SYSTEMATIC EFFORTS ARE ON WAY TO DISTORT
HISTORY BY MODERN REAL JAICHANDS
DR K Prabhakar Rao
Entire nation has grown till date learning that Rajput King Prithviraj Chauhan of Thaneswar ( Near Delhi) was betrayed by King Jai chand in his fight against Mahmood Ghori at II nd battle of Tarain ( Tarori) in 1192 . Defeat and slaying of Prithviraj by Ghori resulted in enslaving of India by Muslims that could not be warded off till the Englishmen took over. Episode of Rani samyuktha is well known and love affair between Samyuktha and Prithiviraj was highly resented by Jai chand. However Chauhan managed to carry her away and married her. It is fully believed that this was the most valid reason for the enmity between both of them. There are also legends that Chauhan was captured after his defeat and was blinded and taken to Kabul along with his follower Chand Bhatt and they were confined in a jail. We have also learnt that Jai chand was a coward and he drowned himself in a river fleeing from forces of Ghori. No one believed that he was a hero. As per the ballads, Chauhan killed Ghori using Shabdabhedi arrow in full court when he was asked to prove his prowess with bow and arrow. First Chauhan shot at the bell after hearing the sound of the bell. Ghori shouted Wah.. Wah.. applauding the act. The next arrow like lightening flew from his bow and pierced throat of Ghori killing him on the spot. Later King Chauhan and Chand Bhatt stabbed themselves and committed suicide. It is also learnt that the graves of Chauhan and Ghori exist at Kabul close to each other and visitors ( Mulsims) worship the grave of Ghori while they throw stones and abuses at the grave of Chauhan. They also stab at the grave as vengeance (2).
However NCERT books during 2005 appear to have believed something different. These are govt approved and published books and the new theories can be seen as the deliberate attempts to twist history for the purpose of appeasement of minorities. They stated (3) :-
"Prithviraj Chauhan was a coward who ran away to save his life during the second battle of Tarain with Mohammad Ghauri."
"Jaichand (generally believed to be a traitor) was, in fact a 'hero' who gave up his life while fighting the forces of Ghauri."
. According to the new book, there were major political differences between the two kings and Samyukta was not part of it.
Edited by Prof. Satish Chandra, the fifth chapter of the book on Medieval History clearly stated that Prithviraj Chauhan tried to run away from the battle, but was taken prisoner. The book says that when Prithviraj accepted the supremacy of Mohammad Ghauri, the latter allowed him to continue as ruler of Ajmer. Prithviraj was later killed on charges of treason, according to the book, which goes on to say that Jaichand's valour was unmatched and that he was killed while fighting the forces of Ghauri in Kannauj.
This is the "new" history that students of Class 11 would have learnt under the CBSE and ICSE courses. The revised history book, Medieval India History, published by NCERT, demolishes old beliefs and tramples over heroes of history. Can we allow such blatant lies to be told to students? Who are the people behind such actions? Can any one dare to say similar things about minorities in this country? Answer can be guessed by any sane person. This is an important point to ponder over. RSS better wake up.
Bibliography,
1.Oxford history of India
2. Save the grave of Prithviraj chauhan, Petition on line, http://www.petitiononline.com/A1910A/petition.html
3.Amit Verma, NCERT: Prithviraj coward, Jaichand hero, http://asianage.com/ - BOTTOMLINE
http://rajeev2004.blogspot.in/2005/07/ncert-prithviraj-coward-jaichand-h...
HISTORY BY MODERN REAL JAICHANDS
DR K Prabhakar Rao
Entire nation has grown till date learning that Rajput King Prithviraj Chauhan of Thaneswar ( Near Delhi) was betrayed by King Jai chand in his fight against Mahmood Ghori at II nd battle of Tarain ( Tarori) in 1192 . Defeat and slaying of Prithviraj by Ghori resulted in enslaving of India by Muslims that could not be warded off till the Englishmen took over. Episode of Rani samyuktha is well known and love affair between Samyuktha and Prithiviraj was highly resented by Jai chand. However Chauhan managed to carry her away and married her. It is fully believed that this was the most valid reason for the enmity between both of them. There are also legends that Chauhan was captured after his defeat and was blinded and taken to Kabul along with his follower Chand Bhatt and they were confined in a jail. We have also learnt that Jai chand was a coward and he drowned himself in a river fleeing from forces of Ghori. No one believed that he was a hero. As per the ballads, Chauhan killed Ghori using Shabdabhedi arrow in full court when he was asked to prove his prowess with bow and arrow. First Chauhan shot at the bell after hearing the sound of the bell. Ghori shouted Wah.. Wah.. applauding the act. The next arrow like lightening flew from his bow and pierced throat of Ghori killing him on the spot. Later King Chauhan and Chand Bhatt stabbed themselves and committed suicide. It is also learnt that the graves of Chauhan and Ghori exist at Kabul close to each other and visitors ( Mulsims) worship the grave of Ghori while they throw stones and abuses at the grave of Chauhan. They also stab at the grave as vengeance (2).
However NCERT books during 2005 appear to have believed something different. These are govt approved and published books and the new theories can be seen as the deliberate attempts to twist history for the purpose of appeasement of minorities. They stated (3) :-
"Prithviraj Chauhan was a coward who ran away to save his life during the second battle of Tarain with Mohammad Ghauri."
"Jaichand (generally believed to be a traitor) was, in fact a 'hero' who gave up his life while fighting the forces of Ghauri."
. According to the new book, there were major political differences between the two kings and Samyukta was not part of it.
Edited by Prof. Satish Chandra, the fifth chapter of the book on Medieval History clearly stated that Prithviraj Chauhan tried to run away from the battle, but was taken prisoner. The book says that when Prithviraj accepted the supremacy of Mohammad Ghauri, the latter allowed him to continue as ruler of Ajmer. Prithviraj was later killed on charges of treason, according to the book, which goes on to say that Jaichand's valour was unmatched and that he was killed while fighting the forces of Ghauri in Kannauj.
This is the "new" history that students of Class 11 would have learnt under the CBSE and ICSE courses. The revised history book, Medieval India History, published by NCERT, demolishes old beliefs and tramples over heroes of history. Can we allow such blatant lies to be told to students? Who are the people behind such actions? Can any one dare to say similar things about minorities in this country? Answer can be guessed by any sane person. This is an important point to ponder over. RSS better wake up.
Bibliography,
1.Oxford history of India
2. Save the grave of Prithviraj chauhan, Petition on line, http://www.petitiononline.com/A1910A/petition.html
3.Amit Verma, NCERT: Prithviraj coward, Jaichand hero, http://asianage.com/ - BOTTOMLINE
http://rajeev2004.blogspot.in/2005/07/ncert-prithviraj-coward-jaichand-h...
2 comments:
I certainly don't subsrcibe to excessive glorification of defaming of historical figures. That includes both
Prithviraj and Jaichand. None was a villain or a perfect superhero.
I also understand that the worse than nanny-style (no offense to nanny) distorted history that Govt.
feeds us in testbooks is only worth trashing.
But lets look at the facts objectively and separate grain from chaff. And that is not always done by blindly believing one version/source.
1. PrithviRaj-Sanyogita love affair,
2 Jaichand's vengeance and
3. The 17 defeats to Ghori etc
are all good bed time stories to entertain ourselves with, but do not stand any historical scrutiny.
All three are mentioned only in the heavily inaccurate and challenged PrithviRaj Raso which mentions a completely wrong name even for PR's mother.
There is no mention of these in :
a) Prithviraja Prabandha
b) Hammir MahaKavya
c) Prabandha Kosa
d) PrithviRaj Vijaya
e) Viruddhavidhi-vidhvamsa
"PrithviRaj-Sanyogita love affair" :-
1. PrithviRaj-Sanyogita love affair
Never happened. Battle of Tarain-I was fought in early 1191, for thirteen months after this Prithviraj was busy in the siege of Sarhind (early 1192) central Punjab; Tarain II was fought barely a few months later.
In the middle of all this, when did Prithviraj have the time to correspond with a princess, admit his love to her, and make arrangements to carry her away from Kannauj 400 miles away in the south east?
The time given for this love affair is 1175 AD. and Ghori - PrithviRaj battles took place at 1191-92.
It is odd to imagine that a man would be so obsessed with his woman even after 17 yrs that it would lead to his fall
or that her father would be so mad even after 17 yrs that he would collude with enemies.
No other sources (texts, inscriptions etc) except Raso mention this love affair at all.
"Jaichand's vengeance" :-
The kingdoms of Ajmer and Kannauj did not have a common border, fought no battles.
As per the gadhavala inscriptions, during PR-Ghori battles Jayachandra was fighting against the Sena ruler (LakshmanaSena) in the region of Bihar, far in the east.
According to contemporary literature, inscriptions, and coins the rulers of Kannauj were Gahadvals…the Rathors of Badaun were their tributaries.
There is no record of a conflict between Ajmer and Kannauj for the simple reason that they did not have a common border.
Raso tells the name of Jayachand's father as "Vijayapala" but Gadhavala inscriptions give his correct name as 'Vijayachandra'.
Raso talks of Jayachandra performing a Rajasuya yagya and Swayamvara ceremony for Samyukta.
A ceremony as grand as Rajasuya would certainly find atleast some mention in the inscriptions of Jaichand or later rulers.
But nothing of that sort in any of his 16 inscriptions or anywhere else.
"17 defeats to Ghori" :-
Hammir Mahakavya states only 7 border skirmishes and 2 wars after Ghori had expanded his territory
upto Ajmer Kingdom's border. Other sources also mention only border skirmishes and not as many full blown battles between the PR and Ghori.
There is still controversy on the fate of PR and Ghori after Tarain-II. None of the versions has yet been established irrefutably.
So you see while we rue the distortion in our history and attack the concoted stories, this is another such instance where drama and imagination has been swallowed as is.
Now, to the otherwise trained memory of ours, truth does sound stranger that fiction in such cases doesn’t it ? :)
Thanks for your version and views.
Post a Comment