Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 19 Dec 2014 06:58

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2256 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2012 14:22 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 Feb 2010 18:41
Posts: 321
Peter ji ,I will post the geneology in a few days.

Narayan rao garu is correct. Even today the descndents of Vijayanagar dynasty are still extent,I read an article sometime back where even now a coronation is held at Hampi of the descendents.

The Marathas were the natural succesors of the Vijayanagara empire.Both did not compormise when it came to defending dharma.Even in trying times not a single Vijayanagara ruler bartered his wives/daughters to gain security,unlike many of the ruling Rajput families.Such was their esteem that Ferishta (the hagiographer of the Adil Shahi sultans of Bijapur) writing in early 1600's had to make up a story of how one of the Bahmani kings attacked Vijaynagara city and was given the rulers daughter in marriage ! He was writing nearly 150 years after the event whereas no contemporary writer even makes mention of such an event,which would have been historic for the time period.But historians while not taking the story seriously still parade it around as a symbol of Hindu-islamic syncretism.

Which is why the word Rajput has very little meaning,you either follow true kshatriya dharma or you dont.Maharana Pratap was an exemplar of this,which is why he holds a very special place in our hearts.What were the rajputs serving under Auregzeb doing when Kashi Vishvanath was levelled? Same with Mathura?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2012 17:34 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20
Posts: 959
I cannot defend the decision they took centuries back. Being next door to Delhi, with no natural defnse/buffer Amber had lesser chances among entire Rajputana yet that reason doesn't make giving daughters in marraige a valid one preposition. But the picture would be complete only when we contemplate on why Amber found themselves in a situation to even think about such alliances. Reason is - Rajputana was divided .. no one was going to watch out for anyone else. At least not at the macro level in open battles.
If I had opportunity I would have asked them the same questions as you have. But now they're history :)

As far as middle level officers are concerned, Loyalty was important to them. And for them their loyalty was to their King as well as the Imperials posted on top of them.
But with Kings there is also the misplaced belief or ego that whatever happened to others in past won't repeat on them. Because they probably thought they have a very good relationship and are better than the ones who got the raw end of the deal before.

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.
I have already said that I'm not talking about open daylight battles where men fight men in battle field. That is a macro event where actors are not people but States and States don't have the same impulses as people.

peter wrote:
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.
Nothing treacherous in it. Open enmity between Bhoj and Jahangir.
Nobody batted an eye lid. Jagat Singh, after Bhoj's death, married his daughter to the Mughals.

Hada's treaty with Mughals was perhaps the most balanced (least imbalanced) in Rajputana.
I don't know much about this incident. Will read on it.

peter wrote:
I do not know this one. Please write more on this.

Coming soon.

peter wrote:
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.
Ok if that is true then what was the plan of these Ram Singh's men to escape their certain death?
I think the men could have escaped or hid or disguised .. just like Shivaji did. They were not distinguished personalities to be identified easily anyway.
peter wrote:
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!
Yes may be. But when Shivaji had surrendered so many forts in the treaty and was even greeted well by Azeb at the court, he could have been treated better. If they didn't want him to kill Azeb they could have arranged a separate meeting.
The ranking mess was a bad way to ensure emperor's safety. I think they wanted to rub it into him and insult him.

Regards,
Virendra


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Nov 2012 01:20 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 01 Dec 2007 01:21
Posts: 93
Location: U.SA/India.
jambudvipa wrote:
Peter ji ,I will post the geneology in a few days.

Narayan rao garu is correct. Even today the descndents of Vijayanagar dynasty are still extent,I read an article sometime back where even now a coronation is held at Hampi of the descendents.

The Marathas were the natural succesors of the Vijayanagara empire.Both did not compormise when it came to defending dharma.Even in trying times not a single Vijayanagara ruler bartered his wives/daughters to gain security,unlike many of the ruling Rajput families.Such was their esteem that Ferishta (the hagiographer of the Adil Shahi sultans of Bijapur) writing in early 1600's had to make up a story of how one of the Bahmani kings attacked Vijaynagara city and was given the rulers daughter in marriage ! He was writing nearly 150 years after the event whereas no contemporary writer even makes mention of such an event,which would have been historic for the time period.But historians while not taking the story seriously still parade it around as a symbol of Hindu-islamic syncretism.

Which is why the word Rajput has very little meaning,you either follow true kshatriya dharma or you dont.Maharana Pratap was an exemplar of this,which is why he holds a very special place in our hearts.What were the rajputs serving under Auregzeb doing when Kashi Vishvanath was levelled? Same with Mathura?


Well said. Most of the Rajupt kings chose to be selfish and protecting their own power like modern politicians rather than going through hardships like Maharana Pratap and fight for Dharma. Shivaji maharaj inherited the fiercely independent spirit of Vijayanagar rules. I believe he took inspiration from Maharana Pratap and Vijayanagara rules . Harihara and Bukkaraya worked for Kakatiya empire . Kakatiya empire came to an end after a defeat from Mohammad Bin Tuglak.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Nov 2012 09:34 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03
Posts: 3786
As already posted the Harihara and Bukka were in fact converted into Islam and met Swamy Vidyaranya and were converted back in to Dharma. The Prataparudhra Deva - the last king of Kakathiya Empire - The last Indic empire to rule entire telugu lands committed suicide when we was being taken in Chains to Delhi by jumping into Narmada River. So self respecting people died or came back to Dhrma when possible. Even Khusru Khan called himself Hindu Emperor of India immediately after he took power by killing the muslim ruler of Delhi and no one even knows his Hindu name till date. Before that he was bidding for his time supporting Muslim rulers all along. I wonder if he really supported or secreatly helping hindus.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Nov 2012 18:15 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 30 Dec 2011 18:37
Posts: 23
Can we please refrain from rajput basing. Using words "Most of rajput kings" and ", unlike many of the ruling Rajput families" (how many, is there any count!!!). Can you compare the sitution rajput kings who were continously facing the external attacks (specially islamic) without any assistance or support from other regions of our present country (open for correction if I am wrong) and they did it successfully for hundreds of years. Finally when they started crumbling, still other regions were not alarmed and ready to support and enjoying their first line of defense falling. If Maharana Pratap is an exception, then what was Maharana Sanga, Kumbha and Prithiviraj Chauhaan (there are many other names than I mentioned). If rajput kings serving auregzeb coull not do anything, what were other hindu kings doing at that time (may be they were somehow serving the same master).

In fact the wordings could have been "Few of rajput kings" and ", unlike some of the ruling Rajput families" rather than the derogatory words that had been chosen.

This is the same mindset which caused our nation and dharma so much destruction.


Last edited by SiddharthS on 27 Nov 2012 19:22, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Nov 2012 18:24 
Online
BRF Oldie

Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Posts: 2254
Location: Bharathavarshey Bharathakhandey Jumbudweepey Kaveryaha Uttare Teerey
What I dont understand is that the Rajputs continued to support Mughals after Marathas took Delhi in 1736 and even after the fall of the Syed brothers. The battle of Patan where the Rajput-Mughal combine was badle defeated by Marathas, even after this battle Rajputs stuck to Mughals. Even during the first battle of independence Rajputs (and even Marathas) supported Mughals. I have never found a convincing answer as to why the Mughal was pushed as the mascot when the only power on the sub continent who had the wherewithal of challenging the British were Marathas (if the Scindias, Bhonsles etc all united that is).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Nov 2012 19:20 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 30 Dec 2011 18:37
Posts: 23
Dear Yogi, I too have many questions unanswered. Like why marathas were taking chauth from rajputs (from their fellow hindus) and what were the efforts from maratha chatraps to unite rajputs with them. Why surajmal jat didn't help marathas in panipat when maraths were being decimated (4-5 years after plaussy battle in 1757). Why was our dharma not able to eradicate the regional and caste bias at that time and even now...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Nov 2012 19:22 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20
Posts: 959
skganji wrote:
Most of the Rajupt kings chose to be selfish and protecting their own power like modern politicians rather than going through hardships like Maharana Pratap and fight for Dharma.

Hmm .. so in the history spanning across more than a 1000 years, an alliance with Mughals for 150 years means that "most of the Rajput Kings" were selfish. I see :D
Have you heard of Bappa Rawal, Kalbhoj, VigrahaRaj Chauhan, PrithviRaj Chuahan, Rana Hammir, Maharana Kumbha, MahaRana Sanga, Rao Maldev, Surtan Singh Deora, DurgaDas etc .. ?

Yogi_G wrote:
What I dont understand is that the Rajputs continued to support Mughals after Marathas took Delhi in 1736
Rajputs were sticking to Mughals because Marathas didn't behave any better.
They were raiding Rajputana indiscriminately and had unwarranted political intereference at internal matters.
Gradually when the Mughals grew weaker so did the Rajput alliance with them. One by one the big and small Kingdoms reduced their relation to mere occasional show of joined armies at a few instances and then eventually that also ended.
Rajputs and Mughals were waning power in those decades, so they clung to each other probably hoping to halt the free fall.
And for the possibility of Maratha-Rajput alliance, it was killed before even arising.

Regards,
Virendra


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Nov 2012 22:30 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 Feb 2010 18:41
Posts: 321
Peter ji,

as promised here is a rough geneology of Bukkaraya : Moon>Yadu>>>>>>Sangama I.

Sangama I had five sons: Harihara,Bukkaraya,Harappa,Kampana and Mudappa.(this is still an open question as regards names of the other three brothers).

Bukkaraya had three/four sons : Vira Kamparaya (or Kampana),Chikka Kamparaya (VK's younger brother),Sangama (after CK) and Bhaskara Bhavadura (? mentioned in inscriptions).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Nov 2012 23:48 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 Feb 2010 18:41
Posts: 321
I am cross posting this from the GDF thread for maps.

This map is a small demo of what can be done with the blank template map that was traced out as part of the Historical Map of India project.

The political situation in South India and greater part of Maharashtra during 1350 CE has been shown on the map.It still needs a lot of work regaridng correction of boundaries,showing smaller principalities,correction of place names etc etc.But to visualise what the political topography of South India was in the middle of the 14th century this will be useful aid.

This is only one of a series of maps.It can be used to depict battles,movement of troops etc.

1.For correction of boundaries/extent of kingdoms please do provide references.
2. For correction of place names no references necessary.
3.To add minor kingdoms please provide references.
4. Feel free to suggest correction,increase/decrease of fonts etc.

Comments and feedback welcome.The full res map is on my blog :http://jambudveep.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/map-of-vijayanagar-empirecirca-1350-ce/

[url][URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/203/mapofsouthindiacirca135.png/]Image[/url]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/url]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2012 16:33 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 890
Virendra wrote:
I cannot defend the decision they took centuries back. Being next door to Delhi, with no natural defnse/buffer Amber had lesser chances among entire Rajputana yet that reason doesn't make giving daughters in marraige a valid one preposition.

Indeed. Think about Prithviraj Chauhan. Ajmer was his kingdom. It was made a ruin. Taragarh fort was made uninhabitable. Yet giving of daughter was not an option to forge an alliance with the foe.

Prithviraj's descendants are not even known now yet Amber lineage enjoys all fruits of their real estate.

Hammir Dev Chauhan a descendant of Prithviraj did not give an inch to Khilji though had he offered a daughter Ranathambore would have been spared and his lineage would have opened a large Taj resort and enjoyed the fruits.

Had Khliji been given Padmini, Chittor would not have produced a Hammir or a Kumbha or a Sanga or a Pratap.

Virendra wrote:
But the picture would be complete only when we contemplate on why Amber found themselves in a situation to even think about such alliances. Reason is - Rajputana was divided .. no one was going to watch out for anyone else. At least not at the macro level in open battles.

But the same was true for Prithviraj Chauhan and so many countless others who kept fighting these invaders from the time the Arabs started attacking India. The first attack that Rajputs fielded and repulsed happened in 7th century A.D. For 800+ years till the last half of 16th century a daughter was not a bargaining chip. Conditions in Rajasthan were not vastly different. Rajput kings fought against each other back then and also when akbar ascended Delhi.

It was just a moral compromise and a resort to Adharm which caused a daughter to be given.

Had Rajputs not given a daughter chances are the conflicts with Marathas would not have happened.

And Rajputs would have fought against the British.

Akbar's overlordship took away the "edge" from the Rajput kings.


Virendra wrote:
But with Kings there is also the misplaced belief or ego that whatever happened to others in past won't repeat on them. Because they probably thought they have a very good relationship and are better than the ones who got the raw end of the deal before.

Can you please expand this a bit more?

Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
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.
Ok if that is true then what was the plan of these Ram Singh's men to escape their certain death?

They could have run back to Jaipur :wink: !

Virendra wrote:
I think the men could have escaped or hid or disguised .. just like Shivaji did. They were not distinguished personalities to be identified easily anyway.
Had they been Delhiites they would have been hunted.
Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
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!
Yes may be. But when Shivaji had surrendered so many forts in the treaty and was even greeted well by Azeb at the court, he could have been treated better. If they didn't want him to kill Azeb they could have arranged a separate meeting.
The ranking mess was a bad way to ensure emperor's safety. I think they wanted to rub it into him and insult him.


Actually Sarkar or someone mentions that Ajeb had indicated to Ram Singh that Shivaji needs to be disposed off. Ram Singh told Shivaji this and that is what caused all the planning for esacpe.

In fact after Shivaji had escaped and Ram Singh had lost his Mansabdari Jai Singh wrote a letter to Jafar Khan (the prime minister) that he would entrap Shivaji by offering a daughter in marriage. This could not be completed because he died before he could implement his plan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2012 16:38 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 890
Narayana Rao wrote:
As already posted the Harihara and Bukka were in fact converted into Islam and met Swamy Vidyaranya and were converted back in to Dharma.

Can you please provide a few more details on this topic?

Narayana Rao wrote:
Even Khusru Khan called himself Hindu Emperor of India immediately after he took power by killing the muslim ruler of Delhi and no one even knows his Hindu name till date. Before that he was bidding for his time supporting Muslim rulers all along. I wonder if he really supported or secreatly helping hindus.

Who is Khusru Khan and whose Hindu name are you talking about?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2012 16:56 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 890
Yogi_G wrote:
What I dont understand is that the Rajputs continued to support Mughals after Marathas took Delhi in 1736 and even after the fall of the Syed brothers. The battle of Patan where the Rajput-Mughal combine was badle defeated by Marathas, even after this battle Rajputs stuck to Mughals. Even during the first battle of independence Rajputs (and even Marathas) supported Mughals. I have never found a convincing answer as to why the Mughal was pushed as the mascot when the only power on the sub continent who had the wherewithal of challenging the British were Marathas (if the Scindias, Bhonsles etc all united that is).

Couple of points:
Marathas lost also in Rajasthan. It was not as completely one sided as your are suggesting. At Tonga, Mahadji Scindia and his French general, had to beat a retreat when Rathore cavalry attacked them. Though Deboigne had good guns and cannons the cavalry charge was so furious that it upended them.

The reason why rajputs did not align with Marathas was because Marathas imposed heavy fines on rajputs. The rajput mansabdars were on the payroll of Mughals and had to pay nothing to the Mughals other then their services.

Their might have been some funda of swamidharm too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2012 16:59 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 890
SiddharthS wrote:
Dear Yogi, I too have many questions unanswered. Like why marathas were taking chauth from rajputs (from their fellow hindus) and what were the efforts from maratha chatraps to unite rajputs with them.

Well. Rajputs attacked Marathas first. Agreed this was done at the behest of the Mughals when Rajput kings were serving Mughals. But still it was wrong. So what is wrong in Marathas attacking Rajputs since they had been attacked before by Rajputs?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2012 17:00 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 890
jambudvipa wrote:
Peter ji,

as promised here is a rough geneology of Bukkaraya : Moon>Yadu>>>>>>Sangama I.
[..]

Thanks. So they are Yaduvanshis. Who was Sangamas fathers forefathers?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2012 17:06 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03
Posts: 3786
peter wrote:
Narayana Rao wrote:
As already posted the Harihara and Bukka were in fact converted into Islam and met Swamy Vidyaranya and were converted back in to Dharma.

Can you please provide a few more details on this topic?

Narayana Rao wrote:
Even Khusru Khan called himself Hindu Emperor of India immediately after he took power by killing the muslim ruler of Delhi and no one even knows his Hindu name till date. Before that he was bidding for his time supporting Muslim rulers all along. I wonder if he really supported or secreatly helping hindus.

Who is Khusru Khan and whose Hindu name are you talking about?


Guruji,
I am giving following links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khusro_Khan
http://vikramjits.wordpress.com/2012/09 ... u-emperor/
http://blogs.rediff.com/hindutva/2007/0 ... amic-rule/
http://kalchiron.blogspot.in/2007/03/me ... -khan.html
Please also read Chapter 17 of Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History by Veer Savarkar about the same person.

On Vijayanagara our JambuDeweepajis personal blog has wealth of infomation which is very difficult to find else where. It also has links to pdf books on the Empire.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2012 18:38 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 30 Dec 2011 18:37
Posts: 23
peter wrote:
SiddharthS wrote:
Dear Yogi, I too have many questions unanswered. Like why marathas were taking chauth from rajputs (from their fellow hindus) and what were the efforts from maratha chatraps to unite rajputs with them.

Well. Rajputs attacked Marathas first. Agreed this was done at the behest of the Mughals when Rajput kings were serving Mughals. But still it was wrong. So what is wrong in Marathas attacking Rajputs since they had been attacked before by Rajputs?


Can you please provide me more information on the first attack by rajputs on marathas?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2012 19:47 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Feb 2009 21:07
Posts: 4041
Regarding Maratha-Rajput relations,

Jai Singh of Amber invaded marathas in 1666. However, later During reign of Shambhuji, with Durgadas Rathod coming to MH, the relations warmed up. They further warmed up under the reign of Peshwa Bajirao-1. However, after 1744, they deteriorated rapidly and culminated in Rajputs massacring 4000 Marathas in Jaipur in 1748 treacherously. Since this incident, the relations were lukewarm and cold..

But overall, they were much better..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2012 01:42 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20
Posts: 959
peter wrote:
Indeed. Think about Prithviraj Chauhan. Ajmer was his kingdom. It was made a ruin. Taragarh fort was made uninhabitable. Yet giving of daughter was not an option to forge an alliance with the foe.
Prithviraj's descendants are not even known now yet Amber lineage enjoys all fruits of their real estate.
Hammir Dev Chauhan a descendant of Prithviraj did not give an inch to Khilji though had he offered a daughter Ranathambore would have been spared and his lineage would have opened a large Taj resort and enjoyed the fruits.
Had Khliji been given Padmini, Chittor would not have produced a Hammir or a Kumbha or a Sanga or a Pratap.

Not debating all this in principle but there's a distinction to be made between the Amber situation and the invasion example being used here.
Real invaders like Mahmud and Ghori anyway leave no chance of talks, diplomacy and alliance for anyone. They just break in, make as much merry as possible, destroy you and boot out.
A neighboring Kingdom with an established ruler like yourself cannot be viewed in the same light.
Bottomline - there's a difference between someone galloping in as an invader and someone sitting beside you permanently as a neighbor.
The latter is a ground reality that cannot be ignored in long term. Rajputs didn't chose Mughals as their neighbors.
Anyone in that situation would either fight, kill and die .. or they would have an alliance.
Another point to add here in relation to
peter wrote:
The rajput mansabdars were on the payroll of Mughals and had to pay nothing to the Mughals other then their services.
is that Rajputs alliance with Mughals saved atleast Rajputana (if not entire India) from being pillaged and levied madly, with exceptions in Aurangzeb's rule obviously.

peter wrote:
Well. Rajputs attacked Marathas first. Agreed this was done at the behest of the Mughals when Rajput kings were serving Mughals. But still it was wrong.
So what is wrong in Marathas attacking Rajputs since they had been attacked before by Rajputs?

I know but if it was revenge like you project it to be - isn't the Maratha response a classic beating around the bush or barking up the wrong tree ... since they merely picked on Rajputs and not the Mughals.
I think I know why that happened, Mughals were symbolically the rulers (sitting at Delhi-Agra) and any violent dash there could have given Marathas instant success but would also rallied the entire sub continent's muslims up in arms against them. And the consequences would be written in history as just a 'not so sweetly ending' adventure.
That was not the case with Rajputs who were divided, as Akbar also noticed so long back.
Those, I think are the reasons they came after Rajputs.
I can credit Marathas with not behaving the way that relates to women committing Jauhar and farmers burning their crops.
I know of Rajputs participating in Mughal campaigns but haven't heard that Rajputs were pillaging Maratha lands and interfering indiscriminately .. like it happened to them later on.

peter wrote:
Virendra wrote:
But the picture would be complete only when we contemplate on why Amber found themselves in a situation to even think about such alliances. Reason is - Rajputana was divided .. no one was going to watch out for anyone else. At least not at the macro level in open battles.

But the same was true for Prithviraj Chauhan and so many countless others who kept fighting these invaders from the time the Arabs started attacking India. The first attack that Rajputs fielded and repulsed happened in 7th century A.D. For 800+ years till the last half of 16th century a daughter was not a bargaining chip. Conditions in Rajasthan were not vastly different. Rajput kings fought against each other back then and also when akbar ascended Delhi.

Yes but how many Kings and what is the degree of division. Were there like dozens of petty principalities as we see in post Akbar Rajputana or only two-three Major Kingdoms like we see in PrithviRaj Chuahan's and times before?
Even during Sanga's last stand in 16th century, even the military power of many areas outside Mewar was also rallied behind him. If political leadership was strong and clannish hierarchy could be kept together, results would have been different.

By the way, PrithviRaj Chauhan was sitting on Ajmer, which was one of the most strategically important places in NW India.
It was the only gap and choke point in the entire Aravali range ascending diagonally from just south of Delhi to the Mount Abu in S Rajasthan. So I think it is not random that muslims had been visiting Ajmer from early on.
Oh that reminds me, Airavat once blogged that Ajmer was named so after AjayRaj Chauhan who put a fort on mountain overseeing that strategic gap in Aravali. Mountain got called 'Ajey Meru' and the area was gradually named 'Ajmer'.
Har Bilas Sarda in 'Ajmer historical and descriptive' says that current naming may have been due to AjayRaj Chauhan's fort. But the place around the mountains was inhabited even before the fort .. as corroborated by some Jain buildings archeological remains. The city was renovated/repaired by many Kings time and again.

peter wrote:
They could have run back to Jaipur :wink: !

LOL thats not the path of dharma the Rajputs are tested against here is it? :wink: Anyway, so did they run then ? or didn't? What happened to these Ram Singh soldiers then?

peter wrote:
Had they been Delhiites they would have been hunted. A basket bearing nobody? .. may be .. may be not.

peter wrote:
Actually Sarkar or someone mentions that Ajeb had indicated to Ram Singh that Shivaji needs to be disposed off. Ram Singh told Shivaji this and that is what caused all the planning for escape.

Yeah well that is the Bollywood version (metaphor) circulated on TV.
But as far as Sarkar is concerned .. he was trying his best to prove that Ram Singh had nothing to do with it, at least not directly.
I think he could've even warned Shivaji in a generic way that he should be careful as there are a lot of enemies in and out the Court instigating the Emperor against Shivaji.
But assisting in the plan and execution of the escape? Not so sure. Do you have any sources to establish that? Would like to read.

peter wrote:
Jai Singh wrote a letter to Jafar Khan (the prime minister) that he would entrap Shivaji by offering a daughter in marriage.
I'm ready to believe/accept it but wanted to read that letter first. Any sources/ereferences?

peter wrote:
Marathas lost also in Rajasthan. It was not as completely one sided as your are suggesting. At Tonga, Mahadji Scindia and his French general, had to beat a retreat when Rathore cavalry attacked them. Though Deboigne had good guns and cannons the cavalry charge was so furious that it upended them.

Thats where I again commend Marathas intelligence and am disappointed at Rajputs being adamant against changes in military technology. It was fatal to get stagnant and they paid the price.
I've seen theories float around on net that it wasn't like this in times of PrithviRaj Chauhan etc.
They say that he had got the blade of swords thinned to enable them pierce the heavy turkish armor. Don't know much about it, just hearsay.

Regards,
Virendra


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2012 05:00 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 890
peter wrote:
SiddharthS wrote:
Dear Yogi, I too have many questions unanswered. Like why marathas were taking chauth from rajputs (from their fellow hindus) and what were the efforts from maratha chatraps to unite rajputs with them.

Well. Rajputs attacked Marathas first. Agreed this was done at the behest of the Mughals when Rajput kings were serving Mughals. But still it was wrong. So what is wrong in Marathas attacking Rajputs since they had been attacked before by Rajputs?

SiddharthS wrote:
Can you please provide me more information on the first attack by rajputs on marathas?

I can give you information on major attacks led by rajputs against Shivaji. (Atri / Airavat perhaps know about earlier attacks)

Jaswant Singh , Maharaja of Jodhpur, attacked Shivaji's dominions in early 1660's at the orders of Aurangzeb. He was sent to Deccan to help Shaista Khan, mama of Aurangzeb. Many rajputs participated in these attacks. Rai Singh Rathore (Grandson of Amar Singh Rathore of Jodhpur) , Rai Singh Sisodia, many princes from Bundi, Bikaner etc.

Later on Jai Singh of Amber attacked Shivaji. Just read Jadunath Sarkar's book on Shivaji.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2012 05:03 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 890
Atri wrote:
Regarding Maratha-Rajput relations,
[..] However, later During reign of Shambhuji, with Durgadas Rathod coming to MH, the relations warmed up. [..]

Would be awesome to read about this ! Can you please post something from what Maratha historians have captured on Durgadas?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2012 06:17 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 890
Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
Indeed. Think about Prithviraj Chauhan. Ajmer was his kingdom. It was made a ruin. Taragarh fort was made uninhabitable. Yet giving of daughter was not an option to forge an alliance with the foe.
Prithviraj's descendants are not even known now yet Amber lineage enjoys all fruits of their real estate.
Hammir Dev Chauhan a descendant of Prithviraj did not give an inch to Khilji though had he offered a daughter Ranathambore would have been spared and his lineage would have opened a large Taj resort and enjoyed the fruits.
Had Khliji been given Padmini, Chittor would not have produced a Hammir or a Kumbha or a Sanga or a Pratap.

Not debating all this in principle but there's a distinction to be made between the Amber situation and the invasion example being used here.

Perhaps my post was confusing. Khilji was not an invader. He was firmly planted in Delhi and was part of the Delhi Sultanate.

Virendra wrote:
Real invaders like Mahmud and Ghori anyway leave no chance of talks, diplomacy and alliance for anyone. They just break in, make as much merry as possible, destroy you and boot out.

Diplomacy did happen even with Ghoris of the world. There is record of letter exchanges before the war(s) started. Apparently Ghori wrote that he would be happy and leave if Prithviraj converts to Islam. Obviosuly Mr Ghori did not know what Prithviraj was all about. So diplomacy failed.

Virendra wrote:
A neighboring Kingdom with an established ruler like yourself cannot be viewed in the same light.
Bottomline - there's a difference between someone galloping in as an invader and someone sitting beside you permanently as a neighbor.
The latter is a ground reality that cannot be ignored in long term. Rajputs didn't chose Mughals as their neighbors.
Anyone in that situation would either fight, kill and die .. or they would have an alliance.

We have to study the evolution of Sultanates in India. Delhi had become a Sultanate earlier and reached its zenith under the rule of Allauddin Khilji during late 13th century and early 14th century. Delhi sultanate was strong even earlier too. Khilji pressured whole of rajasthan (which his predecessors also did) and Gujarat and MP and even down south. There were repeated attacks on rajputs in Rajasthan. Ranathambore fell during this time and so did Chittor.

After his demise the delhi sultanate broke. Many splinter sultanates popped up. One in Malwa and one Gujarat and some down south too.

These Sultanates repeatedly attacked rajasthan. Gagron (the stronghold of Khichis, the same clan in which Prithviraj Chauhan was born) was destroyed by these sultanates.

None of these rajput kings gave up a daughter despite having sultans as their neighbours for many centuries.

Yet in 1562 , an Akbar, who had not even attacked Rajasthan yet was given a daughter. And rest of rajasthan rajputs, barring a few , followed suit. Places as far away as Jaisalmer were sending their daughters to the Mughal harem.

There is no rationale for this behaviour. It is only "save your own skin" any which way you can.



Virendra wrote:
Another point to add here in relation to
peter wrote:
The rajput mansabdars were on the payroll of Mughals and had to pay nothing to the Mughals other then their services.
is that Rajputs alliance with Mughals saved atleast Rajputana (if not entire India) from being pillaged and levied madly, with exceptions in Aurangzeb's rule obviously.

But we are talking about a path not taken. Had rajput clans kept fighting to their best abilities my view is Mughals would have been shrunk back to delhi much sooner. Same fate was met by delhi sultanate earlier. The resoluteness of rajput kings and their never say die attitude which was built on the principle of no compromise caused the delhi sultanate to shrink to a small principality which only ruled over Delhi and adjoining areas.
Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
Well. Rajputs attacked Marathas first. Agreed this was done at the behest of the Mughals when Rajput kings were serving Mughals. But still it was wrong.
So what is wrong in Marathas attacking Rajputs since they had been attacked before by Rajputs?

I know but if it was revenge like you project it to be - isn't the Maratha response a classic beating around the bush or barking up the wrong tree ... since they merely picked on Rajputs and not the Mughals.
But Marathas did attack the Mughals too. Shivaji's whole life and those of his descendants was spent fighting the Mughals. Later on too Delhi was attacked and Mughal king became a puppet in the hands of Marathas.



Virendra wrote:
That was not the case with Rajputs who were divided, as Akbar also noticed so long back.
Those, I think are the reasons they came after Rajputs.
I can credit Marathas with not behaving the way that relates to women committing Jauhar and farmers burning their crops.
I know of Rajputs participating in Mughal campaigns but haven't heard that Rajputs were pillaging Maratha lands and interfering indiscriminately .. like it happened to them later on.

Well the problem was rajputs were occupying Maratha forts. And were collecting taxes on behalf of the Mughals in Deccan. The famous Tanaji had a massive fight with Uday Bhan Rathore who was the kiledar of the fort.

Think about it : if anyone comes occupies your territory/house no matter on whosoever's orders you don't like that person.

The fact that rajputs became subservient to the mughals after giving their daughters is what caused the conflict between Rajputs and Marathas.

peter wrote:
Virendra wrote:
But the picture would be complete only when we contemplate on why Amber found themselves in a situation to even think about such alliances. Reason is - Rajputana was divided .. no one was going to watch out for anyone else. At least not at the macro level in open battles.

But the same was true for Prithviraj Chauhan and so many countless others who kept fighting these invaders from the time the Arabs started attacking India. The first attack that Rajputs fielded and repulsed happened in 7th century A.D. For 800+ years till the last half of 16th century a daughter was not a bargaining chip. Conditions in Rajasthan were not vastly different. Rajput kings fought against each other back then and also when akbar ascended Delhi.

Virendra wrote:
Yes but how many Kings and what is the degree of division. Were there like dozens of petty principalities as we see in post Akbar Rajputana or only two-three Major Kingdoms like we see in PrithviRaj Chuahan's and times before?

There was a lot of infighting no matter what era you pick up in rajasthan. During Prithviraj's time, Ajmer was fighting against Gujarat (infact when Ghori attacked Gujarat they asked for Ajmer's help but Chauhan armies did not go and help Gujarat.) and was also fighting against Chandels and numerous other kings. So was the case during the time of his father. If you can try to look up Dashrath Sharma's book on Chauhans. It is mind boggling how much rajput vs rajput fights was going on before Prithviraj ascended the throne.

Virendra wrote:
Even during Sanga's last stand in 16th century, even the military power of many areas outside Mewar was also rallied behind him. If political leadership was strong and clannish hierarchy could be kept together, results would have been different.

Pratap was no less as a leader. He only became the king of Chittor after Uday Singh passed away(late 1560 or early 1570). This was many years after the Amber house had given their daughter to Akbar (1562) and many other rajput kings had also done the same.

Had these daughters not been given I have no doubt that Pratap was a leader around whom all rajput kings would have rallied behind. And Akbar would been shrunk to a region around Delhi.
Virendra wrote:
By the way, PrithviRaj Chauhan was sitting on Ajmer, which was one of the most strategically important places in NW India.
It was the only gap and choke point in the entire Aravali range ascending diagonally from just south of Delhi to the Mount Abu in S Rajasthan. So I think it is not random that muslims had been visiting Ajmer from early on.
Oh that reminds me, Airavat once blogged that Ajmer was named so after AjayRaj Chauhan who put a fort on mountain overseeing that strategic gap in Aravali. Mountain got called 'Ajey Meru' and the area was gradually named 'Ajmer'.
Har Bilas Sarda in 'Ajmer historical and descriptive' says that current naming may have been due to AjayRaj Chauhan's fort. But the place around the mountains was inhabited even before the fort .. as corroborated by some Jain buildings archeological remains. The city was renovated/repaired by many Kings time and again.
Very useful info. Thank you!

Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
They could have run back to Jaipur :wink: !

LOL thats not the path of dharma the Rajputs are tested against here is it? :wink: Anyway, so did they run then ? or didn't? What happened to these Ram Singh soldiers then?
Well here is my take. They were Ram Singh's soldiers/men, in disguise, and after the mission was over they were sent away.
Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
Had they been Delhiites they would have been hunted.
A basket bearing nobody? .. may be .. may be not.

Well why would you not ask the palki bearer where he dropped off Shivaji?

Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
Actually Sarkar or someone mentions that Ajeb had indicated to Ram Singh that Shivaji needs to be disposed off. Ram Singh told Shivaji this and that is what caused all the planning for escape.

Yeah well that is the Bollywood version (metaphor) circulated on TV.
But as far as Sarkar is concerned .. he was trying his best to prove that Ram Singh had nothing to do with it, at least not directly.
I think he could've even warned Shivaji in a generic way that he should be careful as there are a lot of enemies in and out the Court instigating the Emperor against Shivaji.
But assisting in the plan and execution of the escape? Not so sure. Do you have any sources to establish that? Would like to read.

Yes Indeed. Page 88, Futuhati-alamgiri by Ishwar Das Nagar who was a contemporary of Durgadas, Jaswant Singh, Aurangzeb etc:
Quote:
After a few days a signal was given to Kanwar Ram Singh that that unfortunate wretch be released from the captivity of pride and haughtiness so that a thorn be removed from the foot of the world. But bearing in mind the promises and assurances his father had given him (Shivaji), he procrastinated and warned that unfortunate man of the design also. After hearing this news, Shivaji was much frightened and perturbed. He started thinking out ways and means for his escape. He sent a message to the Kanwar saying, "I came to the court on the assurances of your father. It is regretful the practice is quite contrary. Even if a handful of my bones are mixed with dust, how great shame will stick for long in the minds of the people of the world?" Then the Kanwar sent a reply through others to this effect: "I am more concerned about your liberation than yuo. Don't be impatient".


Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
Jai Singh wrote a letter to Jafar Khan (the prime minister) that he would entrap Shivaji by offering a daughter in marriage.
I'm ready to believe/accept it but wanted to read that letter first. Any sources/ereferences?

Sure. Here is the letter (from Sarkar's book on Shivaji):
Quote:
Then, in a letter to the prime-minister Jafar Khan we have this astounding proposal from Jai Singh to entrap Shiva by the false proposal of a marriage between his daughter and Jai Singh's son, and get him murdered during his journey to the Rajput general's camp :

"I have not failed, nor will I do so in future, to exert myself against Bijapur, Golkonda and Shiva in every possible way I am trying to arrange matters in such a way that the wicked wretch Shiva will come to see me once, and that in the course of his journey or return [our] clever men may get a favourable opportunity [of disposing of] that luckless fellow in his unguarded moment at that place. This slave of the Court, for furthering the Emperor's affairs, is prepared to go so far,—regardless of praise or blame by other people,—that if the Emperor sanctions it, I shall set on foot a proposal for a match with his family and settle the marriage of my son with his daughter —though the pedigree and caste of Shiva are notoriously low and men like me do not eat food touched by his hand (not to speak of entering into a matrimonial connection with him), and in case this wretch's daughter is captured I shall not condescend to keep her in my harem. As he is of low birth, he will very likely swallow this beat and be hooked. But great care should be taken to keep this plan secret. Send me quickly a reply to enable me to act accordingly." [H. A. 139a.]

This letter throws a lurid light on the political morals of the 17th century. When people argue that Afzal Khan could not have possibly intended to stab Shivaji during an interview, they should remember
that the sanctimonious Jai Singh was prepared to
prove his loyalty by lowering his family honour and
laying a fatal snare for Shivaji, a brother Hindu.


Note HA 139 stands for Haft Anjuman which is the book of letters penned by Jai Singh.

Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
Marathas lost also in Rajasthan. It was not as completely one sided as your are suggesting. At Tonga, Mahadji Scindia and his French general, had to beat a retreat when Rathore cavalry attacked them. Though Deboigne had good guns and cannons the cavalry charge was so furious that it upended them.

Thats where I again commend Marathas intelligence and am disappointed at Rajputs being adamant against changes in military technology. It was fatal to get stagnant and they paid the price.
I've seen theories float around on net that it wasn't like this in times of PrithviRaj Chauhan etc.
They say that he had got the blade of swords thinned to enable them pierce the heavy turkish armor. Don't know much about it, just hearsay.


My personal view is that lack of technology use by rajputs is not a big failing as is generally made out. If you read some of the earlier discussion with Airavat on this very thread you will see my arguments. Even in World War 1 I post an excerpt:
Quote:
Already celebrated as the "Jo Hukums", which literally means "As you command", for their reckless courage and discipline in following orders, however dangerous, the Jodhpur Lancers arrived in Egypt in early 1918, a part of the 15th Imperial Service Cavalry Brigade, 5th Cavalry Division, Desert Mounted Corps. After three months of training near Cairo they moved into the Jordan Valley. There, in more familiar terrain at last, they would cover themselves with glory. Indeed, bored with the trenches of France and itching for some real cavalry fighting, they showed their mettle in their very first action, at Abu Tulul on 14th July. Two squadrons of the Lancers led by Harji's son, Major Thakur Dalpat Singh, attacked a large body of Turks on a ridge, spearing many and capturing many more. The Eastbourne educated Dalpat, like his father a great favorite of Sir P's, outpaced his troop and single-handedly attacked a machine-gun emplacement, succeeding in capturing a senior officer. For this he was awarded the Military Cross. Not the only one decorated that day. In all the Lancers received six Indian Orders of Merit and seven Distinguished Service Medals for their success at Abu Tulul.

Yet, it was only the beginning. The Commander-in-Chief, Egypt Expeditionary Force, Sir Edmund Allenby's historic offensive into Palestine and Syria began on 19th September,1918. Four days later the Jodhpur Lancers with the 15th Cavalry Brigade, including the Mysore and Hyderabad Lancers, moved into position to capture strategic Haifa. This charming coastal town, now in Israel, was both strongly defended and easily defensible, commanded as it is by Mount Carmel (hailed for its beauty in the Song of Solomon) in the south-west and protected by the River Kishon in the north-east.

At 1400 hrs on 23rd September the battle began. Under heavy Turkish machine-gun fire, negotiating quicksand on the banks of the Kishon which they had to cross on the one hand, and the not-so-gentle slopes of Carmel on the other, the Jodhpur Lancers charged into Haifa. (The Mysore Lancers were sent in to "mop up" and the Hyderabad Lancers were held in reserve. Cover fire was provided by the Sherwood Rangers.) Interestingly the attack was led by 'B' squadron which consisted solely of Jodha Rathores. 'A' squad, the Mertias followed and 'C' squad, with its mixed forces, came in later.

Such raw courage the world had rarely seen. Nor had death and pain ever been treated with such disdain. Here were descendants of men who had fought at Khanua and Sumel and Dharmat and Merta and Malpura, all legendary Rathore charges, but this was perhaps the finest of them all. Indeed this charge at Haifa is described by many as the most remarkable cavalry action ever in the history of war and, as the historian Charles C.Trench remarks in his book, 'The Indian Army and the King's Enemies',."Only the Jo Hukums could have done it." That day the Jo Hukums had to be restrained as they galloped through the streets of Haifa, even after all the machine-gun posts had fallen, towards the placid and unknowing Mediterranean, spearing and butchering the unfortunate Turks who crossed their path, civilians even, for they had seen too many of their brothers fall. And among the dead was their beloved commander, Major Thakur Dalpat Singh.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2012 13:31 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20
Posts: 959
peter wrote:
Perhaps my post was confusing. Khilji was not an invader. He was firmly planted in Delhi and was part of the Delhi Sultanate.

If we're talking about Turks then Rajputana was well lead by a strong Mewar for centuries of friction with Turks.
What happened at the interim decades of Babur-Humayun-Akbar?
Mewar lost illustrous Sanga, then succession issues and lacklustre leaders took Mewar downhill.
Many of the remaining Kingdoms and petty principalities splintered out of Mewar umbrella .. each to his own.
Amber was going through turbulent succession issues and infighting at chieftain levels. Half old BiharMal had just managed to start trying get Amber back into stability.
Marwar had a never before opportunity and in their excited indiscriminate aggressiion, they aliented Rajputana pretty much like Marathas did up north on a grander scale.
With many heads mushroomed in Rajputana and half of them incapable, instable .. Akbar would have been a fool to not jump on the chance.

peter wrote:
Diplomacy did happen even with Ghoris of the world. There is record of letter exchanges before the war(s) started. Apparently Ghori wrote that he would be happy and leave if Prithviraj converts to Islam. Obviosuly Mr Ghori did not know what Prithviraj was all about. So diplomacy failed.

Ok, point taken. My understanding is that PrithviRaj owned a much larger Kingdom than Amber of Akbar's times.
Not sure if this is the best comparison.

peter wrote:
We have to study the evolution of Sultanates in India. Delhi had become a Sultanate earlier and reached its zenith under the rule of Allauddin Khilji during late 13th century and early 14th century. Delhi sultanate was strong even earlier too. Khilji pressured whole of rajasthan (which his predecessors also did) and Gujarat and MP and even down south. There were repeated attacks on rajputs in Rajasthan. Ranathambore fell during this time and so did Chittor.

After his demise the delhi sultanate broke. Many splinter sultanates popped up. One in Malwa and one Gujarat and some down south too.

These Sultanates repeatedly attacked rajasthan. Gagron (the stronghold of Khichis, the same clan in which Prithviraj Chauhan was born) was destroyed by these sultanates.

None of these rajput kings gave up a daughter despite having sultans as their neighbours for many centuries.

Yet in 1562 , an Akbar, who had not even attacked Rajasthan yet was given a daughter. And rest of rajasthan rajputs, barring a few , followed suit. Places as far away as Jaisalmer were sending their daughters to the Mughal harem.

There is no rationale for this behaviour. It is only "save your own skin" any which way you can.

I have nothing new to add. We've been through this many times before.

peter wrote:
But we are talking about a path not taken. Had rajput clans kept fighting to their best abilities my view is Mughals would have been shrunk back to delhi much sooner.

If there was an Imperial leadership to hold Rajputana together like against Turks, then Yes. But that wasn't the case.
Pure resoluteness and principles don't suffice everytime against every enemy. And it is not like Rajput Kings didn't win wars after Akbar .. they did in both roles - as enemy of Mughals & as Allies.
But now the central leadership was missing even though the common Rajput soldier is the same guy wit hsame courage to kill-die fighting against Mughals. Things have to come together at macro level.
Strong leadership attracts everyone under one umbrella and it becomes possible to stand your enemy.
Doesn't happen in the 'each to his own' case.

peter wrote:
But Marathas did attack the Mughals too.
They did yes, in the home turf of Mughals? Delhi-Agra zone? No.
peter wrote:
Shivaji's whole life and those of his descendants was spent fighting the Mughals.
Yes, where Shivaji was defending his home turf and Mughals+Rajputs were aggressors.
peter wrote:
Later on too Delhi was attacked and Mughal king became a puppet in the hands of Marathas.
I don't disagree on diplomatically owning the Mughal empire, Marathas did that very subtly and was the right way to go about it. But I haven't heard of any major Maratha military attack on the gates of Delhi-Agra.
Even if one or two cases popped up .. it nowhere compares to the amount of indiscriminate military and otherwise aggression they applied in Rajputana.
Various clan based Kingdoms of Rajputana have kept fighting each other and alongside shoulder to shoulder too.
Hot and cold, there is a recognition of brotherhood that we're leaves of the same tree. This feeling was not at political galleries .. but at ground zero among the people, among the common soldiers and officers.
Brothers may fight but they're still close knit, there is a line that is not crossed and they don't plunder each other beyond few battlefields.
The same had to be present at a more macro level between Rajputs and Marathas. In that case, neither sides would've disappointed each other so badly.

peter wrote:
Well the problem was rajputs were occupying Maratha forts. And were collecting taxes on behalf of the Mughals in Deccan. The famous Tanaji had a massive fight with Uday Bhan Rathore who was the kiledar of the fort.

Think about it : if anyone comes occupies your territory/house no matter on whosoever's orders you don't like that person.

The fact that rajputs became subservient to the mughals after giving their daughters is what caused the conflict between Rajputs and Marathas.

So they do the easy thing, go against the Rajputs because they're neighbors and below Mughals in the food chain.
The fact is that Marathas went after Rajputs to stamp the new found power and authority and take revenge on the aggression they had faced. But they conveniently forgot that Rajputs were only a part of Mughal armies and administration who were the real enemy.
I would let the Marathas question if they were around to help against Arabs and Turks whom the Rajputs chewed alone for centuries or aginst the Mughals even.
Fact is, Marathas were not even on the scene then. Do I blame them? Obviously not.
Rajputs thought of themselves as the default Hindu leadership of north India. Forget Rajputs, the wild Maratha ambitions couldn't keep even the Jats on their side where there was no bitter history to flavor aginst a good start.
I think each side has their share of faults here.
So now that Marathas revenged from Rajputs, I guess we can excuse the latter from the criticism in the name of Hindu brotherhood.
If Rajputs made a mistake, Marathas followed it with theirs. History was bound to turn the way it did.

peter wrote:
But the same was true for Prithviraj Chauhan and so many countless others who kept fighting these invaders from the time the Arabs started attacking India. The first attack that Rajputs fielded and repulsed happened in 7th century A.D. For 800+ years till the last half of 16th century a daughter was not a bargaining chip. Conditions in Rajasthan were not vastly different.

How many middle size Kingdoms were there in Rajputana when PC was reigning from Ajmer in central Rajasthan up in north till Tarain and beyond.
How many middle size Kingdoms were there in Rajputana when Akbar appeared on the scene.
Compare the two.

peter wrote:
Rajput kings fought against each other back then and also when akbar ascended Delhi.

Yes, where were they and in how big Kingdoms?
Lie in PC's case many of the ones we're talking about are outside Rajasthan (main Rajputana), like Jaichand in modern UP and the Chalukyas in Gujarat.
My point - look at the degree of division, infighting and the number, size of individual Kingdoms.
Did you see a dozen mid and small size Kingdoms waving separately in Rajasthan itself?
Lets see if even half a dozen were there .. were they not under a central leadership like PC, Kumbha, Sanga etc?
How many clans were there in Rajasthan alone at the time of Akbar and how many were there centuries back?

peter wrote:
If you can try to look up Dashrath Sharma's book on Chauhans. It is mind boggling how much rajput vs rajput fights was going on before Prithviraj ascended the throne.

Yet PC emerges as the main leader in Rajasthan .. were there wars between politically+miitarily independent Kingdoms inside Rajasthan?
I will try to look up the book you've suggested.

peter wrote:
Pratap was no less as a leader. He only became the king of Chittor after Uday Singh passed away(late 1560 or early 1570). This was many years after the Amber house had given their daughter to Akbar (1562) and many other rajput kings had also done the same.

Pratap didn't have cross clan military services from most of the Rajputana like his grandfather did.
Even Amber chieftains and Sikarwad Rajputs were participating from Sanga's side.
By the time we go from Sanga to Pratap Mughals had settled themselves in delhi-Agra. Could Amber (adjacent to Delhi-Agra) in their political soup of weak Kings and succession wars; have stopped them alone? I think not.
Could Mewar+Marwar+Amber have done it? Piece of cake perhaps.
Like I said above Rao Maldeo behaved the way Marathas did later on. A different approach from him at that point could've
changed history.
Well I guess its enough of speculative 'if this and that would've happened' from me. Seems redundant and meaningless now :(

peter wrote:
Had these daughters not been given I have no doubt that Pratap was a leader around whom all rajput kings would have rallied behind. And Akbar would been shrunk to a region around Delhi.

Would've been a dream come true :P

peter wrote:
Well here is my take. They were Ram Singh's soldiers/men, in disguise, and after the mission was over they were sent away.

Let me try putting it again. If the palki bearers were identified faces in Delhi-Agra ,, weren't the Rajput soldiers roaming and encamped in Delhi-Agra most of the times; even more identifiable?
Wouldn't there absence obviously raise fingers? Soldiers are always well accounted for. This doesn't seem to fit.

peter wrote:
Well why would you not ask the palki bearer where he dropped off Shivaji?
If only I could trace the bugger :lol: .. time to register an FIR :P

peter wrote:
Yes Indeed. Page 88, Futuhati-alamgiri by Ishwar Das Nagar who was a contemporary of Durgadas, Jaswant Singh, Aurangzeb etc:
After a few days a signal was given to Kanwar Ram Singh that that unfortunate wretch be released from the captivity of pride and haughtiness so that a thorn be removed from the foot of the world. But bearing in mind the promises and assurances his father had given him (Shivaji), he procrastinated and warned that unfortunate man of the design also. After hearing this news, Shivaji was much frightened and perturbed. He started thinking out ways and means for his escape. He sent a message to the Kanwar saying, "I came to the court on the assurances of your father. It is regretful the practice is quite contrary. Even if a handful of my bones are mixed with dust, how great shame will stick for long in the minds of the people of the world?" Then the Kanwar sent a reply through others to this effect: "I am more concerned about your liberation than yuo. Don't be impatient".

Thank you so much. So it runs opposite to Sarkar's stand?
In 'A History of Jaipur' he aims to rid Ram Singh from any direct links to the escape.
I'd be more happy if the latter had a hand in it :)

peter wrote:
Sure. Here is the letter (from Sarkar's book on Shivaji):
Then, in a letter to the prime-minister Jafar Khan we have this astounding proposal from Jai Singh to entrap Shiva by the false proposal of a marriage between his daughter and Jai Singh's son, and get him murdered during his journey to the Rajput general's camp :

"I have not failed, nor will I do so in future, to exert myself against Bijapur, Golkonda and Shiva in every possible way I am trying to arrange matters in such a way that the wicked wretch Shiva will come to see me once, and that in the course of his journey or return [our] clever men may get a favourable opportunity [of disposing of] that luckless fellow in his unguarded moment at that place. This slave of the Court, for furthering the Emperor's affairs, is prepared to go so far,—regardless of praise or blame by other people,—that if the Emperor sanctions it, I shall set on foot a proposal for a match with his family and settle the marriage of my son with his daughter —though the pedigree and caste of Shiva are notoriously low and men like me do not eat food touched by his hand (not to speak of entering into a matrimonial connection with him), and in case this wretch's daughter is captured I shall not condescend to keep her in my harem. As he is of low birth, he will very likely swallow this beat and be hooked. But great care should be taken to keep this plan secret. Send me quickly a reply to enable me to act accordingly." [H. A. 139a.]

This letter throws a lurid light on the political morals of the 17th century. When people argue that Afzal Khan could not have possibly intended to stab Shivaji during an interview, they should remember
that the sanctimonious Jai Singh was prepared to
prove his loyalty by lowering his family honour and
laying a fatal snare for Shivaji, a brother Hindu.

Note HA 139 stands for Haft Anjuman which is the book of letters penned by Jai Singh.

Thanks again peter. Oh and wasn't the Haft Anjuman penned by Jai Singh's secretary instead?
They say this guy was very close to Jai Singh ... like eyes and ears and that middle level Rajput officers weren't very fond of it.
He also had converted to Islam later on.
peter wrote:
My personal view is that lack of technology use by rajputs is not a big failing as is generally made out. If you read some of the earlier discussion with Airavat on this very thread you will see my arguments. Even in World War 1 I post an excerpt:

I don't know what weapons they used in WW I but too many casualties as the excerpt itself says.
I think the entry of gun powder blasted off the edge Rajputs had via their typical frontal calvary dash.
Marathas (French help) and British have applied and proven it convincingly.

Regards,
Virendra


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2012 15:32 
Online
BRF Oldie

Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Posts: 2254
Location: Bharathavarshey Bharathakhandey Jumbudweepey Kaveryaha Uttare Teerey
all said and done Marathas and Rajputs put their personal wishes and desires above the civilization's interests. If Rajputs and Marathas had united along with Sikhs and won the 3rd battle of Panipat India's history would have been different. I would be writing this post in Sanskrit/Marathi/Tamil for starters :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2012 18:34 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Feb 2009 21:07
Posts: 4041
Yogi_G wrote:
all said and done Marathas and Rajputs put their personal wishes and desires above the civilization's interests. If Rajputs and Marathas had united along with Sikhs and won the 3rd battle of Panipat India's history would have been different. I would be writing this post in Sanskrit/Marathi/Tamil for starters :-)


No one can be ideological so pure in politics. Marathas, Rajputs, Sikhs were politicians. They were protecting their political interests. It is through their actions which were primarily motivated to protect their political and economic interests and their dharmik values, their preferences, their inclinations and disinclinations while performing the selfish actions, that dharma was protected and partially reinstated..

What is Dharma after all? It is not akin to Christiandom OR Darul-Islam. It is Indic way of life. Rajdharma is important aspect of dharma.

Regarding we writing and communicating in Sanskrit, well that is still not unachievable.. Point is, was Sanskrit really as popular? rather, Was Sanskrit really meant to be a popular common medium of communication? I think not. Sanskrit was a common database, a reservoir of knowledge where people could upload and download information. Marathas in Tanjavur are different from Marathas of Katak and Gwalior which are in turn different from Marathas of Pune and Nagpur. Tanjavur Marathas have their blend of Marathi and Tamil. Gwalior, Kanpur, Dilli Marathas had their blend of Marathi and local languages. If their rule lasted for few more generations, the language of administration would be local language. You think Madhavrao Shinde spoke Marathi at home? Same is the case with Vadodara and Katak Marathas.

Everyone in India knew at least 2-3 languages. And per


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2012 18:52 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52
Posts: 1736
Location: Fortune Favors The Brave
Yogi_G wrote:
all said and done Marathas and Rajputs put their personal wishes and desires above the civilization's interests.


Yogi_G ji, That looks easy in theory but is actually very difficult in practice. Having said that one point of these threads is to study history, find the flaws and rectify them for future. The flaw during medieval period wrt India was lack of teamwork because of too many ego issues( this problem continues to date ). The solution is to instill teamwork values among Indian citizens and leadership apart from a common national purpose.

Yogi_G wrote:
If Rajputs and Marathas had united along with Sikhs and won the 3rd battle of Panipat India's history would have been different. I would be writing this post in Sanskrit/Marathi/Tamil for starters :-)


+1. except that by and large Jats had become more powerful and were much more active than Rajputs(who were confined to Rajputana) in Northern India. Maharaja Surajmal was the monarch of the Jat kingdom during the period of battle of panipat. And I have an interesting observation about Battle of Panipat wrt what you earlier said. As you know Marathas fought the battle alone and although they inflicted terrible losses on Abdali's islamist forces( enough to preclude any other major islamist invasion on Indian territory from NWFP/Afghanistan since to this date ), they lost. Now let us see how the Jats and Sikhs fared after that battle.

In 1762( year after Panipat), Abdali committed what the sikhs call as Wada Ghalugara( greater massacre ) where more than 50,000 sikhs were killed on a single day. This was almost a genocide for Sikhs as their numbers were very less during this period; 100,000-200,000.

Then in 1763, Maharaja Surajmal , ruler of the Jat kingdom attained martyrdom in a battle against Ruhelas (Indian born islamist allies of Abdali in Panipat). He was in his 50's. Needless to say Jat Kingdom was over its prime with his premature death.

All three parties suffered because of their inability to find a common cause and for the personal reasons of their Headstrong leaders who kept their selfish interests above that of the Dharma and Civilization.

Benjamin Franklin once said "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately". This actually happened at and after Battle of Panipat to us. All parties got screwed.

And I am writing this post in English.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2012 21:13 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 Feb 2010 18:41
Posts: 321
Regarding Marathas what people do not seem to appreciate is that they were the only dharmic group fighting on multiple fronts against multiple predators.Heres a short list: Portugese,dutch,the EIC,mughals and their remnant groups,afghans,various nawabs,nizams etc and Panipat was hardly their finito.This is much like the halo created around the battle of Rakshasa tangadi in 1565.


Money crunch was a permament problem with the EIC squeezing the sea trade.Rajupts or others never had a problem cozying up to the mughals so why complain when another dharmic power imposes chauth?

the peak of the Marahta empire actually came post 1780.

and regarding the Ruhelas or rohilla's: Najib Khan Rohilla's treachery was more than avenged in the years following Panipat.Mahadji Shinde and his forces massacred most of the male Ruhela population and Najib Khans grave was dug up and his ashes consigned to the flames.

As usual Atriji is the right person to expound on this piece of Bharatiya history.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2012 00:55 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20
Posts: 959
Marathas also did cozy up to Deccan Sultans down south.
Mughals weren't an adharmic neighbor for Marathas, like the Deccan Sultans weren't for Rajputs.
Mughals had to stretch thin their entire logistics and treasury to wage distant cumbersome campaigns far off in Deccan.

Marathas were anyway remote controlling Mughals, why not use/tax the Mughals treasures then?
Because Mughals were bankrupt after Aurangzeb.
How did the dharmic Marathas go about the Chauth business?
Did they promise protection from Mughals or Afghans in return of the Chauth?
If not, then the Chauth imposition makes sense after all the adharmic people are routed out of India.
You collect Chauth, you have to give back something, like .... Imperial protection.
Just expanding your own pockets with Chauth practice and then leaving India with vaccum like Raghoba did by returning .. doesn't seem like a dharmic power fit yet to rule in the Pan India position.

Regards,
Virendra


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2012 09:24 
Online
BRFite

Joined: 12 Apr 2011 21:25
Posts: 227
In the general discussion about how badly dharmics rulers (specifically Maratha, Rajput and Jat) behaved with each other, people forget the kindness shown by ordinary people to fellow dharmics in distress. I was reminded of this when reading a recent book on Panipat by Dr. Kulkarni, formerly a surgeon in the Indian army, called 'Solstice at Panipat'. How the (now) Haryavani Jats (encouraged by Surajmal) sheltered the members of the Maratha (caste) who were injured, and even now there is a large population of descendants of these 'Marathi Jats' living in a village near Panipat. Similarly, the Brahmins from the maratha army were sheltered by the local brahmins - I remember that the famous Sharma clan of officers in the Indian army (which included a Param Vir Chakra and a army chief) had said that one of their ancestors was a soldier in the Maratha army at Panipat.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2012 12:51 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20
Posts: 959
Yes. At social level the Indic people healed and ranked shoulders with each other.
The mess was at political-military levels.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2012 13:12 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 33978
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
yes the maratha soldiers who settled in haryana are called Rod community

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/hary ... 68685.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2012 15:48 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 Feb 2010 18:41
Posts: 321
I concur, in the general populace there has always been reciprocation and sympathy for other dharmics.

Panipat was the only war where the victor did not take over Delhi.The Marathas lost the tactical battle but won strategically.Abdali sent a peace letter to the peshwa within a month of Panipat.The Peshwa was already crossing the Narmada with 50,000 when the news of the disaster reached him.

Whatever mistakes the Marathas made,their heroism in defending Bharata against the Afghan onslaught is something that cannot be denied.The top leadership fought to the last man on Panipat (they were hungry and tired). Mahadji Shinde barely escaped with his life.This is something that no other dharmic or deracinated dharmic power has done till date.

One of the leading historians of Maharashtra told me in a conversation that the Rajputs had already opened negotiations with Abdali assuring him of assistance (someone needs to check this?).

Somnath,Kashi Vivvanath and many other temples was rebuilt by Marathas (Ahilyabai Holkar).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2012 16:50 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03
Posts: 3786
Panipet is the last west side invasion onto India and after that they had to withdraw and could not proceed. While dieing to the last men (and women) Maratas weakend the Muslims they are unable to proceed further and had to withdraw. But loss of so many leaders and force made Maratas and thereby India weak and Brits could starts their games.

Ahalyabai Holker is one of the greatest ladies of the Dharma who gets little recognition in todays India.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2012 21:21 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 890
Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
Perhaps my post was confusing. Khilji was not an invader. He was firmly planted in Delhi and was part of the Delhi Sultanate.

If we're talking about Turks then Rajputana was well lead by a strong Mewar for centuries of friction with Turks.
What happened at the interim decades of Babur-Humayun-Akbar?
Mewar lost illustrous Sanga, then succession issues and lacklustre leaders took Mewar downhill.

Till Pratap and Amar Singh I do not see any problem with Mewar lineage. Sure Vikram, Banbir and Uday Singh for some time left a bit to be desired but Pratap was more exemplary then Sanga and Kumbha and Hamir.

Virendra wrote:
Many of the remaining Kingdoms and petty principalities splintered out of Mewar umbrella .. each to his own.

They did not on their own. It was the specific act of giving daughters which made these principalities align with the Mughals.
Virendra wrote:
Amber was going through turbulent succession issues and infighting at chieftain levels. Half old BiharMal had just managed to start trying get Amber back into stability.
Succession issues have been there all the time. Prithviraj's granfather was killed by his own son and his father had to be whisked away to Gujarat and so on so forth. That is no reason for anyone to align with the Mughals.

Virendra wrote:
Marwar had a never before opportunity and in their excited indiscriminate aggressiion, they aliented Rajputana pretty much like Marathas did up north on a grander scale.

Well the problem for Marwar was that Maldev was a kan ka kaccha. He was given the opportunity to stamp out the pathans (who had already sent Humayun packing to Persia) but he fell rather easily to a trap by Sher Shah Suri.

Virendra wrote:
With many heads mushroomed in Rajputana and half of them incapable, instable .. Akbar would have been a fool to not jump on the chance.

But this period is no more unique then the earlier periods. Earlier too Bhatis were at war with Rathores, Rathores were at war with Parihars, Sisodiyas were at war with Rathores and so on so forth.
This cannot be an excuse for Kachwahas to behave the way they did.

Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
Diplomacy did happen even with Ghoris of the world. There is record of letter exchanges before the war(s) started. Apparently Ghori wrote that he would be happy and leave if Prithviraj converts to Islam. Obviosuly Mr Ghori did not know what Prithviraj was all about. So diplomacy failed.

Ok, point taken. My understanding is that PrithviRaj owned a much larger Kingdom than Amber of Akbar's times.
Not sure if this is the best comparison.
Let us not forget that during the Sultanate time many small kingdoms were reapetedly attacked by the Delhi as well as Gujarat and Malwa Sultanates. No one gave a daughter. Take the example of Songaras from Jalore or Hammir at Ranathambore. These were small principalities. No bigger then Amber.


Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
We have to study the evolution of Sultanates in India. Delhi had become a Sultanate earlier and reached its zenith under the rule of Allauddin Khilji during late 13th century and early 14th century. Delhi sultanate was strong even earlier too. Khilji pressured whole of rajasthan (which his predecessors also did) and Gujarat and MP and even down south. There were repeated attacks on rajputs in Rajasthan. Ranathambore fell during this time and so did Chittor.

After his demise the delhi sultanate broke. Many splinter sultanates popped up. One in Malwa and one Gujarat and some down south too.

These Sultanates repeatedly attacked rajasthan. Gagron (the stronghold of Khichis, the same clan in which Prithviraj Chauhan was born) was destroyed by these sultanates.

None of these rajput kings gave up a daughter despite having sultans as their neighbours for many centuries.

Yet in 1562 , an Akbar, who had not even attacked Rajasthan yet was given a daughter. And rest of rajasthan rajputs, barring a few , followed suit. Places as far away as Jaisalmer were sending their daughters to the Mughal harem.

There is no rationale for this behaviour. It is only "save your own skin" any which way you can.

I have nothing new to add. We've been through this many times before.

This was mentioned to counter the point that somehow Amber found itself in a very unique position with the accession of Akbar that caused them to start daughter diplomacy. When infact even during the Sultantate time too there was similar pressure on Rajasthan and no one yielded a daughter.
Virendra wrote:
And it is not like Rajput Kings didn't win wars after Akbar .. they did in both roles - as enemy of Mughals & as Allies.

Can you please give a few examples of winning wars as enemy?
Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
But Marathas did attack the Mughals too.
They did yes, in the home turf of Mughals? Delhi-Agra zone? No.


Why do you think the Marathas were fighting at Panipat against Abdali? It was too far north from their home.
Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
Later on too Delhi was attacked and Mughal king became a puppet in the hands of Marathas.
I don't disagree on diplomatically owning the Mughal empire, Marathas did that very subtly and was the right way to go about it. But I haven't heard of any major Maratha military attack on the gates of Delhi-Agra.
Even if one or two cases popped up .. it nowhere compares to the amount of indiscriminate military and otherwise aggression they applied in Rajputana.

Think about who was the fighting arm of Mughals? It was the rajputs. If you have to subdue the central leadership in Delhi whom do you take on first? The fighting arm or the leadership itself?

Virendra wrote:
Various clan based Kingdoms of Rajputana have kept fighting each other and alongside shoulder to shoulder too.
Hot and cold, there is a recognition of brotherhood that we're leaves of the same tree. This feeling was not at political galleries .. but at ground zero among the people, among the common soldiers and officers.
Brothers may fight but they're still close knit, there is a line that is not crossed and they don't plunder each other beyond few battlefields.

This is one of the least understood sociological topics in the history of medieveal Rajputana. There was a great schism in the society of Rajasthan after the daughters were given to the Mughals. Maharana Pratap banned all marriages between rajputs supporting him and other rajputs who had given daughters to Mughals. This ban lasted for more then a hundred years.

Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
Well the problem was rajputs were occupying Maratha forts. And were collecting taxes on behalf of the Mughals in Deccan. The famous Tanaji had a massive fight with Uday Bhan Rathore who was the kiledar of the fort.

Think about it : if anyone comes occupies your territory/house no matter on whosoever's orders you don't like that person.

The fact that rajputs became subservient to the mughals after giving their daughters is what caused the conflict between Rajputs and Marathas.

So they do the easy thing, go against the Rajputs because they're neighbors and below Mughals in the food chain.

No. I think they wanted to neutralise the fighting arm of the mughals and then take on the central leadership. It was a perfect plan.

Virendra wrote:
The fact is that Marathas went after Rajputs to stamp the new found power and authority and take revenge on the aggression they had faced. But they conveniently forgot that Rajputs were only a part of Mughal armies and administration who were the real enemy.

The point is that a cycle once started has to reach its conclusion. Karmically since rajputs were the first aggressors, no matter at whosoever's behest, and caused numerous raids in Marathaland the reverse had to happen too.
Virendra wrote:
I would let the Marathas question if they were around to help against Arabs and Turks whom the Rajputs chewed alone for centuries or aginst the Mughals even.Fact is, Marathas were not even on the scene then.

Actually if we study the history of Rashtrakutas they defended India against the Arabs. Are modern Marathas descendants of Rashtrakutas? I am sure they are.
Virendra wrote:
Do I blame them? Obviously not.
Rajputs thought of themselves as the default Hindu leadership of north India. Forget Rajputs, the wild Maratha ambitions couldn't keep even the Jats on their side where there was no bitter history to flavor aginst a good start.
I think each side has their share of faults here.
So now that Marathas revenged from Rajputs, I guess we can excuse the latter from the criticism in the name of Hindu brotherhood.
If Rajputs made a mistake, Marathas followed it with theirs. History was bound to turn the way it did.

You nailed it. The Karmic wheel had to turn a full circle. Think about the reverse. If the daughter was not given, rajputs would have shrunk akbar to delhi region. Even if rajputs had lost and akbar or his descendants had attacked the southern land, there would have been Indian Hindus ready to fight. But the Hindus would not have fought themselves as happened between rajputs and Marathas.

Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
But the same was true for Prithviraj Chauhan and so many countless others who kept fighting these invaders from the time the Arabs started attacking India. The first attack that Rajputs fielded and repulsed happened in 7th century A.D. For 800+ years till the last half of 16th century a daughter was not a bargaining chip. Conditions in Rajasthan were not vastly different.

How many middle size Kingdoms were there in Rajputana when PC was reigning from Ajmer in central Rajasthan up in north till Tarain and beyond.
How many middle size Kingdoms were there in Rajputana when Akbar appeared on the scene.
Compare the two.

Not jameen asman ka difference. I do not have Dashratha Sharma handy right now but he has given all the details.
Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
Rajput kings fought against each other back then and also when akbar ascended Delhi.

Yes, where were they and in how big Kingdoms?
Lie in PC's case many of the ones we're talking about are outside Rajasthan (main Rajputana), like Jaichand in modern UP and the Chalukyas in Gujarat.
My point - look at the degree of division, infighting and the number, size of individual Kingdoms.
Did you see a dozen mid and small size Kingdoms waving separately in Rajasthan itself?
Lets see if even half a dozen were there .. were they not under a central leadership like PC, Kumbha, Sanga etc?
How many clans were there in Rajasthan alone at the time of Akbar and how many were there centuries back?

Mandore had Parihars. Bhatis were already in Jaisalmer and surrounding regions. Tomars in Delhi. Chauhans at Ajmer. Chalukyas in Gujarat. Parmars in Jalore and so on so forth.
Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
If you can try to look up Dashrath Sharma's book on Chauhans. It is mind boggling how much rajput vs rajput fights was going on before Prithviraj ascended the throne.

Yet PC emerges as the main leader in Rajasthan .. were there wars between politically+miitarily independent Kingdoms inside Rajasthan?
Yes. Many.

Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
Pratap was no less as a leader. He only became the king of Chittor after Uday Singh passed away(late 1560 or early 1570). This was many years after the Amber house had given their daughter to Akbar (1562) and many other rajput kings had also done the same.

Pratap didn't have cross clan military services from most of the Rajputana like his grandfather did.

Every clan of rajasthan fought under the banner of Pratap. There were Rathores, Bhatis, Tomars, Jhala, Chauhans, Hada, Deora, Songara and some Kachwahas too. What is happening in modern Rajasthan is that Pratap is not being given his due because Udaipur claims that they are the Hindu Suraj since they did not give daughters and every other major king of rajasthan resents this for obvious reasons. So they leave no stone unturned in humbling Pratap's achivement.

BTW a similar movement was in force in Jodhpur where contributions of Durgasdas were swept under the rug for the longest time.
Virendra wrote:

By the time we go from Sanga to Pratap Mughals had settled themselves in delhi-Agra. Could Amber (adjacent to Delhi-Agra) in their political soup of weak Kings and succession wars; have stopped them alone? I think not.

Sure. But so could the Khichis at Gagron not stop the Malwa sultanate from running them over. But did they yield a daughter? Why not?


Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
Well here is my take. They were Ram Singh's soldiers/men, in disguise, and after the mission was over they were sent away.

Let me try putting it again. If the palki bearers were identified faces in Delhi-Agra ,, weren't the Rajput soldiers roaming and encamped in Delhi-Agra most of the times; even more identifiable?
Wouldn't there absence obviously raise fingers? Soldiers are always well accounted for. This doesn't seem to fit.
See as is clear from the Ishwardas Nagar's write up that responsibility of getting Shivaji out was Ram Singh's. How does Shivaji find trusted men who are not Marathas and are willing to put their life on the line for him? They were Ram Singh's men. They could be sent back to Jaipur after the mission is over or to some other place.

Virendra wrote:
Thank you so much. So it runs opposite to Sarkar's stand?
In 'A History of Jaipur' he aims to rid Ram Singh from any direct links to the escape.
I'd be more happy if the latter had a hand in it :)

Ofcourse it runs opposite. History of Jaipur is not any history. It is just written to fool people and clear the name of Jaipur house.

Virendra wrote:

Thanks again peter. Oh and wasn't the Haft Anjuman penned by Jai Singh's secretary instead?
They say this guy was very close to Jai Singh ... like eyes and ears and that middle level Rajput officers weren't very fond of it.
He also had converted to Islam later on.

Yeah the letters were penned by Jai Singh and the secretary of his just compiled them in a volume.

I actually do not understand his conversion to Islam bit. If you can find anything on it while you are in Jaipur I will be very happy to learn the details.

Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:
My personal view is that lack of technology use by rajputs is not a big failing as is generally made out. If you read some of the earlier discussion with Airavat on this very thread you will see my arguments. Even in World War 1 I post an excerpt:

I don't know what weapons they used in WW I but too many casualties as the excerpt itself says.
I think the entry of gun powder blasted off the edge Rajputs had via their typical frontal calvary dash.


Do you examples from medieveal Indian history where the presence of gun powder carried the day?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2012 21:27 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 890
Yogi_G wrote:
all said and done Marathas and Rajputs put their personal wishes and desires above the civilization's interests.

Hind sight is always 20/20!

Yogi_G wrote:
If Rajputs and Marathas had united along with Sikhs and won the 3rd battle of Panipat India's history would have been different. I would be writing this post in Sanskrit/Marathi/Tamil for starters :-)

Not only third battle of panipat. There were many such battles. Lots of them were won which we do not talk about much. Sure wars were lost. But did Rajputs/Marathas/Sikhs etc stopped fighting? One group took over the mantle from another and saved the day.

The biggest achievement of all these groups was that they did not allow India to become a 100% Islamic state as happened in Persia etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2012 21:31 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 890
Singha wrote:
yes the maratha soldiers who settled in haryana are called Rod community

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/hary ... 68685.html

This seems very odd. Why would'nt the defeated Maratha soldiers just return back to their home towns? Why stay back in Haryana?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2012 21:34 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 890
Narayana Rao wrote:
Panipet is the last west side invasion onto India and after that they had to withdraw and could not proceed.
Yes but the wall created by the Sikhs had a lot to keep the Afghans in check otherwise we would have seen more invasions from the west.
Narayana Rao wrote:
Ahalyabai Holker is one of the greatest ladies of the Dharma who gets little recognition in todays India.
I totally agree with you. She sent the Shivaling for the Kashi Vishwanath temple found in Narmada.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2012 22:56 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 Feb 2010 18:41
Posts: 321
Came across details of unknown wars by the Seuna Yadavvas against the Islamic Turks.penned down my thoughts..

Rethinking our concept of Bharatiya history : The case of the Yadava’s of Devagiri

While flipping through the pages of a book on inscriptions found in Andhra Pradesh, I came across two interesting inscriptions which give a jolt to certain notions I had about the Seuna Yadava rulers of Devagiri. These raise a lot of questions regarding the kind of history we are taught in our schools and colleges.

1.A little background...

But I will digress here for a bit to give a brief background on the subject. Devagiri (modern day Daulatabad fort and its surroundings) was the seat of power of the Yadava rulers who ruled most of present day Maharashtra from 1173 to 1317 CE.It was a prosperous kingdom and a golden age in the history of Maharashtra. The conventional view of how the Yadavas of Devagiri fell to the Islamic onslaught is briefly like this:
In 1297 CE, Ala-ud-din Khilji conducted a surprise raid on Devagiri with a small cavalry based force. After defeating intital resistance near Baglana he besieged the capital itself. The Yadava king Ramachandra Deva had to shut himself in the fort as there were very few troops at hand.Most of the army was campaigning under his son Simghana down South against Veera Ballala III.On hearing of the Muslim attack Simghana rushed back to his fathers aid with a force of 20,000 soldiers.They are almost on the verge of finishing Khilji off when Ala-ud-dins reinfoircements arrive.Thinking that the entire Delhi army is attacking the Yadava army breaks and is defeated.Ramachandra has to empty his treasury and give his daughter in marriage to Ala-ud-din.Gradually the kingdom loses its independence till the last ember of freedom is extinguished by Qutb-ud-din Mubarak Khilji in 1317 CE.The entire royal family of the Yadavas is massacred and Haripala Deva (the son in law of Ramachandra Deva) is skinned alive and hung from the gates of Devagiri fort.

The inferences drawn from the above account are :
1. The Yadavas were utterly incompetent in matters of intelligence and their communication system was flawed. Otherwise how could Ala-ud-din penetrate right upto the capital without being detected?
2. They were so busy fighting senseless wars with their Hoysala and Kakatiya neighbours that they lost sight of the Islamic monster looming in the horizon.
To my mind something was missing from the narrative. It did not gel that a powerful kingdom which excelled in every sphere of life (arts, culture, music etc) could be so blind to the intentions of the Islamic vandals who had entrenched themselves at Delhi for over a hundred years.

2.The Panagallu Inscription of Sarangapanideva

The inscription I talked about earlier is by Sarangapanideva,a son of the Yadava ruler Simghana I who ruled Devagiri from 1200-1247 CE.For unknown reasons this prince had migrated to Wrangal and was made administrator of the Panumganti sthala (area) by the kakatiya king Rudradeva.Theinscription records a gift of wet land to the temple of Chhaya Someshwara.The most intresting aspects of the inscription are some of the titles assigned to Sarangapanideva:
i.Prarajya-rajya-Turuhkopaplavamedini-Samuddharana : which means “ protector of the great kingdom from the trouble of the Turushka (Muslim) armies.”

ii. Gurjararaya-varana-ankusa : which means the ankush (controller) of the king of Gurjara desa.

iii.Malaviya-mana-mardana : Destroyer of the rpide of the Malavas (Malwa,central India).

iv. Gambhira-abhira-prachanda : Very ferocious for the yadavas (cow herds).

The government epigraphist has mentioned that Sarangapanideva probably inherited these titles from his father Simghana I,as in an inscription found near Dharwad Simghana I has nearly the same epithets.
Additionally there is one more epithet found in the Dharwad inscription of Simghana I dated from 1239 CE : “Turushka kopa pralaya maharnava magna medini samuddharana maha varaha.” Which means “incarnation of Lord Vishnu (in his varaha avatar) in lifting the earth from the deluge of the muslims.”

3.Inferences drawn from the inscriptions

The most obvious inference is that Simghana I ( and probably his sons) crossed swords with the Islamic jihadis pouring out from Delhi and defeated them. Their most likely adversary was Shams-ud-din Iltutmish who ruled over the Delhi sultanate from 1211-1236 CE. There is no record of the Islamic hordes having crossed the Vindhyas at this early date. This means that Simghana I most likely battered the Islamic armies in central India and Gujarat.In this period the Chaulukyas of Gujarat were actively assisting the survivors of Prithviraj Chauhan’s Ajmer kingdom in their freedom struggle. The inclusion of Malwa and Gurjara regions in the titles indicates that Simghana assisted these regions in throwing back the muslim offensive or defeated the muslims in his campaigns against these regions.
This militates against the view that the Yadavas sealed themselves off from the events overtaking northern India.

4.Questions raised by the inscriptions

1. Why was Devagiri unable to muster resources to fight the Islamic offensive? In previous decades it had clearly taken the offensive to the muslims, what happened in a fifty year period that sapped its aggressiveness?

2.Was there a natural calamity such as a long drought followed by famine that dimished the resources of the kingdom?

3.The fact that the Seuna Yadava’s could mount offensives beyond the Vindhya mountains indicates that they had some kind of an intelligence and communications system. Did it break down by 1297 CE? If so for what reasons?

4. The period from the 1290’s onwards was one in which the Islamic offensive of the Delhi sultanate gained new power and many large Hindu kingdoms ceased to exist by the 1320’s.This included Gujarat,Devagiri,Jalor,Ranthambor etc. Is there something we are not seeing in this pattern of collapse?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2012 23:15 
Online
BRFite

Joined: 12 Apr 2011 21:25
Posts: 227
peter wrote:
Singha wrote:
yes the maratha soldiers who settled in haryana are called Rod community

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/hary ... 68685.html

This seems very odd. Why would'nt the defeated Maratha soldiers just return back to their home towns? Why stay back in Haryana?

These were Maratha soldiers who were badly injured but survived. They were incapable of returning home in that state, and stayed on because the kindness shown to them after they finally recuperated - often with loss of a limb or an eye.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Dec 2012 10:41 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 890
jambudvipa wrote:
[..]

1.A little background...

But I will digress here for a bit to give a brief background on the subject. Devagiri (modern day Daulatabad fort and its surroundings) was the seat of power of the Yadava rulers who ruled most of present day Maharashtra from 1173 to 1317 CE.It was a prosperous kingdom and a golden age in the history of Maharashtra. The conventional view of how the Yadavas of Devagiri fell to the Islamic onslaught is briefly like this:
In 1297 CE, Ala-ud-din Khilji conducted a surprise raid on Devagiri with a small cavalry based force. After defeating intital resistance near Baglana he besieged the capital itself. The Yadava king Ramachandra Deva had to shut himself in the fort as there were very few troops at hand.Most of the army was campaigning under his son Simghana down South against Veera Ballala III.On hearing of the Muslim attack Simghana rushed back to his fathers aid with a force of 20,000 soldiers.They are almost on the verge of finishing Khilji off when Ala-ud-dins reinfoircements arrive.Thinking that the entire Delhi army is attacking the Yadava army breaks and is defeated.Ramachandra has to empty his treasury and give his daughter in marriage to Ala-ud-din.Gradually the kingdom loses its independence till the last ember of freedom is extinguished by Qutb-ud-din Mubarak Khilji in 1317 CE.The entire royal family of the Yadavas is massacred and Haripala Deva (the son in law of Ramachandra Deva) is skinned alive and hung from the gates of Devagiri fort.


What is the source for above history? How accurate is the above description?

[..]
jambudvipa wrote:
2.The Panagallu Inscription of Sarangapanideva

The inscription I talked about earlier is by Sarangapanideva,a son of the Yadava ruler Simghana I who ruled Devagiri from 1200-1247 CE.For unknown reasons this prince had migrated to Wrangal and was made administrator of the Panumganti sthala (area) by the kakatiya king Rudradeva.Theinscription records a gift of wet land to the temple of Chhaya Someshwara.The most intresting aspects of the inscription are some of the titles assigned to Sarangapanideva:
i.Prarajya-rajya-Turuhkopaplavamedini-Samuddharana : which means “ protector of the great kingdom from the trouble of the Turushka (Muslim) armies.”

ii. Gurjararaya-varana-ankusa : which means the ankush (controller) of the king of Gurjara desa.

Which emperor? A Gurjara Pratihar?

jambudvipa wrote:
[..]

The government epigraphist has mentioned that Sarangapanideva probably inherited these titles from his father Simghana I,as in an inscription found near Dharwad Simghana I has nearly the same epithets.


How accurate are the genealogies? What about date synchronization with other events?
jambudvipa wrote:
[..]

The most obvious inference is that Simghana I ( and probably his sons) crossed swords with the Islamic jihadis pouring out from Delhi and defeated them. Their most likely adversary was Shams-ud-din Iltutmish who ruled over the Delhi sultanate from 1211-1236 CE. There is no record of the Islamic hordes having crossed the Vindhyas at this early date. This means that Simghana I most likely battered the Islamic armies in central India and Gujarat.In this period the Chaulukyas of Gujarat were actively assisting the survivors of Prithviraj Chauhan’s Ajmer kingdom in their freedom struggle. The inclusion of Malwa and Gurjara regions in the titles indicates that Simghana assisted these regions in throwing back the muslim offensive or defeated the muslims in his campaigns against these regions.

Or his timeframe is incorrectly understood?

jambudvipa wrote:
[..]

4. The period from the 1290’s onwards was one in which the Islamic offensive of the Delhi sultanate gained new power and many large Hindu kingdoms ceased to exist by the 1320’s.This included Gujarat,Devagiri,Jalor,Ranthambor etc. Is there something we are not seeing in this pattern of collapse?

After Prithviraj Chauhan's defeat many wars were fought between invaders and rajputs. Sometimes the invaders had the upper hand and sometimes they were defeated. The wars continued for the next 100 or so years till the time of Allauddin Khilji. He was able to organize the islamic forces and used the treachery weapon well.

I thought that Malik Kafur was the first to have gone and attacked south of the Vindhyas. Was there somebody before him? Islamic sources would surely mention a name if indeed someone did cross Vindhyas?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2256 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: A Sharma, ArunK, Merril, nageshks, Pratyush and 27 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