Queen Padmini of Chittor- a corner of Indian history.

[spikey360]

Odiya Mongrel. Devdutt Pattnaik.
No one should buy his books.
Give him the snapdeal treatment.
Let him go to Pakistan, where women survive and thrive by being raped.

 

[john70]

• Was just reading above comments and felt that we should be able to discuss Hindu - Muslim relationship with maturity
• we r discussing a very touchy issue & it’s better to avoid some known mistakes which r often made
• Identifying why we r discussing history ?- in this context
  • To explore objectively what actually happened
  • To study it so that we can learn from mistakes made in our past
  • To create a better tomorrow
  • Not to vilify anyone at present
• If two persons r on opposite side in history - e.g. @Yusuf & @GPM - and if comments made by them even if sane may be taken by the other as hurtful to ones feelings. It’s better to be mature than to have verbal fight - so fervently with our own citizens.
• Before you start judging me - portraying me let me ... I am a Hindu by birth, a full Indian after that, want to reside here and see this country grow into a world leader with all sense - strength of people and wealth of natural resources we possess.
• Coming to what actually happened to us as a country of Hindus - yes things were bad for Hindus, a soft community- urban and semi urban and villages - satisfied from its plenty natural resources- not inclined to fight - every aggressor was a winner with us and our satisfied lot never invaded anyone. But the aggressor this time - the delhi sultanate time was Muslim - fanatic - powerful - loved to Instill brutal fear in opponents (so that fear gives them victory and less need to fight)
• Over and above women slavery and brutality was common in most of parts medieval West Asia and Europe with whom Muslims had first fought wars and this was bound to occur to us too.
• This was in stark contrast to a Mourya age - Gupta age - Rajput age Hindu India which was far ahead in respecting women as a equal partner to male.
• Destruction of foes in most horrifying ways and their possessions- happened everywhere during Middle Ages - but the most worst part was fate met by women ! The men died but women were shamed ! The Hindu culture was far more respectful to women since thousands of years before Delhi sultanate and Muslim occupation of India. So even if a Hindu king won - he would be less inclined and even history suggests this, than what a Muslim Sultan or any invader did to women. It just makes anyone - any Hindu - feel enraged that what this Hindu community women had to endure at Muslim hands - that is a fact
• Muslim friends and our partner citizens feels embarrassed when this to be discussed - that is natural because post Middle Ages I see lot of changes in Muslims who stayed in India
• From all over world I feel Indian Muslims are less inclined to Violence to others and to women.
• We had our share of local terrorist who originated from our own country- the Indian Mujahideens and so on but on the whole our Muslim population is moderate. Whatever Muslim terrorism we see is exported one !
• Coming to present what about rapes and gang rapes that still happen in India and we r time and again in headlines all over world ? Is that community which was portrayed in history doing it now ? Where is Hindu - Indianness going about at present? Let’s discuss that - rather than pointing fingers.
• What about the so many customs and conservative rules still in Modern Free Progressive India ?? Has it anything do with Muslim religion or for that matter Hindu religion- NO ITS NOT WITH RELIGION AT ALL NOW - we r still having WEAK souls in our midsts who subjugate women and they roam about because WE DONT DO ANYTHING!

 

[Bahamut]

So Rani Padmini might not have existed? And says who? Muslim chroniclers lied about her?

The first mention about Rani Padmini was in 15 century in a poem. There are account of fort being invaded and the massacre of which happen there of approximately 30,000 but there is no mention of the Queen. There is no mention of her in her native land. There is no mention of her in 12 century literature even by the Rajput themselves.

 

[dhananjay1]

It's not about Padmini or Padmavati. It's about making Jihadis like Khilji look cool.

 

[COLDHEARTED AVIATOR]

The first mention about Rani Padmini was in 15 century in a poem. There are account of fort being invaded and the massacre of which happen there of approximately 30,000 but there is no mention of the Queen. There is no mention of her in her native land. There is no mention of her in 12 century literature even by the Rajput themselves.

So,one fine day the local rajputs just woke up and said "we will start worshiping the woman in this well written poem and construct a temple in her name?

The truth is that Jauhar is not a imaginary story and has happened many times.

And in those days oral history was given more value.

 

[Bahamut]

The truth is that Jauhar is not a imaginary story and has happened many times.

Jauhar happened many time but there was no Rani Padmini.
Also there are a lot of records from both side recording the war and there is no mention of her.
As for oral history, it changes with time unlike written history which does not.

 

[Bahamut]

It's not about Padmini or Padmavati. It's about making Jihadis like Khilji look cool.

The only good thing Khilji did was the defeat of the Mongols. Other then that he was cruel and a bad king. Extremely corrupt and got a just death

 

[COLDHEARTED AVIATOR]

Jauhar happened many time but there was no Rani Padmini.
Also there are a lot of records from both side recording the war and there is no mention of her.
As for oral history, it changes with time unlike written history which does not.

My fellow Rajput, Hindu and allied brothers, if a liberandu asks you the quintessential question on Padmavati and asks you to cite her in an instance before the Padmavat that was ostensibly written in the mid 1500s by Jayasi.

Well your answer is Nabhi Nandan Jinoddhar Prabandha - written in the 1300s by Kakkasuri a Jain Monk. The Prabandha is retarded and that is a given but it does allegedly mention Padmini. I am yet to find a Devnagri version.

Another more credible instance predating Padmavat that mentions Queen Padmavati is the Chhitai Charita by Narain Das from 1526.

I implore you to find the copy of that Prabandha and the Charita and let's get to reading.
Credit - Yashashvi Pratap



------------------


From facebook.

So dont fall for Bhansali propoganda.

 

[dhananjay1]

The only good thing Khilji did was the defeat of the Mongols. Other then that he was cruel and a bad king. Extremely corrupt and got a just death

He was just saving his own kingdom. It would have been better for Hindus if heathen Mongols had managed to wipe out Delhi sultanate. Non-Abrahamic invaders could be assimilated into Hindu society, Muslim Turks on the other hand served as sword arm of Jihad for centuries.

 

[Bahamut]

He was just saving his own kingdom. It would have been better for Hindus if heathen Mongols had managed to wipe out Delhi sultanate. Non-Abrahamic invaders could be assimilated into Hindu society, Muslim Turks on the other hand served as sword arm of Jihad for centuries.

Mongols had just massacred 100,000 people in Delhi just a few years ago. Plus there was mongol reputation.

 

[Bahamut]

Well your answer is Nabhi Nandan Jinoddhar Prabandha - written in the 1300s by Kakkasuri a Jain Monk. The Prabandha is retarded and that is a given but it does allegedly mention Padmini. I am yet to find a Devnagri version

I was unable to find any mention of queen. Can you give it to me.
Also please read this post
http://ancientbharatvarsha.blogspot.in/2017/11/rani-padmavati-concubine-of-sultan.html?m=1
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratnasimha

 

[Willy2]

He was just saving his own kingdom. It would have been better for Hindus if heathen Mongols had managed to wipe out Delhi sultanate. Non-Abrahamic invaders could be assimilated into Hindu society, Muslim Turks on the other hand served as sword arm of Jihad for centuries.

Don't expect that , Chagatai Khanate converted to islam long ago , there is no heathen any more in central asia , otherwise Taimur would be a good deal for Hindus , but it did't...

KHiljis are actually central asian , and not even Afghan , they are central asian barbarian like later taimur and his descendant babur .
When great khan wipeout central asian "power" kwazeramid overnight , these tribes came down in south to seek refuge in Delhi's das dynesty , Khiljis are one of them....

 

[Bhoot Pishach]

I was unable to find any mention of queen. Can you give it to me.
Also please read this post
http://ancientbharatvarsha.blogspot.in/2017/11/rani-padmavati-concubine-of-sultan.html?m=1
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratnasimha

What $hit you are posting here you follow this B@$tard Minin Patel, his all posts are piece of $hit.

Look what you have posted here:
"Maharani Padmavati was Concubine of Sultan"

Have some shame.

Please dont bring down level of this Forum by posting such crap, paddled by Leftist Communist Libtard.

@mods please delete this post along with the quoted post.

 

[Razor]

It's not about Padmini or Padmavati. It's about making Jihadis like Khilji look cool.

I haven't seen the movie but the first step in not making jihadus look cool would be to see who they are casting.
Now I haven't seen any of that condom-costume wearing psycho's movies and don't know about his dialogue delivery skills but chicks dig him, that moron.

 

[Bahamut]

What $hit you are posting here you follow this B@$tard Minin Patel, his all posts are piece of $hit.

Look what you have posted here:
"Maharani Padmavati was Concubine of Sultan"

Have some shame.

Please dont bring down level of this Forum by posting such crap, paddled by Leftist Communist Libtard.

@mods please delete this post along with the quoted post.

Read more then title of the article
He has put a entire section dedicated to the authenticity of the poem with complete translation of it and other historical text
Read it for yourself

Historical Accuracy of Padmavat (1540)

That being said, it is still necessary to address whether the Padmavat poem is authentic when we look at it from a historical perspective. In this article, I plan on addressing this issue. However, prior to doing so, it is good to have a good idea of the sequence of events in the poem. Hence, below, I am reproducing a brief summary of Malik Muhammad Jayasi's Padmavat (1540), from Wikipedia:
Padmavati, the princess of the Singhal Kingdom, is close friends with the talking parrott Hiraman. Her father disapproves of their closeness, and orders the parrot to be killed. The parrot flies away to escape the punishment, but is captured by a bird catcher, and ultimately ends up as a pet of the Chittor ruler Ratansen
Inspired by the parrot's description of Padmavati's beauty, Ratansen decides to visit the Singhal kingdom. Joined by his 16,000 vassals and princes, and with the parrot as his guide, he reaches Singhal after crossing the seven seas. There, he tries to win Padmavati by performing austerities in a temple. Informed by the parrot, Padmavati visits the temple and returns without meeting Ratansen, although she begins to long for him. Meanwhile, at the temple, Ratansen decides to commit suicide for having missed her. The deities Shiva and Parvati intervene, and Shiva advises him to attack the fortress of Singhal.Disguised as ascetics, Ratansen and his followers attack the fortress, but are captured by Gandharvsen. As Ratansen is about to be executed, his bard reveals his identity. Gandharvsen then marries Padmavati to Ratansen, and also arranges 16,000 padmini women for his companions. (Padmini is best among the four types of women, typically found only in Singhal.)As Padmavati and Ratansen consummate their marriage in Singhal, Ratansen's first wife Nagmati longs for him in Chittor. She uses a bird to send a message to Singhal, following which Ratansen decides to return to Chittor. Ratansen has excessive pride in being married to the most beautiful woman on the earth, for which he is punished by a sea storm during the return journey. He and Padmavati are rescued by the Ocean, but all their followers die in the storm. Lacchmi, the daughter of the Ocean, tests Ratansen's love for Padmavati by appearing before him disguised as Padmavati. Ratansen passes the test, and is rewarded with gifts by the Ocean and Lacchmi. With these gifts, he recruits a new entourage at Puri, and returns to Chittor.In Chittor, Padmavati and Nagmati rival for Ratansen's attention. Initially, he placates them by spending nights with them alternately, but then establishes peace by reprimanding them. Meanwhile, he banishes the Brahmin courtier Raghav Chetan for fraudulently winning a contest. Padmavati gifts Raghav her bangle in order to placate him. Raghav goes to the court of Alauddin Khalji in Delhi. When asked about the bangle, he describes the unmatched beauty of Padmavati. Alauddin then besieges Chittor, and demands Padmavati for himself. Ratansen rejects the demand, offering to pay a tribute instead. Alauddin rejects the offer, and the siege continues. Finally, as part of fresh terms of peace, Ratansen invites Alauddin as a guest inside the fort, against the advice of his vassals Gora and Badal. Alauddin deceitfully catches a glimpse of Padmavati, captures Ratansen, and returns to Delhi. Padmavati asks Gora and Badal to help her free Ratansen. The two men and their followers enter the fortress of Delhi, disguised as Padmavati and her companions. They free Ratansen, but Gora is killed fighting during the escape, while Badal takes Ratansen to Chittor.

During Ratansen's absence, the Kumbhalner ruler Devpal proposes marriage to Padmavati. On his return, Ratansen learns about this insult, and decides to punish Devpal. In the ensuing single combat, Ratansen and Devpal kill each other. Nagmati and Padmavati commit suicide by sati (widow's self-immolation) on Ratansen's pyre. Meanwhile, Alauddin's army reaches Chittor. Facing a certain defeat, the women of the fort commit suicide by jauhar (mass self-immolation), while the men fight to death. Alauddin captures an empty fortress, thus denied victory although Chittor "becomes Islam".For those interested in reading the actual Padmavat poem, which itself is very lengthy, it can be done so using the translation by A.G.Shirreff over here.
Many historians have concluded that since no contemporary historian of Alauddin Khilji's time directly mentioned Padmavati, or that she was the reason for Alauddin Khilji's attack on the Chittor fort, the Padmavat poem is nothing but a work of fiction. Some like Kishori Saran Lal, have found many inconsistencies in the Padmavat poem. For example, the Padmavat poem says that after Ratnasimha became king, he spent 12 years in the search for Padmavati and then another 8 years in war with Alauddin Khilji. However, Ratnasimha actually ascended the throne of Chittor in 1301 and was defeated by Alauddin in 1303. Also, Jauhar of the Rajput women in the Chittor fort, upon Alauddin conquering the fort, was mentioned in Padmavat (1540). However, Amir Khusrau, Alauddin Khilji's court poet cum historian, and therefore a contemporary of Alauddin Khilji, mentions no such Jauhar at Chittor. We cannot reason, however, that Amir Khusrau did not know of the practice of Jauhar, because 2 years prior to the siege of Chittor, when Alauddin Khilji captured the fort of Ranthambore, Amir Khusrau narrates the Jauhar that transpired in the fort. Hence, the mention of Jauhar in Chittor is yet another discrepancy in the Padmavat poem. Most likely, the presence of Jauhar in the poem Padmavat was due to extraneous influences when Malik Muhammad Jayasi was writing the poem. Just a decade prior to the completion of the poem, Chittor had experienced her conquest at the hands of Bahadur Shah of Gujarat, and the associated Jauhar. It was perhaps from the influence of this Jauhar, and due to the need to please the Rajputs whom he was narrating this poem to, that Malik Muhammad Jayasi added in the poem that the females in the Chittor fort performed Jauhar, upon its capture by Alauddin Khilji!
That being said, although many historians disregard the Padmavati poem as fiction, many Hindu nationalists and Rajputs consider it a sacred part of their history, as they have converted the 14th century princess, Padmavati, into a female divine figure, after her Jauhar. However, the claims of such people are based on hearsay and emotion, as opposed to actual research on the subject, and are therefore not taken seriously by historians. For example, what many of these folks forget, or perhaps are unaware of, is the fact that according to Padmavat (1540), Padmavati did Sati, not Jauhar. Sati involves a devoted wife burning herself alive, on her dead husband's pyre when her husband's funeral rites occur. On the other hand, Jauhar involves a female burning herself alive, when her fort is nearly captured by the enemy, and her husband goes out to perform Saka. The former is to show devotion to the husband, whereas the latter is to satisfy the husband's possessiveness and ensure that after his death, the invaders are not able to lay their hands on, and have sex with his dear wife. Often times, if a Rajput female was unwilling to do Jauhar, her bodyguards, employed by her husband, would thrust her forcibly, against her will, into the fire.

However, from my research on this topic, I have come to conclude that both sides have some truth to their claims. The poemPadmavat is both fictional and non-fictional. That is to say, it is a work of fiction, based on a historical event. This means that its minute details may be fictional, however the gist of the story is indeed history (i.e. non-fiction)! To show this, I will analyze contemporary historical records in the next few paragraphs... 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.
An Analysis of Contemporary Historical Records
The first person to mention the siege of Chittor by Alauddin Khilji was his court historian cum poet, Amir Khusrau, who accompanied him in the siege. Amir Khusrau details the siege of Chittor in his Khazain-ul-Futuh. I have a copy of this text, translated in English by Dr. Wahid Mirza, as well as the translation by Prof. Muhammad Habib. Since the translation by Dr. Wahid Mirza contains some translation mistakes/typos, I will also refer to the translation of Prof. Muhammad Habib in my analysis below. For those that are interested in reading both translations, I have reproduced both of the translations below, for the portions that deal with the siege of Chittor.

Translation by Dr. Wahid Mirza







Translation by Prof. MuhammadHabib
On Monday, the 8th Jamadius Sani, 702 A.H. the Conqueror of the World, resolved on the conquest of Chitor, ordered his high-sounding drums to be beaten. The crescent-banner was moved forward from Delhi and the imperial canopy was raised up to the smoky clouds; the sound of the drum reached the bowl of the sky and conveyed to it the good news of the Emperor's determination. Finally, the confines of Chitor were reached. The imperial pavilion of which the clouds may be considered the lining, was pitched up in that territory between two rivers. The enthusiasm of the army shook the two seashbres like an earthquake, while the dust raised by the feet of the troops rendered the two deep rivers fordable. The two wings of the army were ordered to pitch their tents one after the other on the two sides of the fort. It seemed that water-laden clouds had alighted at the foot of the hill. For two months the flood of the swords went up to the 'waist' of the hill but could not rise any higher. Wonderful was the fort, which even hailstones were unable to strike! For if the flood itself rushes from the summit, it will take a foil day to reach the foot of the hill.Nevertheless, the celestial fort, which raised its head above the clouds, would have bowed to the ground at the strokes of the maghribi stones. But Jesus from the Baitul Ma 'mur (Mecca) sent the good news of the building of Muhammad's Faith; consequently, the stones of the building remained intact and kept their secret to themselves. On a hill, named Chatarwari, the Emperor raised his white canopy every day like the sun, and as is the custom of rulers, attended to the administration of the army. He ordered the eastern wrestlers (pahlawans) to draw the westerners (maghribis). Other warriors began to place heavy stones in the 'arm' (palla) of the maghribi- for, except the arm of the maghribi, nothing else could measure their strength. Every warrior, as he raised the stone with his strength, made his hand a pillar for the hill that had no pillars.The army of Solomon dealt strokes, like those of David, on the fort that reminded them of Seba. On Monday, 11 Muharram, A.H. 703, the Solomon of the age, seated on his aerial throne, went into the fort, to which birds were unable to fly. The servant (Amir Khusrau), who is the bird of this Solomon, was also with him They cried, 'Hudhud! Hudhud!' repeatedly. But I would not return; for I feared Sultan's wrath in case he inquired, 'How is it I see not Hudhud, or is one of the absentees?' and what would be my excuse for my absence if he asked, 'Bring to me a clear plea'?. If the Emperor says in his anger, 'I will chastise him', how can the poor bird have strength enough to bear it?It was the rainy season when the white cloud of the ruler of land and sea appeared on the summit of this high hill. The Rai, struck with the lightning of the Emperor's wrath and burnt from hand to foot, sprang out of the stone-gate as fire springs out of stone; he threw himself into the water and flew towards the imperial pavilion, thus protecting himself from the lightning of the sword. Wherever there is a brazen vessel, the Hindus say, there lightning falls; and the Rai's face had turned as yellow as brass through fear. Surely he would not have been safe from the lightning of the arrow and the sword, if he had not come to the door of the royal pavilion. On the day the yellow-faced Rai sought refuge on the red canopy from fear of the green swords, the great Emperor (May his prosperity continue!) was still crimson with rage. But when he saw the vegetarian Rai trembling with fear, like the trampled and withered grass under the imperial tent- though the Rai was a rebel, yet the breeze of royal mercy did not allow any hot wind to blow upon him. All the storm of the Emperor's wrath vented itself against the other rebels. He ordered that wherever a green Hindu was found, he was to be cut down like dry grass. Owing to this stem order, thirty thousand Hindus were slain in one day.It seemed that the meadows of Khizrabad had grown men instead of grass. After the wind of imperial wrath had uprooted all the muqaddams, he rid the land of its two colours, and helped the raiyats, the cultivators of the land, among whom no thorn raises its head, to grow. The roots and branches of this azure edifice were assigned to the grand tree of the grand Empire, Khizr Khan and given the name of 'Khizrabad'. The red canopy was placed over Khizr Khan's head, like the red heaven over the blue sky. He wore a robe of honour ornamented with jewels, as the sky is inlaid with stars. Two banners, black and green, were raised so high above his threshold that the Saturn and the Sun were struck with melancholy and bile. Further, his court was adorned by a baton (dūrbāsh) of two colours, each of which seemed a tongue from the solar lamp. Thus by scattering rubies and diamonds and roses, the Emperor made the existence of his son prosperous and honourable. Then freed from the affairs of Khizr Khan and Khizrabad, he took hold of his successful bridle and brought his stirrups from the green meadows (of Khizrabad) to Siri. After the 10th of Muharram, the banner of the successor of the Prophet (May it rise higher and higher!); having wonderfully predominated over the head of the Hindus, was ordered to be moved to the City of Islam, Delhi. He (the Emperor) made the killing of all Hindus, who were out of the pale of Islam, such an obligation on his infidel-smiting sword (zulfiqar) that should Muslim schismatics (rafizis) in these days even nominally demand their rights, the pure Sunnis would swear in the name of this rightful Caliph of God. Now that you have read the entire chapter on Alauddin's invasion of Chittor, from Khazain ul Futuh, translated into English, by Dr. Wahid Mirza and Prof. Muhammad Habib, I will analyze select passages to show the indirect mention of Padmavati in this record, and how Padmavati's story deviates from that shown in the poem, Padmavat (1540), by Malik Muhammad Jayasi. Just to avoid any translation mistakes that Dr. Wahid Mirza (green) may have made, I will use Prof. Muhammad Habib's translation (blue) in this analysis as well.
As shown in the Introduction to this chapter (i.e. first three paragraphs of Dr. Wahid Mirza's translation; first two paragraphs of Prof. Muhammad Habib's translation), Alauddin Khilji departed from Delhi on Monday, the 8th Jumda II 702 A.H. (January 27 1303). Although the date when Alauddin Khilji reached Chittorgarh is not explicitly mentioned, it can be taken to be a maximum of 1 week from the date when Alauddin Khilji departed from Delhi, given the distance from Delhi to Chittorgarh (~580 km). 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! Anyone who has seen Chittorgarh can attest to how difficult it must be for any invader to conquer that tremendous fort! 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 these Introductory paragraphs, Amir Khusrau then goes on to say:
Dr. Wahid Mirza Translation: In this way the army detailed by the Solomon-like king, put on daily the armour of David and gathered around the rampart which reminded one of Saba, till the count of the month of Muharram was nearly in the middle and the day dawned with the last of the night, while the year was the one in which Solomon sitting on the throne travelled on the eastern breeze, that is Monday, the 11th of Muharram in the year 703 of the Prophet's hijra. On this date the Solomon of his time mounted the back of his fleet-footed horse and climbed up to the rampart which even a bird could not overfly. I, who am the bird of this Solomon, accompanied him and although they asked me frequently to turn back (hud hud), I did not do so, fearing that the king may exclaim in his anger. "How is it that I do not see the hoopoe ? Is he, then, of the absent ones?" and fearing also what I could reply concerning my absence, if the king said : "He shall bring me a clear argument." "How can a weak bird have the strength to keep composed if the king says about him. I shall certainly punish him."Prof. Muhammad Habib Translation: The army of Solomon dealt strokes, like those of David, on the fort that reminded them of Seba. On Monday, 11 Muharram, A.H. 703, the Solomon of the age, seated on his aerial throne, went into the fort, to which birds were unable to fly. The servant (Amir Khusrau), who is the bird of this Solomon, was also with him. They cried, 'Hudhud! Hudhud!' repeatedly. But I would not return; for I feared Sultan's wrath in case he inquired, 'How is it I see not Hudhud, or is one of the absentees?' and what would be my excuse for my absence if he asked, 'Bring to me a clear plea'? if the Emperor says in his anger, 'I will chastise him', how can the poor bird have strength enough to bear it?As shown by the above text, Alauddin Khilji's continued to use catapults to assault the fort till 11 Muharram A.H. 703 (August 24 1303). In other words, the siege of the Chittor fort continued on for approximately 6 months. If we read the above passage carefully, we would notice a series of beautiful metaphors that, when completely understood, have great significance in developing the series of events that transpired during the conquest of Chittorgarh. The above narrative involves metaphors comparing Alauddin Khilji to Solomon, Amir Khusrau to Solomon's pet HudHud bird (also called the Hoopoe), and the Chittor fort to the Sheba/Saba kingdom. To understand the significance of these metaphors, we will momentarily have to delve into Islam and the Qur'an, where the story of Solomon, his pet HudHud burd, and the Sheba kingdom are mentioned!
This story is mentioned in the Qur'an 27.16-44. To summarize, Solomon was the son of David, and inherited his kingdom. His army consisted of men, along with jinn and birds. One day, when he took attendance of the birds in his army, he noticed that his HudHud bird was missing. As a result, he got very angry and said that unless the HudHud bird gave a solid reason for his absence, he would have him punished severely, or perhaps even killed. However, the HudHud bird soon returned and told Solomon that he had been to the kingdom Sheba, and noticed that its queen, named Bilqis (according to the Islamic tradition), was worshiping the Sun, along with the rest of the people in the kingdom. There was no worship of Allah in that kingdom. Hearing this, Solomon was skeptical regarding the truthfulness of these words of the HudHud bird. So, he sent a letter to Queen Bilqis, via the HudHud bird, ordering her to submit to him and accept Islam. After obtaining this letter, she had consultation with the eminent men of her kingdom, and they told her that they are prepared for war, but the final decision is on her. Hearing this reply, she started thinking of the dangerous consequences of war. She realized that upon conquest of a kingdom, the invaders destroy the kingdom and the honor of its people. To avoid this, Queen Bilqus turned to diplomacy and via her messengers, sent Solomon a gift, and awaited his reply. Upon receiving the gift, Solomon was not satisfied, and sent a message back to the queen, via her messengers, demanding that she personally submit to him. He politically pressurized her into personal submission by saying that if she decided otherwise, he would invade her country. After these messengers departed to Sheba, he ordered a jinn to create a throne that is a replica of what Queen Bilqis had back in her kingdom. When Sheba personally arrived for submission, she saw this throne that was the exact same as what she had back home in Sheba, and hence, out of her own will, submitted to Solomon, converted to Islam and worshiped Allah instead of the Sun God. After that moment, Allah was worshiped in the Sheba kingdom, as opposed to the Sun God.
For those that are interested in reading the actual narrative present in Qur'an 27.16-44, please read the passage below:
And Solomon inherited David. He said, "O people, we have been taught the language of birds, and we have been given from all things. Indeed, this is evident bounty." And gathered for Solomon were his soldiers of the jinn and men and birds, and they were [marching] in rows. Until, when they came upon the valley of the ants, an ant said, "O ants, enter your dwellings that you not be crushed by Solomon and his soldiers while they perceive not." So [Solomon] smiled, amused at her speech, and said, "My Lord, enable me to be grateful for Your favor which You have bestowed upon me and upon my parents and to do righteousness of which You approve. And admit me by Your mercy into [the ranks of] Your righteous servants."And he took attendance of the birds and said, "Why do I not see the hoopoe - or is he among the absent? I will surely punish him with a severe punishment or slaughter him unless he brings me clear authorization." But the hoopoe stayed not long and said, "I have encompassed [in knowledge] that which you have not encompassed, and I have come to you from Sheba with certain news. Indeed, I found [there] a woman ruling them, and she has been given of all things, and she has a great throne. I found her and her people prostrating to the sun instead of Allah, and Satan has made their deeds pleasing to them and averted them from [His] way, so they are not guided, [And] so they do not prostrate to Allah, who brings forth what is hidden within the heavens and the earth and knows what you conceal and what you declare - Allah - there is no deity except Him, Lord of the Great Throne."[Solomon] said, "We will see whether you were truthful or were of the liars. Take this letter of mine and deliver it to them. Then leave them and see what [answer] they will return." She said, "O eminent ones, indeed, to me has been delivered a noble letter. Indeed, it is from Solomon, and indeed, it reads: 'In the name of Allah, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful, Be not haughty with me but come to me in submission [as Muslims].' " She said, "O eminent ones, advise me in my affair. I would not decide a matter until you witness [for] me." They said, "We are men of strength and of great military might, but the command is yours, so see what you will command." She said, "Indeed kings - when they enter a city, they ruin it and render the honored of its people humbled. And thus do they do. But indeed, I will send to them a gift and see with what [reply] the messengers will return." So when they came to Solomon, he said, "Do you provide me with wealth? But what Allah has given me is better than what He has given you. Rather, it is you who rejoice in your gift. Return to them, for we will surely come to them with soldiers that they will be powerless to encounter, and we will surely expel them therefrom in humiliation, and they will be debased." [Solomon] said, "O assembly [of jinn], which of you will bring me her throne before they come to me in submission?" A powerful one from among the jinn said, "I will bring it to you before you rise from your place, and indeed, I am for this [task] strong and trustworthy." Said one who had knowledge from the Scripture, "I will bring it to you before your glance returns to you." And when [Solomon] saw it placed before him, he said, "This is from the favor of my Lord to test me whether I will be grateful or ungrateful. And whoever is grateful - his gratitude is only for [the benefit of] himself. And whoever is ungrateful - then indeed, my Lord is Free of need and Generous." He said, "Disguise for her her throne; we will see whether she will be guided [to truth] or will be of those who is not guided." So when she arrived, it was said [to her], "Is your throne like this?" She said, "[It is] as though it was it." [Solomon said], "And we were given knowledge before her, and we have been Muslims [in submission to Allah ]. And that which she was worshipping other than Allah had averted her [from submission to Him]. Indeed, she was from a disbelieving people." She was told, "Enter the palace." But when she saw it, she thought it was a body of water and uncovered her shins [to wade through]. He said, "Indeed, it is a palace [whose floor is] made smooth with glass." She said, "My Lord, indeed I have wronged myself, and I submit with Solomon to Allah, Lord of the worlds."The fact that Bilqis disregards the fact that Solomon was already a Muslim, and instead goes on to say that "I submit with Solomonto Allah", shows that deep within, Bilqis associated herself with Solomon, thereby strongly suggesting that mentally, she had formed an intimate bond with him by virtue of attraction/love for him. Taking this bond she felt with Solomon into account, it is quite likely that Bilqis subsequently went on to have some sort of a consensual, intimate, sexual relationship with him. This is supported by the fact that Solomon desired "personal submission" of Bilqis, which in those times, when it came to females, would have had a sexual connotation. Furthermore, when Bilqis submits to Allah, she submits to Him along with Solomon, as a couple would do, thereby suggesting a romantic relationship between the two. As a matter of fact, a 9th century Islamic Scholar cum historian, al-Tabari (839-923 ACE), asserts in his tafsir (interpretation) of the Qur'an that after Bilqis converted to Islam, she willingly married Solomon (extracted from "The History of al-Tabari, Volume 3"):


However, it is the opinion of other scholars that Bilqis did not marry Solomon, but simply was his concubine and had sexual relations with him. These scholars assert that the name Bilqīs (Arabic: بلقيس‎‎), is derived from the Greek word παλλακίς (pallakis) or perhaps the Hebrew word pilegesh, both of which mean "concubine", thereby suggesting that Bilqis was the concubine of King Solomon. This theory of Bilqis being the concubine of Solomon gained popularity in the 12th and 13th centuries, and as a result, in the 14th century, Ethiopian account, Kebra Nagast, Bilqis was depicted as a concubine of Solomon, who had one son from him. Hence, it is fair to conclude that Amir Khusrau, who lived in the 13th and 14th centuries, had his views on Bilqis and Solomon shaped by this popular account, in addition to the Islamic account that mentions that Bilqis personally submitted to Solomon, converted to Islam, and then became his concubine and had sexual relations with him.
That being said, with this knowledge, it makes it easier to understand what Amir Khusrau was trying to say, regarding the conquest of Chittorgarh, when he used the three metaphors comparing Alauddin Khilji to Solomon, himself to the HudHud bird, and the Chittor fort to the Sheba kingdom...
"Very poetically, Amir Khusrau said that he (i.e. the HudHud Bird) was the one who informed Alauddin (i.e. Solomon) of the Chittor fort (i.e. Sheba kingdom) and how the queen of that fort (i.e. Bilqis), Padmavati (i.e. the wife of Ratnasimha), along with the people of Chittor (i.e. Sheba) were infidels and did not worship Allah. As we all know today, the royalty of Chittor trace their ancestry from the Sun God, just like how the population of Sheba worshiped the Sun God. Upon hearing that Chittor (i.e. Sheba) was plagued by religious infidelity, Alauddin Khilji (i.e. Solomon) demanded, using Amir Khusrau (i.e. the HudHud bird) as his messenger, that Padmavati (i.e. Bilqis) personally submit to him. Padmavati (i.e. Bilqis) tried to employ diplomacy and offered gifts to the Sultan (i.e. Solomon)... But to no avail... Alauddin Khilji (i.e. Solomon) was not ready to accept anything less than the personal submission of Padmavati (i.e. Bilqis). As a result, Padmavati (i.e. Bilqis) personally submitted to the Sultan (i.e. Solomon), in Delhi, and then willingly converted to Islam. Due to her love for Alauddin (i.e. Solomon), she then willingly became his concubine. Following this, Chittor (i.e. Sheba) also converted to Islam."The aforementioned paragraph details a rough framework of events that would have transpired, based on the metaphors used by Amir Khusrau. But more importantly, it gives some solid evidence that the queen of Chittor played an important role in the conquest of Chittorgarh. This queen of Chittor was the wife of Ratnasimha, the ruler of Chittorgarh, whom Malik Muhammad Jayasi had named "Padmavati", based on her beauty. It is this interpretation of the metaphors used by Amir Khusrau that has led some scholars, such as Prof. Muhammad Habib, Ashirbadi Lal Srivastava, Dashratha Sharma, and Submial Chandra Dutta, to conclude that Padmavati was a historical figure. That being said, we should not jump the gun and make a conclusion in haste that the poem Padmavat (1540) is completely historical simply because the existence of Padmavati has been proven. The existence of Padmavati does not imply that the entire sequence of events, as mentioned in Padmavat (1540) is historically correct. For example, neither Amir Khusrau, nor any other individual contemporary to Alauddin Khilji mentions the legendary Rajput warriors, Gora and Badal. Hence, we must discard this component of the story as fictional and historically incorrect.
That being said, it is important to keep in mind that the paragraph (in red) above is merely a rough framework of the events that would have transpired during the conquest of Chittorgarh. The general Solomon-Sheba story would find a parallel in the Alauddin-Chittor story. However, we cannot expect the minute details of both stories to be the same, since the context of both stories differ (i.e. both deal with different kingdoms and different sociopolitical environments)! To determine the minute details of the Alauddin-Chittor story, and therefore generate a more complete version of the sequence of events that transpired in Chittor, analyzing the passages in the chapter of Khazain-ul-Futuh that deals with the conquest of Chittorgarh is necessary. Hence, I will return to the passage that I was analyzing earlier, before I had delved into the metaphors involving Solomon, his HudHud bird, and Sheba:
Dr. Wahid Mirza Translation: In this way the army detailed by the Solomon-like king, put on daily the armour of David and gathered around the rampart which reminded one of Saba, till the count of the month of Muharram was nearly in the middle and the day dawned with the last of the night, while the year was the one in which Solomon sitting on the throne travelled on the eastern breeze, that is Monday, the 11th of Muharram in the year 703 of the Prophet's hijra. On this date the Solomon of his time mounted the back of his fleet-footed horse and climbed up to the rampart which even a bird could not overfly. I, who am the bird of this Solomon, accompanied him and although they asked me frequently to turn back (hud hud), I did not do so, fearing that the king may exclaim in his anger. "How is it that I do not see the hoopoe ? Is he, then, of the absent ones?" and fearing also what I could reply concerning my absence, if the king said : "He shall bring me a clear argument." "How can a weak bird have the strength to keep composed if the king says about him. I shall certainly punish him."Prof. Muhammad Habib Translation:

The army of Solomon dealt strokes, like those of David, on the fort that reminded them of Seba. On Monday, 11 Muharram, A.H. 703, the Solomon of the age, seated on his aerial throne, went into the fort, to which birds were unable to fly. The servant (Amir Khusrau), who is the bird of this Solomon, was also with him. They cried, 'Hudhud! Hudhud!' repeatedly. But I would not return; for I feared Sultan's wrath in case he inquired, 'How is it I see not Hudhud, or is one of the absentees?' and what would be my excuse for my absence if he asked, 'Bring to me a clear plea'? if the Emperor says in his anger, 'I will chastise him', how can the poor bird have strength enough to bear it?From this narrative, we are told that roughly after 6 months of beseiging the fort, on 11 Muharram A.H. 703 (August 24 1303), Alauddin Khilji, along with Amir Khusrau, entered the Chittor fort on horse. However, one important thing to take note of is the fact that at this time, the Chittor fort was not yet conquered, since the surrender/conquest of the fort is yet to be described in the subsequent paragraphs. That being said, how was Alauddin Khilji able to enter the Chittor fort when it was not yet under his control? He would not have been able to ride into an unconquered fort, on his horse, as if it was his own fort, right?
The poem Padmavat (1540) attempts to give an answer to this question, and therein lies the historical aspect of that poem. According to Padmavat (1540), after beseiging the fort of Chittor for a long time, Alauddin makes peace with Ratnasimha and enters the fort of Chittor, with his permission, for peace discussions and to see a glimpse of Padmavati. Later on, when exiting from that fort, he captures Ratnasimha alive, and then takes him to Delhi. Following this, he demands that Padmavati personally submit to him, by coming to Delhi.
Now...
Not all of this may be true, but the gist of this is likely true. For example, when Alauddin Khilji departed from Delhi to go to Chittor, Amir Khusrau said "the crescent-banner was moved forward from Delhi". The crescent is an islamic symbol; hence Amir Khusrau says, very poetically, that Alauddin attacked Chittor to impose Islam on its populace. Likewise, the metaphor by Amir Khusrau, comparing Alauddin to Solomon, suggests that just as Solomon invaded infidel lands solely to spread Islam, so did Alauddin Khilji attack Chittor, solely for the purpose of spreading Islam in Chittor, as opposed to capturing the queen of Chittor, Padmavati. Since the purpose of the invasion of Chittorgarh was not to capture Padmavati, it seems highly unlikely that Alauddin Khilji would have asked Ratnasimha to have a glimpse of his wife. It is also highly improbable that a Rajput in those days would have allowed a stranger to catch even a single glimpse of his beautiful wife. Hence, the portion of the story where Alauddin catches a glimpse of Padmavati is likely fiction. However, the rest of the story would suggest the following:
"After 6 months of besieging the Chittor fort, Alauddin Khilji decided to make peace with Ratnasimha, and hence was allowed entry into the Chittor fort for peace talks. After the peace talks, Ratnasimha guided Alauddin out of the Chittor fort. As he was doing so, Alauddin captured Ratnasimha and took him to Delhi. After doing so, he demanded that Padmavati come to Delhi and personally submit to him."Of course one can argue that the above theory is heavily based off of Padmavat (1540), and therefore not historically accurate. Historians generally look at the events in Padmavat (1540) with skepticism. Hence, we would ideally need references from sources written by contemporaries of Alauddin Khilji to back this theory. I will first start off by saying that the above theory makes most sense when looked at from a logical perspective. The only reason why an invader besieging a fort would enter the fort when it is still unconquered would be for peace discussions with the ruler of the fort. For example, in 1569, Akbar proceeded to besiege the Ranthambore fort. After 1 month of besieging the fort, Akbar then entered it, despite not having captured it, in order to negotiate peace terms with the ruler of the Ranthambore fort, Rai Surjan Hada. As a result, Rai Surjan Hada came up with several special terms beneficial for Ranthambore, when creating the peace treaty with Emperor Akbar. These special terms can be found in Lieutenant-Colonel James Tod's "Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan" and Vincent Smith's "Akbar the Great Mogul", for those that are interested.
If we refer back to the Solomon-HudHud Bird-Sheba story, we would notice that the HudHud bird was the messenger of Solomon, and had a big role in peace negotiations between King Solomon and Queen Bilqis of the Sheba kingdom. Since Amir Khusrau uses metaphors comparing Alauddin Khilji to Solomon and himself to the HudHud bird, it is apt to look for parallels between the Solomon-HudHud Bird-Sheba story and the conquest of Chittorgarh. Doing so, would suggest that just like how the HudHud bird was the messenger that took part in peace negotiations between Solomon and the Sheba kingdom, so was Amir Khusrau the messenger that took part in peace negotiations between Alauddin Khilji and Chittorgarh. Hence, if Alauddin Khilji had entered the fort for peace negotiation purposes, it seems apt that he would have taken this messenger of his (i.e. Amir Khusrau) along with him. This is supported by the text in Khazain-ul-Futuh, where Amir Khusrau says "The servant (Amir Khusrau), who is the bird of this Solomon, was also with him. They cried, 'Hudhud! Hudhud!' repeatedly. But I would not return; for I feared Sultan's wrath in case he inquired, 'How is it I see not Hudhud, or is one of the absentees?' and what would be my excuse for my absence if he asked, 'Bring to me a clear plea'? if the Emperor says in his anger, 'I will chastise him', how can the poor bird have strength enough to bear it?" This makes it very clear that Alauddin Khilji entered Chittorgarh, prior to conquering it, for peace negotiations purposes, with its ruler, Ratnasimha!
However, the fact that Alauddin Khilji entered the fort for peace negotiations does not directly suggest that on his way out of the fort, he had captured Ratnasimha. Hence, evidence from contemporary sources is required to support the claim that Ratnasimha had been captured by Alauddin Khilji, when the latter was leaving the Chittor fort, after peace negotiations. One such contemporary source, that provides us the evidence we are looking for, is a record written by a Jain scholar, Kakka Suri, in 1336. In Kakka Suri's "Nabhinandana-Jinoddhara-Prabhanda", he includes nine verses describing Alauddin Khilji's military accomplishments. The fourth verse is of interest to us, as it deals with Ratnasimha and the Chittor (Citrakuta) fort:
"He captured the lord of Citrakūṭa fort, took away his property, and made him move like a monkey from one city to another"The above verse clearly mentions that the ruler of the Chittor (Citrakuta) fort (i.e. Ratnasimha) was captured by Alauddin Khilji. However, what we also want to know is whether Ratnasimha's capture happened during the Saka, that is to say, during the final war with Alauddin when Alauddin overpowered the Rajputs and took control of Chittorgarh, or perhaps prior to Saka, during peace negotiations, when Alauddin entered the Chittor fort. The above verse does mention that Alauddin took away the property of Ratnasimha; however there is still some ambiguity regarding whether or not Kakka Suri considered Chittorgarh as part of this property. If Chittorgarh is part of this property, it would imply that Ratnasimha was captured during the Saka, along with the fort of Chittor. However, if the Chittor fort is not part of this property, it would imply that Ratnasimha was captured prior to the fort of Chittor, possibly during peace negotiations. The latter would be in sync with the theory I proposed earlier.
To resolve this confusion regarding when actually Ratnasimha was captured, lets turn to the earliest Rajput record of the siege of Chittor, which is in the form of an inscription at Kumbhalgarh, dated to 1460 CE. This inscription was issued by the legendary Rana Kumbha. The translation of this Kumbhalgarh Prahasti (eulogistic inscription) reads:
That ruler [Samarasiṃha] with all his sins removed by the worship of Maheśa became the lord of svarga, after entrusting the defence of Mount Chitrakuta to his son Ratnasiṃha. When he [Ratnasiṃha] had departed, Lakṣmasiṃha of the family of Khummana defended that excellent fort, (for) even though the established traditions of the family be forsaken by cowards, those who are valorous and steady do not give up their pursuit. Having thus destroyed his enemies in battle, he [Lakṣmasiṃha] died purified by weapons while defending Chitrakuta.Some things to note from the above text are that it is explicitly mentioned that Samarasimha and Laksmasimha died. However, in the case of Ratnasimha, it is mentioned that he "departed", but did not die. Furthermore, the text mentions "(for) even though the established traditions of the family be forsaken by cowards, those who are valorous and steady do not give up their pursuit" in the context of Ratnasimha's departure and Laksmasimha defending the fort of Chittor. This should make it clear that the inscription addresses:
1. Ratnasimha as the one that departed (from the fort of Chittor), thereby forsaking the family traditions, like a coward.2. Laksmasimha as the valorous and steady one that defended the fort of Chittor after Ratnasimha's departure.In addition, note that it is explicitly mentioned that prior to dying, Samarasimha entrusted the defence of the fort of Chittor to his son Ratnasimha. Had Ratnasimha died defending the fort in the first wave of Saka, he would have entrusted the defence of the fort of Chittor to Laksmasimha prior to going for Saka. However, no such thing is mentioned in the inscription. The inscription, instead, gives the feeling that Ratnasimha's departure was unexpected and that it drove Chittorgarh to a state of instability, which was stabilized by the steady and valorous Laksmasimha, who took the reins of the defence of Chittorgarh in his own hands. For these reasons, it must be concluded that Ratnasimha departed from Chittor, had forsaken the defence of the Chittor fort and therefore did not participate in the subsequent Saka that took place in Chittorgarh. Historians such as R.C. Majumdar have agreed with such a conclusion. With this knowledge that Ratnasimha did not participate in the Saka at Chittor, it should be crystal clear that his capture took place prior to the Saka. This is in sync with the theory I earlier mentioned, thereby establishing that the Padmavat (1540) does have some historical basis, despite the poem not being fully historical!
However, one issue still remains...
The above inscription mentions that Ratnasimha departed from Chittor, thereby forsaking the family traditions of defending the fort till death. This shows his proactive role in abandoning the fort. However, my theory, and the verse I provided above, written by the Jain scholar, Kakka Suri, mention that Ratnasimha was captured and thereby prevented from defending the Chittor fort. This suggests a less active role of Ratnasimha in abandoning Chittor. So how would I explain this discrepancy? My answer to this would be to revisit what Kakka Suri says. Kakka Suri says that after capturing Ratnasimha, he was eventually released and then Alauddin "made him move like a monkey from one city to another". In other words, despite being freed from captivity, Ratnasimha took a proactive role of abandoning the Chittor fort, and moving to various other cities. It was this behavior of his that likely led the royalty of Chittor to conclude that Ratnasimha had proactively departed from the Chittor fort, and forsaken the family traditions of protecting the fort till death.

As for concubine of Sultan is what he said, Alauddin Khalji was know to keep captured women in his harem.That the kind of person he was .He used head of enemy he defeated to bulid forts and regular took part in genocide of anyone he did like .Read this article
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/repor...ela-bhansali-should-not-glamorise-him-2562511

 

[Ancient Indian]

I haven't seen the movie but the first step in not making jihadus look cool would be to see who they are casting.
Now I haven't seen any of that condom-costume wearing psycho's movies and don't know about his dialogue delivery skills but chicks dig him, that moron.

That's part of the plan. According to sources, Khilji is gay. Movie makers want to send this hidden message by casting him.

Thank god, I don't watch bollywood movies.

 

[dhananjay1]

I haven't seen the movie but the first step in not making jihadus look cool would be to see who they are casting.
Now I haven't seen any of that condom-costume wearing psycho's movies and don't know about his dialogue delivery skills but chicks dig him, that moron.

Even from trailers it's clear that Khilji played by Ranvir Singh has stronger role than pretty boy Shahid Kapur. He sounds more like he is doing commercials for Siyaram Suiting & Shirting than playing a powerful Rajput king.

 

[dhananjay1]

Don't expect that , Chagatai Khanate converted to islam long ago , there is no heathen any more in central asia , otherwise Taimur would be a good deal for Hindus , but it did't...

KHiljis are actually central asian , and not even Afghan , they are central asian barbarian like later taimur and his descendant babur .
When great khan wipeout central asian "power" kwazeramid overnight , these tribes came down in south to seek refuge in Delhi's das dynesty , Khiljis are one of them....

Mongols started attacks on Delhi sultanate even before conversion of Chagatai khanate to Islam. Even after the conversion to Islam, there were many non-Muslims among Mongols and Islam wasn't very strong among them in 13th C. On the other hand Turks were converts since centuries and in fully Jihad mode.

I know Khiljis are central asians, that why I said "Muslim Turks" not "Muslim Afghans".

 

[Bhoot Pishach]

Read more then title of the article
He has put a entire section dedicated to the authenticity of the poem with complete translation of it and other historical text Read it for yourself
As for concubine of Sultan is what he said, Alauddin Khalji was know to keep captured women in his harem.That the kind of person he was .He used head of enemy he defeated to bulid forts and regular took part in genocide of anyone he did like .Read this article
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/repor...ela-bhansali-should-not-glamorise-him-2562511

Ho!! Would you just shutup????

The Johar Kund in Chittorgarh Fort is also Fake. The Locals Created it just out of hallucination???

Listen you fool History is always written by the Victors all over the world be it Arabs, Mongols, Turks, Brits, Europeans.

History never cherishes the Defeated, however Brave and Moral and Pious were they.

Though Allauddin Khilji besieged the Chhitorgarh and Defeated and Killed Raja Ratan Singh.

But he was Badly Humiliated by Maharani Padmavati.

Go and research ISLAMIC HISTORY.

What they ALWAYS done to the DEFEATED Kingdoms and Cultures all across Asia and Europe. They Killed all the Male progeny if they are not converted. Abducted all the Women and sold them in slavery.

It was Maharani Padmani along with all the Women of Chhitorgarh which Badly Humiliated Allauddin Khilji by doing Johar.

Allauddin Khilji was not able to capture not even a single woman alive at that time. So he can make EXAMPLE OUT OF CHITTORGARH BY MAKING WOMEN AS SEX SALVES. And this episode turned out was utter shame for that ba$tard.

Do you think the Historian of Allauddin Khilji, Amir Khusro to capture the Humiliation of the Sultan???? All Amir Khuso has written is praises of that Ba$tard, do you think Will ever right Humiliation suffered by Allauddin.

Get some life dude.

Why only the Story of Maharani Padmavati is alive in folk lore of all the stories written by Malik Mohd. Jayasi. Why nobody remembers all the other stories of this Jayasi.

And the Story of Maharani Padmavai is known to allover North India, be it Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Gujarat.

The supreme sacrifice of Maharani Padmani Kept alive the spirit of Chittorgah and Rajasthan alive which repeatedly fought the might of Muslim Oppressors till the downfall of Mughals.

Dear Mods @LurkerBaba @Sakal Gharelu Ustad @Kunal Biswas please delete the crap paddled by @Bahamut

 

[Bahamut]

Ho!! Would you just shutup????

The Johar Kund in Chittorgarh Fort is also Fake. The Locals Created it just out of hallucination???

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.

It was Maharani Padmani along with all the Women of Chhitorgarh which Badly Humiliated Allauddin Khilji by doing Johar.

Allauddin Khilji was not able to capture not even a single woman alive at that time. So he can make EXAMPLE OUT OF CHITTORGARH BY MAKING WOMEN AS SEX SALVES. And this episode turned out was utter shame for that ba$tard.

Do you think the Historian of Allauddin Khilji, Amir Khusro to capture the Humiliation of the Sultan???? All Amir Khuso has written is praises of that Ba$tard, do you think Will ever right Humiliation suffered by Allauddin.

Get some life dude.

Why only the Story of Maharani Padmavati is alive in folk lore of all the stories written by Malik Mohd. Jayasi. Why nobody remembers all the other stories of this Jayasi.

And the Story of Maharani Padmavai is known to allover North India, be it Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Gujarat.

The supreme sacrifice of Maharani Padmani Kept alive the spirit of Chittorgah and Rajasthan alive which repeatedly fought the might of Muslim Oppressors till the downfall of Mughals

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.