ProfessionalYodha 🇮🇳

@ProfessionYodha

ज़िंदगी क्या है, कुछ पल अवसर के, कुछ पल चमत्कार के, अवसर को मत छोड़ो, चमत्कार अपने आप होंगे.

Bharat

Joined March 2010

1.3K Following

183 Followers

7.1K Posts

ProfessionYodha retweeted

News Algebra

@NewsAlgebraIND

about 9 hours ago

SONIA GANDHI : Why PM Modi is maintaining a stony silence on Gaza? BJP : Why Sonia Gandhi is silent on Bangladeshi Hindus?

NewsAlgebraIND's tweet photo. SONIA GANDHI : Why PM Modi is maintaining a stony silence on Gaza?

BJP : Why Sonia Gandhi is silent on Bangladeshi Hindus? https://t.co/EKZaY9jNRF

176

77K

ProfessionYodha retweeted

Megh Updates 🚨™

@MeghUpdates

about 13 hours ago

Suniel Shetty says his 15-month-old granddaughter places PM Narendra Modi's picture alongside Sai Baba and even offers laddus to it from a Ganesh Ji mandir during her prayers 🔥 — Liberals won't like this 🤡

120

662

200

105K

ProfessionYodha retweeted

History इतिहास 🇺🇲🛕 🚀

@ShreeHistory

2 days ago

The Geopolitics of the Guillotine: The True Reason India Was Partitioned By @shreehistory In the first installment of this investigation, the ledger of the empire was laid bare, revealing how Britain systematically extracted wealth from India across two world wars and defaulted on a £350 billion debt. Part Two of this story examines the physical and political mechanism used to guarantee that default would never be challenged. The retreat from the subcontinent was not a simple lowering of a flag. It was a meticulously calculated geopolitical guillotine, executed in two distinct stages, designed to permanently fracture the region and paralyze the newly independent state. To prevent a unified, economically resurgent India from demanding reparations for the wartime extraction, Britain engaged in a strategy of systemic balkanization. This was achieved first by economically amputating Burma in 1937, and second, by lighting the political house on fire in 1947 through the abrupt creation of Pakistan, the deliberate fracturing of India into over five hundred independent sovereign entities, and the demographic weaponization of the military. I. The First Cut: The Amputation of Burma (1937) The blueprint for weakening the subcontinent began a decade before the famous partition of 1947. Throughout the early twentieth century, Burma was administered as a province of British India. This administrative union was highly beneficial to the broader Indian economy, because Burma was an economic powerhouse that consistently ran massive trade surpluses. Burma was the rice bowl of the empire, exporting vast quantities of rice across the globe. It possessed massive, highly lucrative teak forests essential for imperial naval and railway construction. Most importantly, Burma held newly discovered and highly productive oil fields. By the mid-1930s, Britain was beginning to panic over its balance of payments with India. The debts were accumulating, and the British Treasury realized that an India bolstered by Burmese exports could potentially offset its deficits and demand hard currency repayments. London needed to sever this economic shield. In 1935, the British government passed the Government of India Act, which separated Burma from British India and granted it a distinct constitution as a separate crown colony, effective in 1937. While the British publicly framed this as a concession to Burmese nationalism, the underlying economic reality was far more cynical. By carving Burma out of India, Britain ensured that the lucrative revenues from Burmese rice, teak, and oil would no longer flow into the Indian balance of payments. Burma's export surpluses were redirected to settle British deficits directly with London. India was stripped of its primary economic buffer, leaving its balance of payments highly vulnerable to British manipulation. Crucially, this territorial amputation should have been fiercely opposed by the Indian National Congress as an imperial division of the national inheritance. Instead, the INC played directly into the British design. Consumed with the pursuit of provincial autonomy within British India and willing to accept the British framing of Burmese nationalistic demands, the INC failed to mount a serious, unified political fight to keep Burma within the Indian union. By accepting the first cut without a concerted fight, the INC allowed the first geopolitical domino to fall. This failure was not lost on the British establishment. The precedent was set. If the Indian leadership would passively accept the surgical amputation of a wealthy province, it emboldened London to believe they could execute a far more devastating division a decade later. The acceptance of Burma's separation signaled to the British that the territorial integrity of the subcontinent was entirely negotiable, paving the way for the second stage of the guillotine. II. The Demographic Weaponization of the Military (1918-1945) The physical enforcement of this division relied heavily on how Britain managed the Indian armed forces. For decades, the British military apparatus in India operated on a deeply sectarian "martial race" theory. The British systematically favored Muslims in the recruitment for the cavalry and the prestigious infantry regiments. Prior to the massive wartime expansions, Muslims constituted the majority of the combatant ranks in the British Indian Army. This was a deliberate imperial design to keep the primary coercive arm of the state in the hands of a demographic minority that the British deemed politically reliable. However, the sheer scale of human attrition required for the First and Second World Wars forced the British to drastically expand recruitment. Millions of Hindus were inducted into the army to fight in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. This wartime necessity temporarily gave the Hindu soldiers a numerical majority within the ranks of the military. To strip this newfound defensive advantage away, the British executed rapid and systematic disbandment of the army the moment the wars concluded. They did this suddenly once the First World War ended in 1918, and they repeated the exact same maneuver after the Second World War ended in 1945. By rapidly demobilizing the troops, the British deliberately removed the numerical advantage the Hindu soldiers had gained, ensuring they would not possess the organizational mass to defend their homeland in the event of a post-colonial conflict. Meanwhile, the British ensured the officer class within the remaining Indian regiments remained disproportionately Muslim and heavily energized along religious lines. This was by design. When the partition occurred, these religiously motivated military elements formed the vanguard of the attack on India, specifically leading the tribal and military invasion of the Kashmir valley. As I have written about elsewhere, it was only through the fierce defensive leadership of the Kodandera family heirs, notably General K.M. Cariappa, that Kashmir was saved from slipping away into the hands of this British-engineered assault. III. The 565 Kingdoms Problem: Legal Balkanization (1947) With the military artificially balanced to favor a future conflict, Britain turned to the legal balkanization of the state. For over a century, the British Raj had governed through a dual system. There was British India, directly administered by the Crown, and there were the Princely States, over five hundred sixty-five semi-autonomous kingdoms ruled by local monarchs under the suzerainty of the British Crown. When the British parliament passed the Indian Independence Act of 1947, it contained a devastating legal mechanism. It declared that British paramountcy over the Princely States would simply lapse upon the transfer of power. This meant that the five hundred sixty-five princely states legally became fully sovereign, independent nations on August 15, 1947. The British offered no mechanism for their integration, drew no boundaries for them, and provided no legal framework to force them to join either India or Pakistan. Britain deliberately left India not as one unified country, but as a chaotic archipelago of over five hundred independent sovereign entities scattered across the map, interspersed with the directly governed provinces. The legal reality was a balkanized nightmare. India was envisaged as a fractured, weak entity, doomed to spend years negotiating, coercing, and fighting to integrate these five hundred kingdoms. IV. The Pakistan Experiment: A Geopolitical Counterweight In stark contrast to the five hundred pieces India was left in, the Muslim League's demand for Pakistan was encouraged and structured as a single, cohesive geopolitical bloc, albeit divided into two wings. The creation of Pakistan was the ultimate imperial insurance policy. A united, independent India would inevitably emerge as a major global power, capable of utilizing its vast population and resources to challenge British economic interests and demand the £350 billion in wartime reparations. By carving out a massive Islamic nation on India's western and eastern flanks, Britain created a permanent geopolitical counterweight. The Pakistan experiment was designed to ensure the subcontinent would remain perpetually divided. It created a massive Islamic nation on the side, bound to compete with India for resources, territory, and strategic dominance. This rivalry would force India to divert massive portions of its newly independent budget away from economic development and debt recovery, and toward military defense on its new, long, and porous borders. By keeping India and Pakistan in a state of permanent tension, Britain ensured that neither nation would ever possess the bandwidth or the unified diplomatic leverage to challenge the Treasury in London over the unpaid sterling balances. The balkanization of India into five hundred pieces was the immediate trap, and Pakistan was the long-term geopolitical cage. V. The Ten-Month Acceleration: Leaving on the Boil The final, most devastating element of this strategy was the timing of the exit. When Prime Minister Clement Attlee initially announced the British departure, the target date was June 1948. This timeline would have allowed the Indian leadership roughly a year to negotiate the integration of the five hundred princely states, establish administrative continuity, and conduct a proper financial audit of the wartime ledgers. When Lord Louis Mountbatten arrived in March 1947, he abruptly advanced the date of independence by ten months, moving it to August 1947. The official justification was the escalating communal violence in Bengal and Punjab. However, the strategic reality was that Britain wanted to leave while the country was on the boil. By accelerating the timeline by ten months, Mountbatten ensured that the Indian leadership would be handed a fractured, burning state with absolutely no time to prepare. There was no time to negotiate the accession of the five hundred kingdoms peacefully. There was no time to properly divide the military, the civil service, or the physical assets of the treasury. There was no time to audit the £1.3 billion owed to India. By advancing the date, Britain ensured that the announcement of the Radcliffe Line, which sliced through communities and provinces, would trigger immediate, unmanageable chaos. Millions of refugees were thrown onto the roads. The violence erupted precisely as the British were pulling out their final administrative personnel. Britain did not stay to manage the fires they had lit. They deliberately left when the country was at the absolute peak of its boil, ensuring that the new Indian government would be entirely consumed by the sheer mechanics of survival. VI. The Ultimate Victory: Resurgence of Truth The two-stage partition of the subcontinent was a masterpiece of imperial geopolitical engineering. First, they amputated the economic shield of Burma to protect their balance of payments, a move unopposed by the INC. Then, they systematically dismantled the military's demographic balance to engineer a future conflict, legally shattered India into five hundred pieces, and carved out a massive Islamic counterweight in Pakistan. Finally, they accelerated the exit by ten months to ensure the powder keg exploded just as their ships left the harbor. While the Indian leadership, led by Nehru and Patel, spent the critical years of 1947 and 1948 fighting to integrate the five hundred kingdoms, defending Kashmir from a British-energized military assault, and managing a massive refugee crisis, the British Treasury in London quietly finalized its default. The geopolitical chaos was the perfect smokescreen. The strategy worked flawlessly in the short term. The country was broken into pieces, a massive rival was installed on its borders, and the unpaid wartime debt vanished into the fog of a British-engineered catastrophe. Yet, the Mundaka Upanishad declares Satyameva Jayate, truth alone triumphs. This ancient civilizational aphorism becomes starkly evident when observing how India pulled herself together despite the labyrinth of malicious designs enacted by various imperial actors. Against the calculated arithmetic of default, the legal balkanization of five hundred kingdoms, and the violent trauma of an engineered partition, the subcontinent endured. The fires lit by the arsonists eventually burned out, but the foundation of the civilization remained. To fully appreciate this resilience, Indians must reclaim and understand their history from their own viewpoint. For too long, the narrative of the subcontinent has been filtered through the ledgers and dispatches of the colonizer. Only by connecting these historical threads from an indigenous perspective can the modern generation recognize the profound civilizational values that have allowed them to thrive through centuries of extraction and orchestrated division. The truth of this history is no longer a weapon for grievance, but a foundation for destiny. The era of merely surviving these geopolitical and financial assaults is finally over. Armed with the unvarnished truth of their own past, India has reached the threshold where it is no longer time to just survive. It is now time to thrive. References and Further Reading British Parliament. (1935). Government of India Act, 1935. British Parliament. (1947). Indian Independence Act, 1947. Cariappa, K. M. (1979). Indian Army: Some Memories and Reflections. Jalal, A. (1994). The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan. Cambridge University Press. Khan, Y. (2007). The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan. Yale University Press. Menon, V. P. (1956). The Integration of the Indian States. Orient Longman. Myint-U, Thant. (2001). The Making of Modern Burma. Cambridge University Press. Omissi, D. (1994). Indian Voices of the Great War: Soldiers' Letters, 1914-1918. Macmillan. Tomlinson, B. R. (1979). The Political Economy of the Raj 1914-1947: The Economics of Decolonization in India. Macmillan. All rights reserved. You must get written permission if you want to republish. Twitter/X users can share, repost, like, comment but please provide attribution to @shreehistory who did all this research.

ShreeHistory's tweet photo. The Geopolitics of the Guillotine: The True Reason India Was Partitioned

By @shreehistory

In the first installment of this investigation, the ledger of the empire was laid bare, revealing how Britain systematically extracted wealth from India across two world wars and defaulted on a £350 billion debt. Part Two of this story examines the physical and political mechanism used to guarantee that default would never be challenged. The retreat from the subcontinent was not a simple lowering of a flag. It was a meticulously calculated geopolitical guillotine, executed in two distinct stages, designed to permanently fracture the region and paralyze the newly independent state.

To prevent a unified, economically resurgent India from demanding reparations for the wartime extraction, Britain engaged in a strategy of systemic balkanization. This was achieved first by economically amputating Burma in 1937, and second, by lighting the political house on fire in 1947 through the abrupt creation of Pakistan, the deliberate fracturing of India into over five hundred independent sovereign entities, and the demographic weaponization of the military.

I. The First Cut: The Amputation of Burma (1937)

The blueprint for weakening the subcontinent began a decade before the famous partition of 1947. Throughout the early twentieth century, Burma was administered as a province of British India. This administrative union was highly beneficial to the broader Indian economy, because Burma was an economic powerhouse that consistently ran massive trade surpluses.

Burma was the rice bowl of the empire, exporting vast quantities of rice across the globe. It possessed massive, highly lucrative teak forests essential for imperial naval and railway construction. Most importantly, Burma held newly discovered and highly productive oil fields.

By the mid-1930s, Britain was beginning to panic over its balance of payments with India. The debts were accumulating, and the British Treasury realized that an India bolstered by Burmese exports could potentially offset its deficits and demand hard currency repayments. London needed to sever this economic shield.

In 1935, the British government passed the Government of India Act, which separated Burma from British India and granted it a distinct constitution as a separate crown colony, effective in 1937. While the British publicly framed this as a concession to Burmese nationalism, the underlying economic reality was far more cynical. By carving Burma out of India, Britain ensured that the lucrative revenues from Burmese rice, teak, and oil would no longer flow into the Indian balance of payments. Burma's export surpluses were redirected to settle British deficits directly with London. India was stripped of its primary economic buffer, leaving its balance of payments highly vulnerable to British manipulation.

Crucially, this territorial amputation should have been fiercely opposed by the Indian National Congress as an imperial division of the national inheritance. Instead, the INC played directly into the British design. Consumed with the pursuit of provincial autonomy within British India and willing to accept the British framing of Burmese nationalistic demands, the INC failed to mount a serious, unified political fight to keep Burma within the Indian union.

By accepting the first cut without a concerted fight, the INC allowed the first geopolitical domino to fall. This failure was not lost on the British establishment. The precedent was set. If the Indian leadership would passively accept the surgical amputation of a wealthy province, it emboldened London to believe they could execute a far more devastating division a decade later. The acceptance of Burma's separation signaled to the British that the territorial integrity of the subcontinent was entirely negotiable, paving the way for the second stage of the guillotine.

II. The Demographic Weaponization of the Military (1918-1945)

The physical enforcement of this division relied heavily on how Britain managed the Indian armed forces. For decades, the British military apparatus in India operated on a deeply sectarian "martial race" theory. The British systematically favored Muslims in the recruitment for the cavalry and the prestigious infantry regiments.

Prior to the massive wartime expansions, Muslims constituted the majority of the combatant ranks in the British Indian Army. This was a deliberate imperial design to keep the primary coercive arm of the state in the hands of a demographic minority that the British deemed politically reliable.

However, the sheer scale of human attrition required for the First and Second World Wars forced the British to drastically expand recruitment. Millions of Hindus were inducted into the army to fight in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. This wartime necessity temporarily gave the Hindu soldiers a numerical majority within the ranks of the military.

To strip this newfound defensive advantage away, the British executed rapid and systematic disbandment of the army the moment the wars concluded. They did this suddenly once the First World War ended in 1918, and they repeated the exact same maneuver after the Second World War ended in 1945. By rapidly demobilizing the troops, the British deliberately removed the numerical advantage the Hindu soldiers had gained, ensuring they would not possess the organizational mass to defend their homeland in the event of a post-colonial conflict.

Meanwhile, the British ensured the officer class within the remaining Indian regiments remained disproportionately Muslim and heavily energized along religious lines. This was by design. When the partition occurred, these religiously motivated military elements formed the vanguard of the attack on India, specifically leading the tribal and military invasion of the Kashmir valley. As I have written about elsewhere, it was only through the fierce defensive leadership of the Kodandera family heirs, notably General K.M. Cariappa, that Kashmir was saved from slipping away into the hands of this British-engineered assault.

III. The 565 Kingdoms Problem: Legal Balkanization (1947)

With the military artificially balanced to favor a future conflict, Britain turned to the legal balkanization of the state. For over a century, the British Raj had governed through a dual system. There was British India, directly administered by the Crown, and there were the Princely States, over five hundred sixty-five semi-autonomous kingdoms ruled by local monarchs under the suzerainty of the British Crown.

When the British parliament passed the Indian Independence Act of 1947, it contained a devastating legal mechanism. It declared that British paramountcy over the Princely States would simply lapse upon the transfer of power.

This meant that the five hundred sixty-five princely states legally became fully sovereign, independent nations on August 15, 1947. The British offered no mechanism for their integration, drew no boundaries for them, and provided no legal framework to force them to join either India or Pakistan.

Britain deliberately left India not as one unified country, but as a chaotic archipelago of over five hundred independent sovereign entities scattered across the map, interspersed with the directly governed provinces. The legal reality was a balkanized nightmare. India was envisaged as a fractured, weak entity, doomed to spend years negotiating, coercing, and fighting to integrate these five hundred kingdoms.

IV. The Pakistan Experiment: A Geopolitical Counterweight

In stark contrast to the five hundred pieces India was left in, the Muslim League's demand for Pakistan was encouraged and structured as a single, cohesive geopolitical bloc, albeit divided into two wings.

The creation of Pakistan was the ultimate imperial insurance policy. A united, independent India would inevitably emerge as a major global power, capable of utilizing its vast population and resources to challenge British economic interests and demand the £350 billion in wartime reparations. By carving out a massive Islamic nation on India's western and eastern flanks, Britain created a permanent geopolitical counterweight.

The Pakistan experiment was designed to ensure the subcontinent would remain perpetually divided. It created a massive Islamic nation on the side, bound to compete with India for resources, territory, and strategic dominance. This rivalry would force India to divert massive portions of its newly independent budget away from economic development and debt recovery, and toward military defense on its new, long, and porous borders.

By keeping India and Pakistan in a state of permanent tension, Britain ensured that neither nation would ever possess the bandwidth or the unified diplomatic leverage to challenge the Treasury in London over the unpaid sterling balances. The balkanization of India into five hundred pieces was the immediate trap, and Pakistan was the long-term geopolitical cage.

V. The Ten-Month Acceleration: Leaving on the Boil

The final, most devastating element of this strategy was the timing of the exit. When Prime Minister Clement Attlee initially announced the British departure, the target date was June 1948. This timeline would have allowed the Indian leadership roughly a year to negotiate the integration of the five hundred princely states, establish administrative continuity, and conduct a proper financial audit of the wartime ledgers.

When Lord Louis Mountbatten arrived in March 1947, he abruptly advanced the date of independence by ten months, moving it to August 1947.

The official justification was the escalating communal violence in Bengal and Punjab. However, the strategic reality was that Britain wanted to leave while the country was on the boil. By accelerating the timeline by ten months, Mountbatten ensured that the Indian leadership would be handed a fractured, burning state with absolutely no time to prepare.

There was no time to negotiate the accession of the five hundred kingdoms peacefully. There was no time to properly divide the military, the civil service, or the physical assets of the treasury. There was no time to audit the £1.3 billion owed to India.

By advancing the date, Britain ensured that the announcement of the Radcliffe Line, which sliced through communities and provinces, would trigger immediate, unmanageable chaos. Millions of refugees were thrown onto the roads. The violence erupted precisely as the British were pulling out their final administrative personnel.

Britain did not stay to manage the fires they had lit. They deliberately left when the country was at the absolute peak of its boil, ensuring that the new Indian government would be entirely consumed by the sheer mechanics of survival.

VI. The Ultimate Victory: Resurgence of Truth

The two-stage partition of the subcontinent was a masterpiece of imperial geopolitical engineering. First, they amputated the economic shield of Burma to protect their balance of payments, a move unopposed by the INC. Then, they systematically dismantled the military's demographic balance to engineer a future conflict, legally shattered India into five hundred pieces, and carved out a massive Islamic counterweight in Pakistan. Finally, they accelerated the exit by ten months to ensure the powder keg exploded just as their ships left the harbor.

While the Indian leadership, led by Nehru and Patel, spent the critical years of 1947 and 1948 fighting to integrate the five hundred kingdoms, defending Kashmir from a British-energized military assault, and managing a massive refugee crisis, the British Treasury in London quietly finalized its default.

The geopolitical chaos was the perfect smokescreen. The strategy worked flawlessly in the short term. The country was broken into pieces, a massive rival was installed on its borders, and the unpaid wartime debt vanished into the fog of a British-engineered catastrophe.

Yet, the Mundaka Upanishad declares Satyameva Jayate, truth alone triumphs. This ancient civilizational aphorism becomes starkly evident when observing how India pulled herself together despite the labyrinth of malicious designs enacted by various imperial actors. Against the calculated arithmetic of default, the legal balkanization of five hundred kingdoms, and the violent trauma of an engineered partition, the subcontinent endured. The fires lit by the arsonists eventually burned out, but the foundation of the civilization remained.

To fully appreciate this resilience, Indians must reclaim and understand their history from their own viewpoint. For too long, the narrative of the subcontinent has been filtered through the ledgers and dispatches of the colonizer. Only by connecting these historical threads from an indigenous perspective can the modern generation recognize the profound civilizational values that have allowed them to thrive through centuries of extraction and orchestrated division.

The truth of this history is no longer a weapon for grievance, but a foundation for destiny. The era of merely surviving these geopolitical and financial assaults is finally over. Armed with the unvarnished truth of their own past, India has reached the threshold where it is no longer time to just survive. It is now time to thrive.

References and Further Reading

British Parliament. (1935). Government of India Act, 1935.
British Parliament. (1947). Indian Independence Act, 1947.
Cariappa, K. M. (1979). Indian Army: Some Memories and Reflections.
Jalal, A. (1994). The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan. Cambridge University Press.
Khan, Y. (2007). The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan. Yale University Press.
Menon, V. P. (1956). The Integration of the Indian States. Orient Longman.
Myint-U, Thant. (2001). The Making of Modern Burma. Cambridge University Press.
Omissi, D. (1994). Indian Voices of the Great War: Soldiers' Letters, 1914-1918. Macmillan.
Tomlinson, B. R. (1979). The Political Economy of the Raj 1914-1947: The Economics of Decolonization in India. Macmillan.

All rights reserved. You must get written permission if you want to republish. Twitter/X users can share, repost, like, comment but please provide attribution to @shreehistory who did all this research.

494

283

381

16K

ProfessionYodha retweeted

Blondelady2024

@arva61138

2 days ago

960

29K

11K

280K

Who to follow

@jd6902

Ramesh Narasimhan

@rameshn19

A Life Enthusiast more than anything else! But also a Management Consultant, a Trainer, Speaker & Blogger! http://t.co/ZPbDg0v1aP

amit dhulla

@illusionad

ProfessionYodha retweeted

N Ecc 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

@Neccccy

2 days ago

This is Islam !!!

182

111

69K

ProfessionYodha retweeted

Muthukumar Subbaiah @smkumarlakshmi

2 days ago

Do you agree?

241

21K

ProfessionYodha retweeted

Comman Man

@CommanMan777589

2 days ago

If Indian politicians were Bollywood characters... 💀 Some of these castings are way too accurate 😭😂 Who won the role?

341

127

26K

ProfessionYodha retweeted

MG 🇮🇳

@mgnayak5

2 days ago

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi saying "Hey Ram" before getting killed by Godse is a lie!

529

306

ProfessionYodha retweeted

Johnny Midnight ⚡️

@its_The_Dr

1 day ago

Absolutely 💯

226

34K

ProfessionYodha retweeted

N Ecc 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿��󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

@Neccccy

2 days ago

Is Taslima correct?

143

763

34K

ProfessionYodha retweeted

William Seaborn

@will_seaborn

2 days ago

Well said

629

15K

ProfessionYodha retweeted

Bhagavad Gita

@GitaShlokas_

2 days ago

Much needed step...!!

619

51K

ProfessionYodha retweeted

Mahesh Vikram Hegde 🇮🇳

@mvmeet

2 days ago

Rahul Gandhi apologizes even in petty cases Does he really have the moral authority to speak about Savarkar? He has already said "sorry" seven times out of fear of legal cases If Rahul Gandhi were ever sentenced to Kala Paani punishment for one day, what would he have done? He would probably have fled India and become an Italian citizen #SorryRahul

mvmeet's tweet photo. Rahul Gandhi apologizes even in petty cases
Does he really have the moral authority to speak about Savarkar?

He has already said "sorry" seven times out of fear of legal cases

If Rahul Gandhi were ever sentenced to Kala Paani punishment for one day,

what would he have done?

He would probably have fled India and become an Italian citizen

#SorryRahul

720

460

ProfessionYodha retweeted

VictoriaL59

@Victoria59L

2 days ago

Denmark 🇩🇰 Now Greece 🇬🇷 🚨BREAKING: Greece announced that it will close 60 mosques across the country and deport those who continue to illegally build Islamic religious spaces. Greece is fighting against the Islamization of Europe. Do you support it?

Victoria59L's tweet photo. Denmark 🇩🇰
Now Greece 🇬🇷

🚨BREAKING: Greece announced that it will close 60 mosques across the country and deport those who continue to illegally build Islamic religious spaces.

Greece is fighting against the Islamization of Europe.

Do you support it? https://t.co/UVNolHxgBu

75K

14K

670K

ProfessionYodha retweeted

Tathvam-asi

@tathvamasi6

2 days ago

What will @sardesairajdeep say now?

601

20K

ProfessionYodha retweeted

Kashmiri Hindu

@BattaKashmiri

2 days ago

Let's tag @MehboobaMufti and tell her how Girija Tickoo was cut alive into two pieces with a carpenter saw & her body thrown on the roadside on this very day, 25 June 1990 in Kashmir. We cannot ever move on with life and forget the massacre of our own. NEVER FORGET.