Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

[Virendra]

Nope. The same fathers and mothers who bartered these poor girls to the mughals treated them as outcasts immediately after the marriage.

Prove it to me. Present the facts please. What incident, what recorded statement? Was it deliberate intent or political compulsion due to local Rajputana politics?
Absence of visit by the girls could be due to Mughal customs and tug off war between Rajput and Mughal politics between which the likes of Bharmal were grilled. Bharmals lived next to so many other Rajput states while Agra was hundreds of miles away. Like I said the Rajput rulers weren't united and the choice Bharmals made cannot be justified by anyone but the Bharmals themselves perhaps.

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.

And why am I seeing modern day examples now? Sorry I didn't find anything new but rephrasing.
Again, what proof? Which conversion ceremony or recorded statement establishes that? Just because she lived & died among Mughals?

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.

That is exactly what I'm trying not to do. An example of viewing medieval things through a post modern mindset prism would be to nit pick and blame one medival Kingdom for the way the history of an entire subcontinent or nation is shaped. And that is where the fault lies. There wasn't a seamless notion of a nation India back then; that one would point fingers for its destiny on anyone in particular. What you see today as one country was a loose colony of Independent quarelling Kingdoms where like anywhere else Kings made alliances, broke them .. fought with each other. I don't have to go into it, you know better.
When I don't blame Marathas or any other power for consistent raids and interference in Rajputana and for not collaborating with Rajputs against relentless Islamic invasion in initial-middle medieval centuries from north west. I would also not take the blame that Rajputs failed the nation and because of them xyz things happened and bla bla.
That is what I've been trying to explain. Each to his own, scenario it was. You make your choices and you pay for it. You don't bad mouth others if you suffer and others don't bad mouth you if they suffer. I know that is not how Indian history should've been, but hey that is what I aspire today in 21st century ... pointless !!

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.

I don't agree to that stand. But my stand is formed because today I know what happened later in the due centuries and can take scrutinizing positions. The people making those decisions back then did not.
As said before of my agreement with both sides, I understand the efforts of some rulers trying to ally to Mughals and have no issues. But no Rajput can ever agree to them going to the extent of conducting marriages they did. Its only those rulers brainchild.

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.

They anyways don't give a damn to what Bukhari says. My muslim friends say that he is seen as too political and a Congress stooge among their fraternity.
Banda Singh Bahadur, son of RamDev a rajput farmer; was self renounced & living at Godavari banks when found by Guru Gobind Singh Ji.
Our entire breed of south asians is such perennial infighters, that one or two centuries down the line our future generations would be cursing us instead in the same manner for fighting with Pakistan and not having best relations with Nepal/Bangladesh etc .. for not forming a grand alliance or better being one people.

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.

Could you please give any examples?

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)

Thank for posting this.

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?

Short term? Immense frustration and further absence of unity.
Long term? Introspection and also the realization of the implications of lack of unity.

What was the reason Marathas were invited to Rajasthan to settle internal disuputes?

Again political, like some went to Mughals earlier; some did go to Marathas as well. But I must say that Marathas had same goals as Mughals - want to dominate Rajputs & eventually all of India (specially post Shivaji-Sambhaji period). There were consistent raids, extortion of money in Rajputana and all sorts of interference. Many being too individualistic, the Rajputs were accutely divided in the later mediaval centuries and the arrival of Mughal/Maratha interference was natural. The interference flipfloped depending on who was stronger (first Mughals and then Marathas).

What was the reason to not fight against the british?

As I said before Rajputs then did not have a politically united country of India to be responsible for. If you're trying to blame us on behalf of India, spare the effort. When it was only Rajputana our loyalty was within Rajputana, now it is India and that is where our loyalty lies today.
In the chaotic colony of states back then, enemy of enemy was the friend. Being non-united that they were .. Rajputs at some occasions fought the British while at others they allied to them.
Its all patchy, even with Sikhs whose rose to prominence when Mughal power was past its peak and falling.
Sikh Guru Hargobind Singh had freed dozens of Rajput Princes from Mughal imprisonment while his attack at a fort. In gratitude the Rajput Princes taught the Sikhs the Rajput Martial Arts, which the Sikhs later modified and codified into Gatka.

Another thing to note is, apart from their traditional martial practice the Rajputs in general were poor learners .. of things like diplomacy, miitary strategy and technology (barring few exceptions). This ofcourse is one side of the coin and the other is being the best in man to man close combat:
A.B.M Habibullah a prominent historian on South Asian history (lived in Bangladesh) quotes
"In individual fighting the Rajputs surpassed the Turks"

Regards,
Virendra

[abhigoel]

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.

I would say the older religion (Hinduism, Judaism & Buddhism ) developed as religion after coming in contact with the new christianity and Islam before that they were different ideologies about the Dharama.

[abhigoel]

Point in context, the present day Pakistan doesn't put Akbar in good light. It rather glorifies Aurangzeb all the way.

May you quote the sources for such conclusion.

[peter]

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:

I agree that there were independent minded rajputs who heeded to their own spirit in fighting against the brits. But it was not organized resistance as was offered to the invasions from north west between 7th-16th centuries. For example the role of Bundelas against the Brits is well documented. I have even read Charan compositions which praise many rajputs of rajasthan who fought against the brits.

The rajput kings though remained aloof. Perhaps living a life in luxury had become a habit?

Your second point about the marriages is also very interesting because it turned the right of primo-geniture on its head! Marrying a mewari princess meant her son became the king no matter whether he was the third or the last son of the reigning monarch. This caused a whole lot of strife in rajasthan. The most telling is that these other kingdoms of Amber/Marwar etc agreed to this condition!

[peter]

Nope. The same fathers and mothers who bartered these poor girls to the mughals treated them as outcasts immediately after the marriage.

Prove it to me. Present the facts please. What incident, what recorded statement?

I presented the facts and references earlier in the thread. Books with page numbers given. Did you not read them? Just to elaborate: Dr. Jadunath Sarkar was commisioned by the Jaipur royal family to write a history of their clan and state. They opened their entire libraries/bahis/charan kavyas/archives etc to Dr Sarkar and he wrote a full tome based on these unpublished dingal sources. Dr. Sarkar's tome is what I quote from above.

Was it deliberate intent or political compulsion due to local Rajputana politics?

Beef eaters were not allowed in rajput homes. This is why when Ajit Singh got his daughter back from Delhi she was not allowed to stay in Mehrangarh. She lived in talhati ke mahal. So no political compulsions or rajputana politics. Just purity and dharm related stuff.

Absence of visit by the girls could be due to Mughal customs and tug off war between Rajput and Mughal politics [..]

You are guessing. Please read the sources.

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.

And why am I seeing modern day examples now? Sorry I didn't find anything new but rephrasing.

Again, what proof? Which conversion ceremony or recorded statement establishes that? Just because she lived & died among Mughals?

Proof provided earlier. Please read. In islamic law a marriage cannot take place between a non-muslim and a muslim. The priest would not officiate if both are not muslims. The recent example was given to illustrate that even in modern India where one could do court marriage Sharmila still had to convert otherwise she could not marry.

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.

That is exactly what I'm trying not to do. An example of viewing medieval things through a post modern mindset prism would be to nit pick and blame one medival Kingdom for the way the history of an entire subcontinent or nation is shaped.

Well. Let's see. Pratap blames these medieveal brethern rajput kingdoms and stops marrying into them or taking daughters from them. Why do you think he does that? Do you feel he was wrong?
Or the fact that we see less of a problem with these kingdoms today in 2011 a problem? Are we more knowledgable then Pratap?

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.

I don't agree to that stand. But my stand is formed because today I know what happened later in the due centuries and can take scrutinizing positions. The people making those decisions back then did not.

Whom are you talking about? Pratap or Bharmal? Are you being diplomatic when you say that you support both? Obviously it is not possible to support both because they are 180 degrees apart.

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.

Could you please give any examples?

Sure. Just to give one: Ajit Singh, son of Jaswant Singh of Marwar became legitimate in the eyes of Aurangzeb only when he was given a daughter of Mewar after a gap of almost a century. This event took place in 1690's.

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?

Short term? Immense frustration and further absence of unity.

Well the evidence is the opposite. Every rajput state, other then Mewar, vied for giving a daughter to the Mughal king or his kids. There was no frustration just glee in getting a mansab and living a life of luxury.

Long term? Introspection and also the realization of the implications of lack of unity.

I think again quite the opposite. Let me pose a question: How is it possible that rajputs kings lost their fighting spirit when faced with Marathas and Brits? ( I know I am generalizing and I do know of a couple of good counter examples but by and large my statement is true).

What was the reason Marathas were invited to Rajasthan to settle internal disuputes?

Again political, like some went to Mughals earlier; some did go to Marathas as well.

Agree. Though next question is if you can't solve your problems yourself with your own means what does it tell you about the people who are seeking help?

But I must say that Marathas had same goals as Mughals - want to dominate Rajputs & eventually all of India (specially post Shivaji-Sambhaji period).

I disagree. Marathas were harassed by rajputs for many decades. There was no love lost between the two. Ask yourself if some one comes around every few months near your house attacks you repeatedly would you not remember that and attack them back when you are strong?

What was the reason to not fight against the british?

As I said before Rajputs then did not have a politically united country of India to be responsible for. If you're trying to blame us on behalf of India, spare the effort. When it was only Rajputana our loyalty was within Rajputana, now it is India and that is where our loyalty lies today.

Not blaming at all. Political unity was not reason that rajputs did not fight. They had learnt of an easy way! If somebody is encroaching your territory don't fight! Appeal to a higher power! And let them sort it out. Do this over a few generations and see what happens.

[member_19686]

Point in context, the present day Pakistan doesn't put Akbar in good light. It rather glorifies Aurangzeb all the way.

May you quote the sources for such conclusion.

lol you want him to "quote the sources" for Pakis glorifying Aurangzeb?

Do you also ask for photographic proofs for the statement that pigs like to roll around in the mud?

Read "Will the Iron Fence Save A Tree Hollowed by Termites? Defence Imperatives Beyond the Military. by Arun Shourie" which quotes extensively from Paki elementary school textbooks in public schools and see for yourself what's being taught there.

Why go so far as Pakistan, our own domestic Jihadists like Maulana Abul Kalam Azad hated Akbar the kaffir.

Sirhindi ranks with Shah Waliullah as one of the topmost sufis and theologians of Islam. Referring to his role, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad has written in his Tazkirah that “but for these letters Muslim nobles would not have stood by Islam and but for the efforts of Shaikh Ahmad, Akbar’s heterodoxy would have superseded Islam in India.”9 Later on, when K.A. Nizami published a collection of Shah Walilullah’s letters addressed to various Muslim notables including Ahmad Shah Abdali, he dedicated it to Maulana Azad. The Maulana wrote back, “I am extremely happy that you have earned the merit of publishing these letters. I pray from the core of my heart that Allah may bless you with the felicity of publishing many books of a similar kind.”10 That should give us a measure not only of ‘Muslim Revivalism’ but also of many Maulanas who masqueraded as ardent nationalists in order to fight the battle for Islam from within the Indian National Congress.

APPENDIX

It is strange that most of the present-day Muslim scholars refuse to cite the actual statements made about Hindus and Hinduism by their heroes such as Ahmad Sirhindi and Shah Waliullah while praising them to the skies as saviours of Islam in India. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Allama Iqbal are shining examples of this intriguing silence. The late Professor Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi published two significant books on the history of Islam in India - Ulema in Politics (1972), and The Muslim Community of the Indo-Pakistan Subcontinent (1977). He has devoted many pages to Ahmad Sirhindi and Shah Waliullah in both the books. But he has not cited a single sentence written or spoken by the ‘great sufis’ on how they looked at Hindus and Hinduism. I have no doubt that Nizami has also suppressed those letters of Shah Waliullah in which the latter has poured out his heart about kufr and the kãfirs. It is only Professor S.A.A Rizvi who has taken us into the secret chambers so to say. Professor Rizvi is a Shia. And the venom which characters like Ahmad Sirhindi have poured on Hindus and Hinduism is quite comparable to that which they poured out on Shias and Shiism.

http://voiceofdharma.com/books/muslimsep/ch6.htm

The Moslem contemporaries of these authors however have a lot less jubilant and fantastic attitude towards Akbar’s grandeur of religious tolerance, and in tradition of badAyUnI and sheikh ahmed sarhindI, they have generally and severely denounced him as an abominable heretic. abul kalAm AzAd, the mawlAnA, therefore frowns upon him as a villain who had all but finished Islam in India, so also ishtiyAq husain qureshI who alleges Akbar to be a kAfir and an enemy of Islam.

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

[manum]

After ruling for a while and achieving the emperor of most of India...Akbar wanted to be king of India and not only muslims...This desire drove him to seek other discourses on religions and also Akbar got Mahabharata and other Sanskrit text translated in Urdu...

There was great role of him being illiterate in Akbar's more flexible thinking...than any other Muslim King in India...Akbar's most favorite wife was his cousin also wife of Bairam Khan, which he asked hand after victory on Hemu, Bairam Khan was also GodFather of Akbar deputed by Humanyu, Bairam Khan was his most capable commander who saved and protected his throne when Akbar was young, Major skills Akbar learnt of diplomacy was through doing things and seeing Bairam Khan take decisions...He married his cousin after Bairam Khan was assassinated by afghans in Gujarat after he reconciled with Akbar with a brief rebellion due to some instances.

This all I am saying through a book named "The emperor's writing" by Belgian writer Dirk Collier...who researched through texts available on Akbar and wrote a fictional autobiography on Akbar...This book definitely glosses over Akbar a Abu Fazal would have liked to be but I must say however one glosses over Aurangzeb, we Know a monster he was...

Akbar was lot better...at least feel of history points in this direction. Akbar only son who survived through the self destructive whiskey drinking was Jahangir who was son of Rajput princess...

Harkha bai was very lean in figure and not very healthy and was not most favourite of Akbar, but she was great businesswomen and busied herself with sea route trade of spices and was extremely rich, as others were paid remunerations to upkeep the life style.

I would have quoted exact incidents and chapters but I gifted this book to my younger brother...

[SBajwa]

Its all patchy, even with Sikhs whose rose to prominence when Mughal power was past its peak and falling.
Sikh Guru Hargobind Singh had freed dozens of Rajput Princes from Mughal imprisonment while his attack at a fort. In gratitude the Rajput Princes taught the Sikhs the Rajput Martial Arts, which the Sikhs later modified and codified into Gatka.

It is true!! Sri Guru Hargobind (he was not a Singh as Singhs were created by the tenth guru about 100 years after him) was the Sixth Guru.

He became Sixth Guru after his father the fifth Guru Sri Guru Arjan Dev ji (who created golden temple, compiled Adi Granth Sahib) was executed at Lahore due to his refusal to convert to Islam. The specific punishment was to show him the "EXACT HELL" as depicted in Quran. This in June (lahore) he was reminded of Dojakh/Hell as following

Day 1. Wrapped the hide of a freshly skinned cow around his naked Body in june without any water for whole day.
Day 2. Along with 1. left him in the sun and without water (he passed out and was asked to convert each time and he refused each time but revived with water.
Day 3. Took him out of the hide and pricked his skin with hot pincers asking him to convert.
Day 4. Poured burning hot sand on his body through out the day asking him to convert.
Day 5. Made him sit on a hot burning plate (tawa) He refused to convert reciting bani as if in a trance (reported by Mian Mir and other devotees)
Day 6. Made him sit on a burning hot plate along with hot sand being poured on his body he refused to convert. He could barely get up by this time. He fainted.
Day 7. The punishment from the day 6 kept going but he fainted multiple times and was revived multiple times., at last his body was thrown into the river Ravi (next to the Lahore Fort)., in this place Ranjit Singh built a gurdwara named Dehra Sahib. It still exists but with no sikhs.

Guru Hargobind the sixth guru decided to militarize (first 5 sikh gurus were Saints, next 5 sikh gurus were both Saints and soldiers)
Guru Hargobind was first Sikh Guru to be both Saint and a Soldier.

He created the first Sikh cavalry of 700 men., and only wanted weapons as gifts from his devotees. his people often fought with Mughals (including Jahangir's forces). In one such skirmish he renamed his youngest son from Tyag Mall to "Tegh Bahadur" i.e. Tyag Mall is Hindi/Sanskrit name while "Tegh Bahadur" is persian name. Tegh Bahadur means "Who is rich of Sword". Tegh Bahadur became 9th Guru and attained martrydom at Delhi (Gurdwara Sis Ganj sahib in Chandani Chowk).

Sixth Guru Hargobind was arrested by Mughals and imprisoned at the fort of Gwalior where 40 other Rajput prince were also imprisoned.

Jahangir couldn't pass his urine and one of his "Sufis" advised him to release Guru Hargobind as God is not happy. so Jahangir ordered his release, guru refused to leave unless all the 40 Rajputs were also released. Jahangir acting replied that "all Rajputs who can hold the 'palla' i.e. 'corner' of the Guru's Chola will be freed".

Guru got made a special chola with 40 strings so that each of the Rajput prince can be freed.

Sikhs and Rajputs of Rajasthan had great relations since Akbar visited Goindwal (third guru Guru Amardas ji) in the vicinity of later Amritsar.

Akbar gifted three villages to the daughter of Sri Guru Amardas ji (Bibi Bhani ji) where later Amritsar was founded.

Raja Jai singh also visited the Third Guru with Akbar and many times after him. One famous incident is that one Raja of Haripar had one "Queen" who was always in Purdah and had not seen any men apart from her husband. Since Guru Amardas was against Purdah as well as casteism he forced everybody to take their purdah off and sit and eat the food together before seeing him.

When any one wanted an audience with Guru Amar das, they had to comply with some simple instructions. First, they had to eat from the Guru's kitchen with all his other guests regardless of status or gender. Women were asked to remove their veils. The Raja of Haripur was no exception. He came with his entourage of wives, and all were asked to have a meal first. The youngest wife was very shy and refused to remove her veil. The Guru asked her what the problem was. In those days, women never ate with men and were certainly not used to he spoken to by men. The poor girl was totally confused and embarrassed. She ran out to hide herself. The Raja wanting to please the Guru, feigned disgust with her behaviour and abandoned her altogether. Thus, when he returned home, she was left behind, alone and frightened. This was 500 years ago, when women were not able to work and support themselves independently. This poor girl was far away from family and friends. She hid in the forest, and people said she went totally insane.

The Guru had many disciples and they all did their chores together and listened to the Guru's teaching. There was one such man who came from a place near Shaikhupura which is now in Pakistan. He left his home and joined the Guru's camp at Goindwal. He took upon himself the responsibility of bringing firewood daily for the kitchen. One day, while he was in the forest, he had a terrible clash with an insane woman. She was filthy, her clothes were torn, and her hair was matted. He startled her when he accidently tripped over her. She reacted by screaming and biting and clawing. He managed to subdue her with kind words and a strong arm. Covering her with his shawl, he brought her to the Guru. After taking a bath and eating well in the kitchen, the lady was invited to join the congregation and listen to the prayers and the teachings.

A great peace entered her soul and she was able to slowly regain her strength and self-esteem. She was once thc Rani of Haripur, but no one knew her real name. As she grew stronger and joined the others in chores as well as prayers, she was often heard muttering "sachan sach" meaning "truth is truth". This soon became her nickname. As time passed, she became totally cured, and showed and good intelligence. The Guru was immpressed with her commitment and devotion. She eventually married the gentleman who had rescued her against her will from the forest. Mata Sachan Sach was made a masand and sent with her hushand to his home in west-Punjab to preach the word of God.

[member_19686]

After ruling for a while and achieving the emperor of most of India...Akbar wanted to be king of India and not only muslims...This desire drove him to seek other discourses on religions and also Akbar got Mahabharata and other Sanskrit text translated in Urdu...

There was great role of him being illiterate in Akbar's more flexible thinking...than any other Muslim King in India...

The real reason Akbar sought discourses on other religions was something else, recorded by his contemporaries but hidden by our secularists eager to cover up the truth.

His illiteracy could have been due to dyslexia.

There are a couple of more aspects of Akbar’s psychological profile that need our attention. From anecdotal data provided by different chronicles, we suspect that Akbar also suffered from a couple of neurological conditions.

First, although none of the historians suggest it, we dare to propose that he could have been a case of Dyslexia, i.e. learning handicap hampering ability in reading and writing. We suspect this because almost all chroniclers including his official historian abul fazl inform us, although apologetically and in a veiled way, that Akbar could never learn the letters and remained illiterate despite all the education he received. Our belief is further strengthened by another apparently disconnected fact recorded by Jesuits that Akbar used to have a tendency to quickly lose his concentration in conversations, a known symptom of the condition, and that he used to jump abruptly from one topic to the other, like a child, confusing the Jesuits who thought it was due to his impatience with them. Besides, there is another fact recorded by some of his biographers which suggest that Akbar had a rather visual mind with liking for arts of various kinds, another strong Dyslexic trait. Akbar was not only fond of drawings and paintings but also reasonably good at it himself. He patronized many Hindu and Persian artists in his royal studio, which he used to visit once a week, and used to particularly love doing calligraphy himself, having learnt the art from khwAjA abdus-samad, his Persian court artist (and in footsteps of Akbar, one of the earliest denouncers of Islam at the court).

Akbar although illiterate was not un-intelligent. The Jesuit observes: “Echebar… was interested in, and curious to learn about many things, and possessed an intimate knowledge not only of military and political matters, but also of many of the mechanical arts…, could discourse on the laws of many sects, a subject of which he made a special study. Although he could neither read nor write, he enjoyed entering into debates with learned doctors. He always entertained at his court, dozen or so (learned men)… To their discussions, now on one subject now on another…he was a willing listener, believing that by this means he could overcome the disadvantage of his illiteracy.” [89]

Being neither a neurologist nor a historiographer, whereas the subject demands one to be both, we can be wrong in diagnosing him as Dyslexic, but certainly when Oak calls Akbar an illiterate stupid, he is being uncharitable, and when A L Srivastava says that being “a truant child he did not sit down to read and write”, [90] he too is ignoring the fact that even in his adulthood Akbar unsuccessfully attempted to learn the letters and failed, while at the same time he was able to learn many other things and must have been intelligent enough to have created a vast and stable empire for himself and rule over it for over half a century.

Akbar might have also suffered from still another neurological condition which used to cause in him sudden and recurrent fits of seizures. While flattering biographers have described these fits as mystic spiritual experience like those of the Prophet, to modern eyes it appears that he suffered from some kind of Epilepsy. What is more, we think it could have been a result of a thorough mental depression due to his deep religious anxiety, unhappiness and dissatisfaction. Consider this report of the Jesuits from 1578 when Akbar was still a practicing Moslem although now in doubts about his faith and deeply disappointed with it: “His Seldan of Mecquae (Mecca), the chief of all his Mullas and Caziques (kAzI-s)… said, ‘Your Majesty follows a Good Law, and has no reason to doubt it, or to seek another.’ On hearing this, the King rose to his feet and exclaimed, ‘May God Help Us! May God Help Us!’, repeating these words, as if to imply that he was far from satisfied with the law that he followed…”

Our belief that his Epilepsy was a result of his deep anxiety with faith he practiced is strengthened by a couple of other data points. First, he is said to have reported having some spiritual visions during these fits, suggesting his inner demand for spiritual satisfaction might be at the root of the phenomenon. Second, as per the chroniclers the last of these fits is reported from the year 1579-80, which mysteriously coincides with his official departure from Islam, making it very safe for us to believe that it was no coincidence at all and abandoning Islam might have liberated him of the anxiety he suffered from, and rid him of these fits.

Few more attributes are important to remember. Akbar was fiercely independent since his childhood, having grown up without the oversight of either parents as well as having lost his father before entering the teens. He shows his independence quite early on when he defied the mutallIkI, the legal guardianship, of his uncle byram khAn, as well as culled the petticoat government of harem quite early on when he was very young. Akbar is also recorded as short tempered, impatient, and highly ambitious. Unlike other Moghuls after him, he was also known to be extremely hardworking, and very hands-on in all affairs of government, diplomacy, military and public administration...

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

Also he got the Mahabharata translated into Persian not Urdu.

About his departure from Islam (which is nowadays denied by the white washers) and religious tolerance later in life, none of the reasons given (e.g. his Hindu wives or ambition to be king of Hindus & Muslims both) have anything to do with it if we go by contemporary chronicles. The man was always curious and interested in religion for its own sake which eventually led to his apostacy after a detailed study of Islam that he made.

It also seems that Akbar had preference to rationale and logic, which became amplified with passage of time. On this account, the irritation of the Jesuit Fathers is very telling, whom he continued to persistently grill on the rationality of the Christian theology: “We see in this prince the common fault of the Atheist, who refuses to make reason subservient to faith, and, accepting nothing as true which his feeble mind is unable to fathom, is content to submit to his own imperfect judgment matters transcending the highest limits of human understanding.”[85] We can also notice that as soon as Akbar was introduced to the patterns of reasoning and logic especially of Greek variety, he immediately took strong liking to it. [86] His tendency of reasoning is likewise reflected in one of his letters to his younger son, in which Akbar expressed his admiration for the philosophy of karma and reincarnation of soul, saying these concepts had completely convinced his mind of their truth due to their irrefutable rationality [87] (on this last subject sheikh ahmed sarhindI, the contemporary naqshbandiyA sUfI was to later have much heartburn. [88])

Akbar had an experimenting attitude. For example, his famous ‘nursery test’ of bringing up a set of infants for a few years in absolute silence to validate the claim of Arabic being the ‘natural’ language for Allah to have sent Qoran only in that tongue. At another point he demanded mawlAnA-s and Padres to give a proof of their faith in front of him by entering a fire invoking their respective God and trusting God’s protection if their religions were truthful. [88.2] (Behind this hilarious idea we suspect some role of Birbal, who might have informed Akbar about fire-tests, the agni-parIkShA, which had been an old Hindu method among disputers.)

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

Year 1574 therefore, the thirty-third year of his life, marks the inauguration of the study of Islam by the Great turuShka.

badAyUnI’s take for 1574: “In the course of the last few years, pAdishAh has gained many great and remarkable victories, and his domain has grown in extent from day to day, so that not an enemy is left in the world; he now takes a liking for the society of ascetics and the disciple of the celebrated Mu’iniyyah (i.e. the cult of chisht), and spends time in discussing the Word of God (i.e. Qoran) and the sayings of the Prophet.” [4.2]

To make his enterprise of studying his religion as grand as any other, Akbar commissioned building of a complex dedicated to this sole purpose and named it ibAdat-khAnAh, the ‘House of Prayer’, along with a large lake in its annex which he named as anUpa tAlAba the ‘Lake without a Simile’. This construction would be ready for inauguration by fall in next year.

Let us note in the passing that while all other monuments mentioned in the histories of Akbar can be seen to this day at sIkarI, there is not one sign of ibAdat-khAnAh nor of anUpa-tAlAba, which are otherwise so well described not only in several independent chronicles but also depicted on portraits by contemporary painters. The entire complex has simply vanished, as if evaporated from the surface without leaving any trace. While there is no record of what happened to it, we have very little difficulty in suggesting that its disappearance has to do with the revenge of the believers, and it is more than likely that jehAngIr himself might have ordered its demolition to erase out the physical memorabilia of where his father shed from himself the religion of the Prophet. Little else explains the complete disappearance of ibAdat-khAnAh from sIkarI.

We may call it an act of fate or just a coincidence, but at the same time when ibAdat-khAnAH is under construction, an important agent makes its entry in the process. Sheikh abul-fazl allAmI, the author of A’in-i-akbarI joins in 1574 the clerical staff of Akbar’s secretariat, and little does Akbar know that abul-fazl is to eventually become a guide and a fellow traveler of the journey that has begun, and finally its martyr. abul-fazl’s efficiency would soon see him rise from being a technical-writer to first head the federal secretariat and finally as vizIr of the empire. Being a son of a renowned philosopher-scholar of the age, sheikh mubArak nAgaurI, condemned by orthodox moslems as a heretic but pardoned by Akbar due to some recommendations, abul fazl has thoroughly studied not only the doctrines of different sects within Islam, is trained in critical thought, but has also gained some knowledge about religions and philosophies that Islam has wiped out and is sympathetic towards those. Although only a youth in his early twenties, he would soon be discovered by Akbar as a budding scholar of Islam whom seasoned mawlAnA-s find hard to match both in eloquence as well as in knowledge...

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

[Virendra]

Was it deliberate intent or political compulsion due to local Rajputana politics?

Beef eaters were not allowed in rajput homes. This is why when Ajit Singh got his daughter back from Delhi she was not allowed to stay in Mehrangarh. She lived in talhati ke mahal. So no political compulsions or rajputana politics. Just purity and dharma related stuff.

I agree, that may be right. But it again becomes a compulsion for the ruler or else tremendous religious furor would be created if he allowed her in the palace.

Absence of visit by the girls could be due to Mughal customs and tug off war between Rajput and Mughal politics [..]

You are guessing. Please read the sources.

I know I'm weaker on my history knowledge as compared to many of you. I will read further.

Proof provided earlier. Please read. In islamic law a marriage cannot take place between a non-muslim and a muslim. The priest would not officiate if both are not muslims. The recent example was given to illustrate that even in modern India where one could do court marriage Sharmila still had to convert otherwise she could not marry.

Yet no proof of her conversion to Islam right? There had to be a ceremony, right? There had to be a recorded statement right? She was the wife of Akbar after all.
You are guessing on basis of conditions she lived in, to which I've already agreed and said that she's a confusing border case. Those who knew the truth are long gone without telling.

That is exactly what I'm trying not to do. An example of viewing medieval things through a post modern mindset prism would be to nit pick and blame one medival Kingdom for the way the history of an entire subcontinent or nation is shaped.

Well. Let's see. Pratap blames these medieveal brethern rajput kingdoms and stops marrying into them or taking daughters from them. Why do you think he does that?

Because he was disgusted with Mughals and was personally anti to Akbar. He had even broken protocols when Man Singh initially came to Pratap for negotiations where Pratap's commanders taunted Man Singh thoroughly.

Do you feel he was wrong?

No.

Or the fact that we see less of a problem with these kingdoms today in 2011 a problem? Are we more knowledgable then Pratap?

No. He was right in his place to oppose Mughals.

I don't agree to that stand. But my stand is formed because today I know what happened later in the due centuries and can take scrutinizing positions. The people making those decisions back then did not.

Whom are you talking about? Pratap or Bharmal? Are you being diplomatic when you say that you support both? Obviously it is not possible to support both because they are 180 degrees apart.

Talking about both. They converge at the point that they are rulers and had to look after their people.
I cannot generalize them for everything they did, like Pratap was completely right for everything and Bharmal completely wrong. I support Bharmal's intent of truce because Rajputs were not united and like anyone else Bharmal stood alone. He had his own threat perception and decided to go with Mughals to save his Kingdom. Akbar's armies did not go to Amer, they went to Haldighati. Not a brave thing to do I know, but Bharmal was not just a soldier he was a ruler and he saved his people, period. What I hate him for is that he resorted to marrying daughters with Mughals for that truce, he should've had a more honorable way of truce and if not .. then probably he should've fought instead.

Could you please give any examples?

Sure. Just to give one: Ajit Singh, son of Jaswant Singh of Marwar became legitimate in the eyes of Aurangzeb only when he was given a daughter of Mewar after a gap of almost a century. This event took place in 1690's.

No pursuant to what he said, I was asking for example of someone who broke out from Mughal umbrella (Aurangzeb) and went back into Rajputana.

Well the evidence is the opposite. Every rajput state, other then Mewar, vied for giving a daughter to the Mughal king or his kids. There was no frustration just glee in getting a mansab and living a life of luxury.

I'm talking about the wider sentiment that prevailed throughout Rajputana, not about the handful rulers in the palaces.

Long term? Introspection and also the realization of the implications of lack of unity.

I think again quite the opposite. Let me pose a question: How is it possible that rajputs kings lost their fighting spirit when faced with Marathas and Brits? (I know I am generalizing and I do know of a couple of good counter examples but by and large my statement is true).

I don't deny that power corrupts however I don't know by what yard yours becomes a "by and large true" and mine becomes "some exceptions". But anyways, anywhere the Rajput rulers did not fight was because a)they were nit picked separately and b) outweighed as they were, they (egoistically) did not forge a pan Rajputana alliance to counter a threat to their states and their honor.
(I know I am generalizing and I do know of a couple of good counter examples but by and large my statement is true)

Again political, like some went to Mughals earlier; some did go to Marathas as well.

Agree. Though next question is if you can't solve your problems yourself with your own means what does it tell you about the people who are seeking help?

It tells what I've been saying 20 times already - lack of unity in Rajputs. By the way since when does two powers calling a third to settle dispute become such a crime? and when mediator is your neighbor.

But I must say that Marathas had same goals as Mughals - want to dominate Rajputs & eventually all of India (specially post Shivaji-Sambhaji period).

I disagree. Marathas were harassed by rajputs for many decades. There was no love lost between the two. Ask yourself if some one comes around every few months near your house attacks you repeatedly would you not remember that and attack them back when you are strong?

Biased again as you saw just one side of the story and reached a conclusion. The power vacuum created by Mughal weakening had given chances to both Rajputs and Marathas and may be many others to expand.
While Rajput states were obviously aiming for Malwa and Gujrat, the marathas were more hungry. They wanted to control the whole of north India (in effect almost entire India) and that obviously covered the whole of Rajputana. Conflict of interest. For Rajputs it was just the change of hands - they thought Marathas would replace Mughals and sit on their heads and thought rightly so.
In 1724 the Marathas attacked the boundaries of Mewar, Maharana Sangram Singh II of Mewar sought the help of other rulers of Rajasthan to ward off Maratha attacks. This we learn from a “Kharita” written on 25th Nov. 1724 by him to Jai Singh.
Marathas began their attacks on Rampura, Kota and Bundi too.
Jai Singh sought Mughal help but they did not yield. Jai Singh then tried to involve Kota and Jodhpur in a military organization. These moves alarmed the Marathas, so Shahu sent two officers, Gopalpant and Appaji Pant, in Mewar to discuss the whole matter with the Maharana.
But these talks bore no fruit and there was no let at all in the Maratha activities. Hi 1726 Krishanaji Pant, Baji Pant and Ambaji Pant attacked Kota and Bundi. So also the Maratha chieftain attacked Jodhpur too. Mewar was also not spared of these raids.
In 1726 Baji Bhim visited Mewar arid realized Chauth from a Mewar district in 1728, Bajirao forced the rulers of Dungarpur and Banswara to Pay to him. In this way Marathas raids continued. There are some letters which show that when Chhatrapati Shahu’s attention was drawn towards these raids, he directed his sardars not to interfere in the territories of Mewar and Amber. It appears that these letters did not have the desired effect and the raids continued.
In 1732, Jai Singh was appointed the imperial governor of Malwa for the third time. In order to drive out the Marathas from Malwa, he in turn obtained the military help from Mewar. The Marathas on hearing of it, Holkar and Sindhia entered Malwa and encircled Jai Singh at Mandsaur and gave him a crushing defeat. He was compelled to agree to pay 6 lacs in cash and promised to cede thirty-eight paraganas in lieu of Chauth.
Then the more powerful that ever Marathas became mediators in Bundi controversy. Malwa was by then practically a Maratha province. Rajput rulers decided to meet in a conference at Hurda to keep Marathas from entering Rajputana and to keep control of Malwa as a buffer.
The alliance proved to be only a fiasco and did not produce the desired effect, because every Rajput ruler had his own ambitions, which were usually at variance with the common goal. Clearly the Rajputs could not understand that chivalry, or bravery, unaided by diplomacy, cannot be effective.
After that Peshwa visited Udaipur and Jaipur for negotiations.At the time when the Peshwa was engaged with Mewar and Sawai Jai Singh, Maharao – Holkar and Ranoji Scindia reached Merta via Shahpura. Abhay Singh was in Delhi but he sent Vijay Raj Bhandari, one of his army leaders, to face the Marathas. Rathore armies, therefore, assembled at Merta. Shapura’s Umed Singh also reached here with his four thousand soldiers to help the Rathors. Holkar besieged the city; after two months, Bhandari got himself free by paying money to the Marathas.
Marathas kept on collecting enormous chauth and succession taxes, sardeshmukhi taxes etc that counted heavy on Rajput states income.
In 1750 Maratha army came to Jaipur to recover their taxes and Holker and Scindia was to receive Rs. 200000/- from Maharaja Sawai Ishwari Singh. But this was beyond the capacity of Ishwari Singh and he could not pay the amount and committed suicide on December 12, 1750, by taking poison and bitten with a "Cobra". Next day 20 of Maharaja Sawai Ishwari Singh`s wives died. Madho Singh was crowned as the king but the subjects of Jaipur was so infuriated with this incident that on January 20,1751 all gates of Jaipur were closed down and Marathas were killed inside the city. Almost three thousand Marathas died and 1000 injured.
Jayappa Sindhia interfered in Jodhpur's accession dispute and was killed in 1755 amongst blames by both sides of taking money from them and switching over to the other side.
This extrotion went on for three decades.
Rajasthan did not pass a single year without paying money to one or more Maratha Sardars. Raghunath Rao and Holkar came to Mewar in 1755. This year Sadashiv Rao, Govind Rao and Kanhoji Jadhava realized money from Mewar. In August 1756, Durjansal had died. As he had no son, Ajit Singh stepped into his shoes. This was done without the prior permission of the Marathas. As a result of this, Ranoji Sindhia came to Kota to realize the succession tax. The new ruler had no alternative but to pay forty lacs of rupees. This year also Holkar and Raghunath Rao came to Kota and realized Rs. 7 thousand. Raghunath Rao collected one lakh of rupees from Javad and after reaching Jaipur he demanded Rs. 11 lakhs from Madho Singh who had to pay Rs.7 lakhs immediately. Next year Jankoji Singh Sindhia visited Rajasthan and desired to collect Rs. 36 lakhs from Jaipur. Money was collected from Mewar also and after reaching Kota, Maharao Ajit Singhas successor, Shatrushal, paid Rs: 2 lakhs in gift. The pitiable condition of Rajasthan had no end. In 1759 A.D, Holkar visited Jaipur again but due to the attack of Abdali, Maratha attention was diverted. Rajasthan therefore passed a peaceful period from 1759 to 1761. Maratha policy embittered the relations with Rajasthan. They could not, therefore, enlist Rajasthan’s help against Abdali. Bhau’s invitation to send their contingent against Abdali was not heeded by them. In fact their sympathies were with Abdali. Madho Singh even actually conspired to bring him to India to drive Marathas south of Narbada. The record available in Rajasthan Archives clearly indicates that there had been an exchange of letters between Vijay Singh and Madho Singh – in regard to opposing the Marathas. During Maratha-Abdali confrontation Rajasthani rulers adopted a natural policy, which was helpful to the latter.

As I said before Rajputs then did not have a politically united country of India to be responsible for. If you're trying to blame us on behalf of India, spare the effort. When it was only Rajputana our loyalty was within Rajputana, now it is India and that is where our loyalty lies today.

Not blaming at all. Political unity was not reason that rajputs did not fight. They had learnt of an easy way! If somebody is encroaching your territory don't fight! Appeal to a higher power! And let them sort it out. Do this over a few generations and see what happens.

Could be a case with few I don't deny. Every race every clan has had some heroes and some downtrodden moles.
When rulers/leaders give in some ground it isn't always because they want to save their throne. Saving the Kingdom the people is also a reason and has been the reason for Rajput rulers.

Regards,
Virendra

[Virendra]

Point in context, the present day Pakistan doesn't put Akbar in good light. It rather glorifies Aurangzeb all the way.

May you quote the sources for such conclusion.

I wish I could bring you the "Pakistan Studies" books taught in the schools there.
http://www.internationalreporter.com/Ne ... es-21.html
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers ... r2611.html

Please google "Polarization of Social Studies in Textbooks in Pakistan":

Akbar's name is not even listed among the Muslim rulers of India. In Pakistan
Studies for secondary classes (ibid), he is not mentioned in the text along with other
famous Islamic figures, a list that includes Mahmud Ghaznavi, Babur, Humayun, Shah
Jahan, and Aurangzeb. Typically, in Pakistan Studies written by Rabbani and Sayyid
(Rabbani & Monawwar, 1992), Akbar is mentioned only while discussing Shaikh
Ahmad Sirhindi, who according to Mubarak Ali, 'is projected as a hero challenging
Akbar's religious policy and restoring Islamic values in India' (Qureshi, 1978). This
perspective is typical of many Pakistani historiographies which derive their inspiration
from I. H. Qureshi's epic interpretation of Mughal history 'The Muslim Community of
the Indo-Pakistan Subcontinent' (Qureshi, 1977). In a book about Akbar he writes:
"It can be seriously contented if he possessed wisdom of the highest order. If he had, he
would not have sought to weaken Islam and the Muslim community of the
Subcontinent. At least he would have refrained from interfering with the established
principles of Islam. Even Vincent Smith, who narrates Akbar's aberrations from Islam
with relish, concludes that 'the whole scheme was the outcome of ridiculous vanity, a
monstrous growth of unrestrained autocracy. .. 'How can it then be asserted that Akbar
possessed wisdom in the highest degree?" (Qureshi, 1978, p. 155).
Many Pakistani historians interpret Akbar as dubiously Islamic, whereas his grandson,
Aurangzeb is credited with saving Indian Islam from being swallowed up by misguided
imperatives of Akbar. According to Zafar, "[Aurangzeb] reversed the policies of Akbar
and made a genuine effort to give the State an Islamic orientation. Under Aurangzeb the
Pakistan spirit gathered in strength" (Zafar, 1986, p. 7).
J. Husain defends Aurangzeb against his critics while pointing to the sharply divergent
historical interpretations of this controversial figure:
"Because of Aurangzeb's religious fervor, historians tend to judge him according to their
own religious leanings. Hindu and Christian historians often present Aurangzeb's
religious policies as the main cause of the disintegration of the Mughal Empire, while
some Muslim historians try to completely ignore the negative effects of these policies”
(Husain, 1997, p. 105).

Hope that would help. Better yet, cross a pakistani on some forum and ask him

Regards,
Virendra

[peter]

Was it deliberate intent or political compulsion due to local Rajputana politics?

Beef eaters were not allowed in rajput homes. This is why when Ajit Singh got his daughter back from Delhi she was not allowed to stay in Mehrangarh. She lived in talhati ke mahal. So no political compulsions or rajputana politics. Just purity and dharma related stuff.

I agree, that may be right. But it again becomes a compulsion for the ruler or else tremendous religious furor would be created if he allowed her in the palace.

Proof provided earlier. Please read. In islamic law a marriage cannot take place between a non-muslim and a muslim. The priest would not officiate if both are not muslims. The recent example was given to illustrate that even in modern India where one could do court marriage Sharmila still had to convert otherwise she could not marry.

Yet no proof of her conversion to Islam right? There had to be a ceremony, right? There had to be a recorded statement right? She was the wife of Akbar after all.
You are guessing on basis of conditions she lived in, to which I've already agreed and said that she's a confusing border case. Those who knew the truth are long gone without telling.

As said earlier Sarkar has provided proof from Jaipur's own sources that all jaipur girls which were given to mughals:
a) Were converted to Islam
b) Could not return back to Jaipur. Ever.

Unless you have data to prove otherwise I see no reason to disagree with Sarkar.

On rajputs seeking help from Mughals/Marathas/British: Please study the history of rajasthan and rajputs prior to Akbar becoming king and count how many times rajputs sought help from these two groups to sort their internal matters. And then count post Akbar.

See if you spot a difference.

Your explanations about Marathas asking for chauth etc are truths no doubt but they don't explain why rajputs did'nt refuse it. After all the size of rajput army did not matter when hammir was trying to battle the sultans of Delhi to regain Chittor, neither did it matter to Pratap when he was fighting Akbar.

What happened that all of sudden we have entire rajasthan barring Pratap, bows to Akbar, subsequently to Marathas and then to brits and becomes gulaam?

We did not hear about hammirs or prataps anymore. There must be a reason for this change in behavior.

Would you mind telling us what clan do you belong to?

[peter]

After ruling for a while and achieving the emperor of most of India...Akbar wanted to be king of India and not only muslims...

Also he got the Mahabharata translated into Persian not Urdu.

About his departure from Islam (which is nowadays denied by the white washers) and religious tolerance later in life, none of the reasons given (e.g. his Hindu wives or ambition to be king of Hindus & Muslims both) have anything to do with it if we go by contemporary chronicles. The man was always curious and interested in religion for its own sake which eventually led to his apostacy after a detailed study of Islam that he made.

I don't think Akbar ever left Islam. Does bhartendu blogspot have any evidence that Akbar did not stop Man Singh from building the temple in 1590's i.e almost close to the end of his reign?

[member_19686]

I don't think Akbar ever left Islam. Does bhartendu blogspot have any evidence that Akbar did not stop Man Singh from building the temple in 1590's i.e almost close to the end of his reign?

<<<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)...

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

You can read the rest there at the post made on pg 42.

There is a reason that in the past Akbar was labelled a kafir by all committed Muslims from Sirhindi to Abul Kalam Azad.

Now times have changed and there is a great need for whitewashing Islam's record, hence the U-turn among Muslim "scholars" to try and prove that he had remained a Muslim till the end of his days which they then use to attribute his tolerant policies to Islam.

The fanatic Badayuni records this whole process of Akbar's journey from a ghazi to a kaffir with much curse words. He was writing this chronicle unofficially and secretively, so he had no need for whitewashing anything.

What could be a more bizarre stroke of good fate than this that this year also coincides the beginning of our chief informant getting deployed at the scene, mullAh abdul qAdir badAyUnI. badAyUni, a pious young mullAh, is appointed in the summer of 1574 at the post of assistant shAhI imam of the royal mosque, and he does this crucial assistance to us by recording the events we are interested in, through this hobby of his of maintaining a private diary-like journal. This would eventually become the copious muntakhabut-tawArIkh, which is a very rich repository of data for us to learn about this process, especially because to a fundamentalist musalmAn like badAyUnI it would come intuitively to focus closely on the process of pAdishAh turning an apostate. Not only did badAyUnI have considerable access to Akbar’s religious life during this phase, and was privy to his words & deeds from up close, but what is even more important is that he wrote this chronicle as a private work not intended for others eyes in his lifetime. This way, we can take him to be free from considerations of flattery and other influences. Indeed he does not hesitate in openly cursing, condemning, even using expletives for what his moslem heart can not approve of. tawArIkh reaches us because Akbar remained unaware that under his nose badAyUnI was secretly writing it, and it came to light only during jehAngIr’s reign, who then attempted to purge its very existence by confiscating and destroying its every copy. Thankfully, tawArIkh had been copied and circulated more widely and unlike ibAdat-khAnAh it survives today to bear witness to Akbar’s U-turn.

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

[peter]

I don't think Akbar ever left Islam. Does bhartendu blogspot have any evidence that Akbar did not stop Man Singh from building the temple in 1590's i.e almost close to the end of his reign?

<<<1. He controlled where and when temples could be constructed. In 1595, actually
in his Hindu-tolerant period, he ordered Man Singh Kachhvaha 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.

Please read tomlinson's page here and I find it convincing that it was a mosque. Not only this Tomlinson and Forbes rightly point out that even earlier the inscriptions at rohtas tell two divergent things (page 71 in the same book).

http://books.google.com/books?id=3ctLNv ... ue&f=false


I think Sarvesh has gotten it wrong.

[member_19686]

Please read tomlinson's page here and I find it convincing that it was a mosque. Not only this Tomlinson and Forbes rightly point out that even earlier the inscriptions at rohtas tell two divergent things (page 71 in the same book).

http://books.google.com/books?id=3ctLNv ... ue&f=false


I think Sarvesh has gotten it wrong.

The question isn't about it being a mosque, even Sarvesh admits that it is a mosque now.

Please see what it says on pg 73:

"In fact, local tradition holds that Raja Man Singh did not originally intend to construct a mosque, but a temple; Akbar, however, ordered that a mosque be built since such a structure would better suit the needs at hand"

Again "local tradition", no contemporary sources as pointed out by Sarvesh say anything about such an order coming from Akbar.

As Sarvesh points out this was intended to be a palace, converted into mosque by Man Singh. According to him a Dutch visitor who visited the palace area also recorded this ongoing process of conversion into a mosque whereas this book you linked was written centuries later.

I place more trust in Badayuni's private journal which he never intended for Akbar to find than local myths. In this journal Badayuni is quiet clear about Akbar's transition from a staunch Muslim to a kaffir.

[Virendra]

On rajputs seeking help from Mughals/Marathas/British: Please study the history of rajasthan and rajputs prior to Akbar becoming king and count how many times rajputs sought help from these two groups to sort their internal matters. And then count post Akbar.

See if you spot a difference.

a) Obvious thing, the Mughal Rajput alliance started with Akbar. Some of the Rajputs who fought with each other found a strong potential ally in Mughals and tried to have them on their side.
b) What was once fewer stronger kingdoms, had decomposed into many more smaller weaker states. Rest of the math is easy to figure out.
It isn't that individual Rajputs lost their character and valor by some black magic. They haven't even now.
It was some rulers who took the decisions that stand criticized today. Power is projected by strong organization at macro levels. That is where the cement broke for Rajputs, not beneath it. It isn't a joke that Pan India rulers one after the other - (Mughals and British) chose Rajputs as allies.

I'm sure that our coming generations a century or two later, would be blaming us for fighting with Pakistan and not forming a grand alliance in South Asia. Who knows what they'll read and how they'll interpret these times?
We can and have always scrutinized history with our narrow prisms and pointing fingers becomes a natural reaction.

Your explanations about Marathas asking for chauth etc are truths no doubt but they don't explain why rajputs did'nt refuse it. After all the size of rajput army did not matter when hammir was trying to battle the sultans of Delhi to regain Chittor, neither did it matter to Pratap when he was fighting Akbar.

What happened that all of sudden we have entire rajasthan barring Pratap, bows to Akbar, subsequently to Marathas and then to brits and becomes gulaam?

I've said many times earlier and will say for the last time. It was each on his own in Rajputana against the Mughals. Every leader had to take a decision as a statesman of his people. Some made it a matter of life and death while others didn't. Almost entire India had bowed to Akbar, even the far flung areas as compared to the Rajputs sitting close to him.
I do not know of the army proportions. You may be right or wrong. But I know one thing, army sizes aren't the only factor that decide whether a battle would be fought or peace would be sought.

We did not hear about hammirs or prataps anymore. There must be a reason for this change in behavior.

There's nothing to deny that Rajputs as a political power and a cohseive/seamless military power had weakened considerably. But Hammirs and Prataps tussle with the Mughals was not of chauths. For the ones that came later, it was of chauths with Marathas. In which case would you more likely go for an all out war?
Rajputs were not machines. They were always under pressure from all sides - islamic invasions from north west and hostile cousins at the remaining sub continent. Yet it is important to understand that we do not single out and blame one party.

Would you mind telling us what clan do you belong to?

Sure. I'm a Mertiya Rathore (offshoot from the Dhanesari branch). My gotra is "Akhar Singh" and the native village is in Nagaur.
Now, may I know the reason of your interest? And who are you by the way? Only in case you're interested in replying with honesty please.

Regards,
Virendra

[Rahul M]

>>> 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.

oh dear, it's buffaloes, not bulls. a completely different bovine species.

[vishvak]

There's nothing to deny that Rajputs as a political power and a cohseive/seamless military power had weakened considerably. But Hammirs and Prataps tussle with the Mughals was not of chauths. For the ones that came later, it was of chauths with Marathas. In which case would you more likely go for an all out war?

If Marathas and Rajputs share common Bharatiya ancestry, and not indulge in my temple over your temple querrls, then why would Marathas and Rajputs fight? In fact there could be intermingling at many instances too.

From Gujarat, Volume 1, By Rash Bihari Lal, Anthropological Survey of India linked page 876 (if this is good enough)

So in fact many in Marathas are called Maratha Rajputs.

[member_19686]

tsarkar there is a reason I didn't reply to you, please check Rahul M's post.

You don't seem to know many basic facts but feel ready to pontificate.

How could you get the two mixed up?

[Virendra]

There's nothing to deny that Rajputs as a political power and a cohseive/seamless military power had weakened considerably. But Hammirs and Prataps tussle with the Mughals was not of chauths. For the ones that came later, it was of chauths with Marathas. In which case would you more likely go for an all out war?

If Marathas and Rajputs share common Bharatiya ancestry, and not indulge in my temple over your temple querrls, then why would Marathas and Rajputs fight? In fact there could be intermingling at many instances too.

From Gujarat, Volume 1, By Rash Bihari Lal, Anthropological Survey of India linked page 876 (if this is good enough)

So in fact many in Marathas are called Maratha Rajputs.

Putting titles/names per one's choice is easy as you would see many people do it today. Times have changed. Others in the modern society hardly care to do a background check for whether one is really a Rajput or not. Although it is done religiously by Rajputs during evaluation of marriage proposals.
Reason why epi centre of Rajputs is Rajasthan are different than just a bunch of people fancying and adopting or developing a name.
Going in literal sense, anyone belonging to any royal family can call himself/herself a Rajput - Raj putra .. descendant of a Royal/King.
But that is not the case semantically. The learned know very well what/who we're actually referring to, while using the term "Rajput". Rest its a free world, you may call yourself whatever you like.
OTOH I agree that there may be overlaps and hence there are claims. In fact Qayamkhani muslims have their origin from a Chauhan Rajput noble named Kayam Singh who converted to Islam and then Shivaji is claimed (by himself also) to be a Sisodia Rajput. Although the latter is being refuted my many Maratha authors/historians now.
Assimilation in our people did take place among various hierarchies, by varied degrees in different centuries. No doubt about that.
Its people, they do mix and mingle because no matter how many differences are drawn there are still a lot of socio religious affinities and demographic factors that enable such things.

From the point of view that Rajputs are a caste among Hindus, I personally do not agree to anyone calling himself a Sikh Rajput or Muslim Rajput even if you had converted from Hindu to Sikhism/Islam.
In a monolithic religion where there are no castes, the point of being a Rajput or non-Rajput doesn't arise at all. You're just that - a Muslim/Sikh.

Regards,
Virendra

[Airavat]

Reason why epi centre of Rajputs is Rajasthan are different than just a bunch of people fancying and adopting or developing a name.
Going in literal sense, anyone belonging to any royal family can call himself/herself a Rajput - Raj putra .. descendant of a Royal/King.
But that is not the case semantically. The learned know very well what/who we're actually referring to, while using the term "Rajput". Rest its a free world, you may call yourself whatever you like.

Just to add to this, on linguistic grounds also the word "Raajpoot" as it is pronounced, has evolved from the Apabhramsa spoken in the Rajasthan-Gujarat-MP belt. Because in different parts of northern Indian the pronunciation moves from Sanskrit putra into Prakrit putta and Apabhramsa poot. Using "poot" for son in the later languages of Rajasthan is best exemplified in the couplet on Durgadas Rathore, who fought against Aurangzeb: "Mayee ehra poot jan jehara Durgadas, baandh munda su rakhiyo bin thambe aakash." Mother, give birth to a son just like Durgadas, who swallowed up the flooding dam (of the Mughal invaders) single-handedly.

"Poot" is also used in Hindi spoken in the Gangetic belt, but the more common usage here is "Beta" which comes from the Prakrit "Putta". And in the Punjab and other parts of the northwest the usage is "puttar". Therefore "Raajpoot" has evolved among the kshatriya clans in Rajasthan-Gujarat-MP and has spread to other regions in the subsequent centuries.

[Rahul M]

poot is also used in bengal for putra.

[niran]

Sure. I'm a Mertiya Rathore (offshoot from the Dhanesari branch). My gotra is "Akhar Singh" and the native village is in Nagaur.
Regards,
Virendra

i think there is a mixup here, Gotras are 8 onlee, following the name of 8 MahaRishis
never heard of "Akhar Singh" gotra, maybe its the name of the forefather.

[negi]

'Poot' has origins in the prakrit family; 'braj' bhasha and even 'khari' boli use 'poot'.

I have never been to Kamakhya devi's temple but in certain remote regions of Garhwal and Kumaon males buffaloes are still sacrificed during pooja/rituals involving Goddess Parvati and her other forms.

[Rahul M]

niran ji, it's probably kula, not gotra.

negi, yup.
re buffaloes, visit nepal during durga puja. devotees take hundreds of buffalo heads on plates as offerings. mahishasur is half mahish (buffalo) after all.

[Airavat]

'Poot' has origins in the prakrit family

Apabhramsa actually.

Sanskrit: Putra
Prakrit: Putta (hence beta)
Apabhramsa: Poot

[Airavat]

Returning to thread topic: Battles between the Turk states of Ghor and Ghazni

Sultán 'Aláu-d dín then ascended the throne of Ghor and Fíroz Koh. He assembled the forces of Ghor and Gharjistán, firmly resolved upon attacking Ghazní. Sultán Yamínu-d daula Bahrám Sháh, when he heard of these preparations, assembled the troops of Ghazní and Hindustán. When 'Aláu-d dín came up with his army, Bahrám Sháh sent messengers to him, saying, “Go back to Ghor, and stay in the states of your forefathers; you have not the strength to resist my army, for I have brought elephants with me.”

Sultán 'Aláu-d dín called for his two champions, named Kharmíl, who were the heads of the army and the renowned heroes of Ghor. Aláu-d dín sent for them and said, “Bahrám Sháh has sent to say that he has brought elephants, and I have answered that I have brought the Kharmíls. You must each take care to bring an elephant to the ground to-day.” They bowed and retired. The two armies were drawn up at a place called Kotah-báz-báb. The two champions were on foot, and throwing off their coats of mail, they advanced to battle. When the elephants of Bahrám Sháh charged, the two champions each singled out one; and creeping under the armour, they ripped open the bellies of the animals with their knives (sounds like a made up story). Kharmíl Sháh Banjí fell under the feet of the elephant, and the animal rolling upon him, they both perished together. Kharmíl Sám Husain brought down his elephant, extricated himself, and mounted a horse.

When 'Aláu-d dín had cased himself in armour ready for the fight, he called for an overcoat of red satin, which he put on over his armour. His attendants enquired why he did so, and he said, it was to prevent his men seeing his blood and feeling discouraged, in the event of his being wounded with a lance or arrow. It is the practice in the armies of Ghor for the infantry to protect themselves in battle with a covering made of a raw hide covered thickly on both sides with wool or cotton. This defensive covering is like a board, and is called károh. When the men put it on they are covered from head to foot, and their ranks look like walls. The wool is so thick that no weapon can pierce it. Daulat Sháh, son of Bahrám Sháh, advanced to the assault, mounted on an elephant at the head of his cavalry, and 'Aláu-d dín directed his károh-wearers to make an opening in their line, and allow the prince and his followers to pass through. When all had gone through the károh-wearers closed up the gap in their line, and the prince with his elephant and all his cavalry were slain. When the armies of Bahrám Sháh saw this manœuvre and its bloody result, they broke and fled.

The victor then entered Ghazní, and for seven nights and days he gave it to the flames. Writers record how that during these seven days the clouds of smoke so darkened the air that day seemed to be night, and the flames so lighted the sky at night that night looked like day. For these seven days plunder, devastation, and slaughter, were continuous. Every man that was found was slain, and all the women and children were made prisoners. Under the orders of the conqueror, all the Mahmúdí kings, with the exception of Mahmúd, Mas'úd, and Ibráhím, were dragged from their graves and burnt. All this time, 'Aláu-d dín sat in the palace of Ghazní occupied with drinking and debauchery. he destroyed all the palaces and edifices of the Mahmúdí kings, which had no equals in the world, and devastated all the territory which had belonged to that dynasty. While at Ghazní he had given directions that several of the Saiyids of that town should be taken in retaliation of Saiyid Majdu-d dín, wazír of Sultán Súrí, who was hanged with him from the bridge of Ghazní. These captives were brought into his presence, and bags filled with the dirt of Ghazní were fastened round their necks. They were thus led to Fíroz-koh, and there they were slain. Their blood was mixed with the earth they had carried from Ghazní, and with that mixture 'Aláu-d dín built some towers on the hills of Fíroz-koh, which are standing to this day.

Persian texts in translation

[Virendra]

Sure. I'm a Mertiya Rathore (offshoot from the Dhanesari branch). My gotra is "Akhar Singh" and the native village is in Nagaur.
Regards,
Virendra

i think there is a mixup here, Gotras are 8 onlee, following the name of 8 MahaRishis
never heard of "Akhar Singh" gotra, maybe its the name of the forefather.

Gotras are classified in more than one ways in Rajputs. But I know what you're talking about.
That way I belong to Gautam Rishi's 100th gotra.

@Rahul .. you may be right. It may have been referred as Kula earlier and later changed to Gotra. What I know is that presently they call it gotra. So that is why there are these 2 ways of classification.

Regards,
Virendra

[peter]

Please read tomlinson's page here and I find it convincing that it was a mosque. Not only this Tomlinson and Forbes rightly point out that even earlier the inscriptions at rohtas tell two divergent things (page 71 in the same book).

http://books.google.com/books?id=3ctLNv ... ue&f=false


I think Sarvesh has gotten it wrong.

The question isn't about it being a mosque, even Sarvesh admits that it is a mosque now.

Please see what it says on pg 73:

"In fact, local tradition holds that Raja Man Singh did not originally intend to construct a mosque, but a temple; Akbar, however, ordered that a mosque be built since such a structure would better suit the needs at hand"

Again "local tradition", no contemporary sources as pointed out by Sarvesh say anything about such an order coming from Akbar.

As Sarvesh points out this was intended to be a palace, converted into mosque by Man Singh. According to him a Dutch visitor who visited the palace area also recorded this ongoing process of conversion into a mosque whereas this book you linked was written centuries later.

I see a few problems:
a) Abul Fazal says that the place Man Singh built was called Akbarnagar.
b) Another contemporary source, Farid Bhakkari, says that Man Singh wanted to name it Rajanagar but on Akbar's order had to change it to Akbarnagar.
c) Sarvesh does not mention which Dutch traveller in what book mentions what he does.
d) Sarvesh does not make it clear the reason why local traidition should be discounted.

In conclusion I feel that if Akbar can order Man Singh to change the name from Rajnagar to Akbar Nagar so can he on the mosque.

[peter]

On rajputs seeking help from Mughals/Marathas/British: Please study the history of rajasthan and rajputs prior to Akbar becoming king and count how many times rajputs sought help from these two groups to sort their internal matters. And then count post Akbar.

See if you spot a difference.

a) Obvious thing, the Mughal Rajput alliance started with Akbar. Some of the Rajputs who fought with each other found a strong potential ally in Mughals and tried to have them on their side.

Well all of rajputana barring Sirohi and Mewar was under Akbar's employ. So it is not some. Which obviously begs a question that was there a situation before Akbar when most of rajputana was employed by a foreigner? If not why not?

b) What was once fewer stronger kingdoms, had decomposed into many more smaller weaker states.

This was not natural but forced upon the rajputs by their action of giving daughters to Mughals. That is by begging Akbar for help in their own internal matters rajputs allowed akbar to break them further. So it is not a cause rather the effect of the daughter diplomacy.

It isn't that individual Rajputs lost their character and valor by some black magic.

It is not about loosing valor rather how to behave when you face a tough situation. One road was taken by Pratap and the other by others. Once you see that your father bowed and accepted Mughal authority the son felt the "weight" of that decision and followed suit. And it was a domino effect. I am surprised you are not able to see this.

It was some rulers who took the decisions that stand criticized today. Power is projected by strong organization at macro levels. That is where the cement broke for Rajputs, not beneath it.

You will have to see whether your argument holds pre and post daughter giving. If there was no strong organization pre Akbar how can it be blamed post Akbar?

It isn't a joke that Pan India rulers one after the other - (Mughals and British) chose Rajputs as allies.

Well they were the kings so it is natural for incoming kings to deal with them rather then the common man.

I'm sure that our coming generations a century or two later, would be blaming us for fighting with Pakistan and not forming a grand alliance in South Asia. Who knows what they'll read and how they'll interpret these times?
We can and have always scrutinized history with our narrow prisms and pointing fingers becomes a natural reaction.

No. One can do an analysis and see how the decisions of various kings fared. Let us take Amber as an example. Within a few decades of Man Singh's death Amber kings were degraded to a Mansab of 800 at the mughal court. Their territory was shrunk, they were afraid of sending their sons and grand sons to serve under the mughals for the fear of assasination.
So if you were an Amber king in late 17th century your life was real hell.
On the other hand the rulers of Mewar had a far higher bargaining power with the Mughal even in late 17th century.

Your explanations about Marathas asking for chauth etc are truths no doubt but they don't explain why rajputs did'nt refuse it. After all the size of rajput army did not matter when hammir was trying to battle the sultans of Delhi to regain Chittor, neither did it matter to Pratap when he was fighting Akbar.

What happened that all of sudden we have entire rajasthan barring Pratap, bows to Akbar, subsequently to Marathas and then to brits and becomes gulaam?

I've said many times earlier and will say for the last time. It was each on his own in Rajputana against the Mughals.
Every leader had to take a decision as a statesman of his people. Some made it a matter of life and death while others didn't.

Question is that before Akbar did most all rajputs ally with a foreign invader? Ever?Answer is no! Akbar's forces smashed Hindu temples (so did the forces of Jahangir, Shah Jahan etc) and they were led by Rajput generals. What do you think caused rajputs to not revolt against such attacks on their religion?

We did not hear about hammirs or prataps anymore. There must be a reason for this change in behavior.

There's nothing to deny that Rajputs as a political power and a cohseive/seamless military power had weakened considerably. But Hammirs and Prataps tussle with the Mughals was not of chauths. For the ones that came later, it was of chauths with Marathas. In which case would you more likely go for an all out war?

I think you have misunderstood. Chauth signifies lack of independence. The reason Pratap did not bow to Akbar is because he did not want to loose his freedom. So rajputs had some how started feeling that freedom either can not be had or it is ok to be under some yoke. This is very alien to the character of rajput of old.

Rajputs were not machines. They were always under pressure from all sides - islamic invasions from north west and hostile cousins at the remaining sub continent. Yet it is important to understand that we do not single out and blame one party.

Well Pratap blamed rest of the rajputs barring Sirohi and so did a lot of Charans who were not in the employ of Pratap! This sums up the feelings of common man towards their leaders. Just to give one sample:

Nar Jeth Nimana Nilji Naari
Akbar Gahak Bat Abat |
Chaohate Tin Jayar Chittoro
Beche Kim Rajput Bat |

Rough translation: All those rajputs who had given daughters to Mughals had lost their Kshatriyahood.

Would you mind telling us what clan do you belong to?

Sure. I'm a Mertiya Rathore (offshoot from the Dhanesari branch). My gotra is "Akhar Singh" and the native village is in Nagaur.
Now, may I know the reason of your interest? And who are you by the way? Only in case you're interested in replying with honesty please.

I was getting an impression that you are defending "somebody" and now it seems that may be true. Perhaps you either don't think what Mota Raja did was all that bad or perhaps since you owe allegiance to the Jodhpur house you don't want to criticise them. I do feel this is a recurrent pattern in rajasthan. Depending upon which clan one talks to either they don't think giving of daughters as a big deal, for all the reasons mentioned in this thread, or they totally slam it. For example very small number of clans go as far as saying that rajasthan has had no Rajput king since Pratap!

[vishvak]

Perhaps you either don't think what Mota Raja did was all that bad or perhaps since you owe allegiance to the Jodhpur house you don't want to criticise them. I do feel this is a recurrent pattern in rajasthan. Depending upon which clan one talks to either they don't think giving of daughters as a big deal, for all the reasons mentioned in this thread, or they totally slam it. For example very small number of clans go as far as saying that rajasthan has had no Rajput king since Pratap!

For the most part, a barbaric King breaking temples and making people do things by sword only indicates how bad things could be in the name of God. To me this is more about how barbaric Mughals were and nothing more.

If a criminal with a gun breaks into a home at gunpoint and loots and claims all for himself, it doesn't make home-owner any worse, unless judged by the equation barbarism=civility. It only makes the criminal clearly an uncivilized self-aggrandizing bloodthirsty warmonger. I would rather judge the criminal with brute force without remorse and sympathies the one who lost his home. Just an analogy.

[Virendra]

This was not natural but forced upon the rajputs by their action of giving daughters to Mughals. That is by begging Akbar for help in their own internal matters rajputs allowed akbar to break them further. So it is not a cause rather the effect of the daughter diplomacy.

So before that Akbar was too weak to dominate Rajput Kings?

It is not about loosing valor rather how to behave when you face a tough situation. One road was taken by Pratap and the other by others. Once you see that your father bowed and accepted Mughal authority the son felt the "weight" of that decision and followed suit. And it was a domino effect. I am surprised you are not able to see this.

I don't deny that it happened. My argument is on why and how.
While political unity was a rare commodity all over India, even then theoritically assuming if all the rajputs had chosen Pratap's way, IMO one of the two things could've happened:
1. They fight the Mughals on their own, get killed in battle and the entire Rajputana turns into a ravaged graveyard like the fallen Chittor fort, which includes civilians of all caste creed, women and children. Either they die or become muslims.
2. They somehow miracuously survive to some extent and eventually realize the importance of unity coupled with diplomacy. Then they fight back with a united front and may be get to hold their ground that way.
You expect a small Rajput kingdom to fight with a Mughal emperor's army?
Very well .. however suicidal, lets say militarily they do it and every soldier dies fighting. What happens to the massive civil population women and children? Thousand or lakhs of people perhaps .. another Chittor massacre?

It isn't a joke that Pan India rulers one after the other - (Mughals and British) chose Rajputs as allies.

Well they were the kings so it is natural for incoming kings to deal with them rather then the common man.

I think you use the terms "gulaam" and "Kings negotiation" interchangeably according to your convenience and differentiate between rulers and common rajputs also in the same inconsistent fashion.

I'm sure that our coming generations a century or two later, would be blaming us for fighting with Pakistan and not forming a grand alliance in South Asia. Who knows what they'll read and how they'll interpret these times?
We can and have always scrutinized history with our narrow prisms and pointing fingers becomes a natural reaction.

No. One can do an analysis and see how the decisions of various kings fared. Let us take Amber as an example. Within a few decades of Man Singh's death Amber kings were degraded to a Mansab of 800 at the mughal court. Their territory was shrunk, they were afraid of sending their sons and grand sons to serve under the mughals for the fear of assasination.
So if you were an Amber king in late 17th century your life was real hell.
On the other hand the rulers of Mewar had a far higher bargaining power with the Mughal even in late 17th century.

I'm referring to the difference in mindset/perception and contextual understanding. For example some people nit pick one medieval Indian Kingdom/Dynasty and paint on it the blame of betraying the country and letting outsiders in, whatever happened to the fact that there wasn't a "one nation", a "political entity" called India back then. that a point of betraying it would arise. It was a loose colony of states warring each other relentlessly and the states politically behaved on those compulsions only.
The same attitude lives today and the same policies decisions take place. Similar could the results and similar could be the blames laid later on.

Question is that before Akbar did most all rajputs ally with a foreign invader? Ever?Answer is no! Akbar's forces smashed Hindu temples (so did the forces of Jahangir, Shah Jahan etc) and they were led by Rajput generals. What do you think caused rajputs to not revolt against such attacks on their religion?

So the decomposition happened in one day or one ruler's time? Are you serious?
It happened gradually and slowly. The reason its effects were visible in Akbar's time is because before Akbar no permanently settled Kingdom of India was so strongly challenging Rajputs and hence the cracks of political unity weren't exposed before.
In the initial centuries there weren't so many Rajput Kingdoms that the point of infighting would arise. Just a couple and very powerful Kingdoms and hence accordingly only a couple cases of infighting - Jaichand vs. PrithviRaj.
Going further back in Bappa Rawal's times will give best results, when they defeated and chased the Arabs out.
Pride has an evil side of individualism. Rajputs were doomed because of this individualism. The extremely branched clan system became a point of ego clashes among Rajputs.

I think you have misunderstood. Chauth signifies lack of independence. The reason Pratap did not bow to Akbar is because he did not want to loose his freedom. So rajputs had some how started feeling that freedom either can not be had or it is ok to be under some yoke. This is very alien to the character of rajput of old.

Firstly me, you or any other mortal in this world cannot know what some rulers "FELT" in a situation centuries earlier so don't be judgemental. Second, it may have been the character of a ruler to save his throne but not of the Rajput community as a whole. Which is why I wanted to know about you .. that if you're a psyche who can read minds? But you haven't yet spilled the beans.

I was getting an impression that you are defending "somebody" and now it seems that may be true. Perhaps you either don't think what Mota Raja did was all that bad or perhaps since you owe allegiance to the Jodhpur house you don't want to criticise them. I do feel this is a recurrent pattern in rajasthan. Depending upon which clan one talks to either they don't think giving of daughters as a big deal, for all the reasons mentioned in this thread, or they totally slam it. For example very small number of clans go as far as saying that rajasthan has had no Rajput king since Pratap!

Despite of being at odds in my lack of historical knowledge I've tried my best to maintain utmost reason and decency in the debate and now you don't like my defending?
I don't have allegiance to any royal house, heck I don't even the know the man properly enough to defend him. I have allegiance to my people, irrespective of their caste creed or religion.
I don't support the political decisions of the likes of Mota Raja as far as it lead to a family feud's exploitation by an external party. It was a royal family and their decisions had impact on their Kingdom. If you're arguing that his action led to Mughal dominance over Merta I agree to that. But what would've happened if he hadn't done it?
Would the Merta army increase many fold just by that? I don't know, what I know is that another Chittor massacre could've been due on the people of Merta.
Like I said, politically the Rajput rulers may have given way to Mughals for whatever reason. They had local sovereignty and most importantly, most evidently they were able to save their people despite of a divided Rajputana lying in centre of hostile territory for centuries. Where would it have stopped for a breed which wanted to gulp everything unislamic in its way? Do you think that Rajputs as a people as a community would've survived a millennia without able and courageous leadership? Now when the many times strong and suppressive dynasty is no where to be found .. the Mughal people are nowhere to be found? Who is the ultimate winner?
By the way, I can't say of the past but present Rajput society doesn't have blind faith in the royal families. They judge the royal families with reason. It is time to be judging the MPs and MLAs instead.

FYI .. I'm closing my participation in this debate as there's nothing new for me to add now and we're going round in circles. But it was nice learning some facts and perspective of history and I thank you for that.

Regards,
Virendra

[Sanku]

While political unity was a rare commodity all over India, even then theoritically assuming if all the rajputs had chosen Pratap's way, IMO one of the two things could've happened:
1. They fight the Mughals on their own, get killed in battle and the entire Rajputana turns into a ravaged graveyard like the fallen Chittor fort, which includes civilians of all caste creed, women and children. Either they die or become muslims.

Yes the men could have all died, the women committed Jauhar, and laid the country to waste and took down a great part of Mogol army with them.

Perhaps Amber could have some honor left.

No one talks about Man Singh any more but to mock him.

The people who are remembered are Pratap and Shivaji, no one sings songs for Man Singhs.

The less said about Shiladityas the better.

===============

Actually if instead of being "traders and compromisers" Amber could have allied with Mewar and Marwar and fought the "good fight" -- they would have won.

Sorry you are defending the indefensible. No need, your and mine ancestors could have made mistakes, we can accept them and swear to correct those by our actions now. This way we will free them from their "krun" as well. That will be the true tarpan.

[Airavat]

^^^Neither Mewar nor Marwar came to Amber's aid when they were facing the Suri sultanate, or the Mughal empire. In the Mughal-Mewar conflict they were actually suspected by the Mughals of sparing their efforts against Pratap.

Large kingdoms with plenty of strategic depth, like Mewar and Marwar, cannot be compared with a small principality like Amber which falls in the same category as Jaisalmer, Bundi, Sirohi, etc.

[Virendra]

Yes the men could have all died, the women committed Jauhar, and laid the country to waste and took down a great part of Mogol army with them.

Perhaps Amber could have some honor left.

No one talks about Man Singh any more but to mock him.


The less said about Shiladityas the better.

===============

Actually if instead of being "traders and compromisers" Amber could have allied with Mewar and Marwar and fought the "good fight" -- they would have won.

Sorry you are defending the indefensible. No need, your and mine ancestors could have made mistakes, we can accept them and swear to correct those by our actions now. This way we will free them from their "krun" as well. That will be the true tarpan.

I am accepting them reasonably and the next point (which is unquoted) covered the same. I'm only looking at two sides of a coin.
Neither I've criticized fighting Mughals nor the Jauhars. I would've wanted the rulers to do the same thing, unite and fight. What I'm against here is the effort to paint the blots of a few rulers all over the community.

The people who are remembered are Pratap and Shivaji

And also the Surtans - Maharao Surtan Singh Deora had refused to bow to the Mughal emperor and ruled independently from Achalgarh fort.

^^^Neither Mewar nor Marwar came to Amber's aid when they were facing the Suri sultanate, or the Mughal empire. In the Mughal-Mewar conflict they were actually suspected by the Mughals of sparing their efforts against Pratap.

Yes it is being said that there was no way Maharana on an injured horse could've escaped the cavalry after him if the Amber Rajput generals had not forbidden the chase.

Large kingdoms with plenty of strategic depth, like Mewar and Marwar, cannot be compared with a small principality like Amber which falls in the same category as Jaisalmer, Bundi, Sirohi, etc.

But then Sirohi did resist.

Regards,
Virendra

[Airavat]

^^^Sirohi was geographically shielded in the far southwest of the Aravalli range, with Mewar blocking any advancing enemy from the Gangetic plains. Pressure on Sirohi grew after Gujarat was conquered by Akbar, as it opened up access from the south.

In any case, Sirohi wasn't permanently allied with Mewar. From the Sirohi district website:

During the reign of Rao Sahashmall, the famous Rana Kumbha of Mewar attacked and conquered Abu, Vasanthgarh and area adjoining Pindwara. Rana Kumbha renovated a castle in Vasanthgarh and also a tank and a temple at Kumbhaswami near the shrine of Achaleshwar in the year 1452 A.D. Rao Lakha succeeded Sahashmall and tried to liberate the region at Abu with the help of Qutbuddin, the sultan of Gujarat who was also unfriendly with Kumbha. But Lakha failed to get his territory back.

There is no such thing as permanent submission or a permanent alliance. History is not all about personalities, as the discussion seems to be going here, but more about resources, geography, military technology, and organization.

[Sanku]

What I'm against here is the effort to paint the blots of a few rulers all over the community.

That is certainly unwelcome, and I certainly acknowledge that a lot of Rajputs did ally as a temporary tactical measure (a reverse taquia) and broke the alliance as soon as possibility existed. Specifically: Bundelkhand does have many such examples.

However the issue is specifically the damage that was cause by the practice of giving away daughters. That was really a low point.

Large kingdoms with plenty of strategic depth, like Mewar and Marwar, cannot be compared with a small principality like Amber which falls in the same category as Jaisalmer, Bundi, Sirohi, etc.

Then Amber should have accepted the suzerainty of one of the other two as last resort rather than that of Mughals, because you missed a crucial aspect here --

History is not all about personalities, as the discussion seems to be going here, but more about resources, geography, military technology, and organization.

We are not talking personalities, we are talking "Ideologies" -- the "names" that are taken are considered great because of the ideology they rallied behind, and not the other way around.

A lot of Indians, including rulers of Rajputra and other Vasihya, Khastriya and Brahmin clans (I am not singling any one out) -- did FAIL to see the essential "civilizational" conflict and merely treated the issue like Geo-politics (minus ideology) of the usual sort (resources, geography, military technology, and organization)

Those who managed to see the next level after geo-politics, managed to create legacies which were far more enduring, even if reduced to sizes lower than a principality of Amber at its lowest ebb.

[Airavat]

Then Amber should have accepted the suzerainty of one of the other two

They did. Prithviraj Kachwaha of Amber fought alongside Maharana Sanga, in the Battle of Khanua. But the favour was not returned, as Mewar did not come to Amber's aid either against the Delhi Sultante of Sher Shah or the Mughal empire of Akbar. They were left to fend for themselves.

Yes the men could have all died, the women committed Jauhar, and laid the country to waste and took down a great part of Mogol army with them.

When the Mughals attacked Chittor, the Sisodia rulers did not stay to fight and die in jauhar, but relocated to the west. Chittor was defended by Jaimal, the Rathore ruler of Merta.

In the Battle of Haldighati, Pratap did not stay to fight and die, but escaped to Gogunda. When that place was besieged by the Mughals, Pratap did not think of jauhar, and instead escaped to Kumbhalgarh fort. Mewar was a huge kingdom with numberless forts sitting astride the Aravalli range, affording plenty of depth to draw in the invaders, create ambuscades, and carry out guerrilla warfare. The principality of Amber did not have such strategic depth, sandwiched as it was between the Mughal territories of Delhi in the north and Ajmer in the south. Moreover the Aravallis here are small hillocks with no forest cover.

[Sanku]

Then Amber should have accepted the suzerainty of one of the other two

They did. Prithviraj Kachwaha of Amber fought alongside Maharana Sanga, in the Battle of Khanua. But the favour was not returned, as Mewar did not come to Amber's aid either against the Delhi Sultante of Sher Shah or the Mughal empire of Akbar. They were left to fend for themselves.

Correct me if I am wrong, but that was a alliance, not a suzerainty. Only a short term tactical arrangement. I am talking about accepting the Mewar Maharana as overlord, permanently stationing nobles and important chiefs in that court, and mutually defending the common border and willing to risk extinction of your clan if need be.

Would you like to mention why Mewar would not come to aid of Amber? What was the exact correspondences and so on and so forth?

BTW, as a aside, I have read most of your blog and all your posts on BRF with great intrests, and I will be the first to acknowledge that I have learnt a great deal from you have shared. I say this to ensure that there is no misunderstanding during discussions that happen.

Yes the men could have all died, the women committed Jauhar, and laid the country to waste and took down a great part of Mogol army with them.

When the Mughals attacked Chittor, the Sisodyia rulers did not stay to fight and die in jauhar, but relocated to the west. Chittor was defended by Jaimal, the Rathore ruler of Merta.

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

Yes I know, but forgive me, I fail to see the point, the overall point is compromise/capitulation vs annihilation/retreat.

Irrespective of which clan made the supreme sacrifice on that day, the overall issue still holds.

There are other examples in Bundelkhand, Vijaynagar area as well (documented on this thread by yourself and on the Forts thread) -- where Rajput rulers if they were forced to compromise with Turkusha outsiders, did so very unwillingly, broke the pact soon, and often faced total annihilation.

All of them had similar issues as Amber, of small size of principality, often the primary overlords were too far and could not (did not) help.

So with conditions similar to Amber, other clans have made other choices. Amber is particularly singled out, since the understanding of the Rajputs of Amber of India, of other Rajputs and warfighting skills went a long way in supporting Mughal powers, the other pre-Mughal (pre Akbar) Islamic Turuksha's could never really hold and consolidate because there really never were supported by a strong Indian principal.

It is Amber which gave the Mogols three generation of overlordship over India, and real acceptability and power -- this alliance was in no small measure built on compromises such as giving daughters away.

Only when Amber switched back, did the Mughal power fall again.