Talk:Rani Padmini

Legend of Rani Padmini

Maharani Padmavati, was one of the 15 wives of Maharawal Ratnasimha, and his chief consort along with Rani Nagmati. She has been, according to Padmavat, a fictionalized retelling of her legend by Muhammad Jayasi, given a Sri Lankan (Sinhala) origin though this is a contradiction ridden claim. A stronger possibility gives her origin as a princess of Jaisalmer or of Sinhala, a village near Sojat in Pali district of Rajasthan.

Somewhere around 1297 CE, Alauddin Khilji, the Turkic Muslim Sultan of Delhi is advised by his Kotwal officer that he would have to conquer Ranthambore, Chittor, Chanderi, Dhar and Ujjain before he could embark on a further conquest of India. After the invasion of Ranthambore, Alauddin Khilji set his eyes on Chittor. Wary of hostilities against the friendly State of Chittor, out of fear of rebellion from other Rajput kingdoms, Khilji puts off the idea of an invasion there till an satisfactory cause of assault is to be found. A treacherous Rajput with a vendetta against Ratnasimha tells Khilji about Rani Padmini and her legendary beauty, who could be used as a scapegoat to justify Alauddin's march with his army to Chittor. Thus on January 28 January 1303, Alauddin Khilji marched to Chittor.

On the way to the fort, he stops in a city of a Khanzada and demands reinforcements. The Khanzada, an ally of Chittor, is forced to give him contingents of his troops but he also uses the time to send messengers to Chittor to be prepared for an abrupt Siege.

A rough garrison of approximately 10,000 Rajput Warriors and 30,000 Civilians (from outside the Fort) lead by Maharawal Ratan Singh gathered inside the fort. The Delhi Sultan arrives in just three days, setting up a camp between the Berach and Gambhiri rivers. His vast army also surrounded the fort from all the sides. Khilji then seemingly makes a strategic blunder directly demanding Rani Padmini and all the attractive women alongside her in the fort to be handed over in order to put off the Siege, an irrational proposal at best. Khilji's army in the event of believing they were not marching for conquest but for the sake of single-minded lust of their Sultan, may have threatened to disband on learning about Padmini being the sole objective hence additional demand for more women as a reward for his men for this whole subterfuge is thus explained.

For obvious reasons of honor and prestige, Maharawal Ratan Singh refuses and inside the fort, the Rajput warriors geared up for war and defense of the women unaware that Khilji never cared for the womenfolk as a primary objective in this campaign.

A long siege of around 7-8 months takes place with catapults (munjaniqs) from the Khilji camp occasionally hurling rocks and the same rocks and rubble being hurled back from the Fort. According to Khusro who accompanied Alauddin Khilji in his campaign, two frontal assaults by the Turkic invaders failed in utter defeat.

Eventually Khilji sends another proposal of a meeting with Ratan Singh which he accepts to end this stalemate as it is contemplated that the fort may have entered an epidemic or famine due to lack of proper stocks.

Seated in Khilji's pavilion for negotiations, Alauddin demands just a glimpse at the legendary beauty of Rani Padmini, promising he would then immediately leave with his army. Ratan Singh refuses this blatantly again for the sake of traditional Prestige. This being taken as an excuse for treachery by Alauddin Khilji and has him ordering Ratan Singh to be seized.

Again the Delhi Sultan demands Rani Padmini and the other women as ransom for releasing Ratnasimha. In order to ensure no low-born women would be substituted as royal beauties, Alauddin also adds the clause that even if a single one of the women appeared repulsive in his opinion, Ratan Singh would be beheaded.

Within the fort itself, Rani Padmini boldly declares her resolve to never surrender to the invader. However there is then still the issue of rescuing Ratan Singh. Gora (Gaurai) and Badal (Vadal), blood relatives of Rani Padmini take up personally the endeavor of rescuing Maharawal Ratan who was place in the front of the Khilji camp in the open for the “exchange”. A plan proportionate to scheming tactics of the Delhi Sultan is made. The plan takes place and Khilji is hood-winked by the Palaquins which arrive bearing not women or Rani Padmini but the best of the warriors of Chittor. In the havoc, Maharawal Ratan is rescued and taken to the fort by Badal while a Skirmish is started at the first gate as the Rajput warriors fall back while Gora goes on to hunt for Alauddin.

According to local folklore, Gora finds him in a tent raping a small girl captured from a nearby farm. On seeing Gora, the Delhi Sultan instinctively throws the girl at him forcing Gora to step back and grab her. In this short interval, Khilji turns back and runs. Gora is quickly stabbed multiple times by Khilji’s body-guards but is said to have managed at slashing at Alauddin’s rear. At the Fort, The first Gate is compromised as the falling back rescue party's skirmish increases in intensity as more Turkic soldiers pour into the field and overpower the first barricade and second Gate would fall in a few days.

Hence the Jauhar (Self-immolation in fire) takes place on Padmini’s decision when it is understood that the battle would end in defeat, followed with the warriors donning the "Kesariya Bana". Saka is a practice which would generally accompany Jauhar if the immolation of the women took place in face of apparent defeat as opposed to after defeat. Every man capable of wielding weapons does so, and wears Saffron clothing consisting of Dhoti, Angarkha and a Pagri (turban). The armour is completely removed as it is believed to merely slow down the rate of the deaths of the would-be Martyrs and increases the chances of being captured alive. The men apply the ashes of their wives, mothers, daughters and sisters on their forehead while placing a Tulsi leaf under their tongue. The Gates of Chittor were then hurled open and the Rajput forces galloped out with fury at the Khilji army, which hurried to equip themselves and meet the charge on a small hill near the Chittor fort. Heavy toll is taken on Khilji's army but eventually by sheer numbers and armour of the Turks, the Rajputs are eventually defeated. Maharawal Ratan Singh and Vadal martyr in the first wave. The second and final charge takes place lead by Lakshmansimha. The Fort falls after this and Alauddin Khilji enters the fort on 26 August 1303 and dispatches his men in a hurry to find the women. However the entire Siege is apparently a Pyrrhic endeavor after all as they only find ashes of the women all about and go on a rampage out of apparent sexual frustration.

30,000 Hindu civilians who could not take up arms in Saka or did not do Jauhar are ordered to be murdered and mutilated. Many temples, monuments and palaces as could be were destroyed, but according to legend, excepting Padmini's. The fort is renamed Khizrabaad after the son of Alauddin Khilji, Khizr Khan who was declared the Heir Apparent to the Delhi Throne. However since Khizr was still a boy, the actual administration was handed over to a slave named Malik Shahin, who held the office of naib-i barbek, and whom Alauddin called his son. Alauddin Khilji then leaves with the remainder of his forces to Delhi due to the invasions by the Mongols.

The Fort is later retaken over in under 10 years by Hindu Sisodia Rajput, Hammir Singh, under whose reign, Chittor returned to it's former glory and prosperity. Kamlesh4rmBhopal (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

References

[Untitled]

Rajkahini in bengali by Rabanindranath Tagore contains a more vivid picture of the hstory

Untitled

Khilji wanted to win Chittor because sisodiyas of Chittor never accepted the rule of Islam. Another reason was Rani Padmini. He laid a siege but Chittor would not fall. Then he requested Rawal Ratan Singh, husband of Rani Padmini, that if he is allowed a glimpse of Rani he would leave. By this time the situation inside the fort was getting bad. Rawal discussed this with his advisers and they agreed that they can show Padmini's face in a mirror to the sultan. The meeting took place and afterwards out of courtesy when Ratan Singh was walking Khilji out of the palace, Khilji's men captured Rawal Ratan Singh. Khilji sent a message to the fort that Rawal can be spared by exchanging Rani Padmini. Padmini discussed this with Gora, her maternal uncle, who was a Chauhan rajput. Gora told her not to worry and that he would go and bring back Rawal Ratan Singh and Sultan is not brave enough to stop him. Padmini's nephew Badal who was just sixteen also assured her. A message was sent from the fort to Khilji that Padmini would come with 700 of her servants in "palanquins" (palki in hindi) and that no Muslim soldier should peek inside the palki to outrage the modesty of the women. Letter also said that before Padmini meets khilji she would like to talk to Rawal. Khilji agreed. All the palki's had the best rajput warriors with two swords each. When Padmini's palki, which was occupied by Gora, reached Rawal's tent he asked Rawal to mount the horse and go back to the fort. Then Gora gave a signal and every rajput came out of the palki and attacked the Muslims who were cut to pieces. Gora reached Khilji's tent and was about to kill the sultan when khilji moved his concubine in front of himself. Gora, being a rajput could not kill an innocent women and these few seconds were enough for Khilji's guards to kill Gora from behind.

Hello

I am a new User on Wikipedia. I previously made a few edits here. I want to know if I can post the completely summary of Padmini's story (Not Padmavati of Jayasi) in this page. There is no mention of discussions on her life (how she may be from Sinha Village rather than Sri Lanka) but only on the various tales on her. The only issue would be that some of the material would be unsourced. Any any seasoned editor would like to tabs on it?

I made new edits on here, with as many sources as I could find. Some of the details were taken from Vernacular Rajput legends.Kamlesh4rmBhopal (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kamlesh4rmBhopal: The summary of the story (and its various versions) is already present in the section Rani Padmini#Legendary accounts. Also, all of the material should be sourced as per Wikipedia's verifiability policy. utcursch | talk 14:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The reason I added the entire legend is because there is no single coherrent narrative of her story. I gave sources for as many aspects as I could get.

If the legend of Padmini is not fully described here (with Saka charges, conspiracy, analysis of Padmini's historicity etc.), then where else can it be put? There cannot be the presence of it in Siege of Chittor page, or Ratan Singh page or Gora Badal page or in the Padmavat (which is the tale by Jayasi and not the proper general narration. Kamlesh4rmBhopal (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

If there is a widely-accepted historical reconstruction of Padmini published in a reliable source, a new section can be added to the article. Your own original research is not acceptable. utcursch | talk 16:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I can remove my personal analysis if this is a problem. We can pen down the section in this manner:- Background on Padmini, situation at Chittor before the Siege (The details taken from Ms.Ramya's work as well as historic corroboration)> Siege contents > the negotiation> the treacherous capture and Gora-Badal rescue (I have historical sources for it) > The Jauhar and Saka > Chittor Massacre and Khilji's return to Delhi > a final paragraph about retaking of the Chittor fort by Hammir Singh Sisodia.

There is a serious need of a single coherent narration as it is not available easily and Wiki is the chief source for the public. Not many people would check out the Talk page for my work.

Also, can you please let me change the name of Ratan Sen to either Maharawal Ratan Singh or Maharawal Ratnasimha as only these two names are ever taken as his real historic names in any Historical work, or even pop culture. Ratan Sen is just a (obvious goof-up) version of the name in Padmavat, which is a fictional version of the story with many contradictions as well. Kamlesh4rmBhopal (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but mixing up different legends as history on your own is unacceptable synthesis. If you find a source that meets WP:HISTRS criteria and describes a historical reconstruction of Padmini, feel free to add it to the article. Everything that is unanimously accepted as historical is already mentioned at Siege of Chittorgarh (1303).

As for the name:

• "Ratan Sen" / "Ratansen" is the name of Padmini's husband not only in the Padmavat, but also in Gora Badal Padmini Chaupai, and the adaptions of these texts.
• "Bhim Singh" / "Bhimsinha" is the name of Padmini's husband in bardic legends collected by James Tod, and the Bengali adaptions based on Tod's account.
• "Ratnasiṃha" is the name used in the Guhila king's own inscription, as well as the inscriptions of his extended family, which do not mention Padmini at all.
• "Maharawal Ratan Singh" is a vernacular corruption of the Sanskrit "Maharajakula Ratnasiṃha", and does not appear as the king's name in any of the original Padmini legends. It is used in relatively recent works that identify "Ratan Sen" or "Bhim Singh" of the legends with Ratnasiṃha.

If you want to describe modern adaptions of the legend (or accounts based on it) that mention the king's name as "Ratan Singh", feel free to do so with references. But it's just plain wrong to suggest that the original Padmini legends mention the king's name as "Ratan Singh". utcursch | talk 19:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Chhitai-Charita

A 1966 article by Dasharatha Sharma states that he received an advance copy of the pre-Padmavat text Chhitai-Charita or Chhitai-Varta edited by Agar Chand Nahata ("Was Padmini a Mere Figment of Jayasi's Imagination?" Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 23: 176-7. 1966.). This copy apparently mentions Padmini, and contains the following quote (Alauddin to Raghochetana):

“ I heard of Padmini at Chitor. I went (there) and made Ratanasena my captive. But Badala managed to free and take him away. If I do not succeed in having Chhitai this time, I shall sacrifice my head at Devagiri. ”

If this is true, Chhitai-Charita, not Padmavat, would be the earliest extant source to mention Rani Padmini (although it does not contain the full legend). I've come across some books (mostly from 1970s), which make this assertion, citing Dasharatha Sharma's article as their source. However, these books are not written by highly reputed scholars, and the claim is missing in the recent authoritative works on the topic.

For example, Ramya Sreenivasan, in her The Many Lives of a Rajput Queen, lists Dasharatha Sharma's 1966 article in the bibliography (p. 263). On page 47, she mentions Chhitai-Varta, dating it to c. 1520. However, she does not seem to acknowledge that the Chhitai-Varta mentions the name "Padmini". On page 50, she simply states:

“ Narayandas explicitly linked Alauddin's conquests of Ranthambor, Chitor, and Deogir, and ascribed them all to the sultan's desire for their queens. ”

On page 27, she states:

“ The first available text for the story of Padmini of Chitor, then, is the Sufi Malik Muhammad Jayasi's Padmavat. ”

Does anyone have more information on this? Was Dasharatha Sharma misled? (E.g. maybe the Chhitai-Charita only mentions "the queen of Chittor", and Amar Chand Nahata replaced it with "Padmini"). Or have the recent scholars overlooked Chhitai-Charita because it makes only a passing mention of the queen? utcursch | talk 15:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Oldest source

Swarajya Mag has also critized Mrs.Ramya for her "debunkings" on the basis of her own assertion that Padmavat by Mohd.Jayasi is the oldest source on Padmini.

https://swarajyamag.com/ideas/rani-padmini-putting-the-record-straight

Even this book criticizes this notion of making Padmini a imaginary queen on the premise that she was a creation by Jayasi.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=mIrXAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA95&dq=padmini+chittor+real+book&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzopTptr_WAhXFQo8KHfzbDLo4FBC7BQgpMAE#v=onepage&q=padmini%20chittor%20real%20book&f=false

Anybody will wonder why just one out of the 15 Wives, Mother of 2-3 children, Non-Rajasthani origined queen of Ratan Singh would be made a Heroine in a story written *237* years after the Siege of Chittor about a invader who was as cruel without needing besmirching and villainous already appearing in various other legends. Kamlesh4rmBhopal (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I've moved your comment to a separate sub-section, because neither of those links provide any information about Chhitai-Charita.

As for the links provided by you, neither Vikas Saraswat nor Jayendra P. Sanghani are qualified historians. See WP:HISTRS. utcursch | talk 16:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

What is her name?

Is it Padmini or Padmavati? The article keeps switching between the two in different places. If her name is Padmavati, why is the article titled Padmini? Or if her name is Padmini, why is Padmavati used in most of the article? This is confusing. 2.51.20.210 (talk) 09:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@2.51.20.210: Padmavati and Padmini, both are her names so the article called her both names. HINDWIKI • CHAT 13:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

In the Padmavat, padmini is a category of women (see Notes under References), and Padmavati is the name of the queen who belongs to this category of women. In some of the subsequent adaptions, "Padmini" is the name of the queen. This article should probably be moved to Padmavati (queen) or something similar. utcursch | talk 16:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2017

Change from "According to the Islamic mythology (Quran 27.22-28), King Solomon once set out on an expedition...." to "According to the Quranic narration (Quran 27.22-28), King Solomon once set out on an expedition...." Ajazio (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Corrections in the article (Section: Read Also)

It was Kamala Devi who was forcibly married off to Khilji not Deval Devi who was her daughter with Karan Vaghela. Fix this please.

And also it is *Drank not Drunk115.97.36.254 (talk) 07:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done utcursch | talk 15:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is it more important to say the invader was Muslim than write his name.

I have changed a edited this wiki Page. The edit made was changing the "Muslim invader" to "an invader" and a few times "the Sultan of Delhi Alauddin Khalji". This is seems has been a huge issue because it keeps getting changed back to "Muslim" I have asked the question it seems in a private grouo.woth the people who are changing it back. But only one person has been decent enough to respond. The change was to remove Muslim and replace with the Sultan of Delhi, which directly explained who the invader was, I think this was rather more relevant than just a "Muslim invader" which means the identity of the person wasn't known just his religion. However his identity is known, and his name was added. This seemed to be unacceptable and "Muslim" was a requirement. So I used "an invader" this would again highlight the point Aswell. For an unknown reason many users where adamant the name of the invader wasn't pertinent but the religion was. I'm hoping this will explain the reason for the change. If any wishes to add the name of the invader fanstastic, his religion has no bearing on the story, unless it's being intimated that because the Sultan was a Muslim the invasion took place, and his religion was to blame not him as man.. Thank you for your time. Pakmanuk786 (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It's "an unknown reason" because you never bothered to discuss it here, and now you've simply gone ahead and made the same revert. My patience is at an end. Reported for edit warring. The Mighty Glen (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The Sultan is mentioned, by name and title, in the previous paragraph. It shouldn't show up in two successive paragraphs at the top of the article. It seems as if the theme of the story requires that the antagonist be a foreign ruler. What if we replaced "Muslim" with Sultan? David in DC (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

That sentence in the lede:

Several subsequent adaptions of the legend characterised her as a Hindu Rajput queen, who defended her honour against a Muslim invader.

...is merely talking about later versions of the legend, and is supported by sections of the article below. What exactly is the problem with saying that people told the story in the context of the centuries of periodic religious, cultural, linguistic, and military contention, too well known and too well documented to dispute here? By all means add "Sultan" too if you wish, but the lede is describing a version of the legend with a religious element introduced by later tellers of the story, and the assertion that the Sultan's religion has no bearing on any versions of the story is incorrect. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pakmanuk786: The relevant sentence is talking about modern characterization of the legend, not the historical reality, or as it is described in the original Padmvat. This modern 'Hindu Rajput vs invader Muslim' characterization, whether one disagrees it with or not, is an important aspect of the topic. It is directly supported by an authoritative source cited in the article:

Ramya Sreenivasan, p. 3

These Bengali narratives reinterpreted the legend yet again to celebrate a Hindu queen who had immolated herself to defend her chastity against a lustful, treacherous Muslim invader.

Ramya Sreenivasan, p. 19

The story of a heroic Rajput queen immolating herself rather than surrendering to a lustful Muslim conqueror gained new significance within the heroic traditions of a largely Hindu nationalist historiography.

Besides this, several recent news/magazine articles (e.g. The Economist) have also covered the 'Hindu vs Muslim' characterization of the legend. utcursch | talk 14:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Since "sultan" is an exclusively Islamic term (or at least that's what our Wikipedia article says about it), I had hoped to finesse the issue raised by our new editor; a successful collaboration might help put them on the right path here. But I understand your point and won't continue on that score. David in DC (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• "your patience is at its end"... "didn't bother to ask"..

The latter statement as antagonist is it is, I was unaware of the rules.

As for you patience, that's of no concern.

To the issue at hand. Regardless the RELIGION HAS NO BEARING!. We've established the religion earlier on, explains the differences and issues etc however the need to have "Muslim invader" doesn't... I've made this point on NUMEROUS OCCASIONS. Sommething is seriously worrying if that's acceptable to you.

The speed in which and the anger this has ruled up in most of the users, especially after I explained my position. Yet no one seems to take on board what is said. It's more acceptable to wrote "Muslim invader" than invader or "Sultan of Delhi" One can't help think the racist undertones in this page.

One to think about, hopefully the decency will allow this change to to be made.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakmanuk786 (talk • contribs)

Hi, welcome back from your block for edit warring. The rules about it were repeatedly explained to you at your talk page, and you chose to ignore them. Now kindly refrain from making any further offensive and pointless accusations of racism. Please also read Utcursch's explanation above on why the word "Muslim" is entirely appropriate, as is the word "Hindu" in the same sentence. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - The historical sources were clearly stereotyping, which is inappropriate in a modern context. I think we shouldn't make these comments in Wikipedia voice. If a WP:HISTRS can be found that comments on these issues, we can cite it and suitably attribute it. Otherwise, this is completely inappropriate. Pinging RegentsPark and Vanamonde93 for additional input. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)