08-25-2006, 08:54 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Aug 25 2006, 05:54 AM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Aug 25 2006, 05:54 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->To add to Bharatvarsh's point, also look at the Sanga-Babur war from the Babar's point of view. 1) Babur does mention the fight against Sanga as Jihad against the hindus - so what if there were some muslims on the side of Rana Sanga for political reasons. 2) Were there any Hindus fighting on the side of Babur?
Also don't forget to take into consideration Guru Nanak's first hand account of Babur's invasion as recorded in Babarvani section of Sri Guru Grantha - particularly how Babar treated the people captured and cities that befell.
By the way is "bAbar" derived from "Barbar"? What does Babar otherwise mean in Turkish/Percian? also "Humayun"?
[right][snapback]56190[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most muslim historians and this includes Babur would never portray the truth accurately if it made them or there masters (if a court historian was writing) look bad.
Let us look at the events:
a) When Rana Sanga came with his force he camped at Biana near Kanhua.
b) Babur sent an advanced guard of about 1500 choice cavalry which was decimated by
Sanga's rajputs.
c) After this for next two weeks there was no fighting as Babur's troops were demoralized because some of his best cavalry were no match for the rajputs.
d) In these two weeks negotitations for Babur's surrender were going on and Babur agreed to pay a tribute to the Maharana and it was also decided that Peela Khal would be the border between Sanga's domain and Babur.
e) The person that Sanga had sent to negotiate was Silhadi who was one of the seniormost general in Sanga's army.
f) This general was won over by Babur with a promise of an independent kingdom (which he did get at Raisen and this fellow died fighting Sher Shah Suri).
g) Once Babur won this general Silhadi, he had Silhadi inform Sanga that babur is interested in fighting.
h) When the attack commenced Babur's right wing was being thrashed and at this juncture Silhadi who led the herole i.e the vanguard (the most important piece of the formation is herole or van because this force delievers the knock out punch) just left the field and this tilted the war in favor of babur.
Now let us look at the koran angle. In koran battle of Badr that Muhammad fought is described. It is depicted in this battle that a handful of soldiers of muhammad's army defeated a much larger army(which was actually untrue as both armies were well matched). This became the main propaganda weapon for muslims to attract there kin for jihaad. Every battle they fought is described as if the opposing army had 10 times more men then the muslim army and the muslims still won(supposedly because they are doing jihaad)!
In the context of Rana Sanga the day was lost because of treachery. Both armies had almost the same strength.
Afghan Lodi had just lost at Panipat and some of his clansmen did come over to fight alongside the Maharana but there strength was miniscule as compared to the rajputs.
Our modern historians, this includes the JNU crowd, look at the presence of a few muslims in rajput armies and start chiming that Hindus were not fighting to save there religion. This is purely absurd. From the time of Ghazni and even before perhaps all Hindus especially the kings knew that muslims converted Hindus on the edge of the sword, broke Hindu temples and treated captured Hindus with contempt by making them slaves . This behavior led to extraordinary customs in rajputana, that of jauhar and Saka.
http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Jauhar
So if someone is delusional that these fights by rajputs were not to save there religion then they better do some more analysis.
-Digvijay
Also don't forget to take into consideration Guru Nanak's first hand account of Babur's invasion as recorded in Babarvani section of Sri Guru Grantha - particularly how Babar treated the people captured and cities that befell.
By the way is "bAbar" derived from "Barbar"? What does Babar otherwise mean in Turkish/Percian? also "Humayun"?
[right][snapback]56190[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most muslim historians and this includes Babur would never portray the truth accurately if it made them or there masters (if a court historian was writing) look bad.
Let us look at the events:
a) When Rana Sanga came with his force he camped at Biana near Kanhua.
b) Babur sent an advanced guard of about 1500 choice cavalry which was decimated by
Sanga's rajputs.
c) After this for next two weeks there was no fighting as Babur's troops were demoralized because some of his best cavalry were no match for the rajputs.
d) In these two weeks negotitations for Babur's surrender were going on and Babur agreed to pay a tribute to the Maharana and it was also decided that Peela Khal would be the border between Sanga's domain and Babur.
e) The person that Sanga had sent to negotiate was Silhadi who was one of the seniormost general in Sanga's army.
f) This general was won over by Babur with a promise of an independent kingdom (which he did get at Raisen and this fellow died fighting Sher Shah Suri).
g) Once Babur won this general Silhadi, he had Silhadi inform Sanga that babur is interested in fighting.
h) When the attack commenced Babur's right wing was being thrashed and at this juncture Silhadi who led the herole i.e the vanguard (the most important piece of the formation is herole or van because this force delievers the knock out punch) just left the field and this tilted the war in favor of babur.
Now let us look at the koran angle. In koran battle of Badr that Muhammad fought is described. It is depicted in this battle that a handful of soldiers of muhammad's army defeated a much larger army(which was actually untrue as both armies were well matched). This became the main propaganda weapon for muslims to attract there kin for jihaad. Every battle they fought is described as if the opposing army had 10 times more men then the muslim army and the muslims still won(supposedly because they are doing jihaad)!
In the context of Rana Sanga the day was lost because of treachery. Both armies had almost the same strength.
Afghan Lodi had just lost at Panipat and some of his clansmen did come over to fight alongside the Maharana but there strength was miniscule as compared to the rajputs.
Our modern historians, this includes the JNU crowd, look at the presence of a few muslims in rajput armies and start chiming that Hindus were not fighting to save there religion. This is purely absurd. From the time of Ghazni and even before perhaps all Hindus especially the kings knew that muslims converted Hindus on the edge of the sword, broke Hindu temples and treated captured Hindus with contempt by making them slaves . This behavior led to extraordinary customs in rajputana, that of jauhar and Saka.
http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Jauhar
So if someone is delusional that these fights by rajputs were not to save there religion then they better do some more analysis.
-Digvijay