1/4 Long Thread!

Since #TheTajStory starring @SirPareshRawal directed by @TusharAmrish has released, countless people have rushed to make podcasts and articles trying to discredit everything the film presents.

So, I thought it’s time to begin a detailed thread on “The Real History of the Taj Mahal”, one that may unsettle many popular beliefs.

Before diving into historical documents, let’s clear one thing: the Taj was never built as a symbol of love. That romantic tale is pure fabrication.

Even the most cited scholarly work; “Taj Mahal: The Illumined Tomb — An Anthology of Seventeenth-Century Mughal and European Documentary Sources” by W.E. Begley and Z.A. Desai completely rejects the “love story” narrative.

Ironically, these very authors are often invoked to support it. Begley and Desai not only question the myth that Shah Jahan’s hair turned white from grief after Mumtaz’s death (as also claimed in one of the recent podcast), but they also argue that the Taj’s conception had nothing to do with personal loss or love.

According to them, the Taj Mahal was designed as a symbolic representation of paradise; a grand stage for Judgement Day, not a tomb of mourning. Shah Jahan, they assert, envisioned himself as a Khalifa, and therefore modeled the structure after a Timurid throne, with the inverted lotus atop the dome represented the ruler’s crown.

In fact, Wayne E. Begley, in his seminal paper “The Myth of the Taj Mahal and a New Theory of Its Symbolic Meaning” (The Art Bulletin, Vol. 61, No. 1, March 1979), begins by urging scholars to re-examine the entire history of the Taj Mahal (check image 2). Right at the outset, Begley makes it clear—the structure was never intended as Mumtaz’s burial monument.
Now, let’s walk through some fascinating historical records that most people conveniently overlook.

I have noticed that nearly every self-proclaimed “historian” of the Taj Mahal confidently repeats the same claims, how many years it took to build, how many artisans worked on it, and so on. But the crucial question is—where do these numbers actually come from?

They trace back to Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, a French merchant and traveler, who asserted that the Taj Mahal took 22 years to build and employed 20,000 workers. Tavernier even boasted that he had witnessed the construction “from commencement to completion.” Take a look at the snippet (image 3) from Volume I of his works.

He further wrote that Shah Jahan “purposely buried Mumtaz at the Taj-i-Macan (Taj Mahal)” so that the world might marvel at her burial site, adding that even in his time, foreigners flocked to see the structure, just as they do today.

Now, this statement is extremely revealing. If, by 1640–41, Tavernier was already describing the Taj Mahal as a site attracting visitors from across the world, it implies one simple fact, the monument existed long before Mumtaz was buried there. Shah Jahan merely chose it as her resting place because it was already an established and admired structure.

Let’s also examine Tavernier’s own timeline. He was in Agra around 1640–41, and again in 1651–52. Curiously, in his later visit, he says nothing about the Taj Mahal, no mention of construction, progress, or completion. For someone who claimed to have observed the entire process “from beginning to end,” this silence is deafening.

Moreover, if we take Tavernier’s claim literally, that he saw both the start and finish of construction, then the Taj’s work should have begun in 1640 and ended around 1662. But Tavernier was nowhere near Agra in 1662; by then, he was traveling in the Deccan and Persia, and his writings from that period make no reference to Agra at all. He was again in Agra in 1665 which means that by that logic construction should have begun in 1642.

Therefore, if Tavernier was right about his personal observation, then the official claim that construction began in 1631 collapses entirely. The timelines don’t add up.
E. B. Havell, the Principal of the Government School of Art, Calcutta, in 1904, echoed the same figures; 22 years of construction and 20,000 workers, directly citing Jean-Baptiste Tavernier as his source.

A few years later, Vincent A. Smith, in his “History of Fine Arts in India and Ceylon” (1911), repeated the exact same claim, again tracing it back to Tavernier’s account.

In other words, the widely circulated narrative about the Taj Mahal’s construction period and workforce isn’t based on any contemporary Timurid (Mughal) record, imperial Farman, or architectural document, it rests entirely on a single secondary account by a 17th-century European traveler, whose own timeline and claims, as we have seen, are riddled with inconsistencies.

Thus, what has been parroted for over a century in mainstream history books is not verified evidence, but rather a chain of repetition, where one author simply inherits and amplifies the claims of another starting with Tavernier’s unreliable narrative.

I'll bring in light words of other travelers who visited Agra around same period.

One such traveler was Fray Sebastian Manrique. He was a Portuguese missionary who spent four weeks in Agra between December 1640 and January 1641. His account (refer to Travels of Fray Sebastien Manrique 1629-1643: A Translation of the Itinerario de las Missiones Orientales. Volume II: China, India etc), the only eyewitness records that actually mentions the Taj Mahal’s construction describes “a vast, lofty, circular structure” set within “a huge square-shaped enclosure.”

But here is where it gets interesting. How many men did Manrique actually see working on the site? He writes--

“On this building, as well as other works, a thousand men were usually engaged.”

Yes, you read that right, “a thousand men.”

That figure isn’t just a minor discrepancy, but it is a dramatic contradiction to Jean-Baptiste Tavernier’s famous claim that 20,000 workers labored on the monument. And Manrique’s detailed description of what these men were doing only deepens the puzzle:

“Many were occupied in laying out ingenious gardens, others planting shady groves and ornamental avenues; while the rest were making roads and those receptacles for crystal water, without which their labour could not be carried out.”

Notice what’s missing? No mention of masons, stonecutters, or bricklayers. None of the trades you would expect if the Taj Mahal were truly under massive construction. And yet, Manrique observes that the structure was “still incomplete, the greater part of it remaining to be done.”

If his account is accurate, it is deeply inconvenient because both Tavernier and Manrique were in Agra around the same time, even travelling by the same route from Dacca. How could two witnesses of the same period describe such vastly different scenes?

Now let me tell you how historians have tried to explain it.

Vincent A. Smith, in his attempt to defend Tavernier, wrote:

“The number (20,000) rests on Tavernier’s excellent authority. According to Manrique, the staff of workmen numbered only 1,000 in 1640. No doubt the numbers varied much from time to time.”

The translators of Manrique’s travels go even further to undermine him, claiming:

“Manrique’s figure is certainly a rough one. …Tavernier says 20,000 men worked incessantly. Manrique, however, is writing long after and without notes, and again his visit seems to have been but cursory.”

But this explanation is plainly false. Manrique wrote his account within a year of returning from his travels in 1641; hardly “long after.” And as for his visit being “cursory,” that assertion is baseless. It seems more likely that his testimony was simply too inconvenient to fit the established myth.

And if Manrique’s reliability is questioned, what about other travelers?

Consider Albert de Mandelslo, a German who visited Agra in October–November 1638. If the Taj Mahal’s construction truly began in 1631, by 1638 the site should have been alive with thousands of workers and visible progress.

Yet Mandelslo, an otherwise detailed chronicler—mentions nothing about the Taj Mahal.

Interestingly, Mandelslo does not ignore Agra or Shah Jahan’s court far from it. He gives a meticulous account of the Red Fort, describing it in vivid detail. He also lists the immense Mughal treasures stored there"

“…diamonds, rubies, emeralds, statues of gold, brass, copper, brocades, books, artillery, horses, elephants, and other valuables.”

Mandelslo goes on to describe the king’s ministers and their duties, the organization of the cavalry, artillery, and palace guards, and even the grand celebrations of Nauroz and the emperor’s birthday festivities. He paints a rich, bustling picture of the Timurid capital under Shah Jahan’s rule, filled with splendor, ceremony, and spectacle.

He even recounts the extravagant animal combats staged for the emperor’s amusement:

“…fights of lions, bulls, elephants, tigers, and leopards arranged by Shahjahan.”

And yet, amidst all these detailed observations of Agra’s grandeur, there is not a single word, not even a passing reference, to the Taj Mahal or to any construction activity related to it.

Do historians ever refer to Mandelslo? Some do, but most quietly sidestep the most telling fact: he says nothing at all about the Taj Mahal.

A few, however, try to explain away his silence. For instance, Fergus Nicoll writes in his book "Shah-Jahan: The Rise and Fall of the Mughal Emperor":

“Despite providing detailed observations on life in Agra, Mandelslo apparently did not visit the Taj Mahal (then in its sixth year of construction). The omission may be explained by his premature departure from the city, prompted by a chance meeting with the relative of a man he had killed in Persia. Fearing reprisals (and notwithstanding the efforts of servants and colleagues to lie on his behalf), he retreated to Lahore before continuing his journey to the Far East.”

In other words, we are asked to believe that a man who offered painstaking details about life, people, and events in Agra, who chronicled the Red Fort, royal ceremonies, ministers, and menageries, somehow missed the most magnificent construction site of his age because he had to flee from a vengeful Persian’s relative, despite his servants being ready to “lie on his behalf.”

It’s an absurd stretch of logic.

So, we are left with three major accounts:

A) One (Tavernier) that is internally inconsistent and unverifiable,
B) Another (Manrique) that directly contradicts the first, and
C) A third (Mandelslo) that makes no mention whatsoever of this supposed architectural marvel rising in the heart of Agra.

Three contemporaries. Three different stories. And together, they expose how fragile and fabricated the accepted timeline of the Taj Mahal’s construction truly is.

Oddly enough, Peter Mundy, the English traveler who was in India at the time of Mumtaz Mahal’s death (and makes strong remarks also about the famine engineered by Shahjahan that made 7.4 million perish) makes no mention whatsoever of it. Not even a passing remark.

For a queen who is said to have been the emperor’s “beloved consort,” whose death supposedly plunged Shah Jahan into inconsolable grief and white-haired despair, such silence is astonishing. One would expect a traveler as observant as Mundy to note the shock, the mourning, or the imperial lamentations that must have followed. Yet, there is nothing, no reference to the tragedy, no hint of public mourning, no word of the grand project that was allegedly born of love and loss.

And surely, if the official narrative were true, that construction of the Taj Mahal began soon after Mumtaz’s death in 1631 then Mundy, who was in Agra around 1632–33, should have witnessed the early stages of the construction.

So, what does he say about the Taj Mahal?

Peter Mundy writes in his journal (refer image 4):

“(In Agra) places of noate… are the Castle, King Ecbars [Akbar’s] Tombe, Tage Moholls Tombe, Gardens and Bazare.”

Isn’t it strange that a tomb whose construction had supposedly begun only a few months earlier was already listed among Agra’s “places of note”?

But wait, Mundy adds more.

“This Kinge is now buildinge a Sepulchre for his late deceased Queene Tage Moholl.”

So, yes, we do have an apparent reference to the Taj Mahal being under construction. It seems, at first glance, to confirm the traditional story until one begins to look closer.

Mundy continues:

“The buildinge is begun and goes on with excessive labour and cost, prosecuted with extraordinary diligence, Gold and silver esteemed comon Mettall, and Marble but as ordinarie stones.”

This observation was likely made in early 1633, shortly after Shah Jahan’s return to Agra in June 1632. It’s improbable that any real construction began before October 1632, given the monsoon season. Yet, for a project of this magnitude, one would expect major foundational work—massive excavations, laying of structural bases, digging of wells to anchor the load.

Curiously, neither Mundy nor Mandelslo, both meticulous observers make any mention whatsoever of foundation work. And yet, we know from later studies that the Taj Mahal does have foundations, built on masonry wells to support its weight.

So, the question arises: why didn’t Mundy, who described everything else in detail, note such a crucial phase of the construction? Did he simply overlook it—or was it already there before work began?

Then comes the next anomaly. Mundy refers to marble being used so abundantly that it was treated as “ordinarie stones.”

But here is the catch, the Taj Mahal isn’t built of marble?

Contrary to popular belief, the structure is primarily brick and red sandstone; the marble merely forms a veneer, a decorative skin laid over the structural frame.

So how could Mundy have seen marble being used “as ordinary stone” barely a few months into construction especially when the building was already considered a “place of note,” (of course a normal burial will not attract people) mentioned in the same breath as the Red Fort and Akbar’s Tomb?

That leaves us with one final oddity, one that turns the accepted story on its head.

As some of you may know, the English East India Company maintained a trading factory in Agra from 1618 to 1655, precisely the years during which the Taj Mahal was supposedly being constructed.

And yet, in all the official company records from that period, there is not a single reference to the Taj Mahal, Mumtaz Mahal, or even to “the tomb of Shah Jahan’s queen.” Not a line, not a note, not an allusion.

This silence is nothing short of astonishing. The English kept meticulous records of trade, prices, politics, architecture, and even local gossip. For them to make no mention whatsoever of what would later be hailed as one of the most magnificent monuments on earth is, at the very least, baffling.

Equally striking is the silence of the Dutch East India Company (though their record talks of grand famine created by Shahjahan that killed 7.4 million people, the same has been cited in my book-- "Babur: The Chessboard King"). To date, no historian has cited anything from their detailed archives about the Taj Mahal either suggesting that their records, too, are completely blank on the subject.

Isn’t that odd? Very odd.

And so, one is forced to ask a disquieting question, one that conventional historians prefer to avoid:

Could it be that when Shah Jahan claimed to have “built” the Taj Mahal, he was not constructing a new monument at all, but rather repurposing an existing structure?

Perhaps the brickwork of the central edifice, the foundations, and even the layout of the complex were already in place, long before Shah Jahan began his so-called “construction.”

If so, then what he actually did was not the building of the Taj Mahal, but its transformation, an imperial act of reappropriation, not creation.

@KumariDiya , ji indeed knew what she said when she spoke about the property issue were the Taj sits today.


2/4 Let’s now dig deeper into one of the strangest details in the Taj Mahal’s history, the story of a leaking Taj Mahal.

Yes, leaking. You might shrug and say, “Well, that’s hardly surprising for a 353-year-old monument.”

True, except that these leaks weren’t discovered in modern times. They were reported more than 353 years ago, in 1652, just twenty-one years after the supposed commencement of construction.

The evidence comes from a remarkable letter written by Prince Aurangzeb to Emperor Shah Jahan. In it, Aurangzeb reports:

“The dome of the holy tomb leaked in two places towards the north during the rainy season, and so also the fair semi-domed arches, many of the galleries on the second storey, the four smaller domes, the four northern compartments, and the seven arched underground chambers which have developed cracks.”

He continues:

“During the rains last year, the terrace over the main dome also leaked in two or three places. The domes of the mosque and the Jama’at Khana leaked during the rains and were made watertight. The master builders are of the opinion that if the roof of the second storey is reopened and dismantled and treated afresh, the galleries and the smaller domes will probably become watertight, but they say they are unable to suggest any measures of repairs to the main dome.”

Pause for a moment and read that again.

“The master builders… are unable to suggest any measures of repairs to the main dome.”

It’s a stunning admission.

So, the obvious question: is this letter genuine?

Can it be trusted? After all, it is hard to imagine that such a masterpiece of symmetry and engineering could begin to leak and crack within just a few years of completion.

Let’s examine the evidence.

The letter was first published in Muraqqa-i-Akbarabadi, edited by Said Ahmad of Agra in 1931 (p. 43, footnote 2).

Later, it was translated by M. S. Vats, then Superintendent of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), and printed in the ASI’s journal Ancient India (Vol. I, 1946, pp. 4–7) (refer to image 1 of this post).

And yet, despite its significance, this letter finds no mention in several major works on the Taj Mahal, not in Sir Mortimer Wheeler, Bamber Gascoigne, or John Keay. Only a fleeting reference appears in Waldemar Hansen’s The Peacock Throne (p. 181), with no attempt to explore its implications.

Nevertheless, the letter has been cited sporadically in news reports, in obscure studies, and in a few Indian publications, enough to establish that it does exist, and that its authenticity has never been formally disputed (though I'm going to dig original Farsi letter soon).

But it remains deeply unsettling for several reasons:

First, the fact that such a structure could start leaking so soon after its “completion” or while it is about to get over (1648, if the official 17-year timeline is correct, 1653, if the official 22-year timeline is correct) strains belief. Great Timurid (Mughal) architecture, especially at this imperial scale did not decay within decades.

Second, Aurangzeb’s letter makes clear that these leaks were not new & they had been observed “last year” as well.

Third, the damage wasn’t limited, rather it was extensive: multiple domes, galleries, and chambers were all affected.

And then comes the most telling line:

“The master builders… are unable to suggest any measures of repairs.”

Why would “master builders”, the very men supposedly responsible for this grand creation; be clueless about how to repair it?

Unless, of course, they were not the original builders at all. Perhaps they were only the imperial supervisors of a structure whose origins and techniques were already unknown to them.

Could these leaks have been caused by poor design? Or perhaps poor maintenance? Maybe. But even then, it is astonishing that a monument supposedly engineered with such precision would show structural failure within two decades.

And yet, while tempting, this single letter alone isn’t enough to rewrite the Taj Mahal’s history.

It is a clue, not a conclusion.

But the story doesn’t end here.

Because as we dig further, we uncover another piece of evidence, one just as strange, just as disquieting, that raises even graver questions about what we have been told.

What is this next oddity that casts such deep shadows over the accepted story of the Taj Mahal?

This brings us to the Badshahnama (also spelled Padshahnama), one of the most authoritative chronicles of Shahjahan’s reign, written by Abdul Hamid Lahori.

I have accessed and read full Persian text of the Badshahnama (image 2) and hence I can vouch for the words of other people who have quoted it often. And yes, they do appear in very authentic sources too.

We find it in a 1982 booklet published by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) itself. The slim publication, titled Taj Museum (authored by Ziyaud-Din A. Desai) states on page 4:

“The site selected for the burial was an extremely pleasant and lofty land situated to the south of the city, on which, till then, stood the mansion (Manzil) of Raja Man Singh and which was, at that time, in possession of his grandson, Raja Jai Singh.”

If accurate (which it most likely is as the Badshahnama states exactly such, check attached image 2), this statement turns the conventional story upside down. The translation has also appeared in the "Taj Mahal: The Illumined Tomb : an Anthology of Seventeenth-century Mughal and European Documentary Sources" too.

It raises immediate questions:

What happened to the original palace?

Was it demolished?

Or was it simply redesigned, re-faced in marble, and repurposed as the so-called “Taj Mahal”?

The question thus lingers, if the Badshahnama indeed recorded that the “palace of Raja Man Singh” was chosen as the burial site, does it not imply that the structure already existed?

Critics counter that the Badshahnama also mentions that a foundation was laid, suggesting new construction.

Yet, no record of extensive works, labor, or costs exists to support that claim; only that a foundation ritual occurred, perhaps as a ceremonial act marking the conversion of an existing building into a tomb.

Now let us look at a Dutch Witness: Pelsaert’s Record

Further evidence comes from Francisco Pelsaert, a Dutch trading officer of the East India Company, whose observations were later compiled in Jahangir’s India (translated by W. H. Moreland, 1925). Pelsaert arrived in 1620 and lived in Agra until 1627, before Mumtaz Mahal’s death.

He described Agra’s riverside palaces in detail (check image 3):

“Everyone has tried to be close to the river bank, and consequently the water front is occupied by the costly palaces of all the famous lords… After passing the Fort, there is the Nakhas, a great market… Beyond it lie the houses of some great lords… the late Raja Man Singh (5000 horse); Raja Madho Singh (2000 horse).”

Thus, Raja Man Singh’s palace was already a well-known landmark before 1631, the very palace that later chroniclers describe as the “site selected” for Mumtaz’s burial.

When seen together, these fragments form a deeply unsettling pattern:

The official chronicles (Badshahnama) barely go in detail to talk about the most remarkable architecture of the reign.

The ASI’s own publication admits that Raja Man Singh’s mansion existed on the same site and so does the original Badshahnama.

European travelers of the time, Mundy, Mandelslo, Tavernier contradict each other or remain silent.

A royal letter from Aurangzeb describes severe leaks and cracks within two decades of “construction.”

And the East India Company records, spanning 1618–1655, contain no reference to the monument at all.

Each point alone might be dismissed as anomaly or oversight. But together, they paint a consistent and troubling picture, one that suggests the Taj Mahal may not have been built by Shah Jahan at all, but rather acquired, altered, and consecrated for his queen’s burial.

So where lies the Uncomfortable Question?

With every new piece of evidence, the official story seems to fray further. The references to an existing “palace,” the silence of the emperor’s own chroniclers, and the implausible construction timeline all converge toward one uncomfortable possibility:

The Taj Mahal may not be a monument born of love, but one reborn through appropriation.

The list of inconsistencies keeps growing, and the inconvenient facts continue to pile up. Perhaps it is finally time, after centuries of repetition, to ask the question that academia has long avoided:

Is the history of the Taj Mahal we’ve been told… truly the history that happened?

But hold on! While we are still grappling with the question of "what became of Raja Man Singh’s mansion", another layer of the puzzle emerges; one that reveals far more than it conceals.

It is often claimed that Raja Jai Singh, grandson of Raja Man Singh, voluntarily handed over his grandfather’s property, the grand riverside mansion that stood where the Taj Mahal now rises to Emperor Shahjahan. This narrative of “graceful submission” is echoed by several historians, including in “Taj Mahal: The Illumined Tomb – An Anthology of Seventeenth-Century Mughal and European Documentary Sources”, where this so-called act of generosity is treated as a noble gesture of loyalty.

The book even cites a Farman (royal decree) (original attached below image 4) dated "December 28, 1633", which states that in exchange for this “voluntary donation,” "four Havelis" were granted to Raja Jai Singh.

But here’s the critical detail, those very four Havelis were not imperial gifts at all. They were, in fact, "ancestral properties of the Rajput family", long held by Jai Singh’s forefathers. The decree simply restored to him what already belonged to his lineage.

So, was this truly a gesture of loyalty or a transaction under duress?

Read closely, and the truth surfaces: the so-called "reward" was nothing more than the return of confiscated property, likely seized during Mughal expansion into Rajputana.

This makes the emperor’s “benevolence” ring hollow. It was not magnanimity, but restoration after appropriation.

And thus, the farman itself inadvertently exposes a far deeper truth: the Timurids were not granting favors, they were reclaiming and repurposing what they had taken by force.

If Raja Jai Singh’s palace truly stood where the Taj Mahal stands today, then the narrative of Shah Jahan’s grand “construction” begins to look less like an act of creation and more like an imperial conversion.

The question that now looms is not how the Taj Mahal was built, but what it was before it was claimed.

Now let us examine the so-called “voluntary submission” more closely because when one looks beyond the ornamental language of loyalty and imperial grace, the cracks in the official narrative begin to show.

If Raja Jai Singh had truly surrendered his ancestral mansion voluntarily in 1631, then why did the Timurids wait two full years; until 1633 to issue a Farman restoring the four Havelis to him as “compensation”? If the transfer were indeed born of goodwill, the exchange should have been immediate, ceremonial, and well-documented.

The Havelis restored to Jai Singh were originally Havelis of Raja Bhagwan Das, Madhav Singh, Rupsi Bairagi, and Chand Singh (son of Suraj Singh).

This delay tells a different story. It suggests that relations between the Rajputs and the Timurids were far from cordial when it came to the possession of Raja Man Singh’s property, which by every available indication was later repurposed as the Taj Mahal. The two-year gap reeks of negotiation, reluctance, and coercion, not of eager submission.

The tension becomes even more apparent when we examine another document; a Farman dated 21 June 1637 in which Raja Jai Singh is explicitly ordered to dispatch certain artisans and sculptors whom he had detained or withheld.

Now, why would a loyal vassal supposedly honored by the emperor defy royal authority by holding back craftsmen? The answer almost writes itself.

This wasn’t a gesture of collaboration; it was an act of quiet resistance. It points toward Jai Singh’s displeasure perhaps even resentment over how his family’s property had been taken and converted into a mausoleum.

So, what does this tell us?

It tells us that the transfer of Raja Man Singh’s mansion to Shah Jahan was not a willing donation as later chroniclers romanticized it to be. Rather, it appears to have been a forced acquisition, cloaked in the polite fiction of “imperial favor.”

The 1633 Farman was not a reward it was appeasement after appropriation.

And the 1637 order was not administration it was discipline after defiance.

Together, these records reveal a power dynamic stripped of its pretenses: the Mughals took what they wanted, and the Rajputs complied only when they had no choice left.

If the so-called voluntary gift of the property was followed by delayed restitution, resistance, and royal reprimand, then the term “donation” loses all meaning. What we see, instead, is a story of imperial seizure dressed in the robes of submission and at its heart stands a structure that history would later rename the Taj Mahal.

1/23 Long thread!

Naz!sm continues to be victorious.

As Britain moves to recognise Palestine x.com/keir_starmer/s… , followed by other Western states, it is clear: Islamofascism is not just knocking at the gates of the West, it is defeating it from within.

I decided to talk about my book (cover image) published by @BluOneInk, summarising each chapter — hoping it knocks some sense into the foolish West.

Few links to get book:
Amazon amzn.in/d/6iirVUF
@PadhegaIndia_ bit.ly/45426Xu

This book was written with a single purpose, to awaken minds, to tear away the veil of ignorance, and to expose the alliance of World War II that was forged with one goal: the annihilation of the Jews.

The Palestinian “common minimum program” has always carried the same blood-soaked clause — death to Jews.

And yet, the West today chooses to reward terrorism. It is not just shameful, it is a disgrace to history and to humanity itself.

@EylonALevy @ReuvenAzar @RupertLowe10 @IsraelBangalore @IsraelinIndia @IsraelMFA @GoldingBF

2/23 Prologue

The prologue delves into Adolf Hitler’s admiration for Islam as a militant faith that aligned with his vision of conquest, contrasting it with what he saw as the weakness of Christianity.

It details Nazi Germany’s strategic alliances with Muslim leaders and populations during WWII, including recruitment of Muslim troops and propaganda tailored to Islamic themes.
The narrative highlights the Grand Mufti’s close collaboration with the Nazis, including his role in influencing the Holocaust and blocking Jewish rescues.

It connects these historical ties to the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, portraying them as inheritors of Nazi anti-Semitism blended with Islamist ideology.

Contemporary events like the October 7, 2023, attacks are linked to this legacy, with discussions on how the Mufti’s influence persisted in post-war Arab politics.

The prologue ends with a call to recognize the enduring threat of Islamofascism, drawing parallels to the plight of Hindus in Bangladesh and urging historical honesty.

Longest post I ever wrote!

“The Jews are behind all evil in the world.”

(Discussed in book of attached media; Preorder link— amzn.in/d/fEBSQA4 )

You’ve likely heard this venomous chorus echoed by many— Muslims, some Christians, and, shamefully, even certain Hindus who should know better. It’s the oldest ghost story still haunting civilization: the myth of the Jewish puppet-master pulling the strings of history.

But where did this fake tale of a global Jewish conspiracy actually come from?

Let’s rewind to 1903 Tsarist Russia—a land crackling with unrest and looking for a scapegoat.

Enter: “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” a document so fraudulent, it deserves its own Oscar for Best Original (Plagiarised) Screenplay. Like a virus in typeset, it slithered into pamphlets, newspapers, and sermons—translated, printed, and peddled from Moscow to Madrid.

The Protocols claimed to be the minutes of a secret meeting—24 chapters of alleged “plans” by shadowy Jewish elders to corrupt society, control global banking, own the press, & dismantle all faiths & nations to usher in eternal Jewish rule. It was less of a document and more of a Frankenstein’s monster stitched together from recycled antisemitic tropes, conspiracy clichés, and lifted lines from a French political satire—Maurice Joly’s Dialogue in Hell.

Yes, you read that right. The world’s most infamous antisemitic screed was plagiarized from a fictional political dialogue between Machiavelli and Montesquieu.

A forgery born of fiction, weaponized as fact—handed to mobs, monarchs, and later, madmen in Germany.

It became blueprint for bloodshed. Because lies, when dipped in ink and repeated in pulp, can outlive truth by centuries.

Protocol Title & Themes:

1. The Basic Doctrine: “Right Lies in Might”: Freedom and Liberty, Authority and Power, Gold Equals Money.

2.Economic War and Disorganization Lead to International Government: International Political-Economic Conspiracy, Press/Media as Tools

3.Methods of Conquest: Arrogant and Corrupt Jewish People, Chosenness/Election, Public Service

4.The Destruction of Religion by Materialism: Business as Cold and Heartless, Gentiles as Slaves

5.Despotism and Modern Progress: Jewish Ethics, Jewish People’s Relationship to Society

6. The Acquisition of Land, The Encouragement of Speculation: Ownership of Land

7.A Prophecy of Worldwide War: Internal Unrest and Discord, Undermining the Court System, Conflict vs. Peace (Shalom)

8.The Transitional Government: Criminal Element

9. The All-Embracing Propaganda: Law and Education, Freemasonry

10.Abolition of the Constitution; Rise of the Autocracy: Politics and Majority Rule, Liberalism, Family Structure

11.The Constitution of Autocracy and Universal Rule: Gentiles, Jewish Political Involvement, Freemasonry

12.The Kingdom of the Press and Control: Liberty, Press Censorship, Publishing

13.Turning Public Thought from Essentials to Non-Essentials: Gentiles, Business, Chosenness/Election, Press and Censorship, Liberalism

14. The Destruction of Religion as a Prelude to the Rise of the Jewish God: Judaism and God, Gentiles, Liberty, Pornography

15.Utilization of Masonry: Heartless Suppression of Enemies: Gentiles, Freemasonry, Sages of Israel, Political Power and Authority, King of Israel

16.The Nullification of Education: Education

17. The Fate of Lawyers and the Clergy: Lawyers, Clergy, Christianity and Non-Jewish Authorship

18.The Organization of Disorder: Evil, Speech Control

19.Mutual Understanding Between Ruler and People: Gossip, Martyrdom

20.The Financial Program and Construction: Taxes and Taxation, Loans and Bonds, Usury, Moneylending

21.Domestic Loans and Government Credit: Stock Markets, Stock Exchanges

22.The Beneficence of Jewish Rule: Gold Equals Money, Chosenness/Election

23.The Inculcation of Obedience: Obedience to Authority, Slavery, Chosenness/Election

24.The Jewish Ruler: Kingship, Document as Fiction What makes “The Protocols” such an undying cockroach in the sewer of conspiracy theories?

Its brilliance—if one dares use that word for evil—lies not in clarity, but in calculated vagueness. No names, dates or place. Just shadows in the fog. It’s a literary Rorschach test for the paranoid: anyone, anywhere, can read their own fears into its inkblot of accusations.

As it wears the mask of Jewish authorship, it pretends to be a secret confession. A forged “leak,” it weaponizes falsehood with the credibility of a whistleblower. Like a snake that sheds its skin yet stays venomous, the Protocols morph to fit every ideological weather. Jews, it claims, orchestrate both capitalism and communism, liberalism and fascism, philo-Semitism and antisemitism.

“The logic is gymnastic: when Jews win, it’s a conspiracy; when they lose, it’s also a conspiracy.”

This shape-shifting slander thrives in any climate: from the bazaars of Tehran to the backrooms of European salons, from Right to Left, pauper to president, devout Christian to militant Islamist. It has something for everyone—except the truth.

At its heart, the Protocols amplify old antisemitic words: the Jews are always plotting; the Jews are everywhere; they control the banks, the press, the schools, the revolutions, and probably your coffee machine too. And behind it all? A mythical cabal—the “Elders”—who, like Bond villains in yarmulkes, scheme to conquer the planet.

Italian intellectual Umberto Eco dissected this myth-machine with surgical irony in “Foucault’s Pendulum” (1988). He noted how the Protocols infected global discourse not because they were convincing—but because they were contagious. “Self-generating,” he called them—an ideological virus leaping from host to host, mutating from antisemitic screed to conspiracy blueprint.

In “Six Walks in the Fictional Woods” (1994), he returns to the text as a grotesque model of how fiction dresses up as fact. And in “The Cemetery of Prague” (2010), Eco paints its creators as cynical forgers who knew they were lying—but also knew that the lie would outlive them.

Now, let’s lift the mask of authorship.

The Protocols were no revelation—they were a remix. One of the most notorious plagiarisms in modern history.

Their DNA traces back to two 19th-century works: Maurice Joly’s Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu (1864), a biting satire of Napoleon III’s authoritarianism, and Biarritz (1868), a novel by the German reactionary and part-time forger Hermann Goedsche, better known by his pen name “Sir John Retcliffe.”

Goedsche, a fired Prussian postal clerk turned fantasist, inserted a scene in Biarritz where a clandestine Jewish council plots global takeover—a work of fiction, yet later presented as “evidence.” Russian translators, always on the lookout for demons to justify pogroms, repurposed it into political gospel.

Joly’s Dialogue was the main vein tapped. His Machiavelli, standing in for Napoleon III, outlines a dictatorial plan—later copy-pasted and relabeled with a Star of David by the Protocols’ unknown editor.

In fact, around 160 passages were lifted directly. The irony? Joly, a liberal critic of tyranny, was imprisoned for this very book—and later fought for justice in the Paris Commune. He condemned despotism; the Protocols twisted his words to justify it.

Even Joly, it turns out, had borrowed—bits of his satire were inspired by Eugène Sue’s serialized social novels, Les Mystères du Peuple (1849–56).

Alas! Forgery upon forgery. A Russian nesting doll of deception.

A British journalist—Philip Graves finally smashed the illusion. In 1921, in a landmark expose in The Times (London), Graves meticulously compared the Protocols to Joly’s Dialogue—revealing the fraud in broad daylight. Side-by-side, the texts matched almost beat for beat. Protocols 1–19 mirrored Dialogues 1–17 (image for reference).

The house of lies collapsed—but its ashes, sadly, still blow across political landscapes even today.

1/7
“Beneath the Veil of Ashes: Pahalgam and the Price of Submission”

Yesterday, the valleys of Pahalgam bled again.
The chinar trees stood silent, watching the soil drink Hindu blood like it’s an annual ritual—like monsoon rain. No storm wailed. No news anchor cried. No politician offered poetry.

They died quietly.
As always.

And this morning, as if nothing happened, Bengaluru moved.
The traffic signals blinked in rhythm.
Zomato delivered.
Spotify played cheerful betrayal songs.
Excel sheets hummed the lullaby of deadlines.

In my office, a designer debated façade materials.
A client wanted a Vastu correction.
And someone in the pantry whispered, “Terrorism has no religion.”
Ah yes.
The world’s most repeated lie.

But tell me—

If terror has no religion, why does its battle cry always sound the same?
Why do we keep hearing Allahu Akbar as the prelude to carnage?
Not Om Namah Shivaya. Not Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa.
Always the same, like a cursed drumbeat.

As I sat there—pen in hand, sketching urban dreams— my inbox buzzed with two publishers asking for edits.
Both books untouched.
Because how does one write about art and aesthetics, when blood is still wet in the valley?

The images from Pahalgam screamed inside me.
Not just the blood.
But the silence of the ‘seculars’.
Their throats open only when a stone pelter is slapped back.
But not when Hindus are butchered on pilgrimage.
Not when a baby is orphaned by bullets.
Not when the land of Rishi Kashyap is soaked again.

Tell me—how many more do we need to sacrifice before it becomes “religious enough”?

Faith or Fever?

We’re told to believe this is a religion like any other.
Like Buddhism, that kneels before silence.
Like Jainism, that apologizes for stepping on ants.
Like Sikhism, born from martyrdom, forged in resistance.

But Islam?
It came not with petals, but with swords.
Its Prophet wasn’t a renunciate. He was a warrior.
Its history isn’t stained by conquest.
It is conquest.

From Qasim to Ghazni, from Ghori to Aurangzeb—
Islam’s trail through India is a bloody ledger.

80 million perished in Bharat. (1000-1500 CE) .
Not by accident.
By design.

Temples desecrated, not by vandals but by virtue.
Hindu women paraded in chains—not in lust, but in ideology.
Children slaughtered—not for war, but for heaven.

When Shah Waliullah invited Abdali, it wasn’t treason.
It was theology.

When the Timurids imposed Jizya, it wasn’t extortion.
It was divine instruction.

When Khilafat fanatics butchered Hindus in Moplah, it wasn’t chaos.
It was a “religious duty.”

And yet—we call it a religion.
A protected class.
Immune to criticism.
Above reform.
Beyond reason.

Pakistan: The Bastard Caliphate

In 1947, we gave Islam its own fortress.
A fortress born not of freedom, but of fear.
Pakistan was not created for “Muslims.”
It was created for Islam—in its purest, most political, most supremacist form.

We were told: “Separate, and there will be peace.”
But what did we get?

Dead trains. Burned temples. Broken Bharat.

And even then, the disease wasn’t satisfied.
They stayed back.
They multiplied.
And today, they scream: Ghazwa-e-Hind!
Right here—in Kerala. In Hyderabad. In Shaheen Bagh.
They don’t want harmony.
They want Hind.

Because the idea of Dar-ul-Harb becoming Dar-ul-Islam is not fringe.
It is faith.

They did it in Persia. In Egypt. In Afghanistan.
From Hindu to Zoroastrian to Christian—every culture that bowed is gone.
India is the last domino.

And the sick irony?
We fund them.
We protect them.
We give them scholarships.
And they give us beheading threats.

The Great Cowardice: Why We Let Them Win

We let them spit on our Shivlings in the name of wazoo.
We let them rewrite textbooks, call invaders “reformers.”
We let them call Ganesh “an alien” but cannot quote the Quran aloud.

Why?
Because we fear the label: Islamophobe.

But let’s be honest.
It’s not phobia.
It’s fatigue.
It’s rage.
It’s the scream of a civilization that has tolerated too much. 2/7 “History Written in Blood, Silence Etched in Stone”

They told us partition was a “tragedy of two brothers.”
But no one told us only one brother lost his limbs, his temples, his daughters.

The other?
He got a new house—Pakistan.
A mansion built not with bricks, but with body counts.
A dream, they said, for Muslims.
A homeland for Islam.

And yet, they stayed back—millions of them.
In Bharat.
In the land they had just cut into two with a knife of theology.

We, the Hindus—naïve, noble fools—offered them not just shelter, but rights, votes, scholarships, seats, subsidies, and silence.
We became the only civilization in history to reward our butcher with pensions.

Meanwhile, in the land of the pure,
the last Hindu vanished like incense smoke in a storm.
Temples became toilets, ruins, or rubble.
And the few who remained?
Second-class dhimmis, breathing under a boot called Sharia.

Still, our leaders told us:
“Islam is a religion of peace.”

They must mean the peace of the grave.

They told us:
“All religions are equal.”

Is that why only one demands blasphemy laws?

Is that why only one has entire countries named after its faith?
Pakistan. Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia.
But a Hindu who dreams of a Ram Rajya in Ayodhya?
He’s branded a fascist.

They told us:
“Sufis are the softer side of Islam.”

Then why did so many Sufis bless the swords of the Sultans?
Why did they walk behind invaders, not ahead of reformers?

We ask for truth.
They give us taqiyya.

We ask for reform.
They say Islam is perfect.

We ask for peace.
They reply:
“There is no peace until Islam reigns supreme.”

And in this theater of absurdity, enter the seculars— wearing khadi, sipping wine, quoting Ghalib.

They write columns about “Hindu terror” after a single blast, but go blind when 271 Hindus are slaughtered in a single night in Kashmir.
They burn candles for Gaza.
They hold protests for Paris.
But when Amarnath pilgrims are butchered,
they say, “Let’s not communalize.”

COMMUNALIZE?
What else is this if not a holy war?

When Ayodhya bled, they blamed the kar sevaks.
When Godhra burned, they blamed the train.

But when temples fall—centuries old, desecrated, erased—
they say, “Let’s move on.”

Move on from what?
From our own extinction?

From being the only people on earth who forgive before the apology?

Even today, the Quran remains untouched.
The Hadith unchallenged.
The death verses unmarred.

But the Hindu is asked to water down the Gita.
The Sikh is told to be “less aggressive.”
The Christian must apologize for Crusades.
The Jew must justify Israel.

Only one faith has the privilege of never saying sorry.

Why?

Because it doesn’t consider anything it did as wrong.

Genocide? Rape? Slavery?
All recorded in Hadith and hailed as holy precedent.

While we—the oldest civilization on Earth— apologise for being alive.

And when we do dare to speak—
they shout:
“Islamophobia!”

No.

This isn’t fear of Islam.
It’s a recognition of what it has done.

It’s not prejudice.
It’s memory.

Etched in temple stones broken by Babur’s artillery.
Cried in the voices of Rajput women burning in Jauhar flames.
Carved into the backs of Sikh Gurus with red-hot nails.

You want proof?

Ask the bones of Nalanda,
the ashes of Somnath,
the silence of Martand Sun Temple.

Ask the daughters of Kashmir,
sold like cattle, wrapped in Islamic jurisprudence.

Ask the 80 million who perished (1000-1500 CE),
not because they invaded,
but because they refused to say, “La ilaha illallah.”

So the final question still stands—louder now, heavier:

Is this a religion?
Or is this a battlefield dressed as a belief system?

Is it faith?
Or is it a blueprint for conquest?

And if so, how long will Bharat kneel before it?

How long will we sing songs of unity,
while one side chants Sar tan se juda?

How long will we build bridges
while the other builds bombs?

This isn’t a plea.
This is a reckoning.

Mentions of hospitals in ancient, early medieval and medieval Bharat:

Let’s begin with Sushruta & Charaka Samhita which can be dated ages before supposed birth of Christ.

A) Surgical Hospitals:

Suśrutasaṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 19.3-4

“One suffering from wounds should be first taken to the surgical ward, and that ward should be built according to the rules of the architectural science. In a ward built thuswise, which is auspicious, clean and protected from the sun and the wind one is free from diseases—psychic or somatic or diseases caused by external factors”.
(…)
“The physician desiring to perform any of the surgical measures should keep in readiness beforehand the following appurtenances viz., appliances, instruments, caustic alkalies, fire, probes, horns, leeches, sucking gourd, Jambavaushtha, swabs, suturing thread, leaves, bandages, honey, ghee, fat, milk, oil, soothing lotions, ointment, paste, fan, cold and hot water, basin etc., and attendants who are affectionate, steadfast and strong”.

Carakasaṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 15.6:

“Here, therefore, we shall instruct in brief concerning several accessories. It is thus. The expert architect should first design a good house which is strong and is warding off the wind except on one side, affording comfortable moving space, not surrounded by high places, not penetrable to smoke, heat, moisture, dust and to undesirable noise, contact, taste, sights and odour and is furnished with a water-storage room, pharmacy room, latrine, bath room and kitchen”.

Carakasaṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 15.7:

“Those who are well-versed in singing, playing of musical instruments, panegyrics, verses, stories, legends, modern history, mythology, who are quick in understanding, who are of approved character who are versed in the knowledge of clime and season and who are good members of society”.

Carakasaṃhitā Cikitsāsthāna 3.261:

“The fever-patient afflicted with a sensation of burning should lie down at ease in a specially constructed water-cooled chamber or an apartment cooled by frequent spraying of ice-cold water or cold sandal-water”.

Carakasaṃhitā Cikitsāsthāna 4.103:

“Apartments with arrangement for shower bath, cold underground chambers, resort to pleasant woods cooled by moist breezes, the application of vessels inlaid with azure, pearls and precious stones made cool by putting cold water in them”.

Carakasaṃhitā Cikitsāsthāna 24.135:

“By the warmth of the bed and the cover and the warmth of happiness and cheer of the interior apartments, alcoholism of the Vata-type gets subdued effectively”.

Carakasaṃhitā Cikitsāsthāna
24.158-159:

“The rumblings of thunder alleviate the effects of intoxication Various devices of showering water and blowing breezes, and rooms equipped with cascades, should be devised by the physician for the cure of burning due to alcoholism (The body should be painted) with perfumed cherry, cuscus grass, lodh, fragrant sticky mallow, fragrant poon, cinnamon leaves and nut-grass”.

B) Military Hospitals

Suśrutasaṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 34.12-14:

“In a big encampment just after the tent of the king, the physician should be kept present, fully equipped.
The persons afflicted with poison, darts and disease approach him there without making a mistake—him who stays there being singled out by his flag, fame and name.
The physician who is an adept in his own art and is conversant with other sciences, being honored by the king and experts, looks prominent like a flag.” C) Mental Hospitals

Carakasaṃhitā Cikitsāsthāna 9.83:

“Thus he may also be terrorised by means of snakes whose fangs have been removed, or by trained lions and elephants or by men dressed as bandits or foe-men with weapons in their hands”.

Carakasaṃhitā Cikitsāsthāna 9.81:

“Or having scourged him with light whips, he may be left well secured with ropes in solitary confinement. From such drastic measures, the disorientated mind of the man is restored to normality”

Carakasaṃhitā Cikitsāsthāna 9.30:

“If the patient continues to behave in an irresponsible manner then he should be made soft by soft but strong bandages and put in a dark room free from metallic and wooden articles (lest he should harm himself with these).

D) Obstetric Hospitals

Carakasaṃhitā Śārīrasthāna 8.33:

“Before the commencement of the ninth month, the physician should get erected a lying-in room on a site free from bones, sands and broken bits of earthen vessels, in a soil which is excellent with regard to color, taste and savour, facing east or north, with the wood of bael, false mangosteen, putramjiva, marking nut, three leaved caper and catechu or with any other wood which the brahmans who are knowers of the Atharvaveda recommend. This should be well-built, well-plastered and well-furnished with doors and windows and in accordance with the principles of architecture, there should be arrangements for a fire-place, water-storage, pounding, lavatory, bath-room and kitchen, and it should be comfortable in that particular season”.

Carakasaṃhitā Śārīrasthāna 8.34:

“The following articles should be kept there ready to hand—ghee, honey, rock-salt, sanchal black and bid salts, embelia, costus, deodar, ginger, long pepper, the roots of long pepper, the elephant pepper, Indian penny wort, cardamoms, glory lily, sweet flag, piper chaba, white-flowered lead-wort, asafetida [asafoetida], rape seed, garlic, clearing nut, kana, kanika, cadamba, linseed, balvaja, birch, black gram and maireya and sura wines. Similarly, two grinding stones, two heavy pestles, two wooden mortars, an untamed bull two gold or silver cases for keeping sharp needles, sharp metallic instruments, two bed-steads made of bael wood and faggots of false mangosteens and zachum oil plants, for kindling fire. The female attendants should be numerous, being mothers of many children, sympathetic, constantly affectionate, of agreeable behaviour, resourceful, naturally kind-hearted, cheerful and tolerant of hardships. There should also be present Brahmanas who are knowers of the Atharvaveda. Whatever else is thought to be necessary should be kept, also whatever else the Brahmanas and old dames advise, should be carried out”.

Bhāvaprakāśa 2:

“The labour ward must be eight cubits long and four cubits broad and attractively built, with the entrance facing the east or the north. The patient should be attended by four women who are trustworthy, expert in obstetrics, well disposed, aged and who have clipped their finger-nails close”.

Carakasaṃhitā Śārīrasthāna 8.51:

“We shall now describe the procedure with regard to the construction of the nursery. A skilful architect should build and furnish the nursery. It should be excellent, beautiful, well-lighted, sheltered from draught, admitting of air from only one direction, strong, free from such pests as marauding beasts, animals, fanged creatures, mice and moths, well-planned as regards the places of water-storage, grinding, lavatory, bath and cooking, comfortable during all seasons, and provided with beds, seats and spreads suited to each season. Moreover the rites connected with protecting the house from the influence of evil spirits as also those with propitiatory, auspicious, sacrificial and penitential offerings should be performed and the house should be filled with clean and experienced physicians and with those attached to the family. Thus has been described the procedure with regard to the construction of the nursery”.

Let’s be more precise. Durga Puja(o) is all about Hinduism.

She was created by Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh for slaying an Adharmik Mahishasur.

Each weapon she holds was given by Devatas.

“Puja (o)” itself is Hindu way only. It happens in case for Durga by doing Pran-Pratishtha & envoking Devi.

And it’s not just about Bengalis.

Durga Puja is done with complete dedication across Bharat. Our Shaktipeethas which form the Map of Bharat are one of the biggest signifier of our civilisation. That too it has connection with last hymn of Rigveda.

But again it’s too much too expect from you to understand these deep notions @rons1212

https://twitter.com/rons1212/status/1712971712542003595

One of the earliest archaeological evidence of Durga Pujo comes as inscription in Dadhimati Mata Mandir which is located between the villages of Goth and Manglod in the Jayal tehsil of Nagaur district in Rajasthan, India.

The inscription read figments of Devi Mahamatya dated to 608 CE.

Someone please tell @rons1212 that “Devi Mahamatya”. This is the central text which is recited even in Bengal during Durga Puja (o).

A thread on some voices of Muslim leadership in pre-independent Bharat (Source: Pakistan or Partition of India, Dr BR Ambedkar)

1) Dr Saifuddin Kitchlew’s warning go Hindus in 1925:

“Listen, my dear Hindu brothers,
listen very attentively ! If you put obstacles in the path of our Tanzim movement, and do not give us our rights, we shall make common cause with Afghanistan or some other Musalman power and establish our rule in this country.”

He was the founding Member of Jamia Milia Islamia, and would be actively involved in Indian politics post independence too.
2) Maulana Azad Sobhani said in 1939:

“Our big fight is with the 22 crores of our Hindu enemies, who constitute the majority. Only 4½ crores of Englishmen have practically swallowed the whole
world by becoming powerful. And if these 22 crores of Hindus who are equally advanced in learning, intelligence and wealth as in numbers, if they become powerful, then these Hindus will swallow Muslim India and gradually even Egypt, Turkey, Kabul, Mecca, Medina and other Muslim principalities, like Yajuj-Majuj (it is so mentioned in Koran that before the destruction of the world, they will appear on the earth and will devour whatever they will find).”

“The English are gradually becoming weak....... they will go away from India in the near future. So if we do not fight the greatest enemies of Islam, the Hindus, from now on and make
them weak, then they will not only establish Ramrajya in India but also gradually spread all over the world. It depends on the 9 crores of Indian Muslims either to strengthen or to weaken them (the Hindus). So it is the essential duty of every devout Muslim
to fight on by joining the Muslim League so that the Hindus may
not be established here and a Muslim rule may be established in India as soon as the English depart.”

“Though the English are the enemies of the Muslims, yet for the present our fight is not with the English. At first we have to come to some understanding with the Hindus through the Muslim
League. Then we shall be easily able to drive out the Engilsh and establish Muslim rule in India.”

“Be careful! Don’t fall into the trap of Congress Maulvis; because the Muslim world is never safe in the hands of 22 crores of Hindu enemies.”

#SadarPranam to Ishvara within you @quizzicalguy ji.

Yet again, in your over excited state to demean “Bharat” you have critiqued #G20Bharat2023 booklet with so many non-factual points.

In this thread I point them out and you may respond should you have enough substance.

1) Manimugdha ji, you say, ‘This document opens with PM Modi’s statement in which he says that the country has “the distinction of being named as ‘Mother of Democracy’”. Who named it so? The current regime. Nobody else calls India the “mother of democracy”. If at all there is one, then it is ancient Greece.’

Truth—

It was in 1930 that the great American Historian, Will Durant writes as below in “The Case For India” (1930):

“India was the motherland of our race, and Sanskrit the mother of Europe's languages: she was the mother of our philosophy; mother, through the Arabs, of much of our mathematics; mother, through the Buddha, of the ideals embodied in Christianity; mother, through the village community, of self-government and #democracy. Mother India is in many ways the mother of us all.” (Refer page-4).

So irrespective of historical substance behind the claim it was spoken around 9 decades ago by a non-Indian of way larger scholarly stratus than you and me.

Which means your claim is wrong that no one said so in earlier times.

Then you call Ancient Greece to be “mother of Democracy” but refuge to see Bharat as one even though the historical analysis shows that you are wrong. Read on 👇🏾

—————————————————-

As per popular narrative, Greek (more precisely, Athenian Democracy) was the first form of direct democracy.

The latest available records say that it came under Cleisthenes around 2.528 kya (thousand years ago) in Athens.

People refer to him as “the father of Athenian democracy.”

Let’s look at it. Btw have you ever read Aristotle, @quizzicalguy ?

If I refer to Aristotle’s book VI, it is found that the Athenian Democracy had the feature to randomly select ordinary citizens to fill the few existing government administrative and judicial offices. The legislative assembly consisting of all Athenian citizens too existed. We are also told that all the eligible citizens were allowed to speak and vote in the assembly that had the role to set laws of the city-state.

But there lies a problem. Let’s see it.

You know @quizzicalguy , It is important to clarify exactly who were the “Athenian citizens”?

The citizenship didn’t include women, slaves, foreigners, and youths below the age of military service. While all the brackets are perfect but their leaving away women and slaves gives an absolute notion of how the “democracy” of Athens insured non-democratic nature of itself.

Athenian men believed that women were less intelligent than men and therefore, similar to barbarians and slaves of the time. They were seen incapable of effectively participating and contributing to public discourse on political issues and affairs.

Perhaps that was the reason that when Greeks came in contact with Indians they were surprised to see the non-discriminatory form of democracy in and around the period of Alexander.

Arrian writes in Indika about India in the period of Alexander that:

“The Indians do not even use aliens as slaves, much less a countryman of their own.”

Diodorus who is said to have visited India, around two centuries after Alexander talks that a high-level democracy of Indians existed which was peculiar to the Greeks. He too saw the difference of non-existent slavery.
And of course, women had a very respectable position in society in that period and earlier. The literature proves this case quite aptly.

The 37th sarg of Ayodhya Kand (Ramayan), tells us that Sita was asked to sit on the throne by Vashistha in absence of Shri Ram. Even if one wants to reject this as mythology (although it is considered as Itihasa for Bhartiya Civilisation), the case is clear that for all practical purposes women saw a respectable position in the society.

https://twitter.com/quizzicalguy/status/1702388451621085604

In the same period when Athenian Democracy saw females as barbarians, Queen Mṛgāvatī of the Vatsa Mahajanapada ( oligarchic republics) ruled as proxy while her son Udayana was held captive by a rival king. And she was very well respected in society.

While there were sanctions against the participation of women in the Athenian Democracy & deprivation of rights, Āpastamba Sutra (probably conceived in the same period) in Bharat says the following for females:

“A man is not allowed to abandon his wife (A 1.28.19).”

“He permits daughters to inherit (A 2.14.4).”

“There can be no division of property between a husband and a wife because they are linked inextricably together and have joint custody of the property (A 2.29.3).”

“Thus, a wife may make gifts and use the family wealth on her own when her husband is away (A 2.12.16–20).”

“Women are upholders of traditional lore, and Āpastamba tells his audience that they should learn some customs from women (A 2.15.9; 2.29.11).”

It becomes clear from the above argument that not only democracy (Diodorus 2.39) existed in India in the period of the Athenian Democracy, but women had a very respectable position (unlike Athens where they were not considered even Athenian) and slavery remained an alien concept.

Now before dwelling deep into the Indic idea of democracy, let us first see what the latest researches have to say about proto-democracies.

Proto-Democracies
————————
We have pieces of evidence of “governing by assembly” in ancient Phoenicians. One such piece of evidence is the story of an Egyptian trader who travelled north to the Phoenician around 3.1 kya. The trader had got stuck in some problem and the king had got matter settled by hearing in an assembly.

According to Thorkild Jacobsen, a form of “Primitive Democracy” existed in pre-Babylonian Mesopotamia.

But many scholars have denied recognising it as democracy. They see the case of Mesopotamia as a struggle where common men appear more like pawns than sovereign authority.

One such scholar is Bailkey who says that the period of Gilgamesh etc, reflects a power struggle between primitive monarchy and noblemen.

Then we find the important case of Sparta. It rose around 2.7 kya which showed the trait of the oligarchy but still, slavery existed and slaves were not part of democracy. Unlike Athens, women enjoyed a respectable position in society and one can say that this was the only place in the west around that era that had no discriminatory acts against females. We also have the case of Rome. A form of democracy existed here too around 2.52 kya. But again citizenship and hence legislative rights were only limited to the free Romans. Slaves were considered as a commodity and after being free, the rights did not come to them.

Let’s see further to see the case of India as the first land to see “democracy”

“THOU, mighty Agni, gatherest up all that is precious for thy friend.
Bring us all treasures as thou art enkindled in libation's place
Assemble, speak together: let your minds be all of one accord,
As ancient Gods unanimous sit down to their appointed share.
The place is common, common the assembly, common the mind, so be their thought united.
A common purpose do I lay before you, and worship with your general oblation.
One and the same bt your resolve, and be your minds of one accord.
United be the thoughts of all that all may happily agree.”

—Rig Veda (10.191.1-4)

It was sung at beginning of the Republican Assembly in ancient India).

This is also the evidence for accepting vaidik traditions & accepting non-Vaidik gods in the pantheon. It was now like an agreement of accepting Vaidik traditions pan India as common thread or the bond of civilisational glue.

#SadarPranam to Ishvara within you @Udhaystalin !

It is indeed a lack of understanding, influence of non-educated that you go overboard to call Sanstan Dharm as “Malaria”.

In this thread I show how Sanatan Dharm is root of Tamil identity, and likes of EVR were actually anti-Dalit, anti-women.

Prove me wrong should you have enough substance.

To begin with let’s talk of you, as in the “Stalin” clan. Where do you get this name from?

Your father was named after “Joseph Stalin” because he was born just four days after former died in 1953.

What an irony? Do you know why I say so? Because you are a proud Christian by your own assertion, but truth remains Jose h Stalin was one of the biggest persecutor of Christians.

Let’s look at a few details. Stalin led the state which had “State Atheism” as policy. How can we forget the emergence of “Militant Atheism” which targeted the Churches and converted them to Museums. According to Stalin’s policy one couldn’t support church or say a word against Atheism.

Dear Mr Stalin, isn’t it interesting that you are a proud Christian who has a name coming from his father named after one of the greatest persecutor of Christians.

As one of the many examples I attack image (image-1) of Demolition of the “Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow” on the orders of Joseph Stalin, December 5, 1931.

Joseph Stalin had begun to held office in November of 1917. Remember it’s same year and month when the Russian Civil War had begun and continued till 1923. The civil war led to killing of 322 bishops & priests. Analytical scholars though state that the estimate of 332 clergy and monastics killed by 1921 may have been an underestimate, due to the fact that 579 monasteries/convents had been liquidated during this period and there were widespread mass executions of monks/nuns during these liquidations.

Source: 1)“Lenin: A Revolutionary Life” by Christopher Read

2) A History of Soviet Atheism in Theory, and Practice, and the Believer, vol 2: Soviet Antireligious Campaigns and Persecutions” by Dimitry V. Pospielovsky, page 15

Let’s hear more about Christian Persecution in age of Stalin.

When the terror of Red Army was high, you in know @Udhaystalin what church in Russia said? It said as below:

“It is better to shed one's blood and to be awarded martyr's crown than to let the enemies desecrate Orthodox faith.”

Source:, “Freedom of Conscience in the USSR” by A Barmenkov

And our dear Udhay, holds a name Stalin against whom churches urged to shed blood. And the churches were continually being destroyed.

What gets very interesting is; for this purpose atheistic work was centrally consolidated underneath the Agitation and Propaganda Department of the CP Central Committee (Agitprop) in 1920 using the guidelines of article 13 of the Russian Communist Party (RCP) adopted by the 8th party congress.

Article 13 read as below:

“As far as religion is concerned, the RCP will not be satisfied by the decreed separation of Church and State... The Party aims at the complete destruction of links between the exploiting classes and... religious propaganda, while assisting the actual liberation of the working masses from religious prejudices and organizing the broadest possible education-enlightening and anti-religious propaganda. At the same time it is necessary carefully to avoid any insult to the believers' feelings, which would lead to the hardening of religious fanaticism.”

Source: A History of Soviet Atheism in Theory, and Practice, and the Believer, vol 2: Soviet Antireligious Campaigns and Persecutions” by Dimitry V. Pospielovsky, page 28

In this case Christianity was specifically the target. Joseph Stalin wanted to erase “Christianity” while “Udhay Stalin” wants to destroy Sanatan Dharm and be a proud Christian. What an irony?

But was this all? Read on!

https://twitter.com/udhaystalin/status/1698012167994589221

When the leaders of church demanded “freedom of religion” under the constitution, the Bolsheviks didn’t shy off to act. They executed 28 bishops and 6,775 priests.

Source:

Between 1917–1935, 130,000 Russian Orthodox priests were arrested; our of which 95,000 were put to death through execution by the firing squad.

Source: “Church Schism & Corruption” by Lulu. com

By 1930s Joseph Stalin was already very powerful & that’s when churches began to suffer the most. Many of the Orthodox Church members were killed or sent to labor camps. Amid 1927—1940, the number of Orthodox churches in the Russian Republic reduced from 29,584 to a bit lesser than 500.

In year 1929, Soviet brought a new legislation in place which had provisions for the harsh anti-religious persecution which would become prominent in 1930s.

With intent to weaken church further the USSR government conducted a massive purge of Christian intellectuals. Most of them ended up dying in either camps or in prison.

Stalin’s USSR ensured that many religious tracts would be circulated as illegal literature or samizdat.

Stalin took numerous other measures with intent to weaken the church. He would effectively made illegal to have religious activities of any sort outside of liturgical services within the walls of the few churches that would remain open. But even they weren’t alien from any harassment.

Source: Father Arseny 1893-1973 Priest, Prisoner, Spiritual Father. Introduction page. vi - 1

Let’s see ahead @Udhaystalin , what Joseph Stalin did to Christianity which you are so proud of (in show off at least).

The League of the Militant Godless (LMG), which worked under Yemelyan Yaroslavsky, was the main instrument of the anti-religious (read Christian) campaign.

Post 1929 and through the 1930s, there was sudden significant rise in the closing of churches, mass arrests of the clergy and persecution of people for attending church.

Source: A History of Soviet Atheism in Theory, and Practice, and the Believer, vol 2: Soviet Antireligious Campaigns and Persecutions” by Dimitry V. Pospielovsky, page 41

The LMG deployed various terror tactics against Christians in the guise of protecting the state or prosecuting law-breakers. Stalin got the clergies declared as foreign spies. He initiated the trials of bishops in which their clergy & the lay adherents too were dragged in who were reported as “subversive terroristic gangs”.

Source: A History of Soviet Atheism in Theory, and Practice, and the Believer, vol 2: Soviet Antireligious Campaigns and Persecutions” by Dimitry V. Pospielovsky, page 66

The official propaganda under Stalin was completely anti-Christian and seemed it’s complete banishment. Stalin’s persecutions of clergies, bishops had clear intent to assist the goal of eliminating religion.

Between 1932 to 1937, Joseph Stalin had a “five-year plans of atheism” wherein the LMG was entirely responsible for eliminating all religious expression in the country especially Christianity.

Sources: 1)

2) Letters of Metropolitan Sergii of Vilnius

Came the 1934 and the persecution of the Renovationist sect (once had support of Stalin) began to become as normal as the persecution of the old Orthodox Church.

Source: Levitin-Krasnov, Likhie gody (Paris: YMCA Press, 1977) page 256

Is it @Udhaystalin not perturbed that on whom he is named did worse during the purges of 1937 and 1938. According to the church records around 168,300 Russian Orthodox clergy were arrested & 106,300 among them were shot.

Hope Stalin duo of father and so have heard of “new martyrs and confessors of Russia”.

Source: (2002). “A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia” by Alexander N. Yakovlev , page 165.web.archive.org/web/2012031318…

#SadarPranam to Ishvara within you @MujtabaAasif .

Well it is open challenge to you to prove that Hindus destroyed #Buddhist Stupas with primary sources.

But before you do so, and repeat same mistake as any other Hindu hater, read this instance of exchanges between SR Goel (SRG) and Prof Romila Thapar (RT) where he explains as below in response to likes of RT when they showed concern for the book “Hindu Temples: What happened to them , vol-1”—

“We have cited from eighty histories written by Muslims over a period of more than one thousand years.

We have also cited several Islamic inscriptions which confirm what the historians say. The citations show how Hindu temples continued to be destroyed over a vast area and for a long time. We have added no editorial comments and given no communal twist to the events that took place. All along, we have kept to the actual language used by the Muslim historians. We wonder if the professors will dismiss as a mere listing of dates the evidence we have presented. What we expect from the professors is that they will come forward with historical analysis and
interpretations so that the destruction of Hindu temples mentioned in the Muslim narratives gets explained in terms of economic or political or any other non-religious motives.

We stick to our position, namely, that it is the theology of Islam which offers the only straight-forward and satisfactory explanation of why Muslim conquerors and rulers did what they did to Hindu places of worship. We have provided full facts about that theology, as also about the history of how it took its final shape. It would be most welcome if the professors come out with their comments on the character and meaning of this theology. In fact, we look forward to a Marxist explanation of it.

What were the concrete material conditions and objective historical forces which gave rise to this theology in Arabia at that time?

Next, we refer to the second point which the professors had made in their letter to The Times of India. They had said that acts of intolerance have been committed by followers of all religions. A subsequent
sentence clarified what they meant; they had in mind the Buddhist and Jain monuments and animist shrines destroyed by Hindus. As we have said, we do not share their philosophy of separating the
Buddhists, the Jains and the Animists from the Hindus. But we agree to use their terms for the time being and request them to produce

1. A list of epigraphs which record the destruction of Buddhist and Jain monuments and Animist shrines by any Hindu, at any time;

2. Citations from Hindu literary sources describing destruction of Buddhist and Jain monuments and Animist shrines by any Hindu, at any time;

3. The Hindu theology which says or even suggests that non-Hindu places of worship should be destroyed or desecrated or plundered, or which hails such acts as pious or meritorious;

4. A list of Hindu kings or commanders whom Hindus have hailed as heroes for desecrating or destroying or converting into Hindu places of worship any Buddhist or Jain monuments or Animist shrines;

5. A list of Buddhist and Jain monuments and Animist shrines which have been desecrated or destroyed or converted into Hindu places of worship in the remote or the recent past;

6. The names and places of Hindu monuments which stand on the sites occupied earlier by Buddhist or Jain monuments or Animist shrines, or which have materials from the latter embedded in their masonry;

7. Names of Buddhist, Jain and Animist leaders or organizations who have claimed that such and such Hindu monuments are usurpations, and demanded their restoration to the original occupants;

8. Names of Hindu leaders and organizations who have resisted any demand made by Buddhists or Jains or Animists for restoration of the latters’ places of worship, or called for legislation which will maintain the
status quo, or cried Hinduism in danger, or staged street riots in support of their usurpations. Asking those questions, @MujtabaAasif , SRG further writes:

“We think that this sort of concrete evidence alone cane decide the question of the limits to the logic of
restoration of religious sites. There seems to be no other way. Sweeping generalizations based on slender or dubious evidence are no substitute for hard facts.

We hope that the professors will not resort to the hackneyed swear-words such as Hindu communalism, reactionary revivalism, and the rest. Swear-words offer no solutions.

In any case, the time when swear-words carried weight has passed. It is no use inviting the other side to hit back in a similar manner.”

Note @MujtabaAasif what he says:

“If the professors fail to come out with answers to questions posed by us, and to present the evidence in support of their statements, we shall be forced to conclude that far from being serious academicians, they are cynical politicians hawking ad hoc or plausible explanations in the service of a party line. In fact, we shall be justified in saying that they are not Marxists but Stalinists. Marxism is a serious system of thought which offers consistent explanations. Stalinism, on the other hand, is an exercise in suppressio veri suggestio falsi in pursuit of a particular end.

Hindu scholars, leaders and organizations have so far ignored the loud and large-scale talk in the mass media, academia, and political circles about Hindu intolerance towards the Buddhists and the Jains
and the Animists. Much damage has already been done to the image of Hinduism, and much more damage is likely to result if this talk is not challenged and stopped. How loose and irresponsible this talk can be is illustrated by the following instance.

I attended a seminar on the Mandal Commission Report held in the Gandhi Peace Foundation in October, 1990. One of the participants who spoke in support of the Report was Shri Hukam Dev Narain Singh Yadav, an MP of the Janata Dal at that time and a Minister in the Chandra Shekhar Government some time later.

Speaking of Brahminical tyranny, he referred to the time when rivers of the blood of Buddhist monks were made to flow in the Buddhist monasteries (jab bauddha vihãroñ mêñ bauddha bhikSuoñ kê rakta kî nadiyãñ bahãî gayî thîñ).

The following dialogue took place between myself and the speaker at
the end of the latter’s talk:

I: Could you kindly name the Buddhist monasteries where it happened, and also the time when it happened?

Speaker: I will not pretend that I know. I must have heard it from someone, or read it somewhere.

I: I give you six months for finding a single instance of Hindus murdering Buddhist monks. I am demanding only one instance, not two.

Speaker: I will try.

The speaker looked to me to be one of the finest men I had ever met. His voice had a ring of sincerity in whatever he said. His humility in presenting his point of view was more than exemplary. I expected him to remember my question and provide an answer. But two and a half years have passed and there is no word from the eminent politician occupying a high position in the public life of this country.

I know that the evidence demanded by me does not exist. It is a Big Lie being spread by Hindu-baiters. Hindus have never done what they are being
accused of. My only point in mentioning the incident is that even honest people can become victims of hostile propaganda which is not countered in good time.

Because #Mewat is in news for bad reasons, I thought some historical perspective should be discussed.

Here I chose perspective around the Meo agitations of 1932-33 in Alwar and Bharatpur.

Alwar, the North Eastern part of Rajasthan, & its surroundings regions were predominantly… https://t.co/bb0Ue95kPvtwitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Interestingly although the step of Maharaja was pro Meos, none except that of Alwar cooperated with the commission.

This non-cooperative temperament of Meos came because of the resolution passed by All India Alwar conference on December 3, 1932 which was held at Firozpur Jhirka… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

#SadarPranam to ishvara within you @Profdilipmandal & let’s tell you a true incidence.

October 1990, Gandhi Peace Foundation. A seminar on the Mandal Commission Report was held which SR Goel attended.

Hukam Dev Singh, then the MP of Janata Dal, as speaker spoke in favour of… https://t.co/gmSUTM6szNtwitter.com/i/web/status/1…

https://twitter.com/profdilipmandal/status/1684822905451163648

When the first edition of “Hindu Temples: What happened to them? Vol-2” came, SR Goel sent a copy of book with letter to Prof Romila Thapar on June 27, 1991, where the above mentioned questions were directed.

Prof Thapar replied and said:

“Your letter of 27 June was awaiting… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

On account of Battle of Khanwa, Babur invoked sentiment of Jihad against Kafirs very clearly & even spoke about his god battle as being same one to protect Kaba from demons.

Here is the account taken from Letter-of-victory (Fatḥ-nāma) written by Shaikh Zain (appended in… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… Infidel standards dominated some 200 towns in the territories of Islām; in them mosques and shrines fell into ruin; from them the wives and children of the Faithful were carried away captive. So greatly had his forces grown that, according to the Hindū calculation by which one… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

#SadarPranam to Ishvara within you @MichaelACT123. Seems you have no clue of history and method to study history.

For you, I’m pointing “India” through Al-Beruni’s sketch of world map which was drawn around 1100 YBP originally.

This “map reconstruction” is based on Al-Beruni’s… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… Here @MichaelACT123 are actual versions of Al-Beruni’s map showing India (Hind)

1) Image 1: Sketch map of the Distribution of Land and Sea, dated 1238 (oriented with South at the top), kept in British Library (MS.Or.8349, fol. 58a).

2)Image 2: Re-oriented with North at the top… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

1/n A thread on Kerala, ISIS & Tipu Sultan. Please read, & circulate as much as possible.

There is a reason why Kerala always had a connect with ISIS. Matter has a historic significance which largely is about fulfilment of Tipu’s dream. When I say dream, I mean it in all… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 2/n In the above tweet, we have already established that largely Tipu’s policies were highly motivated by works & mission of Shāh Walīullāh Dehlavi (Deoband School of thought follows him too which is followed by Taliban) who was firm advocate for Ibn Taymiyya, and one of the… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

A thread on a few words of #TipuSultan:

“It directed (all military detachments) that every being in the district, without distinction, should he honored with Islam, that the houses of such as fled to avoid that honor should be burned, that they should be traced to their lurking places, and that all means of truth and falsehood, fraud or force, should be employed to effect their universal conversion.”

— In a Circular sent to various army contingents by Tipu (found among the records from Palghat Fort, 1790)

I’m so proud of @HarshitShastry , my colleague who recently joined us as fresh architect.
His B.Arch thesis around Hampi & ended up winning CoA. National Awards for Excellence in Architectural Thesis & JK Best Architecture Student of the Year Award, 2022.
Pl follow him in mass. Many won’t get what is so exciting for me.

Being a student of architecture, I know how tough it is to put through “Hindu idea centric” B.Arch thesis. I had never imagined that such a thesis would end up winning best architecture thesis award.

1/n 🧵 It is a conscious & personal realisation, that the kernel of being nationalist goes back to the architecture of Sanatan Dharm.

Today, when most of the faith system recognise themselves first as follower of their religion, Hindus have way more nuanced idea to offer. 2/n Now one may say that if you set Nation above faith, you in a way submit to the faith systems of west & Middle East.

One may argue that it may lead to decay of idea to uphold the -ism of Hindus.

But as I stated in opening lines, we have much more nuanced case to offer.

The Khalistanis had defiled the Harimandir by worst possible ways.

When you talk of Khalistanis & their deeds who can be better to refer than their biggest nightmare KPS Gill.

This thread is based on 4th chapter of his book Punjab, the Knights of Falsehood.

RT & read. In the name of their faith, Khalistanis all possible evils. They murdered innocents. Tortured and raped many. Extortion & desecration of temples was their trend & Gill says the list of other crimes was way above all these.

Kali maa on the sword of Guru Hargobind Sahib (source on Alt text)

Khalistanis can try hardest but primary sources would only keep crying loud that Sikhi is just one form of Hindu Dharma. But is this all? In fact idol worship became prohibited only with the coming of Singh Sabha. The Murtis were removed from the Harimandir (what we call golden temple today) only in 1905.

Source: Historical Dictionary of Sikhism
by Louis E. Fenech & W. H. McLeod

According to Savarkar you can start integrating all by breaking six shackles & it needs him to point out Ambedkar how his community discriminates against those lower as deemed.

Savarkar worked on ground & Ratnagiri was a pilot project but Ambedkar never came to stand with him.

https://twitter.com/lokeshbag67/status/1638136596171223040

Ambedkar spent his time only abusing Hindu Shastras, setting wrong precedent by burning Manusmriti, while Savarkar could bring real change by his project of braking seven shackles & bringing all together.

Shastras aren’t only about caste. There are way more things.