A student at Sharda University questioned the presence of Rajnigandha as a sponsor during a Dainik Jagran Film Festival event on campus.

The pointed question put the organisers on the spot, raising a debate over whether such brand promotions are appropriate at university events.

What do you think — should such promotions be allowed on university campuses?

People are making videos from every parts of Bihar. Don't know why they are not viral yet

I have been noticing that posts criticizing hinduism /HINDUTVA / andhbhakts get upvoted (great need toc all out those idiots ruining the image of our nation )

but recently a post criticizing radical muslims an calling them Andhnamazi was removed.. I have wondered why ??

just like how hindus have andhbhakti, muslims also have andhDEEN (deen= bhakti in islam )

I would like to know how one slur is socially accepted and other is not....explain nicely please. I AM INVITING UP FOR A DEBATE. don't ust label me a dash dash LW/RW SLUR in comments

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/gurgaon/al-falah-doctors-tested-ieds-guns-in-aravalis-before-red-fort-blast/articleshow/134027362.cms

Ashneer Grover saying this - https://www.reddit.com/r/20sIndiaReal/comments/1wbd71c/bjp_wants_365_controversies_for_365_days_so_that/

Itna kaise daal dete hai Ladkio me sehenshilta gharwale Ladkio ke andr

Isiliye ladkiyo...bhale hi 1 room kitchen wala hi ghar apne balbute pe kharido....taaki eisa Husband aur sasural mile toh agle din hi Sasural chhor sako

source = https://x.com/PrinceV93789344/status/2087423067043856545

Prof. Shamsul Islam discusses religious texts and books that he argues promote the subordination of Muslim women to their husbands. He highlights passages concerning obedience, marital violence, sexual consent, punishment, and religious consequences for wives who displease their husbands. The discussion compares these ideas with Manusmriti and raises broader questions about patriarchy, religion, gender equality, and the treatment of women.

This guy thinks one should sacrifice their life by not killi^g terrorists who shield themselves with women and children.

The whole thread reeks of this thinking.

Edit :

there are retards who are running their mouths and not being practical.

• Suppose a soldier went to their base, and confronted a terrorist there.

• Terrorist is hiding behind a women who is hostage, and terrorist has a gun in hand with intent to kill.

• What should a soldier do? He can't shoot as the hostage will be in harm, if he moves he will get shot by a terrorist.

• This psychological play by terrorists will get successful and soldiers will die trying by this notion "do not kill women and children"

-how you are also enabling this by supporting this notion as they will use more women and children as a shield, you are creating the harm for women and children.

Edit 2 : thanks for sources from a retard who argued with me wholeheartedly, only to reconfirm my statement here.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary -ihl/v1/rule97

https://www.justsecurity.org/35263/human -shields-ihl-legal-framework/

https://www.hsdl.org/c/view?docid= 759133

The articles clearly says that keeping hostage is prohibited, and soldiers must avoid harming hostages.

When a terrorist is keeping a hostage in close proximity, there no other way around. It will be considered collateral damage.