11-17-2006, 12:06 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Nov 17 2006, 09:07 AM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Nov 17 2006, 09:07 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I believe another perspective of modernity is the emergence of national consciousness, for it bound together a Maratha with a Jat, a Sikh with a Tamilian, a Gujarati or Parsi with Bengali to believe that they have something in common. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The only thing modernism brought about was the concept of political unity under a single state, the Jat and the Sikh already knew what they had in common which was why they tried to cooperate with the Marathas in facing Abdali, the same reason was the case when Sawai Jai Singh (even though his ambitions of a larger kingdom including Malwa clashed with those of the Marathas) and other Rajput rulers cooperated with the Marathas since it concerned Hindu honour, that was why Peshwa Baji Rao went and saved Chhatrasal and liberated Bassein from the Christian fanatics upon the request of the Hindus there.
[right][snapback]60919[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm going slightly aside from the main topic to comment on what you have written, because there is particularly one instance about it which I strongly feel about and that is the alleged alliance between the Jats, Sikhs etc and Marathas against Ahmad Shah. Though some of the instances, which you may have said, maybe for e.g. Peshwa Baji Rai I and Chhatrasal or the Bassein incident maybe in consonance with Baji Rao's concept of Hindu Pad Padshahi and thus a primeval form of nationalism.
Indeed I believe that in the period about which we are speaking, that is eighteenth century Marathas were one group who had a far better conception of nationalism than others like Rajputs or Jats. It is what made the Marathas realise that they should thwart the expansionistic intentions of Ahmad Shah Abdali and play a major role in the geopolitics of far off Punjab. Aren't they the ones who feel proud to this day of having put their flag at a distant Attock, and whose biggets loss, that of an entire generation was in remote field called Panipat. Peshwa Madhavrao, one whom I admire most, warned Mahadji in a letter that the English are trying to "encircle us" by having fortified trading posts at Bombay, Madras and Calcutta. Even the English admired them as one who are stauncly against them till that fool of a Baji Rao II went to shake hands with them. The English remarked, "Every inch we give is occupied by them." But even all these examples are of nationalism in infancy compared than the one that roared in 1857, "Khalq Khuda Ka, Mulq Badshah ka, Hukumat Nana Sahib ki or Rani Laskhmibai ki (there are different versions). And even this is nothing to the national consciousness when Gandhiji called for the Civil Disobedience movement. Thats why I feel that we have to thank the British for uniting the nation within us. Not that the British wanted it, they wanted to divide us, but they were the convenient "other" against whom all Indians can unite together. Also by railways, common education and governance covering vast swathes of modern India, they brought us closer.
Coming to the examples you have given. Please read about the events leading up to Panipat III. Rajputs always kept themselves aloof. They had more to complain against the Marathas than against Abdali. Sikhs did not form any alliance with Marathas, rather they harassed Abdali afterwards. Jats were with Marathas initially for purely political reasons, but with difference creeping between the Jat king Suraj Mal and the Maratha commander Sadashivrao "Bhau", Jats left the Maratha alliance. In contrast Najib formed an alliance uniting the Muslims. Though he was also a politician than a religious bigot who used religion for his political ends. However Shuja ud Daulah, the Nawab of Awadh joined them only because it being an Islamic force. The Maratha defeat was as much a result of them not being able to form effective alliances as also due to their haphazard way of fighting in the actual battle. I admire Marathas but they thougthlessly alienated the Rajputs and Jats, due to their marauding tactics and extortionary attitude, but they are still significant compared to the others, because they had a national conception sorely lacking in others. They had an interest in almost all parts of modern India, be it Deccan south, or Bengal Orissa, the Central plain or the northwesten frontier.
The Rajputs were more wary of the Marathas during these times and right upto the end of eighteenth century, than even the British or any other power. I don't think Sawai jai Singh would have liked to willingly let go off Malwa, he was the Mughal Subhadar and Malwa was a very rich province. In fact there is an interesting incident between Baji Rao and Sawai jai Singh. They met each other to resolve some differences, when Baji Rao was onwards to a campaign cum pilgrimage to the north. Baji Rao's mother was with him. As Baji Rao and Jai Singh were seated beneath a canopy, smoking a hookah, Baji Rao, the rugged no nonsense warrior that he is tried to deliberately irritate Jai Singh by blowing the smoke on his face. Jai Singh was seething with fury inside, but still had to control himself. There is also incident of a treacherous massacre of Marathas by Rajputs after the Rajputs had called them a feast. Jayappa Shinde, the elder brother of Mahadji was murdered by Rajputs. After the battle at panipat a lot many Marathas were killed while escaping to home by Jat cultivators who had earlier been looted by the Marathas. Doesn't speak much for nationalism does it? (on the part of both the Marathas and Jats) I believe, it is essential to understand closely the geopolitics of those times than make sweeping generalizations. Its not that Marathas or Rajput were fools not to realise that they had better unite. They simply couldn't because the geopolitics of those times, their opposing systems could not allow them to unite. There was one initiative where Hyder Ali, Nizam and Marathas united against the British and decided to simultaneously launch attacks on the British at Bombay, Madras and the Circars. But it flopped, because there were more difference of interests between these powers than commonalities.
The only thing modernism brought about was the concept of political unity under a single state, the Jat and the Sikh already knew what they had in common which was why they tried to cooperate with the Marathas in facing Abdali, the same reason was the case when Sawai Jai Singh (even though his ambitions of a larger kingdom including Malwa clashed with those of the Marathas) and other Rajput rulers cooperated with the Marathas since it concerned Hindu honour, that was why Peshwa Baji Rao went and saved Chhatrasal and liberated Bassein from the Christian fanatics upon the request of the Hindus there.
[right][snapback]60919[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm going slightly aside from the main topic to comment on what you have written, because there is particularly one instance about it which I strongly feel about and that is the alleged alliance between the Jats, Sikhs etc and Marathas against Ahmad Shah. Though some of the instances, which you may have said, maybe for e.g. Peshwa Baji Rai I and Chhatrasal or the Bassein incident maybe in consonance with Baji Rao's concept of Hindu Pad Padshahi and thus a primeval form of nationalism.
Indeed I believe that in the period about which we are speaking, that is eighteenth century Marathas were one group who had a far better conception of nationalism than others like Rajputs or Jats. It is what made the Marathas realise that they should thwart the expansionistic intentions of Ahmad Shah Abdali and play a major role in the geopolitics of far off Punjab. Aren't they the ones who feel proud to this day of having put their flag at a distant Attock, and whose biggets loss, that of an entire generation was in remote field called Panipat. Peshwa Madhavrao, one whom I admire most, warned Mahadji in a letter that the English are trying to "encircle us" by having fortified trading posts at Bombay, Madras and Calcutta. Even the English admired them as one who are stauncly against them till that fool of a Baji Rao II went to shake hands with them. The English remarked, "Every inch we give is occupied by them." But even all these examples are of nationalism in infancy compared than the one that roared in 1857, "Khalq Khuda Ka, Mulq Badshah ka, Hukumat Nana Sahib ki or Rani Laskhmibai ki (there are different versions). And even this is nothing to the national consciousness when Gandhiji called for the Civil Disobedience movement. Thats why I feel that we have to thank the British for uniting the nation within us. Not that the British wanted it, they wanted to divide us, but they were the convenient "other" against whom all Indians can unite together. Also by railways, common education and governance covering vast swathes of modern India, they brought us closer.
Coming to the examples you have given. Please read about the events leading up to Panipat III. Rajputs always kept themselves aloof. They had more to complain against the Marathas than against Abdali. Sikhs did not form any alliance with Marathas, rather they harassed Abdali afterwards. Jats were with Marathas initially for purely political reasons, but with difference creeping between the Jat king Suraj Mal and the Maratha commander Sadashivrao "Bhau", Jats left the Maratha alliance. In contrast Najib formed an alliance uniting the Muslims. Though he was also a politician than a religious bigot who used religion for his political ends. However Shuja ud Daulah, the Nawab of Awadh joined them only because it being an Islamic force. The Maratha defeat was as much a result of them not being able to form effective alliances as also due to their haphazard way of fighting in the actual battle. I admire Marathas but they thougthlessly alienated the Rajputs and Jats, due to their marauding tactics and extortionary attitude, but they are still significant compared to the others, because they had a national conception sorely lacking in others. They had an interest in almost all parts of modern India, be it Deccan south, or Bengal Orissa, the Central plain or the northwesten frontier.
The Rajputs were more wary of the Marathas during these times and right upto the end of eighteenth century, than even the British or any other power. I don't think Sawai jai Singh would have liked to willingly let go off Malwa, he was the Mughal Subhadar and Malwa was a very rich province. In fact there is an interesting incident between Baji Rao and Sawai jai Singh. They met each other to resolve some differences, when Baji Rao was onwards to a campaign cum pilgrimage to the north. Baji Rao's mother was with him. As Baji Rao and Jai Singh were seated beneath a canopy, smoking a hookah, Baji Rao, the rugged no nonsense warrior that he is tried to deliberately irritate Jai Singh by blowing the smoke on his face. Jai Singh was seething with fury inside, but still had to control himself. There is also incident of a treacherous massacre of Marathas by Rajputs after the Rajputs had called them a feast. Jayappa Shinde, the elder brother of Mahadji was murdered by Rajputs. After the battle at panipat a lot many Marathas were killed while escaping to home by Jat cultivators who had earlier been looted by the Marathas. Doesn't speak much for nationalism does it? (on the part of both the Marathas and Jats) I believe, it is essential to understand closely the geopolitics of those times than make sweeping generalizations. Its not that Marathas or Rajput were fools not to realise that they had better unite. They simply couldn't because the geopolitics of those times, their opposing systems could not allow them to unite. There was one initiative where Hyder Ali, Nizam and Marathas united against the British and decided to simultaneously launch attacks on the British at Bombay, Madras and the Circars. But it flopped, because there were more difference of interests between these powers than commonalities.