anonymus
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,870
- Reaction score
- -7
- Country
- Location
I read that some inbred kunt here is trying to base history on fictionalized bards.
For the benefit of rest of the members, let me correct the stupidity that were posted by this member.
Prithviraj Raso is a bardic book written in 16th century by some pro Chahmana writer which woven a tale of romance and heroism around name of Prithviraj. This book is completely mythical ,though modern day Indians not having great sense of history picked up that book and made stuff like elopement of Sanyogita and Jaichand being traitor as 'real history'. One of friends of Prithviraj was Chandrabardai, now Prithviraj Raso( the book that made much stuff) is said to be written by him. But no historian dealing with history in detailed manner is ready to accept that as history, the work is as late as 1600 and interestingly is directly contradicted by contemporary sources. It gets many or say most of facts wrong from extent of Chauhans to Sanyogita or fight between Chauhans and Gahadvalas etc.
Prithviraj Vijay written by Jayanak( a Kashmiri brahmin living in Ajaymerunagar, now called as Ajmer) in around 1180s is much reliable and contradicts Raso at every point.
1.. There was no war between Gahadvals and Chauhans, no inscription or text mentions such things, raso has invented it.
2. No evidence for fictional Sanyogita at all in Prithviraj Vijay.
3. No evidence from islamic sources that they were helped by any Hindu ruler, A counter point can be made that they did not want to show that they won by help of Hindus, but they have mentioned such cases many times. Also, burden of proof is on Chauhan being hero side when all contemporary texts from islamic to rajput contradict Raso, unless some very strong evidence is found, this is almost impossible.
4. There are accounts in another contemporary text which shows how ministers of Jaichandra were concerned after defeat of Prithviraj Chauhan at second battle of Tarain, they were clear that since door is open, storm will now enter their rooms.
5.Many Indians forget that there were Muslim invasions even between Ghori and Ghaznavi, infact it is just that those invasions which succeeded are recorded( due to muslim historians) while failed invasions have inscriptions from Hindus mentioning same.Turks had not evaporated anywhere. When son of Mahmud was defeated by Seljuk Turks at battle of Dandanqan( a place in modern day Turkmenistan) in 1037, he fled and shifted his capital to Lahore which had been conquered by Mahmud around 1015. So while Ghazanavids lost their areas in Khwarizm and much of Iran and Afghanistan, they retained their hold over modern day Pashtun areas( east afghanistan and khaiber province) and Punjab. This meant that they were no petty dynasty as such and had considerable resources. These Lahori Ghazanavids led many raids and most of them were of not much consequence.
Turks had a great advantage in mobility and given the fact that kannauj and Lahore are just few hundred miles away and that too with no geographical barrier as such, it seems that Turks made a lightening attack on Kannauj and somehow captured Madanpala. Madanpala agreed to give ransom and had to be released by that way but his valiant 'Yuvaraja' Govindchandra attacked Turks and secured release of his father as well as expelling Turk armies from plains of Ganga.
6.Govindchandra himself took pride in defeating the Turks. His wife Kumardevi also mentions in her inscription , that he was incarnation of Hari who came to earth to protect Varanasi from wicked Turshkas. Jayachandra himself is supposed to have confronted Turks before his final defeat. Vidhyapati in his Purushpariksha mentions that Yavaneswara Sahavadin (Suhabuddin) was defeated by Jayachandra many times. Rambhamanjari also bestows the title "Nikhila Yavana Kashyakarah" (destroyer of all Yavanas?) on Jayachandra. So he seems to be competent ruler not in any sort of alignment with Turks.
The case of Prithviraj raso is however reflection on how we, the citizen of modern India chose to remember our history. Naikadevi also defeated Ghori. Yet instead of taking pride in her we chose to remind ourselves of defeated even if valiant hero immortalized n bardic tells, ridiculing another ruler at the same time.
7.When Govindacharya was busy with Palas, Turks suddenly made a lightening raid on Varanasi but were again expelled by Govindchandra who instituted a tax known as 'Turushka Danda'. He routed Turks many times.
8. After win of second battle of Tarain, Ghuri decided to make a lightening raid on Varanasi which was second capital of Gahadvalas and take treasures away from Chandauli. In 1194, Ghuri marched with a large army of 50,000 horsemen( Hasan Nizami mentions this) from Delhi with an intention to bypass Kannauj and suddenly appearing before Varanasi.
Jayachandra in most accounts is credited with having large army, we have texts mentioning 80,000 'kavachdhari'( armoured) soldiers, half million archers, army like sand particles( numerous) and so much that his movement was hindered. Even if these accounts are not true, one thing is sure that Jayachandra had quite an army which could lead to such accounts. Confident of his prowess, he decided to give battle to Ghurids. Ghuri had marched but near Chandawar in modern day Etawah( homedistrict of Mulayam) was intercepted by Jayachandra.
Muslim accounts make it clear that Jayachandra had upper hand throughout the day and had almost carried the day with Turk army loosing morale but he was killed around evening and Turks managed to crush Gahadvalas.
After this, Ghurids reached Chandauli, faced some resistance but killed most Rajputs and plundered treasures. Next they attacked Varanasi and Hasan Nizami says that 'in Benares which is the centre of the country of Hind, they destroyed one thousand temples and raised mosques on their foundations' while Kamil Ut Tawarikh of Ibn Al Athir mentions.
This also mention why it is always important to live to fight another day , and to protect leader in any battle. If I start posting accounts of medieval battles where an Army lost because its leader was slain, probably servers of this forum would crash.
9. Death of Jayachandra was not end of dynasty and his son Harishchandra defeated Turks and took back Varanasi and Kannauj. It is testimony to strength of Gahadvalas that despite being so close to centre of Muslim power and in plains( making resistance harder) they took back Kannauj. Turks ruled Bengal and Bihar and ruled Punjab but could not rule lands between Varanasi and Kannauj. Qutbdin Aibak could not reduce Harishchandra.
It was Iltutmish who destroyed Gahadvala kingdom for good by defeating Adakkamalla the son of Harishchandra, thus ended Gahadvalas. Since their kingdom was in plains, nothing has escaped islamic iconoclastic fury yet given riches of Gahadvalas and their might, we can assume that they had a great civilized area with numerous temples and large number of literary jewels created during their reign. Works like Madanvinodnighantu, Krityakalpataru and such still have shown their intellectual brilliance.
10. Rathors trace their lineage from Jaichand of Gahadwal dynasty (though this is not settled), and they were one of most obstinate in their resistance to Islamic armies.Gahadwal themselves trace their lineage to Rashtrakutas.
11. The tragic fate of Varanasi after the defeat of the Jayachandra could be summarized in Hasan Nizami's own words. 1000 temples were destroyed in Varanasi alone and mosques were erected on their foundations. However the story doesn't end here. What followed in aftermath is an interesting contest between the religious bigotry on one side and resistance on the other. Hasan Nizami might be true when he narrated that 1000 temples were destroyed in Varanasi. However contrary to his assertion Muslims would not have been able to build the mosques in the city at that time as it took some time to pacify the north India and to bring it under their effective rule. Resistance to their authority and cases of conflict erupted time to time in one part or another creating chaos for sometime.
In such chaotic situation in 1212 AD Sena king of Bengal Vishvarupa erected a sacrificial post and victory pillar in the middle of the Varanasi in the kshetra (holy place) of Lord Vishweswara as attested by epigraphic evidence. (Just like Gahadvalas, Sena dynasty also survived for some time after the defeat of Lakshaman Sena).Kshetra of Vishweshwara is mentioned by the Lakshmidhara , albiet not as a major sacred place. As such it is raises the question on the intention behind choosing this particular place by Sena ruler. It is possible that Vishwarupa might not have capacity to commission a large structure ie temple to commemorate his victory either due to the constrain of time or money or both. So instead he chose the place in the middle of the city on the hill so as to have maximum effect of his message.Another speculation is that it matches with his name (Vishwarupa - Vishweshwara) and hence he chose that particular place.
What is however certain is that from that period onwards Vishweshwara / Vishwanath became the symbol of Hindu resistance to the Muslim iconoclasm and over the time rose in fame and sacredness. The first reaction of Muslim authority once they finally took the control of the city was to reclaim the Vishweshwara hill and to build a mosque. It was done during the short reign of Raziya Sultana. The mosque built by her still stands today. (Razia's mosque).
Since now the original place was occupied by mosque a decision must have been taken to built the new Vishweshwara temple, in the vicinity of original temple down the hill on the kshetra of original Avimukteshwar temple which itself must have been destroyed during first occupation of Varanasi by Muslims after Gahadvalas. According to Lakshmidhara, the location of original Avimukteshwara temple was on the little north of the well ie the site where Gyanvyapi mosque is located today. This new location must have become popular very quickly as indicated by work of Jinaprabhasuri, which labels one of the four zones of city after the name of Vishwanath temple. A new shrine was also commissioned by person named Padmasadhu outside the door of the new temple known as Padmeshwara. It is also certain that despite the obstructive attitude of the rulers many new shrines and places also emerged during the same time, some of them are the most popular places of the town today.
In the early part of the 15th century the Vishwanath/ Avimukteshwara temple along with Padmeshwara shrine was again exploited to get the material to build the royal mosque of newly found capital of Sharqi dynasty at Jaunpur . It is from the wall of the Lal Darwaza mosque at Jaunpur that the inscription stone of Padmeshwara shrine was found because of which it became possible to reconstruct the history.
The reconstruction of the new Vishwanath temple along with a shrine dedicated to Avimukteshwara was undertaken, perhaps on the grandest scale ever by person named Narayan Bhatta in 1585. However within a century the temple was again destroyed by the orders of Aurangzeb in 1669. And Gyanvypi mosque was erected on the location of the temple. After a century later Ahilyabai Holkar commissioned the construction of currently existing temple in 1777. And there ends the last chapter of saga of centuries of resistance.
Personally, I think that that both Gyanvapi mosque and Razia mosque should have been demolished. When Greeks threw off Turkish Yoke after 400 Years, they demolished each and every Mosque present in Greece. It was Nehru because of whose stupidity there are 14% muslims in India, and all these abominations are left standing.
12. Unfortunately after independence there emerged a series of morons who were mentally if not genetically descendants of Aurangzeb. They succeeded in portraying the image of that of a defeated subjugated nation ruled by the foreigners to the public, while in reality the heart of the civilization was pulsating all that time, the spirit of civilization was still alive resisting the Muslim dominance all the time as reflected in the cases like Somnath temple, Kashi Vishwanath and many other such cases. The saga of glorious resistance was completely omitted, only to be replaced by the completely mythical notion of secularism as defined by the examples such as coexistence of Gyanvyapi mosque and Kashi Vishwanath temple in the same premises. They resisted domination against all the odds while their progeny in an independent nation failed to even acknowledge it, forget about taking pride of their ancestors and their sacrifice.
@SarthakGanguly @Makaramarma @levina @Tridibans
For the benefit of rest of the members, let me correct the stupidity that were posted by this member.
Prithviraj Raso is a bardic book written in 16th century by some pro Chahmana writer which woven a tale of romance and heroism around name of Prithviraj. This book is completely mythical ,though modern day Indians not having great sense of history picked up that book and made stuff like elopement of Sanyogita and Jaichand being traitor as 'real history'. One of friends of Prithviraj was Chandrabardai, now Prithviraj Raso( the book that made much stuff) is said to be written by him. But no historian dealing with history in detailed manner is ready to accept that as history, the work is as late as 1600 and interestingly is directly contradicted by contemporary sources. It gets many or say most of facts wrong from extent of Chauhans to Sanyogita or fight between Chauhans and Gahadvalas etc.
Prithviraj Vijay written by Jayanak( a Kashmiri brahmin living in Ajaymerunagar, now called as Ajmer) in around 1180s is much reliable and contradicts Raso at every point.
1.. There was no war between Gahadvals and Chauhans, no inscription or text mentions such things, raso has invented it.
2. No evidence for fictional Sanyogita at all in Prithviraj Vijay.
3. No evidence from islamic sources that they were helped by any Hindu ruler, A counter point can be made that they did not want to show that they won by help of Hindus, but they have mentioned such cases many times. Also, burden of proof is on Chauhan being hero side when all contemporary texts from islamic to rajput contradict Raso, unless some very strong evidence is found, this is almost impossible.
4. There are accounts in another contemporary text which shows how ministers of Jaichandra were concerned after defeat of Prithviraj Chauhan at second battle of Tarain, they were clear that since door is open, storm will now enter their rooms.
5.Many Indians forget that there were Muslim invasions even between Ghori and Ghaznavi, infact it is just that those invasions which succeeded are recorded( due to muslim historians) while failed invasions have inscriptions from Hindus mentioning same.Turks had not evaporated anywhere. When son of Mahmud was defeated by Seljuk Turks at battle of Dandanqan( a place in modern day Turkmenistan) in 1037, he fled and shifted his capital to Lahore which had been conquered by Mahmud around 1015. So while Ghazanavids lost their areas in Khwarizm and much of Iran and Afghanistan, they retained their hold over modern day Pashtun areas( east afghanistan and khaiber province) and Punjab. This meant that they were no petty dynasty as such and had considerable resources. These Lahori Ghazanavids led many raids and most of them were of not much consequence.
Turks had a great advantage in mobility and given the fact that kannauj and Lahore are just few hundred miles away and that too with no geographical barrier as such, it seems that Turks made a lightening attack on Kannauj and somehow captured Madanpala. Madanpala agreed to give ransom and had to be released by that way but his valiant 'Yuvaraja' Govindchandra attacked Turks and secured release of his father as well as expelling Turk armies from plains of Ganga.
6.Govindchandra himself took pride in defeating the Turks. His wife Kumardevi also mentions in her inscription , that he was incarnation of Hari who came to earth to protect Varanasi from wicked Turshkas. Jayachandra himself is supposed to have confronted Turks before his final defeat. Vidhyapati in his Purushpariksha mentions that Yavaneswara Sahavadin (Suhabuddin) was defeated by Jayachandra many times. Rambhamanjari also bestows the title "Nikhila Yavana Kashyakarah" (destroyer of all Yavanas?) on Jayachandra. So he seems to be competent ruler not in any sort of alignment with Turks.
The case of Prithviraj raso is however reflection on how we, the citizen of modern India chose to remember our history. Naikadevi also defeated Ghori. Yet instead of taking pride in her we chose to remind ourselves of defeated even if valiant hero immortalized n bardic tells, ridiculing another ruler at the same time.
7.When Govindacharya was busy with Palas, Turks suddenly made a lightening raid on Varanasi but were again expelled by Govindchandra who instituted a tax known as 'Turushka Danda'. He routed Turks many times.
8. After win of second battle of Tarain, Ghuri decided to make a lightening raid on Varanasi which was second capital of Gahadvalas and take treasures away from Chandauli. In 1194, Ghuri marched with a large army of 50,000 horsemen( Hasan Nizami mentions this) from Delhi with an intention to bypass Kannauj and suddenly appearing before Varanasi.
Jayachandra in most accounts is credited with having large army, we have texts mentioning 80,000 'kavachdhari'( armoured) soldiers, half million archers, army like sand particles( numerous) and so much that his movement was hindered. Even if these accounts are not true, one thing is sure that Jayachandra had quite an army which could lead to such accounts. Confident of his prowess, he decided to give battle to Ghurids. Ghuri had marched but near Chandawar in modern day Etawah( homedistrict of Mulayam) was intercepted by Jayachandra.
Muslim accounts make it clear that Jayachandra had upper hand throughout the day and had almost carried the day with Turk army loosing morale but he was killed around evening and Turks managed to crush Gahadvalas.
After this, Ghurids reached Chandauli, faced some resistance but killed most Rajputs and plundered treasures. Next they attacked Varanasi and Hasan Nizami says that 'in Benares which is the centre of the country of Hind, they destroyed one thousand temples and raised mosques on their foundations' while Kamil Ut Tawarikh of Ibn Al Athir mentions.
This also mention why it is always important to live to fight another day , and to protect leader in any battle. If I start posting accounts of medieval battles where an Army lost because its leader was slain, probably servers of this forum would crash.
9. Death of Jayachandra was not end of dynasty and his son Harishchandra defeated Turks and took back Varanasi and Kannauj. It is testimony to strength of Gahadvalas that despite being so close to centre of Muslim power and in plains( making resistance harder) they took back Kannauj. Turks ruled Bengal and Bihar and ruled Punjab but could not rule lands between Varanasi and Kannauj. Qutbdin Aibak could not reduce Harishchandra.
It was Iltutmish who destroyed Gahadvala kingdom for good by defeating Adakkamalla the son of Harishchandra, thus ended Gahadvalas. Since their kingdom was in plains, nothing has escaped islamic iconoclastic fury yet given riches of Gahadvalas and their might, we can assume that they had a great civilized area with numerous temples and large number of literary jewels created during their reign. Works like Madanvinodnighantu, Krityakalpataru and such still have shown their intellectual brilliance.
10. Rathors trace their lineage from Jaichand of Gahadwal dynasty (though this is not settled), and they were one of most obstinate in their resistance to Islamic armies.Gahadwal themselves trace their lineage to Rashtrakutas.
11. The tragic fate of Varanasi after the defeat of the Jayachandra could be summarized in Hasan Nizami's own words. 1000 temples were destroyed in Varanasi alone and mosques were erected on their foundations. However the story doesn't end here. What followed in aftermath is an interesting contest between the religious bigotry on one side and resistance on the other. Hasan Nizami might be true when he narrated that 1000 temples were destroyed in Varanasi. However contrary to his assertion Muslims would not have been able to build the mosques in the city at that time as it took some time to pacify the north India and to bring it under their effective rule. Resistance to their authority and cases of conflict erupted time to time in one part or another creating chaos for sometime.
In such chaotic situation in 1212 AD Sena king of Bengal Vishvarupa erected a sacrificial post and victory pillar in the middle of the Varanasi in the kshetra (holy place) of Lord Vishweswara as attested by epigraphic evidence. (Just like Gahadvalas, Sena dynasty also survived for some time after the defeat of Lakshaman Sena).Kshetra of Vishweshwara is mentioned by the Lakshmidhara , albiet not as a major sacred place. As such it is raises the question on the intention behind choosing this particular place by Sena ruler. It is possible that Vishwarupa might not have capacity to commission a large structure ie temple to commemorate his victory either due to the constrain of time or money or both. So instead he chose the place in the middle of the city on the hill so as to have maximum effect of his message.Another speculation is that it matches with his name (Vishwarupa - Vishweshwara) and hence he chose that particular place.
What is however certain is that from that period onwards Vishweshwara / Vishwanath became the symbol of Hindu resistance to the Muslim iconoclasm and over the time rose in fame and sacredness. The first reaction of Muslim authority once they finally took the control of the city was to reclaim the Vishweshwara hill and to build a mosque. It was done during the short reign of Raziya Sultana. The mosque built by her still stands today. (Razia's mosque).
Since now the original place was occupied by mosque a decision must have been taken to built the new Vishweshwara temple, in the vicinity of original temple down the hill on the kshetra of original Avimukteshwar temple which itself must have been destroyed during first occupation of Varanasi by Muslims after Gahadvalas. According to Lakshmidhara, the location of original Avimukteshwara temple was on the little north of the well ie the site where Gyanvyapi mosque is located today. This new location must have become popular very quickly as indicated by work of Jinaprabhasuri, which labels one of the four zones of city after the name of Vishwanath temple. A new shrine was also commissioned by person named Padmasadhu outside the door of the new temple known as Padmeshwara. It is also certain that despite the obstructive attitude of the rulers many new shrines and places also emerged during the same time, some of them are the most popular places of the town today.
In the early part of the 15th century the Vishwanath/ Avimukteshwara temple along with Padmeshwara shrine was again exploited to get the material to build the royal mosque of newly found capital of Sharqi dynasty at Jaunpur . It is from the wall of the Lal Darwaza mosque at Jaunpur that the inscription stone of Padmeshwara shrine was found because of which it became possible to reconstruct the history.
The reconstruction of the new Vishwanath temple along with a shrine dedicated to Avimukteshwara was undertaken, perhaps on the grandest scale ever by person named Narayan Bhatta in 1585. However within a century the temple was again destroyed by the orders of Aurangzeb in 1669. And Gyanvypi mosque was erected on the location of the temple. After a century later Ahilyabai Holkar commissioned the construction of currently existing temple in 1777. And there ends the last chapter of saga of centuries of resistance.
Personally, I think that that both Gyanvapi mosque and Razia mosque should have been demolished. When Greeks threw off Turkish Yoke after 400 Years, they demolished each and every Mosque present in Greece. It was Nehru because of whose stupidity there are 14% muslims in India, and all these abominations are left standing.
12. Unfortunately after independence there emerged a series of morons who were mentally if not genetically descendants of Aurangzeb. They succeeded in portraying the image of that of a defeated subjugated nation ruled by the foreigners to the public, while in reality the heart of the civilization was pulsating all that time, the spirit of civilization was still alive resisting the Muslim dominance all the time as reflected in the cases like Somnath temple, Kashi Vishwanath and many other such cases. The saga of glorious resistance was completely omitted, only to be replaced by the completely mythical notion of secularism as defined by the examples such as coexistence of Gyanvyapi mosque and Kashi Vishwanath temple in the same premises. They resisted domination against all the odds while their progeny in an independent nation failed to even acknowledge it, forget about taking pride of their ancestors and their sacrifice.
@SarthakGanguly @Makaramarma @levina @Tridibans
Last edited:
