Lesser known facts of Indian history - Shivaji Maharaj was indeed the greatest of all!

The then kingdoms were all separate and not  one nation. That is how those times have to be seen because that was the reality.Therefore Mughals were not outsiders in the manner it is sought to be made out. They were also kings doing what kings used to do , invade other kingdoms and either lose the battle or win and expand the empire. If all kingdoms were together no foreign king could have made such headway. Rajputs entered into a pact with Mughals to remain in power in their kingdoms and accepted Mughal supremacy and supported them with their own armies and solidified the relations by entering into wedlocks. Please do not bring religion because then history gets distorted.

vijay wrote:

The then kingdoms were all separate and not  one nation. That is how those times have to be seen because that was the reality.Therefore Mughals were not outsiders in the manner it is sought to be made out. They were also kings doing what kings used to do , invade other kingdoms and either lose the battle or win and expand the empire. If all kingdoms were together no foreign king could have made such headway. Rajputs entered into a pact with Mughals to remain in power in their kingdoms and accepted Mughal supremacy and supported them with their own armies and solidified the relations by entering into wedlocks. Please do not bring religion because then history gets distorted.

It is right that at that time India is not a country and it is also right that most of kings of the Rajasthan state entered in to pact with Mughals, but it is right that Mughal were not outsider. Native place of most of the kings of the states of was Hindustan. But native place of Mughals was not south Asia.

Of course the Mughals were outsiders.. They were like the British who needed to be thrown out, which did not happen because Indian rulers had no unity.We have to thank the British for uniting India , for whatever selfish read\son they might have had , which had become further fragmented after the Mughals came and vandalised the nation.

Shivaji Maharaj's heroic deeds in the warfare employing unusual ways to conquer and defeat enemies are well known .I remember when my History teacher was narrating the story of Tanaji Malusare, a close childhood friend and an able military leader  of Shivaji Maharaj.

Tanaji is famously known for the Battle of Sinhagadh

When Tanaji died while capturing the fort of Kondana, near Pune, Shivaji said with grief " Gadh ala pan Sinh gela", Fort was captured but the lion was lost.

Shivaji is well known for his fierce determination to stop the fanaticism of Aurangazeb . A strategist of the highest order, Shivaji was well supported by Chatrasal in fighting against the mighty Mughals.

One fact of history is that the Hindus were never united and as such failed in military warfare. Even Shivaji as a  soldier was defeated in a pitched battle by the forces of Aurangzeb led by raja Jai Singh. Shivaji's son joined the Mughals and so on.  I think Hindus were paranoid against each other and more often sided with the invader. Like Jai Chand  and Mir Zafar. Frankly it was all a mixture but overall suzerainity was always with the Muslims. Shivaji died in 1680 and Aurangzeb died in 1707. Shivaji is given great prominence only because Hindus have no warrior Heroes.

Divisions and splits made the Hindus weak and vulnerable to the attacks of Mughals. It is not a fact that Hindus have no warrior heroes. The fact is that Hindus mostly are the sycophants of the winners and Power mongers. With all these disadvantages Shivaji remains great who challenged the mighty Mughals.

Before the advent of Islam the hundreds of Hindu kingdoms were used to fighting between themselves and did not feel alienated as the victorious king also was a Hindu. After Muslim invasions these mini kingdoms were easy targets for them. Complacent Hindu kings perhaps did not keep abreast with changes in West Asia and paid the price for it for the next 900 years, In between a Shivaji or a Prithviraj or a Ran Pratap, all great warriors offered resistance and as rightly stated by @MGSingh became our heroes in absence of real warrior heroes.

MG Singh wrote:

One fact of history is that the Hindus were never united and as such failed in military warfare. Even Shivaji as a  soldier was defeated in a pitched battle by the forces of Aurangzeb led by raja Jai Singh. Shivaji's son joined the Mughals and so on.  I think Hindus were paranoid against each other and more often sided with the invader. Like Jai Chand  and Mir Zafar. Frankly it was all a mixture but overall suzerainity was always with the Muslims. Shivaji died in 1680 and Aurangzeb died in 1707. Shivaji is given great prominence only because Hindus have no warrior Heroes.

Wow what an analysis, shivaji given great prominence only due to lack of real heroes!!! Didn't expect this one! It is true that at one point he was indeed defeated and had to surrender 300 forts to Aurangzeb in the treaty, but are you not aware that he escaped daringly from Agra , returned to his kingdom and eventually won back all the lost forts?? If he had not died at a very early age due to injuries sustained after falling from his horse, history would have been a bit different, yet he succeeded in keeping Aurangzeb out of the South and Deccan and even after his death Aurangzeb died a defeated man during his long campaign in Maharashtra. So to term his greatness only because real heroes are lacking, seems to me to great injustice and ingratitude for people who sacrificed their lives for our country. Probably it would do you better to read and understand what the great poet from Agra Kaviraj Bhushan has written in his numerous poems about Shivaji's greatness and courage. Since Bhushan was not a Maharashtrian, it would not be hard for you all to believe what he has said about Shivaji Maharaj and neither can it be called as blind worship as we Maharashtrians are often accused of doing for the great warrior.

Saying Shivaji Maharaj has become prominent because Hindus lack real war heroes is a talk of those who doesn't have any idea of History. Shivaji will stay in the folios of history forever.

One can not fight perceptions howsoever facts may be presented.

No one can distort the History.

Turning a blind eye does not mean distortion is not taking place.

It's my opinion. I'm entitled for one.

vijay wrote:

Hindu religion did not prevent Hindu kings from fighting with each other. There was no Indian nation till 1857 when British brought the territories of today's India,Pakistan, Bangladesh together to form the new nation of India. Why did Rajputs side with the British? Why did Hindu kings borrow heavily from East India Company to fight against other Hindu kings? The India of !947 was a collection of 500 plus kingdoms. The Muslims came from outside and fought battles and won territories from Hindu kings and subsequent Muslim kings. Please do not see past history with todays biased goggles. See and judge it as it evolved. Shivaji, Rana Pratap were great kings there is no doubt about it. But they fought Mughals to protect their kingdoms, winning some and losing some. Rana Pratap's son became the governor of Kabul under the Mughals. They did not fight as HIndus versus Muslims.

Please come out with facts and not the biased versions which have now become stale and are not real. Happy that I could pull in more members of the forum.

I tnd t agree with what VIijay has written. Remember even RAni Laxminai of Jhansi was fighting only for her kingdom and not India. Same with Shivaji.

MG Singh wrote:

vijay wrote:

Hindu religion did not prevent Hindu kings from fighting with each other. There was no Indian nation till 1857 when British brought the territories of today's India,Pakistan, Bangladesh together to form the new nation of India. Why did Rajputs side with the British? Why did Hindu kings borrow heavily from East India Company to fight against other Hindu kings? The India of !947 was a collection of 500 plus kingdoms. The Muslims came from outside and fought battles and won territories from Hindu kings and subsequent Muslim kings. Please do not see past history with todays biased goggles. See and judge it as it evolved. Shivaji, Rana Pratap were great kings there is no doubt about it. But they fought Mughals to protect their kingdoms, winning some and losing some. Rana Pratap's son became the governor of Kabul under the Mughals. They did not fight as HIndus versus Muslims.

Please come out with facts and not the biased versions which have now become stale and are not real. Happy that I could pull in more members of the forum.

I tnd t agree with what VIijay has written. Remember even RAni Laxminai of Jhansi was fighting only for her kingdom and not India. Same with Shivaji.

First things first. Saving her kingdom is the first priority. Then comes the country. Remember Rani Lakshmi Bai's kingdom is very small. She has to find a place from where she has to launch an offense against the mighty British. What could be a better place than her own kingdom ?

Actually History is more about rulers and victors rather than the vanquished.  The medieval history is obviously of some Muslim dynasties including Mogul.  No doubt, Maharana Pratap, Shivaji, Banda bairagi and some others fought heroically.  But they were defeated. Their heroism can be appreciated. But it will make no sense to include more about Maharana Pratap and shivaji rather than Akbar and Aurangzeb.  The Mogul emperors after Aurangzeb are also not highlighted more as they had lost most of the empire.  One poster has commented that the warriors like Shivaji are confined only to regions and not known elsewhere so much. This is natural. Most of the Hindu rulers were effective only in their respective regions. Shivaji was a Maratha ruler and obviously had no role in other regions. Same about rana Pratap. History is written on realistic basis considering relative significance of personalities and places rather than emotions of population in certain regions. 

Who are these Muslims and English but invaders ? History Books are written by British Historians eulogizing Muslims and English. The sycophant Indian rulers for the sake of titles like Rai Bahadur danced to the tunes of British Historians,.

Shivaji believed in driving away these invaders, though he ruled a small region. It's his strong desire to conquer Aurangazeb and other Mughals whose atrocities  against Hindus were in excesses. Despite his limitations, Shivaji with his strong will fought against Mughals. None can rob away his greatness.

usha manohar wrote:

Of course the Mughals were outsiders.. They were like the British who needed to be thrown out, which did not happen because Indian rulers had no unity.We have to thank the British for uniting India , for whatever selfish read\son they might have had , which had become further fragmented after the Mughals came and vandalised the nation.

Yes British gave us lesion, healing of which is almost impossible, it is Pakistan. Thanks to Sardar Patel, who united the India. 

rambabu wrote:

MG Singh wrote:

vijay wrote:

Hindu religion did not prevent Hindu kings from fighting with each other. There was no Indian nation till 1857 when British brought the territories of today's India,Pakistan, Bangladesh together to form the new nation of India. Why did Rajputs side with the British? Why did Hindu kings borrow heavily from East India Company to fight against other Hindu kings? The India of !947 was a collection of 500 plus kingdoms. The Muslims came from outside and fought battles and won territories from Hindu kings and subsequent Muslim kings. Please do not see past history with todays biased goggles. See and judge it as it evolved. Shivaji, Rana Pratap were great kings there is no doubt about it. But they fought Mughals to protect their kingdoms, winning some and losing some. Rana Pratap's son became the governor of Kabul under the Mughals. They did not fight as HIndus versus Muslims.

Please come out with facts and not the biased versions which have now become stale and are not real. Happy that I could pull in more members of the forum.

Rana Pratap's son did not work as under the Mughals in his life. It is reason that no one know about the Rana's son.

I tnd t agree with what VIijay has written. Remember even RAni Laxminai of Jhansi was fighting only for her kingdom and not India. Same with Shivaji.

First things first. Saving her kingdom is the first priority. Then comes the country. Remember Rani Lakshmi Bai's kingdom is very small. She has to find a place from where she has to launch an offense against the mighty British. What could be a better place than her own kingdom ?

 

anil wrote:

usha manohar wrote:

Of course the Mughals were outsiders.. They were like the British who needed to be thrown out, which did not happen because Indian rulers had no unity.We have to thank the British for uniting India , for whatever selfish read\son they might have had , which had become further fragmented after the Mughals came and vandalised the nation.

Yes British gave us lesion, healing of which is almost impossible, it is Pakistan. Thanks to Sardar Patel, who united the India. 

The Loh Purush of India Sardar Patel the then Home minister through his Police action united the country