for unemployed young people.

Almost two years later, many job seekers are still asking when and how this plan will start.

The government has said it is still thinking about it, but there hasn't been a full rollout across the state yet.

What I find interesting is how the political sides are responding—or not responding.

The ruling party is expected to explain the delay and give a timeline.

But the opposition is also supposed to make sure the government follows through on promises that affect a lot of people.

This brings up a bigger question about Indian politics:

When a major election promise isn't delivered, who should speak up for the people affected?

Should it be the opposition? Student groups? Youth sections of political parties? Or civil society organizations?

Looking at Andhra Pradesh, unemployed youth were a key group during the election, but there hasn't been much ongoing public discussion about where the promised unemployment allowance stands.

do unemployed youth in India have proper political representation or do issues related to employment fade from public attention after the campaign is over?

Over the past few years, several state governments have introduced welfare programs specifically targeted at women, including financial assistance, support for self-help groups, healthcare benefits, and other direct-transfer schemes.

in Andhra Pradesh, many women still seem to discuss programs introduced during the YSRCP government, even after the change in power. That made me wonder whether welfare initiatives create a stronger and more durable political connection with women voters than other policy areas.

some argue these programs provide meaningful economic support and improve household decision-making. Others see them as short-term electoral strategies that don't necessarily translate into long-term development.

how much do targeted welfare schemes actually influence women's voting preferences? Is Andhra Pradesh an example of a broader trend in Indian politics?

I wasn't a hardcore YSRCP supporter, but one thing I genuinely appreciated was how predictable welfare delivery felt during Jagan's tenure. People in my village knew what schemes they were eligible for and when benefits would arrive.

Politics aside, consistency matters. Many families built their yearly budgets around those programs. Looking back, I can understand why some people are starting to view that period more positively.

This is a thought experiment and not advocacy for Congress or Rahul Gandhi. The goal is to explore whether a different strategic choice could have changed India's opposition landscape. Criticism and disagreement welcome, but engage with the argument.

India in 2019 stood at a crossroads. Congress had been routed in 2014 and was struggling to find its footing. Rahul Gandhi was increasingly visible in Parliament, articulate on unemployment, agrarian distress, and institutional erosion yet the public remained unmoved. The criticism was always the same: he talks, but has he ever delivered anything?

What if instead of remaining Leader of Opposition, he had stepped down, gone to a Congress-governed state like Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, or Chhattisgarh, all won in December 2018 and actually governed? Used one state as a laboratory to prove everything he said in Parliament was executable policy, not just rhetoric?

The credibility problem was Congress's core weakness. Modi had Gujarat. Whatever its controversies, it gave him the ability to say: I have built things. I have governed. Rahul Gandhi had no equivalent. A state government would have changed that fundamentally.

The policies he spoke about weren't abstract, they were implementable at state level. Farmer distress, unemployment, education, transparent governance. A functioning state delivering on those things would have been a visible, daily counter-argument to the BJP's model. Not a speech. Not a march. A functioning state.

The credibility dividend would have been real. It would have silenced the most damaging charge against him that he is an entitled, part-time politician. There is no adequate response to that charge as permanent Leader of Opposition. There is a very adequate response when you are working as Chief Minister, being held publicly accountable for every pothole and every power cut.

It would also have given the entire opposition ecosystem something to point to. AAP understood this instinctively the image of a functioning government school in Delhi did more political work than a thousand press conferences. Congress, with far larger resources and a longer governing tradition, could have done the same on a bigger canvas.

Would it have changed 2024?

Honest analysis demands humility. Modi's dominance was reinforced by factors no state government could fully counter. But the margin matters. Congress went from 52 seats in 2019 to 99 in 2024, the ground was already shifting. A governing Rahul Gandhi with a state-level track record could have pushed that further and consolidated the INDIA alliance earlier and more cohesively.

Congress's fundamental strategic error was fighting a battle of narratives against an opponent far better resourced for narrative warfare, rather than rebuilding on the terrain where it had actual advantages, administrative depth, governing experience, and a tradition of pluralist delivery.

Going to Bhopal instead of staying in Delhi would have looked like a retreat. It might actually have been the most aggressive political move available.

What do you think?

The core assumption here is that governance is more powerful political communication than opposition, and Congress's mistake was choosing the narrative war instead of the governance war.

Would a well-governed state have actually shifted public perception? Would people have noticed or cared given the media environment? And the harder question: is there any version of this where the 2024 outcome looks different, or was it always inevitable?

Genuinely curious, especially from people who disagree with the premise entirely.

I genuinely want to understand whether what we are witnessing today is incompetence, arrogance, political overconfidence, systemic corruption, corporate capture, or simply the reality of how power eventually functions in every democracy.

Take the fuel price issue for example. The finance minister says the government has “absorbed” the burden of rising oil prices to protect citizens. But economically speaking, what does that actually mean? Governments do not generate personal wealth. The money being used to cushion prices is still taxpayer money, borrowed money, or redistributed public money. It is not coming from politicians’ personal salaries or party funds. So why present it as though the government is doing citizens a favor out of generosity?

Is this just political messaging because they assume most people either will not understand the economics or simply will not care?

And that leads to another uncomfortable question. Has the ruling establishment reached a point where it no longer feels accountable to educated or questioning citizens because it believes its core voter base will remain loyal regardless of inflation, unemployment, rising taxes, fuel costs, institutional decline, or contradictions in policy?

At times it feels less like governance and more like perception management.

Another possibility is that repeated electoral victories create a sense of invincibility. When a government keeps winning despite criticism, does it slowly stop listening altogether? Does public outrage eventually become background noise to people in power?

Then there is the corporate angle which many people hesitate to discuss openly. Modern elections require enormous amounts of money. Political campaigns, media influence, digital outreach, rallies, advertising, and election machinery all depend heavily on funding. So has politics become deeply dependent on billionaire backed financing to the point where governments are no longer truly independent decision makers?

Are large industrialists and political parties now so interconnected that governments are forced to prioritize the interests of major business groups over ordinary taxpayers because losing that support would weaken their future electoral power?

And if that is true, then are politicians even fully in control anymore, or are they operating within a system where power, funding, corporations, media, and politics are all tied together?

What worries me even more is the growing sense that accountability itself is disappearing.

Major incidents happen back to back. Allegations emerge. Public anger rises. Debates happen across television and social media. Yet resignations rarely happen. Serious political consequences rarely happen. Ministers continue normally as though nothing significant occurred.

Even institutions that are expected to remain independent and act as checks and balances often appear silent, delayed, cautious, or ineffective while the ruling establishment moves ahead confidently.

At some point people begin asking whether institutions are becoming weaker in front of concentrated political power.

And what happens to a democracy when citizens slowly stop expecting accountability altogether?

Because that may be the most dangerous stage of all. Not when corruption exists, not when governments make mistakes, but when the public starts believing that no matter what happens, nobody powerful will ever truly be held responsible.

So what exactly are we looking at today?

A government that is incompetent?

A government that is arrogant because repeated victories have convinced it that criticism does not matter?

A political system designed around narrative management rather than governance?

A structure captured by corporate influence and election funding?

Or simply a democracy where power has become so centralized that institutions, opposition, media, and public outrage no longer create meaningful pressure?

I genuinely want to hear different perspectives because from the outside it increasingly feels like accountability survives more as an idea than as a functioning reality.

​

Ab touu pakode bhi nhi bana sakte

🥲😓

Inc fighting for the students 💅

Interesting fact

Around 8.6 lakhs followers of “Cockroach Janata Party” are from a place called Topeka, USA. while the actual population of the town is only around 1.26 lakh .

“Cockroach Janata Party” is nothing but deep-state propaganda, heavily driven by bots and fake IDs.

I am 21 years old, and until recently, I never showed much interest in politics in India. To me, politics was just the few major parties everyone talked about, and I always felt it was easier to stay away from it than stress over things I couldn’t control. I was comfortable living in my own bubble, protected by a relatively privileged life.
But after moving to a different city and adapting to a completely different environment, I started seeing realities I had never paid attention to before. It made me realize how important it is to understand the society I live in, the people who govern us, and the systems that shape our everyday lives. There are so many things around me that feel unfair, and I can no longer ignore them the way I used to.
The problem is, I don’t really know where to begin. I don’t understand politics well enough yet, and honestly, I feel stuck. I don’t know whom to ask or how to learn without immediately being pushed toward one ideology or another. Even my parents are blind supporters of a religiously inclined party, so it’s difficult to have open conversations at home.
I just want to learn, understand, and form my own opinions instead of blindly following what others believe.

CJP never needed a face... Thee issues were enough.

But Abhijeet Dipke made the whole thing about himself.

An NRI sitting outside the country became the face of something suffered by us students. Then his own team started fighting among themselves for credit.

Years of public frustration and momentum got wasted within weeks.

Now instead of talking about corruption or the system, people just talk about him being "AAP ka tattu" or what not

He just doesn't deserve the spotlight

I as an Indian genz don't consider him my representative

Hell even without a face the party had far more potential