I actually tested this out. I watched her AMU lecture today. When discussing Jonaraja and Zain ul Abidin, she randomly brought in the controversy of Jack and the "Smash Brahmanical Patriarchy" posters by the anti-Hindu org "Equality Labs."

She said that "smashing Brahminical patriarchy" is an important human rights concern, but Jonaraja, if he lived today, probably wouldn't like to address it, just like most modern Brahmins. 🙄

I was going to ask her several questions regarding errors/omissions in her Aurangzeb book, but the lecture didn't focus on Aurangzeb. She seems to have shifted her focus to whitewashing the Madurai Sultanate (she spent a good amount of time discussing Gangadevi's Madhuravijayam).

The topic of the lecture was vaguely about Sanskrit literature, so I'd thought I'd test her knowledge of Sanskrit. Her "honed linguistic skills," as she terms them. It turns out she's clearly not the Sanskrit expert she claims to be.

I asked her a quick question to see if she was familiar with the rule "समवप्रविभ्यः स्थः." It's not an exceptionally difficult rule to understand. When preceded by the upasargas सम्, अव, प्र, & वि, the root ष्ठा takes ātmanepada and not parasmaipada endings.