When Jats desecrated Akbar's mausoleum

[Samandri]

In 1685, Rajaram, a Jat zamindar at Sisini eight kilometers west of Agra strengthened fortress of hardened mud. Shileded by difficult terrain and bomboo/scrub forests these forts could beat off all but the most determined assaults. Already refusing to pay the revenue , Rajaram led his Jat clansmen to plunder traffic on Royal road. They even attempted to enter Sikandra to despoil Akbar’s tomb, but were driven back by the faujdar. Soon the overland route to Deccan was virtually closed. Even great nobles traveling with their entourages were not safe. In 1686, a Turani amir, Aghar Khan , who was marching from Kabul to Bijapur with his troops and household , tried to pursue the Jats who had plundered his baggage train. Outside the Jat fort he was killed along with his son-in-law and eighty of his followers.

In the late 1687 , Aurangzeb sent Bidar Bakht , his young grandson , north with troops to suppress the Jats. In the interim the newly appointed governor of the Punjab, Mahabat Khan, a former Hyderabad officer, had encamped near Sikandra on the Yamuna river. The Jats boldly attacked his camp in force and only retired after losing four hundred casualties.

Rajaram’s Jats outmaneuvered the local imperial forces and occupied Sikandra where they succeeded in looting Akbar’s tomb. According to Manucci,

“Already angered by the demands of the governors and faujdars for revenue , a great number of them (Jats) assembled and marched mausoleum of that great conqueror Akbar. Against him living they could effect nothing ; they therefore wreaked vengeance on his sepulchre. They began their pillage by breaking in the great gates of bronze which it had , robbing the valuable precious stones and plates…. of gold and silver , and destroying what they were not able to carry away. Dragging out the bones of Akbar, they threw them angrily into the fire and burnt them.”

The desecration of tomb was the greatest affront possible to the house and linage of Timur. After this incident Rajaram , the Jat leader , was killed by Mughal musketeer in a subsequent clash , but the Jat stronghold at Sinsini was untouched.

Aurangzeb responded to these events by commissioning the young Raja Bishun Singh Kachhwaha of Amber (Jaipur) as faujdar of Mathura and as jagirdar of Sinsai , the Jat stronghold. The new commander and his Rajput troops marched directly to the Jat stronghold and besieged it. After a four months siege, the Mughal troops laid a mine successfully , opened a breach and stormed the small fort. Fifteen hundreds Jats defenders and one thousand Mughal soldiers died in this battle. Another small fortress at Sogar fell to the Mughals. By January 1691, the Jat revolt around Agra was suppressed.

Source: The New Cambridge History of India, The Mughal Empire ,page 250-51
When Jats desecrated Akbar's mausoleum

 

[Proverbial_Slang]

Very interesting. Thanks for the share.

 

[third eye]

In 1685, Rajaram, a Jat zamindar at Sisini eight kilometers west of Agra strengthened fortress of hardened mud. Shileded by difficult terrain and bomboo/scrub forests these forts could beat off all but the most determined assaults. Already refusing to pay the revenue , Rajaram led his Jat clansmen to plunder traffic on Royal road. They even attempted to enter Sikandra to despoil Akbar’s tomb, but were driven back by the faujdar. Soon the overland route to Deccan was virtually closed. Even great nobles traveling with their entourages were not safe. In 1686, a Turani amir, Aghar Khan , who was marching from Kabul to Bijapur with his troops and household , tried to pursue the Jats who had plundered his baggage train. Outside the Jat fort he was killed along with his son-in-law and eighty of his followers.

In the late 1687 , Aurangzeb sent Bidar Bakht , his young grandson , north with troops to suppress the Jats. In the interim the newly appointed governor of the Punjab, Mahabat Khan, a former Hyderabad officer, had encamped near Sikandra on the Yamuna river. The Jats boldly attacked his camp in force and only retired after losing four hundred casualties.

Rajaram’s Jats outmaneuvered the local imperial forces and occupied Sikandra where they succeeded in looting Akbar’s tomb. According to Manucci,

“Already angered by the demands of the governors and faujdars for revenue , a great number of them (Jats) assembled and marched mausoleum of that great conqueror Akbar. Against him living they could effect nothing ; they therefore wreaked vengeance on his sepulchre. They began their pillage by breaking in the great gates of bronze which it had , robbing the valuable precious stones and plates…. of gold and silver , and destroying what they were not able to carry away. Dragging out the bones of Akbar, they threw them angrily into the fire and burnt them.”

The desecration of tomb was the greatest affront possible to the house and linage of Timur. After this incident Rajaram , the Jat leader , was killed by Mughal musketeer in a subsequent clash , but the Jat stronghold at Sinsini was untouched.

Aurangzeb responded to these events by commissioning the young Raja Bishun Singh Kachhwaha of Amber (Jaipur) as faujdar of Mathura and as jagirdar of Sinsai , the Jat stronghold. The new commander and his Rajput troops marched directly to the Jat stronghold and besieged it. After a four months siege, the Mughal troops laid a mine successfully , opened a breach and stormed the small fort. Fifteen hundreds Jats defenders died. Another small fortress at Sogar fell to the Mughals. By January 1691, the Jat revolt around Agra was suppressed.

Source: The New Cambridge History of India, The Mughal Empire ,page 250-51
When Jats desecrated Akbar's mausoleum

Thank you

Two things stand out - Given the terrain, distances involved & logistics challenges to the Seat of Delhi / Agra kept cropping up all along , some were suppressed some not. The area of Bharatpur too has a similar history .

Contrary to what is generally believed , Aurangzeb who spent the last 26 years of his life suppressing rebellions in the Deccan wisely took help & employed Hindu Kings & Generals who loyally fought for the Mughals.

 

[Samandri]

Thank you

Two things stand out - Given the terrain, distances involved & logistics challenges to the Seat of Delhi / Agra kept cropping up all along , some were suppressed some not. The area of Bharatpur too has a similar history .

Contrary to what is generally believed , Aurangzeb who spent the last 26 years of his life suppressing rebellions in the Deccan wisely took help & employed Hindu Kings & Generals who loyally fought for the Mughals.

The suppression of the Jats was temporary, they rose again after some years.

Deccan wars from 1680 to 1707 were of different scale, they were never-ending and were so exhausting and demoralizing for Mughals. In the last two decades of Aurangzeb, there were two parallel governments in Deccan, Marathas were also extracting chauth from town and villages. Aurangzeb did employ large numbers of Hindu officers including Marathas but he was generally inflexible and mistrustful of those maratha leaders who were carrying out insurgency. He announced "Jihad" against Marathas, which i think was unwise as he had also Rajput soldiers in his army

 

[third eye]

The suppression of the Jats was temporary, they rose again after some years.

Deccan wars from 1680 to 1707 were of different scale, they were never-ending and were so exhausting and demoralizing for Mughals. In the last two decades of Aurangzeb, there were two parallel governments in Deccan, Marathas were also extracting chauth from town and villages. Aurangzeb did employ large numbers of Hindu officers including Marathas but he was generally inflexible and mistrustful of those maratha leaders who were carrying out insurgency. He announced "Jihad" against Marathas, which i think was unwise as he had also Rajput soldiers in his army

The Mughals in the later years - Shan jahan & Aurengzeb had overstretched themselves to a point that their rule was like a leaking garden pipe .

 

[Bang Galore]

Yeah, I remember when I went to Akbar's tomb in Sikandra, I thought it very amusing when a guide brought in some tourists & loudly announced that "here lies the great Emperor Akbar".

 

[FULL_METAL]

Despicable act if true, they just copied the trend set by the followers of certain peaceful religion

 

[Capt.Popeye]

The suppression of the Jats was temporary, they rose again after some years.

Deccan wars from 1680 to 1707 were of different scale, they were never-ending and were so exhausting and demoralizing for Mughals. In the last two decades of Aurangzeb, there were two parallel governments in Deccan, Marathas were also extracting chauth from town and villages. Aurangzeb did employ large numbers of Hindu officers including Marathas but he was generally inflexible and mistrustful of those maratha leaders who were carrying out insurgency. He announced "Jihad" against Marathas, which i think was unwise as he had also Rajput soldiers in his army

The last underlined part is interesting, since some of the Maratha Chieftains themselves had Rajput forbears who had migrated to the Deccan as soldiers of fortune.

 

[ArsalanKhan21]

What is the point of grave desecrations ? These people are dead and gone for centuries.The graves of the European colonial conquerors lie in their mother country or in colonized countries that they conquered brutally. Reginald Dyer who committed Jallianwala Bagh massacre lies peacefully in his grave in Britain. Kalapahad, a Muslim general who converted to Islam before marrying a Muslim princess, conquered Odissa and was later buried in Sambalpur in Odisha. The tomb of Kalapahad and graves of his soldiers were destroyed in 2006 by RSS Hindu zealists. Genghiz Khan the world's biggest mass genocide leader was buried in secret location and all the traces of location of his grave were wiped when all the soldiers and the servants of the burying party were massacred to prevent future grave desecration.

 

[babur_khan_is_sunni_turk]

turks and sunnis dont like akbar shah or shah ismail safavi. timur aint liked either.

the great turk sultan aurangzeb, who gave the vast turk world fatawa alamgiri or aka fatawa hindiya to other turks outside the sub-continent, is unlikely to do this for the sake of akbar so it is suspect. the source is foreign, english, so even more suspect. turk sultan aurangzeb probably attacked rebels but not for the sake of akbar.

 

[ArsalanKhan21]

turks and sunnis dont like akbar shah or shah ismail safavi. timur aint liked either

Mughals lost their Turk ethnicity as they had local mothers. Mughal Emperor Babar was Central Asian ethnic Turk and later his descendants identified with the local population and fought wars against the other Central Asian Turks. Amir Timur was another barbaric conqueror who destroyed existing Muslim kingdoms in Middle East. Shah Ismail was an Azerbaijani Turk who followed Alevi ghulat beliefs and imposes Shia on Persian population.

 

[babur_khan_is_sunni_turk]

Mughals lost their Turk ethnicity as they had local mothers.

incorrect. if this is the logic, there are no turks in pakistan, egypt, turkey, india, russia, china,... as they had local mothers. turk and sunni lineage is paternal. if father is turk then children are turk. mother not relevant.

ethnic turks from the sub-continent:

Mughal Emperor Babar was Central Asian ethnic Turk and later his descendants identified with the local population and fought wars against the other Central Asian Turks.

babri turks did not call themselves mughal. babri turks were educated in their turk dialect till the end of the empire. sunni othmani turks (turkey) fought sunni mamluk turks (egypt).

Amir Timur was another barbaric conqueror who destroyed existing Muslim kingdoms in Middle East.

already answered. does "another barbaric conqueror" mean ghaznavis, saljuks, mamluks of cairo, mamluks of delhi, babris, othmanis?

turks and sunnis dont like akbar shah or shah ismail safavi. timur aint liked either.

Shah Ismail was an Azerbaijani Turk who followed Alevi ghulat beliefs and imposes Shia on Persian population.

intrinsic attribute of a turk is sunni. sunni hanafi maturidi & nakshibandi is preferance.

shah ismail is pars property. not turks. shah ismail is shiite ithna ashari. same as those currently spreading peace in syria, irak, yemen, pakistan, afghanistan,... like past 500+ years.

in defence of shah ismail he didnt bring shiiteism from central asia. shiiteism was in persia. shiite pars are primary suspects for his condition.

iran has 40 million turks. shah ismail killed sunni hanafi turks the most in persia. as sunni hanafi turks militarily dominated the region (persia, india, egypt, turkey, ...). shah ismail terrorised all sunnis (turk, pars, arab, kurd, ...).