Talk:Rajput/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Rajput: Re-stating the Problem Statement

At the risk of being labelled politically incorrect, and insensitive may I humbly suggest that Rajputs are not a Homogenous group in terms of a "race". In years to come, this disambiguation would no more be there because of Mitochondrial_DNA testing. (Already the research conducted by Indian scientists and Westerners is pointing the inconlusivness of one single ancestor theory.) The Rajputs are indeed a social group based on a somewhat common worldview about their past. However, there is plenty of literature on the formation of tribes, races, castes, etc. Some of it is in the Indian context. This could be helpful in understanding the identity question.

Secondly, the idea that non-Hindus can't be Rajputs is inherently flawed. Hinduism is a way of life, a combination of various religious beliefs, traditions and practices. It is not a monolith. Nor is it a formal religion. Thanks to the British, we know now of Hinduism as religon. Most of "Orientalism" was actually to gain control over the eastern wealth and resources.

May I request Shonan Talpade to be a little gentle while presenting his arguments, if he has any. His rejoinder to Omer Khan was quite inappropriate. The response entitled "Northern India" (above) is equally irresponsible.

M Gazdar --203.101.162.47 13:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Response to posters who claim turks/arabs/mughals/muslims were better warriors then rajputs and some comments on musalman rajputs-Shivraj Singh

Battles between rajputs and muslims.

Muslims started attacking India within a few decades of the birth of islam. For a few hundred years they had no success. Bin Qasim was able to defeat Dahir in Sindh but was routed by Bappa Rawal. Qasim attacked chittore, which was ruled by Mori Rajputs, via Mathura. Bappa, of guhilote dynasty, was a commander in Mori army and so was Dahir's son. Bappa defeated and pursued Bin Qasim through Saurashtra and back to Sindh. After this resounding defeat of the caliphate at the hands of Bappa, for next few hundered years there were no more incursions into India. (note muslim historians rarely recorded the defeats of there kings)

Then Mahmud started his raids and was succesful in looting Somnath.

Ghori attacked many times.First time he was routed in present day Gujarat by Rajputs. After this defeat he never entered India thru Gujarat. In first battle of Taraori (tarain is misspelledword) Prithviraj chauhan captured Ghori and Ghori begged for his life. Prithviraj allowed him to go despite his generals asking him not to do so.Following year Ghori came again. Prithviraj advanced with his army and sent a letter to Ghori. In this letter ghori was asked to return as he had been beaten last year and was spared his life. Ghori replied that he was in India on the orders of his brother and he can only retreat after he gets a word from his brother. This letter was sent in the evening and Ghori moved his camp back a few kilometers. On receiving this letter and seing Ghori move his camp back Prithviraj assumed that Ghori is not interested in fighting. Ghori also knew that Rajputs did not fight in the night and only started fighting after sun had come up. He attacked in the early morning hours when Prithviraj and his army were sleeping and was able to win this war. So much for the bravery of Turks/Arabs etc.

Later Alla-ud-din Khilji usurped delhi from his relative. Khilji wanted to win Chittor because sisodiyas of chittor never accepted the rule of Islam. Another reason was Rani Padmini. He laid a siege but Chittor would not fall. Then he requested Rana Ratan Singh, husband of Rani Padmini, that if he is allowed a glimpse of Rani he would leave. By this time the situation inside the fort was getting bad. Rana discussed this with his advisers and they agreed that they can show Padmini's face in a mirror to the sultan. The meeting took place and afterwards out of courtesy when Rana was walking Khliji out of the palace, khilji's men captured Rana Ratan Singh. Khilji sent a mesg to the fort that Rana can be spared by exchanging Rani Padmini. Padmini discussed this with Gorah, her maternal uncle, who was a chauhan rajput. Gora told her not to worry and that he would go and bring back Rana Ratan Singh and Sultan is not brave enough to stop him. Padmini's nephew Badal who was just sixteen also assured her. A mesg was sent from the fort to Khlji that Padmini would come with 700 of her servants in "palanquins" (palki in hindi) and that no muslim soldier should peek inside the palki to outrage the modesty of the women. Letter also said that before Padmini meets khilji she would like to talk to Rana. khilji agreed. All the palki's had the best rajput warriors with two swords each. When Padmini's palki, which was occupied by Gora, reached Rana's tent he asked Rana to mount the horse and go back to the fort. Then Gora gave a signal and every rajput came out of the palki and attacked the muslims who were cut to pieces. Gora reached Khilji's tent and was about to kill the sultan when khilji moved his concubine infront of him. Gora, being a rajput could not kill an innocent women and these few seconds were enough for khliji's guards to kill Gora from behind.

Prithviraj's descendant Hammir deo chauhan ruled ranthambore. Jalore was ruled by another branch of Chauhans, the Songaras. During Khilji's time Somnath temple was attacked again and ulugh khan, the mongol general, had broken the shiv linga and was carrying it back to delhi. Kanhad Dev, ruler of Jalore, attacked Ulugh Khan, defeated him and took the shiv ling from Ulugh's army and reinstated the broken pieces in a few temples around jalore. One of ulugh's general was a neo-muslim and and he had helped Kanhad deo. This general later went and stayed with Hammir deo in ranthambore. Khilji wanted him dead and asked Hammir to hand him over. Hammir replied that he knows how to draw his sword and anyone who has taken shelter in his fort would not be turned over. Khliji attacked ranthambore but his armies were defeated. He finally came himself and and somehow managed to bribe two generals in Hammir's army and consequently Ranthambore fell.

Later Rana Kumbha repeatedly defeated sultans of Malwa and Gujarat and built 32 forts in rajasthan. Even the combined armies of sultans of Malwa and Gujarat could not beat Kumbha.

In his line was Rana Sangram Singh or Sanga. Sanga defeated Ibrahim Lodi in 1519. Lodi was defeated by Babur later. Now Babur was having sleepless nights because of Sanga. Babur sent about 1500 choice cavalry to attack Sanga. These were butchered by Sanga's rajputs. Babur wanted to discuss peace terms. For discussions Sanga sent his general Silhadi (Shiladitya). Babur won this general by promising him independent kingdom. Silhadi came back and reported that babur does not want peace and he wants to fight. Fight started and Babur's army was being knocked out of the field and victory was certain for Sanga. At this juncture Silhadi and his army just left the field and this tilted the war in favor of Babur and he won.

Humayun, Babur's son was beaten by Sher Shah Suri, a pathan. Humayun was forced to leave India and Sher Shah became ruler of delhi. Sisodiya's and Mewar were not able to recover from Sanga's treacherous defeat fully yet. In rajasthan Rathores were becoming very powerful. Rao Maldeo, rathore king, had extended his territory to within a couple of hundred kilometers of delhi. Sher Shah attacked Maldeo. Maldeo came with a force of 40 thousand and sher shah had 60 thousand. In the evening Shershah sent forged letters to Maldeo's camp. In these letters it was stated that few generals from Maldeo's army were buying arms from SherShah's army. This caused great consternation in Maldeo who thought there is treachery and that some of his generals had crossed over to Sher Shah. Maldeo left with 20 thousand men. In reality there was no treachery. Later when Maldev's generals, Kumpa and Jaita found out what happened they did not loose cool and decided they would not leave the field even though they just had 20 thousand men and had to face 60 thousand pathans of sher shah. Finally battle of sammel was fought and sher shah was shocked by what he saw. SherShah's top generals lost there lives and his army suffered heavy losses. After this Sher Shah commented that "for a few grains of Bajra he had almost lost the entire kingdom of India". (Bajra is a crop that grows in marwar region of rajasthan). It is a moot point now but had Maldeo not retreated because of the fake letter Rathores/Rajputs would have defeated SherShah.

Humayun's son Akbar was born in the palace of a Hindu king who had given Humayun shelter when he was being pursued by SherShah. Akbar realized that he can never subdue Rajputs and become sole ruler of India. He decided to pursue diplomacy and was able to convince the rajput rulers of Amber (present day Jaipur) about a matrimonial alliance. King of Amber agreed and Jodha Bai became Akbar's queen and mother of Salim/Jahangir. Soon other Rajput kingdoms in rajasthan also gave there daughters to Akbar. This was the darkest period in the history of Rajputs.

Only two kings remained against this. The sisodiyas of Mewar and Hadas of Ranthambore. Hadas are chauhans. Finally Man Singh of Amber and Akbar went and met Surjan Hada that he should become friends with Akbar and Surjan some how agreed but one of his conditions of friendship was that no daughter of Hadas would ever be asked to marry mughals and Akbar agreed. So there remained just the house of Mewar the sole bearer of Rajput pride in the face of immense opposition from Mughals as well as other rajputs who had sold there souls essentially to mughals by giving there daughters.

Maharana Pratap the sisodiya ruler of Mewar passed a law in his state that none of his followers will intermarry with other rajputs of rajasthan who have given there daughters to Muslims. This lwas was followed completely by his loyal band of rajputs which included Rathores/Chauhans/Sisodiyas/Parihars/Tomars/Jhala. Maharana Pratap never accepted Akbar as king of India and all his life kept fighting Akbar. Pratap's son, Amar Singh, fought 17 wars with mughals but he finally accepted themas rulers. At this time a large chunk of Maharana Pratap's band of loyal Rajputs became disillusioned by the surrender and left Rajasthan. This group includes Rathores/Deora Chauhans/Parihaars/Tomars/Jhala. They are called "Rors" and are settled mostly in Haryana and some in UP. Till today they do not intermarry with other rajputs but "gotra permitting" with other rors only.

Akbar was very unhappy with Maharana Pratap and he first tried diplomacy to win over Maharana but nothing worked. Pratap just said he has no intention to fight with Akbar but he cannot bow down to Akbar and accept him as the ruler.

Finally Akbar attacked Maharana at haldighati. Akbar's general was Man Singh Kacchwaha of Amber and had 40 thousand men. Maharana had about 8 thousand men and some bhil warriors. During the first attack Maharana's army routed the mughals and mughals ran for there life. Maharana decided to kill Man Singh. Maharana's horse chetak put his front feet on the trunk of the elephant that Man Singh was riding and Maharana threw his lance. Man Singh ducked and the elephant driver was killed. Man Singh was lucky to escape. Finally the numerical superiority was too much and the battle ended in a stalemate. When mughal army entered the nearyby town they were so mortified that Maharana would attack them again that no one would venture out of the camp for months. They ran out of food and conditions were just miserable in the mughal camp. Finally help arrived many months later. Akbar was very unhappy with his generals and his army and he refused to see his generals for months.

Akbar kept sending expedition after expedition against Maharana Pratap but never succeded. He lost lot of money and men in trying to defeat Maharana Pratap. For 30 years Pratap remained ahead of Akbar and in last ten years of his life was able to free most of his kingdom. The only fort Pratap could not recover was Chittor and that saddened him a lot. His son, Amar Singh, won that fort after Pratap's death.

It is said that somebody told Akbar that Pratap wants to accept Akbar as the king. Akbar was very happy to hear this. One of Akbar's general was Prthviraj Rathore who was a very good poet. He told Akbar this is a lie (incidentally Prithviraj's mother and Pratap's mother were real sisters). Prithviraj wrote this letter to Pratap:

"The hopes of the Hindu rest on the Hindu yet the Rana forsakes them. But for Pratap, all would be placed on the same level by Akbar; for our chiefs have lost their valour and our females their honour. Akbar is the broker in the market of our race; he has purchased all but the son of Udai (Singh II of Mewar); he is beyond his price. What true Rajput would part with honour for nine days (nauroza); yet how many have bartered it away? Will Chittor come to this market ...? Though Patta (an affectionate name for Pratap Singh) has squandered away wealth (on warfare), yet he has preserved this treasure. Despair has driven man to this market, to witness their dishonour: from such infamy the descendant of Hamir (Hamir Singh) alone has been preserved. The world asks, from where does the concealed aid of Pratap emanate? None but the soul of manliness and his sword .. The broker in the market of men (Akbar) will one day be surpassed; he cannot live forever. Then will our race come to Pratap, for the seed of the Rajput to sow in our desolate lands. To him all look for its preservation, that its purity may again become resplendent. It is as much impossible for me to believe that Pratap has called Akbar his emperor as to see the sun rising in the west. Tell me where do I stand? Shall I use my sword on my neck or shall I continue my proud bearing? "

Pratap replied to him:

"By my god Eklinga, Pratap would call the emperor Turk alone and the sun would rise in the east. You may continue your proud bearing as long as Pratap's sword dangles on the mughal head. Pratap would be guilty of Sanga's blood, if he was to tolerate Akbar. you would have the better of it, no doubt Prithviraj, in this wordy quarrel."

Prithviraj was overjoyed on getting this letter.

After Akbar in his line, few generations later, came Aurangzeb. Aurangzeb did not like Jaswant Singh, ruler of Marwar. When Jaswant Singh Rathore died he had no son and this gave Aurang a chance to appoint a muslim as the ruler of marwar. This upset rathore rajputs a lot. Two of Jaswant Singh's queens were in the family way when Jaswant Singh died. One queen gave birth to Ajit Singh. After his birth, Rathore generals, chief among them was DurgaDas Rathore, went to Delhi along with the queens and Ajit Singh, who was an infant, and asked Aurnagzeb that the crown of marwar should be given to Ajit Singh. Aurangzeb was a very cunning and immoral fellow and he had no intention of handing over the throne of marwar. He wanted to kill them all. Durgadas sensed this and they smuggled Ajit Singh out of Delhi to the outskirts of the city. When Mughal army came to capture them in delhi DurgaDas and his men attacked the mughals and started riding out of delhi. Raghunandan Bhati and others soaked the streets of Delhi in crimson by flowing the blood of mughal pursuers. There were about three hundred rajputs with Durgadas and there were thousands of pursuing mughals. Every so often 15 - 20 rajputs would fall behind attack the mughal pursuers and in the process get themselves killed but it allowed the forward party to create some distance between Ajit and the mughals. This continued till the evening by which time mughals had given up and Durgadas was left with just seven men out of three hundred he started with and reached Jaipur along with Ajit Singh.

Thereby started the 30 year rajput rebellion against Aurangzeb. Mewar and Marwar forces combined together and almost killed Aurangzeb when he was trapped in the mountains of rajasthan but the Mewar king out of magnanimity allowed aurangzeb to escape.

All the trade routes were plundered by rajputs and they started looting various treasuries of rajasthan and gujarat. To crush them Aurang sent many expeditions but no success. These expeditions and drying up of revenue from trade routes running thru rajasthan had severe effect on his resources.

Finally on his deathbed Aurang complained that his life had been a complete failure. He was the sole reason for Mughal empire's crumbling. His war campaigns had practically left the treasury dry for his progeny.

A point to note here is that lot of Muslims and some hindu historians like Romila Thapar think that Islam/Muslims did not do conversion of Hindus by sword. The argument they give is that there are so many hindus still today in India. This is completely wrong because most muslim rulers in India tried to convert as many as they could but it was the strength of rajput sword that kept hinduism alive in India. If there were no rajputs in India then India would be just like Iraq/Iran/Turkey/ Pakistan in terms of religion of the population.

Muslim Rajputs in India

There are rajput muslims in India. They are called "ranghars". These people are proud of there lineage and do not intermarry with other muslims but only marry with other "ranghars". They come to rajput villages to celebrate diwali/dusshera and the village elders give them "hukka" a sign of respect.

All castes in India have muslims in them. Wether it is rajputs/jats/gurjars/ baniyas/brahmins. This is due to conversions which were mostly forcible after a battle was lost and sometimes tactical i.e some army commanders changed religous alegiance for a life of comfort in the imperial court. e.g Nahur Khan who was a rathore (see James Tod's book). In Tod's book there is mention of bhattis converting to Islam and there are more examples besides these.

The question is that if a rajput who converted to islam for whatever reason, but still maintains his unique identity, does not intermarry with other muslims, then it is OK for him to proclaim that he is musalman rajput.

My Reply

I fully agree with Kunwar Ji about his views, which is true, about rajputs. The respect and prominence Rajputs got was due to their ethics and code of conducts. Their bravery against imposing opposition and their determination against all odds. It was their conviction and a courage to live up to that conviction no matter what the cost is rajputi. Those who could not perform to that highest level of idealism have lost their status as a Rajput. If some ones ancestors have abondoned their faith and conviction for comforts and safety,they had lost their status as a rajput hence they are not Rajputs. Period. No disacussion. Akbar married a hindu princesse but their son was never considered a Rajput even when they were ruling most part of india. So if some muslims became raja or ruler that does not mean they will became rajput. So ruling status was nothing to do with being rajput even though most of the rajputs were rulers. So guys get over it.

Dinesh Singh Naruka

My reply,

You have expressed your naievette in saying what a professor will know on this subject when a pundit has expressed.....

I will not argue on pundit's knowledge of varna system. He may be knowing something about it but he is talking of Kshatriya varn which encompasses many other casts including rajputs. That doesnot mean all other khstriyas including jatt, ahir and gujjars will become a rajput. These so called pundits even objected Akbars conversion in to rajput and now has become generous to your visits to temple. That is good sign. I am not against any religion and any cast. It does not matter if some one is muslim or hindu and if some one is baniya or rajput. It is Ok but to claim that some one is rajput because their ancestors were will have to be seen in the light of rajputi.

Rajput as I have written in previous section is the one who can not be forced to deter from his convictions. Rajputs were put to severe pressure during islamic conquest. Those who could withstand that pressures continued as a rajput those who succumbed did lose their status. Because those rajputs could not show rajputi courage against ovewhelming odds and could not sacrifice for their conviction and hence have lost their claim to be a rajput. One can try reclaiming that glory by arguing in favor of their lineage but that is just an argument. To become a rajput they will have show now greater courage and commitment to thier convictions during serious distress and overwhelming odds. If they could remain undaunted and could endure then they can think off claiming their heritage. Till then it will remain just a discussion and time pass.

Sincerely,

Dinesh K. Singh Naruka

To Shivraj Singh ji

I must stress that I don't agree with the notion that Turks etc. are better fighters than Rajputs. I stated in the above post that this was a 'simple' view by simple folk who have a basic view of the huge developments that took place in India historically during their battles and wars. The details you have stated above are interesting and I am grateful for that, but I didnt state that this was my view. I apologise if it appears so. I profoundly believe that all wars and battles are a cycle which must turn and the outcome has a bigger picture beyond our understanding, predetermined by the Almighty. Many warriors of honour have won and many have lost from all sides throughout history as we are all aware. I can confirm I know many Muslim Rajputs who do not hand their daughters out to non Muslim Rajputs. Although some do this because of class clash, the majority mainly do this due to the particular upbringing that they have and the domestic atmosphere that exists there. To being in someone who is not from such an environment would certainly breed problems, especially in our general Indian culture (which can be unforgiving should the marriage go wrong..) I would like to state that it is a common view of a lot of our counterparts in India that the masses were force converted. This may have been the case under some very tyrannical rulers, but it doesn't obliviate the fact that Islam won over many converts from all walks of life from Shudras to Rajputs and Brahmins. To state the force conversion in only a 'forced' light is not very neutral and fair. Many of such mentioned forced converts had the opportunity to revert, why didnt they? If Islam was so unfair and militant then why did they accept it and later generations become staunch supporters of it? Regardless of faith, it is not the Religion which is often the bad element, it is some poor followers of it. It is a well known fact that a Janjua Sardaar, Raja Ajmal Dev Shahi of Rajghar had accepted Islam without duress or force and was infact a rebel against the foreign Ghorid armies. However, none of his sons were Muslims? His grandsons later accepted Islam. Now if one follows the logic of forced conversions equalled all families were from then on converts, this proves it wrong. He never forced his family to adopt Islam (as I have mentioned Islam clearly states "There is no compulsion in Faith"- true rulers ashered to this, some poor ones obviously didnt) but not all Rajputs were forced and you must understand this. They had members of the clan who remained Hindu and dint accept Islam but they would continue to fight with their Muslim cousins whenever required and vice versa. They still lived side by side. Had their been a forced conversion of this clan for instance, then surely thwy would have all been converted at best. And at least, the Hindu clan members would have broken ties with their Muslim cousins. This was not the case at all. To state that the rest of the Hindu population would have become Muslim had not the Rajputs stood in their way cannot account for the millions who did convert from choice. This is a talk page on Rajputs and it would be better if it stays on this topic as opposed to becoming a 'Islam in India' talk. M Gazdar- it is an interesting point regarding the DNA references you have made. It is interesting especially when it is mentioned by some that Rajputs are a different trace altogether which it is obvious not the case.

This is Shivraj again

In Indian history there were more forced conversions and very few voluntary ones. The common man was converted forcibly while hindu kings/army commanders did so to not loose there kingdom or there job and continue a life of comfort. Such kings/commanders were a very small minority.

Regarding why people who were force converted not revert back: In hinduism there is no way to "become a hindu or convert to hinduism". This is the only religion on earth which did not beleive in conversion and the scriptures provide no formal procedure to make somebody a hindu. Either you are a born hindu or not.(That said in last 30 years or so the hindu organizations in India like RSS VHP have "invented" a procedure to convert "the converted christians" back to hinduism. This is mostly a backlash against christian missionaries who were converting tribals).

The example you have given about janjua sardar Shahi is valid and there are more such examples. But as I stated earlier the conversion of kings/nobles/commanders dwarfed the conversion rate of common man.

The truth is that rajput bravery and there might created fear in the hearts of mughals and they dare not do anything outrageous. This is just a simple case of one power keeping the oher in check.

If most conversions were voluntary, because of virtues of Islam,then we should see the same rate of conversion even today in India. Clearly that is not the case. Even shudras today would not convert to Islam no matter how badly they are treated in India. The point here is that once people like there own religion/gods/ceremonies they do not want to change.

I do not want this discussion to become a debate on conversion but tranport yourself 350 years back. Imagine you are a hindu living in a muslim ruled town. Also assume you are a farmer (which 99% of the population was). Now back then jaziya was imposed which is an income tax just on non muslims. Droughts/failing crops was common and on top of that you had to pay jaziya. If you could not pay it your crops will be taken and your family will die. What would you do in such a case?

I again state that Iraq/Iran/Turkey/Pakistan etc became >80% islamic states because there was no opposing power to act as a balance against the muslim kings.