Samajwadi Party is known to be Hinduphobic, and Samajwadi MP Ramji Lal Suman calling Rana Sanga a traitor is the latest instance of their Hinduphobia.

Samajwadi Party MP Ramji Lal Suman’s slur on Rana Sanga & his defence by Party chief Akhilesh Yadav

Samajwadi Party MP Ramji Lal Suman termed Rana Sanga a traitor, adding that he ‘invited’ Babur to defeat Ibrahim Lodi. He was speaking in the Rajya Sabha on Friday (March 21) when he made the controversial statement.

Suman had stirred a row after calling the 16th-century Rajput king a traitor in Parliament. He claimed that Rana Sanga played an instrumental role in bringing Babur to India. Suman made the remarks during a discussion on the functioning of the Home Ministry in the Rajya Sabha.

“It is often repeated by BJP leaders that Muslims have the DNA of Babur. But I would like to point out that Indian Muslims do not consider Babur as their leader. In fact, who brought Babur to India? It was Rana Sanga who invited him to defeat Ibrahim Lodi. By that logic, if you claim Muslims are the descendants of Babur, then you are also the descendants of Rana Sanga – a traitor. We criticise Babur, but not Rana Sanga,” Suman said

Not surprisingly, his Hindudveshi (Hinduphobic) party chief, Akhilesh Yadav, backed Suman’s claims while advising the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) not to go back in history as it wouldn’t be ‘pleasant’ for them. He even made an absurd claim of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj’s tilak being done with the left foot instead of one’s hand. He wanted the BJP to ‘apologise’ for this act during Maharaj’s coronation, like the Church had asked for forgiveness for the atrocities it had committed on natives in several nations.

Suman’s slur has evoked sharp reactions with Rajasthan BJP legislator Vishvaraj Singh Mewar, a descendant of Rana Sanga, demanding strict action against the Samajwadi Party MP. Mewar expressed his annoyance from his X account while sharing the video of the MP and said, “Such people also reach Parliament. People like Maharana Sanga do not need any certificate, but strict action is required for making derogatory remarks against a great personality from our history. This is against the dignity of the House as well, he said.

It is difficult, nah impossible, to expect people like Suman to understand the great Rana Sanga. Both Suman and the Samajwadi party chief need to be schooled in history. While Suman’s claim is weird and insulting to a great Dharmic warrior, his party chief’s claims are even more absurd.

Rana Sanga Vs Ibrahim Lodi

When Ibrahim Lodi, the Sultan of Delhi, had to deal with an internal rebellion, Sanga took advantage and captured key regions there, including the crucial fort of Ranthambore. Ibrahim Lodi attacked Mewar in retaliation, and in a fierce battle at Khatoli near Gwalior, Sanga managed to defeat the Afghans under Lodi.  It was in this battle that Sanga lost an arm and a leg, having earlier lost one eye in a different battle. Lodi again tried to attack Sanga during 1518-19 but had to taste another humiliating rout at Dholpur. Sanga repeatedly defeated Ibrahim Lodi in many battles, and during his reign recaptured a large part of Rajasthan.

Was Rana Sanga a traitor?

Some thinkers and historians believe that Rana Sanga’s ‘invitation’ to Babur was an ‘error of judgment’ and a ‘mistake’ for which he ‘repented’ later.

We shall examine the claim, using the explanation given by Pawan Pandey, made against the Rajput warrior and ruler based on the source most claimed to refer to – the Baburnama. Baburnama is a Persian translation of the original Turkish text Tuzuk-e-Babri, Babur’s autobiography (actually his diary). It was translated into English by Erskine in the nineteenth century. However, it must be noted that the original Tuzuk-e-Babri was unavailable then. Tuzuk-e-Babri was translated to Farsi (Persian) by Abdul Rahim Khan-e-Khanan, also known as Rahim Das, during Akbar’s reign in 1589.

It must be noted that both Tuzuk-e-Babri and Baburnama are incomplete. The entire version of the Turkish book is unavailable. We must remember that Humayun was forced to remain in exile for 15 years. Due to this, we find that there are several gaps in the book, varying from six months to five years. We shall refer to British orientalist Annette Beveridge’s English translation to examine the claim made against Rana Sanga.

However, it must be clarified that translators have used different sources to ‘fill the gaps’, which gives us reason to take the material contained in them with a pinch of salt. History and historical events must always be contextualised. Another word of caution that is in order here – an element of bias is always found in the writings, and the one writing it is never free of personal influences. Therefore, the overall picture must be taken into context.

At the very outset, Babur did not need any ‘invitation’ because it was his wish to attack Bharat ever since he ascended the throne. Babur invaded Bharat five times, beginning from 1504 CE. He was on the throne of Kabul at that time, but he was not independent and served under various rulers. “Ever since we came to Kabul, it had been in my mind to move on Hindustan, but this had not been done for a variety of reasons,” notes his diary.

Babur’s 1504 CE attack failed, and he made subsequent attacks in 1508, 1519, 1523-24, and the fifth campaign in 1526 CE. If Babur was a great warrior, he would not have given up and been displaced easily from Fargana and Samarkand. It took him five campaigns spread over more than two decades to achieve ‘success.’

In 1519, he sent his envoy to Delhi asking that the region that had been under the control of the Turks (Punjab) be returned. In other words, Babur sent an envoy to the Lodis demanding the return of Punjab. It is interesting to note that he sent his envoy with Daulat Khan, Punjab’s governor appointed by the Lodis. However, Lodi sent the envoy back without any reply. As we can see, there was a conflict between Babur and Lodi from 1519 CE.

Ahmad Yadgar’s Tarikh-i-salatin-afghana narrates the episode of Daulat Khan’s son attending Ibrahim Lodi’s court on the former’s behalf. In 1523, on being summoned by Lodi, Daulat Khan, who was scared to go, sent his son Dilawar instead. Not only did Dilawar get a bad reception, but he was also given a glimpse of how the Sultan deals with ‘disobedient commanders.’ Dilawar left hastily and narrated the happenings of the court to Daulat Khan, who was in Lahore. Following his son’s warning, Daulat Khan decided to profess allegiance to Babur and sent Dilawar to Kabul with his message.

When questioned by Babur why Daulat Khan was ready to switch loyalties, he highlighted the mistreatment meted out by Ibrahim Lodi to the Amirs. He also stated that he feared for his life and safety while adding that many Amirs were ready to side with Babur. “He had been sent by many Amirs to Babur, whom they were ready to obey and for whose coming they were on the anxious watch,” Daulat is quoted as saying to Babur. Lodi’s Amirs, not Rana Sanga, were eagerly awaiting Babur’s arrival because they feared for their lives under Ibrahim Lodi’s reign.

In 1523-24, Babur launched his fourth campaign against Bharat. He captured Lahore and continued his march. A deal was also struck by Alam Khan with Babur. Babur agreed to help Alam Khan under the condition that Alam Khan would replace Ibrahim Lodi, and Babur would have complete control over Lahore and the area west of it. In keeping with the agreement, Alam Khan was supplied with troops and a royal letter addressing the Lahore Begs to assist Khan in the campaign.

Daulat Khan, who had left Babur to chart his own course, returned to him. However, he was insulted by Babur for the lack of loyalty shown by Daulat Khan. Subsequently, Ibrahim Lodi was defeated in the battle of Panipat and unseated from Delhi.

Rana Sanga – Babur’s biggest opposition in Bharat

Before we look at what Babur says about Rana Sanga, the story so far is that Daulat Khan, Alam Khan, and other Amirs of Sikandar Lodi, who were facing torture and persecution at the hands of Sikandar’s son Ibrahim Lodi, sought the help of Babur to remove Lodi and save them.

Babur had conquered areas such as Delhi, Agra, Jaunpur, and Bihar, among others. Babur writes that Rana Sanga, who was ‘submissive’ to the Nawab earlier, was puffed up with pride and offered resistance like the Mughal had not seen. It must be noted that the English translation states Maharana Sanga was ‘under’ the Sultan. However, history shows us that Rana Sanga was never ‘under’ anyone and had even defeated the Sultans of Delhi, Gujarat, and Mandu – a fact acknowledged by Babur.

Subsequently, Babur has nothing but contempt for Rana Sanga, which he expresses through his curses, including stating that he (Sanga) would go to hell and at Judgment Day he would have no friend. Except for the single line of Rana Sanga being ‘submissive’ and then going on to heap curses on Rana Sanga, there is nothing in Baburnama and/or Tuzuk-e-Babri to show that Rana Sanga was a traitor and that he invited Babur.

Conclusion

Babur was always keen to attack Hindustan irrespective of an invitation. The only people who collaborated with Babur were the Amirs of Lodi, who were fed up with the torture meted out to them by Ibrahim Lodi. By his own admission, Babur finds Rana Sanga as his biggest opponent. Therefore, not only are the charges against Maharana Sangram Singh unfounded, but Rana Sanga was the biggest hurdle in Babur’s passage to Bharat. He was a Hindu warrior who should be celebrated. However, that is too much to expect from Hinduphobics like Suman and his party chief Yadav, who have nothing but contempt for everything and everyone Hindu.