At 2007-07-13 09:37:29 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > All were just "people" who had (as far as I know) free access > to travel to areas that they felt they needed to travel to on > pilgrimage no matter which ruler was in charge of a given area.
What does "free access" mean? Pilgrims were, at that time, preyed upon by bandits along every part of their route where the local ruler did not, for whatever reason, protect them effectively. During a typical pilgrimage, I understand they ended up paying significant amounts to bandits, and selected their routes to pass through the most friendly kingdoms as far as possible. Whether a given ruler treated them well seems to have been a toss up, and often did depend on the religion of both parties (e.g. Shaivite kings might not give two hoots about Vaishnavite pilgrims, etc.). > There are no Indian civilizational memories that I know of that speak > of any barrier to any Hindu from travelling to Kashi (Benaras, > Varanasi) from any area of modern India. Nor were there barriers -- except hardship and investment -- for them to travel anywhere else, which is why they ended up all over SE Asia. There was also nothing preventing travellers from China, Greece, and elsewhere from travelling similarly within the subcontinent. They were welcomed in some places, disliked in some, and ignored in others, as their writings reflect. > No similar records of people being prevented from travelling to the > pilgrim centers of Badrinath and Kedarnath. Or the yet to be pillaged > temple at Somnath. There are certainly several such records. Since you mention Somnath, have you read Romila Thapar's book about Somnath? It's very good. > Modern day Kandahar in Afghanistan has a name derived from Gandhari, > after a girl from a Kingdom in that area who married Dhritarashtra Uhm, surely you're not serious? -- ams
