Thread by @virendrarathore

I know this has been debunked thoroughly. Sharing my thoughts anyway.
Will comment only where I disagree. Hope it will add some fresh insight for readers.

https://twitter.com/MumukshuSavitri/status/1418473889617702914

Claim - Rajput ladies,...set up stalls of fabrics...
Her own screenshot says that ladies of the court (which might include some Rajput ladies) were only purchasers. The stalls were set up by merchants' ladies. Comprehension comes before paraphrasing?

https://twitter.com/MumukshuSavitri/status/1418473895565303808

By the way, the content quoted is not in pages 274-75 as shown in citation. It is on pages 116-17. Mistake, I know. Reason I mentioned is, it suggests that someone didn't care to verify by reading the very sources they speak of.

Fine, but then why say this.

https://twitter.com/MumukshuSavitri/status/1418828040419872775

Lets get to the root of this. Tod has done two things here.
1) He quotes Abul Fazl on Noroza festivities and
2) He claims that Abul Fazl has distracted us from the real object of this festival.

https://twitter.com/MumukshuSavitri/status/1418473897574289412

Basis that Tod gives for this charge are some Dingal letters supposedly exchanged between Prithviraj of Bikaner and Maharana Pratap. In fact these are just folklores that first made appearance in the 18th century and were written only in the 19th.

Premier historians of Rajasthan such as G. H. Ojha and Gopinath Sharma have discarded these lores (jana-shruti) as later creation, and not of the pen of dignitaries (Prithviraj and Pratap) claimed as the writers.

Because no contemporary or near contemporary source on either sides corroborate the content of these lores.

Here is Tod's confession to providing material that he felt was interesting, without subjecting it to historical scrutiny.

https://twitter.com/MumukshuSavitri/status/1418473897574289412

So again, what basis to take Tod at face value for events of 250 years before him?
If Tod is considered authority for events of 16th century just because of some late folklores. Some of our friends from Deccan will be unhappy should we quote him for events of the 18th century.

Screenshot doesn't support the narrating (paraphrasing?) tweet. Putting that aside. Firstly, as Manucci didn't overlap with the events by place due to lack of consistent access. In this matter, he depended on hearsay prevailing in the street.

https://twitter.com/MumukshuSavitri/status/1418473901005279232

Check out Manucci's own words from the memoir. Even if we for a moment imagine this tale to be true. He categorically states that no honourable woman would go to that place.

There is no such incident mentioned in Abul Fazl's Akbarnama. Even Oak doesn't say it is from Abul Fazl. Someone else's imagination kicked in while paraphrasing I think?

https://twitter.com/MumukshuSavitri/status/1418473913927933952

This has been addressed already. A later bardic creation.

https://twitter.com/MumukshuSavitri/status/1418473923830710280

Let me put the quotation of translated Ain that Oak gives us. Will also give directly the same Blochmann translation that Oak uses and which has been given as source in the thread as well.

https://twitter.com/MumukshuSavitri/status/1418473928998101000

Notice any difference?
Yes, the - other women "of chaste character" - part. Oak has removed it. Didn't fit well with his objective of Oak to insinuate that all these women wanted to have endless intercourse with Akbar the alpha male.

This is how subtle propaganda works and people without due diligence not only fall for it, but spread it everywhere.
There's no lecherous prodigious lust showing in quoted part anyway. And it doesn't support the charge of Oak that even the Mughal courtiers' wives were not safe.

I am no fan of that Jihadi, but if you want to expose him. This FireVeer type perceiving soft porn everywhere is a ridiculous tool to use.

Here's Badayuni, a non-hesitant contemporary of Akbar describing the Mughal Emperor in Noroza days i.e. Mina Bazar.

Badayuni also states that Akbar gave offerings in havan, prostrated to Sun (most likely Surya Namaskar) and uttered daily verses that were taught to him by Brahmins.

Are we going to call Akbar a Hindu now? Or are we saying that after doing all this, Akbar scoots to lecherously run after courtiers wives and suceeds in defiling them?
Bottomline - Oak's own sources don't support his assertions.

If you rely on unsubtantiated assertions of people separated from the events they narrate by 250 years. Then start a 'Did you know that' thread. And then claim that your sources are accurate. It will obviously not stand scrutiny.

https://twitter.com/MumukshuSavitri/status/1418473907955200007