Talk:Maharana Pratap/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Rima Hooja

Why is Rima Hooja unreliable?

Will someone enlighten me? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Hooja is cited by major scholars among them Gregory Possehl (for her early work) and Cynthia Talbot (for her later work). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Her early work has been cited over 40 times on Google Scholar; Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

her history of Rajasthan has been cited nearly 60 times on Google Scholar; Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

The book is not only mentioned several times by Talbot in her Prithviraj book, but it has been cited extensively by Yamini Narayanan of Deakin University in her book, Religion, Heritage, and Sustainable City: Hinduism and Urbanisation in Jaipur, Routledge, 2015. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

She is the editor of SAGE's Journal of Heritage Management Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Prima facie, the review of her book on Rana Pratap in the Hindu weekly magazine does not seem to be an unmitigated disaster. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Neither is the review in Livemint. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

How is Ziya Us Salam a competent critic? Ramya Sreenivasan, an Associate Professor in the Department of History at the University of Pennsylvania, specializing in Rajput History reviews:

[I]n chapters covering the historical period, the citations become increasingly sparse, especially in the case of primary sources from the period being described.

[T]he book reflects many of the biases and shortcomings of the historiography of Rajasthan. This includes an overwhelming reliance on local scholars, to the exclusion of most of the scholarship carried on at research locations outside Rajasthan (like Delhi).

Such omissions – for instance, of most of the articles published in peer-reviewed historical journals outside Rajasthan over the past four decades – have conceptual consequences. [..] This local scholarship has largely limited itself, however, inferences that can be drawn from the literal content of those sources. Scholars in Rajasthan have typically not interrogated the categories deployed in such sources – such as the continuity of a lineage, or the conventional descriptions of kings as displaying the idealized attributes of kingship, for example – as themselves historically contingent.

The most significant consequence of this reliance on local scholarship is an uncritical acceptance of traditional accounts about the region’s past, invariably told from the perspective of its Rajput ruling elites. Thus, notably, Hooja does not describe the scholarly debate on the evolving social boundaries of the Rajput elite between the fifteenth and nineteenth centuries. Scholars working on parts of northern, central and western India beyond today’s province of Rajasthan, have established conclusively that between the fifteenth and nineteenth centuries, the category of ‘Rajput’ denoted a relatively open-ended status group in this wider region, offering membership over the centuries to numerous successful soldiering groups of uncertain ‘caste’ (jati) origins. In contrast, the scholarship on Rajasthan that Hooja relies on has accepted the self-definition by the various Rajput ruling lineages from around the late sixteenth century onwards of their upper-caste origins (typically "Brahmin" or "kshatriya").

[S]he does not perceive historical and legendary traditions as similarly gathering additional layers of reconstruction and reinterpretation over time. This is most visible in her treatment of the origin legends of the Rajputs and their various lineages over the past millennium (pp. 177-80).

She also relies almost exclusively on colonial iterations of these legends, such as James Tod’s colonial account, _The Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan (1829-32). [..] In so doing, she ignores newer scholarship, which has demonstrated that the Rajput ruling lineages’ legends of their exalted ancestry did not emerge prior to the fourteenth century.[8] This recent scholarship is beginning to illuminate the careful construction and reconstruction by elite groups, of what was perceived as Rajput ‘tradition’ over several centuries.

Thus, in her almost exclusive reliance on the local scholarly perspective on Rajasthan’s history, Hooja echoes two of its principal shortcomings: first, a tendency to tacitly equate ‘tradition’ in Rajasthan with an exclusively Rajput tradition, and to see it as static and unchanging over the centuries; and second, in overlooking parallels with other contemporary regional formations, a tendency to see the region’s history as singular.
— https://lists.h-net.org/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-asia&month=0810&week=b&msg=w868NWGcEnPv034mBdTL4w&user=&pw=

Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

So you have interpreted a post on H-Net to be a proper journal review and thereafter shunted only the criticism with your broom not the conclusion which is

In spite of these shortcomings, this book contains numerous nuggets of interesting information for both scholars and non-specialist readers ona variety of subjects. To cite just a few instances randomly, Hooja describes several rulers over the centuries who were accomplished poets and scholars in their own right, in addition to being generous patrons of scholars, poets, and artists. She mentions the migration of many poets and artists to the Rajput courts in Rajasthan in the eighteenth century after the decline of the Mughal imperial court. And she recounts the careers of several Rajput queens who wielded significant power in their own right in the political affairs of their husbands’ realms. In such nuggets, and in its meticulously detailed account of dynastic politics over the last two millennia, the book is a useful and very readable introduction to Rajasthan’s history from the pre-historic period to the present. It outlines for non-specialist readers, broad patterns in the region’s history over the centuries – its resistance to any durable imperial incorporation; the presence of relatively small local chiefdoms; and the challenges that local rulers faced in consolidating royal power even as late as the early nineteenth century. And with the few caveats mentioned above, the book is also a valuable resource for scholars seeking information on particular kings, momentous events in their reigns, and their significance in Rajasthan’s history.

Gee whiz.

Gee whiz.

Please take this argument to RS/N and reference this section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, as Sreenivasan notes, the book is decent for non-specialist readers - unless the book is vile trash or Subrahmanyam is wielding the pen, critics write a few lines of general praise as a rule.

This particular review was commissioned and approved by the-then review-editor Sumit Guha — the Frances Higginbotham Nalle Centennial Professor in History at the University of Texas at Austin. For more details about their review process, you can consult this page. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I’ve known him for a very long time. Spent a lot of time with him. He’s a smart fellow but those are not peer-reviewed journal reviews. Please make a post at Rs/n and reference this discussion.

When I return fair and square to Wikipedia I’ll reply there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Will do that.

But journal-reviews are not peer-reviewed. It passes through the review editor and copy-editor, just as in this case. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

To the RS/N community. I meant book review in peer reviewed journals. I apologize also the Rs/n community. I said some uncharitable things about Sreenivasan based on what Tranga Bellam had posted above. I just realized that the full review has 24 paragraphs of which TB has posted just selections from a handful. Rims Hooda’s (also spelled Hooja in the literature) ‘’History of Rajasthan’’ has been cited in nearly 60 scholarly publications. I don’t know the merits of the edits in this article that were cited to Hooda, but I am incredulous that an editor, can airily dismiss the 1200 page book in edit summaries in this article accompanying their revert and something dismissive on their user talk page. Meanwhile, among the books cited in GS are Ann Guzins Gold’s ‘’Shiptown’’ which mentions the book some six times and author too in the alt. spelling. What gives? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I’ve used those reviews now and then, but their standards are much lower. A large number are written by graduate students. They publish a large number, maybe even 150 or more a month. Even though this particular review is not written by a graduate student, the judging standards of reviews are at a mid to late grad student level. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

[the review currently advertised on their website is one such (by a grad student) of a book by a major military historian Dan Marston. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I just read the Sreenivasan review. All it takes is a few sentences to discern she not a historian, not trained as one. The imprecise language gives it away. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay - I am certain that Sreenivasan (as well as UPenn) will take your comments into consideration. Might drop a mail to OUP for their poor choice? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Note also Catherine Asher references Hooda in her 12th Medieval History Journal Annual lecture page 37.

Obvously Hooda is not unreliable about every facet of Rajasthan history. Cynthia Talbot references Hooda as well. I don’t really have an interest in this article.

what you should ask at Rs/n is whether Hooda is reliable for the text you removed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Good luck Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree entirely that Hooda is not unreliable for every facet of Rajasthani history - such a claim is ridiculous. Her articles on Rajasthani prehistory and archaeology are quite decent. The problem with her history is that she seldom cites sources for her claims and often takes bardic narratives etc. at face value without employing source criticism.

Keep an eye on the next subsection. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Let the Rs/n community be the judge of that. I will not be making an appearance there. Like I said, Good Luck. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

For the final time make these arguments at Rs/n. Both Asher and Talbot, major medievalists of India (authors of India before Europe, Cambridge University Press, 2006, cited 300 times on Google scholar, have individually cited Hooda and her HoR book for medieval material, not her early Harappa work after receiving her doctorate at Cambridge with Raymond Allchin and Bridget Allchin in the late 70s. This ends my engagement with you whether or not you post at Rs/n Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I have already said to such effects; please do not feel that every post at this talk-page is aimed at you. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Content

Hooja (p. 474) has,

[In] 1585, Pratap established his new capital at Chavand (near present-day Dungarpur). It was a life of relative deprivation and hardship, though, since much of Mewar remained under Imperial occupation. In time, Pratap had his palace and a temple to Chamund-Mata built at Chavand. The Amarsar tells us that here Pratap was able to enjoy peace and establish order in Mewar.

Between 1585 and up to his death in January 1597, the Maharana succeeded in recovering the Chappan area, Vagar, and other substantive parts of Mewar. Gradually, ordinary people who had migrated out of Mewar during the turbulent years of Mewar-Mughal confrontation began to drift back to the land. Agricultural activity picked up, assisted by a series of good monsoon years. So, albeit cautiously, did trade and economic activities. Despite his best efforts, however, Pratap was never able to fulfil his ambition of recovering his ancestral capital, Chittor, even though he managed to restore Mewar's control over some of the area around Chittor. Mandalgarh too remained under Mughal authority.

Rana Pratap's determination and grit made him a popular figure during his lifetime. He was eulogised for adhering to the dream of maintaining the independence of Mewar and not accepting the sovereignty of the Mughal Empire. Over the centuries, he would remain established in popular mind and literature alike for the values he had stood for and the qualities he represented. In the winter of 1596-1597, Pratap sustained an internal injury while hunting. The fifty-seven year old Rana eventually succumbed to this at Chavand on 19 January 1597. A cenotaph to him was raised at the nearby village-site of Bandoli.

The entire section is not cited to a single source—primary or secondary or tertiary—except for the vague reference to Amarsar — I have no idea about what it is because this is the only time in the entire book, such a source is referred to. More comments soon.

In the 2018 pop-history on Rana Pratap, Hooja notes the Amarsar to have had been drafted by the court-poet Pandit Jivadhar of Pratap’s successor, Maharana Amar Singh I. Fwiw, Hooja (2018) repeats the substance of all these claims but again without any sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• Reading Hooja's nonchalant wording, it seems that the cenotaph [chatrī] was raised soon after Pratap's death to commemorate the event! What did actually transpire?

  In 1938 Mahārāṇā Bhopal Singh (r. 1930–55) commissioned a chatrī for his esteemed ancestor Rāṇā Pratap Singh. The chatrī stands in the village of Chawand, where Pratap Singh commissioned numerous temples and the palace from which he ruled. A lengthy inscription on the memorial commences with praise for Eklingji and refers to Pratap Singh as the Sun of the Hindus. It notes the mahārāṇā’s involvement in the battle of Haldighati and concludes by naming “the current mahārāṇā,” Bhopal Singh, as patron of the chatrī. In calling attention to Bhopal Singh’s patronage, the inscription reaffirms his lineage from his illustrious ancestor, who was integral to the formation of the Sisodias’ self-representation as resolutely dharmik and autonomous. By extension, the reference legitimizes Bhopal Singh’s position as the “current mahārāṇā.”

  They (Bhopal Singh and Bika Rathore mahārājā Ganga Singh) responded to the threats the newly established British Raj posed to their authority by commissioning chatrīs for ancestors who had died long before the emergence of this memorial form. In so doing, they visually increased their own presence in public space and reiterated their lineage from ancestors who had defended that space, at a time when their power was compromised by a new empire.
  — Bose, 2015; p. 276-277

  TrangaBellam (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  Hooja writes, again nonchalantly, that Pratap succumbed to an internal injury that had been incurred in a hunt. This factoid has its roots in Vir Vinod (who, in turn, sourced to oral folklore; reproduced by the likes of G. N. Sharma from the same source via Maharana Yash Prakash) going by Peabody's sourcing of this legend — consult Sharma (2015) for more details on Vir Vinod.

  As Sreenivasan held in her review, Hooja had amassed an enviable amount of information and trivia about various rulers of Rajasthan but without due source criticism. Hooja's comments at the start of the one-page-long bibliography section in her pop-history on Rana Pratap is interesting:

  Any contemporary work on Maharana Pratap and the history of Mewar in the medieval period must rely not just on written sources but also on oral histories as recounted by the bards who were an important part of Mewar and other Rajput courts. These oral histories, extolling heroic warriors, describing great battles and narrating important and dramatic moments in the lives of the rulers and their families, have found their way into local folklore, legends and poems, and influenced the work of nineteenth-century chroniclers such as Kaviraj Shyamaldas and Col. James Tod. The sources used in this book include works by sixteenth-century Mughal historians, Mewar court chroniclers, and the works of contemporary scholars and historians, as well as oral histories and ballads.

  Totally non-cognizant of scholars like Freitag, Kothiyal, Peabody, Ziegler et al who have discussed the production of bardic texts and why they cannot be accepted at face-value. Tbh, Hooja is writing for a non-academic audience; so it is unwise to expect any significant engagement with professional scholarship. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Haldighati

Haldighati war was not won by Mugals due to heavy losses it's a tie kindly do detail study. 103.164.24.2 (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia works on reliable references and none states that Pratap was victorious in Haldighati 1576. The fatality rate of Mewar army were far more significant then Mughal side. In any case, Maharana Pratap himself got badly injured in the battle and had to retreat from the battlefield which more or less settle the case that Shahi army carried the day. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 14:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Maharana Pratap Armour and sword and total body equipment used for fight was 35 kg as shown in museum of udaipur..

Maharana Pratap Armour and sword and total body equipment used for fight was 35 kg as shown in museum of udaipur.. Some mith spread about Sir Maharana Pratap that he carry upto 300-400 kg body equipment included body armour and sword during fight. But if you go through the native place of Maharana Pratap ( Udaipur museum ) there in museum displayed all the equipment included body armour and sword with total weight. That was total 35 kg. Now please go through the reality and real sources .. 2409:4050:2D87:8FD4:D0EC:7C67:C96D:6966 (talk) 10:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2022

I want to edit the part in which it is written that Maharana Pratap lost battle of haldighati as Maharana Pratap won the battle because the main objective of akbar was to capture Maharana Pratap or kill Maharana Pratap. Akbar only won very small part of land which was not very important to Maharana Pratap and Maharana Pratap won all battles like battle of dewair. Historians didn't researched on Rajputs and hated Rajputs. You can read the book- MAHARANAS: A THOUSAND YEAR WAR FOR DHARMA. 27.58.46.24 (talk) 11:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Your assertion that "historians didn't researched" is not a compelling one. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

What is the height of Maharana Pratap Singh

Please add the height and the reason for his death 2409:4081:9286:460D:A3F2:EA19:A25B:E71D (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

(1) We don't list height of people unless it is relevant (e.g., they are a sports figure, or known for their height) (2) the article already contains this information. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe his height should be added because it is a notable characteristic of him and one of the factors that helped him win many battles. ParthNaik1605 (talk) 03:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Recent reverts

@Takshak24: We do not identify people by caste as such (see WP:CASTEID), nonetheless him leading a Rajput coalition is duly mentioned right there in the next line. As for "guerrilla warfare", the term is very recent and it is anachronistic to describe pre-modern warfare as such; and neither do the sources added here mention guerrilla warfare nor are they acceptable as cites (see WP:HISTRS). The characterization of these battles if better left for the body not the WP:LEAD. Gotitbro (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Gotitbro How it's a caste cruft? He was King of Sisodiya Rajput Dyanasty and that's a fact even mentioned in historical texts, by that logic you should remove "Mauryan" from "Mauryan Empire" as Maurya is caste today? Please answer

secondaly, Gurilla warfare is not a modern term, if you are a history student you need to study some bit history about Gurilla streatigies, moreover the sources i mentioned clearly talked about Gurilla tectics.. Takshak24 (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Those sources are not acceptable, one is a school textbook and another is a non-WP:RS yearbook. Guerrilla is indeed a modern term (no older than the last two centuries); you would anyhow need to bring in WP:HISTRS sources for that which would though be more appropriate for the body rather than the WP:LEAD.

I am not going to bother with your facetious equation of an empirical name with social groups (the equivalent here would be the Mewar kingdom which is mentioned). And the leadership of the Rajput confederacy is mentioned right there in the next sentence. So again I am not sure what the issue here is. The article was WP:STABLE as it currently is before some edit warring deliberately introduced religious and identity labels here some time ago. We do not do that, lest we mention George III as a German Anglican? The formulation is of the kingdom ruled and the time period. The rest goes in the body or is mentioned further ahead in the lead (as has already been done here). Gotitbro (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)