Bibliographic record
Abstract
Karnad’s play reflects an analogy of the communal harmony that was idealised by Tughlaq in the fourteenth century and the secularism of Nehru in the early nineteen sixties. While communal harmony and secularism apparently remain a basic agenda for stabilising power and dispelling anarchy, in truth it invites more conflict and anarchy. How far communal harmony or secularism combats the evils like betrayal, murder, thievery which corrupt the society from within is a question that remains unanswered till today. The play displays the ploy of the emperors or the head of the states that tactfully play with the people ignoring the violence met by the people. The play brings in the form of allegory the close approximation of the circumstances in the capital of the nation which was impacted by the propaganda of bringing in communal harmony during the reign of Muhammad-bin-Tughlaq in the fourteenth century and the governance of the country by trying to establish secularism during the Nehruvian era. This paper is an attempt to study the ways in which the conflict within the self of Tughlaq is manifested through his external actions and how his idealism of establishing communal harmony amongst the Hindus and Muslims actually act against him. This is much similar to the response Nehru got for his idealism in the post – independence India.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".