Jat History

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+Aug 25 2006, 01:28 AM-->QUOTE(digvijay @ Aug 25 2006, 01:28 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Ravi Chaudhary+Aug 25 2006, 12:06 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ravi Chaudhary @ Aug 25 2006, 12:06 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Poster Dingvijay has referred to Rana sanga and the " memoirs of Babur" the baburnama


3)  Perhaps I have missed it but nowhere  can I see is the term 'rajput' used to describe him! He is descibed as Pagan.


Ravi Chaudhary
[right][snapback]56166[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

http://persian.packhum.org/persian/pf?fi...1052&ct=34

"The Rajput Princes, from Mewat to Udaipur, had joined in a confederacy, of which Rana Sanka, the Prince of Udaipur, was at the head."

-Digvijay
[right][snapback]56180[/snapback][/right]

<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


*****************
Viren,

I will reply to your post separately.

I agree some guidlines are required. I am perfectly happy to follow group guidelines.
I must confess the need for some clarity.


Now, This is the kind of post I object to:

Poster Digvijay is quoting from a commentary, by a later British author, translator, in 1813, and not from the original text.

The original text has to agree with what he wishes to say.

The original text , and I have give the extract as best as I could, do not give the caste of the members of the confedracy of ' Rana sanga'

Accuracy is important in the study of History, otherwise we have just have propaganda!

Now If I missed seeing the term Rajput in the original text , I will be happy to stand corrected.


Digvijay's post is from:

http://persian.packhum.org/persian/pf?fi...1052&ct=34

SUPPLEMENT
CONTAINING
AN ABRIDGED VIEW OF BĀBUR’S TRANSACTIONS
FROM A.H. 926 TO A.H. 932.


the above is from the table of contents below:

Supplement Containing an Abridged View of Bābur’s Transactions from A.H. 926 to A.H. 932 147

http://persian.packhum.org/persian/pf?fi...01052&ct=0


CONTENTS TO VOL. II
PAGE
TITLE
THE MEMOIRS OF BĀBUR 1
Events of the Year A.H. 912 1
Events of the Year 913 36
Events of the Year 914 60
Supplement Containing an Abridged Account of Bābur’s Transactions from the Beginning of A.H. 914 to the Beginning of A.H. 925 62
Events of the Year 925 79
The Occurrences of 926 141
Supplement Containing an Abridged View of Bābur’s Transactions from A.H. 926 to A.H. 932 147
Events of the Year 932 155
Events of the Year 933 262
The Firmān of Zehīreddīn Muhammed Bābur 281
The Firmān of Zehīreddīn Muhammed Bābur Ghāzi (Victorious over the Heathen) 289
Events of the Year 934 318
Events of the Year 935 333
Copy of the Letter sent to Humāiūn 351
Transactions of the Year 936 420
Concluding Supplement to Bābur’s Memoirs 421
APPENDICES
A. An Account of Bābur’s deliverance from im­minent danger at Kirmān 433
B. Hindāl’s adoption 435
C. A plain account of the battle of Kānwāha 436
D. An account of Humāyūn’s illness and of Bābur’s self-devotion 440
E. Biographies of Erskine and Leyden 443
INDEX 449
MAP

Unfortunately, and this perhaps is the critical point I am trying to make:

When these inaccuracies enter our history text books, they get compounded over time,and correcting them is a real nuisance and an uphill task.


We have a similar problem with Mahmnud of Ghazni's supposed 17th expedition, which is in all our history books, except that it probably never occured in the original texts, no such expedition is mentionedby his official Court historian, but another Muslim Chronicler does mention it in a manuscript which is dated 500 years after the event.
(on a lighter note - I would have provided the link, but until we have some agreed guidlines, I will not do so)

Our Indian historians do tend to take the weaker story as gospel truth, but ignore the primary original evidence.

Please forgive the digression.

Ravi Chaudhary