I have never in my life seen an elite feeding street dogs. Not once. Yet somehow, the stray dog controversy has been twisted into an “elite” issue and dog feeders have been painted as hypocrites overnight. The reality is the opposite the people feeding these dogs are overwhelmingly poor or working class, not the latte-sipping set.

And the hypocrisy is laughable. The moment you point out it is poor people doing the feeding, they sneer, “Oh, you must be giving leftovers.” When you say it is fresh food, they switch to, “Why increase your liability in life?” If you explain you cannot take every dog home because of landlords, lack of space, or rules, they act as if anything less than “perfect help” is worthless. In their warped logic, if you can’t adopt every single dog and give it a villa with a lawn, you shouldn’t help at all.

This “all or nothing” mindset is just a convenient way to shame people doing something, while the critics themselves do nothing. They will never pick up a sack of rice to feed a hungry dog, never arrange a sterilisation drive, never step in when an injured indie is lying on the road. But they are experts in policing compassion from their armchairs, deciding which form of kindness is acceptable and which is not.

What they cannot stomach is that people with far fewer resources are out there on the streets showing compassion without asking for applause. That is the real threat to their fragile egos the fact that kindness is alive and well, just not in their gated colonies. The actual saviour complex you have, we do not. They demand “perfect help or no help,” yet their own contribution is zero. They frame the issue as an “elite” fad when it’s mostly the working class showing up with food, care, and time. That’s the mirror: the people doing the least are projecting their own apathy onto those doing the most. Pedigree dogs receive premium treatment, while indies, even those loved and adopted, face neglect and systemic prejudice. In urban centers, pedigree owners invest heavily in high-end veterinary care, designer food, grooming salons, and exclusive dog clubs. Meanwhile, indie dogs survive largely on scraps from street vendors, waste from households, or the small acts of care from working-class families. Elite men rarely engage with strays, they are indifferent at best, hostile at worst. Many gated-community residents actively discourage stray presence, sometimes resorting to cruelty when animals venture too close. Protests for stray dog welfare are not elite movements. The participation of a few celebrities does not redefine a grassroots issue into an elite cause, it merely offers visibility. By the same token, one cannot call the BJP secular because Rekha Gupta said “Diwali mein Ali,” Modi met Bohras, or Adani visited Ajmer Sharif, token gestures cannot erase structural agendas.

Capitalism fuels artificial scarcity, pushing street dogs toward extinction to inflate demand for foreign or high-maintenance breeds. The Supreme Court’s ban on adoption and reclaiming neutered strays treats indie lovers as threats, not for public safety, but for profit. Industries including big pharma, pet insurance, grooming services, and exotic-food suppliers benefit from this manufactured market, while even injured or disabled indie puppies are condemned simply for being “indie.” The real concern is not temperament, but economic value and market manipulation. Historical patterns show that commodification of animals often coincides with elite consumption habits, breeds are promoted as status symbols, while local, resilient dogs are marginalized.

Women, children, and delivery workers walking through areas with strays are vulnerable, not because of social status, but due to proximity and circumstance. For example, a schoolchild delivering newspapers in a congested neighborhood or a domestic worker walking pre-dawn to her employer’s house may encounter aggressive strays. The coincidental involvement of celebrities in welfare movements is no more determinative than this vulnerability. Privileged narratives often twist reality to justify cruelty toward the poor, claiming that low-income communities “neglect” animals. In truth, these communities integrate dogs into daily life, sharing food, providing shelter, and rescuing injured strays.

In rural India, owners may discipline cows or buffaloes harshly, yet these same communities often feed stray dogs, welcome them near homes, and protect them from harm. Street vendors leave leftover food outside stalls for dogs, and sanitation workers in urban slums carry scraps daily to feed strays despite long hours, low pay, and harsh conditions. Well-meaning critics may argue that there should not be a scenario of beggars feeding street dogs, but the reality is not about what should happen, it is about what actually happens. For many marginalized people, feeding a street dog is one of the few acts of care and control in their lives. Removing the dog does not eliminate a “problem,” it only takes away the little joy and companionship both the person and the animal derive. This is not romanticizing, it is documenting lived reality.

By contrast, many affluent city residents treat animals as accessories, purchasing designer pets while disregarding local strays. Animal welfare NGOs, often based in elite circles, rarely operate in these neighborhoods and do not address the daily realities faced by working-class and marginalized communities. The Indian working class and marginalized communities do not need moral lessons about animal care from the elite, and certainly not from hollow gau rakshaks. They coexist with animals as part of daily life, demonstrating empathy and responsibility through action rather than performative gestures.

Ms. Ganguly, I am not a communist I strongly oppose communism. However, this is not the moment for ideological disagreements. Calling for a crackdown on a public university that provides quality education at an affordable cost aligns dangerously with right-wing anti-intellectualism. If the BJP and TMC jointly target such institutions, the only beneficiaries will be private universities thriving under Modi’s crony capitalism.

Today, Education Minister Bratya Basu visited Jadavpur University, where students peacefully sought to submit a deputation demanding student union elections. In response, TMC-backed faculty and their allies resorted to brutal violence, assaulting students and even running them over with vehicles. In a shocking display of impunity, the Minister’s car struck a first-year English department student, leaving him critically injured.

This attack on students exercising their democratic rights is indefensible. The SFI’s demand was simple free and fair student elections yet it was met with state-sponsored violence. We unequivocally condemn this barbaric assault on academic freedom and student activism. I cannot attach pictures of blood stains here but the person of the English department who was attacked by TMC goons today is fighting for his life. His eyes have been affected. Bjp needs to be removed. But that doesn't mean that you become what you hate. TMC must understand this. To detest communism doesn't mean you make them scapegoat of state sponsored violence. When you call for justice moral character or bias shouldn't come.

Claim:
"Non-Islamic rulers never destroyed religious shrines; violence was committed by Muslims for theological reasons."

Response: (1/5)

Monarchs have historically destroyed religious shrines, but not necessarily for theological reasons but for power, rivalry, and political dominance. Hindu rulers like Pushyamitra Shunga, Krishnadevaraya, and Sasanka targeted Buddhist and Jain sites, just as Aurangzeb, Sikandar Lodi, and Muhammad bin Tughlaq attacked mosques and Hindu temples. The Vijayanagar Empire saw temple desecrations during conflicts, and even Hindu rulers like Harsha of Kashmir plundered temples for wealth. Religious intolerance was a norm in medieval monarchies, irrespective of faith. It's an exercise in futility to make modern standards of morality match mediaeval period rulers and their activities. Monarchs are neither good nor bad. 2/5

Pushyamitra Shunga, the founder of the Shunga dynasty, destroyed Buddhist stupas and monasteries. Buddhist shrines in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka were gradually assimilated or replaced by Hindu temples, often under Shaivite influence. Hindu rulers like Lalitaditya Muktapida and later Hindu-Shahi rulers of Kabul reportedly converted Buddhist sites into Hindu temples.

The Vijayanagar Empire was destroyed due to the Shaiva-Vaishnava conflict. Vaishnava influence emerged only after a king married a Telugu woman who was a devotee of Tirumalai. Invaders targeted and desecrated idols of Vishnu but left those of Shiva, his wife, and his son largely untouched. Though a great patron of Hindu temples, Krishnadevaraya also destroyed temples in hostile territories, particularly those patronized by rival kings. For instance, during his wars against the Gajapati rulers of Odisha, some temples were desecrated or repurposed. Several Vijayanagara kings are believed to have destroyed Jain temples, particularly in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, as part of Vaishnavite and Shaivite dominance over Jainism.

History is complex, and viewing it solely through a religious lens is unnecessary. Aurangzeb, often cited as an archetype of religious tyranny, was not the only ruler with complexities. If one were to compare a Hindu ruler with Aurangzeb using religion as a variable, the only legitimate comparison would be with Krishnadevaraya. If we argue that Aurangzeb cannot be compared to any Hindu monarch because Hinduism inherently fosters greater religious tolerance, Krishnadevaraya stands as an exception.

Kanchipuram transitioned from being a Buddhist center. Today, Karnataka is a major pilgrimage site for Jains, but Kanchipuram was once a predominantly Buddhist town until the Alvars in medieval times established the Varadaraja Swamy temple and later the Ekambareswarar temple, marking the rise of both Vaishnavism and Shaivism. After Pushyamitra (185–c. 149 BCE) killed Brihadratha, Buddhism faced a decline, and Hindus began asserting themselves. The entire South was a mix of Jainism and Buddhism until the emergence of Shankaracharya. The Alvars first changed Kanchipuram's character, and later, Tamil Brahmins made it a Shaivite center by constructing the Ekambareswarar temple to rival the Sri Vaishnavites' Varadaraja Swamy temple.

The Srirangam Ranganatha idol is believed to have been created by melting a Buddha idol from Nagapattinam, as recorded in Alvar hymns. The famous Vishnu shrine in Srirangam was established by repurposing a Buddhist vihara in Nagapattinam, and later, it received grants from Tipu Sultan.

Nalanda was demolished thrice. In the 5th century AD, Huna King Mihirakula destroyed Buddhist viharas. The second attack was by the Shaivite King of Bengal and Gauda, Sasanka, who also cut down the original Bodhi tree under which Buddha attained enlightenment.

Hindus have also destroyed Hindu temples. In one case, a Muslim ruler restored a Hindu temple, creating an awkward historical scenario. Likewise, there have been cases of Muslims destroying mosques. The Pallavas destroyed temples in Karnataka, and the Kalingas destroyed temples in Thiruvarur, Tamil Nadu. Tipu Sultan restored the Shringeri Sharada Mutt, which had been destroyed by the Marathas. During the Rathore rebellion of 1679, Rani Hadi, the widow of Jaswant Singh Rathore, wrote to Aurangzeb offering to demolish temples herself if he would bestow the tika (formal recognition of a ruler) on her, but he refused (source: Waqai Ajmer).

Harsha, a Hindu ruler of the Lohara dynasty, is recorded in Rajatarangini (by Kalhana) as having plundered and destroyed temples in Kashmir to finance his military campaigns. He reportedly looted gold and wealth from temples, including the famous Martand Sun Temple. Similarly, Raja Raja Chola repurposed Hindu temples associated with his enemies, particularly those supporting the Pandya and Chalukya rulers.

This is all true;
Aurangzeb killed his own brothers and imprisoned his father, but so did Ashoka, who killed his brothers to ascend the throne. Every ruler has blood on their hands, including Sambhaji Maharaj, who imprisoned his own brother Raja Ram and even his stepmother. It’s crucial to recognize that every ruler, regardless of their empire, is a product of their time, shaped by power struggles and personal ambition.

Aurangzeb, like many rulers, didn’t act out of values but a desire to sustain his empire and his religion, just as Shivaji Maharaj did for the Maratha Empire. In fact, Shivaji himself signed the Treaty of Purandar in 1665, which resulted in his son Sambhaji working under Aurangzeb as a Mansabdar. There was no noble ideal at play just pragmatism in a world where power was the ultimate goal. Aurangzeb may have been cruel, but so was Sambhaji, especially when his army committed atrocities like the rape of Portuguese Christian women. Every ruler, it seems, has blood on their hands.

Sambhaji, in fact, did tie up with the Mughals and even revolted against his own father at one point. It's essential to understand that historical figures like Sambhaji and Shivaji Maharaj are often confused in popular narratives. Many are reading Chattrapati Sambhaji for Shivaji Maharaj.

Rana Sanga too, lost an eye, a hand, and a leg in battle, highlighting that fratricidal wars were commonplace when kingdoms were at stake. In such times, the kingdom was the reward for bloodshed.

Aurangzeb is often portrayed as a villain, akin to Hitler, but this oversimplified view overlooks his more nuanced legacy. While it’s true that he destroyed some temples, he also issued orders to protect others, granted land and stipends to Brahmins, and his actions reflect a complex and contradictory figure. Critics often focus on the restrictions he imposed on festivals like Holi, but they tend to overlook the fact that he consulted Hindu ascetics on health issues and employed more Hindus in his administration than any other Mughal ruler. These actions show that Aurangzeb was not a straightforward figure of religious intolerance. His actions, though controversial, cannot be solely understood through the lens of religious hate.

Aurangzeb’s reign was in a premodern context, where violence and state control were commonplace, and the idea of religious tolerance was far different from what we expect today. Hindus, in fact, fared well in Aurangzeb’s massive bureaucracy, with ample employment and advancement opportunities. Aurangzeb even went so far as to protect non-Muslim leaders and institutions, offering them the status of dhimmis, entitled to state defense. His policies toward temples were contradictory balancing protection with destruction but his ultimate goal seemed to be ensuring justice and stability throughout the Mughal Empire.

For instance, Aurangzeb issued a farman confirming a land grant for the Umanand Temple in Guwahati, Assam, allowing it to collect revenue. In 1680, he further directed measures to support such religious institutions. However, Aurangzeb’s recall of land grants to Hindus, in favor of Muslims, was likely a concession to the ulama. Yet, in many regions like Bengal, the policy was not strictly enforced, and more land was granted to Hindus than ever before, demonstrating that his policies were not as rigid as often portrayed.

1/2 History, therefore, is not black and white. It’s uncomfortable, awkward, and often contradictory. Figures like Sher Shah Suri, who granted free land to Brahmins, or Hemu, a Hindu who rose to power, challenge our understanding of religious and political identity. Would a Hindutvadi lynch Sher Shah Suri today if he were alive? The answer isn’t as clear as some might think.

This doesn’t mean that Aurangzeb’s actions were without fault many of his deeds were cruel and condemnable. Yet, it’s important to remember that Aurangzeb was a product of his time, much like other rulers who did whatever they could to remain in power. The world of politics and war in those days was ruthless, where one side won, and the other perished. The question of what people expected in those times is more complex than we often acknowledge.

There was never a Hindu vs Muslim war. It was simply a battle between kingdoms each defending their own territory, culture, and power. If this yardstick is applied, all kings would be deemed wrong, as monarchy itself is an immoral concept. History is a reflection of the past, and attaching moral judgment to it is futile. To me, these figures whether Aurangzeb or Sambhaji were neither good nor bad. They were products of their time, shaped by circumstances rather than intrinsic virtue or vice

2/2

Trump deserves no accolades for ending the Gaza genocide.

What is the common denominator between Democrats and Republicans? The CIA.

An American creates the chaos, and then an American steps in as the savior. The CIA profits both from orchestrating the conflict and from resolving it.

If I were to put you in peril and then rescue you, would you ever support me? Of course not. But this is exactly what happens—America manufactures crises because its economy thrives on war and conflict. Once the profits have been secured, it dons the mantle of a savior, suffering from a messianic complex. The real motivation lies not in morality but in the exhaustion of what can be called "activism capitalism." The funds have been acquired; the war economy has served its purpose.

Now, America seeks validation for its "humanitarian" efforts, forcing you to applaud its so-called benevolence so it can retain power. This manipulative cycle is nothing more than politricks—calculated theatrics to sustain control. The show, however, is over, for the elections are complete.

1/3 War is American foreign policy, and the CIA wields immense power. America thrives on a war-based economy. The ceasefire has provided Muslims with temporary relief, but it’s akin to saying, “We don’t like you, but at least we’re not killing you.” Let Trump end the Yemen war, ask Elon Musk to abandon his Islamophobia, and remove the CIA-backed Taliban—then we can talk. The CIA is at the root of all these problems. Anyone truly not Islamophobic wouldn’t support a Taliban regime that continues to destroy the lives of Muslim women in Afghanistan.

What’s the common thread between Republicans and the Taliban? Both are backed by the CIA. On one hand, the CIA-backed Republicans claim to have “saved” Muslim lives with the ceasefire, while on the other hand, the Democrats—also backed by the CIA—committed atrocities, covered them up, and then acted as saviors. Are we really supposed to applaud someone for saving people from a massacre they planned themselves? The CIA profits from the Taliban as well.

An American is a savior on one hand and an oppressor on the other. The message seems to be: “We’re not letting you study, but at least we’re not killing you.” In other words, Muslims are forced into a constant battle for survival. Being alive becomes a celebrated accomplishment, designed to make Muslims walk on eggshells and remain submissive, dependent on an American saviour.

2/3

VHP, BJP & Sati : Thread 🧵

In our history, crimes like Sati and Jauhar have been defended by VHP and Sangh Parivar elements under the guise of "culture," "choice," and "chastity," often framing murder as suicide.

How, when and why? Read the thread to know. 1/30 In 1987, 17-year-old Roop Kanwar was burned alive as Sati in Rajasthan. Nationwide protests led the Rajiv Gandhi government to criminalize Sati as murder, but the BJP opposed the law.
Argued that Sati was part of the Rajput tradition, and the government shouldn't interfere.

BJP future plan:

BJP dislikes Hindus more than anyone else. It wouldn’t have opposed the Hindu Code Bill, justified Roop Kanwar’s sati, or glorified the Manusmriti else. It needs Hindus to remove Muslims from the frontline. After that, Hindu women, Dalits will become targets. 1/ A day will come when Hindus will realize they were fooled by the BJP. By then, it will be too late. Modi opposes Sharia (rightly so) but supports the Manusmriti. He opposes Abrahamic religions only to turn Hinduism into something Abrahamic.

2/30

Since some are not getting it.
Amit Shah: "Aajkal Naya fashion hua hain, Ambedkar Ambedkar, Ambedkar, itni bar agar bhagwan naam lete toh phir Swarg mil jaata"
Why is this wrong?? I am saying.
Ambedkar was an atheist. He didn't even subscribe Buddha being avatar premise. 1/24 A) there's something called repressed emotions by Freud. Repressed emotions come out worse. At an unconscious level he disagreed with Ambedkarite Buddhism (22 vows) . We are a democracy, disagreements are fine. But his disagreement is from a purity consciousness view.
2/24

Manusmriti: A Thread 🧵

People wonder at times why we criticise Manusmriti. In fact, someone recently said there was no casteism in ancient India. Politicians in power call casteism a casteist construct.
So what's the problem with Manusmriti? Read to know:
1/30 The Manusmriti, often referred to as the "Laws of Manu," is a Hindu scripture that outlines a code of conduct for individuals and society. While it holds historical significance as an ancient text, it is often criticized for being highly discriminatory and hierarchical.
2/30

Babri Masjid: A Thread 🧵

The Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, built in 1528, was demolished on December 6, 1992, by Hindu activists. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled for a Ram temple at the site and a mosque elsewhere.

Today's thread involves a few questions and a few comments.

1/40
The 1949 placement of idols in the Babri Masjid violated Article 25 (freedom of religion) and breached secularism by allowing government interference in religious matters. It was an unlawful encroachment, violating the rule of law.
Q: Who placed them & with what motive?
2/40

Recipe for Division: The BJP’s Sinister Plan

Ingredients:

•Historical wounds
•Religious binaries (Good Muslim vs. Bad Muslim)
•Manufactured outrage (Manusmriti vs. Qur'an debates)
•Political opportunism
•Fear, mistrust & communal tension

Read full to know how 🧵1/30 Step 1: Lay the Foundation

Sideline unifying icons like Dr. Abdul Kalam and Maulana Azad erase communal harmony narratives. Portray Muslims as resistant to reform, undeserving of equality, and inherently violent, planting mistrust and framing Hindus as under threat.

2/30

Muslim contribution in Hindu Temple Preservation: 🧵1/20

Though history has been saffronised, it is important to acknowledge that while temples were destroyed by Muslims, they were also restored by muslims even by popular villains shown by Sangh Parivar.

Read full to know how. Emperor Akbar, known for his policy of religious tolerance (Sulh-e-Kul), supported rebuilding the Vishwanath Temple in Varanasi and donated to Hindu institutions, fostering Hindu-Muslim unity in the Mughal Empire. 2/20

You know why I disagree with AAP? I have few reasons.
A) A party which fails at its premise cannot have my support. The premise says intent. I remember posters that said modi for pm, kejriwal for cm. Supporting modi is a sin not mistake 1/20
#DelhiNyayYatra
#DelhiElections2025 B) Modi's rise in 2014 wasn’t surprising—his record was clear: Godhra 2002, the 2013 Snoopgate scandal. How could anyone overlook this and choose him over MMS, an economist? Was Gujarat under Modi truly an economic model? 2/20
#DelhiNyayYatra
#DelhiElections2025

Thread: Tolerance, Secularism, Hindu-Muslim unity.🕊️

When I advocate for acceptance over mere tolerance, Sangh argues Muslims hate Hindus.
Do Muslims dislike Hindus & deject assimilation? Researched, read the thread 🧵 1/40
Kazi Nazrul Islam named his son Krishna Mohammad 🙏🤲
Tu Hai Mera Prem Dewta is a hindi song from the 1960 movie Kalpana. Singers are Mohammed Rafi, Prabodh Chandra Dey (Manna Dey) and lyricist or song writer is Qamar Jalalabadi

बीजेपी को भूतकाल से हैं बड़ा प्यार। यह हैं भूतकाल। 2/40

Thread of 14 : BJP'S Election winning strategy

My stance with EVM has been the same since 2019. Whether we lose or difficult, be it ayodhya or Gujarat or Kerala, EVM can be manipulated. EVM is not one press button win dynamic it's a rather long dark psychology clear plan
1/14 Step A: Make Congress win a few states.
Step B: Create a cry baby narrative - mein garib ma ka beta, mein chaiwala Impact: some will lure vote 4 u. Opposition: yahh! he is sad
Step C: Opposition says modi is nervous. ( He wants u to say so)

2/14

Today, I visited a relative’s house, someone who identifies strongly with the Left. Within minutes, words like “Muslim crowd, demography, Rohingya, Humayun Kabir, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, TMC Islamisation” filled the room. (1/20) I sat there, trying to remain composed as the conversation unfolded. The culmination of their argument hit me like a punch: “Let BJP come to Bengal. Left and Congress can tie up later to be a better opposition to them.”
2/20

True or false let's check:

1. The Battle of Plassey (1757):
Robert Clive forged an alliance with Mir Jafar, promising him the throne in exchange for support, leading to the betrayal of Siraj-ud-Daula.His defeat was the result of internal conspiracy,not just military defeat 1/12 2. The Doctrine of Lapse (1848):
Lord Dalhousie's Doctrine of Lapse allowed the East India Company to annex princely states without male heirs, undermining Indian rulers' power and converting their sovereignty into British control, notably affecting the Nawab of Oudh. 2/12

A tragedy has befallen Congress volunteer Biswanath Burman (78) from Paschim Bardhaman. He fell from a bus in Ballygunge & fractured a bone (3rd Oct 2024). Admitted to Hope Foundation Hospital. Treatment cost is Rs.40-45K. DM for bank details if you can assist this poor man 1/3
He was rescued by the Kolkata Police and admitted to Hope Foundation Hospital. The incident took place near Navina Cinema (3rd October, 2024). He is unmarried, has no children & his only family is his sister. His elder sister is 80 yrs old. His sister contacted us for help 2/3

Some individuals in X have accused our Mohabbat Ki Dukaan of being fake. Nowadays congress is also accused of soft hindutva and passive resistance. Let's see what Congress did to defend rights of Indian muslims.
Civility for love or Radical solidarity?
Thread 1) Opposing the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA): Congress actively protested against the CAA, arguing that it discriminated against Muslims and violated secular principles. Many neutrals top agreed with it stating refugee crisis. But INC opposed it.

BJP often says Congress neglected Hindus but does congress really qualify as an anti - hindu party?
How can a party stay in power for 54 years by going against the majority religion?
Did some research.
Long thread on what congress did for Hindus:
1) Gandhi supported BHUV 2) The Ganga Action Plan, started in 1985, aimed to clean the Ganges River by improving sewage treatment and waste management, though full restoration remains a challenge.

यह संदेश के सदस्य के लिए हैं। नव संकल्प और कैम्ब्रिज यूनिवर्सिटी के राहुल गांधी के भाषण मैं आपने सुना होगा। घर बेट के टिकट नहीं मिलती। राहुल जी ने पहली भी कहा था कांग्रेस में शेर के बच्चे हैं, डरपोक व्यक्ति कांग्रेस छोड़ सकते हैं। ऐसे ही नहीं कहा था, वो आपके के लिए संदेश था। (१/९ खेर आप जैसे अल्प बुद्धि जीवियो को समझ नहीं आया। पार्टी छोड़ना हैं तो छोर सकते हैं, इस में हमसे ज्यादा आपका लॉस हैं। राजनीति रेपुटेशन के आधार पर चलती हैं, शायद सिब्बल जी और उनके बाकी करोड़पति साथी यह भूल गए थे।
Scindia जी का हाल दिख ही रहा हैं, कुछ मिला तो नही, सेवक बना के छोर २/९