Two phenomena disturbed this status quo. One, the advent of social media, and second, the rise of Narendra Modi. With easy access to social and digit… - Vivek Agnihotri

Somewhere in the race to survive in Bollywood, I started telling stories that I believed people wanted to hear, and not the ones I wanted to tell. The ones which ought to be told.

He quoted how Galileo was nearly killed for opposing a belief but in India, when Charvak, an atheist, challenged the Vedas with logic and rejected the idea of reincarnation, he was given the title of ‘rishi’. Indian thought isn’t about tolerance, it’s about acceptance. He reminded us that societies which champion the cause of human rights are the ones who started two world wars whereas India has been the most peace-generating country in the global context. He said, ‘I have absolute faith that the tapasya of thousands of years can’t be destroyed by you and me.’

To cover up his illicit romances, rising corruption, the undercurrent of a revolt and massive defeat and humiliation by the Chinese, Nehru nurtured an ‘intelligentsia’ which justified his impractical economics and failed politics to the masses. The coterie of intellectuals he created was immoral. Historians know that whenever a king has surrounded himself with immoral thinkers, debauchery has begun. These short-sighted and opportunistic intellectuals justified ‘socialism’. Socialism has corruption in its very DNA. Nehru chose Big State over Big Market. More State-sponsored programmes meant inefficient system, red-tapism, favouritism, weaker economy, and corruption. It meant bigger disparity between masses and policy makers. More subsidies, doles, freebies meant more arrogance of rulers for they were the ones distributing alms. They became the givers. And us, the obliged masses, the takers. Thus, India arrived at State vs Masses. Corrupt vs Masses. Intellectuals vs Masses. Givers vs Takers.