Before you participate, you learn.
We are a think tank first, and a political party later. Most politics asks nothing of the people who practice it; we ask for fluency in the mechanisms before anything else. Borrowing MIT's idea of a General Institute Requirement, everyone completes a shared core before they contribute, whatever field they arrive from. Not a credential. A working literacy in how systems, incentives and justice actually behave. The think tank is open to anyone who clears it.
Six subjects, before you're onboarded
Read them the way a hacker reads a manual: to reason with, not to recite. The core is versioned; subjects get added as the field demands.
A Theory of Justice
Every design here runs inside one hard boundary: justice for all. You cannot hold that boundary without a rigorous account of what fairness is. Rawls and the veil of ignorance, Sen on capabilities, the strongest arguments against both. Not to recite. To reason with.
Modern Economics
Incentives, markets, public goods, externalities, game theory, mechanism design. Micro and behavioural. How people actually respond to payoffs, and exactly where the tidy models break. The physics of the field, in numbers.
Public Policy
The craft of turning a goal into a program that survives contact with reality: cost and benefit, piloting, measurement, rollback, second-order effects. Why good intentions produce exclusion errors. How to ship policy like code.
Social Physics
How norms, information and behaviour propagate through networks of people, and how individual acts aggregate into the trajectory of a population. This is the gravity of our thesis, written as equations instead of metaphor.
Incentive Engineering
Aiming self-interest so the individually rational act is also the collectively good one. Mechanism design pointed at governance. This is the exhaust velocity of the whole project: making one honest act count for far more.
Systems Thinking
Feedback loops, stocks and flows, leverage points, why interventions backfire. Reading a whole system instead of its parts. The habit that separates a hacker from a commentator: you fix the structure, not the symptom.
You cannot hack a system you have not read. Opinions are cheap, and the country is drowning in them. Fluency is rare, and it is the whole difference between a member and a commentator.
The bar is not there to keep people out. It is there so that when a member speaks, they are reasoning from the mechanism, not the mood. Anyone willing to do the reading can clear it. Most of politics is unwilling, and that is precisely the gap we are built to close.
Even children have a voice here.
You cannot join a political party in India before you turn eighteen. You can join a think tank at any age. So the people with the longest stake in the future, and the least cynicism about it, get shut out of shaping it. We let them in. Pass the curriculum and your age stops mattering; your reasoning does not.
You don't fight the rule that shut them out. You find the gap it left open and route the voice through. That is a system hack, and it is exactly how you escape gravity.
Pass the core, join the think tank.
The think tank has one gate, and it is the curriculum, not a resume or a connection. Clear it and you are in: contribute mechanisms, argue the specs, help build what the future party will run on. The hundred who register the party will be drawn from exactly this pool.
Start here →