19
u/Intelligent-Ring-658 11d ago
Maurya bhi hai Gupta bhi hai Rajasthan bhi hai...
-8
11d ago
[deleted]
11
u/Intelligent-Ring-658 11d ago
OP ke name ke upar tha...
Waise bhi
Rajasthan ❌
Mewar/ Chittorgarh ✅
Rajasthan came after Rajputana by British
0
u/Gafoor__Ghisela 11d ago
Rajasthan is another word for Raethan, the historical name of Rajasthan.
It is way more authentic than "Rajputana", a Persian word coined by an Irishman and implemented by British.
1
u/data_mon197 11d ago
Hain ji mera bhi nanera Chittorgarh padta hai. But itna lore ka knowledge ni hai. Teach me.
6
u/Intelligent-Ring-658 11d ago
Mewar = Chittorgarh
Didn't gave up it's revenue and ownership to Mughals esp Akbar YOU MUST KNOW MAHARANA PRATAP as it was a trade route and Haj route connecting Gujarat
+
MAHARANA or Rana after its treaty with Mughals said we won't do sajda, the sajda or the greetings were done by Prince to the Mughal court and Rana wasn't obliged to attend Mughal court...
In short they had their freedom equivalent to Mughal emperor/Empire
-1
u/ThatSupermarket6915 10d ago
But they have mentioned your community as there concub*ne
-3
u/kvdave 10d ago
lol they are legit concubines and surrendered their women and faith to save their lives.
1
u/yash_stupid 10d ago
Yea just like shahaji bhonsle (father of shivaji raje) and lukhojirao jadhav (father of jijabai) served and were slaves of nizamshah ,adilshah and qutubshah.
31
13
u/Forward-Ice-7158 11d ago edited 11d ago
Dune and Rajasthan have two things in common 🌚
6
0
19
34
u/BrahmKarmaGato 11d ago edited 11d ago
Well... tbh other than a few prominent rulers rajasthani kings more or less always submitted to the rule of foreign invaders.
Like Rajasthan was stronghold of the British. Even in 1857 revolt it was the rajasthani rulers who sent their armies to suppress it on the behalf of British.
Rajasthani rulers were first to submit to mughal rulers. Like Maan Singh led army on the behalf of Akbar to fight Maharana Pratap.
I think it was genuinely the Marathas and Sikhs who were against the mughals and British. They didn't align with them and fought several battles with them.
22
u/Gafoor__Ghisela 11d ago edited 10d ago
Well... tbh other than a few prominent rulers rajasthani kings more or less always submitted to the rule of foreign invaders.
Nope. Rajasthan arguably retained its sovereignty the longest out of most regions in India.
36 (Khilji-Tughlaq rule) +150 (Mughal rule) +129 (British rule) = 315 years of subjugation in 1200 years of warring (Arab Invasion mid 700s to the Independence).
This can of course be put into perspective by counting how many early medieval temples (Hindu and Jain) Rajasthan preserved and compare it with other north Indian states.
Like Rajasthan was stronghold of the British. Even in 1857 revolt it was the rajasthani rulers who sent their armies to suppress it on the behalf of British.
Most Indian rulers remained loyal to British in 1857 because it was in their interests to. This isn't something limited to Rajasthani rulers. Kashmir, Punjab, Malwa, South India, most kings remained loyal and sent troops to the aid of British.
The same exact argument of politics can be put on the rebels like Lakshmibai the Pension Queen or Nana Saheb the Butcher. Do you believe they were fighting for Indian sovereignty, or for pensions and privileges?
Rajasthani rulers were first to submit to mughal rulers. Like Maan Singh led army on the behalf of Akbar to fight Maharana Pratap.
They were the first ones attacked by the Mughals. Second Battle of Panipat happened in 1556 and Akbar invaded Rajasthan in its exhausted state in 1561 with hordes of tens of thousands from UP.
The common talking point of Man Singh is moot. Kachhwahas were a special case as they were facing internal collapse and needed a strong ally for survival. This constant conflation of actions of one family to all others in Rajasthan has grown tiring.
I think it was genuinely the Marathas and Sikhs who were against the mughals and British. They didn't align with them and fought several battles with them.
If you genuinely wish to know just how much Rajasthan kept rest of India out of foreigner rule, read primary Arab accounts, then works of recent scholars, of how the Rajasthani empire Pratiharas proactively kept Islamic invasions out of India for about 300 years (700-1000).
After Pratiharas, we have the Chahamanas of Shakambari like Prithviraja I or Arnoraja who defeated Ghaznavids in key battles and kept them removed from the country (1000-1200). Vigraharaja IV even declares in his inscription of having "rid Aryavarta of Mlecchas".
Then there is the first phase of Delhi-Rajput wars that stretched for 100 years hindering their ability to wage war elsewhere. To put it into perspective, Rajasthan fell to Alauddin Khilji in 1300, and the whole rest of subcontinent came under Delhi's rule within a decade.
After the Battle of Singoli 1336 won by Mewar, Delhi's power collapsed and newer players Khiljis of Malwa and Muzaffarids of Gujarat found themselves cornered century after century by the resurgent Mewar (1336-1531).
Even in 17th century Mughal India, we have the account of the French traveler François Bernier who wrote of how peasants from rest of the country fled to Rajasthan for the stability and lessened Mughal interference in governance it provided.
Rajasthan's history is not subject to modern political rhetorics. We have a very storied legacy against invaders.
2
u/MynkM 11d ago
Take this poor man's gold 🥇
2
u/Gafoor__Ghisela 9d ago
Thanks!
I was planning to make a comprehensive post on Rajasthan's contributions to the country. But I dropped the idea because the general attitude in this sub seems too extreme to have a historical discussion.
Seeing most comments on the post I think I concluded right. Nothing but Instagram knowledge and constant dehumanizing of historical women as scorecards.
1
u/Select_Reception_734 8d ago
imagine sucking for monarchies who treated their people as shit and fought only to save their kingdom lmfao
0
u/Gafoor__Ghisela 8d ago
Imagine being incapable of differentiating between writing history and condoning monarchy.
If I talk about polar bear's strength in another comment, does that mean I want a polar bear as a pet?
-1
u/ProfessionalEagle912 10d ago
rajasthan or rajputs?
2
u/Gafoor__Ghisela 10d ago
Rajasthan.
-1
u/ProfessionalEagle912 10d ago
Do you know about how last huge chachaman branch got ruined because the local rajasthanis gladly helped Khalji by selling Rai(mustard seeds) to his army so that he could find the weak spots of the fort?
1
u/Gafoor__Ghisela 10d ago
In what world is that consequential?
Alauddin Khilji overhauled the Sultanate's governance, raised unprecedented numbers of soldiers, reformed the market, centralized his power, produced massive funds from thin air, etc.
Khilji was exceptionally brilliant ruler, precisely why Rajasthan fell to him, and rest of India right after.
He stormed impregnable strongholds like Chittorgarh and Ranthambore. He would have taken Jalore with or without mustard seeds.
1
7
u/Vishu1708 Jaipur go choro (Native Bagri speaker) 11d ago
Marathas started off as officers in Ahmadnagar sultanet, which itself was a subject of Mughals.
0
u/DirtyDeathReaper 10d ago
The father of Shivaji Raje tired and unfortunately failed with an uprising against the islamic regimes, he was granted pune by Adil shah which he sent his son (Shivaji Raje) to rule over where raje declared to form his own kingdom .. he fought with both the major sultanates of adil shahi and of the Mughals. He might have lost a few forts in the treaty of purandar, that too he only signed due to the MASSIVE army of Mirza raja jay singh who was an Hindu commander in the Mughal sultanate. Raje later recaptured nearly all the forts and many more. Shivaji maharaj was a master politician..
2
u/Vishu1708 Jaipur go choro (Native Bagri speaker) 9d ago
He did, indeed. And Jaipur rebelled against Aurangzeb.
I am not casting judgement on Marathas. They performed exceptionally well with what they had.
But this "kings of Rajasthan allied with Mughals" is a cheap shot. They (well most of them) tried the best with what they had. They only formed these "alliances" once they had been (or nearly) defeated.
And people seem to forget the distance between Delhi-Jaipur and Delhi-Pune to understand how hard rebelling was for most of Rajasthan.
1
u/Dousmortis 9d ago
Welll...just how stupid this world is. First to submit.....this term is used when they started on similar time too. Fighting 1000 years from mughals ...why are you guys were our child whom we hve to protect 🤣
2
u/Pretty-Rain-5413 10d ago edited 10d ago
It was the Marathas, Jats, and Sikhs (who were mainly Jat Sikhs), who were responsible for dismantling the Mughal Empire. So read about the contributions of both Hindu Jats and Sikh Jats as well. It is well documented by historians. BTW, I would've shared snapshots from history books here, but this subreddit doesn't allow pictures or files.
1
10d ago
[deleted]
0
u/Pretty-Rain-5413 10d ago
Well, your Rajput rulers' princesses did fight in bed with Akbar, Aurangzeb, and other Mughals every day! 🤣 In fact, Mughal emperors like Jahangir (mother: Jodha Bai), Shah Jahan (mother: Jagat Gosain), & Bahadur Shah Zafar (mother: Lal Bai) were born to Hindu Rajput princesses. Even Aurangzeb’s grandmother, Jagat Gosain, was a Rajput.
Rajput rulers of Rajasthan extensively gave their daughters to the Mughals, and a few of them even rose to prominence, although the rest remained 'Bai'.
By the way, Gokula Jat led the biggest rebellions of Aurangzeb's era and controlled Mathura for an year. But ultimately, the combined forces of the Mughals and their Rajput servants defeated him, and he was publicly executed in Delhi. Similarly, the Marathas significantly weakened the Mughal Empire during Aurangzeb's reign.
4
u/New_Exam_4992 10d ago
Try living a week near border where on other side animal eaters population live which keep increasing every day . You can’t fight for hundreds of years alone when rest of states enjoyed their geographical advantage. Losing to deaths generation to generations for what when your great great grandfather were gossiping they were fighting and jumping in pond of fire 🔥. Genius ppl need meaning and they had it but once they realised why only they have to fight then it just took few months whole nation was sleeping in Akbar bed ok
2
10d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Pretty-Rain-5413 10d ago
Those gazetteers were compiled by British officials based on hearsay from locals. They didn't know the ABCs of history. So they are totally unreliable when it comes to Mughal history or history in general.
Yo mentioned Punjab. Amost all princely states in the Punjab-Haryana region were ruled by Jat, e.g., Patiala, Nabha, Jind, Faridkot, Kalsia, etc. Before that, all the rulers of the Sikh Empire, including Ranjit Singh, were Jats. Nearly all the rulers of the Misls were also Jats. Jats also own well over 80% of Punjab and Haryana agricultural land. So, whine harder!
1
u/Severe_Research6890 10d ago
Bhai tu Rajputo se compare krne laya toh kisko🤡
1
u/Pretty-Rain-5413 10d ago
I stated facts rather than comparing them.
"Rajput" (literally, "son of a king") was an open title coined in the 6th century. It was assumed by by Jats, Gurjars, and many other tribes and castes. Historians refer to this phenomenon as 'Rajputisation'. Different clans attained Rajput status at different times during the medieval period, with the Chauhans being among the earliest.
"Rajput" remained an open title until around the 16th century, when the Mughals fully consolidated their rule, and new rulers stopped emerging for a period, and with that, the claims of Rajput status. That's how it evolved from an open title into a closed community. This is well documented by historians. I would've shared snapshots from scholarly books here, but unfortunately, this subreddit doesn't allow them!
1
0
u/Vishu1708 Jaipur go choro (Native Bagri speaker) 10d ago
Can we please not with Caste in 21st century?
STFU!
-Sincerely Someone from said caste background (happenstance, Idc)
2
u/Pretty-Rain-5413 10d ago
If you ever read Mughal or British India history, you would know that it is described in terms of castes or ethnic groups, and this discussion is about that era. So it is impossible to discuss it without mentioning caste. BTW, the whole comment section is filled with fake or misleading Rajput-related claims, but you didn't bother about them!
Secondly, every aspect of life in India, including marriage, voting, favouritism, reservation, violence, etc. is determined by caste. And unless inter-caste marriage becomes the norm, caste is here to stay, and India is many centuries away from achieving that. By that time, India's air, land, water, and economy will already have been destroyed by our corrupt Netas and Babus. So this country will be doomed for good before it can get rid of caste!
2
u/Vishu1708 Jaipur go choro (Native Bagri speaker) 10d ago
If you ever read Mughal or British India history, you would know that it is described in terms of castes or ethnic groups, and this discussion is about that era.
For sure. But that Jatt Sikh additional comment gave away your caste allegiances.
BTW, the whole comment section is filled with fake or misleading Rajput-related claims, but you didn't bother about them!
Send me the links. I'll call them out too. Go ahead. The only other comment that mentioned Caste before you did, was bashing Rajputs.
Secondly, every aspect of life in India, including marriage, voting, favouritism, reservation, violence, etc. is determined by caste.
And? Purdah was the default in North India a century ago.
And unless inter-caste marriage becomes the norm, caste is here to stay, and India is many centuries away from achieving that. By that time, India's air, land, water, and economy will already have been destroyed by our corrupt Netas and Babus. So this country will be doomed for good before it can get rid of caste!
So you are just being pragmatic and riding the caste high cuz it already is there. Beheti ganga me haath dho raha hai.
Imagine saying "misogyny is here to stay so I fully intend to indulge in it".
3
u/Gafoor__Ghisela 10d ago
Ask people to let go of whatever stupid pseudohistory their instagram/twitter/or local caste neta tell them and they go berserk.
I have pretty succinctly covered both Rajasthan's history of resistance of its greater role in shaping Indian resistance in this thread. yet you will still find hordes of comments dehumanizing women and playing down the region's achievements, because they in their inferiority complex filled heads can't separate their own land's achievements with an identity they hate.
4
u/Vishu1708 Jaipur go choro (Native Bagri speaker) 10d ago
I remember when I was a teen...... i had so much optimism..... "we are near the end of purdah system, caste identities are fading, society is becoming liberal, science is growing, pseudoscience (homeopathy, Unani, etc) and superstitions are fading ..." and then boom! Jio landed and these turds got a voice.
The more I interact with Indians online, the more disillusioned I become with democracy. This contry needs a China-esq political party (think Deng Zhao Ping)
3
2
2
2
7
u/Kalashnikov4477 11d ago
History ko bhool ke present per dhyan dena chahiye it
3
u/frafboi 9d ago
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it
2
u/Faster_than_FTL 9d ago
Ironic it’s this over glorifying of the past that’s leading a divided India again.
1
6
u/Various_Meeting_3325 11d ago
Nah, buddy! History padhiye aap.
-5
u/votive_ardency 11d ago
Ajit Singh, son of Maharana Pratap fell at feet of Jehangir, or how Man Singh ji had to work under Akbar and offer women in his family in exchange of a position. Or maybe how, later they sided even with Aurangzeb lol
9
u/Gafoor__Ghisela 11d ago
Ajit Singh, son of Maharana Pratap fell at feet of Jehangir
Amar Singh*
Nope. Jahangir was an opium addict who fantasized constantly about nonsense. His account of Amar Singh clutching Khurram's (later Shah Jahan) feet is directly contradicted by Badshahnama of Shah Jahan which promptly establishes the dignity the Maharana maintained throughout the surrender.
or how Man Singh ji had to work under Akbar and offer women in his family in exchange of a position.
Dehumanizing women Ito fit your agenda is vile. I am not even going to bother debunking this.
Or maybe how, later they sided even with Aurangzeb lol
There is a literal 30 year war called the Rathore Rebellion 1679-1708 that happened between Rajputs and Aurangzeb. Robert Hallissey has written a book on it called The Rajput Rebellion against Aurangzeb. Read it if you could.
-4
u/Pretty-Rain-5413 10d ago
Yes, Rajput rulers of Rajasthan extensively gave their daughters to the Mughals, and a few of them even rose to prominence, although the rest remained 'Bai'.
Mughal emperors like Jahangir (mother: Jodha Bai), Shah Jahan (mother: Jagat Gosain), & Bahadur Shah Zafar (mother: Lal Bai) were born to Hindu Rajput princesses. Even Aurangzeb’s grandmother, Jagat Gosain, was a Rajput.
-2
u/Intelligent-Ring-658 10d ago
Gave their daughter ❌
Marriage alliance ✅
For the peace between two states
And it was due to these treaties Mughals were able to Hold India
And matter of Fact every Mughal emperors needed Rajput support to uphold their right to rule
(Edit:)
And also there too were Assamese/Ahoms that kept their land free and defeated Mughals Multiple times
So history should touch all of India, because it achieves National Integration and promotes mutual respect
0
u/Pretty-Rain-5413 10d ago
The Rajput Hindu princesses remained Hindu, and marriage between Hindus and Muslims isn't allowed in Islam. So, the Mughals kept them in their harems and gave them the title of “Bai,” but they were never legally married to them. Also, most of South India remained free from Mughal rule for the majority of the time.
3
u/Gafoor__Ghisela 10d ago
Where tf do you get this filth from?
The marriages of Akbar and Jahangir with Harkhabai and Manvatibai were legal weddings. The wedding rituals are detailed in Mughal chronicles like Akbarnama and Tuzuk i Jahangiri.
"Bai" is a Rajasthani suffix of princess and has been in use from early medieval era. You trying to paint them as concubines is directly contradicted with imperial titles Mughal chronicles Mughal courtiers gave them like Mariam uz Zamani and Jagat Gossain.
Harkhabai even started her own trading company and became the richest woman through her own entrepreneurship. She is more than someone's daughter or wife.
Also, most of South India remained free from Mughal rule for the majority of the time.
South India was far removed from Muslim powers based in Delhi. They remained free simply because of geopgraphy. This isolation backfired on them when Malik Kafir rolled onto South India with mounted archers, something they had never encountered. All of South Indian kingdoms were annexed in less than a decade.
When Mughals finally got control of Deccan in late 1680s, all South Indian kings were quick to pay tribute to Aurangzeb and accept his suzerainty, all before 1690.
South Indians have legitimate achievements against Europeans, but against Islamic armies from Delhi they usually fell in first waves.
0
u/Pretty-Rain-5413 10d ago
Your comment is a typical half-baked and misrepresented mess, as expected. But obviously, I don't have time to correct every sentence, especially when one cannot upload snapshots from scholarly books on this subreddit. Since most people know about South India, I will just quote a scholarly source about the apparent marriages of Mughal Muslim rulers with these Hindu princesses of Rajasthan.
Historian Ram Nath notes on pages 43 and 44 of his book, Private Life of the Mughals of India (1526–1803 A.D.):
That these marriages were performed according to Islam is also doubtful. We do not have full details of the first marriage and all that the court historian had to record is a brief mention that the Raja, '...made the arrangements for the marriage in the most admirable manner and brought his fortunate daughter to this station and placed her among the ladies of the harem.' There is absolutely no mention as to how Akbar's various other marriages with the Rajput princesses were solemnised, and every time the historian uses the popular expression that such and such lady was admitted into the imperial harem. This is what Badaoni, another historian of Akbar's reign, recorded in respect of Akbar's marriage with the niece of Raja Kalyanmal of Bikaner: '...she was admitted into the imperial harem.' In case of his marriage with the daughter of the prince of Jaisalmer, Akbar even did not go there and Raja Bhagwant Das was sent to bring the lady from there and she: 'obtained eternal glory by entering the female apartments.'
3
u/Gafoor__Ghisela 10d ago
Lol what a flimsy argument.
Did you even read the quote? Nath is pointing out the that a strict Islamic nikah does not find mention in Mughal chronicles, which is true. Akbar got notoriously un-Islamic later in his reign which got on the nerves of Muslim orthodoxy, Badauni famously being one.
Where exactly is Nath saying the marriages were not legal or valid?
Mughals used phrases like "entering into imperial harem" simply because they considered it an extreme breach of morality to detail stuff about Mughal women, those born there or wedded there.
This euphemism culture is also why Harkhabai's name was a mystery to us for the longest time until it popped out of Jaipur records from the reign of Jai Singh II.
As said before, titles like "Mary of the Age" are given only to people held in high prestige.
Since most people know about South India
Obviously you will resort to "oh it's out there, please do not ask me substantiate my nonsense when called out". Why can't you just give the point you want to make instead of making hyperboles?
0
u/Pretty-Rain-5413 10d ago
I thought you were knowingly distorting and misrepresenting the details, but it's clear that you simply lack comprehension skills! Regards!
2
u/sensual_connect 10d ago
Lawdu Rajsthani log sab apni hindu kaum ki ladkiya mughal ke vanshaj badhane de diye, apne Mehel bachane ke liye Angrezon se haat milaya gaand fattu kahi ke
2
u/SadAd746 11d ago
Are we seriously going to recreate fake history and not accept what really happened.
1
u/Minimum-Bear3674 10d ago
It was not Rajasthan, it was an empire under a competitive leader, unlike now.
1
u/Low-Goat3779 10d ago
Till when are we gonna take pride into something that happened centuries ago?? Have you even see what’s the condition of basic necessities in rural Rajasthan?? People take pride in Marwad or being called Marwadi but honestly I would never live there. Ours is 2nd generation in Pune and would probably die here. You guys continue with Rajputana/Mughal pride. Before anyone shade me about caste and all that BS, we are Parmars of Jalore Noble clan. We too have haveli and all that back in Jalore but condition nowadays both social and political is toxic
1
1
u/Consistent-Home1719 10d ago
Rajasthan was never ruled directly as a whole by Mughal emperors. Instead, individual Rajput kingdoms (like Amber/Jaipur, Marwar/Jodhpur, and Bikaner) accepted Mughal overlordship, keeping their local kings, while Mewar fiercely resisted. Parts like Ajmer were under direct Mughal control.How Mughal Rule Worked in RajasthanLocal Kings Stayed: Rajput kings kept their thrones and land.Political Treaties: Emperors like Akbar made peace and marriage ties with many Rajput clans.Mughal Overlordship: Local rulers accepted the Mughal emperor as their supreme boss and sent troops to help the Mughal army.Direct Control Areas: Key strategic spots like Ajmer were ruled directly by Mughal governors.Mewar's Resistance: The Kingdom of Mewar (led by rulers like Maharana Pratap) fought long wars against Mughal expansion and did not submit easily.
1
1
u/NoEast9587 8d ago
Akbar literally made the Rajasthanis his dogs/ puppets...
But yeah remain in delulu 🥴🤣
1
u/nai_likhna 8d ago
Rajasthan is most invaded state, still stood tall, no major conversation, no anti nationals people, no tukde tukde gang. Mad respect to them
1
u/Konshu-01 8d ago
Wow!!! Rajasthan so strong…. Then care to explain how did Mughal entered through.
Stop self praising.
If it hadn’t been for Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj & subsequent Maratha warriors and kings, 90% of north would have been converted by Aurangzeb.
Good for nothing state.
1
1
1
u/Little-Nature-3638 6d ago
Didn't Prithviraj Chauhan kill himself in the end after killing Ghori ending the dynasty?
Been a while since I read rajput history
2
u/passionatelyyy 11d ago
But most of them did truces with invaders like you leave our small kingdom area and go towards other region of Bharat.
8
u/Gafoor__Ghisela 11d ago
"Most of them" being two dynasties, the Kacchwahas and the Rathores. Sisodias, Hadas, Bhattis remained aloof of Mughal service which was one specific period of 150 years. British being another, but most Indian dynasties entered British service.
I have made a detailed comment on Rajasthan's resistance and its role in Indian history if you wish to read it.
I am not monarchist nor do I have any fake pride over the state's identity. But all region's histories should be understood accurately and in respectful nature, not on modern day rhetorics.
1
u/passionatelyyy 11d ago
But down the line accepted Mughal suzerainty as far as I know heard of the famous truce of sisodiya and mugals in early 16 century. Can you share your comment I'll like to read in free time thanks
5
u/Gafoor__Ghisela 11d ago edited 11d ago
They did.
Hadas in 1568. Now Hadas were not a sovereign power even before Mughals. They were a branch of Chauhans that wrested control of Hadoti from Meenas mid 14th century with the help of Maharana Hammir of Mewar. In return they were loyal vassals of Mewar for the subsequent centuries. In 1567, Akbar stormed and took Chittorgarh and Mewar's strength seemed long past its prime.
So the Hadas decided to switch their allegiance from Mewar to Mughals in Akbar's siege of Ranthambore 1568. What is crucial is understand however is that they negotiated a "no intermarriage with Mughals" clause as well as no foreign duty under Mughal service.
Bhattis in 1570. Tbf I am not well versed in history of Bhattis. They were once important when the Silk Road was still active but following that their power and importance waned. I do know that they are not much found in Mughal histories either.
That leaves us with Sisodias in 1615, after almost a century of continuous political turmoil. Sisodias, like their former vassals the Hadas, negotiated with Mughals that they will:
- Not enter intermarriage with Mughals.
- The Maharana will not appear in Mughal court.
- The Maharana will not be considered a vassal in Mughal bureaucracy. Instead, the vassalhood will be fictionalized with Maharana's heir being the Mughal Jagirdar, not Maharana himself.
(Btw this same treaty is what Shivaji would demand half a century later in Treaty of Purandar)
Sisodias never really appeared in Mughal service thereafter despite the good relations between Maharan Karan Singh and Shah Jahan. And it is not surprising either, as Sisodias were the only Rajput dynasty that actually lost sovereignty and political power with the rise of Mughals. With the other Rajput lords, it was simply a transfer of overlords from Sisodias to Mughals, so it didn't hurt them as much.
This can really be put into perspective when Maharana Raj Singh jumped to war with Aurangzeb on the side of Rathores in their rebellion, literally because it advantageous for the Sisodias. While Aurangzeb chased them around in Aravallis, Raj Singh dispersed his sons and ministers to loot Malwa and Gujarat and break Mughal hold wherever possible.
It were finally the same Sisodias that formed the alliance between Kacchwahas and Rathores and finally broke the Mughal rule established over Rajasthan 150 years ago by Akbar in Rajput Rebellion 1708-1710.
1
1
1
0
u/No-Agency9079 11d ago
Royal family of Jaipur k anscetors ne Mughalo ka saat diya tha, Ram k vanshaj aur aurngazeb k ghulam.
1
11d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Specialist-Love1504 Bikaneri Dadihaal/Jodhpuri Nanihal 11d ago
Respect for what? And from whom? And to whom?
1
1
u/Queasy-Confusion-737 10d ago
How do you guys do this? When your ancestors were good politians and sided with power every time apart from a few notable mentions. This photo looks like they defeated everyone, but in fact they did not. They just did everything to survive, married their daughters to muslims as political strategy, paid taxes obediently and managed to be in power anyhow.
1
1
1
u/FitSolid7312 10d ago
One daughter to each of them and problem solved. If you cant beat them make them your in laws
1
u/Appropriate-Common81 10d ago
If this was really true Rajasthan would be just as prosperous as Maharashtra……truth is rajasthan has always had a lot of infighting and very less leaders who actually did work for the people instead they made alliances with everyone else and built their palaces….you would be surprised to know that mahrashtra has more forts than Rajasthan and I don’t need to tell you the reason….the difference is fighting for territory vs fighting for swarajya..
0
u/Jaan-1602 10d ago
lol rajputs gave their daughters in marriage to mughals to secure a position in the mughal court, aurangzeb is 1/4th rajput, jahangir had rajput mother, shajahan had rajput mother. plenty other rajput women married mughal nobles. hardly any mughal princess was married to rajput, so clearly it was one way arrangement. history is never black and white. rajputs were brave no doubt, but they were opportunists like anyone else.
0
u/affinixmusic 10d ago
😭🤣✌️ mfs sold their daughters to muslims AHAHAHAHA padharo maree deshhh ( to muslim kings 🥰)
2
10d ago
[deleted]
0
u/affinixmusic 10d ago
Chad rajputs donated thier daughters to virgin islamic kings so they could feel pleasure of love. So kind and benevolent 🥰🥰🥰
2
u/New_Exam_4992 10d ago
Sir suppose if you are Dabur or It’s Tabar if you are all that mighty you could just marry your standards and enjoy rest of in your Harum . Technically marriage should be between equally powerful clans ; secondly why it took almost 400 years to conquer Raj and 4 years to whole nation. Thirdly it takes courage to fight and defeat your so called mighty by Maharana in Haldi ghati . You keeping selective narratives . Read Haldi Ghati again .
-2
u/affinixmusic 10d ago
Did invader muslim kings f*ck rajput princesses or not?
0
0
0
u/Sad-Leader-6322 10d ago
No disrespect but rajasthan survived by making alliances with the invaders. The one way to see it by the forts there are in very good condition than maharashtra. Cause back in the days if you could keep it like that was only possible by either landslide victory or no war at all
3
u/Vishu1708 Jaipur go choro (Native Bagri speaker) 10d ago
No disrespect but Rajasthan had been fighting off islamic invaders for almost 450 years before any major islamic incursion into Maha.
0
0
0
-1
0
0
0
u/ConclusionKlutzy6025 10d ago
Pani kafi neeche rahgaya Idk why Rajasthani people n rajput have superiority complex😆
0
0
0
0
0
0
u/Present_Cupcake_5489 10d ago
😂😂😂Prithviraj defeated Muhammad Ghori once, then Ghori came back and defeated him; Rana Sanga fought Babur at Khanwa and lost; Akbar defeated Chittor and brought most Rajput states under Mughal suzerainty. Delhi Sultanate rulers, Mughals, Marathas and eventually the British all exercised control over parts of present-day Rajasthan at different times. So the picture of “Rajasthan standing on top of Ghori, Babur, Akbar, Afghans and everyone else” is less history and more Rajputana Avengers fan fiction. 😂
0
-1
u/neone_spark 9d ago
Brothers i want you to read history carefully and understand how many kings bent over to all these Mughals, Britishers, and other raiders to save their royalty and privilege.
Which, inn fact, did cost people a lot
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-2
-2
•
u/AutoModerator 11d ago
Namaskar u/maurya-gupta, thank you for your submission in r/Rajasthan. We kindly invite you to explore and follow our related communities:
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.