• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Medieval History
#81
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Apr 28 2008, 11:18 AM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Apr 28 2008, 11:18 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Please can you tell me what is the original place of this armor. Did the helmet also belong to the same set as this armor.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indian armor is usually characterized by chain-mail that is fitted along with leather and if I'm not mistaken, I've even seen armour from Sindh fitted with strips of leather and cane to chain-mail. I have never seen plate armor like the one depicted in that picture.
  Reply
#82
Post 80:
Ramana, I think it's fair to state that we suffered two terrifyingly gruesome barbarisms. It may be the case that lightning doesn't often fry someone twice. But it's what happened to Dharmics of historical India. I see no need to downplay one tyrant in favour of the other, even if it is done in a direction opposite from the usual (where the usual/common position is that the 'christoBritish were better than islamaniacs'). The fact is, both were possessed by murderous terrorist ideologies, hence they each claimed several tens of millions of lives of the Dharmic population in the subcontinent:
- Islamis claimed anywhere from 80-90 million (with lots of evidence from islamic records on their 'achievements' in decimating Hindu population), some estimates set it higher than that
- The christoBrits' stand at least at:
25million in famine (as per their own records)
+ estimated 'suddenly missing' 10 million in aftermath of Mutiny (going by the article posted on IF on the number of missing persons with mail waiting for them)
+ ? number of Indians murdered by all kinds of skirmishes and local christoterrorisms caused by British.

There's no need - and no <i>way</i> - to make either of them come off looking good in the comparison.
I suppose one could argue whether between them, Muhammed Ghori or Aurangzeb was the better - but the heathen wouldn't have lived to find out anyway... In like manner, from the Hindu experience of them, there's really no difference between the two sects of christoislamibarbarism. Now if the two cults had fought each other to the end and one of them had won, we could really have said which one was the 'better'...

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This will take away the raison d'etre of the Islamists in Indian sub-contient.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->One can't change the islamism of the believers. Islam (and christianism) simply doesn't work that way. Islam's been in the subcontinent a thousand years, and - except for the respite thanks to Shivaji and others' efforts - the islamic jihad and pushing others into dhimmitude is back.
Where's all their nationalism (for something other than moogalistan, I mean) after all this time spent in our company?

The real raison d'etre of islamists in Indian subcontinent is that of islam and its theology on territory: if land has ever been under islamic dominion, they claim it forever as their own. Jewish people realise this. Even some Europeans know this (islamis are biding their time before acting - but it's known that they still claim Granada, all of Andalusia as theirs. And these claims stand until islam is no more).

Christianism also has similar claims. But it's slightly different: a land need never have really been under christian influence for the christodelusionists to claim it as their own: if land/continent is assigned to christianism by the pope or biblical faux-history, they see it forever as theirs. The way the pope split the unconverted world into E and W and gave these different directions to Portugal and Spain. Of course, the fables about apostles also have powerful say in christian theology. India having been alleged to have been apostled/evangelised by non-existing Thomas is therefore viewed as being christian land.

Note how kaffiri heathens are never allowed their own land. Christoislamicommunists view heatheny lands as "emtpy" - free to enforce their terrorist ideologies on, unbelievers be damned.
  Reply
#83
The story of the nAstIka attack on rAmeshvaraM

An exchange with my acquaintance SRA on apotropaic rites related to temples prompted me to record this brief note. The light of the theravAda bauddha-s, the mighty king parAkrama-bAhu the Great (i.e. parAkrama-bAhu-I), came to power in Shri Lanka around 1153 CE. Few years after he came to the throne, he sent emissaries to other theravAda bauddha kings in Asia to announce his devote support for the sangha. narAthu, the king of Myanmar scorned the Lankan messengers and tortured them. He also imposed economic sanctions on Lanka. In the meanwhile parAkrama-bAhu was busy in local wars in course of which he conquered the whole of shrI-lankA and unified it under a single bauddha banner. In 1164 CE parAkrama-bAhu decided avenge the insult of the Lankans and launched a massive attack on Myanmar with a formidable fleet equipped with an year’s supply of grain for his large navy, an amphibious landing force of war-elephants and uniquely crafted long-range poisoned arrows. Despite cyclones and loss of multiple ships parAkrama-bahu’s fleet under admiral nagara-girI and chera mercenaries established a bridgehead at Kusumiya and captured the city with the amphibious landing force. Then the Lankan sea-borne army invaded Myanmar and penetrated as far as the capital Arimardhanapura. The Burmans resisted with much fury but parAkrama-bAhu ordered his navy and army to keep pressing on till they destroyed the killed the king of Myanmar. The ports were blockaded by the Lankans and their army finally stormed Arimardhanapura and killed narAthu.

This successful adventure tempted parAkrama-bAhu to invade and conquer south India. He found a great excuse for this program in the form of the internal struggle between two pANDya contenders for the throne and the choLa allies of one them (kulashekhara). He claimed to act in support of the other party (vIrapANDya) against choLa-s and kulashekhara. parAkrama-bahu dispatched his powerful admiral lankApura to deal with the Tamil kingdoms. lankApura conquered Ramanathapuram near the setu and built a heavily fortified camp named parAkramapura after his king. From here lankApura brought in a large lankan land army and sent it towards Madhurai, where he besieged and defeated kulashekhara. Then the Lankan army placed vIrapANDya as puppet in Madhurai and controlled it from a fortified camp they built named paNDuvijaya. They used this fort in tandem with parAkramapura and continued the war on the choLa-s inflict many blows on them and even sent Tamils captured in India to build monuments in Lanka. Around 1171 parakarama-bAhu probably filled with bauddha zeal ordered the conquest of rAmeshvaraM. The lankan navy blockaded the temple city and an amphibious landing force with elephants launched a direct attack on the temple. They first uprooted the huge temple doors and carried it away. Then finding their way to the temple treasury they seized all its treasures and took control of the shrine and prevented worship of shiva.

The choLa king rAjadhirAja-II was shaken by the desecration of the temple and called upon a learned tAntrIka of the Urdhva-srotras, j~nAnashiva to perform abhichAra rites to destroy the lankans who had desecrated the jyotir-li~Nga. j~nAnashiva began an elaborate abhichAra prayoga invoking the terrifying 5-headed, 18 handed form of shiva, who wears a garland of 108 skulls. An image of shiva in this form is also found in the chandella fort near Kajuraho where they routinely invoked him before doing battle with the turuShka-s. j~nAnashiva performed the rite unfazed for 28 days. The choLa army had been hammered by the lankans in multiple battles till that point, but is said that the fury of mahAdeva entered them. rAjAdhirAja-II’s army fell upon the desecrating bauddha-s in rAmeshvaraM and smashed them in a quick assault. The lankan admiral lankApura himself was leading the desecration and was struck by an arrow. The choLa-s beheaded him and nailed his severed head on the gates of the pANDuvijaya camp as a befitting offering to mahAdeva.

The details of this event are recorded in the ArpAkkaM inscription 18 Km from Kanchi.
  Reply
#84
Great narrative HH!

Also greatly appreciated your earlier post which implied that ancient Indians may have theorized on electricity.
  Reply
#85
A notable brAhminical clan

Some research into the brAhmaNa-s of the drAviDa country of the vaDama sect and the bhArgava gotra lead to an interesting family that was active in the Middle Vijayanagaran period in the court at Hampe. The patriline belonged to the jAmadagnya vatsa bhArgava gotra.
aruNagirinAtha-I composed a work on human anatomy, classification of constitutions and drugs termed the shAriraka-sutra-guNa-pATha. He was in the court of devarAya-II
-His uncle dINDima-bhaTTa was a kavi in the court of devarAya-I
-rAjanAtha dINDima-II composed the sAluvAbhyudaya.
-dINDima sArvabhauma composed the rAmAbhyudaya
-aruNagiri-II composed the virabhadravijaya narrating the destruction of dakSha.
-rAjanAtha-III composed the achyutarAyAbyudaya
Their works are important primary sources of Vijayanagaran history.
<img src='http://manasataramgini.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/dindima.png' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
  Reply
#86
Muslim Tower of Skulls

An example of a Muslim Tower of Skulls (1809 in Nish, Serbia), an inhuman act done by the barbaric Islamitic Ottoman Turks. Imagine the constant centuries old terror of the Muslim minority in former Yugoslavia, and put the Serbian reactions into that perspective.
http://ljiljana-zivojinovic.blogspot.com/2...-of-sculls.html


Vincent Smith in "Akbar - The Great Mogul" (p.294) writes, " Intemperance was the besetting sin of the Timuroid royal family, as it was of many other muslim ruling houses. Babur (was) an elegant toper ... Humayun made himself stupid with opium ... Akbar permitted himself the practices of both vices .. Akbar's two sons died in early manhood from chronic alcoholism, and their elder brother was saved
from the same fate by a strong constitution, and not by virtue." With such an atmosphere to nourish Akbar's thoughts, it is rather unsual for Akbar to become "divine incarnate"!

Here some examples in India, which are recorded:

Timur’s Tower of Skulls
Late 14th and the early 15th centuries witnessed the horrible barbarity of Amir Tamur (aka, Tamurlane). Information about Timur comes mainly from “Zafer Nama” written during early 15th century and his own diary, Mulfuzat-i-Timuri, which are full of Koranic references in justification of his invasions, wars and mass murders and destructions. He set out on his campaign in 1399 against India solely because the Muslim rulers were, to him, too lenient towards the idolater Hindu subjects. By the time, he reached Delhi; he had gathered around 100,000 pagan captives. A few thousands artisans and clever mechanics, including builders and stone masons, were taken back to Samarkhand while the rest were massacred in a single day [Mulfuzat-i-Timuri, trs ED, III, 447]. He built victory pillars with the severed heads of the infidels. On his way out of India, he pillaged Miraj, pulled down the monuments and flayed the Hindu inhabitants alive. [Why I am Not a Muslim, ibn Warraq, p. 234-235].

Feroz Tughluq’s Tower of Skulls
Firoz Tughloq was known to be relatively kind-hearted of the Sultans and yet according to Afif he killed 180,000 Bengalis in his expedition in Bengal and had erected a Tower of skulls [Lal, p. 73].

Babur’s Tower of Skulls
Describing the demoniac pleasure which Babur used to derive by raising towers of heads of people he used to slaughter, Col. Tod writes that after defeating Rana Sanga at Fatehpur Sikri "triumphal pyriamids were raised of the heads of the slain, and on a hillock which overlooked the field of the battle, a tower of skulls was erected and the conquerer Babur assumed the title of Ghazi." (p.246).
Babur wrote in Jihadi zeal, “I made public the resolution to abstain from wine. My servants… dashed upon the earth, the flagons and the cups. They dashed them into pieces as God willing, soon will be dashed, the Gods of the idolaters” [Babur Nama, Vol II, p. 554-5]. Babur and his soldiers destroyed Hindu temples in many parts of the country. [Babur Nama, Vol II, p. 340]. After winning the War against Rana Sangha, Babur ordered the set-up of a Tower of slaughtered pagan heads as a trophy for the victory. Similar tower of dead pagan heads was created after the victory at Chanderi against Medini Rai [Baburnama, pp. 483-84, 596]
See more of his atrocities in the Guru Granth Sahib, by a contemporary, Guru Nanakdev.

Akbar’s Tower of Skulls
Iskandar Khan chased the Hemu's fleeing army and captured 1500 elephants and a large contingent. There was a bloody slaughter of those who were captured and in keeping with the custom of his ancestors Tamerlane and Chengiz Khan, Akbar had a victory pillar built with the severed heads of his fallen Hindu enemies.

Jahangir’s Tower of Skulls
Peter Mundy, an Englishman travelling Mughal empire some 75 years later (during Jahangir and Shah Jahan's rein), found such towers were still being built.

Shahjahan’s Tower of Skulls
Peter Mundy, an Englishman travelling Mughal empire some 75 years later (during Jahangir and Shah Jahan's rein), found such towers were still being built.

Remember that Muslim rulers from outside, like Timur and Mahmud Ghaznavi and especially the rulers of Delhi and Agra attached the title 'Ghazi' to their names.
The Ghazis only recognized the own Umma and two countries: Dar-ul Islam and Dar-ul Harb. Peaceful co-existence was not an option. Every Harbi had to be destroyed or converted with whatever means, just like their prime example did in Arabia.
Also a later more 'moderate' Padishah like Akbar. Mughal titles:

Babar is well known as Ghazi
Nasir ud-din Muhammad Humayun Padshah Ghazi Zillu'llah
Jalal ud-din Muhammad Akbar I Sahib-i-Zaman, Padshah Ghazi Zillu'llah
Nur ud-din Muhammad Jahangir Padshah Ghazi Zillu'llah
Shihab ud-din Muhammad Shah Jahan Padshah Ghazi Zillu'llah
Aurangzeb is too well known as Ghazi

Imagine the effect of these barbaric acts and constant threats, besides rapes, massacres without towers of skulls, mass deportations, dishounering young girls and boys in harems, keeping and indoctrinating young boys as personal guards and lovers (becoming amongst the most severe anti-Hindus, like Malik Kafur), etc.
One can count the suicide combined with the Jauhar as the only way to save the honour, also as war crimes of the Muslims.
And the more 'mellow' threat was through Jizya, besides regular humiliation as a third rate citizen, as Kafir not even considered to be worthwile in Muslim jurisdiction.

And now, Muslims feel threatened or hurt by being misrepresented or humiliated by cartoons etc. I am waiting (in vain) for the first step any Muslim makes to apologize to all the communities and cultures they have devastated. Apologies for their war crimes even today. If they want to talk about Kashmir, let them first talk about Kashmiri Pandits.
Before pointing to others, they should first take responsibility for their own agressive behaviour and deeds.
  Reply
#87
<b>Constitution 1,000 years ago</b>
  Reply
#88
http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/most-in...mids-japan.html
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/phikent/japan/japan.html

Sorry for linking to another forum, but I just found this.

  Reply
#89
They may want to twist the history to suit their missionary activities.

<b>Foreign universities flock to India to explore archaeological sites</b>
Sweta Dutta
Posted online: Saturday, August 23, 2008 at 2347 hrs Print Email

New Delhi, August 22: Several foreign universities are tying up with their counterparts here and approaching the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) with proposals to undertake excavations at archaeological sites here. A lack of heritage sites in the West has had them looking towards India, which has a large number of unexcavated Indus Valley and other rich ancient sites.

<b>
Foreign universities are all for bartering their technological expertise and resources to get an opportunity to work on the unexcavated sites here. The MoUs with Indian institutes help foreign students to be a part of the excavation and exploration projects, and then conduct the classification and documentations back in the better-equipped laboratories of their country. </b>

R S Fonia, Director, Exploration and Excavation and Publication, ASI, told The Indian Express, “We have received applications from a number of foreign institutions like Harvard University, Cambridge University and others. Their interest in Indian sites is positive for us, as this provides us with updated modern technological know-how and adequate funds. The need for modern technology and digitisation of old records are required for a country like ours, which is so hugely endowed with ancient sites. For such large-scale projects, huge amount of funds are also required. These foreign universities, on the other hand, face shortage of such sites and look towards Indian heritage sites for an opportunity to conduct excavation processes.”

Licenses are, however, issued only to Indian institutes to conduct these excavations and explorations so that foreign organisations do not claim copyrights on the findings. “We encourage foreign institutes to take active part in the excavations through tie-ups with Indian universities. Certainly these foreign universities have advanced technology and we are always short of adequate infrastructure. The tie-ups are mutually beneficial,” Fonia added.
<b>
Banaras Hindu University (BHU), in a tie-up with Cambridge University, had undertaken excavations in the Harappan sites of Alamgirpur and Bulandkhera — both in Uttar Pradesh — earlier this year. The MoU signed by the two universities calls for student and faculty exchange programmes in the department of archaeology and funds for the excavation projects as well.

“We have received a sanction of Rs 18 lakh this year from Cambridge University for funding excavation projects and students and faculty who would go out on the exchange programme,” said Paras Nath Singh, head of the department of Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology, BHU. “Thanks to the tie-up, we can now conduct tests like radio carbon dating (C 14) more accurately and make useful comparisons of our results with their reports,” Singh added.
</b>
The Deccan College in Pune, which attracts a large number of foreign students for its post-graduate and research courses in archaeology, has tie-ups with Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, and Research Institute for Humanity and Nature in Kyoto, Japan.

“The Cotsen Institute tie-up is for excavations in Shishupalgarh in Orissa while the Japanese collaboration has undertaken a project on an Indus Valley site at Farmana near Haryana,” said Prof K Paddayya, director of the college. “Cotsen Institute provides training in exploration techniques for our students under the eight-year collaboration. We will also come up with joint publications. All financial aspects of the exploration and excavation project too are covered.”

  Reply
#90
Shahjahan another Aurangzeb
by Ishwa (draft)

Character of Shahjahan
Prince Khurram, the later Shahjahan, had a violent temper. Like his father had done before, he also started open warfare as a rebel.
When coming to the throne, he speedily and violently got rid of his brothers. (not uncommon amongst the barbaric Mughal Turks)

Keene observes that Shahjahan "in open rebellion (against his own father, emperor Jehangir) seized Fatehpur Sikri, and sacked the city of Agra, where according to Della Valle, a noble Italian then on a visit to India, his army committed fearful barbarities. The citizens were compelled under torture to give up their hoarded treasures, and many ladies of quality were outraged and mutilated.”1
Keene says, "Shahjahan surpassed all the Moghul emperors in autocratic pride, and was the first of them to safeguard the throne by murdering all possible rivals According to Roe who knew Shahjahan personally, his nature was unbending and mingled with extreme pride, and contempt of all."

Manucci has also a word on the character of Shajahan: “It is now time to speak of the sons of Shahjahan ; but first of all it is requisite to state that Shahjahan only preserved four sons and four daughters, and whenever it seemed likely that the number would be exceeded, he did not allow his wives to come to delivery, but directed medicine to be administered to cause abortion. He left behind him this evil practice, of which Aurangzeb made use, and also his sons.”2

Most modern historians, dazzled by the beauty of the imperial buildings, and
misled by a phrase of Ta vernier to the effect that Shahjahan governed his people ' like a father ' with exceptional mildness, as well as by the authority of Elphinstone, have been inclined to give Shahjahan undeserved praise for the supposed excellence of his personal character and the alleged efficiency of his
administration. Aurangzeb has been held up to universal reproach because he made his way to the throne through the blood of his brothers, while Shahjahan, who did exactly the same thing, is allowed to escape without censure. He was
even credited by Elphinstone with 'a life not sullied' by crime. Older writers knew better. Ta vernier, notwithstanding his use of the phrase cited above, states plainly that Shahjahan 'by degrees murdered all those who from having shown
affection for his nephew had made themselves suspects, and the early years of his reign were marked by cruelties which have much tarnished his memory '. The Dutch author van den Broecke (in de Laet), writing in 1629 or 1630, while admitting that the character of the new monarch had not yet become fully known, was convinced that a kingdom won by so many crimes and the slaughter of so many innocent victims, could not prosper. In reality, the personal character of the much-censured Aurangzeb was superior to that of the much-praised Shahjahan, who was treacherous, cruel, sensual, and avaricious. The ' justice ' with which he has been credited was usually nothing better than the savage ferocity practised by his father.” 3


Shahjahan manipulating court writings
Shahjahan ordered Kamgar Khan to make a new account of Jahangir's reign after the latter's death, to carefully eliminate from Jahangir's own chronicle all adverse references to the rebellious Shahjahan when the latter was a prince. Sir H.M. Elliot observes: "He (Kamgar Khan) was at last induced to undertake it (writing a spurious history of Jahangir's reign) at the instigation of the emperor Shahjahan in the third year of his reign."

"Shajahan himself was probably responsible for this twisting of historical truth. The truth would have shown him to be inconsistent and this could not be tolerated. For this reason also, the histories contain no statements of any kind that are critical of the Emperor or his policies, and even military defeats are rationalized so that no blame could be attached to him. ... effusive praise of the Emperor is carried to such extremes that he seems more a divinity than a mortal man." 4

This manipulating of character, achievements, etc. is not only confined to Shahjahan. Jahangir's chronicle contains many flattering references to his father Akbar. Jahangir invariably professes to be a very obedient son overflowing with filial affection. For instance, he claims to have built a tomb for his father (which he did not).
Sir H. M. Elliot about chronicles concerning Jahangir:"There are several works which profess to be the Autobiographical Memoirs of the Emperor Jahangir and there is confusion in their titles.. There are two distinct editions of the Memoirs which differ entirely from each other, Major Price translated one, Anderson wrote upon the other. It will be seen also that there are varieties of each edition. 5


Myths about Shahjahan
The myth about Shahjahan’s prosperous and peaceful period started with Tavernier, not a historian, but a storytelling traveller. Shahjahan was far from peaceful, let alone tolerant. He was the equal of the worst of his Timurid family in barbarity. While Aurangzeb is rightfully targeted as a cruel Muslim fanatic, Shahjahan was not less cruel and fanatic. His reign was far from peaceful, as he was engaged in many military campaigns.

Shahjahan’s religious tolerance is also a myth. In the Transactions of the Archaeological Society of Agra it is stated: “Many times did Shahjahan invite the monks and secular priests to become Mohammedans (but when they repudiated his overtures) Shahjahan was greatly irritated and there and then ordered the priests to be exceuted the next day by the torture then used against the worst outlaws, that of being trampled underfoot by elephants." 6

Shahjahan was so tolerant, that he didn’t tolerate Hindus, Christians and Shiites (his wars against the Deccan Shiite kings] He manifested himself almost with the same Sunni zealot behaviour in persecutions like Aurangzeb, with the sole difference towards pleasures: drinks and dames. Aurangzeb initially was the same towards pleasures, but later turned against it. But Manucci gives an interesting picture of the religious prince Aurangzeb:
“Still, although this prince (Aurangzeb) was held to be bold and valiant, he was capable of great dissimulation and hypocrisy; pretending to be an ascetic, he slept while in the field on a mat of straw that he had himself woven. He stitched caps with his own hands and sent them out for sale, saying that he lived upon what he made by them. He ate food that cost little, such as radishes, lentils, barley, and such-like vegetables and cereals; he gave alms publicly, and also let it be known that he underwent severe penances and fasting ; he allowed himself to be found in prayer or reading the Quran ; went out frequently with his chaplet in his hand ; and on all occasions called on the name of God as if he made no acount of the things of this world.
All the same, under cover of these pretences, he led in secret a jolly life of it, and his intercourse was with certain holy men addicted to sorcery, who instructed him how to dissimulate and to bring over to his side as many friends as he could with witchcraft and soft speeches.” 7

The other myth of Shahjahan is about his love for Mumtaz. He was so faithful to her memory that he didn’t care for the repairs to the Taj which was conducted by prince Aurangzeb in 1654. He was so faithful to her that he only cared for drinks and dames, especially of others. Rumours of incestuous relations with his daughters was already picked up by early European travellers, like De Laet, Bernier, Manucci, etc.

Perhaps the most persistent myth is his building activity. He didn’t create the Taj Mahal complex, but simply usurped the Jaipur estate, already owned by his maternal Rajput uncle Raja Mansingh Kachhvaha.
Another huge question mark is whether he built Shahjahanabad or not. There is a painting which gives the note that Shahjahan received the Persian ambassador in 1628 in the Diwan-I Am in the Red fort! That is at least 11 years before construction works should have started! This painting must be the same as:
Shelfmark and folio: MS. Ous. Add. 173, fol. 13v
Description: Shahjahan receiving the Persian embassy of 1628. [caption title] No. 13. Jehangir Padshah [caption on page]
Dimensions: 345 x 238 mm. ; Materials: opaque watercolour on paper.
http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/csb/orientalmss...t.htm#DouceOra1

At this site, one can see the painting in colour, but without the remarks above:
http://www2.odl.ox.ac.uk/gsdl/cgi-bin/libr...d=orient002-ars
Title: [Shahjahan receives a Persian ambassador. 'No. 13. Jehangir Padshah' [caption on page]]
Description: Miniature painting, from an album of Indian paintings principally devoted to portraits of the Mughal emperors.
Date: 1640
Artist: Payag
Abstract: Court scene with imperial portraits. Mughal style, 17th century, c. 1640.
Note: References: Cat. Persian [etc.] Mss. in the Bodleian Library, 1899; Ebba Koch, Mughal art (2001), fig. 4.64; Binyon (1921), plate XXXVI, captioned 'Reception of an embassy by Aurangzib'; Topsfield (2007), 33.
Note: References: Cat. Persian [etc.] Mss. in the Bodleian Library, 2384;

Shahjahanabad was started to be built in 1639. Chandarbhan Brahman composed a verse in 1648/9 to commemorate the inauguration of the imperial palace-fortress. (This verse is preserved on the “Char Chaman Brahman”, Persian Manuscript Collection, Or. 1892, British Museum, London, fols.141-2.) 8

Shahjahan transferred his capital from Agra to Delhi in 1648! That is the time of the inauguration with the verse by Chandarbhan commemorating that. Which means that the building activities were going on from 1639 to 1648. There couldn’t have been a reception of an ambassador in a yet to be finished Diwan-I Am in a noisy and filthy yet to be built Shahjahanabad in 1640! Or was the Karmuka shaped city Shahjahanabad already existent?


Character of Mumtaz
Shahjahan’s wife, Mumtaz was not less fanatic and cruel. Her aunt Nurjahan was virtually the ruler during Jahangir’s reign (taking drinks, drugs and dames, a family habit). Her Persian family had tremendous political influence in this period. Mumtaz caused Shahjahan to brutally annihilate (the equal fanatic and criminal) Portuguese Jesuit Christians of Hughli.
“Of the king Shahjahan: Hugli and the captives
Finding himself undisputed King of Hindustan, Shahjahan was compelled to make war against the Portuguese of Hughli, for this was demanded by Taj Mahal, from whom the Portuguese [121] had carried off two slave girls (ante, I., 116).
… Qasim Khan carried off the prisoners to court, and God willed that before they arrived there the queen, Taj Mahal should die. 1 Shahjahan gave orders for the construction of her mausoleum opposite the royal palace at Agrah with great expenditure. It is in two stories, in the lower being
deposited the body of his beloved wife. No one may see this sepulchre, for it is in the charge of women and eunuchs. There cannot be the least doubt that if the Portuguese had reached the court in the lifetime of Taj Mahal she would have ordered the whole of them to be cut into pieces after great tortures, for thus had she sworn when they did her the injury.” 9


Prince Khurram sacks Agra 1623
“The violent temper of Jahangir was inherited by his son, Prince Khurram, afterwards Shah Jahan, and the peace of his reign was frequently disturbed by open rebellion on the part of the Prince. In 1623 Shah Jahan actually sacked Agra, and his soldiers committed fearful atrocities on the inhabitants. He failed, however, to capture the fort, which contained the imperial treasury, and Jahangir, no doubt remembering his own father's leniency towards himself, forgave his unruly son.” 10

Here is what Emperor Jehangir has to say about his own son, Shahjahan: "I directed that henceforward he (prince Shahjahan) should be called a 'Wretch', and whenever the word 'Wretch' occurs in this Ikbalnama, it is he who is intended... The pen cannot describe all that I have done for him nor can I recount my own grief, or mention the anguish and weakness which oppress me especially during these journeys and marchings which I am obliged to make in pursuit of him (a rebellious prince Shahjahan) who is no longer my son." 11


Shahjahan’s reign as per Lahori 1630
Mullah Abdul Hamid Lahori begins the account of the fourth year of Shahjahan's reign, i.e. 1630, on page 338 of Vol. I. On page 362 continuing the narrative64 of that year of the reign, he writes :
"In the present year also there had been a deficiency in the bordering countries, and total want in the Dakhin and Gujarat. The inhabitants of these two countries (regions) were reduced to the direst extremity. Life was offered for a loaf, but none would buy; rank was to be sold for a cake but none would care for it; the ever bounteous hand was now stretched to beg for food; and the feet which had always trodden the way of contentment walked about only in search of sustenance. For a long time dog's flesh was sold (as) goat's flesh, and the pounded bones of the dead were mixed with flour and sold. When this was discovered the sellers were brought to justice.
Destitution at length reached such a pitch that men began to devour each other, and the flesh of a son was preferred to his love. The numbers of the dying caused obstructions in the roads, and every man whose dire sufferings did not terminate in death and who retained the power to move wandered off to the towns and villages of other countries. Those lands which had been famous for their fertility and plenty now retained no trace of productiveness..
The emperor directed the officals in Burhanpur, Ahmedabad and the country of Surat to establish soup kitchens."
This was the situation during Mughal reign.


Shahjahan as per Peter Mundy 1630-1632
“Shahjahan, who wished to be considered an orthodox Musalman, unlike Akbar and Jahangir, issued orders in 1632 for the destruction throughout his dominions of all Hindu temples recently built. In the Benares District alone seventy-six temples were destroyed in compliance with that order. Figures for other localities are not recorded.“ 12

Says Smith: “Peter Mundy, who has been already quoted, gives a glimpse into the actual state of the empire early in the reign (1630-3). When staying at Patna, he found that travelling whether by river or road was unsafe, because ' this country, as all the rest of India, swarms with rebels and thieves'.
Provincial governors sought to repress disorder by wholesale massacres, which they were allowed to commit without check by the imperial Government. At a place in the Cawnpore District Mundy saw more than 200 small masonry pillars (minors) each three or four yards high, and each containing, set in plaster, thirty or forty heads of persons supposed to be thieves. When he came back a few months later to the same camping-ground, sixty more such pillars had been added. Thus in that one locality a single governor had slaughtered about 8,000 people in a short time. 1 [note 1: 260 pillars x 30, the minimum number of heads in each = 7,800.]
That state of affairs was not exceptional.
' 'Minars', we are told, 'are commonly near to great cities.'
Much other contemporary evidence might be cited to prove the misgovernment of Shahjahan's dominions, especially in the earlier years of his reign.” 13


Shahjahan vs Hindu temples 1632
SIXTH YEAR OF THE REIGN, 1042 A.H. (1632 A.D.). Destruction of Hindu Temples.
[p. 449.] It had been brought to the notice of His Majesty that during the late reign many idol temples had been begun, but remained unfinished, at Benares, the great stronghold of infidelity. The infidels were now desirous of completing them. His Majesty, the defender of the faith, gave orders that at Benares, and throughout all his dominions in every place, all temples that had been begun should be cast down. It was now reported from the province of Allahábád that seventy-six temples had been destroyed in the district of Benares. 14

Havell observes: "The Jesuits were bitterly persecuted by Shahjahan. Only a short time before her death, Mumtaz Mahal, who was a relentless enemy of the Christians, had instigated Shahjahan to attack the Portuguese settlement in Hooghly." 15

Niccolao Manucci, a Venetian, in his account of Shahjahan's court, to which he was a witness, says,78 "There cannot be the least doubt that if the Portuguese had reached the court in the lifetime of Taj Mahal (i.e. Mumtaz) she would have ordered the whole of them to be cut into pieces after great tortures. All the same they did not escape a sufficient amount of suffering; some abjured their faith either from fear of torture and of death or through the desire of recovering their wives, who had been distributed by Shahjahan among his officers. Others, the most beautiful among them, were kept for the royal palace." 16


Shah Jahan's Kashmir policy 1634
In Bhimbar, a district of Kashmir, Hindus and Muslims used to intermarry and the wife, whatever might have been her father's creed, was burnt or buried (on her death) as her husband happened to be a Hindu or Islamite. But in October, 1634, Shah Jahan forbade the custom and ordered that every Hindu who had taken a Muslim wife must either embrace Islam and be married anew to her or he must give her up to be wedded to a Muslim. This order was rigorously enforced. (Badshahnama of Abdul Hamid Lahori, I.B.57) 17

Shahjahan’s lust for (married) women
Shahjahan was not different from his Mughal predecessors in his lust for women, even if they were married. Jahangir had the husband of Nurjahan killed to got married to her.
Says Manucci: ”The chief of these women, one that he thought a great deal of, was the wife of Jafarcan (Ja'far Khan), 1 and from the love he bore her he wished to take her husband's life, but she saved him by praying that he might be sent as governor to Patana (Patnah), as was done. In the same way he had an acquaintance with the wife of Calican (Khalil Khan) 2 for some time, and this man took his revenge in the battle fought by Dara against Aurangzeb, as I shall relate further on (I. 192).
…..
Shahjahan did not spare the wife of his brother-in-law, Xaahisn Can (Shaistah Khan), though it was by a trick, for she would not consent. The procuress in this affair was Begom Saeb (Begam Sahib), the daughter of Shahjahan, who, in complaisance to her father, invited the said woman to a feast, at the end of which Shahjahan violated her. This lady was so much affected that, going to her house, she would neither eat nor change her clothes, and in this manner ended her life in grief.

The intimacy of Shahjahan with the wives of Ja'far Khan and Khalllullah Khan was so notorious that when they went to court the mendicants called out in loud voices to Ja'far Khan's wife : ' O Breakfast of Shahjahan ! remember us !' And when the wife of Khalllullah Khan went by they shouted : 'O Luncheon of Shahjahan! succour us!' The women heard, and, without taking it as an insult, ordered alms to be given.

For the greater satisfaction of his lusts Shahjahan ordered the erection of a large hall, twenty cubits long and eight cubits wide, adorned throughout with great mirrors.
It would seem as if the only thing Shahjahan cared for was the search for women to serve his pleasures. 18


Shahjahan’s Military campaings. Peaceful period?
Deduced from his biographies:
1630s Shahjahan was much involved with war campaigns in the south, against the Shi’a kings and Rajas.
1640 Manikaraja, the Raja of Chetgaon was subdued. An expedition was sent against Sangi Bemkhal, ruler of Great Tibet, who had seized Burang in Little Tibet.
1641 an invading force against Kandahar had to be dealt with.
1647 A campaign was undertaken against Balkh and Badakshan.Murad Baksh was sent with a large force. Shahjahan himself was in Kabul.
1650 Persians invaded Kandahar and Bust. It had to be surrendered.
1653 Campaign against Tibet.
1653-1655 Campaign with a huge force to recapture Kandahar.
1657 Campaign against Golconda and Hyderabad
1658 Sent prince Aurangzeb against Bijapur

Revolts
1628 The Bundelas under Jhajharsingh rose immdediately to rebellion. In order to get him caught Bundelas and supporters were brutally murdered. This rebellion and the hunt for him by Mahabat Khan lasted for many years.
1634 Bhagirath Bhil of Malwa rose into rebellion.
1639 Raja Parikshit of Kuch-Haju and Raja Lakshminarayana of Kuch-Bihar rose to rebellion.
1642 A military campaign in Gujarat to subdue the rebellious Kolis, Kathis and Jams.
1643 Jagatsingh, son of Raja Basu of Kangra rose into rebellion a year before. Shahjahan sent forces to subdue him.
1645 The Raja of Palamau rose into rebellion.
1647-1648 Sadullah Khan had to deal with rebellions in the far NW. Prince Aurangzeb who was sent to crush the rebellion, had to retreat from there after giving up Balkh and Badakshan.
1651 People in the territories of Ghazni complained of total destruction of their crops and plunder of their belongings by Shahjahan's armies.
1656 Campaign to subdue the Rana of Chittor.
1657/8 Shahjahan has to deal with Raja Jaswantsingh.


Shahjahan’s imprisonment 1658
The French traveller Tavernier, who has left a complete record of the time, writes of this event: "It is most surprising that not one of the servants of the grand King offered to assist him; that all his subjects abandoned him, and that they turned their eyes to the rising sun, recognizing no one as king but Aurangzîb. Shah Jahan, though still living, passed from their memories. If, perchance, there were any who felt touched by his misfortunes, fear made them silent, and made them basely abandon a king who had governed them like a father, and with a mildness which is not common with sovereigns. For although he was severe enough to the nobles when they failed to perform their duties, he arranged all things for the comfort of the people, by whom he was much beloved, but who gave no signs of it at this crisis."
If Shahjahan was so much loved, all this wouldn’t have happened. The truth must have been that he was utterly hated by in- and outsiders, even by his own cruel son.

Conclusion
The traveller Tavernier’s lie took its own course to influence the picture of a benign fatherly Shahjahan. The picture of a prosperous and peaceful period during his reign is a complete myth. The
Fortunately, historians like V.A. Smith didn’t accept this. While Aurangzeb showed his cruel Turkic descent, he indirectly gave his father the punishment he deserved, which is imprisonment in the Agra fort. Even though it was for selfish reasons.
But even Tavernier, couldn’t refrain from contradicting himself, when remarking:
'… by degrees murdered all those who from having shown affection for his nephew had made themselves suspects, and the early years of his reign were marked by cruelties which have much tarnished his memory'.
Why standard history books have failed to mention this picture of him in order to contradict the fairy tale picture of Shahjahan’s reign is a big question mark.


NOTES
1. Keene's Handbook. page 25
2. Niccolao Manucci: Storia do Mogor or Mogul India 1653-1708, VOL. i. p. 216
3. V.A. Smith: The Oxford student’s history of India, pp. 200
4. W.E. Begley and Ziyaud-Din Ahmad Desai: Taj Mahal - The Illumined Tomb, p. xxvi
5. Elliot & Dowson: History of India, Vol. VI,P. 251
6. Transactions of the Archaeological Society of Agra, Pp. viii-ix, January to June, 1878
7. Niccolao Manucci: Storia do Mogor or Mogul India 1653-1708, VOL. i. pp.185-186
8. Peter. P. Blake: Shahjahanabad, p.ix
9. Niccolao Manucci: Storia do Mogor or Mogul India 1653-1708, VOL. i. pp.182-183
10. E. B. Havell: A Handbook to Agra and the Taj, Sikandra, Fatehpur-Sikri, and the Neighbourhood, ARCA 1904. Historical Introduction, Part Four: Jahangir
11. Elliot & Dowson: History of India, Vol. VI, P. 281
12. V.A. Smith: The Mughal Empire from 1526 TO 1761, p. 190
13. V.A. Smith: The Mughal Empire from 1526 TO 1761, p. 200-201
14. Badshahnama of Abdul Hamid Lahori p. 449, in Elliot & Dowson: History of India
15. E.B. Havell: The 19th Century and After, Vol. III. P. 1041
16. Niccolao Manucci: Storia do Mogor or Mogul India 1653-1708, pp. 176-177
17. Jadunath Sarkar: History of Aurangzeb, 1912. Vol.1, pp 62/63 footnote
18. Niccolao Manucci: Storia do Mogor or Mogul India 1653-1708, pp. 193-195
  Reply
#91
X-Posted...
<!--QuoteBegin-"gandharva"+-->QUOTE("gandharva")<!--QuoteEBegin--><b> Sri Goswami Tulsidas on the Gandhian practices of his time[\b]

लही आँखि कब आँधरे बाँझ पूत कब ल्याइ ।
कब कोढ़ी काया लही जग बहराइच जाइ ॥
                                 --Dohavali

(When did a blind person regained his eye sight?, when did a barren woman got son?. And when a leper
was cured for his leprosy and got his beautiful body back?. But even then people visit  [b]Baharaich</b>.

Now why people (Mostly Hindus which put Tulsidas in great peeve) used to visit Baharaich, even now in present day.

<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><i>We have an account of this war from an Islamic scholar Sheikh Abdur Rehman Chishti who in his book Meer-ul-Masuri has given a vivid description of this exceptional war. He writes that Masud reached Baharaich in 1033. By then the united Hindu kings had gathered a massive force to face Masud.

As was their practice, before the beginning of hostilities, the Hindu kings sent a messenger to Masud that this land being theirs, his troops should peacefully vacate it. But Masud sent a reply that all land belonged to Khuda (the Persianized version of Allah) and he could settle wherever he pleased. And that it was his holy duty to convert to Islam all those who did not recognize his Khuda and accept Islam.

Consequently, <b>Masud's huge army was besieged by the even greater Hindu army and no side gave the other any quarter. Gradually through the hostilities, Masud saw the unsuccessful end of his expedition. This bitter and bloody war was fought in the month of June 1033. In this furious war, no side took any prisoners and it ended only with the slaughter of the entire invading army along with many martyrs from the defending Hindu army.</b>

<b>The battle of Baharaich ended on 14th June 1033. At the gory end, the entire invading army along with their commander lay dead. Not one enemy soldier was allowed to return.</b> There still exists today near Baharaich the grave of the commander of the invader - Prince Ghazi Mian Masud. There he is hailed today by the local Muslims as a Ghazi and a Peer. And every year till this day an Urs (Muslim religious assemblage) is held in his memory.

His tomb was built much later by Tughlaq. After establishing his rule Feroz Shah Tughlaq came to Bahraich and became so offended after learning about the beheading of Salar Masood Ghazi. He was termed as Islamic Saint who came in early 11th century to the Indian subcontinent for preaching Islam.</i><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghazi_Saiyyad_Salar_Masud"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Most likely the guy was of the Mehsud tribe in modern day FATA.
  Reply
#92
What is the etymology of "hammIra", an early medieval rAjapUta name?

(Romila Thapar in her usual has proposed it to be a "sanskritization of Amir" from turko-arabic world, adopted by rAjapUta in awe after the grandeur and respect for turuShka Amirs!!! - 'Somanath - Many Voices of a History')
  Reply
#93
Blog on
How Islam came to India and why it needs to go

  Reply
#94
http://www.hindu.com/2008/12/10/stories/...900300.htm

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->PUDUKOTTAI: An ancient habitation, dating back to the hoary past, has been unearthed at Oliyamangalam, near Karaiyur in the district. An array of excavations, gathered particularly after the post-ploughing operation on the agricultural fields, testifies to an ancient urban civilization in the area.

A team of three epigraphists, who conducted a survey at the village, have gathered various fresh materials, confirming the existence of the habitation. “Going by the analysis of various brick-works, beads, hop-scotch and other domestic materials collected at several agricultural lands, the village should have been a seat of a great civilisation,” say the former Curator of the Government Museum, Pudukottai, J. Rajamohamad; the Curator of the Musueum, C. Govindaraj and an epigraphist, K. Rajendran.

Mr. Rajamohamad said that Oliyamangalam, originally called Ollaiyur had several references to the Sangam Pandya empire and also in the ‘Purananooru’. A large number of megalithic dolmens had been found in this village. Black and red potteries, terracotta figurines and beads of antique value were collected from the megaliths by this research team in 2003. Further evidences shows that people had inhabited here for a prolonged era.

The temple has an ancient temple dedicated to Sri Varaguniswarar and in 1920, some inscriptions of the 13th and 14th century A.D. had been copied from the temple. In 2003, the epigraphists copied many inscriptions dating back to the 11th and 12th century, tracing the origin into a deeper past.

Further research on the site had suggested that the Sri Varaguniswarar temple belonged to 9th century A.D. “The temple could have been built during the reign of Varaguna Pandya – II (862-885 A.D). Since this area was under the rule of Varaguna Pandya -II, this temple might have been constructed during his reign and on his name. Over the years, it had got ruined and a fresh structure with later architecture style, had been constructed. However, the name Varaguniswarar had been retained till date.”

Dilapidated stones and sculptures are strewn around the temple. The sculptures of Sri Bhairavar and Sri Chandikeswarar are artistic. The iconographical details prove that they belong to the 9th century A.D. The vast stretch of agricultural lands around the temple was the habitation site. Old potteries, terracotta beads, Chinese porcelain, bricks were found similar to those unearthed at the other sites dating back to the 10th century.

“An interesting find is a long and thick underground drainage pipe at a house. It is made of burnt clay and has been in tact even now, indicating the existence of an urban civilization. “A systematic excavation in the site may bring many more new materials to unravel the history of the area. In fact, we have asked the State Archaeological Department to conduct a special survey in the area and conduct a special study,” says Mr. Rajamohamad.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  Reply
#95
A few posts from BRF x-posted here...
Airavat Wrote:
ramana Wrote:I wonder if all those so called invasions by Ghazni and Ghori were razas and not true invasions. It was only when Prithviraj Chauhan was captured that they thought of sending governor(Aibek) to Dilli and thus transformed a raid inot a conquest.

<b>Ghazni's invasions in other parts of India were raids but his war against the Hindu Shahis was for territory in Punjab where his descendants established a kingdom. Ghori's campaigns were meant for creating an empire.</b> In both cases the raids accumulated money, which financed further raids and expansion.

<b>Reverse raids by Hindu Kingdoms were not possible because there was nothing to loot in the barren lands across the Sindhu</b>.

The economic wealth in India came from agriculture, industry, and trade, all of which meant flourishing cities and a widely dispersed dense population in numerous villages. <b>By contrast lands across the Sindhu were barren, thinly populated, and with few cities. What this meant was that an army from outside found plenty to loot in India, but an Indian army had to make extensive preparations for sustaining its forces in those barrern enemy lands.</b>

And the 12th century Hindu Kingdoms were not alone in this experience. <b>Even the Mughal Empire, when it attempted a conquest of Central Asia under Shah Jahan, failed miserably because of financial reasons. There wasn't enough by way of captured wealth to finance the expedition and no productive lands to persuade the Indian generals to live in Central Asia....they preferred the wealthy lifestyle in India to the mean subsistence on grasslands and icy rivers, and the huge Mughal army returned after spending crores and with no material gains.</b>

<b>The British Empire in the 19th century had the same problem. This is why they ended by establishing military bases along the frontier on a large scale, connected by an extensive road and rail network, and continuously supplied with men and munitions.</b> Something similar could have happened in the 12th century, but for that <b>an <i>empire</i> had to be established first within India, which the Guptas had done in the 4th century and the Pratihars had done in the 8th century against the Arabs.</b>

The Chauhan clan starting from their base in Sambhar district, had by the time of Prithviraj III a large kingdom, but <b>needed some more time to assimilate rival kingdoms like the Chalukyas in Gujarat and Chandellas in Bundelkhand to form an empire like that of the Pratihars.</b>

But they never got that time and had to die fighting against the Turks; <b>their remnants continued that resistance from forts like Ranthambhor for one full century, before another kingdom like Mewar and others rose to defeat and expel the Turks from Rajasthan in the 14th century.</b>

<b>added later</b>:

<b>The Sikh conquest of Peshawar, Kashmir, Multan, etc is rightly regarded as an important achievement, but this would not have been possible without the Treaty of Amritsar (1809),</b> between the Raja of Lahore (as Ranjit Singh is called in that document) and the EIC.

<b>By this treaty Ranjit Singh gave up his claims on Sikh lands south of the Sutlej, and in return the British promised not to intervene or help any other chiefs north of that river</b>. This gave Ranjit Singh a free hand to expand into the north and the west; he did not need to keep any large troop formations to watch the southern border. Indeed the treaty actually barred him from doing so.

While some regard this treaty as a setback to the Sikhs, given all the circumstances it was a wise decision by Ranjit Singh to be on friendly terms with the EIC.


brihaspati Wrote:
Quote:Ghazni's invasions in other parts of India were raids but his war against the Hindu Shahis was for territory in Punjab where his descendants established a kingdom. Ghori's campaigns were meant for creating an empire. In both cases the raids accumulated money, which financed further raids and expansion.

<b>Mahmud</b> could have been motivated from several factors (1) he is known to have been literate in Islamic theology, so possibly taken seriously/used for justification the Hadithic injunction of "Ghazwa-e-Hind", and there are numismatic evidence of his posing as a champion of the Khaliphate's expansionist program - so <b>not a simple raid/territorial expansion only </b>(2) pressure from newer Turks who however ultimately moved west - it is significant to note that his descendants were restricted more and more to the south-eastern parts into Indian Multan after the sack of Ghazni by Ghori and complete burning and looting of the capital built at a cost of 17 million dirhams from the loot of India extracted by Mahmud. There also appears to be lot of discrepancy in the figures for the number of raids or campaigns and archaeological claims of defeating the Islamic hordes by "Hindu" kings - <b>it is possible that the Islamic chroniclers simply do not record the numerous defeats or reversals.</b>

Quote:Reverse raids by Hindu Kingdoms were not possible because there was nothing to loot in the barren lands across the Sindhu.
The economic wealth in India came from agriculture, industry, and trade, all of which meant flourishing cities and a widely dispersed dense population in numerous villages. By contrast lands across the Sindhu were barren, thinly populated, and with few cities. What this meant was that an army from outside found plenty to loot in India, but an Indian army had to make extensive preparations for sustaining its forces in those barrern enemy lands.

Well, in that case Alexander should not have chased Darius into Guagamela, or crossed into central Asian extensions of the Persian empire, or returned to Susa by the most punishing routes after leaving Sind. <b>The Indians were thinking in terms of only land campaigns - and there is evidence that they had started neglecting the naval warfare angle. The Chinese and Islamic chroniclers do notice that the Indian ships were getting behind in speed, strength and "class" compared to the Arabs, the Ceylonese and the Chinese.</b> A campaign like that of Alexander which kept its troops supplied from the sea with a strong navy <b>could have taken out Baghdad - the seat of political militancy and planning of campaigns against India by the Caliphate. The Indian maritime dominance of the Arabian sea would have also solved the "loss of trade" problem that appears to have created a lot of "boot licking" among the Indian "princes" to curry favour with the Islamic "hordes". </b>

Quote:The British Empire in the 19th century had the same problem. This is why they ended by establishing military bases along the frontier on a large scale, connected by an extensive road and rail network, and continuously supplied with men and munitions. Something similar could have happened in the 12th century, but for that an empire had to be established first within India, which the Guptas had done in the 4th century and the Pratihars had done in the 8th century against the Arabs.

Is it possible that the strength of the Buddhist and Jaina moralism had prevented the formation of ruthless military practices or strategic thinking? <b>Empire formation needed a degree of ruthlessness and lack of scruples which were strongly discouraged by the existing moral climate - such moves by a king could have had very negative repercussions on the legitimacy of the ruler among the populace as well as powerful networks of temples/akharas/matts/viharas</b>.

Rahul M Wrote:
Quote:Is it possible that the strength of the Buddhist and Jaina moralism had prevented the formation of ruthless military practices or strategic thinking? Empire formation needed a degree of ruthlessness and lack of scruples which were strongly discouraged by the existing moral climate - such moves by a king could have had very negative repercussions on the legitimacy of the ruler among the populace as well as powerful networks of temples/akharas/maths/viharas.
AFAIK buddhism was already on the wane during the islamic campaign on India.
while the influence of its thought was still great I think the pacifist effects of buddhism has been over-hyped to some extent.

the bengal palas for example were buddhists but they were very active in conquests and warfare.
they certainly exibited no pacifism when it came to administration.

reluctance of Indians to "hot pursuit" is perhaps better ascribed to <i>kupamanduk</i> behaviour, one that STILL afflicts us today.
serious lack of understanding of the enemy's motive is the hallmark of this mentality.
add to that "they don't have anything I want" and you have the classic "turtle" military mentality.

ramana Wrote:Brihaspati, Have you looked at Ghazni's kingdom thru Middle Eastern history prespective. It was the time the Seljuk Turks were advancing and takingover the runing of the Calipate. Ghazni was a frontier outpost for them and became a center for expanding the Islamic power into Indian sub-continent. About 60 years after the second Battle of Terain (1192) the Baghdad caliphate was sacked by Mongols and ended.

If the Chauhans were building a successor empire to stop the Islamic incursions that would have happened only at cost of the local kingdoms and that would explain their lack of support to Prithivi Raj and in some cases outright hostility which made them support the invaders.


brihaspati Wrote:
Quote:AFAIK buddhism was already on the wane during the islamic campaign on India.
while the influence of its thought was still great I think the pacifist effects of buddhism has been over-hyped to some extent.

the bengal palas for example were buddhists but they were very active in conquests and warfare.
they certainly exibited no pacifism when it came to administration.

The Islamic campaigns started in the late 600's, and the first significant inroads were by Muhammad, (son-in-law of Hajjaj) in 713-714 against Dahir in Sind. The Palas had not become a significant imperial power at this stage. The breach made in Multan by Muhammad was maintained in Multan and Mansura through the 800's and the 900's leading to the more famous campaigns of Mahmud. But if you think of it the earlier parts of the Islamic campaign comes in the immediate aftermath of the Buddhist revival under Harsha, and the increasingly thriving Buddhist townships of learning centres like Odantapuri and Nalanda in exactly this period may not actually indicate waning Buddhist influence. The Jaina traditions also indicate a moralistic restrictive attitude towards exploration and military ruthlessness.

Accepting that the Palas appear to have favoured "Buddhism" over other faiths, and still waged war does not detract from the possible influence of Buddhist morals on waging war under "niti" - same could be apparent in the various central-northern Indian princes under Jaina influence - the indications of "magnanimity" or principled stand in waging war against the Muslims by the north-Indian princes shows up a weakness not seen in the Arthasastra or the legendary tactical exploits of Ashoka. The matching of Islamic tactics by ruthless deception and everything aimed at liquidation and erasure of the "enemy" was absent - time and time again we find the enemy allowed to escape, not pursued, allowed to recover, not tortured to death, not enslaved, - no enjoyment of the Sadistic torture or treatment of relatives and dependants as part of psychological warfare - no - all these are present on the Islamic side, present in theory in Arthasastra, but noweher present in the behaviour of the Indian princes. I think this is a clear indication of Buddhist and Jaina morals that modified and restricted strategic and tactical flexibility in warfare from the Indian side.

Quote:If the Chauhans were building a successor empire to stop the Islamic incrusions that would have happened only at cost of the local kingdoms and that would explain their lack of support to Prithivi Raj and in some cases outright hostility which made them support the invaders.

I agree, and the Seljuk Turks really caused the Ghaznavid empire a lot of sleepless nights. However, Prithviraj was not entirely alone as far as we can reconstruct in the first battle of Tarain. There does appear to be repeated alliances between the princes to face the common threat of Islamic invasions. <b>The major problem seems to be with Jayachand only.</b> An early opportunity to patch up with the Chalukyas was lost due to the advice of the minister of an younger and inexperienced Prithviraj - and not necessarily a fault of the "other" - the Chalukyas. The very fact that the possibility of such coordination rose against Ghori's early expeditions prove that such coordination proposals did come up in reality.

Two aspects that we are perhaps not analyzing that much are (1) whether the prevailing philosophies and religions prevented the Indian leadership from realizing the true danger of Islam, and therefore the need for rising above narrow regional or clan loyalties - something that had happened historically facing the threat of disruptive foreign incursions for at least the two known "great empires" based in India - the Mauryas against Persian/Greek and the Guptas against the Shakas/Hunas (2) <b>the possible effects of cyclical natural "catastrophes" like El Nino or other cyclical periods of drought and non-productivity. One cycle that could be important is a 1500 year cycle that appears to be prominent in all major historical civilizations simultaneously - 2300 BCE (Egypts pyramid-dynasty declines with known records of drought and devastation lasting 200 years - similar records exist for the middle and near east and the north-Indian riverine civilizations of the late Harappa period) - 800 BCE - and finally 700 C.E. We do hear increasing incidence of droughts in this period in India, but we do not have very serious studies of this question for India. If a drought lasting 100-200 years really ravaged the country at this time, that could explain a lot of the inability of the princes to defend their country as well as increasing raids by the hungry hordes from even drier and less productive central-west Asia</b>.

ramana Wrote:taking the 2300BCE date can you forward project the 1500 year cycle and see where that lands us. And then <b>we can look at the body of Sanskrit literature post-Harshavardhana and pre-Islamic to see if there are whines/laments about drought and failing rains etc</b>.

brihaspati Wrote:Ramanaji,
thank you for pointing this out. As calculated in my earlier post - this should come to 700 CE. I looked up in my older notes just now - here is my quick survey:

<b>Famines in this period - seem to be rather common: </b>
(1) Ganjam (Russelkonda plates) of Nettabhanja, Epigraphia Indica vol 28,
(2) Prabandhachintamani
(3) Samayamatrika
(4) Uktivyaktiprakarana.

The Brihannaradyia Purana placed approximately in this period, says in describing typical condition of Kali age as "people will be gravely distressed by famine and will migrate to countries rich in wheat and barley". Trisastislalakapurushacharita refers to famines "terrible with universal destruction". <b>Aparajitaprccha talsk about the tremendous losses brought about by famines- under stress of famine dharma declines, and the subjects and rulers suffer alike. Prabandhachintamani and Kathakosha refer to famines lasting for 12 or more years at a stretch.</b> I find several references in Lekhapaddhati. Prabandhachintamani refers to a massive famine in Gujarat during Chalukya king Bhima, another happened during Vishaladeva as mentioned in Jagaducharita. Rajatarangini refers to two disastrous famines in Kashmir in 917-16 during Partha and another under Harsha in 1099-1011.

<b>Prabandhachintamani does refer explicitly to droughts as causes of famine in this period.</b> Aparajitaprchha calims this to be the most important cause. Brihannaradyia also thinks so. <b>However there are other texts which seem to attach importance to additional causes like unexpected and excessive flooding - Kathakosa, Agni Purana, Visesha-sataka of Shyamsundar Ganin etc. There appears also to be reference to political tension resultimg from inability of the kings to extract taxes or their attempts to continue to do so (Kalhana compares the people to old bullocks loaded with boulders - in reference to Partha and Harsha's activities). </b>

<b>A characteristic of this long-period El-Nino cycles is in fact prolonged periods of general drought, with intensive patches, and occasional catastrophic rainfall and flooding.</b> El Nino's effects were in fact first noticed by studying Indian monsoon rainfall patterns and their connection to fluctuations in sea-surface temperature in the Pacific, in 19th century. It would be great, if others could give more historical references.

ramana Wrote:By Jupiter you got it! 8)

<b>Now turn this into a paper ASAP before the johlawalas steal it.</b>And better yet hot foot it to the history seminar to be held in jan 9, 09 in Delhi by kaushal.

I guess I should become an adviser or research director who points out where to beat the bushes!
----------------

Some thing to mull over

El Nino Southern Oscillation

In the bible they talk of the story of Joseph and his multi-colored coat fame. He interprets a dream that the Pharoh has of seven years of plenty and seven years of drought and is appointed as vizier to mitigate the after effects. So this would be of the aftermath of the 2300 BCE date.

-------------------------------------------
Can we add to this line of thought? The thesis is that El Nino type severe weather cycles caused the jahliya that broke down the trading system and led to weakening of the Indian kigdoms and was a factor in the islamic conquest.


Btw the 1500 years cycle will repeat in 700+1500= 2200 AD ie is 200 years from now!
  Reply
#96
It is "said" that a Pandayan King put 8000 Jaina monks to death - by impaling them. The King was a Jain. But his wife and his ministers were Hindus. The Queen and her Ministere invites Jannasambandar (a Hindu) to the Kingdom. After some "miracles" and debates he converts the King back to Hinduism. After this the King is "supposed" to have impaled the Jaina monks.

KAN considers this as a legend and does not admit this as History. Another tamil writer considers that people have mistook the word "ennayaram" to be eigth thousand, whereas it is actually a place.

But several folks do not consider this to be a legend.

What is the ruling of the members here? Would you say since there is a painting on this subject, it can be assumed there is some truth to the story. Or would you say the entire thing is a fiction? Or there is some truth, but the number 8000 is hugely exaggerated?

The north west wall: http://web.mac.com/mvbhaskar/Naayakaa/No..._Wall.html

The actual picture in discussion: http://web.mac.com/mvbhaskar/Naayakaa/Digi...ace_Part_6.html
  Reply
#97
Ramana, 95:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Islamic campaigns started in the late 600's, and the first significant inroads were by Muhammad, (son-in-law of Hajjaj) in 713-714 against Dahir in Sind. The Palas had not become a significant imperial power at this stage. The breach made in Multan by Muhammad was maintained in Multan and Mansura through the 800's and the 900's leading to the more famous campaigns of Mahmud. But if you think of it the earlier parts of the Islamic campaign comes in the immediate aftermath of the Buddhist revival under Harsha, and the increasingly thriving Buddhist townships of learning centres like Odantapuri and Nalanda in exactly this period may not actually indicate waning Buddhist influence. The Jaina traditions also indicate a moralistic restrictive attitude towards exploration and military ruthlessness.

Accepting that the Palas appear to have favoured "Buddhism" over other faiths, and still waged war does not detract from the possible influence of Buddhist morals on waging war under "niti" - same could be apparent in the various central-northern Indian princes under Jaina influence - the indications of "magnanimity" or principled stand in waging war against the Muslims by the north-Indian princes shows up a weakness not seen in the Arthasastra or the legendary tactical exploits of Ashoka. The matching of Islamic tactics by ruthless deception and everything aimed at liquidation and erasure of the "enemy" was absent - time and time again we find the enemy allowed to escape, not pursued, allowed to recover, not tortured to death, not enslaved, - no enjoyment of the Sadistic torture or treatment of relatives and dependants as part of psychological warfare - no - all these are present on the Islamic side, present in theory in Arthasastra, but noweher present in the behaviour of the Indian princes. I think this is a clear indication of Buddhist and Jaina morals that modified and restricted strategic and tactical flexibility in warfare from the Indian side.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Most of the invasions of moslem marauders were encountered by Hindu princes, LARGELY of shaiva leaning, barring a few encounters with vaiShNava leaning, but almost NEVER with any of jaina-bauddha leaning. Count in this list saindhava shAhI-s who were straunch brAhmaNa-s, pramAra-s, chAlukya-s, chauhAna-s, and princes of mewar etc -- all of those standard kShatriya-s with their mind at the right place. This is central and western India. In East India, it was the sena-s (and NOT pAla-s) who faced the brunt of first jehAd in shirq and remember that the first few sena-s were straunch shaivite too, although like any other Hindu prince, the were equally generous in grants to bauddha vihAra-s and jaina-s - but that should not be mistaken with any softened kShatriya sense. It was the prominent sena king, the lakShamaNa sena, a first generation vaiShNava who was ruling when Islam entered east. At this time, buddhism and jainism were already becoming "niche" religions followed by particular communities, and the traditional Astika mata-s had become much popular in general, and in particular the eastern vaiShNavism of early gauDIya vareity was gaining popularity.

coming to arthashAstra. It was certainly the manual which all these Hindu kingdoms were following, no dount. Just read the apabhramsha record on the education of princes by a certain brAhmaNa of multAna forcibly converted to Islam during those days and named as abdurrehmAna. He mentions artha- and rAjanIti being the core of education of Hindu princes besides the lessons of bravery. So we should say that the contemporary princes were very good kShatriya both in spirit and education.

So, the failure does not lie there at all. The failure lies elsewhere - in inability of Hindu intellectuals in being able to grasp this creed called Islam. There is no worthwhile account telling anything about evaluation and strategic understanding of the idea behing Islam by any contemporary brAhmaNa, jaina or bauddha scholars - despite losses after losses being suffered. lAmA tArAnAtha did mention it in retrospect, but that is later. Best anyone came up with was in the 11th century insertion about Islam into bhaviShya purANa after the pramAra retailation against ghaznavI. Nothing more until after the fall of Delhi in 13th c. (Or if someone did, then we have lost it, or is consumed away in the great fires made of the libraries by the ghAzI).

This failure to understand Islam, and failure to forge an unwavering united Hindu Front is the prime reason for the fall. Just imagine, when Moslem was knocking at the door, sena-s were spending their energies in territorial quarrels with their equally brilliant Hindu neighbours, resulting in total waste of Hindu resources! Then there is something called fate! Read Todd's Annals of Rajasthan, where he records several instances where fate was simply against the Hindus, including in the second battle of Tarrain.
  Reply
#98
Source: http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.a...me=m3GntEw72ik=

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Kilinochchi’s past

The impending fall of the LTTE stronghold Kilinochchi to the Sri Lankan forces, has made D G A Perera recall how in the 13th century, a similar event with far reaching consequences occurred. The Sinhalese king Parakramabahu II had then driven the Indian invader, Magha, out of Kilinochchi and other parts of the Northeast, and regained the territory for the Sinhalese, Perera wrote in ‘The Island’ daily recently.

Magha from Kalinga had invaded Sri Lanka with a<b> “savage force” of Keralite mercenaries in 1215.</b> He built 15 fortresses from Trincomalee in the east to Mannar in the west through Jaffna. One of his strongest fortresses was in Pulachchery, which Perera says is the modern Kilinochchi, as both Pulachchery and Kilinochchi mean “bird sanctuary”.

According to him, the “original” Sinhalese name for Kilinochchi was “Giraa Nochchiya” which means a sanctuary for parrots.

Ironically, Parakramabahu II had to take the help of the Cholas and Pandyas of Tamil Nadu to get rid of Magha and his Keralite hoardes.

Chandrabhanu II, an invader of Malay origin, who had taken Jaffna by then, also helped.

History seems to be repeating itself with Colombo seeking the help of New Delhi, other governments, and Karuna, to crush the LTTE.

Afro-Sri Lankans

Few know that in the fascinating ethnomosaic that is Sri Lanka, there is a community of Afro-Sri Lankans. They are the Kaffir of Puttalam and Batticaloa districts who stand out with their kinky hair. Historians say that they were brought by the Portuguese to Sri Lanka via Goa in the 16th century, converted to Catholicism, and made to work under very exploitative conditions.

The Dutch, who followed the Portuguese, used 4,000 of them to build the Colombo Fort. Sadly, even after five centuries today, the Kaffir are mainly manual labourers. Over the years, most have merged with the Sinhalese, and only about 215 families still retain their identity. Even these have no knowledge of their original tongue, Afro- Portuguese Creole. But amazingly, the Kaffir’s vigorous Afro-Portuguese musical and dance tradition has survived the ravages of time and cultural onslaughts.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I had read a book about Spice trade in the S.E.Asia, and it was mentioned that the Portuguese had used Malabar sharp shooters (archers) for many a battle in the Indonesia.
  Reply
#99
I did not get hold of the book I had read, but another book on Malabar archers.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->From September 1513 to February 1515 Albuquerque remained in India, remodelling the administration and setting in order the various forts and factories on the Malabar coast. But at the end of this period lack of funds sent him forth on an enterprise which he had long wished to undertake, the capture of Ormuz. He saiked on the 21st of February 1515, with 27 ships and 3000 men, of whom 1500 were Portuguese and 600 Malabar archers.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

From "Vasco Da Gama and His Succecssors 1460 to 1580" by K.G.Javne
+++++++++++++


And Cheras are considered to be established by Vilavar clan. Vil means bow in Tamil. Vilavar - people proficient with bow. Chera had bow+arrow as a symbol. There is a rich history associated with archery in that parts of the country.
  Reply
Bodhiji

Sometime ago when I read Dharampal's books he mentioned something interesting regarding the military strategies.

[/quote]
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Dharampal offers an interesting perspective on why India languished militarily. He indicates that Indian society contributed very little revenue to the military and mostly had local systems. I cant remember where I read it but just as a note to myself. I think he mentioned that most areas had about 5% allocation for the rajyas. Aurangzeb increased revenues to about 20% of agri produce. Marathas and Vijayanagara kingdoms also tried to raise the share of revenues but in the end were not very successful. Brits had about 40-50% taxation.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

  Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)