Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Sikandra

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and move to Desecration of Akbar's tomb. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sikandra

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are four citations on the page and none of them mention any battle, the incident Rajaram looting the tomb of Akbar is made into a battle page where no battle was fought. I searched for it in many later mughal history books and on google books too but I can't find any source mentioning this battle. It was also created by a single purpose sockpuppet who has been blocked indefinitely. Hiensrt (talk) 06:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the link directly takes us to the search term which do mention looting of Akbar's tomb at Sikandra but no battle. And these are the links that were provided by the creator of the article, so this is what he had.Hiensrt (talk) 08:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Appears to have been a real event, but "battle" seems to be overblowing it, with e.g. the Elphinstone link saying "vandalism" and The Cambridge Shorter History of India calling it "plundering". At the same time, all the references I could find appear to be rather passing mentions. For example, The Cambridge Shorter History of India (based on a Google Books search) has less than a full sentence on this. As all the references appear to be so passing, I believe this fails the significant coverage aspect of
    WP:GNG. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • As NitinMlk has found references to establish significant coverage, I'm changing my !vote to move to Desecration of Akbar's tomb. -Ljleppan (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Desecration of Akbar's tomb and remove the redundant infobox.
Irrespective of the article's title, the article's content is about the desecration of Akbar's tomb, which is a notable as well as a historically important event. So the page should be moved to Desecration of Akbar's tomb, as the sources use exactly this or a similar title while describing this incident.
Note that Rajaram actually attacked the site of Akbar's tomb, i.e. Sikandara, thrice, and two of his attacks were specifically to desecrate the Akbar's tomb. Also, he did lose 400 men in confrontation with the imperial force during one of these attacks. And we do need to mention those failed attempts in the article, as they are relevant to the topic. It seems the page creator relied on the snippet views available at Google Books, which resulted in the misrepresentation of a few details as well as the article's wrong title. Anyway, here are a few sources giving a full account of Rajaram's desecration of Akbar's tomb:
  • OCLC 248496072
    .
quotation

... In 1685, Rajaram, a Jat zamindar at Sinsini, eighty kilometres west of Agra, strengthened a strongly defended fortress of hardened mud. Shielded by difficult terrain and bamboo/scrub forests these forts could beat off all but the most determined assaults. Already refusing to pay the revenue, Rajaram led his jat clansmen to plunder traffic on the royal road. They even attempted to enter Sikandra to despoil Akbar's tomb, but were driven back by the faujdar. ...

In late 1687, Aurangzeb sent Bidar Bakht, his young grandson, north with troops to suppress the Jats. In the interim the newly appointed governor of the Punjab, Mahabat Khan, a former Hyderabad officer, had encamped near Sikandra on the Yumuna river. The Jats boldly attacked his camp in force and only retired after losing four hundred casualties.

Rajaram's Jats outmaneuvered the local imperial forces and occupied Sikandra where they succeeded in looting Akbar's tomb. According to Manucci:40
Already angered by the demands of the governors and faujdars for revenue, a great number of them [Jats] assembled and marched to the mausoleum of that great conqueror Akbar. Against him living they could effect nothing; they therefore wreaked vengeance on his sepulchre. They began their pillage by breaking in the great gates of bronze which it had, robbing the valuable precious stones and plates ... of gold and silver, and destroying what they were not able to carry away. Dragging out the bones of Akbar, they threw them angrily into the fire and burnt them.

Whether the Jats actually seized Akbar's remains, the desecration of the tomb was as Manucci puts it "the greatest affront possible to the house and lineage of Taimur-i lang (Timur)."

quotation

... Early in 1688, Raja Ram attacked Mahabat Khan, who on his way to Lahore was encamped near Sikandara. A fierce fight ensued in which Raja Ram was finally overpowered and driven back after losing 400 men. The casualties on the other side included 150 dead and 40 wounded.23

After a short while, Raja Ram reappeared at Sikandara and taking advantage of the delay in coming of Shaista Khan, the governor-designate of Agra, he attacked and plundered Akbar's mausoleum. The Jat leader carried away the precious articles of gold and silver, carpets, lamps, etc. and destroyed what he could not carry. According to Manucci the Jats dragged out the bones of Akbar, threw them angrily into fire and burnt them. Muhammad Baqa (the Naib of Khan-i-Jahan) who was then at Agra, did nothing to frustrate the rebels. As a punishment, therefore, his mansab was reduced by 500 and that of Khan-i-Jahan by 1000 sawars.24 The Jats also ransacked the villages, set aside for the support of Taj Mahal. Some Jats ravaged the environs of Khurja, while others captured the local Mughal officers at Palwal.25

One noteworthy fact is that the local Mughal officials and soldiers in general, winked at the disobedience of the Jats and even secretly entered into collusion with them to share the booty grabbed by them.26 It is also to be noted that Muhammad Baqa, the deputy of Khan-i-Jahan at Agra, had remained inactive while Raja Ram robbed Akbar's tomb. This exasperated Aurangzeb and he reduced the deputy's Mansab by 500 and that of Khan-i-Jahan by 1000 sawars.27 Meanwhile, the daring and audacity of the Jats alarmed Aurangzeb and he ordered Raja Ram Singh (who was at Kabul) to chastise Raja Ram. But due to his sudden death the Raja could not resume his charge.28

quotation

... Mir Ibrahim, newly entitled Mahabat Khan who was then encamped near Sikandara on the banks of the Jamuna, while on his way to Punjab to take charge of his viceroyalty was attacked by Rajaram. But Rajaram was repulsed, after a long and stubborn fight, with the loss of 400 men, while the Mughals loss was 190 killed and wounded. Rajaram soon returned to the scene, and profiting by the delay in coming of Shaista Khan, the new subehdar of Agra, plundered Akbar's tomb, taking away its carpets, gold and silver vessels and lamp, etc. and damaging the building. Khan i-Jahan's deputy (naib), Muhammad Waqa, did nothing to check him.3 They also set on fire the villages which had been assigned for the maintenance of Taj Mahal.4 Reports were reaching the court daily that a group of Jats had plundered the pargana of Khurja and arrested the thanedar of Palwal.5
The plundering of Akbar's tomb, and the parganas of Khurja and Palwal caused great concern to Aurangzeb. He angrily reduced Khan- i Jahan's mansab,1 and appointed Raja Ram Singh of Amber as faujdar of Mathura to crush Rajaram Jat.2 The vakil at the Mughal court requested the Maharaja to reach Mathura as early as possible, because the Jats menace had become so great that even the fort of Ranthambhore and the territorial integrity of Amber (Jaipur) State was threatened.3 Apart from this Ghalib Beg was sent to establish some thanas in the Mathura area. It is quite clear that the Jat uprising effected not only the narrow limits of Brij, but the areas right from the Duab to Ranthambhore. The Jats in this entire area, it seems, were on the move. But before Raja Ram Singh of Amber could reach the disturbed area, he passed away.4

[Few details about the second and the third sources quoted above: Dr. Girish Chandra Dwivedi served as head of the History Department at Kashi Vidyapith. And his above book is based on his PhD thesis prepared under the personal supervision of historian Ishwari Prasad. The book is probably the most in-depth source about the Jats' role in the Mughal Empire. Unsurprisingly, multiple historians specialising/knowledgeable in the Indian history of that era – e.g. Irfan Habib,[1] Eugenia Vanina,[2] Shail Mayaram[3], etc. – suggest/recommend it. Similarly, the book of Dr. Ram Pande is also based on his accepted PhD thesis (see here), which he prepared under the supervision of historian Arthur Llewellyn Basham, and is suggested by Eugenia Vanina.[2]]
As far as the historical importance of this event is concerned, multiple prominent subject experts, including the historians John F. Richards[4] and Catherine B. Asher,[5] describe it as an affront to the Mughal empire. This event also escalated the Jat-Mughal confrontations to a different level, as from here onwards, Mughals also summoned Kachhwaha rulers of Amber (Jaipur) to subdue Jats.
Finally, the weird act of burning Akbar's remains sounds like the last rights performed among Hindus. And it does have a Hindu connection: this was done to avenge Akbar's matrimonial alliances with Hindu women![6][7] Unsurprisingly, scholars cite it as a notable example among the notorious ones of its kind.[8]
References

References

  1. ISBN 978-0-19-567814-7
    . The detailed political history of the Jat kingdom has been painstakingly reconstructed by Girish Chandra Dwivedi, The Jats: Their Role in the Mughal Empire, Bangalore, 1989.
  2. ^
    doi:10.1177/0376983620922414
    . The history of the Jat uprisings and wars is discussed in Pande, Bharatpur Upto 1826; Girish Chandra Dwivedi, The Jats; ...
  3. ISBN 978-0-231-12730-1
    . For accounts of regional political systems such as those of the Jats, ... see Girish Chandra Dwivedi, The Jats: Their Role in the Mughal Empire (New Delhi: Arnold Publishers, 1989); ...
  4. ISBN 978-0-52-125119-8
    . ... the desecration of the tomb was as Manucci puts it "the greatest affront possible to the house and lineage of Taimur-i lang (Timur).
  5. ISBN 978-0-521-26728-1
    . Contemporary accounts describing the tomb's desecration by plundering Jats in the late seventeenth century indicate how sumptuous was the tomb's interior. Gold, silver and precious stones as well as all the carpets were pillaged. Significantly, the attack on Akbar's mausoleum was perceived as a blow to Mughal prestige, suggesting its continuing importance as a dynastic symbol.
  6. ^ Ahmad, Aziz (1964). Studies in Islamic Culture in the Indian Environment. Oxford University Press. p. 95. The most ironical incident in the Jāt history was their desecration of Akbar's tomb as a vengeance for his having married Hindu women, ...
  7. ISBN 978-0-367-01181-9
    . Incidentally, Akbar's exploits also led to the desecration of his tomb by militant Hindus outraged by his matrimonial alliances with Hindu Rajput women.
  8. ISBN 978-0-14-025758-8
    . On the other hand, during the wars of the eighteenth century, the destruction and desecration of Muslim religious sites (and even royal tombs) was not unknown; the case of Akbar's tomb at Sikandra, desecrated by the Jats of Bharatpur, is one of them.
- NitinMlk (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and move per NitinMlk. Srnec (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Battle_of_Sikandra&oldid=1062275826"