MP-A History-Index, Doubts & Discussion#all here - Page 10

They had strange type of ego. They will surrender to Mughals but not to one of their own

I came across this extract from Countercurrents.org written by Ram Puniyani:

Rana Pratap's battle against Akbar was not for religion. It was on the issue of Mansabdari (status in the administration). Rana Pratap was asking for a Das hazari, (ten Thousand) Mansab) while Akbar was offering only Panch Hazari. (Five thousand).

Link - http://www.countercurrents.org/puniyani120413.htm

Is this true?! 😲 Or some BS?

Originally posted by: Skepblun

I came across this extract from Countercurrents.org written by Ram Puniyani:

Rana Pratap's battle against Akbar was not for religion. It was on the issue of Mansabdari (status in the administration). Rana Pratap was asking for a Das hazari, (ten Thousand) Mansab) while Akbar was offering only Panch Hazari. (Five thousand).

Link - http://www.countercurrents.org/puniyani120413.htm

Is this true?! 😲 Or some BS?

Originally posted by: Skepblun

I came across this extract from Countercurrents.org written by Ram Puniyani:

Rana Pratap's battle against Akbar was not for religion. It was on the issue of Mansabdari (status in the administration). Rana Pratap was asking for a Das hazari, (ten Thousand) Mansab) while Akbar was offering only Panch Hazari. (Five thousand).

Link - http://www.countercurrents.org/puniyani120413.htm

Is this true?! 😲 Or some BS?

Originally posted by: Nandiniraizaada

there are many conflicting views on this

even i have heard of this one but a a Rajasthani my heart refuses to believe it

yeah Pratap fought for Chtor , he fought foolishly sometimes but he fought to free the fort and not for any mansabdari

I do not believe our people fought only for religion. Some political parties are now hijacking them to use to push their own agenda. I know history has varied opinions and versions...

Any Indian will find it hard to accept this version.

But I am confused because nearly everyone surrended to Mughals and MP's own son also had to finally surrender to them. So did MP fight for his motherland or because offer of mansabdari was not acceptable to him as much as Akbar offered...? 😕

Does any of you know which historian had come up with this version originally? Credential of the historian will help judge how much water this theory holds!

Anyway, I came across another archive online which states that Shakti was SENT to join Akbar! Again confused. Was he sent or did he join himself?

@Skepblun

You have raised really good questions!

Yes - when Akbar was gradually increasing his territory, the Rajputana kings were not at all united and were rivals to each other.

Before understanding their situation, we have to first accept that concept of state like today was not prevalent in 16th century. There were large and small kingdoms which the rulers defended from other rulers and often one kingdoms attacked each other to increase their territory.

The kingdoms which constituted Rajputana were not in good terms with each other during 16th century.
They did not unite on the basis of caste, religion or culture. Rather, they concentrated on doing things which were ultimately beneficial to their own kingdom and to their own dynasty.

If Akbar was an invader because he didn't have any Indian blood in him, then what about the Rajputana kings who hated each other and used opportunities to pull each other down? Any one who attacks a kingdom is an invader - no matter whether he is born on that soil or not.

When Raja Bharmal of Amber was squeezed for money by Mughal leader Sharifuddin, he had to flee to jungle with his family. No Rajput king came to help him. Ultimately, he had to go to Sharifuddin's master, Akbar himself to resolve the problem and hence started the custom of roti-beti relationship between Rajputs and Mughals.

The Rajput kings who accepted the alliance with Akbar used to rule almost in autonomy - they were officially part of Mughal empire but could rule almost independently, only have to support the Mughal empire when required. Since the Rajput kings were only concerned for the benefit of their own family and kingdom, it was good proposal because from military point of view, they were weak in comparison to the Mughal empire.


As far as the letter is concerned, even I have read that King of Mewar Udai Singh did send a letter after losing out the Chittor Fort, but Akbar asked the king to appear personally before him which was refused. Hence, no alliance ever happened.

During the battle of Halidghati, MP did flee from the battlefield, most probably because he wanted to continue the fight later on. He perhaps knew that except him, there was no one who would fight to get back Mewar from Mughal empire.
He did not fight direct battle with Mughals anymore. He started his guerrilla warfare. From 21st century perspective, it might be difficult to accept this method of warfare, but in 16th century, it was an acceptable form of waging war.

At least MP was better than Udai Singh - he did fight at Haldighati. Pratap fled from the battlefield only when it was realized that the his army cannot resist the Mughal army anymore. When Chittor was attacked and Akbar's army was gradually breaking the barrier of the Rajputs, Udai Singh fled with his family much before Mughals could enter the fort and put Jaimal and another prince to defend the fort.

Originally posted by: Skepblun

I do not believe our people fought only for religion. Some political parties are now hijacking them to use to push their own agenda. I know history has varied opinions and versions...

Any Indian will find it hard to accept this version.

But I am confused because nearly everyone surrended to Mughals and MP's own son also had to finally surrender to them. So did MP fight for his motherland or because offer of mansabdari was not acceptable to him as much as Akbar offered...? 😕

Does any of you know which historian had come up with this version originally? Credential of the historian will help judge how much water this theory holds!

Anyway, I came across another archive online which states that Shakti was SENT to join Akbar! Again confused. Was he sent or did he join himself?

Originally posted by: shrinath

Its not true. Its true that all Kingdoms of Rajputana except Mewar accepted Akbar's superiority. Its also true that Akbar offered Mansabdari to all the Rajput kings who did accept him as their Emperor. But Rana Udai Singh never accepted Akbar as his Emperor, as shown in the show earlier that he had enmity with Mughals because he believed that his mother Rajmata Karnawati had to commit Jauher because she anticipated that Humayun would come for her help as she sent him a rakhi when Bahadur Shah of Gujarat attacked Mewar. But Humayun did not turn up on time & Karnawati had to go for Jauher, & also he had also lost his father Maharana Sangram Singh in Battle Khawana when the later died fighting the Mughal Army under Babur. The reason of Akbar attacking Mewar was that Udai Singh gave shelter to Baz Bahadur the sultan of Malwa who was on the run from the Mughal Army to avoid being captured by them after loosing his kingdom to Akbar.

The war between Akbar & Maharana Pratap was fought because Pratap wanted his Mewar to be independent land & like his predecessors he to was not ready to bow in front of any foreigner.