usual tactics to give reasons to ususrp throne from dad.peter wrote: There is enough evidence that rajputs were not mute spectators to the destruction of temples sin or not. To further elaborate: when Aurangjeb became the king of India he wrote a letter to Shah Jahan and justified his usurpation of the throne by saying that Shah Jahan was soft on the mosque breaker Jaswant Singh.
They performed Upanayanam on Shivaji prior to Vaidik Coronation. Thereafter he married to his wives again.. He was coronated after that..Narayana Rao wrote:It is not just Shivaji but his father also claimed to be Sisodia Rajput and considered as such. The main problem was they were not Dwijas for a long time. So no Kshatria identity religiously. As for his Jijiya Bai - She is from Jadhav Family - Yadava - Kshatriya rurals of Devgiri and they come Chandra Vamshi Lady married to a Suryavamshi Kshatriya male.
he did not levy a single penny of extra tax on common people to pay for this ceremony.Actually the entire Lineage of Bhonsale family right upto shivaji can be found in the Haldighati Museum dedicated to Maharana Pratap....Both of them were descendants of Bappa Rawal...the founder of mewar, who was also from Sisodiya clanNarayana Rao wrote:It is not just Shivaji but his father also claimed to be Sisodia Rajput and considered as such. The main problem was they were not Dwijas for a long time. So no Kshatria identity religiously. As for his Jijiya Bai - She is from Jadhav Family - Yadava - Kshatriya rurals of Devgiri and they come Chandra Vamshi Lady married to a Suryavamshi Kshatriya male.
IIRC the repeat of the Coronation was conducted due to death of Jizabai in a fortnight after initial coronation, which was considered as inauspicious.They performed Upanayanam on Shivaji prior to Vaidik Coronation. Thereafter he married to his wives again.. He was coronated after that..
these were the objections - lack of upanayana, killing of brahmins, no kshatriya varna in kaliyuga. Gagabhat of Kashi satisfied all these objections and after enough "Dakshina" (one may call it a bribe) to brahmins, the process went through successfully. He was also coronated by a Tantrika ceremony few weeks later. He recovered all this cost by a beautiful raid on Mughal treasury. One crore rupees in gold along with 20 canons and 2000 arabic horses were recovered from this venture and all the expenses for the ceremony were paid for. Grains, silk, other clothes and spices were separate.
No.. Vedokta Coronation was not repeated.. The Tantrik method of coronation was conducted few weeks (i think 2 months) after Vaidika ceremony. Jijabai died 13 days after the Vaidika ceremony. It is as if she was living only to see her son being coronated in a way Sri Rama and Yudhishthira were.martinbaker wrote:IIRC the repeat of the Coronation was conducted due to death of Jizabai in a fortnight after initial coronation, which was considered as inauspicious.They performed Upanayanam on Shivaji prior to Vaidik Coronation. Thereafter he married to his wives again.. He was coronated after that..
these were the objections - lack of upanayana, killing of brahmins, no kshatriya varna in kaliyuga. Gagabhat of Kashi satisfied all these objections and after enough "Dakshina" (one may call it a bribe) to brahmins, the process went through successfully. He was also coronated by a Tantrika ceremony few weeks later. He recovered all this cost by a beautiful raid on Mughal treasury. One crore rupees in gold along with 20 canons and 2000 arabic horses were recovered from this venture and all the expenses for the ceremony were paid for. Grains, silk, other clothes and spices were separate.
Peter,krisna wrote:usual tactics to give reasons to ususrp throne from dad.peter wrote: There is enough evidence that rajputs were not mute spectators to the destruction of temples sin or not. To further elaborate: when Aurangjeb became the king of India he wrote a letter to Shah Jahan and justified his usurpation of the throne by saying that Shah Jahan was soft on the mosque breaker Jaswant Singh.
fratricide is common amongst rulers families. nothing strange about the reasons given.
Rawalpindi is named after Bappa Rawal -- if Pakis get to know this, it will cause them massive khujli.Actually the entire Lineage of Bhonsale family right upto shivaji can be found in the Haldighati Museum dedicated to Maharana Pratap....Both of them were descendants of Bappa Rawal...the founder of mewar, who was also from Sisodiya clan
You should look harder then.Katare wrote:
Peter,
First you said there are hardly any mosques in Rajsthan, which is not correct. Now you are claiming specific evidence with a name. Even if 1 or 2 incidence of Hindu Raja's demolishing mosques exists (I have not come a across any so far) it would still not change the basic argument. You should provide some sources because these are serious charges against a race of proud people.
I think they should have actually indulged on mating out same treatment as was given to them. This would have brought massive reprisals but would have given natives a sense of unity and insider/outsider. If any of them did it as a matter of revenge I would love to know about it. Although Rajputs (and others) may have reclaimed their temple sites converted into mosques by invading sultans when they went back. I have not even read such an incidence anywhere so far. Ayodhya remains to be the first mosque structure demolished by hindus ever. But this is more of learned behavior, about time I guess, than an organically developed one.
Anand K wrote:The Arab invasions of Egypt, Western Roman Empire, Persia and Chinese Central Asia resulted in a lot of literature which discussed the religious zealotry and an analysis in their own theological terms. The Copts saw the Arabs as instruments of deliverance from Chaldean Church, the Roman church saw it as a punishment for human sins and the Persian sources explicitly mention the religious aspect. The invasion followed the heels of two devastating plagues and a terrible war with Sassanids.... so it fitted with apocalyptic views of Semitic faiths. The Buddhists OTOH also came up with some interesting Mahakal literature; fringe sects but still significant. IIRC the Mihirakula campaign against the Buddhists did produce some texts which discusses the religious zealotry but did the Turk scourge which swept Buddhism away from Kabul to the Meghna produce such analysis?
Similarly, is there any detailed analysis by Hindu sources on the foreign zealotry..... if not by the Arabs, the Turks at least? I mean, in a religious and social perspective? Someone must have noted the new "drives" and the fact that the invaders have mixed demographics and distinctly different social classes (versus their own caste dominated armies)? I mean, it is generally accepted that by the 7th century AD caste system had lost a lot of flexibility...
PS: What did the Jews of 7th-8th centuries think of the Muslims..... I mean, theologically. They were a diaspora by then and did not need to cast them as another Nebuchadnezzar, but still......
The only real challenge to the mata-s based on unmAda has, for a long time, been that of the bhArata-s. Hence, we are not surprised that they have a particular fear of the dharma and work hard to exterminate it. In this regard ekanetra had asked if historically the unmAda-s understood their shared doctrinal weakness when confronted with the robustness of the dharma. This question was particularly pertinent because the general opinion has been that until the late 1800s (e.g. Vakimchandra Chattopadhyay) the Hindus had no proper understanding of the unmAda-s. At least the sister group of the bhArata-s, the yavana-s had a Celsus or a Julian who had produced devastating critiques of the unmAda. But Hindus were not known to have any such. If this were the case, then how could the unmatta-s feel threatened by the dharma. This prompted us to narrate to ekanetra the case of the relatively obscure internal critiques that arose in the West Asian and European realms, long after the tragic demise of the brave Julian, wherein rare philosophers saw through the madness gripping their people. We had earlier alluded to the Georgios Plethon Gemistos in the Byzantine world of pretonmAda-s. Not only did he see the delusion gripping the Greeks but he also realized that it was not different from the marUnmAda gripping his neighbors. But several centuries before him there was an internal critique right in the maru from Abu al-Husayn Ahmad ibn Yahya ibn Ishak al-Rawandi, which is of interest for multiple reasons, one of which is how the transmission of an Indic critique touched a raw nerve simultaneously across all the mata-s based on unmAda.
What ever little is known of al-Rawandi makes a fairly interesting tale, which while commonly known in educated circles, is still worth retelling (One may profitably consult the works of Sarah Stroumsa to glean useful information regarding him). His father was a Judaist and Talmudic scholar, who as a Dhimmi during the Arab conquest of Iran, was obliged to convert to Islam. Moving from one Abrahamism to another with much ease, with a new convert’s zeal, he started a program of refuting Judaic texts and favoring Mohammedanism. His son Abu al-Husayn was well schooled by his father in Koran and Hadiths and was on his way to being a good Mohammedan. However, he drifted away, first moving to the mu’tazilI system of semi-rational Mohammedanism, followed by a stint as a Shia, and then becoming a Manichaean. Finally, he gave up all prophetic Abrahamisms and compiled a piercing critiques of these cults, and thoroughly exposed their shallowness. The Mohammedans termed him al-zindIq and al-mulHid, which are supposed to mean a materialist or atheist who rejects the religions of the book. Indeed an Islamic apologist says about him: “We have never heard anyone defame the creator (i.e. the Abrahamistic mono-deity) and make fun about him as much as this cursed one (i.e. al Rawandi) did.”
Not surprisingly, his refutation of the Abrahamism, titled the Kitab al-Zumurrud (or the emerald) does not survive in totality. However, we have fragment of it preserved within an Islamic apology written by a Shia hAshIshin (Assassin) missionary to counter it. The point of interest to us here is his presentation of the critique of prophetic religions that was developed by the barAhima or brAhmaNa-s. Now some western arabologists have tried to deny that barAhima meant brAhmaNa-s or have tried to claim that al Rawandi put words into brAhmaNa-s’ mouths because he was afraid to claim them as his own. These attempts suggest that there is still an underlying fear among the followers of unmAda-mata-s to accept that these critique came from the brAhmaNa-s. After all, unlike some imaginary group, they are still very much alive and can still undermine the philosophical foundations of the unmAda-mata-s. Indeed, this denial is a part of the continuum of trying to deny the Hindu traditions when confronted with their superior robustness (it should be noted that a tangled skein connects some of these arabologists to the indologists like the mahAbhagabhakShakI from Chicago and her relatives). However, a closer look clearly re-affirms the fact that the barAhima were indeed brAhmaNa-s and not anything else, and the critique was not put into their mouths but came from them. First, in the 900s al-Qasim ibn Ibrahim clearly states that the barAhima are from al-Hind. This establishes that the Arabic writer were talking about Indians not any one else as some western arabologists have tried to claim. Second, as Stroumsa indicates, the Persian mullah Taj al-Din ash-Shahrastani furnishes the term “barAhima sumaniyya aShhAb al-budUd”; thus, clarifying that the brAhmaNa-s and shramaNa-s (bauddha-s) were the categories of idol worshipers. Other Islamic authors place the al-budUd, i.e. the idol-worshipers in al-Hind (the term bud-shikhan or buddha-buster is a general term used by Mohammedans for their iconoclastic ghAzI-s). So it is quite clear that the Moslems were indeed referring to the brAhmaNa-s and bauddha shramaNa-s, whose lands they were intruding into and thus coming in direct contact with them. Third, independently of al-Rawandi, we find the mention of the barAhima as refuting the prophetic religions in both Islamic and non-Islamic Abrahamistic sources, such as the work of the Judaic apologist Dawud ibn Marwan al Muqammash. Among the Judaic and Islamic sources we also have Sa’adya and al-Qasim ibn Ibrahim, which appear to be independent of that of al-Rawandi. All these sources are distinct but consistent with the statement that the barAhima reject the truth claims of all Abrahamistic prophets and refute the idea the word of a prophet can have soteriological value. These observations, taken together, make it clear that indeed the refutation of the prophetic religions was composed by the brAhmaNa-s: it was lapped up by al-Rawandi and extensively utilized in his own refutation of the Abrahamism, even as the barAhima refutation was attacked by apologists of all three Abrahamistic cults.
Now looking at what survives of the barAhima refutation of prophetism, it is clear that the Arabic writers are talking about sAmkhya-yoga and vedAnta based ideas which were philosophies of the Hindus. It is notable that al-Rawandi, who was well familiar with the related Greek Neoplatonic thought, especially via its late survival in the city of Harran, refers to the brAhmaNa-s. This, strengthens the idea that he was specifically referring to the philosophy taught by brAhmaNa-s and not a general transmission of this type acquired via the Neoplatonists. The fundamental barAhimA critique of prophetism presented by the Arabic writers is rather destructive (effectively showing their mata-s to be delusions): “If prophets are sent to preach adherence to things that can be established by the use of intellect then the prophets are just like ordinary people. If, of the other hand, they come to preach what contradicts those things – god has made those things to be perceived as proofs; they will not suit anything else except through the altering/perversion of the intellect itself.” The Abrahamistic writers also mention that the brAhmaNa-s denied a role for prophetic declarations (as seen in the pretonmAda and marUnmAda) in determining reward and punishment (i.e. puNya and pApa of Hindus being independent of the prophetic assignment of someone to either to hellfire or 72 girls and 28 boys).The primary thesis of the barAhima presented in the Islamic world by multiple Islamic apologists (Sunni and Shia) is entirely consonant with the idea of j~nAnayoga which widely encountered in Indian advaita vedAnta and bauddha circles. They view it with much fear because, as noted above, the barAhima view of j~nAna alone being the instrument for soteriology fundamentally overturned the principle of a prophet’s direct line to the Abrahamistic mono-deity: From the Stroumsa’s work one can glean at least 12 Mohammedan authors writing polemics against the barAhima-inspired refutation of Islam introduced into their world by al-Rawandi. This continued long after the death of al-Rawandi and well after the army of Islam had erased the Hindus from the Western expanses of Greater India. Importantly, this fear was not restricted to the Mohammedan – interestingly we find similar reactions from the paleo-Abrahamism to the barAhima, with at least 5 polemical Judaic authors taking up their refutation of prophetism, along similar lines to that of the Sunni and the Shia. Much of this mirrors the earlier attack by the pretAcharin-s on the yavana pagans (e.g. Origen apology for the shavamata and his attack on Celsus). This strongly supports the contention that the fear of the dharma among the prophetic monotheists is a dangerous one. These attacks might also be leveled in a slightly modified form against the secular neo-Abrahamism which emanates from the prophets Marx and Engels (whom DD Kosambi venerated in a very Abrahamistic fashion as the “nUtana-mAnava-samAja-nirmANakAra-s). That is why we see the liberal Marxists studiously avoid any presentation of the true import of al-Rawandi’s attack on Abrahamism.
Finally, we might ask a question as to how did the knowledge of the brAhmaNa-s reach al-Rawandi. Much after his time, when the accursed Mahmud Ghaznavi was leading the army of Islam against the Hindus, Al-Biruni remarks that the Hindus had “scattered like atoms” their scholars had retreated from the western domains of Greater India. But before the cataclysm of Mahmud, we know that the Hindu presence was still strong in the western domains of bhArata even as the rAjpUt-s stanched the Arabic jihad. However, the jihadic pustules were already scarring lands of the sindhu and bAhlika giving opportunity for transmissions of Indic knowledge to the Mohammedans. The preservation of transmissions to multiple Islamic and Judaic sources around al-Rawandi’s and his Manichaean teacher al Warraq’s times suggest the transmission itself happened before their times. It was probably via a Manichaean or Judaic informant (given that al-Rawandi’s own family had been Judaic before conversion to Mohammedanism). From the location of the early sources in Iran and their association with what is now northwestern Afghanistan, we suspect that brAhmaNa-s were from gandhAra or bAhlika rather than the sindhu. In this context we might look into the case of two other men who gained freedom from Islam. The first of these, the mathematician Abu’ al Abbas al-Iranshahri from Persia, is mentioned by al-Biruni as being influenced by Hindu thought and he subsequently gave up Islam. He then went on to propose his own religion that was based on a Indic model of sAmkhya with several Iranian elements incorporated into that framework. He in turn inspired the physician and chemist Abu Bakr al Razi (from Ragha near Tehran), who too gave up Islam and took to the study of Neoplatonism preserved by the Harran school and Hindu thought. From that point on he started describing himself as a Neoplatonist or a Pythagorean, but he also incorporated the saMkhya theory in his view of the origin of the world. He states: “The world originated with consciousness uniting with matter. Through higher knowledge the consciousness recognizes is its identity as itself and not as as matter. This he declared is the ultimate wisdom that releases consciousness from the bonds of matter.” He also declared that the divine inspiration is innate in all organisms, including non-human ones and does not require additional revelation of divine directives from prophets. Thus, he too declared the prophet Abrahmisms as invalid truth claims. Here too, not just the Islamic authors but also the Judaist theologian Maimonides declare al Razi as a dangerous heretic, again illustrating the alignment of basic Abrahamistic thought. What we observe from this is that not just al Rawandi and but also al Iranshahri and al Razi lapsed from Islam under the influence of Hindu thought. Given their links with the North-Western Afghanistan, it again points to Hindu thought being transmitted via that route. The case of these early refuters of Abrahamism parallels the much later rejection of Islam by the Mogol tyrant Akbar under the influence of Hindu scholars and his Hindu friend bIrbal. Thus,we see two related phenomena play repeatedly over several centuries: 1)The re-acquisition of heathen thought, Hindu and Greek, cured several Abrahamists. This process involved a lapse from Islam towards more robust heathen constructs. 2) Specifically in the zones were Hindus came in close proximity with Moslems there were brAhmaNa refutations of Islam that today are only preserved in Arabic sources but had a strong effect on not just Islam but even Abrahamisms with whom the Hindus were not directly in proximity. This reinforces our view that the West will be unable to critique the religion of peace seriously as long as it does not give up the religion of love at all levels. As a corollary the otherwise disunited Abrahamisms could align against the dharma because they all recognize it as a fundamental problem from their stand point. This lies at the heart of issue which has been diagnosed by Malhotra in his “desert” versus “forest” dichotomy. Finally, we might point out that some of Arun Shourie’s eminent historians claimed that Islam influenced the Hindus during the consolidation of shaMkarAdvaita. As we can see here there is influence no doubt, but the direction was opposite, and it clearly confronted rather than conformed to Abrahamisms.
http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2012/04/01/5030/
See:Katare wrote: Peter,
First you said there are hardly any mosques in Rajsthan, which is not correct. Now you are claiming specific evidence with a name. Even if 1 or 2 incidence of Hindu Raja's demolishing mosques exists (I have not come a across any so far) it would still not change the basic argument. You should provide some sources because these are serious charges against a race of proud people.
I think they should have actually indulged on mating out same treatment as was given to them. This would have brought massive reprisals but would have given natives a sense of unity and insider/outsider. If any of them did it as a matter of revenge I would love to know about it. Although Rajputs (and others) may have reclaimed their temple sites converted into mosques by invading sultans when they went back. I have not even read such an incidence anywhere so far. Ayodhya remains to be the first mosque structure demolished by hindus ever. But this is more of learned behavior, about time I guess, than an organically developed one.
About Ajit Singh:No sooner, however, had Kumbha reached
Kumbhalgarh than Shams Khan, instead of
demolishing, began to strengthen the fortifica-
tions of Nagor. This brought Kumbha on the
scene again with a large army. Shams Khan
was driven out of Nagor, which passed into
Kumbha's possession. The Maharana now
demolished the fortifications of Nagor and
thus carried out his long-cherished design. He took away from the treasury of Shams
Khan a large store of precious stones, jewels
and other valuable things. The Eklinga Mahatmya composed during Kumbha s lifetime,
says that he " defeated the King of the Shakas
(Mussalmans), put to flight Mashiti (Muja-
hid ?), slew the heroes of Nagpur (Nagor), des-
troyed 1 the fort, filled up the moat round the
fort, captured elephants, imprisoned Shaka
women and punished countless Mussalmans.
He gained a victory over the King of
Gujrat, burnt the city 2 (Nagor) with all the
mosques therein, liberated twelve lakhs of
cows from the Moslems, made the land a
pasture for cows and gave Nagor for a time
to Brahmans."
The Chitorgarh Kirtistambha Inscription repeats
these facts, and adds that he destroyed " the great
mosque built by Sultan Firoz, which showed Moslems
the way to Nagor" (verse 19). Verse 22 says "he
uprooted the Mussahmm tree of Nagor and destroyed it
with all its mosques."
He " burnt Mallaranyapur,
Sinhapuri, and Ratnpur and destroyed seve-
ral kings." 1 He killed the enemy and took
Mandowar 1 (Mandor). He conquered Amra-
dadri (Amber) and won the battle of Kotra and took Mandalkar (Mandalgarh). He
took Giripur. He conquered Sarangpur,
taking "numberless Turk women prisoners
and humbled the pride of Muhammad, its
ruler, who had slain his master and become
king of the place."
http://archive.org/stream/maharanakumbh ... h_djvu.txt
Ajit Singh takes back his daughter when Mughal power weakened:SECOND YEAR OF THE REIGH (1124 A.H., 1712 A.D.).
[vol. ii. p. 737.] After the death of Aurangzeb, Rája Ajít Singh of Jodhpúr showed his unworthy character by rebuilding the temples and destroying the mosques in his territory. When Bahádur Sháh had fought against and overcome Muhammad A'zam Sháh, he formed the design of chastising the Rája, and of ravaging his country and the territories of other impious Rájpúts. But events would not allow him to prosecute his intention, and he had to march to the Dakhin against his younger brother Muhammad Kám Bakhsh. In the reign of Bahádur Sháh also Ajít Singh and other vicious Rájpúts were guilty of many improper acts. Bahádur Sháh, on returning from the Dakhin, again resolved to lead an army to chastise this perverse tribe. The revolt of the Sikhs and the troubles they caused obliged him to abandon the enterprise, and to march against the Sikh revolters. Upon the accession of Muhammad Farrukh Siyar, the Rájpúts did not show proper allegiance, and therefore Amíru-l umará Husain 'Alí Khán and the Emperor's maternal uncle, Sháyista Khán, were sent against them, with other amírs and a suitable army.
Rája Ajít Singh, upon learning of the march of this army, was alarmed at its strength and at the prowess of the Saiyids. He sent his property and family into the hills and strong places, and, having cleared his country, he sent envoys to Amíru-l umará with presents, suing for peace and forgiveness of his offences. Just at this time several letters arrived from Saiyid 'Abdu-llah Khán, informing his brother of the intrigues and malice of their rivals at Court, and urging him to return. Amíru-l umará Husain 'Alí consequently concluded a peace with Ajít Singh, the Rája agreeing to pay tribute, to send his daughter for Farrukh Siyar, and his son to pay homage. Having made this settlement, Amíru-l umará left Sháyista Khán, the King's uncle, to bring the girl, while he went on to Court.
http://persian.packhum.org/persian/main ... 6rqs%3D273
At this time Mahárája Ajît Singh took back the Mahárání, his daughter, who had been married to Farrukh Siyar, with all her jewels and treasure and valuables, amounting to a kror of rupees in value. According to report he made her throw off her Musulmán dress, dismissed her Muhammadan attendants, and sent her to her native country. * * In the reign of no former Emperor had any Râja been so presumptuous as to take his daughter after she had been married to a King and admitted to the honour of Islám.
http://persian.packhum.org/persian/main ... 6rqs%3D944
Virendra wrote:Muhnot Nainsi ri Khyat.peter wrote:Some of the manscripts still fall out of crevices from old forts in rajasthan during renovation. Have you heard of Nainsi ki Khyat?
Some call Muhnot Nainsi as the Abu Fazl of medieval Rajput history. Thats enough OT
It is indicative of only one thing. that the caste system wasn't as distinct and discriminative then.why was there no analysis on the vaisiyas/sudras/outsiders/mleccha? Isn't this indicative of a lopsided social setup and priorities?
What to tell, yes there were faulty priorities. Or say lack of perspective/awareness/proactiveness to steal initiative etc etc.Also, doesn't this show old Indics could not completely grok what was happening to them from around 600AD? What did the Indics make of the tribal cohesion and barbarity and absence of permanent castes/classes among the Arab/Turkic invaders? Did the repeated failures cause some introspection? What did they make of Islamic/Christian theology?
Lets see an example.
Indian rulers had almost no spy system which could have given them knowledge of foreign lands and weaknesses of their foreign opponents.
On the other hand :
"Invaders like Mahmud of Ghazni had a full fledged department of Secret Intelligence known as 'Diwani-i-Shaghul-i-Ashraf-i-Mamlukat' employing both men and women as spies who travelled in disguise collecting vital secret information for their Sultan."
That was just an example.
~Source - "Indian resistance to early muslim invaders upto 1206 A.D." by Ram Gopal Misra
Expecting politically independent and separate Kingdoms to glue together is wishful thinking. It can only be possible if those Kingdoms themselves are states under an imperial centralized power exerting control/rule over the pieces.
That system ended in 5th century A.D. So the unity that could've stopped invaders at periphery itself, was missing since the post Gupta period of 6th century AD (with exception of Harshavardhan).
I consider it to be a great achievement to still hold out for centuries in front of the onslaught, while other regions in the world fell within months, like a pack of cards.
Another thing to note here is that while the lack of centralization gave holes to the invaders to plung in. It also created too many power centres and the whole lot spungy; where the invaders had to run left, right and centre again & again to stamp their authority.
Militia were raised at Mandal (group of villages) levels and combined resistance from Forts and Mandals is how they exhausted the Turks.Why was the message not spread to aam admins and militia type movements raised?
Sorry for the OT. Please take it to appropriate (history) thread if you wish to continue on this.
Regards,
Virendra
Some Indian kingdoms were known to maintain extensive spy networks well past 5th or 6th century AD. For example, Amukthamalayuda written by Krishnadeva Raya in the 16th century mentions the use of espionage system. Apparently he had multiple spies cross checking a single target, each one being unaware of the rest, so that if one of them gave a conflicting report, it could mean that the spy had been turned to the enemy's side, or had been identified as a spy and was being fed false information by the enemy's counter-intel. He recommends not punishing the spy in this case, but merely dismissing him, since the spy is now useless.ramana wrote:X-post....
Please discuss here.Virendra wrote: Indian rulers had almost no spy system which could have given them knowledge of foreign lands and weaknesses of their foreign opponents.
On the other hand :
"Invaders like Mahmud of Ghazni had a full fledged department of Secret Intelligence known as 'Diwani-i-Shaghul-i-Ashraf-i-Mamlukat' employing both men and women as spies who travelled in disguise collecting vital secret information for their Sultan."
That was just an example.
~Source - "Indian resistance to early muslim invaders upto 1206 A.D." by Ram Gopal Misra
...
...
That system ended in 5th century A.D. So the unity that could've stopped invaders at periphery itself, was missing since the post Gupta period of 6th century AD (with exception of Harshavardhan).
I have seen a PhD thesis on the organisation of Islamist intel agencies aka Mukhabarat from the times of Muhammad.
Looks like a fairly innocent poem by a holy man, until you take the first letter of the first 14 lines, and then it reads: "विजापूर चा सरदार निघाला आहे" ("the chief (sardar) has started campaign from Bijapur") and the last two lines translate to "think in solitude of a thorough plan".विवेके करावे कार्य साधन ।
जाणार नरतनू हे जाणोन ।
पूडील भविष्यार्थी मन ।
रहाटेचि नये ।
चालु नये असन्मार्गी ।
सत्यता बाणल्या अंगी ।
रघुवीरकृपा ते प्रसंगी ।
दासमहात्म्य वाढवी ।
रजनीनाथ आणि दिनकर ।
नित्य करिती संचार ।
घालिताती येरझार ।
लाविले भ्रमण जगदिशे ।
आदिमाया मूळभवानी ।
हे सकल ब्रह्मांडाची स्वामिनी ।
येकान्ती विवेक करोनी ।
इष्ट योजना करावी
So it looks like a lot of kingdoms were certainly using espionage networks. The practice definitely didn't die out in 6th century AD.हम रियासत के लिए जासूसी भी करते (Hum riyasat ke liye jasoosi bhi karte, i.e. we used to also spy for the state)
If you have to look this hard to find evidence of something, it in itself shows how rare the events are. Anyhow the major problem with looking really hard is that you have to stoop real low to find what you are looking for. Aurangzeb was probably the biggest bigot to ever ruled in India, and you are quoting his biographer Khafi, Your second source is a book promoted and published by "Historical society of Pakistan" and third source is a person who wrote books about "Hindu superiority".Surasena wrote:You should look harder then.Katare wrote:
Peter,
First you said there are hardly any mosques in Rajsthan, which is not correct. Now you are claiming specific evidence with a name. Even if 1 or 2 incidence of Hindu Raja's demolishing mosques exists (I have not come a across any so far) it would still not change the basic argument. You should provide some sources because these are serious charges against a race of proud people.
I think they should have actually indulged on mating out same treatment as was given to them. This would have brought massive reprisals but would have given natives a sense of unity and insider/outsider. If any of them did it as a matter of revenge I would love to know about it. Although Rajputs (and others) may have reclaimed their temple sites converted into mosques by invading sultans when they went back. I have not even read such an incidence anywhere so far. Ayodhya remains to be the first mosque structure demolished by hindus ever. But this is more of learned behavior, about time I guess, than an organically developed one.
Heard of Maharana Kumbha, read Harbilas Sarda on what he did to mosques and his capture of Muslim women.
Heard of Ajit Singh?
Read Khafi Khan's account of his mosque demolition spree and rebuilding the temples that used to stand there, the Mughal reaction of sending the army, his surrender and submission of his daughter to be raped by a Muslim, later on how when Mughal power became weak he took his daughter back and made her throw off her "mussalman dress" (Khafi Khan's words not mine).
Likewise look up Bakht Singh.
The shame is that more Hindu rulers lacked such pragmatism and ruthlessness against this vile ideology called Islam and its followers. It was not a sustained policy like the Spanish reconquista and that's why we have Pakistan and Muslims rampaging in India today.
That settles the case.This does not mean that no hindu ever broke any masjid but when it happened it was largely reclamation of their temples or fit of rage, not as a policy.
Do you have a reference for the above?Atri wrote:[..]
almost fifth of his revenue was spent on intel gathering and disinformation campaigns..
Surasena wrote:You should look harder then.Katare wrote:
Peter,
First you said there are hardly any mosques in Rajsthan, which is not correct. Now you are claiming specific evidence with a name. Even if 1 or 2 incidence of Hindu Raja's demolishing mosques exists (I have not come a across any so far) it would still not change the basic argument. You should provide some sources because these are serious charges against a race of proud people.
I think they should have actually indulged on mating out same treatment as was given to them. This would have brought massive reprisals but would have given natives a sense of unity and insider/outsider. If any of them did it as a matter of revenge I would love to know about it. Although Rajputs (and others) may have reclaimed their temple sites converted into mosques by invading sultans when they went back. I have not even read such an incidence anywhere so far. Ayodhya remains to be the first mosque structure demolished by hindus ever. But this is more of learned behavior, about time I guess, than an organically developed one.
Heard of Maharana Kumbha, read Harbilas Sarda on what he did to mosques and his capture of Muslim women.
Heard of Ajit Singh?
Read Khafi Khan's account of his mosque demolition spree and rebuilding the temples that used to stand there, the Mughal reaction of sending the army, his surrender and submission of his daughter to be raped by a Muslim, later on how when Mughal power became weak he took his daughter back and made her throw off her "mussalman dress" (Khafi Khan's words not mine).
Likewise look up Bakht Singh.
The shame is that more Hindu rulers lacked such pragmatism and ruthlessness against this vile ideology called Islam and its followers. It was not a sustained policy like the Spanish reconquista and that's why we have Pakistan and Muslims rampaging in India today.
No body had to look hard. It was easy. You just don't want to accept it.Katare wrote: If you have to look this hard to find evidence of something, it in itself shows how rare the events are.
Secular Akbar's bones were burnt and his tomb uprooted. Khafi Khan was a good chronicler of the 17th century. If you are not aware of him please do not belittle his work.Katare wrote: Anyhow the major problem with looking really hard is that you have to stoop real low to find what you are looking for. Aurangzeb was probably the biggest bigot to ever ruled in India, and you are quoting his biographer Khafi, Your second source is a book promoted and published by "Historical society of Pakistan" and third source is a person who wrote books about "Hindu superiority".
Regarding Kumbha you can see his own incriptions on the Kirti Stambh at Udaipur. These inscriptions were created at Kumbha's orders.Katare wrote: Rana Kumbha was the first Hindu ruler who was given "title of hindu Sultan" by neighboring islamic sultans who were his allies in his major wars with sultan of Malwa. He was praised in many muslim historical accounts for his tolerance and promotion of all faiths in his kingdom. You can't pickup just one source and declare a great rajput like Kumbha a bigot.
Because mosques that were broken in Rajasthan and Gujarat stood on Hindu temples and Rajput kings promptly rebuilt Hindu temples on these mosques. What you don't realise is that Ajmer sharif would have been broken had Prithviraj Chauhan's progeny continued to live and fight for Ajmer.Katare wrote: You guys are not getting the main point but arguing about technicalities and absoluteness of the argument. Ajmer sharif dargah was established in 12th century at the heart of Rajput heartland and it has always thrived under their protection. Their are no ruins of broken mosques in India while most of the major hindu/buddhist temples still remain broken or scared.
Look there is no need to be apolgetic for what Rajputs did. It is all ok in war.Katare wrote: This does not mean that no hindu ever broke any masjid but when it happened it was largely reclamation of their temples or fit of rage, not as a policy. It took Islamic empire centuries to expand over India and many wars that they won against Hindu kings yielded only indemnity/booty, not the territory. Imperial armies attacking Rajput forts would occupy large areas around it for years to fight the wars. In that time all those pious/pure people would need places of worship in the land of infidels. To meet this demand many mosques will be quickly created often by demolishing/converting an existing temple in the area. When these armies left for Delhi with the booty, Rana's will come down from the hills and jungles and restore their home land. For many temples, including somnath, the cycle of destruction and restoration happened many times. There may be cases of over reactions by individuals or bards recording it a few notches higher than it was.
Does it? Bakhat Singh in your backyard banned all namaaz.Virendra wrote:That settles the case.This does not mean that no hindu ever broke any masjid but when it happened it was largely reclamation of their temples or fit of rage, not as a policy.
And how is it not an enraged retaliation to constant persecution by a larger foe?peter wrote:Does it? Bakhat Singh in your backyard banned all namaaz.Virendra wrote:"....This does not mean that no hindu ever broke any masjid but when it happened it was largely reclamation of their temples or fit of rage, not as a policy...."
That settles the case.
I found it alright and yes page 20 onwards as ramana said.ramana wrote:Am not sure if that is the right page. I want you to read the chapter on Yudhishtira saka. Especially the part about Bappa. And lets continue in the Historic battles thread....peter wrote:Page 20 is about Shankracharya. What is the page number I should look at?
It was Kanaksen (125 C.E.) who made history, as he was the first of the Suryavanshi Kings to migrate to Saurashtra and establish the empire of Vallabhi there. (Gazeeters-Erskine; 1992 (first published 1908), Page - 13) Col James Tod, in Volume I of Annals & Antiquities of Rajasthan, was uncertain “ by what route Keneksen found his way to Saurashtra. He wrested dominion from a prince of the Pramara race and founded Birnagara. Four generations afterwards, Vijaisen founded Vijyapoor at the head of the Saurashtra peninsula. Vidurba was also founded by him, but the most celebrated was the capital of Balabhipoora, now revealed as Balbhi near Bhownugger.”
The appellation ‘Sen’ (meaning ‘army’) remained the martial name for many generations, to be followed by ‘Dit’ or ‘Aditya’ (sun). New terrorities, new challenges presented themselves to the descendants of Kanaksen who established themselves in Saurashtra, the country of Sauras or Sun-worshippers.
The indomitable Kshatriya spirit of valour and honour was demonstrated in the battles for supremacy and imperial ambitions were kept alive. The rich heritage of Hindu values and traditions, emanating from the distinguished royal house of Raghu, were preserved and nurtured. Lost in the labyrinths of antiquity were the records that detailed the lives and achievements of these Kshatriya Kings who had the enduring courage to face hardships and calamities.
From the fires of destruction that reduced Vallabhipura (talking of Vallabhipur sacking here) to ashes emerged the dynasty, which continued to shape the destiny of Bharat-varsha. It heralded new hope for the future and provided continuity to the glorious lineage of Suryavanshi Kings who descended from Ikshvaku and Ram in Kosala.
Regards,As per the History of Mewar (Pinhey: 1996: p.2), the earliest written record regarding Guhil was the inscription found at Ahar, which Col Tod called the ‘Aitpur inscription’. The original was taken to England but cannot be traced now. However a copy found later suggests a lot of omissions made by Tod are important in the proper reconstruction of Mewar’s history. According to some historians Vallabhipur continued to flourish till the 766 AD, which disputes the popular notion of Guhaditya’s rise as a result of the sacking of Vallabhipur. Other discrepancies seem to bein the calculation of the dates assigned to Guhaditya as some historians push his date back to 524 AD. To come to these genealogical reconstructions 10 inscriptions and 2 manuscripts called the ‘Eklinga Mahatmya’ were consulted which belonged to the period of Kumbha and Rai Mal respectively. In 4 of the records, Guhaditya is the first name while 3 others have Bappa’s name first followed by his name. Thus after much deliberation Guhaditya’s date has been ascribed to the period of the mid 6th century. According to G.H Ojha as no definitive date can be ascribed to Guhaditya, the 2000 coins found which have ‘Sri Guhil’ inscribed in them are invaluable in helping historians reach a consensus on the mid 6th century.
I think it should be the mid 700 AD.By the mid 500 A.D., Siladitya VII, the Rajput king od Vallabhipur, was sacked by Salim Uniss, a commander of Arab ruler of Sind
There is no disagreement. That is precisely what I am saying too. Basically you can't sit idly to see your temples and places of worship desecrated and destroyed. At some point rajputs decided to reply in coin. And I see nothing wrong with it.Pat wrote:1. If in retaliation to breaking of the stupa of sarnath a buddhist had broken a mosque then does it mean that buddhist are as much as a fanatic, fundamentalist and violent as muslim invaders
2. If after Bhamian Buddha was shelled a buddhist breaks a mosque then does that mean buddhist are more fanatic and fundamentalist than taliban
My Peter - think about it--- if a thief breaks into your home then will you sit back and let him have your stuff or will you retaliate.... I hope you retaliate with all possible means...
Extend this argument to folks fighting life and death battles with invaders who were also breaking their home and temples.. Seems Rajpouts has balls and they faught.
peter wrote:Does it? Bakhat Singh in your backyard banned all namaaz.Virendra wrote:"....This does not mean that no hindu ever broke any masjid but when it happened it was largely reclamation of their temples or fit of rage, not as a policy...."
That settles the case.
It is a retaliation. And it is still a policy. He instructed everyone in his kingdom to follow his diktat w.r.t how to deal with Mughals, their places of worship and their religion. The result was that Marwar had a big purge and that is why you dont's see many old mosques in Marwar.Virendra wrote:And how is it not an enraged retaliation to constant persecution by a larger foe?
This is interesting. Would you know which Rudradaman it is?Virendra wrote:[..]
To cross examine, we can also look up the ancestry given at Mewar website (http://www.eternalmewar.in).
This is from wiki :
Rudradaman’s second daughter, ‘Puspa Mandvee’ got married to Prince Bir Sen the progenitor of the Guhilot & Gohil clans. [..]
No online reference. Raja Shivachhatrapati by B.M.Purandaré...peter wrote:Do you have a reference for the above?Atri wrote:[..]
almost fifth of his revenue was spent on intel gathering and disinformation campaigns..
When you say possible do you mean a section in Maharashtra believes that Shivaji was not a Sisodiya or does it mean that there are references to him of not being a Sisodiya?Atri wrote:[..]
It might be possible that this was not the case and that he was not of Sisodiya lineage. But this is what he officially claimed even during coronation.
So, +1 to Rajendra ji and RamaY ji..
Thanks! What does the title Kshatrap mean? Was he subservient to Iranians? What about Rudradaman's ancestors? Were they Indians?Virendra wrote:Based on what I get on internet, I'm guessing it was the Kushan Satrap Rudradaman I in west India (ruled 130-150 A.D.).
From wiki :-
1. A total of 20 generations from Maharaja Suhad Dev to Madhav Sen had ruled over the Panj Naad or Punjab.
Maharaja Kanak Sen was the son of Madhav Sen. Kanak Sen was born at Lahore in V.S- 156 (99 A.D.).
After finishing his studies at Taxila he recaptured North Western India from Kushans (Uchhi Tribe) who had then occupied North India. He established the world famous "Vallabhi University" near Bhavnagar, Gujarat.
He and his queen Maharani Vallabhi had four sons- Chander Sen, Raghav Sen, Dhir Sen and Bir Sen.
2. Bir Sen was married to ‘Pusp Madhvi’, the daughter of Rudradama, the Western Chatrap of Kushans in Gujarat. Rudradama is famous for his Girnar inscriptions. He was probably a Panwar Rajput from Ujjain. Kanak Sen sons established towns in their names.
The one established by ‘Bir Sen’ was called Birnagar. Tod & Ojha tells us that it was the ‘Birnagar Brahmini’ who had wet-nursed Gohuditya during his infancy.
----------------
This one is worth full read http://www.passport-offices.info/index.php?t=Valabhi
Excerpts:
....the Sikarwar Khayat confirms that Kanak Sen had captured complete North Western India till Sindh before defeating Dheeraj Dev Parmar, the ruler of Idar.
Idar was under the Western Satrap Rudradama who ruled from Ujjain [no proof of this, his capital seems very disputed]. Kanak Sen defeated Rudradama after he came to avenge the death of his vassal Dhiraj Dev Parmar. The battle was fought some times in V.S 194 or A.D 137 at Dholka. After losing two of his sons on the battlefield, Rudradaman accepted Kanak Sen's suzranity.
Though the Political power shifted to Kanak Sen, Rudradaman was permittrd to govern his state. The 150 CE Junagadh inscription written in Sanskrit credits Rudradaman for supporting cultural arts, Sanskrit literature and also for repairing the dam on Lake Sudarshana that was built by the Mauryans....
....Rudradaman s second daughter, Puspa Mandvee got married to Prince Bir Sen the progenitor of the Guhilots; Gohil clans.
She bore him a son named Vijaya Sen who became a mighty ruler in due course....
Regards,
Virendra
This is just my thesis: In rajasthan people fought for their "watan" the hardest. Since Prithviraj's lineage got annhiliated from Ajmer (They did settle Ranathambore and perhaps Gagron but never came back to reclaim Ajmer) there was no one fighting for Ajmer as their watan.Virendra wrote:Peter I still don't understand how the Ajmer shrine (in the heart of Rajputana) survived, if the states like Marwar followed a tit for tat policy as you say.
The states kept fighting the Mohammedans for a millenia, on and off and the latter hardly got any direct rule in the region.
There would surely have been so many lame easy chances to destroy that shrine.
I think during Mughal centuries this shrine safety can be attirbuted to Amber providing Mughals with direct access and logistics till Ajmer.
But before that and in later times like of Ajit Singh, Bakhat Singh ... what gives ?
Secondly, could it be because Ajmer shrine was not built upon an existing temple's destruction and so the Rajputs thought it was unjust to go after it?
