<P><FONT color=#000000>Transcript of a conversation between, the Prime Minister (PM) and his National Security Advisor (NSA)</FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>NSA: Prime Minister, you believe in the nuclear deterrent? </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>PM - Oh, yes</FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>NSA: Why? </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>PM: Pardon? </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>NSA: Why? </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>PM: Because it deters. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>NSA: Whom? </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>PM: Pardon? </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>NSA: - Whom? Whom does it deter? </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>PM: Our neighbours from attacking us. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>NSA: Why?</FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>PM: - Pardon? </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>NSA: Why? </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>PM: They know if they launched an attack, I'd press the button. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>NSA: - You would?</FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>PM: Well, wouldn't I? </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>NSA: Well, would you? </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>PM: At the last resort, yes, I certainly would. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>PM: Well, I think I certainly would. Yes. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>NSA: And what is the last resort?</FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>PM: If our neighbour tries to annex Kashmir.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>NSA: You only have 12 hours to decide, so you're saying the last resort is the first response? </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>PM: Am I? </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>NSA: You don't need to worry. Why should the enemy try to annex Kashmir ? They can't even control NWFP. No, if they try anything, it will be <B style="COLOR: black; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff66">salami</B> <B style="COLOR: black; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #a0ffff">tactics</B>. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff66">PM: Salami</FONT> <B style="COLOR: black; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #a0ffff">tactics</B>?</FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>NSA: Slice by slice. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>NSA: One small piece at a time. So will you press the button if they cross the LOC ? </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>PM: It all depends.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>NSA: On what?  Scenario one. Riots in PoK town bordering China, homes in flames. chinese fire brigade cross the border for help. Would you press the button...? </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>PM: mmmm.....</FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>NSA: The pakistani rangers come with them. The button...? </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>PM: mmmm......</FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>NSA: Then some pakistani troops, more chinese troops just for riot control, they say. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>PM: mmmm......</FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>NSA: And then the rangers are replaced by regular army. Button...? </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>PM: mmmm.......</FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>NSA: Then the Chinese troops don't go. They are invited to stay to support civilian administration. The civilian administration closes cross border BUS and Train service.  Now you press the button? </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>PM: I need time to think about it. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>NSA: You have 12 hours. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>PM - Have I? You're inventing this. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>NSA: - You are Prime Minister today. The phone might ring now from Western Command. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>NSA:  The Pakistani army accidentally on purpose cross the frontier with Chinese Troops behind them on their border. - Is that the last resort? </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>PM: - No. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>NSA: Right, Suppose the Pakistani troops invade into villages and occuppy positions like in Kargil Suppose their tanks and troops have taken vantage points ? - Is that the last resort?</FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>PM: - No. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>NSA: Why not? </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>PM:  We'd only fight a nuclear war to defend ourselves. That would be committing suicide! </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>NSA: So what is the last resort? Connaught Place ? Sansad Marg ? The Constitution Club? </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>PM: Maybe the nuclear deterrent makes no sense. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>NSA: - Yes, it does. If the Pakistanis or Chinese have the bomb, so must India . And keep Iran just in case. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>PM - What are you proposing? </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>NSA: You wouldn't really press the button. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>PM: - I might if I had no choice. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>NSA: They'll never put you in a situation where you have no choice. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>They'll stick to salami tactics.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>That folks was an adaptation of a conversation from the British Comedy Yes Prime Minister set in the Indo-Pak context.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>Musharaff will continue to charm you from across the border and the Separatists will always be ready for talks but with riders thus putting you in a situation where you have a choice, </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>While the militants will continue to bleed J&K slice by slice as they did in Jammu by taking innocent Hindu Lives with no fear of reprisal.</FONT></P>
<P>This explains the sheer despration from the Kashmiri Pandits expressed in this anguished piece from Lalit Koul titled “What will it take Mr. Prime Minister“ </P>
<P>http://in.rediff.com/news/2006/may/09guest1.htm</P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>It is the same Salami Tactics that the Iranian President is now attempting with the USA with his 18 page letter to Bush which btw has succeeded in charming the Western Media.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#ff0000>Offstumped Bottomline: </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#ff0000>India's approach to Terrorism in its Neighbourhood is neutered by the lack of strategic options. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#ff0000>Holy Cow we never got to learn how to work Salami to our advantage</FONT></P>

The movie version of the book Da Vinic Code by Dan Brown is being released this week. As you know over 60 million copies of the book hae been sold. The core of the story is that Jesus was married and had descendents. A storm is raging in the West about secular ethos attacking the Church and shaking the faithful. Unlike the Muslims who rioted about the cartoons, things have been quiet. In India the UPA govt chose the safe path of declaring the film an "A" certificate.
I think the real coverup is not the Jesus descendent's story but his years in India and the influneces on his teachings.

From Pioneer, 19 May 2006

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>History, heresy, conspiracy</b>

Ashok Malik 

In 1804, two centuries before Dan Brown found his way to bestseller lists, the mystic and poet William Blake scripted his literary tour de force, Jerusalem. To this day, Blake's epic anthem moves, inspires and reduces to tears those who read, repeat or chant it. Its opening stanzas are among the most memorable in the English language:

<b>And did those feet in ancient time

Walk upon England's mountains green?

And was the holy Lamb of God

On England's pleasant pastures seen?</b>



And did the Countenance Divine

Shine forth upon our clouded hills?

And was Jerusalem builded here

Among these dark Satanic mills?

A deep, philosophical man, Blake was making multiple allusions. At one level, he was disturbed by the creeping Industrial Age and the changes smoke-filled chimneys were inflicting upon his pristine English countryside ("... these dark Satanic mills").

<b>Yet the principal character being addressed was Christ. Had the "feet" of the "Lamb of God" walked "upon England's mountains green"? Blake, like many contemporaries, cherished the belief that Jesus had visited England, embracing one of competing legends prevalent at the time.</b>
One tradition held that Christ had come to England in his early youth -when he was "training" for his calling -and had been taught by ancient druids. Another view was that he had somehow escaped the Crucifixion.

Such sentiments and such stories are not unique to William Blake and England. In the late 19th century <b>a Russian writer, Nicolas Notovitch, wrote a book apparently based on old Buddhist texts, arguing Jesus had spent part of the period between age 14 and 30 - when he was away from home - in India, as an apprentice under not Celtic druids but Buddhist monks. Others have added to the theory, pointing to evidence that insists Jesus the boy visited Puri and Varanasi.</b>

The most famous India-centric Jesus story has him surviving the Crucifixion and moving to Kashmir, where the Takht-e-Sulaiman - Seat of Solomon, now the Shankaracharya Hill - is said to derive its name from his presence.

A tomb in Srinagar's Rozabad has long been held to be the final resting place of a religious figure, one Yuz Asaf; was he Jesus? Another grave in Murree - in Pakistani Punjab - is supposed to be that of Mary, the mother of Christ. Murree, the idea goes, is a corruption of her name. <b>The choice of Kashmir as a refuge is itself explained by the tradition that it was settled by the Kush (Kassite) people, one of the "lost tribes" of Israel.</b>

How much of all this is true? Perhaps very little; obviously, Christ couldn't have been both in England and India at the same time! Yet as the silly controversy over The Da Vinci Code thankfully ends, it would be sensible to accept that alternative histories of Christ have been around for centuries.

Beyond fascinating trivia and conspiracy theories, there is a larger point. Dan Brown's book is, of course, fiction - but what if it weren't? Would protests by church groups then have been justified? Is religion - and this is not true of merely Christianity - to be sequestered from history, never have its historicity put to scrutiny? Does that in any way take away from the importance of faith or of The Faith?

These are important issues to ponder because India is a profoundly religious country with an extremely shallow intellectual approach to the study of religion. "Religious studies" is not merely a course on rites and rituals and how they came about. It involves philosophy, archaeology, history, sociology, perhaps even anthropology. In the narrow and antiseptic confines of "secularism" - as India's state-directed intelligentsia defines it - this is often not appreciated. This does not become enlightened societies.

Return to The Da Vinci Code. The charge against the book and the film is that it contradicts the "received history" of Christianity. As the deputy secretary of the Catholic Bishops Conference of India put it, "It (The Da Vinci Code) must begin and end with a bold and lingering disclaimer stating that it's a work of fiction and does not reflect historical views and facts."

Compelling questions flow from this. What are "historical views"? Whose historical views? Who wrote Christianity's history - or for that matter Islam's or Hinduism's? If Christ survived the Crucifixion and was, as many believe, not the Son of God but a great mortal, does that detract from his life, his teachings, the wonder of the religious movement he founded?

The more devout Christians are not alone in treating history as heresy. An honest appraisal of the Prophet and his life and times, one that treats him as human, is not going to go unchallenged either. It never has.

<b>One of the most famous cases of blasphemy in India was that of Sarmad Shaheed (Sarmad the Martyr), an Armenian Jew who converted to Islam, was drawn to mysticism and befriended Dara Shikoh. Asked to recite the kalmah - "There is no God but Allah and Mohammad is his Prophet", Sarmad stopped at, "There is no God." Aurangzeb executed him.</b>

Of the major faiths, only Judaism and Hinduism approach history with a relative open-mindedness. <b>For the Jews, religion and history are a continuum. </b>Abraham and David are ancestors of Christ and near-divinity, but they are also historical characters, as real, as flesh and blood as David Ben-Gurion and Ariel Sharon. The Old Testament is a people's old history.

<b>Hindus face a unique problem: The history in their faith is challenged not by believers but by their "progressive" critics. As an example, consider the average Hindu's attitude to the Puranas. Yes, there is apocryphal legend and exaggeration; nevertheless, there is a determined acceptance that below this is a kernel of history. </b>

Ram and Krishna are gods to be worshipped but - with the breathtaking capacity to reconcile dualism - Hindus simultaneously accept them as human, with human wants, human desires, and even human frailties.

<b>Indeed, born of a singular self-assurance, Hinduism would welcome a scientific or rigorous scholarly investigation into its past, almost as much as organised Islam would repel it.</b> As for Christianity, as the Dan Brown episode reveals, <b>the danger is from the new Pharisees - those who think they "own" Jesus and have an exclusive, perhaps jealous copyright on his biography.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I wonder if Arjun Singh ever goes to hospital and says "<i>I insist a Dalit doctor treat me</i>" or Paswan goes "<i>Muslim pilots on my chopper onlee please</i>"?
Or they want best Indians irrespective of caste/religion treating or flying them around?

<i>Phatte mar rahi hai Bhutto</i>. Pakis are only capable of <i>Chuha</i> attacks- like they do on unarmed villagers in J&K, in the dark and from behind. For all their bravado, none of the Mullah Generals have the balls to do anything themselves.

Ancient Indian history is very much intertwined with religion, mysticism, mythology and spirituality. It is difficult separating them from each other. Thus, what tends to happen, the contributions made by the ancient Indians tend to be dismissed as religious - Hindu.

For example, many don't want to believe in the Indian historical events, such as the Mahabharata. There is perhaps good reason, as the Mahabharata does mention a sophisticated urban society, underwater kingdoms, human cloning, weapons that yeild the power of modern day nuclear weapons and flying vehicles. Although this is recorded as Indian history, few are prepared to accept it in it's entirety.

While most rationalists just consider it a fiction, some make a compromise, and accept it as a fictionalized historical event.

We are quite selective when it comes to accepting parts of Indian history. For instance, we might accept that Indians manufactured steel, but will stop short of accepting Indians manufactured aeroplanes. We might accept that the Indians devised the theory of atoms, but will stop short of accepting that they had contributed quantum theory and relativity. We might accept that the Indians did have scientific thought, but will stop short of accepting that they were technological.

For some, even the notion that Indians manufactured steel, devised the thoery of atoms, and had scientiftic thought is dubious.

So what we know of ancient Indian history becomes a matter of belief; a subjective matter. This dearth of objectivity is why ancient Indian history is not treated seriously by academics.

What do you believe?

i do not know many facts about the history of the Marathis - so i am starting this thread.

I'll set the ball rolling with some choice quotes from the wikipedia page on marathis (parts of which, coloured red, got me very interested). Please add more things you know of.



"The Marāthās" is a collective term referring to an Indo Aryan group of Hindu, Marathi-speaking castes of warriors and peasants hailing mostly from the present-day state of Maharashtra, who created a substantial empire, covering a major part of India, in the late 17th and 18th centuries AD.

The "Marathas" were known by that name since their native tongue was almost invariably Marathi; however, not all those whose native tongue is Marathi are Marathas. The term "Maratha" refers only to those marathi-speaking people who also belong to certain specific Hindu castes: for one available listing, refer to Maratha Clan System. Thus, the terms "Marathi people" and "Maratha people" are not interchangeable and should not be confused for each other.

However the word (Marathi) itself indicates that these people were charioters ( ma_ratha).Needless to mention that marathas were well known for their cavalry since antiquity..


The Marathas are believed to be of mixed origins. Historians, researchers and scholars are divided over the origins of Marathas. Some put their origins as Scythians, while some put their origins as Aryans. Still, others point out that their origins are mixed and the clan is mostly a mixed stock of Scythians and Indo-Aryans. However, it is believed that there are a few minority Marathas who are of stocks as varied as Dravidians, Caucasians and Hunnics.

Some of the Maratha clans are descendants of the local dynasties. There is a kunbi or kurmi kshatriyas group apart from 96 royal clans of marathas. Linguistically, they belong to exclusively Indo-Aryan linguistic group.


So in nutshell, Marathas is a wide social group. It is a social cluster which compromises 96 royal clans which sprang out of 5 tribes of Rigveda, certain sections of Kunbis and in a broader sense for certain period of history almost all marathi-speaking population. Perhaps this great flexibilty in the social structure of Marathas to accommodate vast groups explains their strength as a nation.

According to some sources, every maratha must belong to one of 96 different clans (the "96 Kuli Marathas"). The list of 96 Maratha clans is different as per different historians. An authoritative listing was apparently first attempted in 1888 and a list finalised in 1956 by the Government of India. One of several available listings of the various maratha clans are available at Maratha Clan System.


from here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maratha_Clan_System


Every maratha belongs to one of the 96 specific clans. These 96 clans are believed to have originate from five main royal clans which were based on the Panch-Janya or five tribes of the Rig-vedic period. This branching means, for instance, that out of 96 clans, at least 18 clans are septs of the same Yadu clan. This is similar to the branching of the Gotra system from the original seven Saptarshi Gotras to the hundred or more Gotras that exist today.

Marathas are descendents of all 56 Royal houses of India. According to Arya (Hindu) religion, In India or Bharat there are 56 sub-nations. At the time of the civil war of Mahabharata all the Indian nations were badly affected.The Maratha Clan System closely linked with Mahabharat heroes.


Origin of Clan system

Apart from Marathas, a well defined clan system is found among Rajputs,Scots,Germanic Tribes and Iranians.These all groups belong to Indo-European speaking population.The cognate of clan is Kul or cul, cognate of shatriya is shah(Iranian),Shah-nav(Maratha),satrap(european).There exists a lot of similarity between names and social customs of these clans during ancient time e.g.Royal symbol of each clan, worship of Fig tree,code of valour and art of fortification.<b>It seems that before compilation of Rigveda,these clans scattered in different directions from their homeland.</b>Generally these all clans have got a long history of chivalry and have enriched their respective countries.It is a matter of research for the sociologists that these clans if even change their religion ,did not change their clan system.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in the wiki webpage, notice how most of the 96 clans have an "original seat/kingdom" somewhere north of maharashtra. so why did they make this southward exodus?? did the marathis really get the clan system from the scythians/sakas. do marathis have scythian blood?? the other people in india who also have a clan system are the rajputs - who also carry saka blood. just who are the people who are not marathi despite their native tongue being marathi?? are marathi's exclusively ksatriyas since they get their name from ma_rathi ?? the paragraph in blue is all crap - scythians ARE aryans in any case. As as aside, which are the 56 nations of bharat??

I am posting the online book I came across about Maratha-Rajput relations from 1720 to 1795. The book is written by a Maratha named D. Acharya so there is bound to be some bias but it has a lot of valuable information, particularly the letters exchanged between the Hindu rulers of the time which show us how important a role religion played in their alliances and opposition to the Mughals. I will highlight what I think are important points. The book has convinced me that if history is taught as it is today in India, it will not be long before Hindu identity will be diluted in the name of secularism and assorted nonsense, it is no wonder that I never read these original letters between Hindu rulers which stress how important religion was to them and stress the idea of the restablishment of a Hindu Raj, these letters show us that the idea of Pan-Hindu identity cutting across regional barriers was present even 3 centuries ago.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->PREFACE

The present thesis " Maratha-Rajput relations from 1720 to 1795 A.D." begins with the career of Peshwa Bajirao I and ends with the death of Peshwa Madhaorao in 1795 A.D. The work 'Rajput' refers to the Rajput States of Rajasthan in the 18th century and particularly to the former States of Jaypur, Jodhpur and Udaypur as of the 15 States the leading Houses were three-the Sisodias of Mewad, the Rathods of Marwad and the Kachawahas of Ambar, History of other smaller States like Bundi, Kotal Alwar, Kishangadh or Bikaner, comes into picture wherever it touches the main theme. (1)

Again, there is no intention to give internal history of any individual State, that has no bearing on the main topic. Even then, it will be seen that the continuity is maintained, so far as it was possible.

Taking the 'Sanads' of 'Chauth' and 'Sardeshmukhi' as a base for expansion, the Maratha-Imperialism spread towards all directions from their base in Maharashtra. Their main object was 'territorial conquest for the regeneration of religion and the Gods' (2), in the words of Chimaji Appa. Their movements in Rajasthan were not isolated raids for mere plunderbut were a part of their general policy of expansion towards the North (3) . Maratha hold on Malwa was complete even in 1732 A.D. and Hastinapur (Delhi) was their target as early as 1736 A.D. Rajasthan came naturally under the sphere of the Maratha expansion. The treatment of of some of the eminent scholars to Maratha Invasions, creates an impression that the Marathas had no other business than to wake one fine morning and move on to raid the peace-loving territories of Rajasthan (4).

There is no use in saying "Whatever might have been the objects of the Maratha expansion there is no doubt that their penetration into Rajasthan and their domination of Mewad was a great calamity. As their power grew and states after states lay prostrate before them, plunder, rapine and ravages became the order of the days. (5) "

Activities of any political power, in the past (or even in the present) have been hardly without objects. Hence treating the political activities excluding the objects of the party involved will scarcely be a complete picture in itself. A scholar who has deliberately selected a particular topic for study is obliged to take all the aspects of the topic into consideration. Hence while dealing with the Maratha-Rajput relations of 18th century, one has to take the Maratha aims and objects into account along-with their faults, otherwise the whole campaign carried on by the Marathas incessantly, year after year, ceases to have any meaning other than the raids of the plunderers.

The present work, I hope, presents a through picture of the changing relationship of the Marathas and the Rajputs, in the 18th century, from mutual friendship to bitter enmity.

The long period of seventy five years is divided into three phases as they appear to me. The first phase (1720 to 1743 A.D.) ends with the death of Sawai Jaysing, the second phase (1743 to 1766 A.D.) ends with the death of Malharrao Holkar and the third, and the last one, ends with the accidental death of the young and promising Peshwa Sawai madhaorao. These three phases constitute the main body of the thesis. At the end I have given my reflections over the Maratha-Rajput relations during 1720 to 1795 A.D.

The first chapter in every phase explains the significance of the particular phase, summarizes the activities during the phase and in short serves as an introduction to the phase.

Before actually starting with the topic, a survey of the past history of the Marathas and the Rajputs has been taken into the introductory first chapter. As I started with origin of the Marathas, I had to give the same treatment in the case of the Rajputs too and hence, I could not avoid the questions of the origin of the Rajput. This introductory chapter, in two parts, serves as a background of the meeting of the Marathas and the Rajputs in first quarter of the 18 century.

The third factor of the Nizam' in the Malwa affair (first phase) so distinctly put up, is a new thing in the Indian History, Dadorao Bhimsen's letter (S.P.D. 13-10) wrongly interpreted by eminent scholar like Dr. Raghuvir, has been given here due treatment for the first time. It has been adequately supplemented by other sources. It was the Nizam, who was aimed at, in calling the Maratha-help in Malwa in 1728 A.D. This work will also clear the objects of Sawai Jaysing in forming friendship with the Marathas. The treatment of Bajirao's Northern expansions gets here a new light in comparison to the works of others who have handled the same topic before me.

The second phase (1743 to 1766 A.D.) opens with the reasons behind the changed attitude of the Rajputs towards the Marathas. It is altogether a new attempt to state the underlying meaning of the political activities concerning Rajasthan after the death of Sawai Jaysing. The second phase covers everything relating to the topic. Particularly I have to draw the attention to the explanation of Malharro's individuality in handling the Northern politics in general and Rajput politics in particular.

During the third phase (1766 to 1795 A.D.) the Maratha Rajput relations reached the highest pitch of rivalry. This phase relates the initial errors of Mahadaji (with reasons) towards the Rajputs in general and Jaypur in particular, the entrapment of Mahadaji, the Lalsot campaign, the miraculous recovery of Mahadji, the comparatively late coming of Tukoji to the scene and the final triumph of Mahadaji over all his rivals. The whole episode resembles the third battle of Panipat (1761 A.D.). I have not given long descriptions of the battles (that are available in Poona residential Correspondence Vol. I) but given as much as was necessary. Sir Jadunath's descriptions of the battle of Patan" (6) and Medta would give one an impression that these battles wre won by De Bolgne alone and that the famous Maratha cavalry, as if, was doing nothing but standing aloof. He nearly omits the part played by the forces (though smaller in number) of Holkar and Ali Bahadur. I have taken all the available accounts of these battles into consideration and described the battles in brief. In fact the descriptions are hardly mine. They are base mainly on the news-reporters, the sources of which have been stated in footnotes.

A historian ought not to be too loose in his language? (7) While criticizing the personalities of the past, because it has come fortunately to his lot to pass judgments on their actions. No body can boast of knowing all the aspects of a particular case. By the end of the third phase we see Tukoji-Patra were exchanged) (8) acting against Mahadaji. Tukoji's actions but I do hope that my exertions will be of use in forming a balanced view in viewing the actions of these two Maratha Sardar. Namely Tukoji and Mahadaji with reference to the Maratha Rajput relations. I do claim that I have been impartial, as far as possible, in dealing with all these intricate polities. One should never forget that Ahillyabai and Tukoji had their own case like Mahadaji. It is for the impartial historian to pass the final remarks.

As for Ali Bahadur, he was simply unfortunate. He had no hand in the Gosawi episode. Once he took the charge of the latter, he defended him against the might of Mahadaji. History does not prove any treachery committed by either Tukoji or Ali Bahadur against Mahadaji at the time of the battles of Patan and Medta in 1790 A.D., even though, the latter is emphatic in placing such a charge against the two. In fact Mahadaji was too shrewd to build his case against Tukoji and Ali Bahadur from the first. Lakheri depicts the tragic end of the House of Holkars brought at the hands of Mahadaji.

The present work goes a long way to prove that the Maratha-Rajput relations is not the story of "plunder, rapine and ravages" but the story of continuous political relationship between the two political powers namely the Rajputs of the North, collectively, and the Marathas of the South. It is neither the history of any 'dark age' nor the history of the factual accounts of the raids and the doubtful accounts of the money exacted. It is in short the political history of the period. I do submit most humbly that the present work tries to approach the problem with a balanced view. It rejects the tradition of the followers of Tod of looking to the Marathas as some-thing free-booters coming from the foreign lands.

Of the dates of letters that I have corrected, I would draw attention to the latter No. 27 of S.P.D. 10. Sardesai gives it to be of 1724 A.D. whereas Dr. Raghuvir states it to be of 1737 A.D. In fact it belongs to 1730 A.D. I have givent the reasons in detail (Appendix to first phase). But the only fact besides others that goes against the date being 1737 A.D. is the mention of Kanhoji Bhosle in the particular letter. Kanhoji was taken a prisoner to Satara by Raghuji Bhosle in 1730 A.D. and he remained in prison after that at Satara till his death (9) How could, under the circumstances, he come in 1737 A.D. to the Nizam as has been Stated in the letter ? I have corrected the dates of other letters too, and stated the reasons for the same in the foot-notes.

In his preface to 'Madhava Rao Sindhia' p.s.H.G.Keena writes, "the omission to cite Tod's Rajasthan may be thought to demand explanation. It is a noble book, full of priceless information and inspired by a fine enthusiasm. But this every inspiration renders the author an unsafe guide in regard to the relations and dealings of the Rajputs with other tribes". I agree fully to this statement and hence have omitted Tod, excepting where he has cited the origined sources. I value the opinion of Rajwade, the famous historian of Maharashtra, that "one cannot believe in a mass of native or foreign Bakhars (10) (cronicles) as he can rely on a single scrap of original material". Hence I have not relied on any of the Marathi or Rajasthani Bakhars. The text of the thesis is based only on original Marathi and Rajasthani sources, and on standard books based on original material.

Regarding the spelling of the proper nouns, I have to state that, as far as possible they are nearer to the original pronunciations. Hence I have written Medta (and not Merta), Shinde (and not Sidhia), Vijaysing and Jaysing (and not Bijesing and Jaising), Mewad (and not Mewar), Marwad (and not Marwar) and so on. I have done this mainly because I see no justfication in writing 'Marwar' when we call it 'Marwad'. But while quoting the extracts from other writers, I have retained the original spellings given by them of these proper nouns.

I have utilized all the Marathi as well as Rajput sources for this work. I have visited for the purpose of study, different libraries and stayed at places like Poona, Jaypur and Bikaner. I have made full use of the University Library of the Nagpur University, Nagpur. The library of my college, - The Sitabi Arts College, Akola, was always at my disposal. I am obliged to all those who have been useful to me in my studies. I also express my sincere gratitude to the Education Officer, University Grants Commission, New Delhi - 1, for the sanction of grant, which made the publication of this book possible.

In the introduction to Marathi Riyasat (Vol. V, Punyashlok Shahu) G.S. Sardesai says, "I have been doing this work of the interpretation (of history) for the last so may years". In the same way I put up this work, most humbly, as a sincere attempt to interprete the dealings of the two brave peoples of India namely the Marathas and the Rajputs with each other, spread over the span of seventy five years.

'Vijayadashmi'
 

Akola
K.A.Acharya

11th October 1978.


Descrption of Foot Notes

(1) 'Later Mughals' Vol. I, p. 42, Mar, Riya. Vol. V (Punya Sholke Shahu) p, 128.

(2) 'Hingne Daftar' I-15.

(3) "The aim behind the activities of these people is simple this. To decrease the income of the Mujahids (Moslems), to inflict injuries on the strength of the Moslems through these off and on harassments, and to deprive the Moslems of the strength to wage jihad." - From the letter of Nizam-ul-Muk (1737 A.D.), Eighteenth Century Deccan, pp, 146 and 147.

(4)"These Marathas, who did not like any other way but looting, were the greatest source of destruction for Mewad" - Veer Vinod, p. 1704. "In Samvat 1792, the Emperor granted the Subhadari of Malwa in the name of Bajirao Peshwa thus the robbers became the masters of the territory." - ibid, p. 1151.

(5) "Mewar and the Maratha relations" K.S.Gupta, in preface, p. viii.

(6) Fall of the Mughal Empire, Vol. IV. pp. 23 to 25 and 31 to 36, respectively.

(7) See the way how Sir Jadunath Sarkar writes about Tukoji - "Like a vulture which which sees a dying cow from a far, Tukoji Holkar, who had been hovering close the Mathura border without coming to Mahadaji's side, inspite of orders from Poona, now hastened to that city in order to stiffen Ali Bahadur's deflunce of Shinde's authority" . Fall IV p. 11.

(8) Jaypur Draft Kharitas 21 - 54.

(9) 'Nagpur Prantacha Itihasa' by Y. M. Kale, p. 64., Ahwal -I- Khawaquin in "Studies in mAratha History, Vol II , P. 101.

(10) 'Aitnhasik Prastavanas' by V. K. Rajwade p. 4.

http://www.maratharajputrelations.com/preface.html<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Review - Sri Ramadasu </b>
sify.com/movies/telugu/review.php?cid=2430
Movie -
Sri Ramadasu
Director
K Raghavendra Rao
Producer
Aditya Productions
Music
MM Keeravani
Cast
Nagarjuna, ANR, Sneha, Suman, Sujatha, Sameer, Nasseer, Nagababu

Many decades back, films in the mythology genre was popular in Telugu and NTR became the Chief Minister due to the halo around him created by doing the role of Gods! Today our heroes would not dare to do a mythology, can’t blame them as times and audiences preferences have change drastically.
Nagarjuna and veteran director Raghavendra Rao had the guts to come out with a film like Sri Ramadasu which not only touches your heart but also proves the fact that true devotion towards God and your hard work can move mountains. Nothing is impossible and miracles do happen at times. Sri Ramadasu is brilliantly presented by Rao and Nag within the commercial parameters.

Gopanna (Nagarjuna) is a nice guy who is in love with Kamala (Sneha) his uncle’s daughter and later marries her though her father wanted his daughter to get married to a Tahasildar. But after marriage, Gopanna impresses the Nizam (Nasser) who appoints him as the new Tahsildar of Husnabad against the liking of his begum who is not happy with the decision. The reason is that her brother (Jaiprakash Reddy) has to give way to Bopanna and they hatch plans to frame him.

Bopanna is beaten and he is later rescued by Dammakka (Sujatha) who nurses him and he is inspired by the lady’s deep devotion to Lord Rama and the way she protects the idols of Rama, Seeta and Lakshmana. Bopanna is haunted by his duty to build a temple as he becomes a great devotee of Lord Rama. He even gives away all pleasures in life and comes to stay in the forest with Kamala until the temple is constructed.

He collects money from the public and constructs the famous Rama temple in Bhadrachalam with the guidance of his guru Kabir Das (ANR). Kabir Das confers Gopanna the title of Sri Ramadasu on the insistence of Lord Rama. But the machinations of his detractors ends him up in jail for misusing government funds until Lord Rama and Lakshmana comes down to help him.

It is indeed amazing to see Nagarjuna slip into the role of Ramadasu with so much of ease. He has lives the role and so is Sneha who has lost weight and looks pretty. ANR and Sujatha the two veterans are in top form while Suman as Rama and Veda as Sita look too artificial in their gaudy make-up. In these days of blood soaked revenge dramas and mindless love stories Sri Ramadasu is a path breaker with a subtle message.

The last 20 minutes of the film is as good as any racy masala movie with extraordinary performance by Nagarjuna who is simply superb. Technically too, the film is the best mythology made in recent times- the sets, period ambience, camera work, locations and costumes. And what with outstanding music by Keeravani which whips up the right fervour.

Verdict: Good
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I started this topic to post exclusively about this great man, these days efforts are being made by commie traitors and morons like James Laine to portray Shivaji as a looter looking for adventure and nothing more (same thing with Maharana Pratap, Banda Singh and other national heroes). So I thought I would post some interesting stuff about Shivaji with supporting evidence that he fully aimed at an independent Hindu empire, to start this off an article by Sandhya Jain:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Demeaning Shivaji, denigrating dharma
Author: Sandhya Jain

Publication: The Pioneer
Date: January 27, 2004

Having purchased and read James Laine's Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India only after it was officially withdrawn by the publishers, I cannot view the events at the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (BORI) as totally unjustified. Certainly, attacks on centres of learning have no place in Hindu ethos and must not recur. Yet, having gone through 105 pages of shoddy polemics posing as historical research, I am constrained to state that Oxford University Press needs to re-examine its commissioning policy if it hopes to retain credibility as a publishing house.

Moreover, the BORI scholars acknowledged by Laine must honestly inform the nation of the extent to which they are responsible for the unwarranted assertions - we cannot call them conclusions, as no evidence has been adduced or offered - in the impugned book. Far from being a meticulous scholar who has uncovered unpalatable truths about a revered historical figure, Laine is an anti-Hindu hypocrite determined to de-legitimize India's ancient civilizational ethos and its grand rejuvenation by Shivaji in the adverse circumstances of the seventeenth century. BORI is not generally associated with substandard scholarship, and should explicitly declare its position on the actual contents of the book.

Laine exposes his agenda when he foists the unnatural concept of South Asia upon the geographical and cultural boundaries of India; this is awkward because his discussion is India-centric and specific to the Maharashtra region. He is also unable to disguise his discomfort at the fact that Shivaji withstood the most bigoted Mughal emperor, Aurangzeb, and established political agency for the embattled Hindu community, amidst a sea of Islamic sultanates. This has so unnerved Laine that he repeatedly makes inane remarks about Hindus employed under Muslim rulers and vice versa, to claim that the two communities lacked a modern sense of identity, and could not be viewed as opposing entities. What he means, of course, is that Hindus of the era cannot be ceded to have had a sense of 'Hindu' identity.

Reading the book, I was struck by the fact that it did not once mention Shivaji's famed ambition to establish a Hindu Pad Padshahi. This is a strange omission in a work claiming to study how contemporary authors viewed Shivaji's historic role, and the assessment of his legacy by subsequent native and colonial writers. The most notable omission is of the poet Bhushan, who wrote: "Kasihki Kala Gayee, Mathura Masid Bhaee; Gar Shivaji Na Hoto, To Sunati Hot Sabaki!" [Kashi has lost its splendour, Mathura has become a mosque; If Shivaji had not been, All would have been circumcised (converted)].

Bhushan's verse has immense historical value because the Kashi Vishwanath temple was razed in 1669 and thus lost its splendour, and the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple was destroyed and converted into a mosque in 1670. Bhushan came to Shivaji's kingdom from the Mughal capital in 1671, and within two years composed Shiv Bhooshan, a biography of Shivaji. It clearly states that Shivaji wanted to set up a Hindu Pad Padshahi.

Hence the view that Shivaji had no ideological quarrel with Aurangzeb and was only an adventurer in search of power and resources is juvenile. Laine obviously subscribes to the secularist school of historiography that decrees that Hindus must forget the evil done to them, a phenomenon Dr. Koenraad Elst calls negationism. But history is about truth, and Hindu society's long and painful experience of Islamic invasions and the subsequent Islamic polity has been so well documented in standard works like Cambridge History of India, that it is amazing a modern historian should claim there was no tension between Muslim rulers and their Hindu subjects.

Shivaji strove consciously for political power as an instrument for the resurrection of dharma (righteousness), a quest he termed as "Hindavi Swarajya," a word having both geographical and spiritual-cultural connotations. When still in his teens in 1645 CE, Shivaji began administering his father's estate under a personalized seal of authority in Sanskrit, an indication that he envisaged independence and respected the Hindu tradition. A 1646 CE letter to Dadaji Naras Prabhu refers to an oath that Shivaji, Prabhu, and others took in the presence of the deity at Rayareshwar, to establish "Hindavi Swarajya."

Shivaji was aware of the economic ruin and cultural annihilation of Hindus under the various sultanates. He desired to end this suffering, but was personally free from bigotry, as attested by contemporary Muslim chroniclers, notably Khafi Khan. It is therefore galling when Laine smugly proclaims: "I have no intention of showing that he was unchivalrous, was a religious bigot, or oppressed the peasants." A.S. Altekar (Position of Women in Ancient India) has recorded how Shivaji, in stark contrast to Muslim kings and generals of his era, ensured that Muslim women in forts captured by him were not molested and were escorted to safety. It is inconceivable that Shivaji would not know that Hindu women similarly situated would have to commit jauhar. It is therefore incumbent upon Laine and BORI to explain what "unchivalrous" and "bigot" mean.

The insinuation about "bigot" is especially objectionable in view of Laine's insistence that Shivaji had no particular interest in Hindu civilization and no proven relationship with the revered Samarth Ramdas or sant Tukaram. A Maharashtrian friend suggests that Laine has probably not read the references cited in his book! What the reader needs to understand is that Ramdas' historical significance lies in the fact that he openly exhorted the people to rise against oppression and hinted in Dasbodh that Shivaji was an avatar who had come to restore dharma. By denying that he was Shivaji's spiritual mentor, Laine seeks to disprove that the great Maratha wanted to establish a Hindu Pad Padshahi.

Ramdas, a devotee of Rama (Vaishnava sampradaya), visited the Khandoba temple at Jejuri, Pune; apologized to the god (Shiva) for boycotting the temple due to the practice of animal sacrifice there; and built a Hanuman temple at its entrance. I mention this to debunk Laine's pathetic insistence that devotion to a personal god divides Hindu society. This is alien to our thinking; we see no conflict between Ramdas and the Bhavani-worshipping Shivaji.

Then, there is Laine's tasteless allegation that Shivaji may possibly (whatever that means) be illegitimate, simply because Jijabai, who bore many children while living with her husband in the south, gave birth to Shivaji on her husband's estate near Pune and continued to live there. Maharashtrians point out that Shahaji had to send his pregnant wife to safety in Shivneri due to political instability. Shahaji was on the run with the boy king Murtaza Nizamshah, in whose name he controlled the Nizamshahi. After its fall in 1636, service in the Adilshahi took him to Bangalore (his remarriage produced the distinguished Thanjavur-Bhonsle dynasty); he administered his Pune lands through Dadaji Konddev.

My response to Laine's profound Freudian analysis is that he has thanked his wife and children and dedicated his book to his mother; I couldn't but notice the absence of a father. Is one to deduce something from the omission? Laine can relax: since the Vedas, Hindus have placed only proportionate emphasis on biological bloodlines; there is no shame if a man cannot mention his father; a true b@st@rd is one who does not know the name of his mother.

http://www.hvk.org/articles/0104/159.html<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Can somebody educate mew on the bestway to


1.type in a text in Telugu script

2.convert english transliterated text into Telugu

Kaushal