More internships in earlier years would have helped but it's not too late. Maybe set your sights lower on your first internships, and be more methodical and targeted in your applications. How many have you sent out so far? And how much research do you do on each firm, before you apply to them? Are you sure your CV / covering letter are as good as can be, without any typos, well-presented, short enough, and all the other checkboxes?

Maybe some friends could also read your applications and give you some tips.

No, but let's make sure that the title and content are not one-sided propaganda texts but actually plainly state the facts at known, do not indulge in conjecture selling this as fact, and are conducive to an intelligent discussion rather than just rants.

It's a simple job, but somebody has to do it!

Thanks for sharing. Re demonetisation - is there any remedy the Supreme Court could have actually provided? Sure, the entire bench could have rebuked the government, but realistically, it's not like they could have ordered demonetisation void and null, or could have fined the government.

Regarding Manmohan and Obama: yes, both of them have also made mistakes in their careers (though Manmohan's biggest mistake was probably having been too passive and having been the largely powerless figurehead of a party that had been in power too long where nepotism and corruptionhad crept in, and didn't really stand for anything anymore; re Iran and Obama care - they might not have been perfect but do you think they were both steps in the wrong direction (or at least as well intentioned and successful in their aims as demonetisation - indeed, there are far worse things Obama has done, but you're allowed to have your opinions).

Found this to be an interesting take on the phenomenon, that what Tate & Co's playbook is at heart a social victimhood narrative, which is not really justified on the facts of privilege in every other sphere: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/02/to-the-andrew-tate-disciples-who-feel-downtrodden-by-society-straight-white-men-are-still-winning

I feel there might be a little more to it than that though: judging by how Tate's scam 'University' and general videos are pitched, a lot of it seems to be about making money, so presumably his viewers do not have enough money and perceive themselves as screwed over by the system, economically, which they very well might be in this time of increasing living costs, etc (even if relatively they might be doing better than women or people of colour, for instance).

And if his viewers feel that they're unfairly poor / broke, plus that they can't get laid (or that women won't sleep with them because woke reasons), you have a basic recipe for perceived victimhood right there.

Here are some reading lists in other threads about corporate and M&A:

https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/184914-book-recommendation-for-corp-law#comment-184914

https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/163405-what-are-the-best-books-prep-materials-for-gen-corp-ma-practice#comment-163413

Your feedback is very important to us. Please write the substance of your complaint here, in a readable format, and I can make sure Kian sees it. Here, I'll get you started with a template, you just have to fill in some blanks.

Dear Kian,

It triggers me when the LI moderator moderates my posts, and I also want them to not be allowed to express their opinion on LI anymore under the LI mod handle. Especially please ensure the mod is censored if they ask me questions that are too difficult for me to answer or that I don't want to answer because I prefer shitposting things without anyone questioning my shitposting, like I'm used to doing on 4chan/pol where everyone gets very excited about when I post things and never disagrees with me, which is important so I don't get triggered.

I also ________________________________ (insert further arguments here).

Yours sincerely,

Anonymous Guest

Aw well, why is it with these non-wokes that the waterworks start whenever someone tries to talk to or engage with them reasonably? You must understand that the great thing is that anyone can filibuster on LI when they have something to say which actually makes factual points or honestly responds to questions asked (which you have seemed unwilling or unable to do so far). That is literally the only requirement to participate in both LI and society.

Even though your response is not really a response to my question or engagement, I will ask some easy open-ended questions again, though you will likely be unwilling to answer them:

1. Do you consider yourself a feminist and/or a woman?

2. Which parts of the "Indian feminist movement" do you consider to be "the saner minds", and why?

3. Which parts of feminism do you therefore consider to be not sane, and why?

4. Or is your point primarily that all feminists are insane because they don't agree on everything, and some of them shout and are a bit mean to people saying things they disagree with?

Well, unfortunately nobody except the parties know exactly what went on. It does prima facie seem likely there was ragging, but unless someone does a proper investigation on this, or an appeal, or the full report becomes public, it is very hard for us outsiders to conclude exactly what happened and whether there was a political motive as alleged or it was ragging or something else.

Of course it's possible that the TMC is getting more political and violent in WB, but there's also a lot of organised propaganda / rants being posted regularly on LI against one of the few opposition party remaining, so we will err on the side of caution with re-publishing any claims or headlines that appear intentionally unbalanced or disingenuous.

Reminds me a bit of this story, in which there was a video and which was painted very quickly as a ragging with religious motivations in some poor reporting and an LI post, when the police and news reports painted a completely different picture of a ragging for reasons that were nothing to do specifically with religion: https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/243430-law-student-allegedly-physically-and-sexually-harassed-made-to-chant-jai-mata-di-and-allah-hu-akbar-edited#comment-243443

Thanks for sharing, interesting discussion. Not sure Vice's debate format is very effective at actually bringing out substantive arguments or disagreements though, and some of the disagreements got a bit too heated and missed their points.

From your original pre-edited headline, it seems like you are on the side of the participants who said that women have the same or more opportunities than men (in the US), that feminism is a 'hate group', that abortion is primarily about murder of chilrdren and not women's rights? If so, please feel free to actually offer factual back-up for those views, which unfortunately don't seem to have been aired or perhaps edited out in the Vice group.

Alternatively, if you don't have an opinion on the specific issues but just wanted to illustrate that women shout at each other over feminism, which I think does indicate that these are important issues that women feel strongly about and are happy to debate and argue over, which is surely a sign that feminism is alive and well and very relevant.

You could have found a better example than the Kenyan crisis to pin on Obama (was his brother even involved back then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932008_Kenyan_crisis ) but fair enough, let's not quibble over litres and agree that nearly every US president in the last 50 years has considerable blood on their hands, irrespective of whether they were Reps or Dems...

I don't really understand your point about "Trump in a costume", ObamaCare and Clarence Thomas though.

Ok, so he was a puppet PM, which is a fair criticism. But you haven't mentioned which specific errors of the government MS should be held responsible for, and if so, whether there are any blunders that MS should take responsibility for as puppet PM, that exceed some of the current government's blunders in terms of incompetence, as implied in the thread OP?

Prima facie, definitely alleged ragging (which was first reported around a month ago). Regarding assault, battery and extortion, that is only allegedly. Neither you nor we know enough about the situation or were there. It's quite possible the college covered something up, or that there wasn't enough evidence, or many other factors. It's also possible the political element was ancillary to the situation, rather than the core trigger.

The only recent part in this story is that the university has concluded its probe and that the complainant disagrees.

In short: please keep your headlines factual, balanced and less over-sensational / hyperbolic / Republic TV, and it will save us time editing them.

Ah, thanks for sharing. India Today is a nonsense ranking that not too much stock should be placed in.

Nuals dropping in Nirf is interesting, but NIRF and other ranking systems aren't really established enough yet with NLUs: it could be that they botched their application or something along those lines: few colleges actually become radically worse on every metric in just the space of a year, surely?

It's possible that it's trajectory is not upwards, but it doesn't seem like it has 'fallen off' any lists of NLUs...

Rofl. Tate has literally admitted / boasted in several interviews to running a sex-webcam scam ring in Romania to scam money out sad lonely men, saying he immigrated to Romania and set up his business there primarily because there is less strict law enforcement there than in the UK, while still protecting him from getting mugged and his watch stolen on the street. Sounds like he knew exactly what he was getting into and the risks he was taking.

(Oh god, I just realised it's obvious I've somehow been watching far too much stuff about this guy. Is this how you become a red-pilled Tatebro? Help me. Please. Anyone. Or at least stop posting more Tate-related videos in this thread that I can't not watch, like a slow-motion car crash :)

Interesting, thanks for sharing and engaging in a reasonable manner.

Regarding the "cultural identity of Indians" being "non toxic monotheism": does that definition include all pre-British-occupation 'Indians', including the more tolerant Mughal rulers like Akbar or some of the earlier Buddhist rulers or the Parsis, or does 'Indian' in his context only apply to Hindus? I.e., is he fundamentally making an anti-Islamic argument or is there more to it than that?

One difficulty with this argument seems to be that a country or a peoples and history as diverse as geographical 'India' can not surely just be defined by a single religion. Every religion including Hinduism in particular (which is by nature very adapative, dynamic and accepting of a larger and increasing pantheon / polytheism) went through so many transformations and adaptations through the centuries and in various countries, that it's impossible to generalise like this.

A few centuries BCE, for example, the Mauryas, greatly expanded the influence of Buddhism in parts of modern-day India, which was undone and assimilated by Gupta or other dynasties several hundred years later, until around the Mughals largely ruled nearly for nearly a thousand years alongside Hindu-ruled pockets or other empires such as the Vijayanagars, all of whom added significantly to India's 'regional identity', culture, scientific and military advancement and political stability throughout that time.

You or JSD may have preferred an India in which the Mughals never came, but the reality is that this it the way the historical cookie crumbled. History has for thousands of years included various conquering people spreading their cultural, religious or genetic influences around other countries, and there's no way to erase it or wish that away, any more than an English person trying to eliminate Greco-Roman heritage from their life because of the Roman Empire, and arguing for a return to the Druidic religions that the Romans stamped out.

Anyway, after the Mughals, the nominally British did not really impose their own monotheistic religion of Christianity, but encouraged Hinduism again and arguably also (ab)used it and the caste system as a tool of control and oppression, a playbook that they used elsewhere in the world too.

India as a constitutionally secular but diverse nation, is perhaps exactly the reason that India has managed to remain a democracy when so many other post-colonial or regional neighbours have struggled.

And modern-day and ancient India's broader culture and diversity has in-part helped it survive. This includes India's version of (mostly) tolerant Hinduism, but also India's version of Islam, which is different from the Islam practiced in many other countries (and certainly a completely different kettle of fish from say, Saudi's or the Taliban's Islam, which is again different from Turkey's or Syria's). India's Christianity too is a more tolerant brand than that practiced in some other parts of the world, as well as India's Parsis, Buddhists and other minority communities that broadly are very tolerant of their neighbours having beliefs different from themselves.

In short, you can't have a democratic country with multiple languages, faiths, cultures, customs, etc, without also respecting and tolerating each of these, and every community in India has played their part. The alternative is a road to repression, injustice and potentially unrest and/or civil war / partitions.

Traditional Hinduism is quite good at non-toxic tolerance (though arguably less so under the British divide-and-conquer strategies), but some of the modern-day fringe incarnations of Hindutva are surely also somewhere on the toxic spectrum and actively condone violence or oppression against minority communities or attacks against their religious buildings or symbols (i.e. more Aurangzeb than Akbar).

In short, putting all blame for India's problems at the doorstep of so-called toxic-monotheism (or Pakistan and partition) seems simplistic and reductive, considering the complicated history and problems that seem at least as big and more directly within an Indian government's control, such as discrimination on basis of caste and tribes, corruption, environmental exploitation, uneven basic education, the rise of inequality and oligarchies, India's conflicts with China, etc.

Sure, having separate Muslim and Hindu personal law is problematic, but it was a pragmatic unhappy compromise of accepting different customs and religions to live together in relative harmony in an otherwise secular country. The fact that India even survived as a democracy, even after horrors such as partition and other challenges, is surely a testament to its political system, people and pragmatism rather than solely one or several of its religions (although you could argue that Hinduism's caste system coupled with some democracy acts as a strong stabilising influence that prevents a revolution of the ultra-poor, but that's a different story).

Ultimately the reality is that India will (hopefully) continue to be diverse in thought and religion, and that can continue to be a source of great strength. The other option to create Hinduism as a dominant political ideal and forcefully elevating it as the source of India's greatness, is unlikely to have positive outcomes and judging by history, would mostly alienate minorities and destabilise the country further.

Would be interested to hear your views, or what you think JSD's rebuttal on this would be.

Thanks for the explanation. Some counter questions to consider:

Academics: Are you actually learning anything in your studies and do you find it interesting? If so, then continue your degree and soak up as much information as you can, and see if you can improve your grades.

c) Power: start interning and hustling as hard as you can now, find as many internships in as many areas as possible, spend time in courts, in law firms, etc. In other words, really make your time count: see if you can achieve the 'power' part of your ambitions already, by really getting to know how law works in practice.

b) Lucrative: Then, when you graduate, see if you've got a lucrative job despite your alma mater. If you've done a) and c), you should. But if it's a job you don't like, it's probably not too late to look into doing a BCOM or BBA, and you'll also have the advantage of all the legal knowledge and power.

Is that really your only issue with the 'left' and sympathising 'journos'? Would appreciate if you could clarify the following.

1. You don't actually think there's a single credible / mainstream person on the left or in journalism in India, who supports what the Taliban are doing in Afghanistan, right?

2. Do you think it is the duty of every domestic 'leftie' or journalist to also have and loudly share their opinion about politics or situations in other countries? I.e., if an Indian journalist doesn't tweet condemning Donald Trump, does that make them a MAGA-type? Or if they don't tweet about the war of Saudi on Yemen, or the slaughter in Eritrea, they are tacitly supporting those wars?

3. You may agree that the RW is almost obsessed by the bad things Muslims do or allegedly do abroad and in India, and not necessarily because they care about those women but often for cynical reasons of vote bank politics or dog whistles (e.g., the "be scared of Islam" tactic). Against that background, lefties or left-leaning journalists are damned if they do and if they don't: either they shout vocally about how horrible Islamic fundamentalism is every day, and are thereby indirectly feeding and supporting an agenda of propagandistic division pursued by the right-wing here that they disagree with; or, if they choose to talk about other issues, they're 'accused' of being complicit (though accusation implies an actual charge that makes sense).

We are in a situation now where the right-wing has a strong bias against talking or reporting anything that makes the Hindu majority look bad, and the 'opposition' (including civil society and politicians) naturally therefore has to fill in the gaps of silence that are NOT amplified by the government and their supporters: is there anything else an 'opposition' could or should be doing, in your book, which would not be self-defeating?

Is the incompetence the preserve of politicans on the left though? Why are Biden and Obama more incompetent that Trump or GW Bush? They're all different sides of the same coin (though arguably Trump does take the cake in general outright dishonesty (Biden and Obama are more subtle in their lies), and GW Bush has more blood on his hands for Iraq and Afghanistan everything that followed, even when compared to Obama's continuation of the drone wars).

And if you want to look at the UK, the centre-right there has produced the clownshow quartet of Cameron, May, Bojo and Truss.

As for Manmohan Singh: you could argue he was not in control of corruption within his own party enough or effective enough as a politician, but economically he oversaw a period of strong economic growth by many metrics, without the kind of completely avoidable blunders / reckless incompetence such as demonetisation and botching the GST rollout, to name just two.

That he is a skeezy self-admitted scammer / sex-webcam operator who has allegedly human-trafficked is not news (the investigation has reportedly been running for a while now) and for some unfathomable reason is part of his persona.

Greta's smackdown and his response on the other hand were genuine entertainment.

Very true advice: we all waste far too much time and energy on these fake wars stoked by politicians, corporates and billionaires who want to distract us from the issues that really matter and fear being irrelevant otherwise.

Let's not play their game and let's live our own lives.

Sure, we'll bite, on the off-chance you're genuinely looking for a discussion on the questions you ask rather than astroturfing.

1. Hasn't UPA also been privatising lot of companies? Do you have any figures on privatisation numbers under both regimes?

1a. How do you propose that the wealth gap should be addressed (if at all), if not through 'welfarism'? Trickle-down economics (i.e., the billionaires get richer, and hope that the poor will see some of that money)?

2. An interesting question, though maybe the wrong one. Countries are generally not as worried about who's the largest, second largest or third largest in some arbitrary rankings - they usually have strategic and economic aims which are far more targeted and specific to their situations. China doesn't need to derail India, since India has happily been buying all of China's electronics and plastics and software other things, and will likely continue doing so, increasing profits for China. If China destabilises India, it would be destabilising its largest nuclear-armed neighbour, which is a risky game to be playing - neither country wants to go to war here. There is the risk of India imposing more sanctions on China, that China might decide to retaliate, though even then, if it has the choice, China would prefer to continue exporting to India than not.

2a. Sure, China wants to be in the driving seat, but economically and diplomatically it has been: its belt and road initiative has been running circles around the international dipomacy of the US, Europe and India. How is India currently significantly threatening China's economic interests?

2b. Why would China promote insurgency, and risk turning this luke-cold war into a hot one? China and India seem quite happy to allow each other to quietly oppress minorities in their own backyards and not ask each other too many uncomfortable questions. If China directly promotes insurgency in India, and is found out doing so, it risks losing India's abstentions in the UN, with very little benefit from itself.

2c. Cyber warfare is risky and exists at different levels and is hard to do without being discovered or pinpointed. Yes, China may try to encourage cyber-espionage if it has something to gain (though many countries do that to some extent), but attacking India outright over the internet is a very risky game to play with India without any immediately obvious gain. Why do you think China would have to gain by cyberwar against India?

3. Rule number one of the profession: lawyers always benefit.

First of all, are you still into the law and interested in a career in it? Maybe there's a reason why you didn't do any internships other than LPO in that time, and you have less interest in it. If you're currently unemployed, perhaps it's a good idea to caste your net more widely and also apply for work experience or jobs in other industries rather than just law, or see if you can find an advocate you can shadow in courts, or help out at an NGO or some such - maybe you'll find that you love it, or maybe those jobs will make you realise that you do have an interest in law after all. In any case, it can't hurt to improve your CV and real-life work experience.

The most important question might be, why did you choose to study law in the first place? It certainly doesn't sound like you think BBA or BCOM is more interesting. Also what do you want out of a degree? Are you looking to find a well-paying job, first and foremost, or do you have any specific interests that you would like to pursue?

Have you thought about attacking it from the other side? Find some interesting businesses or start-ups in fintech and see if you can muscle your way in there for a law or even non-law internship. If you get some experience in a real fintech business under your belt, it will definitely open doors from you and show great initiative to any law firms you apply to, whether they have a fintech practice or not.

Thank you for the reading list!

If someone from the other side of the spectrum could engage constructively to this, please try to engage with the points mentioned herein rather than going off on a tangent rants or ad hominem (such posts will not be published).

I would genuinely and honestly like to know whether there are argument's J Sai Deepak's book makes besides espousing a Hindu state, or whether and why you think there are good reasons that there should be a more Hindu state (in spite of India's secular history).

Thank you for sharing your story, that was really interesting - will have a look at Foucault, didn't realise they were books people actually read and got value of outside of academia when they're forced to. :)

What I've found interesting is that some of the talking points of the fringe alt-right seem to be based on kernels of truth (i.e., corporate media is biased, capitalism and governments control individuals, freedom of speech is being attacked by accountable organisations, etc), though they usually over-simplify matters intentionally, which can make it an attractive philosophy for the reasons you describe. At the same time, the left-leaning US media and internet (and some humans) on the left of the spectrum too can sometimes have a tendency to over-simplify or demonise. This seems to result in more extreme narratives on both sides where there is very little common meeting or talking ground.

You're right, it's a serious problem for wider society and not just for law schools. And it's highly likely that the stoking of culture wars is also done at the behest and with the connivance of politicians, on both sides of the spectrum and the media that both lie or manipulate in different and more or less brazen or subtle ways.

Do you see any potential solutions or ways forward, or is this just life now?

Sorry, don't understand your question regarding "the people that prosecuted Prashant Bhushan"?

The reason we were somewhat strict in moderating this attack in DYC is that in our mod experience, posts likes this are largely:

1. disingenuous, in that in our prior hard-won experience, they are never actually looking for a discussion or to engage constructively, and just throw their toys out of the pram or stoop towards ad hominem if you try to have a reasoned discussion or put up some contradictory points or fact check or ask them to justify their points (as evidenced in the dodging replies / lack of engagement to our mild fact check above in this thread),

2. orchestrated, in that they are rarely original thought but are just copy-pasta talking points from some trolls on Twitter, WhatsApp or random blogs intended to provoke outrage or shitpost.

Either of those two reasons should be reason enough to not publish a comment at all, though we still err on the side of freedom of speech (more often than we should perhaps) and publish such comments, but with a warning label attached, and if possible or required, with a fact check or counter-argument from mod, so LI does not become instrumental in the mindless spreading of shitposts.

> If you are really struggling financially, just take a loan, simple. You can walk into any top law firm and pay back the loan very easily.

That's one of the issues that Madhava Menon had though: if you have high fees, less well-off graduates will have few options OTHER than the corporate and law firm sector to recoup these loans, and NLS was founded in order to also feed other parts of the legal ecosystem. But arguably that ship has already sailed, even without a fee hike.

>In the worst case, just post on social media and you will immediately get help from senior lawyers and law firms.

Is that really true / does that really work?

Bump. LiveLaw has just advertised a full-time job position, which may answer some of these questions:

Quote:

India's No.1 Legal News Portal 'LiveLaw' invites applications from suitable candidates for the post of "Legal Correspondent" in the following High Courts:

Rajasthan High Court

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Allahabad High Court

Andhra Pradesh/Telengana High Courts

Calcutta High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Duties Of Correspondents:

1. Attend High Court proceedings
2. Live Tweet important cases
3. Make stories based on hearings
4. Keep track of judgements and orders for reporting.

Salary - Rs.40K to Rs.65K

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/livelaw-recruits-vacancies-for-reporters-in-seven-high-courts-217630

We have received a message on the fee hike by an NLU-D reader, sharing it here:

Quote:

The source of this worry is that the admin of NLUD has suddenly, opaquely, and arbitrarily increased the fees for the incoming students by more than 100% from around 1.7 lacs to around 3.7 lacs.

This decision does not accompany any reasoning or consultation with the current student body at all. We are all worried as it will deter most of the students away from getting admission into NLUD and will thus have an impact on its quality and standing. But most importantly we fail to see the justification behind a public institution being able to ask for and charge 3.7 lac per annum - that too so arbitrarily and whimsically.