Monday, June 17, 2024
HomeNews ReportsJaved Akhtar gets schooled on difference between citizens and invaders: Here is what happened

Javed Akhtar gets schooled on difference between citizens and invaders: Here is what happened

It must also be noted that while Akhtar sings paeans on Mughals having Rajput wives, he forgets that a lot of these were not consensual and were often subject to forced religious conversion as well as sex slavery.

Bollywood lyricist and poet Javed Akhtar was at the receiving end of criticism on Twitter on Monday after he drew a perverse comparison between citizens of a country to marauding invaders.

In a tweet, Javed said just like Barack Obama, who has Kenyan ancestors, was allowed to contest US elections, similarly, Shah Jahan should also be treated as a citizen of India because his grandmother and mother were Rajputs.

”Obama’s father was a Kenyan his paternal aunts still live in Kenya but since Obama was born in US he had the right to contest the presidential election Shah Jahan was the 5th Gen in India his grand mom n mom were Rajputni ( 75 %blood Rajput) but they call him a foreigner,” Akhtar tweeted.

However, Akhtar’s preposterous tweet did not sit well with netizens, who schooled the lyricist for his ludicrous comparison between an immigrant and an invader.

Netizens slam Javed Akhtar for likening Shah Jahan with Barack Obama

One Twitter user asked Javed Akhtar to invest in a dictionary since he was unable to distinguish between a foreigner, an immigrant and an invader.

Another user responded saying Shah Jahan did not become the ruler of the country by the will of people. Rather his ancestors used violence to conquer India and establish their rule. And for this reason, he could not be called a ‘Bhartiya’.

Yet another Twitter user said Barack Obama became the US President through democratic process whereas the Mughals reigned supreme with the help of conquest and murder. Obama served his countrymen, while the Mughals ruled, the user said.

Another social media user rubbished the claims made by Javed Akhtar that Shah Jahan was 75 per cent Rajput. He pointed out how Shah Jahan and Jehangir harboured hatred for indigenous people and their faith, which was predominantly Hinduism. Shah Jahan ordered demolition of 76 under-construction temple in Varanasi. Similarly, his father Jehangir and his son Aurangzeb were also known for wreaking havoc on Hindus and destroying their temples.

Writer and columnist Saket succinctly highlighted how Shah Jahan was not raised as a Rajput and in turn raised an Islamic fanatic in Aurangzeb.

It is a historical fact that Mughal rulers, including Shah Jahan, Aurangzeb, Jehangir and others ordered large-scale persecution of Hindus and destruction of their temples. Yet, Javed Akhtar proceeded to claim Shah Jahan was 75 per cent Rajput and drew a false equivalence with an immigrant and democratically elected leader.

It must be noted that the history books chronicling Mughal history seldom refers to the Rajput wives of Mughals by their Hindu names.

And these atrocities are glorified by the likes of Akhtar as ‘romance’.

Ayodhra Ram Mandir special coverage by OpIndia

  Support Us  

Whether NDTV or 'The Wire', they never have to worry about funds. In name of saving democracy, they get money from various sources. We need your support to fight them. Please contribute whatever you can afford

OpIndia Staff
OpIndia Staff
Staff reporter at OpIndia

Related Articles

Trending now

Exclusive from Mira Road: Hindu residents protest against Muslims who brought goats for slaughter inside building society premises, police action awaited

The local Hindu groups demanded removal of goats from the society concerning the civic health of the residents. The Hindus also filed an official complaint at the Kashigao Police Station, but the same is yet to be registered as an FIR.

India refuses to endorse joint communique favouring Ukraine: How India has been advocating for dialogue and diplomacy rather than one-sided bullying

It is rather ironic that 80+ countries adopted a joint communique for lasting peace in Ukraine without inviting the other party in the conflict—Russia—to the Summit. It seemed like the only agenda of this communique was to build a consensus that peace in Ukraine must not be at the expense of territorial integrity.

Recently Popular

- Advertisement -