akbar jo thaa

अक्बर् जो था !!

At the outset, let me clarify that this is more about Akbar "the great" than the good or bads of the recent bollywood movie starring Hrithik Roshan and Aishwarya Rai

In my school history texts, just like any other kid in India would have, I too studied about "Akbar-the-great", the proponent of Hindu-Muslim-bhai-bhai ( spoofed as goat-butcher-bhai-bhai in "Hey Ram" movie - a freudian slip from Kamala Haasan ?) .... and as example of his "reaching out to the Hindus" was given the example of his marrying Rajput women ....

Interestingly as I used to read my text books at home, my mother - by no means a hindutva person, and who used to vote for Muslim League candidate simply because they had an alliance with Kaaangress - used to say .. " Oh well, Akbar, all he did in the name of Hindu-Muslim alliance was enjoy marrying Hindu women "

That was one of those incidents where I have to admit that "knowledge from ancestors" or even intuitions are sometimes more factual than bookish knowledge.. for indeed, contrary to what the pseudo secularists may want us to believe , Akbar DID NOT allow his formerly Hindu - wife to remain a "kaafir".....


Mariam-uz-Zamani née Hira Kunwari (born October 1, 1542), was a Rajput princess and was the eldest daughter of Raja BharMal, Raja of Amber, India. She was the wife of the Mughal emperor Akbar, and the mother of emperor Jahangir.

.......For the purpose of marrying Akbar she was converted to Islam and was rechristened Mariam-uz-Zamani after marriage. The Mosque of Mariyam Zamani Begum in Lahore, Pakistan was built in her honour. She has been also referred to as "Jodha Bai" or "Jodhabai" in modern times, although she was never actually known as Jodha Bai during her lifetime.

So is Jodhaa Akbar or Mariam Akbar more apt ? Indeed, the latter name does not play well with the pseudo secularists nor with the Islamic underworld that funds bollywood.. So there you go.....

Also, the same wikipedia article mentions

a similar sounding name "Jodh Bai" is addressed to Princess Manmati of Jodhpur, the wife of Jahangir and mother of emperor Shahjahan

Its clear that yet another Hindu Princess was married into the Moghul family and her son too continued to be a slave warrior of Allah rather than being a Hindu .. How about the lady herself - i.e "Jodh Bai" ? was she converted ? well, I could not find an explicit mention of that ( I did not search much, may be readers can help) , but the wikipedia entry


gives her name as Princess Manmati, Taj Bibi Bilqis Makani Begum Sahiba Jodh Bai

So leave it to ur imagination ..... I guess at that time the Quranic injunction that a Muslim HAS to convert the non-Muslim into an Allah's slave warrior before marrying him/her was kept more faithfully.. Only recently has that rule been relaxed to a perhaps modified form of Al-Taqiyya
( read- compromise if it helps in the long term) by which its okay if the non-Muslim converts after marriage to the Muslim or in the worst case if he/she refuses to, atleast as long the kids remain slave warriors of Allah

post script: whenever I used "wife of Moghul emperor" , I assumed that readers have the maturity and knowledge to understand that I mean "one of the wives" !! Some estimates say Akbar had 300 wives.. many of whom were Hindus... errrrrr formerly Hindus


Anonymous said…
Unfortunately the Kurmi Sena protest ( and the way media portrayed it) shifted the whole focus onto whether "Jodhabai" was Akbar's wife or daughter-in-law rather than the issue of whether Akbar's Rajput wife remained Hindu after marriage or not (which clearly did not happen, she was converted even before marriage, for the marriage )
Interesting humor - couldn't help chuckling at some places.

One thing which is obvious is that the aristocracy of those days (some of it Hindu) were falling over themselves to offer their daughters in marriage to the Mughal badshah. Do you seriously think any of the parents of the bai's would have had serious objections to the daughter converting - if the prize meant a prospect of birthing a future Mughal badshah. There's the Rajput version of secularism for you.

These are high society political people. These marriages are alliances between powerful families.

So what Rajput aristocracy did, everyone did at his own level - for social advancement, money, power etc.
drisyadrisya said…
umm.. so just for the fun of it, lets see where to fix the blame

islam : can't be blamed, as its the very dharma of the religion to convert (or kill) all the kafirs (read Hindus)

muslims like akbar and the modern day islamists: cannot be blamed as it their dharma to stick to the Quran and to keep up the pressure on the Hindus to convert - either through force, or through deceipt, or through such media outlets as bollywood

the psecs: cannot be blamed as its their dharma to keep on repeating things like " islam is a religion of peace (ROP)" ; "akbar allowed his Hindu wives to continue as Hindus" " the fault is with Hinduism, and not with anything outside it" and so on how much contradictory historical facts are to their claims

So the blame ultimately comes down to two varities

Hindus like the Rajputs or the Jaichands for their greed
the hindutvavadiis for wasting their time and others time in trying to do the impossible task of protecting their religion
viswa said…

I think the protestors have made it clear that not only is the person misrepresented (jodhabai) but her religion and the whole "love affair between them" part misrepresented. See


< The truth is that although one of Akbar's numerous wives was a Hindu Rajput princess, she was called Heerkunvar and not "Jodhaa". Heerkunvar was the daughter of Raja Bharmal of Amer (Jaipur), and was married to Akbar as part of a political contract between Raja Bharmal and Akbar. On the day of the marriage Heerkunvar was converted to Islam and renamed Miriam Rehmani to make it a proper marriage under Islamic Law. Events show that there was hardly any love affair to precede Akbar's contracted marriage to Heerkunvar, as Akbar had not even met Heerkunvar before their marriage was solemnized! >

I wonder what kind of a contract it was ? May be something like "If you marry your daughter to me and if she converts, I will spare the rest of the Hindu women from being converted by my army, for a few months"

Such a deal may have been very attractive even to the Rajputs at that time
Harish said…
L N Srinivasakrishnan needs to read some history before spewing nonsense, no one was falling over themselves to offer their daughters to the Muslims as he claims, it was the greatest disgrace a Rajput could suffer and it was force of circumstances that made them do it, even then the house of Mewar under Maharana Pratap never bowed down and his followers to this day do not marry other Rajputs who gave their daughters to Muslims.

Here is a letter Prithviraj Rathore wrote to Maharana Pratap:

"The hopes of the Hindu rest on the Hindu surya yet the Rana forsakes them. But for Pratap, all would be placed on the same level by Akbar; for our chiefs have lost their valour and our females their honour. Akbar is the broker in the market of our race; he has purchased all but the son of Udai (Singh II of Mewar); he is beyond his price. What true Rajput would part with honour for nauroza (the Persian new years' festival, where Akbar selected women for his pleasure); yet how many have bartered it away? Will Chittor come to this market ...?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maharana_Pratap "

"The news of the reciprocal treaties(88) among the various States reached the Mughal camp in Deccan. The three States of Jaypur, Jodhpur and Udaypur effected an alliance against the Mughals. They had previously come nearer in 1680 A.D. with the same understanding in the war of Rathod independence. But this time the unity was more perfect, since Jaypur also had joined the aliance. The Rajput Cehiets cemented this unity with the ties of blood. Rana Amarsing gave his daughter Chandrakuwari in marriage to Sawai Jaysing on 25th May, 1708 A.D. He had also married the daugher of Ajitsing in the previous year. They now held a prolonged conference (1708 to 1710 A.D.)(89) on the border of Pushkar lake and after full deliberation proclaimed a solemn concerted policy that they would not henceforth give their daughters in marriage to the Muslimd and that if any prince acted contrary to this resolution, the others should join and put down the deserter by force, if necessary. The Ranas of Udaypur were further acknowledged to be fo purer blood having all-long refused to give their daughters in marriage to the Msulims. Hence, Pushkar conference laid down that if any Rajput prince had an issue from a daughter of Udaypur family that issue was to be given a preference over those born from other wives.

Maratha-Rajput Relations (1720-1795 A.d.) http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1249&pid=50281&mode=threaded&show=&st=&#entry50281 "

Raja Ajit Singh (under Aurangzeb) is another clear example of this, he demolished Mosques built on mandirs and rebuilt the mandirs, also banned the donkey braying known as the namaaz, as a result the Mughals marched on him and he was defeated, to save his skin and the kingdom he gave his daughter in marriage to a Muslim, when later after the Maratha onslaught the Mughals became weak he brought his daughter back and made her discard her Mussalman dress according to Khafi Khan and he laments that such an insult to the honour of Islam has never happened formerly.

And yet this Srinivasakrishnan wants us to believe that Rajputs were falling over themselves to give their women to Muslims.
Dear Harish,

Naturally I'm willing to concede I'm not an expert on Rajputs. But it is reasonable to read from from your own first paragraph a concession that enough rajputs were giving away their daughters to the Mughal(s) in marriage. Something other Rajputs were opposed to.

It is important not to read too much of present day concerns into past history especially medieval history while we must take precautions to not fall into the pitfalls of either Marxist or Colonial history.

What is sauce for the British people is sauce for the Indian writers too. British people propounded an Aryan Invasion theory as an indirect affirmation of their own invasion and to give it some legitimacy. Ths is just an example of reading (then) contemporary concerns into the writing of history.

Contemporary sources should be read carefully and with appropriate concern to the context thereof. For example, Rana Sangha invited a kingdom-less Mongol/ Turk adventurer called Babar to India to teach a lesson to the Lodis of Delhi (who were Afghan). So when he realized Babar will not go back to his Central Asia after looting north India, he marched against Babar himself at Bayana. too late perhaps. Sangha lost.

So does that make Rana Sangha a traitor or patriot? Neither - perhaps it is important to not cast the discussion in such contemporary terms. That was my original point.

Warm Regards
froginthewell said…
All this is fine, in fact I have issues with Bollywood exclusively peddling urdu kind of thing alone as cool ( compare with malayALam film song lyrics - sanskrit words, concepts from mythology etc. ). But why did people not protest before the movie was released? All of us knew long back that such a movie starring Aishwarya and Hrithik would be made.
Harish said…
" But it is reasonable to read from from your own first paragraph a concession that enough rajputs were giving away their daughters to the Mughal(s) in marriage. Something other Rajputs were opposed to."

No one denied that but what you implied was that they were somehow happy and dancing for joy about it because it created "political alliance" which is not true, force of circumstances can make you do things that you utterly loathe which is what those Rajputs did (later on even Mewar had to bow under Rana Pratap's son Amar Singh since they were going bankrupt and came to a compromise under certain conditions, one of which was that there would be no marriages between the Mughals and the House of Mewar).

Whether I read "contemporary" concerns into those writings or not is irrelevant, i provided support for my point and there are tons more primary sources saying the same things (also you assume that somehow this is contemporary concern but the reality is the Hindu-Muslim problem is old and has been a concern of my ancestors so much so that Shivaji couldn't even tolerate the fact that Persian terms were being used for administration and had some learned men create a Sanskrit dictionary with equivalents called Rajvyavaharakosa).

If you want to know what the Rajputs thought about giving their women to Muslims then read the primary sources before saying we are reading "contemporary" concerns into the past as if in the past we did not have these concerns.
ms said…

If you protest before the movie release, the "progressive" media will say "Look, they have not even seen the movie, they don't even know what the story is and still they protest".

When Christians protest against DaVinci code its just "christian protest" and when state governments ban the movie, its repoted without any criticism, but when Hindus protest against gross misrepresentation of History, it becomes "fundamentalist Hindu protest" and if any government bans it the government becomes "communal" . what a double standard

well in this case the govts have not banned it but theater owners are not showing it, looks like
Anonymous said…
It is simple common sense to realize that this movie is a skewed and islamist version of history. Which Rajput, or for that matter any Hindu, parent would happily give his daughter away in marriage to a muslim even today. The only affect of this movie will be to legitimize and romanticize the present trend of Hindu girls marrying muslim boys.
But what utterly surprises me is the hordes of educated Hindus, especially women, flocking theatre to watch this 'historical'. That firms my belief that nothing can save Hinduism, all sort of education has still kept a majority ignorant. Since I mentioned 'specially women' above, I should clarify that I am a woman myself.
froginthewell said…
educated Hindus, especially women, flocking theatre

Especially? ( Mostly, highly ) educated women are the bane of hinduism. Being emotional they easily fall prey to leftist arguments. Just look at the Indian blogosphere - almost all blogs supporting hindutva are from men; almost all female blogs which discuss Indian politics are strongly anti-hindutva.

On the other hand, Indian civil code for Muslims is highly skewed against women, but I see so many Muslim women supporting Islam. I would like to go on - evolutionary biology, why women ( in general ) only care for those who treat them like shit etc. - but I doubt anyone would have read even this much of this comment.

MS : While your reasoning makes sense as to why it doesn't make sense to protest before-hand, I don't think most protesters thought that way. I don't think most protesters would have even seen the movie - how can one stand such assault?
ms said…
well frog

What the protestors think, whether they have seen the movie , you and I cannot decide, unless we are among the protestors (officially).
And its quite natural that people start protesting only after the movie has been released, after people around them start talking about it, after they start seeing posters and so on. The potestors too are normal human beings who have their lives, daily issues to address, and their only work is not to plan months ahead of the movie release to protest

As for women, to some extend your theory of "more attention less care" may be true, but do you think the fault is with the women alone ? As soon as the parents (especially the Father) knows that their child (boy or girl) loves a non-hindu they will disown the child. Instead why not ask the child to bring the other person also to Hinduism, or in the least make sure that the grand children are Hindus ?

I said child because even in the case of the son loving a non-Hindu girl, there are so many instances of the parents protesting so much that even the guy converts out of Hinduism. Tell me, how many Hindu parents are mature enough to accept a non-Hindu daughter in law into their family ? Even if the girl is willing to convert, the parents of the Hindu guy will keep protesting about all family background and being a "pure Hindu" and stuff. Forget all that, assuming you are a guy, are you (or were you if you are already married) willing to marry a non-Hindu girl and convert her to Hinduism if she is willing to ?
froginthewell said…
What? Jodha Akbar wasn't even released in Rajasthan and you want me to believe that all those protestors went to some other state, watched the movie, then came back and started protesting?

And what explains hardly any Muslim Bollywood actor having a Muslim wife ( some of them who had multiple spouses/girlfriends - serially - both Hindus )? Are Muslim parents against having a Muslim daughter-in-law?
And do you think mallu Hindu parents are less conservative> on this regard than other Hindu parents?

And if at all parental attitudes play a bigger role, why are more Hindu girls marrying Muslim boys - do parents exert less pressure on girls to marry out of community?

I would say, to some extent what you say may be true?

And what does your last statement mean - that Hindu boys are on an average less keen on marrying out-of-community than Hindu girls? Anyway in my personal case I don't intend to marry so your statement doesn't apply. But if I intended, I would answer in the affirmative if she were willing to convert to Hinduism and vegetarianism.

Alas, everyone tries his/her best to somehow "protect" girls on all counts and bash men. The modern societal values are all about trashing the "lesser half".
ms said…

You seem to live in a world of assumptions and not-relevant-to-the-point arguments . Even though I agree in general with your concerns, you need to get better facts and reasoning

a) The protestors are not only from Rajasthan. If only you cared to see
* Agni Foundation, the Netherlands
* Global Institute for Truth & Awareness (GITA), USA
* Hindi USA
* Independent NRI Forum, USA
* Kashmir Task Force, USA
* Mahtama Gandhi International Foundation, USA
* Mauritius Movement
* Rajput Association of North America, USA
* Rajput Karni Sena, Rajasthan, India
* Save Temples, USA
* Trinidad NRI's

b) To my point of Hindu parents being reluctant to accept non-Hindu girls as d-i-l , you are talking about Muslim parents .... and that also bollywood... I am talking apples and you are talking oranges..

c) Even in your Malayali society, except for 3 or 4 cases that you pointed out (again from the movie world) , how many "ordinary" (meaning not celebrity of highclass) Hindu parents will be willing to accept non-Hindu d-i-l and convert them ?

d) And yes, I do mean that Hindu guys marry much less outside their comunity than Hindu girls.. after all isn't that you too said , but in a different way ? You were criticising Hindu girls for marrying outside the religion and ending up converted, I am turning the table around and saying - Why can't Hindu guys show enough guts to marry non-Hindu girls and convert to the Hindu fold ? If your theory on girls is Universal, it should work for non-Hindu girls as well, right ?
froginthewell said…
Dude, I talked about "most protesters" not "all protesters". That too in the Indian context. The only Indian organization you quoted is "Rajput Karni Sena, Rajasthan, India" to which my argument applies. Given the widespread nature of protests in Rajasthan where the movie wasn't released, your claim that protesters didn't protest before release because they would have to watch the movie before protesting, stands discredited.

I don't have time to clarify my arguments which you have misinterpreted, I will address the main point of contention :

You say that less Hindu guys marry outside the community because Hindu guys are more conservative than Hindu girls. I say this happens because Muslims are more conservative and forbidding on their daughter-in-laws. Here is why :

(a) I will turn your last statement around and ask : why would Hindu guys alone be less open-minded and not Muslim guys or Hindu girls? Both Hindu guys and Hindu girls have similar upbringing and both Hindu guys and Muslim guys have similar physio-chemical structure.

(b) My theory on the other hand has a basis - that Hindu girls are better educated, Hindu parents are NOT as forbidding as Muslim parents in letting their daughter marry from another religion. This makes perfect sense when you consider that the proportion of Muslim men in bollywood is much higher than that of Muslim girls - though actors etc. come from a middle class background, Muslim parents are more restrictive on their girls.

From (a) and (b) it follows that my theory has a basis and your theory hasn't been supported with any basis.

Also Hindu guys cannot marry Muslim girls easily just like that. Many girls from conservative families often even avoid guys. That should apply particularly to scarf and Purdah clad girls. More than Hindu girls because Hindu girls are more educated.

All this apart from another main factor - Islam is a highly identity-conscious religion. Hindus alone fall into the way of life trap, our scriptures don't use the word "Hindu", don't talk strongly about "believers" vs. "nonbelievers" etc. So Hindu identity not being as strong in Hindus, they don't mind converting to another religion while Muslims do.

Hindu guys are worse than Hindu girls and Muslim guys it seems. Even JNU guys won't say that.
ms said…
Your assumptions continue

a) I am not a dude

b) I never made any statements saying some one is "worse" or "better" than anyone else.

Now coming to the point, so if according to you, Hindu parents are not as forbidding as Muslim parents , why are they not allowing their sons to marry non-Hindu girls (and convert them) ? why are they not allowing a non-Hindu son-in-law even if he is willing to convert to Hinduism ? (They seem to be more happy to say "You are not our daughter anymore" and let her to convert out of Hinduism) In the latter case where is the Hindu girl's fault ?
froginthewell said…
"Dude" "guy" etc. are often, as a slang, applied generically to both guys and girls. Similarly interpret "worse" in an appropriate sense.

If parental opposition was the major factor as you had claimed, one would see many Hindu guys marrying muslim girls too ( and possibly converting to Islam ) - because in these matters :

1. Parents are softer on guys than girls in these matters.

2. Guys show more defiance and independence than girls because they are brought up to be so.

One doesn't see that; one only sees Hindu girls marrying Muslim guys. Therefore the real reason is that Hindu guys don't "get" ( not don't interpret in a possessive sense and protest ) Muslim girls like Muslim guys "get" Hindu girls. And this makes perfect sense considering that Muslim society is more reactionary - as is evidenced by many more Muslim guys than girls being in the cine field. I have repeated my arguments in several possible simple ways and you still don't seem to understand.
ms said…
Well, you can have your own theories but in my own extended family and one of my friends family, I have seen both the kind of cases I am talking about

a) Hindu guy in love with a non-Hindu girl, but when sees parents are not supportive leaves home. He did not convert, but his kids are not Hindus

b) Girl in love with a non-Hindu, when she sees parents are not supportive leaves home and gets converted out.

You call that the girls fault. I say if only the parents had shown some consideration, a lot more people would have been Hindus
Manintown said…
If it would not cause large scale riots how about exhuming the remains of Hira Kunwar and other Rajput princesses buried by the mughals (Hira Kunwar was buried at Rauza Mariam) as muslims and letting people of their places cremate them in say Amber,Jodhpur.Would it not be a aupreme rest for the souls of these women.Would like comments of everyone on this.
Manintown said…
But how do we know whether Hira Kunwar or any of the other Rajput princesses did not start liking being muslims after converting and whether would have liked not to be buried???
Anonymous said…
well, if only the women were allowed to speak up ( without fatwas and death threats being imposed on them), we would have not how much they (dis)liked it
Anonymous said…
I am sorry but I have to say that most of the comments are very lame... we say to the world that INDIA is a secular country and all religions are equal in India blah blah blah... Just reading these comments I can see how untrue that is... please don't complain about Islamic fundimentalists when in each and every person on the blogg is a Hindu Fascist! Who gives a damn if Akbar was married to a Hindu or was given a Hindu woman...If the Rajput were such great men why were they so shit scared that they would give away their daughters (he didn't force them) If they were men then they would have prefered to die fighting rather than to find safetly at the cost of their daughters...Sorry but no where in History will you see anyother religious group/cast giving away their daughters for "SAFETY"... learn facts before commenting... I am sure the author of the blog will not post this beacause he knows that the truth hurts!!
drisyadrisya said…
Dear anony-mouse

The author of this blog is not afraid of truth, but people like you are, who do post under the convenience of "anonymous", does not give any facts to substantiate your rhetoric , and uses words and abuses without knowing what they mean.
drisyadrisya said…
ummm,, my IP tracker says the anonymous posting above was most likely from Saudi Arabia or UAE ... so I can imagine why you are so furious ... :)
Harish said…
This anonymouse is obviously another "secular" cyber warrior who would piss in his pants in real life to confront any danger but doles out advice like he is som great warrior.

"Sorry but no where in History will you see anyother religious group/cast giving away their daughters for "SAFETY"..."

You retard, get off ur arse and read "history" for a change instead of Marx & Engels and then maybe u would stop sounding lyk such a moron.
madhu said…
For the same "secularist" fellow who says "How does it matter if Akbar married Hindu women" , "truth hurts" etc, it will matter so much when Salman Rushdie or Taslima Nasreen writes some truth or when a cartoonist draws mohammed
Dear Harish,

You say - L N Srinivasakrishnan needs to read some history. I grant you this. We should all read more Indian history and less European or American history. But which history do you want me to read? Internet history?

Unfortunately both your sources are Internet sources. You might be aware that even 8th graders nowadays are not allowed to cite Wikipedia. As you are aware, every two bit historian, especially Indian caste historian, contributes to the Wikipedia.

To your point, it would be incumbent upon you to cite original sources to the effect that Rajputs were not entering into marriage alliances with Mughals. For example, was the House of Amber not aware that Mughals were Muslim? Amber (later called the House of Jaipur) had been loyal to the Mughal empire throughout its existence and later to the British Raj. Of course now they're the pillars of the BJP :)

This just goes against your point that Amber might have been forced by circumstances to collaborate with the Mughals. Seems like this was a long lasting mutually profitable association.

There is no point getting hot under the collar - political alliances have always been driven by expediency. Even in our time, Mayawati has moved from strident anti Brahminism to co-opting the Brahmin community in her program. That's one leg on which her electoral victory stands.

It's important therefore to see the Mughal marrying a Rajput princess as by-products of alliances between political dynasties and not as some kind of symbolic deflowering of a Hindu bride by the Turk. Women were like property in this transaction.

Obviously the children of the union would be raised Muslim. Do you seriously think the Rajput elders did not know about this? Did this realization stop them from giving away their daughters?
MS said…
A) How come Mr Srinivasakrishnan took so many days to come back with his comments. Obviously unless Harish checks this blog regulrly like I do, there is no guarantee that he will see this

B) Atleast Harish gave some references. But you have given nothing.

C) Mr LNS falls sounds more like Romila Thapar when he says something similar to "Attrocities committed by Mughals did not have a religious motive" . Even if some one quotes from the Mughals own record which says "For the sake of Allah I did all this" , the likes of Thapar and LNS will say "History is not about facts, its about how you interpret them"

Godspeed to you LNS. As always Hindus never understand the fire power and ulterior motives of other religions . They start realizing it only after the water is upto the nose , and even when something happens in their own family they don't show the courage to accept that religion (conversion) IS a big motive for the non-Hindus who marry Hindu girls.

In my previous comments, I had pointed my fingers at parents for Hindu girls getting married out and converted. The way LNS speaks, I am reminded of such parents
MS said…
Abul Qasim Namakin, in his account 'Munshaat-i-Namakin'
quotes the 'fathnama-i-Chittor' issued by Akbar after the brutal
plunder of Chittor which speaks volumes of his tolerance:

"As directed by the word of Allah, we remain busy in jihad and we have succeeded in occupying a number of forts and towns belonging to the infidels and
have established Islam there. With the help of our bloodthirsty sword
we have erased the signs of infidelity from their minds and have destroyed temples in those places and also all over Hindustan… This auspicious fathnama is in fact a foretaste of the victories to follow.
Written by the Royal Order at Ajmer on 10th of the month of Ramzan 975 A.H."

Go check it for yourself LNS
I only visit blogs as and when my daytime job permits. The reason for not citing anything is this is only a personal blog. The blogger himself didn't quote anything other than wikipedia.

In any case, I'm not clear what point you're trying to make. Does every debate on history have to be on a Hindu vs non Hindu basis? I'm not sure. Did the princely dynasties in the medieval period such as the rajput or other kings frame the issues that way? Decidedly not - political advantage played a larger role in their calculations. This is the point where there would be difference of opinion.

Many things that we know about Rajputs today are part of the myth created during the British period, with or without connivance of some Hindu historians. Take the case of their kshatriya status.
Contrast this with the treatment in a non Indian non British book like Kulke & Rothermund, a History of India, pp. 116-118. Besides this short presentation, there are a few works on marital alliances of the Rajputs, if you're interested.

If you are willing to cite a GOOD Indian author, I'm more than willing to read his/her works esp. if the work is written after Independence.

My point is however not to debate but to point out that in India street level protests seem to hijack public discourse on every topic with even a peripheral historical interest. Akbar jodha is just a movie. But Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute professors of Sanskrit and others were beaten up and abused by street goons (Hindus all of them) because some foreigner's book didn't have the right things to say about Shivaji.

Claiming our history back from Romila Thapar or the British historians is essentially a culture war. Culture wars have to be fought with scholarly instruments, not street violence. Also, educated people must follow scholars to serve the truth. Claiming that no Rajput willingly effected marital alliance with Mughals is not truth or scholarship, just politics and is nothing but a mirror image of Romila Thapar.
drisyadrisya said…
Mr Srinivsakrishnan

I have to say you seem to have mastered the art of diversions and irrelevant talk

First of all, that wikipedia is not acepted in academics is irrelevant here - whatever I have quoted from wikipedia, can you disprove them using proper sources ? If not, what is the point

Second of all, what is the relevance of BORI incident to this debate. People like you are experts are playing up whatever little Hindu violence ( in fact it had more to do with the icon of shivaji and not much with hinduism) nd playing down whatever big atrociticies Islamists have done and say "both are equal"... typcial pseudo secularist and negationist. People like you cause more damage to Hinduism than the Islmists itself, because for even if Islamits kill a million Hindus you will say "So what Hindus also attacked a handful of Muslims so both are equally bad"

Thirdly, the Rajputs may have viewed the whole thing from a
political point of view- but the point is that the islamists did view it from a religious point of view. For them it was all based on Allah's command to convert or kill all non-believers. You seem to either not get that point, or conveniently ignore that point and divert the topic to what seems to be your pet line of argument "I will not talk about whatever others did, I will keep on quoting what little bad Hindus did and keep on saying all mistake is with Hindus.. I don't care about facts, I care about only interpretations"

Now, even if I or anyone quote relevant sources from Quran, you will say "Show me a good historian who says so" ... lol what a logic !! for you original sources seem less relevant than interpretation of whom you call as "good" historians. There is no reason for me to believe that the source you quoted is any less biased that Romila Thapar... Historians themselves are interpretting history, and on top you are interpretting historians... what a circus .. and then you simply deny facts saying "oh thats wikipedia"

I cn go on on , but its a waste of time.. and with a request - please do not waste everyone's time repeating the same thing
drisyadrisya said…
More about the BORI incident

Anonymous said…
I think you all are being dumb and stupid,like who cares..whatever happened in history happened and it may have changed things and may have not,akbar did what he had to,and the rajput did what they had to ...at the end of the day are we all not ONE!!
drisyadrisya said…
Dear anonymous .. the intelligent and the all knowing

Why do you waste time commenting on "dumb and stupid" people's blog ?

And yes, History is surely not for people like you who will never learn lessons from the past, and will do everything to make those historical blunders repeat..

As for all of us being "ONE" , read the Quran, and you will know what is meant by believers and non-believers and the punishment prescribed for the latter
Anonymous said…
I found this site using [url=http://google.com]google.com[/url] And i want to thank you for your work. You have done really very good site. Great work, great site! Thank you!

Sorry for offtopic
Anonymous said…
Your blog keeps getting better and better! Your older articles are not as good as newer ones you have a lot more creativity and originality now keep it up!
Anonymous said…
Hi everybody! I don't know where to begin but hope this site will be useful for me.
In first steps it is really nice if someone supports you, so hope to meet friendly and helpful people here. Let me know if I can help you.
Thanks and good luck everyone! ;)
Anonymous said…
Hi, as you can see this is my first post here.
Hope to receive some help from you if I will have some quesitons.
Thanks in advance and good luck! :)
Anonymous said…
An intriguing discussion is worth comment. I believe that you
need to publish more about this topic, it might not be a taboo matter but typically folks don't
discuss these topics. To the next! All the best!!
Anonymous said…
naturally like your website however you need to take a look at
the spelling on several of your posts. A number of them are rife with spelling problems and I find it very troublesome to inform the reality however
I'll surely come again again.