She

I am beginning to seriously suspect that the production team of #TheRamayana has an ultra-feminist on the creative team who has decided that the epic desperately needs a contemporary feminist makeover. First, a #Sita who, according to many viewers, bears little resemblance to Valmiki’s description. Then, a liberated #Shurpanakha, unabashedly advertising her sexual interest in the brawny Rama and Lakshmana. And then #Kaikeyi, whom Lara Dutta feels is the “the most misunderstood woman in history”and is rather a woman of immense emotional depth, vulnerability and remorse who was merely helping fulfil a divine prophecy! Thankfully, #Manthara has been spared so far. I dread to imagine the feminist rehabilitation programme awaiting her! And the icing on the cake is Sita defending Shurpanakha after she attempts to seduce her husband? What next? Lakshmana being asked to issue a public apology for violating Shurpanakha’s right to sexual expression? Was this movie actually about Lord Rama, or was it an elaborate exercise in giving every female character a contemporary feminist makeover? The only person in danger of being sidelined in this Ramayana seems to be Rama himself! Thank God I grew up watching #RamanandSagar’s Ramayana. Otherwise, I might have grown up believing that nobody is ever responsible for their actions because, apparently, everyone is just settling some karmic debt. At this rate, even Ravana might just need a little character rehabilitation and a sympathetic backstory! Jai shri Ram 🙏🏻

In a country where every second woman is now ready to chant “Smash the Patriarchy”, it is fascinating to see how selectively we choose which women to liberate and which ones to celebrate. For centuries, #Sita and #Shurpanakha have occupied contrasting positions in our traditional narratives. Sita, who had no relationship with #Ravana, was nevertheless subjected to an Agni Pariksha to establish her chastity. Shurpanakha, meanwhile, openly expressed her sexual desire, was allegedly rejected, and had her nose cut off. But look at the cultural revisionism today. Social media is overflowing with celebrations of Shurpanakha’s beauty, sexual appeal and uninhibited desire. Apparently, she is now an icon of female liberation. So, what exactly are we celebrating? If the slogan is Smash the Patriarchy, shouldn’t the real target be the patriarchal standards that subjected Sita to a trial by fire in the first place? Why is the conversation instead increasingly revolving around the sexual appeal of Shurpanakha? Are we now suggesting that a woman who openly pursues a married man is somehow a more compelling feminist icon than a woman whose chastity was questioned despite having done nothing wrong? Perhaps we haven’t really smashed the patriarchy. We have merely changed the casting. The woman once condemned is now celebrated, the woman once idealised is being questioned. Is this feminism, a reclamation of mythology, or simply another exercise in selective outrage? Because if Smash the Patriarchy is the slogan, perhaps we should first decide whether we are smashing its double standards or merely finding new women to impose them upon.

Why is it secularism for him, but not for her? Why didn't the Muslim groom ask his Kashmiri Pandit bride to wear sindoor and the dejhoor? And why didn't Nidhi Razdan insist on wearing the dejhoor, an emblem of married identity that Kashmiri Pandit women traditionally wear with pride? Is this secularism, love, or simply one-sided cultural accommodation? In all my years, I have rarely, if ever, seen a Muslim groom embrace Hindu religious customs, convert to Hinduism, or arrive on horseback at the wedding venue in keeping with Hindu wedding traditions when marrying a Hindu woman. So perhaps we need to revisit our understanding of secularism. Apparently, it means one thing for him and quite another for her. To each their own — secularism, too, as per convenience. But the icing on the cake is that the Abdullah family has finally been successful in relocating one kashmiri Pandit back to Srinagar, but sadly after snatching her identity as a kashmiri Pandit.

The radiant faces of #NidhiRasdan and #Omar Abdullah may not be my cup of tea, but an inconsistency bothers me more than an unwanted opinion. If a Muslim man marrying a Hindu woman is automatically labelled #LoveJihad by certain commentators, does that label suddenly disappear when the woman is Nidhi Razdan, a Kashmiri Pandit, and the man is Omar Abdullah, a Muslim? Interestingly, a Muslim cleric, Maulana Mufti Shahabuddin Razvi Barelvi, has criticised the marriage precisely because Nidhi has not converted to Islam. So much for consistency. If interfaith marriage is a matter of individual choice, that freedom must apply to every Hindu woman, irrespective of her identity, influence or political connections. But there is another question. Farooq Abdullah’s record during the events leading up to the 1990 Kashmiri Pandit exodus deserves scrutiny. The violence and assassinations began well before his resignation in January 1990. Kashmiri Pandit leaders, including Tika Lal Taploo and Neelkanth Ganjoo, had already been murdered. His subsequent remarks, including his assertion in 2016 that the onus was on Kashmiri Pandits to return to the Valley, are also part of that record. Nidhi Razdan has spoken about the suffering of both Kashmiri Hindus and Muslims. That is her right. But has she ever publicly and unequivocally questioned Farooq Abdullah’s political record and his government’s failure to protect Kashmiri Pandits? That is the uncomfortable question. If we are prepared to scrutinise a woman’s religious identity when she marries a Muslim, why are we so reluctant to scrutinise the political legacy of the family she marries into? Love is a personal choice. So are political loyalties. But neither should place public figures beyond scrutiny. You cannot demand accountability from ordinary people while granting immunity to the politically influential. #NidhiRazdan, consistency is not too much to ask. It’s not done, bro.

For almost three days, we debated the #Ramayana on X. We disagreed, challenged one another, contradicted each other—and, at times, even contradicted #MaharishiValmiki himself. Yet, barring a few exceptions, we managed to discuss what is perhaps the most sacred scripture for millions of Hindus with remarkable openness, candour and intellectual freedom. Now, tell me, which other religion allows such uninhibited questioning, interpretation and debate about its most sacred texts? Perhaps this is one of the greatest strengths of Hindu civilisation. We have survived centuries of oppression under despotic rulers, endured the Mughals and the British, and yet emerged not merely intact, but thriving. Our strength has never been just in the ability to fight. It lies in the ability to question, disagree, reinterpret, absorb and endure without losing ourselves. Aggression is not always expressed through anger or brute force. Sometimes, the fiercest form of strength is resilience. And #Hinducivilisation has demonstrated that resilience for centuries. We did not merely survive history. We outlived those who sought to define it for us.

Strange that none of you are attacking #Rakulpreet for saying that history has ignored that #Surpanakha had deeper complexity and deep rooted emotions. So is she portraying the character as misunderstood in an attempt to whitewash negative figures, or defending the creative exploration of the epic's complex figures. Hmmm….or are we not attacking -Rakul because of her golden skin, dove like eyes, moon like face, rounded breasts, slender waist, red lips and dark lustrous hair? “Fair”enough

My original post had one purpose: to defend Sai Pallavi’s casting as Sita. I stand by it, unequivocally. Hinduism is a philosophical universe whose depths cannot be claimed, let alone exhausted, by reading a few scriptures. But if there is one profound truth I have grasped, it is this: Hindu philosophy does not worship perfection. It transcends the very idea of it.

I could not help but write this after the brutal trolling of #SaiPallavi. I am a professor. And yes, i have read most scriptures. My subjective analysis of aestheticism in Hinduism is this. Hinduism offers a unique concept of “divine beauty.” It is a beauty that is not merely physical attribute but an expression of divinity, consciousness, grace, radiance and spiritual power. In contemporary culture, we judge beauty through physical features: a sharp nose, symmetrical face, large eyes, full lips and a proportioned body. But the aesthetic imagination of #Hinduism is considerably richer. Its gods are beautiful in different, sometimes contrasting ways: Krishna enchants, Shiva overwhelms, Vishnu reassures, Kali terrifies, and Ganesha delights. Their appearances communicate something about their nature and the cosmic principles they embody. In Hinduism Divine beauty is not the same as conventional beauty Hindu traditions do not prescribe one universal template of physical attractiveness for the divine. Instead, they accommodate multiple aesthetic experiences. Mādhurya — intimate charm. Tejas — radiance Lāvaṇya — grace Aishvarya — majesty Raudra —fearsome beauty of anger Hence, a Hindu deity can be beautiful without appearing conventionally attractive. Lord Shiva's matted hair, ashes and serpents communicate an ascetic transcendence of worldly norms. Kali's fierce iconography deliberately unsettles the viewer. Their aesthetic beauty lies precisely in what makes them different from conventional ideals of physical beauty. The divine, in other words, need not conform to beauty standards; it can redefine them. But it would be inaccurate to claim that Hindu scriptures never describe their gods and goddesses in terms of physical beauty. Sanskrit literature uses descriptions of lotus-like eyes, moon-like faces, radiant complexions, graceful limbs, beautiful hair and finely proportioned bodies. The Ramayana, Mahabharata, Puranas and classical Sanskrit poetry all contribute to this rich visual vocabulary. But, the important distinction is between describing beauty and reducing divinity to beauty. @Saipallavi__ @niteshtiwari22

How would each one of us in this thread describe our mothers if asked how they look? That’s why we call her “Sita MAA” @RoJosh

Kharge ji, you have proved that being old is certainly not the same as being mature. In Punjab, when women get into street fights and abandon every restraint in their language, we have a rather unflattering expression for them: “Gali ki aurtein.” I am tempted to use equally uncharitable vocabulary for you, sir, but I shall exercise the restraint that you so conspicuously failed to display. After your “Modi ka baap bhi jayega” remark, I can only hope that somewhere beneath the bravado, you still have enough self-respect left to feel embarrassed by your own words. Your age deserves no respect when your conduct has forfeited it. Fight Modi…don’t insult his dead father. This is a new low. @kharge @RahulGandhi @INCIndia @BJP4India @narendramodi

Most idiotic? The genius who tweeted this. Most urgent advice? Please rush to the nearest psychiatrist before your imagination files a takeover bid for reality. Don’t worry, though. Delusions and hallucinations are treatable. The first step is realising that your Twitter account is not a medical certificate declaring you sane. Good luck! Reality is waiting to reconnect with you.

That’s precisely the problem. Decades of grievances, discrimination and violence against Hindus were normalised, but a decade of renewed pride in Sanatan Dharma is suddenly too much for some to stomach. Apparently, Hindu dignity is acceptable only when Hindus are expected to remain silent.

Another teer! 😁😁 And this one hit them right where it hurts! Congratulations on your film’s success. Your humility and grace will always win hearts. The irony is delicious: they tried to drown out your promotions with Loud music, and now they may have to buy tickets to watch your film. Imagine paying to witness the very success you tried to silence. Karma doesn’t just strike—it sells out the show! 😉 Well done guys 👍 @ayushmannk @SaraAliKhan

Calling him an alien is far too generous. He’s right here on Earth, orbiting in his own personal lunacy. If 'lunacy' means anything today, it’s the sheer madness of believing that the CJP has an ounce of genuine concern for this country's students. So, Varun sir, please don't blame the solar system. He is firmly rooted on Earth and completely out of his mind. @VarunKrRana @BJP4India @narendramodi

Sign kar de, #NehaBora! इतनी क्रांति कर ली, अब ज़रा क़ानून की औपचारिकताएँ भी निभा लो। वरना अगला गीत कुछ यूँ होगा— “अब तो जेल में जाना पड़ेगा, जेल की रोटी खानी पड़ेगी, जेल का पानी पीना पड़ेगा अब तो जेल में जाना पड़ेगा।” So, Rani of Jhansi, ready for the next chapter? From Jhansi ki Rani to Jail ki Kahani? @NehaAisa @Cockroachisback @BJP4India