02-25-2008, 01:23 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-25-2008, 01:27 AM by Hauma Hamiddha.)
I think Bodhi has pointed to some important historical issues that the seculars have willfully kept out of or obfuscated in the history textbooks. It is on account of this the population is largely ignorant about the Hindu past
Of course Akbar wearing the yaj~nopavIta has nothing to do with his wives. Though some hindus in the court like Birbal and Todarmal did make a difference.
Ramana-
Baboor originally meant beaver in Parsi. The later chroniclers wanting to make it more dignified for the Padishaw of Hind made it Babar i.e. tiger. You can consult the Baboor nama in this point.
Parsi : Sanskrit
baboor : babhru = beaver (a proto IndoEuropean word)
babar : vyAghra = tiger (bhAga in Middle Indo-Aryan)
Of course Akbar wearing the yaj~nopavIta has nothing to do with his wives. Though some hindus in the court like Birbal and Todarmal did make a difference.
Ramana-
Baboor originally meant beaver in Parsi. The later chroniclers wanting to make it more dignified for the Padishaw of Hind made it Babar i.e. tiger. You can consult the Baboor nama in this point.
Parsi : Sanskrit
baboor : babhru = beaver (a proto IndoEuropean word)
babar : vyAghra = tiger (bhAga in Middle Indo-Aryan)