Swara Bhaskar's insensitive remarks on Jauhar scene from Padmavat- Page 11

So... I googled Rajtarangini and queens self immolation. And this turned up

In the first ss it mentions Sati which we all know was performed in India since ancient times for reasons often different than Jauhar.

The second ss actually proves that point in the social context that it was about wifely devotion, royal honour, patriarchal norms, socio-economic restrictions, and societal pressures placed on royal widows.

I, however, see no, or atleast, very less similarity with Jauhar which was primarily to escape s3xual violence, s3x slavery, nud3 parades, and selling of captured women in markets like commodity that the Islamic barbarians did.

Didnt need to search about the chola context After this result.. cos i can guess the similar pattern would be there too. In Mahabharata too Maadri performaned sati on Pandu's death by her choice while Kunti didn't, again by her choice.

P.s - i can clearly see the attempts of equating Rajput jauhar, of medieval times, against Muslim barbarians with sati tradition coming from ancient times, done for often different & varied reasons, which may or may not involve avoiding sexual violence which was the central theme in Jauhar.

I must say the intent of bringing Rajatarangini and Chola dynasty to generalize the barbarity done by Islamic invaders, doesn't seem honest and is at the very least suspicious.

Pps - dont want to comment on Akbar 'the great' either. Those who know know.

Originally posted by: Ranbhoomi

Stop lying..you have clearly blamed hindu male society for women committing jauhar as well...

Again... in your first line I see the bias against me... I blamed patriarchy... and t h a t clearly isn't a Hindu 'thing' if one contemplates the beginning of Hinduism... it's a men-made thing done in almost all religions... (rest I didn't read)

Thank you for the pushback, as it allows to look closer at the specific historical sources rather than staying on the surface. Regarding the Rajatarangini, the text actually explicitly documents women committing self-immolation to escape rival domestic factions; for example, in Book VII (Taranga 7) of Kalhana's chronicle, during the internal rebellion against the Hindu King Harsha of Kashmir, his queens and concubines chose to burn themselves alive inside the palace specifically to avoid capture, abuse, and humiliation by the rival Hindu Damara rebels, proving that the threat of being treated as war booty was an institutionalized reality of medieval warfare regardless of the enemy's faith.

Similarly, regarding Akbar the Great, pointing out his later social reforms does not mean erasing his early military brutality, such as the horrific massacre of 30,000 civilians after the fall of Chittorgarh in 1568. However, medieval history is full of these contradictions, and it is a well-documented fact (in the Ain-i-Akbari) that in his later years, Akbar officially banned forced Sati, legalized widow remarriage, and appointed imperial officers with the specific duty to physically step in and stop women from being coerced onto funeral pyres.

Bringing up these nuances is not about rewriting history or minimizing the immense suffering caused by invaders; it is about showing that (while individual rulers and invasions created the immediate, terrifying dangers) it was the overarching patriarchal mindset (the societal rule that a woman's life belongs to her clan's collective honor and is better destroyed than "soiled") that built the pyres in the first place, and that is the exact patriarchal mindset that we still see echoing in modern prejudices today - independent of the religion.

I strictly refuse to give in to the Hindu vs Muslim mindset, some members propagate here (and in other places of the forum). None of the big religious systems should get glorified when acting against humanity and human rights... although the Middle Ages (also named dark age) hadn't yet what we call 'the Human Rights', people very well knew about morally right or wrong... and patriarchy far too often made the wrong a right and rule...

Edit: Dr. Ashirbadi Lal Srivastava was a recognized academic historian of the 20th century, and his foundational work Akbar the Great is a well-sourced scholarly study rather than an ideologically driven rewriting of history. Although Srivastava meticulously documented the military conflicts and harshness of Akbar's campaigns rather than idealizing him, he simultaneously acknowledged the emperor's progressive social reforms and religious tolerance policies. (just adding as I read his name mentioned here)

What can one say about a (not new) member which can't distinguish an analytical text from hate speech against Hindus... and also - without a shred of any proof - is adamant to put me in a box that suits him/her... just shrug it away?

It seems that the member Ranbboomi has resorted to creating a completely fictional identity for me, making bizarre assumptions about my race, religion, and personal life, and tossing out wild accusations that were never even part of this thread. It is truly fascinating to watch him/her project own frustrations onto a stranger online simply because he/she lacks a certain understanding. Honestly, trying to turn a sociological discussion into a toxic personal soap opera is a textbook example of a deflection and the desperate attempt to label me as someone I'm not tells everyone in this forum far more about this person's logic than it could ever say about me.

But hey, as the picture says, without this level of dedication to absurd assumptions, internet discussions would be far less entertaining, so thanks for the service...

No one is saying that there were no incidents of women humiliation by opposing parties in ancient India at all. Even Mahabharata and Lanka war of Ramayana were fought over women respect. Even Bali had forcefully kept Sugreeva's wife. Harsha-Damara episode from Rajatarangini chapter 7, that you mentioned, is one such instance where queens self immolated to escape humiliation. But to compare those isolated incidents of women committing self immolation for the fear of humiliation, which (woman humiliation) was classified adharm (sin) in the light of Hindu religion with the religiously approved - organized, systematic & ideological post victory loot and en masse sexual violence & sexual slavery practised by Islamic invaders is quite a stretch.

However, You are not just comparing but equating the two. When in reality their holy book has a precise term for war booty (maal e ghanimat) and a religious sanction for sex slaving of captured kafir women (those whom your right hands possess). That's a far cry from these isolated incidents which had no religious book sanctioned ideology to do so, except the universal human nature of greed, lust & power.

About Akbar, i agree with the arguments of Ranbhoomi. I've read multiple accounts of Akbar's so called 'greatness' that i want to puke on that. Being a fake newbie doesn't discredit his/her/their arguments.

Akbar was anything but great. If i get time I'll write a separate post on that but whatever Ranbhoomi has written is already more than enough to prove Akbar was anything but great. But you have always been sympathetic towards the Islamic ideology and in every instance try to equate even their extreme ideology & practices as something common in other religions too, under one label or another. So it's actually a waste of time and mental peace to argue with you over that.

Originally posted by: NathuPaapi

No one is saying that there were no incidents of women humiliation by opposing parties in ancient India at all. Even Mahabharata and Lanka war of Ramayana were fought over women respect. Even Bali had forcefully kept Sugreeva's wife. Harsha-Damara episode from Rajatarangini chapter 7, that you mentioned, is one such instance where queens self immolated to escape humiliation. But to compare those isolated incidents, which were classified adharm (sin) in the light of Hindu religion with the religiously approved - organized, systematic & ideological post victory loot and en masse sexual violence & sexual slavery practised by Islamic invaders is quite a stretch.

However, You are not just comparing but equating the two. When in reality their holy book has a precise term for war booty (maal e ghanimat) and a religious sanction for sex slaving of captured kafir women unless they convert. That's a far cry from these isolated incidents which had no religious book sanctioned ideology to do so, except the universal human nature of greed, lust & power. Since you love pushbacks so much i challenge you to dig deeper on how the religious book sanctioned systematic looting of war booty including sex slavery of captured kafir women ( called m aa l e ghan i mat or what the right hand possess) is different from other instances of loot & female humiliation by the winning party in war, all over the world.

(Hint - religious sanction).

About Akbar, i agree with the arguments of Ranbhoomi. I've read multiple accounts of Akbar's so called 'greatness' that i want to puke on that. Being a fake newbie doesn't discredit his/her/their arguments.

Akbar was anything but great. If i get time I'll write a separate post on that but whatever Ranbhoomi has written is already more than enough to prove Akbar was anything but great. But you have always been sympathetic towards the Islamic ideology and in every instance try to equate even their extreme ideology & practices as something common in other religions too, under one label or another. So it's actually a waste of time and mental peace to argue with you over that.

bold: I did n o t compare, I just brought them on the table as an e x a m p l e against the argument that Jauhar only happened because of Islamic invaders.... And "equating"??? Where? what?... "Akbar the Great" is a historical name, not an appraisal from my side... whatever atrocities the very aggressive 'new' member enumerated had nothing to do with my argument that not all Islamic invaders did o n l y atrocious things.... "always"??? "in every instance"??? "equate" again??? Do you not know what all the term "patriarchy" contains... so why focus on religion when religion just get used as a tool to make rules and laws which suits first of all the male part of a community. The culprits and responsible are the humans, the persons, not the scriptures...

Everything bolded is y o u r interpretation of my writings, Nathu, but doesn't fit the reality. Accusing someone of something which is based on an assumption that already is wrong, should not exist in a fair discussion: I'm not at all "sympathetic towards the Islamic ideology" because I'm not sympathetic to any religious or whatever ideology which serves to allow/excuse crimes against humanity and human rights. That doesn't hinder me to try to be fair when certain things are discussed.

A healthy discussion cannot only look at o n e side and only point the finger to the o t h e r side. This Hindu vs Muslim thing which gets into so many discussions often combined with attacking a member is on a level I don't want to descend to.

As for digging deeper into whatever scriptures, I would only do it when the subject may need it. I've zero interest to discuss any religious book if it doesn't serve an objective discussion rather than an emotional one.

Originally posted by: Clochette

bold: I did n o t compare, I just brought them on the table as an e x a m p l e against the argument that Jauhar only happened because of Islamic invaders.... And "equating"??? Where? what?... "Akbar the Great" is a historical name, not an appraisal from my side... whatever atrocities the very aggressive 'new' member enumerated had nothing to do with my argument that not all Islamic invaders did o n l y atrocious things.... "always"??? "in every instance"??? "equate" again??? Do you not know what all the term "patriarchy" contains... so why focus on religion when religion just get used as a tool to make rules and laws which suits first of all the male part of a community. The culprits and responsible are the humans, the persons, not the scriptures...

Everything bolded is y o u r interpretation of my writings, Nathu, but doesn't fit the reality. Accusing someone of something which is based on an assumption that already is wrong, should not exist in a fair discussion: I'm not at all "sympathetic towards the Islamic ideology" because I'm not sympathetic to any religious or whatever ideology which serves to allow/excuse crimes against humanity and human rights. That doesn't hinder me to try to be fair when certain things are discussed.

A healthy discussion cannot only look at o n e side and only point the finger to the o t h e r side. This Hindu vs Muslim thing which gets into so many discussions often combined with attacking a member is on a level I don't want to descend to.

As for digging deeper into whatever scriptures, I would only do it when the subject may need it. I've zero interest to discuss any religious book if it doesn't serve an objective discussion rather than an emotional one.

A Religion gets used as a tool because it sanctions certain activities rather than disapproving them or categorising them as sin which would dissuade it's followers to not do that instead of encouraging them to do that. Hence it plays an important part in the context of those activities.

Yes, indeed that's my interpretation of your writings. What I've seen and felt reading your posts is that u handle malpractices in Islam with velvet gloves while go all guns blazing when it comes to Hinduism. You even go to such extent as defending practices like halala calling them "originally elevating spiritual philosophy". I'm sure other are noticing this pattern in your posts too.

As for attacking a member i only reciprocate if the other one starts. I don't remember attacking you for your posts either but i do question them. If you think it's an attack then it's your perspective.

People are acting purposefully dense

1 Swara's comment is wrong because compared Jauhar with sexual assault and victims of Jauhar with victims of sexual assault in 2026

Women who committed Jauhar didn't think "I have court, police, rights" because they didn't, if circumstances for women in 1300s and women in 2026 are NO DIFFERENT then why did we fight for rights and reforms?

Today, People can hope for a better life after tragedy because we have the SYSTEM, women who committed Jauhar would go through years of torment and ultimately a horrifying death, it was inevitable

2 These pathetic people are continously questioning WOMEN instead of questioning the MEN who were so barbaric that they forced women to do this

"Oh other rulers were bad too" are bhai, this is not ABOUT YOU and YOUR WISHES

You don't get to shame victims, no word salad would make it OKAY to shame victims