Rakshabandhan is a time for the Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb gang to propagate the myth of Rani Karnavati sending Humayun a Rakhi seeking help against Bahadur Shah’s invasion. This story is a perfect example of the Islamist-Leftist cabal distorting history to present Muslim invaders’ ‘humane’ face.
Who was Rani Karnavati?
Rani Karnavati was the queen of Guhila (Sisodia) ruler Maharana Sangram Singh I, popularly known as Rana Sanga. Rana Sanga ruled over Mewar, which put up stiff resistance to the Islamic powers of Delhi. Following the battle of Khanwa, Maharana passed away on January 30, 1528 (January 19, 1528, according to SK Banerji).
After Rana Sanga, his sons Ratan Singh and Vikramaditya (Vikramjit) became the rulers of Mewar. The Rajput chiefs were not supportive of Vikramaditya; hence, Rani Karnavati took over the reins of the kingdom. She appealed to the Rajput chiefs to unite as the threat of Gujarat ruler Qutubuddin Bahadur Shah’s attack was looming over Mewar.
Her appeal had the desired effect and the Rajputs came together. Vikramjit and Udai Singh, sons of Rana Sanga, were sent away to Karnavati’s maternal home at Bundi. The Rajputs prepared to face Bahadur Shah under Rani Karnavati’s command.
What is the Karnavati-Humayun Rakhi story?
In the context of the Rajput-Bahadur Shah battle at Chittor, the Karnavati-Humayun Rakhi story has been propagated. According to the story, Rani appealed to Humayun for help when the Rajputs faced Bahadur Shah’s threat.
She supposedly sent a Rakhi along with the letter. Humayun, away on a Bengal expedition, immediately set off to help his ‘sister’ to honor her Rakhi but arrived late. By then, Karnavati had already committed Jauhar and other Rajput women. Humayun is said to have subsequently restored Vikramaditya to the throne of Mewar.
Origins of the myth
Tod calls Rakshabandhan the festival of the bracelet.“Though the bracelet may be sent by maidens, it is only on occasions of urgent necessity or danger. The Rajput dame bestows with the Rakhi the title of the adopted brother. While its acceptance secures to her all the protection of a Cavaliere servente, scandal itself never suggests any other tie to his devotion. He may hazard his life in her cause,” Todd writes.
Tod terms Humayun ‘true warrior’ who honored his promise by repelling Bahadur Shah’s attack and reinstating Vikramaditya. Tod propagated the myth of Jodha-Akbar, which Bollywood movies and Hindi TV serials have subsequently popularized.
What does history say?
Interestingly, none of the contemporary historians mention the incident. Even later historians deem the story a ‘legend’ by later writers. Leftist historian Satish Chandra in his book History of Medieval India, writes, “no contemporary writer has mentioned the story, and it may not be true.”
Archana Garodia Gupta and Shruti Garodia, in their book History of India for Children (Vol 2): From the Mughals to the Present, state that Humayun reached Chittor a few months after Bahadur Shah captured it.
The truth, however, is that Humayun sided with his co-religionist Bahadur Shah. “Rani Karnavati, Rana’s mother, had appealed to Humayun for help, but no response came except the king’s advance to Gwalior and his stay there for two months”, writes SK Banerji in his book Humayun Badshah.
Though Banerji says Karnavati sought Humayun’s help, he does not mention ‘rakhi’ being sent by her. Given this, we can say that the queen probably sent a letter of appeal to which the secular cabal has added the rakhi story using an unsubstantiated story given by Tod. Historical evidence indicates Bahadur Shah’s appeal to Humayun using Islam as a rallying point had its desired effect.
This indicates Humayun had no intention to help a ‘kafir’. After his stay in the Gwalior Fort, Humayun returned to Agra on March 4, 1533. The first siege of Chittor ended in a treaty signed on March 24, 1533 CE. Further proof of Humayun’s lack of intention to help his ‘sister’ comes from the exchange of letters between Humayun and Qutubuddin Bahadur Shah that Banerji has mentioned.
Historical accounts state Humayun was in Gwalior when he received Bahadur Shah’s letter. The Gujarat Sultan asked the Mughals not to interfere since he was waging Jihad against ‘kafirs’ as per Islamic law. Banerji explains the Muslim diplomacy and religiopolitical attitude of the Muslim victor towards the Hindu vanquished.
“After the treaty of 1533 A. D. with the Rana of Chittor, when he surrendered some territory besides paying a large indemnity, Bahadur Shah, for no reason whatever except an ambition to conquer an ‘infidel’ kingdom, destroyed Chittor two years later”, writes Banerji citing Chittor as an example of the aforementioned Muslim policy.
While Bahadur Shah was busy in the second siege of Chittor, Humayun’s man Mohammad Jama took refuge in Gujarat. Since Shah refused to send Jama back despite Humayun’s insistence, the Mughals attacked Gujarat. Bahadur Shah’s general Tatar Khan, was defeated.
As assured by Shah’s minister Sadr Khan, the Mughal ruler did not attack Shah when he was engaged in a battle with the Sisodias. Thus, despite being in Gujarat, Humayun did not rush to Chittor’s defense as the Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb gang would have us believe.
Humayun stationed himself at Ujjain to get an upper hand over Shah. He ended the Gujarat Sultanate not because he wanted to restore his ‘nephew’ Vikramjit and honor his ‘rakhi’ promise but because Bahadur Shah had sided with a ‘traitor’ according to the Mughal king.
The Karnavati-Humayun ‘Rakhi’ story is another secular lie with no historical proof. It is high time such white-washing of Islamists using Hindu festivals is stopped.
(Featured Image Source: NewsTrack)