Roopa B retweeted
🚨MASSIVE: India Rejected Second Class UN Seat, No Veto, No Deal
India has sent a blunt message on UN Security Council reform: a permanent seat without veto power is not real reform.
India is rejecting the idea of creating a “second-class” category of permanent members,countries that would carry the title of permanent membership but remain excluded from the most powerful decision-making mechanism in the Council.
For India, the choice is simple: either abolish the veto altogether, or extend it equally to all permanent members.
No second-tier permanent membership. No symbolic seat. No compromise that leaves the existing P5 power structure untouched.
And that position strikes at the heart of the decades-old struggle to reform the Security Council. The world has changed dramatically since 1945, but the Council's core power structure has barely moved.
India's message is essentially this: if the UN wants to remain relevant to the world of today, it cannot continue to operate entirely on the power equations of the world of yesterday.
No veto, no deal.
If the villain connects better than the hero,maybe the writing has failed. A villain is the hero’s foil. If written well, they elevate each other. Like Sanjeev Kumar & Amjad Khan in Sholay, Rishi Kapoor and Simi Garewal in Karz, or Anil Kapoor & Amrish Puri in Meri Jung.
Roopa B retweeted
Dear God, please never let me be so blind in love that I write an 8-page explanation for a man who doesn't even follow me on Instagram.
I've seen so many women diminish themselves, playing the docile, weaker version of themselves to fit the feminine mystique and make a man like them more. Almost every woman I've seen do this has regretted it eventually.
Roopa B retweeted
Beyond Amitabh Bachchan's bungalow, there are only 2–3 industrialists' bungalows on that road.
There is one grand bungalow on that road. It is called "Niranter."
This bungalow is three times larger than Amitabh Bachchan's. It has a lawn of nearly 3 acres and is extremely opulent.
Anyone would be stunned to hear that such a lavish bungalow exists in an elite area like Juhu, Mumbai!
But this bungalow doesn't belong to a superstar or an industrialist.
Do you know who owns it?
**Teesta Javed Setalvad** – just a "social activist"!
Now read on patiently to the end – your eyes, ears and mind will all begin to open.
Between 2004 and 2012, she received crores of dollars in funding from abroad.
For what? To uplift the poor?
But there is something more...
Why are these people so anti-India?
Their forefathers sowed this seed.
👇Start here. Read the history Congress hid from us.
The Hunter Commission was the inquiry committee that gave General Dyer a clean chit – the same Dyer who ordered the firing at the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.
A member of this commission was Harilal Chimanlal Setalvad, great-grandfather of Teesta Setalvad.
In other words, the ancestor of the present owners of the bungalow described above.
It was Harilal's son, Motilal Chimanlal Setalvad – Teesta's grandfather – who acquitted General Dyer.
After independence, Nehru appointed this same Motilal Setalvad as India's Attorney General.
This is living proof of Nehru's loyalty to the British.
The story doesn't end here...
**Read on.**
While General Dyer was being tried, Diwan Bahadur Kunj Behari Thapar, showing his loyalty to the British, collected Rs. 1.5 lakh for General Dyer and honored him by presenting him with a kirpan and a turban.
This same Kunj Behari Thapar is the great-grandfather of **Karan Thapar**.
The Thapar family grew rich during British rule, especially by supplying troops and materials during the First World War.
Today, when the Thapar family displays its loyalty, it should be no surprise where the kirpan and turban came from.
All this happened in the management of the Golden Temple, where two contractors, **Sujan Singh** and **Sobha Singh**, were the main contractors.
When the British shifted India's capital from Calcutta to Delhi, these two took over all the construction contracts.
Sobha Singh's son **Khushwant Singh** was a famous writer and a supporter of Indira Gandhi. He wrote articles in favor of the Emergency.
Khushwant Singh's son, **Rahul Singh**, keeps promoting anti-India views on NDTV by glorifying figures like Teesta Setalvad and Arundhati Roy.
Speaking of the Thapar family...
Karan Thapar's father, **Pran Nath Thapar**, was the commander in the 1962 China war – a war India lost.
Earlier, General K.S. Thimayya had recommended Lt. Gen. S.P.P. Thorat as his successor.
But Nehru rejected that recommendation and appointed Pran Nath Thapar.
– Another example of the British mindset.
Not only that – Pran Nath Thapar's brother is **Mayadas Thapar**, and his daughter is **Romila Thapar**, after whom Indian school history textbooks are named.
Nehru made this appointment too.
Strangely, the names of those who lost the 1962 war are not found in these history books.
Just because these books were written by their nieces!
This is the same wealthy family – which grew rich through bribes during the British era – that still holds India's history and identity hostage today.
These are the same people who regard themselves as the monopolists of progress.
These are the same people who spread lies and stop India's true identity from emerging.
After independence, Nehru and Congress protected British interests by giving these very people important posts.
Teesta Setalvad went to jail – this was not just the fall of one fraudster... but the fall of an entire parasitic system, whose roots were planted generations ago.
Roopa B retweeted
I am sure it is just a coincidence that every project in India meant to counter China faces protests
Protests against Siang Dam turn violent, the strategic Indian project in Arunachal Pradesh meant to counter China’s mega dam thepamphlet.in/protests-agai…
For someone who claims to be unbothered by public opinion, this is an astonishing amount of explaining.
The makers of Ramayana are equally to blame. Ensuring music is appropriate to the era is also the filmmaker’s responsibility. Perhaps they were too overawed by ARR to assert themselves.
As what Amitabh Bachchan said was not retained in the interview, we have only Thapar's word for it. And I would take anything Thapar says with a generous pinch of salt.
Amitabh Bachchan once lost his temper at home after a journalist questioned him about Rekha and Parveen Babi.
What happened after the interview was even more awkward. 😮
In 1992, journalist Karan Thapar interviewed Amitabh at his home, Pratiksha, for the television show Eyewitness.
During a break, Amitabh mentioned an interview with Warren Beatty, where the actor had been questioned about the women in his life. Thapar took this as a cue to ask Amitabh about his own rumoured relationships.
“Have you had an affair with any other woman after your marriage?” Thapar asked.
Amitabh replied, “No. Never.”
Thapar then asked about Parveen Babi and Rekha. Amitabh denied both rumours.
Then Thapar turned to Jaya Bachchan, who was sitting beside her husband, and asked whether she believed him.
“I always believe my husband,” she replied.
Thapar followed up by asking whether she genuinely believed him or was saying it because Amitabh was sitting beside her.
The interview continued for another 40 minutes, and Amitabh even insisted that Thapar and his crew stay for lunch. Thapar thought everything was fine.
But at the dining table, Jaya offered Amitabh rice while they waited for the rotis. According to Thapar’s account in his book Devil’s Advocate: The Untold Story, Amitabh became angry and shouted at her for offering him something he never ate.
Thapar believed the outburst was delayed anger over his questions, redirected towards Jaya. The crew eventually left, stunned by what they had witnessed.
The questions about the alleged affairs were later removed from the televised interview. Thapar’s account of the incident appeared in his 2018 book.
“Pataa nahin Congress kab tak apne failed product ki launching ke liye desh to daav par lagati rahegi”
These words of PM Modi strike at the heart of a nation’s anguish. How long must aspirations of 1.4 billion Indians pay the price for one party’s obsession with power?
BIG BREAKING 🚨 PM MODI - "Some are travelling abroad to criticise the country and seek foreign intervention in its internal political matters"
"When the world is seeking a new global order, some in India are promoting instability instead of unity"
"India should be projecting strength and standing together as one nation"
Unfortunate that awe for the film's controversial casting overpowered acclaim for the outstanding acting of all 5 leads: Amitabh, Jaya, Rekha, Shashi Kapoor and Sanjeev Kumar. #Silsila is a treat to watch just to see each of these stalwarts nail their roles with such finesse❤️
A master filmmaker walked onto a flight, dropped his already-signed leading ladies, and convinced Bollywood's most scrutinized real-life love triangle to play out their private heartbreak on 70mm film.
The reason might surprise you.
In 1980, Yash Chopra was preparing to direct an intense romantic drama titled Silsila, exploring marital fidelity, passion, and duty.
He had already finalized his casting: Amitabh Bachchan as the male lead, with Smita Patil and Parveen Babi signed to play the wife and the lover.
Yet deep down, Chopra felt the casting lacked the volcanic emotional gravity the script demanded.
At that exact moment, Indian tabloids were consumed by one running story: the rumored, fiercely debated off-screen relationship between Amitabh Bachchan and Rekha, and the silent, dignified endurance of Amitabh’s wife, Jaya Bachchan.
During a flight to Srinagar with Amitabh, Yash Chopra opened up about his creative dissatisfaction.
Amitabh asked him directly: "Who do you really want?"
Chopra didn't hesitate: "I want Jaya and Rekha."
Bachchan paused, looked at the director, and replied: "If you can convince them, I have no problem."
What followed was the most delicate, high-stakes casting negotiation in Hindi cinema:
Chopra met with Smita Patil and Parveen Babi to break the news that they were being replaced, a painful decision that strained his relationships with both actresses.
He then approached Rekha, who readily agreed to step into the role of the glamorous other woman.
The biggest hurdle was Jaya Bachchan, who had largely stepped away from cinema to raise her children. Chopra narrated the script to her in detail. Jaya agreed to come out of hiatus on one non-negotiable condition: the story had to end with the husband returning to his lawful wife.
Filming Silsila became an exercise in walking an emotional tightrope:
Across tulip fields in the Netherlands and sets in Kashmir, the air was thick with tension. Every dialogue exchange between Jaya and Rekha felt uncomfortably close to reality.
In one legendary scene, Jaya's character confronts Rekha's character in a boutique, asking: "He is my husband... what do you want from him?"
Rekha replies with chilling calm:
"He doesn't belong to you alone."
Crew members on set reported chills down their spines as the boundary between script and reality completely vanished.
When Silsila released in August 1981, audiences were too unsettled by the blatant reflection of real-life gossip to embrace it, making it an initial commercial underperformer before attaining cult status over the decades.
The film marked the absolute end of an era: Amitabh Bachchan and Rekha never shared a film set or appeared together on screen ever again.
Yash Chopra turned the front-page whispers of the nation into cinematic poetry…
giving Bollywood its most meta, fearless gamble that forever blurred the line between the silver screen and real life.








































