Indologist Jason Schwartz summarizing Wagoner and Dick Eaton’s outrageous claims that are widely accepted in Occidental indology (just to be be clear I’m not endorsing it, and it is not clear if Schwartz accepts it serious himself):
“A major argument of Richard Eaton and Phillip Wagoner, Power, Memory, Architecture: Contested Sites on India’s Deccan Plateau 1300-1600 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014) is that the Hindu-Muslim encounters of the early modern period need to be understood not as a clash of religions, but in terms of the complex interactions of two cultural and literary styles, that of Vijayanagara, nominally Hindu, and Sufi-inflected Persianate discourse of the Bahmani state, both of which sought to lay their claims upon the preexisting built landscapes that defined Deccani identity through its relation to the past, a past which included the cultural patrimony of the Kalyāṇi Cāḷukyas as well as the Kākatīyas of Telangana. In this spirit, both authors point us towards what they argue was the respectful reusage of older early medieval material culture by later Deccani rulers who were both Hindu and Muslim.”
This is the reason we have nothing but disdain for the indologists of the ilk of Dick Eaton and Wagoner. They are not scholar but liars.
He criticizes them (albeit with respect to a different point) a few pages later in a footnote.
Yes noted that, but he doesn’t really oppose the thing I posted even if he doesn’t endorse it.