Medieval History

07-08-2007, 04:18 PM

QUOTE(ramana @ Jul 5 2007, 11:13 PM)India- Mughals, Sikhs and Europeans

A history of Medieval India

AND

India from 500 to 1200-Dawn of Islam
[right][snapback]70846[/snapback][/right]


The following is from the article India from 500 to 1200-Dawn of Islam

QUOTEAgriculture on the big estates remained inefficient, and a large part of the rest of agriculture in Hindu society was subsistence farming - farming without trade. There was no beef industry that was supplementing the diet of people as in Europe. In India the veneration of cattle was inimical to this kind of meat industry.

Enough surplus was produced by the great estates that some trade with foreigners flourished. Indians continued to export rice, other cereals, coconuts, spices, sugar, woods, dyes and precious stones, while importing perfumes, finished cloth including silk, wax, precious stones, gold, medicinal herbs, ceramics and metal wares. But much of this trade was handled by foreign merchants - mainly Muslims. Brahmins were much like the Confucians in their opposition to trade, the Brahmins making involvement in foreign trade, as well as farming and overseas travel, forbidden to their class. Generally, religious contemplation was esteemed while people with power had little interest in improving conditions for the merchant or in improving technology.

There was, however, an improvement in the making of cotton. Muslims introduced India to a new method of working cotton - the Carter's bow - an improvement over beating the cotton with switches. The spinning wheel also appeared and increased cotton production.

By the 13th century, many trade guilds were disappearing, and many trade connections were coming to a close. Trade within India had diminished as wealth was hoarded rather than invested - hoarded either by wealthy individuals or by religious establishments. And, with diminished trade, roads deteriorated. In towns were merchants with a spirit of enterprise. There was bustle and hard work, but in India a centralized government was not benefiting the middle class. Big landowners, princes and potentates, would remain most influential - a conservative influence as in Spain, Russia and eastern Europe in general. The landed wealthy in India would wield a conservative authoritarianism. India would remain as conservatively religious as Spain and eastern Europe, with taboos inhibiting modernization. Brahmin priests encouraged obscurantism among India's elite. Rodents and insects could not be killed and vast amount of foodstuffs were lost. Rules about handling refuse and excreta contributed to disease. The caste system choked initiative. And rather than send investments and soldiers abroad, India would be receiving them.

[right][snapback]70846[/snapback][/right]


The above explanations seem very simplistic. There is no evidence to suggest that merchant guilds were on decline. In fact even in this age we still find merchant guilds giving donations to temples and having their names prominently mentioned in inscriptions for e.g. the Ainuruvar (the 500) of Badami.

What does the article wish to convey, that since Indians did not eat beef they were malnourished???

"Trade being handled by mainly foreign merchants. And because Brahmins were Confucians???" Firstly Brahmins by this age were not necessarily only into priestly activities. Brahmins were bureaucrats, soldiers, farmers, even generals in army. Krishnadevaraya's Amuktamalyada gives a definite advice in favour of having Brahmins as your durganayakas or commanders of fort because they were not allied to any kinsmen and had no ethnic axe to grind. So also for many other communities. In 10th or 11th century we hear of a general of Kaivarta caste in Bengal. Chach, whose son Dahir succumbed to the Arabs in Sind had supplnated a Sudra dynasty in Sind. By the way Chach was a Brahmin. Though caste had become hereditary there was nothing definite against picking up your profession irrespective of caste.

Lastly there has been enough Brahmin bashing, but the truth of matter is that despite this Brahmin bashing (Some of which is well deserved), India remained largely Hindu while other religions like Zoroastrianism in Persia vanished against Muslim onslaught primarily because Hindusim was far stronger during these times due to a revival of the Bhakti cult, whether it be Saivism in Karnataka by Basaveshwara, or the Marathi saints like Dnaneshwar, or Ramanuja, Madhvacharya. All these great philosphers and saints gave lot of hope and faith to the masses through the way of Devotion, this despite "Brahmin" obscurantism. And men like Dnaneshwar, Ramanuja, Madhvacharya were Brahmins. While there is large hue and cry when Muslims are branded terrorists, becasue of the actions of few of their co-religionists, I dont understand why the same courtesy cannot be extended to the Brahmins.

About the ruling class not supporting trade, during this entire period (9th-13th c AD) there was a rapid acceleration in the setting up of temple towns in continuance with a startegy to build economy that had been continuing since 5th-6th c AD. During this period the Hoysalas and Kakatiyas who had succeeded the Chalukyas in Karnataka and Telengana respectively built the economy of these places by tank irrigations and setting up of temple towns. The town dedicated to Pampadevi that we know today as Hampi was set up by Hoysalas on the banks of Tungabhadra. The ruling class gave donations of areas to temples who developed those areas through tank irrigation and the revenues thus accrued helped in setting up a bustling temple town, which generated revenues for the kingdom through taxes and custom duties for trading. The very idea that the ruling class did nothing to develop trade is preposterous.

07-10-2007, 04:21 PM

QUOTE(kartiksri @ Jul 8 2007, 04:18 PM)

Lastly there has been enough Brahmin bashing, but the truth of matter is that despite this Brahmin bashing (Some of which is well deserved), India remained largely Hindu while other religions like Zoroastrianism in Persia vanished against Muslim onslaught primarily because Hindusim was far stronger during these times due to a revival of the Bhakti cult, whether it be Saivism in Karnataka by Basaveshwara, or the Marathi saints like Dnaneshwar, or Ramanuja, Madhvacharya.


No. This is just the marxist partyline where they talk about "inherent strength" of hinduism so they do not have to show Islam's misdeeds in India.

This is ofcourse utter bull. India remained largely hindu because in India people fought tooth and nail and did not let the muslims convert them to Islam.

When someone has a sword on there neck or the obligation to pay jiziya (not paying this tax meant your land was confiscated and you had only one choice out of the debt trap i.e to become muslim) strength of religion is bogus and irrelevant.

Persian/Arabia/iberia/spain/north africa lost wars with muslims and were converted rather quickly on the edge of the sword.

In India they met another edge of sword which kept muslims in check. This sword of India was represented by rajputs/marathas/sikhs and other kshatriyas through out the length and breadth of the country.

-Digvijay

**Hauma Hamiddha** · (This post was last modified: 07-15-2007, 08:02 PM by Hauma Hamiddha.)

Acharya --I got this story up again.

A while back in our youth we read the tale of Babek Khoremi's rebellion as narrated by the early American historian Curtin. While his narrative was entirely from the perspective of Mohammedan historians, we could see that there was something in the story that was of great historical significance. One historical lesson of importance to us was how the old Aryan religion of Iran was destroyed by the dreadful, barbarous delusion of Arabia. Most accounts, following Islamic sources, present the picture that with the fall of the Iranian ruler Yazdgird III to the blood-thirsty houri-crazed ghazis the Iranian resistance ended and Iran became an Islamic land. However, reality was different from this. We had earlier touched on some aspects of the great struggle in our note on Su-lu of the Tuergish. Understanding, this struggle is important for it helps to provide a comparative dataset for the struggle of our own people against the violent whirlwind of Mohammedanism blowing into jambudvIpa.

The Islamist ibn Hazm al Zaahiree narrates that after the fall of Iran to the Moslems, various Zoroastrian leaders tried their best to restore order by overthrowing the oppressive rule of Mohammedanism that was imposed on Iran. He names amongst these Sanbadh, Muqannah, Ostadsis and Babek as the chief, and exultantly declares that Allah denied them victory, instead making the jihadis triumphant. From what information one can gather about Babek, it is clear that he did not belong to the Iranian nobility or Dasturs. He was instead a shepherd the equivalent of the Iranian lower varNa-s, and his struggle was in effect similar that of the Reddis, Kammas and Kapus in Andhra. From most sources it is clear that he was originally a Zoroastrian and sought to restore the orthodox fire worship of Iranians. This is borne out by his alliance with the other brave Zoroastrian warrior, Mahizadyar who belonged to the Parthian royal (Kshatrapa) clan of the Aspahapet from the old Iranian province of Apartvaticene (near modern Yazd). It is also seen in Babek's support along with the former for restoring the Sassanian rule over Iran. However, later during his association with the Khoramdin-s ('the joyous cult'), the followers a Manichaeist-Mazdakist derivative with a proto-socialist bend, he presented a syncretic doctrine incorporating all these elements. Among the elements absorbed from the Khoramdin was the idea of reincarnation, perhaps acquired by them in turn from the Manichaeist precursors. His Khoramdin mentor claimed to reincarnate into Babek with their "souls" fusing together. Interestingly, Babek's followers wore red shirts very like modern socialists, a feature acquired from the Khoramdin. From what information we can gather it is clear the Babek and Mahizadyar had some clarity about the evil directly stemming from the ideology of Islam and sought to eradicate it.

-Babek was born in Azerbaijan in the second half of the decade of 790 CE. He was given the aiwyaongana as per orthodox Zoroastrian tradition.
-After his father's death he became the head of his house hold and earned a living as a shepherd/petty trader. It was then that he observed the dhimmification of the Iranians by the Moslem invaders and saw the systematic suppression of the old Iranian fire-worship.
-This incited him to organize a liberation movement to overthrow the Mohammedan occupiers.
-In course of his peregrinations he seems to have come in contact with the leader of the Khoramdin, Jaavidaan who was also fighting Arab oppression. Babek became close to him and rose to be be a commander of the liberation fighters under Jaavidaan in his early twenties.
-Soon there after Jaavidaan died, claiming to his supporters that his 'soul' had entered Babek and fused with his. Jaavidaan's his wife married Babek and brought the Khoramdin under Babek's banner -- he assumed the title Khoremi at this point (the joyous one).
-Babek formed an alliance with the Zoroastrian warriors under Mahizadyar the Parthian and vowed to restore the Sassanian regime, the Persian language (which was being displaced by Arabic) and overthrow the Arabs. Soon they rallied around them a large force of all the remaining Zoroastrian and Khoramdins. He also obtained the alliance of the Armenians, whose chief had been clubbed to death by the Moslems despite promises of safety.
-Around the age of 22 Babek launched his great campaign on the Mohammedans. The Arabs sent an army under Yahya ibn Mohammed to invade Iran and kill Babek and Mahizadyar. But Babek repeatedly worsted him in several battles and sent him fleeing to Iraq (819 CE).
-Babek captured many mountain strongholds built by the old Iranian rulers and fortified them further, including the legendary Qala-i-Babek in the Qaradag mountains.
-He began rolling back Islam after these victories and killing and driving out the Mullahs and Fuckihs. The infuriated Kalif sent the jihadi ibn Abu Khalid against the Iranians. Khalid quickly took Armenia and tried to encircle Babek. But Babek brilliantly lured ibn Abu Khalid with a diversionary force into the mountain defiles near the Qaradag range and killed him (821 CE).
-Next the Kalif sent ibn Junaid to kill Babek. But ibn Junaid was ambushed between the men of Mahizadyar and Babek and taken prisoner. He was ransomed for a large sum of money from the Arabs (824 CE).
-Then the Arab general Mohammed ibn Ummayad tried to take on Babek in 829 CE. He initially one some battles against the Iranians and for 6 months advanced deep into Iranian territory. Here he was ambushed by Babek, who out-maneuvered him to occupy a higher group and with his archers killed ibn Ummayad and his chief officers.
-Babek started inducing Islamic governors like ibn Haitham in Qom and Ispahan to give up Islam and join his cause. Utterly defeated the Kalif al Ma'mun gave up his attempts to suppress Babek temporarily. Before he could re-group he died in 833 CE, and on his deathbed asked his successor al Mostasim to prosecute the war against Babek to completion.
-In 834 a fierce fight between the Mohammedans and Iranians resulted in loses for the Iranians, but Babek made a clever diplomatic move by contacting the Byzantines to allow his men to flee into their territory to escape the Arab marauders.
-In 835 seeing the Iranians return from the Byzantines empire to strengthen Babek in his fight the Kalif sent for his greatest Turkish general Haider Afsin from Ushrusana to attack Babek. He created a special army with highest pay for this purpose. Babek demolished the defensive forts of the Arabs in Ardabil and Zanjan that allowed them to supply their army in Iran.
-The Kalif retaliated by sending the jihadi Abu Said ibn Yusuf to rebuild the forts. Babek sent an army to intercept Abu Said but the Arabs struck preemptively and killed several of Babek's men. Their skulls were sent to Baghdad as trophies and displayed on poles to strike terror.
-In late 835 Afsin's large army began a great war on Babek. Babek on the diplomatic front tried to get Theophilus, the Byzantine emperor, to attack the Arabs from the West at the border zone of Azerbaijan. He himself led his troops in several guerrilla strikes on Afsin's army. Afsin started using traps and spikes.
-Babek however continued to frustrate Afsin by repeatedly capturing his supply lines from Maragha and Yerevan.
-Finally Afsin besieged Babek in the fort of Baddh and forced his troops to starvation. In a fierce encounter that followed both sides lost heavily but Babek's army was almost annihilated. He fled to Armenia.
-But Afsin followed him and blockaded him. In starvation he sought help of the governor of Armenia who betrayed him to Afsin. In the subsequent battle the Moslems also captured Mahizadyar.
-They were sent to Baghdad where the Kalif paraded Afsin on an elephant bought from India. Then his hands and legs were cut and finally his head. His body parts were hung on gibbet in a public square in Baghdad. In the same place Mahizadyar was beheaded and his corpse put on display.

The Mohammedan chroniclers go into raptures over the brutal killing of these Iranian leaders and praise them as the victories of the greatest Jihads. Afsin was rewarded 20,000 dirhams for his deed. With that Iran passed under the dark cloud of Mohammedanism.

**Hauma Hamiddha** · 07-20-2007, 12:05 PM

After the whirlwind of Islam under the dreadful Alla-ad-din Khalji had blown through India and flattened the Hindus, one of the first Hindu fight-backs began under Prolaya Vema Reddi and the Kamma chiefs Kaapaya Nayaka and Prolaya Nayaka in the Andhra country. In the North, in the 1400s a significant figure in rolling back the horrors of Islam was the great Rana Kumbha of Mewar. He pounded the Moslem tyrants of Gujarat and Malava. One thing that caught my attention was a striking parallelism in the language of the two Hindu liberators in describing their victories against the Moslems.

Prolaya Vema Reddi's inscription of Kondavidu remarks: "I am indeed an Agastya to the ocean which was made of the Muslim". He uses the phrase "mlechChAbdi (Moslem ocean) kumbhodbhava (the pot born)" referring to the two mythological elements: 1) Along with manA and vasiShTha agastya was born from a pot (=urvashI) into which was discharged the semen of mitra and varuNa. 2) When the asura-s fleeing from indra and other deva-s hid in the ocean, agastya drunk up the ocean to render the asuras vulnerable to the deva attack.

The famed kirtistambha of Rana Kumbha was erected to commemorate his victories over various Moslem rulers like those of Gujarat and Malava. It contains a long inscription describing these victories. In verse 171 there is a play on kumbha's name and describes him as the pot-born agastya who drunk up the armies of the suratrANas (laTa evaM mAlava suratrANAnAM senAh).

These parallels represent the remarkable cultural unity of Hindu expression even in a period when the Islamic violence fragmented the land.

ramana · 07-20-2007, 09:05 PM

Also HH there is a line of thinking that the Rajputs were a branch of the Rashtrakutas who were from Deccan. So there could be some cultural continuity from that point of view.

07-20-2007, 11:15 PM

QUOTE(ramana @ Jul 20 2007, 08:35 AM)Also HH there is a line of thinking that the Rajputs were a branch of the Rashtrakutas who were from Deccan. So there could be some cultural continuity from that point of view.
[right][snapback]71368[/snapback][/right]


I doubt that is the case. At the time Musnuri Nayakas (Kapaya and Prolaya) launched attacks to resurrect Kakatiya empire, Hindu rulers from North and South are cooperating with each other and I assume that is the reason for commonality of the legends/stories. Some warriors from North and South joined those Nayaks to push back.
Harihara and Bukka are such warriors joined Musnuri Nayaks in their fight.

Musnuri Nayakas were able to get Kakatiya empire back and keep it for next 40-50 years. Harihara and Bukka later went on to start Vijayanagara Empire.

07-20-2007, 11:25 PM

QUOTE(ramana @ Jul 20 2007, 09:05 PM)Also HH there is a line of thinking that the Rajputs were a branch of the Rashtrakutas who were from Deccan. So there could be some cultural continuity from that point of view.
[right][snapback]71368[/snapback][/right]

The Rathods and even Parmaras are said to have Rashtrakuta descent. Solankis are of Chalukya lineage. But different Rajput clans have different origins. However that is Mr. Digvijay's area of expertise not mine.

Another point, before Kapaya Nayaka and the Reddis of Kondavidu led the resistance against the Muslims, Kampiladeva or Khandeya Raneya defied Muhammad bin Tughlak by sheltering his rebel cousin Baha-ud-din Gushtasp and also repulsed two of Muhammad's expeditions before valiantly going down to the third expedition. When it seemed, with his fort besieged that defeat was imminent, Kampiladeva and his nobles rode out of their fort to face the enemy and perished against the enemy, while their wives and daughters lighted a pyre and courageously accpeted death rather than dishonour. This is no different than the jauhar that Rajput womenfolk have practised on many occassions in a similar context.

07-20-2007, 11:31 PM

Kampiladeva ruled a fairly large kingdom in the modern day Bellary district Karnataka from his capital Kampili and Anegondi. Anegondi is a rocky place on the banks of the Tungabhadra, on the opposite bank of which the city of Vijayanagara was founded.

Kampiladeva and his father Mummadi Singeya before him who was earlier the vassal of the Seuna Yadavas of Devagiri carved out an independant kingdom for themselves with influence as far as Badami on one side and Gooty on the other.

07-21-2007, 12:47 AM

QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Jul 20 2007, 12:05 PM)After the whirlwind of Islam under the dreadful Alla-ad-din Khalji had blown through India and flattened the Hindus,


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.

From: http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Rajputs_a...asions_of_India
QUOTEProfessor Herman Kulke in his book "A History of India, ISBN: 0415154820, Publisher: Routledge; 3rd edition (March 1998)" records:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
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.

This shows that even at the height of power, Khilji barely controlled the outskirts of Delhi and rest of India was not under his control.</div>

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.

Again not true. Even when Khilji was in his prime he lost at Chittor, Jalore, Siwana, Ranathambore and other places.
http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Hammir_Dev_Chauhan
http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Rawal_Rat....2CGora.2CBadal

QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Jul 20 2007, 12:05 PM)t Hindu fight-backs began under Prolaya Vema Reddi and the Kamma chiefs Kaapaya Nayaka and Prolaya Nayaka in the Andhra country.


Can you please elaborate more about these brave people?

QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Jul 20 2007, 12:05 PM)He pounded the Moslem tyrants of Gujarat and Malava. One thing that caught my attention was a striking parallelism in the language of the two Hindu liberators in describing their victories against the Moslems.

Prolaya Vema Reddi's inscription of Kondavidu remarks: "I am indeed an Agastya to the ocean which was made of the Muslim". He uses the phrase "mlechChAbdi (Moslem ocean) kumbhodbhava (the pot born)" referring to the two mythological elements: 1) Along with manA and vasiShTha agastya was born from a pot (=urvashI) into which was discharged the semen of mitra and varuNa. 2) When the asura-s fleeing from indra and other deva-s hid in the ocean, agastya drunk up the ocean to render the asuras vulnerable to the deva attack.

The famed kirtistambha of Rana Kumbha was erected to commemorate his victories over various Moslem rulers like those of Gujarat and Malava. It contains a long inscription describing these victories. In verse 171 there is a play on kumbha's name and describes him as the pot-born agastya who drunk up the armies of the suratrANas (laTa evaM mAlava suratrANAnAM senAh).

These parallels represent the remarkable cultural unity of Hindu expression even in a period when the Islamic violence fragmented the land.
[right][snapback]71358[/snapback][/right]


Yes and this similarity is because India had been one country from time immemorial. People worshipped similar Gods, had similar culture, dressed similarly and behaved similarly (A simple fact which is turned upside down by people who want to divide north vs south).

Some more of Kumbha's inscriptions are given here:
http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Maharana_Kumbha

-Digvijay

07-21-2007, 12:51 AM

QUOTE(ramana @ Jul 20 2007, 09:05 PM)Also HH there is a line of thinking that the Rajputs were a branch of the Rashtrakutas who were from Deccan. So there could be some cultural continuity from that point of view.
[right][snapback]71368[/snapback][/right]


No. The reason for cultural continuity is because India was culturally ONE from North to South and East to West. People worshipped same Gods, believed in similar things etc.

-Digvijay

07-21-2007, 12:54 AM

QUOTE(kartiksri @ Jul 20 2007, 11:25 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ramana @ Jul 20 2007, 09:05 PM)Also HH there is a line of thinking that the Rajputs were a branch of the Rashtrakutas who were from Deccan. So there could be some cultural continuity from that point of view.
[right][snapback]71368[/snapback][/right]

The Rathods and even Parmaras are said to have Rashtrakuta descent. Solankis are of Chalukya lineage. But different Rajput clans have different origins. However that is Mr. Digvijay's area of expertise not mine.
</div>
Kartik,
Rashtrakuta connection is tenuous. Rajputs are descendants of ancient kshatriya dynasties of India.

QUOTE(kartiksri @ Jul 20 2007, 11:25 PM)Another point, before Kapaya Nayaka and the Reddis of Kondavidu led the resistance against the Muslims, Kampiladeva or Khandeya Raneya defied Muhammad bin Tughlak by sheltering his rebel cousin Baha-ud-din Gushtasp and also repulsed two of Muhammad's expeditions before valiantly going down to the third expedition. When it seemed, with his fort besieged that defeat was imminent, Kampiladeva and his nobles rode out of their fort to face the enemy and perished against the enemy, while their wives and daughters lighted a pyre and courageously accpeted death rather than dishonour. This is no different than the jauhar that Rajput womenfolk have practised on many occassions in a similar context.
[right][snapback]71378[/snapback][/right]


Excellent introduction of these brave people. Would you know of more such brave people? It is just a disgrace how little we Indians know about our "Shoorveer Yodhas".

-Digvijay

**Hauma Hamiddha** · 07-21-2007, 02:16 AM

QUOTENo hauma. This is not true.Â 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.Â 

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?

QUOTEAla-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.


That is fine, but do you deny the fact his armies had ravaged much of India? That is the point to note.

QUOTEAgain not true. Even when Khilji was in his prime he lost at Chittor, Jalore, Siwana, Ranathambore and other places.


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?

**Hauma Hamiddha** · 07-21-2007, 02:19 AM

QUOTERashtrakuta connection is tenuous.Â Rajputs are descendants of ancient kshatriya dynasties of India.

So rAShTrakUTa is not an ancient India kShatriya family? Are you saying Rathod is not related to rAShTrakUTa? Rather remarkable claim - what is the alternative?

07-21-2007, 10:42 AM

I have always wondered what is the origin of the jauhar practice, its so terrible. In it we see the besieged populace strongly believe a lack of mercy from the invading force. Are there any instance of jauhar other than against the Muslims. I distinctly remember one instance of a Northwestern tribe doing the same against Alexander's army.

Also what is the exact meaning of the word Hammir or Hamvira.

07-21-2007, 11:41 AM

QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Jul 21 2007, 02:16 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTENo hauma. This is not true.Â 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.Â 

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?
</div>

Hauma,

I am negating the following point.
QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha)Alla-ad-din Khalji had blown through India and flattened the Hindus

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.

QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Jul 21 2007, 02:16 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEAla-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.


That is fine, but do you deny the fact his armies had ravaged much of India? That is the point to note.
</div>

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.

QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Jul 21 2007, 02:16 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEAgain not true. Even when Khilji was in his prime he lost at Chittor, Jalore, Siwana, Ranathambore and other places.


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]
</div>

I am negating following two statements:

QUOTEQUOTE(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.


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

07-21-2007, 11:56 AM

QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Jul 21 2007, 02:19 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTERashtrakuta connection is tenuous.Â Rajputs are descendants of ancient kshatriya dynasties of India.

So rAShTrakUTa is not an ancient India kShatriya family? Are you saying Rathod is not related to rAShTrakUTa? Rather remarkable claim - what is the alternative?
[right][snapback]71394[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Sorry if I created the impression that rashtrakuta are not kshatriya. That was not the intent. Rashtrakuta's were most definetely kshatriya and extremely brave people. Who can forget Dantidurga's routing of the Arab army?

My point was just in response to the connection between rathores and rashtrakutas.
This point is still debated. Some consider rathores scions of Jaychand of Kannauj and others consider them of rashtrakuta descent. I am still researching this point and have not reached any conclusion. Up until a few months back I was more then 50% sure that rathores and rashtrakutas were indeed related but now I am looking at some material which seems to suggest they were connected to Jaichand. I will update you once I am convinced one way or the other.

-Digvijay

07-21-2007, 12:07 PM

Ala-ud-din may have had only limited success in Rajputana, but he was able to defeat Karnadeva and control Gujarat. Even before he became Sultan he defeated Ramachandra, the Seuna Yadava king of Devagiri. The loot that he extorted from him helped him to win the throne at Delhi. Thereafter he again defeated the Seunas a few years later and made them a regular tributary. After Ramachandra's death in 1312, his son Singhana rebelled, was defeated and the Mahratta country came under Muslim rule. Ala-ud-din's armies also fought against Pratapa Rudra Kakatiya of Warangal and Ballala III of Hoysala. Pratapa Rudra repulsed one invasion in 1303-4. After Ala-ud-din's death, during the reign of Ghiyas-ud-din Khilji, Kakatiyas succumbed to the Muslim invasion. This was in 1324. Though Hoysalas were defeated in 1310, they never submitted to Muslim rule.

Overall in effect, the permanent gains were Gujarat and Mahratta country, however the Telugu country and the Hoysala dominions, even after the extinguishing of the Kakatiya dynasty never reconciled to Muslim rule. The same thing that Digvijay said about Rajputana i.e. frequent attacks on Muslims in the countryside, not letting them live in peace happened in the Karnata and Telugu country also. They were not allowed to collect their taxes, nobody submitted to them, they had to shut themselves up in their fort.

So it is not correct to give blanket declaration that Ala-ud-din did not make any gains and also on the other side to say that the Hindu rulers were flattened. Maharashtra and northern parts of Karnataka were significant gains, which later passed on to the Bahmani sultans, while south of the Tungabhadra, while there were many Muslim raids, they were never able to rule those dominions.

Overall we got to accept that Ala-ud-din whatever his character was, he was very ambitious and does have significant achievements to his credit.

07-21-2007, 02:30 PM

QUOTE(kartiksri @ Jul 21 2007, 10:42 AM)I have always wondered what is the origin of the jauhar practice, its so terrible.


Kartik,
This is a reactionary practice which arose because:
a) Hindus saw the muslims did not have any code of conduct in the war. Muslims never kept there word.
b) Hindu men/women after a loss were captured and asked to convert by eating
cow meat.
c) Men were sometimes castrated.
d) Women and children were sold as slaves and ofcourse they were tortured.

Thus the twin practices of Jauhar and Saka arose:
http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Jauhar
http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Saka

QUOTE(kartiksri @ Jul 21 2007, 10:42 AM)In it we see the besieged populace strongly believe a lack of mercy from the invading force.

Muslims could not be trusted because they had no scruples in a war and after the war.

QUOTE(kartiksri @ Jul 21 2007, 10:42 AM)Are there any instance of jauhar other than against the Muslims.

Probably none other then against Mllecha.

QUOTE(kartiksri @ Jul 21 2007, 10:42 AM)
I distinctly remember one instance of a Northwestern tribe doing the same against Alexander's army.

Can you elaborate a bit? Many kshatriya fought against Alxander. Mallis (who are Chauhan rajputs) pierced his lungs with arrows when after his defeat at the hands of Porus his armies were sailing down the indus.

QUOTE(kartiksri @ Jul 21 2007, 10:42 AM)
Also what is the exact meaning of the word Hammir or Hamvira.
[right][snapback]71408[/snapback][/right]

Rajasthan has a habit of keeping the names after forts etc. So you have people like Ajmer Singh (after Ajaymeru the castle of chauhan rajputs: http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Prithviraj_Chauhan)

Similarly Hammir most likely stood for our "fort" metaphorically meaing a "person of lofty heights".

-Digvijay

07-21-2007, 02:43 PM

QUOTE(kartiksri @ Jul 21 2007, 12:07 PM)Ala-ud-din may have had only limited success in Rajputana, but he was able to defeat Karnadeva and control Gujarat. Even before he became Sultan he defeated Ramachandra, the Seuna Yadava king of Devagiri. The loot that he extorted from him helped him to win the throne at Delhi. Thereafter he again defeated the Seunas a few years later and made them a regular tributary. After Ramachandra's death in 1312, his son Singhana rebelled, was defeated and the Mahratta country came under Muslim rule. Ala-ud-din's armies also fought against Pratapa Rudra Kakatiya of Warangal and Ballala III of Hoysala. Pratapa Rudra repulsed one invasion in 1303-4. After Ala-ud-din's death, during the reign of Ghiyas-ud-din Khilji, Kakatiyas succumbed to the Muslim invasion. This was in 1324. Though Hoysalas were defeated in 1310, they never submitted to Muslim rule.

Overall in effect, the permanent gains were Gujarat and Mahratta country, however the Telugu country and the Hoysala dominions, even after the extinguishing of the Kakatiya dynasty never reconciled to Muslim rule. The same thing that Digvijay said about Rajputana i.e. frequent attacks on Muslims in the countryside, not letting them live in peace happened in the Karnata and Telugu country also. They were not allowed to collect their taxes, nobody submitted to them, they had to shut themselves up in their fort.

So it is not correct to give blanket declaration that Ala-ud-din did not make any gains and also on the other side to say that the Hindu rulers were flattened. Maharashtra and northern parts of Karnataka were significant gains, which later passed on to the Bahmani sultans, while south of the Tungabhadra, while there were many Muslim raids, they were never able to rule those dominions.

Overall we got to accept that Ala-ud-din whatever his character was, he was very ambitious and does have significant achievements to his credit.
[right][snapback]71411[/snapback][/right]

Good points Kartik. But we have to keep Khilji's own admission in context here:
QUOTEProfessor Herman Kulke in his book "A History of India, ISBN: 0415154820, Publisher: Routledge; 3rd edition (March 1998)" records:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
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.

This shows that even at the height of power, Khilji barely controlled the outskirts of Delhi and rest of India was not under his control.</div>

So when a fort fell or a battle won the muslim historians record "chittor is paying tribute to Delhi". But what they do not record is when the tribute became a trickle and when it ended. So the impression gets created "Oh the entire rajasthan/Gujarat is paying tribute" which is ofcourse patently false.

-Digvijay

**Hauma Hamiddha** · (This post was last modified: 07-23-2007, 08:32 AM by Hauma Hamiddha.)

The first is largely a semantic issue as far as I can see. At least I am not one doubting that Hindus were constantly struggling. But when I was talking of Telengana/Andhra in South India the old kShatriya rulers were destroyed by Khalji and his generals and the land was occupied by Moslem governors. It was then that the struggle under the leadership of the Kammas, Kapus and Reddis began. Various kShatriya families too joined in the struggle like the famous chalukya under somadeva. Further as for the Rajputs you yourself describe at length that due to Khalji's attacks Hammir Deva ChahamAna was killed, and also the occupation of Chittor (even it was reconquered).

QUOTE I am negating following two statements:
.... 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.

Digvijay, this what I meant -- see in your eagerness to negate and push your point you seem to gloss over what was originally written. I am sure you will appreciate that any one who has had read school level history in India or even just read ACK comics will know that Chittor was reconquered by the Sisodias before Kumbha and the story of Maladeva and Vir Hammir defeating Mahmud Khalji etc. If you notice the original statement I am not saying that *Kumbha reconquered Chittor*.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?