Queen Padmini of Chittor- a corner of Indian history.

Sourav Kumar

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2016
Messages
748
Likes
1,297
Amir Khusrau who was saw the siege first hand never mentioned it but he had mention Johar when it took place in Ranthambore which was just 2 year ago. Go and do some research and then say. Even the earliest Rajput account did not mention Johar taking place.

Give me at least a proof that it took place. There is no proof of Rani Padmini in here native land. Early account of Rajput donot mention her. History is not what you feel but what can proven. I have given proof that no Johar took place and there was no one know as Rani Padmini. Please give some proof.
History of India is the history written by enemies of India. Amir Khasru was on the enemy side. Why should we care for what he wrote? How authentic would it be?

And Rajputs (or for that matter Indians) were not into writing histories anyway.

On one hand you claim that Padmini did not exist. On another hand, you quote sources and provide references of blogs that say Padmini fell in love and was a concubine of Khilji. So first, clarify your own sources. Whether Padmini did not exist or whether she existed and became a concubine.
 

Bahamut

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
2,740
Likes
2,259
History of India is the history written by enemies of India. Amir Khasru was on the enemy side. Why should we care for what he wrote? How authentic would it be?
His account of alot event which happened during that era can be confirmed by other writers.
On another hand, you quote sources and provide references of blogs that say Padmini fell in love and was a concubine of Khilji.
First read the entire post, it is talking about the women captured during siege of Chittorgarh.
And Rajputs (or for that matter Indians) were not into writing histories anyway.
The Kumbhalgarhprashasti (eulogistic inscription) of 1460 CE, which is the earliest Hindu record of the siege
India has a long tradition of written history.
If it was not written it would have been forgotten a long ago.
 

Sourav Kumar

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2016
Messages
748
Likes
1,297
His account of alot event which happened during that era can be confirmed by other writers.

First read the entire post, it is talking about the women captured during siege of Chittorgarh.

The Kumbhalgarhprashasti (eulogistic inscription) of 1460 CE, which is the earliest Hindu record of the siege
India has a long tradition of written history.
If it was not written it would have been forgotten a long ago.
To quote from the blog that you provided as one of your source/ resource/ reference:

http://ancientbharatvarsha.blogspot.in/2017/11/rani-padmavati-concubine-of-sultan.html?m=1

"The only logical explanation for this is that this date of Ashur (10 Muharram) corresponds to not A.H. 703, but instead a later year. In other words, Chittorgarh was conquered by Alauddin Khilji, not on 9 Muharram A.H. 703, but instead on that date of a subsequent year, in a second expedition to Chittor.
On 11 Muharram A.H. 703 (August 24 1303), after approximately 6 months of besieging the fort of Chittor, Alauddin entered the fort for peace negotiations with Ratnasimha. On his way out of the fort, he captured Ratnasimha, and then retreated from Chittor, back to Delhi, taking Ratnasimha along with him. He then pressurized Padmavati to submit to him. So she went to Delhi, willingly submitted to Alauddin, converted to Islam, and became his concubine. After this, Alauddin Khilji freed Ratnasimha, on the condition that he would move from one city to another and not interfere in the affairs of Chittor. Since Ratnasimha did not return to Chittor even after being freed by Alauddin Khilji, the royalty of Chittor felt that he had abandoned the defence of the Chittor fort, like a coward. As a result, the defense of the fort was taken up by Laksmasimha. At this time, although Alauddin had dealt with Ratnasimha and had Ratnasimha's queen in his harem,"

So what is your stance? Was Padmini non-existent or did she become a concubine?

Just state your stance.
 

Bahamut

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
2,740
Likes
2,259
To quote from the blog that you provided as one of your source/ resource/ reference:

http://ancientbharatvarsha.blogspot.in/2017/11/rani-padmavati-concubine-of-sultan.html?m=1

"The only logical explanation for this is that this date of Ashur (10 Muharram) corresponds to not A.H. 703, but instead a later year. In other words, Chittorgarh was conquered by Alauddin Khilji, not on 9 Muharram A.H. 703, but instead on that date of a subsequent year, in a second expedition to Chittor.
On 11 Muharram A.H. 703 (August 24 1303), after approximately 6 months of besieging the fort of Chittor, Alauddin entered the fort for peace negotiations with Ratnasimha. On his way out of the fort, he captured Ratnasimha, and then retreated from Chittor, back to Delhi, taking Ratnasimha along with him. He then pressurized Padmavati to submit to him. So she went to Delhi, willingly submitted to Alauddin, converted to Islam, and became his concubine. After this, Alauddin Khilji freed Ratnasimha, on the condition that he would move from one city to another and not interfere in the affairs of Chittor. Since Ratnasimha did not return to Chittor even after being freed by Alauddin Khilji, the royalty of Chittor felt that he had abandoned the defence of the Chittor fort, like a coward. As a result, the defense of the fort was taken up by Laksmasimha. At this time, although Alauddin had dealt with Ratnasimha and had Ratnasimha's queen in his harem,"

So what is your stance? Was Padmini non-existent or did she become a concubine?

Just state your stance.
Just read this part of the article

That being said, the name of the wife of Ratnasimha was likely not Padmavati. Padmavati is a sanskrit name, derived from the sanskrit word पद्म (padma), meaning "lotus-hued". Hence, Padmavati was likely a name coined by Malik Muhammad Jayasi, based on the beauty of Ratnasimha's wife. Her real name would have been something else. But since we have no information on her real name, I will address her as Padmavati in this article
Padmavati here is used for his first wife who name is not know.
 

Sourav Kumar

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2016
Messages
748
Likes
1,297
Just read this part of the article


Padmavati here is used for his first wife who name is not know.
Now I am quoting the "summary" of the blog that you provided as one of your sources:

"
Summary
With this knowledge, the sequence of events that transpired in the conquest of Chittorgarh can be updated:
"Amir Khusrau informed Alauddin of the Chittor fort and how the queen of that fort, Padmavati, along with the people of Chittor were infidels and did not worship Allah. Upon hearing that Chittor was plagued by religious infidelity, on 8th Jumda II 702 A.H. (January 27 1303), Alauddin Khilji took his crescent banner (i.e. Islamic banner) from Delhi to Chittor with the intention to conquer the fort and convert it to Islam. Upon reaching Chittor, Alauddin Khilji. Upon reaching the Chittor fort, Alauddin Khilji set up tents for his army, and then attacked the fort on both sides, using the left and right wings of his army. For the first two months, Alauddin Khilji's army attempted to assault the fort using swords, and then, when that failed, they tried to hurl stones at the fort. However, these initial endeavors to capture the fort were in vain, as the fort was up on a very high elevation, giving the Rajput defenders a geographical advantage! Seeing this failure in the first 2 months, Alauddin Khilji then decided to use catapults. Every day, Alauddin Khilji, stood on the mountain named Chitrori/Chatarwari, and himself took a proactive role in the conquest of the fort, by monitoring the way the Eastern portion of his army drew the catapults towards the fort. After approximately 6 months of the siege, Alauddin and Ratnasimha decided to enter peace negotiations so that they could find a way to end the siege. For the purposes of peace negotiation, Alauddin Khilji entered the fort of Chittor, along with his messenger, Amir Khusrau, on 11 Muharram A.H. 703 (August 24 1303). The details of the peace negotiations that went on in the fort are not known to us. However, after these discussions were over, and Alauddin was leaving the fort of Chittor, he captured Ratnasimha and took him to Delhi, where he was held captive in his fort. He then sent Amir Khusrau as his messenger, to Chittor, ordering Padmavati to submit to him personally, in Delhi, where her husband was held captive. Padmavati tried to employ diplomacy and offered gifts to the Sultan... But to no avail... Alauddin Khilji was not ready to accept anything less than the personal submission of Padmavati. As a result, Padmavati personally submitted to the Sultan, in Delhi, and then willingly converted to Islam. Following this, due to her love for the Sultan, she then willingly became his concubine. Subsequently, Alauddin Khilji freed Ratnasimha, on the condition that he would roam from one city to another, like a monkey, and not interfere in the affairs of Chittor.Since even after being freed by Alauddin Khilji, Ratnasimha did not return to Chittor, the royalty of Chittor concluded that he had abandoned the defence of the Chittor fort, like a coward, and hence the defence of the fort was taken up by Laksmasimha. At this time, although Alauddin had done away with Ratnasimha and had Ratnasimha's queen in his harem, he still did not have control of the Chittor fort. Hence, in a subsequent year, likely A.H. 708, he again attacked Chittorgarh. Chittorgarh was successfully conquered on the 9 Muharram of the next year (i.e. 9 Muharram A.H. 709 - June 18 1309), and the 30 000 Rajput warriors of Laksmasimha that resisted Alauddin were slain. No Jauhar was performed by the Rajput females, and hence chances are there that the female Rajput royalty were captured by Alauddin Khilji. However, there is no guarantee that this was the fate of the females in Chittorgarh, because Amir Khusrau does not explicitly mention the fate of the Rajput females in the fort. Neither does he mention whether or not any slaves were taken after the fort was captured. After conquering the fort, it was entrusted to Alauddin Khilji's 15 year old eldest son, Khizr Khan. Subsequently, the fort was named Khizrabad, and Chittor was converted to Islam. Then, the Islamic army halted on the day of Ashur (10 Muharram) in Chittorgarh for their fast, and subsequently, after that day, they departed from Chittor to return to Delhi."
So, this is the true story of Padmavati!
Of course, I don't expect that any director in the future would dare to depict this in the form of a movie, considering how intolerant some Indians have become. We can already see the violence perpetrated by Rajput groups, based on mere rumors that Bhansali was planning on inserting a dream sequence involving Padmavati romancing Alauddin Khilji into the movie. God knows what would have happened if they had shown a full fledged love story between Padmavati and Alauddin. After all, according to the Solomon-Bilqis narrative, Bilqis saw an illusion of her throne/palace with Solomon, which evoked, in her, attraction towards him, and as a result, she willingly submitted to him, converted to Islam, and became his concubine. The fact that Solomon accepted her despite her ugly, hairy shins (acc. to al-Tabari) would have enhanced the tender love she possessed for Solomon. Since Amir Khusrau compares Alauddin to Solomon and Chittor to Sheba, he suggests that the queen of Chittor's fate was similar to that of the queen of Sheba. Hence, Padmavati, the queen of Chittor, found something appealing/attractive in Alauddin, just as Bilqis, the queen of Sheba, did in Solomon, and as a result of this attraction/love, Padmavati willingly accepted Alauddin as her Lord!
Just as Bilqis fell in love with Solomon, so did Padmavati fall in love with Alauddin!
"

*********************************************************************************************************

We are not discussing here what was the real name, or nick name or imaginary name of Queen Padmini. However the name of Queen Padmini is mentioned in the floowing:
"
The first reference of Rani Padmini’s name appears in Chitai Charit (c. 1526) written by Narain Das at Sarangpur during the regime of Salhadi Purbiya. Verse 455 and 456 mentions three contemporary historical royal ladies, Deval Devi of Ranthambhor, Padmini of Chittor and Chhitai of Devgiri who were coveted by the Delhi Sultan. The verses say:
रंथम्भोर देवल लगि गयो, मेरो काज न एकौ भयो.
एउ बोलइ ढीली कउ धनी, मइ चित्तोर् सुनि पदुमिनी. 455
बंध्यो रतन सेन मइ जाइ, लइगो बादिल ताहि छ्डाइ.
जो अबके न छिताइ लेऊ, तो यह सीसु देवगिरि देऊ. 456
"

So back to my original question: Was the wife of Ratan Singh fictitious or did the famous beautiful queen of Ratan Singh (whom we call Padmini) fall in love with Khilji and became his concubine willingly, as claimed in the blog post that you mentioned as one of your sources?
 

Bahamut

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
2,740
Likes
2,259
did the famous beautiful queen of Ratan Singh (whom we call Padmini) fall in love with Khilji and became his concubine willingly, as claimed in the blog post that you mentioned as one of your sources?
It is used as a comparison between queen of sheba and king Solomon.
What do you mean by willingly, she did to get her husband free from Alauddin who was later set free,but not allowed to return to the fort. It was common in ancient times to give your family members like wife or son to your enemy in order to be free but not be allowed to take part in home area. That how the word hostage came into being
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hostage
 

Sourav Kumar

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2016
Messages
748
Likes
1,297
It is used as a comparison between queen of sheba and king Solomon.
What do you mean by willingly, she did to get her husband free from Alauddin who was later set free,but not allowed to return to the fort. It was common in ancient times to give your family members like wife or son to your enemy in order to be free but not be allowed to take part in home area. That how the word hostage came into being
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hostage
I do not mean anything by "willing" but the blog that you referred attribiutes motives to queen padmini to be "willing". The blog you quoted does not deserve any attention, IMO. I do not have time to write essays on why I think/feel so. At the least, the blog shows that how inferior and sold out some so called indians are.

On Solomon/Sheva reference that Amir Khasru writes, well, I do not accept Amir Khasru who is a poet and court-historian to be a true historian and authentic source at all. A historian does not write history in cryptic terms referring to things like Solomon, Sheva, Hudhud etc. A court-historian is a paid historian who writes for his master.

And for everything that is mentioned on that blog that you mentioned as your source, here is a counter blog:

https://rajputrevolution.blogspot.in/2017/02/queen-padmini-in-historicalcontext.html

So for me Queen Padmini was real in flesh and blood and she went through Jauhar to save her honour, like many other Rajput royal ladies of that time. Whether enemy and paid court-historian Amir Khasru writes about it or not, has no significance to me.
 

Tony HMG

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
296
Likes
615
Country flag
I will write this very clearly. Hamari aukat nahi hai to comment on our great kings & queens. Because of them we remained Hindus. Firstly, Modi should ban all such cheap shit makers like Bhansali to denigrate our great Kings.
Bhansali hates rajputs. His mother, Leela was a rakhail (mistress) of a Rajput king from Baroda. He fathered Bhansali and left his mother. Its good that Karni Sena is announcing bounties on this shit hole named Bhansali. I wonder why no one protested in Maharashtra when they showed Bajirao & Kashi bai dancing.
 

Screambowl

Ghanta Senior Member?
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2015
Messages
7,950
Likes
7,908
Country flag
I will write this very clearly. Hamari aukat nahi hai to comment on our great kings & queens. Because of them we remained Hindus. Firstly, Modi should ban all such cheap shit makers like Bhansali to denigrate our great Kings.
Bhansali hates rajputs. His mother, Leela was a rakhail (mistress) of a Rajput king from Baroda. He fathered Bhansali and left his mother. Its good that Karni Sena is announcing bounties on this shit hole named Bhansali. I wonder why no one protested in Maharashtra when they showed Bajirao & Kashi bai dancing.
couldn't have kept it better than this!
.................................................................................
 

Bahamut

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
2,740
Likes
2,259
Padmaavat row: Supreme Court suspends four-state ban; CJI asks 'how can you stop exhibit of film?'

http://www.firstpost.com/entertainm...how-can-you-stop-exhibit-of-film-4308267.html

This is why it's a good thing that aura of SC as some high and mighty institution is shattered and judges are revealed as cheap baabus fighting one another for lucrative posts.
There is no need to ban the film. No one will take this movie seriously. This movie will benifit bjp more as people will see how inaccurate movie represents thier history without any source. Look at the Bhansali record, his historical movie are joke.
 

dhananjay1

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
3,291
Likes
5,544
There is no need to ban the film. No one will take this movie seriously. This movie will benifit bjp more as people will see how inaccurate movie represents thier history without any source. Look at the Bhansali record, his historical movie are joke.
General public doesn't know anything about Khilji or Ratan singh or where Mewar is located in the map of India. What the youngsters would remember is Khilji the cool guy played by Ranveer Singh. This is just one thing in a long line of anti-Hindu propaganda Bollywood has churned out since it's inception. And it definitely affects the way people, who grew up watching it, think.
 

Bahamut

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
2,740
Likes
2,259
General public doesn't know anything about Khilji or Ratan singh or where Mewar is located in the map of India. What the youngsters would remember is Khilji the cool guy played by Ranveer Singh. This is just one thing in a long line of anti-Hindu propaganda Bollywood has churned out since it's inception. And it definitely affects the way people, who grew up watching it, think.
I can tell that most of the people who know decide to go and check the historical accuracy of the film and were surprise to find how horrible Khilji was. Khilji time pass was to rape children and torture any one regardless of the religion. Do you think the Board will allow scenes of rape of young boy and girl along with torture
 

spikey360

Crusader
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
3,524
Likes
6,566
Country flag
There is no need to ban the film. No one will take this movie seriously. This movie will benifit bjp more as people will see how inaccurate movie represents thier history without any source. Look at the Bhansali record, his historical movie are joke.
On the contrary, such films need to be banned and anti-Hinduism systematically eradicated like they did for anti-semitism in Germany during the 60s.
Let people like Bhansali become bankrupt for daring to play with fire.
 

Screambowl

Ghanta Senior Member?
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2015
Messages
7,950
Likes
7,908
Country flag
yahan India mein itni hindu ladkio ka hindu ladkey hi balatkar kardety hai bc
kya padmavat...
 

Haldiram

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2018
Messages
5,708
Likes
28,648
Country flag
Padmaavat row: Supreme Court suspends four-state ban; CJI asks 'how can you stop exhibit of film?'

http://www.firstpost.com/entertainm...how-can-you-stop-exhibit-of-film-4308267.html

This is why it's a good thing that aura of SC as some high and mighty institution is shattered and judges are revealed as cheap baabus fighting one another for lucrative posts.
The states which banned it knew very well that the SC will overturn the ban. This is a sham to win the sympathy of the people. The truth is that whenever a new movie is being made, it requires several government clearances for shooting locations, especially forts, etc. It's not like the government gets to see the film for the first time only when it is submitted for censor clearance. The politicians are beneficiaries of the film industry. Everyone is invested in it in one way or other. Some invest directly, some make indirect gains when the movie is played in theaters and malls owned by politicians. The politicians and intel agencies know about the film right from the time the script is written.

Now that public sentiment has turned against them, the state governments are trying to pretend to echo it, while itching to release it. It was Rajasthan government which volunteered to play middleman between the film makers and the Rajput groups. They are running with the hares and hunting with the hounds.

These Bollywood jihadis wont get the message unless a massive and visible damage is caused to one of their own. Hit one and scare away all the others from trying a similar stunt in the future. Apparently they've invested 100+ crore on the movie. This should all go down the drain and an example should be made out of them.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top