Oh how easy to insult a community on internet and wash your hands clean.
I don't know why people hold such narrow views with half baked knowledge of history. This is something I've been saying again and again on this forum.
When you go to History, you go to History; don't look at things from where you stand today. You have to reference from the times that prevailed then. They were the people of those times and as rulers of their respective kingdoms they did what they thought was right for them. There were separate autonomous kingdoms with little or no political alliance at all. The India at that time was an extremely loose federation of occasionally warring kingdoms with socio-religous being the only way of some similarity. There wasn't a notion of one country as you see today so don't look at it from this context in which people like you and I are bought in past six decades or more.
Now coming to the point, both Mughals and Marathas wanted the same thing from rajputs or any other regional player - allegiance under their umbrella and rule.
Rajputs had a humble abode on resource less harsh semi desert terrain. Many miss the point that they were merely defending themselves. They never went out on invasion spree and yet were in a fierce geopolitical fit.
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.
If old neighbors like rajputs and marathas failed to forge an alliance, the reasons run deep and blame of trust deficit doesn't lie merely on one side.
Allow me to throw light on something you probably never stumbled upon while starting to blabber with disrespect. The man Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj you mention and his son Sambhaji Rao came out unscathed and alive out of Aurangzeb's Agra fort because of a Amber's rajput prince Ram singh.
It was Ram singh who convinced Shivaji to come for talks with Aurangzeb after his father Raja Jai singh had promised Shivaji that any harm to Shivaji and his accomplice would have to through the rajputs first.
We all know what kind of a man Aurangzeb was. When the talks began on Aurangzeb's birthday Shivaji was deliberately ignored, which infuriated him. Proceedings at that court are well recorded in books and I'm not going to elaborate everything. When Aurangzeb ordered for Shivaji to be killed, Ram singh stepped out and said that him and his people were oath bound to protect the maratha king at any cost. Aurangzeb then ordered Shivaji be house arrested till the talks were back to track - this happened only after prince Ram Singh signed a bond with Aurangzeb, taking full responsibility of the Maratha king.
For the next few months Shivaji lived in Ram Singh's camp, guarded by Rajput warriors, but also regularly watched by Mughal soldiers. When further negotiations proved futile Shivaji and Ram singh realized what Aurangzeb's next move would be.
Shivaji decided on escape. He feigned illness and began sending out baskets of sweets as charity. Over time, the mughal soldiers went lax in checking those baskets. On August 17, 1666 Shivaji and his son hid themselves in such baskets and escaped from Agra.
Since Shivaji had escaped from the midst of Ram Singh's camp, Aurangzeb's suspicion naturally fell on Ram Singh for the feat. When tortured, some maratha brahmins confessed under torture that Ram Singh had helped Shivaji's escape.
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.
It is easy to talk about fight when enemy lives a house farther, when you have a buffer zone (in rajputs) when clash is on ambition not survival (as it was for rajputs), but ask the rajputs who had them all coming right into the face .. right in front of them.
All the land invasions of ancient India had the same route Khyber Pakhtunwa pass which landed the invaders and Rajputs in front of each other. Rajputs chewed these invasions for many many centuries. Had it been someone else, their signs would've gone missing from the pages of history pretty soon.
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 amongst the reasons.
Rajputs rulers then were successful 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.
Do you know that countries like Syria, Jordan etc were taken by the Aravs within days, Egypt took 20 days to be conquered, Iraq 3 months, Iran 3 years and India 400 yrs, because of Rajputs.
You talk of when the intruders came in .. you forget of how many times and for how many centuries rajputs fought with these intruders all alone. There were no Marathas or Sikhs to fight alongside them saying that Oh our country India is under attack lets fight shoulder to shoulder with rajputs and thwart off the invaders .. did it happen, tell me.
What happened instead was that the likes of PrithviRaj Chauhan single handedly defeated people like Ghauri many times over and over before being slayed ultimately.
But I don't blame marathas or anyone else for that. Because I put the context in correct perspective that people of those time had their own reasons to do whatever they did and were too occupied with their own problems. Yet no excuse from the fact that while both held the Hindu flagship - Marathas and Rajputs were prime examples of Indian infighting.
Sayyads, Tughlaqs, Lodis, Afghans and Mughals .. so many came and smothered off aaj kisi ka namo nisha nahi bacha.. par ye kaum to yu hee ladti rahi, girti rahi aur fir se uth ti rahi .. aaj bhi lad rahi hai aur agey bhi ladti rahegi.
Hope you would not jump to conclusions like this ever again. We cannot afford anymore infighting in this country. Lets not revive the genetic flaws of the Indian fiber.
Regards,
Virendra
