Mikasa

🫶🏻🫶🏻🫶🏻

[Mikasa @Subha__21]

This is so cute 💜✨🌻

[Varsha Singh @varshaparmar06]

Look hindus what you are inherited

This sculpture is made of hard rock stone centuries ago by our ancestors. The intricacy and craftsmanship is beyond words.

[Nick Collins @nickcollins1953]

For four thousand years, the Indian subcontinent was the centre of world trade. Sumerian tablets record Indian ships reaching Mesopotamia in the third millennium BC. Rome ran a permanent trade deficit with India. By 1600, Surat was the richest port on earth.

Then, within a single lifetime, India lost its maritime supremacy almost entirely.

The conventional explanation is that Europe arrived with superior ships and weapons. It is a comforting story and it is largely wrong. The deeper cause was internal.

Indian commerce was extraordinarily sophisticated. Surat's leading merchant, the Jain financier Virji Vora, was reputedly the richest man in the world; the East India Company borrowed from him. Merchants of every religion and origin traded together because the system rested on two foundations: religious toleration, established by Akbar, and predictable, low-tariffs. Customs duties were around five per cent. Contracts were honoured. Trust was the real currency.

There was one structural weakness. In Venice, Amsterdam and London, the state and the merchant class shared an interest in trade and invested in it together. In Mughal India, the ruling elite was indifferent to commerce. Merchants financed the state; the state never encouraged merchants.

When Aurangzeb became hostile, merchants had no protection. Religious toleration was abandoned. Temples were destroyed, punitive taxes on non-Muslims reimposed, the Sikh Guru executed. Forty years of war followed. East India Company imports from India fell ninety per cent in seven years. Eight thousand merchants abandoned Surat in a single exodus.

They relocated, many of them to an insignificant island Britain had received as a royal wedding dowry, because it offered the security and toleration the Mughal state had destroyed. It also offered English Common Law. Within a generation Bombay was the commercial capital of India. The Wadia family built the Royal Navy's finest ships there. The Tata dynasty traces its origins to this migration.

Europe did not defeat Indian commerce. It inherited it, by providing the conditions Indian merchants needed and their own rulers had thrown away.

This is not an argument about colonialism. It is an argument about something more fundamental, and it is the thread running through all three of my books on maritime trade. The second ‘The Millennium Maritime Trade Revolution’ is subtitled ‘How Asia Lost Maritime Supremacy.’ It is hardly ever lost to a stronger rival but when a society stops valuing the openness, toleration and commercial purpose that made it great. Portugal did it. The Dutch Republic did it. Britain, in the 20th century, did it too.

The conditions of prosperity are always a choice. And they can be unmade by a single generation that comes to value something else more.

Link to the full Substack essay with sources is below.

[SagasofBharat (talesbymiirabelle) @SagasofBharat]

Did you know?

China had a gruesome tradition of human sacrifice.

Archaeologists have uncovered thousands of sacrificial victims at Shang dynasty sites, revealing a ritual system that included men, women, and even children.

[THREAD]

[SagasofBharat (talesbymiirabelle) @SagasofBharat]

Do U know?

China too has a Sati-like practice- but far more gruesome.

Not only widows comitted suicide but there were mass murders too-Documented in Chinese sources themselves.

Indian Twitter exposed caste discrimination in China.
Let's expose this too.

[THREAD]

[yajnadevam @yajnadevam]

No, Kant was an obvious plagiarism.

His main ideas are copied from the Indian darshanas, reframed in European terminology. I see nothing novel in them. Like most post 1700 European philosophy, the central points are reframing of Indian darshans, with some peripheral stuff bolted on.

Māya:
>>Kant argued that we can only ever know the world as it appears to our senses (phenomena). We can never know things as they objectively are in themselves (noumena).

Tatvam asi (the observer is the observed) :
>>Kant argued that we automatically organize sensory data using innate structures like space, time, and cause-and-effect.

Sānkhya:
>> Fundamental laws of science apply to the observable world, but we cannot use pure reason to prove abstract concepts like the existence of the soul or God.

Dharma:
>>Categorical Imperatives are absolute, universal moral commands that we must follow regardless of our personal desires. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.14 save bhavantu sukhinaḥ:
>> we must treat all rational beings—ourselves and others—always as an end in themselves

Nishkama Karma (includes action and aesthetics in Rasa theory):
>>a truly aesthetic judgment of beauty is "disinterested"—we appreciate something (like art or a landscape) purely for its form, without desiring to possess it or use it.

Sānkhyas prakriti as the infinite ungraspable:
>>Kant introduced the concept of the sublime—the feeling of awe and slight terror we get when facing vast, overwhelming aspects of nature.

[JIX5A @JIX5A]

The Tragic Story of How India Was Deindustrialized

Between 1813 and 1853, 3 Acts of British Parliament killed 3 world-leading Indian industries.

Bengal cotton, South Indian wootz steel, and Indian Ocean shipbuilding - all demolished within forty years. Manchester, Sheffield, and Lloyd's of London grew on the corpses.

[Savitri Mumukshu - सावित्री मुमुक्षु @MumukshuSavitri]

Winston Churchill’s actions during the Bengal Famine of 1943 were not just negligent - they were deliberate acts of genocidal cruelty fueled by racism and imperial greed. Claims by apologists attempting to paint Churchill as innocent collapse under the weight of historical evidence. Here I debunk their lying claims:

Claim 1: British government found out about the famine’s severity in August 1943.
Truth: Churchill’s administration knew of the impending famine 8 months before it unfolded. On December 18, 1942, the Food Department of India sent a desperate telegram to the British Secretary of State, warning of catastrophic food shortages caused by monsoon failure (Image 1). The plea was unequivocal - India faced a shortfall of 1.4 million tons of rice, 650,000 tons of millets, 400,000 tons of wheat, and 200,000 tons of gram. The message was clear, immediate assistance was required to avoid absolute disaster.

Instead Churchill not only withheld aid while the famine raged - his administration FORCED India to export 360,000 tons of wheat and rice in 1942-43. This grain, which could have saved two million Indian lives, was diverted to support British war efforts. Churchill had 8 full months to act but deliberately did NOTHING to prevent the oncoming famine crisis in India.

Claim 2: Churchill worked hard to “save the people of Bengal.”
Truth: Churchill’s policies were rooted in contempt for Indian lives. Viceroy Wavell’s journal reveals that during a September 1943 Cabinet meeting, Churchill raged against sending food relief to India, insisting that supplies should instead be stockpiled for liberated European nations like Greece (Image 2). Wavell’s damning words capture Churchill’s callousness:
"Apparently it is more important to save the Greeks and liberated countries from starvation than the Indians."
Churchill clearly commanded that relief should be restricted ONLY to those directly contributing to British war efforts, such as British army soldiers and factory/railroad workers, while leaving millions of the most helpless ordinary civilians to starve.

Claim 3: Churchill authorized around 1 million tons of grain to be shipped to India between August 1943 and December 1944.
Truth: This is a deviously misleading calculated half-truth. While approximately 900,000 tons of grain were sent, Churchill did not intend this food for Indian starving civilians at all. Viceroy Wavell’s June 24, 1944 telegram makes it clear that this grain was needed to feed the British Army stationed in India (Image 3). He warned Churchill that bases were “liable to starvation” if food was not imported. The British military alone required over 1 million tons of grain annually for its operations, leaving NO meaningful relief for starving Indian civilians. Churchill’s shipments were not humanitarian aid at all - they were clinically heartless logistical measures granted only to sustain Britain’s war machine. By late 1943, when he finally reluctantly sanctioned some aid at the insistence of Wavell & Amery, even that relief was conditional. In a further act of cruelty, Churchill agreed to send 150,000 tons of wheat to India ONLY if India supplied an equivalent amount of rice to Ceylon. Churchill FORCED India to export more than 70,000 tons of rice to Ceylon between January and July 1943 exactly when the worst part of the famine was setting in.

Such policies reveal Churchill’s true priorities: maintaining imperial dominance, no matter the human cost of Indian lives. This demolishes the argument that it was just a problem with shipping due to the war. Apparently there was no problem with shipping when sending food grains OUT of India during the height of the Famine!

In December 1943, the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) was created. Friends of India lobbied the USA for famine relief through UNRRA. But Churchill sent his representative Llewelyn to argue AGAINST any aid to India with the outrageous claim that the Indian famine had NOT been caused by war efforts. The corpulent tyrant ensured starving Indians could not even get UNRRA aid despite thousands of Indians fighting for the British in the War. And to add insult to injury he made India PAY $24 million while Indians starved!

Worst of all, Viceroy Wavell’s June 24, 1944 telegram makes it clear that there was a SECOND FAMINE impending in India in 1944 (Image 4), and grain was desperately needed to feed the British Army stationed in India. He warned Churchill that bases were “liable to starvation” if food was not imported. But Churchill did NOTHING. It was only by a huge stroke of luck that the monsoon turned out to be better than expected and Indians were able to avert a SECOND deadly famine in 1944 - otherwise we would be talking about 10s of millions murdered.

The Bengal Famine of 1943 was not an unavoidable calamity - it was a man-made atrocity, orchestrated by Churchill’s racist and imperialist policies. Under his leadership, 3–5 million Indians died, not because of natural disaster but because Churchill mercilessly prioritized British interests over Indian lives. His infamous comment to Leo Amery that “famine relief would do no good because Indians breed like rabbits” lays bare the contempt he held for millions of Indians dying in agony after Britain had sucked all of India's resources dry. To Churchill, the death of millions of Indians was not a tragedy - it was pest control of the Indians he held in such contempt.

Churchill’s actions were not only cruel but genocidal in intent. He deliberately exacerbated famine conditions by denying vital food shipments to India, exporting vital resources from India, ignoring urgent warnings, desperate pleas for help and hoarding grain for British soldiers and European allies. The evidence is irrefutable: Winston Churchill was no hero. For India, he was a murderous tyrant whose policies inflicted unspeakable suffering. The Bengal Famine remains a permanent and horrific stain on Winston Churchill's legacy, a chilling reminder of the horrors of imperialism, and an indictment of those who seek to glorify it.

Had it had been a Western country with millions of white Christians that starved instead of brown Hindus, then none of these apologists would make a peep to defend Churchill’s murderous actions.

[Avici @sacredrain]

Indians were so repulsed by Europeans that they would wash their heads and eyes after merely seeing them.

Indians described Europeans as vile, abominable, very dirty, and lacking basic manners.

When you look at Europe's savage history, you realize they weren't wrong.

[History इतिहास 🇺🇲🛕 🚀 @ShreeHistory]

Everyone talks about “ancient caste” in India as if today’s rigid grid always existed.

But if you actually map Mahābhārata lineages, a very different picture emerges.

[History इतिहास 🇺🇲🛕 🚀 @ShreeHistory]

English used
1) Soup for Supa (Sanskrit Origin)
2) Cash for Kasu (Kannada/Tamil)
3) Caste for Casta (Portuguese origin)

That is all you need to know.

[SagasofBharat (talesbymiirabelle) @SagasofBharat]

😂😂
The ss u are using is from the Journal of Asiatic society started by William Jones.

The quote is by Indologist F.W Thomas. The same people who wanted to uproot Sanskrit & replace it with British education.

You think u will fetch a random ss & i wont know? I do my homework well.😂

If Sanskrit was so unpopular why would every invader from Mohamedans to British want to uproot it so bad? British even went out of their way to learn the language. Make it make sense.

[Parimal @Fintech03]

Sir, Your argument actually misses basic timelines: The core Vedas (Rigveda etc.) were composed & orally transmitted centuries before Brahmi script even existed (earliest clear Brahmi is Ashoka's edicts ~250 BCE). Vedic tradition was deliberately oral by design. The rishis prioritized exact sound, pitch (udatta/anudatta/svarita), & vibration over writing, believing the mantra's power lay in recitation.

Brahmi was mainly used for Prakrit administrative inscriptions & Buddhist propagation under Ashoka, not for preserving sacred Sanskrit mantras. Vedic scholars were very much present in that era; they simply continued their proven oral parampara. Scripts evolve & become unreadable over time (Brahmi itself faded by ~5th century CE & was replaced by later scripts like Gupta & Nagari). James Prinsep deciphered it in the 1830s using comparative methods, the same way many ancient scripts worldwide (Egyptian hieroglyphs, etc.) were cracked by outsiders. That does not prove vedic people were absent.

[Vedic Wisdom..ॐ @VedicWisdom1]

My Guruji keeps repeating this point.

We think wearing "Dharmic clothes", going to temples, participating in rituals, bowing in front of idols makes us Dharmic.

But it's all meaningless without adhyatamika, without the motivation to make outselves better, actively trying to remove greed, anger, hate, desire, ignorance and attachment.

Even if you worship Devas for a million years, its useless without actively trying to purifying your mind.

[Pubity @pubity]

India gained around 2.1 million hectares of tropical dry woodland between 2014 and 2024.

Large-scale tree planting, conservation and restoration schemes, and expanding plantations are some of the reasons behind this.

[Project SHIVOHAM @ProjectShivoham]

I am reading through my collection of British reports on Indus Civilization dated 1931… in these reports, British themselves documented Brahmi Script’s roots from Indus Script…

So if 100 years ago itself there was such a research done by outsiders, then why the so called Intellectuals in India today push that Sanskrit came from outside India…

Ask this commonsensical question and derive your answers… what evil intentions they hold in downplaying Sanskrit and Bharat’s indisputable relationship!

[Pratham @Pratham86718126]

𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝘂𝘀-𝗦𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘄𝗮𝘁𝗶 𝗖𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻?

S.R. Rao, the excavator of Lothal, in his report "Lothal: A Harappan Port Town (1955-62)", notes that all most all the skeletons found in the cemetery at Lothal belonged to the age-group of 20-30. He notes a complete absence of age groups older than 30 in the burials. It is quite probable as he rightly points out that:

"...that those aged more than 30 were disposed of other than by inhumation. Perhaps they were cremated or exposed to elements."

Rao rightly points out that both the practices of burial and "exposure to the elements", are attested in the Vedic literature to have been practiced apart from cremation. The term "anagnidagdha" in the Rig Veda refers to the disposal of the dead other than by burning.

[Aravind @aravind]

This is a big win for India in the last decade.

But even with all such positives, there's an attempt at psyops by foreign seeded narrative using local politicians & account farms that India's environment is at threat.

So it can be used to program the public to fight India's strategic Andaman Nicobar port and military base development.

Public should not fall for it. Remember they are the same forces and it is same playbook adopted in Kenya to evict Adani from doing a project and capture it later.

[Shiwam Singh Dodiya @Scion_of_Agni]

𝗔𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗢𝗳 𝗩𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗰 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗜𝗻 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗮 𝗧𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝟮𝟬𝟬𝟬 𝗕𝗖𝗘. ( 𝙲𝚊𝚜𝚎 𝙾𝚏 𝙺𝚊𝚞𝚜𝚊𝚖𝚋𝚒 ).

The finding of Vedic civilization indigenous to Bharat was made during excavations held during 1957—1959 by G. R Sharma & his team.

[History इतिहास 🇺🇲🛕 🚀 @ShreeHistory]

Factual.

Sugar manufacture was invented in the South India.

Kannada word sakkare (ಸಕ್ಕರೆ) was adopted by Europe as Sucre.

My Shreehistory encyclopedia has a page on Sugar.

[Mikasa @Subha__21]

@MumukshuSavitri Ye potol tarKari hai? ❣️ Bahat tasty hai 🫶🏻🫶🏻🫶🏻