After Amish Tripathi and Bhavish Aggarwal questioned the reality of sati, liberals are claiming that the ritual was endemic to Hindu society. Neither have it completely right.
Sembiyan Mahadevi, a 10th-century Chola queen, reshaped Hinduism through temple patronage and art. Her vision turned Nataraja into the most iconic symbol of Shiva.
As much as kings, Tamil merchants are the unsung heroes of medieval India’s global footprint. Sometimes, cultural diasporas can achieve as much, if not more, than an armed force.
Historical documents suggest the Kumbh Mela is only 150 years old, but it stands as a testament to Hinduism’s amazing ability to reinvent itself under changing regimes.
Sanskrit poetry did not simply disappear under Sultanate rule: it continued to evolve, and was enriched by contact with Persian and Arabic literature and stories, both Christian and Muslim.
There is nothing a premodern Muslim ruler, teacher, or devotee could ever do to be accepted as Indian by the far Right—even if premodern Hindus accepted or even worshipped them.
From the British perspective, Adivasi hostility to the colonial state was simply ethnic hostility from the savage against the civilised. Nothing could be further from the truth
Americans might be puzzled as to why an autocratic strongman holds such appeal with voters. But it’s a story India has seen a thousand times in our ancient politics.
Since Durga could no longer be the premier royal war-goddess in a Sultanate-dominated world, Sanskrit texts from the 15th century stopped asking her for military success.
Even as India, Pakistan have seemed on the edge of war, their intelligence services have often sought to find space to de-escalate tensions and reduce risks for the two countries.
Speaking at 2nd Investor Connect, CM Vishnu Deo Sai says 'we have been able to attract a lot of investors.' The focus of the event was the steel sector.
At the Jindal Literature Festival, Maj Gen (Retd) Lakhwinder Singh reveals secrets from 25 years ago, speaking about the decision that outwitted Musharraf and changed the course of the war.
It is a brilliant, reasonably priced, and mostly homemade aircraft with a stellar safety record; only two crashes in 24 years since its first flight. But its crash is a moment of introspection.
Anirudh Kanisetti misrepresents the right wing bu saying “they deny occurence of Sati” when the denial is of involuntary occassions of it. The British, who witnessed only few and far between Sati cases, painted the whole tradition as such. We should also remember poverty increased and was more prominent in the north due to colonization, and maybe forcing one into sati was more common for honour which led to funds and maintainance. Yes, there may have been forced sati in mediaeval times, but we don’t find any literary evidence of it, and until we do, we can assume that even if forced cases exist they were not happening enough to draw the attention of the people, and maybe they were not being forced into it in the south due to more prosperity.
The point is, Anirudh Kanisetti just misrepresented the right wing’s stance, added a lens of modernity (we have “grown out of sati” nah bruh that shit is romantic and even men would commit sati for their wives if they felt the rush to) to it and interjects his opinion of “sati bad inherently” to the whole debate by creating a false sense of neutrality. The false premise of this neutrality is that the right wing claimed sati never existed. Which simply is not the stance at all. His opinion completely ruins his nuance. He should do better and let readers make up their own mind instead of trying so hard to brainwash and “save” his readers 24/7.
Anirudh Kanisetti misrepresents the right wing bu saying “they deny occurence of Sati” when the denial is of involuntary occassions of it. The British, who witnessed only few and far between Sati cases, painted the whole tradition as such. We should also remember poverty increased and was more prominent in the north due to colonization, and maybe forcing one into sati was more common for honour which led to funds and maintainance. Yes, there may have been forced sati in mediaeval times, but we don’t find any literary evidence of it, and until we do, we can assume that even if forced cases exist they were not happening enough to draw the attention of the people, and maybe they were not being forced into it in the south due to more prosperity.
The point is, Anirudh Kanisetti just misrepresented the right wing’s stance, added a lens of modernity (we have “grown out of sati” nah bruh that shit is romantic and even men would commit sati for their wives if they felt the rush to) to it and interjects his opinion of “sati bad inherently” to the whole debate by creating a false sense of neutrality. The false premise of this neutrality is that the right wing claimed sati never existed. Which simply is not the stance at all. His opinion completely ruins his nuance. He should do better and let readers make up their own mind instead of trying so hard to brainwash and “save” his readers 24/7.