From there they could constantly bring new recruits to fight against the Hindus. Large number of soldiers of the Turk invaders were attracted by the wealth of India. They, therefore, fought with full zeal. As already stated, religious fantacism was also there. Thus the two factors combined together to infuse vigour in them. The wealth of the temples had a great attraction for the Muslim invaders. These temples however, were not properly protected. It, therefore, became easy for the invaders to plunder these places and this demoralised the people.
We may close the discussion with the observations made by some prominent historians. According to Dr. But they lacked unity and organisation. Pride and prejudice alike forbade obedience to a common leader and in critical moments when concentrated action was essential for a victory they renewed their individual plans and thus neutralised the advantages they possessed over the enemies.
Sir Jadunath Sarkar is of the view that complete equality and social solidarity, fatalism that sprang from an absolute reliance on god and freedom from drunkenness of Muslim soldiers were primarily responsible for the success of the Turks. According to Prof.
What is considered important today may not even have been considered worthy of notice in the past. Alauddin Khalji's chronicler Amir Khusro records the jauhar committed by the queens and other women in the Ranthambore Fort which was conquered in It was the first description of the custom in Persian.
Two years later, the Chittor fort was reduced under similar circumstances but no jauhar is mentioned. It will be wrong to conclude from this that no jauhar took place. The absence of mention does not constitute proof of absence. Muslim chroniclers may not have been overly enthusiastic about recording the goings-on in the Rajput camp. It is probable that Amir Khusro's interest was in reporting a new phenomenon to his readers. Once the purpose had been served, there was no need to report the incident again.
If the womenfolk in Chittorgarh did not take their own life, what happened to them? If they had been taken to Delhi, surely the Sultanate historians and chroniclers would have found it worthy of mention.
It is pointless to speculate whether Padmini or Padmavati was a real person or not. There would have been a chief queen in Chittor even if we do not know her real name. Suppose Jayasi had set his epic in Ranthambore rather than in Chittor. There would have been no controversy on the historicity, but the impact of the epic would have been the same as now. No movie can ever be made based solely on the inputs provided by chroniclers and historians. Even if names, dates and events are authentic, characters will have to be fleshed out, tensions created and drama enacted.
As the high court has said, a movie should not be pre-judged. The decision on its release should be awaited and respected. More importantly, a nation should be able to look its past in the eye without feeling discomfited. It should allow its artistes and creative persons to function in an atmosphere free of fear.
ED get Sukhpal Singh Khaira's custody for seven days. Hindutva and Hinduism are two different concepts: Rahul Gandhi. Seeking pay parity, nurses go on indefinite strike in Bathinda. Contrast this with the Rajput system, which was simple, predictable, and profoundly foolish, consisting of a headlong attack with no Plan B. In campaigns against forces that had come through the Khyber Pass, Rajputs usually had a massive numerical advantage.
At Khanua, Rana Sanga commanded at least four soldiers for every one available to Babur. After defeating Ibrahim Lodi at Panipat, the founder of the Mughal dynasty had the option of using the generals he inherited from the Delhi Sultan, but preferred to stick with soldiers he trusted.
He knew numbers are meaningless except when acting on a coherent strategy under a unified command. Rajput troops rarely answered to one leader, because each member of the confederacy would have his own prestige and ego to uphold.
Caste considerations made meritocracy impossible. The enemy general might be a freed Abyssinian slave, but Rajput leadership was decided by clan membership. Rana Pratap used precisely the same full frontal attack at Haldighati in that had failed so often before.
Haldighati was a minor clash by the standards of Tarain and Khanua. Pratap was at the head of perhaps 3, men and faced about 5, Mughal troops. Buddhism today is gone from Bharat but survives outside.
When Central Asians had converted to Islam they came to the subcontinent. The British traders came from the seas. After years they left in Two independent states were born: Hindu majority states formed Bharat and Muslim majority states formed Pakistan. Majority of the population of Pakistani Muslims had forefathers who were Hindus. The invasiom and rule by islamist forces changed the fabric of Indian society forever… Sanatana Dharma,the principle torchbearer of human civilization had to suffer at the hands of these bigots …shame on this commie who has penned this article.
Disgusting and highly disrespectful to the feelings of Hindus who suffered rape loot violence death and destruction at the hands of this Islamic bigot …for some gains and to win over the chieftems he might have given concessions here and there ,but that does not take away the character of his rule …. Interesting article by someone who has done research. Thats how history is to be read analysed and understood not on the basis of biased discussions of our immature preexisting notions.
Since none of us lived in those times…my request to all those commenting here is to leave this subject to those who do research and never ever to see history from the prism of present. What will u do when the so called researchers misrepresent the facts in order to push their agenda. Why is the author trying to glorify this aurangzeb? Aurangzeb is as good as a terrorist for Indian people be it any religion.
Mind your tongue before calling a Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj with a single name, whitewash all you want, The people remember the history. It is disgusting to find that spaces are provided for eulogizing a lowly bigot like this man who had no quality of a king!!
India has accommodated many outsider kings who had qualities of a king which are : 1 They saw the grandeur of Indian culture and in stead of forcing their own, they decided to convert themselves, 2 They did not allow their forces to loot, murder and rape the civil societies 3 They did not indulge in armtwistin tactics like Zizya!! What a subverted motive to write an article like this!! Sad, Aurangzeb was not an honourable human being!!
Got it …. So lets be like great Aurangzeb. Destroy a religious structure because someone remotely related to it was involved in rebellion. Lets start with Shaheen bagh. Which structure should be demolished as a political price? Hmm let the author decide. People seems to have little understanding about Nehruji. I was also on the same page in growing up years. So where is the question of Nehruvian history. We need to read history with open mind and one sided bring spread by some leaders of ruling party as PM himself has read history from RSS school and this is what being spread now.
Dont know what kind of sick reprobate writes these ridiculous justifications for psychopathic Mughals and what kind of reprobates allow such articles on their websites but it is evident now that whitewashing Islamic history and genocides is now a leftist cottage industry. If she can exonerate Aurangzeb for razing several temples just on political grounds, perhaps she should also argue in favour of those karsevaks who razed Babri Masjid.
After all it is oft repeated by the liberal media that the right wing bodies did the act for political gains. Read his letters, how he described Hindus in them. Secondly how does it matter whether he did for political gains or religious reasons.
He fought with fellow hindu Kings for him and he got poisoned on instructions of Aurangzeb and his killer was pardoned because he concerted to Islam. What a great sense of Justice in this case by Aurangzeb.
Another supporter and brother in law of Aurangzeb was Jaswant singh of Marwadi. He fought for him from Kondhana to Kandahar. He had no male heir but at a time of his death his wife was pregnant.
Aurangzeb wants to annex his kingdom, but he puts a condition that to save kingdom, his heir must accept Islam. Later mighty Marathas distracted Aurangzeb for 27 years hence his son was saved. Ironically same son has joined mughals as governor of Gujarat. Every kingdom had its own people to thrive and exist during those days so also Aurangzeb. The author has tried to tilt this fact with a single example in portraying Aurangzeb as Hindu well-wisher. There exist abundant historical pieces of evidence in the Bikaner museum about the atrocities committed by Aurangzeb on Hindus including mass killings of Hindus especially of Brahmins, conversion of Hindus into Islam and destruction of places of worship of Hindus including thousands of Jain temples.
A failed attempt to glorify one of the cruelest Muslim rulers. Do we inherit the sins and liabilities of our ancestors? Yes, because we inherit their virtues and their assets. Like other conquerors, our medieval ancestors ruled their subjects against their will. Hindus never went out of the subcontinent to invade or rule others, while invasion and domination were genetic to Muslims. They preferred to dominate rather than befriend. Conquest and killing leaves lasting scars.
0コメント