HINDU PARTICULARLY RAJPUT RESISTANCE/STRUGGLE AGAINST MUSLIM TYRANNY/ OPPRESSION

 

HINDU PARTICULARLY RAJPUT RESISTANCE AGAINST MUSLIM TYRANNY

AURANGJEB  ORFDER FOR  DESTRUCTION OF TEMPLE

MAHARAJA RAJSINGH OF MEWAR GAVE  SHELTER TO MATHURA TEMPLE IDOL WITHOUT FEAR OF AURAGJEB 

 ILTUTMISH THREATENED HINDU ACCEPT ISLAM  OR DIE

PROTEST OF HINDUS PARTICULARLY RAJPUTS AGAINST TEMPLE DESTRUCTIONS

This article is chiefly based on legacy of muslim rule in india by one of the  most respected historian of India    K S LAL

 Legacy of muslim rule in india by K S Lal Page 206 to 208

Aurangzebs policy of religious persecution of Hindus, in particular his destruction of temples, evoked universal Hindu discontent. It was an OLd practice, commencing from Muhammad bin Qasims invasion of Sind,55 to destroy temples during wars and in times of peace and convert them into mosques, and was continued throughout the medieval period. Aurangzeb also did the same in course of his wars in Bihar, Kuch Bihar etc. But when he started destroying temples in peace time on an unprecedented scale, he started a wave of general resentment and opposition. The history of resistance to such cases of temple destruction pertains to the whole COUntry, but primarily to Gujarat, Mathura, Delhi, Banaras and many places in Rajasthan. Soon after the order (about demolishing temples) was issued, reports of the destruction of temples from all over the empire began to arrive.56 To make sure that his orders were faithfully carried out Aurangzeb instructed that reports of destruction of temples by faujdars and other officials, were to be sent to the court under the seal of the Qazis and attested by pious Shaikhs.57 In August, 1669, the temple of Vishvanath at Banaras was demolished.58 The presiding priest of the temple was just in time to remove the idols and throw them into a neighbouring well which thus became a centre of interest ever after. The temple of Gopi Nath in Banaras was also destroyed about the same time. He (Aurangzeb) is alleged to have tried to demolish the Shiva temple of Jangamwadi in Banaras,59 but could not succeed because of opposition. Next came the turn of the temple of Keshav Rai at Mathura built at a cost of thirty-three lacs of rupees by Raja Bir Singh Bundela in the reign of Jahangir. The temple was levelled to the ground and a mosque was ordered to be built on the site to mark the acquisition of religious merit by the emperor. 60 No wonder that this created consternation in the Hindu mind. Priests and protesters from Brindaban fled the place with the idol of Lord Krishna and housed it in a temple at Kankroli in Udaipur state. A little later the priests of the temple of Govardhan founded by Vallabhachaya fled with the idols by night. After an adventurous journey they reached Jodhpur, but its Maharaja Jaswant Singh was away on imperial errands. Therefore, Damodar Lal, the head of the priesthood incharge of the temple, sent one Gopi Nath to Maharaja Raj Singh at Udaipur who himself received the fugitives on the frontiers of the state and decided to house the god at Sihar on 10 March, 1672.61 In course of time the tiny village of Sihar becamefamous as Nathdwar after the name of its god, and Mewar of Mira Bai became a great centre of Vaishnavism in India. The resistance gained in strength. In March 1671, a Muslim officer who had been sent to demolish temples in and around Ujjain was killed with many of his followers in the riot that followed his attempt at destroying the temples there. Aurangzebs religious policy had created a division in the Indian society. Communal antagonisms resulted in communal riots at Banaras, Narnaul (1672) and Gujarat (1681) where Hindus, in retaliation, destroyed mosques.62 Temples were destroyed in Marwar after 1678 and in 1680-81, 235 temples were destroyed in Udaipur. Prince Bhim of Udaipur retaliated by attacking Ahmadnagar and demolishing many mosques, big and small, there.63 Similarly, there was opposition to destruction of temples in the Amber territory, which was friendly to the Mughals. Here religious fairs continued to be held and idols publicly worshipped even after the temples had been demolished.64 In the Deccan the same policy was pursued with the same reaction. In April 1694, the imperial censor had tried to prevent public idol worship in Jaisinghpura near Aurangabad. The Vairagi priests of the temple were arrested but were soon rescued by the Rajputs.65 Aurangzeb destroyed temples throughout the country. He destroyed the temples at Mayapur (Hardwar) and Ayodhya, but all of them are thronged with worshippers, even those that are destroyed are still venerated by the Hindus and visited by the offering of alms.66 Sometimes he was content with only closing down those temples that were built in the midst of entirely Hindu population, and his officers allowed the Hindus to take back their temples on payment of large sums of money. In the South, where he spent the last twenty-seven years of his reign, Aurangzeb was usually content with leaving many Hindu temples standing in the Deccan where the suppression of rebellion was not an easy matter But the discontent occasioned by his orders could not be thus brought to an end.67 Hindu resistance to such vandalism year after year and decade after decade throughout the length and breadth of the country can rather be imagined than described

WHEN AURANJEB ORDERED  NO HINDU CAN  RIDE HORSE BUT DUE TO SEVERE  PROTEST OF RAJPUTS AND MARATHA AURANJEB  WAS FORCED TO GIVE ORDER THAT  RAJPUT AND MARATHA CAN RIDE HORSE BUT NO ANY OTHER CASTE CAN RIDE IT

AURANJEB TRAMPLED HINDUS WHO PROTESTED JAZIA ON FOOT OF ELEPHANT

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA  BY  K S Lal Page 203 to 204

The protest of the Brahmans did succeed in getting some concessions from the King. He fixed their Jiziyah at a low rate although in status they belonged to the upper class. Secondly, he permitted other Hindus (shopkeepers and traders) to pay the tax on their behalf. But Aurangzeb (1658-1707) was more adamant because he himself knew the law well. His imposition of the Jiziyah provoked repeated protests. On the publication of this order (reimposing the Jiziyah) by Aurangzeb in 1679, writes Khafi Khan, the Hindus all round Delhi assembled in vast numbers under the jharokha of the Emperor to represent their inability to pay and pray for the recall of the edict But the Emperor would not listen to their complaints. One day, when he went to public prayer in the great mosque on the sabbath, a vast multitude of the Hindus thronged the road from the palace to the mosque, with the object of seeking relief. Money changers and drapers, all kinds of shopkeepers from the Urdu bazar mechanics, and workmen of all kinds, left off work and business and pressed into the way Every moment the crowd increased, and the emperors equippage was brought to a standstill. At length an order was given to bring out the elephants and direct them against the mob. Many fell trodden to death under the feet of elephants and horses. For some days the Hindus continued to assemble, in great numbers and complain, but at length they submitted to pay the Jiziyah. 40 Abul Fazl Mamuri, who himself witnessed the scene, says that the protest continued for several days and many lost their lives fighting against the imposition.41 There were organized protests in many other places like Malwa and Burhanpur. In fact it was a countrywide movement, and there was not a district where the people and Muqaddams did not make disturbances and resistance.42 Even Shivaji sent a strong remonstrance and translated into practice the threat of armed resistance he had posed. Similar objection was registered against pilgrim tax in Rajasthan, and when in 1694 IT WAS ORDERED THAT EXCEPT FOR RAJPUTS AND MARATHAS, NO HINDUS WERE TO BE ALLOWED TO RIDE AN IRAQI OR TURANI HORSE OR AN ELEPHANT, NOR WERE THEY TO USE A PALANQUIN, MANY HINDUS DEFIED IT LIKE IN MULTAN AND AHMADNAGAR. 43 Peoples resentment against Aurangzeb was also expressed in incidents in which sticks were twice hurled at him and once he was attacked with bricks but escaped.44

MAASIVE CIVILIAN KILLING BY AKBAR AND JAHAGIR AND PROTEST BY HINDU FARMERS

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA  BY  K S Lal Page 241 to 245

But as the people put up a continual resistance, the Muslim government suppressed them ruthlessly. In this exercise the Mughal emperors were no better than the pre-Mughal sultans. We have often referred to the atrocities of the Delhi sultans and their provincial governors. Abul Fazl, Bernier and Manucci provide detailed accounts of the exertion of the Mughals. Its summing up by Jahangir is the most telling. In his Tarikh-i-Salim Shahi he writes: I am compelled to observe, with whatever regret, that notwithstanding the frequent and sanguinary executions which have been dealt among the people of Hindustan, the number of the turbulent and disaffected never seems to diminish; for what with the examples made during the reign of my father, and subsequently of my own, there is scarcely a province in the empire in which, either in battle or by the sword of the executioner, five or six hundred thousand human beings have not, at various periods, fallen victims to this fatal disposition to discontent and turbulence. Ever and anon, in one quarter or another, will some accursed miscreant spring up to unfurl the standard of rebellion; so that in Hindustan never has there existed a period of complete repose.72

HINDU FARMERS AND RAJA  AND THEIR FAMILY FLED TO JUNGLE TO SAVE THEMSELVES  FROM ONSLAUGHT OF MUSLIM ARMY AND TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM FORCEFULL CONVERSION AND THEY ATTACKED MUSLIMS FROM JUNGLE BY GURILLA TACTICS

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA  BY  K S Lal page 241 to 245

In such a society, observes Kolf, the millions of armed men, cultivators and otherwise, were its (governments) rivals rather than its subjects.73 This attitude was the consequence of the Mughal governments policy of repression. As an example, the exploits of one of Jahangirs commanders, Abdullah Khan Uzbeg Firoz Jung, can provide an idea of the excessive cruelty perpetrated by the government. Peter Mundy, who travelled from Agra to Patna in 1632 saw, during his four days journey, 200 minars (pillars) on which a total of about 7000 heads were fixed with mortar. On his way back four months later, he noticed that meanwhile another 60 minars with between 2000 and 2400 heads had been added and that the erection of new ones had not yet stopped.74 Abdullah Khans force of 12,000 horse and 20,000 foot destroyed, in the Kalpi-Kanauj area, all towns, took all their goods, their wives and children as slaves and beheaded and immortered the chiefest of their men.75 Why, even Akbars name stands besmeared with wanton killings. In his siege of Chittor (October 1567) the regular garrison of 8000 Rajputs was vigorously helped by 40,000 armed peasants who had shown great zeal and activity. This infuriated the emperor to massacre 30,000 of them.76

 HINDU FARMERS AND RAJA  AND THEIR FAMILY FLEED TO JUNGLE TO SAVE THEMSELVES  FROM ONSLAUGHT OF MUSLIM ARMY AND TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM FORCEFULL CONVERSION

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA  BY  K S Lal page 241 to 245

In short, the Indian peasant was clear in his mind about meeting the onslaughts of nature and man. Attached to his land as he was, he resisted the oppression of the rulers as far as his resources, strength and stamina permitted. If conditions went beyond his control, he left his land and established himself in some other place. Indeed, migration or flight was the peasants first answer to famine or mans oppression. Baburs description of this process may be quoted in his own words: In Hindustan, says he, hamlets and villages, towns indeed, are depopulated and set up in a moment. If the people of a large town, one inhabited for years even, flee from it, they do it in such a way that not a sign or trace of them remains in a day or a day and a half. On the other hand, if they fix their eyes on a place in which to settle, they make a tank or dig a well; they need not build houses or set up walls, khas-grass abounds, wood is unlimited, huts are made and straightaway there is a village or a town.77 Similar is the testimony of Col. Wilks about South India. On the approach of a hostile army, the inhabitants of India bury underground their most cumbrous effects, and issue from their beloved homes and take the direction sometimes of a strong fortress, but more generally of the most unfrequented hills and woods. According to Amir Khusrau, wherever the army marched, every inhabited spot was desolated When the army arrived there (Warangal, Deccan), the Hindu inhabitants concealed themselves in hills and jungles.78 This process of flight seems to have continued throughout the Mughal period, both in the North and the South. Writing ofthe days of Shahjahan, Bernier says that many of the peasantry, driven to despair by so execrable a tyranny, abandon the country and sometimes fly to the territories of a Raja because they find less oppression and are allowed a greater degree of comfort.79 To flee was a good idea, when it is realized that this was perhaps the only way to escape from the cruel revenue demand and rapacious officials. Some angry rulers like Balban and Muhammad bin Tughlaq hunted down these escapists in the jungles, others clamped them in jails, but, by and large, the peasants did survive in the process. For, it was not only cultivators alone who fled into the forests, but often even vanquished Rajas and zealous Zamindars. There they and people at large organized themselves to defend against the onslaughts of the regime. For it was not only because cultivation was uneconomic and peasants left the fields; it was also a question of saving Hindu religion and Hindu culture. Under Muslim rule the two principal Muslim practices of iconoclasm and proselytization were carried on unabated. During the Arab invasion of Sind and the expeditions of Mahmud of Ghazni, defeated rulers, garrisons of captured forts, and civilian population were often forced to accept Islam. The terror-tactics of such invaders was the same everywhere and their atrocities are understandable. BUT EVEN WHEN MUSLIM RULE HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED IN INDIA, IT WAS A MATTER OF POLICY WITH MUSLIM RULERS TO CAPTURE AND CONVERT OR DISPERSE AND DESTROY THE MALE POPULATION AND CARRY INTO SLAVERY THEIR WOMEN AND CHILDREN. Minhaj Siraj writes that Sultan Balbans taking of captives, and his capture of the dependents of the great Ranas cannot be recounted.80 In Katehar he ordered a general massacre of the male population above eight years of age and carried away women and children.81 MUHAMMAD TUGHLAQ, FIROZ TUGHLAQ, SIKANDAR LODI, SIKANDAR BUTSHIKAN OF KASHMIR, MAHMUD BEGHARA OF GUJARAT AND EMPEROR AURANGZEB WERE MORE ENTHUSIASTIC, SOME OTHERS WERE LUKEWARM, BUT IT WAS THE RELIGIOUS DUTY OF A MUSLIM MONARCH TO CAPTURE PEOPLE AND CONVERT THEM TO ISLAM. In these circumstances the defeated Rajas and helpless agriculturists all sought refuge in the forests. Forests in medieval India abounded. Ibn Battuta says that very thick forests existed right from Bengal to Allahabad. In his time rhinoceroses (gender) were to be found in the very centre of the Sultanate, in the jungles near Allahabad. There were jungles throughout the country. Even the environs of Delhi abounded in forests so that during the time of Balban, harassed Mewatis retaliated by issuing forth from the jungles in the immediate vicinity of the south-west of Delhi, attack the city and keep the king on tenter-hooks.82 When Timur invaded Hindustan at the end of the fourteenth century, he had learnt about this resistance and was quite scared of it. In his Malfuzat he notes that there were many strong defences in India like the large rivers, the elephants etc. The second defence, writes he, consists of woods and forests and trees, which interweaving stem with stem and branch with branch, render it very difficult to penetrate the country. The third defence is the soldiery, and landlords and princes, and Rajas of that country, who inhabit fastnesses in those forests, and live there like wild beasts.83 Growth of dense forests was a cause and effect of heavy rains. Forests precipitated rainfall and rains helped in the growth of forests. Therefore, like forests, rains also helped the freedom loving wild-beasts living in the jungles in maintains their independence and culture. It is truly said that in India it does not rain, it pours. The rainfall in the north and the northeastern India - Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Bengal, including eastern Bengal (now Bangla Desh) and parts of Assam (the Hindustan of medieval times) - is in the following order: The average annual rainfall in U.P., Bihar and Bengal is 100 to 200 cms. (40 to 80 inches), in eastern Bengal and Assam it is 200 to 400 cms. and in some parts above 400 cms. (80 to 160 and above 160 inches). In all probability a similar average obtained in the medieval period also. Medieval chroniclers do not speak in quantitative terms: in their language rivulets used to turn into rivers and rivers into seas during the rainy season. The situation is best depicted by the sixteenth century conqueror Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur himself in his memoirs Tuzuk-iBaburi or Babur Nama. He writes about Hindustan: Sometimes it rains 10, 15, or 20 times a day, torrents pour down all at once and rivers flow where no water had been.84 Such intensity of rainfall had rendered precarious the grip of Turkish rulers in many parts. For example, the government at Delhi could not always maintain its hold on Bengal effectively. There were very few roads and hardly any bridges over rivers in those days, and the almost primitive medieval communication system used to break down during the rainy season. Local governors of the eastern region - Bihar and Bengal - did not fail to take advantage of this situation and used to declareindependence. Governor Tughril Beg of Bengal depended on the climate and waterlogged soil of the province to wear out the Delhi forces, for three years (1278-81).85 Bengal almost remained independent till the middle of the sixteenth century.

HOW SOME BRAVE  FARMERS BECAME TODAYS  SC ST OBC

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA  BY  K S Lal page 241 to 245

 In short, heavy rains and thick forests affected the mobility of the governments army, leaving the refugees safe in their jungle hide-outs and repulse any intrusion. Ibn Battuta describes how people used to fight behind barricades of bushes and bamboo trees. They collect rain water and tend their animals and fields, and remain so strongly entrenched that but for a strong army they cannot be suppressed.86 Babur confirms this: Under the monsoon rains the banks of some of its rivers and torrents are worn into deep channels, difficult and troublesome to pass through anywhere. In many parts of the plains (because of rains) thorny jungle grows, behind the good defence of which the people become stubbornly rebellious and pay no taxes.87 It was because of this that Muslim conquest could not penetrate the Indian countryside nor Muslim rule affect it. If there was any fear of attack, the villagers just fled and re-established themselves elsewhere, or returned after the storm was over. SC, ST AND OBC THOSE WHO TOOK TO THE JUNGLE, STAYED THERE, EATING WILD FRUITS, TREE-ROOTS, AND THE COARSEST GRAIN IF AND WHEN AVAILABLE,88 BUT SURELY PRESERVING THEIR FREEDOM. BUT WITH THE PASSING OF TIME, A PEASANT BECAME A TRIBAL AND FROM TRIBAL A BEAST. William Finch, writing at Agra about 1610 C.E., describes how Jahangir and his nobles treated them - during Shikar. A favourite form of sport in Mughal India was the Kamargha, which consisted in enclosing a tract of country by a line of guards, and then gradually contracting the enclosure until a large quantity of game was encircled in a space of convenient size. Whatever is taken in this enclosure (Kamargha or human circle), writes Finch, is called the kings shikar or game, whether men or beasts The beasts taken, if mans meat, are sold if men they remain the Kings slaves, which he sends yearly to Kabul to barter for horses and dogs: these being poor, miserable, thievish people, that live in woods and deserts, little differing from beasts.89 W.H. Moreland adds: Other writer (also) tell it besides Finch.90 Even Babur, always a keen observer, had not failed to notice that peasants in India were often reduced to the position of tribals. In our countries, writes he in his Memoirs, dwellers in the wilds (i.e. nomads) get tribal names; here (i.e. Hindustan) the settled people of the cultivated lands and villages get tribal names.91 In short, the avalanche of Turco- Mughal invaders, and the policy of their Government turned many settled agriculturists into tribals of the jungles. Many defeated Rajas and harassed Zamindars also repaired to forest and remote fortresses for security. They had been defeated in war and due to the policy of making them nest-o-nabud (destroy root and branch), had been reduced to the position of Scheduled Castes / Tribes / Backward Classes. For example, many Parihars and Parmars, once upon a time belonging to the proud Rajput castes, are now included in lower castes. So are the Rajputs counted in Backward Classes in South India. Two examples, one from the early years of Muslim rule and the other from its closing years, would suffice to illustrate the point. In the early years of Muslim conquest, Jats had helped Muhammad bin Qasim in Sind; later on they turned against him. Khokhars had helped Muhammad Ghauri but turned hostile to him and ultimately killed him. This made the Turkish Sultanate ill-disposed towards them, and in course of time many of these Jats and Khokhars were pushed into belonging to low castes of to-day. For the later times is the example of the Satnamis. This sect was an offshoot of the Raidasis. Their stronghold in the seventeenth century was Narnaul, situated about 100 kms. south-west of Delhi. The contemporary chronicler Khafi Khan credits them with a good character. They followed the professions of agriculture and trade on a small scale. They dressed simply, like faqirs. They shaved their heads and so were called mundiyas also. They came into conflict with imperial forces. It began as a minor trouble, but developed into a war of Hindu liberation from the persecution of Aurangzeb. Soon some five thousand Satnamis were in arms. They routed the faujdar of Narnaul, plundered the town, demolished its mosques, and established their own administration. At last Aurangzeb crushed them by sending 10,000 troops (March, 1672) and facing a most obstinate battle in which two thousand Satnamis fell on the field and many more were slain during the pursuit. Those who escaped spread out into small units so that today there are about 15 million Satnami Harijans found in Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Bihar and Uttar PradeshThus were swelled the numbers of what are today called Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (SC / ST / OBC). The eleventh century savant Alberuni who came to India in the train of Mahmud of Ghazni, speaks of eight castes / sections of Antajya (untouchable?), or workers in low professions in Hindustan such as fuller, shoemaker, juggler, fisherman, hunter of wild animals and birds. They are occupied with dirty work, like the cleaning of the villages and other services.93 In his time their number was obviously not large. Today the SC / ST alone comprise 23 percent of the population or about 156 million, according to 1981 census. Add to this the Other Backward Classes and they all count to more than fifty percent. This staggeringly high figure has been reached because of historical forces operating in the medieval times primarily. Muslim rule spread all over the country. Resistance to it too remained widespread. Jungles abounded through out the vast land from Gujarat to Bengal and Kashmir to Kanyakumari, and flight into them was the safest safeguard for the weak and vulnerable. That is how SC / ST people are found in every state in large numbers. During the medieval period, in the years and centuries of oppression, they lived almost like wild beasts in improvised huts in forest villages, segregated and isolated, suffering and struggling. But by settling in forest villages, they were enabled to preserve their freedom, their religion and their culture. Their martial arts, preserved in their Akharas, are even now practised in different forms in many states. SUCH A PHENOMENON WAS NOT WITNESSED IN WEST ASIAN COUNTRIES. THERE, IN THE VAST OPEN DESERTS, THE PEOPLE COULD NOT SAVE THEMSELVES FROM FORCED CONVERSIONS AGAINST ADVANCING MUSLIM ARMIES. THERE WERE NO FORESTS INTO WHICH THEY COULD FLEE, HIDE THEMSELVES AND ORGANIZE RESISTANCE. HENCE THEY ALL BECAME MUSLIM. In the Indian forest villages these primitive Hindus continued to maintain themselves by engaging in agriculture and simple cottage industries. They also kept contact with the outside world for, since they had remained Hindu, they were freely employed by Rajas and Zamindars. They provided firewood and served as boatmen and watchmen. The Hindu elite engaged them for guard duty in their houses, and as palki-bearers when they travelled. Travelling in the hot climate of India was mostly done at night, and these people provided guard to bullock carts and other conveyances carrying passengers and goods. There are descriptions of how these people ran in front and rear of the carts with lighted torches or lanterns in one hand and a lathi in the other. They also fought for those Hindu leaders who organized resistance from remote villages and jungle hide-outs. The exaspertated and starving peasantry sometimes took to highway robbery as the only means of living. Raiding bands were also locally formed. Their main occupation, however, remained menial work, including scavenging and leather tanning. But with all that, their spirit of resistance had made them good fighters. Fighting kept their health replenished, compensating for the non-availability of good food in the jungles. Their fighting spirit made the British think of them as thugs, robbers and bandits. But the British as well as other Europeans also embarked upon anthropological and sociological study of these poor forest people. In trying to find a name for these groups, the British census officials labelled them, in successive censuses, as Aboriginals (1881), Animists (1891-1911) and as Adherents of Tribal Religions (1921-1931). These days a lot of noise is being made about helping the SC / ST and OBCs by reserving their quotas in government jobs. It is argued that these people have been oppressed by high caste Hindus in thepast and they should now be helped and compensated by them. But that is only an assumption. IT IS THEY WHO HAVE HELPED SAVE THE HINDU RELIGION BY SHUNNING ALL COMFORTS AND TAKING TO THE LIFE OF THE JUNGLE. THAT IS WHY THEY HAVE REMAINED HINDU. IF THEY HAD BEEN HARASSED AND OPPRESSED BY HIGH-CASTE HINDUS, THEY COULD HAVE EASILY CHOSEN TO OPT FOR MUSLIM creed ever so keen on effecting proselytization. But they preferred to hide in the forests rather than do so. There is another question. Was that the time for the Upper Caste Hindus, fighting tenaciously to save their land, religion and culture, to oppress the lower strata of Hindus whose help they desperately needed in their struggle? The mindset of upper-caste / backward-caste conflict syndrome needs reviewing as it is neither based on historical evidence nor supported by compulsions of the situation. The present day isolated conflicts may be a rural politician / plebian problem of no great antiquity. Another relic of the remote past is the objection to the entry of men of lower class people into temples. In Islam slaves were not permitted to bestow alms or visit places of pilgrimages.94 In India, according to Megasthenes, there were no slaves. But slavery (dasta) probably did exist in one form or the other. Were the dasas also debarred from entering temples and the practice has continued; or, was it that every caste and section had its own shrines and did not enter those of others? The picture is very blurred and origins of this practice are difficult to locate. Above all, there is the question: Would the SC / ST by themselves accept to change their way of life and accept the assistance? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. An example may help understand the position. In June 1576 Maharana Pratap of Chittor had to face Akbars armies in the famous battle of Haldighati. Rana Pratap fought with exemplary courage and of his soldiers only a little more than half could leave the field alive. In the darkness of the evening, the wounded Rana left the field on his favourite horse Chetak.95 A little later, in October, Akbar himself marched in person in pursuit of the Rana, but the latter remained untraced and unsubdued. Later on he recovered all Mewar except Mandalgarh and Chittor. His nearest associates, the Bhil and Lohia tribals, had taken a vow that until their motherland was not freed, they would not eat in metal plates, but only on leaves; they would not sleep on bedsteads, but only on the ground; and they would renounce all comforts. The bravest among them even left Chittor, to return to it only when Mewar had regained independence. That day was not destined to come in their life-time. It was not to come for decades, for generations, for centuries. During these hundreds of years they lived as tribals and nomads, moving from city to city. On India regaining independence, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, who knew about these peoples poignant history, decided to rehabilitate them in Chittor. In March 1955 an impressive function was arranged there and Pandit Nehru led the descendants of these valiant warriors back to their homes in independent Chittor in independent India. But most of them did not care to return. They live as nomads even today. The SC / ST and OBCs too may find their way of life too dear to relinquish for the modern urban civilised ways. Many welfare officers working in their areas actually find it to be so.