Talk:Rani Padmini/Archive 1

Archive 1

Rani Padmini - In Amar Chitra Katha

Hi Friends as per the legends and bards traditions and from Amar chitraKatha comics we find that this was the Pandit who took his revenge and not his brothers. Why the 2 brothers of Rana are being pictured here any historical proof? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.245.142.48 (talk) 10:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti-muslim biases

I agree with the poster above this is a nonsense article portraying anti-muslim views and this is being done in the most vulgar fashion possible. I urge everone here to please be neutral or else a valuable article and a lovely story of Rani Padmini is going to be ruined by irresponsible editing anf pointless communal biases.

I mean its 2010 for cryin out loud.

- Yasz

The article is only telling the story of Padmini and all the characters involved, it is not saying anything about Muslims or Hindus in general. One of the central characters is indeed a muslim but could have been of any religion, the portrayal of the story should not be considered anti muslim merely because the antagonist is a muslim, had the antagonist also been a hindu, would anyone have considered it anti hindu then?

-Tushkin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tushkin (talk • contribs) 18:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Corrections

Amardas Bhatti picture tells about a very different princess Padmini. She became the wife of King Padam, the founder of the state of Orissa. Listen here, please http://www.podcast-directory.co.uk/episodes/sam-audio-12-jallandharnath-and-princess-padmini-fly-over-king-padam-s-palace-folio-19-from-the-suraj-prakash-amardas-bhatti-1830-samvat-1887-7303858.html 188.123.230.181 (talk) 07:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)188.123.230.181 (talk) 08:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Reference

A reference that might fit the article is "In Circa 1303, when Alauddin Khilji, the Turk Afghan Delhi ruler invaded Chittorgarh (in Rajasthan), Rani Padmini, the King's wife sent out Rakhis to the Kings of neighbouring states."[2]. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Corrections

I've personally visited this place and there seems to be some inconsistencies in the story. I've listed them below. Please note all these inputs are as per the Tourist Guides and I've not personally verified them.

1. Aladdin Khilji requested to see Rani Padmini to stop the invasion. But in Rajput's it was considered a shame to show kings wife to another man and hence they decided to disguise queen's brother (who looks similar to her) as a lady and make him sit on the steps of summer palace which is located in the middle of the lake. Alladin Khilji was surrounded by 4 rajput guards and made to stand with his back facing the summer palace in a room on the banks of the lake with a window. Alladin was asked to see the queen in the mirror which was hanged on the wall in front of him very close to ceiling, which showed the last three steps of the summer palace. If he tried to turn back he couldn't see her because she is on the lower ground. Also he was not allowed to approach the window to directly look at the queen's brother disguised as queen. After seeing her Aladdin decide to have her and declared the war.

2. There is supposedly a painting of Rani Padmini in the chitoor museum.

3. Also an tower called victory tower was built close to the site of Rani Padmini's sacrifice site as a symbol of victory over aladdin's lust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayrus86 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it is funny that you would take everything a tour guide says as truth. Why not research these things first and get back with some reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.44.36 (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Poorly written

The article is poorly written or poorly translated, not sure which. It is hard to follow the story. 174.6.44.36 (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)31jetjet

Scarcely written about padmini

Its too short a description of Padmini — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sourcenet (talk • contribs) 04:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

hey r there any memories of rani in chittor still?

hey r there any memories of rani in chittor still? in museum or palace etc?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.168.100 (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

 @202.154.168.100: Yes, once you get into the Chittorgarh Fort, you will be immersed in the Rajput history. There is Jauhar Chowk where jauhar was committed. There are handprints of those women. Also, there is the main part of the fort known as "Padmini Place" where she lived.❤ TrendSPLEND ✉ 14:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Proof?

Any citations other than Amar Chitra Katha to prove historical accuracy? http://scroll.in/article/698006/rani-padmini-and-four-other-hindutva-history-myths-exploded claims that Padmini never existed outside of that poem (and Amar Chitra Katha) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkseidX (talk • contribs) 10:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Scroll.In is a rabidly Anti-Hindu left-winged skewed narrative POV pushing Tabloid. Hundreds of Temples, Palaces, in Rajasthan were named and built after Padmini because of a fairytale by a Muslim author more than 250 YEARS after the main Seige in the story? Lord Aseem (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

To claim Padmavati as history would be the real tampering of history- PoV

To claim Padmavati as history would be the real tampering of history.
https://scroll.in/article/828538/the-epic-poem-padmavat-is-fiction-to-claim-it-as-history-would-be-the-real-tampering-of-history
https://scroll.in/article/698006/rani-padmini-and-four-other-hindutva-history-myths-exploded
https://scroll.in/article/827966/persistence-of-memory-never-mind-history-padmavati-is-as-real-for-rajputs-as-their-famed-valour
https://scroll.in/article/828192/the-padmavati-row-puts-the-spotlight-on-glaring-loopholes-in-indias-education-system
--Rashkeqamar (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The article notes that she is a legendary figure and that "over years, she came to be seen as a historical figure". It doesn't state anything about her being historical. Please also read up on WP:RS and WP:HISTRS on what is considered a reliable source particularly for history/"history" articles. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 20:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Various reliable articles which claim that Malik Muhammad Jayasi himself stated in Padmavat in the Awadhi language, that its based on fiction or folk tales.

http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/padmavati-and-other-historical-characters-who-were-perhaps-never-real-sanya-leela-bhansali-4500748/
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/padmavati-only-a-book-character-has-no-connection-with-history-says-historian/story-iJF2p3ICLrw0m6FOGA1nZJ.html
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/padmavati-row-was-padmini-a-fictional-character-or-a-queen-who-enamoured-khilji/story-7wYAUtMaPEndrS2DDFlo2O.html
At the end of his book, he mentions that in his narrative, Chittor stands for the body, Raja (Ratnasimha) for the mind, Singhal for the heart, Padmini for wisdom, and Alauddin for lust. Even right wing magazines like Swarajya states that its based on folk tales
https://swarajyamag.com/culture/padmavati-and-sanjay-leela-bhansali-the-limits-of-fiction-in-history
--Rashkeqamar (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

And the article addresses much of this all through the body. I've added another statement to the lede from the Historicity section that makes the lack of historical basis more explicit. I believe "legendary" in the first line is sufficient. FYI, history articles also prefer scholarly sources to newspapers and webzines.

Also, hatnotes are not "See also". The Padmavati movie "protest" is dealt with later in the article. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Ultra-bigotted Leftist narratives are being peddled here by Rashkeqamar. His bias is obvious when one percepts his name is a Urdu figure of speech and selectively cites from Swarajya Mag.

Swarajya Mag only States that the MIRROR part of the story of Padmavati is a fabrication by the Muslim author spoken of here. The mirrors were recently destroyed by allegedly albeit obviously Rajput stalwarts.

Scroll.in is just another Anti-Hindu, Indophibic, Left-Winged, Freudian-Marxist Ideology based tabloid with lesser credibility than a Blind man's appraisal of Mona Lisa.ping @Cpt.a.haddock , Please read up the links given yourself and you shall understand how.Lord Aseem (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Historicity

I've removed a number of unsourced / poorly-sourced additions aiming to establish Padmini as a historical figure. Websites like indiafacts.org are not acceptable sources. Feel free to add back such theories with reliable sources. utcursch | talk 17:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Good decision. - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Various other Sources here attempting to prove her as a fictional character traversing all limits of logic and neutrality are also improper sources with no direct citations. Please cite the necessary lines from the sources which I removed and you reverted.Lord Aseem (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The article has plenty of sources (by qualified historians) which state that Padmini is a legendary figure. Your problem was obviously not the source, because you didn't remove the source. You just removed the bit "Although there is no historical evidence that Padmini existed", while retaining the rest of the sentence supported by the source ("...she has become a symbol of valour and sacrifice in Rajput history"). That article literally starts with: "There is no historical evidence that Padmavati existed. The poem was written over 200 years after the events it purports to describe occurred..."). utcursch | talk 19:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Ultra-Tendentious Left-Winged Narrative Bombardment of the Page

This thread has been opened up here to demand a very strict revision of the language tone and analysis in the Article which is as tendentious as it can be. Deranged levels of de-legitimizations of Sources by random so-called scholars and ultra-bigotted outright nonsense spewing Scroll, Hindustantimes, Times of India, articles referring to openly Marxist Historians as the Gospel truth can been seen here. Since there is lack of sources acceptable to Wikipedia to establish Padmini as a real entity, there is a strong need to modify the language tone, data in the article here to at the very least make her a disputed Being or someone with no analysis conducted upon. Wahabbhi Fanatic propagandists, Pakistani Nationalists, Left-Winged Indians, Pseudo-Intellectual Western scholars have all leapt on this topic to ensure she is derided as a mere cook-up by Shepherd Verse spewing infidel Hindus to "malign the great Islamic overlords" through veiled Islamphobia, Saffronisation or whatever Term can be cooked up.

To counteract these biased POVs, I strongly and aggressively present this essay of mine:-

• • Mention of Rani Padmini in Volume I of Annals & antiquities of Rajasthan**:-

Full text of "Annals and antiquities of Rajasthan, or The central and western Rajput states of India" (https://archive.org/stream/annalsantiquitie01todj/annalsantiquitie01todj_djvu.txt) ( Use search tool to save your time in finding Padmini).

Rani Padmini finds mention in many text books including RC Majumdar’s volume on the Delhi Sultanate (Vol. 6 of the BVB series on History and Culture of the Indian People) and Pandit Nehru’s Discovery of India. In fact if anyone has been to Chittor (Rajasthan) they would find DOZENS of Temples & Palaces named after Rani Padmini there. Chittor Museum also has a painting of Padmavati. [3]

So, according to the Elite Proto-Commie Indian Marxist-Freudian ideology-riddled Liberals pointing out the fact that she was just an “*Imaginary figure*” because of a fairytale poem composed by a MUSLIM Jayasi in *1540* ie. *237* YEARS(!) AFTER Allauddin Khilji campaign in *1303* was responsible for Palaces & Temples being made after name of Rani Padmini in Rajasthan? Great!

Now about demonizing the great Allaudin Khilji, I shall pass no personal statement but let you decide. Quoting the Qazi of Allaudin Khilji, the Hindus: "are called Khiraj guzars and when the revenue officer demands silver from them, they should without question and with all humility and respect, tender gold. If the Muhassil chooses to spit into the mouth of a Hindu, the latter must open his mouth without hesitation. The meaning of doing such a thing is that the Hindu by acting in this way shows his meekness and humility and obedience and respect.”

The Qazi, further, emphasized that even the great Iman Abu Hanifa has told that Jaziya, should be levied on the Hindus and they should be permitted to follow their religion. Some other religious dignitaries of Islam have suggested only two alternatives for the Hindus living in an Islamic kingdom. They should either be put to death or forced to embrace Islam.

Alauddin Khalji followed the advice of the Qazi and adopted oppressive measures against the Hindus. He enhanced the load of revenue and other taxes on them. He imposed 50 per cent land revenue and snatched away the privileges of Khuts and Maqaddams. According to Sir Wolseley Haig, "Hindus throughout the kingdom were reduced to one dead level of poverty and misery, or, if there were one class more to be pitied than another, it was that which had formerly enjoyed the most esteem, the hereditary assessors and collectors of the revenue." Dr K. S. Lai remarks, “Alauddin’s measures were truly oppressive. His chief aim was to make the Hindus poor, so he abolished all the privileges of Hindu revenue officers.”

Besides levying heavy taxes, he destroyed and defiled Hindu temples with gang-raped and murdered Hindu women's innards and Cow-blood, broke the images of Hindu gods and slaughtered Hindu war prisoners as they did not embrace Islam. Thus, Alauddin adopted an unjust and severe policy towards the Hindus on the advice of Qazi Mughisuddin. But if we want to know the reasons behind it, we shall have to read between the lines of the pages of history. The number of Hindu subjects was quite large and they often revolted against the Muslim sultans due to their religious fanaticism or economic suppression. He wanted to stop these revolts, so he inflicted poverty on them. Dr. K. S. Lai also writes, “Alauddin wanted to impoverish his countrymen so that the word ‘rebellion’ should not come on their lips.”

But Sir Wolseley Haig does not agree, with Dr. Lai. He writes, “Alauddin next framed a special code of laws against Hindus who were obnoxious to him partly by reason of their faith, partly by reason of the wealth which many of them enjoyed and partly by reason of their turbulence, especially in the Doab.” To sum up, we may quote Dr. S. Roy about his attitude to­wards Hindus,

“*There are, however, good grounds to believe that in dealing with the Hindus, Alauddin was also actuated by communal considerations*.”

In fact, the anti-Hindu policy of Alauddin made the position of Hindus quite deplorable and led the Hindu society towards decline from economic, social and moral points of view. Allauddin's bigoted anti-Hindu regulations (as per the Jaziya from the Sharia') were so strictly carried out in all the villages and towns, says Barni, *that the chaudharis and khuts and mukaddims were not able to ride on horses, carry any weapons, dress in fine clothes or indulge in betel. (Pp. 182-183, Vol. III, Elliot & Dowson) The same rules for the collection of the tributes applied to all and people were brought to such a state of obedience that one Muslim revenue officer would string 20 khuts, mukaddims or chaudharis together by the neck and enforce payment by blows. No Hindu could hold up his head, and in their houses no sign of gold and silver, tankas or jitals or any superfluity was seen.

Driven by destitution, the wives of the khuts and mukaddims went and served for hire in the houses of Mussalmans as concubines cum maids. Blows, confinement in the stocks, imprisonment and chains, were all employed to enforce payment.

GRAPHIC DETAILS FOLLOW. Read at your own discretion : Alauddin Khilji was one of the most brutal humans to have been ever born on earth. He ascended the throne by killing his father-in-law cum uncle and carrying his head on a spear inside Delhi on holy Ramazan! After having treacherously lured away his uncle-cum-father-in- law from Delhi, Allauddin had him assassinated at Karra in July, 1296 A.D. Allauddin then set out from Karra toward Delhi. Ganga and Yamuna were in flood and the monsoon particularly heavy. His army had to wade through mud and mire. Thus Allauddin gingerly plodded his way toward Delhi. Allauddin was apprehensive of resistance from the late sultan's army as well as from Arkali Khan. But Arkali Khan preferred to play the mouse. Jalaluddin's widow, Malika-i-Jahan, summoned her army and sent it out to stem Allauddin's advance but to no avail. She then left for Multan with her young sultan-son to take shelter under the wing of Arkali Khan. The late sultan's mercenary army saw the writing on the wall. They had no will to fight for a woman (how different from Rajput men). Allauddin, in his turn did not want to provoke a fight. He marched at his easy pace toward Delhi while plundering the countryside, he devastated Hindu homes, tore away jewelry from the noses and ears of Hindu women and then distributed the largesse to win over the Muslim noblemen of Delhi, erstwhile supporters of the late sultan. Anhilwad and Gujarat were mercilessly plundered. Queen Kamal Devi and other women of Karan Rai's household were gang-raped. Barni tells us:

 *"All Gujarat became a prey to the invaders and the idol of Somnath reinstalled after the victory of Mohammed Ghazni, was removed to Delhi where it was laid down for people to trample upon."* (Pg. 163, Vol. III, Elliot & Dowson)

Like Akbar the Great, he also considered himself to be a neo-Prophet and forced Qazis to give religious approvals to his whims and fetishes. The number of rapes and murders he committed is surpassed only by the brutality of those rapes and murders!

Allauddin's armies now went berserk all over the country ravaging region after region. They brought in new slaves, more converts, hundreds of Hindu women and children. Allauddin was enormously pleased with his growing empire. Barni writes: *"Every year he had two or three sons born."*(Pg. 168, Vol. III, Elliot & Dowson). Of daughters, obviously, there was no count :) Allauddin was illiterate. With his renewed success he appeared to have lost his head. Barni tells us that Allauddin began to emulate the Prophet Mohammed and used to brag: *"Allah gave the blessed Prophet four friends...I can with the help of these four, establish a new religion and creed, and my sword and the swords of my friends will bring all men to adopt it."* (Pg. 169, Vol. III, Elliot & Dowson) Obviously Allauddin did not succeed in this while the Prophet did. As with other Muslim Sultans, he enjoyed **sodomy with young boys.** Malik Kafur was his castrated Hindu converted to Islam child sex-partner who rose to become his general. (Later, he killed Alauddin Khilji and his family). Riots and mutinies by Hindus erupted in various parts of the Sultanate, ranging from modern Punjab to Gujarat to Madhya Pradesh to Uttar Pradesh. These riots were crushed with mass executions, where all men and even boys above the age of 8 were seized and killed** **and every single girl and women were disrobed, gang-raped and mutilated. The beautiful women were converted to Islam and forced to marry Muslim officials.[42] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus#cite_note-eliott165-42) Nusrat Khan, a general of Allauddin Khilji, retaliated against mutineers by seizing all women and children of the affected area and placing them in prison. In another act, he had the wives of suspects arrested, dishonored and publicly exposed to humiliation. The children were cut into pieces on the heads of their mothers, on the orders of Nusrat Khan! [42] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus#cite_note-eliott165-42) Taking a cue from Allauddin, Nusrat Khan, who was chafing to avenge his brother's murder, *"ordered the wives of the assassins to be dishonored and exposed to the most disgraceful treatment; he then handed them over to vile persons to make common strumpets of them. Their children he caused to be cut to pieces on the heads of their mothers. Outrages like this are practiced in no religion or creed,"* (Pp. 164-165, Vol. III, Elliot & Dowson). The campaign of violence, abasement and humiliation was not merely the works of Muslim army, the qazis, *muftis* and court officials of Allauddin recommended it on religious grounds.[43] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus#cite_note-eliott184-43) Kazi Mughisuddin of Bayánah advised Allauddin to "*keep Hindus in subjection, in abasement, as a religious duty, because they are the most inveterate enemies of the Prophet, and because the Prophet has commanded us to slay them, plunder them, and make them captive; saying - convert them to Islam or kill them, enslave them and spoil their wealth and property.*" [43] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus#cite_note-eliott184-43) The Muslim army led by Malik Kafur (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malik_Kafur), pursued two violent campaigns into south India, between 1309 and 1311, against three Hindu kingdoms of Deogiri (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deogiri) (Maharashtra), Warangal (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warangal) (Telangana) and Madurai (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madurai) (Tamil Nadu). Thousands were slaughtered. Halebid temple was destroyed. The grand temples, cities and villages were plundered. The loot from south India was so large, that historians of that era state a thousand camels had to be deployed to carry it to Delhi. [44] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus#cite_note-44) In the booty from Warangal was the Koh-i-Noor (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koh-i-Noor) diamond. [45] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus#cite_note-45) In 1311, Malik Kafur entered the Srirangam temple, massacred the Brahmin priests of the temple who resisted the invasion for three days, plundered the temple treasury and the storehouse and desecrated and destroyed numerous religious icons.[46] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus#cite_note-SVD-46) [47] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus#cite_note-47) “Prophet” Alauddin Khilji will go down in history as **killer of largest number of Muslims (around 30000) and raping their women in one single day.** And yet, fools hail him as a Muslim icon! This is just a incomplete account of the Khilji Sultanate under Allaudin. There is still much worse details to be heard. But my point has been made.

So Anybody who feels the tale of Rani Padmini, a mere record of Hindu Valour as a vague Islamic Invader, with no mention of Khilji's true depredations is a Islamaphobic shepherd verse requiring rabid "debunking" and "sources?" violating all norms of common sense, perception, introspection, feel free to refute my stand here. @utcursch | talk, Please respond now after reading this.

Lord Aseem (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

You just copy-pasted a Quora answer that cites Wikipedia here. Please read WP:RS. utcursch | talk 19:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Lord Aseem, your tone on this page is all wrong and could get you into big trouble. Please dial it back a bit. - Sitush (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Articles are themselves sourced. Anyhow none of this is incorrect. Also I am the original author of the Answer collecting data from a large pool of information.

Anyhow, in order to prove how the authors in the articles mentioned are Anti-Hindu aka Marxist, we have Irfan Habib. [4][5][6][7]

He is part of the Anti-Saffronisation brigade, meaning anything that glorifies Hindus, demonizes (read potrays correctly) the Islamic Invaders, changes focus of Indian textbooks from "Vague Harrapans>Aryan Invaders and Vedic nonsense>Casteist Misogynistic heathen superstitious Hindus>Buddha and Jains who give lot of influence to us savages>Alexander the Great then Mauryas who all became Buddhists and Jains>Cut to Guptas (800 frickin' years) and Harshavardhana who becomes Buddhists>Invasion of Ghaznavids who used hoarded useless Brahmin wealth for Muslim hospitals and Schools>Cut to Prithviraj Chauhan losing 2nd battle of Tarain>Delhi Sultanate>Mughals>All battles lost by Hindu Kings>Sufis and Bhakti secular jokers>British>Gandhi, Gandhi, Congress, Nehru, Gandhi>A horrid modern day country with rapist hindu men" is Hindu Fundamentalism according to him.

I am not asking for the Article to say she was real but as you say, dial it way, way back on that she was possibly a fake creation so that it doesn't offend the common sense of anyone who is not a Marxist.Lord Aseem (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

In a few days, I will publish my step my step analysis of all the sources here. I need a response and your support for protecting the truth. This needs to be sorted before the Padmavati Movie is released in India and huge hordes of Anti-Hindu nexus go to town under their veil of anti-communal faux-secular post-truth spreading.Lord Aseem (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Publishing your analysis of these sources would be a waste of time (unless you intend to publish it in a peer-reviewed journal instead of Wikipedia).

It'll be more fruitful if you present analysis of these sources by other scholarly/academic sources, or if you present reliable sources that support your assertions about the historicity of Padmini. utcursch | talk 20:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I meant a "analysis" of all the Sources' reliablity here. (One of sources is a frickin' Newspaper) My end game is to ensure there are no analytics done specifically to show Padmini as a fairytale figure on the basis of few biased neo-colonial leftist Newspaper articles and random unheard-of "scholars" here with no credibility whatsoever.

Also, I have come across a few Neutral sources as well to help my point.Lord Aseem (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Repeatedly reinstating some comment about ethnicity based on a primary source that was written in the 16th century and contains elements of fantasy is simply not acceptable. Nor, as far as I can see, does the ethnicity matter. Hence, my revert, yet again. - Sitush (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@NineTimes: The lead is a summary of the article body. In this case, the article only states that Alauddin came to be characterized as a Muslim invader (not a Turkic invader). The reference cited in the article (Ramya Sreenivasan, 2007) simply states that "....reinterpreted her legend yet again to celebrate a Hindu queen who had immolated herself to defend her chastity against a lustful, treacherous Muslim invader."

If you have a reference that says Alauddin Turkic ethnicity is a major factor in his portrayal in the Padmini legend, please update the article body with a source, and add it to the lead. utcursch | talk 19:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Chhitai-Charita

A 1966 article by Dasharatha Sharma states that he received an advance copy of the pre-Padmavat text Chhitai-Charita or Chhitai-Varta edited by Agar Chand Nahata ("Was Padmini a Mere Figment of Jayasi's Imagination?" Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 23: 176-7. 1966.). This copy apparently mentions Padmini, and contains the following quote (Alauddin to Raghochetana):

“ I heard of Padmini at Chitor. I went (there) and made Ratanasena my captive. But Badala managed to free and take him away. If I do not succeed in having Chhitai this time, I shall sacrifice my head at Devagiri. ”

If this is true, Chhitai-Charita, not Padmavat, would be the earliest extant source to mention Rani Padmini (although it does not contain the full legend). I've come across some books (mostly from 1970s), which make this assertion, citing Dasharatha Sharma's article as their source. However, these books are not written by highly reputed scholars, and the claim is missing in the recent authoritative works on the topic.

For example, Ramya Sreenivasan, in her The Many Lives of a Rajput Queen, lists Dasharatha Sharma's 1966 article in the bibliography (p. 263). On page 47, she mentions Chhitai-Varta, dating it to c. 1520. However, she does not seem to acknowledge that the Chhitai-Varta mentions the name "Padmini". On page 50, she simply states:

“ Narayandas explicitly linked Alauddin's conquests of Ranthambor, Chitor, and Deogir, and ascribed them all to the sultan's desire for their queens. ”

On page 27, she states:

“ The first available text for the story of Padmini of Chitor, then, is the Sufi Malik Muhammad Jayasi's Padmavat. ”

Does anyone have more information on this? Was Dasharatha Sharma misled? (E.g. maybe the Chhitai-Charita only mentions "the queen of Chittor", and Amar Chand Nahata replaced it with "Padmini"). Or have the recent scholars overlooked Chhitai-Charita because it makes only a passing mention of the queen? utcursch | talk 15:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Legend of Rani Padmini

Maharani Padmavati, was one of the 15 wives of Maharawal Ratnasimha, and his chief consort along with Rani Nagmati. She has been, according to Padmavat, a fictionalized retelling of her legend by Muhammad Jayasi, given a Sri Lankan (Sinhala) origin though this is a contradiction ridden claim. A stronger possibility gives her origin as a princess of Jaisalmer or of Sinhala, a village near Sojat in Pali district of Rajasthan.

Somewhere around 1297 CE, Alauddin Khilji, the Turkic Muslim Sultan of Delhi is advised by his Kotwal officer that he would have to conquer Ranthambore, Chittor, Chanderi, Dhar and Ujjain before he could embark on a further conquest of India. After the invasion of Ranthambore, Alauddin Khilji set his eyes on Chittor. Wary of hostilities against the friendly State of Chittor, out of fear of rebellion from other Rajput kingdoms, Khilji puts off the idea of an invasion there till an satisfactory cause of assault is to be found. A treacherous Rajput with a vendetta against Ratnasimha tells Khilji about Rani Padmini and her legendary beauty, who could be used as a scapegoat to justify Alauddin's march with his army to Chittor. Thus on January 28 January 1303, Alauddin Khilji marched to Chittor.

On the way to the fort, he stops in a city of a Khanzada and demands reinforcements. The Khanzada, an ally of Chittor, is forced to give him contingents of his troops but he also uses the time to send messengers to Chittor to be prepared for an abrupt Siege.

A rough garrison of approximately 10,000 Rajput Warriors and 30,000 Civilians (from outside the Fort) lead by Maharawal Ratan Singh gathered inside the fort. The Delhi Sultan arrives in just three days, setting up a camp between the Berach and Gambhiri rivers. His vast army also surrounded the fort from all the sides. Khilji then seemingly makes a strategic blunder directly demanding Rani Padmini and all the attractive women alongside her in the fort to be handed over in order to put off the Siege, an irrational proposal at best. Khilji's army in the event of believing they were not marching for conquest but for the sake of single-minded lust of their Sultan, may have threatened to disband on learning about Padmini being the sole objective hence additional demand for more women as a reward for his men for this whole subterfuge is thus explained.

For obvious reasons of honor and prestige, Maharawal Ratan Singh refuses and inside the fort, the Rajput warriors geared up for war and defense of the women unaware that Khilji never cared for the womenfolk as a primary objective in this campaign.

A long siege of around 7-8 months takes place with catapults (munjaniqs) from the Khilji camp occasionally hurling rocks and the same rocks and rubble being hurled back from the Fort. According to Khusro who accompanied Alauddin Khilji in his campaign, two frontal assaults by the Turkic invaders failed in utter defeat.

Eventually Khilji sends another proposal of a meeting with Ratan Singh which he accepts to end this stalemate as it is contemplated that the fort may have entered an epidemic or famine due to lack of proper stocks.

Seated in Khilji's pavilion for negotiations, Alauddin demands just a glimpse at the legendary beauty of Rani Padmini, promising he would then immediately leave with his army. Ratan Singh refuses this blatantly again for the sake of traditional Prestige. This being taken as an excuse for treachery by Alauddin Khilji and has him ordering Ratan Singh to be seized.

Again the Delhi Sultan demands Rani Padmini and the other women as ransom for releasing Ratnasimha. In order to ensure no low-born women would be substituted as royal beauties, Alauddin also adds the clause that even if a single one of the women appeared repulsive in his opinion, Ratan Singh would be beheaded.

Within the fort itself, Rani Padmini boldly declares her resolve to never surrender to the invader. However there is then still the issue of rescuing Ratan Singh. Gora (Gaurai) and Badal (Vadal), blood relatives of Rani Padmini take up personally the endeavor of rescuing Maharawal Ratan who was place in the front of the Khilji camp in the open for the “exchange”. A plan proportionate to scheming tactics of the Delhi Sultan is made. The plan takes place and Khilji is hood-winked by the Palaquins which arrive bearing not women or Rani Padmini but the best of the warriors of Chittor. In the havoc, Maharawal Ratan is rescued and taken to the fort by Badal while a Skirmish is started at the first gate as the Rajput warriors fall back while Gora goes on to hunt for Alauddin.

According to local folklore, Gora finds him in a tent raping a small girl captured from a nearby farm. On seeing Gora, the Delhi Sultan instinctively throws the girl at him forcing Gora to step back and grab her. In this short interval, Khilji turns back and runs. Gora is quickly stabbed multiple times by Khilji’s body-guards but is said to have managed at slashing at Alauddin’s rear. At the Fort, The first Gate is compromised as the falling back rescue party's skirmish increases in intensity as more Turkic soldiers pour into the field and overpower the first barricade and second Gate would fall in a few days.

Hence the Jauhar (Self-immolation in fire) takes place on Padmini’s decision when it is understood that the battle would end in defeat, followed with the warriors donning the "Kesariya Bana". Saka is a practice which would generally accompany Jauhar if the immolation of the women took place in face of apparent defeat as opposed to after defeat. Every man capable of wielding weapons does so, and wears Saffron clothing consisting of Dhoti, Angarkha and a Pagri (turban). The armour is completely removed as it is believed to merely slow down the rate of the deaths of the would-be Martyrs and increases the chances of being captured alive. The men apply the ashes of their wives, mothers, daughters and sisters on their forehead while placing a Tulsi leaf under their tongue. The Gates of Chittor were then hurled open and the Rajput forces galloped out with fury at the Khilji army, which hurried to equip themselves and meet the charge on a small hill near the Chittor fort. Heavy toll is taken on Khilji's army but eventually by sheer numbers and armour of the Turks, the Rajputs are eventually defeated. Maharawal Ratan Singh and Vadal martyr in the first wave. The second and final charge takes place lead by Lakshmansimha. The Fort falls after this and Alauddin Khilji enters the fort on 26 August 1303 and dispatches his men in a hurry to find the women. However the entire Siege is apparently a Pyrrhic endeavor after all as they only find ashes of the women all about and go on a rampage out of apparent sexual frustration.

30,000 Hindu civilians who could not take up arms in Saka or did not do Jauhar are ordered to be murdered and mutilated. Many temples, monuments and palaces as could be were destroyed, but according to legend, excepting Padmini's. The fort is renamed Khizrabaad after the son of Alauddin Khilji, Khizr Khan who was declared the Heir Apparent to the Delhi Throne. However since Khizr was still a boy, the actual administration was handed over to a slave named Malik Shahin, who held the office of naib-i barbek, and whom Alauddin called his son. Alauddin Khilji then leaves with the remainder of his forces to Delhi due to the invasions by the Mongols.

The Fort is later retaken over in under 10 years by Hindu Sisodia Rajput, Hammir Singh, under whose reign, Chittor returned to it's former glory and prosperity. Kamlesh4rmBhopal (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Oldest source

Swarajya Mag has also critized Mrs.Ramya for her "debunkings" on the basis of her own assertion that Padmavat by Mohd.Jayasi is the oldest source on Padmini.

https://swarajyamag.com/ideas/rani-padmini-putting-the-record-straight

Even this book criticizes this notion of making Padmini a imaginary queen on the premise that she was a creation by Jayasi.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=mIrXAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA95&dq=padmini+chittor+real+book&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzopTptr_WAhXFQo8KHfzbDLo4FBC7BQgpMAE#v=onepage&q=padmini%20chittor%20real%20book&f=false

Anybody will wonder why just one out of the 15 Wives, Mother of 2-3 children, Non-Rajasthani origined queen of Ratan Singh would be made a Heroine in a story written *237* years after the Siege of Chittor about a invader who was as cruel without needing besmirching and villainous already appearing in various other legends. Kamlesh4rmBhopal (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I've moved your comment to a separate sub-section, because neither of those links provide any information about Chhitai-Charita.

As for the links provided by you, neither Vikas Saraswat nor Jayendra P. Sanghani are qualified historians. See WP:HISTRS. utcursch | talk 16:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello

I am a new User on Wikipedia. I previously made a few edits here. I want to know if I can post the completely summary of Padmini's story (Not Padmavati of Jayasi) in this page. There is no mention of discussions on her life (how she may be from Sinha Village rather than Sri Lanka) but only on the various tales on her. The only issue would be that some of the material would be unsourced. Any any seasoned editor would like to tabs on it?

I made new edits on here, with as many sources as I could find. Some of the details were taken from Vernacular Rajput legends.Kamlesh4rmBhopal (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kamlesh4rmBhopal: The summary of the story (and its various versions) is already present in the section Rani Padmini#Legendary accounts. Also, all of the material should be sourced as per Wikipedia's verifiability policy. utcursch | talk 14:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The reason I added the entire legend is because there is no single coherrent narrative of her story. I gave sources for as many aspects as I could get.

If the legend of Padmini is not fully described here (with Saka charges, conspiracy, analysis of Padmini's historicity etc.), then where else can it be put? There cannot be the presence of it in Siege of Chittor page, or Ratan Singh page or Gora Badal page or in the Padmavat (which is the tale by Jayasi and not the proper general narration. Kamlesh4rmBhopal (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

If there is a widely-accepted historical reconstruction of Padmini published in a reliable source, a new section can be added to the article. Your own original research is not acceptable. utcursch | talk 16:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I can remove my personal analysis if this is a problem. We can pen down the section in this manner:- Background on Padmini, situation at Chittor before the Siege (The details taken from Ms.Ramya's work as well as historic corroboration)> Siege contents > the negotiation> the treacherous capture and Gora-Badal rescue (I have historical sources for it) > The Jauhar and Saka > Chittor Massacre and Khilji's return to Delhi > a final paragraph about retaking of the Chittor fort by Hammir Singh Sisodia.

There is a serious need of a single coherent narration as it is not available easily and Wiki is the chief source for the public. Not many people would check out the Talk page for my work.

Also, can you please let me change the name of Ratan Sen to either Maharawal Ratan Singh or Maharawal Ratnasimha as only these two names are ever taken as his real historic names in any Historical work, or even pop culture. Ratan Sen is just a (obvious goof-up) version of the name in Padmavat, which is a fictional version of the story with many contradictions as well. Kamlesh4rmBhopal (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but mixing up different legends as history on your own is unacceptable synthesis. If you find a source that meets WP:HISTRS criteria and describes a historical reconstruction of Padmini, feel free to add it to the article. Everything that is unanimously accepted as historical is already mentioned at Siege of Chittorgarh (1303).

As for the name:

• "Ratan Sen" / "Ratansen" is the name of Padmini's husband not only in the Padmavat, but also in Gora Badal Padmini Chaupai, and the adaptions of these texts.
• "Bhim Singh" / "Bhimsinha" is the name of Padmini's husband in bardic legends collected by James Tod, and the Bengali adaptions based on Tod's account.
• "Ratnasiṃha" is the name used in the Guhila king's own inscription, as well as the inscriptions of his extended family, which do not mention Padmini at all.
• "Maharawal Ratan Singh" is a vernacular corruption of the Sanskrit "Maharajakula Ratnasiṃha", and does not appear as the king's name in any of the original Padmini legends. It is used in relatively recent works that identify "Ratan Sen" or "Bhim Singh" of the legends with Ratnasiṃha.

If you want to describe modern adaptions of the legend (or accounts based on it) that mention the king's name as "Ratan Singh", feel free to do so with references. But it's just plain wrong to suggest that the original Padmini legends mention the king's name as "Ratan Singh". utcursch | talk 19:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2017

Change from "According to the Islamic mythology (Quran 27.22-28), King Solomon once set out on an expedition...." to "According to the Quranic narration (Quran 27.22-28), King Solomon once set out on an expedition...." Ajazio (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

What is her name?

Is it Padmini or Padmavati? The article keeps switching between the two in different places. If her name is Padmavati, why is the article titled Padmini? Or if her name is Padmini, why is Padmavati used in most of the article? This is confusing. 2.51.20.210 (talk) 09:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@2.51.20.210: Padmavati and Padmini, both are her names so the article called her both names. HINDWIKI • CHAT 13:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

In the Padmavat, padmini is a category of women (see Notes under References), and Padmavati is the name of the queen who belongs to this category of women. In some of the subsequent adaptions, "Padmini" is the name of the queen. This article should probably be moved to Padmavati (queen) or something similar. utcursch | talk 16:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Corrections in the article (Section: Read Also)

It was Kamala Devi who was forcibly married off to Khilji not Deval Devi who was her daughter with Karan Vaghela. Fix this please.

And also it is *Drank not Drunk115.97.36.254 (talk) 07:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done utcursch | talk 15:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is it more important to say the invader was Muslim than write his name.

I have changed a edited this wiki Page. The edit made was changing the "Muslim invader" to "an invader" and a few times "the Sultan of Delhi Alauddin Khalji". This is seems has been a huge issue because it keeps getting changed back to "Muslim" I have asked the question it seems in a private grouo.woth the people who are changing it back. But only one person has been decent enough to respond. The change was to remove Muslim and replace with the Sultan of Delhi, which directly explained who the invader was, I think this was rather more relevant than just a "Muslim invader" which means the identity of the person wasn't known just his religion. However his identity is known, and his name was added. This seemed to be unacceptable and "Muslim" was a requirement. So I used "an invader" this would again highlight the point Aswell. For an unknown reason many users where adamant the name of the invader wasn't pertinent but the religion was. I'm hoping this will explain the reason for the change. If any wishes to add the name of the invader fanstastic, his religion has no bearing on the story, unless it's being intimated that because the Sultan was a Muslim the invasion took place, and his religion was to blame not him as man.. Thank you for your time. Pakmanuk786 (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It's "an unknown reason" because you never bothered to discuss it here, and now you've simply gone ahead and made the same revert. My patience is at an end. Reported for edit warring. The Mighty Glen (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The Sultan is mentioned, by name and title, in the previous paragraph. It shouldn't show up in two successive paragraphs at the top of the article. It seems as if the theme of the story requires that the antagonist be a foreign ruler. What if we replaced "Muslim" with Sultan? David in DC (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

That sentence in the lede:

Several subsequent adaptions of the legend characterised her as a Hindu Rajput queen, who defended her honour against a Muslim invader.

...is merely talking about later versions of the legend, and is supported by sections of the article below. What exactly is the problem with saying that people told the story in the context of the centuries of periodic religious, cultural, linguistic, and military contention, too well known and too well documented to dispute here? By all means add "Sultan" too if you wish, but the lede is describing a version of the legend with a religious element introduced by later tellers of the story, and the assertion that the Sultan's religion has no bearing on any versions of the story is incorrect. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pakmanuk786: The relevant sentence is talking about modern characterization of the legend, not the historical reality, or as it is described in the original Padmvat. This modern 'Hindu Rajput vs invader Muslim' characterization, whether one disagrees it with or not, is an important aspect of the topic. It is directly supported by an authoritative source cited in the article:

Ramya Sreenivasan, p. 3

These Bengali narratives reinterpreted the legend yet again to celebrate a Hindu queen who had immolated herself to defend her chastity against a lustful, treacherous Muslim invader.

Ramya Sreenivasan, p. 19

The story of a heroic Rajput queen immolating herself rather than surrendering to a lustful Muslim conqueror gained new significance within the heroic traditions of a largely Hindu nationalist historiography.

Besides this, several recent news/magazine articles (e.g. The Economist) have also covered the 'Hindu vs Muslim' characterization of the legend. utcursch | talk 14:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Since "sultan" is an exclusively Islamic term (or at least that's what our Wikipedia article says about it), I had hoped to finesse the issue raised by our new editor; a successful collaboration might help put them on the right path here. But I understand your point and won't continue on that score. David in DC (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• "your patience is at its end"... "didn't bother to ask"..

The latter statement as antagonist is it is, I was unaware of the rules.

As for you patience, that's of no concern.

To the issue at hand. Regardless the RELIGION HAS NO BEARING!. We've established the religion earlier on, explains the differences and issues etc however the need to have "Muslim invader" doesn't... I've made this point on NUMEROUS OCCASIONS. Sommething is seriously worrying if that's acceptable to you.

The speed in which and the anger this has ruled up in most of the users, especially after I explained my position. Yet no one seems to take on board what is said. It's more acceptable to wrote "Muslim invader" than invader or "Sultan of Delhi"

One can't help think the racist undertones in this page.

One to think about, hopefully the decency will allow this change to to be made.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakmanuk786 (talk • contribs)

Hi, welcome back from your block for edit warring. The rules about edit warring were repeatedly explained to you at your talk page, and you chose to ignore them. Also, kindly refrain from making any further offensive and pointless accusations of racism. Please also read Utcursch's explanation above on why the word "Muslim" is entirely appropriate, as is the word "Hindu" in the same sentence. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - The historical sources were clearly stereotyping, which is inappropriate in a modern context. I think we shouldn't make these comments in Wikipedia voice. If a WP:HISTRS can be found that comments on these issues, we can cite it and suitably attribute it. Otherwise, this is completely inappropriate. Pinging RegentsPark and Vanamonde93 for additional input. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - I agree with utcursch. From what I see (e.g., [8]) she may not have existed at all and, whether she did exist or not, she is merely a placeholder for the ongoing Hindu-Muslim troubles in India. Given that, as long as it is clear in the article that this is the stuff that myths are made of, we should point to the Muslim vs the Hindu subtext. What else is there when you have an elusive figure who exists in modern times only to make a point? Ideally, the article should identify her as the protagonist of a poem and state clearly that she may or may not be based on a real person. Currently, our article overemphasizes her rather doubtful existence. --regentspark ([User talk:RegentsPark|comment]]) 15:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I believe the point you are referring to in regards to the Muslim issue is the word Sultan, it's a Muslim king, which has been the basis if the point. We know he's Muslim, we know she's Hindu, thats been well established. The point is is by using terms such as "Muslim invader", repeating myself once again, has no bearing no the story. Tue story is she was a beautiful queen, and the Sultan wanted her for himself, even though she refused him.. Now the story is the story, there is no issue here, in this instance he was the aggressor, no issue. The issue lies when you attach the aggressor to his religion as though it's connected. They are not. The appropriate use of the word "racist", is warranted as my explanation on this issue has lasted longer than I could have imagined. The speed and the anger over my removing the word Muslim with a name, a designation was never the issue it seemed. Why was Muslim removed. I have not removed Muslim from any other part of the article/page only in one instance and the push back has been surprising.

The have been many points raised valid ones and ones I agree with, however none of them have touched on the original point. Tue mighty Glenn made a point of Hindu ans Muslim is in the same sentence and there's nothing wrong with that. I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS, NOR HAVE I MADE OR EVEN INTIMATED SUCH A POINT.

Side skirting or even confusing the matter will help no one.

Again I hope my comments are met with open minds and hopefully you all could understand my point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakmanuk786 (talk • contribs)

• Yes, Alauddin being a Muslim and Padmavati being a Hindu has no bearing on the story (Padmavat or its adaptions), but this article is not about the story. This article is about Padmavati, and covers her portrayal in various medieval legends as well as modern culture. Alauddin being a Muslim and Padmavati being a Hindu is an important aspect of her modern characterization, as evident from the sources cited in the article, as well as recent news articles (e.g. [9][10][11][12]). utcursch | talk 21:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply:- you statement has nothing to do with the discussion. This isn't a Hindu / Muslim issue.

Not sure what the point of your comment is. if you are confused about it, if be happy to explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakmanuk786 (talk • contribs)

• Comment +1 to Utcursch. Many more scholarly RS I checked through today further confirm Utcursch's points in multiple replies above. This is an article on a queen, legendary and ahistorical or historical she may be. A fair and NPOV article would not suppress or censor the religious context of her life story, and of the characters, when multiple RS repeatedly mention it. For more, please see WP:COMPREHENSIVE. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Too old

S.C. Dutt's source is too old (90 years) to devote a paragraph. Since then, we have Sreenivasan's book and others. I propose removal. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I will edit the historicity section. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

[Untitled]

Rajkahini in bengali by Rabanindranath Tagore contains a more vivid picture of the hstory

Rajkahini was written by Abanindranath Tagore, a nephew of Rabindranath Tagore. Diptyajit (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Untitled

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 Rawal 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. Rawal 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 Ratan Singh was walking Khilji out of the palace, Khilji's men captured Rawal Ratan Singh. Khilji sent a message to the fort that Rawal can be spared by exchanging Rani Padmini. Padmini discussed this with Gora, her maternal uncle, who was a Chauhan rajput. Gora told her not to worry and that he would go and bring back Rawal Ratan Singh and Sultan is not brave enough to stop him. Padmini's nephew Badal who was just sixteen also assured her. A message was sent from the fort to Khilji 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 Rawal. 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 Rawal's tent he asked Rawal 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 in front of himself. Gora, being a rajput could not kill an innocent women and these few seconds were enough for Khilji's guards to kill Gora from behind.

Nice story bro? Who authored it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.77.43.221 (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)