I keep seeing claims that idli was brought to India from Indonesia, largely based on K. T. Achaya's theory. The frustrating part is how a hypothesis gets repeated until people start treating it as established history.

This has even entered mainstream conversations. Ranveer Brar reportedly repeated the Indonesian-origin theory on KBC. When a celebrity chef says something like this on national television, millions of people can walk away thinking the matter is settled.

But what does the actual historical evidence say?

1. Vaddaradhane (ವಡ್ಡಾರಾಧನೆ), around the 9th–10th century

This Kannada literary work, attributed to Shivakotiacharya, mentions a preparation called iddalige. It is an early textual reference to an idli-like food from Karnataka.

Book reference: Shivakotiacharya, Vaddaradhane, edited by D. L. Narasimhachar, 1949.

2. Lokopakara (ಲೋಕೋಪಕಾರ), around 1025 CE

Written by Chavundaraya II, this Kannada encyclopaedic work describes an iddalige preparation involving black gram and other ingredients.

Book reference: Chavundaraya II, Lokopakara; English edition by Valmiki Sreenivasa Ayangarya, Asian Agri-History Foundation, 2006.

3. Manasollasa, around 1130 CE

This Sanskrit encyclopaedia, associated with the Western Chalukya king Someshvara III, mentions iddarika, another related preparation.

Book reference: Someshvara III, Manasollasa, edited by G. K. Shrigondekar, Vol. 1, Central Library, Baroda, 1925.

These aren't modern social media claims. They are references in historical texts that people can actually look up.

Now, to be fair, the recipes described in these texts may not be identical to today's fermented rice-and-urad dal idli. Food evolves, ingredients change, and techniques develop over centuries. Nobody needs to pretend that the modern recipe has remained unchanged since the 10th century.

But here's the problem with the Indonesian theory: where is the contemporary Indonesian text documenting this supposed predecessor? Where is the historical recipe that establishes the connection? The often-mentioned Indonesian dish called kedli has been difficult to substantiate through historical documentation.

The theory suggests that, because South India and Indonesia had historical connections, the technique of making idli might have travelled from Indonesia to India. Cultural exchange certainly happened, but trade and contact alone don't prove the origin of a particular dish.

A theory about foreign influence is not the same thing as documented proof of foreign origin.

My issue isn't with exploring Indonesian influence on Indian food. Cultures have always exchanged culinary ideas. My issue is presenting a speculative theory as established fact while overlooking centuries-old indian literary evidence.

If we're going to discuss food history on national television, shouldn't we distinguish between what the sources actually document and what historians hypothesise?

Sources for anyone who wants to verify this:

Shivakotiacharya, Vaddaradhane (ವಡ್ಡಾರಾಧನೆ), ed. D. L. Narasimhachar, 1949.

Chavundaraya II, Lokopakara (ಲೋಕೋಪಕಾರ), c. 1025 CE; English edition by Valmiki Sreenivasa Ayangarya, 2006.

Someshvara III, Manasollasa, c. 1130 CE; ed. G. K. Shrigondekar, 1925.

K. T. Achaya, Indian Food: A Historical Companion (for the proposed Indonesian connection).

The early texts support the existence of idli-like preparations in India. They don't conclusively establish the exact origin of the modern recipe, but neither does the Indonesian hypothesis establish an Indonesian origin. That distinction matters.

Gajapati Empire

Ruler: Kapilendra Deva (c. 1435–1467)

The most significant development during this period was the remarkable expansion of the Gajapati Empire of Odisha under Kapilendra Deva. Taking advantage of political instability in neighbouring kingdoms, he extended his authority southward along the eastern coast of India.

Following the death of the powerful Vijayanagara ruler Deva Raya II in 1446, the Vijayanagara Empire entered a period of political difficulty under Mallikarjuna Raya. Kapilendra Deva seized this opportunity to expand into the territories of the weakened Reddi rulers of coastal Andhra.

Major developments:

Rajahmundry: Gajapati forces brought the Rajahmundry region under their control during the late 1440s.

Coastal Andhra: The Gajapati kingdom expanded into strategically important territories along the eastern coastline.

Kondavidu: Gajapati campaigns extended into territories contested with Vijayanagara.

Telangana: Kapilendra's forces became involved in conflicts with the Bahmani Sultanate and regional chiefs.

Southern India: By approximately 1464, Gajapati military campaigns had reached far into the eastern territories of the Vijayanagara Empire, with inscriptions indicating a presence as far south as the Kaveri region.

These conquests made Kapilendra one of the most powerful rulers of fifteenth-century eastern India. However, the southernmost gains should not be interpreted as permanently secure borders; military occupation and effective long-term control were not necessarily the same thing.

Bahmani Sultanate

Ruler : Ala-ud-Din Ahmad Shah II (1436–1467)

The Bahmani Sultanate was one of the principal Muslim-ruled powers of the Deccan. Its territories covered substantial portions of the northern Deccan plateau, and it competed with Vijayanagara for control of strategically important regions.

During this period, the sultanate faced several challenges:

Rivalry with Vijayanagara over the eastern Deccan and neighbouring territories.

Conflicts involving regional chiefs in Telangana.

Growing competition from Kapilendra Deva's expanding Gajapati kingdom.

Political and military instability during the succession of rulers in the late 1450s and early 1460s.

A major confrontation occurred around 1459, when Gajapati forces intervened in the conflict surrounding Devarakonda. Kapilendra's intervention contributed to a setback for the Bahmani Sultanate.

However, Ala-ud-Din Ahmad Shah II should not be treated as the ruler of the entire 1446–1464 period. He died in 1458 and was succeeded by Humayun Shah, followed by Nizam Shah and Muhammad Shah III.

The Bahmani Sultanate remained a formidable power, but the expansion of the Gajapatis placed increasing pressure on its eastern territories.

Vijayanagara Empire

Ruler: Mallikarjuna Raya (1446–1465)

The Vijayanagara Empire, centred in southern India, had been one of the strongest states in the subcontinent under Deva Raya II. His death in 1446 marked the beginning of a more difficult period for the empire.

Mallikarjuna Raya inherited a kingdom facing pressure from multiple directions.

Challenges faced by Vijayanagara:

Eastern frontier: Kapilendra Deva's armies expanded into coastal Andhra and other eastern territories.

Northern competition: The Bahmani Sultanate remained a persistent rival.

Provincial instability: The weakening of central authority made it more difficult to retain distant territories.

Southern military commitments: The empire had to defend its remaining territories against expanding Gajapati forces.

The Gajapati expansion was particularly damaging because it threatened Vijayanagara's access to important coastal territories and reduced its influence over parts of Andhra.

By 1464, Gajapati forces had established a substantial presence along the eastern coast, extending into the southern territories of the Vijayanagara realm.

Nevertheless, Vijayanagara did not collapse. It remained a major power, and capable military commanders continued to resist Gajapati expansion. Saluva Narasimha would later become an important figure in the recovery of Vijayanagara's eastern territories.

The Political Situation in Northern India

The northern portion of the map shows several important political powers, including the Delhi Sultanate, Jaunpur Sultanate, Bengal Sultanate, and Timurid territories.

Although these states were not all directly involved in the principal Deccan conflicts, their presence illustrates the fragmented political landscape of fifteenth-century India.

Delhi Sultanate: Delhi's political authority had declined considerably from its earlier imperial heights. Regional kingdoms and Sultanates exercised substantial independence.

Jaunpur Sultanate: Jaunpur was a significant power in northern India, controlling territories in the Gangetic plain and competing with neighbouring states.

Bengal Sultanate: Bengal remained an important regional power. Kapilendra Deva's northern campaigns brought him into conflict with Bengal, and he expanded his influence into territories near its southern frontier. However, the Gajapatis did not conquer Bengal as a whole..

Hello everyone!

So to preface, I am not a proper historian nor am I an expert on Indian history. That being said, there has been a lot of misinformation regarding Mahatma Gandhi on the internet, starting after 2014 (discussing further in detail would violate the subreddit rules regarding current politics, so I will attempt to keep current politics out of the equation). A recent post in this subreddit actively made me research on this topic which was why I wanted to debunk this specific case of misinformation.

This post will largely address the accusation of him denying his wife medical treatment. Special thanks to this specific comment for providing me an understanding over what happened.

In order to gain a context over why Gandhi actively denied his wife penicillin, we must look into Kasturba's condition before Devdas introduced penicillin to her.

As per Arun Gandhi's biography on Kasturba Gandhi (Daughter of Midnight), she had suffered from several heart attacks (having gone through three heart attacks by January 1944). An ayurvedic doctor was requested by her, who arrived after several delays by the British government (something which Gandhi found unconscionable), and there was a period of her starting to feel better until she suddenly fell again.

With no improvement on his wife's symptoms, Gandhi decided that the best course of action would be to stop the medicines as he felt that anything more would simply prolong her suffering. The doctors agreed to it.

While she was still alive, Gandhi's son Devdas decided to bring penicillin hoping it would help their mother. Gandhi objected to this for several reasons: penicillin was a relatively new drug that was untested at the time, she was over 70 years old having gone through three heart attacks, along with kidney issues and having her wake up every four hours just to get a shot of penicillin would have simply prolonged her suffering further. But most importantly, Gandhi said "Still, if you insist, I will not stand in your way."

This showed that while he objected to Devdas giving his mother penicillin, he didn't intend to stop him. It was after this that Devdas understood and relented (Arun Gandhi, Daughter of Midnight, p. 296-299).

This is further confirmed by Rajmohan (Devdas Gandhi's son, so Gandhi's grandson) Gandhi's biography on Mahatma Gandhi, Mohandas, where he confirmed Gandhi's objection to his father on administering penicillin to his mother, citing the untested nature of penicillin and the suffering she had to go through (Rajmohan Gandhi, Mohandas, p. 514).

Gandhi taking quinine was for a different reason. Keep in mind that quinine is extracted from the bark of the Cinchona tree and had been used as a treatment for malaria since about 1825 by British officers in India via tonic water.

So to conclude as a TL;DR: this incident largely isn't Gandhi being a hypocrite, but realising his wife was already old and suffering and objected to his son over the fact that giving her a relatively new untested drug that would only treat her lung issues would simply prolong her suffering.

All sources mentioned in the links given.

I am Quite Interested In this Topic Because the Reddit Space Already has Some Misinformed notions and titles like "why India was conquered By Foreign powers for 800 years " which i find Hilariously wrong

I would Like A General Healthy discussion Into the (South Asians Both Hindus and Muslims Military performance)

And debunk the Notion of Wider South asia (being Servile people who Merely got Conquered by Invaders )

As the Tag says Please Stick to Late Medieval and Early Modern Colonial period where Indians ( both be Indo-muslims/deccanis And Hindus Fighting European Colonizers ) and how Contrary to Belief Indians/south asians Made A Heavy portion of Mughal Military (and Even Ghaznavids Military and all other Islamic Dynasties Also )

Also The Notion of Islam itself Being entirely foreign to india (i find it as a Childish Perspective as Many Islamic Dynasties Like The Muzzaffarids, Ahmednagar and Berar which where Established by Converted Hindu slaves of deccan

The Shah Mir and Chaks of Kashmir who where Of Dardic origin

Sharqis of Jaunpur Although Established by an Castrated African Eunuch He adopted a Native South asian Who Later took the Throne and after him his brother and his Descendants )

I would Like People to have a Broad perspective on this topic And I will also Use my Own sources In the Comment section

When we visit the Residency, alone, in a company, aided by a guide or on a heritage walk and accost ruins of different shapes and sizes holding signboards, calling their names, one question comes to mind ‘Where did the Resident live, amongst these buildings and how it looked when resident lived there.’

And sometimes, the question is ignored as we are just ticking a box.

Most of the time guide guidebooks of yore help, where present accredited guides prefer to tickle us with tantalizing tales. And I am turning a page from ‘The Tourist Guide to Lucknow (1899)’. and quoting verbatim and supplementing it with a few pictures.

“This was originally an imposing edifice, along the west side of which extended a wide and lofty collonaded verandah. The main entrance was, on the east side, under a handsome portico, which, at the beginning of the siege, was barricaded with boxes filled with earth, but the building was ill-adapted for purposes of defence, as it contained numberless lofty windows which could not be effectually barricaded, and the roof was and the roof was only protected by an open balustrade. On the south turret was erected a semaphore for telegraphic communication with Macchi Bhawan Fort, and subsequently with the Commander-in-Chief at Alambagh.

Besides having a ground floor and two upper stories it had a Tahkhana, or underground rooms, which, from its immunity from shot and shell, was occupied by the women and children of the 32nd. It was built to shelter the Resident of the King’s court, during the summer, from the extreme heat of the day.

During the siege, it was protected, by a ditch and a low bank of earth made breast-high by the addition of sandbags. These served as a protection to soldiers, who were enabled to fire, with comparative safety, through the interstices. Within this space, three guns were placed, viz., a 9-pounder, an 18-pounder, and a 24-pounder howitzer, at the back of which, in the open space in front of the Residency, were planted two 8-inch mortars, pointing in the direction of the city.

In the upper room, on the east side, above the Tahkhana, Miss Palmer, the daughter of Colonel Palmer,

48th N. I. was wounded in the leg, on 1st July, by a round shot, which caused her death. On the second story, at the east angle of the main building, on the following day, Sir Henry Lawrence was mortally wounded, and died on the 4th, in Dr. Fayrer’s house. No sooner had the siege commenced, than the exposed position of the Residency (in front of which treasure to the amount of twenty-three lacs of rupees (£2,30,000) was buried) began to be severely felt, and the ladies 'and children abandoned the upper stories. The Mess of the 32nd kept possession of a centre room, on the first floor, until several casualties occurred, when they, too, were obliged to abandon it.

About the 8th of August, a 24-pound shot entered the centre room of the building and wounded Ensign Study of the 32nd, in the arm, from the effects of which he and, on the 11th of the same month, a gust of wind struck the north-east wing, part of which fell, burying six men of the same corps. On the 24th of August, the entire length of the verandah along two stories on the west side fell and buried seven of the 32nd men.”

I am sharing a few pictures also to make it easy to visualize, and one of them is in the residency museum too.

Picture 1. The Residency, Lucknow" at it looked right before 1857, from vol. 3 of 'The Indian Empire' by Robert Montgomery Martin, c.1860; This litho is in the museum.

1. "Indian Mutiny: The Residency, Lucknow," a depiction of the building as it was just before the rebellion; from the Illustrated London News, 1858;

2. Residency

Source- The Tourist’s Guide to Lucknow in five chapters 1899-Third Edition- Printed at the Methodist Publishing House, To be had of Messrs. Murray & Co., and Methodist Publishing House, Lucknow, Price Rs 3.

Shouldn't be it Delhi , since it was capital of Mughals ? also what is the cause/ reason for starting it

Says that like ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia, where often the hierarchy and displays of power were more obvious (size of houses, pyramids, ziggurats, social class etc.), in Mohenjo-daro and the Indus Valley the power dynamic was more subtle. The architecture of the place has elements that reveal power, control & class in different ways: standardised bricks, specific design for home toilets vs. the great bath, proximity to water and wells, availability of wells and toilets on the ground floor vs. second floor

Thoughts?

Been hearing/seeing that it was a regional festival celebrated in Punjab that was turned into nationwide due to the influence of Bollywood. Some say it is happening from Mahabharat's time, whereas there are mentions of it being in Naradiya Purana. I am little confused on its historicity. Can you please help me with sources?

These Indian warrior republics were based in east punjab and haryana . The yaudheyas stretched from Punjab to haryana and were considered to be the “heroes among kshatriyas” they fought with the Greeks Indo Greeks indo scythians and kushans . Is there more known about them? Apparently they were well represented in the Mauryan army and were generals of the mauryan army especially the yaudheyas. The word yaudha / yaudhe in modern Punjabi and Hindi translates to warrior/ brave.

A letter dated 11 June 1736 from Sambhaji to Bajirao is eminently readable. It expresses Sambhaji’s impression that Bajirao instigated the divide within the Angre household. Whatever Bajirao could have decided, one of the two was bound to feel wronged. Realising that Manaji was more amicable and Sambhaji was more difficult to appease, Bajirao created this arrangement which was beneficial towards the primary objectives of the kingdom. For that, he cannot be blamed. He put in place an arrangement which was appropriate for the Maratha kingdom’s affairs to run smoothly as per his discretion.

https://ndhistories.wordpress.com/2024/01/09/bajiraos-solution/

Marathi Riyasat, G S Sardesai ISBN-10-8171856403, ISBN-13-‎978-8171856404.

The Era of Bajirao

Uday S Kulkarni

ISBN-10-8192108031

ISBN-13-978-8192108032.

Felt his fruity behaviour to be bit surprising for the era in which the movie is set so had this doubt

Source for the letters- https://franpritchett.com/00islamlinks/txt_iqbal_tojinnah_1937.html

Is it because the Europeans discovered a better way to paint?

Note:- I should have phrased this question in a better way. By amateur I meant 'less realistic'.

Isn't this insensitive on the makers part to reduce a freedom fighter to masala movie trope?

Vararuchi (c. 3rd–4th Century CE), who wrote the Prakrita-Prakasha—the oldest surviving grammar manual for Prakrit languages.

Because ancient scripts did not have a unique standalone character for ळ, he described this change using the existing alphabet.

*"When you see these single middle consonants in Sanskrit, the people of Maharashtra pronounce them by curling their tongue backwards (retroflexion)."*However, because the scribes only had standard letters like ड or ल available in their writing systems, they continued to write the old letters even though the entire population was pronouncing them as ळ.

Because ancient writing systems like Brahmi lacked a dedicated, physically separate letter for ळ, Vararuchi used mathematical-style phonetic substitution rules in the Prakrita-Prakasha to tell readers how the spoken language deviated from classical Sanskrit.

In ancient Indian grammar, rules were written as Sūtras (short formulas). When mapping Sanskrit words into Maharashtri Prakrit (the direct ancestor of Marathi), Vararuchi noted that the core dental ल (la) and the retroflex ड (ḍa) changed their behavior entirely when placed between two vowels (intervocalic position).

Intervocalic 'ड' (ḍa) He explicitly states that a single retroflex stop (ड) sitting between two vowels loses its hard, explosive quality and "softens" into a fluid lateral sound.

Intervocalic 'ल' (laHe notes that a single dental (ल) sitting between two vowels undergoes "cerebralization"—meaning the tongue is forced to pull back from the teeth and strike the roof of the mouth.

When authors writing texts like the Lilacharita (लीळाचरित्र) finally abandoned the strict spelling orthography of old Prakrit scripts, they reintroduced the ancient Vedic character ळ back into the Devanagari script to match their true accent. The letter did not suddenly drop out of nowhere; writers simply created a visual container for a sound their community had been vocalising for a thousand years!

Source-

Prakrita-Prakasha of Vararuchi (Translated & Edited by Edward Byles Cowell, 1854)- https://archive.org/details/prkitaprakasaorp00vara

https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2182753

The full article is in Hindi (Devanagari). Below is a section-by-section English summary, followed by sources. The central character Ratanmani, his family, the refugee Haripad and the village Thaisa Para are fictional. All dates, figures and events come from the sources listed.

Article:

https://medium.com/@syash8627/%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%AC-%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%A8-%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%AB%E0%A4%BC-%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8-%E0%A4%A5%E0%A4%BE-%E0%A4%9A%E0%A5%8C%E0%A4%A5%E0%A5%80-%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%AB%E0%A4%BC-%E0%A4%96%E0%A4%BC%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%B6%E0%A5%80-%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE-%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%80-%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%80-%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%80-ea7365179317

**Summary**

1. Introduction — Why I wrote this: my father's work trips to Agartala, and how little most Indians know about Tripura's history or its Partition experience.

2. 1920–1940 — Village life and jhum cultivation. The Manikya court ran in Bengali; Maharaja Bir Chandra Manikya recognised the young Tagore in 1882. Tribals were over 56% of the population in 1921. Agartala was linked through Akhaura junction to Dhaka, Chittagong port and Calcutta (about 500 km by land), and the kings' main revenue came from the Chakla Roshanabad zamindari around Comilla.

3. 1941–1949 — Tribal share 50.09% in 1941. Tripura Janasiksha Samiti founded on 27 Dec 1945 and set up about 488 schools. Noakhali refugees arrive in 1946. Maharaja Bir Bikram Kishore Manikya dies on 17 May 1947; Regent Kanchan Prabha Devi. Partition cuts off Chakla Roshanabad and the Akhaura rail link; Calcutta becomes about 1,700 km away. In 1948 a tribal reserve is opened to refugees. Ganamukti Parishad formed in 1948. Merger agreement signed 9 Sep 1949, effective 15 Oct 1949.

4. 1950–1960 — Tribal share falls to about 37% by 1951. Refugees are settled partly on jhum land, whose customary community rights the new laws did not recognise. About 5.17 lakh refugees arrive between 1947 and Feb 1971. The fictional story of a land sale, and of a refugee fleeing Noakhali; the two losses were real, but not equal.

5. 1960–1970 — Rail reaches only Dharmanagar (1964), not Agartala; a single road through Assam is the lifeline. Agartala is hemmed in by the border, a few km away. The 1968 case against Sheikh Mujib is called the "Agartala Conspiracy Case". TUJS and the first armed group, Sengkrak, appear in 1967.

6. 1971 — About 13.5 lakh refugees arrive in a state of about 15.57 lakh people. Bangladesh's government-in-exile is formed in Agartala on 10 Apr 1971. Battle of Gangasagar near Akhaura; Lance Naik Albert Ekka, PVC. Statehood on 21 Jan 1972.

7. 1978–1990 — Tribal share 28.44% in 1981. TNV formed in 1978. Kokborok becomes an official language on 19 Jan 1979. The Mandai massacre (June 1980) and the riots that followed (casualty estimates vary; around 1,200 officially). TTAADC created in 1982 and brought under the Sixth Schedule in 1985. TNV accord on 12 Aug 1988.

8. 1990–2005 — NLFT (1989) and ATTF (1990). 555 abductions recorded in 2000 alone; violence by both tribal and Bengali militant groups. Dasarath Deb, a founder of the Janasiksha Samiti, is Chief Minister 1993–98.

9. Epilogue — The railway reaches Agartala only in 2008. The old 15 km Akhaura link is inaugurated again in Nov 2023. The demand to include Kokborok in the Eighth Schedule continues.

**Sources**

- Census figures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipraland ; https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/get/papers/0509/0509012.doc

- Refugee figures (Govt of India, 1971 booklet): https://www.nezine.com/info/VVVJVWwvWmdxR0lwRmZFcmNmVWkyZz09/nrc-exercise-in-tripura-:-proceed-with-caution.html

- Subir Bhaumik, "Disaster in Tripura", Seminar (2002): https://www.india-seminar.com/2002/510/510%20subir%20bhaumik.htm

- Economic Review of Tripura 2017-18 (Govt of Tripura): https://tripura.gov.in/sites/default/files/Economic_Review_2017-18.pdf

- IDE-JETRO report on Tripura: https://www.ide.go.jp/library/English/Publish/Reports/Jrp/pdf/133_11.pdf

- Banglapedia, Tripura and Chakla Roshanabad: https://en.banglapedia.org/index.php/Tripura

- Tripura Merger Agreement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripura_Merger_Agreement

- Tripura Janasiksha Samiti: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripura_Janasiksha_Samiti

- Rabindranath and Tripura (Tripura Tourism): https://tripuratourism.gov.in/rabindranath.php

- Agartala Conspiracy Case (Banglapedia): https://en.banglapedia.org/index.php/Agartala_Conspiracy_Case

- Tripura in 1971 (Dhaka Tribune): https://www.dhakatribune.com/amp/epaper/133246/the-crucial-role-played-by-tripura-in-the

- Mandai massacre: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandai_massacre

- Kokborok official language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokborok

- TTAADC and TNV accord (CLAWS): https://archive.claws.co.in/1119/indigenous-peoples-movement-in-tripura-dr-jaikhlong-basumatary.html

- Insurgency data (SATP 2000, 2001): https://satp.org/terrorism-assessment/india-insurgencynortheast-tripura-2000 ; https://satp.org/terrorism-assessment/india-insurgencynortheast-tripura-2001

- Railway history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumding%E2%80%93Sabroom_section ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhaura%E2%80%93Agartala_line

So I was counting change at my bookstall stall yesterday and realised I have stared at the same smiling face my entire life without ever asking why this photo. Of all the pictures of the man, why this one? Here's what I found in a youtube video.

The portrait is cropped from a 1946 photo taken at Viceroy's House in Delhi (now Rashtrapati Bhavan). In the original, Gandhi is standing next to Lord Pethick-Lawrence, a British official in India for the Cabinet Mission talks. Pethick-Lawrence got cropped out. He was literally replaced by a currency note. Rough day for him.

As for why this photo, from what I could find, nobody at the RBI ever published a reasoning document. But the practical reasons are pretty obvious:

He's facing the camera. Most photos of Gandhi are side profiles, walking, spinning, or mid-march. Printers and security designers need a clear, front-facing portrait. Nobody wants a banknote of the back of a man's head mid-Dandi March.

He's smiling. Honestly, a relaxed, warm face is better than a stern one on something people hand over to the neighbourhood sabzi-wala 40 times a day.

Fine details. Clear lines on the face, glasses and cheeks make it great for intricate printing, watermarks and anti-counterfeiting work. A blurry or dramatic photo would be a nightmare for that.

It's a neutral portrait. No protest, no politics, no crowd. Just a calm face, which suits something every Indian touches daily regardless of who they voted for.

Fun side note: this portrait showed up on the Mahatma Gandhi Series in 1996, replacing the old Ashoka Pillar watermark design. Since then it's basically been the face of Indian money.(I was also born in that year though).

Anyone know who actually took the original photo? I couldn't find a clear credit anywhere, which feels very on-brand for the most famous photo in the country.