Protect me? They can’t even protect my art: M F Husain

[Jana]

Originally Posted by macrocks

Your great great grand mother was in India before the Britishers came. Now go on and post as much of this crap as you can. Besides let me tell you women live topless in today's africa too.

ah lack of tolerance on part of great Indian poster here. pitty you guys can stoop to personal attack no doubt about that.

And for your information i am a Pathan and thank God none of my reletavies have any link with India what so ever.

and the crap is not written by me check the link your Indian Hindu writer is throwing light on great culture of India.

If you have any objection check there is email address of the writer there too so write directly to her/him.


Darkstar did you notice your great Indian posters loose the temper while they are so happy mudslinging against Islam lolzzzz

boooooooo

[macrocks]

ah lack of tolerance on part of great Indian poster here. pitty you guys can stoop to personal attack no doubt about that.

And for your information i am a Pathan and thank God none of my reletavies have any link with India what so ever.

and the crap is not written by me check the link your Indian Hindu writer is throwing light on great culture of India.

If you have any objection check there is email address of the writer there too so write directly to her/him.


Darkstar did you notice your great Indian posters loose the temper while they are so happy mudslinging against Islam lolzzzz

boooooooo

The pathans were part of British India. And it is not a personal attack. I am saying that before posting any such crap you should take care to see if it is correct or not. Even if it was written by an Indian, it need not be correct.

The point being made by you is as if British India belonged to India only and not Pakistan. I cited that as to tell you that you guys were also part of British India and thus should think in that direction. Thus the article doesn't relate only to Indians and Hindus but also Pakistani's and Islam as Muslims came from hindus who were forcibly converted by Invaders.

The personal attack was not intended at the very least.

[Jana]

Originally Posted by macrocks

The pathans were part of British India. And it is not a personal attack. I am saying that before posting any such crap you should take care to see if it is correct or not. Even if it was written by an Indian, it need not be correct.

The point being made by you is as if British India belonged to India only and not Pakistan. I cited that as to tell you that you guys were also part of British India and thus should think in that direction. Thus the article doesn't relate only to Indians and Hindus but also Pakistani's and Islam as Muslims came from hindus who were forcibly converted by Invaders.

The personal attack was not intended at the very least.

Sorry the pathans were never part of India that was ruled by Britishers. My forefathers had been invading present day India. So dont give me your crap that my grand grand mother was in anyway part of India. Neither Nudity had ever been part of my pathan culture.


On the other hand we are not talking about Pakistan or India, the article clearly takes pride in liberal out look of ancient India where Nudity was not a taboo and where Nudity was considerd something to be proud of.

[DarkStar]

It is incredible that the Bharatis hold the Britisher looters and killers in awe, the ones that were responsible for the impoverishment of India, the ones that killed millions by their policies during the famine in the late 19th century.

While the beneificient Muslim Sultans and Emperors, who integrated into India, took for themselves Hindu wives and allowed them to practice their idol-worhsip within the royal palaces, and contributed to its economy, arts, culture, are villified.

As for looting, raping, forced conversions, most international historians now regard such claims as false and a perversion of historical facts.

[ferrari]

Originally Posted by DarkStar

Thats why I said go ahead. And rename your coutnry, the Hindu Rashtria of India.

Take off this false garb of secularism. Come out of the closet.

We all know Bharat is a Hindu State, masquerading as a Secular Republic.

Whatever I posted doesn't imply anything about India being a Hindu rashtra. Stop putting words in my mouth.

I clearly said, he has court case against him which he should defend as a dutiful citizen instead of absconding or going into exile. If he has to obey the courts of India, how India becomes Hindu Rashtra??

[DarkStar]

Originally Posted by ferrari

Whatever I posted doesn't imply anything about India being a Hindu rashtra. Stop putting words in my mouth.

I clearly said, he has court case against him which he should defend as a dutiful citizen instead of absconding or going into exile. If he has to obey the courts of India, how India becomes Hindu Rashtra??

It was the natural conclusion to your point.

Bharat cannot be a secular state, while hounding out alleged blasphemers of the Hindu religion.

If HIndus of Bharat want to hound out this old man, and persecute him for what would be allowed in secular countries, then it shows that Bharat only pays lipservice at the altar of secularism, but makes no sacrificies.

I.e. Bharat is a Hindu Rasthra, where the only raj is Hindu Raj.

[vinod2070]

Originally Posted by DarkStar

It is incredible that the Bharatis hold the Britisher looters and killers in awe, the ones that were responsible for the impoverishment of India, the ones that killed millions by their policies during the famine in the late 19th century.

No. The British invaders were bad. They caused much harm to India. They also knew when their time was up and returned gracefully on a friendly note. Something that can't be said about the other invaders who never realized when the bells started tolling for them.

It is you who want to lionize one set of invaders. For us both were bad, the former were just worse due to their religious intolerance and because they were simply uncivilized brutes.

While the beneificient Muslim Sultans and Emperors, who integrated into India, took for themselves Hindu wives and allowed them to practice their idol-worhsip within the royal palaces, and contributed to its economy, arts, culture, are villified.

They contributed zilch. Those tartar nomads had nothing to give India. They learnt everything that can be called culture in this land. The "Stans" and the Tartars are till date not known for any culture.

As for looting, raping, forced conversions, most international historians now regard such claims as false and a perversion of historical facts.

These are historical facts recorded with much fanfare by Muslim historians of the time. They are fully in accordance with the barbaric history of those tribes and their religious intolerance.

A modern example of those barbarians is the Taliban. They would repeat the same if they get hold of your country. You will again see the flourishing of the same culture!

[ferrari]

Originally Posted by DarkStar

It was the natural conclusion to your point.

How is it natural conclusion???

Bharat cannot be a secular state, while hounding out alleged blasphemers of the Hindu religion.

Bharat state didn't hound him out. Get it right before making false claims. Some one who was offended with his paintings had brought a court case against MF Hussain. Instead of fighting he flew away like a timid person without defending in court. So how is state involved in this??

I have also pointed out another case where there was a case booked against a Hindu who made vulgar painting involving both Hindu and Christian gods.

If HIndus of Bharat want to hound out this old man, and persecute him for what would be allowed in secular countries, then it shows that Bharat only pays lipservice at the altar of secularism, but makes no sacrificies.

I.e. Bharat is a Hindu Rasthra, where the only raj is Hindu Raj.

See above and stop making false statements.

Secular means equality in treating religions. In the above cases it is clear that there were case against them irrespective of their religion. Both a muslim and hindu are same before the state as they have offended sentiments of two religions and so booked under the Indian laws.

[macrocks]

It is incredible that the Bharatis hold the Britisher looters and killers in awe, the ones that were responsible for the impoverishment of India, the ones that killed millions by their policies during the famine in the late 19th century.

While the beneificient Muslim Sultans and Emperors, who integrated into India, took for themselves Hindu wives and allowed them to practice their idol-worhsip within the royal palaces, and contributed to its economy, arts, culture, are villified.

As for looting, raping, forced conversions, most international historians now regard such claims as false and a perversion of historical facts.

You can never understand this since you have proxy democracy in Pakistan. The britishers were Bad as far as looting of resources and massacre of rebellions are concerned. But without them we would not have
1. A united India and
2. A democratic India

Without them we would still have been divided into atleast 7-8 countries and each fighting the other. All mughals after Aurangzeb were idiots who were interested in materialistic things and not in improvement of masses. Aurangeb had utilised too many resources trying to defeat the Marathas and this was evident on the later Mughals who were stooges of powerful nobels contrlling power most notably the sayeed brothers.

The britishers did divide us but at least we are united and democratic now although similar things can't be said about Pak.