07-21-2007, 11:41 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Hauma Hamiddha+Jul 21 2007, 02:16 AM-->QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Jul 21 2007, 02:16 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->No hauma. This is not true. Yes Khilji fought many wars and won many but he lost lot more also. His losses are not discussed at all and he is presented as someone who never lost a war. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Digvijay- what is the point you are trying to make? In you eagerness to press a point you seem not to read my words. Was I even saying that Khalji never lost a war?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hauma,
I am negating the following point.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hauma Hamiddha+-->QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Alla-ad-din Khalji had blown through India and flattened the Hindus
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hindus were not flattened. They were not afraid of Khilji and beat him multiple times. The impression I got from your statement (though you may not have meant it) that Khilji was some great millitary general who Hindus could not resist which we know is not correct.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hauma Hamiddha+Jul 21 2007, 02:16 AM-->QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Jul 21 2007, 02:16 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Ala-ud-din was also quite realistic when he mentioned that his order would be obeyed only upto a distance of about 100 miles from Delhi; beyond that limit military intervention was required if he wanted to impose his will on the people.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is fine, but do you deny the fact his armies had ravaged much of India? That is the point to note.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes wars were fought, won and lost. But the key question is who controlled the territory? Take the example of chittor. Chittor was the palace and the defacto city of medieveal times. They were able to take it and renamed it Khijarabad (Khijar khan was Khilji's son) and Khijar was appointed the governor. Soon khijar found it extremely difficult to live in Chittor. There were daily raids on caravans coming in and out by rajputs. Khilji got very alarmed and knew his son would be killed and recalled him. Then he appointed a rajput to look after chittor, because a rajput had a higher probability of surviving. Soon even this fellow, Maldev, was defeated and chittor won back.
So after winning chittor, the territory ruled by Khilji was just till the walls of chittor, not a great achievement.
Rest of the land was ruled by rajputs and they did not consider khiji anything. Just someone whom they had to beat to regain there ancestral land.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hauma Hamiddha+Jul 21 2007, 02:16 AM-->QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Jul 21 2007, 02:16 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Again not true. Even when Khilji was in his prime he lost at Chittor, Jalore, Siwana, Ranathambore and other places.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again Digvijay what are you trying to negate? I tend to be careful with my words. You seem to be really eager to bring home point which others may not even be trying to dispute or even present in the first place. Was I even trying to discuss the resistance to Khalji ? And would you deny the fact there were Moslem governors appointed by Khalji in numerous places where Hindu kings ruled before that. Did Hindus successfully stop the rampage of Khalji through India despite defeating him in various battles?
[right][snapback]71393[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am negating following two statements:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Jul 20 2007, 12:05 PM)
one of the first Hindu fight-backs began ............ In the North, in the 1400s a significant figure in rolling back the horrors of Islam was the great Rana Kumbha of Mewar.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The fight backs by Hindus were constant and started as soon as they lost any war.
Secondly Chittor was retaken much before the time of Kumbha. Rajputs were raiding places as far as banaras to free it from the mllechas.
My point is that our history as presented in books is so one sided (since it reflects what is written by court historians of muslims) that impression that exists about the hindus are very wrong.
I know by reading your various posts that you personally do not subscribe to such histories.
-Digvijay
Digvijay- what is the point you are trying to make? In you eagerness to press a point you seem not to read my words. Was I even saying that Khalji never lost a war?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hauma,
I am negating the following point.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hauma Hamiddha+-->QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Alla-ad-din Khalji had blown through India and flattened the Hindus
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hindus were not flattened. They were not afraid of Khilji and beat him multiple times. The impression I got from your statement (though you may not have meant it) that Khilji was some great millitary general who Hindus could not resist which we know is not correct.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hauma Hamiddha+Jul 21 2007, 02:16 AM-->QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Jul 21 2007, 02:16 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Ala-ud-din was also quite realistic when he mentioned that his order would be obeyed only upto a distance of about 100 miles from Delhi; beyond that limit military intervention was required if he wanted to impose his will on the people.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is fine, but do you deny the fact his armies had ravaged much of India? That is the point to note.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes wars were fought, won and lost. But the key question is who controlled the territory? Take the example of chittor. Chittor was the palace and the defacto city of medieveal times. They were able to take it and renamed it Khijarabad (Khijar khan was Khilji's son) and Khijar was appointed the governor. Soon khijar found it extremely difficult to live in Chittor. There were daily raids on caravans coming in and out by rajputs. Khilji got very alarmed and knew his son would be killed and recalled him. Then he appointed a rajput to look after chittor, because a rajput had a higher probability of surviving. Soon even this fellow, Maldev, was defeated and chittor won back.
So after winning chittor, the territory ruled by Khilji was just till the walls of chittor, not a great achievement.
Rest of the land was ruled by rajputs and they did not consider khiji anything. Just someone whom they had to beat to regain there ancestral land.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hauma Hamiddha+Jul 21 2007, 02:16 AM-->QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Jul 21 2007, 02:16 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Again not true. Even when Khilji was in his prime he lost at Chittor, Jalore, Siwana, Ranathambore and other places.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again Digvijay what are you trying to negate? I tend to be careful with my words. You seem to be really eager to bring home point which others may not even be trying to dispute or even present in the first place. Was I even trying to discuss the resistance to Khalji ? And would you deny the fact there were Moslem governors appointed by Khalji in numerous places where Hindu kings ruled before that. Did Hindus successfully stop the rampage of Khalji through India despite defeating him in various battles?
[right][snapback]71393[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am negating following two statements:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Jul 20 2007, 12:05 PM)
one of the first Hindu fight-backs began ............ In the North, in the 1400s a significant figure in rolling back the horrors of Islam was the great Rana Kumbha of Mewar.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The fight backs by Hindus were constant and started as soon as they lost any war.
Secondly Chittor was retaken much before the time of Kumbha. Rajputs were raiding places as far as banaras to free it from the mllechas.
My point is that our history as presented in books is so one sided (since it reflects what is written by court historians of muslims) that impression that exists about the hindus are very wrong.
I know by reading your various posts that you personally do not subscribe to such histories.
-Digvijay