Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 14 Mar 2010 14:09

This is what I found from Wikipedia. Apparently, Abdali sacked Golden Temple in 1757, dumping dead bodies in the sarovar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Shah_Durrani

The victory at Panipat was the high point of Ahmad Shah's and Afghan power. His empire was among the largest Islamic empires in the world at that time. However, this situation was not to last long; the empire soon began to unravel. As early as by the end of 1761, the Sikhs had begun to rebel in much of the Punjab. In 1762, Ahmad Shah crossed the passes from Afghanistan for the sixth time to crush the Sikhs. He assaulted Lahore and Amritsar. Within two years, the Sikhs rebelled again, and he launched another campaign against them in 1764, resulting in a even battle. During his 8th Invasion of India, the Sikhs vacated Lahore, but faced Abdali's army and general, Jahan Khan. The fear of his Indian empire falling to the Sikhs continued to obsess the Ahmad Shah Abdali's mind and he let out another campaign against Sikhs towards the close of 1766. This was his eighth invasion into India. The Sikhs had recourse to their old game of hide and seek. They vacated Lahore, but faced squarely the Afghan general, Jahan Khan at Amritsar, annihilating the Afghans, with six thousand of Abdali's soldiers killed. Jassa Singh Ahluwalia with an army of about twenty thousand Sikhs roamed in the neighbourhood of the Afghan camp plundering it to his heart's content.

In the spring of 1761, Ahmad Shah, returned to Kabul; and from that period, up to the spring of 1773, was actively employed against foreign and domestic foes; but at that time his health, which had been long declining, continued to get worse, and pre-vented his engaging in any foreign expeditions. His complaint was a cancer in the face, which had afflicted him first in 1764, and at last occasioned his death. He died at Murghah, in Afghanistan, in the beginning of June 1773, in the fiftieth year of his age. He was succeeded by his son, Timur Shah Durrani.

Apparently Raghunath Rao had defeated Abdali's son Timur and driven him out of Lahore.

I will try to dig up Airavat's blog post on the battle of Panipat. Would be interesting to know why the Marathas lost. A lot has been written about their lack of allies, overconfidence etc.

Also, we take for granted that the relative peace India enjoys now and how the western border is so well defended. Look at the amount of violence it was subjected to from invaders from the west in the 1700s.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 14 Mar 2010 19:30

True the amount of violence we were subjected was never seriously studied. One idea i read some where is some 12 Crore (our) people perished in the Jihad against Hindus. What ever is the figure one thing we must not forget bothers (and sisters) we are masters of our land (even is some defective way) since 1951 only and serious treats are out there. These are the same kind of dangers our people faced for centuries. let us not forget millions killed raped looted etc for all these years. If we are not vigilent the same fate awaits us.

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 16 Mar 2010 07:56

Airavat, As you mentioned British were the primary beneficiary of the third battle of Panipat. Is it fair to say that if the Marathas had won the third battle of Panipat, they would have been able to stave off British occupation of India.

From what I understand, the Anglo Maratha wars were very evenly poised.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 16 Mar 2010 13:36

My guess is may not be for long. Brits do have advantage of Navy and better infentary leadership etc So it may not be for long. But I think Airavat can throw more light on this.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 16 Mar 2010 14:50

One of the more tragic losses for the Marathas was the death of the Peshwa a few months after Panipat. He was already suffering from a wasting disease, but it was compounded by the shock of losing his eldest son at the battle.

In case of a victory the Peshwa's family would have followed an orderly succession, keeping the semi-independent Maratha chieftains in check. The main British possessions were in the east and south, their preference was still for trade, and they would have only defended what they had against predatory raids.

The British takeover was hastened by the civil war among the Marathas: Holkar vs Sindhia, Nana Fadnavis vs Sindhia, Holkar vs Peshwa. So with a reasonably stable polity that takeover would have been delayed, and we may eventually have had a separate Peshwa princely state, like Gwalior, Baroda, Kolhapur, or Indore.

BajKhedawal · Post by **BajKhedawal** » 17 Mar 2010 03:01

Just a heads up, not to derail the topic.

Since Indian horse breeds were discussed here not too long ago in context of ancient battles, people might be interested to attend the following:

For those interested in Indian Horse breeds; and are located in and around Delhi. There is a major equestrian event held in Noida from 17th till 28th March.

And then another event from 28th March, and from 3rd April to April 11th The Anand Silver Jubilee Delhi Horse Show.

If you go take pictures and post. Kathiawari and Mewari will surely be there.

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 17 Mar 2010 10:13

Thanks Narayana and Airavat for your responses.

Following are two relevant points from a book titled "The Military Revolution" by Geoffrey Parker.

1) In 1727 it was unimaginable (for the British) that Britain would be in a position to inflict humiliations upon the Mughal emperor in 1783.
Note that this was prior to the Machine age that led to the eventual superiority of European military.

2) The book talks about more numerous guns Marathas employed against the British. Following is a quote from the book.

Indeed, Wellesley considered himself lucky to win at Assaye in 1803." The battle was the most severe that, I believe, was ever fought in India,' he wrote. Two years later General Lake, after another hard fought victory over the Marathas at laswari, wrote that"Had we not made a disposition for attack in a style that we should done against the most formidable enemy ... we might have failed'; while Major Thorne, a survior of both battles, wrote a lengthy memoir some years later to warn the people of Europe of "the changes that have taken place among the warlike tribes of India,through the introduction of European tactics and French discipline which, combined with their natural courage often bordering on enthusiastic frenzy, and their numerical superiority, has rendered our conflicts with them sanguinary in the extreme'.

That is why I was wondering if the Marathas could put up such a strong fight even with the Panipat disaster that allowed the British to grow their strength in India, then the outcome could have been different if the Marathas had won the third battle of Panipat.

The impact of machine age would have tilted the balance in favour of the Europeans in the mid 1800s.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 17 Mar 2010 20:20

One thing is the is the leadership. Marata leaders are not so good at that time. Further the English can do all the wars they can and their base is not here to be attacked by Indian sides. It is the same problem we faced with muslim invaders. Invaders can do all the attackings and they have to win only once to wipe indian ruler where as any amount of defeats of invaders will not wipe them out.

Once more thing may be the manner in which the forces were deployed. It is possible that the Europian powers may have more knowledge and better tactics in warfare which they may have used. Airavat or some other gurus may put some light on that.

skganji · Post by **skganji** » 17 Mar 2010 22:53

It is a very well known fact that Maratha army generals made some crucial mistakes in the third battle of panipat which resulted in their loss. The Maratha Commander, Sadashivrao Bahu ( July 5,1730 - January 20, 1761) was very young and he didn't have any allies and was over-enthusiastic instead of strategic .

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 18 Mar 2010 00:53

I believe Sadashiv Bhau had jumped off his elephant to lead the charge in panipat. Many Maratha soldiers panicked when they did not find Sadashiv in his elephant. When Sadashiv Bhau's body was found it was surrounded by close to twenty dead Afghans.

Marathas did not have Rajputs on their side. Suraj Mal (Jat Raja) also did not fight with them. Shuja-ud-daula fought on the Abdali side.(though he is believed to have regretted that). Maratha diplomacy left a lot to be desired. Abdali was able to convince the Hindu warriors not to join Marathas and was able to enlist support of Muslim rulers in the name of Jihad.

Sanjay Khan had made a TV series called the "Great Maratha". Essentially is about Mahadji Shinde who revived the Marathas after the Panipat debacle.

The whole series is available for download at the following site:

http://thegreatmaratha.wikispaces.com/

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 18 Mar 2010 05:52

Sadashiv Rao Bhau's strategy and movements were described in an earlier post.

skganji · Post by **skganji** » 20 Mar 2010 01:41

Airavat, I have gone through the blog and it has an excellent piece of information about what exactly happened with the Maratha army before and after the loss of third battle of panipat. I still can't imagine how the Maratha army choose to goto war instead of bringing back the army to either Gwalior or Jhansi . Don't you think that it is a stratigic mistake to go to war on an empty stomach.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 20 Mar 2010 06:03

The Marathas had the upper hand till December 1760. For all those months the two armies had been jockeying for position, with the Bhau trying to break away the Nawab of Awadh and other chieftains from the Abdali army.

When Bhau captured the Afghan base of Kunjpura in Haryana, the Abdali army's communications with it's bases in Punjab were cut-off. A letter written from the Maratha camp describes the situation, "The Yavan is greatly frightened. Our troops are every day killing 50 to a 100 of his men and carrying off their camels and horses.....All our troops are confident that in 4 to 8 days Abdali, Najib, and Shuja would be destroyed.....Abdali's route to his home is blocked; he cannot fight with success, he cannot sit down idly as he has not the necessary food supply. He is bewildered."

The situation changed when Govind Ballal, the Maratha revenue collector in UP, was killed in mid-December and his army scattered. Now it was the Maratha army that was cut-off from any path of retreat and starved of all money and food supply.

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 20 Mar 2010 06:17

What a tragedy this Battle of Panipat was for India. Marathas would have become the undisputed power in the subcontinent had they won this battle.

Interestingly, Abdali signed a peace treaty with the Marathas in 1764 (or 62) implying that Marathas were still considered a power in North India by him. One of his proposals was to have Delhi Punjab area as a buffer between the two states.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 03 Apr 2010 17:32

[youtube]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lKq5CqxcQ90&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lKq5CqxcQ90&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]

csharma wrote:What a tragedy this Battle of Panipat was for India. Marathas would have become the undisputed power in the subcontinent had they won this battle.

Interestingly, Abdali signed a peace treaty with the Marathas in 1764 (or 62) implying that Marathas were still considered a power in North India by him. One of his proposals was to have Delhi Punjab area as a buffer between the two states.

this is a false understanding,,if they were so interested in national defence,then See ,just 30 yrs down the line ,what they do..

Wiki: Fourth Mysore War
Main article: Fourth Anglo-Mysore War

After Horatio Nelson had defeated François-Paul Brueys D'Aigalliers at the Battle of the Nile in Egypt in 1798 CE, three armies, one from Bombay, and two British (one of which included Arthur Wellesley, the future first Duke of Wellington), marched into Mysore in 1799 and besieged the capital Srirangapatnam in the Fourth Mysore War.

There were over 26,000 soldiers of the British East India Company comprising about 4000 Europeans and the rest Indians. A column was supplied by the Nizam of Hyderabad consisting of ten battalions and over 16,000 cavalry, and many soldiers were sent by the Marathas. Thus the soldiers in the British force numbered over 50,000 soldiers whereas Tipu Sultan had only about 30,000 soldiers. The British broke through the city walls, and Tipu Sultan died defending his capital on May 4. When the fallen Tipu was identified...

The marathas,rajputs,mughals,nizams, all lacked the sense of unity and national understanding, which kept their powers limited and them busy fighting each other...

they winning a war against afghans, doesnt means that India was secured from foriegn invasion,they were all acting to preserve self interests..... not the national interests.

loss of tipu sultan was even a bigger tragedy, he could have tackled both british and afghans,had he been allowed to pursue national interest,, but his lack of ingenuity and motivation in the final Mysorean war was due to the frustration that some Indian rulers Indians were supporting an invading force,..

jambudvipa · Post by **jambudvipa** » 03 Apr 2010 19:36

Samayji,
loss of Tipu Sultan was hardly a loss to national intrest.He was an out and out jihadi.The suffering of the Hindus in Karnataka under him harked back to an earlier age of bigotry.
Please read up on his campaign into Kerala and the butchery and enslavement of nair women.
Plus assorted massacares of manglorean christians etc.Getting history from tv trash like the "Sword of Tipu Sultan" is a bad idea.
Also the Brits have always played Tipu up,ignoring the elephnat in the room ie the marathas.
Keep in mind the Marathas lost an entire generation at Panipat purely to defend the North of India.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 03 Apr 2010 20:17

Samay wrote:[youtube]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lKq5CqxcQ90&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lKq5CqxcQ90&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]
csharma wrote:What a tragedy this Battle of Panipat was for India. Marathas would have become the undisputed power in the subcontinent had they won this battle.

Interestingly, Abdali signed a peace treaty with the Marathas in 1764 (or 62) implying that Marathas were still considered a power in North India by him. One of his proposals was to have Delhi Punjab area as a buffer between the two states.
this is a false understanding,,if they were so interested in national defence,then See ,just 30 yrs down the line ,what they do..
Wiki: Fourth Mysore War
Main article: Fourth Anglo-Mysore War

After Horatio Nelson had defeated François-Paul Brueys D'Aigalliers at the Battle of the Nile in Egypt in 1798 CE, three armies, one from Bombay, and two British (one of which included Arthur Wellesley, the future first Duke of Wellington), marched into Mysore in 1799 and besieged the capital Srirangapatnam in the Fourth Mysore War.

There were over 26,000 soldiers of the British East India Company comprising about 4000 Europeans and the rest Indians. A column was supplied by the Nizam of Hyderabad consisting of ten battalions and over 16,000 cavalry, and many soldiers were sent by the Marathas. Thus the soldiers in the British force numbered over 50,000 soldiers whereas Tipu Sultan had only about 30,000 soldiers. The British broke through the city walls, and Tipu Sultan died defending his capital on May 4. When the fallen Tipu was identified...
The marathas,rajputs,mughals,nizams, all lacked the sense of unity and national understanding, which kept their powers limited and them busy fighting each other...

they winning a war against afghans, doesnt means that India was secured from foriegn invasion,they were all acting to preserve self interests..... not the national interests.

loss of tipu sultan was even a bigger tragedy, he could have tackled both british and afghans,had he been allowed to pursue national interest,, but his lack of ingenuity and motivation in the final Mysorean war was due to the frustration that some Indian rulers Indians were supporting an invading force,..

The dynamics of North Indian and South Indian politics are different, Samay ji..

In Dakshin Hind, marathas were already sharing power with Nizam who (for some reasons) was kept alive and lingering by earlier Peshwas.. Allowing one more power-centre was not an option. furthermore, the religious policies of Hyder ali and Tipu were nefarious and several complaints were admitted to Pune-court with request to fix this problem.

The British were not the central power of India then, they were only a peripheral power. The central power in India were Marathas controlling entire swathes of region from Haryana to Tanjore and Gujarat to Orissa. Mughal emperor was living off the pension provided to him by Shinde of Gwalior. The man who had planned this move of eradicating Tipu with help of British and was involved in the entire politics of Maratha empire throughout India died meanwhile (Nana Phadnavis) and there was no one to replace him and fill his vacuum. Hence the downfall of this central power of India in 18 years after Nana's death.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 04 Apr 2010 09:29

I agree that some unfortunate things happened in mysore empire,but then Then who was the foreign power Tipu or british? and who was supporting them.
The dynamics of power change but

In Dakshin Hind, marathas were already sharing power with Nizam who (for some reasons) was kept alive and lingering by earlier Peshwas.. Allowing one more power-centre was not an option. furthermore, the religious policies of Hyder ali and Tipu were nefarious and several complaints were admitted to Pune-court with request to fix this problem.

I already said that they all were pursuing self interests,and every side complains a lot about the defeated one(plays with history), differences may be petty but they always found an excuse to fight each other.. Do we need tonnes of evidence to prove that? or we need a different view of history,.
if marathas can adjust with nizam to fight an Indan, why not with haider ali to crush british first, after all this is what ultimately happened before 1947 in khilafat!
When marthas fought with afghans rajputs didnt came out openly, when mysore fought ,nizams,marathas fought against them,..ie all were serving their own interests and the thought of a united nation was never there and that was the reason.
If still we see history in light of petty reasons on which they fought each other,we will lose the focus that they were actually quarrelsome (no matter who was more wrong or more right

) and that was the reason for the fall of India..
Aren't we facing this again? the differences are still used by politicians who take inspiration from our angled view history??

loss of Tipu Sultan was hardly a loss to national intrest.He was an out and out jihadi.The suffering of the Hindus in Karnataka under him harked back to an earlier age of bigotry.
Please read up on his campaign into Kerala and the butchery and enslavement of nair women.
Plus assorted massacares of manglorean christians etc.Getting history from tv trash like the "Sword of Tipu Sultan" is a bad idea.
Also the Brits have always played Tipu up,ignoring the elephnat in the room ie the marathas.
Keep in mind the Marathas lost an entire generation at Panipat purely to defend the North of India.

do you expect tipu to be a democratic and secular sultan in 18th century

and brits to be more diplomatic as in 21st century stantards so not to ignore the elephant (btw they are still using such tactics in the subcontinent lol)

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 04 Apr 2010 10:57

There is no need to lower the bar so much in 18th century. There were multiple Muslim rulers who treated their Hindu subjects reasonably well. Even the Mughals prior to Aurangzeb were not excessively hostile to Hindus. Shuja ud Daulah had protected Hindu civilians from Abdali's people after the third battle of Panipat.

So excessive cruelty by Tipu Sultan cannot be ascribed to lack of secularism in the 18th century.

Marathas had tried to create an Indian defense against Abdali. From RC Mazumdar. History and Culture of the Indian people. " Sadashiv rao Bhau's ideal was India for the Indians. The country upto Attock or the Indus was to be governed by Indians themselves, not by Turks, Persians or Afghans".

If the Marathas had won the third battle of Panipat, they would destroyed Abdali, Najib and Shuja. They had defeated the Nijam in 1760. So, such a Maratha empire had better chances of fighting the British.

With a fragmented polity it is difficult to base the policies on idealism unless of course everyone abides by it.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 04 Apr 2010 11:17

Marathas had tried to create an Indian defense against Abdali. From RC Mazumdar. History and Culture of the Indian people. " Sadashiv rao Bhau's ideal was India for the Indians. The country upto Attock or the Indus was to be governed by Indians themselves, not by Turks, Persians or Afghans".

My point is not about disproving maratha front against afghans but that there was no such thing like Indian defence there at that time
,had it been there ,they would not have persecuted tipu sultan and join hands with other foriegn power.
But in case of tipu,there was dedicated front in Indian defence which was much more professional than the self oriented kingdoms, fact that they had to join hands with overwhelming superiority in numbers ,to kill him..

You may call him a jihadi,a hardliner,but he was in fact the Napoleon of subcontinent, and would have crushed foriegn powers, if the vested interests and jealousy of other kingdoms had not stopped him.

The country upto Attock or the Indus was to be governed by Indians themselves, not by Turks, Persians or Afghans

and Tipu was not a foreigner ,but a better general, we all know he defeated brits at many battles with or without larger armies,while others were not capable hence defeated..
What happened to marathas and nizam after they defeated tipu( the last capable general to defeat the brits)?,
they all were confined to their tiny myopic kingdoms and it took a good 60 yrs to raise a front against brits,which was weaker in 1857 standards of british army,did blunders in mutiny because they never acted as a united front,,and they never learnt from history

...

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 04 Apr 2010 11:30

Samay wrote:You may call him a jihadi,a hardliner,but he was in fact the Napoleon of subcontinent, and would have crushed foriegn powers

Continues the Indian tradition of looking from lenses of Europe I see!!!

I know Napolean's conquests, what is Tipu's claim to this fame?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 04 Apr 2010 11:35

samay, let's assume tipu had not been defeated. the marathas anyway had little part to play in his defeat. what would have been the subsequent history of India been like in your opinion ?

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 04 Apr 2010 11:43

I think if they had combined forces, we could have achieved an Indian republic much earlier, tipu was taking inspiration from napoleon .

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 04 Apr 2010 11:47

a_kumar wrote:

Continues the Indian tradition of looking from lenses of Europe I see!!!

I was comparing their stature, if you wish to see how brits saw him then at least refer to the earlier video

a_kumar wrote: I know Napolean's conquests, what is Tipu's claim to this fame?

their conquests were different because they were fighting in different islands with different conditions.
but their end was similar dear

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 04 Apr 2010 12:23

Samay wrote:I think if they had combined forces, we could have achieved an Indian republic much earlier,

"republic" ??

is that a guess, analysis, extrapolation or imagination ?

tipu was taking inspiration from napoleon

this comes from ? tipu would find very hard to pull this off unless he had access to a time-machine. napoleon's became well-known only after tiou's death.
napoleon himself established no republic btw.

Pat · Post by **Pat** » 04 Apr 2010 12:40

Samay wrote:
Marathas had tried to create an Indian defense against Abdali. From RC Mazumdar. History and Culture of the Indian people. " Sadashiv rao Bhau's ideal was India for the Indians. The country upto Attock or the Indus was to be governed by Indians themselves, not by Turks, Persians or Afghans".
My point is not about disproving maratha front against afghans but that there was no such thing like Indian defence there at that time
,had it been there ,they would not have persecuted tipu sultan and join hands with other foriegn power.
But in case of tipu,there was dedicated front in Indian defence which was much more professional than the self oriented kingdoms, fact that they had to join hands with overwhelming superiority in numbers ,to kill him..

You may call him a jihadi,a hardliner,but he was in fact the Napoleon of subcontinent, and would have crushed foriegn powers, if the vested interests and jealousy of other kingdoms had not stopped him.
The country upto Attock or the Indus was to be governed by Indians themselves, not by Turks, Persians or Afghans
and Tipu was not a foreigner ,but a better general, we all know he defeated brits at many battles with or without larger armies,while others were not capable hence defeated..
What happened to marathas and nizam after they defeated tipu( the last capable general to defeat the brits)?,
they all were confined to their tiny myopic kingdoms and it took a good 60 yrs to raise a front against brits,which was weaker in 1857 standards of british army,did blunders in mutiny because they never acted as a united front,,and they never learnt from history ...

Tipu's defeat in the last war with brits was a foregone conclusion. Brits approached others to just to build a collation but they were totally capable of destroying Tipu by then.
BTW: Tipu's father Haither Ali had ended a war with brits with minor advantage but that advantage was not decisive

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 04 Apr 2010 12:48

this comes from ? tipu would find very hard to pull this off unless he had access to a time-machine. napoleon's became well-known only after tiou's death.
napoleon himself established no republic btw.

??

Mahendra · Post by **Mahendra** » 04 Apr 2010 12:57

IIRC Tipu was a jihadi who invited the Afghans to take over india

Tipu's wars with the British were to protect his own kindgom and not with any sense of driving foreign powers out of India

Tantya Tope was a very capable general who won many battles with the British, so it wasn't Tipu who last defeated the Brits.

It would be wild speculation to assume that India would have attained the status of a Republic much earlier if Tipu and the Marathas joined forces, pardon this equal equal but it is just like saying that the BJP will rule India forever if they join forces with SIMI

Arunkumar · Post by **Arunkumar** » 04 Apr 2010 13:15

North Kerala was one of the worst affected because of Tipu's tyrannical ways. If he ever dreamt of a republic , it would resemble what pakistan looks like today in the demographic sense.

http://voiceofdharma.org/books/tipu/ch03.htm

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 04 Apr 2010 13:20

IIRC Tipu was a jihadi who invited the Afghans to take over india

Tipu's wars with the British were to protect his own kindgom and not with any sense of driving foreign powers out of India

please give a proof, but not from a biased one like this

North Kerala was one of the worst affected because of Tipu's tyrannical ways. If he ever dreamt of a republic , it would resemble what pakistan looks like today.

http://voiceofdharma.org/books/tipu/ch03.htm

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 04 Apr 2010 13:30

Dude, what do you mean by biased. Not written by a European?

The following link has quotes from original accounts from Europeans. I do not want to quote them there. Tipu's atrocities on Hindus are pretty well known.

http://www.merinews.com/article/making- ... 5059.shtml

The following page is from the book by Benjamin Rice which is referenced in the previous article.

http://books.google.com/books?id=clkoAA ... q=&f=false

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 04 Apr 2010 13:53

You mean some atrocity like this The New Cambridge Modern History or
Rajasthan, Volume 1

you may find these links of your taste
Although the truth will remain as it was always in favour of a shaheed
India as spectacle
specially this
The Making of India: A Historical Survey By Ranbir Vohra

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2000 ... 190352.htm

A patriot resurrected

Colonial historians would have us believe that the Tiger of Mysore was a defeated native ruler, vanquished by great British Governors-General. But a deeper look showed that Tipu Sultan was a multi-faceted man who can well be a role model and source of inspiration for today. VASANTHI SANKARANARAYANAN revels in the fact that Girish Karnad has focussed, in his play, on the persona of Tipu as a man and a visionary.

TIPU SULTAN - 200 years after his death and 53 years after his dreams for India (Indian Independence) came true, the memory of Tipu Sultan has been revived - books written from a different, new perspective, Tipu Societies in various towns such as Erode, Hyderabad and Calcutta, an exhibition of Tipu objects in Edinborough. This is a trying period for India. Within 53 years of attaining independence, the very notion of "India" as a country is being doubted, questioned, analysed and perhaps only glibly justified; fragmentation and regional loyalties are the logical outcome of the diversities embedded in the very structure and outlook nurtured by the country; in fact, it is these "differences" which make this country unique, a role model for a modern, multicultural way of living; but, somewhere along the line, for political, emotional and economic well being, the idea of unity has to be cultivated. Pride in heritage without revivalism, patriotism without selfish and self seeking motives, awareness and identification with the past and the present history of the country to build up a better future. These are some of the key factors needed to give a new lease of life to this country. In this process of seeking pride in the true heritage of the country, searching for modernity of an indigenous variety and building up a new and strong future for our younger generation, the persona of Tipu Sultan can act as a role model and a source of inspiration.

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 04 Apr 2010 14:21

Nobody denies that Marathas did commit atrocities. They committed a lot of atrocities, that is well documented by Jadunath Sarkar's books but as far as I know they were not killing/torturing people to change their religion. Which is what Tipu Sultan seemed to have been doing. That's what some people are trying to point out.

In any case, it is not clear to me what your point is. My original point was that if the Marathas had won the third battle of Panipat, they would have been the primary power in the subcontinent. Where does Tipu come in to this?

You have not explained how Tipu Sultan would have created a republic after winning against the British. His kingdom appears too small to be affecting the whole of India. IMHO, most likely he would have started a Jihad just like Aurangzeb.

The Hindu article does not seem to dispute Tipu's atrocities in Kerela.

Mahendra · Post by **Mahendra** » 04 Apr 2010 14:22

....del...
roadside IED against friendly forces defused

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 04 Apr 2010 17:10

samay, could I have answers to my questions ?

viz.
> on what basis you are saying tipu was going to establish a republic ?
> what is the source of the info that tipu was influenced by napoleon.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 04 Apr 2010 17:27

He was futuristic, although it cannot be said exactly that he would have made a republic out of a divided country,but his solution that is rooting out the british first ,was better than the subsequent maratha empire ,which was in no need of doing this and was helping british submitted to them until they lost their own jagirs. ..

I think hindus were majority in his court and army,
he was in touch with the french and napoleon so that he aimed at the british empire.. he was a self styled napoleon in India,may or may not be influenced by napoleon is a matter of research but since he modeled his army and navy on the french he could have modeled the territory he had won (posted in above video and other links<-- read the last lines of this link)

He did asked all the religious leaders and kingdoms to help him root out the british, none came forward..

moreover it was in british interest to demonize tipu and to elaborate too much of any harms done to malaya during his conquests ,and some locals were interested to create stories .
No doubt tipu was their strongest and most patriotic rival they ever faced and we know they play with history and perceptions.....

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 04 Apr 2010 17:49

"He was futuristic" ? how ? whatever I've read about him says he wanted to build an empire for himself, no different from any other monarch of that era. his bigoted policy is also well documented. if tipu had won we would have had a french empire in India in stead of the british, same difference as far as I'm concerned.

was better than the subsequent maratha empire ,

better in what way ? it seems to me you are too influenced by a few TV programs. tipu too backed the french, another colonial power, how does that make him better ?

which was in no need of doing this and was helping british submitted to them until they lost their own jagirs. ..

"helping british submitted to them" does not make sense in any language I know. if you mean "submitted to the british" I would like to know your explanation as to why they were fighting the british in the numerous anglo-maratha wars at the same time (you claim) when they were submitting to the british.

He did asked all the religious leaders and kingdoms to help him root out the british, none came forward..

for good reasons. did his past record inspire confidence ?
if pervez kayanai comes and appeals to all Indians to help him root out the 'evil taliban', I doubt many of us would be in a hurry to comply. he asked for help when he was in dire straits from the very people against whom he had committed atrocities.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 04 Apr 2010 17:58

I ve posted it in the above links.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 04 Apr 2010 18:01

I don't see any. please post those again.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 04 Apr 2010 18:03

If this is of any consolation, Pune court was in alliance with French since 1750's. There are quite a few letters exchanged between Nana Phadnavis and Napoleon in last decade of 18th century.

In fact, Shindes were first in the subcontinent to make moves towards raising a modern army with dedicated logistical supply chain, uniform and discipline. Of course it was not similar to modern army, the efforts already began. Napoleon was in contact with many major Indian powers. And logic says, seducing marathas is more profitable than seducing Tipu.