Jump to content

rahulrulezz

Recommended Posts

People talk about Rani Laxmi Bai, people talk about Rani Padmavati, people talk about Rani Karnavati but in my opinion if there was one Indian queen who was genuinely a brave and fierce warrior whom I really admired, she was Rani Durgavati.  Sadly I have never heard Bollywood or an average indian aware of this brave queen.

 

I have always been fascinated by her bravery and it makes me sad when noone around me knows her.

 

 

A bit of a history on Rani Durgavati from various sources:

 

 

Rani Durgavati was born in early  1500s  and versed in horse riding, sword fighting and archery from a very young age. Her ancestors were famous keeping the Mulsims invasion at bay especially Sher Shah Suri and Gazni.

 

She was married to Dalpat Shah, the eldest son of king Sangram Shah of Gond Dynasty. After her husband died when her son was only 5, he took the reign of the kingdom in her hands.

 

After the death of Sher Shah, Baz Bahadur attacked Rani Durgavati but the attack was repulsed with heavy losses to his army.

 

Akbar vanquished the Malwa ruler Baz Bahadur and annexed Malwa under Mughal dominion.


Prosperity of Rani Durgavati's state lured Akbar and he invaded Ranis kingdom through his general Asaf Khan

 

When Rani heard about the attack by Asaf Khan she decided to defend her kingdom with all her might although she knew the strength of Mughal forces. Rani maintained that it was better to die respectfully than to live a disgraceful life.

 

To fight a defensive battle, she went to Narrai - situated between a hilly range on one side and two rivers Gaur and Narmada on the other side. It was an unequal battle with trained soldiers and modern weapons in multitude on one side and a few untrained soldiers with old weapons on the other side. Her Faujdar Arjun Das was killed in the battle and Rani decided to lead the defence herself. As the enemy entered the valley, soldiers of Rani attacked them. Both sides lost some men but Rani was victorious in this battle. She chased the Mughal army and came out of the valley.

 

At this stage Rani reviewed her strategy with her counselors. She wanted to attack the enemy in the night to enfeeble them but her lieutenants did not accept her suggestion. By next morning Asaf Khan had summoned big guns. Rani rode on her elephant Sarman and came for the battle. Her son Vir Narayan also took part in this battle. He forced Mughal army to move back three times but at last he got wounded and had to retire to a safe place. In the course of battle allRani also got injured badly near her ear with an arrow. Another arrow pierced her neck and she lost her consciousness. On regaining consciousness she perceived that defeat was imminent. Her mahout advised her to leave the battlefield but she refused and took out her dagger and killed herself.

 

She could have easily become a vassal state to the Mughal empire but she choose to fight to death than to serve under Mughals.

 

I was reading through Akbarnaama how she even told the female members of the royality to do Jauhar than to be captured by Mughals. Sadly few of her sisters were captured underneath the fire of Jauhar and were sent to Akbar’s harem. Also, the fact that she knew what Mughals might do to her body if she was captured, even Akbarnama documents that she killed herself with a dagger than to be captured.

 

What a brave women and I really hope one day they make a movie out of her in Bollywood.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, gattaca said:

Truly courageous lady. I thought Akbar was secular and doesn’t attack Hindu kingdoms.

Both statements are not really linked with each other. Every king (or wanna be emperor) attacks kingdoms, be it of one's own religion or otherwise like Babur attacked Lodi or Satavahana attacked a lot of other Hindu kingdoms. Akbar attacked Gujarat Sultante, Bengal Sultanate, Shah Mir dynasty (i.e. Kashmir Sultanate) and many others and ensure Mughals rule over majority of India ( mostly only North India in his time)> He also attacked Hindu kingdoms  and probably more so because more so would have existed. None of this has to do with his own religious views. 

 

A secular person could also be power hungry or in positive terms an emperor who wants to unite everyone together under him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, surajmal said:

Fake news. Pre feminazi revolution, Women had no agency. How do you expect them to fight?! 

dude wtf is wrong with you

 

She didn't even lose a single wars out of her 51 wars!! She led her wars personally and defeated the likes of Surs, Baz Bahadurs, Afghans and Nizams...

 

Her last battle against Akbars army of 6 Mughal generals, and even though she could have done a Maan Singh of Aamer (become a servant of mughals), her battle glory against Mughals was "Better to die with glory than to live with ignominy..Either I conquer or I die"

 

Imagine even if 20% of indian kings had the same heart as Durgavati... and regarding this being fake news, dude Akbar in his biography was never good in praising his enemies but look at whats written in Akbaarnama about Rani Durgavati..talking about defeating other Muslim kings..

 

“She was not lacking any of the essentials of bravery and of effort, and did great things by dint of her farseeing abilities. She had great contests with Baz Bahadur (of Malwa) and the Minas (Afghans of Sironj in Malwa) and was always victorious…. She was a good shot with gun and arrow, and continually went hunting. The wealth of  Garha-Mandal was so much that they traded in elephant or gold in their market ’

 

that is not enough... go through Akbarnaama and read how Akbar was so impressed with the bravery of Rani that he wanted to met her personally and make her an overland howevver she just refused him clearly. Akbarnaama even mentions her as a brave queen who was great with gun and arrows. Akbarnama also mentions that if Queen even heard of a tiger, she wouldn't drink water till she shot the tiger. Akbar was so upset at the queen for rejecting his offer that he sent 6 Mughal commanders to battle against the Rani..

 

 

and you are saying it was a fake news cuz she was a woman... no wonder why females are treated this way in India.. if the bravest of brave Queen was a 'fake', what do you expect for rest of women

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, rahulrulezz said:

dude wtf is wrong with you

 

She didn't even lose a single wars out of her 51 wars!! She led her wars personally and defeated the likes of Surs, Baz Bahadurs, Afghans and Nizams...

 

Her last battle against Akbars army of 6 Mughal generals, and even though she could have done a Maan Singh of Aamer (become a servant of mughals), her battle glory against Mughals was "Better to die with glory than to live with ignominy..Either I conquer or I die"

 

Imagine even if 20% of indian kings had the same heart as Durgavati... and regarding this being fake news, dude Akbar in his biography was never good in praising his enemies but look at whats written in Akbaarnama about Rani Durgavati..talking about defeating other Muslim kings..

 

“She was not lacking any of the essentials of bravery and of effort, and did great things by dint of her farseeing abilities. She had great contests with Baz Bahadur (of Malwa) and the Minas (Afghans of Sironj in Malwa) and was always victorious…. She was a good shot with gun and arrow, and continually went hunting. The wealth of  Garha-Mandal was so much that they traded in elephant or gold in their market ’

 

that is not enough... go through Akbarnaama and read how Akbar was so impressed with the bravery of Rani that he wanted to met her personally and make her an overland howevver she just refused him clearly. Akbarnaama even mentions her as a brave queen who was great with gun and arrows. Akbarnama also mentions that if Queen even heard of a tiger, she wouldn't drink water till she shot the tiger. Akbar was so upset at the queen for rejecting his offer that he sent 6 Mughal commanders to battle against the Rani..

 

 

and you are saying it was a fake news cuz she was a woman... no wonder why females are treated this way in India.. if the bravest of brave Queen was a 'fake', what do you expect for rest of women

It was sarcasm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, rahulrulezz said:

 

She could have easily become a vassal state to the Mughal empire but she choose to fight to death than to serve under Mughals.

 

I was reading through Akbarnaama how she even told the female members of the royality to do Jauhar than to be captured by Mughals. Sadly few of her sisters were captured underneath the fire of Jauhar and were sent to Akbar’s harem. Also, the fact that she knew what Mughals might do to her body if she was captured, even Akbarnama documents that she killed herself with a dagger than to be captured.

 

What a brave women and I really hope one day they make a movie out of her in Bollywood.

 

And this is where i have a problem with this 'honor code' way of thinking.
Chosing to 'fight to death' instead of submitting to a superior force is a very reckless and stupid thing to do, as once defeated, the subjects are at mercy of the invader. If the invader is a Timur or a Nader Shah, you've basically consigned hundreds of thousands of your people - most of whom are simple people busy making a living and having a family- to their deaths. No personal honor is worth that cost.

 

Same with comitting jauhar - what kind of a coward (clinical depression conditions exempted) kills themselves rather than survive for a chance another day ?

 

Had it been me, my advice to my daughter would be to live, to comply, to do whatever it takes to survive - but never forget and unless there is true remorse, never forgive. Live for the moment where she can exact her vengeance. 



The story of 'brave warriors who know they won't win, but fight anyways for honor' is a classic culture trope that puts personal glory ahead of the benefit of the people. What story needs to be told more often, is how to resist the enemy, despite being subject to the enemy.

In this aspect, the Greeks have my respect. They got conquered by the Romans - those who fought, fought gloriously but got annihilated out of existence ( Macedonia, Sparta, etc). Those who submitted- like Athens, Corinth, etc. not only flourished, but they turned the Roman Empire into a Greek one. By the time Byzantine Empire rolls around circa 500s AD (and it thrives for another 600+ years), the main population spoke Greek, Greek started to supercede Latin as their main official language, the culture was Greek and the religion even became more Greek CHristianity (eastern orthodox) than Roman (Catholic). 

Then the muslims (Turks) came and conquered them and gave them even less rights than the Romans did. Yet, their culture survived and Greece remained mostly Greek speaking & Christian. 

 

True strength, is in resistance. Not in suicide. The story of the Greeks, to me, is far more inspirational one than that of heroic failures who choose personal glory and risking their population due to it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

And this is where i have a problem with this 'honor code' way of thinking.
Chosing to 'fight to death' instead of submitting to a superior force is a very reckless and stupid thing to do, as once defeated, the subjects are at mercy of the invader. If the invader is a Timur or a Nader Shah, you've basically consigned hundreds of thousands of your people - most of whom are simple people busy making a living and having a family- to their deaths. No personal honor is worth that cost.

 

Same with comitting jauhar - what kind of a coward (clinical depression conditions exempted) kills themselves rather than survive for a chance another day ?

 

Had it been me, my advice to my daughter would be to live, to comply, to do whatever it takes to survive - but never forget and unless there is true remorse, never forgive. Live for the moment where she can exact her vengeance. 



The story of 'brave warriors who know they won't win, but fight anyways for honor' is a classic culture trope that puts personal glory ahead of the benefit of the people. What story needs to be told more often, is how to resist the enemy, despite being subject to the enemy.

In this aspect, the Greeks have my respect. They got conquered by the Romans - those who fought, fought gloriously but got annihilated out of existence ( Macedonia, Sparta, etc). Those who submitted- like Athens, Corinth, etc. not only flourished, but they turned the Roman Empire into a Greek one. By the time Byzantine Empire rolls around circa 500s AD (and it thrives for another 600+ years), the main population spoke Greek, Greek started to supercede Latin as their main official language, the culture was Greek and the religion even became more Greek CHristianity (eastern orthodox) than Roman (Catholic). 

Then the muslims (Turks) came and conquered them and gave them even less rights than the Romans did. Yet, their culture survived and Greece remained mostly Greek speaking & Christian. 

 

True strength, is in resistance. Not in suicide. The story of the Greeks, to me, is far more inspirational one than that of heroic failures who choose personal glory and risking their population due to it. 

 

Totally disagree with you on this. As I said, even if 20% of indian rulers fought together against invaders with an intention of “fight to death”, indians wouldn’t be ruled by the so called Mughals. We just didn’t have enough inspiration stories of fighting the invaders. Most of our history, we followed “Muloghonto” advice for not fighting for death and result is 1 out of 4 Kaafir concerted to Islam. 

 

 Invaders knew that kaafirs wouldn’t fight (most of Mughals and Sultanate were more worried of Mongols and Muslims from the west) than the Kaafirs as  we just didn’t fight. We didn’t fight forget about “fight to death”. Simple as that.

 

If only we had more of “fight to death” resistance by other local kings following the path of Durgavati, we would have been invader free very soon. 

 

I am sure you probably were NOT a big fan of ChandraShekhar Azad, Bhagat Singh , Rana Sanga, Hemu, Rana Pratap cuz they fought with intention of “fight to death”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Under_Score said:

Great Woman, Respect to her!!..... There is one self proclaimed world renowned Historian in ICF who would rather convert to Islam than fight oppression & live like a coward for the rest of his pathetic life. He most likely will not agree with you, in fact he doesn't like to agree with anyone on any topic...his crap & lengthy nonsensical fabricated posts are the only true facts to him in this universe :giggle:

I think I know who you are talking about :giggle:but being frank he does talk sense and post useful stuff 75% of the time and I am willing to go through 25% of his garbage :phehe: for that 75% gold worthy information 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, rahulrulezz said:

Totally disagree with you on this. As I said, even if 20% of indian rulers fought together against invaders with an intention of “fight to death”, indians wouldn’t be ruled by the so called Mughals. We just didn’t have enough inspiration stories of fighting the invaders. Most of our history, we followed “Muloghonto” advice for not fighting for death and result is 1 out of 4 Kaafir concerted to Islam. 

Except my advice is not to convert, it is to submit, like the Greeks did, yet keep their own cultural heritage intact. The Greeks became part of the Ottoman muslims for close to 500 years - yet, Greece, at the eve of independence (mid 1800s) remained 95% or more Greek and Orthodox. 

 

Also, 'rulers fighting together', is a short term fix, not a long term solution. We have had rulers band together to fight off invaders in the past too - the Guptas forged an alliance with Yashodarman of Malwa to boot out the Huns, for example. 

However, it doesn't work and will not work in the long term, because having multiple rulers means they will eventually fall out with one another and start undermining each other - if not this generation, then the next, or the one after, etc. 

 

Quote

 Invaders knew that kaafirs wouldn’t fight (most of Mughals and Sultanate were more worried of Mongols and Muslims from the west) than the Kaafirs as  we just didn’t fight. We didn’t fight forget about “fight to death”. Simple as that.

We actually did.  The Gurjaras & Chalukyas were the only ones in the entire continent to stop the Arab Khilafat armies and vanquish them. Yet, it did not last- due to the same 'multiple rulers fighting each others' condition. 

 

Quote

If only we had more of “fight to death” resistance by other local kings following the path of Durgavati, we would have been invader free very soon. 

Or, we'd have been genocide even more. Durgavati lost because her military skills and army itself was inferior. Simple. I don't see why invaders would be warded off by war-like but inferior militaries in a rich land. 

If welfare of the masses is the prime goal, then the wisest move is to not stand in the way of a more powerful adversary - for if you fight, its far more likely that after you lose, your people will be raped & pillaged. 

 

I am not against resistance - i am against futile resistance. If one wants to fight, good- but one cannot be stupid enough to fight and think 'honor' will win them the battle, when their equipment, tactics and logistics are inferior. 

 

Quote

I am sure you probably were NOT a big fan of ChandraShekhar Azad, Bhagat Singh , Rana Sanga, Hemu, Rana Pratap cuz they fought with intention of “fight to death”

Chandrasekhar Azad, Bhagar Singh, etc. are different categories of people. I have no problem with anyone risking their own life and limb for a cause they believe in. Its their life, they can choose to risk it all they want. Having said that, yes, not a fan of Rana Pratap or Sanga, etc - these folks are rulers. Their decision affects millions. Their prime job, as a ruler, is to ensure the survival of their people and create conditions for the people to thrive in. Fighting a foolish war due to pride that is unwinnable is working against that principle in my mind. 

Edited by Muloghonto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2018 at 10:34 PM, gattaca said:

Bollywood will never make a movie that will portray Akbar as bad.

Agree with you that Akbar was not exactly what India portrays him to be. If you read about his youth, he took a great pride in using Hindu idols from temples to make stairs for the mosques. This is when he knew the only reason he survived as an infant was due to Hindu Rajput rulers from Sindh giving Humayun, his father,  shelter. People talk about how Akbar allowed Jodha to be a Hindu. That was totally fake. Jodha had to convert to Islam and was named Mariam. Also, she herself became such advert Muslim that she wanted to be buried in a tomb after death than the Hindu way. Akbar had 20,000 Hindu princess in his harem converted to Islam. All the Hindu prisoners of war were given the option of converting to save their life. But Akbar was still a secular king as per NCERT. 

Edited by rahulrulezz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read Baburnama and the accounts of Mehmoud of Ghazni for example - the reasons for Indian defeats to the muslims starting with Mehmoud of Ghazni, is inferior tactics.


In the first battle of Panipat, Babur erected a wagon-wall and posted his cannons behind it. Then he stared in amazement as the numerically superior army of Lodhi didn't try to outflank or wait-out the battle to lure Babur out of his strongly fortified position on enemy soil. Instead, he charged head-first into the strongest fortified position of the enemy and lost. Consider that for a moment - if Lodhi had played the waiting game, Babur would've been forced to abandon his fortified position, because it was him who sat on enemy territory with long & unreliable supply chain, while Lodhi sat 150 kms from his own bloody capital, on lands owned by his dynasty directly. Every passing day would've weaked Babur's position and strengthened Lodhi's. 
 

 

Same happens to the Kabul-shahi vs Ghaznavid wars vs Mehmoud and his father Sebuktagin. 

We all know of Prithviraj losing to Ghauri in the 2nd battle of Tarain and that he won the first battle of Tarain yet let Ghauri go. What most don't know, is where Ghauri went - he didn't go all the way back to Afghanistan, he stayed in a fort in Bhatinda for two years, gathering his forces. a few hundred kms from Prirthviraj's own capital and much further away from his own, inside enemy territory (the territory of Bhatinda belonged to the Tomars, vassals of the Chauhans of Sambhar, Prithviraj's dynasty). For two years. Did Prithviraj lay seige ? Nope. He just ignored the situation. 

 

Almost every single defeat of the Indians at the hands of the muslim invaders comes down to inferior tactics, inferior strategy and general ineptitude in long-term thinking. 

 

All this ineptitude, is wrapped under ' glory,honor, courage' - which is bunk in my books. All these rulers failed their subjects in more ways than one - for one they were too weak to impose their law and keep their people safe and for two, too much consumed in personal honor to consider that submission would've been better for their subjects. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember seeing a picture of a Yezdi woman saved by American forces from ISIS last year.

The woman was being continuously raped for an year before her liberators finally managed to free her out of her captivity.

Needless to say The poor lady was so much depressed and traumatized from her ghastly experience at the hands of those demons that after few days she committed suicide.

 

There's a difference between living and surviving. 

 

Maybe Muloghonto would have no qualms giving his daughter to the Jihadists but I would rather she kill herself than live through continuous agony everyday, getting raped and tortured by Rakshasas in human form.

 

By the same token, those Sikhnis who consumed poison when the Muslim mobs came for them at the time of partition were cowards too. Should have let those b@stards rape and mutilate them to make our resident Bengali liberals feel better about themselves.

No wonder the State is a lost cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stradlater said:

Remember seeing a picture of a Yezdi woman saved by American forces from ISIS last year.

The woman was being continuously raped for an year before her liberators finally managed to free her out of her captivity.

Needless to say The poor lady was so much depressed and traumatized from her ghastly experience at the hands of those demons that after few days she committed suicide.

 

There's a difference between living and surviving. 

 

Maybe Muloghonto would have no qualms giving his daughter to the Jihadists but I would rather she kill herself than live through continuous agony everyday, getting raped and tortured by Rakshasas in human form.

 

By the same token, those Sikhnis who consumed poison when the Muslim mobs came for them at the time of partition were cowards too. Should have let those b@stards rape and mutilate them to make our resident Bengali liberals feel better about themselves.

No wonder the State is a lost cause.

Have you ever read Chach Nama ? It's a book written by Arabs, about conquest of Sindh. When Mohammed Bin Qasim conquered it, he captured Raja Dahir's daughter. He then took her back to Baghdad and offered her to the Khalif's harem. At this moment, raja Dahir's daughter stepped up and said something like ' your excellency, it would be an honor to join your harem, but unfortunately I've already been de flowered by my conqueror', indicating Bin Qasim already had his way with her and thus, was insulting the Khalif by giving him 'used goods'. 

This lead to immediate fall from grace of bin Qasim and one of the most brilliant Arab generals never commanded an army again. 

 

Give me strong women, like Raja Dahir's daughter, who can set aside personal honor and so far more meaningful things by staying alive, than the cowards who can't face hardships in life or think on how to turn a situation like this to their advantage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the difference between living and surviving, yes, the difference is huge.

But what these assinine glory hunters and their fans completely forget, is that inorder to live, one must, first and foremost, survive. No survival = never again an opportunity to live. 

Only by surviving, does one ever give oneself the chance to live. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/26/2018 at 4:04 AM, Muloghonto said:

As for the difference between living and surviving, yes, the difference is huge.

But what these assinine glory hunters and their fans completely forget, is that inorder to live, one must, first and foremost, survive. No survival = never again an opportunity to live. 

Only by surviving, does one ever give oneself the chance to live. 

 

Now that I read your posts again, I see your point. 

 

But other than Chachnama, there was no reference in Indian history where a slave girl tried to kill any king. Which is why your strategy didn’t work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...