Why A 16th-Century King's Statue Has Sparked A Row In Rajasthan
Jaipur:
Mewar's Rajput ruler, Maharana Pratap, took on the Mughals in the Battle of Haldighati in 1576. Among the smaller rulers who fought by his side was Rana Poonja, the ruler of Bhomat, a hilly and forested area in modern-day Rajasthan. Nearly 450 years after that epic battle, two communities are fighting over the clothes -- and legacy -- of Rana Poonja.
History, caste, politics and appropriation tactics criss-cross in this face-off, blurring the lines between the real and the myth. While Rajputs, including the erstwhile royal family of Panarwa, claim that Rana Poonja was a Kshatriya from the Solanki clan, local tribals say he was from the Bhil community. Both sides claim historical evidence is in their favour.
What has brought this never-ending debate to the spotlight now is a statue unveiled by Rajasthan Chief Minister Bhajanlal Sharma in Chittorgarh today.
A Statue Flashpoint
The Chief Minister today unveiled five statues -- Maharana Pratap riding into battle, Rana Poonja and Panna Dhai, the nursemaid to Mewar ruler Udai Singh II and a local icon. The spotlight is on Rana Poonja's statue. The statue shows the warrior king dressed in a dhoti and armed with a bow and arrow. Rajputs have objected to this sartorial choice. They claim Rana Poonja was a Kshatriya and is not "dressed appropriately" in the statue. The Bhils insist that Rana Poonja is a tribal leader and allege attempts to distort history.
Claims and Counterclaims
Bhil Sena, an outfit representing the tribal community, has submitted a memorandum to the local authorities and alleged that attempts are being made to distort their glorious history. "Some people are tinkering with history for their selfish interests. Rana Poonja is a Bhil warrior. In 1576, at the Battle of Haldighati, who was the warrior in dhoti and armed with bow and arrow? This is our question," said Gopal Lal Bhil, district president of Bhil Sena.
Local Rajput leaders disagree. Tej Pal Singh, a functionary of Jauhar Smriti Sansthan, said, "The attire on the statue is wrong. It should be in Kshatriya attire, with 'Rana Poonja Solanki' written on it."
Tribal Valour In Battle Of Haldighati
The Battle of Haldighati was a valiant display of Maharana Pratap's guerrilla tactics and multiple tribes, including Bhils, are said to have fought alongside the Rajput ruler. While the Bhils use this fact to stress that Rana Poonja was one of them, the Rajputs disagree.
A 'Coat Of Arms' Debate
The 'Coat of Arms' of the erstwhile Mewar kingdom has also been dragged into this Rajput vs Bhil debate. The Coat of Arms shows two individuals -- one dressed as a tribal, the other as a Rajput. Tribals claim the two figures are Maharana Pratap and Rana Poonja. The Rajputs argue the Coat of Arms is just a symbol to show Rajput-tribal unity. "Maharana Pratap's army had people from 36 communities, many tribals fought alongside him. This image is a symbol of social harmony under Maharana Pratap and not an actual representation of Rana Poonja," said Tej Pal Singh, adding that the Rajput community will distance itself from the idol unveiled today.
A Letter To PM Modi
The erstwhile royal family of Panarwa, which claims to have descended from Rana Poonja, wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2022, alleging a distortion of their family's history. "We are proud of our connection and respectful terms with the brave Bhils, Garasiyas, etc. who've been our companions and with whom we have shared our brotherhood for about seven centuries, however we are Solanki Rajputs from Bhojawat subclan, that reside in Panarwa. This is how we have known ourselves through authentic genealogy as well as through other ancestral procured records. This equally applies to my ancestor, 'Rana Punja of Panarwa' who bravely fought in the Battle of Haldighati protecting the freedom of Mewar along with his fellow Bhil tribesmen and Rajput army getting himself labelled as 'Bhiloo Rana'," the letter by Krishna Solanki, a member of the Panarwa family, states.
Another member of the family Rana Manohar Singh Solanki, repeated the claim in a newspaper ad, and said any person who "defames the prestige and honour of his family and heirs in the society by distorting the caste of his ancestor Rana Punja ji" will face action.
The Political Backdrop
Rajputs claim the alleged historical distortion is driven by vote bank politics in a region where tribal voters play a key role. Interestingly, decades ago, an earlier statue unveiling programme by then President KR Narayanan was cancelled following Rajputs' protests because the statue had Rana Poonja in tribal attire. The Panarwa royals' letter mentions in. "...Mahendra Singhji Mewar (then MP from Chittaurgarh and descendant of Maharana Pratap) wrote an open Letter to President KR Narayan and Manohar Singhji Solanki (The 16th Direct descendant of Rana Punja Solanki) an open Letter to Rajasthan Chief Minister, Mr. Bhairon Singh Ji Shekhwat, recalling how it would create rifts between rajputs of Bhomat and Bhils in future, who cohabitated for centuries and fought together through generations shoulder to shoulder...," it states, adding that the event was eventually cancelled.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
9 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
HistoriCity: Secular alliances in the battle of Haldighati and its forgotten hero
At a short distance from Haldighati lies the grave of Hakim Khan Suri, a forgotten hero of an epic battle, which remains a source of controversy over who was the victor, Maharana Pratap Singh or Emperor Akbar. In the summer heat of 1576, Emperor Akbar (1542-1605), who, having subdued most Afghan rebellions against the incipient Mughal rule, rode out with his ally and relative Raja Man Singh of Jaipur and others towards Gogunda near present day Udaipur. In a tradition replicated by his descendants, to cement alliances and allegiance, Akbar had married Man Singh's bua or father's sister in 1562. Akbar further strengthened the bond by marrying his son Salim (later emperor Jahangir) to Man Singh's sister Manbhawati Bai in 1582. Maharana Pratap (1540-1597), the scion of Mewar, had established a new capital at Udaipur after the ancient citadel of Chittor was lost to the Mughals in 1568. Pratap was ensconced in the fort at nearby Gogunda when his forces clashed with Akbar's in June 1576. Pratap remains unparalleled among the cast of Rajput kings. While most Rajput houses formed alliances with the rising Mughal kingdom, he remained defiant till his death. It is this stubbornness rooted in regional autonomy and martial pride that gained him the respect of even his adversaries – fellow Rajputs like the Kachwaha chief Man Singh, or Akbar. The Mewar forces numbering around 3,000 were composed of 800-900 Pathan troops led by Hakim Khan Suri, who traced his lineage to Sher Shah Suri, the legendary Afghan, who rose from being the de facto ruler of Bihar (1530-1540) to the emperor of India. Sher Shah Suri may have died in battle at the fort of Kalinjar in 1545, but his short reign was immortalised due to public works such as construction of sarais, the highway from Bengal to Peshawar, and the suppression of banditry. His death left the Suris, an Afghan Pashtun tribe, in disarray and desperate. Sher Shah's successors lasted barely a decade after his death. Adil Shah, the last Suri king, is remembered more through his prime minister, Hemu, who lost the battle of Panipat to Akbar in 1556. But some Suri nobles survived, retaining their grudges and militias. During the conflict between Maharana Pratap and the young Akbar, it was one such Suri noble, Hakim Khan, who saw an opportunity, perhaps the last one to restore Suri supremacy over the Mughals. Khan rode with his well-trained and battle-hardened troops from the fertile plains of Bihar to the desert of Rajasthan's Mewar following the ancient motto of 'Amicus meus, inimicus inimici mei' or enemy's enemy is my friend. Hakim Khan brought with him a better knowledge of Mughal war tactics; he also persuaded Maharana Pratap to order new metal headgear for Mewar's troops instead of the traditional turban to ensure protection from head injuries. Chronicler Abdul Qadir Badayuni's 16th century eyewitness account, Muntakhab at-Tawarikh, noted that, 'one division, of which Hakim Sur Afghan was the leader, came straight from the direction of the mountains, and attacked our advance-body. And on account of the broken and uneven state of the ground, and the quantity of thorns, and the serpentine twistings of the road, the skirmishers and the advance-body of our troops (led by Man Singh) became hopelessly mixed up together, and sustained a complete defeat'. But the imperial army recovered soon enough, and under Man Singh's leadership rallied, forcing Maharana Pratap to make a strategic retreat. Badayuni wrote: 'Man Singh springing into the place of the elephant-driver exhibited such intrepidity as surpassed all imagination…'. Later, Badayuni turned into a bitter critic of Akbar because of his secular nature and policy of tolerance towards non-Muslims. Author Reema Hooja wrote in 'Maharana Pratap: The Invincible Warrior': 'In the heat of the battle, when the Mewar forces seemed to be gaining the upper hand, the Mughal commander Mahtar Khan spread the rumour that emperor Akbar himself was approaching, leading a large contingent of the imperial army. Akbar was not present at any stage of the battle of Halighati, but at that moment the ploy worked, ad boosted the morale of the Mughal forces, who instilled with fresh courage, rallied anew'. The 'Secular' Battle of Haldighati Far from the communal tinge given to the battle, Haldighati richly exemplified the shifting allegiances among kingdoms and rulers. While Hakim Khan Suri was a general who led the vanguard (or haraval pankti) in Maharana Pratap's force, the 'Mughal forces were commanded by Man Singh. With both the Hindus and the Muslims divided, the battle of Haldighati can scarcely be considered a struggle between Hindus and Muslims. Nor can it be considered a struggle for Rajput independence, influential sections of the Rajputs already having cast their lot with the Mughals. The struggle can be regarded, at best, as an assertion of the principle of local independence,' historian Satish Chandra noted in 'Medieval India: From Sultanat to the Mughals- Mughal Empire' (1526-1748). Noted historian Romila Thapar added: 'Both religious identities had participants on each side in a complex political conflict. Rajput clans had differing loyalties among themselves and the imperial power, and therefore fought on opposite sides. And regaining ancestral kingdoms was on both agendas.' An award in Hakim Khan's name Instituted in 1986, a national award, known as the Hakim Khan Suri award, is given by the Maharana Mewar Foundation to honour the 'work of permanent value for the cause of national integration'. The foundation notes that Suri's commandeering of Pratap's military division in Haldighati was the 'first recorded instance in the Annals of Mewar in which the responsibility of leading the Mewar Army was not entirely entrusted to Shaktawat or Chundawat brethren'. Citing him as an example of someone whose beliefs trumped religious ideology, the foundation further states that, 'even in death no one could part him from his sword and he was buried with full honours with his sword in hand.' Past recipients of this award include actor Rahul Bose and Dr. E. Sreedharan (the metro man). HistoriCity is a column by author Valay Singh that narrates the story of a city that is in the news, by going back to its documented history, mythology and archaeological digs. The views expressed are personal. Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines to 100 year archives.
Hindustan Times
18 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
NDPS court allows Rhea Chakraborty to travel abroad for work
MUMBAI: A special court under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act has permitted actor Rhea Chakraborty to travel abroad for professional commitments between June 1 and September 15. Chakraborty, who was booked in a drugs case linked to the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, has been granted leave to visit Sri Lanka, Serbia, and various European countries to shoot for a new project. In an order dated May 29, Special Judge CS Datir noted that Chakraborty had previously travelled abroad with the court's permission and had complied fully with all bail conditions. 'There is no occasion that she had infringed the bail conditions,' the court observed. Chakraborty was arrested by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) on September 8, 2020, along with her brother and others, on allegations of financing and procuring drugs for Rajput's consumption. The case followed a complaint by Rajput's father, which led to a wider investigation into drug use within the film industry. The Bombay High Court granted Chakraborty bail in October 2020. In her recent application, Chakraborty stated that she was required to travel for the filming of Stepsons S1, an international production. She requested temporary release of her passport for visa processing, adding that she had travelled abroad earlier without incident. The prosecution opposed the plea, arguing that there was no documentation confirming her role in the series and raising concerns about the possibility of her absconding. However, the court rejected these concerns, stating that Chakraborty is a Mumbai resident with 'deep roots in society', and held that the likelihood of her fleeing is minimal. 'Considering her request and keeping in mind her past behaviour, I am inclined to allow her to travel abroad for the aforesaid period,' the court ruled. The actor has been directed to submit her travel itinerary, including addresses and contact details of her stay abroad. In March this year, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a closure report in the Sushant Singh Rajput death case, clearing Chakraborty of abetment charges. The CBI had taken over the probe from the Mumbai Police following Rajput's father's allegations.
India.com
2 days ago
- India.com
What Is The Religion Of The Indian Army? Delhi High Court Delivers Landmark Verdict
In a recent and significant case, a Christian officer in the Indian Army, Lieutenant Samuel Kamaleson, was dismissed from service for refusing to participate in religious ceremonies associated with his regiment. This case has sparked a broader conversation about the unique "religion" of the Indian Army—where the nation comes first, above all personal beliefs. Samuel Kamaleson was commissioned into the Army's 3 Cavalry Regiment in March 2017. This regiment consists of three squadrons composed of Sikh, Jat, and Rajput soldiers. Kamaleson was assigned to lead the squadron primarily made up of Sikh soldiers. As a commanding officer, it was his responsibility to attend religious events within the regiment to help maintain troop morale. However, Kamaleson, being a devout Christian, objected to entering temples and gurdwaras and refrained from participating in religious parades. Although he would go up to the vicinity of the places of worship, he avoided stepping into the actual prayer areas, as he believed it went against his personal faith. #DNAWithRahulSinha | धर्म Vs 'सेना का धर्म'..'ऐतिहासिक' विश्लेषण, सेना में 'अपना धर्म' देखने वाले अफसर कैसे नपे?#DNA #IndianArmy @RahulSinhaTV — Zee News (@ZeeNews) June 2, 2025 Senior officers tried to explain to him that his presence in these ceremonies was not about worship but about leadership and morale-building. Despite repeated efforts to make him understand the importance of this role, Kamaleson refused to comply with the orders. As a result, in 2021, the Army dismissed him for indiscipline. His pension and gratuity were also withheld. Unhappy with the decision, Kamaleson filed a petition in the Delhi High Court, challenging his dismissal and seeking reinstatement. After nearly four years of legal proceedings, the High Court upheld the Army's decision. In its verdict, the Delhi High Court clarified that this case was not about religious freedom, but about the failure to follow a lawful order from a superior officer. According to Section 41 of the Army Act, disobeying a senior's lawful command is considered an offence. The court noted that Kamaleson had been instructed to attend the inner parts of religious sites not for personal worship but to support the emotional and spiritual needs of his soldiers. This, in turn, directly contributed to their morale and unity. The court further stated that while such instructions might appear harsh to a civilian, the standards of discipline in the Army are fundamentally different. Refusing to enter a religious place for such purposes weakens military values and cohesion. By placing his personal religious beliefs above a lawful military order, Kamaleson displayed clear indiscipline, which justified his dismissal. The judgment also reaffirmed a long-standing principle of the Indian armed forces: the religion of the Army is the defence of the nation. For Indian soldiers, the country stands above their individual selves and even their personal religions. Though the Army is made up of individuals from various religions, castes, and regions, the uniform binds them as one. This spirit of unity and discipline is what defines the Indian Army. Former officers have emphasized that a soldier's true loyalty is to the Indian Constitution and their duty to the nation. The Indian Army is a secular institution where people from all communities—Hindu, Sikh, Christian, Parsi, and even Jewish—have held important leadership positions. Throughout its history, the Indian Army has maintained a strict apolitical stance and has fought not just external enemies, but also internal threats like religious extremism. In conclusion, the High Court's decision serves as a powerful reminder that in the Indian Army, discipline, unity, and commitment to the nation supersede personal religious beliefs. Soldiers who fight for their country have always proven to be stronger and more dependable than those who fight in the name of religion.
