top | item 35046885 (no title) 22SAS | 3 years ago [flagged] discuss order hn newest seatac76|3 years ago Did you even read the article? It seems well researched, if anything it alludes to the uncertainty inherent in determining with accuracy what happened centuries ago. Bang2Bay|3 years ago everything is propaganda. Including painting nationalists as those behind these articles. :)Unfortunately no one wants to research because many tame any research as rightwing propaganda.No research has been done as to how an 80ton stone was moved 100s of km and lifted 20 stories up to build temples for example. sbmthakur|3 years ago Is BBC following Hindu nationalist propaganda? SeanLuke|3 years ago Actually a fair bit of the BBC article appears to have been derived from Wikipedia. load replies (1) Bang2Bay|3 years ago that is what most want us to believe or argue about. :) 22SAS|3 years ago [deleted] load replies (1) MPlus88|3 years ago [deleted] steponlego|3 years ago Why wouldn’t Hindus have a country? Muslims got two in the partition. vinay427|3 years ago Assuming you mean Pakistan and Bangladesh, the latter was not formed in the partition and was a province of Pakistan. 22SAS|3 years ago What does my post have to do with Hindus having/not having a land of their own? load replies (1) shaan7|3 years ago [deleted] load replies (2)
seatac76|3 years ago Did you even read the article? It seems well researched, if anything it alludes to the uncertainty inherent in determining with accuracy what happened centuries ago.
Bang2Bay|3 years ago everything is propaganda. Including painting nationalists as those behind these articles. :)Unfortunately no one wants to research because many tame any research as rightwing propaganda.No research has been done as to how an 80ton stone was moved 100s of km and lifted 20 stories up to build temples for example.
sbmthakur|3 years ago Is BBC following Hindu nationalist propaganda? SeanLuke|3 years ago Actually a fair bit of the BBC article appears to have been derived from Wikipedia. load replies (1) Bang2Bay|3 years ago that is what most want us to believe or argue about. :) 22SAS|3 years ago [deleted] load replies (1)
SeanLuke|3 years ago Actually a fair bit of the BBC article appears to have been derived from Wikipedia. load replies (1)
steponlego|3 years ago Why wouldn’t Hindus have a country? Muslims got two in the partition. vinay427|3 years ago Assuming you mean Pakistan and Bangladesh, the latter was not formed in the partition and was a province of Pakistan. 22SAS|3 years ago What does my post have to do with Hindus having/not having a land of their own? load replies (1) shaan7|3 years ago [deleted] load replies (2)
vinay427|3 years ago Assuming you mean Pakistan and Bangladesh, the latter was not formed in the partition and was a province of Pakistan.
22SAS|3 years ago What does my post have to do with Hindus having/not having a land of their own? load replies (1)
seatac76|3 years ago
Bang2Bay|3 years ago
Unfortunately no one wants to research because many tame any research as rightwing propaganda.
No research has been done as to how an 80ton stone was moved 100s of km and lifted 20 stories up to build temples for example.
sbmthakur|3 years ago
SeanLuke|3 years ago
Bang2Bay|3 years ago
22SAS|3 years ago
[deleted]
MPlus88|3 years ago
[deleted]
steponlego|3 years ago
vinay427|3 years ago
22SAS|3 years ago
shaan7|3 years ago
[deleted]