Virendra
Ambassador
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2010
- Messages
- 4,697
- Likes
- 3,041
That is a logical jump. Very easy to paint it on the whole community.
History is the biggest evidence that marriages among Kings have had no boundaries and in today's society we wonder about those alliances as so damn odd. Even when they happen at social grassroots now(inter-religous marriages etc.).
A couple of marriages done by the royals for obvious political motives and you write off rajputs in the same bed as mughals, can't agree with you.
The rajput society and majority of the royals never favored such marriages and condemned the ones that took place; for the same reasons that other dynasties kept away from going down that road. And if you want proof just look at the inter caste or inter religous marriages if any that take place in rajputs as compared to others, you will have your answer.
Not a big empire, with their small abode on resource less harsh semi desert terrain, rajputs were in a geopolitical fit; the first the most & the easiest hit target for any invasion from north west.
Be it the barbarians like Nadir Shah, Ahmed Shah Abdali or the others like Mughals.
It is easy to talk about fight when enemy lives a house farther where clash is on ambition not survival, but ask the rajputs who had them all coming right into the face .. right in front of them.
Ties with Mughals had to be there. Natural consequence of Mughals settling forever at Delhi.
People who posted here, mostly refer to the times when rajputs power had already slid down. The party started to spoil even before Mughals came. Rajput power which was better organized in 700-1300 AD under fewer stronger rulers like Bappa Rawal, disintegrated into smaller weaker states later. Enduring continous bombardment of foreign invasions for centuries, figures amongs the reasons. Had it been someone else, their signs would've gone missing from the pages of history.
Rajputs rulers then were successfull in thwarting off the attacks of Arabs/Turks for initial centuries. Major examples:
-- Bin Qasim who was defeated and driven off till Sindh
-- Persians routed out of Afghanistan with liberation of Kandhar.
-- Battles fought by Bhattis and PrithviRaj Chauhan in 12th century.
-- Battles fought by Jaitra Singh in 13th century. Defeat of Jalaluddin Khilji at Ranthambore in 1291 AD.
-- Never to forget the siege of Chittor where helpless and boxed in from all sides at a fort, rajputs fought Alauddin Khilji's massive army for 7 months, defended the fort to the last man and as an end resort the rajput women immolated themselves in fire to avoid captivity to foreigners (known as Jauhar). I need not mention further of how closely Rajputs guarded the Hindu bastion and do it even today.
-- Rajputs kept fighting invasions from Afghanistan even till 16th century AD (the likes of Maharana Sangram Singh and the devotee MiraBai's father Ratan Singh).
Rana Sanga fought with Muslims invasions in all directions - Delhi, Malwa and Gujrat; imprisoned Sultan Mahmud. After fighting the likes of Sayyads, Tughlaqs and Lodis; rajputs made a mistake.
Rana Sanga invited Babur to defeat Ibrahim Lodi.
Many won't agree and it is difficult to prove history but rajputs were a buffer for the rest of India from such northwestern attacks. True they were not always successfull in warding them off with their limited capacity and infrastructure. Rajputs had high morals and kept to their business. They were never ever involved in looting, raids etc in any regions - native or outside.
Coming to Marathas, they clashed with Mughals because both saw each other as a threat to their explansion and establishment and moreover they were bigger empires who had the capacity as well as stakes/ambitions for prolonged wars. To the contrary Rajputs were a handful of loosely held tribes who thrive on their culture, values, courage and as I said earlier - never went out for greener pastures (won't say it was good or bad).
There's a saying which expresses it all "Ek baade mein do sher saath nahi reh sakte". Too much individualism spelt doom time and again for rajputs who could've made stronger impact in history.
Even with so much potential, Rajputs failed to understand that chivalry or bravery uncoupled from diplomacy+greater unity cannot be effective. There was even less heed to issues like technology and infastructure. Rajputs were stationary there and hence were outclassed in weapons, out manouvered in tactics.
Consequently, the most valiant were consistently troubled by raids from Marathas and the Mughal supremacy. They ultimately got sandwitched between larger empires - Mughals and Marathas.
Decades of indiscriminate raids, taxing and interference intensely detested Rajputs from Marathas, while both held the Hindu flagship. An irony not new to India - infighting .. at all levels.
However the reasons I stated it, is this :
When Marathas got locked in against Abdali; foresaw a huge & tough battle they needed help from Rajputs who obviously did not provide it. As a result, military support and supply lines for Marathas were almost non existent. This contributed to the decisive defeat of Marathas in Panipat III and strengthened the curious belief of East India company that India could actually be ruled.
Sikhs were as valiant but a smarter community. Time and again they empowered by waiting out the Indegenous powers like Marathas and the outside invaders to fight amongst and wither away.
Most of Gorkha clans are Bappa Rawal's descendants who flew north east. Rawal (Sisodia rajput) was a disciple of biggest Gurkha figure - warrior saint Gorakh Nath.
What differs Hindu and Muslim advances into each other's region is that the handful opportunities when Hindu rulers (Rajputs, Sikhs etc) swept into areas like Afghanistan they didn't resort to any propoganda like conversion and social coercion.
Last edited:
