Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

[Y I Patel]

Thanks Rahul - I get most of what you are saying.

Your previous post (from the link) mentioned bharthas, and "bharti hona" means to sign up, usually in an armed force... vardhi probably has some relationship as well, so that particular tidbit was educative.

Correct me if I am wrong, but would it not have been cheaper for Indian rulers, who mostly had to face off with internal rivals, to rely on levies instead of more expensive professional forces? That just sounds like the economic corner to cut, especially if you have some pretty formidable natural barriers in the form of wide rivers as well as high mountains on your historical borders...

Also, for example, I would feel much worse knowing that Hemu had professional soldiers who melted away when they saw him injured, rather than thinking that they were peasants who shrugged and walked away when given a an advance indicator of impending regime change.

[Y I Patel]

Added a bit later, after some more thought...

On the other hand, what you say makes sense at another level - if there were no levies, then kshatriyas fought, shudras tilled, vaishyas plied their trade, and none pulled together

[Rahul M]

Correct me if I am wrong, but would it not have been cheaper for Indian rulers, who mostly had to face off with internal rivals, to rely on levies instead of more expensive professional forces? That just sounds like the economic corner to cut, especially if you have some pretty formidable natural barriers in the form of wide rivers as well as high mountains on your historical borders...

I think the concept of levy was either unknown in India or the generals considered taking unwilling soldiers to battle not worth their while. which is the conventional wisdom in the modern world as well.

however, the Indian monarchs, even the emperors did not maintain huge standing armies throughout the year. chanakya's model, which I explained in that link, called for a much smaller core of standing army called maula. the bhrta reserve was called up sometime before the campaign season, retrained and thus the army formed up with mercenary additions, if any.
a very popular mercenary type was the kamboja cavalry, which was in much demand throughout India.
the overall system is somewhat similar to the national guard or IDF's reservists, except the bhrta was not conscripted.

Also, for example, I would feel much worse knowing that Hemu had professional soldiers who melted away when they saw him injured, rather than thinking that they were peasants who shrugged and walked away when given a an advance indicator of impending regime change.

hemu too was fighting at the head of an alliance, his army included smaller hindu kings with their armies and afghan generals with their own contingents. he didn't yet have time to consolidate and centralize his kingdom or his army. without hemu to keep it together it had the same problem as any other decentralized force. it would be the generals with their personal rivalry that would break away, not the soldiers. the soldiers would simply follow their respective generals as any disciplined army would.

On the other hand, what you say makes sense at another level - if there were no levies, then kshatriyas fought, shudras tilled, vaishyas plied their trade, and none pulled together

emphatic no ! caste did not prevent people from changing their profession, there was mobility even when the british came to India.
chanakya explicitly mentions that of the three varnas only brahmins won't make good soldiers because they would be prevented by their dharma to be ruthless enough to be a good soldier. an enemy can get clemency by prostrating himself in front of a brahmin soldier and he is duty bound to let him go.
he considers khsatriya soldiers to be the best since they get trained in arms from childhood but vaishya and shudra soldiers would be effective in large numbers. not to mention that the very person he helped to the throne of India, chandragupta maurya, was a shudra !
as was mahapdma nanda, whose successor chandragupta replaced with chanakya's aid. mahapadma nanda was a barber who rose to the throne of pataliputra by his own cunning and in the timespan of a few years conquered most of northern India.

or take hemu. he came from a brahmin family, his father was a small trader, a vaishya if you will and he himself became a soldier, a general and finally a king.

[Y I Patel]

All true, my friend. All true.

But. Let me get down to the real source of my questions. The original Islamic impulse that exploded out of Arabia was an awesomely potent force. The young caliphate it spawned combined commercial, scientific and cultural strengths from being at the cross roads of the world. And yet, this irresistible forces was pretty much stopped cold at the boundaries of India. Not for a few decades, but for centuries.

So obviously an answer was found; Islam was a known quantity, force was met with force. But then, by the turn of the millenium, somehow things started to go wrong. Indian resistance weakened, confederacies failed, brother failed brother, and the castle gate opened.

Why?

[Virupaksha]

trade networks were taken over.
There are accounts of how the buddhist traders opened the gates and colluded with them. The frontier kingdoms require sustenance either through subsidy from the ganga valley (i.e. huge empires) or continuing trade. This trade routes when conquered made sure that there were elements within india to open gates.

[Rahul M]

spot on. in addition to the economic reasons there are purely military ones.

please remember that the arabs (and iran, russia, china, egypt, korea and the whole of levant) fell to the same threat that broke through in India. the turco-mongol military machine was a phenomenon few had answer to. considering that little fact we fared far better than most of the above countries, with our heritage and identity still intact.

[Santosh]

Rahul, can you please explain how we fared better than russia, china, and korea. Iran and Egyt I can understand since they got totally converted to Islam. Russia, China, and Korea by far have survived, although I am not sure if the sword of Islam managed to reach Korea and Japan. Thanks in advance.

[Airavat]

^^^^China and Russia fell to the Mongols. Their military system and tribal setup was similar to the Turks, hence the references to "turko-mongol".

[Rahul M]

it's wrong to see the conflict itself as a religious war, India did not fall to the 'sword of islam' but to the sword of the turks/mongols, who happened to be muslims at that point of time. it is an important distinction.
the religious repression is an aftermath of the military defeat, not the cause of it. the fact that the invaders were muslim is simply incidental and played no part in the military outcome. one can even argue that the initial brutality too would have remained unchanged if the religion of the invaders were something else. the turco-mongol armies that had not converted to islam were no less brutal.

coming to my comment, kindly note that I said "better than most of the above countries", the operative word being most. for russia check the history of the kieven rus and the golden hords.
the mongols rulers of china were not muslim but provided patronage to muslims from central asia and the middle east who often occupied positions of influence. the han chinese were relegated to the lowest social rung and had no political power. in India OTOH the struggle never really stopped and in spite of being a lucrative target next door to the turco-mongol power centre, local kings continued to fight and in many cases kept their own kingdom intact.

korea was a vassal state of the yuan (mongol) empire under kublai khan. twice he sent invasion fleets to conquer japan and both times the fleet got destroyed in typhoons. the japanese hailed this as divine intervention and named the typhoons kamikaze, a word which we know from a different context nowadays.

[Santosh]

Thanks Rahul and Airavat.

[Y I Patel]

I am afraid I do not agree with the part about us falling to the same forces as most of Eurasia - the Gaznavids started battering the Hindu Shahis a century before Chengiz Khan's hordes caused the big spillover that carried Turks eastwards and southwards in the Ganga plains. The Gaznavids were Turks converted to Islam and raised as a slave military elite by the Caliphates, but their zeal was as much Islam inspired as it was by the gold in Indian temples.

The door was really unlocked before the horse stampeded in, and I do agree that it might have been a Buddhist hand that slid the bolt. But that is the sad part about it all! Buddhism is as Indian as any other Dharma, and when matters reached a point where Buddhists were alienated enough to not feel Indian was when we really lost. They were the culprits, and their karma caused Buddhism to be lost to its land of birth. But how did matters come to that pass?

India needed the balance between the autocratic worldliness of "Hinduism" and the democratic idealism of Buddhism. The spiritual tension between the two made India the wonder that it was, and in a sense Sankara vijaya was really a harbinger of Islam vijaya. But if I sound too harsh, maybe the credit (or blame) for the decline of Buddhism does not really lie with Vedantin reformers - the centuries of battering by Islam could only have been faced by Kshatriya spirit, and by that time Buddhism had lost it's reformist impulse to become parasitic and incapable of adapting to the challenge. And maybe the lack of Buddhism's restraining influence caused Hinduism itself to corrupt and harden - it became more of a Brahmin-Kshatriya club, castes began to harden, and it became every caste for itself. Because say what we will, that's how it was later when we faced the other big invasion.

In geopolitical terms also, Buddhist embassies were India's window to the rest of the world -a window that got shut; followed by the drawbridge being pulled up in the form of a ban on crossing Sindhu.

The military implications were there. Khorasan had a fabulous system of irrigation that got destroyed by Chengis Khan, but before that it would have been quite rich agriculturally. The whole area is known for saffron, dry fruits etc. And even if it was harsh terrain, it was home to the Indians who lived there, who got battered while the rest of the country hid behind the wall. The Gaznavids battered away at Kabul, Peshawar and Lahore starting when? Around 970 CE or something? Sure, there were some instances when other rulers got together with Jaipal to shoo them away. But shoo them away is all they could do, because the supporters had no staying power. Contrast with the century before that, when the Buddhist Palas were bolstering Kabul and the Shahis could mount reprisals all the way into Sistan! That ability was what India lost, when Sankara triumphed.

[Lalmohan]

in one sense, the shakas and hunas were no different militarily (for their period) from the turko-mongols - and each of these were resisted and absorbed in turn by the greater mass of india. in a similar way to which the northern barbarians were absorbed into china time and again. the arabs too floundered somewhere in the western marches of the gobi desert on their mission to 'bring islam' to the chinese

i believe that the ghaznavids et al., came for loot but were disciplined and kept in order by using islam. the zeal of conversion is secondary to the zeal of free booty

[tsarkar]

The Greeks were the first to regularly train soldiers

sorry, not true at all.
soldiers have been trained through drills as long as there have been professional soldiers, which is as soon as mankind. even levies were given rudimentary training before they were sent to battle. the macedonian army under philip was very well drilled but that doesn't mean they 'invented' it. this is not something that needed to be invented.

You'll be surprised to know that before 1678, there were no centrally raised perpetual standing armies in Europe or worldwide. The first standing armies were raised by Frederick William of Prussia and the Prussian model was followed worldwide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_ ... randenburg

Or Napoleon standardized cannonballs as per caliber instead of weight of cannonball. Before Napoleon, a cannonball for one 32 pounder might not fit the barrel of another 32 pounder.

Before that, even in Britian, Colonels or EIC raised regiments on a need basis and were responsible for training plus renumeration. Once the war was over, the men were sent home and the Colonels were paid half-pay by the crown - if they didnt have estates of their own. Even the great Nelson was on half pay when there was no wars.

Greeks had citizen soldiers who paid and maintained their own equipment and drilled on an individual/community basis. When called up for war, they gelled with other troops and practiced under their leader. However the difference is they practiced large scale formation manoeuvering only after being called up. So they may practice at army level for 3-6 months duration from being called up and actual fighting.

Indian and other practiced the Mansabdari system post Turkish invasions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansabdar and something similar in concept pre-Turkish invasions.

The King had feudal lords who maintained some forces - even Shivaji was offered Mansabdari under Aurungzeb. However there was no standardization of training and equipment between different Mansabdari forces. Those that fought continuously - like Man Singh under Akbar - were able to practice large scale formation manoeuvering and fine tune those skills.

However most of the time, the Kashtriya lords and their soldiers were busy managing their fiefs/jagirs/mansabs, and never got a chance to join their respective regiments for large scale formation manoeuvering. That is why the earlier Rajputs made massive cavalry charges - because a single cavalry charge is the simplest large scale formation manoeuver possible between different formations from Mewar/Marwar/Chittor/Ajmer/Amber etc called up to mobilize.

Neither did early British regiments practice, but the British were famous for discipline and colonels did as ordered by their generals - unlike Maratha cavalry that left the musketeers undefended at Panipat. Also, unlike Holkar, British hanged Generals/Admirals that didnt follow fighting techniques http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Byng

What Philip of Macedon is famous and remembered for is that he standardized training and formations among contingents from Athens/Sparta/Thrace/etc. So even when they were not mobilized, their unit level and formation level practice and training was standardized. Philip invented the long spear and infantry boxes.

I do not understand how you came to the conclusion that the mauryans first started regular training. it is absolutely impossible that infantry, elephants and chariots were sent to war without regular training !!

The ability to maintain central authority allowed some degree of cohesive collective training. Let me dig Kautilya's verses on the importance of collective training all troops. Even Mahabharat focussed on individual training and not collective training.

secondly, you are confusing between professional soldiers and levies...it is the Indian armies on the other hand that were composed of truly professional soldiers.

The Indian professional soldiers, the kashtriya clans, were not paid salaries and were dependent on utilizing their land grants from the king to earn their living. Salaried soldiers could continuously practice, but these were 5-10% of total available forces. Feudal lords and soldiers spent a lot of their time generating income from their lands, hence large scale manoeuver training suffered.

[Murugan]

Marriage type coin of Chandragupta/Samudragupta - regarding chandragupta's marrriage with kumardevi

http://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=76387

A. S. Altekar, in both his study of Gupta coins and the catalogue of the Bayana hoard, attributed this type to Chandragupta himself. The piece is a significant propaganda type, that commemorates the dynastic marriage that solidified Gupta rule over central India. The union with the Lichchhavi princess Kumaradevi expanded Chandragupta's influence into the rich Bihar province and laid the foundations for the Gupta empire.

[Sanku]

I am afraid I do not agree with the part about us falling to the same forces as most of Eurasia - the Gaznavids started battering the Hindu Shahis a century before Chengiz Khan's hordes caused the big spillover that carried Turks eastwards and southwards in the Ganga plains.
.................
Contrast with the century before that, when the Buddhist Palas were bolstering Kabul and the Shahis could mount reprisals all the way into Sistan! That ability was what India lost, when Sankara triumphed.

Actually that thesis is singularly incorrect since it models the rise of Changez Khan as a "black swan" or a instantaneous event.

The rise of the Khans was preceded by a long period of particularly nasty struggle in the CAR region between different tribes, with some tribes pushing out other tribes and so on. So much before the Mongols became strongs enough to start out and reach Europe, they had been displacing other tribes and putting pressure on them for a long time.

Chinese note this, and they kept peace till Genghis period by buying tribes with silver, which in turn only strengthened them.

In that sense there is no conflict and infact correlation between India and Greater India being hit by Turko-Mongols before the rise of Genghis.

and when matters reached a point where Buddhists were alienated enough to not feel Indian was when we really lost.

Thats incorrect understanding, as I see it, the Buddhists were simply following a policy of "buying up" the invaders through silver and compromise and negotiation instead of conflict. Thats all there is to it.

In fact the Chinese (also Buddhists?) tried the same strategy with the Mongols on their border and for a while it appeared successful (it also appeared successful for a while in India)

The reason was poor real world understanding due to the particularly mercantile+Buddhist world view (as expected Buddhism was really embraced primarily by the trading and such classes). Since they did not understand the concept of conflicts based outside their narrow framework of cooperative moneymaking, they failed spectacularly.

[Murugan]

The books of Altekar are available at dli.ernet.in will help understand better the ancient time

A History Of Village Communities In Western India
Education In Ancient India
Prachin Bhartiye Sasan Padti (1948)
State And Government In Ancient India

[Murugan]

Kushan Emperor Vima's (actually it should be Bhima Kapisasya but gore historians read at Vima Kadphises) coin depicting Emperor riding a Horses Driven Chariot. 1st Century AD

http://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=114793

[Rahul M]

You'll be surprised to know that before 1678, there were no centrally raised perpetual standing armies in Europe or worldwide. The first standing armies were raised by Frederick William of Prussia and the Prussian model was followed worldwide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_ ... randenburg

I am not surprised, I am shocked ! because it is utterly wrong. I am astounded that an usually well informed person such as you would make such absolutely ridiculous comments.
what fredrick did was the first standing army post dark ages in europe.

1700 years before this the late republican roman army was already a permanent standing army made of volunteers who signed on for 20 years of service. this practice was continued into the imperial roman army. the chinese empires maintained standing armies as did the diadochi, the ancient egyptians etc. the examples are really far too many to list.

even earlier the mauryans had maintained significant standing armies that were augmented during campaign by the reservists and mercenaries. this is no different from the prussian army which expanded during wars and shrunk during peace.
even the achaeminid empire, much derided for its levies, maintained a 10,000 strong corp of immortals, which was a standing army.

Or Napoleon standardized cannonballs as per caliber instead of weight of cannonball. Before Napoleon, a cannonball for one 32 pounder might not fit the barrel of another 32 pounder.

interesting and well known. however napoleon was hardly the first to attempt such standardizations. millenia earlier empire wide standardizations of not only weapons but also other items had been attempted with reasonable success in places like India and china.

Indian and other practiced the Mansabdari system post Turkish invasions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansabdar and something similar in concept pre-Turkish invasions.

really ? where and who ? what is the source of this information ?

The King had feudal lords who maintained some forces - even Shivaji was offered Mansabdari under Aurungzeb. However there was no standardization of training and equipment between different Mansabdari forces. Those that fought continuously - like Man Singh under Akbar - were able to practice large scale formation manoeuvering and fine tune those skills.

that was the mughal system, you can't just assume that everyone who came before or after followed the same system !!

However most of the time, the Kashtriya lords and their soldiers were busy managing their fiefs/jagirs/mansabs, and never got a chance to join their respective regiments for large scale formation manoeuvering. That is why the earlier Rajputs made massive cavalry charges - because a single cavalry charge is the simplest large scale formation manoeuver possible between different formations from Mewar/Marwar/Chittor/Ajmer/Amber etc called up to mobilize.

you are talking of armies made up of a number of allied contingents, obviously they will have problems with coordination. if you put two units from Indian and Russian army (say) on a joint mission they will have major problems with coordination, in spite of both being trained to their respective standards.
you cannot extrapolate this fact, as you did, to surmise that the armies themselves had no training !

Neither did early British regiments practice, but the British were famous for discipline and colonels did as ordered by their generals - unlike Maratha cavalry that left the musketeers undefended at Panipat. Also, unlike Holkar, British hanged Generals/Admirals that didnt follow fighting techniques http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Byng

leading to tragicomic circumstances in some cases like the light brigade. the prussians OTOH allowed their officers much leeway in deciding according to their own judgement. also, the example you have quoted was that of a political scapegoat than anything.

anyway, the british military forces at the time were a centralized force, not so the maratha army and obviously cohesion and discipline was lacking.

I do not understand how you came to the conclusion that the mauryans first started regular training. it is absolutely impossible that infantry, elephants and chariots were sent to war without regular training !!

The ability to maintain central authority allowed some degree of cohesive collective training. Let me dig Kautilya's verses on the importance of collective training all troops. Even Mahabharat focussed on individual training and not collective training.

mahabharat is not a military manual, its focus is the heroes and unsurprisingly it spends a great deal of time on their training and fighting prowess. it's illogical to conclude anything about army training from mahabharat when that topic is not even a subject of the epic !

by the same logic we can conclude that the greeks (whom you credited with 'inventing' soldier training) didn't have training either since the iliad makes no mention of it ! like mahabharat its focus is almost entirely on individual duels between the heroes of both sides.

chanakya not only covered regular training and even inspections, let's not forget he was drawing upon other similar works on the topic, many of which he referred to in the arthashastra. clearly, none of these were influenced by the greeks.

secondly, you are confusing between professional soldiers and levies...it is the Indian armies on the other hand that were composed of truly professional soldiers.

The Indian professional soldiers, the kashtriya clans, were not paid salaries and were dependent on utilizing their land grants from the king to earn their living. Salaried soldiers could continuously practice, but these were 5-10% of total available forces. Feudal lords and soldiers spent a lot of their time generating income from their lands, hence large scale manoeuver training suffered.

again, not quite. land grant was given to individual khsatriya families (not clans as a whole) with the condition that they had to send one able bodied man to the army. the rest of the family would have been enough to look after the land. this method was also used to bring more land under cultivation thereby increasing the tax base of the empire. these soldiers also received a salary from the state. if you want I can quote the exact figure from arthashastra.
the greek successor state of ptolemaic egypt had a similar system by which they enticed greek settlers to join their army and settle in egypt in return for land grants.

[Rahul M]

I am afraid I do not agree with the part about us falling to the same forces as most of Eurasia - the Gaznavids started battering the Hindu Shahis a century before Chengiz Khan's hordes caused the big spillover that carried Turks eastwards and southwards in the Ganga plains. The Gaznavids were Turks converted to Islam and raised as a slave military elite by the Caliphates, but their zeal was as much Islam inspired as it was by the gold in Indian temples.

YIP, the invasion by central asian nomads did not start with chengiz nor with islam.

from the first days of recorded history one central asian tribe after another targeted the richest land nearest to them, southern afghanistan and what is now pakistan. if they were successful at these places they tried to move on to gangetic valley. the saka, yue chi, kushan, white hun, turks all were products of similar geographies and their level of military success too was similar. the kushans had formed a kingdom extending upto the heart of India. while the guptas drove back the white huns for a time, later hunas like toramana and mihirkula established their kingdoms in India. none of them were muslims for islam was yet to be born.

so clearly, central asian nomadic armies had a persistent record of invading India and had mixed success, irrespective of religion. they also enjoyed similar success in iran, china and against the roman empire (viz. atilla the hun)
it is what happened post those defeats that is dictated by the religion of the invaders. the earlier invaders adopted hinduism or buddhism and became Indian in many respects, mihirkula for example was a shaiva. the muslim turks OTOH were interested in converting or killing non-muslims to fulfill their religious obligations.
but as I said earlier, that happened after the military defeat.

trying to find an overarching social cause is likely to be misleading.

[tsarkar]

I am not surprised, I am shocked...1700 years before this the late republican roman army was already a permanent standing army made of volunteers who signed on for 20 years of service. this practice was continued into the imperial roman army.

I should have used the word "fully" before "centrally raised perpetual standing armies". What I meant was the Prussian Army was 100% volunteer and professional. I cited the Prussian example to highlight how relatively recent the concept of a professional volunteer army gained importance worldwide.

All earlier armies, including Roman example of citizen legions and non citizen auxiliaries as a certain percentage of the total army. The Romans still relied on allied tribes like Visigoths, Numidians and even Huns as a part of their forces throughout their existance. Also, the Frank Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine armies were feudal or mercenary in nature.

The Roman legions at Carrhae in Julius Ceasar's time were only a certain percentage of the army. The entire cavalry was Gaullic mercenaries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae

Anyways, the point I'm trying to make was if the full army is permanent, then it can practice large scale manoeuvering all year long using all wings of the army. If only part of the army is permanent, then that part performs well but the remaining part doesnt perform as well.

even the achaeminid empire, much derided for its levies, maintained a 10,000 strong corp of immortals, which was a standing army.

Every army in the past had a small percentage standing army, but the rest was feudal or levied. So while this small part of the army was effective, the remaining army was not. Assuming the Achemenid Army was 100,000 strong, the Immortals were only 10%

Indian and other practiced the Mansabdari system post Turkish invasions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansabdar and something similar in concept pre-Turkish invasions.

really ? where and who ? what is the source of this information ?

The entire feudal military structure from Japan to Europe worked this way. This is the essence of the feudal social/military structure. That whole age was called feudal age. I used the Mughal system as an example, but even English Barons and Dukes worked that way.

that was the mughal system, you can't just assume that everyone who came before or after followed the same system !!

Everyone in the feudal age follwed that system. For example, at Khanua, a Rajput confederacy of feudal lords fought - Malwa, Chanderi, Purbia soldiers.

However most of the time, the Kashtriya lords and their soldiers were busy managing their fiefs/jagirs/mansabs, and never got a chance to join their respective regiments for large scale formation manoeuvering. That is why the earlier Rajputs made massive cavalry charges - because a single cavalry charge is the simplest large scale formation manoeuver possible between different formations from Mewar/Marwar/Chittor/Ajmer/Amber etc called up to mobilize.

you are talking of armies made up of a number of allied contingents, obviously they will have problems with coordination. if you put two units from Indian and Russian army (say) on a joint mission they will have major problems with coordination, in spite of both being trained to their respective standards. you cannot extrapolate this fact, as you did, to surmise that the armies themselves had no training!

No, not really. In WW2, allied troops practiced together and were successful at D-Day/Normandy. However feudal contingents, despite maybe Battalion/Brigade level exercises, never ever performed Division/Corps level exercises coordinating different brigades.

anyway, the british military forces at the time were a centralized force, not so the maratha army and obviously cohesion and discipline was lacking.

See, the British were not politically centralized, ie, the EIC used wars for better trading terms & conditions. However, they were centralized by standard training and doctrine. Conversely, while the Marathas or Mysoreans were politically centralized, via single ruler - Scindia/Holkar/Hyder Ali, their feudally raised armies did not have standard training or doctrine.

...greeks (whom you credited with 'inventing' soldier training)...

No, I do not credit them with inventing training. Its like crediting Tribe XYZ with invention of fire. I only mentioned Philip of Macedon used standard training and doctrine, and it was among the first observable and recorded instances. Similarly, like Tribe XYZ might be first observed to be using fire. But it doesnt infer Tribe XYZ invented fire.

chanakya not only covered regular training and even inspections, let's not forget he was drawing upon other similar works on the topic, many of which he referred to in the arthashastra. clearly, none of these were influenced by the greeks.

General human tendency is to replicate best practices. Both Chanakya and Chandragupta were in a position to observe Greek best practices.

again, not quite. land grant was given to individual khsatriya families (not clans as a whole) with the condition that they had to send one able bodied man to the army. the rest of the family would have been enough to look after the land. this method was also used to bring more land under cultivation thereby increasing the tax base of the empire. these soldiers also received a salary from the state.

Correct as per the book. In practise, salary was paid only during war. In peacetime, the land had to provide income. Imagine a situation where elder brother goes to war and younger brother manages the field. Elder brother claims larger share of benefits because his profession resulted in the land grant while younger brother claims larger share because he worked on the land. So the soldier brother had to keep an eye on the land lest farmer brother grabbed it.

Anyway, larger point is that feudal soldiers had to spend considerable time managing their lands, that affected training.

[tsarkar]

in one sense, the shakas and hunas were no different militarily (for their period) from the turko-mongols - and each of these were resisted and absorbed in turn by the greater mass of india. in a similar way to which the northern barbarians were absorbed into china time and again. the arabs too floundered somewhere in the western marches of the gobi desert on their mission to 'bring islam' to the chinese

i believe that the ghaznavids et al., came for loot but were disciplined and kept in order by using islam. the zeal of conversion is secondary to the zeal of free booty

Yes, Islam prevented in-fighting among the tribes and directed hot bloods externally towards Indian kaffirs, that was economically beneficial as well.

Just like Christian popes were sick of knights jousting among each other and fighting for petty territories and zamindaris, and called crusades to prevent in-fighting and direct energies externally rather than internally. More Social and Economic reasons rather than purely Religious.

[Yagnasri]

What about the Sparta which trained its citizens almost from birth. The immortals of Persia also were trained and dressed armed in a uniform fasion. Most of the naions, soceities and even tribes trained people for fighting from ages and just like the other guru said it is like finding who invented fire.

[tsarkar]

What about the Sparta which trained its citizens almost from birth. The immortals of Persia also were trained and dressed armed in a uniform fasion. Most of the naions, soceities and even tribes trained people for fighting from ages and just like the other guru said it is like finding who invented fire.

We broadly divide training as individual, collective and organizational

Every warrior anytime and anywhere in the world had to train individually to qualify himself as a warrior

Even collective training, eg, Indian or English longbowmen or Turkish riders did train together.

Centrally ruled states - Rome, Persian, Gupta, Maurya, Early Mughal to a certain extent were able to collectively train soldiers. This was the reason for their longetivity. Because of the central organization, experience and lessons of earlier wars could be passed on.

Alexander, Chengiz & Timur - also had organizational training. This was because of their central authority. Any subordinate ignoring their laid down policy would be summarily executed. That was one of the differences in their campaigns. Rarely do we hear any subordinate ignoring/not performing as per their battle plans.

Feudal kingdoms like Pratiharas/Chalukyas/Palas/Sena/Rajput conglomerates couldnt afford large standing armies or regular collective training. And they faced battle hardened invaders, like the PLA we faced in 1962 who were fighting since 1930s. Its creditable the number of Hun and other invasions they pushed back.

[Pranav]

Book Review for HOLY WAR - How Vasco da Gama’s Epic Voyages Turned the Tide in a Centuries-Old Clash of Civilizations By Nigel Cliff
Illustrated. 547 pp. Harper/HarperCollins Publishers. $29.99.

Why Vasco da Gama Went to India
By ERIC ORMSBY



The Portuguese navigator Vasco da Gama set sail from Belém, a village at the mouth of the Tagus River now part of greater Lisbon, on July 8, 1497. An obscure but well-­connected courtier, he had been chosen, much to everyone’s surprise, by King Manuel I to head the ambitious expedition to chart a new route to India. The king was not moved chiefly by a desire for plunder. He possessed a visionary cast of mind bordering on derangement; he saw himself spearheading a holy war to topple Islam, recover Jerusalem from “the infidels” and establish himself as the “King of Jerusalem.”

Da Gama shared these dreams, but like his hard-bitten crew, rogues or criminals to a man, he coveted the fabled riches of the East — not only gold and gems but spices, then the most precious of commodities. On this voyage, as on his two later ones, he proved a brilliant navigator and commander. But where courage could not bring him through violent storms, contrary seas and the machinations of hostile rulers, luck came to his rescue. He sailed blindly, virtually by instinct, without maps, charts or reliable pilots, into unknown oceans.

As Nigel Cliff, a historian and journalist, demonstrates in his lively and ambitious “Holy War,” da Gama was abetted as much by ignorance as by skill and daring. To discover the sea route to India, he deliberately set his course in a different direction from Columbus, his great seafaring rival. Instead of heading west, da Gama went south. His ships inched their way down the African coast, voyaging thousands of miles farther than any previous explorer. After months of sailing, he rounded the Cape of Good Hope, the first European to do so. From there, creeping up the east coast of Africa, he embarked on the uncharted vastness of the Indian Ocean. Uncharted, that is, by European navigators. For at the time, the Indian Ocean was crisscrossed by Muslim vessels, and it was Muslim merchants, backed up by powerful local rulers, who controlled the trade routes and had done so for centuries. Da Gama sought to break this maritime dominance; even stronger was his ambition to discover the Christians of India and their “long-lost Christian king,” the legendary Prester John, and by forging an alliance with them, to unite Christianity and destroy Islam.

The ambition was not entirely fanciful; there were Christian communities in India, founded according to legend by St. Thomas the Apostle. Da Gama couldn’t tell an Indian Christian from a cassowary, but on this occasion, ignorance was truly bliss. When his ships finally moored at Calicut, near the southern tip of the subcontinent, he and his crew rejoiced to learn that there were indeed many Christians long settled there. As Cliff recounts, the “landing party had assumed that Hindu temples were Christian churches, they had misconstrued the Brahmins’ invocation of a local deity as veneration of the Virgin Mary and they had decided the Hindu figures on the temple walls were outlandish Christian saints.” True, “the temples were also crammed with animal gods and sacred phalluses,” but these surely reflected exotic local Christian practices. What mattered to the Portuguese was that these long-lost Indian Christians permitted images in their “churches.” Thus, whatever their idiosyncrasies, they could not be Muslims. The Portuguese joined in the chants and invocations with gusto. When the Hindu priests chanted “Krishna,” the Portuguese heard it as “Christ.”

Such farcical episodes recur throughout Cliff’s account and add unexpected levity to what is otherwise a dismal record of greed, savagery and fanaticism, especially — but not exclusively — on the part of the European explorers. The Portuguese didn’t know that Hinduism, let alone Buddhism or Jainism, existed. For them, the world was starkly divided between Christianity and Islam. They knew about Jews, of course; they’d been steadily persecuting them with renewed vigor in the 1490s by forced conversion, expulsion and massacre, but to them, Judaism was merely a forerunner of Christianity, not a faith in its own right.

Cliff’s narrative covers a huge span of time. For once the term “epic” seems an understatement. Da Gama’s exploits alone demand such terms. His maiden voyage took two years and traversed an extraordinary 24,000 miles, all this in leaky wooden vessels battered by storms and riddled with scurvy, and it was only the first of his three pioneering voyages that together established little Portugal as a world power.

To provide the widest possible context, Cliff begins with the Prophet Muhammad and the rise of Islam in the early seventh century and concludes with the siege of Vienna in 1529 and the subsequent rise of Dutch maritime expansion. His account of early Islamic history is brisk and factual, but it has a somewhat potted feel, as does his chapter on the crusades, for all the horrific detail he provides. This is, after all, well-trodden turf. When he finally comes to Portugal and its succession of zealous, sinister and quite dotty monarchs, he is in his element, and his book really takes off. He has a novelist’s gift for depicting character. From the fabled Henry the Navigator who, despite his appellation, “never set foot on an oceangoing ship,” to Vasco da Gama himself, at once steely and quixotic, to formidable figures like Magellan and the brutal Afonso de Albuquerque, who terrorized his victims by threatening to build a fort out of their bones and nail their ears to the door, he brings 16th-­century Portugal in all its splendor and squalor pungently to life.

Cliff is good too at such mundane but intricate matters as shipbuilding, royal protocols and the hazards of trade, all of which he documents by well-chosen citations from travel accounts, official papers and personal correspondence. Rather surprisingly, however, he fails to bring the great 16th-century Portuguese poet Luís de Camões into his account (though he’s mentioned in the very full bibliography), even though Camões participated in later Portuguese expeditions and wrote his Virgilian-style epic “The Lusiads” in praise of da Gama.

While Cliff spins his tale under the aegis of “holy war” and in his subtitle invokes Samuel P. Huntington's well-worn “clash of civilizations,” on the evidence of his own narrative this framework seems more than a little creaky. Though there was longstanding mutual detestation between Christians and Muslims, the real antagonism seems to have been mercantile. There was no “clash of civilizations” to speak of. The Portuguese gazed in covetous admiration at the trappings of the Muslim courts they visited, and Muslims showed no interest whatsoever in European culture (which they considered pitifully inferior to their own). When they clashed, they did so over lucrative trade routes and territorial hegemony; each was quite proudly ignorant of the other’s creed.

Cliff struggles to find relevance to present-day events, but his attempts are unconvincing. He notes, for example, that in 2006, Ayman al-Zawahri, now the head of Al Qaeda, called for the liberation of Ceuta — a North African city besieged by King John of Portugal in 1415 — from the Spanish Christians who now control it. Nevertheless, the real clash today is not between Christianity and Islam, nor between opposing civilizations, but between our own resolutely secular and consumerist culture and a rigid and absolutist mindset outraged by the prosperity Western “infidels” enjoy. That, however, is another epic, yet to be written.

Eric Ormsby’s latest book is “Fine Incisions: Essays on Poetry and Place.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/books ... nted=print

[tsarkar]

He sailed blindly, virtually by instinct, without maps, charts or reliable pilots, into unknown oceans.

As per official chroniclers on that trip, he was guided by an Indian navigator from Malindi to Calicut. Otherwise he was clueless about Indian Ocean winds.

[peter]

This itself is an indicator that good horse breeds were not available in India.

Until Rana Sanga or Pratap and Chetak, or Shivaji or Baji Rao 1, we rarely have horse mounted heros/forces.

The points are no doubt valid and well explained. My "complaint" with the above model though (and I confess to be some what supporting Peter here) -- is that the above explanations (by the officer of RVC, Airavat, Rahul M et al) leave too much of a gap between the periods of early-medium vedic period and late Rajput kingdoms.

We are talking about a period of 1000+ years between a marked lack single horseman based cavalry, and those of Rajputana armies where horses are again sufficiently deployed.

You are indeed right. If one does some analysis of Hindu kings, arbitrarily chosen from 7th century onwards:

Harsha 7th century A.D, invaded Gauda and his cavalry was 20,000 strong.
Yuwan Chwang, passing through Harsha's territory says his cavalry was 1,00,000 strong.

Bhoja, writes suleiman the arab traveller in 851 A.D, "no other prince has so fine a cavalry". Pratiharas had titles such as Hayapati in their inscriptions. Gahadvalas used titles such as Ashvapati in their inscriptions.

Chandelas of Khajurao(10th -11th century A.D) had cavalries of 30,000 or more.

Prithviraj Chauhan's cavalry, as stated earlier, outflanked and defeated the Ghurid cavalry of 100,000 in 12th century.

So India, unlike what historians want us to believe provides us unbroken evidence of hindu kings maintaining excellent cavalries.

Are such comments, as given below even tenable? If yes then what is the evidence for them?

even so, during prithviraj's era they were not as cavalry heavy as they became later and I suspect the breed hadn't yet developed to its full potential. ...... for the rest of India getting good horses meant a combination of wealth and access to horse traders from the west, usually quite a rare coincidence. they never had as many as they would want. consequently were always at a disadvantage in cavalry.

Also if we look at claims like this:

None of these details are to be found in the Raso. And purely from the perspective of military history, did the Turki cavalry turn into a herd of sheep, which Prithviraja merrily captured and released at his will 17 times?

Had so many battles been fought prior to Tarain, they would find some mention in the Prithviraja Vijaya, the Prabandha-chintamani or the Viruddhavidhi-v
idhvamsa.

We find different evidence:
PrabandhaChintamani: 23 engagements
VirudhaVidhiVidhvansa states that Skanda, the Senadhipati of the Chauhana forces killed the Turukshas continually. This seems to be in line with other Hindu sources.

So these two sources do say that multiple battles were fought with Turukshas.

Prithivraj Vijay: Not relevant as it stops before the battle.

Rest of the Hindu sources:
PrithvirajaPrabandha: 8
Prithviraj Raso: > 20
Hammir MahaKavya: 7
Prabandha Kosa: 20

[Lalmohan]

Cavalry forces were built up and then allowed to decay repeatedly through history - expense, difficulty, terrain, type of enemy, etc.. it was inconsistent over time
that was a major problem

[peter]

Cavalry forces were built up and then allowed to decay repeatedly through history - expense, difficulty, terrain, type of enemy, etc.. it was inconsistent over time
that was a major problem

Do we have examples of above in the Indian context?

[peter]

None of these details are to be found in the Raso. And purely from the perspective of military history, did the Turki cavalry turn into a herd of sheep, which Prithviraja merrily captured and released at his will 17 times?

Please read this passage from Tabakat-i-Nasiri. This book details the battle between Ghurids and Chauhans.
1) Note the first line where it says in year 587 (of Islamic Calendar) Ghory again marched into India.
2) Note the description of Ghurid cavalry and the way they were hemmed in and also consider whether they were herded as sheep or not.
3) Further notice the different endings of the fate of Muhammad Ghori.

[Virendra]

I guess this a simple answer. In Indian scenario, any legitimate ruler or King emerged from the local clan who are/were into native business of agriculture or trade. Rajputs were traders, who controlled the trading routes, went back to their business. Descendants of these rulers became landlords/Zamindars/Village heads in due time and did went back to their native business once out of power.

Rajputs were predominantly farmers, estate owners who would religiously learn their traditional martial arts passed down in generations to protect their people and property. They would be at their agricultural business if not fighting battles.
Some of the rajputs were obviously rulers/royal-family, everyone cannot be a ruler
It more or less conforms to the vedic structure. Also the sizeable armies that rajput kingdoms projected at battle fields weren't always only made of rajput soldiers. They had many other recruits such as Bhils, Ahirs, Jats or any other peasents who were friendly to the state and wanted to resist the incoming invasion. The ratio are debatable however.

What I don't agree to, is the trading part. Being a rajput myself I know for a blunt universal fact that rajputs (from vedic Kshatriyas) aren't a shrewd and extremely clever community. It is the marwadi baniya (from vedic Vaishyas) who trade and are very sharp. Even today in routine life many of my friends, acquaintances and enemies (Pakistani) confuse between rajputs and baniyas. They use the term marwadi interchangeably for both the communities
Our Pakistani neighbors don't just say Hindu/Indian, they'd use the term "Hindu baniya" to sweep off any martial connect and paint us as shrewd clever mean people - like they do for Jews
Sorry if something went a little OT.

Regards,
Virendra

[darshhan]

^^

myself I know for a blunt universal fact that rajputs (from vedic Kshatriyas) aren't a shrewd and extremely clever community.

.

The above statement is true for general Rajput public.But the same cannot be said about Rajput rulers and leaders who were extremely shrewd and cunning when it came to maintaining their rule.This trend continues even today.

[manum]

^^

myself I know for a blunt universal fact that rajputs (from vedic Kshatriyas) aren't a shrewd and extremely clever community.

.

The above statement is true for general Rajput public.But the same cannot be said about Rajput rulers and leaders who were extremely shrewd and cunning when it came to maintaining their rule.This trend continues even today.

I don't know if its worthwhile to nitpick the tendency of particular section...as India is still a pretty diversified nation with many such sections and sub-sections of Thakurs, Brahmin, Baniya and so on...I name these three because these three were prominent most of the periods...

and the distinct features of these three can still be identified...

[Virendra]

^^

myself I know for a blunt universal fact that rajputs (from vedic Kshatriyas) aren't a shrewd and extremely clever community.

.

The above statement is true for general Rajput public.But the same cannot be said about Rajput rulers and leaders who were extremely shrewd and cunning when it came to maintaining their rule.This trend continues even today.

While I know that a ruler in any form of ruler ship is not separate from politics and politics makes you chose between evils;
That way which politician isn't cunning? Some rulers as exceptions are capable of keeping themselves abstracted from politics. A ruler of any kind would not give up his power easily. Be it for his ambitions or for protection of his people.

However I still have serious doubts that ancient Rajput rulers were that cunning. Not that its my wishful thinking turned into argument; their performance just doesn't match the assertion.
Most of the cunning rulers wouldn't be personally leading their armies in fierce battles.
They also wouldn't consider it sin to fight in the night (PrithviRaj-Ghori Tarain II) even against an alien army.
They wouldn't oath to and indeed protect bitter enemies of Mughal emperors (Shivaji-Sambhaji against Aurangzeb) whom they allied to - only to face untoward consequences later.
They wouldn't find themselves dying at the hands of Mughal court/military politics (likes of Prithvi Singh & so many of the princes).

By the way has anyone read Abu Bin Mohammad Habibullah (aka A.B.M. Habibullah)?
He was a prominent historian who settled in Bangladesh and had written books on South Asian history.
His write up includes Rajputs and Turk invasions.

Regards,
Virendra

[manum]

See only few traits had been pointed out...It doesn't mean it makes any class lesser or evil than the other...even in most silent form of Buddhism, there are ways to express violence...and there are distinctions...

the pot is silent from outside but its always volatile inside with its contents...so lets not get into few things which can never be judged...and many features good bad or political were associated with job given to the class...For ex. A king can not go and sit between mango abdul, even if he wishes to...but a saint can...

Politics is also inevitable when there is kingdom to be ruled and governed...few were heroes and few were not...There were some less glittery jobs and still are which remain in ignorance...so lets leave it that...

[peter]

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

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

[tsarkar]

Rajputs were predominantly farmers, estate owners who would religiously learn their traditional martial arts passed down in generations to protect their people and property. They would be at their agricultural business if not fighting battles. Some of the rajputs were obviously rulers/royal-family, everyone cannot be a ruler It more or less conforms to the vedic structure. Also the sizeable armies that rajput kingdoms projected at battle fields weren't always only made of rajput soldiers. They had many other recruits such as Bhils, Ahirs, Jats or any other peasents who were friendly to the state and wanted to resist the incoming invasion. The ratio are debatable however.

True for most Indian Kashtriya tribes/communities, whether Bengal or Kerala, Kumaon or Karnataka.

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

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

That was a policy as old as mankind and doesnt highlight special cunning capabilities. And most of the time, the daughter's counsel to husband and father-in-law went unheeded and there were conflicts between families with matrimonial alliances.

[manum]

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

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

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

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

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

[peter]

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

That was a policy as old as mankind and doesnt highlight special cunning capabilities. And most of the time, the daughter's counsel to husband and father-in-law went unheeded and there were conflicts between families with matrimonial alliances.

Would have to disagree. Bartering women to retain kingdom, and then not treating that girl as one of your own, not eating with your mughal relations, because they ate beef, does not seem like age old practice.

[peter]

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

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

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

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

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

Akbar did not have any temple constructed at Fatehpur Sikri. It was his grandson Shah Jahan who had the temple built.
I think Akbar has been turned into a saint by JNU/Aligarh historians. Historians of the west behave similarly in describing Akbar. Truth perhaps is a bit different:


Akbar's reign was chronicled extensively by his court historian [[Abu'l-Fazl ibn Mubarak|Abul Fazal]] in the books ''Akbarnama'' and ''Ain-i-akbari''. Fazal gave a positive [[spin doctor|spin]] to Akbar's reign by glossing over uncomfortable facts of the emperor's reign related to his interaction with other communities of his empire, which has been repeated by numerous historians over the years. Other contemporary sources of Akbar's reign like the works of Badayuni, Shaikhzada Rashidi and Shaikh Ahmed Sirhindi were written outside of court influence and hence contain more authentic information and less flattery for Akbar. Historian [[Vincent Arthur Smith|Vincent A. Smith]] concludes:

<blockquote>
Injudicious flatterers of Akbar have printed much canting nonsense about his supposed desire to do good to the conquered peoples by his annexations.<ref>{{cite book|author= [[Vincent Arthur Smith|Smith, Vincent.A.]]; |page=341|title=The Oxford History of India (Paperback)|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]|isbn=9780195612974|year= 2002}} </ref> </blockquote>

===Rajput Wives===
[[File:Khangah Lahore Fort.jpg|thumb|In 1566 A.D. Akbar rebuilt selections of the early sections of the [[Lahore Fort]], following attacks by the [[Khokhar]]s and [[Timur]]s]]
Akbar persuaded the [[Kacchwaha]] [[Rajput]], Raja [[Bharmal]], of [[Amber, India|Amer]] (modern day [[Jaipur]]) into accepting a matrimonial alliance for his daughter Harka Bai. This marriage proved to be a turning point in the history of the Mughal empire, as this was the first instance of royal matrimony between Hindu and [[Muslim]] [[dynasty|dynasties]] in [[India]]. Harka Bai was rechristened [[Mariam-uz-Zamani|Mariam-uz-zamani]]. After her marriage she was treated as an outcaste by her family and in the 61 years of married life she never visited [[Amer]]/[[Jaipur]].<ref name="Nath 397">{{harvnb|Nath|1982|p=397}} </ref> Her position in the Mughal household was not of much importance because she was not assigned any significant place either in [[Agra]] or [[Delhi]]. Instead she was assigned a small village of Barah near Bayana in the [[Bharatpur district]] where she passed her time till her death.<ref name="Nath 397"/> She died in 1623 and her tomb is near Agra.<ref>{{harvnb|Nath|1982|p=16}}</ref> As a custom Hindus were cremated and never buried. Her burial signifies she converted to Islam after marriage.

<blockquote>
Rajput ladies who entered the Delhi royal harem became Muslims and were buried in Muslim cemeteries, they could no longer visit their parents' houses or dine with them.<ref name="jadu 38">{{harvnb|Sarkar|1984|p=38}} </ref>
</blockquote>
Subsequently a mosque was built in her honor by [[Jahangir]] in [[Lahore]], [[Pakistan]] which is called Mariam-uz-zamani mosque.<ref>{{harvnb|Nath|1982|p=52}}</ref> She was given this name after the birth of her son Jahangir as a Muslim ruler had to be given birth by a Muslim mother.
Other Rajput kingdoms soon established matrimonial alliances with the Emperor of Delhi. The law of Hindu succession has always been [[patrimony|patrimonial]], so the Hindu lineage was not threatened in marrying their princesses for political gain. Rajputs who did give their daughters to Mughals still did not treat Mughals as equals. They would not dine with Mughals or take Muslim women as their lawful wives.<ref>{{harvnb|Sarkar|1984|p=37}} </ref>

Two major Rajput clans remained against him, the [[Sisodiya]]s of [[Mewar]] and [[Hada]]s ([[Chauhan]]s) of [[Ranthambore]]. In another turning point of Akbar's reign, [[Raja Man Singh]] I of Amer went with Akbar to meet the Hada leader, Surjan Hada, to effect an alliance. Surjan grudgingly accepted an alliance on the condition that Akbar did not marry any of his daughters. Surjan later moved his residence to [[Varanasi|Banaras]]. Surjan Hada's son, Bhoja Hada, opposed the marriage of his granddaughter (his daughter's daughter. His daughter was married to Prince Jagat Singh, son of Man Singh I of Amer) to Jahangir which caused Jahangir to move against Bhoj.<ref>{{cite book|author=Agrawal, Ashvini|page=99|title=Studies in Mughal history|year=1983|publisher=Motilal Banarsidass|isbn=9788120823266}} </ref> After his death, his granddaughter was married to Jahangir. A daughter of [[Raja Man Singh]] I was also married to Jahangir and she committed suicide.<ref>{{cite book|author=Srivastava, Ashirbadi Lal|page=473|title=Akbar the Great|year=1972|publisher=Shiva Lal Agrawala}} </ref>

Rajput nobles did not like the idea of their kings marrying their daughters to Mughals. Rathore Kalyandas threatened to kill both Mota Raja Udai Singh (of [[Jodhpur]]) and [[Jahangir]] because Udai Singh had decided to marry his daughter Jodha Bai to Jahangir. Akbar on hearing this ordered imperial forces to attack Kalyandas at [[Siwana]]. Kalyandas died fighting along with his men and the women of Siwana committed [[Jauhar]].<ref>{{cite book|author=[[Muzaffar Alam|Alam, Muzaffar]]; [[Sanjay Subrahmanyam|Subrahmanyam, Sanjay]]|page=177|title=The Mughal State, 1526-1750|year=1998|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]|isbn=9780195639056}} </ref>

[[Image:RajaRaviVarma MaharanaPratap.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Maharana Pratap]]]]
Entering into alliance with Rajput kingdoms enabled Akbar to extend the border of his Empire to far off regions, and the Rajputs became the strongest allies of the Mughals. Rajput soldiers fought for the Mughal empire for the next 130 years till its collapse following the death of Aurangzeb. Akbar could trust the rajputs because he held their dearest (eldest son) hostages in perpetuity.<ref name="jadu 38"/>

However, [[Pratap Singh, Maharana of Mewar|Maharana Pratap]] of [[Mewar]] declined to accept Akbar's suzerainty and till the end was opposed to Akbar whom he considered a foreign invader. Pratap also stopped the marriage etiquette of Rajputs who had been giving their daughters to Mughals and his supporting Rajputs instead:

<blockquote>
:With such examples as Marwar and Amer (of giving their daughters to Mughals), and with less power to resist the temptation, the minor chiefs of Rajasthan, with a brave and numerous vassalage, were transformed into satraps of Delhi.
:But these were fearful odds against Pratap. The arms of his country turned upon him, derived additional force from their self-degradation, which kindled into jealousy and hatred against the magnanimous resolution they lacked the virtue to imitate. When Hindu prejudice was thus violated by every prince in Rajasthan, the Rana renounced all ''matrimonial'' alliance with those who were thus degraded. To the eternal honour of Pratap and his issue be it told that, to the very close of the monarchy of the Moguls, they refused such alliances not only with the throne, but even with their brother princes of Marwar and Ambar. It is a proud triumph of virtue to be able to record from the autograph letters of the most powerful of the Rajput princes, Bukhet Singh and [[Jai Singh II of Amber|Sawai Jai Singh]], that whilst they had risen to greatness by the surrender of principle, as Mewar had decayed from her adherence to it, they should solicit, and that humbly, to be readmitted to the honour of matrimonial intercourse and "to be purified," " to be regenerated," " to be made Rajputs" and that this favour was granted only on condition of their abjuring the contaminating practice (of giving daughters to Mughals) which, for more than a century, had disunited them.<ref>[[James Tod]], ''Annals and Antiquities of Rajast'han or the Central and Western Rajpoot States of India,'' 2 vols. London, Smith, Elder (1829, 1832); New Delhi, Munshiram Publishers, (2001), pp. 83-4. ISBN 8170691281</ref></blockquote>

===Hindu temples saved and destroyed===
Akbar sent a golden umbrella for an idol which was destroyed. He also allowed conversion of a mosque into Hindu temple at Kurukshetra. This temple had previously been destroyed and converted into a mosque.<ref name=mukhia>{{cite book|author=[[Harbans mukhia|Harbans, Mukhia]]|title=The Mughals of India|publisher=[[Blackwell Publishing]]|isbn=9780631185550|page=23|year=2004}} </ref> [[Sirhindi|Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi]], a contemporary of Akbar, does not credit him for saving the temple instead gives credit to the "infidels" ([[Hindus]]) for building their own temple by demolishing the mosque.<ref>{{cite book|author=[[Muzaffar Alam|Alam, Muzaffar]]|page=77|title=Languages of Political Islam in India 1200-1800|year=2004|publisher=[[Orient Longman]]|isbn=8178240629}} </ref>

Contrary to popular belief Akbar, continued the policy of Babur and Humayun in the destruction of [[Hindu]] temples. [[Image:KangraFort-rd-310808.JPG|thumb|left|Kangra Fort at [[Kangra, Himachal Pradesh]]]]It is recorded by Bayazid Biyat, personal attendant of [[Humayun]], that Akbar gave two villages for the upkeep of a mosque and a [[Madrasa]] which was setup by destroying a Hindu temple, this was done under the supervision of 'Todar Mal' who was highly regarded Hindu minister (vizir) of Akbar.<ref name=mukhia /> In Akbar's time Todar Mal was called a simple one (''sada-lauh'') because he mourned the loss of the idols he used to worship and he was also called "a blind follower of custom and narrow mindedness" for being a Hindu.<ref>{{harvnb|Ali|2006|p=161}} </ref>
Akbar's army was responsible for demolition of rich Hindu temples which had gold idols in the [[Doab]] region between [[Ganga]] and [[Yamuna]].<ref name=mukhia />

Historian Abd al-Qadir Badauni records that during Akbar's reign at Nagarkot, near [[Kangra, Himachal Pradesh|Kangra]], 200 cows were slaughtered, numerous Hindus killed and a temple was demolished<ref name=mukhia />{{quote|On the 1st Rajab 990 AD 1582 Akbar's forces encamped by a field of maize near Nagarkot. The fortress (hissãr) of Bhîm, which has an idol temple of Mahãmãî, and in which none but her servants dwelt, was taken by the valour of the assailants at the first assault. A party of Rajpûts, who had resolved to die, fought most desperately till they were all cut down. A number of Brãhmans who for many years had served the temple, never gave one thought to flight, and were killed. Nearly 200 black cows belonging to Hindûs had, during the struggle, crowded together for shelter in the temple. Some savage Turks, while the arrows and bullets were falling like rain, killed those cows. They then took off their boots and filled them with the blood and cast it upon the roof and walls of the temple.<ref>{{cite book|author=Elliot, H.M.|coauthors=Dowson, J.|title=History of India As Told by Own Historians, Volume V|publisher=Ams Pr Inc|month=June |year=1977|page=358}} </ref>}}

During the third siege of [[Chittor]] many temples were destroyed. The shrine of [[Moinuddin Chishti]] in [[Ajmer]] was presented brass candlesticks by Akbar which were taken after the destruction of Kalika temple by Akbar during the third siege of Chittor.<ref>{{cite book|author=Watson, C.C.|title=Rajputana District Gazetteers|year=1904|publisher=Scottish Mission Industries Co., Ltd.|page=17}} </ref>

[[Jesuit]] Father Monserrate, Aquaviva and Enrique arrived at Akbar's court in early 1580 and Monserrate recording his journey in a travelogue comments that religious zeal of Mussalmans has destroyed many Hindu temples and in their places countless tombs and shrines of mussalmans have been erected in which these men are worshipped as if they were saints.<ref>{{cite book|author=Monserrate, Antonio|title=Commentary of Father Monserrate, S. J. on His Journey to the Court of Akbar|publisher=Asian Educational Services|year=1996|page=27|isbn=9788120608078}} </ref> Monserrate also tutored Emperor's son Murad.

===Jihad against Hindu Kings===
During his time Akbar was looked upon by orthodox Muslim elements as a pious Muslim committed to defending Islam against infidelity.<ref>{{harvnb|Habib|1997|p= 85}}</ref> Rizqullah Mushtaqi, a well known Shaikhzada of Delhi, writing around 1580, says that Akbar was sent by God to protect Islam from being suppressed by Hemu.<ref>{{cite book|author=Mushtaqi, Rizqullah |title=Waqiat-i Mushtaqi|page=94}}</ref>
[[Image:India 04 0019 chittorgarh.jpg|thumb|left|[[Chittorgarh Fort]]]]
Akbar spread Islam in India by waging a holy war ([[Jihad]]) against Hindu kings.
During the siege of [[Chittor]] in 1567 CE, 8000 [[rajput]]s had remained inside the fort to defend various temples after the cavalry sallied out to meet Akbar's army in the plain below. These 8000 died fighting to the last man in defense of Hindu temples when Akbar's army stormed the fort and attacked the temples. In addition there were 30,000 plus Hindu peasants inside the fort who were unarmed and massacred in cold blood by Akbar's forces<ref>{{cite book|author=Chandra, Dr. Satish|title=Medieval India: From Sultanat to the Mughals|publisher=Har Anand Publications|isbn=8124105227|page=107|year=2001}} </ref> by his order on February 24, 1568 CE. [[Carthaginian]] on gaining the [[Battle of Cannae]] measured his success by bushels of rings taken from the fingers of equestrian roman soldiers and similarly Akbar measured his by the quantity of cordons of distinction ([[Janeu]] or the sacred thread) collected from the fallen rajput soldiers and other civilians of [[Chittor]], which amounted to seventy four and half ''man (a unit of weight in India equalling 40 kg)'' by weight. To eternise the memory of this deed the number 74.5 is accursed and marked on a banker's letter in [[Rajasthan]] it is the strongest of seals, for "the sin of the sack of [[Chittor]]" is invoked on him who violates a letter under the safeguard of this mysterious number.<ref>{{cite book|author=Payne, Tod|year=1994|publisher=[[Asian Educational Services]] |isbn=8120603508|title=Tod's Annals of Rajasthan: The Annals of Mewar|page=71}}</ref>

Akbar celebrated the victory over [[Chittor]] and [[Ranthambore]] by laying the foundation of a new city, {{convert|23|mi|km}} W.S.W of [[Agra]] in 1569. It was called [[Fatehpur Sikri]] ('''city of victory''').<ref>{{cite book|author=Hastings, James|year=2003|publisher=[[Kessinger Publishing]] |isbn=0766136825 |title=Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics Part 10}} </ref>[[Image:Fatehpur Sikri Buland Darwaza.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Buland Darwaza]] at [[Fatehpur Sikri]]]]

Akbar, bolstered by his success, was looking forward to widespread acclamation as a great conqueror of Islam and his vigorous Islamic policy is illustrated by ''Fatahnama-i-Chittor'' issued by him after the conquest of Chittor at [[Ajmer]], where he stayed for some time en route to [[Agra]], on Ramazan 10, 975/March 9,1568, where the infidels (Hindus) are reviled:
<blockquote>
..the Omnipotent one who enjoined the task of destroying the wicked infidels ([[Hindus]]) on the dutiful [[mujahid]]s through the blows of their thunder-like scimitars laid down: "Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands and He will lay them low and give you victory over them".<ref>{{cite book|author=Zilli, Ishtiaq Ahmed|title=Proceedings of Indian History Congress, New Delhi, 1972|page=351}}</ref></blockquote>
Further on the call to Jihad against Hindu kings of [[India]] is raised and also a call to the destruction of Hindu temples:
<blockquote>
This is of the grace of my Lord that He may try me whether I am grateful or ungrateful — we spend our precious time to the best of our ability in war (''ghiza'') and [[Jihad]] and with the help of Eternal Allah, who is the supporter of our ever-increasing empire, we are busy in subjugating the localities, habitations, forts and towns which are under the possession of the infidels ([[Hindus]]), may Allah forsake and annihilate all of them, and thus raising the standard of Islam everywhere and removing the darkness of polytheism and violent sins by the use of sword. We destroy the places of worship of idols in those places and other parts of India.<ref>{{cite book|author=Zilli, Ishtiaq Ahmed|title=Proceedings of Indian History Congress, New Delhi, 1972|page=352}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The reimposition of jizya in 1575 is also symbolic of vigrous Islamic policy.<ref>{{harvnb|Ali|2006|p=159}} </ref> Abd al-Qadir Badauni who was then one of Akbar's court chaplains or imams, states that he sought an interview with the emperor when the royal troops were marching against [[Maharana Pratap|Rana Pratap]] in 1576, begging leave of absence for "the privilege of joining the campaign to soak his Islamic beard in Hindu infidel blood". Akbar was so pleased at the expression of allegiance to his person and to the Islamic idea of Jihad that he bestowed a handful of gold coins on Badaoni as a token of his pleasure.<ref>{{cite book|author=Badauni, Abd al-Qadir|title=Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, vol. II|page=383}}</ref>

Akbar boasted that he was a great conqueror of Islam to the ruler of [[Turan]], Abdullah Khan, in a letter in 1579:
<blockquote>
Places and lands ([[India]]) which from the time of rise of the sun of Islam has not been trod by the horse-hooves of world conquering princes and where their swords had never flashed have become the dwelling places and homes of the faithful ([[Muslims]]). The churches and temples of the infidels ([[Hindus]]) and heretics have become mosques and holy shrines for the masters of orthodoxy. God ([[Allah]]) be praised!<ref>{{cite book|author=[[Sanjay Subrahmanyam|Subrahmanyam, Sanjay]]|year=2005|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |isbn=9780195668667|title=Mughals and Franks|page=55}} </ref> </blockquote>

===Taxation on Hindus===
[[Jizya]] was repealed in 1562 by Akbar but was reinstated in 1575,<ref>{{cite book|author=Day, Upendra Nath|year=1970|publisher=[[Munshiram Manoharlal]] |title=The Mughal Government, A.D. 1556-1707|page=134}} </ref> before being again repealed in 1580. This tax had been used as a weapon by Muslim rulers in India to convert poor Hindus to the fold of Islam because this tax could not be imposed on Muslims.<ref>{{cite book|author=Dasgupta, Ajit Kumar|year=1993|publisher=[[Routledge]]| isbn=0415061954|title=History of Indian Economic Thought|page=45}} </ref> This tax caused most burden on the poor, and on their inability to pay the poor Hindus faced execution but by converting to Islam their life was spared. [[Firuz Shah Tughluq|Firoz Shah Tughlaq]] explained how [[jizya]] was used to help conversions:
<blockquote>
I encouraged my [[Kafir]] (infidel) subjects to embrace the religion of the prophet, and I proclaimed that everyone who repeated the creed and became a muslim should be exempt from ''[[jizya]]'' ...... Great numbers of Hindus presented themselves and were admitted to the honor of Islam.<ref>{{cite book|author=Schimmel, Annemarie |year=1980|publisher=[[Brill]]| isbn=9004061177|title=Islam in the Indian Subcontinent|page=22}} </ref></blockquote>

Dr. M. Athar Ali<ref>{{citeweb|title=athar ali|url=http://www.jstor.org/pss/4407044}}</ref>, professor emeritus of Medieveal Indian history at [[Aligarh Muslim University]] has written <ref>{{harvnb|Ali|2006|p=159}} </ref> that Dr. Iqtidar Alam Khan<ref>{{citeweb|title=iq khan|url=http://www.cas-historydeptt-amu.com/pro ... han}}</ref> has shown that Akbar's apparent measures of tolerance such as abolition of pilgrimage tax and jizya on Hindus were episodic and had no real benefit for Hindus.<ref>{{cite book|author=Khan, Iqtidar Alam|year=1968|title=Journal of Royal Asiatic Society 1968 No.1|page=29-36}} </ref> Dr Ali further says that writing later Abul Fazal exaggerated the importance of Akbar's tax measures <ref>{{harvnb|Ali|2006|p=159}} </ref>.

===Reaction of Hindus===
[[Image:Fort_of_Akbar,_Allahabad,_1850s.jpg|thumb|right|Allahabad Fort]]
Akbar forced many Hindus to convert to Islam against their will<ref>{{harvnb|Habib|1997|p= 84}}</ref> and also changed the name of some of their holy places to Islamic ones, an example being, the changing of [[Prayag]] to [[Allahabad]]<ref>{{cite book|author=Conder, Josiah|page=282|title=The Modern Traveller: a popular description|year=1828|publisher=R.H.Tims}} </ref> in 1583.<ref>{{cite book|author=Deefholts, Margaret; Deefholts, Glenn; Acharya, Quentine|page=87|title=The Way We Were: Anglo-Indian Cronicles|year=2006|publisher=Calcutta Tiljallah Relief Inc|isbn=0975463934}} </ref> During Akbar's reign, his general Husain Khan 'Tukriya' forcibly made non-Muslims ([[Hindus]]) wear discriminatory<ref>{{cite book|author=[[Harbans Mukhia|Harbans, Mukhia]]|title=The Mughals of India|publisher=[[Blackwell Publishing]]|isbn=9780631185550|page=153|year=2004}} </ref> patches of different colours on their shoulders or sleeves.<ref>{{cite book|author= Nijjar, Bakhshish Singh |page=128|title=Panjāb Under the Great Mughals, 1526-1707|year= 1968|publisher=[[Thacker]]}} </ref>

Historian [[Dasharatha Sharma]] says that we are prone to idealise Akbar's reign with court histories like Akbarnama and give Akbar more than his due.<ref>{{cite book|author=Paliwal, Dr. D.L. (Ed.) |title=Maharana Pratap Smriti Granth|publisher=Sahitya Sansthan Rajasthan Vidya Peeth|page=182}} </ref> If one looks at other contemporary works like ''[[Dalpat Vilas]]'' it becomes clear that Akbar used to treat his Hindu nobles very badly.<ref name="autogenerated183">{{cite book|author=Paliwal, Dr. D.L. (Ed.) |title=Maharana Pratap Smriti Granth|publisher=Sahitya Sansthan Rajasthan Vidya Peeth|page=183}} </ref>
<blockquote>
When Akbar began his Qamargah hunt in the Bhera-Rohtas-Girjhaka area, many of the ([[Hindu]]) Rajput chiefs accompanying the emperor were encamped on the bank of the river [[Jhelum]]. On Akbar's reaching there the chiefs went to meet him. One Rajput chief, Danhaji, was a bit late. Akbar whipped him himself. A young Rajput prince, Prithvidipa, was allowed to play on by his maternal uncle. Akbar ordered the poor uncle to be whipped, and the self-respecting Rajput, unable to bear the insult, stabbed himself thrice with his own dagger, thereby infuriating the emperor even further and making him pass an order for having the dying rajput trampled to death by an elephant. ... When prince Dalpat Singh of [[Bikaner]] and his companions saw Akbar after cremating the Rajput's body they found him shouting "Let the Hindus consume cows .....". Stories of the way Akbar treated Hindu rajputs must have reached Maharana Pratap and made him realize the utter ignominy of submitting to Akbar.<ref name="autogenerated183"/> </blockquote>

Consequently Hindus did not hold Akbar or his Hindu generals in high regard which became apparent when they boycotted the [[Vishwanath]] temple built by Akbar's general Man Singh (which he built after taking Akbar's permission) because Man Singh's family had marital relations with Akbar.<ref>{{cite book|author=Udayakumar, S. P.|page=99|title=Presenting the Past: Anxious History and Ancient Future in Hindutva India|year=2005|publisher=[[Greenwood Publishing Group]]|isbn=0275972097}} </ref> [[Image:Gate of the Tomb of Akbar at Sikandra, Agra, India, 1795.jpg|thumb|Gate of the [[Tomb of Akbar the Great|Akbar's mausoleum]] at [[Sikandra, Agra]], 1795]] [[Image:Akbar's Grave - Project Gutenberg eText 14134.jpg|thumb|left|Akbar's grave|100px]] Akbar's Hindu generals could not construct temples without emperor's permission. In Bengal, Man Singh started the construction of a temple in 1595 but Akbar ordered him to convert it into a mosque.<ref>{{cite book|author=Forbes, Geraldine; Tomlinson, B.R. |page=73|title=The new Cambridge history of India|year=2005|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|isbn=0521267285}} </ref>
The contempt for Akbar came to fore when Hindu Jat community leader, Raja Ram, tried to ransack Akbar’s mausoleum at [[Sikandra, Agra]]. But his attempt was foiled by the local faujdar, Mir Abul Fazl. After a short while, Raja Ram reappeared at Sikandara in 1688<ref>{{cite book|author= Mahajan, V.D; |page=168|title=History of Medieval India|publisher=[[S.Chand]]|isbn=8121903645}} </ref> and taking advantage of the delay in coming of Shaista Khan, the governor-designate of Agra, he attacked and plundered [[Akbar]]’s mausoleum and carried away the precious articles of gold and silver, carpets, lamps etc. and destroyed what he could not carry.

Rajaram and his men removed the bones of Akbar and burnt them, a grave insult to a Muslim:<ref>{{cite book|author= Manucci, Niccolao; |publisher=[[John Murray (publisher)|John Murray]]|title=Mogor, Storia|year= 1907|page=319}} </ref>

<blockquote> ... breaking the massive bronze gates, tearing away the costly ornaments, and destroying everything which they could not carry off. Their wrath against their Mughul oppressors led them to a still more shocking outrage. Dragging out the bones of Akbar, they threw them into the fire and burnt them.<ref>{{harvnb|Smith|2002|p=356}} </ref> </blockquote>

[peter]

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

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

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

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

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

PS: This is a second version of the above post with references given in the above post. Moderators please see if you want to keep both posts or one. This one is more readable but references are not clear.

Akbar did not have any temple constructed at Fatehpur Sikri. It was his grandson Shah Jahan who had the temple built.
I think Akbar has been turned into a saint by JNU/Aligarh historians. Historians of the west behave similarly in describing Akbar. Truth perhaps is a bit different:

Akbar's reign was chronicled extensively by his court historian Abul Fazal in the books Akbarnama and Ain-i-akbari. Fazal gave a positive spin to Akbar's reign by glossing over uncomfortable facts of the emperor's reign related to his interaction with other communities of his empire, which has been repeated by numerous historians over the years. Other contemporary sources of Akbar's reign like the works of Badayuni, Shaikhzada Rashidi and Shaikh Ahmed Sirhindi were written outside of court influence and hence contain more authentic information and less flattery for Akbar. Historian Vincent A. Smith concludes:

Injudicious flatterers of Akbar have printed much canting nonsense about his supposed desire to do good to the conquered peoples by his annexations.[42]

Rajput Wives
In 1566 A.D. Akbar rebuilt selections of the early sections of the Lahore Fort, following attacks by the Khokhars and Timurs

Akbar persuaded the Kacchwaha Rajput, Raja Bharmal, of Amer (modern day Jaipur) into accepting a matrimonial alliance for his daughter Harka Bai. This marriage proved to be a turning point in the history of the Mughal empire, as this was the first instance of royal matrimony between Hindu and Muslim dynasties in India. Harka Bai was rechristened Mariam-uz-zamani. After her marriage she was treated as an outcaste by her family and in the 61 years of married life she never visited Amer/Jaipur.[43] Her position in the Mughal household was not of much importance because she was not assigned any significant place either in Agra or Delhi. Instead she was assigned a small village of Barah near Bayana in the Bharatpur district where she passed her time till her death.[43] She died in 1623 and her tomb is near Agra.[44] As a custom Hindus were cremated and never buried. Her burial signifies she converted to Islam after marriage.

Rajput ladies who entered the Delhi royal harem became Muslims and were buried in Muslim cemeteries, they could no longer visit their parents' houses or dine with them.[45]

Subsequently a mosque was built in her honor by Jahangir in Lahore, Pakistan which is called Mariam-uz-zamani mosque.[46] She was given this name after the birth of her son Jahangir as a Muslim ruler had to be given birth by a Muslim mother. Other Rajput kingdoms soon established matrimonial alliances with the Emperor of Delhi. The law of Hindu succession has always been patrimonial, so the Hindu lineage was not threatened in marrying their princesses for political gain. Rajputs who did give their daughters to Mughals still did not treat Mughals as equals. They would not dine with Mughals or take Muslim women as their lawful wives.[47]

Two major Rajput clans remained against him, the Sisodiyas of Mewar and Hadas (Chauhans) of Ranthambore. In another turning point of Akbar's reign, Raja Man Singh I of Amer went with Akbar to meet the Hada leader, Surjan Hada, to effect an alliance. Surjan grudgingly accepted an alliance on the condition that Akbar did not marry any of his daughters. Surjan later moved his residence to Banaras. Surjan Hada's son, Bhoja Hada, opposed the marriage of his granddaughter (his daughter's daughter. His daughter was married to Prince Jagat Singh, son of Man Singh I of Amer) to Jahangir which caused Jahangir to move against Bhoj.[48] After his death, his granddaughter was married to Jahangir. A daughter of Raja Man Singh I was also married to Jahangir and she committed suicide.[49]

Rajput nobles did not like the idea of their kings marrying their daughters to Mughals. Rathore Kalyandas threatened to kill both Mota Raja Udai Singh (of Jodhpur) and Jahangir because Udai Singh had decided to marry his daughter Jodha Bai to Jahangir. Akbar on hearing this ordered imperial forces to attack Kalyandas at Siwana. Kalyandas died fighting along with his men and the women of Siwana committed Jauhar.[50]
Maharana Pratap

Entering into alliance with Rajput kingdoms enabled Akbar to extend the border of his Empire to far off regions, and the Rajputs became the strongest allies of the Mughals. Rajput soldiers fought for the Mughal empire for the next 130 years till its collapse following the death of Aurangzeb. Akbar could trust the rajputs because he held their dearest (eldest son) hostages in perpetuity.[45]

However, Maharana Pratap of Mewar declined to accept Akbar's suzerainty and till the end was opposed to Akbar whom he considered a foreign invader. Pratap also stopped the marriage etiquette of Rajputs who had been giving their daughters to Mughals and his supporting Rajputs instead:

With such examples as Marwar and Amer (of giving their daughters to Mughals), and with less power to resist the temptation, the minor chiefs of Rajasthan, with a brave and numerous vassalage, were transformed into satraps of Delhi.
But these were fearful odds against Pratap. The arms of his country turned upon him, derived additional force from their self-degradation, which kindled into jealousy and hatred against the magnanimous resolution they lacked the virtue to imitate. When Hindu prejudice was thus violated by every prince in Rajasthan, the Rana renounced all matrimonial alliance with those who were thus degraded. To the eternal honour of Pratap and his issue be it told that, to the very close of the monarchy of the Moguls, they refused such alliances not only with the throne, but even with their brother princes of Marwar and Ambar. It is a proud triumph of virtue to be able to record from the autograph letters of the most powerful of the Rajput princes, Bukhet Singh and Sawai Jai Singh, that whilst they had risen to greatness by the surrender of principle, as Mewar had decayed from her adherence to it, they should solicit, and that humbly, to be readmitted to the honour of matrimonial intercourse and "to be purified," " to be regenerated," " to be made Rajputs" and that this favour was granted only on condition of their abjuring the contaminating practice (of giving daughters to Mughals) which, for more than a century, had disunited them.[51]

Hindu temples saved and destroyed

Akbar sent a golden umbrella for an idol which was destroyed. He also allowed conversion of a mosque into Hindu temple at Kurukshetra. This temple had previously been destroyed and converted into a mosque.[52] Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi, a contemporary of Akbar, does not credit him for saving the temple instead gives credit to the "infidels" (Hindus) for building their own temple by demolishing the mosque.[53]

Contrary to popular belief Akbar, continued the policy of Babur and Humayun in the destruction of Hindu temples.
Kangra Fort at Kangra, Himachal Pradesh

It is recorded by Bayazid Biyat, personal attendant of Humayun, that Akbar gave two villages for the upkeep of a mosque and a Madrasa which was setup by destroying a Hindu temple, this was done under the supervision of 'Todar Mal' who was highly regarded Hindu minister (vizir) of Akbar.[52] In Akbar's time Todar Mal was called a simple one (sada-lauh) because he mourned the loss of the idols he used to worship and he was also called "a blind follower of custom and narrow mindedness" for being a Hindu.[54]

Akbar's army was responsible for demolition of rich Hindu temples which had gold idols in the Doab region between Ganga and Yamuna.[52]

Historian Abd al-Qadir Badauni records that during Akbar's reign at Nagarkot, near Kangra, 200 cows were slaughtered, numerous Hindus killed and a temple was demolished[52]

On the 1st Rajab 990 AD 1582 Akbar's forces encamped by a field of maize near Nagarkot. The fortress (hissãr) of Bhîm, which has an idol temple of Mahãmãî, and in which none but her servants dwelt, was taken by the valour of the assailants at the first assault. A party of Rajpûts, who had resolved to die, fought most desperately till they were all cut down. A number of Brãhmans who for many years had served the temple, never gave one thought to flight, and were killed. Nearly 200 black cows belonging to Hindûs had, during the struggle, crowded together for shelter in the temple. Some savage Turks, while the arrows and bullets were falling like rain, killed those cows. They then took off their boots and filled them with the blood and cast it upon the roof and walls of the temple.[55]

During the third siege of Chittor many temples were destroyed. The shrine of Moinuddin Chishti in Ajmer was presented brass candlesticks by Akbar which were taken after the destruction of Kalika temple by Akbar during the third siege of Chittor.[56]

Jesuit Father Monserrate, Aquaviva and Enrique arrived at Akbar's court in early 1580 and Monserrate recording his journey in a travelogue comments that religious zeal of Mussalmans has destroyed many Hindu temples and in their places countless tombs and shrines of mussalmans have been erected in which these men are worshipped as if they were saints.[57] Monserrate also tutored Emperor's son Murad.
Jihad against Hindu Kings

During his time Akbar was looked upon by orthodox Muslim elements as a pious Muslim committed to defending Islam against infidelity.[58] Rizqullah Mushtaqi, a well known Shaikhzada of Delhi, writing around 1580, says that Akbar was sent by God to protect Islam from being suppressed by Hemu.[59]
Chittorgarh Fort

Akbar spread Islam in India by waging a holy war (Jihad) against Hindu kings. During the siege of Chittor in 1567 CE, 8000 rajputs had remained inside the fort to defend various temples after the cavalry sallied out to meet Akbar's army in the plain below. These 8000 died fighting to the last man in defense of Hindu temples when Akbar's army stormed the fort and attacked the temples. In addition there were 30,000 plus Hindu peasants inside the fort who were unarmed and massacred in cold blood by Akbar's forces[60] by his order on February 24, 1568 CE. Carthaginian on gaining the Battle of Cannae measured his success by bushels of rings taken from the fingers of equestrian roman soldiers and similarly Akbar measured his by the quantity of cordons of distinction (Janeu or the sacred thread) collected from the fallen rajput soldiers and other civilians of Chittor, which amounted to seventy four and half man (a unit of weight in India equalling 40 kg) by weight. To eternise the memory of this deed the number 74.5 is accursed and marked on a banker's letter in Rajasthan it is the strongest of seals, for "the sin of the sack of Chittor" is invoked on him who violates a letter under the safeguard of this mysterious number.[61]

Akbar celebrated the victory over Chittor and Ranthambore by laying the foundation of a new city, 23 miles (37 km) W.S.W of Agra in 1569. It was called Fatehpur Sikri (city of victory).[62]
Buland Darwaza at Fatehpur Sikri

Akbar, bolstered by his success, was looking forward to widespread acclamation as a great conqueror of Islam and his vigorous Islamic policy is illustrated by Fatahnama-i-Chittor issued by him after the conquest of Chittor at Ajmer, where he stayed for some time en route to Agra, on Ramazan 10, 975/March 9,1568, where the infidels (Hindus) are reviled:

..the Omnipotent one who enjoined the task of destroying the wicked infidels (Hindus) on the dutiful mujahids through the blows of their thunder-like scimitars laid down: "Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands and He will lay them low and give you victory over them".[63]

Further on the call to Jihad against Hindu kings of India is raised and also a call to the destruction of Hindu temples:

This is of the grace of my Lord that He may try me whether I am grateful or ungrateful — we spend our precious time to the best of our ability in war (ghiza) and Jihad and with the help of Eternal Allah, who is the supporter of our ever-increasing empire, we are busy in subjugating the localities, habitations, forts and towns which are under the possession of the infidels (Hindus), may Allah forsake and annihilate all of them, and thus raising the standard of Islam everywhere and removing the darkness of polytheism and violent sins by the use of sword. We destroy the places of worship of idols in those places and other parts of India.[64]

The reimposition of jizya in 1575 is also symbolic of vigrous Islamic policy.[65] Abd al-Qadir Badauni who was then one of Akbar's court chaplains or imams, states that he sought an interview with the emperor when the royal troops were marching against Rana Pratap in 1576, begging leave of absence for "the privilege of joining the campaign to soak his Islamic beard in Hindu infidel blood". Akbar was so pleased at the expression of allegiance to his person and to the Islamic idea of Jihad that he bestowed a handful of gold coins on Badaoni as a token of his pleasure.[66]

Akbar boasted that he was a great conqueror of Islam to the ruler of Turan, Abdullah Khan, in a letter in 1579:

Places and lands (India) which from the time of rise of the sun of Islam has not been trod by the horse-hooves of world conquering princes and where their swords had never flashed have become the dwelling places and homes of the faithful (Muslims). The churches and temples of the infidels (Hindus) and heretics have become mosques and holy shrines for the masters of orthodoxy. God (Allah) be praised![67]

Taxation on Hindus

Jizya was repealed in 1562 by Akbar but was reinstated in 1575,[68] before being again repealed in 1580. This tax had been used as a weapon by Muslim rulers in India to convert poor Hindus to the fold of Islam because this tax could not be imposed on Muslims.[69] This tax caused most burden on the poor, and on their inability to pay the poor Hindus faced execution but by converting to Islam their life was spared. Firoz Shah Tughlaq explained how jizya was used to help conversions:

I encouraged my Kafir (infidel) subjects to embrace the religion of the prophet, and I proclaimed that everyone who repeated the creed and became a muslim should be exempt from jizya ...... Great numbers of Hindus presented themselves and were admitted to the honor of Islam.[70]

Dr. M. Athar Ali[71], professor emeritus of Medieveal Indian history at Aligarh Muslim University has written [72] that Dr. Iqtidar Alam Khan[73] has shown that Akbar's apparent measures of tolerance such as abolition of pilgrimage tax and jizya on Hindus were episodic and had no real benefit for Hindus.[74] Dr Ali further says that writing later Abul Fazal exaggerated the importance of Akbar's tax measures [75].
Reaction of Hindus
Allahabad Fort

Akbar forced many Hindus to convert to Islam against their will[76] and also changed the name of some of their holy places to Islamic ones, an example being, the changing of Prayag to Allahabad[77] in 1583.[78] During Akbar's reign, his general Husain Khan 'Tukriya' forcibly made non-Muslims (Hindus) wear discriminatory[79] patches of different colours on their shoulders or sleeves.[80]

Historian Dasharatha Sharma says that we are prone to idealise Akbar's reign with court histories like Akbarnama and give Akbar more than his due.[81] If one looks at other contemporary works like Dalpat Vilas it becomes clear that Akbar used to treat his Hindu nobles very badly.[82]

When Akbar began his Qamargah hunt in the Bhera-Rohtas-Girjhaka area, many of the (Hindu) Rajput chiefs accompanying the emperor were encamped on the bank of the river Jhelum. On Akbar's reaching there the chiefs went to meet him. One Rajput chief, Danhaji, was a bit late. Akbar whipped him himself. A young Rajput prince, Prithvidipa, was allowed to play on by his maternal uncle. Akbar ordered the poor uncle to be whipped, and the self-respecting Rajput, unable to bear the insult, stabbed himself thrice with his own dagger, thereby infuriating the emperor even further and making him pass an order for having the dying rajput trampled to death by an elephant. ... When prince Dalpat Singh of Bikaner and his companions saw Akbar after cremating the Rajput's body they found him shouting "Let the Hindus consume cows .....". Stories of the way Akbar treated Hindu rajputs must have reached Maharana Pratap and made him realize the utter ignominy of submitting to Akbar.[82]

Consequently Hindus did not hold Akbar or his Hindu generals in high regard which became apparent when they boycotted the Vishwanath temple built by Akbar's general Man Singh (which he built after taking Akbar's permission) because Man Singh's family had marital relations with Akbar.[83]
Gate of the Akbar's mausoleum at Sikandra, Agra, 1795
File:Akbar's Grave - Project Gutenberg eText 14134.jpg
100px

Akbar's Hindu generals could not construct temples without emperor's permission. In Bengal, Man Singh started the construction of a temple in 1595 but Akbar ordered him to convert it into a mosque.[84]

The contempt for Akbar came to fore when Hindu Jat community leader, Raja Ram, tried to ransack Akbar’s mausoleum at Sikandra, Agra. But his attempt was foiled by the local faujdar, Mir Abul Fazl. After a short while, Raja Ram reappeared at Sikandara in 1688[85] and taking advantage of the delay in coming of Shaista Khan, the governor-designate of Agra, he attacked and plundered Akbar’s mausoleum and carried away the precious articles of gold and silver, carpets, lamps etc. and destroyed what he could not carry.

Rajaram and his men removed the bones of Akbar and burnt them, a grave insult to a Muslim:[86]

... breaking the massive bronze gates, tearing away the costly ornaments, and destroying everything which they could not carry off. Their wrath against their Mughul oppressors led them to a still more shocking outrage. Dragging out the bones of Akbar, they threw them into the fire and burnt them.[87]