India In The Persianate Age (1000-1765): Interview with Richard Eaton

[@uknowme373]

Such a great book, must read

[@BookTalkToday]

Yes!

[@loveroflife1914]

Brilliant

[@BookTalkToday]

Thank you!

[@sreeparvathys9446]

🤗

[@NawwafKnowledgeSharing]

Nice podcast. Fun fact: Ferdawsi used Arabic poetic meter called المتقارب المثمن in his Shahname.

[@Pasdpawn]

Somnath temple was built in 7th century but needn’t be fortified ever despite of the fact that according to eaton (and i somewhat also agree) that hindus were ransacking fellow hindu temples for booty way before muslims invaded, but according to the unbiased author eaton, it was fortified in 13 century by solanki king to protect it from… guess who… Hindu kings and not muslim invaders. So basically the need of fortifications didnt arrive until the peaceful muslims invaded india and even after they did, the fortifications were meant against hindus and not muslims. What?????After all muslim invaders were only there for the liberation of the downtrodden from the evil bhramans. The book reads from a muslim apologist perspective despite of the fact that the book covers Indian history if India and not muslim. Hindus are just bystanders watching their religion decimated by the peaceful invaders and doing absolutely nothing about it. Infact the unbiased eaton also mentions an instance in kashmir muslim dynasty where the sultan was advised by “hindus” to melt the golden buddha statue in order to overcome the financial crunch that the kashmir was facing in 14 century. After all hindus were iconoclasts and muslims liberated them. Additionally he mentions an instance of Lalleshwari, a female hindu preacher, who professed her religion and how she was against idol worshiping and stuff. All the bad aspects of the then hindu society are portrayed as “hindu” aspects and the positive aspects of hinduism are refered to as “classical INDIAN thought” No wonder leftists have mastered the art of selling a propaganda in such an academically sophisticated manner. Make eaton prime minister of puxtan or bangladesh or some islamic sh*thole, afterall ignorant muslim simps (also alot of degenerate self loathing hindus, duh!) are the ones who made this book apparently a best seller. Smell any biases yet? Read the book

[@Pasdpawn]

My biggest takeaway from the book: hindu mothers used to beat their hindu childrens which clearly means that hindu mothers loved muslims invaders. yes thats pretty much the logic of the book. For instance eaton mentions how a pillar was discovered near delhi which was inscribed supposedly by a Bhramin in sanskrit stating how glorious the delhi sultanate is and how greatful he is to live under such a rule. Eaton then juxtapose the same with a document written by a priest of chola dynasty, after they conquered bangal and brought it under the chola umbrella, the priest writes something along the lines of the pillar inscription by a bhrahmn. eaton than insinuates that how glorious and tolerant the muslims were that even bhrahmins praised them in their vernacular (sanskrit) , without being paid to do so (only eaton could tell if he was paid or not) contrary to the priest in Chola's darbar who was apparently paid (according to eaton) to write the praise of raj raja chola and therefore muslim kings good and hindu king evil. see how nasty the hindus were that they paid priests to portray themselves in a positive light. WTF eaton