Why Mughal princesses did not marry Rajput Kings? - Page 2

Originally posted by: myviewprem

If you read history books and articles on mughal-rajputh alliance there are many reasons given for this

1) The most important fact was that Rajputh royals wanted to maintain purity of their race. So they would never allow their sons to marry a mughal or muslim ruler. This way they preserved their race without any inter religion or inter caste mix. Then why did they marry their daughters freely to mughals even till 18th century- this was basically for political gains. They wanted to have their kingdom secured for their sons and grandsons so they had political tie ups and agreed to be vassals first of mughals and next of British. Some of the major reasons to lose the 1857 war of independence was that the North indian kingdoms like Gwalior, pataudi etc who had promised to send the troops and money to the warriors led by tantya tope etc (to mughal emperor Bahadur shah zafar) joined hands with britishers in last minute and did not send the money. Daughters did not really matter in carrying forward the family name etc only sons mattered hence daughters could be married off to buy peace or buy gaurantee to kingdoms with enemies and that included afghand and mughals too. Mahmood Shah an afghan too was married to a marwar princess.

2) Second factor was that the muslims customs varied a lot and muslim woman had much more freedom in those times compared to an hindu wife, Like muslim widows could remarry, could divorce, need not wear white only after husband death and also need not burn with husband in funeral pyre. Hence the mughal emperors themselves were wary of marrying their daughters and sisters to rajpuths. (Aram Bano was not married to anyone for this same reason that Akbar had faced issues with his brother in laws who were contending for the emperor throne, the same with his other son in laws, as aram was youngest he did not want her to face the issues his sisters and daughters faced hence he and salim decided that she need not marry and stay with salim all life)

3) The mughal rajputh wives converted to islam to marry but could freely follow their hindu customs in house but the rajputh would not allow that.

So all these factors and more(that i cannot remember right off) are reasons for rajputh not marrying mughal

Originally posted by: Donjas

Many of us have wondered, why only Rajput Princesses married Mughal Kings and not the other way around, that is Mughal princesses marrying Rajput Kings.

The answer will astonish you as it did me. According to the book Maharana Pratap by Dr Bhagwan Singh Rana, it is written in Rajput records called the Vir Vinod that Akbar had put several marriage proposals of Mughal princesses before Rajput kings, but to maintain purity of blood or for some other reasons, they were refused.

Now you know, Akbar wanted two-way matrimonial alliance. This is vital knowledge because it explodes the argument that Mughal Emperors forced Rajput Kings to hand their daughters in marriage when they were not willing to do the same with their own daughters.

The author Dr Bhagwan Singh Rana writes 'It is sad that the Rajput Kings of that era did not feel much shame in marrying off their sisters/daughters to the Mughal kings, but they developed a sense of shame on the issue of marrying Mughal princesses.'

By the way, I highly recommend this book if you want to know more about the life history of the Great warrior Maharana Pratap.

Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956,females were, for the first time, granted ownership of all property acquired either before or after the signing of the Act, abolishing their "limited owner" status, ie that of holding it only for their lifetime but unable to dispose of it if they so desired. They were now the absolute owners of their property, to do with as they wanted.

But it took nearly 50 years more for daughters to get an equal share of the property of their father with their brothers. The 2005 Amendment gave daughters equal rights to the property of their deceased father , as with sons.

There was a lot of resistance to this, arguing that this would lead of a splintering of the property and to property going outside the family to the daughters' husbands and in laws. But it was finally passed.

Originally posted by: sashashyam

No, no, my dear, you are all wet on this one!

Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956,females were, for the first time, granted ownership of all property acquired either before or after the signing of the Act, abolishing their "limited owner" status, ie that of holding it only for their lifetime but unable to dispose of it if they so desired. They were now the absolute owners of their property, to do with as they wanted.

But it took nearly 50 years more for daughters to get an equal share of the property of their father with their brothers. The 2005 Amendment gave daughters equal rights to the property of their deceased father , as with sons.

There was a lot of resistance to this, arguing that this would lead of a splintering of the property and to property going outside the family to the daughters' husbands and in laws. But it was finally passed.

It should be remembered, however, that the above applies only to Hindus who die intestate, that is without making a will. If a man or woman makes a will for the disposal of their property, they can divide it up as they like.

Shyamala Aunty

Originally posted by: sashashyam

No, no, my dear, you are all wet on this one!

Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956,females were, for the first time, granted ownership of all property acquired either before or after the signing of the Act, abolishing their "limited owner" status, ie that of holding it only for their lifetime but unable to dispose of it if they so desired. They were now the absolute owners of their property, to do with as they wanted.

But it took nearly 50 years more for daughters to get an equal share of the property of their father with their brothers. The 2005 Amendment gave daughters equal rights to the property of their deceased father , as with sons.

There was a lot of resistance to this, arguing that this would lead of a splintering of the property and to property going outside the family to the daughters' husbands and in laws. But it was finally passed.

It should be remembered, however, that the above applies only to Hindus who die intestate, that is without making a will. If a man or woman makes a will for the disposal of their property, they can divide it up as they like.

Shyamala Aunty

Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956,females were, for the first time, granted ownership of all property acquired either before or after the signing of the Act, abolishing their "limited owner" status, ie that of holding it only for their lifetime but unable to dispose of it if they so desired. They were now the absolute owners of their property, to do with as they wanted.

But it took nearly 50 years more for daughters to get an equal share of the property of their father with their brothers. The 2005 Amendment gave daughters equal rights to the property of their deceased father , as with sons.

There was a lot of resistance to this, arguing that this would lead of a splintering of the property and to property going outside the family to the daughters' husbands and in laws. But it was finally passed.

Originally posted by: sashashyam

My dear Mital,

The distribution of their property by will is the sole right of the will maker, and no one can question that.

Now dowry is of course illegal, and the 1961 Dowry Prohibition Act is periodically tightened up. But it still persists in various camouflaged forms. How can a daughter get both the dowry AND a property share? But they often want both!

So when it comes to making a will, the father probably favours his son or sons.

Shyamala Aunty