Saumya Shankar

I think introverts loved this book because they could relate with whatever is stated. However, whatever is stated as a final conclusion of the key takeaways from the book is nothing novel. I believe introverts could have anyways realised that from their experiences by the they become capable of understanding what is there in the book. In short, I believe, this book is not very helpful for introverts per se. I mean as an introvert what I could add to my knowledge from this book is kind of a objective justification for being an introvert and some biological backing for it. On the other hand, it could prove useful for extroverts to understand how a significant population of this world feels and think.

I didn't find the arguments given in this essay convincing enough to justify atheism. To me the reason of his atheism was not his vanity, rather, it was his hate against God for creating a world full of inequality. Many arguments made by Bhagat Singh Ji was based on certain refutable assumptions of how and why theists believe in God. Not everyone believes in God and Religion the way he assumes. In fact, the meaning of religion has been widely accepted to be varying according to one's own perception of it. Moreover, what I found to be one probable benefit of being an atheist, as he points out, is later impliedly refuted by him. Also, I don't think he has accurately addressed the arguments of theists vis-a-vis science.

Too much unnecessary and detailed descriptions of their lives. Additionally, very less description of how they built their practice. As I can see in other comments, I too agree that there would have been more 'Eagles' who had started from scratch without a background in law. That would have been more inspirational. In fact, some of their biographies seem discouraging to me. One good thing about the way this book has been written is a very good classification of the contents. It helped me to identify and skip those parts, which were not very relevant to me at this stage.