Indian History: Battles were not fought due to religion or over communal factors, stop distorting medieval India's history

Shams Ur Rehman Alavi

Do you know who led the Mughal army that fought Mewar, nearly 450 years ago?

It was led by Man Singh. 

The imperial Mughal army had Hindus and Muslims. Mewar's forces also had both Hindus and Muslims.

Today, Man Singh is not disliked or hated. In fact, the historians or tourist guides in Gwalior, mention his name with respect and omit the part of his being an ally of the Mughals or the one who launched attack on Mewar. 

They also take his rival, Rana Pratap's name with respect. But the Emperor who was served by Man Singh, is these days seen differently though it was under his dynasty that the modern India took shape as a single geographic entity.

The dislike against Akbar and the Mughal dynasty is because of the Emperors' religion. Though religion was not the most important factor in medieval era. Muslims fought Muslim rulers just like Hindus fought Hindu rulers. 

It was loyalty that was rewarded. Alliances that serve purpose were valued. Babar fought and defeated Ibrahim Lodi. Both were Muslims. It was just like the Jaunpur state would battle Delhi in the past, during the era of Husain Sharqi and Bahlul Lodi.

Hakim Khan Sur had also fought against the Mughal army. There are innumerable examples. In medieval era, people fought for power or prestige but were not petty to look at everything from a religious lens.

The battle of Haldighati was not the sole such battle. All attempts to communalize, fall flat. In media and popular narrative, Raja Man Singh is not seen in negative light despite the fact that he led Mughal army.

But, the Mughal kings are portrayed negatively. Not just Raja Man Singh, all those chieftains of Rajputana and other parts of the country who were in alliance with Mughals, are praised individually and media praises them for their power in the regions though they were subservient to the Mughal emperor.

Were the North Indian or even South Indian rulers who never opposed Delhi or later allied with British rule, bad? And the lone man who died fighting, is termed villain! Ironical that Tipu Sultan symbolized courage, fought and defeated British before he finally attained martyrdom.

But rulers of most princely states who remained pro-British and accepted the suzerainty, are celebrated and eulogized in the different regions. Alliance or accepting the secondary status to continue their rule locally, is not seen as betrayal.

Respect courage, then praise everyone's valour or condemn the cowards too. Medieval era was different. They had their culture, traditions and alliances as per need of the hour. Read with open mind, without bias and taking sides.

It was on June 18, 1576 that the battle of Haldighati was fought.

The battle like many others were not about Hinduism or Islam. Almost all the other Rajput states' rulers were with the Mughal kingdom. Similarly, Muslim soldiers were part of Mewar army too.

Now let's go to another century. Or see the case of Deccan or other parts. Shivaji's army had a large number of Muslims. He had Muslim generals and confidantes.

Unfortunately, after independence people who were in search for heroes of their communities, in order to connect self with them and boost own ego, started looking for personalities from religious and other angles, like kinship. Communalism was injected and battles, personalities were chosen as 'our' or 'their' in this race.