Tag: Who Invited Babur

‘Babur Was Scared of Rana, Viewed Him as Chief Obstacle to Rule India’

By LokMarg

Prof R S Khangarot, an acclaimed academic and history scholar from Rajasthan, says the claim that Sanga invited Babur is a fabricated narrative. His views

The legacy of Rajput king Rana Sanga has often been distorted by half-baked historians and misinformed narratives circulated in contemporary discourse. Some claim that he invited Babur to India, a notion that is historically inaccurate and misleading. The facts, as supported by authentic sources, tell a different story—one of unwavering resistance and unparalleled valour against foreign invaders, particularly the Mughals.

Historical records indicate that Babur feared Rana Sanga more than any other Indian ruler of the time. The Rajput king of Mewar was a formidable warrior, having defeated the Delhi Sultan Ibrahim Lodi twice. By the early 16th century, Sanga had consolidated power in Rajputana and formed alliances with brave leaders like Raja Medini Rai and Hasan Khan Mewati. Together, they aimed to stop Babur’s expansion into India. Their efforts culminated in the Battle of Khanwa on March 16, 1527, a confrontation that significantly altered Indian history.

Despite losing one hand, one leg, one eye, and sustaining over 80 battle scars, Rana Sanga remained an indomitable force. His courage was evident when he nearly defeated Babur’s forces at Khanwa. Initially, the Rajput army pushed the Mughals to the brink of retreat, but a turning point came when a stray arrow struck Rana Sanga’s head, causing confusion among his troops.

Babur, seizing the opportunity, used his artillery and superior military strategy to regain control, securing a hard-fought victory. This was the only defeat Rana Sanga suffered in 25 years of rule, but it did not diminish his legacy as a warrior who never bowed to foreign aggression.

ALSO READ: ‘Labels Like Traitor or Patriot Do Not Sit Well With History’

A month before Khanwa, Sanga had already defeated the Mughal forces at the Battle of Bayana, proving his military acumen. His ability to unite the Rajputs under one banner was an extraordinary achievement, making it the only time in history when all Rajput rulers collectively fought against an external force. Notably, his army included not just Rajputs but warriors from various communities and religions, demonstrating a broader resistance movement against foreign rule.

The claim that Rana Sanga invited Babur to India is a fabrication propagated by historians like Rushbrook Williams, who lacked authentic sources. Nowhere in credible historical records does it state that Sanga extended an invitation to Babur. On the contrary, Sanga viewed Babur as an invader who needed to be repelled. If anything, it was Babur who saw Sanga as an obstacle to his ambitions and recognized the strategic necessity of eliminating him.

In conclusion, Rana Sanga did not need Babur; rather, Babur needed to eliminate Sanga to establish Mughal rule in India. Portraying Sanga as a collaborator is a gross misrepresentation of history. His name should be remembered not as a traitor, but as a defender of India, a warrior who fought against foreign invasions with unparalleled bravery and resilience.

As told to Deepti Sharma

‘Labels Like ‘Traitor’ or ‘Patriot’ Do Not Sit Well With Real History’

By LokMarg

CN Subramaniam, a History scholar, says before passing judgement on a historical figure one must understand the political context of the associated era. His views:

Before passing any sweeping statement on the ongoing controversy over Rajput warrior Rana Sanga, I believe we need to understand the larger political scenario of 16th century South Asian politics and the political maneuvers of rulers of that era. The Afghans, Mughals, and also the Rajputs were essentially kin-based polities which were trying to develop some kind of centralised institutions so as to be able to gain control over an increasingly ‘commercialising subcontinent’.

Their main struggle was against their own kinfolk – on the one hand they tried to widen their own blood support by marrying into powerful families (Rana Sanga had more than 25 wives, if I am not mistaken, from different Rajput clans); and, on the other hand, they were trying to undermine the control of established kinsmen (as in the case of Ibrahim and Daulat Khan Lodi, Rana Sanga, and his brother, Prithviraj, and, Humayun and his brothers.)

The Mughals, incidentally, never called themselves Mughal, as it had a derogatory, tribal connotation. All rulers of the subcontinent had a multi-ethnic and multi-religious support system, as their own kin-based system was unreliable and insufficient. This could be in the form of inter-dynastic alliances, subordinate but friendly lineages, etc. So no one was purely Rajput, Lodi or Mughal, or Hindu or Muslim, in that sense.

As commerce revived in the 16th century in a big way, it was increasingly becoming imperative to establish larger political units to facilitate and reap the benefits of trade. Especially, these also needed a centralised administration, beyond tribal and kin-based controls. So they had to both expand their territories and internally centralise power. This, naturally, faced much resistance.

ALSO READ: ‘Reckless Remarks Against Rana Sanga Are Politically Motivated’

There was no notion of ‘insider’ or ‘outsider’ in the sense of being Indian and foreign. Or, for that matter, Hindu or Muslim, or permanent friends and foes. Salhadi Tomar of Raisen, a problematic ally of Rana Sangha in Khanwa, was well known for converting and reconverting from Hinduism to Islam and back. Everything was fluid.

Rana Sanga was trying to build a confederacy of Rajput clans under his leadership to expand his kingdom. Around the time Babur arrived, he had become a major contender for control over the key political centres of north India.

The Lodis were also a confederation of Afghan and Rajput clans trying to maintain control over the remnants of the Delhi Sultanate. Babur entered this scene — he had no kingdom worth mentioning, but he had managed to gain control over the segments of Changezi clans, and had powerful military hardware and strategy. He was betting on this.

Let us remember that Babur did not need any invitation to conquer Hindustan. He had no other option. But he could do with some allies — at least, temporarily.

Rana Sanga, likewise, may have hoped that he could divide the Sultanate territory with Babur. So he may have suggested a joint action against the Lodis. That is what emerges from Baburnama; and Nainsi, the Rajasthan chronicler, is somewhat reticent about Rana Sanga.

The references to Rana Sanga’s invitation in Baburnama is: “Although an envoy had come to us from Rana Sanga, the infidel, while we were in Kabul, and offered his support, saying, ‘If the padishah comes from that direction to the environs of Delhi, I will attack Agra from this direction’. I had defeated Ibrahim and taken Delhi and Agra. Uptill then, this infidel had done nothing. Sometime later, he did lay siege to the fortress known as Kandar…”

Evidently, the Rana refrained from attacking Agra when Babar was engaging Ibrahim Lodi in Panipat and preferred to wait and watch. He later began advancing towards Bayana and Agra which alarmed Babur and he decided to stop him. So, after all, Rana Sanga did move towards Agra, but after Babur had taken control of it.

The Battle of Khanwa was decisive in that the Rajput-Hasan Khan Mewati armies were trounced and decimated. Sanga had to leave the battlefield and was subsequently killed by his kinsmen and nobles. Mewati died in the battle. A son from a senior wife (Ratan Singh) became the Rana, but two sons of a junior queen went over to Babur to get control over Ranthambore, as promised by their father.

I don’t think labels like ‘traitor’ or ‘patriot’ are useful in this context. They were empire-builders and we need to judge them by what they set out to do, how much they could accomplish, and where they failed. As a matter of fact, all three, Babur, Lodi and Sanga did try – but failed. It was left to Akbar to accomplish the task – definitely, with the help of Rajputs, Indian Muslims and the Afghans.

(The narrator, popularly called Subbu, has worked with Eklavya, a path-breaking initiative in school education for developing social science curriculum, in close coordination with various state councils of educational research & training (SCERTs). He lives in Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh.)