Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 23 Apr 2014 21:06

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2238 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2012 10:49 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 796
Atri wrote:
peter wrote:
1. What were the salient difference between the two types of ceremonies? Would you know what caused the vedic ceremony to disappear in 1000 AD? Who did the vedic ceremeony around 1000 AD?

2. Also your earlier post on the clan of Jijabai and their assasination was not clear. Can you please elaborate?


1. Salient features of Vaidika method..

It ain't gadget.. :D Most of Hindu ceremonies are categorized into Vedokta style OR Shrauta style and PuraaNokta style.

Vedokta method of any ceremony (be it wearing an astrological jewel on right day, to Pratishthapna of deity's Moorti, to Regular Sandhyavandanam, to Marriage to death) is considered stringent than puraNokta method. [..]

Thank you! This makes it crystal clear.

Some more questions:
a) How do you know so much? Just read a lot or is there an oral tradition that exists where your family is from?

b) What can you say about the relationship of Jaswant Singh of Marwar and Shivaji? Is Jaswant singh present in contemporary Marathi sources?

c) Is there any mention of Durgadas in Marathi sources?

d) When Shivaji escaped from Delhi was Sambhaji left with Kavi Kalash in Mathura/Banaras?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2012 11:08 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 796
ramana wrote:
[..]
My question is who is the ishta devata (has to be some form of Kali)* of the Rajputs of Amber? And is the original sheesh mahal based on her worship or is it based on self gratification?

(Krishna Deva Raya's was Yellamma - chinnamasta devi or Lalita Devi)
-
[..]

A nice article on Kuladevis in rajputana though not sure how accurate it is. What do you guys think?
Quote:
A Rajput wedding is a grand affair. Out on a lawn and under a colorful tent men enjoy one another's company while sampling liquors and traditional spicy edibles. Most sport elegant turbans and long dark high-collared coats with light-colored breeches. Elsewhere, in the household apartments or perhaps in a courtyard, women also enjoy themselves. Wearing their finest Rajasthani dress, satin or chiffon heavily embroidered with gold threads, and their heirloom jewelry studded with gems and seed pearls, they exchange stories and repeatedly compliment their hostess. In time word passes from the men's celebration to the women's that the groom's procession has arrived. The women rush to a balcony or roof to see the groom; riding high atop a much decorated elephant he approaches with his entourage of male relatives.[1] If the sun has set, the procession is guided by kerosene lamps, which enhance the drama of the spectacle. Everyone seems happy and even thrilled—everyone but the bride.

During the first Rajput wedding I attended I was invited back into a bedroom to meet the bride, who was not participating in the festivities taking place in the outer parlor. When I entered the bedroom I found her quietly weeping amid several young friends and relatives, who alternated between sharing her grief and trying to cheer her up. I was surprised and said so. In my country, I explained, brides and their brides-
― 92 ―

maids spend the minutes before the wedding ceremonies giggling, preening, and teasing. My audience was incredulous. One asked, "You mean in the States girls aren't sad to leave their families?"

For Rajput girls, getting married not only means leaving the family; it also means leaving the familiar. In most cases both the people and the ways of the conjugal family are unknown. Thus a bride faces learning to love and respect a groom whom she has never met (her parents having chosen him for her) and, in so doing, learning to accept his familial customs, traditions, and gods. To a bride on her wedding day, this may be overwhelming.

Sad to leave her family, the bride is of course excited about the step she is taking. This is the biggest day of her life, the day she accepts the role of pativrata . Thus, while brides may be teary-eyed or withdrawn, in most cases they are not wholly negative about the idea of marriage; usually one can catch on their faces the occasional hint of a smile.[2] The night before they danced with their girlfriends to Rajasthani folk music and cheerfully, if anxiously, discussed the next day's events. On the whole, brides are not simply miserable; they are ambivalent.[3]

The dissonance a bride feels during her marriage ceremony is just the beginning. As the bride adjusts, she finds herself facing new conflicts, conflicts inherent in her role as Rajput pativrata . One place this is particularly apparent is in the bride's assumption of devotional responsibility for her conjugal family's kuldevi .
Kuldevis and Dissonance

Because when a woman marries she loses membership in her father's kul and becomes a member of her husband's kul , she is expected to worship the kuldevi who protects its members. Thus, the very first thing a bride must do when she enters her husband's household is to give respect (dhok ) to her new kuldevi .[4] This is a caste norm; every Rajput must loyally propitiate the kuldevi who has accompanied the family's kul into battle.
― 93 ―

Tension arises when a bride feels she cannot immediately, or sometimes even eventually, abandon her loyalty to the kuldevi associated with her parents' kul .[5] Having worshiped the kuldevi of her natal family throughout childhood, she may well find it hard to trade devotion to a beloved deity with proven powers for devotion to an unknown deity with unproven powers.[6] She may continue to venerate her natal family's goddess and perhaps feel entirely justified in doing so. She understands that the natal kuldevi will protect her in her new home by helping her to do her duty as a wife, which means protecting the welfare of her husband. Here arises a disjunction between the wife's Rajput caste-derived norm of worshiping the conjugal kuldevi and her gender-associated duty of protecting her husband to the best of her abilities.

The retention of primary loyalty to the old kuldevi is a potential source of friction between the bride and her husband's family. The reason is easily surmised. Like members of other Hindu castes, Rajputs generally live in extended families. More than members of other castes, Rajputs take brides from distant locations.[7] The explanation they usually offer is that this practice is a holdover from the times when Rajputs sought to make political alliances with many different states through the marriages of their daughters.[8]

Thus in a Rajput home with five sons there could well be five daughters-in-law hailing from diverse and distant locations. Each bride might be tempted to retain loyalty to her natal family's kuldevi . Under these circumstances it is difficult to see how the conjugal family's kuldevi could long continue to reflect kul unity and inspire solidarity. If daughters-in-law, the primary socializers of children, retain their old allegiances, the family's kuldevi tradition will disintegrate.

It is therefore far from surprising that mothers-in-law have pressed their daughters-in-law to express foremost loyalty to the conjugal
― 94 ―

family's kuldevi . As many women remarked, "A bride has no choice in the matter. She must worship her husband's kuldevi ." One might speculate that responding to such pressure a daughter-in-law would seek to find some way of worshiping the kuldevi of her conjugal family, thus demonstrating loyalty to husband and caste, while continuing to worship the kuldevi of her natal family, thus demonstrating faith in the old kuldevi 's capacity to protect her and in so doing help her protect her husband and family.

As it turns out, women have indeed approached and reconciled their conjugal and natal kul goddesses, and they have done so in various ways. Viewing these options will throw light on the subtler motivational indications of the kuldevi myths and stories with which we have already become familiar.

The first solution was revealed to me by an older noblewoman known throughout Udaipur's Rajput community for her piety. During her interview and in several subsequent conversations, she explained that it is possible and legitimate to reconceive one's natal kuldevi as an ishtadevta , a deity of choice. In her household temple she not only worships her husband's kuldevi (Ban Mata), she worships her father's kuldevi (Naganecha Ji), whose image is also present. She said that her father's kuldevi had become her ishtadevta and that as an ishtadevta the goddess protects not the kul but the family.[9] Thus by reclassification the woman has taken her natal kuldevi out of direct competition with her conjugal kuldevi .[10]

I find it particularly significant that this woman, considered a very traditional and venerable older lady by the community, offers a division-of-labor compromise unapologetically. At the very least it illustrates the same flexibility of interpretation apparent in the solutions utilized by other women.[11] Here as elsewhere the functions that two kuldevis perform are no more theoretically antagonistic than when one kuldevi performs them. What is important is that whereas the conjugal devi has
― 95 ―

two potentially conflicting loyalties, kul and family, the natal devi , brought in as a household goddess, has only one loyalty: the family, whose preservation is the foremost concern of her pativrata devotee. The kul , as I have said, is to a wife largely an abstraction, its operation being for the most part peripheral to her household-delimited life. She relegates the unknown conjugal kuldevi to the unfamiliar domain of kul , while the known kuldevi settles into the home that has replaced the natal household.

A second way women rationalize their retention of allegiance to the natal kuldevi is to identify both kuldevis with the Sanskritic Goddess (Devi, Shakti, Durga), of whom all other goddesses, they say, are forms or emanations. Just as all official kuldevis are homologized to the great Goddess on Navratri, the competing kuldevis are now both homologized to the Goddess, so that the tension between them is reduced. In interviews women frequently spoke of both goddesses as Shakti or Devi (Sanskritic names) and, if pressed about this, pointed out that ultimately the new kuldevi is the old kuldevi . Aptly summarizing this shared understanding, one noblewoman said that "all Rajputs worship Devi" and another that kuldevi forms differ, but their essence is one (kai rup hoti haim; sacmuc ek hi haim ).[12]

Thus a woman may call the new devi "kuldevi" but identify her with the old kuldevi , whose function in the new kul is family protection. This accommodation is facilitated by the fact that women typically worship the kuldevi in the form of her symbol, the trishul (trident). Because of this, they need little or no visual accommodation. Very few women have pictures of anthropomorphic kuldevi icons to ornament the goddess's zanana shrine. Such lithographs of devis as are commonly available for popular goddesses (such as that in fig. 16 or even those of local goddesses) in the bazaar are not, or perhaps not yet, commonly available for most kuldevis . Even in cases where they are available, the focus of veneration remains the trishul , the prominent representation of the goddess in most thapanas or household temples.[13] Hence, the Sanskritic transference remains particularly easy.

In short, the identification of both goddesses with the Sanskritic Goddess allows the identities of the two goddesses to merge one into the other; both may be subsumed within the identity of the Goddess, or one may subsume the identity of the other. Because the imagery of the fa-
― 96 ―

miliar tends to dominate the imagery of the unfamiliar, it is likely that in the short run the goddess homologized to Devi will be the old kuldevi functioning primarily as a household deity, even where the goddess's name remains that of the new kuldevi . In the long run, however, the bride's participation in the rituals for the new kuldevi and her absorption of the mythology belonging to the new kuldevi will allow for a gradual transformation.

A third situation is that in which the old kuldevi is retained as a kuldevi but given less observable status than the new kuldevi in terms of image (generally trishul ) location and ritual performance. When I visited the family shrines and temples of women whom I interviewed, quite often I found a kuldevi image flanked by images of other sakhi (companion) images. Sometimes these were kuldevis ; sometimes they were other local goddesses. In both cases the cohorts were worshiped but given less attention than the main kuldevi .[14]

In some of the kuldevi temples one can find a basket containing gold kuldevi pendants worn by now deceased members of the zanana (see fig. 18). As noted earlier, each pendant depicts a kuldevi in the company of six other, identical, kuldevis . Each kul gives its own kuldevi precedence but recognizes the importance of subordinate sister goddesses. The six sisters of the conjugal family's kuldevi take on aspects attributed them by the women wearing their images as pendants. Because the images are iconographically indistinguishable—all the devis are identical stick figures while Bheru, their male escort, is a diminutive stick figure at the end of the line—women can and usually do identify one of the companion figures with her natal family's kuldevi , then identify as many of the others as they can as kuldevis with whom they are familiar, their father's kuldevi often being first among these. The kuldevi forms, like their functions, are, quite simply, substitutable.

In sum, women have much opportunity to accommodate their old kuldevi tradition to the demands of the conjugal family.[15] Paradoxically, the flexibility that can soften the mandate that the new kuldevi replace the old also contributes to gradual religious accommodation. Eventually, modes of rebellion or even subconscious reconceptualization transmute at least partially into avenues of acceptance. It makes
― 97 ―

sense that over time, as the new daughter-in-law becomes better integrated into the household and learns about the domestic history of its kuldevi (such as the time the kuldevi cured an ailing husband or saved the family from financial ruin) she will become increasingly able to attribute to the new kuldevi a complete character. The conjugal kuldevi comes to protect not only the kul but also family, the bride's consuming concern. The family rituals in which the bride participates gradually take on more meaning, and hence inspire her faith, at the same time that her faith in the old kuldevi , who is now removed from the context of her family ritual, is weakening.

Up to this point I have not mentioned the woman who consciously tries to suppress any desire to worship her paternal kuldevi and other natal family gods. This omission may seem strange in view of the fact that most women vehemently express their desire to fulfill the expectations of their husbands' households (sasural s), but even those women who wholeheartedly commit themselves to accommodation must go through a time of adjustment. It is inconceivable that their resocialization can be instantaneous. Some women speak openly of the difficulty they had adapting to their new family traditions. At the very least, every woman brings into her marriage preconceptions that affect the way she understands and worships her conjugal family's gods. Without consciously attempting to alter interpretation of the traditions she will do so; she imports ways of seeing, understanding, and contextualizing from her experience in her natal family. Only time and experience can bring her interpretation more or less in line with the traditions shared by the family as a part of the kul .

The question remains whether all importation ultimately fades into accommodation. Clearly not. There are many conditions under which young wives' resistance frustrates their accommodation to an appreciable extent. For example, if there are several daughters-in-law in a family, the bulk of the responsibility for carrying out religious observances tends to fall disproportionately on the shoulders of the senior daughters-in-law. The younger ones, busy with caring for the youngest children in the extended family and perhaps engaged in performing chores less desirable (heavier and more time-consuming) than those performed by senior daughters-in-law, are farther from the context of religious tradition and at greater liberty to improvise. Mothers-in-law often complained to me that although their older daughters-in-law have followed the traditions, the younger ones are just not interested in learning. They sometimes attribute this to the changing times, in which the young are
― 98 ―

less interested in learning the proper ways of doing things than they used to be. The same lament, however, is heard about women of very different ages, young brides and women with grown children. The younger daughters-in-law, it appears, have always had greater freedom of interpretation than have their elders, on whom the preservation of family tradition most depends.

Another common condition in which resistance persists is when a mother-in-law dies before or not long after the marriage of her eldest son. In this case the senior daughter(s)-in-law has no time to learn the traditions of worship by women of the family. This possibility was pointed out to me by a Mewari noblewoman who said that her mother-in-law died at a relatively young age. When her mother-in-law's health first began to fail, she found to her surprise that she suddenly felt a strong sense of responsibility for learning all the tradition she could while her teacher was still alive. She noted with regret that people she knew of in similar situations did not necessarily feel this responsibility or did not feel it before it was too late.

As my informant's comment suggests, even if a relatively young bride has the opportunity to learn the proper traditions from servants or daughters of the household, she does not always do so. Lacking incentives, a bride may retain many of the ideas she brought from her natal family. The segregation of religious ritual means that she will have latitude in performing female rituals. Whether she intends to deviate from the traditional patterns of her in-laws or not, she has more opportunity to incorporate her own interpretations than would otherwise be the case.

A third context in which variation is likely to occur is that of the small family unit. If an extended family happens to be small or has splintered into separate households, the possibilities for conscious resistance or unconscious deviation are great because there are few elderly women around to instruct and guide in the ways of devotion.[16]

The presence in a family of daugher-in-law with unusual will power, charisma, or storytelling ability creates one more situation for variation. If she holds fast to the traditions of her natal family, she will disproportionately influence the religious ideas of other women in the family. The stories she tells may quickly merge with the religious lore of the family.[17]
― 99 ―

Thus the extent to which a young bride accommodates over time depends on her character, disposition, and circumstances. I treated these conditions separately and sequentially. A typical family, however, contains several or even many daughters-in-law, perhaps representing two or more generations; each daughter-in-law influences the tradition even as she accommodates to it. This reciprocity dilutes the influence any individual wields on a household's tradition yet also shows that tradition does subtly evolve, even in a large family whose current daughters-in-law consciously lean toward accommodation.

At the same time, we need not assume that in-marrying women bring an infinite store of traditions. Families prefer to intermarry with certain kul s they feel have sufficient status and prestige. Therefore, the kul -related legends and the family-related ritual variations that arrive with daughters-in-law may be repeatedly reintroduced. Various daughters-in-law in a family may share a single kul; kul s may trade daughters back and forth over generations.[18] Such reinforcement surely increases the chances for the gradual and subtle incorporation of exotic traditions.

Moreover, the evolution of all kuldevi mythology, particularly family kuldevi mythology, is facilitated by the way women transmit myth. One woman hears a myth from a second woman and then later recalls the story line but not necessarily its identification with a particular kuldevi . Still later, when she recounts the myth to her children, grandchildren, sisters-in-law, or daughters-in-law, she may end up telling it in association with the conjugal kuldevi . In this way myths are continuously introduced from the outside. There is no other likely means to account for the striking similarity of family-related kuldevi narratives. Furthermore, this process affects kul -related mythology. It undoubtedly accounts for some changes within the mythic traditions of kul and state. To test this hypothesis, let us examine the evidence within the foundation myths.
― 100 ―

One of the most striking aspects of kul -related tales is their tendency to incorporate alternative themes—either in twin variants or within the same variant. We have already considered the first theme: the founding of a dynasty in association with the granting of victory by a kuldevi to a king and his kul . But the myths also speak of a kuldevi as coming to her new kingdom because she wishes to escort a bride marrying into the royal family.

Both themes occur in the story of the Sisodiya conquest of Girnar. Recall that the victorious Maharana weds a Gujarati princess who has fallen in love with him. The princess's kuldevi is Ban Mata. After the wedding, Ban Mata accompanies the princess to the Sisodiya capital. The myth gives Ban Mata's relationship with the princess as the reason for her decision to become the protector of Mewar. The bridal theme conveys the conflicting loyalties that a girl feels when leaving her home after marriage. The notion that the princess cannot bear to leave her protectress behind is conveyed by the kuldevi 's refusal to leave her. Having arranged for the victory of the Maharana in order to precipitate his marriage to the princess, the kuldevi has no intention of abandoning her. Hence Mewar receives a windfall profit: the guardianship of Ban Mata (see fig. 12).

This account comfortably accepts the idea that a kuldevi can come to a kingdom through marriage and even goes so far as to say that Ban Mata usurps the position of the former kuldevi , Kalika Mata, who is still actively worshiped as a Sisodiya guardian by visitors to Chitor.[19] In fact, located where it is, in the center of the group of monuments to which Chitor visitors flock, Kalika Mata's temple is much better attended than the small temple to Ban Mata, situated in the midst of the still inhabited part of Chitor where visitors rarely come.[20]

This bridal motif recurs throughout kuldevi mythology. Not every recurrence, however, includes the complete usurpation of a conjugal kuldevi 's position. As we saw in the discussion of brides' accommodation to the traditions of their sasural s, a kuldevi can fit into the sasural 's tradition without divesting the conjugal kuldevi of her title. There is the well-known story of a Marwari princess who marries the Maharana of
― 101 ―

Mewar. After the ceremonies have been completed and the princess is preparing to leave her parents' home, the Rathaur kuldevi , Naganecha Ji, hops into one of the baskets containing items for the dowry and remains hidden there until the long journey to Mewar is over. When the basket is unpacked, the stowaway kuldevi is discovered and dispatched back to Marwar. Later, however, Naganecha Ji again makes her way to Mewar and her beloved princess. Again she is sent home. Every time she travels back to Mewar she is discovered and returned. Eventually the sasural becomes resigned to her presence and begins to venerate her but continues to reserve its chief place of honor for Ban Mata.

This myth asks, may the kuldevi come along or must she stay home? Convention requires renunciation, but the princess and Naganecha Ji are inseparable. In the end, rebellion is defused and institutionalized. The kuldevi is relegated to an honorable but subordinate position. Today in the Ban Mata Temple of the Udaipur City Palace one can still see something of the mythic accommodation made.[21] Ban Mata retains her superiority. She is surrounded by an elaborate pantheon of attendant deities. The image of Naganecha Ji, however, is nowhere to be seen. When I inquired about Naganecha Ji in Ban Mata's temple, an elderly priest (pujari ) explained to me that she is now kept in a closed chest (tijori ). She is taken out for public viewing (darshan ) only on designated holidays.[22] The priest said that she is to be venerated along with the great saints (pirs ) who are connected with snakes and snakebite.[23] Because Naganecha Ji's animal form (rup ) is a snake, she is venerated by some devotees as a goddess who can prevent and cure snakebite. Hence her services as a kuldevi have been specified and delimited; to the Sisodiyas she is not a full-fledged kuldevi , as she is to the Rathaurs. The worship of Naganecha Ji in Mewar has become calendrically contextualized and minimally important in the daily routine of temple ritual. It is possible that Naganecha Ji's stature has gradually diminished. In any case, the myth of Naganecha Ji suggests that her intrusion has been understood as significant and at least partially successful.[24]
― 102 ―

To whatever extent the veneration of Naganecha Ji has infiltrated palace ritual, her myth demonstrates both the dissonance an in-marrying bride experiences and the challenge this dissonance may present to the ritual and mythic traditions of the husband's sasural . More important, it affirms the proposition that a bride's kuldevi may subtly or even drastically alter the devotional life of the sasural . The myth about Naganecha Ji and Ban Mata presents this alteration as partial; the myth about Ban Mata and Kalika Mata presents it as complete. These myths suggest specific historical changes in kuldevi tradition. But even if the myths do not show specific historical changes, they reflect a general consensus that although a kuldevi comes to a kul by presenting herself to the king at a time of crisis and then receives reverence from the families in the king's kul , a kuldevi may also come to the kul via the zanana , where she may partly or wholly supplant a preexisting kuldevi .

Standing in between the position of Ban Mata when she supplants Kalika Mata and that of Naganecha Ji when she joins Ban Mata as a clandestine attendant is Shila Mata, who could loosely be called the unofficial kuldevi of the Kachvahas of Jaipur. As we have seen, the official Kachvaha kuldevi is Jamvai Mata who first appears to the Kachvahas as a life-granting cow. Many of the Kachvaha women I interviewed, however, listed Shila Mata as their kuldevi .

The myth of Shila Mata, which is well known in Jaipur (much better known, even to the Kachvahas, than the myth of Jamvai Mata) is inscribed on a plaque outside her temple in the pre-Jaipur Kachvaha capital, Amber next hit. The plaque gives two accounts of Shila Mata's appearance to the Kachvahas. The first is detailed; the second seems something of an afterthought.

The detailed account states that during the last quarter of the sixteenth century the great Man Sinh, Maharaja of the Kachvahas, unsuccessfully fought King Kedar in East Bengal. Frustrated, Man Sinh prayed to Kali, who granted him a vision, promised him victory, and exacted from him a promise that he would retrieve a stone image of her from the bottom of the sea. After his victory, Man Sinh fetched this image and
― 103 ―

brought it back with him to previous hit Amber next hit, where it became known as Shila Mata, the "Stone Goddess."

This account accords with the pattern described early in this chapter: a king is in trouble, a goddess appears to him in a vision, the king is victorious, and he adopts the goddess. The second account, however, conforms to the alternate pattern that has evolved: the kuldevi accompanies a young bride to her new home at the time of marriage and then wins acceptance there. This explanation of the arrival of Shila Mata holds that when King Kedar conceded defeat, he bestowed his daughter upon Man Sinh. At the marriage ceremonies he presented to Man Sinh the image of the goddess Jessoresvari, who came to be known as Shila Devi. Thus, like Ban Mata and Naganecha Ji, Shila Mata does not abandon her protection of the princess but rather establishes herself in the princess's sasural .

Shila Devi has been a formidable rival to Jamvai Mata. She has occupied an important place in the realms of state ritual and family worship. It would now be unlikely for her to usurp the status of Jamvai Mata. Modern records and communications being what they are, it is difficult to imagine a complete displacement of one kuldevi by another. Furthermore, because the institution of kingship has ended, it is doubtful that there could be an official (ceremonial or informal and gradual) kuldevi adoption that would be binding on a kul or kul subdivision. Nevertheless, in the minds of some individual Kachvaha women (whom other Kachvahas may think of as "misinformed"), Shila Mata has either taken over or encroached on the position of Jamvai Mata as kuldevi of the Kachvahas. In addition, the prominence of Shila Mata in the consciousness of both male Kachvahas and non-Rajput residents of Jaipur alike suggests that the general public believes she has appropriated a kuldevi -like status for herself, even though it technically or ultimately reserves for Jamvai Mata the appellation "kuldevi."

One reason that Shila Mata possesses such popularity is that she fits far better than Jamvai Mata the mold of kul goddess. Jamvai Mata, the myth goes, is a vegetarian teetotaler. One variant concludes that she is a Brahman—and this despite the fact that she was previously the kuldevi of a carnivorous tribe. Shila Mata, however, is a meat-eating, wine-drinking goddess like other Rajput kuldevis . Consumption of meat and alcohol by Rajputs is traditionally justified (even though they have high-caste status) by the notion that both foods stimulate strength and passion, which are essential for battle. A goddess who abstains from, and even disapproves of, meat and wine is an odd war goddess indeed. Moreover, because Jamvai Mata abstains, Kachvahas give to Shila Mata
― 104 ―

the sacrificial (blood) offerings of Navratri. While they also celebrate the festival at jamvai Mata's temple, they do so without the traditional offerings. Thus although both goddesses are homologized to the bellicose Durga, whose main text, the Devimabatmya , is read in almost all goddess temples on Navratri, it is Shila Mata who accepts the actual blood offerings that Durga requires in her temples and that Rajput kuldevis receive elsewhere in theirs.[25] The Shila-Durga homology is simply more direct and explicit than the Jamvai-Durga one—Shila replaces the official kuldevi during the most important Rajput holiday.

What may give Shila Mata additional appeal to Kachvahas, and especially to Kachvaha women, is that the mythology of Shila Mata amply expresses the complexity and fluidity of kuldevi character. She is a full-fledged kul -protecting warrior goddess as well as a protector of brides as they assume their roles as pativratas . Although the myth of Jamvai Mata incorporates both martial motifs and maternal iconography, it does so without explicit reference to her entry into the zanana (fig. 20). It may be that there was such a myth in the past but it is also likely that no such version existed, not least because the tribal origins of the goddess would make a marriage scenario significantly less plausible.[26] In short, the Jamvai Mata myth seems incomplete.

A final element of the Shila Mata myth bears contemplating. The first version of the myth explicitly identifies Shila Mata with Kali. This Sanskritic homology facilitates the introduction of the alien goddess into the palace. That Shila Mata is understood as Kali as well as Kedar's kuldevi is clear when we view the two Shila myths together. Because Jamvai Mata is similarly, though less fully, homologized to the Goddess, the possibility of competition between the goddesses can be dismissed
― 105 ―

image
[Full Size]

20.
Jamvai Mata, the Kachvaha kuldevi
(oil painting from the home of Mohan Sinh of Kanota).
― 106 ―

as illusory on the ideological level while being actualized on the sociological level.

Thus we can at the very minimum surmise that kuldevi worship is closely tied to both the kul experience of conquering a new land and the female experience of entering a new family. It is pointless to debate the "true" origins of particular kuldevis . Whether the goddesses actually appear in conjunction with the conquest of new peoples, marriages, or combinations of both, the myths reveal an understanding of the zanana as a locus of religious change.

Hence, in sociological and mythic terms Rajput marriage entails various arbitrations between competing female roles, be they those of women or of kuldevis . Whatever the nature of the adjustment women make, we should not mistake it for something permanent. The tension in evidence at the time of marriage resurfaces during other specific instances when women encounter important social changes. We can best understand this by placing the twofold conception of kuldevi duty against the backdrop of male ideals, for when men actively pursue ultimate Rajput aims, the complementarity of female roles (both women's and kuldevis ') may quickly dissolve. Investigating the connection between traditional male and female motivations will help us understand the way in which women interpret their continually evolving pativrata duty. Moreover, it will allow us to trace the conceptual means by which the traditional understanding of kuldevi protection has adapted to the contemporary context of Rajput society.
Traditional Male and Female Motivations

The traditional goals of a Rajput man are two: conquest and death on the battlefield. The relation between these two roughly reflects that between the social and the individual. As a Rajput, a man works for the glorification of the king and the vitality of the kingdom he serves. He also strives for personal salvation, a place in warrior heaven (virgati ) guaranteed by death in battle. These goals, formulated during a bygone era but still espoused and acknowledged by Rajput nobility, mutually reinforce each other. Victory is the social goal of the hero (vir ) seeking personal salvation in death.[27]

A Rajput woman, as we have seen, aspires to preserve her husband's life. At the same time, she understands that her pativrata duty requires
― 107 ―

her not only to preserve her husband but also to serve him and be obedient to him. She must sacrifice her personal desires to fulfill the desires of her husband. Thus, if her husband wishes to die a glorious death on the battlefield, she again experiences dissonance. As her husband's protector, she cannot logically support her husband's desire to attain death—she hopes for victory and life. Whereas in the abstract she can support the notion that Rajput soldiers should sacrifice their lives on the battlefield so that families might be protected and can understand that such sacrifice is his duty, she cannot wholeheartedly will that her husband sacrifice his life, for it is her duty to preserve him and his family. Thus the prospect of a difficult battle has always carried with it the dilemma of conflicting loyalties.

The warrior-pativrata character of kuldevis reflects this dilemma. In the foundation myths presented above, however, the bellicose aspect of the kuldevi , which is suggested by her wild animal form, is softened by domestic maternal motifs. We must not mistake the presence of these motifs for any compromise in the kuldevi 's belligerence. The martial and the marital aspects coexist in the goddess who serves as guardian. To protect, she requires both loving devotion and bloody sacrifice.[28]

This twofold demand emerges in the Bukh Mata (Hungry Mother) narrative recorded by Colonel Tod.[29] The account is a vignette from his story of the Sisodiyas' second battle against the Muslim conqueror Alaud-din, who was determined to conquer Chitor, the capital city. As the tale goes, one night the Sisodiya king was resting from a discouraging day on the battlefield when he heard a voice that came from thin air. It groaned, "I'm hungry." Just then his kuldevi appeared. The king asked her why she was not satisfied with the eight thousand Rajputs who had already sacrificed their lives to her in battle. She replied that she wanted kings: "I must have regal victims; and if twelve who wear the diadem bleed not for Cheetore, the land will pass from the line." The next night she again appeared to the king, who was then in the company of his council. She said she would remain as their protector only on the condition that the king crown each of his sons and then send them out alone to die in battle. The king carried out her orders until only one of his twelve sons remained alive. At that point he himself rode out into battle to die, so that his son would live to preserve the royal line.
― 108 ―

This Bukh Mata story portrays the kuldevi as a devourer of her devotees.[30] That her consumption of them is understood as acceptance of human sacrifice is even clearer in the story of a human sacrifice at the later Sisodiya capital of Kumbhalgarh (see figs. 2, 3). While visiting the ruins of Kumbhalgarh, I came across a small stone shrine honoring a soldier who had volunteered to be killed as a sacrifice (balidan ) to Durga.[31] The sacrifice was necessary to ensure that the battle walls being constructed by Maharana Kumbha would be strong enough to withstand sieges. The soldier was ritually decapitated, and his head rolled down from the high ground upon which the sacrifice took place to a low spot, where the shrine was constructed. His Rajput blood gave the fortress its strength.[32]

By taking Rajput lives, the warrior kuldevi frustrates the pativrata purpose of husband-protection and so contradicts the domestic kuldevi function. Thus, the prospect of a husband's death in battle emphasizes the formal disjunction between the kuldevi 's protective purposes. Paralleling this disjunction is the dissonance of the wife who, in wishing to obey her husband and to help him perform his duty, must support him in his decision to fight yet do her best to save his life. As chapter 6 will demonstrate, Rajput lore is full of ever-popular examples of women who even made their husbands fight when the husbands were less than enthusiastic. It has always been the duty of Rajput women to help their husbands be not only as they are but as they should be, which is to say, as men bent on performing Rajput duty.

Nevertheless, should the dutiful husband die, his death would stand as an indictment of his wife's character. The wife would have failed to protect his life as a pativrata should. Traditionally, the only way she could prove her character was to sacrifice her life. By dying as a sati , she shared the fate that her husband earned. This symbolic action is a solution, not a motivation, and it is a solution that attaches only after the fact. As I learned from women during my stay, a good wife can never
― 109 ―

vow or even intend to die a sati before her husband's death, for this would be to will his death and would contravene her foremost purpose as a pativrata . Women want to die before their husbands. Thus ultimate motivations cannot be logically harmonized while both husband and wife live. To this enigma we will return again and again in the chapters following.

In sum, battle has disrupted the traditional symbolic harmony between kuldevi functions. Because a kuldevi may allow a soldier to die, she cannot be said to protect his family always. Even though the hero's death glorifies his family, it causes misery and may also leave the family heirless. Ideally, the ethos of battle harmonizes with the welfare of the family, but in the actual circumstance of war, death becomes a threat to the household and the family line.

Given this traditional conflict between kuldevi functions in the context of actual or impending battle, we might wonder how the kuldevi functions in contemporary Rajput society. Nowadays Rajputs no longer have kings and armies. Thus battle is not the regular occupation of most Rajputs. Even when it is, which is to say for men who have joined the Indian army, the protection a kuldevi provides is to an individual who is a member of a kul but not to the kul and its sociopolitical subdivisions. Members of kuls and sub-kuls no longer fight together in battle. Moreover, death in battle is not what it was, a sacrifice for the kuldevi protecting the kul or a kul -unit as an entity.

As a result, the erstwhile military relationship between kuldevi and kul member has changed. It has become largely metaphorical: it applies the imagery of battle to economic and social endeavors aimed at benefiting the household.[33] In so doing, it has come to mirror the relationship between individuals and domestic kuldevis . Hence, as we observed, men now concede that their wives know more than they about "such religious matters." The end of the Rajput states has meant the ascendancy of domestic kuldevi motifs, although, as the foundation myths demonstrate, the domestic and maternal aspects of the kuldevi have undoubtedly been an integral part of kuldevi tradition since its inception.

May we assume that this ascendance of household motifs means that the kuldevi has begun to lose her duality of character? Yes and no. The assertion by Rajput women that the kuldevi is benevolent—she does
― 110 ―

what she does for the good of the group she guards—combined with the household iconography of the kuldevi as a pativrata , lend support to the idea that as the kuldevi becomes less tied to the context of kul and kul history and more fully located within the home, the domestic associations of the goddess will become increasingly dominant. Germane here is the apparent escalation among women of the practice of religious vows. This is undoubtedly associated with the increasing circulation of vernacular vrat pamphlets, which contain stories connected to the vows (vrat kathas ) as well as instructions for their performance.[34] Many of the vrat kathas present characters who are paradigmatic pativratas ; others provide no such succinct instruction. Most, however, relate to rituals intended to strengthen a woman's power to preserve her husband's life through dutiful wifely behavior and ritual devotion. Thus in one way or another women's rituals reflect an increasing reinforcement of the pativrata motif. In its light we must interpret the evolution of women's kuldevi worship.

And yet we must acknowledge that the military imagery of the kul goddess is unlikely to vanish altogether. Diminution of the kul context of kuldevi activity has reduced the potential antagonism between kul goals and female aspirations and individualized the kuldevi 's care. The kuldevi does not protect the kul as much as she does kul members. Nevertheless, the fluid duality of the kuldevi 's character, we recall, transcends its purely parochial expression. The kul goddess retains a strong Sanskritic valence. She has both her belligerent (dark, Kali-type) and the gentle (light, Gauri-type) associations. Thus amidst the host of vrat celebrations populating Hindu calendars, Navratri remains by far the most important celebration for Rajputs, male and female. Here the identification of the kuldevi with the Goddess preserves the complex character presented in the puranas . The performance of Navratri rituals gives full expression to conceptualization of the Goddess as warrior and renews the protection that the kuldevi extends to individuals as they fight the battles of everyday life. Just as domestic kuldevi imagery colored kul foundation myths, so now military kuldevi imagery colors the household-affiliated functions that the goddess performs for kul members.

In sum, the kuldevi retains her status as the chief divine protector of Rajputs in present-day Rajasthan. Moreover, she remains a symbol of
― 111 ―

the traditional Rajput way of life. As kul -protector, she belongs to the domain of history, the record of military achievements by Rajput males. As family protector, she is associated with the continuing welfare of individual family members. She reflects the dislocation experienced by women who marry from one kul into another and the dissonance shared by women who wish to support their husbands' careers while preserving their husbands' well-being. She is a complex deity, whose wisdom is assumed to transcend that of her devotees.

At the same time, the kuldevi continues to function as a paradigm. She is a home protector, as women should be home protectors, and she is a husband defender, as women should be husband defenders. Even when she harms family members to punish them for oversights, she serves as an exemplar, for women must also make decisions that disturb yet benefit the household. Paradoxically, the first such disturbance a woman causes may well be her importation of her natal kuldevi .

In worshiping the kuldevi , then, Rajput women seek to maximize their performance of the pativrata role that she embodies as a pativrata goddess and yet transcends both as household and as martial protectress alike. Nevertheless, the worship women render is not a passive response to the kuldevi but a continually transformative interpretation of kuldevi will and kuldevi tradition. Because for women the kuldevi is predominantly a household deity, she is interpreted and evaluated, reinterpreted and reevaluated, according to the changing perceptions women hold of domestic space, household duties, and pativrata devotion.

The next chapter addresses the question of how women interpret and emulate another sort of protectress—the sati . Unlike the dual-natured kuldevi , the sati has only one form, the form of the pativrata , and only one purpose, the protection of the household. Today as in the past, the sati unequivocally unifies the aspects of identity that, as we have seen, are not always compatible: being a good Rajput and being a good woman.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2012 18:05 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Feb 2009 21:07
Posts: 3624
peter wrote:
Thank you! This makes it crystal clear.

Some more questions:
a) How do you know so much? Just read a lot or is there an oral tradition that exists where your family is from?

b) What can you say about the relationship of Jaswant Singh of Marwar and Shivaji? Is Jaswant singh present in contemporary Marathi sources?

c) Is there any mention of Durgadas in Marathi sources?

d) When Shivaji escaped from Delhi was Sambhaji left with Kavi Kalash in Mathura/Banaras?


a) I do not think I know very much. Any one who knows about his people, knows this much. Shivaji is something that I was told about ever since I remember, may be even before that. You will get to know about all these details and much more, when you read the new biography that I cited. Else Mr. B.M.Purandare's Raja Shiva-chhatrapati is eternal classic. Although, it looses it charm in english. try and read it in any Indic language.

if, by "know so much" you meant the differentiation between Vedokta and PuraaNokta, it is a matter of simple inquiry to a learned priest. I have had the fortune of being in network of few real austere shrauta brahmins. The word "brahmin" has been so bashed up, partly due to the deeds of some brahmins. I have been fortunate to have been blessed and taught by few such brahmins which personify the words like "austere-Karmatha कर्मठ", "well-versed-Shrotriya श्रोत्रीय", "enlightened-Brahmanishtha ब्रह्मनिष्ठ", those who would compromise upon their life but not on their way of life, incorruptible, so to say. Such people do exist in the interiors (even in cities, if you know ways to get around). Problems of India is largely due to lack of such people in aspects of public service. When these words become institutionalized, and students trained by such Rishis are churned out of such institutions and start coming to office, the much lacking discipline shall return to Bhaarata. anyways, we digress. I have been a listener when such men talked. Nothing else. Yes, there is family tradition, but it is nothing.

I do not know whether you are a Hindu or not. While doing a sankalpa, host holds water in his hand and read the Panchaanga. Something like -

Quote:
श्रीमद्भगवतो महापुरुषस्य विष्णोराज्ञया, प्रवर्तमानस्य अद्य ब्रह्मणो द्वितीये परार्धे, विष्णुपदे, श्रीश्वेत-वाराहकल्पे, वैवस्वत मन्वंतरे, अष्टाविंशती तमे युगे, युगचतुष्के, कलीयुगे, प्रथम चरणे, जंबुद्वीपे, भरतवर्षे, भरतखंडे, रामक्षेत्रे, बौद्धावतारे, आर्यावर्तदेशे, शालिवाहन शके, अस्मिन्वर्तमाने व्यावहारिके, सर्वधारीनाम संवत्सरे, उत्तरायणे, वसंतऋतौ, चैत्रमासे, शुक्लपक्षे, प्रतिपद तिथौ, रवी वासरे, रेवती दिवस नक्षत्रे, एेंद्र योगे, किंस्तुघ्न करणे, सर्वग्रहेषू यथायथं राशिस्थानानी स्थितेषू सत्सू एवंगुण विशेषेण विशिष्टायां शुभपुण्यतिथौ, मम आत्मन: सकल शास्त्र श्रुती-स्मृती पुराणोक्त फल प्राप्त्यर्थम अहं (x x शर्मनामः) xx पूजनं करिष्ये...

Literally - I, (name), perform x ritual on (define the exact location and time of host as available in regular vedic almanac) to obtain fruit as per puraNokta method described by Shruti and Smriti.


and then the host releases the water. Thus now he is bound by the pledge he just took. There is similar sankalpa for a "Vedokta" method as well. The name is taken in traditional abhivadana style. Example of this is found in film Hey Ram when Saketram (Kamal hasan) meets Shriram Abhyankar (Atul Kulkarni).

Quote:
अभिवादे विश्वामित्रागमर्षणकौशिक त्रैयाश्रेय प्रवरांग कौशिक गोत्र आपस्तंभ सूत्र, यजुःशाखा इत्यायै श्रीराम अभ्यंकर शर्मनाम अहं अस्तु..
- I am, who is currently of name Shriram Abhyankara, who is descended from Vishvamitra, belonging to gotra of kaushika who was thrice blessed by Vishwamitra, of family following the dharmashastra described in Apastambha sutra of Yajurvada, saluting you...


b) Jaswant Singh is elaborately mentioned in maratha chronicles as one who always ran away on every instance of his clash with Marathas. The reason of Shivaji's anger in Agra (not delhi) court was he was deliberately made to stand behind Jaswant singh by Aurangzeb, one who's back was always seen by marathas in every battle.

c) If by Durgadas, you mean Durgadas Rathod, then he is elaborately mentioned in Maratha chronicles. He appears after Shivaji's death. During Shambhuji's rule.

d) Shambhuji (not Sambhaji. Sambha is deliberate mogal distortion of original name Shambhu which is Shiva's name) was placed in anonymity in Mathura among distant family of one of the Shivaji's minister, Raghunath Korde. He stayed there for half year/one year as one abandoned brahmin child. They even performed his upanayana in Mathura and taught him sanskrit. This is how he met Kavi Kalash. Few people know that Shambhuji has composed a treatise in honor of his father in Sanskrit called "Budhacharitra". One of the fantastic literary works in medieval Sanskrit, extremely "Shringarika" and poetic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2012 21:17 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 796
Atri wrote:
peter wrote:
Thank you! This makes it crystal clear.

Some more questions:
a) How do you know so much? Just read a lot or is there an oral tradition that exists where your family is from?

b) What can you say about the relationship of Jaswant Singh of Marwar and Shivaji? Is Jaswant singh present in contemporary Marathi sources?

c) Is there any mention of Durgadas in Marathi sources?

d) When Shivaji escaped from Delhi was Sambhaji left with Kavi Kalash in Mathura/Banaras?


a) I do not think I know very much. Any one who knows about his people, knows this much. [..]

Very illuminating! Would the learned Brahmans that you know be well versed with Rg Vedas too?


Atri wrote:
b) Jaswant Singh is elaborately mentioned in maratha chronicles as one who always ran away on every instance of his clash with Marathas. The reason of Shivaji's anger in Agra (not delhi) court was he was deliberately made to stand behind Jaswant singh by Aurangzeb, one who's back was always seen by marathas in every battle.

What confuses me is this quote from Jadunath Sarkar's History of Shivaji:
Quote:
This attack took place on 5th April, 1663. The morning following it, all the imperial officers came to Shaista Khan to condole with him in his loss. Among them was Maharajah Jaswant Singh, who had not raised a finger to defend his chief or to oppose the retreat of his assailant, though he had 10,000 horse under him and lay encamped across the road taken by Shivaji. Shaista Khan, with the polished sneer of a high-bred Mughal courtier, turned to Jaswant and merely remarked, "When the enemy fell upon me, I imagined that you had already died fighting against them!" Indeed, the public, both in the Mughal camp and throughout the Deccan, ascribed Shivaji's exploit to the conniveince of Jaswant. Shivaji, however, asserted that this astonishing feat was performed by him under the inspiration of his God and not of any human counsellor. Immediately after his return from it, he wrote to Raoji Rao, his agent at Rajapur, boasting how he had been the chief actor in this business and had himself wounded Shaista Khan.
Above from: http://archive.org/stream/cu31924024056750/cu31924024056750_djvu.txt

Is there any credence that Jaswant Singh may have helped Shivaji? Shivaji being helped by Jaswant Singh is also brought about by some newly discovered Brij Bhasha sources on the life of Shivaji which is given here: Shivaji in Bhaka sources. This seems to suggest that Shivaji was helped by Jaswant Singh even during his escape from Delhi.

Also Jadunath Sarkar further says:
Quote:
He found himself standing behind several rows of nobles who almost shut him from the Emperor's view. He learnt from Ram Singh that he was among the commanders of 5,000. "What!" he exclaimed, "my little son of seven years was created a 5-hazari without having had to come to the Emperor's presence. My servant Netaji is a 5-hazari. And am I, after rendering all these services and coming all the way to the Court, to get the same low rank?" Then he asked, who the noble standing in front of him was. Ram Singh replied that it was Rajah Rai Singh* Sisodia. At this Shivaji cried out, "Rai Singh !a mere subordinate of Rajah Jai Singh ! Have I been considered only equal to him?"

* Here I follow Dilkusha, 58. The Maratha writers (Sabhasad 49 and Chitnis 111) say that it was Jaswant Singh, on hearing whose name Shiva exclaimed, "Jaswant, whose back my soldiers have seen 1 He to stand before me !" But Jaswant was a 7-hazari, and as such he would have stood two rows in front of Shiva. Rai Singh Sisodia (the son of Maha- rana Bhim Singh) was created a 5-hazari for his services at Purandar (M. U. ii. 300; A. N. 868, 989.) By a mistake he is called Rathor in A. N. 891 and once in H. A. Paris MS. 125a.


Atri wrote:
c) If by Durgadas, you mean Durgadas Rathod, then he is elaborately mentioned in Maratha chronicles. He appears after Shivaji's death. During Shambhuji's rule.

Which sources mention him in detail? I would like to obtain them and read them. I find it fascinating to have read somewhere that Durgadas and Kavi Kalash had some relationship (not familial).

Atri wrote:
d) Shambhuji (not Sambhaji. Sambha is deliberate mogal distortion of original name Shambhu which is Shiva's name) was placed in anonymity in Mathura among distant family of one of the Shivaji's minister, Raghunath Korde. He stayed there for half year/one year as one abandoned brahmin child. They even performed his upanayana in Mathura and taught him sanskrit. This is how he met Kavi Kalash. Few people know that Shambhuji has composed a treatise in honor of his father in Sanskrit called "Budhacharitra". One of the fantastic literary works in medieval Sanskrit, extremely "Shringarika" and poetic.

Sorry for the bad spelling. What surprises me is how can a newbie Kalash be trusted so much that he is given the assignment of bringing young Shambhuji all the way from Mathura/Banaras to Poona area? There is more to this relationship.

Has Budhacharitra been translated?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Nov 2012 10:59 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Posts: 3177
Location: Loud, Proud American
peter wrote:
Is there any credence that Jaswant Singh may have helped Shivaji? Shivaji being helped by Jaswant Singh is also brought about by some newly discovered Brij Bhasha sources on the life of Shivaji which is given here: Shivaji in Bhaka sources. This seems to suggest that Shivaji was helped by Jaswant Singh even during his escape from Delhi.

The way I heard it, it was Ram Singh (son of Raja of Amber's ruler Jai Singh), who was accused of helping Shivaji escape. Shivaji was being held in his camp when he escaped and some Maratha Brahmins confessed under torture by Aurangzeb that Ram Singh had a hand in it himself. Whether he did actually help or not, it is known that because of the suspicion, Ram Singh was banished from the durbar for a year, his military rank was demoted from 5000 men to 4000 (char-hazaari mansaab) and his land was taken away (and restored back a year later when he was finally allowed back into the durbar). In fact, Ram Singh was later sent to invade Assam partly because Mughal generals thought it was a crappy posting to be sent to and he was still a char-hazaari mansaab at this time. Because of his initial successes in the campaign, he was restored back to commander of 5000. Aurangzeb was not happy with him though after the mughals lost the battle of Saraighat and got kicked out of Assam. He and his clan were later sent to the Afghanistan border (another crappy posting that no Mughal general wanted to go to) so as to keep him far away from Rajasthan, where some of the other Rajput clans were forming a rebel alliance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Nov 2012 11:26 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 796
ArmenT wrote:
peter wrote:
Is there any credence that Jaswant Singh may have helped Shivaji? Shivaji being helped by Jaswant Singh is also brought about by some newly discovered Brij Bhasha sources on the life of Shivaji which is given here: Shivaji in Bhaka sources. This seems to suggest that Shivaji was helped by Jaswant Singh even during his escape from Delhi.

The way I heard it, it was Ram Singh (son of Raja of Amber's ruler Jai Singh), who was accused of helping Shivaji escape. Shivaji was being held in his camp when he escaped and some Maratha Brahmins confessed under torture by Aurangzeb that Ram Singh had a hand in it himself. Whether he did actually help or not, it is known that because of the suspicion, Ram Singh was banished from the durbar for a year, his military rank was demoted from 5000 men to 4000 (char-hazaari mansaab) and his land was taken away (and restored back a year later when he was finally allowed back into the durbar). In fact, Ram Singh was later sent to invade Assam partly because Mughal generals thought it was a crappy posting to be sent to and he was still a char-hazaari mansaab at this time. Because of his initial successes in the campaign, he was restored back to commander of 5000. Aurangzeb was not happy with him though after the mughals lost the battle of Saraighat and got kicked out of Assam. He and his clan were later sent to the Afghanistan border (another crappy posting that no Mughal general wanted to go to) so as to keep him far away from Rajasthan, where some of the other Rajput clans were forming a rebel alliance.

Yes that is what the accepted story is. Though in the linked book (Shivaji in Bhaka sources which are said to be from contemporaneous commentators of Shivaji's time or soon thereafter of) it is referenced that JS helped Shivaji.

This points to a problem in linking the Indian narrative. So many old texts are just getting eaten by silver ants in various dillapidated govt libraries because our JNU is not interested in these sources.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2012 11:44 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20
Posts: 811
I don't think Shivaji and Jaswant Singh were on good terms.
While he was furious at Aurangzeb's court over the rank issue, Shivaji took a jibe at Jaswant and in return Jaswant challenged Aurangzeb to punish Shivaji for the ruckus he created in court that day.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Nov 2012 20:55 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 796
Virendra wrote:
I don't think Shivaji and Jaswant Singh were on good terms.
While he was furious at Aurangzeb's court over the rank issue, Shivaji took a jibe at Jaswant and in return Jaswant challenged Aurangzeb to punish Shivaji for the ruckus he created in court that day.


As Jadunath Sarkar has rightly pointed out that Shivaji and Jaswant Sing did not have a spat. Jaswant was 7000 mansabdar. Of this variety there were only a handful and they stood closest to the emperor.

The 5000 mansabdars were plentiful. Infact Shivaji's position was so awkward (I wonder if Atri has read in Maratha sources if there is any credence to the consipracy theory of the Mughal Zenana that Shivaji had come to assasinate Ajeb and that is the reason why he was not given a clear line of sight to the mughal king) that he could not even see Aurangzeb from where he was standing. So there is no truth that Shivaji was standing behind Jaswant. Sarkar has identified it was Rai Singh Sisodia who was standing in front of Shivaji.

As far as enimity between Shivaji and Jaswant is concerned , Seva di Var, written by Kulapati Mishra seems to paint a different picture:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2012 12:04 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20
Posts: 811
Sarkar in 'History of Shivaji' :-
Quote:
He found himself standing behind several rows of nobles who almost shut him from the Emperor's view. He learnt from Ram Singh that he was among the commanders of 5,000. "What!" he exclaimed, "my little son of seven years was created a 5-hazari without having had to come to the Emperor's presence. My servant Netaji is a 5-hazari. And am I, after rendering all these services and coming all the way to the Court, to get the same low rank?" Then he asked, who the noble standing in front of him was. Ram Singh replied that it was Rajah Rai Singh* Sisodia. At this Shivaji cried out, "Rai Singh !a mere subordinate of Rajah Jai Singh ! Have I been considered only equal to him?"

* Here I follow Dilkusha, 58. The Maratha writers (Sabhasad 49 and Chitnis 111) say that it was Jaswant Singh, on hearing whose name Shiva exclaimed, "Jaswant, whose back my soldiers have seen 1 He to stand before me !" But Jaswant was a 7-hazari, and as such he would have stood two rows in front of Shiva. Rai Singh Sisodia (the son of Maha- rana Bhim Singh) was created a 5-hazari for his services at Purandar (M. U. ii. 300; A. N. 868, 989.) By a mistake he is called Rathor in A. N. 891 and once in H. A. Paris MS. 125a.


Sarkar in 'A History of Jaipur' pg 131 :-
Quote:
'Jaswant, whose back my soldiers have seen; I to stand behind him! What is the meaning of it?
The remark was overheard in the Darbar and Jaswant Singh did not soon forget or forgive it.
The presentation of robe of honour to Jaswant and his own exclusion made Shivaji's rage boil over....'


Further, Sarkar in 'A History of Jaipur' pg 129 :-
Quote:
The fullest and most authentic details of what happened to him at this Imperial city were written by the officers of Ram singh every evening, and these accounts have recently come to light among the Jaipur archives (footnote 7) and these records must sweep aside all accounts that have hitherto been current, insofar as they differ from them.


Note that Sarkar agreed with the MahaRaja to write 'A History of Jaipur' only when he was assured of full access to the Jaipur archives. That was a precondition.
As a seasoned historian he believed that those archives were a mine of tremendous historical value, and hence he obviously stressed on having the access.

I think Sarkar's narrations conflict in both the books - 'A History of Jaipur' and 'History of Shivaji'.
Need to dig into it further. By the way, which book did he write first?

Also :
Quote:
By a mistake he is called Rathor in A. N. 891 and once in H. A. Paris MS. 125a.
Doesn't mean that Rai Singh was misquoted as Jaswant Singh Rathore. It only means that Rai Singh Sisodia was misquoted as Rai Singh Rathore at a couple of places.

Regards,
Virendra


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2012 07:49 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 796
Virendra wrote:

Sarkar in 'A History of Jaipur' pg 131 :-
Quote:
'Jaswant, whose back my soldiers have seen; I to stand behind him! What is the meaning of it?
The remark was overheard in the Darbar and Jaswant Singh did not soon forget or forgive it.
The presentation of robe of honour to Jaswant and his own exclusion made Shivaji's rage boil over....'


Virendra wrote:
Further, Sarkar in 'A History of Jaipur' pg 129 :-
Quote:
The fullest and most authentic details of what happened to him at this Imperial city were written by the officers of Ram singh every evening, and these accounts have recently come to light among the Jaipur archives (footnote 7) and these records must sweep aside all accounts that have hitherto been current, insofar as they differ from them.


Note that Sarkar agreed with the MahaRaja to write 'A History of Jaipur' only when he was assured of full access to the Jaipur archives. That was a precondition.
As a seasoned historian he believed that those archives were a mine of tremendous historical value, and hence he obviously stressed on having the access.

Sarkar's History of Jaipur is not his best effort. Jaipur house asked him to write this book to "erase the blot" on their name in rajasthan. Everyone in rajasthan blamed them for starting the practice of giving daughters to Akbar. And for this they were humiliated throughout Rajasthan.

In this work Sarkar ridiculed Pratap big time and tried to portray Man Singh of Amber on a much higher pedestal then Pratap. He also tried to show that House of Jaipur was the foremost house in Rajasthan and rest all did not compare.

He was acting as "modern Bard" for Amber when he wrote this book.

In fact there was so much opposition to this book that it could not be published in Rajasthan because Maharana Pratap had been portrayed in such bad light.

It was only in mid 70's when Maharani Gayatri Devi requested Raghubir Singh of Sitamau to edit the book that it could be published.
I would consider the description of some other rajput clans in this book quite dubious. This includes the bit about Jaswant Singh too.
Virendra wrote:

I think Sarkar's narrations conflict in both the books - 'A History of Jaipur' and 'History of Shivaji'.
Need to dig into it further. By the way, which book did he write first?

Also :
Quote:
By a mistake he is called Rathor in A. N. 891 and once in H. A. Paris MS. 125a.
Doesn't mean that Rai Singh was misquoted as Jaswant Singh Rathore. It only means that Rai Singh Sisodia was misquoted as Rai Singh Rathore at a couple of places.

Regards,
Virendra

History of Jaipur was published last. The bit about confusion with Rai Singh has been mentioned by Sarkar for two reasons. He believes that Jaswant Singh (being a saat hazaari mansabdar) could not have been present in front of Shivaji. Remember Shivaji could not even see the emperor Aurangzeb from his vanatage point. Second Sarkar believes that Marathi writers got confused by the misspelling of Rai Singh's last name , given as Rathore, and this caused them to extrapolate that it was Jaswant Singh who was standing in front of Shivaji at Aurangzeb's darbar.

Besides (any contacts in Jaipur you have? It would be awesome to get a hold of this Seva di Var) Kulapati Mishra a resident of Mughal court's Seva di var seems logical. Ram Singh alone could not have promised Shivaji complete safety. House of Jaipur never directly antagonised the central government of Mughals after they gave their daughter to Akbar. Kulapati Mishra is correct that Rathores did support Ram Singh and that is why he was able to defy the direct orders of handing over Shivaji.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2012 12:04 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 29 Mar 2011 16:01
Posts: 53
Quote[*]
History of Jaipur was published last. The bit about confusion with Rai Singh has been mentioned by Sarkar for two reasons. He believes that Jaswant Singh (being a saat hazaari mansabdar) could not have been present in front of Shivaji. Remember Shivaji could not even see the emperor Aurangzeb from his vanatage point. Second Sarkar believes that Marathi writers got confused by the misspelling of Rai Singh's last name , given as Rathore, and this caused them to extrapolate that it was Jaswant Singh who was standing in front of Shivaji at Aurangzeb's darbar.
[/quote]

@ Peter
Do you really believe Sarkar when he says Marathi writers(?) and not historians got confused because of the misspelt name of Rai Singh? It implies that they were morons and /or they were referring only to his writings in English to describe their own history just parroting it and were not referring to Mughal documents along with historical documents from several other sources in various languages like Urdu, Farsi, etc., letters written by Shivaji's contemporary EIC officers, Dutch, Portuguese officers to their respective govt. etc. to mention a few. If that was the case then they won't be called as historians at all. Please think over!
Regards.
Rajendra


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2012 21:16 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 796
RajD wrote:
[..]
Do you really believe Sarkar when he says Marathi writers(?) and not historians got confused because of the misspelt name of Rai Singh? It implies that they were morons and /or they were referring only to his writings in English to describe their own history just parroting it and were not referring to Mughal documents along with historical documents from several other sources in various languages like Urdu, Farsi, etc., letters written by Shivaji's contemporary EIC officers, Dutch, Portuguese officers to their respective govt. etc. to mention a few. If that was the case then they won't be called as historians at all. Please think over!
Regards.
Rajendra


Assume two things:
a) Indeed it is a mistake
b) If a) is true and a) is the only mistake

How does this make anybody a moron? Are you a bit quick in jumping to conlcusion? Sarkar has had made many mistakes. Many are pointed out on this page itself.

Are you suggesting that Marathi Historians can *never* make a mistake?

And if they do make one mistake they will be morons?

Sorry I do not agree with this line of logic.

To come to the point: Do you believe based on what you have read thus far, could Jaswant Singh have been standing in front of Shivaji in Emperor Aurangjeb's court?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2012 13:51 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19
Posts: 3117
Location: छिछला पानी में (In shallow waters)
Is this too important here or is this OT?


Last edited by vishvak on 14 Nov 2012 15:18, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2012 15:16 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20
Posts: 811
peter wrote:
Sarkar's History of Jaipur is not his best effort. Jaipur house asked him to write this book to "erase the blot" on their name in rajasthan. Everyone in rajasthan blamed them for starting the practice of giving daughters to Akbar. And for this they were humiliated throughout Rajasthan.

In this work Sarkar ridiculed Pratap big time and tried to portray Man Singh of Amber on a much higher pedestal then Pratap. He also tried to show that House of Jaipur was the foremost house in Rajasthan and rest all did not compare.
Yeah the part where he touches Pratap is still a bit coarse after the editing. He sounded a bit like the typical leftist historians of these times.

peter wrote:
He was acting as "modern Bard" for Amber when he wrote this book.

In fact there was so much opposition to this book that it could not be published in Rajasthan because Maharana Pratap had been portrayed in such bad light.

It was only in mid 70's when Maharani Gayatri Devi requested Raghubir Singh of Sitamau to edit the book that it could be published.

The gap between writing and publishing of the book and the editing, does raise some questions.

peter wrote:
History of Jaipur was published last. The bit about confusion with Rai Singh has been mentioned by Sarkar for two reasons. He believes that Jaswant Singh (being a saat hazaari mansabdar) could not have been present in front of Shivaji. Remember Shivaji could not even see the emperor Aurangzeb from his vanatage point. Second Sarkar believes that Marathi writers got confused by the misspelling of Rai Singh's last name , given as Rathore, and this caused them to extrapolate that it was Jaswant Singh who was standing in front of Shivaji at Aurangzeb's darbar.

Sorry if you confused it with publishing. I meant to question which book was "written" first by him.
Reason is, Sarkar is saying that the Jaipur Archive records of Ram Singh's officers are authentic and remove all doubts whatsover about that day in the Azeb's court.
Although I do agree that it was difficult for Jaswant to be found just in front of Shivaji. It is most probably 2-3 lines in front.
But then if you look at the exact paragraph from 'History of Jaipur', Shivaji may not be referring to the line just in front of him as we think. He may be referring to his expected equality or precedence over Jaswant Singh, against whom he had upper hand in battle many times. And then when he found out that Jaswant was preceeding him (by whatever number of lines) it enraged him.
Quote:
When he found that Jaswant Singh was placed one grade higher than himself, he cried out, 'Jaswant, whose back my soldiers have seen; I to stand behind him! What is the meaning of it?'

Shivaji standing behind Jaswant holds true whether he is 2 lines and one rank behind Jaswant or same rank and one line behind him .. whichever narration we believe.
In history of Jaipur, Sarkar doesn't say how exactly Shivaji found out of Jaswant's position. He has just directly mentioned it. Shivaji may have found out due to the robe presentation to Jaswant. But then I'm not sure.
Also, Sarkar says in 'History of Jaipur' that Shivaji had never seen a posihed court in his life before that. If that is true then it is possible that Shivaji's anger was not on the formula of ranking & the 5 hazaris right in front of him .. as much as on other things that I mentioned above (such as Jaswant).

Coming back to the books, manuscript of 'History of Jaipur' was completed in 1939-40 and the book on Shivaji was completed in 1919-20.
Now reading again the part of Sarkar's quote from 'History of Jaipur' about the Jaipur Archives and that infamous day in the Azeb court:
Quote:
"and these records must sweep aside all accounts that have hitherto been current, insofar as they differ from them."

If in 1919 Sarkar seems to be correcting that the person standing in front whom Shivaji spoke about was Rai Singh and not Jaswant; then why 20 years later write the same Jaswant Singh there?
Could it be possible that Rai Singh and Jaswant were indeed standing right in front and 2 lines infront of Shivaji respectively; but Shivaji's anger was on Jaswant (or both)?
peter wrote:
Besides (any contacts in Jaipur you have? It would be awesome to get a hold of this Seva di Var) Kulapati Mishra a resident of Mughal court's Seva di var seems logical.
Haven't really caught on to this "Seva di Var - Kulpati Mishra" thing. Will read in detail later.
But Jaipur is my home town and I keep visiting there every month or two. I've been busy lately due to approaching engagement and marriage, but will try to get you any help that you need from Jaipur.

peter wrote:
Ram Singh alone could not have promised Shivaji complete safety. House of Jaipur never directly antagonised the central government of Mughals after they gave their daughter to Akbar. Kulapati Mishra is correct that Rathores did support Ram Singh and that is why he was able to defy the direct orders of handing over Shivaji.

I can accept that Rathores helped Ram singh on that occassion. Even the archives mention of conversations where middle level Rajput officers (cutting across various clans/kingdoms) were expressing their fondness of Shivaji.
But hadn't Ram Singh's father Jai Singh assured Shivaji of full protection, to have him agree visiting the court at Agra?
Hadn't he instructed his Son to ensure that Shivaji was safe.
Before acting on his escape, didn't Shivaji have Ram Singh withdraw the security Bond he signed taking Shivaji's responsibility?
Ram Singh may have alerted Shivaji about the danger to his life and how Aurangzeb was being provoked constantly against him.
However I think that in the very "planning and event of escape" he was only a collateral in the crossfire between Mughals and Shivaji. Just reminding - he was banished from the court for a long time (we know that already).

Regards,
Virendra


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Nov 2012 20:09 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20
Posts: 811
Has anyone studied the Battle of Saragarhi?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Saragarhi
Would be a good topic as the numbers mentioned for both sides in the battle are very debatable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Nov 2012 08:55 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 796
Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
Sarkar's History of Jaipur is not his best effort. Jaipur house asked him to write this book to "erase the blot" on their name in rajasthan. Everyone in rajasthan blamed them for starting the practice of giving daughters to Akbar. And for this they were humiliated throughout Rajasthan.

In this work Sarkar ridiculed Pratap big time and tried to portray Man Singh of Amber on a much higher pedestal then Pratap. He also tried to show that House of Jaipur was the foremost house in Rajasthan and rest all did not compare.
Yeah the part where he touches Pratap is still a bit coarse after the editing. He sounded a bit like the typical leftist historians of these times.

Actually much more then a leftist. He was demeaning Pratap in every way and was eulogizing Man Singh (Akbar's commander) as the best! This is what enraged people in Rajasthan so much that they protested and made sure this book did not see the light of day.
Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
He was acting as "modern Bard" for Amber when he wrote this book.

In fact there was so much opposition to this book that it could not be published in Rajasthan because Maharana Pratap had been portrayed in such bad light.

It was only in mid 70's when Maharani Gayatri Devi requested Raghubir Singh of Sitamau to edit the book that it could be published.

The gap between writing and publishing of the book and the editing, does raise some questions.
If you read the foreword of this book written by Maharani Gayatri Devi herself you will see :
Quote:
...due to various obstacles and adverse conditions the publication of this book has been delayed for more than 40 years....

Obviously this has nothing to do with finding a publisher!!


peter wrote:
History of Jaipur was published last. The bit about confusion with Rai Singh has been mentioned by Sarkar for two reasons. He believes that Jaswant Singh (being a saat hazaari mansabdar) could not have been present in front of Shivaji. Remember Shivaji could not even see the emperor Aurangzeb from his vanatage point. Second Sarkar believes that Marathi writers got confused by the misspelling of Rai Singh's last name , given as Rathore, and this caused them to extrapolate that it was Jaswant Singh who was standing in front of Shivaji at Aurangzeb's darbar.
Virendra wrote:
Sorry if you confused it with publishing. I meant to question which book was "written" first by him.
Reason is, Sarkar is saying that the Jaipur Archive records of Ram Singh's officers are authentic and remove all doubts whatsover about that day in the Azeb's court.
Although I do agree that it was difficult for Jaswant to be found just in front of Shivaji. It is most probably 2-3 lines in front.
But then if you look at the exact paragraph from 'History of Jaipur', Shivaji may not be referring to the line just in front of him as we think. He may be referring to his expected equality or precedence over Jaswant Singh, against whom he had upper hand in battle many times. And then when he found out that Jaswant was preceeding him (by whatever number of lines) it enraged him.
Quote:
When he found that Jaswant Singh was placed one grade higher than himself, he cried out, 'Jaswant, whose back my soldiers have seen; I to stand behind him! What is the meaning of it?'

Shivaji standing behind Jaswant holds true whether he is 2 lines and one rank behind Jaswant or same rank and one line behind him .. whichever narration we believe.
In history of Jaipur, Sarkar doesn't say how exactly Shivaji found out of Jaswant's position. He has just directly mentioned it. Shivaji may have found out due to the robe presentation to Jaswant. But then I'm not sure.

I meant to say that History of Jaipur was written last. Besides tarnishing Pratap it had another agenda and that was to show that House of Jaipur "was on a higher pedestal" then the "house of Marwar". Both these kingdoms vied for a higher mansabdari at the mughal court and were rivals. Jaswant's criticism in the history of Jaipur is not accurate for multiple reasons (given below).

Virendra wrote:
Also, Sarkar says in 'History of Jaipur' that Shivaji had never seen a posihed court in his life before that. If that is true then it is possible that Shivaji's anger was not on the formula of ranking & the 5 hazaris right in front of him .. as much as on other things that I mentioned above (such as Jaswant).
Here Sarkar is playing to the galleries. Shivaji was not polished? I find that nonsensical. Anything Indian is barabaric while we learnt high culture from the west be it Mughals or the English! That is how our historians pander to the west. Fact is Mongols (Mughals) were nomads. They did not know / have any high culture. They learnt everything in India.

Virendra wrote:
Coming back to the books, manuscript of 'History of Jaipur' was completed in 1939-40 and the book on Shivaji was completed in 1919-20.
Now reading again the part of Sarkar's quote from 'History of Jaipur' about the Jaipur Archives and that infamous day in the Azeb court:
Quote:
"and these records must sweep aside all accounts that have hitherto been current, insofar as they differ from them."

If in 1919 Sarkar seems to be correcting that the person standing in front whom Shivaji spoke about was Rai Singh and not Jaswant; then why 20 years later write the same Jaswant Singh there?
Could it be possible that Rai Singh and Jaswant were indeed standing right in front and 2 lines infront of Shivaji respectively; but Shivaji's anger was on Jaswant (or both)?

There were two Rai Singh's actually. Rai Singh Rathore was the grandson of Rao Amar Singh Rathore (Jaswant's elder banished brother) and Rai Singh Sisodiya. Rai Singh Sisodiya was from Shahpura I think. Both of them had participated in battles against Shivaji.

If we study the works of other contemporary writers of Shivaji's time such as Bhimsen Burhanpuri who wrote Tarikh-i-Dilkusha (page 25):
Quote:
It is said that the raid of Shivaji was incited by Jaswant Singh
(this is about the attack on Surat where Shaista Khan, Aurangzeb's mamu, had his fingers chopped)

Further on when Shivaji had escaped from Delhi and reached Deccan he wrote to Jaswant Singh and agreed to send Shambhuji as hostage. Jijabai only agreed to hand over her grandson on Jaswant Singh's word. Rathore troopers went to the fort and brought Shambhuji with them.

So if one studies the events pre and post the escape from Agra incident it does not seem that Jaswant Singh and Shivaji had a rancourous relationship.

Sarkar's first book on the topic seems more correct then history of Jaipur.

Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
Besides (any contacts in Jaipur you have? It would be awesome to get a hold of this Seva di Var) Kulapati Mishra a resident of Mughal court's Seva di var seems logical.
Haven't really caught on to this "Seva di Var - Kulpati Mishra" thing. Will read in detail later.
But Jaipur is my home town and I keep visiting there every month or two. I've been busy lately due to approaching engagement and marriage, but will try to get you any help that you need from Jaipur.


Heartiest Congratulations on your engagement and marriage! May you have a happy and prosperous wedded life!

Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
Ram Singh alone could not have promised Shivaji complete safety. House of Jaipur never directly antagonised the central government of Mughals after they gave their daughter to Akbar. Kulapati Mishra is correct that Rathores did support Ram Singh and that is why he was able to defy the direct orders of handing over Shivaji.

I can accept that Rathores helped Ram singh on that occassion. Even the archives mention of conversations where middle level Rajput officers (cutting across various clans/kingdoms) were expressing their fondness of Shivaji.
But hadn't Ram Singh's father Jai Singh assured Shivaji of full protection, to have him agree visiting the court at Agra?

Sure but what force is Jai Singh when Aurangzeb is sitting in his own capital and deciding? He could have easily smashed Ram Singh and Shivaji in Agra had he acted promptly.
Virendra wrote:
Hadn't he instructed his Son to ensure that Shivaji was safe.
Before acting on his escape, didn't Shivaji have Ram Singh withdraw the security Bond he signed taking Shivaji's responsibility?

It seems to me that Shivaji was a gracious guest and did not want Ram Singh to get in trouble.

Virendra wrote:
Ram Singh may have alerted Shivaji about the danger to his life and how Aurangzeb was being provoked constantly against him.
However I think that in the very "planning and event of escape" he was only a collateral in the crossfire between Mughals and Shivaji. Just reminding - he was banished from the court for a long time (we know that already).

Regards,
Virendra

Shivaji could have been alerted or he was smart enough to realise that he was in danger. After all Aurnagzeb did not spare his own brothers and father what hope did a Hindu have in Agra?

If you read this interesting article: http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPST/MayorKhilats2.pdf there is some allusion to that Shivaji did not want to wear the robe of honour to avoid getting poisoned.

Ram Singh's banishment was a big affront to Jai Singh. All his life he and his descendants served the Mughals but they got very little in return. Jai Singh was travelling north to fix the matters (mughals owed him more then a crore of rupees for the deccan campaigns) and have his son reappointed. But he died on the way.

Ram Singh was bestowed his Jagir on the request of Jaswant Singh.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Nov 2012 11:18 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 796
Virendra wrote:
Has anyone studied the Battle of Saragarhi?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Saragarhi
Would be a good topic as the numbers mentioned for both sides in the battle are very debatable.

Why do you say debatable?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Nov 2012 13:11 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 29 Mar 2011 16:01
Posts: 53
peter wrote:

Assume two things:
a) Indeed it is a mistake
b) If a) is true and a) is the only mistake

How does this make anybody a moron? Are you a bit quick in jumping to conlcusion? Sarkar has had made many mistakes. Many are pointed out on this page itself.

Are you suggesting that Marathi Historians can *never* make a mistake?

And if they do make one mistake they will be morons?

Sorry I do not agree with this line of logic.

To come to the point: Do you believe based on what you have read thus far, could Jaswant Singh have been standing in front of Shivaji in Emperor Aurangjeb's court?


1) Yes, I do believe that Shivaji was insulted and made to stand behind Jaswant Singh in the Mughal court based on what I have read thus far here and elsewhere.
2) There is no need to assume anything. It is not about either Jadunath Sarkar or Marathi historians. Anybody can make mistake. But there is a problem when one quotes somebody else' views without giving much thought to it.
Please tell me how on earth there is going to be a spelling mistake or its misinterpretation if the source is other than English. In this case it is Sarkar's literature in English only. While quoting also you say that Sarkar has mentioned about Marathi 'writers' and not historians. I hope you/he means that it is historians. Then the question arises whether Marathi historians referred only to Sarkar's writings as the gospel truth/original source and the only source available and not any other documents in different languages from various contemporary historical sources. The answer is a big 'No'.
3) The last but not the least, when you quote such examples unknowingly/ without giving much thought you seem to put a question mark on the originality on the works of many stalwart Marathi historians.
Please think over.
My last post on the subject( misspelt name of Rai Singh).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Nov 2012 14:12 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20
Posts: 811
peter wrote:
Virendra wrote:
Has anyone studied the Battle of Saragarhi?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Saragarhi
Would be a good topic as the numbers mentioned for both sides in the battle are very debatable.

Why do you say debatable?

Because they say it was fought between 21 Sikhs and 10,000 Afghans.
All the Sikhs fought to the final glory and the Afghan casualties vary. Pashtuns admit a death toll of around 180 .. others put it at 600. Someone in Bollywood is planning a movie on this. Would be good to watch an Indian version of the famous '300' .. that too based on a real battle. Though I don't have a good impression from Indian film makers outside the romance and comedy genres. :(

From Wiki:
The battle is not well known outside military academia, but is "considered by some military historians as one of history's great last-stands". Sikh military personnel and Sikh civilians commemorate the battle every year on 12 September, as Saragarhi Day.
The British and Indian armies’ polo teams also commemorate the battle annually by holding the Saragarhi Challenge Cup

peter wrote:
Sure but what force is Jai Singh when Aurangzeb is sitting in his own capital and deciding? He could have easily smashed Ram Singh and Shivaji in Agra had he acted promptly.

What is meant here by smashing exactly?
I think it was Jai Singh who promised safety to Shivaji. Ram Singh only followed his father's orders.
Though Jai singh was far off but I believe Agra would be swarming with Rajputs anyway.
And why would Aurangzeb alienate all the Rajputs by doing so, when it could side effect into combining all the Rajputs and Marathas against the Mughals.
Weren't the Mughals (ever since Akbar) interested in keeping native Indian powers (specially Rajputs) divided always?
I don't know if Kachwahas would have been able to protect Shivaji and survive Mughals all by themselves but by my point was about intent/resolve and not the capability. Ram singh was clear about being oath bound to protect Shivaji. His signing of the security bond after knowing who Aurangzeb was and what Shivaji had done that day .. isn't that a testimony?
Jai Singh's reasons to have Shivaji protected could either be of honor, oath or be of politics - either way the father son duo was committed to protect Shivaji. Till what level of escalation they would have been able to continue that? I don't know.
Although I already agree that Ram Singh was not directly associated with Shivaji's escape. He was a political scapegoat thereafter.

By the way, how true is the claim that Jaswant teased Azeb to punish Shivaji after the ruckus.
If we believe he was not so much against Shivaji and Shivaji didn't insult him in the court that day, then the claim above falls flat.

peter wrote:
Shivaji was not polished? I find that nonsensical. Anything Indian is barabaric while we learnt high culture from the west be it Mughals or the English! That is how our historians pander to the west. Fact is Mongols (Mughals) were nomads. They did not know / have any high culture. They learnt everything in India

Indian Kings (with long lineages) knew it all about polished courts and royal protocols, no doubt.
First, whether Indian head or a Mongol, an Imperial court is the most polished and sophisticated in protocols.
Second, Shivaji had not seen a polished court (at least not the imperial one) before. Could you disprove it factually, without extrapolating to Indian culture and Mongol rabidness? I think it is more about Shivaji who was not exactly from a 'practicing longtime royal' lineage like Rajputs. I'd be happy to see it debunked.

peter wrote:
Tarikh-i-Dilkusha (page 25):
"It is said that the raid of Shivaji was incited by Jaswant Singh"
(this is about the attack on Surat where Shaista Khan, Aurangzeb's mamu, had his fingers chopped)
Further on when Shivaji had escaped from Delhi and reached Deccan he wrote to Jaswant Singh and agreed to send Shambhuji as hostage. Jijabai only agreed to hand over her grandson on Jaswant Singh's word. Rathore troopers went to the fort and brought Shambhuji with them.
So if one studies the events pre and post the escape from Agra incident it does not seem that Jaswant Singh and Shivaji had a rancourous relationship.
Sarkar's first book on the topic seems more correct then history of Jaipur.

So Sarkar explained, corrected a misconception in 1919-20 and 20 years later in 'History of Jaipur' he himself made the same mistake (deliberately)?

peter wrote:
Heartiest Congratulations on your engagement and marriage! May you have a happy and prosperous wedded life!

Thank you for the advance compliments :)

peter wrote:
Jai Singh was travelling north to fix the matters (mughals owed him more then a crore of rupees for the deccan campaigns) and have his son reappointed. But he died on the way.
Yeah his own troops were not paid for more than a year I guess.

Regards,
Virendra


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Nov 2012 14:34 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12323
Location: In a sad place
Virendra, heartiest congratulations on the good news. best wishes for the times ahead.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Nov 2012 17:18 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03
Posts: 2839
All the best brother.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Nov 2012 17:48 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20
Posts: 811
They're still two weeks and two months away respectively. So lets forget and savour the moments I still have left with full freedom :P


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Nov 2012 20:57 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 29 Mar 2011 16:01
Posts: 53
Quote// Second, Shivaji had not seen a polished court (at least not the imperial one) before. Could you disprove it factually, without extrapolating to Indian culture and Mongol rabidness?// unquote
Virendraji,
Would you consider Adilshahi durbar an imperial court? If the answer is yes then Shahaji had taken young Shivaji to attend a shahi durbar at Bijapur and get aquainted with its customs. The legend has it that Shivaji simply refused to bow down to the Badshah despite observing Shahaji doing it himself. When asked by the Badshah he answered that he would bow only to god and his parents for their blessings.
Regards.
Rajendra


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Nov 2012 22:18 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 Feb 2010 18:41
Posts: 321
Virendra ji congratulations on your impending marriage.

Regarding Sarkar works a bit of caution is needed.In one of his earlier works on Shivaji he literally pours vitriol on Sambhaji but in a later work he refers to him as "Sambhuji" with respect.So a persons viewpoints and attitudes do change.Mistakes do happen as is natural when dealing with sourcers in different languges (plus the bias of the historian).

A word on Marathi historians..they are extremely scruplous ( long list Sardesai, etc..Atriji konws much better than me) for one simple reason: one mistake and there are ten "scholars" in Pune/Maharashtra waiting to pounce on them :D

Jokes aside if you guys can read up on the Marathi histories it would give a nice comparative viewpoint.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Nov 2012 01:50 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Feb 2009 21:07
Posts: 3624
Congratulations, Virendra ji.. I wish you achieve all four purusharthas and all eight Lakshmis with your Sahadharmachaarini..

The name of Yajna performed on Shivaji's Vedokta coronation is called "Aindra mahabhisheka ऐंद्र महाभिषेक - great abhisheka of Indra".. It is mentioned in Aitareya Brahmana.

There are various ceremonies of ascension of public office in Vedas. Depending upon various political models of artha and dharma as hinted in this famous verse. I do not know how popular this hymn is in other parts of country. In Maratha regions, this is extremely popular, perhaps the most popular of all Vedic hymns. It is called Mantra-Pushpanjali -साम्राज्यं, भौज्यं स्वाराज्यं, वैराज्यं पारमेष्ठ्यं राज्यंमहाराज्यम् आधिपत्यम् अयं, समंतपर्यायीस्यात् सार्वभैम: सार्वायुष आं, तादापरार्धात् पृथिव्यै समुद्रपर्यंताया एकेराळिति. (this is an important indicator of pan-subcontinental political vision - Sovereign is one who brings this land under one rule "up to the shores of bordering oceans".) The verse meaning this is also used by Chanakya in his arthashastra to describe chakravartin.. anyways..

There are different rites for different type of political structure. Aindra Abhisheka is one of the highest political rites of Vaidik and Hindu Polity and is typically for "world domination". This ritual is typically followed by performance of Raajasooya Yajna, although it is not a rule. In his book - History of India from Parikshita to gupta, Raychaudhuri explains this ceremony and its performance along with Rajasooya by Parikshita.

Its description can be found Prof. K P Jayaswal's Hindu polity. It is the ceremony in which Indra ascended the throne of King of gods. Ascending king takes an oath similar to Indra and becomes "Upendra" (deputy of Indra - Vishnu)..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Nov 2012 01:57 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Posts: 13941
Location: Hindu Enclave, Narrow-Mind Street
^ Atriji, that hymn is common in aseervada of leaders...

Quote:
OM Svasthi
Let OM grant us auspiciousness

Samrajyam bhojyam |
Let us enjoy big empires with subkingdoms and Sub rulers.

Sva rajyam Vai rajyam |
Let my own empire flourish

Parame styam rajyam |
Let my Empire continue as per my dictates.

Maharajya madhi patyamayam |
Let a glorious government enjoy full power.

Samanta paryayai Syaih Sarva bhowma ssarvayusah |
Let the great Empire flourish till the end of oceans with full powers and complete longevity.

OM dhata paratha, prudhivai Samudra paryanta ya Eka ra diti |
Let that parabrahma (the omniscient effulgence) continue as one kingdom with authority from the beginning of earth to the edge of ocean.

Tad pyesa sloka, bhageeto, marutah, parame styaro, marutta Syavasan gruhe |
That alone is the State fit for deriving bliss for prayer and extolling. In that house the five pranic airs, the parabrahmas and mareeci air which will sustain the life for ever. This will protect both Atma and paramatma. This is the minutest than Pranavayu (oxygen) If this air is not circulated the Atma and paramatma will leave the body.

Avi Kshitasya Kama priye, Visve Deva Ssabha ssada iti |
They are visible to those who are desirous of seeing them. All the devas are available in rows in their chambers in the universe.

Adaitam Visna Vaiscaram Nirvapati |
For that purpose only Annam will be offered to Visnu in havan.

Yajnovai Visnuh / Yajna Ye Vasyam tatah prati tistati |
Yajna (Havan) is Visnu. By Yajna only he is well established.

Sotra Juhoti / Visnave Svaha / Yajnaya Svaha pratista yai Svaheti |
He accepts the Ahutis, the materials offered in fire (havan). These are given to Visnu only. The paramatma who pervades every where accepts the offerings in Yajna.


See how the consciousness flows from Individual to state to society to universe to Param


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Nov 2012 02:16 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Feb 2009 21:07
Posts: 3624
RamaY maharshi,

I am planning to take this in deracination dhaga. This is the hymn in devanagari script.

ॐ | यज्ञेन यज्ञमयजन्त देवास्तानि धर्माणि प्रथमान्यासन् | ते ह नाकं महिमानः सचन्त यत्र पूर्वे साध्याः सन्ति देवाः || 1 ||
ॐ | राजाधिराजाय प्रसह्यसाहिने नमो वयं वैश्रवणाय कुर्महे | स मे कामान्कामकामाय मह्यम् कामेश्वरो वैश्रवणो ददातु | कुबेराय वैश्रवणाय महाराजाय नमः || 2 ||
ॐ स्वस्ति| साम्राज्यं भौज्यं स्वाराज्यं वैराज्यं पारमेष्ठ्यं राज्यं माहाराज्यमाधिपत्यमयं समंतपर्यायी स्यात्सार्वभौमः सार्वायुष आंतादापरार्धात्पृथिव्यै समुद्रपर्यंताया एकराळिति || 3 ||
तदप्येषः श्लोको ऽभिगीतो | मरुतः परिवेष्टारो मरुत्तस्यावसन् गृहे | आविक्षितस्य कामप्रेर्विश्वे देवाः सभासद इति || 4 |

saamrajya - साम्राज्य - state where all aspects are enforced (various aspects OR dimensions of state are described in various shastras) - सं+राज्य - A Complete state

bhaujya - भौज्य - to enjoy, experience, no right word in English - to Bhoga

स्वाराज्य - svaarajya - a self sufficient state (may not be a sam rajya - complete state, but self reliant, nonetheless)

वैराज्य - vairaajya - vishesha raajyam - vishesha sovereignty - specialized, extended, greater sovereignty (in modern lingo, local power)

परम इष्ट राज्य - पारमेष्ठ्यम् राज्यं - param ishtam rajyam - state with "ultra superior" sovereignty..

maharajya - महाराज्य - sovereignty

Different models of state. Along with different powers..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Nov 2012 09:49 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 796
peter wrote:
Sure but what force is Jai Singh when Aurangzeb is sitting in his own capital and deciding? He could have easily smashed Ram Singh and Shivaji in Agra had he acted promptly.

Virendra wrote:
What is meant here by smashing exactly? I think it was Jai Singh who promised safety to Shivaji. Ram Singh only followed his father's orders.

It means that if Aurangjeb really wanted to kill Shivaji he could have done so irrespective of what word Jai Singh had given.

Virendra wrote:
Though Jai singh was far off but I believe Agra would be swarming with Rajputs anyway.

Sure but mughals were very smart. They made sure that only a small number was nearby to avoid a coup. Movement of forces near the capital, especially when the emperor was nearby, was highly co-ordinated. Permissions had to be taken and granted before troops could come and go.

Virendra wrote:
And why would Aurangzeb alienate all the Rajputs by doing so, when it could side effect into combining all the Rajputs and Marathas against the Mughals.
Weren't the Mughals (ever since Akbar) interested in keeping native Indian powers (specially Rajputs) divided always?

Aurangzeb was only afraid of Jaswant Singh. Immediately after Jaswant Singh's death he promulgated Jaziya in all of India (or whatever parts he controlled). Alienation of rajputs was not primary in his mind.
Virendra wrote:
I don't know if Kachwahas would have been able to protect Shivaji and survive Mughals all by themselves but by my point was about intent/resolve and not the capability. Ram singh was clear about being oath bound to protect Shivaji. His signing of the security bond after knowing who Aurangzeb was and what Shivaji had done that day .. isn't that a testimony?

If Aurangzeb had decided to kill Shivaji at Agra, Ram Singh and his band would have surely died fighting to the last man. Whether they would have been able to save Shivaji is an open question. Mughal capital was swarming with thousands of mughal soldiers. Though it is fascinating that Durgadas and his band escaped from Delhi only with 350 men.

Virendra wrote:
Jai Singh's reasons to have Shivaji protected could either be of honor, oath or be of politics - either way the father son duo was committed to protect Shivaji. Till what level of escalation they would have been able to continue that? I don't know.

I think Jai Singh was sincere that Shivaji should not be harmed. His word was the key and I am sure his troops and his son in Agra would have made sure that his word is honoured no matter what the escalation.
Virendra wrote:
Although I already agree that Ram Singh was not directly associated with Shivaji's escape. He was a political scapegoat thereafter.

I think Ram Singh was associated. Besides Aurangjeb was not stupid. Furthermore we cannot discount primary sources like those of Kulpati Mishra. (When you have time can you please try looking for Seva di Var in Jaipur?)
Virendra wrote:
By the way, how true is the claim that Jaswant teased Azeb to punish Shivaji after the ruckus.
If we believe he was not so much against Shivaji and Shivaji didn't insult him in the court that day, then the claim above falls flat.

I don't think Jaswant teased Ajeb. As I mentioned earlier Shivaji wrote to Jaswant soon after his return from North to make Shambhuji a mansabdar at the mughal court. If Shivaji and Jaswant had a falling out why would Shivaji be writing to Jaswant Singh?
Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
Shivaji was not polished? I find that nonsensical. Anything Indian is barabaric while we learnt high culture from the west be it Mughals or the English! That is how our historians pander to the west. Fact is Mongols (Mughals) were nomads. They did not know / have any high culture. They learnt everything in India

Indian Kings (with long lineages) knew it all about polished courts and royal protocols, no doubt.
First, whether Indian head or a Mongol, an Imperial court is the most polished and sophisticated in protocols.
Second, Shivaji had not seen a polished court (at least not the imperial one) before. Could you disprove it factually, without extrapolating to Indian culture and Mongol rabidness? I think it is more about Shivaji who was not exactly from a 'practicing longtime royal' lineage like Rajputs. I'd be happy to see it debunked.

Atri has proven beyond doubt that Shivaji was a rajput from the Mewar lineage. My counter question to you is do you see a lot of difference in the etiquette observed by the children of a small land owning rajput jagirdar vs a large land owning rajput jagirdar? Would they address the king of Jodhpur differently? Would they behave different in front of the king? What if they were invited to Ummaid Bhavan? Would the children of these two jagirdars create a ruckus which is what Shivaji is accused of having done by being unpolished?

Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
Tarikh-i-Dilkusha (page 25):
"It is said that the raid of Shivaji was incited by Jaswant Singh"
(this is about the attack on Surat where Shaista Khan, Aurangzeb's mamu, had his fingers chopped)
Further on when Shivaji had escaped from Delhi and reached Deccan he wrote to Jaswant Singh and agreed to send Shambhuji as hostage. Jijabai only agreed to hand over her grandson on Jaswant Singh's word. Rathore troopers went to the fort and brought Shambhuji with them.
So if one studies the events pre and post the escape from Agra incident it does not seem that Jaswant Singh and Shivaji had a rancourous relationship.
Sarkar's first book on the topic seems more correct then history of Jaipur.

So Sarkar explained, corrected a misconception in 1919-20 and 20 years later in 'History of Jaipur' he himself made the same mistake (deliberately)?

Indeed. Because besides maligning Pratap (remember giving daughters was a very big deal for the lack of respect of the Kachwaha house) Sarkar had another interest which is summed by the Stanford researcher when she says:
Quote:
....but note that Sarkar’s history was commissioned by the rulers of Jaipur to rebut the Rathor bards’ false accusations about Kachhawas. .....

To show Jaswant Singh and Marwar in a bad light was one of the condition of House of Jaipur when Sarkar was given this job of writing the history of Jaipur.

She also gives the motive for the high drama at the court because Shivaji was perhaps guarding against an assassination and did not want to wear the Khilat offered. Let us not forget that Shivaji was always very cautious in making sure he is not assassinated. If you observe his preparation in meeting Afjal Khan it becomes quite clear.
Quote:
In 1666, Shivaji was compelled to attend Aurangzeb’s court,
but he felt insulted insulted and left before receiving a robe of honour. The historian Jadunath Sarkar related that Shivaji "turned his back to the throne and rudely walked away,” although some nobles attempted to make peace between Shivaji and Aurangzeb by reporting that he had left because of the "heat of the audience
room” (Sarkar 1973, 143-4). Stewart Gordon says he "made a scene, refused the honorary robes offered to him, and stalked out of the audience hall” (Gordon 1993, 77-8). Aurangzeb had him taken prisoner, but Shivaji escaped by feigning illness (Sarkar 1962, 210-13). The sequence of insult, khilat, heat and illness
seems to presage the motifs that developed into poison robe tales, such as Tale 1. (For the historical context of tales about Shivaji, see ”Kil1er Khilats, Part 1,” Appendix B.)



Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
Jai Singh was travelling north to fix the matters (mughals owed him more then a crore of rupees for the deccan campaigns) and have his son reappointed. But he died on the way.
Yeah his own troops were not paid for more than a year I guess.

Regards,
Virendra

If you know where Jaipur archives are kept it would be of of very high interest to read the akhbharat. These akhbharats were written by various mughal subedars and sent to aurangzeb frequently. Besides if you can lay your hands on Haft Anjuman that would be a total steal. It is a book of correspondence between Jai Singh and his chief minister and covers this period.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Nov 2012 10:17 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 796
RajD wrote:
peter wrote:

Assume two things:
a) Indeed it is a mistake
b) If a) is true and a) is the only mistake

How does this make anybody a moron? Are you a bit quick in jumping to conlcusion? Sarkar has had made many mistakes. Many are pointed out on this page itself.

Are you suggesting that Marathi Historians can *never* make a mistake?

And if they do make one mistake they will be morons?

Sorry I do not agree with this line of logic.

To come to the point: Do you believe based on what you have read thus far, could Jaswant Singh have been standing in front of Shivaji in Emperor Aurangjeb's court?


1) Yes, I do believe that Shivaji was insulted and made to stand behind Jaswant Singh in the Mughal court based on what I have read thus far here and elsewhere.

Well then you are wrong because I do not think you understand how mansabdars were made to stand in the court. And I will give you another one to ponder over from Jadunath Sarkar's book History of Shivaji:
Quote:
The Maratha chronicles assert that Jai
Singh gave Shiva hopes that after his visit to the
Emperor he was likely to be sent back as Viceroy
of Mughal Deccan, with sufficient men and money
for the conquest of Bijapur and Golkonda. The
Emperor never committed himself to any such
promise, and the Persian histories and Jai Singh's
correspondence are silent about it.


RajD wrote:
2) There is no need to assume anything. It is not about either Jadunath Sarkar or Marathi historians. Anybody can make mistake. But there is a problem when one quotes somebody else' views without giving much thought to it.
Please tell me how on earth there is going to be a spelling mistake or its misinterpretation if the source is other than English.

I am not sure you are following this discussion. Sarkar says clearly that Maratha writers got it wrong. Do you even read the links provided or you just argue from memory?

Anyway I am posting it here:
Quote:
Into this Diwan-i-am, Kumar Ram Singh ushered
Shivaji with his son Shambhuji and ten of his officers.
On behalf of the Maratha chief, 1500 gold pieces
were laid before the Elmperor as present (nazar) and
Rs. 6,000 as offeriiig (nisar.) Aurangzib graciously
cried out, "Come up, Shivaji Rajah!" Shivaji was
led to the foot of the throne and made three salams.

Then, at a signal from the Emperor, he was conducted
back to the place reserved for him among
the third-grade nobles, the work of the darbar
proceeded, and Shivaji seemed to have been
forgotten.

This was not the kind of reception he had so
long been picturing to himself and expecting as
almost a certainty from his many conversations with
Jai Singh. Ever since coming to Agra his mind had
been ill at ease. First, he had been welcomed on
behalf of the Emperor in the environs of the city by
Ram Singh and Mukhlis Khan, two petty officers
holding the nominal ranks of 2,500 and 1,500
respectively. No costly present, no high tide, no
kind word even, had followed his bow to the throne.
He found himself standing behind several rows of
nobles who almost shut him from the Emperor's
view. He learnt from Ram Singh that he was among
the commanders of 5,000. "What!" he exclaimed,
"my little son of seven years was created a 5-hazari
without having had to come to the Emperor's pre.
sence. My servant Netaji is a 5-hazari. And am I, after rendering all these services and coming all the
way to the Court, to get the same low rank?" Then
he asked, who the noble standing in front of him
was. Ram Singh replied that it was Rajah Rai
Singh* Sisodia. At this Shivaji cried out, "Rai
Singh ! a mere subordinate of Rajah Jai Singh ! Have
I been considered only equal to him?"

* Here I follow Dilkusha, 58. The Maratha writers
(Sabhasad 49 and Chitnis 111) say that it was Jaswant Singh,
on hearing whose name Shiva exclaimed, "Jaswant, whose
back my soldiers have seen 1 He to stand before me !" But
Jaswant was a 7-hazari, and as such he would have stood two
rows in front of Shiva. Rai Singh Sisodia (the son of Maharana
Bhim Singh) was created a 5-hazari for his services at
Purandar (M. U. ii. 300; A. N. 868, 989.) By a mistake he is
called Rathor in A. N. 891 and once in H. A. Paris MS. 125a.



RajD wrote:
[..]
3) The last but not the least, when you quote such examples unknowingly/ without giving much thought you seem to put a question mark on the originality on the works of many stalwart Marathi historians.
Please think over.

Nothing to think over. Anyone can make a mistake. And in this case Marathi historians did get the name of Jaswant Singh wrong. As I have shown in the earlier post today that Jaswant Singh and Shivaji had cordial relationship.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Nov 2012 18:57 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20
Posts: 811
peter wrote:
Aurangzeb was only afraid of Jaswant Singh. Immediately after Jaswant Singh's death he promulgated Jaziya in all of India (or whatever parts he controlled).

Obviously, Amber was ever loyal and Mewar had past its prime, so that is understandable. But it would be different if they were all combined. As an imperial power you wouldn't want to cause that.
Not discounting Jaswant's power but Azeb's concern about Jaswant was more because of Jaswant's discomfort (or say lack of loyalty) with the Mughals. His past record in dealing with Mughals proved the same.

peter wrote:
Alienation of rajputs was not primary in his mind.
I think Azeb was a counter intuitive man and there wasn't a lack of people (Roshanara Begum) provoking him against Shivaji. Didn't he decide to get Shivaji killed?
Rajputs were divided in Mewar, Marwar and Amber. So till that division was status quo, yes Rajput alienation wasn't Azeb primary concern. But killing Shivaji and any Rajputs in the way was a too risky measure to alienate Rajputs safely.

peter wrote:
I think Ram Singh was associated.

In what way?
peter wrote:
Besides Aurangjeb was not stupid.

Aurangzeb was the so called imperial throne of India. A chieftain rampaging his court proceedings and then breaking out of his house arrest was a big blot. It would turn into a big mockery if Azeb had not taken a step in retaliation.
(Remember Roshanara Begum kept pantering Azeb that other Chieftains would follow Shivaji). So Azeb was under pressure and when the escape took place, all hell broke lose for Azeb.
He was desperate to take an action. He had to do something and quickly. When Shivaji couldn't be brought back, what is the next thing to do?
Find a man who could be truly/fasely blamed for it and punish him. Thats the least to save your face.
Ram Singh had no chance, even after taking back his security bond over Shivaji.

peter wrote:
Furthermore we cannot discount primary sources like those of Kulpati Mishra. (When you have time can you please try looking for Seva di Var in Jaipur?)

I will try to find these. There are 'Granthagars' and Royal Libraries in Rajasthan where I can try to penetrate, but Jaipur Archives is off bounds. It is closely guarded.
I remember reading more than one accounts of various researchers/organizations who reported how difficult it was to get access to anything inside these Archives - Jaipur, Bikaner etc. Don't have the pull/connections to get around it.

peter wrote:
Atri has proven beyond doubt that Shivaji was a rajput from the Mewar lineage. My counter question to you is do you see a lot of difference in the etiquette observed by the children of a small land owning rajput jagirdar vs a large land owning rajput jagirdar? Would they address the king of Jodhpur differently? Would they behave different in front of the king? What if they were invited to Ummaid Bhavan? Would the children of these two jagirdars create a ruckus which is what Shivaji is accused of having done by being unpolished?

I don't disagree with the claims of Shivaji's Rajput ancestry (I used the term 'practicing').
Personally to me his ancestry doesn't matter more than the deeds. Actually I'd only be happy if it were true.
My point was not of personal etiquette but of knowing the highest court's protocols.
One would know the latter only if his/her ancestors had been 'practicing' (emphasizing the word again) royals in established Kingdoms for long time.
Yourself are aware that there was a proper system of arranging courtseans at the Imperial court. That is just an example, Imperial courts are the most sohpisticated in almost every manner.
I think not every court is the same. The middle level Kingdoms and Imperial courts would operate a bit differently. There is also the difference brought in by whose court it is.
As far as personal etiquette are concerned, subtle difference can come not only by how big a State you come from but also how long your ancestors have been royal. But like I said, it is about know how of imperial court and not personal etiquette.

peter wrote:
She also gives the motive for the high drama at the court because Shivaji was perhaps guarding against an assassination and did not want to wear the Khilat offered. Let us not forget that Shivaji was always very cautious in making sure he is not assassinated. If you observe his preparation in meeting Afjal Khan it becomes quite clear.

Yes. Also indicated by him and his mother taking loads of promises/assurances before he or his son venture out into Mughal lands.

peter wrote:
If you know where Jaipur archives are kept it would be of of very high interest to read the akhbharat. These akhbharats were written by various mughal subedars and sent to aurangzeb frequently. Besides if you can lay your hands on Haft Anjuman that would be a total steal. It is a book of correspondence between Jai Singh and his chief minister and covers this period.

As I said above, Archives are the toughest to lay hands on. I'll try for Haft Anjuman.
But please don't get your hopes up on me :)

Regards,
Virendra


Last edited by Virendra on 18 Nov 2012 12:12, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Nov 2012 21:37 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 Feb 2010 18:41
Posts: 321
Virendra ji was it you who had asked about spy networks in mediveal India?

I came across this verse in the Madhuravijayam which specifically alludes to Vira Kamparaya's ( son of Bukkaraya,the second emperor of Vijayanagara empire) penetration of enemy kingdoms ( probably sultanate of Madurai). The conventional dating is between 1352-1371 for this war ( every scholar has a different opinion).

" (just as ) the sun with his bright rays unviels every object on the earth,similarly by sending spies into different enemy countries nothing remained unkown to him (Kamparaya)."

On a different note:
For me the question of whether Chattrapati Shivaji was a rajput or not is immaterial.He was the personification of a true Kshatriya in his words and deeds.The race (wrong word, couldn't find anything better) of Rajputs should be honored that he was born as one of them,not the other way round.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Nov 2012 08:28 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 796
Atri wrote:

The name of Yajna performed on Shivaji's Vedokta coronation is called "Aindra mahabhisheka ऐंद्र महाभिषेक - great abhisheka of Indra".. It is mentioned in Aitareya Brahmana.

[..]..

More I read this it becomes clear that land was tied intimately to a king's / ruling class' / vision of how he needs to lead his life. Protection of land was very important. This has implications even in modern day.

Would you have any songs about Shivaji that have been handed down through the generations? (The bakhars?) On youtube?

Also were you able to look up some references to Durgadas in Marathi historicals?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Nov 2012 12:09 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20
Posts: 811
jambudvipa wrote:
Virendra ji was it you who had asked about spy networks in mediveal India?

In a way, Yes jambudvipa ji. I remember having the spy practice discussion here sometime before.
jambudvipa wrote:
I came across this verse in the Madhuravijayam which specifically alludes to Vira Kamparaya's ( son of Bukkaraya,the second emperor of Vijayanagara empire) penetration of enemy kingdoms ( probably sultanate of Madurai). The conventional dating is between 1352-1371 for this war ( every scholar has a different opinion).
" (just as ) the sun with his bright rays unviels every object on the earth,similarly by sending spies into different enemy countries nothing remained unkown to him (Kamparaya)."

I wouldn't conclude so strongly about southern states. Possibly yes, they might have had some spy practice on local enemies.
But I think at least the northern Kingdoms didn't have sophisticated, established spy networks.
Otherwise, why would they not notice the developments of Central Asia and Afghanistan. The enemies cropping up everywhere and the doctrine they followed.
Strategically they were dumbfounded, caught off guard and were reactionary at best. That doesn't work with the kind of enemies we had from north west.
jambudvipa wrote:
On a different note:
For me the question of whether Chattrapati Shivaji was a rajput or not is immaterial.He was the personification of a true Kshatriya in his words and deeds.The race (wrong word, couldn't find anything better) of Rajputs should be honored that he was born as one of them,not the other way round.

I have only pride to feel for Shivaji's struggle and success.
If he was a Rajput, well even better. More glad :)
What intrigues me is that first the Rajputs are not much into the debate of his ancestry where they should be and secondly, many Marathas dislike and do not accept the theories of him being a Rajput (as you might have noticed in various debates throughout the internet).

Regards,
Virendra


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Nov 2012 15:30 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 796
Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
Aurangzeb was only afraid of Jaswant Singh. Immediately after Jaswant Singh's death he promulgated Jaziya in all of India (or whatever parts he controlled).

Obviously, Amber was ever loyal and Mewar had past its prime, so that is understandable. But it would be different if they were all combined. As an imperial power you wouldn't want to cause that.
Not discounting Jaswant's power but Azeb's concern about Jaswant was more because of Jaswant's discomfort (or say lack of loyalty) with the Mughals. His past record in dealing with Mughals proved the same.

Ghulami is a dangerous thing. Since it causes slave mentality. After the first daughter was given in Rajasthan by the house of Amber, kings in Rajasthan vied with each other to give daughter to Akbar and later mughals. Other then Mewar everyone else gave daughters. Consequently none of the rajasthan kings had any fire left to oppose their overlords, the mughals.

There developed a fear psychosis or a love for comfort which caused the rajput kings not to rally against Mughals. So even of Aurangjeb had done something to Jai Singh or his kin the coalescing of Rajputs seems doubtful.

After all in 1650's Chittor was again attacked and its construction dust in the ground.

Fact is most every rajput king, post the daughter giving episode to Akbar, was interested in furthering their own cause and the feeling of community etc had gone down the drain.

Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
Alienation of rajputs was not primary in his mind.
I think Azeb was a counter intuitive man and there wasn't a lack of people (Roshanara Begum) provoking him against Shivaji. Didn't he decide to get Shivaji killed?

Indeed. And I think he regretted it till the last days of his existence that he let Shivaji go from Agra.
Virendra wrote:
Rajputs were divided in Mewar, Marwar and Amber. So till that division was status quo, yes Rajput alienation wasn't Azeb primary concern. But killing Shivaji and any Rajputs in the way was a too risky measure to alienate Rajputs safely.

I do not think so. As I said Chittor was attacked in 1650s by Shah Jahan and Dara along with a host of other Rajput kings. No body's blood boiled. So even had Ram Singh been killed not much would have changed in the demeanor of Rajput kings.
Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
I think Ram Singh was associated.

In what way?

In a new town how do you know all the escape routes? How do you get people who will take you in their basket and not raise an alarm? Remember the basket carriers were local delhi hired people. So Ram Singh provided all support that he could/was asked to by Shivaji to honour his father's word.
Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
Besides Aurangjeb was not stupid.

Aurangzeb was the so called imperial throne of India. A chieftain rampaging his court proceedings and then breaking out of his house arrest was a big blot. It would turn into a big mockery if Azeb had not taken a step in retaliation.
(Remember Roshanara Begum kept pantering Azeb that other Chieftains would follow Shivaji). So Azeb was under pressure and when the escape took place, all hell broke lose for Azeb.
He was desperate to take an action. He had to do something and quickly. When Shivaji couldn't be brought back, what is the next thing to do?
Find a man who could be truly/fasely blamed for it and punish him. Thats the least to save your face.
Ram Singh had no chance, even after taking back his security bond over Shivaji.
That is plausible but then he is really stupid and without a sense of justice. Best way to alienate a good commander from your team. See Aurangzeb would have figured out how Shivaji got out.

Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
Furthermore we cannot discount primary sources like those of Kulpati Mishra. (When you have time can you please try looking for Seva di Var in Jaipur?)

I will try to find these. There are 'Granthagars' and Royal Libraries in Rajasthan where I can try to penetrate, but Jaipur Archives is off bounds. It is closely guarded.
I remember reading more than one accounts of various researchers/organizations who reported how difficult it was to get access to anything inside these Archives - Jaipur, Bikaner etc. Don't have the pull/connections to get around it.

No No. Very easy to get in them. Just try and you will be surprised.
Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
Atri has proven beyond doubt that Shivaji was a rajput from the Mewar lineage. My counter question to you is do you see a lot of difference in the etiquette observed by the children of a small land owning rajput jagirdar vs a large land owning rajput jagirdar? Would they address the king of Jodhpur differently? Would they behave different in front of the king? What if they were invited to Ummaid Bhavan? Would the children of these two jagirdars create a ruckus which is what Shivaji is accused of having done by being unpolished?

[..]
My point was not of personal etiquette but of knowing the highest court's protocols.
One would know the latter only if his/her ancestors had been 'practicing' (emphasizing the word again) royals in established Kingdoms for long time.

If you read Sarkar's description of Shivaji's najrana to Ajeb it went perfectly fine. Trouble started much later when he was stand in a corner. Either he was offered a khillat and he did not want to wear it and hence the drama or he took exception to standing behind one of the Rai Singhs.

So this whole etiquette thing is a non starter. Shivaji's Nana was a high officer in the deccan sultante and so was his paternal family.

His mother was a highly cultured lady. Sarkar is just plain wrong in ascribing Shivaji's actions to his lack of etiquette.
Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
If you know where Jaipur archives are kept it would be of of very high interest to read the akhbharat. These akhbharats were written by various mughal subedars and sent to aurangzeb frequently. Besides if you can lay your hands on Haft Anjuman that would be a total steal. It is a book of correspondence between Jai Singh and his chief minister and covers this period.

As I said above, Archives are the toughest to lay hands on. I'll try for Haft Anjuman.
But please don't get your hopes up on me :)

Oh Come on now. A word has been given now and Pran Jaaye par Vachan Na Jaaye!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Nov 2012 16:55 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20
Posts: 811
peter wrote:
Ghulami is a dangerous thing. Since it causes slave mentality. After the first daughter was given in Rajasthan by the house of Amber, kings in Rajasthan vied with each other to give daughter to Akbar and later mughals. Other then Mewar everyone else gave daughters. Consequently none of the rajasthan kings had any fire left to oppose their overlords, the mughals.

There developed a fear psychosis or a love for comfort which caused the rajput kings not to rally against Mughals. So even of Aurangjeb had done something to Jai Singh or his kin the coalescing of Rajputs seems doubtful.
I call that alliance .. although not an equal alliance .. much like regional parties today have with the Congress or BJP (sorry about the poor analogy).
That said, I agree over the reluctance to act against. More than fear I ascribe it to their thinking that they'd be more powerful if standing with Mughals .. 'saluting the Rising Sun' thing?

peter wrote:
After all in 1650's Chittor was again attacked and its construction dust in the ground.

Fact is most every rajput king, post the daughter giving episode to Akbar, was interested in furthering their own cause and the feeling of community etc had gone down the drain.
That is the division that we already talked about many times over. Rajputs didn't stay together in their own region even before Mughals or even against Marathas.
But when all try to please the Mughals who end up biting back their own allies, what stops the Rajputs from taking their que that its time to pack their bags from Agra?

peter wrote:
I do not think so. As I said Chittor was attacked in 1650s by Shah Jahan and Dara along with a host of other Rajput kings. No body's blood boiled. So even had Ram Singh been killed not much would have changed in the demeanor of Rajput kings.

Attacking a Kingdom's fort and doing war like proper men do .. is regular stuff for military based States .. it is different than killing your supposed ally in your own town.
That would be high tension impulsive event and I don't expect that a world war would have come out of it but yes .. it was enough to tell Rajputs that Mughals can no longer be trusted at all. Enough for an alienation that anyway came around later on.
You remember how Prithvi Singh killed Shahjahan's relative in the very Imperial court?
Regular enmity (like Chittor attacks) is something that Rajputs don't loath. But what happened between Prithvi Singh - Shahjahan's relative .. and what might've happened with Ram Singh .. that is not usual in the eyes of Rajputs.

peter wrote:
In a new town how do you know all the escape routes? How do you get people who will take you in their basket and not raise an alarm? Remember the basket carriers were local delhi hired people. So Ram Singh provided all support that he could/was asked to by Shivaji to honour his father's word.

Delhi was no holy Kashi and Shivaji is known to have tried bribery to secure his release.
I don't think its impossible that he could bribe the low level labour and by the way he had local support outside Ram Singh.
For example, who was the decoy sleeping in Shivaji's tent in his stead at the day of escape? That was a crucial part of his plan's success.
I think Ram Singh did things to ensure Shivaji's safety that indirectly helped him escape, but I don't know to what extent Ram Singh deliberately helped Shivaji in a known escape plan.

peter wrote:
No No. Very easy to get in them. Just try and you will be surprised.
I sure will.

peter wrote:
If you read Sarkar's description of Shivaji's najrana to Ajeb it went perfectly fine. Trouble started much later when he was stand in a corner. Either he was offered a khillat and he did not want to wear it and hence the drama or he took exception to standing behind one of the Rai Singhs.

Relativity.
Again my point was not of personal etiquette as you seem to perceive, but of knowing the highest court's protocols and a najrana is not the know all tell all of it.
najranas keep happening in every tom and harry court.
Do all the country's small and big Kings array at any regional Kingdom's court? No .. at the only Imperial court it happens.
If one goes with a lot of presumptions and expectations to an Imperial court for the first time .. perhaps they'll find it out the wrong way that the other party operates at a whole higher level and doesn't think as much of them as they thought.
By the way, Sarkar also relates the mess to the Court Marshal who arranges the ranks .. like who'll stand where.
Secondly, Ram Singh should've ensured that Shivaji was placed just-fully in the court or could've corrected the mistake in time if only he had noticed in time.
peter wrote:
Oh Come on now. A word has been given now and Pran Jaaye par Vachan Na Jaaye!

Don't worry I'm not half hearted over it. I just don't like to disappoint people and have less bandwidth in Jaipur visits till the marriage (Jan 17th). I'll revert to you on this, as soon as I have some results.

Regards,
Virendra


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Nov 2012 17:57 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 796
Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
Ghulami is a dangerous thing. Since it causes slave mentality. After the first daughter was given in Rajasthan by the house of Amber, kings in Rajasthan vied with each other to give daughter to Akbar and later mughals. Other then Mewar everyone else gave daughters. Consequently none of the rajasthan kings had any fire left to oppose their overlords, the mughals.

There developed a fear psychosis or a love for comfort which caused the rajput kings not to rally against Mughals. So even of Aurangjeb had done something to Jai Singh or his kin the coalescing of Rajputs seems doubtful.
I call that alliance .. although not an equal alliance .. much like regional parties today have with the Congress or BJP (sorry about the poor analogy).
That said, I agree over the reluctance to act against. More than fear I ascribe it to their thinking that they'd be more powerful if standing with Mughals .. 'saluting the Rising Sun' thing?

An alliance by bartering a daughter or a sister?
No alliance is worth it if you get it by selling your daughter or sister! These girls were never allowed to come back and visit their home. Were converted to Islam and had to eat beef (that is a pre requisite for conversion to Islam and this was the main reason why these girls were not allowed back in their own homes in rajasthan).
This is why Pratap is the last great Rajput King from Rajputana and no other king after him is worthy enough. Interestingly non-kings, who did not have to barter their daughters, still performed wonderful deeds post Pratap. Case in point Durgadas Rathore.

Once you have compromised your morals you cannot put a morally correct resistance. Rajput kings post Pratap became tributaries to whoever came in their backyard. Be it Mughals, Marathas or the British. They lost their fighting edge for a cause. This all started with the giving of the daughter to Akbar by Amber.

Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
After all in 1650's Chittor was again attacked and its construction dust in the ground.

Fact is most every rajput king, post the daughter giving episode to Akbar, was interested in furthering their own cause and the feeling of community etc had gone down the drain.
That is the division that we already talked about many times over. Rajputs didn't stay together in their own region even before Mughals or even against Marathas.
But when all try to please the Mughals who end up biting back their own allies, what stops the Rajputs from taking their que that its time to pack their bags from Agra?

Think about how badly people who serve are treated. The lure of easy money and no fighting required since you are serving the biggest enemy is a big debilitator. This is what effects the progeny. Think about even the modern royals in Rajasthan. They are far more happy to treat a two bit Englishman or a European then one of their own countrymen. Here I relate the incident, narrated in Dalpat Vilas, from Akbar's time and it did not cause anyone's blood to boil. They kept serving him happily. Now think about what impact does this have on the progeny of rajputs who still serve a person like Akbar? Furthermore the kings after Akbar were far worse:
Quote:
When Akbar began his Qamargah hunt in the Bhera-Rohtas-Girjhaka area, many of the (Hindu) Rajput chiefs accompanying the emperor were encamped on the bank of the river Jhelum. On Akbar's reaching there the chiefs went to meet him. One Rajput chief, Danhaji, was a bit late. Akbar whipped him himself. A young Rajput prince, Prithvidipa, was allowed to play on by his maternal uncle. Akbar ordered the poor uncle to be whipped, and the self-respecting Rajput, unable to bear the insult, stabbed himself thrice with his own dagger, thereby infuriating the emperor even further and making him pass an order for having the dying rajput trampled to death by an elephant. ... When prince Dalpat Singh of Bikaner and his companions saw Akbar after cremating the Rajput's body they found him shouting "Let the Hindus consume cows .....".


Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
I do not think so. As I said Chittor was attacked in 1650s by Shah Jahan and Dara along with a host of other Rajput kings. No body's blood boiled. So even had Ram Singh been killed not much would have changed in the demeanor of Rajput kings.

Attacking a Kingdom's fort and doing war like proper men do .. is regular stuff for military based States .. it is different than killing your supposed ally in your own town.

Well many many examples. Rao Bhoj Hada of Ranathambor had to become a Mansabdar of Mughals after his father capitulated and bowed to Akbar. Bhoj's daughter was married to Jagat Singh, son of Man Singh 1 of Amber. Jagat Singh's daughter was to be married to the Mughals. Bhoj opposed it and said it cannot happen. Jahangir became very upset with this and ordered that Bhoj should be killed and that is what happened.

Nobody batted an eye lid. Jagat Singh, after Bhoj's death, married his daughter to the Mughals.

Virendra wrote:
You remember how Prithvi Singh killed Shahjahan's relative in the very Imperial court?
I do not know this one. Please write more on this.
Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
In a new town how do you know all the escape routes? How do you get people who will take you in their basket and not raise an alarm? Remember the basket carriers were local delhi hired people. So Ram Singh provided all support that he could/was asked to by Shivaji to honour his father's word.

Delhi was no holy Kashi and Shivaji is known to have tried bribery to secure his release.
I don't think its impossible that he could bribe the low level labour and by the way he had local support outside Ram Singh.
For example, who was the decoy sleeping in Shivaji's tent in his stead at the day of escape? That was a crucial part of his plan's success.

It was Hiroji who looked like Shivaji. He stayed in Shivaji bed for 24 hours and then he got up and walked out too.
The Palki bearers were all local people. For a little bribe you think they were ready to be murdered by Ajeb? I don't know it does not seem that a Palki bearer would accept bribe for a sure death of himself and his family. My opinion these were all Ram Singh's men.
Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
If you read Sarkar's description of Shivaji's najrana to Ajeb it went perfectly fine. Trouble started much later when he was stand in a corner. Either he was offered a khillat and he did not want to wear it and hence the drama or he took exception to standing behind one of the Rai Singhs.

Relativity.
Again my point was not of personal etiquette as you seem to perceive, but of knowing the highest court's protocols and a najrana is not the know all tell all of it.
najranas keep happening in every tom and harry court.
Do all the country's small and big Kings array at any regional Kingdom's court? No .. at the only Imperial court it happens.
If one goes with a lot of presumptions and expectations to an Imperial court for the first time .. perhaps they'll find it out the wrong way that the other party operates at a whole higher level and doesn't think as much of them as they thought.
By the way, Sarkar also relates the mess to the Court Marshal who arranges the ranks .. like who'll stand where.
Secondly, Ram Singh should've ensured that Shivaji was placed just-fully in the court or could've corrected the mistake in time if only he had noticed in time.


There was no correction. Shivaji had been assigned a place deliberately where he did not have a line of sight of the emperor. After the killing of Afzal Khan (who some say had defeated Aurangzeb himself) Shivaji was considered extremely dangerous. There was real fear of assasination of Aurangzeb too!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Nov 2012 21:16 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 Feb 2010 18:41
Posts: 321
X-postig from the GDF threads..will be of interest for the wars between Vijayanagar and Madurai sultanate/bahmanis..

This article is continuation of Part I on Bukkaraya which was posted earlier...Both parts including the table which got distorted during posting can be found on my blog: http://jambudveep.wordpress.com/2012/08 ... ayapart-i/

3.Achievements’ of Bukkaraya I

3.1 Destruction of the sultanate of Madurai

As we have seen before the annihilation of the Madurai sultanate was essential to secure the rear of the newly created empire of Vijayanagara.It was also essential to succsefully defend against yhe Bahmani jihad from the north of the river Krishna.Bukkaraya moved with decisive speed and despatched his elder son Kamparaya to uproot the foothold which the Islamic jihadi’s had gained in the deep south of India.The unstructions given by Bukkaraya were clear and unambiguous as shown in this verse in the Madhuravijayam:

“ When all the forest kings are defeated then defeating the Muslim king will not be diffuclt for you.When hundreds of branches of a tree are burnt by the forest fire,is it possible that the tree trunk will not burn?” Verse 11, Eighth Canto, Madhuravijayam.

From the evidence given in the madhuravijyam it is clear that the Chola and Pandya kings who had been dispossessed by the Sultanate and its allies had taken shelter at Vijayanagar court.Madhuravijyam also hints at the fact that the kings of kerala were tributaries to Bukkaraya.

Reinforced by their allies, the Vijayanagar army issued forth from the capital city like a raging torrent.The days of the adhramic Islamic sultanate were numbered now.

“ The army which looked like the grand confluence of seven oceans began its orderly march with great uproar.” Verse 44, Fourth Canto, Madhuravijayam.

With lightening rapidity Kamparaya’s forces reached Mulbagal in a matter of six days. From Mulbagal they swept down into Tamil country and faced off the Champaraju on the Southern bank of the river Palar near Kanchipuram. In the climactic battle Champaraju’s army was shattered and he was forced to seek shelter in the fortress of Rajgambhiranmalai. Besieged and with no succor in sight Champaraju sallied forth from his stronghold and met Kamparaya in single combat, in which he met his doom at the hands of Kamparaya. After stabilizing the anarchic condition in the erstwhile Champaraju kingdom, Kamparaya moved to attack Madurai.

In this expedition he was accompanied by his Brahaman general Gopanarya (Gopanna),Saluva Mangu (who moved down from Udayagiri) and his chief minister Someya Dannayaka.The strike force under Gopana destroyed the forward Muslim garrison at Samayavarm. Srirnagam was liberated and the idol of Sri Ranganatha was reconscreated in the temple which had suffered terrible damage under the Islamic vandals. The temple of Hoysalesvara at Kannanur had been dismantled by Muslims right upto its foundations and a mosque constructed in its place. The mosque was torn down and worship restored in the temple.

For the Madurai sultanate the end game was in sight. Kamparaya fought the muslims in a ferocious battle outside Madurai.The ferocity of the fighting is illustrated in these verses from the Madhuravijayam :

“ The soldiers of Kamparaya with anger ( caused by the enemies evil deeds) avoiding the shower of enemy arrows with their shields,moved unobserved and simultaneously hacked the bodies of enemy horses along with their riders.” Verse 1, Ninth Canto, Madhuravijayam.

“ The bow men severed the trunks of enemy elephants with half moon faced arrows.They (trunks of elephants) fell down into pools of blood like serpents in the sacrificial fire of King Janmejaya.” Verse 3, Ninth Canto, Madhuravijayam.

In the hotly contested battle nearly all the Muslim commanders were killed. in desperation the Muslim sultan attacks Kamparaya and is beheaded in the ensuing encounter. Thus curtains came down on one of the darkest chapters of Indian history. For the first time in Indian history a blood thirsty sultanate was uprooted root and branch and no trace of it left, except for odd coins discovered by numismatists centuries down the road.
3.1.2 Who was the sultan and when did this war take place?

The dates for the existence and destruction of the Madurai sultanate vary widely. This is natural given the paucity of evidence and inscriptional data which can be extremely confusing. The dates for the Madurai war range from 1352 to 1371 CE, a wide range of nearly twenty years. Thus if the foundation of the Madurai sultanate is dated to 1333 CE, it could have lasted anywhere from twenty to forty years depending on which scholars argument you accept.

The table below briefly summarizes the range of dates put forward by various scholars:
Name of Scholar Proposed date for the Madurai war Possible Ruling Sultan
Dr.S.K.Iyengar

prior to 1358 CE
Naziruddin Mohammed Shah (1342-1352 CE)
K.A.N Sastri

around 1364 CE
Fakhruddin Mubarak Shah*(1359-1368 CE)
T.V.S Pandarattar

1364 CE
Fakhruddin Mubarak Shah*(1359-1368 CE)
Dr.T.V.Mahalingam

1361-1363 CE
Fakhruddin Mubarak Shah*(1359-1368 CE)
Father Heras

1377 CE
Alauddin Sikandar Shah*
V. Rangachari

1365-1371 CE
Fakhruddin Mubarak Shah*,Qurbat Hasan Kangu*
Hayavadana Rao

1371 CE
Qurbat Hasan Kangu*
K.R Venkataramana Iyer

1371 CE
Qurbat Hasan Kangu*
Prof.N.Venkataramanaya war in two phases 1370-71 and

final resolution in 1378
1.Qurbat Hasan Kangu2. Alauddin Sikandar Shah*
Dr.A.Krishnaswami

1371 CE
Fakhruddin Mubarak Shah*
Dr.B.A Saletore

1371 CE
1.Qurbat Hasan Kangu2. Alauddin Sikandar Shah*

3.2 Defeat of the Bahmani Jihad

The Bahmani sultan Ala-ud-din Hasan Kangu launched a major invasion in 1355-1357 CE which was successfully beaten off by Bukkaraya. The shock of the defeat and near continuous warfare with Vijayanagar virtually emptied the Bahmani treasury. On Ala-ud-din’s death in 1359 CE,his son Muhammad I found himself broke and unable to mount a credible attack against Vijayanagar. The danger of Firoze Shah Tughlaq (Sultan of Delhi) mounting an attack to recover his brothers conquests in the Deccan also loomed large. Muhammad packed off his mother with a large bribe of gold coins to the Sharif of Mecca and the impotent Abbasid caliph living in Egypt.

At this point in 1360 CE both Bukkaraya and Kapaya Nayaka of Warangal were breathing down his neck. With the tinkle of gold in his hands the Abbaisid caliph promptly issued a farman asking Feroze Tughlaq to desist from attacking the Bahmani kingdom.The farman of an impotent and powerless figurehead from the middle east was enough to convince Firoze Tughlaq to issue an assurance of non-aggression to Muhammad I. This a typical example of the mentality of Muslims in India even today where everything from the Arab world is greater than the land they live in.

Assured of safety on his northern borders Muhammad promptly launched a vicious jihad in 1361 CE against Kapaya Nayaka and Vijayanagar who were allies. On both fronts he had to suffer serious reverses. Kapaya Nayaka’s son Nagadeva captured the fort of Kaulas. Bukkaraya reinforced Kapaya Nayaka with 20,000 cavalry and a large force of infantry. The Bahmani forces had to face a humiliating defeat and the situation was so uncertain for the Bahmani’s that rumors spread of Muhammad death on the battlefield. At the end of the war Bukkaraya forced the jihadi Muhammad to agree to the following terms :

i. The river Krishna was recognized as the boundary between Vijayanagar and the Bahmani sultanate.

ii. Prisoners of war on both sides were to be set free.

iii. In future wars women and children would not be harmed and would be treated with respect.

iv. The forts of Raichur and Mudgal to be jointly controlled.

The terms of the treaty clearly indicate that the Bahmani’s had received a drubbing at the hands of Vijayanagar. This war was notable for the fact that firearms including cannons and muskets were employed by both sides.
3.3 Restoration of a traumatised society

For his untiring efforts in healing the scars inflicted on Hindu society, Bukkaraya was given the title “ Vedamarga Prasthapika” ie the re-establisher of the Vedas. His patronage revived the old systems of learning which had fallen into decay in a half century of warfare.An extremely tolerant ruler he mediated between various sects such as the Jainas and Srivaisnava’s extracting promises that they would respect each other.

It was but natural that the arts, sciences and literature would flourish under the protection of the sword wall erected by Bukkaraya.To quote from Dr.Krishnaswami’s book “ Tamil Country under Vijayanagar”,

“ The rulers of Vijayanagar restored worship in the temples, repaired old temples and towers, settled disputes amongst the temple servants and made extensive endowments in the shape of jewels,lands,taxes and other income.”

He also constructed extensive water management projects the most significant of which was the reservoir of Bukkasamudram. The old water dams, bridges etc which had fallen into ruins due to the Muslim depredations were repaired and restored. Taxes were reduced keeping in view the strained circumstances of the land.

Goa which was under the Kadamba kings came under incessant attack by the Bahmani jihadis. Under Bukkaraya the Islamic invaders were pushed out and Goa was recovered.

This great defender of Dharma breathed his last on 24th February 1377 after a glorious reign of more than twenty years.

References

1.Tamil Country under Vijayanagar rule, Dr.A.Krishnaswami,Annamalai University,1964.

2.Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire, B.A.Saletore,Vols I & II. (both are available for free download o my blog).

3. Original translation of Madhuravijyam, to be published by Sriyogi Publications in 2013.

4.Madhuravijyam,English translation by Prof.Tiruvenkatachari,Madras University,1959.

5. Prof.N.Venkataramanayya’s articles in Vijayanagar history in Itihaas, the journal of Andhra Pradesh State Archives,vol II,no.2,1975, Prolegomena to the Study of Vijayanagar.

* These names have been solely based on numismatic evidence, they are not backed up by either inscriptional or literary sources. Prof. N.Venkataramanaya has correctly called into question the validity of taking these names and dates for granted solely based on the evidence of coins.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2012 06:28 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 796
shiv wrote:

peter wrote:

Are you familiar with the history of India during the Mughal time? Do you know how many Hindus were made Muslim and why do want Hindus to be inclusive?

I know that Aurangzeb was a good king who built temples.
Ask a stupid question and invite a stupid answer

Nothing stupid about your answer or my question. Every pseudo secular in the world believes that Aurangjeb helped build temples, gave farmans to the upkeep of temples, donated lands to the temples.

And the cake is eaten by "Eaton, Richard" who has counted all temples supposed to have been destroyed in 1000 or so years by the armies of Islam and the number is :=> 60 temples!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2012 06:30 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 796
jambudvipa wrote:
X-postig from the GDF threads..will be of interest for the wars between Vijayanagar and Madurai sultanate/bahmanis..

[..]

What is the genealogy of Bukkaraya?

What about his descendants?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2012 09:03 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03
Posts: 2839
As per one version Harihara and Bukka Raya are the part of the Kakathiya forces which were fallen JIhad and were converted into Islam. They were reconverted in the Hindu fold by Vidyaranya Swamy and founded the Vijayanagara Empire. The Sangama Dynastry which they belong is the first of the 4 dynasty of the Empire other being Saluva, Thuluva and Aravidu. The empire saved entire south east, and even up to Bengal from Jihadi attacks for hundereds of years.

One of my close firnds from north india told me told me that he could not find such big temples in the north india in his life because of the destructions and could not find a single big temple of the size which he could not find big temples which are destroyed by muslims.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2238 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aditp, Kakarat, tushar_m and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group