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.
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.
Is BBC following Hindu nationalist propaganda?
Actually a fair bit of the BBC article appears to have been derived from Wikipedia.
that is what most want us to believe or argue about. :)
Why wouldn’t Hindus have a country? Muslims got two in the partition.
Assuming you mean Pakistan and Bangladesh, the latter was not formed in the partition and was a province of Pakistan.
What does my post have to do with Hindus having/not having a land of their own?
It seems extremely obvious if you just think for a second. Are you aware that British India was partitioned along ethno-religious lines? I’m a little shocked that you’re so confused…