Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Hindu-hater DMK has once again revealed its vicious face — this time stooping so low that they could not even spare our revered forefather, a legend who ignited the fire of patriotism among freedom fighters, the great mind behind Vande Mataram, Shri Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay. During the parliamentary discussion...

BJP4India's profile picture

BJP

22,952,457 subscribers

74,384 views • 7 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay’s great-grandson drops a NUCLEAR TRUTH BOMB on Mamata Banerjee’s crocodile tears! “The TMC Government in West Bengal neglects Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, but the Centre respects him,” says Sajal Chattopadhyay, direct descendant of the man who gave India Vande Mataram. This is the ultimate humiliation for a party that cries “insult to Bengal” 24×7 while systematically insulting Bengal’s real icons to install the Banerjee dynasty. TMC has ZERO moral authority to lecture anyone on Bengal’s heritage. They trample what they pretend to protect and politically weaponize legends they never understood. While the BJP honours Bankim Chandra’s legacy, Mamata’s syndicate: •Removes Netaji and Khudiram portraits from schools and offices •Brands freedom fighters “terrorists” in Class VIII textbooks •Plasters her own face bigger than Tagore, Vivekananda, and Netaji on every hoarding Spare us the drama. Bengal knows exactly who safeguards its legacy and who sells it for votes.
0:32

Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay’s great-grandson drops a NUCLEAR TRUTH BOMB on Mamata Banerjee’s crocodile tears! “The TMC Government in West Bengal neglects Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, but the Centre respects him,” says Sajal Chattopadhyay, direct descendant of the man who gave India Vande Mataram. This is the ultimate humiliation for a party that cries “insult to Bengal” 24×7 while systematically insulting Bengal’s real icons to install the Banerjee dynasty. TMC has ZERO moral authority to lecture anyone on Bengal’s heritage. They trample what they pretend to protect and politically weaponize legends they never understood. While the BJP honours Bankim Chandra’s legacy, Mamata’s syndicate: •Removes Netaji and Khudiram portraits from schools and offices •Brands freedom fighters “terrorists” in Class VIII textbooks •Plasters her own face bigger than Tagore, Vivekananda, and Netaji on every hoarding Spare us the drama. Bengal knows exactly who safeguards its legacy and who sells it for votes.

Amit Malviya

65,777 views • 7 months ago

It is a textbook fish-out-of-water moment for BJP. For years, these BOHIRAGOTO interlopers have tried to dishonestly appropriate Bengal’s cultural icons, hoping that borrowed reverence might compensate for their utter political bankruptcy in the state. Each attempt has only exposed how grotesquely alien they are to Bengal’s cultural consciousness, history, and vocabulary. They tried to appropriate Kobiguru, only for J. P. Nadda to betray breathtaking ignorance by wrongly attributing his birthplace to Santiniketan. They tried to appropriate Swamiji, only for Sukanta Majumdar to reduce him to an “ignorant leftist product.” They tried to appropriate Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, only to vandalise his bust. And now, after the backlash over banning Vande Mataram in the Rajya Sabha, comes the latest farce. In a clumsy, performative display of CULTURAL COSPLAY, Narendra Modi, insultingly patronising as always, refers to Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay as “Bankim da.” No, Modi ji, Bengal does not casually slap the suffix “da” onto figures it venerates. Only a CULTURAL ILLITERATE would think that sounds respectful. Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay belongs to Bengal’s moral and intellectual spine, not to the BJP’s damage-control toolkit. You are not inheritors, you are IMPOSTORS. You are not admirers, you are APPROPRIATORS who can’t even fake sincerity properly.
0:23

It is a textbook fish-out-of-water moment for BJP. For years, these BOHIRAGOTO interlopers have tried to dishonestly appropriate Bengal’s cultural icons, hoping that borrowed reverence might compensate for their utter political bankruptcy in the state. Each attempt has only exposed how grotesquely alien they are to Bengal’s cultural consciousness, history, and vocabulary. They tried to appropriate Kobiguru, only for J. P. Nadda to betray breathtaking ignorance by wrongly attributing his birthplace to Santiniketan. They tried to appropriate Swamiji, only for Sukanta Majumdar to reduce him to an “ignorant leftist product.” They tried to appropriate Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, only to vandalise his bust. And now, after the backlash over banning Vande Mataram in the Rajya Sabha, comes the latest farce. In a clumsy, performative display of CULTURAL COSPLAY, Narendra Modi, insultingly patronising as always, refers to Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay as “Bankim da.” No, Modi ji, Bengal does not casually slap the suffix “da” onto figures it venerates. Only a CULTURAL ILLITERATE would think that sounds respectful. Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay belongs to Bengal’s moral and intellectual spine, not to the BJP’s damage-control toolkit. You are not inheritors, you are IMPOSTORS. You are not admirers, you are APPROPRIATORS who can’t even fake sincerity properly.

All India Trinamool Congress

238,494 views • 7 months ago

#WATCH | Kolkata, West Bengal: Sajal Chattopadhyay, great-grandson of Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, says, "This should have happened long ago. Vande Mataram is considered the national mantra. No one has done anything for my grandfather until now. At a time when the next generation is forgetting this (Vande Mataram), what Modi ji has done is good. I feel proud. She (CM Mamata Banerjee) hasn't done anything yet; she should have done it earlier... If someone comes from Delhi, Amit Shah, or anyone else, they ask about us. They call us personally. We are not political people. We don't do politics. We only speak the truth...CM Madam hasn't invited us yet. Bankim Babu is neglected. The Vande Mataram he wrote contains the names of all the Hindu gods and goddesses, which is why it was banned. Just like Bankim Babu was neglected, his family is being neglected."
4:10

#WATCH | Kolkata, West Bengal: Sajal Chattopadhyay, great-grandson of Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, says, "This should have happened long ago. Vande Mataram is considered the national mantra. No one has done anything for my grandfather until now. At a time when the next generation is forgetting this (Vande Mataram), what Modi ji has done is good. I feel proud. She (CM Mamata Banerjee) hasn't done anything yet; she should have done it earlier... If someone comes from Delhi, Amit Shah, or anyone else, they ask about us. They call us personally. We are not political people. We don't do politics. We only speak the truth...CM Madam hasn't invited us yet. Bankim Babu is neglected. The Vande Mataram he wrote contains the names of all the Hindu gods and goddesses, which is why it was banned. Just like Bankim Babu was neglected, his family is being neglected."

ANI

68,282 views • 7 months ago

To every Bharatiya whose heart beats for Bharat Mata. As the Modi government issues fresh guidelines mandating the full rendition of Rishi Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay’s immortal and soul-stirring composition, Vande Mataram, India’s National Song, at designated official functions, I, as a proud citizen of Bharat, extend my deepest respect, sincere affection, and heartfelt greetings to my fellow citizens who identify themselves as Bharatiya above everything else. Vande Mataram is not just our National Song but the very pulse of Bharat. It is not merely an artefact of the past but the foundation of Bharat’s glorious future. Just as Maa Durga’s fury against adharma manifested as Maa Kali and annihilated Raktabeej’s oppression, Rishi Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay’s anger against the British, after being insulted and attacked in Berhampore despite serving as Deputy Collector because he was a Bharatiya with dignity, became the mother-seed of Vande Mataram. Rishi Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay’s stay at Lalgola Palace, amid the sylvan beauty of Bengal, became a cloistered monastery for his meditation on nation, nationhood, and nationalism. From that meditation was born the hymn to Bharat Mata that reawakened Bharat Shakti and triggered the realisation of our nation’s civilisational identity. From its first publication in Bangadarshan, the literary journal Rishi Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay edited, on 7 November 1875; to its inclusion in Anandamath, published in 1882; to Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore’s rendition of the hymn at the Calcutta session of the Congress in 1896; to the prabhat pheris that marked the uprising against Banga Bhanga, the partition of Bengal in 1905; to Bhikaji Cama’s incorporation of the two magical words in the 1907 version of the Tricolour—Vande Mataram became what Sri Aurobindo described as the “Mantra of Bharat.” For countless freedom fighters of Bengal, from revolutionaries like Khudiram Bose and Kanailal Dutta to the moderates, Vande Mataram represented a shared obeisance to Bharat Mata. It was the power that fuelled the surge of nationalism and pride; it was the roar of the famous trio Lal-Bal-Pal, who used these two words to mobilise the masses. Matangini Hazra, who became the face of the rising tide of nationalist fervour, faced death at the hands of the British colonial police chanting the two immortal words—Vande Mataram. During the freedom movement, newspapers flew flags on their mastheads emblazoned with these sacred words, which remind us of our loyalty to our nation and our duty towards Bharat Mata, who has nurtured us and given us our identity as a civilisational nation. Let us not reduce this song to an annual hashtag or a ceremonial chorus. Vande Mataram runs through the veins of every Bharatiya. It is our inspiration, our motivation, the core of our identity. It is the soul of Bharat Mata, the land we bow to. Vande Mataram.
3:10

To every Bharatiya whose heart beats for Bharat Mata. As the Modi government issues fresh guidelines mandating the full rendition of Rishi Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay’s immortal and soul-stirring composition, Vande Mataram, India’s National Song, at designated official functions, I, as a proud citizen of Bharat, extend my deepest respect, sincere affection, and heartfelt greetings to my fellow citizens who identify themselves as Bharatiya above everything else. Vande Mataram is not just our National Song but the very pulse of Bharat. It is not merely an artefact of the past but the foundation of Bharat’s glorious future. Just as Maa Durga’s fury against adharma manifested as Maa Kali and annihilated Raktabeej’s oppression, Rishi Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay’s anger against the British, after being insulted and attacked in Berhampore despite serving as Deputy Collector because he was a Bharatiya with dignity, became the mother-seed of Vande Mataram. Rishi Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay’s stay at Lalgola Palace, amid the sylvan beauty of Bengal, became a cloistered monastery for his meditation on nation, nationhood, and nationalism. From that meditation was born the hymn to Bharat Mata that reawakened Bharat Shakti and triggered the realisation of our nation’s civilisational identity. From its first publication in Bangadarshan, the literary journal Rishi Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay edited, on 7 November 1875; to its inclusion in Anandamath, published in 1882; to Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore’s rendition of the hymn at the Calcutta session of the Congress in 1896; to the prabhat pheris that marked the uprising against Banga Bhanga, the partition of Bengal in 1905; to Bhikaji Cama’s incorporation of the two magical words in the 1907 version of the Tricolour—Vande Mataram became what Sri Aurobindo described as the “Mantra of Bharat.” For countless freedom fighters of Bengal, from revolutionaries like Khudiram Bose and Kanailal Dutta to the moderates, Vande Mataram represented a shared obeisance to Bharat Mata. It was the power that fuelled the surge of nationalism and pride; it was the roar of the famous trio Lal-Bal-Pal, who used these two words to mobilise the masses. Matangini Hazra, who became the face of the rising tide of nationalist fervour, faced death at the hands of the British colonial police chanting the two immortal words—Vande Mataram. During the freedom movement, newspapers flew flags on their mastheads emblazoned with these sacred words, which remind us of our loyalty to our nation and our duty towards Bharat Mata, who has nurtured us and given us our identity as a civilisational nation. Let us not reduce this song to an annual hashtag or a ceremonial chorus. Vande Mataram runs through the veins of every Bharatiya. It is our inspiration, our motivation, the core of our identity. It is the soul of Bharat Mata, the land we bow to. Vande Mataram.

Amit Malviya

43,033 views • 5 months ago

The irony is delicious. While TMC cries “bohiragoto” over Shri Narendra Modi’s “Bankim Da”, let’s remind everyone how Mamata Banerjee has repeatedly insulted Bengal’s real icons: Bengalis refer to Freedom Fighter Surya Sen as Master "Da". Legendary filmmaker Satyajit Ray is referred to as Manik "Da". 1. May 2024: Called Ramakrishna Mission & Bharat Sevashram Sangha monks “BJP agents”, threatened to “free Bengal from their clutches” — direct attack on Swami Vivekananda’s legacy. Monks marched barefoot in protest. 2. March 2025: Used Ramakrishna & Vivekananda as props to contrast BJP’s “ganda dharm” (dirty religion) at an Eid event — cheap minority appeasement that belittled the very icons she claims to revere. 3. 2019 & ongoing: Blamed BJP for smashing Vidyasagar’s bust (TMC goons were involved), then cynically turned his photo into her Twitter DP for optics while never accepting responsibility, nor conducting any investigation. You don’t get to lecture Prime Minister Narendra Modi or anyone else about respecting Bengal’s culture when your leader has spent years spitting on the legacy of Swami Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, Vidyasagar and Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay to save her vote bank. The party that insults the legacy of Maa Sarada by comparing her to Mamata Banerjee and weaving fake stories to the extent that monks had to do a press release against the insult and party which belittles Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and tries to steal the works of Rabindranath Thakur and even burns his portraits, have no right to lecture us.
0:24

The irony is delicious. While TMC cries “bohiragoto” over Shri Narendra Modi’s “Bankim Da”, let’s remind everyone how Mamata Banerjee has repeatedly insulted Bengal’s real icons: Bengalis refer to Freedom Fighter Surya Sen as Master "Da". Legendary filmmaker Satyajit Ray is referred to as Manik "Da". 1. May 2024: Called Ramakrishna Mission & Bharat Sevashram Sangha monks “BJP agents”, threatened to “free Bengal from their clutches” — direct attack on Swami Vivekananda’s legacy. Monks marched barefoot in protest. 2. March 2025: Used Ramakrishna & Vivekananda as props to contrast BJP’s “ganda dharm” (dirty religion) at an Eid event — cheap minority appeasement that belittled the very icons she claims to revere. 3. 2019 & ongoing: Blamed BJP for smashing Vidyasagar’s bust (TMC goons were involved), then cynically turned his photo into her Twitter DP for optics while never accepting responsibility, nor conducting any investigation. You don’t get to lecture Prime Minister Narendra Modi or anyone else about respecting Bengal’s culture when your leader has spent years spitting on the legacy of Swami Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, Vidyasagar and Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay to save her vote bank. The party that insults the legacy of Maa Sarada by comparing her to Mamata Banerjee and weaving fake stories to the extent that monks had to do a press release against the insult and party which belittles Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and tries to steal the works of Rabindranath Thakur and even burns his portraits, have no right to lecture us.

BJP West Bengal

28,697 views • 7 months ago

The attempt to portray Vande Mataram as exclusionary or unconstitutional is intellectually dishonest and historically selective. First, legally and constitutionally, Vande Mataram enjoys an honoured place in India’s national life. The Constituent Assembly did not reject it. On 24 January 1950, the Assembly adopted Jana Gana Mana as the National Anthem while explicitly according Vande Mataram equal respect and status as the National Song because of its historic role in India’s freedom struggle. To suggest that India’s constitutional founders “rejected” Vande Mataram is factually incorrect. Second, the argument that Vande Mataram is merely an ode to a goddess deliberately ignores the civilisational context of Bharat. Across Indian traditions, the motherland has long been personified as “Bharat Mata”, not as a sectarian deity, but as a cultural and emotional expression of devotion to the nation. Nations across the world employ symbolism, allegory, and personification. Britannia represents Britain, Marianne represents France, Mother Russia represents Russia. India’s cultural symbolism cannot be selectively delegitimised simply because it emerges from Indic civilisation. Third, reducing Rishi Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay to caricatures about his alleged views while ignoring the historical role of Vande Mataram is an exercise in ideological revisionism. The song became the rallying cry of India’s anti-colonial movement. Countless freedom fighters marched to the gallows chanting Vande Mataram. Revolutionaries, reformers, and patriots across regions embraced it as a symbol of resistance against British rule. Its emotional power in the national movement cannot be erased by retrospective ideological filters. Fourth, invoking the Preamble and Article 1 to deny the legitimacy of civilisational nationalism misunderstands India itself. The Constitution begins with “We, the People” because sovereignty resides in the people, not because India must become culturally rootless or severed from its ancient civilisational identity. The phrase “India, that is Bharat” itself acknowledges continuity between the modern republic and an older civilisational consciousness. Constitutional nationalism and civilisational identity are complementary, not contradictory. Fifth, the rejection of amendments invoking God or goddess in the Constituent Assembly affirmed that the Indian State would not establish an official religion. It did not require India to abandon its civilisational ethos, cultural memory, or spiritual vocabulary. Secularism in India was never meant to mean hostility toward indigenous traditions or the erasure of majority cultural symbols from public life. Finally, the claim that “religion ≠ nation” is a false binary in the Indian context. India is not a theocratic state, nor does nationalism here depend on adherence to any one faith. But India is undeniably a civilisation shaped by millennia of Indic thought, traditions, symbols, and philosophies. Respecting Vande Mataram does not make India less constitutional, less democratic, or less inclusive. It simply acknowledges the cultural soul that animated the freedom struggle and continues to inspire millions. India belongs equally to all its citizens. But India’s civilisational heritage also belongs equally to all its citizens and Vande Mataram is an inseparable part of that heritage.
3:10

The attempt to portray Vande Mataram as exclusionary or unconstitutional is intellectually dishonest and historically selective. First, legally and constitutionally, Vande Mataram enjoys an honoured place in India’s national life. The Constituent Assembly did not reject it. On 24 January 1950, the Assembly adopted Jana Gana Mana as the National Anthem while explicitly according Vande Mataram equal respect and status as the National Song because of its historic role in India’s freedom struggle. To suggest that India’s constitutional founders “rejected” Vande Mataram is factually incorrect. Second, the argument that Vande Mataram is merely an ode to a goddess deliberately ignores the civilisational context of Bharat. Across Indian traditions, the motherland has long been personified as “Bharat Mata”, not as a sectarian deity, but as a cultural and emotional expression of devotion to the nation. Nations across the world employ symbolism, allegory, and personification. Britannia represents Britain, Marianne represents France, Mother Russia represents Russia. India’s cultural symbolism cannot be selectively delegitimised simply because it emerges from Indic civilisation. Third, reducing Rishi Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay to caricatures about his alleged views while ignoring the historical role of Vande Mataram is an exercise in ideological revisionism. The song became the rallying cry of India’s anti-colonial movement. Countless freedom fighters marched to the gallows chanting Vande Mataram. Revolutionaries, reformers, and patriots across regions embraced it as a symbol of resistance against British rule. Its emotional power in the national movement cannot be erased by retrospective ideological filters. Fourth, invoking the Preamble and Article 1 to deny the legitimacy of civilisational nationalism misunderstands India itself. The Constitution begins with “We, the People” because sovereignty resides in the people, not because India must become culturally rootless or severed from its ancient civilisational identity. The phrase “India, that is Bharat” itself acknowledges continuity between the modern republic and an older civilisational consciousness. Constitutional nationalism and civilisational identity are complementary, not contradictory. Fifth, the rejection of amendments invoking God or goddess in the Constituent Assembly affirmed that the Indian State would not establish an official religion. It did not require India to abandon its civilisational ethos, cultural memory, or spiritual vocabulary. Secularism in India was never meant to mean hostility toward indigenous traditions or the erasure of majority cultural symbols from public life. Finally, the claim that “religion ≠ nation” is a false binary in the Indian context. India is not a theocratic state, nor does nationalism here depend on adherence to any one faith. But India is undeniably a civilisation shaped by millennia of Indic thought, traditions, symbols, and philosophies. Respecting Vande Mataram does not make India less constitutional, less democratic, or less inclusive. It simply acknowledges the cultural soul that animated the freedom struggle and continues to inspire millions. India belongs equally to all its citizens. But India’s civilisational heritage also belongs equally to all its citizens and Vande Mataram is an inseparable part of that heritage.

Amit Malviya

55,568 views • 2 months ago

Mabel Chinomona is not merely an embarrassment to leadership. She is a case study in how power decays when it falls into hands that mistake noise for authority. Every time she speaks, she performs her own autopsy, exposing the incompetence, greed, and ideological bankruptcy at the heart of the Emmerson Mnangagwa system she defends. This is not leadership. It is malpractice. In a nation staggering under hunger, poverty, and hopelessness, she stands on public platforms boasting about being a “thug.” That single word is her confession, a self indictment delivered with pride. While citizens scrape for survival, she celebrates the very behaviour that has brought Zimbabwe to its knees. It is a grotesque display of detachment, a declaration that the suffering of the people means nothing to those insulated by privilege and protected by impunity. She drapes herself in the title of “war veteran” as if it were armour, yet her conduct desecrates the very legacy she claims. True liberation fighters fought for dignity, justice, and the future of the ordinary person. She fights only for relevance. True veterans carried the weight of a nation. She carries only her own self interest. Her behaviour has reduced a noble history to a hollow slogan, a shield used not to defend the nation but to escape accountability. Here is the surgical truth, when the people look at her, they do not see courage, wisdom, or leadership. They see the final symptom of a system that no longer even pretends to care. They see a voice that echoes the regime’s arrogance, a mouth that opens only to remind the nation how far its leaders have fallen. History does not forget such betrayals. Her legacy is writing itself, and it is damning, loud, and irreversible. Kunyangara fesi zvese nemoyo. #mabelchinomona #dutyeremadutye #diabolical
0:51

Mabel Chinomona is not merely an embarrassment to leadership. She is a case study in how power decays when it falls into hands that mistake noise for authority. Every time she speaks, she performs her own autopsy, exposing the incompetence, greed, and ideological bankruptcy at the heart of the Emmerson Mnangagwa system she defends. This is not leadership. It is malpractice. In a nation staggering under hunger, poverty, and hopelessness, she stands on public platforms boasting about being a “thug.” That single word is her confession, a self indictment delivered with pride. While citizens scrape for survival, she celebrates the very behaviour that has brought Zimbabwe to its knees. It is a grotesque display of detachment, a declaration that the suffering of the people means nothing to those insulated by privilege and protected by impunity. She drapes herself in the title of “war veteran” as if it were armour, yet her conduct desecrates the very legacy she claims. True liberation fighters fought for dignity, justice, and the future of the ordinary person. She fights only for relevance. True veterans carried the weight of a nation. She carries only her own self interest. Her behaviour has reduced a noble history to a hollow slogan, a shield used not to defend the nation but to escape accountability. Here is the surgical truth, when the people look at her, they do not see courage, wisdom, or leadership. They see the final symptom of a system that no longer even pretends to care. They see a voice that echoes the regime’s arrogance, a mouth that opens only to remind the nation how far its leaders have fallen. History does not forget such betrayals. Her legacy is writing itself, and it is damning, loud, and irreversible. Kunyangara fesi zvese nemoyo. #mabelchinomona #dutyeremadutye #diabolical

kerina mujati

36,321 views • 7 months ago

Understand the chronology of Vande Mataram 👇 🔹 1875: Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay ji wrote the first two verses of this song, which today is our national song. 🔹 1882: His novel Ananda Math was published, including Vande Mataram with 4 added stanzas. 🔹 1896: Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore sang this song at a Congress session. 🔹 1905: During the Bengal partition movement, Vande Mataram rose from the streets as a plea for unity. Freedom fighters like Tagore led the singing. 🔹 From students to farmers, traders to lawyers, everyone sang it. The British were shocked. 🔹 It inspired preparations for martyrdom against British rule with truth and non-violence. This song embodies the spirit of sacrifice for the motherland. ✅ This is the power of the song. 👉 In the 1930s, communal politics made it controversial. In 1937, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose organized the Calcutta Congress session. - Modi ji cited a letter from Nehru to Netaji dated 20 October, but didn’t mention Netaji’s 17 October letter to Nehru. 👉 Netaji’s letter said: "My dear Jawahar, regarding Vande Mataram, let’s discuss at Kolkata and in the Working Committee. I’ve asked Dr. Tagore to talk with you at Shantiniketan." - Nehru replied on 20 October, acknowledging communal tensions but affirming he would meet Tagore and friends in Kolkata. - After meeting Tagore, Gurudev wrote that the two interludes always sung held deep significance and could be honored separately to respect martyrs. He added that later communal interpretations should be removed. 👉 On 28 October 1937, Congress Working Committee declared Vande Mataram the National Song. Leaders like Gandhi, Bose, Nehru, Patel, and Tagore agreed. 👉 In 1950, Dr. Rajendra Prasad declared it India’s national song in the Constituent Assembly. BJP leader Shyama Prasad Mukherjee was present, with no objections. 👉 Today’s debates on Vande Mataram, accepted by the Constituent Assembly and great leaders, insult their legacy and expose anti-constitutional intent. Congress General Secretary & MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra ji
8:11

Understand the chronology of Vande Mataram 👇 🔹 1875: Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay ji wrote the first two verses of this song, which today is our national song. 🔹 1882: His novel Ananda Math was published, including Vande Mataram with 4 added stanzas. 🔹 1896: Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore sang this song at a Congress session. 🔹 1905: During the Bengal partition movement, Vande Mataram rose from the streets as a plea for unity. Freedom fighters like Tagore led the singing. 🔹 From students to farmers, traders to lawyers, everyone sang it. The British were shocked. 🔹 It inspired preparations for martyrdom against British rule with truth and non-violence. This song embodies the spirit of sacrifice for the motherland. ✅ This is the power of the song. 👉 In the 1930s, communal politics made it controversial. In 1937, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose organized the Calcutta Congress session. - Modi ji cited a letter from Nehru to Netaji dated 20 October, but didn’t mention Netaji’s 17 October letter to Nehru. 👉 Netaji’s letter said: "My dear Jawahar, regarding Vande Mataram, let’s discuss at Kolkata and in the Working Committee. I’ve asked Dr. Tagore to talk with you at Shantiniketan." - Nehru replied on 20 October, acknowledging communal tensions but affirming he would meet Tagore and friends in Kolkata. - After meeting Tagore, Gurudev wrote that the two interludes always sung held deep significance and could be honored separately to respect martyrs. He added that later communal interpretations should be removed. 👉 On 28 October 1937, Congress Working Committee declared Vande Mataram the National Song. Leaders like Gandhi, Bose, Nehru, Patel, and Tagore agreed. 👉 In 1950, Dr. Rajendra Prasad declared it India’s national song in the Constituent Assembly. BJP leader Shyama Prasad Mukherjee was present, with no objections. 👉 Today’s debates on Vande Mataram, accepted by the Constituent Assembly and great leaders, insult their legacy and expose anti-constitutional intent. Congress General Secretary & MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra ji

Congress Kerala

13,768 views • 7 months ago

An Ode to Babita Deokaran She began quietly 30 years ago as a clerk, in the service of the state and worked her way to chief director of financial accounting. Step by step, through dedication and honesty, she rose until she carried one of the heaviest burdens the finances of a hospital meant for the poorest among us. It was not ambition, not politics, but conscience that guided her. She saw the numbers, she saw the theft, and she refused to look away. R850 million flagged by her hand became the light that revealed the full rot: more than R2 billion looted from the sick, the dying, the desperate. Money meant for bandages, for medicine, for life itself stolen. Babita Deokaran paid the ultimate price for her honesty. We mourn her not only as a whistle-blower, not only as a martyr, but as a public servant who believed her duty was sacred. Her death will forever shame those who profit from the suffering of the poor. Let history record: if we know about this grand theft today, it is because she stood up when silence was safer. And let us also honour those who carried her torch journalists like Jeff Wicks 🇿🇦 of News24, who refused to let her story be buried, who insisted that South Africa look at the truth, no matter how ugly. Babita’s name must never fade. Her story is a prayer, a warning, and a promise: That one life of integrity can expose billions of rands in betrayal. That courage, even when it costs everything, can illuminate a nation’s conscience. May her sacrifice not be in vain.
1:17

An Ode to Babita Deokaran She began quietly 30 years ago as a clerk, in the service of the state and worked her way to chief director of financial accounting. Step by step, through dedication and honesty, she rose until she carried one of the heaviest burdens the finances of a hospital meant for the poorest among us. It was not ambition, not politics, but conscience that guided her. She saw the numbers, she saw the theft, and she refused to look away. R850 million flagged by her hand became the light that revealed the full rot: more than R2 billion looted from the sick, the dying, the desperate. Money meant for bandages, for medicine, for life itself stolen. Babita Deokaran paid the ultimate price for her honesty. We mourn her not only as a whistle-blower, not only as a martyr, but as a public servant who believed her duty was sacred. Her death will forever shame those who profit from the suffering of the poor. Let history record: if we know about this grand theft today, it is because she stood up when silence was safer. And let us also honour those who carried her torch journalists like Jeff Wicks 🇿🇦 of News24, who refused to let her story be buried, who insisted that South Africa look at the truth, no matter how ugly. Babita’s name must never fade. Her story is a prayer, a warning, and a promise: That one life of integrity can expose billions of rands in betrayal. That courage, even when it costs everything, can illuminate a nation’s conscience. May her sacrifice not be in vain.

Goolam

78,682 views • 9 months ago

This weekend, Jen McCabe's girls asked her to go shopping with them. The weekend before the start of the holiday season, Thanksgiving right around the corner, the time of year we should all have gratitude for our blessings and a charitable heart for those in need. She was accosted in the parking lot of a grocery store by an angry man calling her a murderer and yelling atrocious things. She smiled at him and wished him a happy Thanksgiving, all the while her heart breaking that her girls had to see that. "They don't deserve that", she said. And she's right. No one does, but this has been the daily existence of the witnesses targeted by Karen Read and Aidan Kearney for the past 3 years. Not even in their own homes can they have peace as they receive daily messages and texts and letters mailed to their homes with awful, horrible things written in them. As the video below so eloquently states, courage, above all else, is the only thing that matters. The courage to be kind in the face of cruelty, to be fair in the face of injustice, to be loving in a world of hate. Wishing all those negatively affected by the Read and Kearney harassment campaign a joyous holiday season and praying that one day, they will live their lives in peace. #defendthetruth #karenreadlies
1:26

This weekend, Jen McCabe's girls asked her to go shopping with them. The weekend before the start of the holiday season, Thanksgiving right around the corner, the time of year we should all have gratitude for our blessings and a charitable heart for those in need. She was accosted in the parking lot of a grocery store by an angry man calling her a murderer and yelling atrocious things. She smiled at him and wished him a happy Thanksgiving, all the while her heart breaking that her girls had to see that. "They don't deserve that", she said. And she's right. No one does, but this has been the daily existence of the witnesses targeted by Karen Read and Aidan Kearney for the past 3 years. Not even in their own homes can they have peace as they receive daily messages and texts and letters mailed to their homes with awful, horrible things written in them. As the video below so eloquently states, courage, above all else, is the only thing that matters. The courage to be kind in the face of cruelty, to be fair in the face of injustice, to be loving in a world of hate. Wishing all those negatively affected by the Read and Kearney harassment campaign a joyous holiday season and praying that one day, they will live their lives in peace. #defendthetruth #karenreadlies

Julie Carpenter

55,164 views • 8 months ago

I genuinely cannot understand how someone can watch this story and still stand there, looking at two women, and somehow decide that the wrong one is the victim. On one side, you have a girl (Yıldız) who has been mistreated her entire life. Since the moment she was born, she was treated like a sacrifice for a conflict she was never even part of and later we find out that this conflict never even existed. Her right to study was taken from her. She was pushed into a marriage at a very young age just imagine being six, seven, eight years old, living in fear of being tied to someone you don’t even know. She was treated like a servant in her own home, by the very people she thought were her family. And just when she gets close to the happiness she dreamed of, the man she was engaged to shows up with another wife. She gets mistreated by that wife, by his family, and even (unintentionally) by him, because he was trying to run away from his own feelings, and that only caused her more heartbreak. The whole world was literally against her. She fought through all of that, only to find out in the end that everything she suffered for was based on something that wasn’t even real. Her entire life was built on a lie. That she isn’t even part of that family that she has literally no one in this world. Now on the other side… You have a girl (Melek) who, yes, was taken from her biological mother but she was raised by loving parents. She had everything anyone could wish for: education, freedom, a happy childhood, a healthy environment. She lived her life, fell in love, went out, made choices and no one questioned her, no one controlled her. And then what did she do? She found out that her man was engaged to another woman before marrying her (and even saw him marry her) and instead of holding on to her dignity, she chose to stay, to fight for a man who lied to her, to hold onto a marriage he tried to end multiple times. She used her unborn child to keep him tied to her. She lied constantly, and her excuse was that she was “protecting her marriage” a marriage that was already broken from the moment Serhat removed that ring at the airport in episode one. She tried to hand Yıldız (a woman who had already suffered enough) over to dangerous people. Then she found out the truth about her own birth (that her father ra*ped her mother.)And still no empathy. No moment of humanity toward her own mother. All she cared about was herself. And even though none of this had anything to do with Yıldız, she still found a way to blame it on her. Instead of holding her father accountable, she went and made a deal with him to get rid of Yıldız. She literally made a deal with the devil just to hurt Yıldız one more time. And after all of that… you want me to feel sorry for her? You want me to call her a victim? I honestly cannot believe we are living on the same planet with people who see this and still say, “she’s the victim.” Not morally. Not logically. Not emotionally. There is no world where this makes sense. It’s like watching someone clearly cause harm, and still calling them the victim and actually BELIEVING it. #HalefKöklerinÇağrısı
0:12

I genuinely cannot understand how someone can watch this story and still stand there, looking at two women, and somehow decide that the wrong one is the victim. On one side, you have a girl (Yıldız) who has been mistreated her entire life. Since the moment she was born, she was treated like a sacrifice for a conflict she was never even part of and later we find out that this conflict never even existed. Her right to study was taken from her. She was pushed into a marriage at a very young age just imagine being six, seven, eight years old, living in fear of being tied to someone you don’t even know. She was treated like a servant in her own home, by the very people she thought were her family. And just when she gets close to the happiness she dreamed of, the man she was engaged to shows up with another wife. She gets mistreated by that wife, by his family, and even (unintentionally) by him, because he was trying to run away from his own feelings, and that only caused her more heartbreak. The whole world was literally against her. She fought through all of that, only to find out in the end that everything she suffered for was based on something that wasn’t even real. Her entire life was built on a lie. That she isn’t even part of that family that she has literally no one in this world. Now on the other side… You have a girl (Melek) who, yes, was taken from her biological mother but she was raised by loving parents. She had everything anyone could wish for: education, freedom, a happy childhood, a healthy environment. She lived her life, fell in love, went out, made choices and no one questioned her, no one controlled her. And then what did she do? She found out that her man was engaged to another woman before marrying her (and even saw him marry her) and instead of holding on to her dignity, she chose to stay, to fight for a man who lied to her, to hold onto a marriage he tried to end multiple times. She used her unborn child to keep him tied to her. She lied constantly, and her excuse was that she was “protecting her marriage” a marriage that was already broken from the moment Serhat removed that ring at the airport in episode one. She tried to hand Yıldız (a woman who had already suffered enough) over to dangerous people. Then she found out the truth about her own birth (that her father ra*ped her mother.)And still no empathy. No moment of humanity toward her own mother. All she cared about was herself. And even though none of this had anything to do with Yıldız, she still found a way to blame it on her. Instead of holding her father accountable, she went and made a deal with him to get rid of Yıldız. She literally made a deal with the devil just to hurt Yıldız one more time. And after all of that… you want me to feel sorry for her? You want me to call her a victim? I honestly cannot believe we are living on the same planet with people who see this and still say, “she’s the victim.” Not morally. Not logically. Not emotionally. There is no world where this makes sense. It’s like watching someone clearly cause harm, and still calling them the victim and actually BELIEVING it. #HalefKöklerinÇağrısı

Maurora🫦

10,530 views • 4 months ago

CM Mamata Banerjee, has once again exposed her utter disregard for decorum, dignity, and the principles of cooperative federalism with the deplorable remarks she made on the floor of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly, yesterday, while ranting incessantly & mindlessly. First and foremost, she as the CM of a State has no business meddling in India’s foreign policy, a domain that lies completely under the purview of the Union Government. Her attempt to sensationalize and misrepresent the Prime Minister’s and the MEA's diplomatic engagements reflects her desperation to deflect attention from her own governance failures. By casting aspersions on India’s foreign relations, she has handed ammunition to the nation’s adversaries, who will gleefully exploit her words to undermine India’s growing global influence. It has earlier been witnessed, through viral clips on Social Media, that her statements and political stand is welcomed by the panelists on News Channel debates in Pakistan. Her remarks are not just an attack on the Prime Minister but betrayal of India’s interests, which is affront to the unity and integrity of India. By resorting to crass and inflammatory language, accusing the Hon'ble Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji of "falling at the feet" of foreign nations and "selling the nation's honour," she has not only insulted the office of the Prime Minister but has also demeaned the stature of India on the global stage. I call upon her to retract her deplorable statements and tender an unconditional apology to the Hon'ble Prime Minister and the people of India. Such reckless rhetoric is a shameful low, even by her own standards of politics. PMO India Randhir Jaiswal
0:22

CM Mamata Banerjee, has once again exposed her utter disregard for decorum, dignity, and the principles of cooperative federalism with the deplorable remarks she made on the floor of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly, yesterday, while ranting incessantly & mindlessly. First and foremost, she as the CM of a State has no business meddling in India’s foreign policy, a domain that lies completely under the purview of the Union Government. Her attempt to sensationalize and misrepresent the Prime Minister’s and the MEA's diplomatic engagements reflects her desperation to deflect attention from her own governance failures. By casting aspersions on India’s foreign relations, she has handed ammunition to the nation’s adversaries, who will gleefully exploit her words to undermine India’s growing global influence. It has earlier been witnessed, through viral clips on Social Media, that her statements and political stand is welcomed by the panelists on News Channel debates in Pakistan. Her remarks are not just an attack on the Prime Minister but betrayal of India’s interests, which is affront to the unity and integrity of India. By resorting to crass and inflammatory language, accusing the Hon'ble Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji of "falling at the feet" of foreign nations and "selling the nation's honour," she has not only insulted the office of the Prime Minister but has also demeaned the stature of India on the global stage. I call upon her to retract her deplorable statements and tender an unconditional apology to the Hon'ble Prime Minister and the people of India. Such reckless rhetoric is a shameful low, even by her own standards of politics. PMO India Randhir Jaiswal

Suvendu Adhikari

26,663 views • 10 months ago

#Kwibuka32 Mimi TESTIMONY ———————————————— Her name is Mimi. She survived the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda because of the courage and humanity of a man named Ndahigwa. During those dark days, Mimi was found as an infant, still breastfeeding from her mother—who had been brutally killed and lay among piles of bodies at Saint Famille, on the primary school football field. It was a heartbreaking and unimaginable scene, one that no child should ever be part of. Yet, from that tragedy, a life was saved. Ndahigwa, who was not himself targeted during the genocide and worked with the Red Cross, chose compassion over fear. In a time when many turned away, he stepped forward. He rescued Mimi and raised her as his own, caring for her from infancy through adulthood. He gave her not only a chance to live, but a chance to grow, to be loved, and to belong. He stood by her side through the years, supporting her until she eventually got married. However, her marriage did not last, as her husband constantly pressured and mistreated her, questioning her about a family she never had the chance to know. Today, Mimi is alive, but she lives with a deep and painful absence—she does not know her biological family, nor does she have any known relatives. She carries unanswered questions about her identity and her roots. With hope in her heart, she is reaching out to anyone who might recognize her story or have any information about her family, asking for help in reconnecting with her origins. At the same time, Mimi is a mother, doing her best to raise her children under difficult circumstances. She is struggling financially and humbly asks for support from anyone who is able to help, no matter how small the contribution. Her story is one of survival, loss, love, and resilience. And today, she is not only searching for her past—but also fighting to build a better future for her children.
8:41

#Kwibuka32 Mimi TESTIMONY ———————————————— Her name is Mimi. She survived the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda because of the courage and humanity of a man named Ndahigwa. During those dark days, Mimi was found as an infant, still breastfeeding from her mother—who had been brutally killed and lay among piles of bodies at Saint Famille, on the primary school football field. It was a heartbreaking and unimaginable scene, one that no child should ever be part of. Yet, from that tragedy, a life was saved. Ndahigwa, who was not himself targeted during the genocide and worked with the Red Cross, chose compassion over fear. In a time when many turned away, he stepped forward. He rescued Mimi and raised her as his own, caring for her from infancy through adulthood. He gave her not only a chance to live, but a chance to grow, to be loved, and to belong. He stood by her side through the years, supporting her until she eventually got married. However, her marriage did not last, as her husband constantly pressured and mistreated her, questioning her about a family she never had the chance to know. Today, Mimi is alive, but she lives with a deep and painful absence—she does not know her biological family, nor does she have any known relatives. She carries unanswered questions about her identity and her roots. With hope in her heart, she is reaching out to anyone who might recognize her story or have any information about her family, asking for help in reconnecting with her origins. At the same time, Mimi is a mother, doing her best to raise her children under difficult circumstances. She is struggling financially and humbly asks for support from anyone who is able to help, no matter how small the contribution. Her story is one of survival, loss, love, and resilience. And today, she is not only searching for her past—but also fighting to build a better future for her children.

Sniper

13,395 views • 3 months ago

Tribute to Princess Diana 💖👑 Tonight, we remember a woman whose life was as luminous as it was brief, Princess Diana. Twenty-seven years ago, the world paused in disbelief at the news of her untimely passing. Diana, at just 36, left behind not just a legacy of royalty but of humanity, love, and kindness. Diana was not a figure of perfection but of profound imperfection, which made her all the more relatable. She taught us, through her actions, the essence of empathy, showing us how to love and accept others exactly where they are. In her quest for love, she inadvertently became a beacon of love for millions, a paradox that only deepens our admiration for her. In her honor, let's reflect on one of her most poignant quotes, "Carry out a random act of kindness, with no expectation of reward, safe in the knowledge that one day someone might do the same for you." These words encapsulate Diana's spirit, her belief in the power of kindness without seeking anything in return. Today, let's pay tribute to Diana by embodying this philosophy. Let's perform a random act of kindness, not for recognition, but in the spirit of spreading the love and compassion she championed. Whether it's a smile to a stranger, help to someone in need, or a simple act of generosity, let's make it our mission to honor her memory through action. Princess Diana, your light might have left us too soon, but your legacy of kindness and love continues to shine brightly, inspiring us all to be a little more human, a little more kind. Rest in peace, Diana, and know that your call to kindness echoes through the ages. Let this tribute be a reminder and an invitation to all, to keep Diana's spirit alive through acts of kindness, today and every day.
0:30

Tribute to Princess Diana 💖👑 Tonight, we remember a woman whose life was as luminous as it was brief, Princess Diana. Twenty-seven years ago, the world paused in disbelief at the news of her untimely passing. Diana, at just 36, left behind not just a legacy of royalty but of humanity, love, and kindness. Diana was not a figure of perfection but of profound imperfection, which made her all the more relatable. She taught us, through her actions, the essence of empathy, showing us how to love and accept others exactly where they are. In her quest for love, she inadvertently became a beacon of love for millions, a paradox that only deepens our admiration for her. In her honor, let's reflect on one of her most poignant quotes, "Carry out a random act of kindness, with no expectation of reward, safe in the knowledge that one day someone might do the same for you." These words encapsulate Diana's spirit, her belief in the power of kindness without seeking anything in return. Today, let's pay tribute to Diana by embodying this philosophy. Let's perform a random act of kindness, not for recognition, but in the spirit of spreading the love and compassion she championed. Whether it's a smile to a stranger, help to someone in need, or a simple act of generosity, let's make it our mission to honor her memory through action. Princess Diana, your light might have left us too soon, but your legacy of kindness and love continues to shine brightly, inspiring us all to be a little more human, a little more kind. Rest in peace, Diana, and know that your call to kindness echoes through the ages. Let this tribute be a reminder and an invitation to all, to keep Diana's spirit alive through acts of kindness, today and every day.

Alina St. John

250,751 views • 1 year ago

In a dreadful event a Hindu girl has been missing since 2019 in Pune, Maharashtra. Keep in mind that the girl was in 10th standard back then, only 16 years old! She was returning from her final SSC exams when she was abducted by an 'unidentified person' as stated by her father in a missing person complaint. Years passed and despite the continuous pleading of the girl's family, Police failed in finding the girl, after a while the family discovered that their daughter was abducted by Javed Sheikh. The family in fear of shame did not tell anyone about the abduction but were actively trying to search for the girl, In this quest the girl's brother with the help of his friend discovered that Javed was a resident of their town Manchar, after which they located his house and observed it for weeks. Later, after inquiring the neighbors, they found out there was a new girl that had joined Javed's home recently and that she was a newly added 'family member'. The family figured that their girl had been forcefully married against their will, so they decided to barge into the house on 16 May. They spotted their girl in a Hijab in one of the rooms, the girl was scared of her core!The family's earlier speculation was that the girl is scared of them and their fury of her marrying against their will. But the truth will baffle you. The girl was not scared of her family, she was scared of people, each and every person around her, because she was in trauma, in depression, after the family rescued her she revealed that- After she was abducted by Javed, she was brutally tortured and assaulted by Javed and his family members. She also said that she was raped and kept hostage for months in the apartment. She has been diagnosed with severe depression and, as said earlier, is even scared of everyone around her, including her own family members, due to trauma. She was married forcefully against her will, was raped, forced to go through conversion, marks of cigarettes were all over her body, allegation is also that she was thrown into a racket of prostitution for 6 months! Now tell me, how can a human being do this? What possible hate could they have against Hindus to fall to such a level?
1:13

In a dreadful event a Hindu girl has been missing since 2019 in Pune, Maharashtra. Keep in mind that the girl was in 10th standard back then, only 16 years old! She was returning from her final SSC exams when she was abducted by an 'unidentified person' as stated by her father in a missing person complaint. Years passed and despite the continuous pleading of the girl's family, Police failed in finding the girl, after a while the family discovered that their daughter was abducted by Javed Sheikh. The family in fear of shame did not tell anyone about the abduction but were actively trying to search for the girl, In this quest the girl's brother with the help of his friend discovered that Javed was a resident of their town Manchar, after which they located his house and observed it for weeks. Later, after inquiring the neighbors, they found out there was a new girl that had joined Javed's home recently and that she was a newly added 'family member'. The family figured that their girl had been forcefully married against their will, so they decided to barge into the house on 16 May. They spotted their girl in a Hijab in one of the rooms, the girl was scared of her core!The family's earlier speculation was that the girl is scared of them and their fury of her marrying against their will. But the truth will baffle you. The girl was not scared of her family, she was scared of people, each and every person around her, because she was in trauma, in depression, after the family rescued her she revealed that- After she was abducted by Javed, she was brutally tortured and assaulted by Javed and his family members. She also said that she was raped and kept hostage for months in the apartment. She has been diagnosed with severe depression and, as said earlier, is even scared of everyone around her, including her own family members, due to trauma. She was married forcefully against her will, was raped, forced to go through conversion, marks of cigarettes were all over her body, allegation is also that she was thrown into a racket of prostitution for 6 months! Now tell me, how can a human being do this? What possible hate could they have against Hindus to fall to such a level?

BALA

2,702,559 views • 3 years ago

Pride and Prejudice (1995): When a Single Glance Reveals the Truth Within a Person There are moments in art that do not leave an impression because of their external grandeur, but because of the depth hidden within the simplest things. A glance. A moment of silence. A meeting without lengthy explanations. Yet within that quietness, viewers can sense an entire process of transformation in human understanding and character. The reunion scene between Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy at Pemberley in the 1995 film Pride and Prejudice is such a moment. The power of this scene does not lie only in the romantic connection between the two characters. More deeply, it lies in the journey of learning to see the truth beyond first impressions. At the beginning, Elizabeth sees Darcy through an incomplete image. His reserved nature, emotional distance, and seemingly proud manner lead her to form a judgment about him. But when she enters Pemberley, small details gradually transform the way she perceives him. Elizabeth does not hear Darcy introduce himself or explain that he is a good person. He does not attempt to convince her of his virtues. Instead, his true character is revealed through more natural expressions: the respect shown by those around him, the words of his housekeeper, the way he treats others, and his calm and considerate manner when meeting Elizabeth again after her previous rejection of his proposal. What changes is not only Elizabeth’s feeling. What changes is her understanding. She realizes that she had once viewed Darcy through the lens of prejudice and incomplete judgments. She does not discover an entirely different person; rather, she sees the same person with a deeper and more accurate understanding. In literary studies, this transformation is often connected with the concept of anagnorisis: the moment when a character recognizes an important truth about another person or about themselves. However, the depth of Pride and Prejudice does not exist only in this moment of realization. Jane Austen does not merely tell a romantic story; she explores the process through which human beings refine and improve themselves. Darcy does not become admirable simply because Elizabeth changes her opinion of him. He becomes admirable because he himself has undergone a process of transformation. From a man influenced by pride and social status, he gradually learns to view others with greater humility, allowing his actions to reflect the better qualities within him. Elizabeth experiences a similar journey. Her growth is not only about recognizing her feelings for Darcy, but also about the ability to examine the limitations of her own judgments. This is what allows the work to rise above an ordinary love story. It expresses a long-standing idea in Western moral thought: human character is shaped through discipline, self-awareness, and the ability to move toward something better. The 1995 film transforms this inner journey into a highly refined cinematic language. The most remarkable aspect of the Pemberley scene is the power of silence. Around the two characters still exists a world of social opinions, formal manners, and external judgments. Yet in the moment when they stand before each other, what matters most does not come from words. It comes from their eyes. Elizabeth does not need to say that she now understands Darcy differently. Darcy does not need to announce that he has changed. Their growth is revealed through the way they exist in each other’s presence. The silence in the scene is not an empty space. It is where the deepest emotions are expressed. A feeling that has not yet been named, a transformation that has not yet been declared, can still be recognized through the smallest gestures. This is the subtle power of classical storytelling: allowing actions and forms of expression to reveal meaning by themselves. The role of Pemberley is also more significant than simply being a beautiful setting. The house is a reflection of Darcy himself. Pemberley possesses beauty without being showy. It represents wealth without creating a sense of arrogance. It has order without feeling cold. When Elizabeth enters Pemberley, she does not simply enter a physical space. She enters a world that helps her understand more deeply the person she had previously judged without complete knowledge. Within the English cultural tradition, the image of a gentleman is not defined only by social position or wealth, but also by character, responsibility, and the way a person uses what they possess. Pemberley therefore becomes a symbol of harmony between external circumstances and inner virtue. This principle can also be observed in nature. A diamond does not become precious merely because its surface shines. Its beauty comes from the internal structure of its crystal. When it is properly cut, that structure allows light to pass through and reflect, revealing more clearly the beauty that already exists within. The craftsman does not create the essence of the stone. They help that essence become visible. Human beings are similar. A person’s virtues are not determined only by words or outward appearances. They are recognized through actions, through the way they treat others, and through the choices they make in particular circumstances. Darcy does not win Elizabeth’s respect by creating an attractive image of himself. He allows his actions to become the explanation. Therefore, the deepest beauty of the Pemberley scene does not lie only in the affection between two characters. It lies in the harmony between inner nature and outward expression, between essence and appearance, between truth and the ability to recognize truth. Elizabeth’s glance carries meaning because it marks a transformation in perception. It is not the world that has changed; rather, her understanding has moved closer to reality. Perhaps this is why the scene continues to resonate with many viewers. It does not only tell the story of a relationship between two people. It offers a broader reflection on beauty in life: when people learn to examine themselves, when inner qualities are revealed through actions, and when outward appearance truly reflects inner value, a deeper harmony can be recognized.
3:57

Pride and Prejudice (1995): When a Single Glance Reveals the Truth Within a Person There are moments in art that do not leave an impression because of their external grandeur, but because of the depth hidden within the simplest things. A glance. A moment of silence. A meeting without lengthy explanations. Yet within that quietness, viewers can sense an entire process of transformation in human understanding and character. The reunion scene between Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy at Pemberley in the 1995 film Pride and Prejudice is such a moment. The power of this scene does not lie only in the romantic connection between the two characters. More deeply, it lies in the journey of learning to see the truth beyond first impressions. At the beginning, Elizabeth sees Darcy through an incomplete image. His reserved nature, emotional distance, and seemingly proud manner lead her to form a judgment about him. But when she enters Pemberley, small details gradually transform the way she perceives him. Elizabeth does not hear Darcy introduce himself or explain that he is a good person. He does not attempt to convince her of his virtues. Instead, his true character is revealed through more natural expressions: the respect shown by those around him, the words of his housekeeper, the way he treats others, and his calm and considerate manner when meeting Elizabeth again after her previous rejection of his proposal. What changes is not only Elizabeth’s feeling. What changes is her understanding. She realizes that she had once viewed Darcy through the lens of prejudice and incomplete judgments. She does not discover an entirely different person; rather, she sees the same person with a deeper and more accurate understanding. In literary studies, this transformation is often connected with the concept of anagnorisis: the moment when a character recognizes an important truth about another person or about themselves. However, the depth of Pride and Prejudice does not exist only in this moment of realization. Jane Austen does not merely tell a romantic story; she explores the process through which human beings refine and improve themselves. Darcy does not become admirable simply because Elizabeth changes her opinion of him. He becomes admirable because he himself has undergone a process of transformation. From a man influenced by pride and social status, he gradually learns to view others with greater humility, allowing his actions to reflect the better qualities within him. Elizabeth experiences a similar journey. Her growth is not only about recognizing her feelings for Darcy, but also about the ability to examine the limitations of her own judgments. This is what allows the work to rise above an ordinary love story. It expresses a long-standing idea in Western moral thought: human character is shaped through discipline, self-awareness, and the ability to move toward something better. The 1995 film transforms this inner journey into a highly refined cinematic language. The most remarkable aspect of the Pemberley scene is the power of silence. Around the two characters still exists a world of social opinions, formal manners, and external judgments. Yet in the moment when they stand before each other, what matters most does not come from words. It comes from their eyes. Elizabeth does not need to say that she now understands Darcy differently. Darcy does not need to announce that he has changed. Their growth is revealed through the way they exist in each other’s presence. The silence in the scene is not an empty space. It is where the deepest emotions are expressed. A feeling that has not yet been named, a transformation that has not yet been declared, can still be recognized through the smallest gestures. This is the subtle power of classical storytelling: allowing actions and forms of expression to reveal meaning by themselves. The role of Pemberley is also more significant than simply being a beautiful setting. The house is a reflection of Darcy himself. Pemberley possesses beauty without being showy. It represents wealth without creating a sense of arrogance. It has order without feeling cold. When Elizabeth enters Pemberley, she does not simply enter a physical space. She enters a world that helps her understand more deeply the person she had previously judged without complete knowledge. Within the English cultural tradition, the image of a gentleman is not defined only by social position or wealth, but also by character, responsibility, and the way a person uses what they possess. Pemberley therefore becomes a symbol of harmony between external circumstances and inner virtue. This principle can also be observed in nature. A diamond does not become precious merely because its surface shines. Its beauty comes from the internal structure of its crystal. When it is properly cut, that structure allows light to pass through and reflect, revealing more clearly the beauty that already exists within. The craftsman does not create the essence of the stone. They help that essence become visible. Human beings are similar. A person’s virtues are not determined only by words or outward appearances. They are recognized through actions, through the way they treat others, and through the choices they make in particular circumstances. Darcy does not win Elizabeth’s respect by creating an attractive image of himself. He allows his actions to become the explanation. Therefore, the deepest beauty of the Pemberley scene does not lie only in the affection between two characters. It lies in the harmony between inner nature and outward expression, between essence and appearance, between truth and the ability to recognize truth. Elizabeth’s glance carries meaning because it marks a transformation in perception. It is not the world that has changed; rather, her understanding has moved closer to reality. Perhaps this is why the scene continues to resonate with many viewers. It does not only tell the story of a relationship between two people. It offers a broader reflection on beauty in life: when people learn to examine themselves, when inner qualities are revealed through actions, and when outward appearance truly reflects inner value, a deeper harmony can be recognized.

🎼🌺Music Love♥️

16,596 views • 15 days ago

PM Modi, while addressing the Lok Sabha on the 150th anniversary of Vande Mataram, reminded the nation that the harshest atrocities for singing those sacred words took place in Barisal. 🇮🇳🔥 Barisal is no longer a part of India — yet PM Modi remembered the courage of a forgotten heroine, Sarojini Bose, who had vowed to remove her bangles until the ban on Vande Mataram was lifted. In those days, a woman removing her bangles was a powerful act of rebellion. 💪✨ As PM Modi narrated this inspiring chapter of history, one would expect the opposition to rise above politics and unite over a national sentiment. Instead, TMC’s MP Mahua Moitra shouted “Naidu Sir,” imagining she was correcting the Prime Minister — but only exposing her ignorance and arrogance. 🙄📢 She must know Sarojini Bose and Sarojini Naidu were two completely different women. Sarojini Naidu was a celebrated poet and freedom fighter, while Sarojini Bose was the Barisal revolutionist PM Modi referred to. 📚🔍 These remarkable women shaped the independence movement — yet a leader who claims to represent Bengal couldn’t be bothered to learn the history of her own land. 🤦‍♀️📖 Such careless, uninformed remarks show how disconnected TMC leaders are from Bengal’s past and present — and how this ignorance has cost the state its future. ⚠️🌑 And if this is the “intellectual” face of the TMC, one can only imagine the condition of the rest of the party. 😐🌀
0:45

PM Modi, while addressing the Lok Sabha on the 150th anniversary of Vande Mataram, reminded the nation that the harshest atrocities for singing those sacred words took place in Barisal. 🇮🇳🔥 Barisal is no longer a part of India — yet PM Modi remembered the courage of a forgotten heroine, Sarojini Bose, who had vowed to remove her bangles until the ban on Vande Mataram was lifted. In those days, a woman removing her bangles was a powerful act of rebellion. 💪✨ As PM Modi narrated this inspiring chapter of history, one would expect the opposition to rise above politics and unite over a national sentiment. Instead, TMC’s MP Mahua Moitra shouted “Naidu Sir,” imagining she was correcting the Prime Minister — but only exposing her ignorance and arrogance. 🙄📢 She must know Sarojini Bose and Sarojini Naidu were two completely different women. Sarojini Naidu was a celebrated poet and freedom fighter, while Sarojini Bose was the Barisal revolutionist PM Modi referred to. 📚🔍 These remarkable women shaped the independence movement — yet a leader who claims to represent Bengal couldn’t be bothered to learn the history of her own land. 🤦‍♀️📖 Such careless, uninformed remarks show how disconnected TMC leaders are from Bengal’s past and present — and how this ignorance has cost the state its future. ⚠️🌑 And if this is the “intellectual” face of the TMC, one can only imagine the condition of the rest of the party. 😐🌀

BJP

14,089 views • 7 months ago

Andrei Tarkovsky on Ingmar Bergman's Shame (1968): "Let us look at Bergman's Shame. The film doesn't contain a single 'actor's piece' for the performer to 'give away' the director's purpose, to play the conception of the persona, his attitude to it, to assess it in relation to the overall idea; and the latter is entirely hidden within the dynamic of the characters' lives, at one with it. The people in the film are crushed by circumstances; they act only in accordance with their situation, to which they themselves are subordinate; they make no attempt to proffer us any idea, any perspective on what is happening, or to draw any conclusion. All of that is left to the film as a whole, to the director's vision. And how superbly it is accomplished! You cannot say in simple terms who amongst them is good or bad. I could never say that von Sydow is a bad man. They are all partly good and partly bad, each in his own way. No judgements are passed, because there is no hint of tendentiousness in any of the actors, and the circumstances of the film are used by the director to explore the human possibilities which they test, and not for a moment in order to illustrate a thesis. Max von Sydow's character is developed with masterly power. He is a very good man; a musician; kind and sensitive. It turns out that he is a coward. But by no means every bold man is a good human being, and cowards are not always scoundrels. Of course, he is weak and irresolute. His wife is far stronger than he, so much so that she can overcome her fear. The hero lacks that strength. He is tormented by his own weakness, vulnerability, lack of resilience; he tries to hide, to cower in a corner, not to see and not to hear; and he does this like a child, naively and with complete sincerity. But when circumstances nevertheless force him to defend himself, he instantly turns into a scoundrel. He loses all that was best in him; but the drama and absurdity of his situation is that as he is now he becomes necessary to his wife, who, in her turn, looks to him for protection and succour instead of despising him as she always had. When he beats her about the face and says 'Get out!' she goes crawling after him. There is something here of the age-old idea of passive good and active evil; but its expression is immensely complex. At the beginning of the film the hero cannot even kill a chicken, but as soon as he has found a way of defending himself he becomes a cruel cynic. He has something of Hamlet: my view is that the Prince of Denmark perishes not as a result of the duel, when he dies physically, but immediately after the 'rat' scene, when he understands how irreversible are those laws of life which have forced him, a man of humanity and intellect, to act like the inferior people who inhabit Elsinore. Von Sydow is now a sinister character, afraid of nothing: he kills; will not raise a finger to save his fellows; pursues only his own interests. The point is that you have to be a person of great integrity to feel fear in the face of the foul necessity to kill and humiliate. And by shedding that fear and apparently acquiring courage, a person in fact loses his spiritual strength and intellectual honesty and parts from his innocence. War is the obvious catalyst for the cruel, anti-human elements in people. Bergman uses the war in this film exactly as he uses the heroine's illness in Through a Glass Darkly: to explore his view of man." — "Sculpting in Time" by Andrei Tarkovsky (translated by Kitty Hunter-Blair, 1987)
0:50

Andrei Tarkovsky on Ingmar Bergman's Shame (1968): "Let us look at Bergman's Shame. The film doesn't contain a single 'actor's piece' for the performer to 'give away' the director's purpose, to play the conception of the persona, his attitude to it, to assess it in relation to the overall idea; and the latter is entirely hidden within the dynamic of the characters' lives, at one with it. The people in the film are crushed by circumstances; they act only in accordance with their situation, to which they themselves are subordinate; they make no attempt to proffer us any idea, any perspective on what is happening, or to draw any conclusion. All of that is left to the film as a whole, to the director's vision. And how superbly it is accomplished! You cannot say in simple terms who amongst them is good or bad. I could never say that von Sydow is a bad man. They are all partly good and partly bad, each in his own way. No judgements are passed, because there is no hint of tendentiousness in any of the actors, and the circumstances of the film are used by the director to explore the human possibilities which they test, and not for a moment in order to illustrate a thesis. Max von Sydow's character is developed with masterly power. He is a very good man; a musician; kind and sensitive. It turns out that he is a coward. But by no means every bold man is a good human being, and cowards are not always scoundrels. Of course, he is weak and irresolute. His wife is far stronger than he, so much so that she can overcome her fear. The hero lacks that strength. He is tormented by his own weakness, vulnerability, lack of resilience; he tries to hide, to cower in a corner, not to see and not to hear; and he does this like a child, naively and with complete sincerity. But when circumstances nevertheless force him to defend himself, he instantly turns into a scoundrel. He loses all that was best in him; but the drama and absurdity of his situation is that as he is now he becomes necessary to his wife, who, in her turn, looks to him for protection and succour instead of despising him as she always had. When he beats her about the face and says 'Get out!' she goes crawling after him. There is something here of the age-old idea of passive good and active evil; but its expression is immensely complex. At the beginning of the film the hero cannot even kill a chicken, but as soon as he has found a way of defending himself he becomes a cruel cynic. He has something of Hamlet: my view is that the Prince of Denmark perishes not as a result of the duel, when he dies physically, but immediately after the 'rat' scene, when he understands how irreversible are those laws of life which have forced him, a man of humanity and intellect, to act like the inferior people who inhabit Elsinore. Von Sydow is now a sinister character, afraid of nothing: he kills; will not raise a finger to save his fellows; pursues only his own interests. The point is that you have to be a person of great integrity to feel fear in the face of the foul necessity to kill and humiliate. And by shedding that fear and apparently acquiring courage, a person in fact loses his spiritual strength and intellectual honesty and parts from his innocence. War is the obvious catalyst for the cruel, anti-human elements in people. Bergman uses the war in this film exactly as he uses the heroine's illness in Through a Glass Darkly: to explore his view of man." — "Sculpting in Time" by Andrei Tarkovsky (translated by Kitty Hunter-Blair, 1987)

RadiantFilm

27,723 views • 5 months ago