Rajput Pride vs Historical Fact: Karni Sena Protests Ignite Debate on Rana Sanga and Babur

The Hindu

02-05-2025

Published : May 02, 2025 07:24 IST - 10 MINS READ
On April 12, thousands of Karni Sena members marched through Agra, with swords and guns glinting under the sun. They were demanding an apology from Samajwadi Party (SP) Rajya Sabha MP Ramji Lal Suman for his remarks on the Rajput king Rana Sanga. The protest culminated in a Rakt Swabhiman Sammelan (Blood Pride Conference) at the Ram Garhi ground. In anticipation, the Uttar Pradesh Police blocked over 500 locations and deployed 10,000 personnel, with drones monitoring the city from above. Earlier, on March 26, Suman's residence was vandalised. He responded by hiring bouncers for personal security and, on April 11, approached the Allahabad High Court seeking protection.
Founded in 2006, the Karni Sena is a right-wing group known for its aggressive advocacy of Rajput rights and identity. Suman sparked controversy by calling the 16th century Rajput king a 'traitor' for allegedly inviting the Mughal ruler Zahir-ud-din Muhammad Babur to India in 1526 to defeat Ibrahim Lodi, the Sultan of Delhi. Suman claimed this was a historical fact based on Babur's memoir, Baburnama, and argued that if Muslims are labelled as Babur's descendants, then Hindus must be descendants of the 'traitor' Rana Sanga. He made these remarks during a discussion in the Rajya Sabha on March 21 and refused to apologise even in the face of a backlash from BJP leaders and the Karni Sena.
'Nowadays, it has become common to claim that Indian Muslims have the DNA of Babur. But the truth is that Muslims of India do not consider Babur their leader. Babur did not come with religion; he came with a sword. The ideals of Indian Muslims are rooted in the tradition of Sufi saints,' said Suman, a Dalit MP nominated to the Rajya Sabha by the SP in February 2024 as part of the party's 'Pichchda, Dalit, Alpasankhyak' strategy.
Following a furore in the Upper House, Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar expunged Suman's remarks. But he noted that social media amplified them, fuelling the controversy.
The past as a political weapon
On April 19, SP president and Lok Sabha MP Akhilesh Yadav visited Suman at his home in Agra. Condemning the attack against Suman, he said it was not a random act but a targeted move that had the government's backing. Barely a week later, on April 27, Karni Sena members attacked Suman's convoy in Aligarh, throwing tyres at his vehicles and causing collisions. Police escorted Suman to safety, and no injuries were reported. Talking to reporters soon after, Suman underscored growing atrocities against Dalits and a failing law and order situation in Uttar Pradesh. Akhilesh Yadav asked if the State government was complicit or had surrendered to lawlessness.
Also Read | Christophe Jaffrelot: 'At stake is survival of Indo-Islamic civilisation'
According to popular historical narratives, Rana Sanga (1482–1528) was a prominent Rajput ruler of Mewar, a kingdom in present-day Rajasthan. Considered a cultural icon and an embodiment of Rajput 'valour and resistance', he is remembered as a battle-hardened warrior who reportedly bore around 80 wounds—cuts and arrow marks—earned in fierce combats. In Maharana Sāngā: The Hindupat, the Last Great Leader of the Rajput Race, the judge and academic Har Bilas Sarda describes Rana Sanga at death as 'the fragments of a warrior': having lost an eye in a fight with his brother Prithviraj, an arm in the battle against the Lodi King of Delhi, and a leg to a cannonball.
There are two key sources supporting the claim that Rana Sanga invited Babur to India, according to Ruchika Sharma, a Delhi-based expert in medieval history who runs a YouTube channel called Eyeshadow and Etihaas.
'The first is the Baburnama where Babur mentions that Daulat Khan, the governor of Punjab under Ibrahim Lodi, and Rana Sanga's envoys, both visited Babur's court in Kabul and urged him to attack Ibrahim Lodi,' she said, adding that the second source is Suraj Bhan Bhardwaj's book Contestations and Accommodations: Mewat and Meos in Mughal India, which corroborates this claim. Sharma said that the 16th century ballad 'Hasan Khan ki Katha', composed by Narsingh Meo, also talks about Rana Sanga sending emissaries to Babur's court inviting him to attack Lodi.
However, she said historians such as G.H. Ojha and Rima Hooja, after reviewing Rajput sources, argue that Rana Sanga did not invite Babur. 'They suggest that it was Babur who sought Rana Sanga's help and that the latter agreed to assist him,' she said, adding that regardless of the specific details, it is clear that 'some sort of agreement' existed between Babur and Rana Sanga. In fact, Babur himself expresses disappointment in the Baburnama that even though he was promised assistance by Rana Sanga, the latter did not show up at the battlefield.
'While we were still in Kabul, Rana Sanga had sent an envoy to testify to his good wishes and to propose this plan: 'If the honoured Padshah will come to near Dihli from that side, I from this will move on Agra.' But I beat Ibrahim, I took Dihli and Agra, and up to now that Pagan [Rana Sanga] has given no sign whatsoever of moving,' Babur wrote in his memoir, translated into English by Annette Susannah Beveridge.
'It was expected that Babur, after having defeated Ibrahim Lodi, would return to Kabul with the looted wealth just like his ancestors, leaving the territories open for Rana Sanga's capture,' said Sharma, adding that Babur also mentions in the Baburnama that the man who had once invited him to Delhi was now standing against him, further reinforcing the notion that Rana Sanga had invited Babur initially.
'A broader ideological project'
Historical accounts, including the Baburnama, note that Rana Sanga's growing fame and his victory at the Battle of Bayana in February 1527 had demoralised Babur's troops. To rally his soldiers ahead of the decisive Battle of Khanwa on March 16, 1527, Babur declared the campaign a jihad. He renounced wine and took an oath to uphold Islamic principles, portraying Rana Sanga and his allies as 'infidels' to inspire his largely Muslim army.
The academic and social activist Ram Puniyani linked the controversy to the RSS-BJP campaign that, he said, communalises history by portraying Muslim rulers in medieval India as representatives of modern Indian Muslims, casting them as outsiders. 'This isn't just about Rana Sanga and Babur; it's part of a broader ideological project,' said Puniyani. He noted that this perspective stems from the British's 'divide and rule' strategy, which politicised religious identities. 'As India moved towards Independence, the divide deepened, with the Muslim League on one side and the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS on the other. These groups further communalised history, framing Muslim rulers not through political or economic lenses but purely through religion,' he said.
Puniyani pointed out that the Mughal-Rajput era, often mischaracterised as 'Muslim rule', was in fact marked by significant Rajput participation. 'Today, that complexity is erased—Mughal-Rajput politics is reduced to Hindu-Muslim binaries. Figures like Aurangzeb are selectively vilified, while their more nuanced actions are ignored.'
Highlights According to popular historical narratives, Rana Sanga (1482–1528) was a prominent Rajput ruler of Mewar, a kingdom in present-day Rajasthan.
Considered a cultural icon and an embodiment of Rajput 'valour and resistance', he is remembered as a battle-hardened warrior who reportedly bore around 80 wounds—cuts and arrow marks—earned in fierce combats.
In Maharana Sāngā: The Hindupat, the Last Great Leader of the Rajput Race, the judge and academic Har Bilas Sarda describes Rana Sanga at death as 'the fragments of a warrior': having lost an eye in a fight with his brother Prithviraj, an arm in the battle against the Lodi King of Delhi, and a leg to a cannonball.
Arguing that the current distortion of history under the RSS-BJP combine is not accidental, he said: 'The BJP is using every available tool to construct a specific narrative. One is the portrayal of a terrorism-free India under its rule. Another is the selective retelling of Indian history, especially [that of] the Mughal era. What was actually a Mughal-Rajput phase is simplistically labeled the 'Mughal period'. Atrocities committed by individual rulers are spotlighted to stigmatise Muslims today, while more complex realities—such as Aurangzeb's temple donations or diplomatic gestures—are downplayed or omitted.'
Referring to other recent controversies such as 'Sherbet jihad' and the portrayal of Aurangzeb in the Bollywood film Chhaava, he said: 'This distortion doesn't just obscure history; it polarises the present and undermines India's pluralistic ethos.'
At a press conference on April 15, Akhilesh Yadav accused the BJP of intimidating his party leaders, citing the revocation of the security cover for him as a sign of the government's intent. 'Only the fearful rely on such protection,' he said. Clarifying that the SP supports heritage, he warned against using traditions to suppress rights. 'History can't be rewritten to serve current agendas: kings had no caste, and power wasn't caste-based. Let history remain history when it hinders progress,' he added.
Underscoring that interpretation of historical events through a nationalist, religious, or caste lens distorts the past, Sharma argued: 'In the 16th century, India wasn't a unified nation but a subcontinent with fluid, shifting borders. Babur wasn't an outsider in the modern sense; his empire stretched into the region just as Rana Sanga's or Ibrahim Lodi's did. Religious identities, too, were far more fluid. The rigid binaries we apply today didn't exist then. Among Muslims, there have been legendary Shia-Sunni wars.'
She said that Rana Sanga's battles were not religious crusades. 'His battles were about territorial expansion and consolidating power, and his confederacy included Muslims. In the Battle of Khanwa, Ibrahim Lodi's own brother, Mehmood Lodi, fought alongside Rana Sanga against Babur. Similarly, Hasan Khan Mewati, a Muslim from Mewat, supported Rana Sanga,' she said adding that when Lodi attacked Ranthambore, Rana Sanga had sought the help of the Sultan of Gujarat, Muzaffar Shah, against Lodi, a Muslim ruler. 'Such political alliances were pragmatic, not ideological.'
Also Read | When 'othering' meets alienation: Being a Muslim in India
Sharma said even the Maratha ruler Chhatrapati Shivaji did not waging a caste or religious war. 'His campaigns often targeted fellow Marathas, and he imposed taxes like Chauth and Sardeshmukhi on them, not the Mughals,' she explained, adding that even the term 'Rajput' as an identity only solidified much later, especially after Rana Sanga's death, around 1562, following the composition of 'Padmavat' by the Sufi poet Malik Muhammad Jayasi. 'The Rajput identity, as we understand it today, took form under the Mughals, and later the British solidified it further through the creation of the Rajput regiment,' she said.
Historians remain divided on Rana Sanga's death. Some say he was poisoned by his allies to prevent another attack on Babur after the battle of Khanwa. Others believe he eventually died from his wounds.
After Rana Sanga's death in 1528, one of his wives, Rani Karnavati, assumed regency over Mewar on behalf of her young son, Vikramaditya.
According to a widely recounted historical legend, when Bahadur Shah of Gujarat laid siege to Chittorgarh—Mewar's capital—in 1535, Karnavati sent a rakhi to Mughal Emperor Humayun, son of Babur, appealing to him as a brother for protection. Touched by the gesture, Humayun reportedly abandoned his Bengal campaign to come to her aid. But before he could arrive, Karnavati and thousands of women performed jauhar (mass self-immolation) on March 8, 1535, to avoid capture. Humayun's forces later defeated Bahadur Shah and reclaimed key territories, including regions around Mewar, paving the way for Vikramaditya's eventual restoration. The episode is often linked to the origins of the Raksha Bandhan festival in the subcontinent.