Re:why rajputs did not oppose abdalli?
As Ravi as mentioned, we need to rediscover our history. In our
history books, Jats have been ignored altogether and various reasons
have been mentioned by Ravi already. I read a book on Maharaja
Surajmal, which has tried to give true history accounts and they
have given the references of documents, treaties, and letters
exchanged between Maharaja Surajmal's staff with Maratha kings and
there representatives in Delhi. Why Maharaja Surajmal did not
participate in the Abdali war? His advice was ignored, he did not
receive a treatment of true partner in the war, and other parties
tried to harm him & his contingent. The result was the terrible loss
in the war.
Other point I want to make about Maharan Pratap of Udaipur. He had
Rajput soldiers as well as he formed an army with Bheels & Adivasies
(natives of Aravali area - mainly in Udaipur, Dungarpur, &
Banswara). He also rewarded many of these Bheels leaders and awarded
them with Dhakurs and other padvies. Many of these Bheel leaders
were in charge of Gadhies in the area of Mewar. With the higher
status, power, and contribution in the army, these Bheels were given
higher status and they are equivalent to Rajputs(they call
themselves Rajputs). Even today, if you travel deep in the forest
area communities in Mewar, you will find palaces and forts and these
Bheel families have control. They are now known as Rajputs. Many of
these kind of transformation of community sections have happen. I
grew-up in Mewar region of Rajasthan and have traveled to these
remote places and it's amazing to meet these people. I traveled
with my father and met many of these small kings. They were very
crucial elements for Prataps resistance.
--- In JatHistory@yahoogroups.com, "shantikumar2000a"
> Hi Ravi,
> Many thanks for your ideas and the information about the
> contribution of the Jats against Abdalli as also the role of the
> Sarv Khap panchayat. I am not a specialist in history and thank
> for your inputs from history.understand
> Some more ideas for consideration - we may also like to
> the following:-have
> 1. Why did Hinduism not vanish from India unlike any other country
> where Islam totally wiped out their native religions?
> 2. Perhaps the answer lies in Brahminism if we may use this term.
> Hindu states came under Muslim overlordship only after Akbar. For
> several centuries Hindus led by Brahmins/Rajput/other Hindu Kings
> successfully resisted the Muslims and that is why today we the
> survivors are discussing like this on these matters and have
> maintained our identity. The Rajput soldier was created as an
> instrument to be used in battles for Hindu culture. Islam would
> swallowed us completely and we would have forgotten our Jat orother
> inheritances totally.left
> 3. Surely in the last 2 centuries or so there was a lot of
> modernisation taking place in the West and India as a whole was
> behind. It may not be totally correct to say that the Rajputstates
> kept the Jats out of education. I know even in Haryana, therewas
> no education. Even today a lot of India is uneducated. Moreover,even
> the soldier or farmer has never been valued for his intellect
> by his own family. He has always been required to be hardy,reads
> spirited, hardworking and even driven by fanatic spiritualism or
> simplicity. I have heard a saying that a Rajput (soldier) who
> will not ride. No government will work to make intellectuals outof
> farmers and soldiers. This is not a matter to be peeved about ourthe
> 4. Today in the comfort of modern living we should not forget
> struggles and cruel customs including say Sati/Jauhar etc howeverof
> bad and reprehensible they may be that have contributed to this
> survival. Surely the Rajput/Hindu widow or her sons/daughters
> would not have enjoyed the burning, but such a spirit was a
> necessity of the times. In this connection a book by Bernier the
> French traveller in Shah Jehan's times is worth reading; he talks
> witnessing innumerable instances and has described many. Allthese
> came up when the earlier Budhist/Jain mentality was unequal tothe
> new threats.ShahJehan
> 5. As to collaborating with Akbar and later Mughals till
> it would be interesting to know, pardon the digression to explainMuslim
> the point, why the Congress has always tried to portray that
> rule was not bad or harsh or no/very few Hindu temples wereand
> destroyed. The Congress may rewrite history for political puposes
> but this discussion group is to increase our understanding (not to
> win votes) and to avoid creating false impressions.
> 6 . You are right, certainly Jaipur collaborated with Mughals
> rose high from a non-entity status but Mewar and Rana Pratap didnot
> and lost a lot. The Jaipur attitude is praised by IndianThe
> secularists. When Raja Suraj Mall does not participate in a fight
> because the silver from the Mughal palace has been
> removed...certainly there is a personal political angle to this.
> fact is that all manner of personalities and powers were lookingto
> either fill in/exploit the vacuum in the wake of the decline ofthe
> Mughal rule including Thugs and Pindarris. This is quite natural.the
> In times of such anarchy, personal well being is expected to be
> uppermost in everyone's mind not excluding the panchayat. And in
> those times votes did not count - a motivated band of freebooters
> under Abdalli led by a unified command were more effective than
> bickering and politicking opposition.fight -
> 7. About Timur massacring Hindus or Nadir Shah putting to sword
> the population of Delhi and Abdalli doing it in Brij - this is
> something that cannot be correctly assessed as some organised
> this is opression, genocide and intolerance of the victor throughthan
> which we have survived.
> 8. Also rightly said this talk of Jats being degraded Rajputs is
> bunkum. But of course there would have been a two way movement and
> new arrivals into the Rajput category would have liked to disown
> their earlier heritage and sometimes those ostracised from the
> Rajput category would have joined the Jats. This latter may have
> perhaps been a more frequent occurence and easier to achieve
> the other way around due to the need of the system to make thesoldierly
> Rajput category exclusive to maintain its political and
> Societies always divide into classes. Even today the well
> educated, sophisticated and well-to-do jat would not like to be
> equated with the farmer in the desert. Social classes are
> in a pyramid with smaller numbers above.and
> --- In JatHistory@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Chaudhary"
> <ravichaudhary2000@y...> wrote:
> > --- In JatHistory@yahoogroups.com, shanti kumar
> > <shantikumar2000a@y...> wrote:
> > > Shanti>>Also, you state from some quote that a Rajput king -
> > also in earlier postsbattle
> > we have seen that they were mostly petty kings - invited Abdali.
> > among Kings and Governments is a never ending game. To take out
> > reference
> > and give an overriding importance to the correspondence of some
> > king who
> > did not even participate in any action and was far from the
> and toIndia
> > believe that this correspondence is what brought Abdali into
> > stretching
> > our credibility to the extreme.
> > Response> until now the Rajput princely states are being shown
> > flower of Hindu chivalry and defenders of Hinduism and Bharat.
> > The State of Jaipur, the house of Amber, ruled by the Kachawaha
> > rajputs, obtained and maintained their power by serving the
> > invaders. They marred their daughters to them, served in theirSouth
> > , and conquered Hindustan for them .
> > They served their Muslim master loyally from Afghanistan, to
> > India, to Assam.Mathura
> > Even Jai Singh is proudly known as Mirza Jai Singh
> > It is a fact that when Abdalli came into the Mathura region, and
> > unleashed his destructive power on the Hindu holy sites of
> > Brindaban, it was only the Jats and the farmers of Brij who
> > Abdalli, and thousands sacrificed their lives in the process.
> > The rajputs were no where to be seen.
> > Perhaps you can shed some lift on why not????
- Dear Shnati
In msg 2146 we refrered to Dr Nathan Singh's research, that the
Rajput Rana Sangha had invited Babur to attacl India.
I was surprisded to read abot sangha's inviation to Babaur.
But we do find confirmation in a standard University level Indian
"An Advanced History of India"
R C Majumdar
H C Rayycahudhauri
Publisher Macillian India
On page 419, they write:
" Babur ..was invited to India by a discontented party.
Probably Rana Sangha had some negotiations with him."
The last line is not expanded on, in the book, undoubtedly as Sangha
is shown as defender of Bharat Varsha and the Hindu Sanathan Dharam.
- --- In JatHistory@yahoogroups.com, "OP Choudhary" <opalsoft07@y...> wrote:
> Other point I want to make about Maharan Pratap of Udaipur. He had
> Rajput soldiers as well as he formed an army with Bheels & Adivasies
> (natives of Aravali area - mainly in Udaipur, Dungarpur, &
> Banswara). He also rewarded many of these Bheels leaders and awarded
> them with Dhakurs and other padvies. Many of these Bheel leaders
> were in charge of Gadhies in the area of Mewar. With the higher
> status, power, and contribution in the army, these Bheels were given
> higher status and they are equivalent to Rajputs(they call
> themselves Rajputs). Even today, if you travel deep in the forest
> area communities in Mewar, you will find palaces and forts and these
> Bheel families have control. They are now known as Rajputs.
That is how much of the Rajput caste arose.Nothing wrong with that.
Do post more information.
Pandit Nehru's book(discovery of India) also confirm this. Rana
Sanga wrote a letter to Babaur to attack Delhi. When Babaur will
attack, he promissed to Babaur that he(Rana Sanga) will attack Agara
I believe. Babaur attacked, but Rana Sanga initially did not make
move as he promissed to Babaur in the letter, and Babaur was very
upset with this behaviour of Rana Sanga. Thanks,
--- In JatHistory@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Chaudhary"
> Dear Shnati
> In msg 2146 we refrered to Dr Nathan Singh's research, that the
> Rajput Rana Sangha had invited Babur to attacl India.
> I was surprisded to read abot sangha's inviation to Babaur.
> But we do find confirmation in a standard University level Indian
> History text:
> "An Advanced History of India"
> 4th Edition
> R C Majumdar
> H C Rayycahudhauri
> Kalikinkkar Dutta
> Publisher Macillian India
> On page 419, they write:
> " Babur ..was invited to India by a discontented party.
> Probably Rana Sangha had some negotiations with him."
> The last line is not expanded on, in the book, undoubtedly as
> is shown as defender of Bharat Varsha and the Hindu SanathanDharam.
> Best regards