Rather than replying to every point in Chitra Raman?s response, I will take up some of the general points, which I think are relevant to the Indian American community at large. First, let me say I am impressed by the dynamism present in this community: in spite of a snow storm, many travelled from far away to attend the Princeton Junction workshop and share their reflections on the future of the Indian traditions in the U.S. [1] In spite of the demands of daily life, Indian Americans find the time and energy to engage in intellectual debates about the nature of their traditions. In spite of the discrimination and "religion oppression" [2] faced by them, there is a general sense of optimism about the future of these traditions.
The Bahmanid sultans were amongst the most monstrous Islamic rulers in world history. While people talk of the massacres of Timur-i-lang in Inner Asia as epitomizing the violence of Islamic regimes, the violence of the Bahamanids is hardly touched upon. We shall briefly outline some of the acts of these Sultans, which represent one of the most blood stained phases on Indian history. It is hardly surprising given the current political proclivities in India that this period of history is not properly described. We shall confine ourselves here to the core Bahmanid dynasty and not the five successor Sultanates of the later period. As KAN Shastri mentions, there were few among the line of 18 Sultans, who were not drunkards or debauchees and their courts were teeming with Islamic adventurers from all over the Moslem world (compare with modern terrorist havens in Pakistan and now Iraq) seeking fortune in Jihad and pleasures derived from the riches of India.The Bahmanid sultans were amongst the most monstrous Islamic rulers in world history. While people talk of the massacres of Timur-i-lang in Inner Asia as epitomizing the violence of Islamic regimes, the violence of the Bahamanids is hardly touched upon. We shall briefly outline some of the acts of these Sultans, which represent one of the most blood stained phases on Indian history. It is hardly surprising given the current political proclivities in India that this period of history is not properly described. We shall confine ourselves here to the core Bahmanid dynasty and not the five successor Sultanates of the later period. As KAN Shastri mentions, there were few among the line of 18 Sultans, who were not drunkards or debauchees and their courts were teeming with Islamic adventurers from all over the Moslem world (compare with modern terrorist havens in Pakistan and now Iraq) seeking fortune in Jihad and pleasures derived from the riches of India. The condition of Hindus in their reign was very pitiable as explicitly mentioned by the Russian observer Athanasius Nikitin who visited during the late Sultanate period.
...
Thursday, 02 June 2005
A study of two hymns from the mahAbhArata. All Indic language words are provided in the ITRANS format: http://www.aczoom.com/itrans/ ...
nakula the 4th pANDava asked the kuru grandsire on his arrowy death bed about the origin of the sword. nakula said that he believed that the sword was a superior weapon and even if one lost his bow or horse or chariot one could still defend himself against mace and spear wielders if one were a good swordsman.nakula the 4th pANDava asked the kuru grandsire on his arrowy death bed about the origin of the sword. nakula said that he believed that the sword was a superior weapon and even if one lost his bow or horse or chariot one could still defend himself against mace and spear wielders if one were a good swordsman.
...
One of the most fateful events in Hindu history was the battle of Talikota that occurred during the time of Ramaraya who was the de facto ruler of Vijayanagar. Several attempts have been made by secularist writers to paint Ramaraya as a villain and downplay his eventful reign.One of the most fateful events in Hindu history was the battle of Talikota that occurred during the time of Ramaraya who was the de facto ruler of Vijayanagar. Several attempts have been made by secularist writers to paint Ramaraya as a villain and downplay his eventful reign. He did commit miscalculations in different directions: 1) He killed many of Hindu Nayakas and replaced them by his own clansmen resulting in considerable discontent amongst the Hindu elite. He seized power through intrigue from the clan of Krishnadeva Raya and made himself the principal ruler of the Vijayaganagar Empire, displeasing many of the chiefs. 2) In a manner similar to the modern Indian state, he went against the age-old policy of the Vijayanagara state in recruiting Moslem soldiers indiscriminately in his army. 3) He destroyed the traditional Hindu civil service officials to place his own favorites and henchmen in their place. But he was by no means a slouch when it came to defending the Hindu Dharma at a very critical junction.
...
