Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

[Virendra]

What I don't agree to, is the trading part. Being a rajput myself I know for a blunt universal fact that rajputs (from vedic Kshatriyas) aren't a shrewd and extremely clever community.

Hmmm. I wonder how would you classify the act of Rajput kings giving their daughters to Akbar? Even their progeny did the same.

And I wonder what made you read so much into a common practice.
There have been rulers to rule the people since time immemorial and these rulers have intermarried on countless occasions since time immemorial- regardless of place and cultures in the context.
The martial alliance between Rajput Kings and Mughal Kings wasn't a peculiarly new thing to have happened. Marriages in royal families are predominantly a political affair.
I'm sure you would observe that apart from the mughals in north, the rajputs had marathas to their south. We don't hear a lot about marital alliances there.
History hardly records failed attempts properly, if there were any. Lack of reciprocation from the other side? Don't konw who tried and who didn't respond or may be neither sides tried ever (Rajputs/Marathas).
Rajput-Maratha political relations weren't comfortable most of the times. It is typical of all the independent big/small Indian kingdoms and I wouldn't square the blame on one side.
In case of Rajputs and Mughals one side proposed it and the other reciprocated. The same didn't happen very successfully with Marathas even when they were always there as neighbors.
As far as the progeny is concerned - once a political+marriage alliance is established by a generation, what would you expect from the next in line?
However I am aware that these steps weren't always taken with utmost joy in heart. Obviously Rajputs realized that Mughals were culturally different than other players of Indian sub continent.
Their apprehension led them to save Hinduism in North-NorthWestern India under the most severe Islamic bombardment for centuries. Though so of them allied to Mughal empire, had the Rajput rulers lacked balls, they wouldn't have been able to save their people from Islamic invasion at socio cultural levels. They wouldn't have been able to protect and re construct temples wherever the loons like Aurangzeb had them destroyed. If Mughals had their way all through they wouldn't have left anyone/anything remotely Hindu in the region.
Yet here we stand today as Rajputs .. you can spot us with all our cultural fervor and identity, despite more than a millenia's struggle. Do we know of anyone called Mughal people in the same manner in the 21st century India??

Regards,
Virendra

[peter]

What I don't agree to, is the trading part. Being a rajput myself I know for a blunt universal fact that rajputs (from vedic Kshatriyas) aren't a shrewd and extremely clever community.

Hmmm. I wonder how would you classify the act of Rajput kings giving their daughters to Akbar? Even their progeny did the same.

And I wonder what made you read so much into a common practice.
There have been rulers to rule the people since time immemorial and these rulers have intermarried on countless occasions since time immemorial- regardless of place and cultures in the context.
The martial alliance between Rajput Kings and Mughal Kings wasn't a peculiarly new thing to have happened. Marriages in royal families are predominantly a political affair.
I'm sure you would observe that apart from the mughals in north, the rajputs had marathas to their south. We don't hear a lot about marital alliances there.
History hardly records failed attempts properly, if there were any.

Let me clarify:
1) Rajput kings gave their daughters but never accepted any mughal girl as a queen due to rules of primogeniture (an offspring of a mughal girl would not fit in the caste system and hence could not ascend the throne). So these were not inter-marriages.

2) Rajput girls that were given to mughals were never allowed to return back to their maternal homes. These girls were looked down upon by the rajputs because they were co-habiting with beef eaters. Case in point is Ajit Singh's daughter. She was married to Farukshiyar and on his death she was brought back to Jodhpur by Ajit. But she was not allowed to enter Mehrangarh fort. Instead she lived in separate quarters outside the fort.

3) Rajput rulers did not eat/drink with Mughals whom they considered impure.

4) Rajput women were sent in a "dola" and no lavish marriage ceremony took place in the fort of the rajput king (unlike what Jodha Akbar the movie portrays).

It does seem these girls were used as pawns to further the life of the kingdoms who gave them away. These were unequal marriages and not "political marriages" as are known from other parts of the world liek Europe etc.

[manum]

Peter your post is so long that I will have to write a book with a bibliography to actually refute how biased your analysis is...

But I am not sure it will be worth the effort writing a long post answering a long post... May be I'll simply link a document with bibliography...

[peter]

Peter your post is so long that I will have to write a book with a bibliography to actually refute how biased your analysis is...

But I am not sure it will be worth the effort writing a long post answering a long post... May be I'll simply link a document with bibliography...

Sorry about the long post and bad editing. I am not happy about it either. Can you please pick one or two points that you dispute and we can discuss those and then move on to the next two and so on?

[manum]

peter you just copy pasted wikipedia article on Akbar and you have presented so many point of views that its impossible to contest those claims without referencing a credible source...So I'll work on it...may be I'll stand corrected...

But will refrain from pasting another Wikipedia Article...without acknowledging a link...

[Virendra]

1) Rajput kings gave their daughters but never accepted any mughal girl as a queen due to rules of primogeniture (an offspring of a mughal girl would not fit in the caste system and hence could not ascend the throne). So these were not inter-marriages.
2) Rajput girls that were given to mughals were never allowed to return back to their maternal homes. These girls were looked down upon by the rajputs because they were co-habiting with beef eaters. Case in point is Ajit Singh's daughter. She was married to Farukshiyar and on his death she was brought back to Jodhpur by Ajit. But she was not allowed to enter Mehrangarh fort. Instead she lived in separate quarters outside the fort.

My point was to stress on the nature of these decisions being political. Rest I'm unaware of how these marriages fared.

3) Rajput rulers did not eat/drink with Mughals whom they considered impure.

Agreed. The non allied ones didn't eat/drink with even the allied Rajputs, let alone the Mughals. Some of the allied ones also refused to bow to Jodha while they did to the emperor. I don't remember the name of that Rajput prince, it was some Hada I think.

It does seem these girls were used as pawns to further the life of the kingdoms who gave them away. These were unequal marriages and not "political marriages" as are known from other parts of the world liek Europe etc.

Even with that possibility I would not conclude whether the need to save the state was ruling ambition or the urgency of protecting the people and the culture thriving under the Rajput rulership, against the threat of a demolition in case of direct conflict. Rajputs were in a fierce geo political fit where on one side they bordered the areas where Mughals settled permanently and on the other side had powers like Marathas with whom the relations weren't rosy either.
Both the parties wanted the same thing from Rajputs, complete subservience under their umbrella to further their own bigger campaigns and ambitions.
While others had buffers, Rajputs were at the forefront for the brunt. All the land invasions of ancient India had the same route Khyber Pakhtunwa pass which landed the invaders and Rajputs in front of each other. Rajputs chewed these invasions for many many centuries.
The party started to spoil even before Mughals came. Rajput power which was better organized in 700-1300 AD under fewer stronger rulers like Bappa Rawal, disintegrated into smaller weaker states later. Enduring continous bombardment of foreign invasions all alone for centuries, figures amongst the reasons.
While we rue the lack of unity among the medieval Indian Kingdoms, they were nit picked for divide and rule first by Mughals and then (including Mughals) at a larger scale the example was repeated by British.

4) Rajput women were sent in a "dola" and no lavish marriage ceremony took place in the fort of the rajput king (unlike what Jodha Akbar the movie portrays).
It does seem these girls were used as pawns to further the life of the kingdoms who gave them away. These were unequal marriages and not "political marriages" as are known from other parts of the world liek Europe etc.

Not because of inequality, while seen in isolation every single Rajput Kingdom was much weaker than Mughal empire.
But those marriages were low key affair because of bitter protest and disgust by which majority of Rajputs perceived the developments.

Regards,
Virendra

[tsarkar]

Peter, I am completely missing any coherence in your posts.

Your starting position was -

What I don't agree to, is the trading part. Being a rajput myself I know for a blunt universal fact that rajputs (from vedic Kshatriyas) aren't a shrewd and extremely clever community.

Hmmm. I wonder how would you classify the act of Rajput kings giving their daughters to Akbar? Even their progeny did the same.

Do you imply that marrying daughters is a indicator or political shrewdness or cleverness?

Later you say -

Let me clarify:
1) Rajput kings gave their daughters but never accepted any mughal girl as a queen due to rules of primogeniture (an offspring of a mughal girl would not fit in the caste system and hence could not ascend the throne). So these were not inter-marriages.
2) Rajput girls that were given to mughals were never allowed to return back to their maternal homes. These girls were looked down upon by the rajputs because they were co-habiting with beef eaters. Case in point is Ajit Singh's daughter. She was married to Farukshiyar and on his death she was brought back to Jodhpur by Ajit. But she was not allowed to enter Mehrangarh fort. Instead she lived in separate quarters outside the fort.
3) Rajput rulers did not eat/drink with Mughals whom they considered impure.
4) Rajput women were sent in a "dola" and no lavish marriage ceremony took place in the fort of the rajput king (unlike what Jodha Akbar the movie portrays).
It does seem these girls were used as pawns to further the life of the kingdoms who gave them away. These were unequal marriages and not "political marriages" as are known from other parts of the world liek Europe etc.

What is the connection of marital matters with political astuteness?

FWIW, Muslim girls offered for marriage came with the caveat of conversion, that Hindu men often didnt accept. And the concept of conversion to Hinduism was never present in Hinduism. The only Hindu re-conversion efforts were started in the 19th and 20th century by Swami Shraddhanand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Shraddhanand but this was never an ancient or medieval practice.

[ranjbe]

Peter, I am completely missing any coherence in your posts.


FWIW, Muslim girls offered for marriage came with the caveat of conversion, that Hindu men often didnt accept. And the concept of conversion to Hinduism was never present in Hinduism. The only Hindu re-conversion efforts were started in the 19th and 20th century by Swami Shraddhanand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Shraddhanand but this was never an ancient or medieval practice.

There were exceptions to this rule during Shivaji's time, where Hindus who had converted to Islam were reconverted back. This practice stopped during the Peshwa rule. For example, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netaji_Palkar

[Yagnasri]

Gurus the postings on Akbar can be posted in distorted history thread also. It belongs there also.

[tsarkar]

Hinduism - or Dharma - I'll prefer to use the latter word since its more accurate - was not a unified theology until the reform movements of the 19th and 20th century. It still isnt monolitic with a well defined framework and boundaries, however that is its strength and weakness.

The lack of flexibility and inclusiveness in some practitioners of Dharma had some serious negative effects, like high caste Nairs refusing to cross a field in battle to outflank the Portuguese because of the fear of touching low caste farm labourers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... )[quote]It is said that sometime during this encounter a detachment of around 2,000 Calicut Nairs, using a different little-used passage (or perhaps landed by paraus), managed to circumvent and land behind Portuguese lines. The Nairs were making their way to launch a surprise attack on the ford from the rear, when some local Cochinese peasants working in the rice fields, plucked up their courage and attacked the detachment with their spades, seeing them off rather quickly. Allegedly, the Indian caste system played a significant role, the Nairs fearing defilement by low caste peasants more than any injury from the agricultural implements they were wielding.[46] Pacheco, disgusted with his own Cochinese Nairs, is said to have tried to persuade the Trimumpara Raja to promote these brave peasants to Nairs and assign them to the palisade. The appalled Raja had to give him a lengthy lecture on the intricacies of the caste system.[/quote]

Note the Calicut forces had European cannon with range and power, however, lack of training prevented their use. Also note this was 26 years before Babur.

The Travancore King Marthanda Varma did a better job of having a small but well trained army that defeated the Dutch in the Battle of Colachel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Colachel in 1741. This was also before Plassey in 1757 but not well remembered. The Thiruvithamkoor Nair Pattalam also defeated Tipu, and post independence its two battalions were merged with the Madras Regiment.

The key thing is that the core of the force was only approx 2 Btn strong, since the Kings resources were sufficient only to train, equip and maintain that core number (even if strength varied with time), it shows the effectiveness of training. A small well trained force performs better than a large not-so-well-trained force.

Training also imparts individual and collective discipline very important in the battlefield.

[peter]

1) Rajput kings gave their daughters but never accepted any mughal girl as a queen due to rules of primogeniture (an offspring of a mughal girl would not fit in the caste system and hence could not ascend the throne). So these were not inter-marriages.
2) Rajput girls that were given to mughals were never allowed to return back to their maternal homes. These girls were looked down upon by the rajputs because they were co-habiting with beef eaters. Case in point is Ajit Singh's daughter. She was married to Farukshiyar and on his death she was brought back to Jodhpur by Ajit. But she was not allowed to enter Mehrangarh fort. Instead she lived in separate quarters outside the fort.

My point was to stress on the nature of these decisions being political. Rest I'm unaware of how these marriages fared.

I am arguing against these marriages being political. What emerges is that the girls that were given to Mughals were outcasts for rajput kings who gave them. Thus this points to extreme shrewdness of character where barter of "things" that are sacred is fair game. What is also true that the common rajput did not indulge in such behavior only the kings did.

1. Harka Bai, daughter of Raja Bharmal of Jaipur, was rechristened [[Mariam-uz-Zamani|Mariam-uz-zamani]] by Akbar. After her marriage she was treated as an outcaste by her family and in the 61 years of married life she never visited [[Amer]]/[[Jaipur]].* {{cite book|title=History of Mughal Architecture|first=R.|last=Nath|year=1982|publisher=Abhinav Publications|isbn=9788170171591|page=397}}

2. Her position in the Mughal household was not of much importance because she was not assigned any significant place either in [[Agra]] or [[Delhi]]. Instead she was assigned a small village of Barah near Bayana in the [[Bharatpur district]] where she passed her time till her death.<ref name="Nath 397"/> She died in 1623 and her tomb is near Agra.<ref>{{harvnb|Nath|1982|p=16}}</ref> As a custom Hindus were cremated and never buried. Her burial signifies she converted to Islam after marriage.

Rajput ladies who entered the Delhi royal harem became Muslims and were buried in Muslim cemeteries, they could no longer visit their parents' houses or dine with them.{{cite book|title=A History of Jaipur|first=Jadunath|last=Sarkar|authorlink=Jadunath Sarkar|year=1984|publisher=Orient Longman|isbn=8125003339|page=38}}

3. Subsequently a mosque was built in her honor by [[Jahangir]] in [[Lahore]], [[Pakistan]] which is called Mariam-uz-zamani mosque.<ref>{{harvnb|Nath|1982|p=52}}</ref>

4. Rajputs who did give their daughters to Mughals still did not treat Mughals as equals. They would not dine with Mughals or take Muslim women as their lawful wives.<ref>{{harvnb|Sarkar|1984|page=37}} </ref>

5. Those rajputs who gave their daughters and then enrolled in Akbar's army were still not trusted. Akbar "could trust" the rajputs because he held their dearest (eldest son) hostages in perpetuity.<ref name="jadu 38">{{harvnb|Sarkar|1984|p=38}} </ref>

6. However, Pratap Singh, Maharana of Mewar declined to accept Akbar's suzerainty and till the end was opposed to Akbar whom he considered a foreign invader. Pratap also stopped the marital ties with those Rajputs who had been giving their daughters to Mughals and considered them degraded. <ref>[[James Tod]], ''Annals and Antiquities of Rajast'han or the Central and Western Rajpoot States of India,'' 2 vols. London, Smith, Elder (1829, 1832); New Delhi, Munshiram Publishers, (2001), pp. 83-4. ISBN 8170691281</ref>

This last point signifies that there was a schism in the society in rajasthan. Giving of daughters to Mughals was not considered political rather a degradation. Ofcourse YMMV (your mileage may vary) depending on whom you ask today!

It does seem these girls were used as pawns to further the life of the kingdoms who gave them away. These were unequal marriages and not "political marriages" as are known from other parts of the world liek Europe etc.

Even with that possibility I would not conclude whether the need to save the state was ruling ambition or the urgency of protecting the people and the culture thriving under the Rajput rulership, against the threat of a demolition in case of direct conflict.

Well the counter example is of Maharana Pratap. He could have also given a daughter/sister to Mughals but why did he not?

[peter]

peter you just copy pasted wikipedia article on Akbar and you have presented so many point of views that its impossible to contest those claims without referencing a credible source...So I'll work on it...may be I'll stand corrected...

But will refrain from pasting another Wikipedia Article...without acknowledging a link...

Here is the link from where I quoted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... ith_Hindus

[peter]

Peter, I am completely missing any coherence in your posts.

Your starting position was -

What I don't agree to, is the trading part. Being a rajput myself I know for a blunt universal fact that rajputs (from vedic Kshatriyas) aren't a shrewd and extremely clever community.

Hmmm. I wonder how would you classify the act of Rajput kings giving their daughters to Akbar? Even their progeny did the same.

Do you imply that marrying daughters is a indicator or political shrewdness or cleverness?

Yes. In the specific case of medieveal Rajasthan the act of giving daughters to Mughals was an act of political shrewdness.

[Sanku]

I am arguing against these marriages being political.

I would say, that these marriages were indeed political. In the same sense that Zaziya is primarily a political tool.

Just like collection of "tributes" was.

Women being sent by some Rajput rulers, was primarily a tribute, (a tribute is also a form of trade) -- in that sense it was a form of Ziziya.

So yes, it was a political move, but not one of politics of equals, but that of a slave and a master.

[Virendra]

I am arguing against these marriages being political. What emerges is that the girls that were given to Mughals were outcasts for rajput kings who gave them.

For the Kings? Before the marriage? No
For those who opposed Mughals? For after the marriage? Due to the marriage? Yes

As a custom Hindus were cremated and never buried. Her burial signifies she converted to Islam after marriage.

Not necessarily. It was the Mughals who did the rituals, they were free to do it their way. Way you're cremated doesn't t make you muslim or non muslim.
Although one cannot argue that she would not have started following atleast some of the Mughal customs. Wives in all communities of South Asia undergo this adaptation post marriage wherever they go (even today).
IMO the ones like Akbar's wife cannot be categorised on one side completely.

...there was a schism in the society in rajasthan. Giving of daughters to Mughals was not considered political rather a degradation. Ofcourse YMMV (your mileage may vary) depending on whom you ask today!

Political decisions were taken by royals and were not always inline by what the general people and chieftans perceived and aspired on various matters. The two are different things.

Well the counter example is of Maharana Pratap. He could have also given a daughter/sister to Mughals but why did he not?

You're mixing a political engagement with a valid feeling of disgust in the society. The society rightly preserved their culture, and were at no point asked by their rulers to follow suit whether the rulers were dying fighting with Mughals or in alliance with them. Regardless of the rulers perception, people throughout Rajpuatana anyways disowned and disgusted at these marriages.
We know how much Pratap's people and chieftains suffered. How much he himself suffered. All because he opposed Akbar and even more than Akbar the Rajputs allied to him. Not that I suggest he shouldn't have opposed Akbar. Rajputana was almost never united in the later medieval enturies. Single handedly no one would've been able to take a direct hit with the Mughal empire. So every state's ruler resorted to their own choices and decisions.
Personally I support the actions of both sides - opposing and allied. Fierce resistance kept the Mughals from completely overrruning the Rajput states and alliances allowed Mughals to empower and focus towards other rivals.
All this while the other south asian kingdoms typical to their behavior were fence sitters. More or less they neither helped Rajputs nor Mughals.

Point being, ultimately it boils down to the ruler to take the decision and that is what recorded history remembers the most.
Pratap was a ruler, he didn't want to ally and so he fought. Bharmal was another ruler, he wanted to ally and so he did.
As rulers they took their own decisions for what was good for the kingdom and the people .. that is it.

Regards,
Virendra

[tsarkar]

Yes. In the specific case of medieveal Rajasthan the act of giving daughters to Mughals was an act of political shrewdness.

What more can one say

[Virendra]

So yes, it was a political move, but not one of politics of equals, but that of a slave and a master.

While I agree to the inequality of the equation, slaves (even if term's used for rulers) are never capable of maintaining their identity, their culture and local sovereignity for centuries.
You might want to look around and see which of the two people you find standing firm today. Rajputs or Mughals ?
Are there anyone called Mughals even left in India as a distinct community of people?
Most of the credit goes to the common Rajput man & woman and the many honorable rulers who resisted Islamic invasions, specially the ones which stayed and didn't go back like others.
If the ruler himself was a slave, how was he able to protect his people? The Islamic hordes came with an objective of either Islamizing or otherwise destroying everything after all. The term slave takes it a bit too far.

Regards,
Virendra

[Sanku]

While I agree to the inequality of the equation, slaves (even if term's used for rulers) are never capable of maintaining their identity, their culture and local sovereignity for centuries.
You might want to look around and see which of the two people you find standing firm today. Rajputs or Mughals ?

Well, that may be because there existed a section of Rajputs who hated this "arrangement" and stood firm against it, reminding other Rajputs of how much they had fallen.

One of the reasons that Amer had to change its ways was because Mewar broke the roti-baati ka rishta with those Rajputs.

So yes, Rajputs did first come out of the self imposed slavery before they could stand firm. I know of enough "Mirza's" in Amer region still btw, taking pride in their Mughal links.

This shall remain the darkest chapters in Rajput history, and surely you know of heated discussions amongst different clans when this topic comes up. -- Thankfully the Rajputs themselves saw the light before it was too late (of course the Mughals helped them to realize the true nature)

[Sanku]

Yes. In the specific case of medieveal Rajasthan the act of giving daughters to Mughals was an act of political shrewdness.

What more can one say

I am afraid one has to agree, however odious it is.

Some folks did make unacceptable compromises, even amongst what we consider as strongholds.

[Virendra]

One of the reasons that Amer had to change its ways was because Mewar broke the roti-baati ka rishta with those Rajputs.

I'm not sure who started all this. I mean did the other Rajput states boycott them after seeing their Mughal links or was it the reverse sequence? But yes there was widespread boycott.

I know of enough "Mirza's" in Amer region still btw, taking pride in their Mughal links.

I know and they (Jaipur's Rajput clan) are criticized by other Rajputs for it even today.

This shall remain the darkest chapters in Rajput history

Indeed.

and surely you know of heated discussions amongst different clans when this topic comes up. -- Thankfully the Rajputs themselves saw the light before it was too late

I wish there were better relations between Rajputs and Marathas from much prior to arrival of Mughals. It would've been a different history then. I say this because Rajputs although not a mammoth empire, were still crucial being at the northwest frontier where all invasive attacks took place. Had there been local alliances parallel to the weakening of cohesive/combined Rajput power it would have acted as damage control. The number of Kingdoms increased and size of each decreased, their was almost no unity to be found at a crucial time. Neither inside nor outside the Rajput sphere.
There are chunks of good and bad relations apart from mostly the unregarding neutrality and cold relations.
Good example is the enabling of escape of Shivaji and Sambhaji from Aurangzeb's arresting clutches at Agra.
(Interestingly it was Amber rulers who did it and later suffered because of that when Aurangzeb came to know to their role).
Bad one is the relentless Maratha intervention once Mughals weakened and then frustrated Rajputs not helping the Marathas at Panipat war (except allowing safe passage to returning Maratha women).
I call it the genetic flaws of Indian fiber .. always infighting

(of course the Mughals helped them to realize the true nature)

You know so many of the young Rajput princes and Kings were treacherously killed by their Mughals military colleagues because the Rajputs surpassed them in war peformance and that disallowed the Mughal warlords to earn favor/influence in Royal courts etc.
Stephen P. Rosen in his book Societies and Military Power: India and its Army says
"When the opposing groups of Rajputs, engaged each other at Haldighati the mughal cavalry simply circled the mass of foot soldiers shooting arrows into them at will.
The commander is recorded to have said, 'On whatever side a man falls, it is a gain to Islam because it is one Hindu less.'

Regards,
Virendra

[vishvak]

I wish there were better relations between Rajputs and Marathas from much prior to arrival of Mughals. It would've been a different history then. I say this because Rajputs although not a mammoth empire, were still crucial being at the northwest frontier where all invasive attacks took place. Had there been local alliances parallel to the weakening of cohesive/combined Rajput power it would have acted as damage control. The number of Kingdoms increased and size of each decreased, their was almost no unity to be found at a crucial time. Neither inside nor outside the Rajput sphere.
There are chunks of good and bad relations apart from mostly the unregarding neutrality and cold relations.
Good example is the enabling of escape of Shivaji and Sambhaji from Aurangzeb's arresting clutches at Agra.
(Interestingly it was Amber rulers who did it and later suffered because of that when their Aurangzeb came to know to their role).
Bad one is the relentless Maratha intervention once Mughals weakened and then frustrated Rajputs not helping the Marathas at Panipat war (except allowing safe passage to returning Maratha women).
I call it the genetic flaws of Indian fiber .. always infighting
Virendra

If I am not mistaken, in which way Marathas could have come to the aid of Rajputs? Sending money is one thing, but what would Rajputs do with gold other than buy weapons, build forts, food/farm surety, etc? Food at that time was much more parishable and sending it across (not in terms of kilometers, but in terms of time) for days on end would mean that sufficient quantity to start with would be huge.

All this when even Marathas were under constant strain. It is the same for Marathas and kingdoms around Marathas. Kingdom in Gangapradesh and Cholas, and so on who were not only fighting Mughals but also world powers like English, French, other Europeans, et. all. under huge strain not only on land but also from sea front, with the inter continental trade destroyed on the sea by the very same barbarians ie invaders from north blocking Silk route and Invaders from the sea blocking ocean trade.

Somehow we are underestimating effects of sea blockages by barbarians on South India. It broke links to South East Asian countries as invasions. Then it broke trade and looted wealth not only across the ocean but also along the coast.

Invaders on the sea were as bad as invaders on land perhaps. Arabs, Europeans - the whole teams. Perhsps दॆशी in the sourh faced as much as दॆशी on the northern border that we do not understand.

[Virendra]

I don't know what mechanics of co-operation would've been best, perhaps each owing to its context and use. Combining funds, men and infrastructure may be.
I'm not squaring a blame on any specific side. But we have to accept that a greater coalition could never be formed.
If Marathas had kept to their base region they wouldn't have to bother about Mughals as much as the Rajputs had to because of their location.
The thing is, Marathas had higher amibitions of an empire like Mughals had (nothing wrong with it). They jumped the gun and it resulted in Panipat. Rajput Kingdoms were still limited and more so boxed between the two.
Most of the medival native Indian armies in majority of popular battles were actually in defensive postures. Consolidation was an important factor, one leak and the whole wall collapses.
Besides, if you read carefully I'm talking about basing alliances in earlier centuries even before Mughals settled. What you're talking about are the times when Mughals were past their peak already and French/British were expanding at our coastal doors.
Things were very messy by then and nobody was able to take the lead for one last attempt of consolidation. We hadn't done in the past so many centuries, how could we do it then .. heh?

By the way it is this defensive posture that lead historians to underplay the importance of wins the native defending armies scored against the invasive attacks. Because when defending side beats the attacker there is no geogrpahical gain ot reflect upon while the defeat could mean destruction of what lied behind the defending soldier.
Rajputs and Marathas only at one or two occasions went out of the perceived ancient Indian boundaries to fight .. like Bappa Rawal chasing the Arab armies till Iran and Marathas scoring some wins on Afghan border in 1760.

While there's no doubt the Southern provinces would've had their share of attacks, it is a fact that maximum and the most major attacks took place via land route, that being Khyber Pakhtunwa pass. Again, this was the case for before the modern predators like French and British appeared on the horizon. So like I said we're both on different pages/centuries.


Regards,
Virendra

[tsarkar]

^^ Marrying daughters of lesser feudal lords to sons of higher feudal lords is a typical characteristic of the feudal system.

Queen Victoria was called grandmother of Europe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Victoria

She married her first cousin, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, in 1840. Their 9 children and 26 of their 34 grandchildren who survived childhood married into royal and noble families across the continent, tying them together and earning her the nickname "the grandmother of Europe".

And during WW1 her grandchildren fought among each other.

Marrying daughters off also ensured a part of the family branch survived if the original homeland was ravaged by invaders or disease or natural calamities.

There is nothing religious or slavish - or politically shrewd - about it.

[member_19686]

And the concept of conversion to Hinduism was never present in Hinduism. The only Hindu re-conversion efforts were started in the 19th and 20th century by Swami Shraddhanand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Shraddhanand but this was never an ancient or medieval practice.

Wrong.

Please check out the Devala Smriti which was written soon after the early Muslim invasions and describes the procedures for reconversion including women that were raped by Muslims.

From a discussion elsewhere

(Refer: PV Kane History of Dharma shastra Vol. II. Also Alberuni)
Devala-smriti (c 9th cent AD)records the necessity of accepting back
people into Hindu fold. The smriti opens with the following:
"sindhu-tiire sukhaasiinam devalam munisattamam|
sametya munayah sarve idam vacanam uttamam||
bhagavan mlecchaaniitaa hi katham shuddhim avaapnuyaat|
braahmaNaah kshatriyaah vaishyaah shuudra caiva aanupuurvashah||"
I understand this smriti has been published by Annandaashrama Pune.
The smriti explains how even women who had been violated and
concieved could be brought back to their original status. I have not
read the original.The book "Chronology of Gujarat" by MR Majumdar
gives the details. "Women ravished became pure after menstruation,
with a three day fast. Those who had concieved could be reclaimed to
their original fold after the delivery of the child. According to
Devala, the foetus in her body is like a thorn. Once that is removed
she becomes pure as gold:
"vinihsriste tatah shalye rajaso vaapi darshane|
tatah saa shudhyate naarii vimalam kaancanam yathaa||"
The confirmation of the above is in the accounts of Arabs. Biladuri
and Al-beruni have mentioned this fact. During the Caliphate of
Hasham (723-43AD) Junaid, Governor of Sindh sent expeditions to the
interior and spread terror in Gujarat and Rajasthan. Biladuri
writes:"Next, While Hakim was the Governor,people of Al-Hind
apostatised and returned to idolatory excepting those of Kassa
(kutch?). Muslims had no place of security in which they could live".
....Devala smriti mentions observances such as ChaandraayaNa,
paadakricchra, pancagavya...for purification.

Swami Vidyaranya was said to have reconverted Harihara Raya and Bukka Raya the founders of the Vijayanagara empire.

We know for a fact that Shivaji & Jijabai reconverted Balaji Nimbalkar and Netaji Palkar both. Shivaji also gave a daughter of his by his first wife Sai Bai to the son of Balaji Nimbalkar to show their full acceptance back into Hindu society.

Later the Peshwa's also continued this practice.

However, in contrast contemporary records indicate that the peshavA-s themselves had quite an open outlook, especially about re-converting hindU-s that had under duress become musalmAna-s. mahAdeva rANADe provides some crucial data from peshavA’s diaries themselves: “ln those times of wars and troubles, there were frequent occasions when men had to forsake their ancestral faith under pressure, force, or fraud, and there are four well-attested instances in which the re-admission into their respective castes, both of Brahmins and Marathas, was not merely attempted but successfully effected, with the consent of the caste, and with the permission of the State authorities. A Maratha, named Putaji Bandgar, who had been made a captive by the Moguls, and forcibly converted to Mahomedanism, rejoined the forces of Balaji Vishvanath, on their way back to Delhi, after staying with the Mahomedans for a year, and at his request, his readmission, with the consent of the caste, was sanctioned by Raja Shahu. A Konkanastha Brahmin, surnamed Raste, who had been kept a State prisoner by Haider in his armies, and had been suspected to have conformed to Mahomedan ways of living for his safety, was similarly admitted into caste with the approval of the Brahmins and under sanction from the State. Two Brahmins, one of whom had been induced to become a Gosawee by fraud, and another from a belief that he could be cured of a disease from which he suffered, were readmitted into caste, after repentance and penance. These two cases occurred one at Puutamba, in the Nagar District, and the other at Paithan, in the Nizam’s dominions, and their admission was made with the full concurrence of the Brahmins under the sanction of the authorities.”

http://bharatendu.wordpress.com/2009/11 ... ow-minded/

Shivaji also beheaded 4 Catholic Portuguese missionaries for persecuting Hindus and offered them the choice of conversion to Hinduism before their beheading.

Check:

The following is a scan of page 119 from a book titled “English records on Shivaji (1659-1682)” published in 1931:

http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/2198/sivjesuits.png

The letter of interest dated “30th November 1667″ at the top of the scanned page reads thus:

“Sevagee, deeply resenting this rigour, invaded the precincts of Bardese, not farre distant from Goa, and there cutt off the heads of four Padres that refused to turne Moretto’s [Marathas-Hindus] of his owne pereuasion, they having councelled the destruction of all that were not opinionated as themselves; which so terrifyed the Vice Rey that he was forced to revoke his fierce and severe edict. He [Shivaji] burnt and destroyed all the country, and carried away 150 lack of pagodaes. [E. F. India 1665-1667 p. 286]“

Available online at: http://library.du.ac.in/dspace/bitstrea ... 282%29.pdf

But do note the fact that they were given the chance of becoming Hindus and it was only upon their refusal that they were beheaded...
http://dharmayuddha.wordpress.com/2010/ ... ng-hindus/

[member_19686]

This lead Akbar to truly understand Hinduism and be more soft than any other Mughal king...In period of akbar conversion softened, every religion was free to practice for anyone....there was tax for visiting hindu religious places...as others were considered kafir's and wrong to practice other religions...

that tax was lifted...Akbar built a Hindu temple in his fort for his Hindu wife...people call her jodhabai, but I don't think its factual...the new understanding of Akbar towards religion lead to him launching a new religion called din-e-ilahi....which was failure but none the less...

Akbar turned vegetarian, he started dressing like a Hindu king with mustache and clean shave....He even took all powers of Muslim religious authority in his hand and left them powerless...
and this marriage lead to less war and a long phase of peace... there is other angle to it...

Akbar's turn to tolerance had VERY LITTLE to do with his Hindu wives from the evidence we have.

In fact we have solid evidence from his contemporaries that over time he had for all practical purposes left Islam, this happened later in his life. In his early life he was much of a jihadist fanatic as any other Muslim occupier of India.

It was after his apostacy from Islam that you see him lifting the discriminatory policies against Hindus.

And tragically for all the secularists on this forum, we not only have evidence of him being an apostate but also his plans to wipe out Islam from India for good because he understood what it stood for.

This was why the ulema and theologians like Sirhindi heaped all sorts of abuses against him, even Maulana Abul Kalam Azad wrongly thought of as a "nationalist" Muslim said that if not for the likes of Sirhindi Islam was doomed under Akbar. The ulema backed the more fanatical Jahangir against Akbar's other sons in the war for succession, these sons he was grooming with a more Hindu outlook.

For those interested in this U-turn of Akbar (not because of his Hindu wives but because of his own innate curiosity and quest for spiritual satisfaction), check:

http://bharatendu.wordpress.com/2009/03 ... -u-turn-1/

http://bharatendu.wordpress.com/2009/03 ... nsition-2/

http://bharatendu.wordpress.com/2009/04 ... nsition-3/

http://bharatendu.wordpress.com/2009/04 ... nsition-4/

http://bharatendu.wordpress.com/2009/07 ... nsition-5/

[member_19686]

The author of the above series on Akbar had also posted the following elsewhere:

Ishwa, what you said is of course what the reigning Aligarhites (Habib et al) have been repeating as proof of Akbar having remained a committed moslem contrary to the otherwise. Most of what they say is not borne out of fact however. Of late even Habib's colleagues and collaborators have questioned these notions, especially Sanjay Subramanyam and even subalternists like Harbans Mukhia.

My comments on some of your points:

<<<1. He controlled where and when temples could be constructed. In 1595, actually
in his Hindu-tolerant period, he ordered Man SinghKachhvaha to convert the
temple he had started to built into a mosque. This is odd.
Forbes, Geraldine; Tomlinson, B.R. (2005). The new Cambridge history of India.
Cambridge University Press. p. 73.>>>

Yes this is not only odd, this is also untrue. Man Singh's so called Masjid in the old capital of Jharkhand is exactly contrary to what is said above. There is absolutely no shred of any proof to support the conjecture -- which is why the Aligarhites keep attributing it to the "local oral traditions". I have studied the remains in detail and facts point exactly in opposite direction to this.

One may compare the structure of the mosque with the palaces at Sikari in UP and Rohtas in Bihar, also curious is the location of a sun temple near the so called mosque of Man Singh. In short, here is what my opinion of the matter is: the structure was originally supposed to be a palace along with a temple. A beautiful temple at the site, as it must have been since beginning, still stands, although the palace is gone. The Bengal-Bihar Governor Man Singh, as we know, faced frequent Afghan rebellious uprisings which he was mandated to quell in east, but these were only further fuelled by the murmurs about Akbar's blasphemous and apostatic acts -- and the sunnis of the moghal army also frequently threatened to turn against. Man Singh's case of converting the palace into a mosque was an act borne out from these compulsions. Even a dutch visitor to the place records this process. Also, there is nothing to show that the conversion had a sanction of Akbar; Raja Man Singh in particularly was quite autonomous in his decisions, especially in his construction spree, and required no order-taking from Akbar. By the way, in the same period, Akbar and Man Singh contributed financially to Konark and Jagannath temple -- as recorded by Patsah Buranji -- an Assamese Hindu Chronicle written by the Assamese ambassador at the Mughal court. In the same period Akbar got a certain brahmana tantrika from orissa to complie for him an exclusive mantra of Surya Sahasranama, and to initiate him in this. He memorised the mantra with effort and continued to recite till the end of his days (which was not far).

I hope to be able to clarify this oft-repeated evidence of Akbar's continued Islamness, when other pre-occupations permit me some time.

<<<2. He changed the sacred name of Prayaga into Ilhabas in 1583, also in his
tolerant period. A name with the Islamic word Ilaha.>>>

Please remember that "Ilaha" was NOT an Islamic but a pre-Islamic word simply meaning "God". Dominance of "Allah" over "Ilaha" is the Islamic contribution to some extent, the word having been created by prefixing "Al" to "Ilaha", meaning "The God". The making of exclusive "The God" from the simple and general "God" is what Islam is in a nutshell, besides of course the Finalness of its Prophet. Akbar understood this and laboured to revert Islam to its pre-Mohammedan days. During his later days he always used to refer to Islam not by its hallowed self-title "Islam" but as "kais-i-ahmad", "The Cult of Muhammedans"; In Akbar's view, it is just a cult and a corruption of the original and better religion. Akbar thought that Islam -- if Muhammad is taken out from it -- will heal itself out of the fanaticism it has gained. His clipping out the latter half of the Kalima of the moslem creed to be read in the mosques of his reign, i.e. removing "...and mohammed is his prophet", was an announcement of his intent: drop the prophet and Islam will be acceptable to him. His terminating in his empire of the usage of hijri era beginning with prophet's migration is also on that line.

<<<2. He changed the sacred name of Prayaga into Ilhabas in 1583, also in his
tolerant period. A name with the Islamic word Ilaha. If he really respected his
Hindu subjects, there was no need to change the name and steal the traditional
sacred location from them. This is pure Muslim practice, like what Babur did to
Ayodhya.>>>

Coming to "Ilahabad" -- not "Allahabad" which is a misspelling and a mispronunciation from what Akbar called it. You stopped just at looking the name. I suggest you to look at the larger things involved here in Akbar's liking to Prayag so much that he decided to shift his very imperial capital from Agra to Prayag/Ilahabad. As we know Akbar had first shifted his capital from Agra to Sikri -- and the shift was a representation of his religious tendency -- a devoted Sufi Moslem that he then was, moved his capital to the camp of Salim Chishti at Sikari. A decade later, when he had remained no longer a Moslem -- Sufi or otherwise -- he reverted back his capital to Agra. And then finally, he again decided to shift his capital when he had found his linking towards the ways of the Hindus. The new capital, like the earlier one, would be a statement of where is religious/spiritual tilt now stood. As he had earlier shifted to the Sufi Dargah, he now decided to shift to the holy Hindu city of Prayag, calling it the Abode of God -- Ilahabad. You have difficulty with the persian name -- but you dont see his inspiration. Your similie of Akbar's shifting his imperial capital to the Hindu holy city for the reasons of reverence, with that of Babur's vandalism at Ayodhya -- is hard to understand. So did he rename any other Hindu cities? What about Varanasi and Haridwar, both of which being important Hindu Centers in his domain, and which he liked very much too -- why did he not rename these two? If naming is anything to go by, please also remember that Akbar named a new fortess-city he built in the North West, near Attock, as Kashi, after the Hindu city and it came to be known as Attock-Kashi as says Badayuni in disdain.

Akbar could never practically sfift to Ilahabad -- it was taken by Salim -- unltimately symbolic of Akbar's failed mission of life.

<<<3. His lust for Hindu princesses had a political motive too. To break the
backbone of the Rajas and keep them manipulating and loyal.>>>

Of course the motive you said is the correct one, but irrelevant for the topic at hand -- he would do this even if he was or was not an apostate.

<<<4. Despite political intrigues, one led by his own son, there were no religious
outbreaks of Sunnis around Akbar's last years. Even an influential orthodox
theologian like Abdul Haq still considered Akbar to be a Muslim and not a
heretic. Habib, Irfan (1997). Akbar and His India. New Delhi: Oxford University
Press, p. 96.>>>

Inaccurate. Several of his senior sunni generals rose is revolt, but they were no match to Akbar's cunning and might as long as he had with him his chosen four -- Birbal, Todarmal, Abul Fazl and Man Singh. There is one curious instance recorded by Badayuni: Once some of Akbar's senior Generals approached him mildly complaining against his anti-islamic policies and saying what the Khalifa would think of these. Akbar reproached them harshly saying his is no army of Islam and if fighting for Islam is what motivated them they had better go and seek the skirt of the Khalifa for whom Akbar would be happy to address his letters recommending their service. In a letter, Akbar says something similar to his second son Murad -- that no Namaz or Azan should be heard in his war camps. If any generals or soldiers felt the need for namaz -- they should better do it privately in their camps; his is not an army of Islam. Still, the more fanatic of Akbar's generals were stealthily assassinated by his trusted fierce Rajput friends. Study the death of Husain Khan, killed like a dog on the orders of Akbar, much lamented by Badayuni.

But after the murders of his main friends, who were helping him stand up to the islamists, as well as the loss of his favourite sons Daniyal and Murad, both of whom Akbar was grooming as practically Hindus in outlook, Akbar's position became weakened. Sunnis then rallied around Salim who gave them solemn oaths to revert the despicable reign of Akbar again to the rule of Islam only if he came to power. But Man Singh was still too much for Jahangir to overcome in field, and Akbar had to be taken out through palace intrigues... Jahangir's rebellion is written off by the neo-Aligarhites like Irfan Habib as not having any religious motives at all. But i see it being much far from the truth.

<<<That is Din-e Ilahi, a megalomaniac Sufi variant of the totalitarian Islam>>>

Din-a-Ilahi was anything but any variant of Islam! It was more like the society of the Freemasons, and only condition of joining it was the personal declaration of the rejection of Islam.

<<<In the end, from the start, his person and power mattered to Akbar.>>>
<<<the illiterate megalomaniac Akbar>>>

It is true that Akbar was, above all, a power-hungry ruthless monarch without many scruples. Also true that he was illiterate, which I proposed was connected to some neurotic disorder rather than his being dumb or foolish. My friendly caution to you both is, please don't fall for P.N.Oakish stuff which will only mislead us to the wrong direction.

Finally, Ishwa and BhV, thanks for your comments; no offence meant in any manner; I just did not have enough time to elucidate it better or continue on important topic of Akbar's apostasy. Hope to get back to do so at some time very soon in a more formal manner.

[Sanku]

^^ Marrying daughters of lesser feudal lords to sons of higher feudal lords is a typical characteristic of the feudal system.

.................

There is nothing religious or slavish - or politically shrewd - about it.

Giving of daughters can be amongst equals or as tribute even in a feudal setup.

In context of Indian (Hindu) and Turkic (Muslim) wars, with foreign invaders occupying the traditional lands of Rajputs as well as iconoclasm and other such Jihadi activities, it significantly understates the transaction to be called as usual Feudal behavior.

Feudals did not form equal-relations based on marriage with groups
1) they considered so close that they could stand to maintain social relationships beyond giving daughters (always one way) and
2) Could not stand to maintain basic civil behavior towards their daughters after marriage.

Did Queen Victoria excommunicate her Children who got married to other families?

Did Rajputra Nobility who regularly married their daughters to other Rajput Nobels had the same behavior towards their daughters married to Rajputras?

[Airavat]

One of the reasons that Amer had to change its ways was because Mewar broke the roti-baati ka rishta with those Rajputs.

I'm not sure who started all this. I mean did the other Rajput states boycott them after seeing their Mughal links or was it the reverse sequence? But yes there was widespread boycott.

The geneological table of the House of Mewar suggests otherwise:

Maharana JAGAT SINGH I, 15th Maharana of Udaipur 1628/1652, married (amongst others), a daughter of Rawal Sabal Singhji of Jaisalmer, and had issue. He died 1652.

and from the Jaipur page:

Raja Maha Singh, born 10th September 1585, received the Jagir of Garha, granted the Title of Raja by the Mughal Emperor, married Rani Damiyanti Devi, grand-daughter of Maharana Udai Singhji of Mewar and had issue. He died 30th May 1617.

Marriages between Rajput royal families continued, regardless of who became a Mughal mansabdar or who didn't. Eventually everyone did, since it was a way of increasing power and matching the Mughals in warfare, which ultimately helped preserve the independent power of the Rajput states and their Hindu character.

The only Muslim principality in Rajasthan was created in the 19th century by the British. Ironically, it was a consequence of the Maratha incursions into Rajasthan.

[tsarkar]

Surasena - every example you gave is of re-conversion, ie, H -> M -> H. I am taking of first-time conversion.

The fasting, etc are ad-hoc rituals developed in response to socio-political-religious circumstances.

There is no conversion rite in Hindu religion, eg reciting the Kalima or baptism. Hinduism is a coagulation of multiple divine instructions (Eg Gita, direct word of God like the Koran or New Testament) and Ramayana (emulating the example of an Avatar, similar to Hadiths or Old Testament).The Rig Veda or Gita or Puranas never had any conversion rituals described, because at that point in history, it was the only religion in place, and there was no competition.

Because the newest religions - Christianity, Islam and Sikhism - competed with established religions, they had baptism/initiation rituals. Older religions like Hinduism, Judaism & Buddhism were the only religions during their phase of history.

The inability to quickly assimilate traits of newer cultures had the disadvantage of inflexibility (see earlier post of Calicut vs Portuguese) but had the advantage of preserving original culture and ethos over time.

[Virendra]

Akbar's turn to tolerance had VERY LITTLE to do with his Hindu wives from the evidence we have.
In fact we have solid evidence from his contemporaries that over time he had for all practical purposes left Islam, this happened later in his life. In his early life he was much of a jihadist fanatic as any other Muslim occupier of India.
It was after his apostacy from Islam that you see him lifting the discriminatory policies against Hindus.
And tragically for all the secularists on this forum, we not only have evidence of him being an apostate but also his plans to wipe out Islam from India for good because he understood what it stood for.

This was why the ulema and theologians like Sirhindi heaped all sorts of abuses against him, even Maulana Abul Kalam Azad wrongly thought of as a "nationalist" Muslim said that if not for the likes of Sirhindi Islam was doomed under Akbar. The ulema backed the more fanatical Jahangir against Akbar's other sons in the war for succession, these sons he was grooming with a more Hindu outlook.

Point in context, the present day Pakistan doesn't put Akbar in good light. It rather glorifies Aurangzeb all the way.
However Akbar was much more successful in developing an almost Pan India Mughal empire, which Aurangzeb despite of being more cruel and treacherous had sent in trash by obsessively messing with Marathas at their own turf for decades. His sabotage of own family and allies also harmed him.

Regards,
Virendra

[Virendra]

Because the newest religions - Christianity, Islam and Sikhism - competed with established religions, they had baptism/initiation rituals. Older religions like Hinduism, Judaism & Buddhism were the only religions during their phase of history.

Hinduism and Budhism did have mild competition in same people and geography as they co-existed. However even then no such conversion tricks were developed on either sides.
Is it because there wasn't the survival based threat perception which actually rose due to aggressive arrival of Islam later on?

Regards,
Virendra

[member_19686]

Surasena - every example you gave is of re-conversion, ie, H -> M -> H. I am taking of first-time conversion.

The fasting, etc are ad-hoc rituals developed in response to socio-political-religious circumstances.

It seems you quiet forget your own posts, let me remind you then with highlighting:

FWIW, Muslim girls offered for marriage came with the caveat of conversion, that Hindu men often didnt accept. And the concept of conversion to Hinduism was never present in Hinduism. The only Hindu re-conversion efforts were started in the 19th and 20th century by Swami Shraddhanand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Shraddhanand but this was never an ancient or medieval practice.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... start=1640

"Hinduism" is not some static book bound "religion" if that is what you have in mind and new smritis and customs take over keeping in mind the changing circumstances.

According to Khafi Khan Ajit Singh reconverted his daughter, one more example from the medieval time when according to you there were no re-conversion efforts.

As for conversion we did not have formal conversion ceremonies like Islam but people did get accepted from ancient to medieval times.

Although not perfectly clear, the inscription seems to be referring to Heliodoros as a Bhagavata (Sanskrit: “One Devoted to Bhagavan (Lord)”), meaning "a devotee". In the context of Hinduism, a Bhagavat would be a member of the earliest recorded Hindu faith devoted to Vishnu.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliodorus_pillar

How did Hindu beliefs spread all over South East Asia?

We still have Hindus in Bali.

We know that the Ahoms invaded Assam in medieval times & today most would classify themselves as Hindu.

Chaitanya was said to have converted several Muslims to his own Gaudiya beliefs.

For, under the influence of these saints many Muslims were converted to Bhakti Hinduism. Namdeva,13 Ramdas, Eknath, Ramanand, Kabir, Nanak and Chaitanya and several other saints had Muslim disciples, many of whom converted to the Hindu Bhakti cult. Chaitanya openly converted Muslims to Bhakti Hinduism.14 The Bhaktamala relates many instances of conversions that Pipa effected.

The effects of the mission of the socio-religious reformers with regard to conversion of people to Hinduism were significant. They themselves had adhered to peaceful methods but not their followers in later years. Kabir’s disciples spread out throughout North India and the Deccan. Jiwan Das was the founder of the Satnami sect which took up arms against the Mughals. The Sikh disciples of Nanak’s successor Gurus, for varied reasons, fought against the Mughals and many times converted people by force. So did the Marathas. Manucci and Khafi Khan both affirm that the Marathas used to capture Muslim women “because (adds Manucci) the Mahomedans had interfered with Hindu women in (their) territories.”15 Chaitanya’s influence in Bengal as of Nanak in the Punjab is still great. According to Abdul Majid Khan it is because of Chaitanya’s influence that large-scale conversions to Hinduism took place at the end of the eighteenth and beginning of nineteenth century.16

http://voiceofdharma.org/books/imwat/ch6.htm

Here is one more example of a Muslim convert from medieval times:

http://bharatendu.wordpress.com/2009/07 ... al-bhakta/

Also Maharana Kumbha was said to have captured all the Turk women in Sarangpur and destroyed all the mosques in Nagor after he conquered it from the Muslims (check Har Bilas Sarda's book on him).

He took Giripur. He conquered Sarangpur, taking "numberless Turk women prisoners and humbled the pride of Muhammad, its ruler, who had slain his master and become king of the place.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=bt5GAAA ... CDQQ6AEwAA

What happened to these women, presumably converted to Dharma and married among the Hindu soldiers.

It's a shame we didn't have a lot more Kumbha's and Banda Bahadur's, otherwise there would be no donkeys like Imam Bukhari braying or countries like Pak and Bangladesh.

[peter]

I am arguing against these marriages being political.

I would say, that these marriages were indeed political. In the same sense that Zaziya is primarily a political tool.

Just like collection of "tributes" was.

Women being sent by some Rajput rulers, was primarily a tribute, (a tribute is also a form of trade) -- in that sense it was a form of Ziziya.

So yes, it was a political move, but not one of politics of equals, but that of a slave and a master.

Hard to argue against what you have written but I will still try!

On one hand Dharm is supposedly preserved by not allowing the daughters to visit their maternal homes and yet at the same time Dharm is not violated by giving them to beef eating turukhsas?

So clearly it is a case of "I will save my skin" no matter what the cost!

[peter]

I am arguing against these marriages being political. What emerges is that the girls that were given to Mughals were outcasts for rajput kings who gave them.

For the Kings? Before the marriage? No
For those who opposed Mughals? For after the marriage? Due to the marriage? Yes

Nope. The same fathers and mothers who bartered these poor girls to the mughals treated them as outcasts immediately after the marriage. And these same fathers became servants of Mughals as soon as the marriage was solemnised.

As a custom Hindus were cremated and never buried. Her burial signifies she converted to Islam after marriage.

Not necessarily. It was the Mughals who did the rituals, they were free to do it their way. Way you're cremated doesn't t make you muslim or non muslim.

It does. There is no doubt Bharmals' daughter became a mulsim. Even in modern day Sharmila Tagore had to convert to Islam before she was able to marry Pataudi. Lastly if a muslim is not buried and instead cremated he straight goes to hell. Jats knew this and that is why they burnt the bones of Akbar. This single act shook Aurangzeb to the core.

...there was a schism in the society in rajasthan. Giving of daughters to Mughals was not considered political rather a degradation. Ofcourse YMMV (your mileage may vary) depending on whom you ask today!

Political decisions were taken by royals and were not always inline by what the general people and chieftans perceived and aspired on various matters. The two are different things.

Well you are attempting a post modern interpretation on the situation in medieveal India. This is what JNU/Aligarh/West also does when they talk about medieveal India.

Well the counter example is of Maharana Pratap. He could have also given a daughter/sister to Mughals but why did he not?

You're mixing a political engagement with a valid feeling of disgust in the society. [..]
Personally I support the actions of both sides - opposing and allied.
Point being, ultimately it boils down to the ruler to take the decision and that is what recorded history remembers the most.
Pratap was a ruler, he didn't want to ally and so he fought. Bharmal was another ruler, he wanted to ally and so he did.
As rulers they took their own decisions for what was good for the kingdom and the people .. that is it.

I disagree because what you write is a post modern interpretation of medieveal ethos. I have seen it written often enough that Pratap should have bowed to Akbar as Akbar had a pan Indian outlook and Pratap was foolish in not strengthening Akbar's hands. This is the stance of most modern historians.

Pratap belonged to Mewar and Mewar was the highest kingdom in all of Rajasthan or shall we say entire India. Since Pratap banned intermarriages with other rajputs that means these others were "degraded". If Pratap was still alive these other guys would not have been admitted into rajputhood anymore. Do read Tod's quote above. Lastly since Pratap was the "Hindu Suraj" so his opinion on other houses of Amber/Marwar is far more pertinent then our post modern analysis because his view takes into account the politics of the time.

[peter]

So yes, it was a political move, but not one of politics of equals, but that of a slave and a master.

[..]
Most of the credit goes to the common Rajput man & woman and the many honorable rulers who resisted Islamic invasions, specially the ones which stayed and didn't go back like others.
If the ruler himself was a slave, how was he able to protect his people? The Islamic hordes came with an objective of either Islamizing or otherwise destroying everything after all. The term slave takes it a bit too far.

The interesting question to ponder over is:
What impact did the act of giving daughters to Mughals have on rajputs?
In the short term and in the long term?
What was the reason Marathas were invited to Rajasthan to settle internal disuputes?
What was the reason to not fight against the british?

[peter]

One of the reasons that Amer had to change its ways was because Mewar broke the roti-baati ka rishta with those Rajputs.

I'm not sure who started all this. I mean did the other Rajput states boycott them after seeing their Mughal links or was it the reverse sequence? But yes there was widespread boycott.

Of course Mewar started this. Pratap stopped marriages of rajputs with those
who had started giving their daughters to mughals. Tod is quite clear on this.

[peter]

One of the reasons that Amer had to change its ways was because Mewar broke the roti-baati ka rishta with those Rajputs.

I'm not sure who started all this. I mean did the other Rajput states boycott them after seeing their Mughal links or was it the reverse sequence? But yes there was widespread boycott.

The geneological table of the House of Mewar suggests otherwise:

Maharana JAGAT SINGH I, 15th Maharana of Udaipur 1628/1652, married (amongst others), a daughter of Rawal Sabal Singhji of Jaisalmer, and had issue. He died 1652.

Bhati genealogy of Jaisalmer has no record of Rawal Sabal Singh's daughter marrying Rana Jagat Singh. Please see Hukum Singh Bhati's book.

[Sanku]

I have spent time in the Mewar region, they are quite clear about the relations with other Rajputs being broken during the time between Akbar-Aurangzeb.

Once Aurangzeb started on his persecution to the full extent, the Rajputs who remained in Mughal service started breaking off and the old links were reestablished.

[member_19686]

peter on the subject of fighting Brits, take a look at an earlier post of mine about the interesting case of Man Singh Rathod of Jodhpur in the Punjab history thread here:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 6&start=40

On the subject Mughal-Rajput marital alliances and their impact, following is interesting:

The news of the reciprocal treaties(88) among the various States reached the Mughal camp in Deccan. The three States of Jaypur, Jodhpur and Udaypur effected an alliance against the Mughals. They had previously come nearer in 1680 A.D. with the same understanding in the war of Rathod independence. But this time the unity was more perfect, since Jaypur also had joined the aliance. The Rajput Cehiets cemented this unity with the ties of blood. Rana Amarsing gave his daughter Chandrakuwari in marriage to Sawai Jaysing on 25th May, 1708 A.D. He had also married the daugher of Ajitsing in the previous year. They now held a prolonged conference (1708 to 1710 A.D.)(89) on the border of Pushkar lake and after full deliberation proclaimed a solemn concerted policy that they would not henceforth give their daughters in marriage to the Muslimd and that if any prince acted contrary to this resolution, the others should join and put down the deserter by force, if necessary. The Ranas of Udaypur were further acknowledged to be of purer blood having all-long refused to give their daughters in marriage to the Msulims. Hence, Pushkar conference laid down that if any Rajput prince had an issue from a daughter of Udaypur family that issue was to be given a preference over those born from other wives.

No Hindu ever liked to give his daughter in marriage to a Muslim. It was all the force of circumstances to which the Rajputs had bowed. The acknowledgement of the high social status and the purity of blood of the Rana's family revealed the wounds of the hearts of the Rajput Chiefs. It wad clearly the Hindu spirit that the Rajputs exhibited this time. The Emperor in Deccan did not fail to recognise it.

The following two letters of Sawai Jaysing clearly reveal the prevailing Hindu spirit. To Chhatrapati Shahu he wrote.(90)

"Your Highness must be aware of the cordial ties that existed among our elders. I hope, by the kindness of Shri Ramji, the ties between us shall grow still closer. Shah Alam, after becoming the Emperor, resumed my watan, and called Maharaja Ajit Singh to the Court assuring him that Jodhpur would be restored to him, but did not do so. This news must have reached Your Highness. I, on my part, spared no effort, to serve the Patshah, but he harbors malice towards the Hindus, and on one pretext or another wants to ruin them. For this reason, and as it was considered necessary, we broke off from the Emperor and came to Rana Amar Singh at Udaipur, an after (full) deliberations decided that if the Patshah even now becomes favourable towards the Hindus and restores mansabs and watans, as had been enjoyed by their ancestors, then it is all right, otherwise the Hindus will also do what they can. So far we have expelled the faujdars and qiledars from Amber and Jodhpur, and have established our control there, and shall now be leaving for Amber. Ranaji will also join (us) on Dashera (there). Your Highness is the Sardar of the Deccan. The honour of all the Hindus is one and the same. Hence, you take such measures that just as by entangling Patshah Alamgir in the Deccan, the honour of Hindustan was upheld, in the same manner this Patshah too should not be able to extricate himself from there. Earlier, Your Highness servants had accompalished this much, but now you yourself are there. Kam Baksh is also in Bijapur, Haidarabad. In alliance and in consultation with him, you will no doubt do what you think is proper, so that the Hindus have an upper hand in this conflict. What more I write".

(In the margin) "It has often been said that Alamgir was displeased with Raja Ram Singh on account of Shivaji's case, and did not forget the hostility of Mahraja Jaswant Singh towards him. He retained in his heart ill-feeling on that account. Now we have to see to it."

In his letter dated October 16, 1708 to Chhatrasal(91) , Jai Singh wrote that the trouble started when the Emperor, while granting them mansabs, incorporate the parganas of their watans into khalisa. "Your Highness knows well as to how one can live without a watan and what is (the importance) of a mansab without the watan. Informing Chhatrsal about the Rajput victory at Sambhar in which three thousand of the enemies were killed, and expressing his confidence that similar victories would be gained by them in future also, he wrote, "If Sardars like Your Highness gird up their loins, then the honour of Hindustan would no doubt be maintained. Other zamindars, mansabdars and the Rajas of the intervening region have already united and have removed the thanas of the Turks from their territories. Shri Ranaji too must have written to Your Highness (to do so). You will please join us early for the sake of the honour of th entire Hindu race. As we all Hindus hae common ties, you will not delay in coming towards this side." He asked Chhatrasal to send the names of the prominent zamindars of the east whom they might contract and requested him to write letters to all such chiefs with whom he had intimate contracts. "This is no longer as issue which concerns any one person; now it concerns all the Hindu (rulers) ", he concluded.

Source: Maratha-Rajput Relations (1720-1795 A.d.) by K.A. Acharya

[tsarkar]

Surasena - every example you gave is of re-conversion, ie, H -> M -> H. I am taking of first-time conversion.The fasting, etc are ad-hoc rituals developed in response to socio-political-religious circumstances.

It seems you quiet forget your own posts, let me remind you then with highlighting:

FWIW, Muslim girls offered for marriage came with the caveat of conversion, that Hindu men often didnt accept. And the concept of conversion to Hinduism was never present in Hinduism. The only Hindu re-conversion efforts were started in the 19th and 20th century by Swami Shraddhanand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Shraddhanand but this was never an ancient or medieval practice.

There is no contradiction, before S, there was no codified process for conversion. Recently the Christian actress who converted to Hinduism to marry Prabhudeva used S's process. Anything before that was ad-hoc.

"Hinduism" is not some static book bound "religion"

Precisely. Nor is it a ritual or custom based religion. For example, cows are held sacred in most parts of India but Kamakhya temple in Assam regularly sacrifices bulls, and it is considered to be a holy Hindu temple.

According to Khafi Khan Ajit Singh reconverted his daughter, one more example from the medieval time when according to you there were no re-conversion efforts.

Again this is one-off case. Unlike the mass baptism ceremonies in Russia, where masses were converted to Christianity by dipping in the Volga, there was no established procedure for conversion to Hinduism.

How did Hindu beliefs spread all over South East Asia? We still have Hindus in Bali.

Because they follow Hindu values and adopted Hindu gods. This was a first time adoption from a blank/un-religious/primitive-religious state-of-existance to a religious state-of-existance. Hence the question of conversion doesnt arise.

Chaitanya was said to have converted several Muslims to his own Gaudiya beliefs.

His Muslim disciples followed certain Hindu values and concepts like Bhakti, but didnt disclaim their religions.

What happened to these women, presumably converted to Dharma and married among the Hindu soldiers.

This too was ad-hoc conversion. There is the example of General Wheeler's daughter in 1857 after the Kanpur massacre marrying a muslim to survive after escaping the massacre but confessing to be a Christian on her death bed.