10-26-2006, 07:06 AM (This post was last modified: 10-26-2006, 07:33 AM by Bharatvarsh.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->[Does any one knows the story of Veer Hakikat Rai? He was tortured and killed by
Moslems.
There is nothing i ncould find on the net.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here is some info:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Execution of Veer Haqiqat Rai (1722-1734)
Veer Haqiqat Rai was born in 1722 A.D in Sialkot (now in current day Pakistan) to Bhag Mall Khatri on October 2nd, Kartik Vadi [1], his maternal grandparents and his mother were Sikhs while his father was a Hindu. He was married at the age of ten to Durgi the daughter of Sardar Kishan Singh. At the time of Haqiqat Rai, the state of Punjab was already under great Muslim influence, at the same time there was a lack of proper Hindu schools, which meant that Haqiqat Rai was sent to a Muslim school for his education where he began his instruction at the age of twelve. One day some of his Muslim classmates abused Ma Bhavani by calling her insulting names, which prompted Haqiqat Rai to get into a heated debate with some of his classmates. As a consequence he was accused of committing blasphemy against Prophet Muhammad and Islam and was imprisoned, later he was taken to the court of Governor Nawab Zakariya Khan in Lahore where he was asked to embrace Islam and save him self, which Haqiqat Rai stoutly refused to do, this caused Zakariya Khan to pass the death sentence against him and he was tortured and later executed at the tender age of twelve on the day of Basanth Panchami, but he did not yield to the requests of his mother to give up his faith nor to the tempting offer of Zakariya Khan and happily embraced death for the sake of his religion and his body was cremated on the banks of River Ravi at Lahore. An annual fair was organized on the day of Basanth Panchami every year to commemorate his martyrdom until the partition of Bharat in 1947 and a samadhi of Veer Haqiqat Rai exists to this day near Lahoreâs Engineering University.
On The Question Of Haqiqat Raiâs Religion:
It is extremely important that we discuss the question of Haqiqat Raiâs faith since it is very noticeable that many Sikh sites claim that Haqiqat Rai was a Sikh martyr and the Hindu community must find out whether Haqiqat Rai was in fact Sikh or Hindu.
A good way to begin this investigation would be to examine some of the statements on Sikh websites regarding Haqiqat Rai, at the opening let us look at the following statement from a Sikh website on Veer Haqiqat Rai:
"Bhai Haqiqat Rai became a Sikh early in his life due to influence of his mother. During Mughal rule, children used to go to mosques to study Persian from Maulvis (Muslim priests). Bhai Haqiqat Rai was also learning Persian from a maulvi. He was the only Hindu while all his other class-mates were Muslims.â [2]
The above statement claims that Veer Haqiqat Rai âbecame a Sikh early in his life due to influence of his motherâ but a moment later it states, âHe was the only Hindu while all his other class-mates were Muslims.â Which is a bit strange because Sikhs firmly deny that they are Hindus so it is not possible for Haqiqat Rai to be both Hindu and Sikh at the same time which the Sikh website seems to have disregarded in trying to make Haqiqat Rai a Sikh.
The next important point to consider is the reason for Haqiqat Raiâs blasphemy against Muhmmad, according to the Sikh Encyclopedia the following was the reason for his alleged blasphemy against Prophet Muhammad:
âIt was here that some of the Muslim students in the mosque spoke ill of the Goddess Bhavani which provoked Haqiqat Rai into a polemic with his fellow studentsâ [3]
In the statement given above it clearly states that the reason for Haqiqat Raiâs anger was the words spoken by his Muslim classmates against Goddess Bhavani which is an important point to consider, according to Sikhs the Sikh religion teaches the worship of only One God, so Why exactly did Haqiqat Rai get angry about blasphemy against Goddess Bhavani if he was a Sikh since Sikhs do not worship Ma Bhavani? And this leads to the conclusion that either the Sikhs at the time still considered themselves Hindus or Veer Haqiqat Rai himself was a Hindu. But according to Sikhs they never regarded themselves as Hindus at any time so the only possible conclusion is that Haqiqat Rai himself was a Hindu.
An interesting detail I found on the net while researching about Haqiqat Rai is the fact that there are two different articles on him at two different websites [4] that are virtually identical except for the fact that one of the sites (a Sikh website) has the following statement which is not found in the article on the other website, the statement is this:
"Bhai Haqiqat Rai became a Sikh early in his life due to influence of his mother.â [5]
The previous quote seems to show us that the Sikh website just took the article from the other website and added in that sentence to make Haqiqat Rai a Sikh which strengthens the idea that Haqiqat Rai was a Hindu and not a Sikh.
A few other facts frequently mentioned on Sikh sites to make Haqiqat Rai a Sikh are that his mother and maternal grandparents were Sikhs but none of this proves that Haqiqat Rai in fact was Sikh since going by this logic even Guru Nanak becomes a Hindu because he had Hindu parents and so does Master Tara Singh since he came from a Hindu Khatri family which obviously Sikhs would not agree with, so the fact that Haqiqat Rai had a Sikh mother does not make him Sikh.
Another important point is the fact that the name Haqiqat Rai indicates that he didnât join the Khalsa since Sikh men who join the Khalsa usually took up the last name âSinghâ and according to Sikhs it is imperative that all Sikhs should keep the 5Kâs to be considered fully Sikh which again throws a spanner in the belief that Haqiqat Rai was a Sikh since he didnât keep the 5Kâs.
Haqiqat Rai no doubt may have been influenced by Sikh philosophy to some extent since his mother was a Sikh but that doesnât mean that he becomes a Sikh and there is no reason to believe that Haqiqat Rai was Sikh since he falls short of the definition of a Sikh constructed by the Sikh community itself. In conclusion Veer Haqiqat Rai was a Hindu who sacrificed his life for his own religion and who should be remembered by all Hindus for all times to come for his great sacrifice.
Jai Durga Ma.
References:
[1] âVAR HAQIQAT RAIâ â The Sikh Encyclopedia.
http://groups.msn.com/hindu-history/rawarc...539973092114624<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A colorful celebration used to take place every year near his samadhi especially under Maharaja Ranjit Singh's rule, it's another matter that the vast majority have forgotten about him today (thanks to our p-sec education).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The history of Ahobilam shrine is well documented. It is closely
connected with the Mutt and its Jeers. There should not be any
confusion, particularly now, when history is becoming more and more
important for Hindus. An authoritative book on Ahobilam is by
R.Vasantha, Prof. of History at KD Univ. Anantapur. This book was
published by TTD, Tirupati in 2001 and is still available in print.
The Founder and first swami of Ahobila Mutt was born in September
1379, took sanyaasya in 1398 and attained Moksha in 1458 AD. His
contemporary king was Harihara II of Vijayanagara. Krishnadevaraya
had also met him before he became the king. He mentions about this
Swami in his composition `Amuktamaalyada', which is about AnDaaL. It
is said that this Jeer also helped the Orissa king to get his
kingdom. But the details are missing.
Actually, it appears it was the 6th Jeer of the Mutt (1499-1513) who
was associated with Mukundadeva of Kalinga. It was the 11th jeer
about whom I mentioned in my previious post. He was remarkable. He
did lead an army to recapture Ahobilam from the Muslims. After the
fall of V.N kingdom, in 1565 at Talikote, the Hindu chief Tirumala
shifted the capital to Penukonda. In 1579 the Sultan of Golconda,
Ibrahim Ali, (attacked through his son) Ahobilam and completely
destroyed the temple. The gold and silver alloy idol of Narasimha
was taken away to Golconda. It is said that something strange
happened, when the Sultan saw the idol. The sultan was stunned and
became dumb. He died the same night (5th June1580). This appears in
a slightly different way in the Persian history by Farishta also. He
says the demons of Ahobilam killed the Sultan! It appears after
this event the Sultans mellowed a little bit towards Hindus. The son
Kuli Kutub Shah became the next Sultan and no worship took place in
Ahobilam for several years. It was at this time the 11th Jeer
approached the left over Hindu king Ranga Raya and asked him to
recapture Ahobilam. It is said that he had a dream in which he knew
that he would get support from the king. He asked the king to give
him the help of his commanders Venkataraju and Tirumalraju to lead a
contingent to Ahobilam. The Jeer gave instructions to the two Chiefs
about field placements of the troops. The recapturing of the temple
was celebrated by a victory pillar (You can still see it in
Ahobilam!) with a Telugu inscription of 1584 A.D. The complete text
of the inscription is available in the above book. Who helped whom?
Did the Jeer help the king or did the king help the SVs? Finally it
was Hinduism which was saved from further ignominy in Andhra,
Karnataka and T.N. History tells that Sanyasins, including SVs,
took leadership position to preserve the Dharma. I mentioned above,
about the 7th Jeer. He wrote the famous Sanskrit drama Vaasantika-
PariNayam in which Lord Narasimha of Ahobilam marries Chenchita the
tribal hunter girl of the Ahobilam forest. He started a group of
missionaries (Hindus if you like!) called Ahobila Daasa to work
among the Chenchus and these tribes are to this day devotees of
Narasimha. As you may be knowing the godess there is named Chenchu-
lakshmi, a memorable way of acknowledging the contribution of the
tribals in preserving SV-ism in that part of the country. IMHO doing
social work is not a mean job when it is for protecting Dharma.
RNI
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->[Does any one knows the story of Veer Hakikat Rai? He was tortured and killed by
Moslems.
There is nothing i ncould find on the net. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When I was kid, it was my grandmother's favorite bedtime story, It had big impact on my personality.
10-26-2006, 05:37 PM (This post was last modified: 10-26-2006, 05:40 PM by Bharatvarsh.)
The samadhi of his wife is in Batala evidently:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There is a Sati Lakshmi Park which house the smadh of Lakshmi Devi, the wife of Vir Haqiqat Rai of Sialkot
http://punjabrevenue.nic.in/gaz_gdr32.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bhatia says:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->For example, the celebration of Basant Festival at Lahore at the Samadhi of Veer Haqiqat Rai, a Nanak Panthi boy, married to a Sikh girl who was beheaded in 1742 for passing some retaliatory remarks against the Prophet when the Maulvi of his madrasa at Sialkot spoke against Hindu gods. He was sentenced by a Qazi at Lahore to be tortured and killed. His martyrdom gave a sort of electric shock to the Hindus and Sikhs of entire Punjab so that a party of Khalsas attacked Sialkot and killed all the Maulavis and Qazis responsible for his death. Ranjit Singh, whose kingdom was Hindu, to all intents and purposes used to arrange a guard of honour at Haqiqat Rai's shrine which is near the Shalimar Garden of Lahore. The biographer of Mohan Lal describes what he was as follows:
"The Basant festival fell on February 6 (1832). It was celebrated with great pomp and show at the shrine of Haqiqat Rai, 7 kms away from the city (at a village named Shah Bilawal). The Sikh troops clad in yellow uniform lined the road on the both sides. Then the Maharaja (Ranjit Singh) dressed in yellow robes, and accompanied by his European officers rode to the tents which were made of yellow silk and shawls and adorned with pearls. Among them was a canopy valued at one lakh of rupees. It was covered with pearls having a border of precious diamonds. Burnes wrote: "Nothing can be imagined more grand'. Mohan Lal says the Maharaja was received in his camp with most extravagant demonstrations of joy - Long live the good liege of Five Rivers! Was the general cry."
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Oct 26 2006, 05:37 PM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Oct 26 2006, 05:37 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The samadhi of his wife is in Batala evidently:
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There is a Sati Lakshmi Park which house the smadh of Lakshmi Devi, the wife of Vir Haqiqat Rai of Sialkot
Ala-ud-din conquered it after killing Kanhad Deva Chauhan....later it came under Rathors of Jodhpur.
But the Lohani Nawabs of Palanpur claim that their ancestor took Jalor from the Parihar Rajput ruler (!) in the 14th Century. That ancestor was a minister of the Parihar ruler.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The rule of Jalore after Kanhad's fall is little nebulous. In all likelihood it was ruled by muslims and since it was a seat of chauhan power there is no reason why Parihaar rajputs would try to conquer it. Mandore was ruled by Parihhars and after muslims were able to win it in the 14 th century Parihaar rajputs reconquered it in a spectacular fashion and handed it over to rathors with an assurance that warfare between rathores and parihaars would cease. What happened was that Muslim ruler in Mandore wanted Parihaars to allow cutting of there grass crop so that the muslim stable could be fed. Paihaars were incensed at this affront and hid in the grass filled bullock carts and overpowered the fort.
<!--QuoteBegin-PC Guleria+Oct 5 2006, 11:20 PM-->QUOTE(PC Guleria @ Oct 5 2006, 11:20 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Further Emperor Akbar expelled the Lohani Afghans to Gujarat (where they founded Palanpur) and gave Jalor to the Rathors.
So what is the sequence of events??
[right][snapback]58593[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Jalore was conquered by rathores. Maldeo had it part of his empire and even before him Rana Mokal attacked Jalore (helped by Rao Ranmal Rathore, father of Rao Jodha) and the Bihari Pathan of Jalore paid tribute to the Maharana.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->On The Question Of Haqiqat Raiâs Religion:
It is extremely important that we discuss the question of Haqiqat Raiâs faith since it is very noticeable that many Sikh sites claim that Haqiqat Rai was a Sikh martyr and the Hindu community must find out whether Haqiqat Rai was in fact Sikh or Hindu.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well In order to decipher the real religion of Bhai Haqiqat Rai.
Sikh means Shishya of a Guru and Hindu means what? At that time when Zakriya Khan was ruling Lahore only people resisting him were Shishya of the Sikh Gurus i.e. Sikhs or Khalsa. Zakriya Khan had ordered 1 rupee prize for alive sikh while 2 rupees for a dead sikh. Sikh women prisoners were given 40 maunds of grain to grind each day (on chakki) else their children were killed.
Bhai Haqiqat Rai had the courage to resist the Qazi and thus he was a Sikh. You can claim anything about his religion. but a Sikh is he/she who is saint as well as a Soldier. A meek who bows down to pressure is not a SIKH and from that point alone Bhai Haqiqat Rai was a Sikh.
Once again.. the day all Hindus of India realize the importance of being a Saint and a Soldier (emphasis on Soldiering part) we will usher in a new beautiful India.
on the Visakhi day of 1699, Guru Gobind Singh when creating the Khalsa declared that "Rajputs have forgotten their Dharma and are thus giving away their daughters to Turks, from these common folks (nai, jhweer, jats, chamars, khatris, etc) I will create such a force that will restore the pride at any cost"
During Meer Mannu and Zakriya Khan's ruling.. we had Bhai Haqiqat Rai's martrydom! Bhai Taru Singh's martyrdom! Bhai Mani Singh's martyrdom! Bhai Tara Singh's martyrdom and many others... While you can continue down to discuss the technical details of who is a Hindu, what is a Hindu and who is not.
As well as I am concerned any of Gandhiian, Buddhist and Jains are not Hindus! (they are far away from the center balance of Saint and Soldier). The real Hindus are the Real Khalsa.
<!--QuoteBegin-sbajwa+Dec 2 2006, 01:58 AM-->QUOTE(sbajwa @ Dec 2 2006, 01:58 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->On The Question Of Haqiqat Raiâs Religion:
It is extremely important that we discuss the question of Haqiqat Raiâs faith since it is very noticeable that many Sikh sites claim that Haqiqat Rai was a Sikh martyr and the Hindu community must find out whether Haqiqat Rai was in fact Sikh or Hindu.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well In order to decipher the real religion of Bhai Haqiqat Rai.
.......
[right][snapback]61626[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sandeep,
Akal Takth was used by Guruji to have rajput ballads of bravery sung for his troops. This included Jaimal/Fatta (Defenders of Chittor), Alha/Udal 0f Mahoba etc.
Regarding giving daughters to Turks, it was definetely the darkest period in rajput history. Though in last thirty years of Aurangzeb's reign entire rajputana had pretty much revolted.
12-02-2006, 10:35 PM (This post was last modified: 12-03-2006, 04:12 AM by Bodhi.)
<!--QuoteBegin-sbajwa+Dec 1 2006, 04:28 PM-->QUOTE(sbajwa @ Dec 1 2006, 04:28 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->and Jains are not Hindus! (they are far away from the center balance of Saint and Soldier). The real Hindus are the Real Khalsa.
[right][snapback]61626[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sandeep Ji,
Jains have traditionally been valiant warriors, soldiers and statesmen. All 24 teerthankars of Jains had come from Kshatriyas class. Even look at the name of the last teerthankar: 'Mahaveer' (The Great Brave one) and 'Arihant' (Destroyer of enimy). Historical Jains include Bindusaar who was a valiant warrior and great emperor. So I think it would not be correct to brand Jains as non-soldiers.
I think up until Adi Shankar's time, Jains were majority Kshatriyas. As a result of Shankar's shastrartha campaigns with Jain Munis, especially in southern and central India, majority Kshatriyas took to Vedantic Sanatanism. However the Vaishya class of Jains especially in the west (Gujarat, Saurashtra etc) continued in Jain fold, with little altered tradition. This is why I feel, today's Jains are mostly Vaishyas and Vaniks with little or no Kshatriya influence.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Dec 2 2006, 10:35 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Dec 2 2006, 10:35 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-sbajwa+Dec 1 2006, 04:28 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(sbajwa @ Dec 1 2006, 04:28 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->and Jains are not Hindus! (they are far away from the center balance of Saint and Soldier). The real Hindus are the Real Khalsa.
[right][snapback]61626[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sandeep Ji,
Jains have traditionally been valiant warriors, soldiers and statesmen. All 24 teerthankars of Jains had come from Kshatriyas class. Even look at the name of the last teerthankar: 'Mahaveer' (The Great Brave one) and 'Arihant' (Destroyer of enimy). Historical Jains include Bindusaar who was a valiant warrior and great emperor. So I think it would not be correct to brand Jains as non-soldiers.
I think up until Adi Shankar's time, Jains were majority Kshatriyas. As a result of Shankar's shastrartha campaigns with Jain Munis, especially in southern and central India, majority Kshatriyas took to Vedantic Sanatanism. However the Vaishya class of Jains especially in the west (Gujarat, Saurashtra etc) continued in Jain fold, with little altered tradition. This is why I feel, today's Jains are mostly Vaishyas and Vaniks with little or no Kshatriya influence.
[right][snapback]61647[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+Dec 2 2006, 10:27 PM-->QUOTE(digvijay @ Dec 2 2006, 10:27 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-sbajwa+Dec 2 2006, 01:58 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(sbajwa @ Dec 2 2006, 01:58 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->On The Question Of Haqiqat Raiâs Religion:
It is extremely important that we discuss the question of Haqiqat Raiâs faith since it is very noticeable that many Sikh sites claim that Haqiqat Rai was a Sikh martyr and the Hindu community must find out whether Haqiqat Rai was in fact Sikh or Hindu.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well In order to decipher the real religion of Bhai Haqiqat Rai.
.......
[right][snapback]61626[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sandeep,
Akal Takth was used by Guruji to have rajput ballads of bravery sung for his troops. This included Jaimal/Fatta (Defenders of Chittor), Alha/Udal 0f Mahoba etc.
Regarding giving daughters to Turks, it was definetely the darkest period in rajput history. Though in last thirty years of Aurangzeb's reign entire rajputana had pretty much revolted.
I have listened to the "Waar" of Jaimal Fatta by the Dhadhi Singers... a classic indian ancient way to preserve History through ballads. Even today you can see the Dhadhi Jatha at akal takht singing about History.
I heard another "warr" about how many generals of Raja Pithora (Prithviraj chauhan) after the battle with Ghauri instead of going back to Rajasthan stayed at various places in punjab as they were too ashamed to go back to Rajasthan. One such general was Rae Bhue Bhatti (from Bhatinda state) who converted to Islam (so that his people can remain Hindus) and thus Ghauri gave him lots of land in current day shaikhpura district. He established a city that was named "Rai Bhoue di Talwandi" i.e. "Talwandi of the Rai Bhue". In his state Guru Nanak Dev ji were born in 1469 and Talwandi became Nankana Sahib., even now.. the people who control this area are all Bhattis and are extreme proud of their Rajput status (though are Muslims).
Regarding Aurugnzeb... Like I always say.... just after Akbar the camp of Naqshbandis (Shaikh ahmad sarhindi) schools of islam started controlling Mughals through noorjahan (Jehangir was mostly drunk), these guys were responsible for getting money from Hindus at Delhi and other places (under mughals control) for simple stuff like "Celebrating Holi, Diwali". Thus... these Naqshbandis' by the time of Aurungzeb controlled everything... they were responsible for starting the Kashmir problem (yep.. it was started during the time of Aurungzeb as earlier most people in Kashmir were Hindus)., that is still going on.
So.. Naqshbandis and Aurungzeb are the real reason of existence of Pakistan and these deoband and wahab school are also of the same mold. We must realize this problem to fix it to keep our existence.
<!--emo&:cool--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/specool.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='specool.gif' /><!--endemo--> Digvijay re:#108
Alha/Udal 0f Mahoba
Alha/Udal r very famous in the folklores of Haryana. Could u tell more on them.
2ndly, I visited the site on post:
At places, caption is Lt Gen
and down below u will find the same offr being addressed as Lt Col. I can understand that first u become Lt Col to be Lt Gen but readers may take this as fallacy; so, I think, a little changing of words here and there will remove the fallacy.
<!--QuoteBegin-Capt Manmohan Kumar+Dec 3 2006, 08:18 PM-->QUOTE(Capt Manmohan Kumar @ Dec 3 2006, 08:18 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--emo&:cool--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/specool.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='specool.gif' /><!--endemo--> Digvijay re:#108
Alha/Udal 0f Mahoba
Alha/Udal r very famous in the folklores of Haryana. Could u tell more on them.
2ndly, I visited the site on post:
At places, caption is Lt Gen
and down below u will find the same offr being addressed as Lt Col. I can understand that first u become Lt Col to be Lt Gen but readers may take this as fallacy; so, I think, a little changing of words here and there will remove the fallacy.
[right][snapback]61671[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hello Captain Kumar,
Alha and Udal were two brothers who were generals in the army of Parmardin of Mahoba. They were Banafar rajputs.
Alha was the elder brother and Udal the younger. They fought many wars to save there motherland, Mahoba.
There most memorable battles were fought against Prithivraj Chauhan.
Once Prithviraj Chauhan's army was returning from an expedition and were camped near Mahoba's boundary and came into conflict with Parmardin's army. In the ensuing conflict, Alha and Udal fought with great bravery and defeated the Chauhan army.
Due to a slight by Pramardin both brothers left Mahoba and went to the court of Jaichand of Kannauj.
Once Prithviraj learnt of this defeat he decided to attack Mahoba again. Mahoba was not that large a kingdom compared to Ajmer.
When Prithviraj arrived at the gates of Mahoba, Parmardin got worried that without Alha/Udal Mahoba cannot be defended and he tried his best to placate the two brothers.
Prithviraj on the other hand was an epitome of chivalry and decided he will only attack once the brothers are back because he had heard so much about them.
Finally Alha and Udal came back and the war started. As expected both of them fought with exemplary bravery but were defeated by a much larger army of Ajmer.
The feats done by both Banfar brothers in the war were stuff of legends and have been immortalized by the bards. Till today throughout UP/Bihar/MP/Haryana/Punjab/Rajasthan people relish listeing to the tales of Alha and Udal.
01-28-2007, 01:22 AM (This post was last modified: 01-28-2007, 01:41 AM by Bharatvarsh.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Arankanwal (Aranya means waste in Sanskrit, Kamal is Lotus),<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Digvijay, Aranya means forest, that is why Rama's time in the forest is called Aranya Khanda, it may have 2 diff meanings but as far I know it only means forest, any Sanskrit experts here who can answer this?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In India, Hindu religion has no concept of conversion. One has to be a born Hindu. (Though of late as a reaction to conversion of tribals by missionaries some Hindu groups have concocted a recipe to make a person Hindu!)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not true, conversion has a long history, Shivaji reconverted Netaji Palkar and Balaji Nimbalkar, Swami Vidyaranya reconverted both Harihar and Bukka who founded the Vijayanagara kingdom, the Devala Smriti has precise instructions on reconverting those who want to come back, the Ahom's arrived late into Asom but were slowly Hinduised under the influence of preachers like Sankara Deva, so conversion has a long history but was not widely used until the 19th century.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Jan 28 2007, 01:22 AM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Jan 28 2007, 01:22 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Arankanwal (Aranya means waste in Sanskrit, Kamal is Lotus),<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Digvijay, Aranya means forest, that is why Rama's time in the forest is called Aranya Khanda, it may have 2 diff meanings but as far I know it only means forest, any Sanskrit experts here who can answer this?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bharat,
Aranya also means wasteland/wilderness and people living in the desert (Marwar is Marusthali i.e a land where survival is very tough because of desert and extreme temperatures) thought there's was the wasteland. And of course lotus is even more rare and hence the name "lotus of the (wilderness=desert)", Arankanwal.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Jan 28 2007, 01:22 AM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Jan 28 2007, 01:22 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In India, Hindu religion has no concept of conversion. One has to be a born Hindu. (Though of late as a reaction to conversion of tribals by missionaries some Hindu groups have concocted a recipe to make a person Hindu!)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not true, conversion has a long history, Shivaji reconverted Netaji Palkar and Balaji Nimbalkar, Swami Vidyaranya reconverted both Harihar and Bukka who founded the Vijayanagara kingdom, the Devala Smriti has precise instructions on reconverting those who want to come back, the Ahom's arrived late into Asom but were slowly Hinduised under the influence of preachers like Sankara Deva, so conversion has a long history but was not widely used until the 19th century.
[right][snapback]63643[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes conversions did happen but the recipes were localised and were not universal. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu also effected many conversions but it did not sustain. Even today the rajputs who converted to Islam have approached the Hindu Rajput Mahasabha that they would like to return to Hinduism but the sticking point is turning out to be whether Hindu rajputs would intermarry with them. Answer so far is no. Similar feeling ran through in olden times and Hindu did not effect large scale reconversions even when they could.
On the other hand Sikhs had no such qualms. After winning a battle Sikhs would give two choices to the muslims: sword or Sikhism. Muslims left there religion in droves. That is why sikh history is replete with names like: Ali Singh etc.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes conversions did happen but the recipes were localised and were not universal. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu also effected many conversions but it did not sustain. Even today the rajputs who converted to Islam have approached the Hindu Rajput Mahasabha that they would like to return to Hinduism but the sticking point is turning out to be whether Hindu rajputs would intermarry with them. Answer so far is no. Similar feeling ran through in olden times and Hindu did not effect large scale reconversions even when they could.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is true but that doesn't mean conversion is just something modern started by Hindu org's, it has been going on for a long time but not on a massive scale, I consider these beliefs of not accepting back people as the most superstitious kind and have done irreperable to damage to Hindu society, if the Hindus had the right sense then they would have reconverted everyone all the way upto the Afghan-Iran border when the Marathas and others gained power, then we wouldn't be in this sorry state today where 30% of our land was chopped off and stolen from us in one swipe and surprisingly we still have Hindus who think we have the luxury of rejecting voluntary converts, I don't know what world they live in but they are doing serious damage to dharma with their actions.
The world rests on the arms of brave (kshatriya) like a son on those of his sire.
He, therefore, that is a brave (kshatriya), deserves respect under every circumstance. There is nothing higher in this world than bravery.
The brave (kshatriya) protects and cherishes all, and all things depend upon the brave (kshatriya).
(In my opinion) a more accurate translation would be:
Arms of the brave always support and sustain the people like (a father his) son. A brave is, for this reason, honoured by all, in all situations. There is nothing in all the three words, which is beyond (the reach of) the bravery. Brave sustains all, and all depend upon the brave.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->One has to be a born Hindu. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Depends upon what you mean by 'Hindu'. If Hindu is a way of life, then it is universal. If you define Hindu more strictly as a religion, then too, there have been several examples in recorded history as back as 2nd cent. BC of foreigners adoping Hinduism. A Greek governer of the northern western colony was initiated in Vaishnavism. He traveled to South India to live in a monastery and to get initiated. He later erected a pillar in Karnataka to commemorate that event, with incriptions about it. During the times of Adi Sankar too, followers of various sects, including Jain and Bauddha, took up Vedantic Sanatan Dharma.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Jan 28 2007, 09:13 AM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Jan 28 2007, 09:13 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes conversions did happen but the recipes were localised and were not universal. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu also effected many conversions but it did not sustain. Even today the rajputs who converted to Islam have approached the Hindu Rajput Mahasabha that they would like to return to Hinduism but the sticking point is turning out to be whether Hindu rajputs would intermarry with them. Answer so far is no. Similar feeling ran through in olden times and Hindu did not effect large scale reconversions even when they could.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is true but that doesn't mean conversion is just something modern started by Hindu org's, it has been going on for a long time but not on a massive scale,
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well large scale reconversions is only a modern phenomena and it arose not as a backlash against muslims rather the missionaries.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Jan 28 2007, 09:13 AM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Jan 28 2007, 09:13 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I consider these beliefs of not accepting back people as the most superstitious kind and have done irreperable to damage to Hindu society, if the Hindus had the right sense then they would have reconverted everyone all the way upto the Afghan-Iran border when the Marathas and others gained power, then we wouldn't be in this sorry state today where 30% of our land was chopped off and stolen from us in one swipe and surprisingly we still have Hindus who think we have the luxury of rejecting voluntary converts, I don't know what world they live in but they are doing serious damage to dharma with their actions.
[right][snapback]63666[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course it is far easy in theory but difficult in practice. Our religion has given us the concept of "Mllecha" i.e one who has no Jaati. These Mllecha do not fit in our Jaati system and hence an illeterate Hindu has a hard time in accepting marital relationship with such mllecha.
01-28-2007, 10:43 AM (This post was last modified: 01-28-2007, 11:00 AM by Husky.)
Post 117: <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I consider these beliefs of not accepting back people as the most superstitious kind and have done irreperable to damage to Hindu society, if the Hindus had the right sense then they would have reconverted everyone all the way upto the Afghan-Iran border when the Marathas and others gained power, then we wouldn't be in this sorry state today where 30% of our land was chopped off and stolen from us in one swipe and surprisingly we still have Hindus who think we have the luxury of rejecting voluntary converts, I don't know what world they live in but they are doing serious damage to dharma with their actions.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Wholeheartedly agree.
- I'm for reconversions (Indians who choose to go back to Hinduism).
Reconverted Hindus, when they are truly Hindus, when they are/seek to be as knowledgeable or as interested in being Hindu as the rest of the average Indian Hindu - totally don't see a difference between them and myself.
There is of course the difficulty that Hinduism, like all natural belief systems, is much more than a religion, it really is a way of life. One's entire family makes you a Hindu by imparting their wisdom which they have carried down since who knows how long.
If your parents were not Hindu, to then return to the fold might be easy with a mere ceremony, but it would take time to know all of what Hinduism means, like it would take time for a full-grown person who was adopted to get to know all about his biological parents again. This is the problem experienced by many people who return to their Old Religions again. Not everything makes sense to them immediately. In such cases, Hindus might have questions like why are there rituals that do this, why is Shiva bluish purple, what's up with praying to a vigraham, why the many Gods, why does God get married and have children? How can all be one and one be many? Why is God male or female, why is the cow sacred, what does one do in a temple and why? The questions asked depend on the person, but there are usually some. When one grows in a Hindu environment it's easier to learn. But it's not impossible for anyone who truly wants to understand, to find out, understand and accept it all.
Reconversions in the same generation are generally the easiest: they were Hindu at some point, so they know about it already.
- Totally okay with people in some foreign land who happen upon Hinduism, researching and exploring it for themselves and choosing to be Hindu
- Not pleased with Indian organisations who take Hinduism abroad like 'missionary organisations'. Many people only get exposed to one view of Hinduism, usually limited by the limitations of the Hindu organisation itself. If the Hindu organisation does not know all of Hindu tradition but thinks only its way is right, this is passed on to its followers.
This is only my opinion, but sometimes being Hindu is not the right thing for all people.
In other cases, I am certain some non-Indians were Hindus in (many of) their recent past lives. For example David Frawley or Ishwar Sharan who wrote The Myth of St Thomas book. They're like the typical knowledgeable Hindus I've met from the more well-informed older generations. And I think Michel Danino also belongs in this group, from the stuff I've read of his work.
