(I am not the original author of the post.)

1. Where you are correct: The use of "dehat" is extremely unfortunate.

2. I think the fact that Indian law students are mostly left wing is pretty well known by now. Same for the fact that you don't really find any kind of Federalist Society-style conservative student collective in most NLUs.

Additionally, people have been saying this "ship is sinking" thing about the UK over and over again, at various points of time. Every country's scenario changes from time to time, and the UK's has been doing so more than most over the last ten years. However, I don't see any reason (notwithstanding the current state of the economy and jobs market) to yet classify the use of such extreme language as correct, especially as net migration has gone down in an unprecedented way and is likely to go down further.

I don't want to agree or disagree with your opinion regarding India. I just want to say that despite falling into your "well heeled" categorisation, it most certainly doesn't apply to me because of certain specific personal circumstances of my own (having a quite visible physical disability, for which UK is and has pretty much always been much more friendly). Additionally, I don't feel like I have scope for professional growth there anyway because of the kind of work I do.

Additionally, I don't know so much about your predictions. This rise-of-far-right thing seems far more obvious to you than it does to me. What you don't seem to realise is that a year, even a few months, is a very, very long time in British politics. Your opinions on this, if you are talking based on current trends, seem to be based on news and data which is a few months out of date, though I will acknowledge the polling is quite close for comfort. Even if you are somehow extrapolating for the future (and I don't see how you can be in any way that is at all reliable, even assuming Burnham can't maintain popularity), we'll see what happens in that case. I have other options.

Generally, the author of a posting stating with ""Am I the only one... " does not want a response to substantive points. He/ she/ they only want validation.

Anyway, I believe there are no "points" in the post, let alone "substantive points". It only has some half-baked baseless declarations.

And is not possible to take someone who uses the word "dehat", but uses Thatcher and Regan as examples, seriously.

Do not listen to the charlatans here who are larping on their daddy's money while sipping Starbucks coffee and typing on their Macbook cursing Socialism on Social Media to get the virtue signalling status but relishing the fruits of the Capitalistic world.

If you genuinely believe what you say, start with an anonymous blog highlighting and writing about your views.
Why? This serves two purpose, firstly, since there will be no name attached to it, you will be much more likely to be honest in your thought process and offering since you will not have the hanging damocles sword of the public morality outlook and can be candid.

Secondly, writing about your thoughts will give make your thinking better as well as hone your writing talents, which will help in your law school journey as well.

Start by writing a critique or an argument of some of the oft-repeated lines that are used by the so called leftists, who only know how to catch on the latest trend on the social media and follow what is trendy instead of critically applying their reasoning.

All the best!

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0735221995?lv=shuf&channelId=500&plpRedirect=mhFallback
Go go. You'll find out what "meritocracy" really means.

Please read Amartya Sen. Your own claim is pretty wild and frankly unserious. Welfare and identitarianism are different things Because of our history, marginalized castes bear the brunt of policies that favor capital and inherited wealth for the simple reason that some groups were systematically exploited and deprived of the right to accumulate wealth. Capitalism and industrialism have always counted on racial exploitation. It is just erased from mainstream theory. That's the relationship between welfare and identity that you conflate so dismissively.

Thoda history padh le beta. That's what all the Modi supporters thought they were doing, and now you can see where that takes you. Seeing is not understanding, but you can try. Read all the op-eds when Modi became PM. Read about the people who thought BJP is economic right and different from RSS. They all thought they were doing economic reforms, governance reforms, meritocracy, and radical capitalism. You can rebel in more clever ways. You know what they say about people who do the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome.

No please.This is not limited to Indian law schools.This is also a common trend in American And British law schools.What the Indian liberals should do which they aren't imo is being more accommodating to differing view points.LKY(Worked in a country 1/50th size of India without any external actors,Malays literally kicked them out)

Thatcher(Well just ask the average Britisher about her and compare the economic policies she bought and their effects) and Don't even get me started on Reagan and reaganomics.The Legislative intent of the founding fathers of India designed in praxis,A naturally progressive endeavour.To use means of say thatcherism or other forms of heavy power concentration is antithetical to the founding principles of Indian Democracy.

When I ws in college, BJP was percieved by many to be something like this- an alternative to caste and identity politics, not pandering to faux secularism and so on. Oh how those perceptions have now been broken!!!

To be serious, no such party will have a mass appeal. Unless you can create that appeal in a different way

Feels terribly lonely being a student. I don't like Modi and the Dehat Right. But my fellow students all seem to believe that the alternative is a Dehat Left. The CJP, INDIA Alliance parties and caste identity movements are all regressive, identitarian and welfarist parties. The need of the hour is a movement to support economic reforms, governance reforms and meritocracy, modelled on Lee Kuan Yew, Thatcher, Reagan etc. The whole discourse at NLUs is depressing.