Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Fiction and history: Airavat Singh

Expand Messages
  • Ravi Chaudhary
    A similar story is told of the Jats. The colonial historians claim them to be a foreign race also found in Iran and Central Asia, from whence they moved
    Message 1 of 4 , May 1, 2006

      "" A similar story is told of the Jats. The colonial historians claim them to be a foreign race also found in Iran and Central Asia, from whence they "moved in" to Sindh. Later as the Islamic invaders captured Punjab and the Gangetic plains, the Jats are said to have "moved in" behind them thus accounting for their large numbers. However the presence of Chauhan Jats, and of Jats sporting other Rajput clan-names, who emerged from the bloody conflict of Kannauj and Ajmer with Muhammad Ghori negates this theory. Jat appears to be an occupational rather than tribal term—applied to both farmers and infantry soldiers in the northern India of that period.""

      Airavat Singh: fiction  &


      History

       

       

      http://horsesandswords.blogspot.com/

       

      t has been held by the colonial historians that at this time of Islamic invasion the inhabitants of Punjab were descended from earlier groups of foreign invaders—the leftist historians faithfully reproduced these wild theories. The compulsions of both sets of historians have been described earlier. In the case of Punjab they claim that the region was under the rule of Indo-Greeks, the Sakas and Kushans, and finally the Huns in the 6th Century CE. From this they conclude that the poorer sections of these invaders "became" the agricultural classes while the upper section "became" Rajputs.

      Now the evolution of the word Rajput and its connection with the resistance against the Islamist onslaught has already been shown previously. The theory of foreigners conveniently "becoming" an Indian community has no basis in fact, since neither the colonial nor the leftist historians bothered to back their claims with actual evidence.

      To compare the invaders-becoming-Indian theory with later times we find that the centuries of Islamic invasion left behind a 20% Muslim population in India with a mere 3% claiming definite foreign origin. Moreover according to this theory the earlier invaders adopted the Indian religions and customs and did not forcibly convert Indians to their own customs or ideology; hence their numbers when compared to the Muslim population would be lower still.

      The position of the Gujjar and Jat agricultural classes as Indian infantry has been shown above—it seems that after the Islamic invasions they evolved a separate identity from the dominant cavalier Rajputs. The colonial historians added their usual racist twist to this natural development—they claimed that the word Gurjar does not indicate a province (western Rajasthan and Gujarat) but a people. The class divisions among this people gave rise to the latter-day Rajputs, Gujjars, Jats, etc—once again this version does not account for the evolution of the word Rajput from the Vedic texts.

      It has been shown above how the Pratihars of Gurjar defended the region from the Arab invaders, captured Kannauj, and later moved into Punjab. The colonial historians reversed this trend, claiming that the foreign-origin Gurjars "moved in" with the Huns[1] and first settled in Punjab before "moving down" into Rajasthan! As evidence they point to the Gujjar cattle-herders living in Punjab and the neighboring regions but speaking their own Gojri language, which has great similarities to Rajasthani.

      The language similarity actually proves the Gurjar expansion from Rajasthan, for otherwise the Rajasthani language should have been prevalent in Punjab where these alleged "foreigners" first settled. What really happened is that the Gurjar-Pratihar Empire disintegrated and left behind the name Gurjar in Punjab where their one surviving kingdom was finally dissolved in the conflict with Kashmir. After the Muslim invasions, landowners manning the elephants and cavalry portion of Indian armies were slaughtered or converted, while the infantry portion recruited from villages were mostly left alone[2] if they did not fight—in the case of the former Gurjar Kingdom these retained their language and culture and became the ancestors of the latter-day Gujjar and allied agricultural classes.

      A similar story is told of the Jats. The colonial historians claim them to be a foreign race also found in Iran and Central Asia, from whence they "moved in" to Sindh. Later as the Islamic invaders captured Punjab and the Gangetic plains, the Jats are said to have "moved in" behind them thus accounting for their large numbers. However the presence of Chauhan Jats, and of Jats sporting other Rajput clan-names, who emerged from the bloody conflict of Kannauj and Ajmer with Muhammad Ghori negates this theory. Jat appears to be an occupational rather than tribal term—applied to both farmers and infantry soldiers in the northern India of that period.

      In fact the only foreign-origin segment of the northwestern society were the Shahi rulers of the Kabul valley, who were either descendants of the Kushan monarch Kanishka (reigned nine centuries before the Shahis) or belonged to a family of Buddhist Turks from Tibet (who had ruled that region for sixty generations). The long period of rule or actual origin of these foreigners is not important. What is really important is that though these foreigners adopted Indian customs and religions, inter-married with Indian royalty, and ruled for so many centuries—yet they were still regarded as being of foreign origin!

      This fact, clearly and repeatedly mentioned in contemporary literature, finds a resonance with the stories of other foreign immigrants to India who have not forgotten their ancestry in all this time[3]. It puts into perspective the modern myths of the colonial historians who claimed that Saka, Kushan, and Hun invaders, after a few generations were conveniently absorbed into the Indian population, forgot their own origins (!), and began claiming an Indian ancestry (!)—to top it all the rest of India also somehow suffered a universal attack of amnesia at this same time and tamely accepted their claims. The damage done to Indian History writing by the colonial and leftist historians will take time and effort to repair.

      The evolution of the word Rajput from Vedic texts has been shown previously and its emergence in the ferocious resistance to the Islamic invaders has also been discussed. In the books of Muslim historians the word occurs only from the 14th Century—in Timur's autobiography. Up until then the leaders of the local resistance in Kannauj and Ajmer and other places were termed "Ranas and Rais"—the same terms are used when describing the local resistance in Punjab. But Timur, who traversed through Punjab and dealt with the local powers, only uses the word Rajput for Hindu warriors who faced him in the approach to Delhi and not in the Punjab.

      In the Mughal texts of a later age the word Rajput is used only for Hindu warriors of noble birth—it is never used for converts. The following documents from the Ain-i-Akbari will make this clear: the first page describes the Forts, towns, and the military castes in the region between the Rivers Indus and Jehlum. Here are mentioned the Awan, Gakkhar, Janjua, and Afghan tribes—none of the former three are called Rajput. In fact beyond the Ravi River the word Rajput is not used for any community in any of the Mughal documents.

      But in the second document, which deals with regions south of the Ravi, i.e. Forts, towns, and the military castes in the region between the Rivers Beas and Ravi (also including a portion of the Kangra hills) the word Rajput appears several times. These forts are found in the hills of Himachal Pradesh, which has retained its traditional Hindu character to this day. Interestingly Rajput is found in conjunction with Sombanshi, which is a version of Chandravanshi, the lunar family of warrior clans mentioned in the Vedic texts.

      In all the Mughal texts, when referring to these northwestern regions, the word Rajput is only used for Hindu warriors usually from the hill-states. However Punjabi Muslims who today claim to be Rajputs state that since Jats and Gujjars are clearly identified in these documents even after they converted to Islam, as are converts from other castes, why can't they claim to be converts from the Rajput caste? Secondly the Punjabi Muslim converts follow the Hindu tradition of not marrying within gotras and many of their clans are the same as in Rajasthan so why can't they call themselves Mussalman Rajputs? Thirdly they claim that Rajputs are warriors and the Punjabi Muslims too have a warrior tradition, hence they have every right to call themselves Rajputs.

      The clear answer to these questions is that the word Rajput emerged from the resistance to Islamic invaders in Ajmer and Kannauj. It was later also applied to noble warriors in the east and south of India who had remained true to their ancestral religion. In the north the word Rajput is applied only to the warriors of Uttaranchal, Himachal, and Jammu—those that remained staunch defenders of the Hindu faith. Converts from these Rajput communities were either forced or bribed to forsake their ancestral faith—these converts lost their clan status and developed new identities in their adopted faith. In any case they represented a negligible portion of the Rajput population—in the Punjab however there were mass conversions of entire clans/tribes by a process that will be studied in the next post.

      The case of Kashmir

      Unlike Punjab, the Kashmir region of India is protected on all sides by towering mountain ranges. The armies of Mahmud Ghaznavi failed to penetrate this massive barrier. But foreign influence was critical in converting the inhabitants of the fertile valley to Islam.

      The internal politico-military framework was already suffering from severe shortcomings as described in the contemporary historical work, the Rajatarangini. Real power lay with groups of military classes called Tantrins (infantry soldiers) and Ekangas, and landowners called Damaras. Their origin and organization is unknown for no other authority describes the history of Kashmir with such detail as the Rajatarangini.

      While grappling with these groups, the king did not have any clan (his own armed kinsmen) to rely on, unlike in Ajmer or Kannauj or even in the neighboring regions of Jammu and Kangra. There were frequent changes of dynasties and ministers or even revenue officials could be chosen to become kings while the above-mentioned groups exercised the real power. The only was for a king to establish his authority was to launch military expeditions into neighboring regions (Darads of the Kishenganga valley, Poonch, Punjab)—but ultimately the structure of the kingdom remained socially fractured.

      But the worst sin of numerous Kashmiri rulers was their reliance on foreign mercenaries who they allowed to settle down in the valley. From Vajraditya in the 8th Century, who is said to have introduced practices beneficial to Mlechchas, to Rinchan in the 14th Century, who relied on Muslim mercenaries for his power and ultimately passed on this power to them. Again and again the Rajtarangini bemoans the entry of Turushkas and Mlechchas into Kashmir.

      In 1301 Kashmir was invaded by Dulucha leading a 60,000 strong army of Turushka, Tajik, and Mlechcha horsemen, who killed and looted the valley and carried away thousands of slaves. At about that time a Tibetan prince named Rinchan also invaded the unhappy land and easily usurped power—he took the support of the Muslim mercenaries in Kashmir. One of these named Shah Mir later became the first Sultan of Kashmir—his descendant Sikandar forcibly converted the inhabitants of Kashmir to Islam.

      The lack of a clan-system of warriors meant that there was no continuing resistance to this change. But such a system was not lacking in the Punjab as will be seen in the next post.

    • kharbnarender
      Who is this Airavat Singh? Is he some one related with history in some way?He seem to be totally ignorant of historical facts.Some of his hints just went over
      Message 2 of 4 , May 1, 2006
        Who is this Airavat Singh? Is he some one related with history in
        some way?He seem to be totally ignorant of historical facts.Some of
        his hints just went over my head like.....

        Sepreation of jat and rajputs.

        rajput as someone warriors and the other peasents termed as jats.

        gujjar and huns being native to this land.

        Rajputs providing a fierce resistance to muslim invaders.

        This guy doesnot know that jats were there when rajput term was not
        even coined.

        He has not studied or wants to avoid clear references to this
        foreign huns hordes mentioned in many indian historical documents
        and now included as a clan of rajputs.

        He wants to just gloss over the period between first century AD and
        seventh century ad when many invaders recorded as gujjars huns sodas
        meds recorded in historical annals fighting jats disappeared
        overnight and reappeared with the same clan name as a rajput group.

        People like him is worth a ....and should not even be quoted.

        I as well as you might be aware of that guy who quoted Airavat again
        and again and wanted to tell origin of jat term as a foot soldier of
        mughal army on your dicussion on jat history on India forum.

        let them be in their own dream world.





        --- In JatHistory@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Chaudhary"
        <ravichaudhary2000@...> wrote:
        >
        > "" A similar story is told of the Jats. The colonial historians
        > claim them to be a foreign race also found in Iran and Central
        Asia,
        > from whence they "moved in" to Sindh. Later as the Islamic
        > invaders captured Punjab and the Gangetic plains, the Jats are
        said to
        > have "moved in" behind them thus accounting for their large
        > numbers. However the presence of Chauhan Jats, and of Jats sporting
        > other Rajput clan-names, who emerged from the bloody conflict of
        Kannauj
        > and Ajmer with Muhammad Ghori negates this theory. Jat appears to
        be an
        > occupational rather than tribal term—applied to both farmers and
        > infantry soldiers in the northern India of that period.""
        >
        > Airavat Singh: fiction &
        > History
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > http://horsesandswords.blogspot.com/
        >
        >
        >
        > t has been held by the colonial historians that at this time of
        Islamic
        > invasion the inhabitants of Punjab were descended from earlier
        groups of
        > foreign invaders—the leftist historians faithfully reproduced these
        > wild theories. The compulsions of both sets of historians have been
        > described earlier. In the case of Punjab they claim that the
        region was
        > under the rule of Indo-Greeks, the Sakas and Kushans, and finally
        the
        > Huns in the 6th Century CE. From this they conclude that the poorer
        > sections of these invaders "became" the agricultural classes
        > while the upper section "became" Rajputs.
        >
        > Now the evolution of the word Rajput and its connection with the
        > resistance against the Islamist onslaught has already been shown
        > previously. The theory of foreigners conveniently "becoming" an
        > Indian community has no basis in fact, since neither the colonial
        nor
        > the leftist historians bothered to back their claims with actual
        > evidence.
        >
        > To compare the invaders-becoming-Indian theory with later times we
        find
        > that the centuries of Islamic invasion left behind a 20% Muslim
        > population in India with a mere 3% claiming definite foreign
        origin.
        > Moreover according to this theory the earlier invaders adopted the
        > Indian religions and customs and did not forcibly convert Indians
        to
        > their own customs or ideology; hence their numbers when compared
        to the
        > Muslim population would be lower still.
        >
        > The position of the Gujjar and Jat agricultural classes as Indian
        > infantry has been shown above—it seems that after the Islamic
        > invasions they evolved a separate identity from the dominant
        cavalier
        > Rajputs. The colonial historians added their usual racist twist to
        this
        > natural development—they claimed that the word Gurjar does not
        > indicate a province (western Rajasthan and Gujarat) but a people.
        The
        > class divisions among this people gave rise to the latter-day
        Rajputs,
        > Gujjars, Jats, etc—once again this version does not account for the
        > evolution of the word Rajput from the Vedic texts.
        >
        > It has been shown above how the Pratihars of Gurjar defended the
        region
        > from the Arab invaders, captured Kannauj, and later moved into
        Punjab.
        > The colonial historians reversed this trend, claiming that the
        > foreign-origin Gurjars "moved in" with the Huns[1]
        > <http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19227972#_ftn1> and
        first
        > settled in Punjab before "moving down" into Rajasthan! As
        > evidence they point to the Gujjar cattle-herders living in Punjab
        and
        > the neighboring regions but speaking their own Gojri language,
        which has
        > great similarities to Rajasthani.
        >
        > The language similarity actually proves the Gurjar expansion from
        > Rajasthan, for otherwise the Rajasthani language should have been
        > prevalent in Punjab where these alleged "foreigners" first
        > settled. What really happened is that the Gurjar-Pratihar Empire
        > disintegrated and left behind the name Gurjar in Punjab where
        their one
        > surviving kingdom was finally dissolved in the conflict with
        Kashmir.
        > After the Muslim invasions, landowners manning the elephants and
        cavalry
        > portion of Indian armies were slaughtered or converted, while the
        > infantry portion recruited from villages were mostly left alone[2]
        > <http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19227972#_ftn2> if
        they
        > did not fight—in the case of the former Gurjar Kingdom these
        > retained their language and culture and became the ancestors of the
        > latter-day Gujjar and allied agricultural classes.
        >
        > A similar story is told of the Jats. The colonial historians claim
        them
        > to be a foreign race also found in Iran and Central Asia, from
        whence
        > they "moved in" to Sindh. Later as the Islamic invaders captured
        > Punjab and the Gangetic plains, the Jats are said to have "moved
        > in" behind them thus accounting for their large numbers. However
        the
        > presence of Chauhan Jats, and of Jats sporting other Rajput clan-
        names,
        > who emerged from the bloody conflict of Kannauj and Ajmer with
        Muhammad
        > Ghori negates this theory. Jat appears to be an occupational
        rather than
        > tribal term—applied to both farmers and infantry soldiers in the
        > northern India of that period.
        >
        > In fact the only foreign-origin segment of the northwestern
        society were
        > the Shahi rulers of the Kabul valley, who were either descendants
        of the
        > Kushan monarch Kanishka (reigned nine centuries before the Shahis)
        or
        > belonged to a family of Buddhist Turks from Tibet (who had ruled
        that
        > region for sixty generations). The long period of rule or actual
        origin
        > of these foreigners is not important. What is really important is
        that
        > though these foreigners adopted Indian customs and religions,
        > inter-married with Indian royalty, and ruled for so many
        > centuries—yet they were still regarded as being of foreign origin!
        >
        > This fact, clearly and repeatedly mentioned in contemporary
        literature,
        > finds a resonance with the stories of other foreign immigrants to
        India
        > who have not forgotten their ancestry in all this time[3]
        > <http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?
        blogID=19227972&postID=1146359350689\
        > 14757#_ftn1> . It puts into perspective the modern myths of the
        colonial
        > historians who claimed that Saka, Kushan, and Hun invaders, after
        a few
        > generations were conveniently absorbed into the Indian population,
        > forgot their own origins (!), and began claiming an Indian ancestry
        > (!)—to top it all the rest of India also somehow suffered a
        > universal attack of amnesia at this same time and tamely accepted
        their
        > claims. The damage done to Indian History writing by the colonial
        and
        > leftist historians will take time and effort to repair.
        >
        > The evolution of the word Rajput from Vedic texts has been shown
        > previously and its emergence in the ferocious resistance to the
        Islamic
        > invaders has also been discussed. In the books of Muslim
        historians the
        > word occurs only from the 14th Century—in Timur's autobiography.
        > Up until then the leaders of the local resistance in Kannauj and
        Ajmer
        > and other places were termed "Ranas and Rais"—the same terms
        > are used when describing the local resistance in Punjab. But
        Timur, who
        > traversed through Punjab and dealt with the local powers, only
        uses the
        > word Rajput for Hindu warriors who faced him in the approach to
        Delhi
        > and not in the Punjab.
        >
        > In the Mughal texts of a later age the word Rajput is used only for
        > Hindu warriors of noble birth—it is never used for converts. The
        > following documents from the Ain-i-Akbari will make this clear: the
        > first page describes the Forts, towns, and the military castes in
        the
        > region between the Rivers Indus and Jehlum
        > <http://persian.packhum.org/persian/pf?file=00702052&ct=205> .
        Here are
        > mentioned the Awan, Gakkhar, Janjua, and Afghan tribes—none of the
        > former three are called Rajput. In fact beyond the Ravi River the
        word
        > Rajput is not used for any community in any of the Mughal
        documents.
        >
        > But in the second document, which deals with regions south of the
        Ravi,
        > i.e. Forts, towns, and the military castes in the region between
        the
        > Rivers Beas and Ravi (also including a portion of the Kangra hills)
        > <http://persian.packhum.org/persian/pf?file=00702052&ct=202> the
        word
        > Rajput appears several times. These forts are found in the hills of
        > Himachal Pradesh, which has retained its traditional Hindu
        character to
        > this day. Interestingly Rajput is found in conjunction with
        Sombanshi,
        > which is a version of Chandravanshi, the lunar family of warrior
        clans
        > mentioned in the Vedic texts.
        >
        > In all the Mughal texts, when referring to these northwestern
        regions,
        > the word Rajput is only used for Hindu warriors usually from the
        > hill-states. However Punjabi Muslims who today claim to be Rajputs
        state
        > that since Jats and Gujjars are clearly identified in these
        documents
        > even after they converted to Islam, as are converts from other
        castes,
        > why can't they claim to be converts from the Rajput caste? Secondly
        > the Punjabi Muslim converts follow the Hindu tradition of not
        marrying
        > within gotras and many of their clans are the same as in Rajasthan
        so
        > why can't they call themselves Mussalman Rajputs? Thirdly they
        claim
        > that Rajputs are warriors and the Punjabi Muslims too have a
        warrior
        > tradition, hence they have every right to call themselves Rajputs.
        >
        > The clear answer to these questions is that the word Rajput
        emerged from
        > the resistance to Islamic invaders in Ajmer and Kannauj. It was
        later
        > also applied to noble warriors in the east and south of India who
        had
        > remained true to their ancestral religion. In the north the word
        Rajput
        > is applied only to the warriors of Uttaranchal, Himachal, and
        > Jammu—those that remained staunch defenders of the Hindu faith.
        > Converts from these Rajput communities were either forced or
        bribed to
        > forsake their ancestral faith—these converts lost their clan status
        > and developed new identities in their adopted faith. In any case
        they
        > represented a negligible portion of the Rajput population—in the
        > Punjab however there were mass conversions of entire clans/tribes
        by a
        > process that will be studied in the next post.
        >
        > The case of Kashmir
        >
        > Unlike Punjab, the Kashmir region of India is protected on all
        sides by
        > towering mountain ranges. The armies of Mahmud Ghaznavi failed to
        > penetrate this massive barrier. But foreign influence was critical
        in
        > converting the inhabitants of the fertile valley to Islam.
        >
        > The internal politico-military framework was already suffering from
        > severe shortcomings as described in the contemporary historical
        work,
        > the Rajatarangini. Real power lay with groups of military classes
        called
        > Tantrins (infantry soldiers) and Ekangas, and landowners called
        Damaras.
        > Their origin and organization is unknown for no other authority
        > describes the history of Kashmir with such detail as the
        Rajatarangini.
        >
        > While grappling with these groups, the king did not have any clan
        (his
        > own armed kinsmen) to rely on, unlike in Ajmer or Kannauj or even
        in the
        > neighboring regions of Jammu and Kangra. There were frequent
        changes of
        > dynasties and ministers or even revenue officials could be chosen
        to
        > become kings while the above-mentioned groups exercised the real
        power.
        > The only was for a king to establish his authority was to launch
        > military expeditions into neighboring regions (Darads of the
        Kishenganga
        > valley, Poonch, Punjab)—but ultimately the structure of the kingdom
        > remained socially fractured.
        >
        > But the worst sin of numerous Kashmiri rulers was their reliance on
        > foreign mercenaries who they allowed to settle down in the valley.
        From
        > Vajraditya in the 8th Century, who is said to have introduced
        practices
        > beneficial to Mlechchas, to Rinchan in the 14th Century, who
        relied on
        > Muslim mercenaries for his power and ultimately passed on this
        power to
        > them. Again and again the Rajtarangini bemoans the entry of
        Turushkas
        > and Mlechchas into Kashmir.
        >
        > In 1301 Kashmir was invaded by Dulucha leading a 60,000 strong
        army of
        > Turushka, Tajik, and Mlechcha horsemen, who killed and looted the
        valley
        > and carried away thousands of slaves. At about that time a Tibetan
        > prince named Rinchan also invaded the unhappy land and easily
        usurped
        > power—he took the support of the Muslim mercenaries in Kashmir. One
        > of these named Shah Mir later became the first Sultan of Kashmir—
        his
        > descendant Sikandar forcibly converted the inhabitants of Kashmir
        to
        > Islam.
        >
        > The lack of a clan-system of warriors meant that there was no
        continuing
        > resistance to this change. But such a system was not lacking in the
        > Punjab as will be seen in the next post.
        >
      • Ravi Chaudhary
        Mr. Singh has a website, http://www.airavat.com/ And a blog http://horsesandswords.blogspot.com/ For some his other works, they are listed on his website
        Message 3 of 4 , May 2, 2006
          Mr. Singh has a website, http://www.airavat.com/


          And a blog http://horsesandswords.blogspot.com/


          For some his other works, they are listed on his website
          Revolution in Military Affairs
          Guerrilla Warfare
          Last of the Mughals

          He has quite a slick style, for he portrays writes a historical
          drama, as Daphne Du Maurier did, laced with some facts, and loads of
          references.

          As the work has been posted on Sites like Bharat Rakshak, it is
          developing a following among some people, aspiring for a romantic
          Varnic version of Indian history.

          His material is then being quoted as authoritative.

          Countering this kind a material is a lengthy process, for it is
          difficult to get beyond the first paragraph.

          Each line contains distortions.

          I have send him a request, on May 1, 2006, to stop these kind of
          posts, to visit and join the Jathistory group, and to discuss his
          material here.

          I am looking forward to my comment being posted

          Keep an eye on


          http://horsesandswords.blogspot.com/

          Somehow I doubt he will publish my comment.

          I will post some of the more entertaining parts from his work

          Ravi Chaudhary


          P.S Dudhee Sahib is absolutely correct.

          It is very important to write our version and get it out

          Let us look forward to his new book
        • Vinod Sangwan
          I visited his blog... There is stark lack of references for some claims... too much distortion... I emailed him but I don t think it would matter... -vinod
          Message 4 of 4 , May 4, 2006
            I visited his blog... There is stark lack of references for some claims... too much distortion... I emailed him but I don't think it would matter...
             
            -vinod

             
            On 5/2/06, Ravi Chaudhary <ravichaudhary2000@...> wrote:


            Mr. Singh has a website, http://www.airavat.com/


            And a blog http://horsesandswords.blogspot.com/


            For some his other works, they are listed on his website
            Revolution in Military Affairs
            Guerrilla Warfare
            Last of the Mughals

            He has quite a slick style, for he portrays    writes a historical
            drama, as Daphne Du Maurier did, laced with some facts, and loads of
            references.

            As the work has been posted on Sites like Bharat Rakshak, it is
            developing a following among some people, aspiring for a romantic
            Varnic version of Indian history.

            His material is then being quoted as authoritative.

            Countering this kind a material is a lengthy process, for it is
            difficult to get beyond the first paragraph.

            Each line contains distortions.

            I have send him a request, on May 1, 2006, to stop these kind of
            posts, to visit and join the Jathistory group, and to discuss his
            material here.

            I am looking forward to my comment being posted

            Keep an eye on


            http://horsesandswords.blogspot.com/

            Somehow I doubt he will publish my comment.

            I will post some of the more entertaining parts from his work

            Ravi Chaudhary


            P.S Dudhee Sahib is absolutely correct.

            It is very important to write our version and get it out

            Let us look forward to his new  book







            Yahoo! Groups Links

            <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
               http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/

            <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
               JatHistory-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

            <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
               http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.