User:ImpuMozhi/Sandbox Shivraj

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Support and suggestions

Hi Shivraj,

I am just writing to tell you that I agree with you very much on the point that non-Hindus cannot be Rajputs. Rajputs are a caste of Hindus, and to suggest that any group of muslims can claim that caste status is downright ridiculous. Rajputs can lose caste (lose their right to be called rajputs) if they marry people of other Hindu castes, so where is the question of a muslim also being rajput? I totally agree with you.

I am also not among those who see virtue in downplaying or entirely neglecting mention of the many barbarities inflicted by murauding armies on subjugated lands and popluations. Every historically validated fact should find mention, and nobody can claim that the Ghoris and Ghaznavis of history were angels of compassion. Even if their deeds were of a piece with standards that generally obtained in that era (I mean, if they were not better or worse than anyone else in that period), that is still no reason not to mention, in NPOV language, what those deeds were, and perhaps to compare/contrast where relevant. I think you and I will agree on that point also.

[edit] Suggestions

On these points you have my full support, but I think you push the "rajput glory" point beyond a reasonable extent, and that could be one reason why you are attracting so much opposition. It should not be denied that rajput rulers were often motivated by the same considerations as other rulers in deciding their actions -- this is only natural. What is unnatural in Rana Pratap seeking to became ruler instead of his brother Jagmal, who had (you concede) been nominated by their father? Why do you make the laughable claim that, as per the wishes of the father, "Pratap wanted Jagmal, his younger brother to be the king. After perfroming the last rites of his father he came and with retainers was ready to leave when nobles intervened in his favor"? The idea that Pratap was forcibly made king against his own wishes is certainly ridiculous, especially when his father the king was also opposed to it. The idea can only occur to a balladeer.

Hello ImpuMozhi;

First of all I am impressed with your knowledge of rajputs. Lot of people on WP are arguing about rajputs but are clueless about our history.

Maharana Pratap, when Rana Uday Singh was alive did not live in Chittor but in a small village near the outskirts of the fort. His mother used to send him food there. He had about 500 retainers. Rana Uday was very fond of one of his rajput wife and promised her that Jagmal, her son, would be the king. No rajput noble liked this. Pratap was very upright and brave from very beginning. Reason Pratap did not live in Chittor was because his step mother wanted him out of the fort. Pratap never disobeyed his father. When he was asked to live outside the fort it was made clear to him that Jagmal would be the king. Pratap had no objection to this. When Rana Uday died Jagmal did not go for the last rites of his father because he was crowned the king as it was considered inauspicious for the throne to be vacant. Tradition in Rajasthan was that whoever was crowned king would not do the last rites but other brothers would. Pratap did the last rites and after that came to the fort to pay his respect to Jagmal and ask the king's permission to leave. When Pratap came, some Mewar nobles literally lifted Jagmal out of his throne and asked Pratap to sit there. Pratap did protest but he was convinced by Mewar faithfuls that for the sake of Mewar and Chittor Pratap had to be the Maharana. Pratap accepted it finally and tried to placate his brother but could not convince him. Jagmal went and met Akbar who gave him some villages to rule. Jagmal finally died fighting a small battle for Akbar. These facts are borne in many books on the life of Maharana Pratap. Look at the references section of this page : [1]

To preserve the territory of ones own state and see to the greater happiness of the people is a big part of "Rajadharma". Rajput rulers were proficient in furthering their own interests, as evidenced by the sheer proportion of rajput chieftains who entered imperial service as soon as they were offered an opportunity without danger to their religious practices. In fact, they made many pragmatic compromises even in religious practise, as in crossing the "Attak" repeatedly and giving their daughters in "Mutah" marriages to important muslims. All this was part of realpolitic.

But you insist on repeatedly presenting as actual fact the "gaurav gaathas" of the miraasis and minstrels. The "Veer vinod", "Prithviraj raso" and other such gaathas are not historical records, they are Ballads composed by professional laudatory poets and sung by minstrels who were paid money by the rulers to sing the praises of the forefathers. We have to view what is written in such works with deep scepticism, and use other scholarly sources, or make inferences based on logic, to explain the actions taken by historical personalities.

You are right that they are ballads but there are other works like Prthviraj Vijay which was written before Raso, Hammir MahaKavya etc which are very accurate. These ballads contain fair amount of truth too. What is surprising is that people accept what is written in Baburnama as if it was gospel. Everywhere he had 12000 men and he beat an opposing army of 100,000.

I have described the marriage of Jodhabai and Akbar and the impact on rajput society because of this act at the above link. Please read it and then we will discuss more. As far as rajputs serving Akbar various rajput armies, because of bonds of loyalty to there own clan and king had no choice but to serve Akbar. e.g Hadas of Ranthambore, Rathores of Jodhpur etc. These were looked down upon by Maharana Pratap's band of rajputs and no intermarraiges were allowed with this group. A custom which is followed till today by some.

I would suggest that even James Tod was a part of this trend: after all, he was maintained in the lap of luxury for many years by Rana Bhim Singh of Mewar, and Tod based his history of Mewar on the documents (and minstrels!!) made available to him by the rana. Atleast some of this material have been confirmed to be fabrications, as for instance the letters from other rulers to the Rana begging him to "make us rajputs again" by bestowing a mewari princess on them. Never in any court has it happened that the son born of a mewari princess took precedence in succession over sons born to other wives. Yet the claim is made in Tod's book, based on the rana's vain boast; it is even suggested that application of this non-existant custom caused several wars! As though succession struggles were not par de course in every state.

I have read James Tod end to end both volumes. If I "guess" what you are taking about is the wars in Jaipur because the right of primogeniture was relinquished to the son of Mewari/Sisodiya Rani. The marriage between Mewar and Jaipur took place after a couple of hundred years of ban by Maharana Pratap. This marriage took place once Jaipur Maharaja agreed that Sisodiya Rani's son would be the king. This caused all kinds of badness and we can discuss this more later.

James Tod makes it perfectly clear that at the time of his writing, both Mewar and its rulers were in inglorious condition; the contemporary stories he related from first-hand experience, such as that of the hapless Krishna Kumari, are downright shameful. All this he faithfully records, and then insists that the family's past record was supremely glorious, almost without the exception of a single major or minor member. Very well, so be it, we may say, but James Tod is even otherwise somewhat biased. He partook as much in the Mewari disdain for the ruling family of Jaipur as in the Mewari self-image of surpassing glory. For instance, when describing how the Kachhawaha clan displaced the Meena tribals and came into possession of (what later became) Jaipur, he blandly states that "A simple act of usurpation originated the Dhundhar state". Yet, when describing a similar story about how Bappa Rawal displaced Maan Mori from Chittor, Tod goes into great convolutions involving wise nobles, manliness, leadership skills, what not. Is Tod NPOV? I think not.

Actually Bappa Rawal did not displace the Moris. He got Chittor in dowry as he married the Mori princess. Bappa was actually a commander in Mori Kings' army and repulsed the attack on Chittor by Bin Qasim. The defeat of caliphate at the hands of Bappa was so resounding that for next few hundred years Caliphate did not dare attack India.

Kacchwaha's of Jaipur till today carry the blot of Jodha bai. Rajputs even today do not hold House of Jaipur in high esteem. Jaipur employed Sir JaduNath Sarkar to rewrite there history and he wrote a book. This book could not be published for 45 years because rajputs all over got very upset at the glorious portrayal of Kacchwaha's. Finally 45 yrs or so later this book was revised and then published.

Some similar sentiment is at work with you when you totally insist that every single rajput ruler at all times was just perfect. Even James Tod suggests that Rana Pratap's father, Uday singh, was not such a perfect paragon, but you insist on reverting every allusion, however considerately worded, which even suggests that Rana Pratap may have given his father rest from the burdens of leadership sometime after the fall of Chittor to Akbar. Also, you seem to agree on the fact that Uday singh left Chittor and went to Udaipur just before Akbar laid seige to Chittor, but insist on obfuscation this fact with all sorts of irrelevent details like "Jaimal-Fateh" (another Ballad extolling a rajput who lost a battle). Where is your NPOV?

Jagmal was made the king after his father's death and then removed by nobles. It was not a conspiracy hatched by Pratap. It is considered a grave sin to oppose your father's wishes amongst rajputs. If Pratap had conspired this blot would have come out on his name in some form or another.

Which brings me to the point about relevence and appropriate place for things. Do not fill up serious encyclopaedic pages with irrelevent and legendary, balladic stories. If you must mention them, be concise, make sure you mention that the stuff is legend, and put the story in the appropriate page. The chacha-bhatija level story of "Jaimal-Fateh" could MAYBE find place in the Chittor page, but certainly not on the Rana Pratap page. Liberal use of phrases like "it is said--" and "Legend has it--" are clearly in order. Also, I will urge parsimony in relating these old ballads: the larger world may not be interested in every obscure story found in the ballads. Should you devote more than half an article to how Rana Hamir dealt with some crappy bandit? If every nuance in the Mahabharata were to find place like this on the encyclopaedia, where would we be?

Jaimal and Fatteh is a ballad but it desribes the battle quite truthfully. Jaimal is described in Richard Saran's book "Mertiyo Rathores...." which is mentioned in the references section of the like above. Ballads are sung but they contain kernels of truth and historians should not reject them as complete hearsay. Remember the tradition in India is to passdown things orally. Just like Vedas.

There is also need to tell the WHOLE truth; you are selective even in telling the old stories. For instance, on the Rana Hamir page recently created by you, you have related in great detail the story of how Hamir handled some sundry dacoit, which supposedly impressed his uncle enough to name him heir to Chittor, at a time when they were NOT in possession of any lands but were all actually wandering in the wilderness. You have totally neglected to tell the far more important story of how Hamir gained a political foothold by marrying the widowed daughter of Maldeo who was in control of Chittor, and that he later toppled his own father-in-law to gain control of Chittor. How did you neglect to mention this, when writing a resume of Rana Hamir's career???

All the pages that I created are very small as of now. It is on my to do list to fill good amount of detail on these pages. Give me a few more weeks. What I mentioned so far is what I could remember in vivid detail.

Finally, I urge you to be civil in corrospondence with other editors and circumspect in making edits to Wikipedia. You have many talents that can be of use in embellishing pages related to Hindu legend, mythology and folk stories. It would be a pity to lose you for good.

I am usually quite civil. Do you have particular instances you would like to point out?

Best Regards,

ImpuMozhi 21:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Shivraj Singh 18:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)