Great secularist Aakar Patel is unhappy with Bajirao for defeating the mughals and howls and barks against him

by ashdoc Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:34 pm

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/aakarvani/bajirao-the-great-hindu-nationalist-thats-only-in-the-movies/

by seven Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:56 pm

ok so i read a little. if the movie was meant for history lessons, to be used in schools then this guy's rant is valid. But this is just a bollywood romantic movie with random someone half true sometimes untrue facts.

these teachers i tell ya, they start discoursing their gyan at uninterested people.

by Merlot Daruwala Wed Dec 23, 2015 1:55 am

ashdoc wrote:http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/aakarvani/bajirao-the-great-hindu-nationalist-thats-only-in-the-movies/

Why doc, are you upset that everyone doesn't share your touching belief that the Maratha invasions in the North and East were for "liberating those lands from Mughal rule"??

by ashdoc Wed Dec 23, 2015 3:44 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
ashdoc wrote:http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/aakarvani/bajirao-the-great-hindu-nationalist-thats-only-in-the-movies/

Why doc, are you upset that everyone doesn't share your touching belief that the Maratha invasions in the North and East were for "liberating those lands from Mughal rule"??

i am pointing to the fact that aakar patel has a really small mind . the movie is not about hindu triumphalism but more of a romantic movie . yes , some maratha glory is shown in the film , but it does not peddle what a secularist would call a 'communal' agenda . yet aakar could not leave it alone . movie reviewers ( even of the secular variety ) have not attacked the film . but aakar patel shows his small mind by openly declaring he wont watch the film . in reality any secularist or muslim person can watch the movie without objections . aakar could have simply ignored the film , but unnecessarily has opened his mouth .

by Merlot Daruwala Wed Dec 23, 2015 4:42 am

ashdoc wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
ashdoc wrote:http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/aakarvani/bajirao-the-great-hindu-nationalist-thats-only-in-the-movies/

Why doc, are you upset that everyone doesn't share your touching belief that the Maratha invasions in the North and East were for "liberating those lands from Mughal rule"??
i am pointing to the fact that aakar patel has a really small mind . the movie is not about hindu triumphalism but more of a romantic movie . yes , some maratha glory is shown in the film , but it does not peddle what a secularist would call a 'communal' agenda . yet aakar could not leave it alone . movie reviewers ( even of the secular variety ) have not attacked the film . but aakar patel shows his small mind by openly declaring he wont watch the film . in reality any secularist or muslim person can watch the movie without objections . aakar could have simply ignored the film , but unnecessarily has opened his mouth .

So in oh-so-tolerant India, one can't open one's mouth if one doesn't intend to watch a movie?

Anyway, if you read the blog in a calmer state, you will see that he didn't write about the movie per se (which he hasn't seen). He was just debunking some chaddi reviewer who (like you) wrote: “explores the romantic side of 18th-century Maratha general Bajirao Ballal Bhat, who fought and won 40 battles against the Mughals with an aim to create a unified Hindu kingdom or Akhand Bharatvarsha”

by ashdoc Wed Dec 23, 2015 4:43 am

this is what the indian express reviewer said about the film---

All you enraged historians, breathe easy. With a disclaimer in place, the film doesn’t even pretend to be a faithful document of the events that took place in the early 1700s, when the Maratha empire in its ascendency. The facts, such as they are recorded, are not allowed to weigh heavy upon this pretty edifice. There is some chatter of the ‘debauched Dilli darbar’ and ambitions for ‘poora Hindustan’; a couple of kohled, bearded Mughal invaders show up with their armies, as well as scenes featuring a crafty ‘Dakkhani Nizam’. But these are stray mentions, and mere diversions : the real action in ‘Bajirao Mastani’ is in the bedrooms and boudoirs and hallways, between Bajirao and brave ‘Bundalkhandi’ lass Mastani, with Kashibai valiantly fighting a rearguard action.

by ashdoc Wed Dec 23, 2015 4:46 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
ashdoc wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
ashdoc wrote:http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/aakarvani/bajirao-the-great-hindu-nationalist-thats-only-in-the-movies/

Why doc, are you upset that everyone doesn't share your touching belief that the Maratha invasions in the North and East were for "liberating those lands from Mughal rule"??
i am pointing to the fact that aakar patel has a really small mind . the movie is not about hindu triumphalism but more of a romantic movie . yes , some maratha glory is shown in the film , but it does not peddle what a secularist would call a 'communal' agenda . yet aakar could not leave it alone . movie reviewers ( even of the secular variety ) have not attacked the film . but aakar patel shows his small mind by openly declaring he wont watch the film . in reality any secularist or muslim person can watch the movie without objections . aakar could have simply ignored the film , but unnecessarily has opened his mouth .

So in oh-so-tolerant India, one can't open one's mouth if one doesn't intend to watch a movie?

Anyway, if you read the blog in a calmer state, you will see that he didn't write about the movie per se (which he hasn't seen). He was just debunking some chaddi reviewer who (like you) wrote: “explores the romantic side of 18th-century Maratha general Bajirao Ballal Bhat, who fought and won 40 battles against the Mughals with an aim to create a unified Hindu kingdom or Akhand Bharatvarsha”

he was probably deliberately searching for some reviewer to say something about hindu kingdom etc . aakar was just searching for excuses to howl and bark and spit venom .

by Merlot Daruwala Wed Dec 23, 2015 4:51 am

ashdoc wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
ashdoc wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
ashdoc wrote:http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/aakarvani/bajirao-the-great-hindu-nationalist-thats-only-in-the-movies/

Why doc, are you upset that everyone doesn't share your touching belief that the Maratha invasions in the North and East were for "liberating those lands from Mughal rule"??
i am pointing to the fact that aakar patel has a really small mind . the movie is not about hindu triumphalism but more of a romantic movie . yes , some maratha glory is shown in the film , but it does not peddle what a secularist would call a 'communal' agenda . yet aakar could not leave it alone . movie reviewers ( even of the secular variety ) have not attacked the film . but aakar patel shows his small mind by openly declaring he wont watch the film . in reality any secularist or muslim person can watch the movie without objections . aakar could have simply ignored the film , but unnecessarily has opened his mouth .

So in oh-so-tolerant India, one can't open one's mouth if one doesn't intend to watch a movie?

Anyway, if you read the blog in a calmer state, you will see that he didn't write about the movie per se (which he hasn't seen). He was just debunking some chaddi reviewer who (like you) wrote: “explores the romantic side of 18th-century Maratha general Bajirao Ballal Bhat, who fought and won 40 battles against the Mughals with an aim to create a unified Hindu kingdom or Akhand Bharatvarsha”
he was probably deliberately searching for some reviewer to say something about hindu kingdom etc . aakar was just searching for excuses to howl and bark and spit venom .

Haha..sure doc. You are the expert on how those suckular fukular dog-snakes think. So maybe, reviewers too should stick to critiquing the movie and not make up history and give these dog-snakes a chance to howl, bark and spit venom. What say?

by ashdoc Wed Dec 23, 2015 5:07 am

The reviewer is probably some obscure reviewer. But aakar has obviously highlighted him because he wanted to spit venom on hindu marathas.

by Merlot Daruwala Wed Dec 23, 2015 5:29 am

ashdoc wrote:The reviewer is probably some obscure reviewer. But aakar has obviously highlighted him because he wanted to spit venom on hindu marathas.

No idea about the reviewer, but the publication which carried that review is certainly not obscure. When reputed newspapers carry such blatantly incorrect statements, it is only right that they are debunked.

PS: Why do you find a recounting of historical facts "venmous"?? Or do you genuinely believe Bajirao wanted to sew together an Akhand Bharat??

by ashdoc Wed Dec 23, 2015 5:43 am

Saying that he won't see the film is attacking the film not debunking myths.

by Merlot Daruwala Wed Dec 23, 2015 6:09 am

ashdoc wrote:Saying that he won't see the film is attacking the film not debunking myths.

Haha..ok doc, if you insist.

by Hellsangel Wed Dec 23, 2015 7:39 am

Hey Doc, he shouldn't see the movie because it is a horrible movie.

But there really is no difference between Tipu Sultan and Shivaji. One was in Mysore, the other in Satara. Neither was thinking of a unified India.

by Merlot Daruwala Wed Dec 23, 2015 11:55 pm

Hellsangel wrote:Hey Doc, he shouldn't see the movie because it is a horrible movie.

But there really is no difference between Tipu Sultan and Shivaji. One was in Mysore, the other in Satara. Neither was thinking of a unified India.

Hellsu, you are now attacking the movie only because you (like Aakar Patel and Rashmun) just can't bear to see a movie made about a Hindu ruler.

Your sickular fukular attitude is very clear from your second sentence, equating our great Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj with that bloodthirsty Muslim invader who committed genocide in Coorg.

by ashdoc Thu Dec 24, 2015 12:07 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:Hey Doc, he shouldn't see the movie because it is a horrible movie.

But there really is no difference between Tipu Sultan and Shivaji. One was in Mysore, the other in Satara. Neither was thinking of a unified India.

Hellsu, you are now attacking the movie only because you (like Aakar Patel and Rashmun) just can't bear to see a movie made about a Hindu ruler.

Your sickular fukular attitude is very clear from your second sentence, equating our great Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj with that bloodthirsty Muslim invader who committed genocide in Coorg.

if he has really seen the movie ( to call it horrible he has to see it ) , then he has made a break from the ranks of sickularism fukularism by seeing it Laughing

by Merlot Daruwala Thu Dec 24, 2015 12:15 am

ashdoc wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:Hey Doc, he shouldn't see the movie because it is a horrible movie.

But there really is no difference between Tipu Sultan and Shivaji. One was in Mysore, the other in Satara. Neither was thinking of a unified India.

Hellsu, you are now attacking the movie only because you (like Aakar Patel and Rashmun) just can't bear to see a movie made about a Hindu ruler.

Your sickular fukular attitude is very clear from your second sentence, equating our great Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj with that bloodthirsty Muslim invader who committed genocide in Coorg.
if he has really seen the movie ( to call it horrible he has to see it ) , then he has made a break from the ranks of sickularism fukularism by seeing it

Ya, those sickular fukulars are quite dumb that way - they actually watch a movie before they call it horrible. If only they were as smart as the chaddis or mullahs, they could demand bans and prohibitions without even seeing it.

by ashdoc Thu Dec 24, 2015 12:15 am

colonel athle answers aakar patel---

http://m.rediff.com/news/column/why-bajirao-is-indias-greatest-cavalry-general/20151223.htm

by ashdoc Thu Dec 24, 2015 12:17 am

from the above link---

Some have used these controversies to further their warped views by equating the Marathas with the Mongols! One commentator wants Indians to believe that the Gaekwads of Baroda, the Scindias of Gwalior and the Holkars of Indore ruled central and western India without any popular support. Relying mainly on either hostile British or Mughal sources, this individual has rubbished Bajirao and the Marathas.
The 'real' reason for the discomfort is that memories of Bajirao bring into focus the battlefield defeats of the Mughals and the Nizam, long kept hidden from the public by the wizard of Allahabad and his discovery of India.

by ashdoc Thu Dec 24, 2015 12:20 am

more from colonel athle's link---

By 1732, the Marathas had already established their control over all of Gujarat. Further progress in that direction was not attempted as Bajirao did not want to clash with the kingdom of Udaipur of the Sisodia Rajputs, from which clan Shivaji claimed ancestry. Bajirao is reported to have requested the Rana of Udaipur to become the emperor of India to head what he called 'Hindu Padpadshahi' (Hindu empire).

by ashdoc Thu Dec 24, 2015 12:23 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
ashdoc wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:Hey Doc, he shouldn't see the movie because it is a horrible movie.

But there really is no difference between Tipu Sultan and Shivaji. One was in Mysore, the other in Satara. Neither was thinking of a unified India.

Hellsu, you are now attacking the movie only because you (like Aakar Patel and Rashmun) just can't bear to see a movie made about a Hindu ruler.

Your sickular fukular attitude is very clear from your second sentence, equating our great Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj with that bloodthirsty Muslim invader who committed genocide in Coorg.
if he has really seen the movie ( to call it horrible he has to see it ) , then he has made a break from the ranks of sickularism fukularism by seeing it

Ya, those sickular fukulars are quite dumb that way - they actually watch a movie before they call it horrible. If only they were as smart as the chaddis or mullahs, they could demand bans and prohibitions without even seeing it.

they dont have to do that . they have their foot soldiers ( the muslims ) who demand ban on books like satanic verses and want to kill its author . or plant bombs in mani ratnam's house for filming films on bombay riots .

by Merlot Daruwala Thu Dec 24, 2015 12:29 am

ashdoc wrote:colonel athle answers aakar patel---

http://m.rediff.com/news/column/why-bajirao-is-indias-greatest-cavalry-general/20151223.htm

Doc, you have still not understood the gist of Aakar Patel's column. Nobody (other than Maratha politicians) doubts Bajirao's military brilliance or his achievements. The dispute is only over the claim that he was knitting together a unified Hindu rashtra. There is nothing to suggest that the Peshwa had any larger interest beyond extorting a 25% tax from any and every ruler - Hindu or Muslim - that he could find.

by ashdoc Thu Dec 24, 2015 12:47 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
ashdoc wrote:colonel athle answers aakar patel---

http://m.rediff.com/news/column/why-bajirao-is-indias-greatest-cavalry-general/20151223.htm

Doc, you have still not understood the gist of Aakar Patel's column. Nobody (other than Maratha politicians) doubts Bajirao's military brilliance or his achievements. The dispute is only over the claim that he was knitting together a unified Hindu rashtra. There is nothing to suggest that the Peshwa had any larger interest beyond extorting a 25% tax from any and every ruler - Hindu or Muslim - that he could find.

Yes, but aakar patel has compared marathas with mongols . Colonel athle has answered that.

by Merlot Daruwala Thu Dec 24, 2015 12:55 am

ashdoc wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
ashdoc wrote:colonel athle answers aakar patel---

http://m.rediff.com/news/column/why-bajirao-is-indias-greatest-cavalry-general/20151223.htm

Doc, you have still not understood the gist of Aakar Patel's column. Nobody (other than Maratha politicians) doubts Bajirao's military brilliance or his achievements. The dispute is only over the claim that he was knitting together a unified Hindu rashtra. There is nothing to suggest that the Peshwa had any larger interest beyond extorting a 25% tax from any and every ruler - Hindu or Muslim - that he could find.
Yes, but aakar patel has compared marathas with mongols . Colonel athle has answered that.

Are you doubting the military brilliance of the Mongols?

by ashdoc Thu Dec 24, 2015 1:01 am

You and i both know mongols are more famous for the destruction and mass massacres.

by Merlot Daruwala Thu Dec 24, 2015 1:34 am

ashdoc wrote:You and i both know mongols are more famous for the destruction and mass massacres.

They won battles and wars. Just like the Marathas.

by Hellsangel Fri Dec 25, 2015 10:34 am

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/parthian-shot/bajirao-mastani-a-hit-job-on-the-great-maratha/

by Sponsored content

Great secularist Aakar Patel is unhappy with Bajirao for defeating the mughals and howls and barks against him

Great secularist Aakar Patel is unhappy with Bajirao for defeating the mughals and howls and barks against him

Re: Great secularist Aakar Patel is unhappy with Bajirao for defeating the mughals and howls and barks against him

Re: Great secularist Aakar Patel is unhappy with Bajirao for defeating the mughals and howls and barks against him

Re: Great secularist Aakar Patel is unhappy with Bajirao for defeating the mughals and howls and barks against him

Re: Great secularist Aakar Patel is unhappy with Bajirao for defeating the mughals and howls and barks against him

Re: Great secularist Aakar Patel is unhappy with Bajirao for defeating the mughals and howls and barks against him

Re: Great secularist Aakar Patel is unhappy with Bajirao for defeating the mughals and howls and barks against him

Re: Great secularist Aakar Patel is unhappy with Bajirao for defeating the mughals and howls and barks against him

Re: Great secularist Aakar Patel is unhappy with Bajirao for defeating the mughals and howls and barks against him

Re: Great secularist Aakar Patel is unhappy with Bajirao for defeating the mughals and howls and barks against him

Re: Great secularist Aakar Patel is unhappy with Bajirao for defeating the mughals and howls and barks against him

Re: Great secularist Aakar Patel is unhappy with Bajirao for defeating the mughals and howls and barks against him

Re: Great secularist Aakar Patel is unhappy with Bajirao for defeating the mughals and howls and barks against him

Re: Great secularist Aakar Patel is unhappy with Bajirao for defeating the mughals and howls and barks against him

Re: Great secularist Aakar Patel is unhappy with Bajirao for defeating the mughals and howls and barks against him

Re: Great secularist Aakar Patel is unhappy with Bajirao for defeating the mughals and howls and barks against him

Re: Great secularist Aakar Patel is unhappy with Bajirao for defeating the mughals and howls and barks against him

Re: Great secularist Aakar Patel is unhappy with Bajirao for defeating the mughals and howls and barks against him

Re: Great secularist Aakar Patel is unhappy with Bajirao for defeating the mughals and howls and barks against him

Re: Great secularist Aakar Patel is unhappy with Bajirao for defeating the mughals and howls and barks against him

Re: Great secularist Aakar Patel is unhappy with Bajirao for defeating the mughals and howls and barks against him

Re: Great secularist Aakar Patel is unhappy with Bajirao for defeating the mughals and howls and barks against him

Re: Great secularist Aakar Patel is unhappy with Bajirao for defeating the mughals and howls and barks against him

Re: Great secularist Aakar Patel is unhappy with Bajirao for defeating the mughals and howls and barks against him

Re: Great secularist Aakar Patel is unhappy with Bajirao for defeating the mughals and howls and barks against him

Re: Great secularist Aakar Patel is unhappy with Bajirao for defeating the mughals and howls and barks against him

Re: Great secularist Aakar Patel is unhappy with Bajirao for defeating the mughals and howls and barks against him