The funniest part about pig politicisation is that it is based on ignorance. Hindus and Christians can eat all the pork they want and keep pigs as pets—that does not bother Muslims.
China patiently invested capital, skill and technology in coal gasification. Unlike it, we won’t move from words to action. As crude prices decline, we lose interest.
This showcases that when Mr. Ibn Khaldun Bharati tries his hand at counterfactual history, few can rival the quality of his thinking, the quality of his imagination, the quality of his writing. His understanding of the grandeur of Indic civilization is awesome, and this essay is glowing with his deep affinity for this great civilization. One can also sense his profound sense of loss regarding Dara Shukoh. What if Dara had not lost to Aurangzeb!
The wise will find it hard to miss how any vision of a ‘unified’ Bharata, ancient, medieval (‘Mughal’), or modern, is inevitably one infused with Sanatana values, ethics, and philosophy.
While this particular speculation on ‘what-if’ is more accurately ‘an exception that proves the rule’ (as Skanda’s comment below mine argues), it is high time that the Bharatiya public, left, right, centre, progressive or conservative, realised that the constructive way forward can only be Ramrajya.
This piece is essentially a mourning letter dressed as history. Every paragraph is calibrated to make you feel the loss of what could have been, rather than interrogate what actually was.
It never asks the more important question — why, in 1500 years, has the Dara template been repeatedly executed by its own people, while the Aurangzeb template gets mosques, textbooks, and street names? The answer makes this entire ‘What If’ exercise redundant.
This ‘What If Dara’ fantasy is the intellectual equivalent of citing one gentle wolf to defend the pack. The pack’s track record speaks louder.
Dara isn’t proof that Islam can reform. Dara is proof of what happens to Islam when it tries
This showcases that when Mr. Ibn Khaldun Bharati tries his hand at counterfactual history, few can rival the quality of his thinking, the quality of his imagination, the quality of his writing. His understanding of the grandeur of Indic civilization is awesome, and this essay is glowing with his deep affinity for this great civilization. One can also sense his profound sense of loss regarding Dara Shukoh. What if Dara had not lost to Aurangzeb!
The wise will find it hard to miss how any vision of a ‘unified’ Bharata, ancient, medieval (‘Mughal’), or modern, is inevitably one infused with Sanatana values, ethics, and philosophy.
While this particular speculation on ‘what-if’ is more accurately ‘an exception that proves the rule’ (as Skanda’s comment below mine argues), it is high time that the Bharatiya public, left, right, centre, progressive or conservative, realised that the constructive way forward can only be Ramrajya.
This piece is essentially a mourning letter dressed as history. Every paragraph is calibrated to make you feel the loss of what could have been, rather than interrogate what actually was.
It never asks the more important question — why, in 1500 years, has the Dara template been repeatedly executed by its own people, while the Aurangzeb template gets mosques, textbooks, and street names? The answer makes this entire ‘What If’ exercise redundant.
This ‘What If Dara’ fantasy is the intellectual equivalent of citing one gentle wolf to defend the pack. The pack’s track record speaks louder.
Dara isn’t proof that Islam can reform. Dara is proof of what happens to Islam when it tries