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

You May Also Like

A brief analysis and comparison of the CSS for Twitter's PWA vs Twitter's legacy desktop website. The difference is dramatic and I'll touch on some reasons why.

Legacy site *downloads* ~630 KB CSS per theme and writing direction.

6,769 rules
9,252 selectors
16.7k declarations
3,370 unique declarations
44 media queries
36 unique colors
50 unique background colors
46 unique font sizes
39 unique z-indices

https://t.co/qyl4Bt1i5x


PWA *incrementally generates* ~30 KB CSS that handles all themes and writing directions.

735 rules
740 selectors
757 declarations
730 unique declarations
0 media queries
11 unique colors
32 unique background colors
15 unique font sizes
7 unique z-indices

https://t.co/w7oNG5KUkJ


The legacy site's CSS is what happens when hundreds of people directly write CSS over many years. Specificity wars, redundancy, a house of cards that can't be fixed. The result is extremely inefficient and error-prone styling that punishes users and developers.

The PWA's CSS is generated on-demand by a JS framework that manages styles and outputs "atomic CSS". The framework can enforce strict constraints and perform optimisations, which is why the CSS is so much smaller and safer. Style conflicts and unbounded CSS growth are avoided.