This was in Nabha Jail for 12 days.
Within 12 days, Nehru's father begged British viceroy.
He wrote an apology & assured that his son Nehru will never enter Nabha.
12 Days v/s 10 Years!
Nehru was officially classified as "Class A Prisoner".
He had newspapers, books, servants & coolies. He was allowed to walk out & meet others.
He was also allowed Switzerland trips "while technically imprisoned".
Savarkar was locked up in Kalapani & beaten up for 10 years
Jawaharlal Nehru, India\u2019s first prime minister, spent nine years in British jails. Savarkar famously wrote letters appealing to British rulers and was questioned in Gandhi murder conspiracy. Just saying.
— Saba Naqvi (@_sabanaqvi) August 28, 2021
This was in Nabha Jail for 12 days.
Within 12 days, Nehru's father begged British viceroy.
He wrote an apology & assured that his son Nehru will never enter Nabha.
12 Days v/s 10 Years!
On his insistence, a library was made accessible to him during prison terms . That is how he could write books while "imprisoned".
A fitness instructor also attended to him
However, they seemed more like exotic getaways than real prisons
When Motilal came to know that his Nehru was locked up in a real jail, he rushed to meet Nehru but was forbidden by the administrator of Nabha.
Then, British viceroy came to the rescue of Nehrus and overruled this order
"I was handcuffed to another person for the whole night. We were kept in a small cell. We slept on the floor and mouse passed over my face at night.
This is not an experience I should like to repeat "
More from Bharadwaj
Cut the crap!
Your stupid & dishonest verbal gimmicks notwithstanding, the undeniable fact is that Buddha indeed compared Brahmins to dogs & concluded dogs were better.
Even traditional commentary on the verse says "Buddha comes Dogs to Brahmins, and Dogs come out better" https://t.co/1Aks88MSMX
To begin with, even the name of the Sutta is "Sona Sutta"( Dog sutta).
But this Sutta has nothing to do with Dogs. It is a rant against Brahmins. Dogs feature only when they have to be compared with Brahmins.
And every comparison concludes that Dogs were better than Brahmins
What is this Sutta about?
It is about Buddha's stereotyping and generalisation against Brahmins.
He begins by saying that Brahmins of his time mated with females of all backgrounds. He compares Brahmin sexual mating pattern with that of dogs.
Here Buddha condemns Brahmins of his time for intermarrying with other varnas/communities and compares them with dogs who mate with every breed.
This is not an innocent comparison. Sexual behaviour of dogs is known for its licentiousness and
This is the reason why words like "k*tti", "bit*h" denoting dogs is used as a grave sexual insult.
Although modern Buddhists flaunt egalitarianism now, for the historic Buddha intercaste marriage was a horror that amounted to licentious social behavior resembling dogs.
Your stupid & dishonest verbal gimmicks notwithstanding, the undeniable fact is that Buddha indeed compared Brahmins to dogs & concluded dogs were better.
Even traditional commentary on the verse says "Buddha comes Dogs to Brahmins, and Dogs come out better" https://t.co/1Aks88MSMX
This is Twisted.
— \u092a\u094d\u0930\u0924\u093f\u091c\u094d\u091e (@RamaInExile) April 12, 2021
Buddha telling deterioration in the Brahmins of his time. He don't compared Brahmin to Dogs.
He said "Monks , these 5 ancient Brahmin Practices are now Practiced by dogs ,not by Brahmins ...
Then he goes On elabolating..
Your tweet will create wrong impression https://t.co/Lj50G9hx16 pic.twitter.com/dvrOoI5J9e
To begin with, even the name of the Sutta is "Sona Sutta"( Dog sutta).
But this Sutta has nothing to do with Dogs. It is a rant against Brahmins. Dogs feature only when they have to be compared with Brahmins.
And every comparison concludes that Dogs were better than Brahmins
What is this Sutta about?
It is about Buddha's stereotyping and generalisation against Brahmins.
He begins by saying that Brahmins of his time mated with females of all backgrounds. He compares Brahmin sexual mating pattern with that of dogs.
Here Buddha condemns Brahmins of his time for intermarrying with other varnas/communities and compares them with dogs who mate with every breed.
This is not an innocent comparison. Sexual behaviour of dogs is known for its licentiousness and
This is the reason why words like "k*tti", "bit*h" denoting dogs is used as a grave sexual insult.
Although modern Buddhists flaunt egalitarianism now, for the historic Buddha intercaste marriage was a horror that amounted to licentious social behavior resembling dogs.
FAKE quote!
Such a verse is NOT FOUND in any authentic Ravidas Bani.
Nowhere in his poems does Sant Ravidas say "I proclaim all Vedas as worthless".
This is a new scam in the market. Appropriation of Hindu history and Hindu saints by anti Hindus to boost their own legacy.
What Sant Ravidas actually said (when he was asked to convert to Islam by Lodhi):
"The religion of the Vedas is the greatest. It is the treasure trove of matchless knowledge.Why then will I abandon the Vedic Dharmic and read the untrue Quran?"
From Ravidas Ramayana(16th cent):
False quotes denigrating Hinduism are circulated in the name of Sant Ravidas as he was a great Hindu Sant from Dalit background.
This represents a challenge to people who want to spin the caste narrative of opposition of Dalits to Hinduism. They want to break this connection
Such a verse is NOT FOUND in any authentic Ravidas Bani.
Nowhere in his poems does Sant Ravidas say "I proclaim all Vedas as worthless".
This is a new scam in the market. Appropriation of Hindu history and Hindu saints by anti Hindus to boost their own legacy.
I, Ravidas, proclaim all Vedas as worthless...
— Dilip Mandal (@Profdilipmandal) February 27, 2021
Best wishes to all on #HappyRavidasJayanti pic.twitter.com/muJq2k6ox5
What Sant Ravidas actually said (when he was asked to convert to Islam by Lodhi):
"The religion of the Vedas is the greatest. It is the treasure trove of matchless knowledge.Why then will I abandon the Vedic Dharmic and read the untrue Quran?"
From Ravidas Ramayana(16th cent):
False quotes denigrating Hinduism are circulated in the name of Sant Ravidas as he was a great Hindu Sant from Dalit background.
This represents a challenge to people who want to spin the caste narrative of opposition of Dalits to Hinduism. They want to break this connection
More from All
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
