The feminists hate me. And I don't blame them. For I hate feminism. It is poison.
✒️Margaret Thatcher
🚩 सेवा परमो धर्म 🚩
Centrist🎯
Instagram: ladyofequality
So three guys get life imprisonment for killing cows
Meanwhile son of a judge who ran over and killed A HUMAN gets bail in 3 hours
India is the country of Sodom and Gomorrah now
So three guys get life imprisonment for killing cows
Meanwhile son of a judge who ran over and killed A HUMAN gets bail in 3 hours
India is the country of Sodom and Gomorrah now
BJP is fighting for
-93% Reservation is UP
-73% Reservation in MP
-62% Reservation in Maharashtra
-85% Reservation in Bihar
They want hike in reservation in every sector . They are not focusing in job creation but increase in reservation
This is the biggest betrayal to GC .
Say no to BJP
#BJPagainstGC
Many things blamed on “patriarchy” in India today, were shaped by two periods of foreign domination: the Islamic invasions, and then British colonization. Both brought violence, extraction, and insecurity.
In the early Vedic period (1500–1000 BCE), women had a higher standing. The Rigveda records hymns composed by female seers (rishikas). Names such as Apala, Ghosha, Lopamudra, and Visvavara appear as authors of verses that became part of the text. Women underwent the Upanayana initiation that marked the start of formal Vedic study. Some pursued lifelong learning as Brahmavadinis; others studied until marriage.
In the later Upanishadic period, Gargi Vachaknavi publicly debated the philosopher Yajnavalkya in the court of King Janaka on questions of ultimate reality. Maitreyi, wife of Yajnavalkya, chose knowledge over wealth when he offered to divide his property. Women participated in rituals as partners, not only as observers. They held personal property called stridhana (gifts and wealth under their own control that male relatives could not seize). There is no evidence of widespread purdah, institutionalized sati, or child marriage as the norm in the early Vedic texts.
Society was still patriarchal in the sense of inheritance, but women were not reduced to permanent dependents or secluded from public and intellectual life.
Clothing reflected this openness. Ancient Indic dress for both men and women centered on unstitched draped garments: the antariya (lower garment) and uttariya (upper cloth that could be worn over the shoulders, arms, or head as the wearer chose). A separate stitched upper garment (choli or stanapatta) was optional, not mandatory.
Sculptures and paintings from the centuries before widespread Islamic rule - Sanchi, Mathura, Ajanta, and many temple sites, show women in public scenes, processions, and worship with faces uncovered and upper bodies often lightly draped or adorned mainly with jewelry and cloth rather than full covering. There is no record of compulsory face-veiling or total seclusion.
The idea that a woman’s body or face had to be hidden from all non-related men as a permanent social requirement was not the standard.
The decline began with Islamic invasions from the 8th century onward and the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate and Mughal rule. There were raids in which women were captured, enslaved, or taken into harems. Defeated populations faced the risk of sexual violence and sale in slave markets. In response, Rajput and other communities developed or intensified defensive practices. Jauhar (mass self-immolation) by women and girls when a fort was about to fall, is documented primarily during sieges, such as at Chittorgarh in 1303 under Alauddin Khalji and later in Mughal campaigns. It was not an everyday domestic custom; it was a wartime choice against capture.
Strict purdah (full seclusion and veiling) became common among Hindu elites in northern India during the same centuries. Historians note that everyday confinement of women and the requirement to cover the face in public intensified under the invaders and their courtly practices. What started as protection against abduction hardened into rigid custom.
British colonization worsened this. After the Britishers took control, India was governed as a source of revenue and raw materials. Textile industries were undermined, heavy land taxes were imposed, and grain was exported during periods of scarcity, contributing to repeated famines. Indians were subjects under racial hierarchy, not partners. Any social laws passed under British authority, including the 1829 regulation against sati, were exercises of colonial power. They were not proof that the British were selfless reformers. The overall record was one of economic extraction, institutional control, and the weakening of Indian society.
... continued in comments.
Share your thoughts!
If Hindus want their children and the generations that follow them to survive, Bharat cannot remain a secular democracy. It needs to approach national identity the same way Pakistan and Bangladesh do, only in reverse. Those countries are Muslim states by definition, and Bharat must be a Hindu state by the same standard, with strict and harsh laws to back that up.
🚨 “SEND THEM BACK.”
Slovak MEP Milan Mazurek delivered a blistering speech in the European Parliament attacking Western Europe’s migration policies.
“Why don’t we have it in Slovakia? Why don’t we have it in Poland? What is the difference?”
His answer: “We did not follow your insane migration policies.”
🚨 IT'S OFFICIAL: President Trump announces the United States will have to WITHDRAW from European nations if they fall to the invasion and become anti-Western
"If they don't soon find their way, we will have no choice but to LEAVE." 🤯
"When we asked for help in Iran...we spend so much on NATO...they weren't there to help!"
"It's something we can NEVER forget."
America has spent decades and trillions defending Europe. Trump is done doing it without getting anything back 🔥
If Europe won't defend its own borders, why should Americans bail them out?!
STEP UP, EUROPE. Shut your borders, surge defense spending, and NEVER fall to the invaders of the 3rd world!