11-17-2006, 06:44 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Nov 17 2006, 08:34 PM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Nov 17 2006, 08:34 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually you need to read the primary sources, letters that were exchanged between the rulers of the time, Sawai Jai Singh wanted Malwa for himself but he realised that the Marathas were more powerful and he would not get it, so he did the next best thing, he worked behind the scenes to screw over the Mughals so that the Marathas get it in the end (they being fellow Hindus).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Beyond doubts, Jaysing was the patron of Hindu religion and culture. It was his ambition his kingdom from Yamuna to Narmada(27). There was nothing unnatural in it as after the fall of Farrukh Siyar, every Mughal Chief tried to create and independent position for himself, even Giridhar Bahadur(28) in Malwa was not an exception to this rule. It is correct to say that in calling the Marathas into Malwa in 1728 A.D.(29) , his action was motivated by self interest. But when he saw that he could not retain Malwa for himself, he was not sorry to leave it into the hands of the Marathas, because in the view of the Rajpurts of the generation of Sawai Jaysing there was definitely a difference between the Malwa under the Maratha Government and the Malwa under the Mughal Government. Had it not been the fact then Sawai Jaysing would have been the enemy of the Marathas especially after 1736 A.D. when their hold on Malwa was established beyond doubt.
There should be no doubt about the fact that Sawai Jaysing saw the âEstablishment of Dharmaâ, in the victories of the Maraths over the muslims (32) had he called the Marathas for his personal gain alone, the story would not have continued from 1728 A.D. till the cession of the Subha of Malwa to the Maraths . It is through him that the demands of the Bajirao (33) relating to Malwa reached the Emperor and it is through his efforts that Balajirao-Bajirao's son-got the Sanad of Malwa in 1741 A.D. It was due to this partiality of Jaysing towards the Marathas that Sadat Khan gained the confidence of the Emperor in 1735 A.D(34) . This common factor of Hindu religion between the Rajputs and the Marathas was known even to the Emperor. He feared that if Jaysing were displeased, he, being a Hindu, would join Bajirao(35) .
Hence it is incorrect to say that the Rajputs always kept themselves aloof.
The friendship lasted only as long as Baji Rao I was at the helm and we had rulers like Jai Singh and Ajit Singh on the other side who were religious, by the time of Panipat the Marathas alienated them, even the Jats did not like the Marathas but cooperated only because of the common religious factor binding them and also because they themselves did not want Abdali to establish another Muslim empire in India.
It was Surajmal who later gave shelter to many Maratha survivors and spent money from his own pocket to rehabilitate and feed them and he had no need of doing so since he had no political advantage except a big hole in his pocket.
The idea that the British needed to tell us that we had something in common is not true as the letters of Sawai Jai Singh and other rulers show us, they were all aware of what we had in common, if we say that the British united us then that still wouldn't be really true because even during the independence movement Muslims always stayed aloof from the freedom movement with some exceptions.
The only thing that the British did was to give us the idea of political unity and also united many Hindus in a bid to push the British out, the idea of commonality was already there among Hindus before the British came but we only managed to unite more stronger than ever against the British.
[right][snapback]60944[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dont believe that a India without Muslims is possible, you cannot ignore some 15 Cr. population just like that. I don't believe that India can progress ahead to become a superpower if only one or a few caste, creed, religion or ethnic group progresses with the others remaining behind. Sawai Jai Singh shared a sense of being Hindu with the Marathas, that is different from being an Indian. <b>Did he share a sense of commonality with any Mussalman of those times. </b>Now maybe these are different perspectives in which we view things. Is being Hindu alone fully define being Indian, which would mean other religions count for nothing. Anyways this is a wholly different debate.
The contention was whether Rajputs, Sikhs, Jats, Marathas had conciousness of a shared commonality before the Britishers. Now one way of analysis is to <b>remove the British out of the picture. Lets say British or any other foreign power were not to reach India or influence India, what would have happened. Just imagine the India post 1761.</b> The disaster at Panipat was brought on themselves by the Marathas by their wrong approach, it had nothing got to do with British, except maybe partly because of Bhau's reliance on European trained infantry which was successful in its own right, but could not coordinate well with the Maratha Light Cavalry. But it was the Peshwa Balaji Baji Rao only who chose Bhau above Raghunathrao to lead this campaign. I believe Raghunathrao would have been a better choice with his experience of the north.
In post 1761 India, without influence of any colonial powers, we still would have witnessed growing animosity between Marathas and Rajputs. Marathas anyways were antagonistic towards Hyder Ali and they would have continued to do so. Then there was Nizam who was largely ineffectual against both Hyder and Marathas but still controlled a large territory. Other power centres would have been Bengal, Awadh, Rohilkhand, all under Muslim rulers. Just imagine this situation sir. In brief it is thus, <b>lots of Mughal autonomous provinces under Muslim heads, some dominant Hindu ethnic communities such as Sikhs, jats, Rajputs and Marathas and otherwise lots of small and big principalities spread across the country</b>. Only one, i.e. Marathas seemed to have some superior power and an inherent "nationalistic" drive or fervour which pushes them to expand outwards. The others like Rajputs, Jats etc. were only concerned protect their own turf. Please don't even attempt to compare the Rajputs of eighteenth century with those of the Sultanate period. That drive simply wasn't there. Sawai Jai Singh may have been an astute statesman, but he was an exception than the rule. Maybe without the British on the scene, the Sikhs may have become a powerful force as they did a few years later, but then they would have come in conflict with the Marathas. And maybe if that were the scenario a historian today would comment on animosity between Sikhs and Hindus.
Now in this situation only two scenarios are possible. The Marathas would have gained the upper hand and gained control over large parts of India or they would have faced setbacks from other powers and India would have remained decentralized. Even if the Marathas gained the upper hand, considering the way they handled conquered provinces, you would agree that it seems unimaginable that they would have been able to govern them properly. Can you imagine India wide railroads, common postal system, telegraphy, common civil service comign in place within another 100-120 years in this kind of background. We all know the kind of devastation wrought by incessant campaigning by warring states. Maybe both Marathas and Sikhs would have arranged for more intensive foreign training for their army, spent more on arming themselves, and spent time warring each other.
Even if the Britishers came only in the nineteenth century, they would have managed to gain political control over India, because of the way we were fragmented. It is necessary to understand the military economy of these times. To give an e.g. why were the British with around 7000 troops able to vanquish a superior armed, well trained (after European fashion) Maratha army of 40000 at Assaye. Also on the positive side why the Sikhs were able to keep the British at bay for long. It has nothing got to do with the valour of Marathas or Sikhs, but the way they were organized and officered. The point is British came in with a system, not just arms, ammunition, drill and discipline and it is that system which defeated us. But then after defeating us, they put in railroads, telegraphy, roadways, civil service, education system so that they can get the most from their conquered territories. But these also served to bring about a political unity and without that political unity, national spirit would not have emerged. This is what I have tried to establish, that consolidation helps to bring about development and the emergence of a modern state. Without the British, the present modern Indian state is impossible to imagine. I believe our colonial period was that tough period, but after going through which we emerged stronger. Don't we have the saying, "Sona tapke kundan banta hai".
Actually you need to read the primary sources, letters that were exchanged between the rulers of the time, Sawai Jai Singh wanted Malwa for himself but he realised that the Marathas were more powerful and he would not get it, so he did the next best thing, he worked behind the scenes to screw over the Mughals so that the Marathas get it in the end (they being fellow Hindus).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Beyond doubts, Jaysing was the patron of Hindu religion and culture. It was his ambition his kingdom from Yamuna to Narmada(27). There was nothing unnatural in it as after the fall of Farrukh Siyar, every Mughal Chief tried to create and independent position for himself, even Giridhar Bahadur(28) in Malwa was not an exception to this rule. It is correct to say that in calling the Marathas into Malwa in 1728 A.D.(29) , his action was motivated by self interest. But when he saw that he could not retain Malwa for himself, he was not sorry to leave it into the hands of the Marathas, because in the view of the Rajpurts of the generation of Sawai Jaysing there was definitely a difference between the Malwa under the Maratha Government and the Malwa under the Mughal Government. Had it not been the fact then Sawai Jaysing would have been the enemy of the Marathas especially after 1736 A.D. when their hold on Malwa was established beyond doubt.
There should be no doubt about the fact that Sawai Jaysing saw the âEstablishment of Dharmaâ, in the victories of the Maraths over the muslims (32) had he called the Marathas for his personal gain alone, the story would not have continued from 1728 A.D. till the cession of the Subha of Malwa to the Maraths . It is through him that the demands of the Bajirao (33) relating to Malwa reached the Emperor and it is through his efforts that Balajirao-Bajirao's son-got the Sanad of Malwa in 1741 A.D. It was due to this partiality of Jaysing towards the Marathas that Sadat Khan gained the confidence of the Emperor in 1735 A.D(34) . This common factor of Hindu religion between the Rajputs and the Marathas was known even to the Emperor. He feared that if Jaysing were displeased, he, being a Hindu, would join Bajirao(35) .
Hence it is incorrect to say that the Rajputs always kept themselves aloof.
The friendship lasted only as long as Baji Rao I was at the helm and we had rulers like Jai Singh and Ajit Singh on the other side who were religious, by the time of Panipat the Marathas alienated them, even the Jats did not like the Marathas but cooperated only because of the common religious factor binding them and also because they themselves did not want Abdali to establish another Muslim empire in India.
It was Surajmal who later gave shelter to many Maratha survivors and spent money from his own pocket to rehabilitate and feed them and he had no need of doing so since he had no political advantage except a big hole in his pocket.
The idea that the British needed to tell us that we had something in common is not true as the letters of Sawai Jai Singh and other rulers show us, they were all aware of what we had in common, if we say that the British united us then that still wouldn't be really true because even during the independence movement Muslims always stayed aloof from the freedom movement with some exceptions.
The only thing that the British did was to give us the idea of political unity and also united many Hindus in a bid to push the British out, the idea of commonality was already there among Hindus before the British came but we only managed to unite more stronger than ever against the British.
[right][snapback]60944[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dont believe that a India without Muslims is possible, you cannot ignore some 15 Cr. population just like that. I don't believe that India can progress ahead to become a superpower if only one or a few caste, creed, religion or ethnic group progresses with the others remaining behind. Sawai Jai Singh shared a sense of being Hindu with the Marathas, that is different from being an Indian. <b>Did he share a sense of commonality with any Mussalman of those times. </b>Now maybe these are different perspectives in which we view things. Is being Hindu alone fully define being Indian, which would mean other religions count for nothing. Anyways this is a wholly different debate.
The contention was whether Rajputs, Sikhs, Jats, Marathas had conciousness of a shared commonality before the Britishers. Now one way of analysis is to <b>remove the British out of the picture. Lets say British or any other foreign power were not to reach India or influence India, what would have happened. Just imagine the India post 1761.</b> The disaster at Panipat was brought on themselves by the Marathas by their wrong approach, it had nothing got to do with British, except maybe partly because of Bhau's reliance on European trained infantry which was successful in its own right, but could not coordinate well with the Maratha Light Cavalry. But it was the Peshwa Balaji Baji Rao only who chose Bhau above Raghunathrao to lead this campaign. I believe Raghunathrao would have been a better choice with his experience of the north.
In post 1761 India, without influence of any colonial powers, we still would have witnessed growing animosity between Marathas and Rajputs. Marathas anyways were antagonistic towards Hyder Ali and they would have continued to do so. Then there was Nizam who was largely ineffectual against both Hyder and Marathas but still controlled a large territory. Other power centres would have been Bengal, Awadh, Rohilkhand, all under Muslim rulers. Just imagine this situation sir. In brief it is thus, <b>lots of Mughal autonomous provinces under Muslim heads, some dominant Hindu ethnic communities such as Sikhs, jats, Rajputs and Marathas and otherwise lots of small and big principalities spread across the country</b>. Only one, i.e. Marathas seemed to have some superior power and an inherent "nationalistic" drive or fervour which pushes them to expand outwards. The others like Rajputs, Jats etc. were only concerned protect their own turf. Please don't even attempt to compare the Rajputs of eighteenth century with those of the Sultanate period. That drive simply wasn't there. Sawai Jai Singh may have been an astute statesman, but he was an exception than the rule. Maybe without the British on the scene, the Sikhs may have become a powerful force as they did a few years later, but then they would have come in conflict with the Marathas. And maybe if that were the scenario a historian today would comment on animosity between Sikhs and Hindus.
Now in this situation only two scenarios are possible. The Marathas would have gained the upper hand and gained control over large parts of India or they would have faced setbacks from other powers and India would have remained decentralized. Even if the Marathas gained the upper hand, considering the way they handled conquered provinces, you would agree that it seems unimaginable that they would have been able to govern them properly. Can you imagine India wide railroads, common postal system, telegraphy, common civil service comign in place within another 100-120 years in this kind of background. We all know the kind of devastation wrought by incessant campaigning by warring states. Maybe both Marathas and Sikhs would have arranged for more intensive foreign training for their army, spent more on arming themselves, and spent time warring each other.
Even if the Britishers came only in the nineteenth century, they would have managed to gain political control over India, because of the way we were fragmented. It is necessary to understand the military economy of these times. To give an e.g. why were the British with around 7000 troops able to vanquish a superior armed, well trained (after European fashion) Maratha army of 40000 at Assaye. Also on the positive side why the Sikhs were able to keep the British at bay for long. It has nothing got to do with the valour of Marathas or Sikhs, but the way they were organized and officered. The point is British came in with a system, not just arms, ammunition, drill and discipline and it is that system which defeated us. But then after defeating us, they put in railroads, telegraphy, roadways, civil service, education system so that they can get the most from their conquered territories. But these also served to bring about a political unity and without that political unity, national spirit would not have emerged. This is what I have tried to establish, that consolidation helps to bring about development and the emergence of a modern state. Without the British, the present modern Indian state is impossible to imagine. I believe our colonial period was that tough period, but after going through which we emerged stronger. Don't we have the saying, "Sona tapke kundan banta hai".