3rd Mughal Akbar The Great used these royal hunts very effectively to show the strength. Something akin to the modern war games / NATO exercises. Akbar would initially send a feeler for marriage to the daughter/sister of the Raja in Rajasthan. If that was rebuffed, he would organise a royal hunt in the vicinity of that kingdom, which would show the Mughal army in its full strength, starting with an area of maybe 200 to 400 sqkms and gradually compacting the animals in an enclosure which would be a few sqkms, with the help of the army and / or beaters. If this did not bring the Raja to submission, then of course there would be a full attack as in the case of Chittore, where no quarters would be given - kind of examplanary punishement so that when Akbar sent a feeler to another Raja, he might think twice before refusing the overture.

Subbiah, Sorry but after reading your comment, I feel that it (my comment) does read like it was all for marriage. Let me clarify for those who have yet to read these notes: No, that was not the case. All three above mentioned actions were taken by Akbar to expand the Mughal dominions. The Rajas could rule their kingdom independently, as long as they accepted being a feudatory to Akbar. And to bring this about, Akbar chose the three above ways, i.e. either by marriage, or getting Raja to concur by show of strength, or by total victory, which served an as an example to others who were yet to get the feelers.

I have never read such a glowing tribute and generous views towards what essentially is terrorism and mass murder of civilians.

Reading history is nothing more than seeing the same event from different perspectives. How dreadful it would be... if a single version was enforced on all.

Agree with that; but only partially ;-)

@RBSI: I would go with what you say re reading History with different perspectives.

@Satyakam: Right from dark mists of antiquity, man has always killed for reasons other than eating. What was Ramayan and the war or Ram with Ravaan? A battle for Aryanizing the sub-continent or if one is very generous to recover one's abducted wife who one banishes later. What was Mahabharat? The first war in the world for property and territory. Of course in both warriors were killed (rathis and ardh-rathis and Maharathis, but there are examples of even Sarthis (who were non-combatants - same as being civilians) were killed. The Battle of Troy? I could go on and on right till present times. Did you know that USA has killed 10 million civilians in peace time after the 2nd world war, around the world. If one chooses to use the word terrorism, than all this is also terrorism. But then, I agree with RBSI re differing points of views on history.

Thats an intersting perspective. Man is the only creature who kills for reasons other than hunger! And most of our heroes and icons and even Gods are just such men!

I quite agree with you Pulin. Genocides have been going on in history ever since the beginning of human civilization...since it seems to feed the paronia and insecurity of a few sick tyrants. A sample list from Wikipedia sheds light on the extent of human destruction in history... and this could actually be just that... a sample. What about the American Indians, Aborigines etc ? They are not even included in the list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history

@ Sharda: Agreed. We humans are the creators or the Creator. Srujanhar ke Srujanhar tum...... to put it in Hindi.

Pulin is there no difference between war and genocide? I am afraid that is a very western way of thinking. Also loosing the sight of essential issues of both MB and Ramayana and comparing it with genocidal wars are not particularly inspiring. You may at least try and read Gurucharan Das' "Difficulty of being good" at least for a modern understanding in a anglized framework of what MB is.

No argument with you Satyakam. War is war and people are killed on both sides. Both sides believe that God is on their side. At the end of the war, one side knows that the God was on their side and the others figure that their God had forsaken them. In both, was and genocide, people are still killed. I can present you examples from Ramayan and Mahabharat where even Ram and even Krishna employed underhand means to win. So what is right and what is wrong is very subjective and whether you are the victor or vanquished, since history is always written by the victors. I do not for a moment dispute your right to disagree with my views and hope you will do the same for me. Cheers.

this Mughal pic I like because of the Nilgau antelope depicted nicely - sure it's a historical pic also! the comments on war and human history remind me of a case that impressed me that was documented recently: in (human) war region in Africa where wild Chimpansees are hunted for meat and are thus experiencing what bullets and gunfire actually do, some male Chimps escaped from their reserve and attacked male Humans and one male Chimp did kill one Human. The comment was that the Chimps were defending their families (and themselves), however the Human killed had not hunted them......

@Maryam: That is how a war starts Maryam. When one nation fires the first bullet in retaliation on the other nation.

The picture depicting preparation for a hunt has got a childlike quality which is very endearing.

Hope they ate what they killed and not worry about hallal!

People of all faiths eat meat of one or another animal irrespective of whether an animal is killed in a hunt or in a Yagna sacrifice or to appease a goddess, by halal or jhatka. Bolai meat (goats cut to propitiate the goddess is particularly popular in Pune region as the most savory way of obtaining mutton). Luckily hunting is largely banned today to protect species threatened by killing, not for meat but for skin, bones and horns of animals. Hence hunting of a neelgai as depicted in the picture will not be looked upon kindly in today's times.

My information is that they did, Arvind.

@Shekhar: I am with you on people of all faith eating meat. Reminds me of a shloka from Mahabharat, attributed to Bhishma. He is supposed to have said it to his Sarthi (charioteer) when he was being attacked by Arjun from behind Shikhandi. It went as follows: Arjunasyah imeh bannah, nem bannah Shikhandiah. Krintanti maam gatrani, Magh masey gavam eva. Meaning: These are the arrows of Arjun and not Shikhandi, as they cut my joints like cows being cut in the month of Magh. It gives one an idea that even when Krishna was alive, beef eating was prevalent in India amongst the Aryans.

Pulin, The taboo of meat eating came about after Lord Buddha and Buddhism/Hinduism who abstained from meat eating. In the vedic ceremonies the priests also ate horse meat after the Ashvamedha Yagna. I have no problem anyone eating meat (I do), except in case of wonton killing for the sake of target practice and archaic sacrifices done to appease gods. You mentioned they did eat the meat in the above case. Regarding Neelgai which were once abundant are far and few in India now.

>> War is war and people are killed on both sides. Yes War is war, but war is not genocide. There are wars without genocide, and genocides without war. I am sorry but the right to hold a view does not entitle one to obfuscate differences which very much exist. Neither does it entitle any one to make a "equality" comparison between a perceived moral issue and a out right action.

Human society seems to have gone through cycles of eating habits which were determined by availability, weapons to hunt and ability to use fire to make food edible. It is unlikely that man ever ate raw meat. So in the beginning we may have been vegetarian (surviving on fruit and roots which could be eaten raw) - the gatherer stage, then the hunter -gatherer stage when man could hunt and roast meat on fire. Later return to vegetarianism must have happened after pastoral period and settlement through agricultural production. However, culture seems to have nothing to do with diet (except cannibalism which all human societies have outright rejected. Animals also do not seem to display any cannibalistic tendency).

The discussion started Shekhar with your statement of "....glowing tributes......." where a war for territory is compared by you to terrorism. Every king and every leader of the nation till now, have always endeavored to expand their territory/influence right up to now and are still doing it. Either you are against war for any reason, or to you every war is terrorism - as I read it. Just as you are entitled to make a judgement on, I hope you would grant me the same entitlement to hold my views. I understand perfectly well between war and genocide. The more vicious a war, the more likely that genocide follows. A case in point is the Trojan war. No comments anymore from my side.

Pulin : I think you got the people mixed up...but then, lets move on. : )

Oops: thanks RBSI. You are right. I did, didn't I. It was addressed to Satyakam Sudershan.

Pulin, I will let it be, but suffices to say that the Victory over Chittor fort was accompanied by destruction of civilians, massive massacre of non-combatants, destruction and defilement of places of worship and other such atrocities, *AFTER* the war for territory was won in terms of Fort seized. This is pretty well documented, and thus to call such actions as war, is to essentially miss the point of what was happening here.

Satyakam : It would be interesting to know about the destruction and damage caused by the Marathas, Sikhs, Rajputs, Cholas, Pallavas, Chalukyas etc etc on the temples, civilian populations etc of their enemies during the wars and later on. Would the pain and damage inflicted by any of these groups be any different from that of the others like Mughals or the British ? I have heard that in pre-muslim India..the Jains, Buddhists and Hindus quite regularly destroyed each others Temples and Viharas. This does not mean...that I am condoning temple destruction. Not at all. I have also read that certain Marathas regularly raided and plundered temples, because the soldiers were paid only in terms of war booty. Is there so much of history of those times, we ourselves are quietly ignoring here..to fit into our versions of history based on ethnic groups.

There is no know instance of such destruction and death caused by any of the named parties. There is ONLY one known instance of sack of Vatapi by Pulekishan II, but that is a "sack" rather than genocide, the defilement of temples there relate to taking the statue out to the temple in Pulekishan's capital. "Eminent" historian (ref to Shorie's work) Romila T claims such sack of buddhist temples, but can not furnish a single example to buttress that claim. I am aware that there is a singularly pressing need in India to create a moral equivalence between different entities, since it is part of the Nehruvian agenda of creating a "new history" for a new nation, however I am afraid that facts on the ground are extremely cruel to such attempts.

I beleive in no agenda...definitely not a Nehruvian one. I feel it is plain common sense that human nature during acts of violence like war etc is the same between men/mankind... whatever maybe their ethnicity. Yes...some maybe more cruel and.. most might not be recorded. Is the rampant corruption among our political classes more acceptable that of EIC Officers earlier. But see the deluge of comments one will see if I post on such a subject here. I often wonder whether this extreme hatred about a time so ancient.. an indicator of the absolute helplessness we are experiencing in the present... which in many ways is equally hopeless...albeit in a cleverly concealed manner. In a forum like this...we quickly realize that coruption is corruption...given the complex components of a historical situation...whenever...wherever. But I am simply amazed at your 'certainty' about these ancient historical events !

You do not have to "believe" in anything RBSI :-D, I personally hold that knowing is better than believing. Yes there is a lot of certainty about history too, it is not necessarily as fuzzy and unknown as it is some how made to be. At least on many topics. Of these, the use of terror and genocide as a instrument of war is clearly known to be more in some cases than others. That is inescapable. As for the Nehruvian historical agenda that is on record by the first councils that were organized to write history in India and so on. You will find many exact quotes by the people involved themselves in the book "Eminent historians" by Arun Shorie should you chose to read it.

Further, you allude to comparisons between corruption and make the case of corruption should be corruption. However do note that I did not bring in any comparisons what so ever. I only expressed dismay at using warm words for what was essentially massacre of civilians and genocide, cultural and people. I only make the difference between a war where no civilians are targeted and a genocidal war, and yes, I maintain, they are not the same. However now that you bring in the topic of comparisons I will say that a overworked policeman accepting a cup of tea or 50 Rs bribe is not same as some one selling national secrets for billions.

I am glad, I hold opinions and opinions don't hold me.

I have no disagreement with you on your arguments on genocide and corruption...and yes, I am an admirer of Arun Shourie and his works.

Thank you RBSI. And yes -- Arun Shorie rocks :-D

Coming in at a very late stage but must comment on the issue of 'new' histories raised by Satyakam. There is no doubt about the fact that the national discourse was sought to be moulded in certain ways by the Nehruvians. Perhaps it was for the best given the charged nature of partition and its fall out; but it was not impartially based on facts. To give a roiled nation some tome to breath I may even condone these 'new' equalities tried to be created at the time. But what about today? The discourse has become nuanced enough to come face to face with the truth not to hide it. Destruction of Buddhist temples by Hindus is a favorite 'fact' of Romila Thapar and her gang ( Kosambi does not hold this view) but proof is thin on the ground. Now that this issue has come up ( and I have not read Shourie) maybe i am going to do my own research on this . Now, if I may mention another extremely controversial issue , there are various serious historical papers written in reputed historical journals ( check JSTOR) about Akbar's destruction and rebuliding over the city of Benares. ( No, this is not sourced from an RSS site or a hate site but academic journals). However the minute one mentions it one is swamped by the obfuscators and all kinds of epithets may be showered on you. I reiterate, burying the truth is no way to arrive at a lasting emotional harmony.

@ Pulin Trivedi Why not concentrate on facts rather than opinions?