Lately, a strange trend is taking over the so-called “BJP” ecosystem.
If you question BJP’s appeasement policies, or their sudden rediscovery of Ambedkar for vote-bank politics you are immediately branded as anti-india, anti-hindu, anti-bjp, traitor, or Congress agent.
Here's our reply
Thread.
Let’s be clear, political loyalty is not spiritual slavery.
Any party can change its direction or strategy, but the followers have every right , even duty to question it.
Because Sanātana Dharma was never built on blind obedience.
It was built on inquiry, dialogue, and reason.
/1
In Abrahamic faiths, questioning authority is seen as rebellion.
In the Bible, when Thomas doubted Jesus’ resurrection, he was rebuked as “Doubting Thomas” a name that became synonymous with lack of faith.
/2
In the Old Testament, Job questioned God for his suffering and was scolded, told that mortals must not question divine will.
/3
In the Qur’an and Hadith, questioning the Prophet or the message is considered kufr (disbelief). The Prophet’s own uncle, Abu Lahab, was cursed in Surah Al-Masad for mocking him. Dissent in these traditions often led to excommunication, execution, or eternal damnation.
The underlying idea is simple: Faith demands surrender, not reasoning.
/4
But Sanātana Dharma is Different
In Sanātana thought, questioning is sacred.
Our very scriptures are built on questions not commandments.
/5
The Upaniṣads are dialogues: student and teacher debating, reflecting, doubting, and discovering. Truth (Satya) was accepted only after discussion and mutual understanding, never imposed.
/6
In the Bhagavad Gītā (18.63), Bhagwan Shri Krishna himself tells Arjuna: “Thus I have explained to you knowledge most confidential. Deliberate on this fully, and then do what you wish.”
Even the supreme gives man the freedom to think and choose.
/7
Ādi Śaṅkarācārya, one of India’s greatest philosophers, said if the scriptures claim “fire is cold,” trust your experience, not the text.
/8
Sage Yājñavalkya was challenged by Gargī Vācaknavī a woman philosopher in open debate. Instead of being silenced, she was celebrated for her boldness.
/9
Our saints and seekers questioned gods themselves Arjuna questioned Krishna, Nachiketa questioned Yama, and countless others questioned their gurus until truth shone clear.
/10
So Why Are We Afraid of Questions Today?
If our ancestors could question Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesh, why can’t today’s Hindus question BJP or any political guru?
When asking questions becomes a crime, we are no longer followers of Sanātana we are followers of dogma.
/11
Sanātana Dharma gave the world this message:
“Don’t believe because it’s written. Don’t follow because it’s said. Realize because you have known it yourself.”
/12
Questioning is not rebellion it’s reverence through reason.
It’s how the mind purifies itself and the truth reveals itself.
/13
So yes we have every right to question the BJP.
Just as our rishis questioned their gurus, and Arjuna questioned Krishna, we too can question those in power.
/14
That’s not being anti-Hindu or anti-party, that’s being truly Sanātani.
Because in our tradition, loyalty is to Dharma, not to any political throne.
And questioning isn’t rebellion it’s how truth survives.
/15
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Stories like Shambuka Vadha and Eklavya are often weaponized — not just by leftist propagandists to brand Hinduism as casteist, but sometimes by sections of our own Right Wing who repeat the same distorted narrative without checking the facts.
Let’s set the record straight. Here’s the true story behind these episodes.
Thread
The popular version says:
A Shudra named Shambuka performed tapasya to enter svarga. Sage Narada told Rama this disturbed dharma. Rama killed him, restoring order.
This is portrayed as caste oppression. But this reading is incomplete.
/1
First, historically:
Shambuka appears only in the Uttara Kanda of Ramayana, a later addition likely from the Kushana–Gupta period (3rd–4th century CE).
This means the “Rama killed Shambuka for being a Shudra” story is not part of the authentic text.
/2
In 1921, the Khilafat Movement started in Malabar.
Its aim: to protect the Ottoman Caliph (the political & religious head of Muslims after Prophet Muhammad) after WWI.
But in Kerala, Moplah Muslims turned it into jihad.
What began as a political protest soon became a brutal Hindu genocide
Hindus had nothing to do with the Caliph or Khilafat.
Still, they were attacked.
Why?
Because old hatred against Hindus mixed with this anger.
Hindu: landlords, shopkeepers and neighbors became the easiest targets.
/2
Mobs looted villages, burned homes, and destroyed temples.
Men were killed, women raped and taken away, children not spared.
Whole families vanished in one night.
Hakla Khan is called the “King of Bollywood”.
Now his daughter Suhana Khan wants to be the “Queen of Farmers”
She recently bought 1.5 acres of agricultural land in Alibaug for ₹12.91 crore.
On paper, nothing seems wrong, until you realize this land was originally meant only for farming, and as per Maharashtra law, only a farmer can buy agricultural land.
So Suhana was shown as a farmer in the land deal documents.
Full Thread on the fraud
Now think about this carefully.
How many young people from rural Maharashtra, whose families have been farming for generations are denied land rights because of strict regulations?
Yet, here we have a Nepo Kid with no connection to farming, being magically registered as a farmer.
This is not about one plot in Alibaug. It is about a pattern. A system that bends for the rich while suffocating the real farmers.
/1
Being a “farmer” is not just an identity. In India, it is a legal category that comes with privileges:
1. Agricultural income is 100% tax-free.
2. Capital gains exemptions apply if you reinvest in agricultural land.
3. Property taxes are much lower compared to commercial or residential properties.
For the real farmer, this system is meant to provide relief and survival.
For the wealthy elite, it is a backdoor into tax havens and luxury estates.
/2
Lokah is being celebrated as a “pathbreaking Malayalam superhero film.”
But beneath the spectacle lies a narrative that systematically vilifies Hindu traditions while glorifying missionary imagery.
Thread
The central figure, Kalliyankattu Neeli, comes from Kerala folklore where she is feared as a Yakshi.
In Lokah, she is reimagined as a savior of the “marginalized.”
Her turning point is that She kills a Hindu king who massacred her people for entering a temple.
/1
This storyline frames Hindu kings as cruel oppressors and temples as sites of exclusion and violence.
It normalizes the idea that rebellion against dharmic traditions is heroic.
/2
Kapil Sibal recently declared in court, “Once a Waqf, always a Waqf.” That one line says everything about the Emergency India is under—not declared by a state, but imposed silently by Islamists, enforced by mobs, and legitimized by ‘secular’ elites.
Decades ago, Sitaram Goel saw this coming. In his collection of articles 'Freedom of Expression', he warned us: Islam has imposed an Emergency on India.
From CAA to NRC, from Triple Talaq to Waqf, from Sar Tan Se Juda threats to blasphemy laws—every issue must pass an Islamic test, or else.
The Hindu voice is muzzled, critique is criminalized, and facts are labelled “hate speech.”
What Goel wrote decades ago stands truer today than ever before.
Here’s a long thread from that prescient essay—unedited, unfiltered, unflinching.
No newspaper or periodical worth its name in India will publish what I write in the lines that follow.
Not because the subject matter is seditious or sacrilegious or obscene, or even controversial, but simply because it defies the Emergency imposed on this country by Muslim theologians and politicians backed by ‘secularist’ intellectuals and politicians and riotous Muslim mobs and plain terrorists.
/1
The Indian intelligentsia, by and large, is very well aware of what Emergency means. It had a firsthand experience during 1975-77 when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi extended to everyone the fullest “freedom” to extol her, but put in jail all those who asked inconvenient questions about her doings.
/2