suryarani @mere-heera - Tumblr Blog

・❥・welcome・❥・

hi :)

I’m just a student whose trying to survive 🥲

have fun scrolling :)

wowmiriri-deactivated20260429

No, Hinduism cannot be anti-Brahmanical. Hinduism also cannot be anti-Dalit. Hinduism includes all castes. No, we don't worship cows. They are simply considered sacred in our religion. Hinduism isn't homophobic. Hinduism doesn't teach Islamophobia. Not every Hindu nationalist is an Andhbakht. No, hating Hinduism won't make you a liberal (shocking! I know). Hinduism is a philosophy. A way of life. An atheist can still be a Hindu. Hindutva and Zionism aren't the same (please read Veer Savarkar's Hindutva). Nathuram Godse wasn't a terrorist. Hinduism is very much the core of this country. No, there is no India without Hinduism. Hindu genocide is not a propaganda. Hinduphobia is very much real and is growing fast.

All of these are my personal opinions. I don't have any problem if any of you have anything else to add.

mahi-wayy

*gets on stage. taps on mic.* the dhurandhar hate is illogical and stupid.

ahamasmiyodhah

PERIODT.

starryy-berryy

Dhurandhar is such a gr8 film idk why ppl are hating on it, and that too because it's ANTI PAKISTAN of all things.

femsolid

When I see the body proportions on ancient indian sculptures I'm reminded that the misogyny and objectification we see today in our media is really nothing new...

really4rbrowsing

Its the tribhanga position – A dance position. It can be seen in male Indian classical staues as well especially Nataraja.

I don't think its fair to compare it to anime and comics.

pastelroll

Congratulations you discovered women have breast. Also this works are sexuals cause??! They have breast and wear revealing clothes??!!!!

So a womens body is inheritedly sexual and must be coverd 24/7 lmao

So much for feminism

Also indian art is not know for its realism lmao. You think they look like a weird??? Thanks ,THATS THE FUCKING POINT

White people should shut the fuck about cultures they don't understand

femsolid

These aren't women. And they don't represent women's bodies either. That was kind of my point. They are caricatures. That's not how women look. I didn't talk about women having to hide their bodies, I talked about female representation in art and culture always making us look distorted to appeal to the male gaze. I talked about it being consistent through the centuries. Is it not consistent? Are those body proportions not similarly grotesque? I think they are and I'm tired of it. It's unfortunate that you had such a knee-jerk reaction. Because you admit that the sculptures are "weird" and "unrealistic" yourself in the same breath. Of course there are stylistic choices made in the creation of those sculptures. They chose to emphasize female specific features to the point of absurdity, and they chose not to do that with male specific features. It's a style yes. A sexist style.

Also, isn't it interesting that you automatically assume people are white by default?

Anyway, I was checking your blog to see if you were male and saw that you reblogged this a few days ago. Maybe you should read it again.

pastelroll

So my point is that you are unware of indian traditional art. Drawing humans in realistic proportion is LOOKED UPON. Since it's thought to be gaudy if it replicates humans as ancient indian thought that there is no reason for art to replicate humans. Thus they made them look as different as they can from actual human women. Secondly why are they more inherently sexual?cause they r curvy

Some of the goddesses are naked and curvy, are they sexual now??!!11! Ma kaali is literally naked and wear only a necklace of demon heads. Is she a symbol of sexualization???!

And the funny thing is white women who practise paganism actually does this. They actually think Ma kaali as a symbol of sexual liberation. It's very funny how limited western sexuality is lmaoo.

Also their male counterparts are tall‌, buff half naked men with only convering on their dick.

My guy after my whole yap session, if the only thing you got was 'mY cULture', then I have no words. The whole point was that your misunderstanding the artist and the artist intentions.

tehmam

okie so yeah I am studying commercial art currently and lemme tell yall about some things you apparently don't know fuck about @femsolid

Ancient Indian Sculptures have been governed long since by rules of Silpashastra which aim on making statues that are comparable to poetic metaphors, like eyes should be like lotus petals, soft and moist, lips red and pretty like bimba fruit, fingers long and tapering, eyelashes long like cows, navels deep like whirpools (and before you start ranting these were common rules for making both male and female statues).

The main focus was on ensuring that Gods and Goddesses look as divine as possible, balancing the aesthetic sensibilities of that time while retaining the detachment from humanity in the deities.

In Ancient India, nudity was never sexualised, rather the female form was worshipped as the very embodiment of the divine, the womb where the seed of life germinates was seen as the finest play of creation in humanity, the most beautiful coexistence of humanity and divinity in nature. Infact, till a very long period of time, women didn't use to cover their breasts. And for proof, here is a picture of very normal women of those times visiting the Lepakshi Temple -

See????

There has been no objectification of women's bodies or their breasts because not covering your torso was very much the norm back then too.

And fyi, in some Hindu temples like the Khajuraho Temple, mithunas or erotic scenes have been a depicted in plenty, because again in Ancient India the act of procreation was seen as sacred, as something holy, not something hush hush or taboo.

Secondly, almost all the figures that you have shown are surprise surprise of fertility goddesses.

Ma'am, in nearly every civilization, fertility goddesses have been shown with big breast, wide hips and narrow waists, because a) they depicted virility and b) they were considered as fertility markers 😭 (again as you may compare, like lion's chest and slender waist and broad hips and arms reaching down till knees (any normal man's arms reach till their mid thighs but in case of Gods who were portrayed as warriors, they were often called Ajanubahu, the ones whose arms reach till their knees) for men)

And nothing about this is genuinely sexist, these goddesses, though I think in the pictures you have shown they are Yakshis and Temple Nymphs (Salabhanjikas) who have been depicted as overly fertile with large globular breasts and narrow hips. Their depiction was purposeful I think because they were mostly worshipped by women who were unable to conceive or for other women to enhance their fertility.

The breasts of goddesses according to the rules of the Silpashastra should be either like Suvarna Kalasha or golden pots (symbolic of abundance and fullness and auspiciousness, the most common depiction of breasts) or like Amra Phalam or Mangoes (firm, round and tapering) or like Gaja Kumbha or Elephant Temples (powerful, strong, mainly used for goddesses Lakshmi and Parvati) or like Kamala Kudmala (soft and small and firm used for young maidens). These were again not to be compared against some fetishised porn which is very very disrespectful first of all and secondly these are lakshanas or auspicious indicators.

Can your brain genuinely not grasp the concept of a woman's body being worshipped as divine and auspiciousness???

See this is a mural of I think, Lord Vishnu and Mata Lakshmi, nothing, I repeat, nothing has been sexualised and yes, Mata Lakshmi's breasts have been depicted again in the Golden Pots style that i mentioned earlier.

Small note, in Indian texts, breasts are referred to as Stana.

So, the stana of Mata Lakshmi are said to be round, overflowing with nectar which symbolises prosperity and abundance, her role as the goddess of wealth. On the other hand, the stana of Mata Kali and Mata Durga are also described the same way, but they are slightly sagging to emphasize their matronly aspect. The stana of Mata Parvati are often likened to lotus stalks, firm and youthful.

The narrow waist of Mata Saraswati is a symbol of clarity of speech. In Ancient India, the waist was thought as the part where the prana or breath rising from below and articulation from above meet. So a delicate, slender waist meant control and precision in speech, which was emphasized in both men and women.

Okay so I am getting very off topic right now, my main point was that if you search for fertility Nymphs and Yakshas, obviously they will have big breasts, narrow waists and big hips.

For instance, look at the above two pictures of sculptures recovered from the same civilisation, the first one shows a picture of a fertility goddess and the second one is of a dancing girl. The contrast is easily visible, in terms of the round full breasts of the goddess and the small but firm breasts of the dancing girl. Obviously, there is a contrast between the proportions in the idols of fertility goddesses and statues of dancers.

And now please don't say, the Indus Valley Civilization, one of the world's oldest civilisation,in whose ruins we have found and recovered only idols of goddesses and which is firmly believed to be a matriarchal society is also sexualising and objectifying women 😭😭😭😭😭

And also exceptions exist, not all statues have been portrayed like that, for example Mata Kali has been depicted sometimes with sagging stana, skeletal body, dishevelled hair and emaciated figure. Durga Mata too is shown as tender and matronly and fierce. Sitala Mata, Devi Camunda and Mahavidyas like Dhamuvati are also shown in this manner, showing the utter beauty in their chaos, the love for their devotees in their terror, their beauty is not depicted according to the lakshanas I earlier mentioned, but they are still worshipped as supreme wisdom.

Similarly many Buddhist and Jain goddesses are sculpted as austere instead of sensual, and many Gramadevis or village goddesses have been shown as fierce and possessing rugged beauty.

Below is a picture of a devi from a chola temple that I found (she is so beautiful ahahakaksksnsns)

Which brings me back to the main point I was trying to convey, a fertility goddess will be sculpted like a fertility goddess, a dancer will have the proportions of a dancer, a warrior will have the chaos inherent of war and a mother goddess will have the matronly tender and fierce depictions of motherhood.

And thirdly, Gods and Goddesses are depicted as the very epitome of female beauty and these are standards that literally nobody was expecting women to hold true during that time. Goddesses are portrayed as the peak of female beauty, the very embodiment of youthfullness not some twisted beauty standards you are making it out to be.

Also isn't one thing very clear, if you contrast the sculptures and the anime porn pictures you have used, in no way are the sculptures obscene or vulgar, but they are graceful and pretty and fluid, showing the wonders of the female form.

And lastly, the round full breasts and narrow waists and wide hips you were so relentlessly criticizing are not meaningless. The round breasts symbolise nourishment and abundance and fertility, they are the symbols of Shakti, the divine strength, they are the ones that show the Goddesses as the mother of the universe. Their very symmetry stands for cosmic order and balance. Their firmness and youthfullness stands for nitya yauvan or their everlasting youth, their broad hips stand for the life, the fertility of the earth which gives us food, the very reason for human existence, the narrow waist stands for their control and clarity of speech.

nothing has been sexualised or objectified but rather has been worshiped and likened to the divine

Also, your comparing the statues of Goddesses to fetishised anime pornography is not only very disrespectful but also erases the divinity of women and how they were worshipped and likened to the divine, how they were called as the very strength, the Shakti of the universe.

Also tagging @zeherili-ankhein @rhysaka @randomx123 @stxrrynxghts @dharagalaxias so that they can add some points <33

zeherili-ankhein

Well there's nothing more to add honestly you have said everything that needed to be said

All I can say is OP should shut their mouth na dnot speak about things they clearly have no knowledge on.

People's bodies, especially women's bodies were NOT seen as something sexual and that's the only fucking reason, we have many hymns about Gods that describes their breasts like Srita Kamala Kucha Mandala or Saraswati Vandana for example

It was seen as a part of women's beauty and thus described and sculpted as such.

That's the short answer.

And what @tehmam said is the long, detailed truth that clearly OP never gave the fuck to research on.

Those sculptures, say the Chola period bronze sculptures are literally not fucking realistic – IT WAS A SHAME TO MAKE REALISTIC ART!!! – they have exaggerated eyes and facial features as well as bodily anatomy. It does fucking not mean it was seen as the standard for women back then or they were sexualized.

Manga is made to objectify, because they have no other personality than boobs in them. While these sculptures no matter how they look, tells a story that has nothing to do with their sexuality or how they are sculpted.

Fucking do you research because putting your fingers on your keyboard.

dailycatsblog

rhysaka

This is low-key disturbing to hear as a Hindu.

Hindus are still being fed beef against their consent, the case of The Wire’s journalist forcing his Hindu girlfriend to eat beef was the most recent case..I don’t know what sick pleasure one derives by doing this. Hinduphobia has always existed, it’s only now that we are speaking up more and more about it.

bluecrusadearcade

Having religious sites in a region does not give your state or your religion ownership over it. By that logic, the Vatican would own half of Europe. The claim that Kashmir “belongs to Hindus” because of Amarnath or Shankaracharya temple is rooted in theocratic ethno-nationalist agenda, not history. Yes, Hindu sites exist in Kashmir because Hindus have historically lived there, just like Muslims, Buddhists, and others. Kashmiris of all faiths have coexisted and contributed to the region’s culture, language, and history for centuries.

Kashmir doesn’t “belong” to Hindus, Muslims, or any religion — it belongs to its people. The indigenous, regardless of what religion they follow today. Conversion doesn’t erase indigeneity. Cultural belonging is rooted in land, language, and memory — not who you pray to. But that is a concept difficult to grasp for you.

Kashmiri Pandits’ lack of return is not the fault of Kashmiri Muslims. It is the fault of the Indian government, which has used their displacement as a political pawn for decades. The state did nothing for their safe resettlement, didn’t provide real rehabilitation, and still continues to use their pain to fuel communal hate instead of solutions. And fools like you fall for it.

Anyway, free kashmir <3

Wow, it's impressive how much misinformation can fit into a single ask—your understanding of Kashmir's history seems to be as shallow as a puddle in the sun.

lets start, shall we?

“Having religious sites in a region does not give your state or your religion ownership over it.”

In many cases, the very establishment and maintenance of a religious site have been acts of statecraft. For example, the 2008 transfer of 99 acres of forest land to the Amarnath Shrine Board wasn’t just a religious accommodation—it was a political decision by both the Indian Union and the J&K government to assert authority over that part of the Valley. Religious institutions often hold de facto governing power over adjacent land and resources (roads, policing, revenue), effectively exercising territorial control even if they aren’t “sovereign” in name. Religious sites can and do establish historical and even legal ties to a community. The existence of a temple isn’t merely “cultural fluff.” In many pre-modern polities, state authority was deeply bound up with patronage of shrines. The Shankaracharya Temple atop Takht-e-Suleiman, for example, dates back to at least the 9th century and was rebuilt by Hindu and Buddhist rulers—evidence that Kashmir’s sovereign identity was inseparable from its Hindu heritage long before Islam arrived. When princely Jammu & Kashmir acceded to India in 1947, the Instrument of Accession specifically guaranteed protection of all existing religious institutions. That document invokes the region’s plural but historically Hindu-rooted polity, not a blank slate. Kashmir’s dynastic history wasn’t exclusively “multi-faith coexistence.”

From the Karkota dynasty (c. 625–855 CE) through the Lohara kingdom (1003–1320 CE), Kashmir was ruled by Hindu monarchs whose geneses and governance were tied to Shaivism and other Hindu sects. The Rajatarangini (12th century chronicle) records dozens of Hindu kings and their endowments to temples—this isn’t a footnote but the core of Kashmir’s classical statehood. While Buddhists and later Muslims certainly contributed to the rich tapestry, that doesn’t negate the fact that Kashmir’s political structures, coinage, land grants (the Shasana inscriptions), and legal codes were shaped by and for a Hindu-majority ruling class for centuries.

2. “By that logic, the Vatican would own half of Europe.” This comparison fails on two counts. Firstly, the Vatican is a sovereign city-state under the 1929 Lateran Treaty, with internationally recognized borders and extraterritorial rights over multiple basilicas in Italy. Its legal status is unique and does entail actual political jurisdiction—unlike any Hindu temple in Kashmir, which remains under Indian civil law. Second, equating a tiny city-state’s special treaty guarantees with a religious shrine’s cultural importance ignores centuries of regional power struggles over Kashmir.

3. “The claim that Kashmir ‘belongs to Hindus’ because of Amarnath or Shankaracharya temple is rooted in theocratic ethno-nationalist agenda, not history.”

Historical sources show Shaivism was the dominant faith of the early Kashmiri polity. The 8th-century Rajatarangini chronicles rulers patronizing Shiva worship; Queen Suryamati’s 11th-century gifts to Amarnath are recorded in multiple texts. These aren’t modern “ethno-nationalist” fabrications but genuine markers of an ancient Hindu state in the Valley

4. Conversion does alter a community’s indigenous stake when it’s imposed or incentivized politically. True indigeneity is rooted not only in birthplace but in the uninterrupted practice and institutions of a people. While individual conversions are personal, mass conversions under state patronage (e.g., Mughal land-revenue exemptions for converts) did reshape the demographic and institutional landscape, often at the expense of pre-existing Hindu institutions. Erasing the continuity of a faith community does weaken its claim on the public sphere—look at how many old Hindu shrines in the Valley were repurposed or fell to ruin after the medieval conversions. That loss of visible heritage undercuts your blasphemous idea that “conversion doesn’t erase indigeneity.” The demographic shift from ~6 percent Pandit population pre-1947 to under 1 percent today is no mere footnote—it reflects a transformation in who “belongs” in the Valley.

5. “Kashmiri Pandits’ lack of return is not the fault of Kashmiri Muslims. It is the fault of the Indian government…” The 1990 exodus of roughly 300,000 Pandits was driven by targeted assassinations and mosque announcements from militant groups (JKLF, Hizbul Mujahideen) demanding their departure—actions directly by Kashmiri Muslims, not New Delhi While the Indian state’s resettlement package has been inadequate, you cannot erase the fact that Pandits fled under threat from local Islamist militants, nor that property-destruction and intimidation were carried out at the village level by Kashmiri insurgents. Kashmiri Pandits’ exile was driven by militant Islamist violence, not benign state indifference alone. In 1989–1990, Kashmiri Pandits were systematically targeted: homes marked with “P” for “Pandit,” public threats from JKLF and Hizbul Mujahideen, dozens of murders—this is well-documented. While the Indian government certainly botched the security response, the proximate cause of the mass flight was organized communal violence by militant groups, overwhelmingly deriving from the Muslim-majority side. Even today, many Pandits refuse to return precisely because the local power structure remains dominated by the same families and networks that either tacitly supported or actively condoned those 1990 purges. You cannot absolve those actors of responsibility simply by pointing at New Delhi.

6. Blaming only New Delhi for the Kashmiri Pandit displacement ignores the agency of local communities. Local Kashmiri Muslim leaders and civil society had opportunities to shelter and publicly protect Pandit neighbors but largely stayed silent or sided with the militants. That collective failure fueled the exodus. True reconciliation requires acknowledging both the state’s failures and the grassroots complicity. Your one-sided “it’s all Delhi’s fault” narrative only deepens the wound.

7. “Free Kashmir <3” “Freeing” any region implies a new sovereignty. But no Kashmir-wide plebiscite has ever been held; two-thirds of the Valley’s voters championed staying with India in the 1951 and 1975 assemblies. Pushing “independence” without democratic mandate simply replaces one form of rule with another-often more violent-and ignores the wishes of millions of Kashmiris who identify as Indian citizens. “Free Kashmir” slogans too often align with Pakistan-backed terrorism, not genuine self-determination. Genuine independence movements prize pluralism; Pakistan’s track record in its own territories (Balochistan, Sindh) and its support for jihadi groups in the Valley make it clear that “Azadi” framed by Islamabad would strip Kashmiri Hindus, Sikhs, even moderate Muslims of basic rights.

Real freedom would be one that guarantees security for every Kashmiri, not just the majority faith. Touting “free Kashmir” without that nuance only signals alignment with forces that intimidated Pandits in 1990—and still do.

The Bottom line is:

Historical sovereignty in Kashmir was deeply tied to Hindu kings and temples.

Demographic change via enforced or incentivized conversion did impact the Hindu community’s stake.

1990’s Pandit exodus was driven first by local Islamist militancy, secondarily compounded by Delhi’s inadequate security.

True Kashmiri freedom must protect minorities—any movement that doesn’t is no ally of pluralism but of the very extremism that drove Pandits out.

It's clear you’re more invested in fueling division than understanding history—maybe try reading up on Kashmir’s actual past before you spout off next time. And i mean some real history, not the version you’ve been fed to suit your narrow agenda.

जनहित में प्रकाशीत, नमो वः 🙏

rhysaka

Don’t tell me that these genociders are the real “Kashmiris” and the ones who they drove out and massacred shouldn’t have a say in it.

The terrorists you support have made it ample clear that they are doing this because they want to turn the area Islamic just like they did in 1990s. The killings of Hindus in Pahalgam shows you their intent. Do you think there weren’t muslim tourists in Pahalgam that day? If they really wanted to target all tourists because they weren’t local Kashmiris then why spare the muslim tourists? Lol stop lying to yourself and for fucks sake stop espousing pro jihad narratives.

vikruti-deactivated20250829

Pakistan claiming Indian missiles hit Afghanistan, and then immediately getting factchecked by TALIBAN 😭😭😭 what is this hadd gareeb qaum running on

ishaaron-ishaaron-me

Taliban factchecking?

mrityuloknative

when its an embarrassment contest and your opponent is Pakistan

tomorrowwithme

Pakistani terrorist admitting that they are training terrorism in terror camps. Water is wet.

desigurlie

I have realized that most of the tumblr population is delusional, so far from reality that they might exist in a matrix, entitled to their brainwashed asses and for some ungodly reason think they are intelligent. The ill-informed uneducated portion of this app, I urge you to learn something before you go spewing fancy words and accusing countries whose internal or international politics and ground situation you have no idea about.

India led targeted attacks limited to the compounds of knowm terrorist organizations which have from decades relentlessly attacked *innocent Indian civilians* and we had done NOTHING. We had silently digested it. This was not a declaration of war. This was retaliation for the Pahalgam terror attack, which was carried out by Pakistani state backed radical ismalist terror outfits. Before whinning about morality on online platforms, go ask your government why they have been hosting *known* terrorists and backing their terror attacks since time immemorial in *your* own damned backyards.

And to the dumber Westerners supporting these nonsensical hypocrites in the reblogs, the compounds we have bombed are backed by the terror organization responsible for 99% of every attack carried out in Indian and European soil along with the 9/11 attacks. You are welcome. CIA wouldn't have been able to even *find* where Bin Laden was holed up in, without the help of Indian intelligence. Ungrateful shitheaded dicks.

Edited : Terrorist supporters, you will be blocked. I don't care for your hypocrisy and your stupidity. This is not up for debate. You reap what you sow. We have had enough. We won't roll over and die anymore.

anyboli

That’s it. Thats the whole character

demonprincex

you don't "hate kids," you hate being forced into a caretaking role.

you don't "hate kids," you hate censorship passed off as family values.

you don't "hate kids," you hate the constrictiveness of the nuclear family.

you don't "hate kids," you're just not used to occupying fully age diverse spaces so you're not used to the noise or the many different kinds of needs.

you don't "hate kids," most public spaces just aren't built for kids, and so the few kids you see are always uncomfortable and distressed.

you don't "hate kids," you hate the intense social rules assigned to kids and anyone who interacts with kids.

You don't "hate kids," you hate how society reproduces its most restrictive elements and how kids are powerless to resist it.