सं श्रु॒तेन॑ गमेमहि
भारत
Joined April 2022
- Tweets2.6K
- Following293
- Followers557
- Likes15.4K
Kumārila Bhaṭṭa retweeted
This is a counterfactual take - in the same kanda, Rama enquires about the vārttā (economy) and makes very pointed enquiries to Bharata about the state of the fortress and the citadels. He even asks a specific question about the gender-ratio of elephants in the royal armoury. The Witzelian nonsense about pastoralism is taken too far. I will not even start with the Mahabharata.
It's interesting that in both mahAbhArata and rAmAyaNa, the citizens of ayodhyA and hastinApura offer to accompany the exiled princes to the forest (araNya) - in ayodhyA kANDa and vana parva respectively
Given that the historical core of the epics is very much in the vedic period - it suggests that the "rAjA" was more of a leader than a monarch in those times, and the "prajA" often followed the rAjA. The rAja's sovereignty was not over a tract of land (bhUmi) but a jana (a collection of tribes).
These weren't extremely settled, sedentary populations, but populations that were on the move. It wasn't a big deal for them to wind up their settlements and move with their preferred leader.
But the epics are obviously a textual palimpsest, having been edited and redacted well into the mahAjanapada epoch and early classical times even.
So while they retain a v ancient memory of the vedic age mobility, the princes also reflect the norms of the classical times, by beseeching the citizens to return to their homes thus maintaining territorial stability
Also, *निर्मलं & *स्फटिकाकृतिम्
ज्ञानानन्दमयं देवं निर्मल स्फटिकाकृतिम् । आधारं सर्व विद्यानां हयग्रीवं उपास्महे ॥
Kumārila Bhaṭṭa retweeted
That just goes on to prove that Ambedkar is given an undue and undeserved credit for fathering the constitution.
Things he was most obsessed with—separate electorate for example—are nowhere to be found in it.
Kumārila Bhaṭṭa retweeted
Never seen such a KNOW NOTHING LOSER in life. What has Arun Shourie got to do with your own ILLITERACY?
Here’s the SAME table from Ambedkar’s own work.
So much for Ambedkar arguing for reservation of Muslims, SCs, and caste Hindus in PROPORTION to their population.
I don’t need to counter Arun Shourie’s shoddy scholarship which has been debunked several times over since 1997, when his Worshipping False Gods was published. And that’s precisely why .@keshavbedi is an idiot of the highest order - to bring in Arun Shourie !
Kumārila Bhaṭṭa retweeted
Sadly for you, you’re neither good at trolling, nor are you mentally very sharp. Your comeback won’t even move anyone’s lips 0.000008 mm wide.
That you’d commodify me with aukat slurs shows you don’t even believe in what you pose as. Progressive Ambedkarite af.
Kumārila Bhaṭṭa retweeted
How to seethe when your LIES are exposed. LOL.
Bedi, jitne paison ka tune fraud kiya hai, unhe ek acche history course mein invest kar .@keshavbedi ChatGPT ne tere jaise bandaron ke haath mein ustra thama diya hai.
Kumārila Bhaṭṭa retweeted
This is obviously a LIE.
As per Ambedkar’s scheme, ONLY caste Hindus were to be given seats LESS than their proportion in population.
Muslims, Sikhs, SCs were to get MORE than their population share. STs were to get NOTHING.
Kumārila Bhaṭṭa retweeted
The committed democrat, which Sharjeel Imam is:
- doesn't believe in secularism or Indian Constitution.
- Loves Jinnah while condemning Gandhi as a fascist.
- knows more about Saeed Anwar's wife than Ganguly
- celebrates the victory of Pakistan over India
- Absolves Jinnah for partition but blames Congress for it
People like Asim love Imam for embodying these very qualities; democracy for them is equivalent to following the ideals of Islamism.
I write on Sharjeel Imam as a committed democrat who deserves a place in a radical democratic project of the future, one focused on the liberty and equality of all.
telegraphindia.com/amp/opini…
Kumārila Bhaṭṭa retweeted
In the epilogue of the book, Tareen cites a particular view of Sharjeel Imam that deserves some deeper attention. Sharjeel asked why pro-Congress Muslim leaders such as Azad are promoted in discourse instead of the likes of Ahmad Raza Khan and his text on cow sacrifice.
ALT p. 268
If you write a book (Perilous Intimacies by Sherali Tareen) dedicating it to Sharjeel Imam, Faisal Devji won't merely write a glowing foreword, but he would tactically endorse the logic of Jinnah's view on Hindu-Muslim relations by contrasting it with Gandhi.
ALT Reference: p. XV, 'Perilous Intimacies' by Sherali Tareen.
Kumārila Bhaṭṭa retweeted
If you write a book (Perilous Intimacies by Sherali Tareen) dedicating it to Sharjeel Imam, Faisal Devji won't merely write a glowing foreword, but he would tactically endorse the logic of Jinnah's view on Hindu-Muslim relations by contrasting it with Gandhi.
ALT Reference: p. XV, 'Perilous Intimacies' by Sherali Tareen.
Kumārila Bhaṭṭa retweeted
I made a mistake by calling Gautam Bhatia a "learned jurist". Just examined his work. With utmost humility, my own legal journal publications (co-authored with friends like @DevadityaC) have much more depth, and I call myself no jurist! Bhatia has just ass-licked some judges and people in the legal fraternity who have praised him, and he has sensationalised left-liberal talking points to get a fan-base there. He has NOTHING to offer that others before him have not, and he has said nothing in his commentary that stands out from others in his ideological camp! Nor is he the first or last Indian to study at Oxford, nor the first or last to study there on a scholarship. No boasting, but some others who have have actually sought me out as a mentor.
Shows how a learned jurist can defend the vilest ideas so long as they come from a minority, to showcase his intellectually elitist bias in favour of "the other". Screw you, Gautam Bhatia, you deserve no respect! I am an equal opportunity offender who calls out Hindutvavadis, Islamists and SJWs with equal vehemence.
Kumārila Bhaṭṭa retweeted
Dhulipala flagged serious issues in Devji's review of his book(including some basic comprehension issues) alongwith Devji's own book "Muslim Zion".
One can read his detailed response to devji, metcalf, manan Ahmed Asif etc here and decide for themselves: jstor.org/stable/26617666?ae…
Kumārila Bhaṭṭa retweeted
The point that Sharjeel Imam is trying to argue was settled in 1947. The Muslim League asked for decentralisation, they were given a Pakistan where they can do whatever they want and leave the Hindus of British India free from their nonsense. There will be no more Pakistans, no
Kumārila Bhaṭṭa retweeted
There are some things that you say that are viewed as either extremely bigoted or a free thinking philosophy, simply depending on who says it.
1. Constitution isn’t infallible
2. I am against liberalism and secularism
3. I want to establish a confessional state with an official religious identity (or even a theocracy)
4. The constitution denies rights to a certain religious community their rights
5. I want to divide this country
6. I am very worried about the demographics of my religion
If a majority community person says it, he is a bigot. If a minority community person says it, he is a free thinker who needs to be engaged with.
