History of JaiMal and Patta : HEROes of the 3rd Siege of Chittor - Page 12

Originally posted by: history_geek

<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">I am better now, Kaana.
BTW, About your question here , i think you got the answer on previous page itself. :)
I explained in short about Chittor's resources.
</font>

Abhay⭐️ - Thank you so much for sharing all the knowledge you possess about all things History! Truly a treat for us forum members to have you share your views, answer our pondering questions and set the record straight on the events that occured in time. For a history buff like yourself and for all the others in the forum, it must be heartbreaking to see history being crucified brutally to the point of no salvation. I applaud you for your efforts to still come and interact with us and spread your wealth of knowledge on the great Maharana Pratap and his conquests. For a non-historian like me, reading such posts are a joy. Just wanted to say a heartfelt thank you! It's always appreciated 👍🏼

Originally posted by: history_geek

<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">Kaana,

This is what my lament is all about. It was a very HARDly fought war. But, here nothing has happened till now. I am not sure, when Pratap will leave the fort and we will see the struggle of the remaining warriors.!

There was no concept of standing together infront of any enemy not only in Rajputs, but in almost all communities.! Mughals lost their empire in Central Asia, because the Timurid princes were fighting among themselves. Similarly, in India, we say Rajputs did not unite. Similarly in Southern India, we say the kingdoms after breakup of Vijaynagar Empire did not unite against Aurangzeb. And lastly, we say, we did not unite against British. But, If you see then, there was NO CONCEPT OF INDIA, hence such cases are present.

Coming back to Rajputs. Yes many other Hindu Chiefs were on Akbar's side. Like I said, Raja TodarMal was behing the game changing idea of making Sabats. Similarly, Raja Bhagwan Das of Amer was also present and he was giving all "deductions" to Akbar about the war strategy of Chittor as he was well versed in Rajputana mode of warfare. And yes, all this in the name of " loyalty to Akbar ".
</font>

Originally posted by: geeta58

Ya, history-geek, I am still watching the show MP. I think, guruji's name in the serial is Raghavendra. Yes he seems to be brahmin by appearance .He has been there frm MP's childhood. But they had shown him almost dead, when they were attacked by I don't remember Afghans or Mughals.😕 U see there were so many wars, we lose count.😊 I was shocked to see him resurrect in Benaras 😆
The worst thing is, Patta, an imp. character is not to be seen. 😲 If the actor has any problem, then they shud hv replaced him rather than twisting the history. Now as guessed by all of us whole of Rajparivaar, except MP n Ajabde r sent to secret place.i.e Ajabde returns to the palace voluntarily.😊
Abhay, u might be aware, that recently there has been debate regarding greatness of Akbar verses MP doing rounds even in imp. newspapers😃 Hoping to see u active again on the blog.😊

Originally posted by: Kaana

And what with our own fellow Rajputs giving ideas and also waging war - all in the name of loyalty!!!!! In the first place they could not unite together to throw a foreigner out of their holy mother land. Their ego was superior to their mother land. Secondly, their loyalty takes precedence to attacking fellow countrymen. It's like Karna siding with Duryodhana in the name if friendship compromising on dharma that should ideally take precedence.

Abhay,if not a hassle is it possible to know more about these Rajput kings - why they favoured Akbar and dedicated to him - was it also matter of convenience Or desperation to wear their crowns somehow? Not a soul out there considered helping Maharana when he was trying to throw the foreign powers out?

Originally posted by: history_geek

Kaana,

They were not one, they were different people. The concept of unity was almost alien in those times. I gave many examples on previous page. Let me add more. Akbar also faced revolts from his relatives. So, where was the unity ? First, there was a rebellion of Mirzas and then his in laws, and later his brother. Even among all the Mughals, for each succession to the throne, we see that there were wars and killings. Isn't it ?

You name one community, and i am certain i will be able to point out the flaw of disunity among them , if i know their history. Medieval times were alien to the concept of unity. There were only few enlightended people who understood this.

What a person needs ? Peace and Security. By joining hands with Akbar, this is what the Rajputs got. Though, it came at a price.

Rajputs, as a community is one such group of people, who have suffered a lot because they were the ones who used to face any invasion into India from the North-West frontiers. Their history is full of bloodbaths, right from the times of Prithviraj Chauhan(1191) and even before that. Infact, since 8th century to be precise, starting from Dahir. If you read their history you will find CONTINUOUS battles. Their wars were RARELY to increase their territory (note that i said rarely), but to "maintain" their territory. What you say as "Kshtriya Dharma".

It is not that Rajputs never united. They united. Prithviraj united almost all Rajputs against Muhammed Ghori, except Jaichand. Rana Sanga also united Rajputs against Babur, but this confedaracy was broken when they lost, and Rajputs were in a state of civil strife. This condition was favorable for Akbar. One by one, he made 'friendship' with them.

But don't think Maharana was alone, he was ably assisted by Chauhans, the clan of Maharana's mother. The house of Gwalior also assisted Maharana with their drop of blood, till 1595. Among the major clans, only Chauhans and Sisodias did not enter into alliance with Mughals. Don't forget the faithful Bhils and the people of Mewar.!

To answer your question, in short, i would say, yes it was a matter of convenience to join Akbar after hundreds of years of continuous fighting. Akbar was sure about the loyalty of Rajputs, courtesy his father Humayun. You might be thinking, if it was convenient to join Akbar, then why Maharana did not join Akbar ?. Think of this answer. ;)

Originally posted by: Kaana

Abhay, the resources I understand. But the strategy - like Akbar built Sankara? What did they do similar? I understand they were stuck inside but I am sure given Maharana's brains they would have designed things to thwart Akbar's progress. And you had mentioned about them bringing down the sabats - how did they achieve it? canons? if so why the enemy camp was not destroyed - they were at an afvantageous position - so is it something else they did then? definitely they defended fiercely - That is why the so long war I suppose. So am curious to know what all, how all they defended and blocked Akbar's progress. Anything described from the Chittor end anywhere? Or is it like they all have perished anyway- nobbe left to capture the events :-(( Sorry to trouble with loads of questions. But I can never be content knowing about Maharana:-)

Originally posted by: Jaz_

Abhay⭐️ - Thank you so much for sharing all the knowledge you possess about all things History! Truly a treat for us forum members to have you share your views, answer our pondering questions and set the record straight on the events that occured in time. For a history buff like yourself and for all the others in the forum, it must be heartbreaking to see history being crucified brutally to the point of no salvation. I applaud you for your efforts to still come and interact with us and spread your wealth of knowledge on the great Maharana Pratap and his conquests. For a non-historian like me, reading such posts are a joy. Just wanted to say a heartfelt thank you! It's always appreciated 👍🏼

Originally posted by: Kaana

Abhay, this is what beats me - no unity. Agreed there was no united India as such - for that matter the Bharat that was there as a single entity during the days of Bharat, then during the Maurya age etc got fragmented. It is all selfishness to own a piece of land and have a crown on head finally. Remember the DD show of Chanakya - the fight he had to put up and the extent of trouble he underwent to unite the kingdoms under one umbrella. The sanskriti is same - people forget that. Remember Chanakya was insisting in the commonality of this culture - one reason good enough to stand united. I understand the situation then and that my desire could not have seen light then. But that is the weakness of India- rather the curse of Hindus as people that they cannot stand united. Even the commonality in their roots could not bring them together against a foreign invasion which could result in them loosing their roots. Ambi of Taxila would be a bad example, but Rajputs kinda surprise me here.