Warriors of Gujarat

[civfanatic]

. As far as I know, no iqta assignments were made in the territory of Rajasthan.

I would like to make a correction in my previous post. Looking over my notes, it seems that Balban, before he became Sultan, was given Nagaur and surrounding lands as an iqta in 1242.

 

[Simple_Guy]

Karan Kirti Kothari - modern Warrior of Gujarat

Commander of the Sri Lanka army Lieutenant-General Jagath Jayasuriya presents the Sword of Honour to Gentleman Cadet Karan Kirti Kothari at the passing-out parade of the IMA at Dehra Dun on Saturday. (Above) A cadet who passed out of the academy gets a hug from his mother and grandmother. — Photos: Virender Singh Negi​

The prestigious Sword of Honour is presented to the Gentlemen Cadet standing the overall best among the passing out course Karan Kirti Kothari bagged the honour bringing cheers to the Kothari family hailing from Rajkot in Gujarat. Arvind Kothari, elder brother of Karan Kothari, said he was proud to see his younger brother in Army uniform. He said Karan from very beginning had made up his mind to join the Army. "Even in the National Defence Academy, my brother bagged a Gold Medal in the training", he said, adding that his brother had always believed in excelling and that was the reason behind his good performances both in the NDA and the IMA.

 

[Simple_Guy]

Narendra Modi in the role of 19th century Kathi chieftain Jogidas Khuman, in school play. India Today photo​

The Kathis are another interesting community inhabiting Saurashtra. They are divided into two groups, the warlike Sakhayat, and the Auratyas. They have an interesting custom that marriages must take place between these two groups. And if a male Auratya marries a female Sakhayat, she brings land from her father's estate as dowry, but on her death this land goes back to her father's family. The Kathiawari horses are reared by Kathi community.

The Sakhayats originate from the union of a Rajput warrior of the Vala clan who married a Kathi woman, and had three sons named Vala, Kuchar, and Khuman. These three names form the main Kathi Rajput clans. Also called Kathi Durbars, they stood with the Rajputs, tribals, and Mers in defending Saurashtra from the Muslim rulers of Gujarat as well as from the British. Jogidas Khuman, portrayed above by Shri Modi, was declared an outlaw by the British.

 

[Ankit Purohit]

Sir Pratap Singh was famous in his days as the best pig-sticker in India. And he was trained to fight a wild boar on foot with only a knife in one hand.

Quoted from the book "Animal Kingdoms" By Julie E. Hughes on Google Books.

Another photo of this warrior in his youth from ebay:

Idar is my native place

 

[Shatrujeet]

Idar is my native place

Sabarkantha - good.

 

[Ankit Purohit]

Sabarkantha - good.

Yes village Mota Kotada

 

[Shatrujeet]

Yes village Mota Kotada

My close relative (Massa and Massi) resides in Himmantnagar. My native village is somewhat near to idar but it's a mehsana district. My village is across the Supteshwar River who constitutes border between Mehsana and Sabarkantha district.

 

[Ankit Purohit]

My close relative (Massa and Massi) resides in Himmantnagar. My native village is somewhat near to idar but it's a mehsana district. My village is across the Supteshwar River who constitutes border between Mehsana and Sabarkantha district.

Yes some of my relative too resides in Himmatnagar

 

[Virendra]

I would exclude Madhya Pradesh, as I consider that to be more Central India than North, but otherwise the states shown above can be taken to constitute "North India".

Yeah sure, because then we would have to count the Chandels, Bundelas, Ahoms etc and their deeds right?

One might also add West Panjab (Pakistan) and Sindh to the definition since, in terms of history and geography, these regions form a continuum with the rest of 'North India'.

Hilariously, while Sindh is somehow clubbed in north instead of west .. the Chandel and Bundela territories become central India and hence out of the equation. : D

Now, with the exceptions of Kashmir and Uttarakhand (until the mid-14th century), and Rajasthan, the whole region described above was dominated by Turks since the early 13th century. We can squabble over the precise territorial extent of 'North India' and the exact percentage of this territory which was under Turkish dominion, but the important fact is that the the most productive and densely-populated lands in India, i.e. those of the greater Indo-Gangetic plain stretching from Sindh/Panjab to Bihar/Bengal, were under the political domination of foreigners. This domination by foreigners would continue more or less from the 13th to the 18th centuries, as I stated previously (in the western parts of the Indo-Gangetic Plain, the domination lasted even longer than that). And this vast swathe of land does indeed constitute "most of North India". Even if you disagree with the precise territorial definitions, it cannot be denied that this territory held the majority of North India's population and produced the greater part of its revenue. It is population and especially revenue which matters here, and in North India, the greater part of both were subject to foreign rulers during the time period I specified.

Good luck adding the states as you please and subtracting likewise.
Definitions morph from "most of north India" to "most productive and densely-populated lands in India".
Timelines shift from "13-18th centuries" to "more or less mid 14th to 18th".
The very point I was debating has changed, so no use chasing it any further.

No. The Mongol invasions, if anything, hurt the 'politico-military balance' of the Turks in India, and served to further destabilize an already turbulent NW frontier. The Mongols cut off Delhi's access to the vital military resources of Central Asia, namely Turkish slave-warriors and horses.

The invasions drove numerous Turkish tribes like khiljis and tughlaqs from central asia to India. How does that not boost resources but create problem for the Turks?
Besides I'm not talking of "politico-military balance of Turks" themselves. I'm talking about the "equation between Turks and natives" that got changed with this influx of Turkish tribes in India.

The loss of access to these resources forced Delhi to rely increasingly on Afghan and even Indian troops rather than Turks, and local breeds of horses rather than those from Central Asia.

Mongols didn't have permanent occupation of central Asia for a long time. All they did was raid the lands and retreat. Even in the thick of Mongol invasions when they chased Jelaluddin Khwarizm, there were Khilji, Tughlaq etc Turkish troops in Multan, Kabul and other cities, whom Jelaluddin even used against Mongols.
Mongols were an interim and periodic entity, not a permanently posted enemy by Delhi's side. Moreover, Mongols seized to be a threat to India after Chingiz. Timur was even allied to his contemporary Mongol chief.

As for the Turkish warriors and elites, their displacement only caused more political confusion and turmoil in NW India.

I don't see what political confusions were there. One dynasty replaced the other at the top. How is that negating the numerical advantage out to the rising inflow of Turks from central Asia. For a moment lets assume there was a political turmoil. The turmoil was momentary and we don't see Turkish armies killing each other for that. Political turmoil passed, Turks have more numbers by every passing day, now what?
If we started looking at such turmoils and confusions, then the ones in native Kingdoms would flood our brains and memories out. Are we compensating for that yet?
Real turmoils were in central asia and afghanistan due to Mongols, from where the likes of Khiljis and Tughlaqs came to India. Who replaced older Turks in Delhi? Khiljis. Who led the only major Turkish expansion in India? Khiljis.

The Turkish ruler of Khwarezm, Jalaluddin Mangbarni, had fled to India in the wake of Genghis Khan's invasion, and captured Uch in the Indus Valley. Mangabarni also extended an offer of alliance to Iltutmish, proposing that they join forces against the Mongols. However, Iltutmish actually repudiated this offer, fearing that it would provoke Genghis to advance against Delhi. It proved to be a wise move, as Genghis had invaded Sindh in pursuit of Mangbarni and massacred his forces, but decided not to continue on to the Delhi doab.

It is true that Delhi Turks feared Mongols and Mongols were heavy for them to handle. But in the peak of their power the Mongols rarely waged full-on campaigns against Delhi based Turks. The ones who bore the brunt of Mongols then were central Asian powers like Khwarizm.
The raids that took place in Indian sites like Lahore and Delhi etc were only focused on looting (not occupation) and took place after Mongols were weakened and fragmented due to the demise of Chingiz.

The displacement caused by the Mongols also extended into parts of Afghanistan.

I'm not concerned about Afghanistan as that is not a part of Delhi Turks Kingdom.

In sum, these displacements and others could hardly be said to have benefited the 'politico-military' balance of the Turks. Rather, they, along with the Mongols themselves, provided additional external threats and destabilizing factors that prevented a concerted Turkish expansion into other parts of India until the early 1300s.

Like I said before, Turks in India were threatened only till Chingiz was there. Not when his Khanate had disintegrated into weaker parts. That is when central asian Turks had already come to India in good number. That is when Alauddin comes on the scene. And that is when the only major Turkish expansion in India began .... with Mongol threat past its prime and Turkish military ranks in Delhi swollen by migrations.
There was never a grand Mongol invasion of Delhi Sultanate. Mongol raids did resume later on but with only half the power .. there was no single powerful khanate and there was no Chingiz ka-khan .. just seasonal raiding parties that were looking for loot and plunder.
The Mongol raids started resulting into their defeats and as early as 1292, right after Khiljis came to throne, around 4,000 Mongol of a divisinal army (that was usually not more than 10k-20k) converted to Islam and settled in Mongolpuri.

The "recovering of lost ground" by native rulers only occurred in a few places, like in South India where the Sultanate of Madurai was totally uprooted and conquered by Vijayanagar (which itself was founded in course of a rebellion against Turkish rule).

I was talking in context of north India. Sorry if I haven't been clear enough. As far as the south is concerned. In the long run Turks eventually lost there as well.

Most of the time, however, when centralized Islamic empires collapsed,

Collapses in this case were political not military. Obviously a viable replacement comes in eventually.

they were simply replaced by a number of regionalized Islamic states, rather than resurgent Hindu kingdoms. We have seen this happen numerous times on various levels: Delhi Sultanat getting replaced by the regional sultanates of Jaunpur, Bengal, Gujarat, Malwa, and Bahmanis in 14th century,

Delhi Sultanate wasn't replaced by Jaunpur, Bengal, Gujarat, Malwa, and Bahmanis; it rather got reduced back to core region and the expanded territories became new sultanates. After fragmentation, individually these sultanates were as strong and weak as any other native Kingdom.

In fact, it has struck me that, with few exceptions, that most of the Indo-Gangetic Plain (which constitutes the greater part of North India) has been ruled almost continuously by foreigners from the 13th century all the way to 1947 itself.

After 17th century the Mughals were gradually reduced to the status of remote control switches and the British hadn't arrived yet. It was the Marathas who were running the show from background. Also we're forgetting Sikhs and Jats as well. They were not mountain militia. They ruled plains.

Yes, they can be called pan-Indian, and they were definitely pan-North Indian.

Gujarat and Malwa were annexed under the Khaljis, and Rajasthan subjugated by Alauddin during his 10-year long campaign. Maharashtra was occupied and Deogir/Daulatabad became the center of Turkish power south of the Vindhyas. Parts of Telangana, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu were all temporarily brought under the Turkish fold. The nobles in the Indo-Gangetic Plain had been put in line, and the authority of the center was relatively strong throughout North India. Orissa too was invaded and subjugated by Ghiyasuddin Tughluq.

Indeed, for a brief period from c.1310-1340, the political and military influence if not actual rule of the Delhi Sultanat extended from the Himalayan foothills to southern Tamil Nadu. Howeever, many of these newly-conquered territories, especially those south of the Vindhyas, would be rapidly lost from c.1340, either to regional Muslim governors who declared independence, or to rebelling Hindu kings and chieftains who formed new states in the region (of which Vijayanagar was the most important).

I can cite as many instances where native states won back territories and defeated many Sultanates in wars in multiple directions.
What do these "temporary" expansions of 10-20 years mean anyway in the huge historical timelines in context? Anyone else with a military machine and armored heavy cavalry advantage over the enemies can rally in subjugate for a period. It is the consistency that matters. I don't see any mentionable Mughals or Turks in this country today. But I can see the natives .. all of them. Jats, Rajputs, Sikhs, Marathas and so many others.

Turks were active in the countryside of North India, albeit through intermediaries. They couldn't have obtained tax revenues from the peasant masses otherwise. They had to use intermediaries since the government was not bureaucratized enough for a direct collection of taxes throughout the empire. Most Hindu states relied on some sort of intermediaries as well for tax collection.

Intermediaries couldn't be as effective for the foreigners as they were for native rulers. Otherwise, tax revenues would not he withheld and raids and skirmishes wouldn't happen; whenever Turk army numbers dropped in the garrisons to fight a regular army elsewhere.

Except the Indians were not the only ones who lived under centuries of Islamic rule and did not convert. I already mentioned the southern Europeans who were under centuries of Ottoman rule, but were never converted. The Ottomans were also Turks, just like the Ghaznavids and most Sultans of Delhi. They all had their ultimate origins in the same place, i.e. the steppes of Central Asia. The present-day southern Europeans may hate the Turks for ruling over them for centuries, just like modern Hindus (especially of North India) may hate Turks for ruling over them for centuries, but the fact is that most of these Turkish rulers were not intent on converting the non-Muslim masses under their rule. With a few exceptions like Aurangzeb, most were far too pragmatic to attempt such a project. They were perfectly content with the Hindu masses, so long as they remained submissive to Islamic rule and continued to pay taxes. There was never a time, in the history of North India, when an Islamic state was overthrown by the Hindu masses, or even came close to being overthrown.

Why do we keep forgetting that rag tag masses grinded and deprived under taxes and subjugation of Islamic rule cannot overthrow a well oiled military beast.
Bare foots cannot overthrow a dashing armored cavalry.
Terror was used as a weapon to keep people in line, away from revolt and aggression. It is not without reason that all the foreign invaders and rulers from Arabs to Turks to Mughals .. used tactics like slaughtering of innocents enmasse, looting people and property alike, capturing slaves, burning cities and villages alike to induce this terror.
Then and only then would the natives let these "pragmatic" barbarians run their rules. And yes, in his initial days almost each Turkish ruler converted people in huge numbers at every chance he got.
Why do the Indian masses not overthrow the Pakistani terror monster for good?

Moreover, as @nrupatunga has mentioned, Indian converts to Islam were not treated or viewed particularly well by the Turkish elites, so the social advantages that may accompany conversion in other cases did not exist during the Delhi Sultanat's domination of North India.

It still saved them from the utter humiliation and burden of being an infidel in an Islamic rule. It saved them from general massacre, their women from rape, their kids from slavery.

Indeed, the question we should be asking is not why more Indians did not convert to Islam (the numbers that ultimately did convert are still quite large, especially given the circumstances. South Asia has the largest population of Muslims in the whole world)

South Asia has the largest population of hindus as well and it is one of the most heavily populated areas in the world. So what ?
There will be a huge no. of people belonging to almost every religion.

but rather, how could a small minority of Muslim foreigners dominate the predominantly Hindu masses of North India for so long?

By inducing terror and maintaining standing heavy cavalries.

Hemu's army consisted of both Hindu and Muslim troops, as did the army of Sher Shah.

As did the army of Mahmud and few others after him. He was aware of that and was constantly recruiting Hindu soldiers while marching towards Delhi. His trusted general Hazi Khan Mewati even revenged his death by killing Bairam Khan in Gujarat later.

What's interesting, however, is the speed with which Kashmir was Islamized once Muslim rule was established (I don't know why you said Kashmir was out of reach of Turks until 1354, because it was being ruled by a Muslim dynasty since 1339). It only took a couple centuries for Islam to become firmly entrenched in Kashmir.

Just the valley. Turks weren't ruling entire Kashmir even later. Rinchan converted to Islam and after him the first Turkish dynasty came on the scene. Just check when that dynasty came to power. I might be off by one of two decades at best, thats all.

And who/what are "Chaks" and "Zulchu"?

Entities of J & K only. Chaks were a tribe of upper Indus (Dardus) that embraced Islam later. Some even became Sikhs later.

It reveals intense factionalism and lack of a centralized political order among the Turks in India, not some great resistance by the native Indians.

Turks were a politico-military power. As we all know their social interference was inconsistent at best. Politically and militarily Indias were as fragmented as the later Turks if not more.

If resistance was right at the grassroots and the Indian peasantry was so militarized, why didn't they overthrow the Turks?

Because it is a peasent we're talking about. A man who has to sow and till the soil to arrange food for himself and family. If he went out up in arms against his rulers in open fields, what will his family eat?

And again, whether or not the Hindu masses converted to Islam was largely irrelevant. The difference in religion between rulers and ruled did not cause undue rural unrest

That is one of the reasons why large scale organized rebellions didn't take place.
, since the rule of the Sultans over the greater part of their Hindu subjects was quite indirect anyway (this reality of indirect rule was true even for the Hindu 'empires' that preceded the Delhi Sultanate). Since the Hindu masses in the history of pre-modern India have seldom caused trouble for the established political elites, whether they be Hindu or Muslim, there was no real reason for the Turkish sultans to expend much effort in grandiose projects like converting all of India to Islam (again, idealists like Aurangzeb being the exception). They were perfectly content with keeping the Hindu masses in a perpetually subservient position and using them as a source for their immense wealth, and this system of rural exploitation to support an opulent nobility (which soon came to include many Hindus as well as Muslims) and grandiloquent royal courts continued right up to modern times. The various foreign nobles which dominated North India from the 13th to the 18th centuries - Turks, Persians, Afghans, Mongols - all grew rich and successful at the expense of the North Indian peasant. One wonders how this was possible, when we are told that 'every Indian farmer's house had matchlocks'.[/quote]
Yeah so? You think a matchlock can defeat Mughal armies? Matchlock is for individual self defense.

The question was why didn't more Hindu kings and chieftains revolt and establish large, independent kingdoms like Vijayanagar?
Following the collapse of the Delhi Sultanat, why did we see Muslim states in Bengal, Bihar-UP, Malwa, Gujarat, and Maharashtra rather than resurgent Hindu realms?
Surely, if the Hindus were politically dominant and the hold of Turks so tenuous, the collapse of Delhi would have meant the end of Muslim rule in India.

Because the only thing that fell was Delhi Sultanate's political clout and ability to grip far off regions under single central leadership.
There was no drop in their military power. Neither the Turk men went away nor their horses and military infrastructure.
You can't uproot a military state without equating the enemy on militarily strength, socially derived martial formations and unity.
Lets take an example. Rajputs not only had a deep rooted military tradition, clannish social hierarchy, bhayad (brotherhood); but also they quickly adopted tactics like maintaining standing medium cavalry in castles and conducting frontal dash raids etc.
That gave them a fair chance against the Turks. What lacks in the other areas is not the will to fight but a system that could build its semantics.
The communities at other places lacked all the elements I mentioned above. That is why, in north India Rajputs had the best record against Turks despite fighting them so extensively and constantly right in their neighborhood.
It is not so much about bravery, as it is about having fit traditions and capable systems in place that could resist and prevail over threats.

Yet none of them uprooted the Arabs from Sindh itself. In fact, Sindh was under near-continuous Muslim rule for the past 1300 years, and remains so even today.

Yet India in standing tall, with all its plurality, culture, civilizational glory, despite showing miraculous tolerance and stamina against millenniums of unabated excesses, genocides and plundering.
Like I said before. I don't see any mentionable Mughals or Turks in this country today, even when they ruled here for centuries. But I can see all the natives standing tall, even when they were on defensive from day one.
We always focus on the one time aggressor succeeds after 9 failed attempts. But we tend to forget how many times the defender defended against all odds.

The Islamization was well underway, though there were still large non-Muslim populations of course.
We know for sure that least the political elites and some powerful tribal/caste leaders converted, because by the 11th century Arab rule had ended and was replaced by indigenous Sindi Muslims. The Sumrah dynasty of Sind, which existed with various degrees of independence until 1351, was the first native Muslim dynasty to rule any part of India. Needless to say, the rise of indigenous Muslim dynasties presupposes a degree of conversion under Arab rule. We also know that conversions took place due to the proliferation of people who adopted Arabic names and carried the surname "al-Sindi". This certainly disproves as hyperbole any statement that "not a single convert was made".

I didn't expect it to be taken literally.

What is your source for this statement, and where is it from?
In fact, al-Hajjaj scolded Muhammad bin Qasim for being too lenient, and accepting subjugation by treaty rather than subjugating by force.

This is an extract of Chachnama cited at 'History of India as told by its own Historians volume i' pg 186, by H Elliott and Dowson. Exact page of Chachnama that he cites is written at footnote 1 in Urdu so I couldn't figure that.

'Chachnama' page 90, translation by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg.

The Ghaznavids and Ghorids were also fighting on multiple fronts and faced much more serious and competent enemies, namely the Turks from Central Asia.

So did the Indians.

First we are told that the Hindus were constantly and continuously resisting the Muslims, and that 'every Indian farmer had a matchlock', and now India was a 'struggling agrarian civilization'?

And how are the two contrary? read above. If the farmer wasn't struggling against Mughal hordes on his farm why would he keep a matchlock? Struggling doesn't mean he'll uproot Mughals single handedly. It is not a bazooka, it is a matchlock. All he wants is to defend self, family .. and if lucky the farm as well.

The people in the West were co-religionists but that was irrelevant, as it did not prevent wars between different Muslim powers. As mentioned before, it was precisely the powers in the West which posed the greatest threat to Muslim states based in North/Northwest India, as well as the non-Muslims of Central Asia like the Mongols.

My point was not on State but on religious demography beneath. The conversions and all.

As Isami asks rhetorically, "why should the army that defeats the Mongol be afraid of fighting the Hindu?" (Futuh al-Salatin, pg.284).

LoL .. yeah like NaikiDevi beat the manhood out of Mahmud, Chatrasal beat it out of Aurangzeb and so did Jats who dug the grave of Akbar out.
And what to say of Turks, they were so brave that Bakhtiyar Khilji ran out of Tibet upon hearing of a massive army building aginst him in the city upfront. He ran so hard that he entered India gloriously with 300 to 1000 cavalry left of all his troops.
But then why am I replying to philosophic rhetoric Them ain't scared because the Hindus won't aggress first, when they do, it is only the regular armies of native Kingdoms.
And nor were the natives scared of a fight. Difference is of the philopohy of war, when to fight, whom to fight, how to fight, why to fight.
Am I supposed to expect a barely clad foot farmer to fight the armored heavy cavalry Turk?
A civilization where armies used to fight in fields with rules and farmers ploughed their farms nearby at the same time, cannot be expected to match the nomad's barbaric values.
If the Turk armies were so confident and fearless, why did the sprinting horses gradually sank into limited pockets? Why no complete and comprehensive victory in sight? Why so much and so long a fighting to maintain the hold? And why get evaporated eventually?

If they were so too brave, why did they have to assert it by words, than deeds?

As for the greatness of Iran or Iranians vis a vis India, a lot has been said already. I'll just add that Zoroastrians write about 100 years of India rule on Iran in their "MANUAL OF "KHSHNOOM" page 347.

I'm done with this debate. Thank you.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[Simple_Guy]

@Virendra the more you feed a troll the more garbage he spews out. Best ignored.

This thread should be used more positively.

 

[parijataka]

@civfanatic, seriously what is it with running down your country of birth (assuming you are born in India) and its people and native culture ?

 

[Simple_Guy]

Ravindra Jadeja's Rajput heritage

It's apparent from his equestrian talk that Jadeja's knowledge about horses is both folksy and scientific. "Horses ward off evil spirits, I have heard," he says. "Ganga is Kathiawadi and Kesar is a Marwari and Kathiawadi mix. Ganga has inwardly pointed ears that touch each other. That is how you identify a Kathiawadi horse," he says, just before mounting the imposing Kesar in one swift move.​

So like all Jadejas, Ravindra Jadeja too was called Bapu — derived from baap (father), it is a term of endearment coined for benevolent kings or mass leaders in Saurashtra — and greeted with a "Jai mataji". "Hello" or "kem cho" are for the masses. Salutations by way of hailing Jamnagar's revered mother goddess are reserved for the "warrior class".

Ravindrasinh Anirudhsinh Jadeja is the newest name on Jamnagar's cricketing honours board, one that is topped by a prince whose graceful leg glance made the British go weak in their knees.

Jadeja is keen on a farmhouse interview and arrives in his A4 Audi, a luxury car worth a few lakhs over half-a-crore. The car's boot has a different monogram from the one on the wall. It reads Ravi, with the tail of the extra-curvy cursive "R" cradling the "AVI" in dwarfed capitals. Jadeja steps out with lips pursed to help his left hand twirl the right wing of that famous moustache. The right hand, meanwhile, acknowledges the "Jai matajis" from the small group of eager retainers.

"He plays like a Jadeja. When a Bapu decides on something, he achieves it. We are a very proud community and have a certain ego."

 

[civfanatic]

Yeah sure, because then we would have to count the Chandels, Bundelas, Ahoms etc and their deeds right?

Given that the name "Madhya Pradesh" literally means "Middle Province", with the implication that is in neither North nor South India, I see no harm in excluding this region from definitions of "North India". If the Guptas who never ruled the whole of Madhya Pradesh can be called a pan-North Indian empire, then so can the Delhi Sultanat.

Hilariously, while Sindh is somehow clubbed in north instead of west .. the Chandel and Bundela territories become central India and hence out of the equation. : D

Look at a map. Almost the whole of Madhya Pradesh is at a more southerly latitude than the bottom of Sindh. And why not also include Rajasthan in "West India"?

Definitions morph from "most of north India" to "most productive and densely-populated lands in India".
Timelines shift from "13-18th centuries" to "more or less mid 14th to 18th".
The very point I was debating has changed, so no use chasing it any further.

Since you did not provide any definition of "North India", I had to provide one for the basis of discussion.

I expected this petty quibbling over territorial boundaries and obfuscation of the important point at hand - which is that most North Indians were ruled by foreigners from the 13th-18th centuries, and in some cases even longer.

The invasions drove numerous Turkish tribes like khiljis and tughlaqs from central asia to India. How does that not boost resources but create problem for the Turks?
Besides I'm not talking of "politico-military balance of Turks" themselves. I'm talking about the "equation between Turks and natives" that got changed with this influx of Turkish tribes in India.

It creates problems when those displaced Turks start attacking the previous Turks based in India and try to carve out their own territories in the region - as happened when Jalaluddin Mangabarni waged war for three years in the Indus Valley (after he was defeated by Genghis) against the Turks already based there, or when the exiled Turkish ruler of Ghazni, Hasan Qarlugh, invaded northern Panjab.

The Turks always had military superiority over the natives and this did not change. During the whole period of the standoff between Delhi and the Mongols, the Delhi Sultanat never faced any major threats from any Hindu power. What changed was that the Turks in India were now faced with grave threats to their fledgling dominion from the same direction whence they originally came, and these threats required that military resources be spent on securing the northwest frontier (rather than fighting Hindu states and further expanding their dominions in India).

Mongols didn't have permanent occupation of central Asia for a long time. All they did was raid the lands and retreat.
Mongols were an interim and periodic entity, not a permanently posted enemy by Delhi's side. Moreover, Mongols seized to be a threat to India after Chingiz. Timur was even allied to his contemporary Mongol chief.

It is true that Delhi Turks feared Mongols and Mongols were heavy for them to handle. But in the peak of their power the Mongols rarely waged full-on campaigns against Delhi based Turks. The ones who bore the brunt of Mongols then were central Asian powers like Khwarizm.
The raids that took place in Indian sites like Lahore and Delhi etc were only focused on looting (not occupation) and took place after Mongols were weakened and fragmented due to the demise of Chingiz.

There was never a grand Mongol invasion of Delhi Sultanate. Mongol raids did resume later on but with only half the power .. there was no single powerful khanate and there was no Chingiz ka-khan .. just seasonal raiding parties that were looking for loot and plunder.
The Mongol raids started resulting into their defeats and as early as 1292, right after Khiljis came to throne, around 4,000 Mongol of a divisinal army (that was usually not more than 10k-20k) converted to Islam and settled in Mongolpuri.

You are wrong on most of what you have said above. I am not really sure where to begin.

Firstly, while the Mongols did disintegrate into smaller khanates in the late 13th century, these "smaller" khanates were themselves huge entities and possessed enormous military resources. Keep in mind that Genghis and his successors had conquered the greater part of Eurasia. Each of the four successor khanates of the Mongol empire, based in China, Russia, Central Asia, and Persia, was a major power in its own right.

Secondly, the Mongols DID have "permanent occupation of Central Asia for a long time". The Chagatayid Mongols (descendants of Chagatai, a son of Genghis Khan) ruled Central Asia for over a century, from 1225 to 1346. It was these Chagatayid Mongols who would launch the most devastating invasions against the Delhi Sultanat, on which I will elaborate below.

Thirdly, the Mongols were indeed "permanently posted against Delhi's side". Not only did they directly rule territories in Central Asia, Iran, Afghanistan, and even NW India (Kashmir), but they also intervened in Delhi's internal affairs and installed client rulers in Sindh and Panjab, who carved out territories from lands previously ruled by Delhi. An example of such a Mongol intervention would be when the Mongol khaghan Mongke sent his general Sali Noyan to invade India to press the claim of Jalaluddin Masud, a brother of the reigning Delhi sultan (Nasiruddin Mahmud Shah) who had fled to Mongol territories. This invasion in 1252 led to Jalaluddin Masud being installed as a Mongol vassal in the Panjab, with Delhi losing control of the lands beyond the Beas. In effect, this basically negated the previous gains made by Iltutmish against the displaced Khwarezmian Turks, who had invaded the same region, and pushed the NW frontier of the Sultanat uncomfortably close to Delhi itself (Minhaj-e-Siraj in his Tabaqat-e Nasiri writes that Tabarhindh itself had become the effective frontier between Delhi and the Mongols). During the 1250s, Sali Noyan's campaigns also led to the loss of Sindh, as Multan, Uch, and Bakkar all fell to the Mongols. During Balban's long reign as sultan, there continued to be annual Mongol attacks on India, now from the Neguderis who were Mongols that had settled in Afghanistan. While Balban was able to repel most of these incursions, and even reclaim Lahore and push back the frontier in Panjab, the Mongols remained a great threat to the integrity of the Delhi Sultanat throughout the 13th century.

Finally, you are wrong that there was never a "grand Mongol invasion of Delhi Sultanate". Continuing from my narrative above, the most serious Mongol threat to the Delhi Sultanat occurred during the reign of Alauddin Khalji himself. These were the Chagatayid Mongol invasions of India, led by Qutlugh Qocha (in 1300) and Taraghai (in 1303). Both invasions were of a far larger scale than previous invasions, with Qutlugh Qocha commanding some 100,000 men (as per the lowest figure) and Taraghai leading around 120,000, and both headed straight for Delhi. While Qutlugh Qocha was decisively defeated by Alaluddin and his general Zafar Khan just 15 miles from the capital, Taraghai was able to penetrate as far as the suburbs of Old Delhi. The Mongols surrounded and besieged Delhi for two months before they suddenly withdrew, in what was probably one of the most important episodes in the history of the Delhi Sultanat, as the inexplicable Mongol retreat spared Delhi an earlier version of 1398. Just as importantly, it also allowed Alaluddin and his successors to expand and consolidate their conquests in other parts of India, as there were no major Mongol incursions into India after the first decade of the 1300s.

I don't see what political confusions were there. One dynasty replaced the other at the top. How is that negating the numerical advantage out to the rising inflow of Turks from central Asia. For a moment lets assume there was a political turmoil. The turmoil was momentary and we don't see Turkish armies killing each other for that. Political turmoil passed, Turks have more numbers by every passing day, now what?

If you can't see what "political confusions were there", then I suggest you read the political history of the region more closely. The whole 13th century was pretty much a period of continuous political confusion in NW India and Afghanistan, as might be noted from my brief narratives above. This political confusion is relevant to Delhi because it resulted in the loss of their authority in NW India, and the establishment of rival, hostile powers in the same region.

We see Turkish armies killing each other throughout the history of the Delhi Sultanat, including those in India. As mentioned before, the greatest threat to the Sultans of Delhi was their own Turkish nobles and generals, who had a great propensity towards factionalism and declarations of independence. The center had to keep constant vigilance over the various local governors, as provinces would break away whenever weakness in Delhi was detected. This is typical of many states that lack strong, centralized governments.

If we started looking at such turmoils and confusions, then the ones in native Kingdoms would flood our brains and memories out. Are we compensating for that yet?

No one doubts that political turmoil and large-scale fragmentation was a major factor that led to the easy and rapid conquest of North Indians by foreigners. In fact I have repeatedly said in other threads that this lack of a centralized, political order in North India was the single most important factor that resulted in its easy conquest and subjugation.

Real turmoils were in central asia and afghanistan due to Mongols, from where the likes of Khiljis and Tughlaqs came to India. Who replaced older Turks in Delhi? Khiljis. Who led the only major Turkish expansion in India? Khiljis.

The Khaljis had been in India since the initial Ghorid invasions, and were not newcomers by any means. It was a Khalji soldier who saved Mohammed Ghori's life at the First Battle of Tarain, it was the Khaljis under Mohammed b. Bakhtiyar who spearheaded the expansion into the eastern Indo-Gangetic Plain, and it was the Khalji rulers in Bengal who raised one of the first revolts against the central government in Delhi. All before Genghis invaded Central Asia and the displacements occurred.

I'm not concerned about Afghanistan as that is not a part of Delhi Turks Kingdom.

You should be concerned, because the Mongol invasions produced a domino effect where local powers in Afghanistan were displaced and invaded the territory of the Delhi Sultanat, in turn displacing other powers and coming into conflict with the Delhi Sultanat. I have described these processes above.

I was talking in context of north India. Sorry if I haven't been clear enough. As far as the south is concerned. In the long run Turks eventually lost there as well.
Collapses in this case were political not military. Obviously a viable replacement comes in eventually.

I am also talking in the context of North India only. It was in South India where the brief Turkic rule was replaced by new indigenous states and empires in the 14th century, not in the Indo-Gangetic Plain where we just saw regional Islamic states after Delhi collapsed.

Delhi Sultanate wasn't replaced by Jaunpur, Bengal, Gujarat, Malwa, and Bahmanis; it rather got reduced back to core region and the expanded territories became new sultanates. After fragmentation, individually these sultanates were as strong and weak as any other native Kingdom.

Yes, the Delhi Sultanat was replaced by Jaunpur, Bengal, Gujarat, Malwa, and the Bahmanis. The definition of "replace" is "to put something new in the place of someone and something" (Replace - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary). In this case, the sultanates of Jaunpur, Bengal, Gujarat, Malwa, and the Bahmanis were put in the place of the Delhi Sultanat, which previously governed all the lands ruled by these regional sultanates. I don't know what your definition of "replace" is.

After 17th century the Mughals were gradually reduced to the status of remote control switches and the British hadn't arrived yet. It was the Marathas who were running the show from background. Also we're forgetting Sikhs and Jats as well. They were not mountain militia. They ruled plains.

Yes, in the 18th century the western parts of the Indo-Gangetic Plain came under indigenous rule after a long period of foreign domination. This is why I mentioned the timeline of 13th-18th centuries as the period when foreigners dominated most North Indians. However, the eastern parts of the Indo-Gangetic Plain (from Delhi to Bengal) remained under foreign rule until 1947 itself.

I can cite as many instances where native states won back territories and defeated many Sultanates in wars in multiple directions.

Then cite them, so we can dissect them.

What do these "temporary" expansions of 10-20 years mean anyway in the huge historical timelines in context? Anyone else with a military machine and armored heavy cavalry advantage over the enemies can rally in subjugate for a period. It is the consistency that matters. I don't see any mentionable Mughals or Turks in this country today. But I can see the natives .. all of them. Jats, Rajputs, Sikhs, Marathas and so many others.

The expansions show that the Delhi Sultanat was, at least temporarily, a true Pan-Indian power. That was what I was arguing.

There are no mentionable Turks in India today, just like there are no mentionable Turks in Southern Europe and no Arabs in Spain, but what does that have to do with my argument. The point is that most North Indians were ruled by foreigners from the 13th-18th centuries.

Intermediaries couldn't be as effective for the foreigners as they were for native rulers. Otherwise, tax revenues would not he withheld and raids and skirmishes wouldn't happen; whenever Turk army numbers dropped in the garrisons to fight a regular army elsewhere.

Why wouldn't they be as effective? Both foreign and native ruling elites relied on the same people to collect taxes from the peasantry.

Show me the instances where tax revenues were withheld in North India.

Why do we keep forgetting that rag tag masses grinded and deprived under taxes and subjugation of Islamic rule cannot overthrow a well oiled military beast.
Bare foots cannot overthrow a dashing armored cavalry.

Usually, it is precisely when rag tag masses are "grinded and deprived under taxes and subjugation" that major revolts happen. I can cite numerous cases from other parts of the world where peasants rose in revolt and fought against cavalry as well as armored troops. Not all of these peasant revolts were successful, but the point is that they at least occurred and often resulted in some political or economic changes. The history of medieval Europe for example contains frequent peasant uprisings against oppressive feudal lords, which played an important role in the collapse of feudalism in Europe. In China, mass peasant uprisings organized and led by underground secret societies led to the overthrow of oppressive Mongol rule (who employed "dashing armored cavalry" just like the Turks in India) after just 90 years, and the restoration of indigenous Han Chinese rule.

And yes, in his initial days almost each Turkish ruler converted people in huge numbers at every chance he got.

And how are the two contrary? read above. If the farmer wasn't struggling against Mughal hordes on his farm why would he keep a matchlock?

Is that why the territories ruled by those Turks, whether in India or Southeast Europe, still contain a non-Muslim majority even today?

Of course, you would say that this is due to some "great resistance by North Indians against Islam", because a matchlock can somehow help a North Indian farmer fight Mughal hordes and resist conversion to Islam. But when it comes to mass, organized peasant rebellions, the matchlocks no longer work, and the same Mughal hordes become "dashing armored cavalry" who can easily defeat "rag-tag, oppressed peasant masses."

Why do the Indian masses not overthrow the Pakistani terror monster for good?

Is this a serious question?

South Asia has the largest population of hindus as well and it is one of the most heavily populated areas in the world. So what ?
There will be a huge no. of people belonging to almost every religion.

Really? How many followers of Daoism and Shintoism are there in India?

Fascinating how we went from "Hindus did not convert due to great resistance against foreigners" to "there will be huge number of people belonging to any religion" .

As did the army of Mahmud and few others after him. He was aware of that and was constantly recruiting Hindu soldiers while marching towards Delhi. His trusted general Hazi Khan Mewati even revenged his death by killing Bairam Khan in Gujarat later.

Okay"¦ just answer this one question.

If Hemu did not join the army of a foreign Muslim warlord (Sher Shah) and fought under him, would he have been as successful as he was? Would anyone even know about him?

Entities of J & K only. Chaks were a tribe of upper Indus (Dardus) that embraced Islam later. Some even became Sikhs later.

Who/what is "Zulchu"?

Because it is a peasent we're talking about. A man who has to sow and till the soil to arrange food for himself and family. If he went out up in arms against his rulers in open fields, what will his family eat?

A peasant army would feed itself more or less the same way that any army of the time would.

Yeah so? You think a matchlock can defeat Mughal armies? Matchlock is for individual self defense.

Can you cite an instance from any historical source where a North Indian farmer used a matchlock in "self-defense"? Who exactly is he defending himself against, if not foreign armies?

I am genuinely interested in this, as this is the first time I am hearing that every North Indian farmer had a matchlock.

Because the only thing that fell was Delhi Sultanate's political clout and ability to grip far off regions under single central leadership.
There was no drop in their military power. Neither the Turk men went away nor their horses and military infrastructure.

I am glad you agree, as this was my original argument – that Turks in the plural, but not a single Turkish state, did dominate most of North India in the 13th and 14th centuries.

Yet India in standing tall, with all its plurality, culture, civilizational glory, despite showing miraculous tolerance and stamina against millenniums of unabated excesses, genocides and plundering.

Are you saying that Sindh was never a part of India or Indian civilization?

So did the Indians.

Yes, but that's irrelevant. You mentioned the fact that Indians were fighting on multiple fronts as a reason why they were overrun by Ghaznavids and Ghorids. I'm saying that reason is irrelevant, because the Ghaznavids and Ghorids were also fighting on multiple fronts, and faced much more competent and serious enemies than the Indians they were fighting (who were only engaged with other Indian powers).

My point was not on State but on religious demography beneath. The conversions and all.

What does that even mean?

If the Turk armies were so confident and fearless, why did the sprinting horses gradually sank into limited pockets? Why no complete and comprehensive victory in sight? Why so much and so long a fighting to maintain the hold? And why get evaporated eventually?

If they were so too brave, why did they have to assert it by words, than deeds?

Who says it wasn't asserted in deeds? North India was dominated by foreigners from the 13th-18th centuries. That fact is proof enough. The fact that Indian architecture, painting, and literature of the past 800 years is heavily influenced by Persian styles, the fact that modern Indian ethical norms and cultural values (like how Rajputs practice purdah and segregation of sexes, a traditionally Islamic practice) are shaped by the norms and values of conquerors from West and Central Asia, and the fact that most North Indians speak a language with a heavy Persian and Turkic derived vocabulary (Hindi-Urdu), are all self-evident legacies of this long political and cultural domination of North India by foreigners.

As for the greatness of Iran or Iranians vis a vis India, a lot has been said already. I'll just add that Zoroastrians write about 100 years of India rule on Iran in their "MANUAL OF "KHSHNOOM" page 347.

Are we discussing history here, or mythology and fairy tales?

 

[civfanatic]

@civfanatic, seriously what is it with running down your country of birth (assuming you are born in India) and its people and native culture ?

Where am I "running down my country of birth"? I am only mentioning the historical facts and debunking ridiculous myths and pseudo-history. Only people who are insecure and cannot handle the truth would find my posts disturbing.

Moreover, I have learned many useful things from this thread, that I did not know before. For example, I learned that every North Indian farmer had a matchlock during the medieval period.

 

[Simple_Guy]

Gujarati dialect Vaagriboli spoken in Tamil Nadu​

Vaagriboli is spoken by Narikuravas, a nomadic community settled in Tamil Nadu centuries ago from Gujarat-Rajasthan.

The syntax, grammar and lexical structure of Vaagriboli, considered a dialect of Gujarati, have changed over the years because of heavy borrowing from languages like Rajasthani, Marathi and Tamil.

Varma's interest in Vaagriboli began when he found that the Narikurava community lacked a written script and history. "I travelled all over the south, tracing the route of the Narikuravas who were a part of the Bagdi (bird catcher) tribe living in Rajasthan. They are called Shikaris in Maharashtra and Lambadis in some parts of Andhra Pradesh,'' says Varma.

The Narikurava population in Tamil Nadu is estimated to be around 2 lakh. Governments in the past had initiated various rehabilitation programmes but these had a limited impact. Few in the community even seem to be aware of the state-sponsored initiatives. Most of them used to be hunters, trappers and fowlers. Of late, many have turned to selling glass bangles, beads and necklaces and toys.

TOI

 

[Simple_Guy]

The Jains of Gujarat-Rajasthan​

The Jains have been great temple builders in India, particularly in Rajasthan, Gujarat and to a certain extent in Karnataka. The present work explores, somewhat impressionistically, the architectural and iconographic marvels of two sets of magnificent Jain temples in Rajasthan, one at Dilwara in Mount Abu and the other at Ranakpur - separated from each other by some 500 years and 200 k.m.

For Jains, places sanctified by the association with any of the five luminous events (pancha-maha-kalyanaka) is a holy place. For them there are many such Tirthakshetras all over India but particularly in Gujarat and Rajasthan - places such as Girnar, Taranga, Mount Abu, Ranakpur, many of them located on mountain tops. Many prominent Jain temples were established there which have become holy centres of pilgrimage and also great centres of superb art.

In a group of five Jain temples at Dilwara, the 11th century Vimalavasahi and the 13th century Lunavasahi (also known as Tejahpala temple) are the focus of the present work. The third focal point of this treatise is the 15th century Chaumukha temple at Ranakpur. The former two are renowned for their exquisite sculptural work and the temple at Ranakpur for its architectural splendour.

Jain architecture

 

[Simple_Guy]

Fascinating article on KS Ranjitsinhji by cricket historian Arunabha Sengupta​

It is a mistaken notion that Ranjitsinhji, born September 10, 1872, was the heir to the throne of Nawanagar by birth. His claims to the gaddi were circuitous, to say the least.

Jam Vibhaji had succeeded his father to the throne in 1852. He quelled the Waghers of Okhamandel, whose ambitions extended to Jamnagar, and emerged victorious in the showdown that took place in the Badra Hills. Outstanding in the battle was Jadeja Jhamalsinhji, an officer of Sarodar and a distant cousin of Vibhaji.

Vibhaji acquired as many as 14 wives. However, none of these bore him a son. Vibhaji now turned to Jhamalsinhji, the valiant officer of Badra, for one of his sons as prospective heir. his choice was the seven-year-old grandson of Jhamalsinhji, Ranjitsinhji. And taking no chances, he entrusted the boy to the care of his political agent Colonel Barton.

The ceremony of adoption took place in the temple of Dwarka Puri, a mile from Jamnagar.

After the adoption ceremony, Vibhaji never saw Ranji again. And at the age of 35, KS Ranjitsinhji, the famous cricketer and one of the most stylish batsmen ever, ascended the throne of Nawanagar helped by his cricketing contacts.

The stipulations imposed by the British and the current health of Nawanagar did not make for smooth sailing. Ranji tried a lot of improvement measures, including stimulating the economy by building a modern harbour. There were illnesses, escapes to England, lavish entertainment of British guests and resumption of his First-Class career. There were also affairs of the heart as he pined away for a British lady, and the two could not marry due to the complications that mixed-race marriage would bring into both British and Rajput circles.

He was overjoyed when nephew Duleepsinhji showed exceptional talent as a batsman and arranged for him to receive full instructions at home. Duleep, as elegant and majestic in his wristy brilliance, excelled in the few seasons he played and scored a scintillating 173 at Lord's against Australia in 1930. The innings was watched by a proud Ranji from the stands. However, physical frailty brought an end to Duleep's career in 1932.

The very next year Ranjitsinhji died of heart failure on April 2, 1933 after a short illness. The Ranji Trophy, the national championship for cricket in India, is named after KS Ranjitsinghji. It has been played since 1934.

 

[Simple_Guy]

Sanand is famous as the industrial or auto hub of Gujarat. But it was also a small state ruled by Vaghela Rajputs.

Rajmata of Sanand passes away

Not only the royal family of Vaghelas in Sanand, but the entire town plunged into mourning on Thursday following the demise of rajmata Kumudkumariba Rudradutt Sinhji Vaghela on Wednesday. The queen was 71 years old and was reportedly keeping unwell due to old-age related ailments.

Much ahead of her times, the rajmata was always in favour of better education facilities, especially for the girls, a wish she held on to till her last breath. In fact, he dying wish was to establish a boarding school for girls, especially for Rajput girls, in Sanand. Currently, the town has a co-ed school for girls and boys, built by the late maharana Rudradutt in 1995.

The boarding school established in 1957 by maharana Jaiwant Sinhji Vaghela has entry for boys from Rajput families only. Both the co-ed school and the boys boarding school are run by the Maharana Shree Yagyadev Educational and Charitable Trust, claims Vaghela.

 

[LalTopi]

Fascinating article on KS Ranjitsinhji by cricket historian Arunabha Sengupta​

It is a mistaken notion that Ranjitsinhji, born September 10, 1872, was the heir to the throne of Nawanagar by birth. His claims to the gaddi were circuitous, to say the least.

Jam Vibhaji had succeeded his father to the throne in 1852. He quelled the Waghers of Okhamandel, whose ambitions extended to Jamnagar, and emerged victorious in the showdown that took place in the Badra Hills. Outstanding in the battle was Jadeja Jhamalsinhji, an officer of Sarodar and a distant cousin of Vibhaji.

Vibhaji acquired as many as 14 wives. However, none of these bore him a son. Vibhaji now turned to Jhamalsinhji, the valiant officer of Badra, for one of his sons as prospective heir. his choice was the seven-year-old grandson of Jhamalsinhji, Ranjitsinhji. And taking no chances, he entrusted the boy to the care of his political agent Colonel Barton.

The ceremony of adoption took place in the temple of Dwarka Puri, a mile from Jamnagar.

After the adoption ceremony, Vibhaji never saw Ranji again. And at the age of 35, KS Ranjitsinhji, the famous cricketer and one of the most stylish batsmen ever, ascended the throne of Nawanagar helped by his cricketing contacts.

The stipulations imposed by the British and the current health of Nawanagar did not make for smooth sailing. Ranji tried a lot of improvement measures, including stimulating the economy by building a modern harbour. There were illnesses, escapes to England, lavish entertainment of British guests and resumption of his First-Class career. There were also affairs of the heart as he pined away for a British lady, and the two could not marry due to the complications that mixed-race marriage would bring into both British and Rajput circles.

He was overjoyed when nephew Duleepsinhji showed exceptional talent as a batsman and arranged for him to receive full instructions at home. Duleep, as elegant and majestic in his wristy brilliance, excelled in the few seasons he played and scored a scintillating 173 at Lord's against Australia in 1930. The innings was watched by a proud Ranji from the stands. However, physical frailty brought an end to Duleep's career in 1932.

The very next year Ranjitsinhji died of heart failure on April 2, 1933 after a short illness. The Ranji Trophy, the national championship for cricket in India, is named after KS Ranjitsinghji. It has been played since 1934.

fourteen wives and no son???

Did not the Doctrine of Lapse apply in this case, as it was after 1857? The adoption is similar to that applying to the Rani of Jhansi, but in that case the British decided to enforce the Dctrine of Lapse, with all the consequences.

On the subject of Ranjitsinhji, I was fortunate enough to pick up an early twentieth century copy with original press cuttings of Ranjitsinhji's guide to Cricket. Unfortunatly not a first edition copy.

 

[Simple_Guy]

image from SKPAtel blog​

Bhavnagar city on the eastern coast of Saurashtra was built in the 18th century, but its Gohil Rajput rulers had a long history of resistance and independence from the foreign invaders.

Mokhadaji Gohil defeated the Turks in the 14th century and raised a naval force. The threat forced the Delhi sultan Muhammad Tughlak to battle the Gohil Rajputs. The Gohils remained at war with the Sultans of Gujarat and even in 1591 joined a confederacy of Hindu rulers of Saurashtra to fight the Mughals at the Battle of Bhuchar Mori.

In the 18th century the Gohils started expanding their rule as the Mughal empire broke up. They defeated the Maratha raiders in 1723 but when the Marathas joined hands with the Mughal viceroy at Ahmadabad, the Gohil's built a more secure capital city at Bhavnagar. In 1771 the Gohil Rajputs of Bhavnagar gave shelter to the Peshwa, and helped the British in crushing the menace of piracy.