In standard Indian historiography, the death of Aurangzeb in 1707, is generally considered as the beginning of the period of Moden India. This does not mean that modernity suddenly emerged in India when Aurangzeb died, rather to suggest that it was an important even a watershed in Indian history.
What can be the reasons for 1707 to be considered as the beginning of Modern India? Was it that significant an event. I feel we need to look deeper. What essentially is modernity. When does a society evolve to become Modern. Take Japan's case, its watershed is considered to be 1853, when the US Admiral Perry did a blockade of Japan forcing it to open its economy for trading with other nations. This had far reaching consequences for the political and social set up of Japan. It was the trigger which displaced the Samurai elite with their feudal medieval set up and ushered industrialization of Japan. Just about 50 years later, in 1905 Japan's navy was strong enough to defeat a European power like Russia.
Is 1707 that significant a date in Indian history. Medievalism did not die out with Aurangzeb, rather I believe it lasted more than a century after that.
In 1818 the British conclusively defeated the Marathas and thus the last of the Indian powers outside of its rule. Should 1818 be considered the important date. But Maratha power was majorly destroyed in the Battle of Assaye in 1803, when Scindia and Bhosle's forces were defeated by the British. For that matter should 1857 be considered that date, as that conclusively showed that feudal India was no match to imperialistic Britian, but an India with national consciousness was a serious threat. Please compare, in 1857 was India any more modern than say China or Japan. Yes telegraphy and railways had just been introduced, but that had not seeped into the society or become part of life. the life of an average Indian was hardly different from an average Chinese or Japanese, maybe more the poorer due to British oppression.
I would not like to say anymore, as I feel this is a discussion point where more can contribute.
Regards,
Kartik
Kartik,
Could you define "Modern" ?
kartik, There is a huge difference between modern and Modern. The latter is a term used to depict a philosophy of Modernism which is an outgrowth of the Reformation-> Enlightenment-> French Revolution->Positivism->Modernism.
I think you are interested in the begining of the modern or recent history of India.
I don't know what exactly the "Modernism" philosophy refers to.
As ramana pointed out, I'm more interested in period of Indian history which is described as modern i.e. the one which begins after the end of medieval India.
Sorry to be such a pain, but what is medieval period as it concerns India? Same time as Medieval Europe? or some other benchmark that determines this zone? medieval and modern. What event/string of events should one consider to have happened to say India passed into modern era?
Ram, thats what is the point of this debate, which event or string of events shall we consider as inidcator of emergence of modern era in the history of India, so to speak the turning points.
Which period is Medieval??
Well to reply to this, lets look at what happened when various nations entered their modern eras. Mostly this was in the 19th century. I equate medieval with feudal, the economy was based on agriculature and the entire feudal polity was based on the predominance of agriculture and its link with the military. The mansabdari system introduced by Akbar was a classic way to cope with this system. Modern era in most nations was ushered in by Industialization, where the economy shifted from agriculture based to industrial and manufacturing based. This gradually weakened the feudal links and loyalties.
I personally feel, that 1857 is the death throes of feudalism in India. Such a shakeout was essential so that India became modern. Anyway this is the point of debate. I hope Ram, I have answered your question.
Standard history states:
Ancient Medieval (300 BC to 1200 AD, i.e. beginning of Sultanate)
Medieval (1200 to 1707 AD, death of Aurangzeb)
11-15-2006, 11:58 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-16-2006, 12:00 AM by ramana.)
Now that kartik has clarified, the end of the medieval age in India is what he is interested in. Furthermore the timelines do not match for India and the World. IOW, the end of the medieval age in India is not at the same time in England or Western Europe. Nor does it signify an end of a certain type of rule like end of feudalism.
Another twist vis a vis India is that in the British Colonial period, the history of India was divided into Ancient, Pre-Islamic, Muslim and British period. However the post Independence historians started giving new names to the periods- Ancient, Pre-Medieval, Medieval and Modern periods which are name changes.
So kartik you are interested in when the Colonial period began. As all periods it has precursors dating back to 1498 discovery of sea route to India by Gama and really starts from the Maratta defeat at Assaye in 1803 whcihc is turning point. Then you have the Anglo-Sikh wars which gave them absolute control over India.
In my view I think the consolidation of land reforms under Lord Cornwallis in the late 1780s is the real start of the Modern period for it firmed up British rule and led to the chain of events that we are the product of.
11-16-2006, 12:11 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-16-2006, 12:32 AM by acharya.)
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Nov 15 2006, 05:41 AM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Nov 15 2006, 05:41 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't know what exactly the "Modernism" philosophy refers to.
As ramana pointed out, I'm more interested in period of Indian history which is described as modern i.e. the one which begins after the end of medieval India.
[right][snapback]60855[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism
This is Modernism philosophy.
Modern history period refers to the period when the european history was considered modern. This link to the eurocentric history is very important since India was a colonial country during the modern period of the European history. Even if large parts of India was still rural and premodern the history of modern India got linked to the European history.
Is this the correct way to do it.
May not be. According to me it is not correct.
Modern India should include - land reforms and industrialization and non colonial India. Other wise it is not modern India.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Standard history states:<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What do you mean by "Standard history"?
Is it Macualy version or Irfan Habib or Romila Thappar or history of India which yet to be written based on actual history of India?
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Nov 15 2006, 11:52 PM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Nov 15 2006, 11:52 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> I equate medieval with feudal, the economy was based on agriculature and the entire feudal polity was based on the predominance of agriculture and its link with the military. The mansabdari system introduced by Akbar was a classic way to cope with this system. [right][snapback]60857[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
mansabdari system too was started with strong ties to imperial armies to get a buyin and loyalty of the able bodies - labor and conscripts. There are strong ties to military too. In other words, this sytem demands servility to the king. how is it better than zamindari system?
Speaking of "events", should we not see which events benefitted whom, in what terms, the most and see if it is truly a watershed event? In my mind, the "modern" period evokes certain response, and that is, the "modern" was good for large segments of the society in India, some how, some where. What could be such a event(s), be it modern or medieval or present? See, why I am so confused... <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"mansabdari system too was started with strong ties to imperial armies to get a buyin and loyalty of the able bodies - labor and conscripts. There are strong ties to military too. In other words, this sytem demands servility to the king. how is it better than zamindari system?"<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The zamindari system was introduced by Britishers mainly for tax farming. It was exploited by the zamindars and corrupt British administrators, which resulted in the impoverishment of the farmers especially in Bengal, Orissa (mainly during the Company rule) and causing widespread famines. It destroyed a very vibrant economy to serve British capitalist interests.
The mansabdari system in contrast was very different in its aims. It was actually an extension of an initiative started by Sher Shah Suri in his brief rule. In India of those times, almost every adult male could wield a sword or musket and was always a part time soldier even if he may be a farmer or artisan otherwise. By late 1500, musket was affordable to the common Indian, in fact musket was far cheaper than a horse. India was thus a very militarized society. In such a circumstance the mughals found it very difficult to collect taxes as everywhere they encountered armed resistance (that was the funny thing about gunpowder, in 1400s and early 1500s it helped to centralise the governance, but by late 1500s and 1600s it was the reason was widespread decentralization resulting in near anarchy in 1700s). Mansabdari tried to asssimilate the armed populace into the system, so as to make the state governable. But it is medieval because it was in response to a feudal medieval society.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Speaking of "events", should we not see which events benefitted whom, in what terms, the most and see if it is truly a watershed event? In my mind, the "modern" period evokes certain response, and that is, the "modern" was good for large segments of the society in India, some how, some where. What could be such a event(s), be it modern or medieval or present? See, why I am so confused... <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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. Throughout history we have seen that whenever there is a consolidation of power, the economy progresses, life standard of people improves, there is progess on every front, be it arts or science and establishment of a civilization. Over the past 200 years emergence of national consciousness in various parts of the world is what made modern nations. Though nationalism also has its negative consequences, because nations can harness better resources of war as they can for econmic progress and hence even single battles in World War I or II were far more bloody and devastating than entire campaigns in the 19th century.
If nationalism has negative consequences, that is only because of its "exclusive" nature and/or interpretations in application/implemetnation of this "consciousness". National identity or consciousness on its own, will not do it. will it? Or as you say it, it but inevitable. The question wil be - was it natural or manufactured. If latter, who did it for what purpose etc (but that is another thread)
Also, what bound people together before the eurpean version of nationalism (tied to european history and experience in developed nations) and modernity set in, was "Dharma" or something of that nature which was all "inclusive".
Let's humor ourselves, and go with this for now, now how do we draw and dilineate epochs, events and define what modern is and not? What exactly is nationalism in a developing nation? Btw..
<!--QuoteBegin-k.ram+Nov 16 2006, 10:08 PM-->QUOTE(k.ram @ Nov 16 2006, 10:08 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->If nationalism has negative consequences, that is only because of its "exclusive" nature and/or interpretations in application/implemetnation of this "consciousness". National identity or consciousness on its own, will not do it. will it? Or as you say it, it but inevitable. The question wil be - was it natural or manufactured. If latter, who did it for what purpose etc (but that is another thread)
Also, what bound people together before the eurpean version of nationalism (tied to european history and experience in developed nations) and modernity set in, was "Dharma" or something of that nature which was all "inclusive".
Let's humor ourselves, and go with this for now, now how do we draw and dilineate epochs, events and define what modern is and not? What exactly is nationalism in a developing nation? Btw..
[right][snapback]60890[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You ask a lot of questions assuming I have the answers, well I'm not a history professor just an ordinary guy interested in history. I don't really get the term "nationalism in a developing nation". According to my logic, which I have put across earlier, consolidation of power in a region helps to improve the economy by reducing the threat of anarchy and war. Imperialism is one way to bring about this consolidation and we saw the same over various epochs of Indian history like Maurya, Gupta, partially during Harsha's time, then during Mughal rule under Akbar. You see progress in many spheres of human activity durign these times unless a monarchy has some dogmatism against this for e.g. Chinese imperial set up destroyed their own naval power just at the turn of the 15th century.
During the nineteenth century a slightly newer way of bringing about this consolidation came about through emerging consciousness among disparate states in various potential nation states be it Italy, Germany or India. In these countries particularly, nationalism helped beget a consolidation of power which put them on the road to development. In India, though we may rightly curse the British for a hundred odd reasons, we do need to thank them in their contribution to Indian nationalism.
A little earlier countries like Britian, Spain became modern due to them already being consolidated due to imperial initiatives. France is an example where people united together to overthrow monarchy, but still it brought about a unity, which is consolidaiton. Japan was already a "consolidated" state due to uninterrupted dominance of the Samurais for over two centuries, hence when that Perry shock came about in 1853, it didnt take it long to go on the path to development.
Thus in various countries different forms of consolidation be it imperialism or nationalism or a mixture of this to varying degrees helped to industrialize and develop. So I believe nationalism or some other form of consolidation makes a developing nation. Hence I cannot agree with your contention that development bring about nationalism. And nationalism whether it be of european origin or not was the dominant and successful form of consolidation in our era for a modern state to get established. I believe the Indian nation is quite unlike any of the European nations.
kartiksri, do ignore my sloppy way of framing it, am/was just thinking aloud in this discussion. I have the habit of just laying things out there in a discussion where there are no obvious settled convictions, but thoughts, and formulations, and speculations.
<!--QuoteBegin-->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.
<!--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.
11-17-2006, 08:34 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-17-2006, 08:39 PM by Bharatvarsh.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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. <!--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.
After the defeat the death of Giridhar Bahadur at the hands of Chimaji Appa, Sawai Jaysing congratulated Nandlal Mandloi (30) thus, "You have defended our religion in Malwa and crushed the Muhammedans(31) , establishing Dharma. You have fulfilled my desire." He was ambitious no doubt but he was religious minded as well. And hence his ambition could not carry him to extreme limit in opposing the Marathas for the possession of Malwa, so as to join hands with the Turani party. He would have certainly liked to retain Malwa for himself to fulfill his cherished dream of the expansion of his kingdom. And he did all efforts to achieve it. But he was sufficiently religious minded to see that in the acquisition of Malwa by the Marathas he was leaving that province to another Hindu power that was nothing but friendly to him. It is a well-known fact that he was the well wisher and supporter of Bajirao till the death of the latter.
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) .
http://maratharajputrelations.com/1fp.html<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Your Highness must be aware of the cordial ties that existed among our elders. I hope, by the kindness of Shri Ramji, the ties between us shall grow still closer. Shah Alam, after becoming the Emperor, resumed my watan, and called Maharaja Ajit Singh to the Court assuring him that Jodhpur would be restored to him, but did not do so. This news must have reached Your Highness. I, on my part, spared no effort, to serve the Patshah, but he harbors malice towards the Hindus, and on one pretext or another wants to ruin them. For this reason, and as it was considered necessary, we broke off from the Emperor and came to Rana Amar Singh at Udaipur, an after (full) deliberations decided that if the Patshah even now becomes favourable towards the Hindus and restores mansabs and watans, as had been enjoyed by their ancestors, then it is all right, otherwise the Hindus will also do what they can. So far we have expelled the faujdars and qiledars from Amber and Jodhpur, and have established our control there, and shall now be leaving for Amber. Ranaji will also join (us) on Dashera (there). Your Highness is the Sardar of the Deccan. The honour of all the Hindus is one and the same. Hence, you take such measures that just as by entangling Patshah Alamgir in the Deccan, the honour of Hindustan was upheld, in the same manner this Patshah too should not be able to extricate himself from there. Earlier, Your Highness servants had accompalished this much, but now you yourself are there. Kam Baksh is also in Bijapur, Haidarabad. In alliance and in consultation with him, you will no doubt do what you think is proper, so that the Hindus have an upper hand in this conflict. What more I write".
http://maratharajputrelations.com/intro2.html<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In his letter dated October 16, 1708 to Chhatrasal(91) , Jai Singh wrote that the trouble started when the Emperor, while granting them mansabs, incorporate the parganas of their watans into khalisa. "Your Highness knows well as to how one can live without a watan and what is (the importance) of a mansab without the watan. Informing Chhatrsal about the Rajput victory at Sambhar in which three thousand of the enemies were killed, and expressing his confidence that similar victories would be gained by them in future also, he wrote, "If Sardars like Your Highness gird up their loins, then the honour of Hindustan would no doubt be maintained. Other zamindars, mansabdars and the Rajas of the intervening region have already united and have removed the thanas of the Turks from their territories. Shri Ranaji too must have written to Your Highness (to do so). You will please join us early for the sake of the honour of th entire Hindu race. As we all Hindus hae common ties, you will not delay in coming towards this side." He asked Chhatrasal to send the names of the prominent zamindars of the east whom they might contract and requested him to write letters to all such chiefs with whom he had intimate contracts. "This is no longer as issue which concerns any one person; now it concerns all the Hindu (rulers) ", he concluded.
http://maratharajputrelations.com/intro2.html<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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.
<!--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".
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I dont believe that a India without Muslims is possible, you cannot ignore some 15 Cr. population just like that.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why not, when Pakistan without Hindus are possible. After partition Hindus population in Pakistan was 15%, now it is less than 1%. They had done it.
Why in India they had grown from 10% to 13 %? In India they are involved in terrorism and anti-India activity. Have you heard remaining Hindus of Pakistan after partition in Pakistan were ever involved in terrorism or anti-Pakistan activity.
Have you ever heard Pakistani Hindus burning women and children in trains?
But you can hear them doing in India.
If Jammu and Kashmir with Pandits are possible, why not?
Why ever ethnic cleansing by Muslim is acceptable and no eye brows raised?
Why Indians are more concerned about Muslims sentiments not Hindu sentiments whether itâs in Assam or Jammu Kashmir or Kerala or UP?
Why Hindu population in BanglaDesh is decreasing? See they are making it possible in front of your eyes.
|
