Now the thing is in all Indian Languages you have a variety of sounds and each is represented by a different letter. The normal varNamAlA of all Indian languages (except Tamil) have roughly 33-35 common consonants and about 12-14 vowels. On the other hand the Roman script used to write English is very limited in its representation.
You take a word like Gita. It being very common most people know the pronunciation yet the ‘i’and ‘a’ represent both long and short vowels and in the case of more complex words/ verses not known to people, the Roman script may cause confusion about pronunciation. For example:
Take the half-verse:
tataka saha putrena pradharsayitumicchati.
Could you pronounce it correctly? English does not differentiate between long and short vowels, dental ‘t’ and retroflex ‘t’
Thus to resolve this dispute between Indian scripts and the Roman script (since all people don’t understand a particular Indic script only), the romanisation of Indic scripts is brought about by transliteration There two most common systems I’ve observed:
This uses different symbols on the same letters to represent different sounds, mainly divergent in the representation of retroflex letters, the nasals and long vowels. One will see forms like:
tāṭakā saha putreṇa pradharṣayitumicchati for ताटका सह पुत्रेण प्रधर्षयितुमिच्छति।
Wasn’t it easier to pronounce than what was quoted above?
Now coming to what was asked in the question, the other most common way is ITRANS (you can find a table in the link for all indic scripts to understand). Often when one may not have access to advanced IAST type of transliteration tools/ may not be acquainted with them, resort is taken to differentiation using case, which is much simpler to type from a normal keyboard.
- Long vowels are capitalised and short vowels are kept in lowercase. Eg. gItA for Gita. The ‘i’ is long like ‘ee’ in Green and similar for the ‘a’
- the retroflex letters are differentiated from the dentals by capitalising the retroflexes. Eg. purANa for Purana. One knows the ‘n’ is pronounced as (ण, ண, ణ), brahmANDa for Brahmanda (ब्रह्माण्ड, ப்ரஹ்மாண்ட, బ్రహ్మాణ్డ [బ్రహ్మాండము]). The D is not pronounced like adesha, it’s pronounced like Damru, where the tongue hits the back of the mouth.
- the five nasals are represented as ~N, ~n, N, n, m
Now using ITRANS let us read the above mentioned verse:
tATakA saha putreNa pradharSayitumicchati.
Wasn’t it simpler? This form of transliteration can be done using a simple keyboard without advanced softwares.
Now the reason for this is :
- As I pointed out above, not everyone can read a particular Indic script, Devanagari for example, and thus romanisation, especially for an English language site, is a solution.
- Assuming everyone to be able to read a particular script, this is done to enable correct pronunciation of a scripture mentioned, rather than writing the name of the scripture in an Indian language and breaking the flow of reading.
Many people might not be comfortable with the capitalisation form of transliteration but most people eventually get used to it, especially some of our users from the USA. But the thing is that in fact many people can read it and it enables them to pronounce it correctly, though I ungrudgingly agree it can tend to be a bit annoying and we being Indian are used to Indian scripts (I prefer Devanagari) This romanisation is to bridge the gap in the intelligibility of Indic scripts.
Also as you pointed out you have observed it in multiple posts, which shows that it’s fairly common.
Thus to bridge the Indic scripts gap, enable correct pronunciation of at least the name of the scripture, let people use a simple keyboard to transliterate, and have a seamless reading of English without a break (in case something is mentioned in another script), and since as you pointed multiple people are using it, it’s fine if this is there. We can improve our reading skills to be with the majority of the crowd