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.
So for विशेषेण तस्थतुः we get वितस्थाते, not वितस्थतुः. That was the answer. The other options were just filler. When confronted with the question she copped out saying that she needed context and asked if the question was about memorization of declension (conjugation?) tables.
She asked the host Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi to just skip the question. The name I used to ask the question on Facebook, Shabbir Hasan Khan, is obviously not my actual name. It's the birth name of the poet Josh Malihabadi (Josh Malihabadi being his takhallus).
I took that name on Facebook because she's probably more likely to reply to a difficult question from someone with a Muslim name rather than a Hindu or Sikh name.🙂
Here is the "Smash Brahminical Patriarchy" segment which I'm referring to:
Josh Malihabadi commenting to "Vidushi" Truschke from the morgue. 😄
Here's her response:

More from Culture

Great article from @AsheSchow. I lived thru the 'Satanic Panic' of the 1980's/early 1990's asking myself "Has eveyrbody lost their GODDAMN MINDS?!"


The 3 big things that made the 1980's/early 1990's surreal for me.

1) Satanic Panic - satanism in the day cares ahhhh!

2) "Repressed memory" syndrome

3) Facilitated Communication [FC]

All 3 led to massive abuse.

"Therapists" -and I use the term to describe these quacks loosely - would hypnotize people & convince they they were 'reliving' past memories of Mom & Dad killing babies in Satanic rituals in the basement while they were growing up.

Other 'therapists' would badger kids until they invented stories about watching alligators eat babies dropped into a lake from a hot air balloon. Kids would deny anything happened for hours until the therapist 'broke through' and 'found' the 'truth'.

FC was a movement that started with the claim severely handicapped individuals were able to 'type' legible sentences & communicate if a 'helper' guided their hands over a keyboard.
One of the authors of the Policy Exchange report on academic free speech thinks it is "ridiculous" to expect him to accurately portray an incident at Cardiff University in his study, both in the reporting and in a question put to a student sample.


Here is the incident Kaufmann incorporated into his study, as told by a Cardiff professor who was there. As you can see, the incident involved the university intervening to *uphold* free speech principles:


Here is the first mention of the Greer at Cardiff incident in Kaufmann's report. It refers to the "concrete case" of the "no-platforming of Germaine Greer". Any reasonable reader would assume that refers to an incident of no-platforming instead of its opposite.


Here is the next mention of Greer in the report. The text asks whether the University "should have overruled protestors" and "stepped in...and guaranteed Greer the right to speak". Again the strong implication is that this did not happen and Greer was "no platformed".


The authors could easily have added a footnote at this point explaining what actually happened in Cardiff. They did not.

You May Also Like