Haldighati plaques omit key historical facts, spark uproar
1
2
Jaipur: A controversy erupted in Rajasthan over newly installed commemorative plaques at the historic Haldighati battlefield, as the state marked the 450th Haldighati Shaurya Diwas Wednesday.
The plaques, installed by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) at Rakt Talai and the Rajsamand local administration at Haldighati Pass, have come under fire for alleged historical distortions and omissions.
Heritage activists and a history professor have alleged several critical inaccuracies in the plaques' content. Most notably, these fail to mention Mirza Raja Man Singh I of Amber, who commanded the Mughal forces during the historic battle fought on June 18, 1576.
"It is a matter of shame that the name of Mirza Raja Man Singh I is missing from the plaque at Haldighati. Instead, only Akbar is mentioned, giving the false impression that the battle was fought directly between Pratap and Akbar," said Prof Chandra Shekhar Sharma, Head of the History Department at Meera Girls College, Udaipur. Sharma has authored the book, Rashtra Ratan Maharana Pratap.
Local heritage groups, including Johar Smriti Sansthan and Chetak Smarak Samiti, have demanded a correct reference to Akbar's general as "Mirza Raja Man Singh I of Amber."
The plaques have also been criticised for allegedly misrepresenting troop movements and battle statistics. According to Prof Sharma, the inscription incorrectly states that the forces under Man Singh I approached from Kumbhalgarh and Gogunda, which were actually Maharana Pratap's strongholds.
"In truth, the Mughal forces marched from Ajmer, Mandalgarh and Mohi, and were stationed at Molela," said Sharma, citing Muntakhib al-Tawarikh by Abd al-Qadir Badayuni, Akbar's court historian.
Furthermore, the claimed three-hour duration of the battle has been disputed. Contemporary chronicles, including Muntakhib al-Tawarikh by Abd al-Qadir Badayuni, suggest the battle lasted an entire day, said Prof Sharma.
The plaques' figures regarding army sizes have also been challenged by historians citing multiple historical sources. The plaque claims the Mughal army had 5,000 soldiers while Maharana Pratap's side included 1,900 cavalry and 1,000 Bhil warriors.
Sharma refuted these figures, quoting the writings of noted historian Gaurishankar Hirachand Ojha (Veer Shiromani Maharana Pratap), who cited at least four varying estimates and emphasised that none matched the figures on the plaque. "It's an irresponsible oversimplification," said Sharma. Ojha was a 19th-century historian at the court of Udaipur royals.
Local heritage groups, including Johar Smriti Sansthan (Chittorgarh), Navyuvak Mandal (Haldighati) and Chetak Smarak Samiti (Balecha, Udaipur), have demanded immediate corrections to ensure historical accuracy. "Any act seen against the integrity of Maharana Pratap's legacy or factual history will face strong opposition," said Kan Singh of the Sansthan.
Ironically, these controversial plaques were installed to replace previous versions that had been criticised for suggesting a Mughal victory, only to create new historical disputes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
4 hours ago
- The Hindu
Amit Shah lays foundation stones for NFSU campus, Central Forensic Science Lab in Nava Raipur
Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Sunday (June 22, 2025) laid the foundation stones for the National Forensic Science University (NFSU) campus and a Central Forensic Science Lab in Chhattisgarh's Nava Raipur Atal Nagar. Mr. Shah, who is on a two-day visit of the State during which he will tour a security camp and chair meetings on ongoing anti-Maoist operations, was accompanied by Chief Minister Vishnu Deo Sai, Assembly Speaker Raman Singh and Ministers. The State Government has allotted 40 acres of land for the NFSU campus, which will be built by the Centre at a cost of ₹400 crore, informed Deputy CM Vijay Sharma, who also holds the Home portfolio in the Sai Cabinet. The Central Forensic Science Lab will come up on 6-7 acres of land near the NFSU campus, he added. Later in the day, Mr. Shah will chair a meeting of Director Generals of Police (DGPs) and Additional DGPs of Chhattisgarh and six neighbouring States on anti-Maoist operations, after which he will take part in a meeting on the security situation and ongoing operations against Left Wing Extremism, Mr. Sharma said. Mr. Shah will also meet the family members of Additional Superintendent of Police Akash Rao Girpunje who lost his life after a pressure IED planted by Maoists exploded on June 9, the Deputy CM informed. On Monday (June 23), Mr. Shah will visit a Border Security Force (BSF) camp in Narayanpur district, where he will interact with security personnel and Maoism-affected villagers. He will also take a ground review of the development works going on there, Mr. Sharma added. Anti-Maoist operations have intensified in Chhattisgarh since the BJP came to power after the 2023 Assembly polls. Since January last year, more than 400 Maoist ultras have been gunned down by security forces in separate encounters. The most notable was the killing of Nambala Keshav Rao alias Basavaraju (70), the general secretary and top most operative of the outlawed Communist Party of India (Maoist), in Bastar on May 21. Mr. Shah has repeatedly declared that under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Centre and State Government are committed to eradicating Maoism by March 31, 2026.
India Today
5 hours ago
- India Today
How unearthing Keeladi became a row over India's past
Archaeologist K. Amarnath Ramakrishna, who led the initial phases of excavation at Keeladi in Tamil Nadu, has become a key figure in an ongoing national debate about the interpretation of India's ancient past. His work, which began in 2014, brought to light evidence of an early, urbanised civilisation in South India. But his recent transfer and the Archaeological Survey of India's (ASI) rejection of his excavation report have rekindled discussions about the intersection of archaeology, politics and 982-page report submitted by Ramakrishna in 2023, covering the first two seasons of excavation, remains unpublished. The ASI requested revisions, citing the need for clarity on stratigraphic layers, the application of dating methods such as Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) and broader interpretative consistency. Ramakrishna declined to revise the report, maintaining that the findings were based on established scientific Keeladi site, located near Madurai, gained prominence after excavations unearthed Tamil-Brahmi inscribed pottery, brick structures, an early drainage system, ivory dice and symbolic graffiti. These findings suggested the existence of a well-organised settlement dating back at least to the 2nd century BCE. Radiocarbon dating and stratigraphic evidence indicated a potentially earlier timeline, with some layers dated as far back as 600 implications were significant. The discoveries offered material evidence of an advanced society in the Tamil region, prompting comparisons with the Sangam era and raising questions about prevailing narratives of ancient Indian civilisation, which have often been weighted towards North Indian contexts. Ramakrishna's transfer to Noida in June, and the non-publication of his report, drew swift political response in Tamil Nadu. Chief Minister M.K. Stalin posted on social media: 'How many obstacles do Tamils face? We have been fighting against all of them for thousands of years, and with the help of science, we have been establishing the antiquity of our race. Yet some minds refuse to accept it. It's not the statements that need to be corrected; it's some minds.'advertisementSince 2017, observers say, Amarnath Ramakrishna has faced a sustained pattern of institutional sidelining and political persecution. His transfer to Assam in 2017, just as Keeladi's excavation was gaining national attention, was the first clear signal of an attempt to derail the narrative he was helping construct—a narrative that unearthed evidence of a sophisticated, secular, urban Tamil civilisation from the Sangam era. His subsequent postings—far removed from active fieldwork—have systematically curtailed his influence. In his new posting, he was removed from his antiquities role and retained only as director of the NMMA—a unit that has remained largely defunct since its inception in in Keeladi, Amarnath's successor, P.S. Sriraman, took charge of the third phase and, after excavating merely 400 square metres of land, reported there was no continuity in the brick structures earlier uncovered—a claim that sharply contradicted previous findings and was seen by many as an attempt to downplay Keeladi's historical Ramakrishna's reassignment in 2017, Tamil Nadu's State Department of Archaeology has continued excavations at Keeladi. The site has since expanded, and a museum dedicated to its findings has been established. While the state has celebrated Keeladi as a symbol of Tamil antiquity, the Centre's call for caution appears misplaced—stemming less from methodological concerns and more from Keeladi's divergence from its preferred ideological Nadu's Minister for Finance and Archaeology, Thangam Thennarasu, offered a strong response to the ASI's actions. 'Crossing countless hurdles that threaten the pride and antiquity of the Tamil race, we continue to make the world aware of the richness of our heritage and language, backed by scientific evidence. Yet, some minds still refuse to accept the truth,' he said. 'To confront such denial, reports alone are not enough; rather, we carry the responsibility of changing those minds.'Union minister for culture and tourism Gajendra Singh Shekawat said the reports were not yet technically well supported or established. 'A lot remains to be done before recognising or accrediting the findings presented by the archaeologist who conducted the survey. Let them come with more results, data and evidence, because a single finding cannot change the entire discourse. We must be cautious, and let archaeologists, historians and technical experts lead this conversation—not politicians.'In response, Thennarasu suggested the central government's reluctance to endorse Keeladi's findings stemmed from treating Tamils as 'second-class citizens'.The Keeladi debate escalated as Stalin accused the AIADMK of staying silent when the Centre downplayed the site's significance, blaming their BJP alliance for the muted response. Former minister R.B. Udhayakumar countered that it was the AIADMK government that sanctioned Rs 55 lakh for the 2018 excavations. Senior AIADMK leader Mafoi Pandiarajan who was in charge of archaeology during the AIADMK reign under Edappadi Palaniswamy hailed the latter as 'Keeladi Nayakar' (hero of Keeladi), crediting him with establishing Tamil antiquity. A senior DMK leader dismissed this, saying, 'Their belated pride in Keeladi rings hollow when they put alliance politics above Tamil identity.'advertisementCPI(M) MP from Madurai S. Venkatesan, who has closely followed the developments around Keeladi, described Ramakrishna's transfer as the latest in a series of administrative hurdles. 'Transferring an official is not in itself a major issue—it is part of administrative procedures,' he said. 'But Amarnath Ramakrishna worked on the Keeladi excavation for eight years, without compromising on the truth. He was removed, reassigned and denied the opportunity to publish his findings. Only after court intervention was he allowed to write the report.'Venkatesan noted that the ASI had assured both the court and Parliament that the report would be published within 11 months, a timeline that was not met. 'Now, at the final stage, they suddenly say more scientific evidence is needed. This, after years of delays and obstructions,' he said. He characterised the actions against Ramakrishna as setting a precedent: 'The message is clear: If you do not align with our views, this is what will be done to you. This is not just about an individual—it's a discriminatory act against Tamil Nadu and against South Indian history itself.'advertisementAt the core of the Keeladi debate lies a methodological question—how evidence is collected, dated and interpreted. Yet, observers point out that the controversy has grown far beyond technicalities. It now reflects deeper concerns about how historical narratives are constructed, whose past is legitimised and how institutions mediate questions of the precise dating of Keeladi's layers and their implications for early South Indian civilisation continue to be subjects of academic scrutiny, there is broad scholarly agreement on the site's significance. 'Keeladi has emerged as one of the most important sites in reconstructing the cultural and urban history of early South India. The findings deserve open debate—not suppression,' notes a senior and political analysts argue that the persistent bureaucratic obstacles, the shelving of a report grounded in scientific evidence and the series of administrative actions against the archaeologist cannot be seen in isolation. They argue this is not about professional differences but more 'an attempt to discipline a regional narrative that challenges the dominant, Sanskritised version of Indian antiquity.'advertisementObservers suggest the implications go beyond archaeology. 'This is about who gets to write India's history,' said a political analyst. 'When the state selectively obstructs certain findings, it sends a message that history must serve ideology. In this case, it seems Tamil Nadu is being punished for asserting a past that does not fit the official narrative.'In this framing, the Keeladi controversy becomes not just an academic dispute but a struggle over memory, identity and power. As the analyst observed, 'The excavation trenches of Keeladi are turning into battlegrounds—not only over potsherds and carbon dates, but over who belongs in the centre of India's civilisational story.'Subscribe to India Today Magazine
Time of India
16 hours ago
- Time of India
HC stays arrest in attack at MP's house over Rana Sanga row
Prayagraj: The Allahabad high court stayed the arrest of Okendra Singh Rana in two separate FIRs lodged against him regarding the alleged attack by at the residence of Samajwadi Party Rajya Sabha MP Ramji Lal Suman at Agra on Mar 26 following an alleged defamatory statement in Parliament regarding a medieval period king, Rana Sanga. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now While directing to list the case after six weeks, a division bench comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Harvir Singh made it clear that the interim order will be subject to the cooperation by the petitioner in the on-going investigation. Passing this direction, the court also made it clear that if some credible material is brought on record during investigation against the petitioner, the investigation officer of the case, after recording its reason, may arrest the petitioner while strictly adhering to the guidelines issued by the apex court in Arnesh Kumar case. The court also issued a notice to the first informant — Randhir Suman, former MLA and son of RamJi Lal Suman, who had lodged the first FIR against members of Karni Sena at Hariparwat police station of Agra district immediately after the alleged attack on Mar 27. Another FIR was lodged by a sub-inspector, who was posted in the security of MP Suman on June 1, 2025 on the same issue at Hariparwat police station against members of Karni Sena. The petitioner had challenged both the FIRs and had sought a stay on his arrest in both cases. The counsel for the petitioner took the plea that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR. During investigation, he was falsely implicated in the matter by the police. The controversy began when Ramji Lal Suman made a statement in Parliament on Mar 21 suggesting that Rana Sanga had invited Mughal emperor Babur to India to defeat Ibrahim Lodi. He further argued that if Indian Muslims are labelled as Babur's descendants, then by the same logic, other communities could also be seen as descendants of a "traitor" like Rana Sanga. These remarks, which questioned the Rajput legacy, provoked an immediate backlash from Rajput organisations, including the Akhil Bharatiya Kshatriya Mahasabha and the Karni Sena. Subsequently, the members of Karni Sena attacked and vandalised the residence of Suman in Agra on Mar 26.
