Why A 16th-Century King's Statue Has Sparked A Row In Rajasthan
Jaipur:
Mewar's Rajput ruler, Maharana Pratap, took on the Mughals in the Battle of Haldighati in 1576. Among the smaller rulers who fought by his side was Rana Poonja, the ruler of Bhomat, a hilly and forested area in modern-day Rajasthan. Nearly 450 years after that epic battle, two communities are fighting over the clothes -- and legacy -- of Rana Poonja.
History, caste, politics and appropriation tactics criss-cross in this face-off, blurring the lines between the real and the myth. While Rajputs, including the erstwhile royal family of Panarwa, claim that Rana Poonja was a Kshatriya from the Solanki clan, local tribals say he was from the Bhil community. Both sides claim historical evidence is in their favour.
What has brought this never-ending debate to the spotlight now is a statue unveiled by Rajasthan Chief Minister Bhajanlal Sharma in Chittorgarh today.
A Statue Flashpoint
The Chief Minister today unveiled five statues -- Maharana Pratap riding into battle, Rana Poonja and Panna Dhai, the nursemaid to Mewar ruler Udai Singh II and a local icon. The spotlight is on Rana Poonja's statue. The statue shows the warrior king dressed in a dhoti and armed with a bow and arrow. Rajputs have objected to this sartorial choice. They claim Rana Poonja was a Kshatriya and is not "dressed appropriately" in the statue. The Bhils insist that Rana Poonja is a tribal leader and allege attempts to distort history.
Claims and Counterclaims
Bhil Sena, an outfit representing the tribal community, has submitted a memorandum to the local authorities and alleged that attempts are being made to distort their glorious history. "Some people are tinkering with history for their selfish interests. Rana Poonja is a Bhil warrior. In 1576, at the Battle of Haldighati, who was the warrior in dhoti and armed with bow and arrow? This is our question," said Gopal Lal Bhil, district president of Bhil Sena.
Local Rajput leaders disagree. Tej Pal Singh, a functionary of Jauhar Smriti Sansthan, said, "The attire on the statue is wrong. It should be in Kshatriya attire, with 'Rana Poonja Solanki' written on it."
Tribal Valour In Battle Of Haldighati
The Battle of Haldighati was a valiant display of Maharana Pratap's guerrilla tactics and multiple tribes, including Bhils, are said to have fought alongside the Rajput ruler. While the Bhils use this fact to stress that Rana Poonja was one of them, the Rajputs disagree.
A 'Coat Of Arms' Debate
The 'Coat of Arms' of the erstwhile Mewar kingdom has also been dragged into this Rajput vs Bhil debate. The Coat of Arms shows two individuals -- one dressed as a tribal, the other as a Rajput. Tribals claim the two figures are Maharana Pratap and Rana Poonja. The Rajputs argue the Coat of Arms is just a symbol to show Rajput-tribal unity. "Maharana Pratap's army had people from 36 communities, many tribals fought alongside him. This image is a symbol of social harmony under Maharana Pratap and not an actual representation of Rana Poonja," said Tej Pal Singh, adding that the Rajput community will distance itself from the idol unveiled today.
A Letter To PM Modi
The erstwhile royal family of Panarwa, which claims to have descended from Rana Poonja, wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2022, alleging a distortion of their family's history. "We are proud of our connection and respectful terms with the brave Bhils, Garasiyas, etc. who've been our companions and with whom we have shared our brotherhood for about seven centuries, however we are Solanki Rajputs from Bhojawat subclan, that reside in Panarwa. This is how we have known ourselves through authentic genealogy as well as through other ancestral procured records. This equally applies to my ancestor, 'Rana Punja of Panarwa' who bravely fought in the Battle of Haldighati protecting the freedom of Mewar along with his fellow Bhil tribesmen and Rajput army getting himself labelled as 'Bhiloo Rana'," the letter by Krishna Solanki, a member of the Panarwa family, states.
Another member of the family Rana Manohar Singh Solanki, repeated the claim in a newspaper ad, and said any person who "defames the prestige and honour of his family and heirs in the society by distorting the caste of his ancestor Rana Punja ji" will face action.
The Political Backdrop
Rajputs claim the alleged historical distortion is driven by vote bank politics in a region where tribal voters play a key role. Interestingly, decades ago, an earlier statue unveiling programme by then President KR Narayanan was cancelled following Rajputs' protests because the statue had Rana Poonja in tribal attire. The Panarwa royals' letter mentions in. "...Mahendra Singhji Mewar (then MP from Chittaurgarh and descendant of Maharana Pratap) wrote an open Letter to President KR Narayan and Manohar Singhji Solanki (The 16th Direct descendant of Rana Punja Solanki) an open Letter to Rajasthan Chief Minister, Mr. Bhairon Singh Ji Shekhwat, recalling how it would create rifts between rajputs of Bhomat and Bhils in future, who cohabitated for centuries and fought together through generations shoulder to shoulder...," it states, adding that the event was eventually cancelled.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
Allahabad HC stays arrest of Karni Sena member Rana in Agra MP house attack case
The Allahabad High Court has stayed the arrest of Karni Sena member Okendra Singh Rana in two separate FIRs lodged against him in connection with the attack on the Agra residence of Samajwadi Party MP Ram Ji Lal Suman in March allegedly by the right-wing group. The incident had taken place following a remark Suman made in Parliament on 16th century Rajput king Rana Sanga. While directing to list the case after six weeks, a division bench of Justices Siddharth and Harvir Singh made it clear that an interim order will be subject to the co-operation by petitioner Rana in the ongoing investigation. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 이 게임은 쉽고 무료로 플레이할 수 있지만 잊기 어렵습니다 레이드 섀도우 레전드 Undo Passing this direction, the court also made it clear that if some credible material is brought on record during investigation against Rana, the investigation officer of the case, after recording its reason, may affect the arrest of the petitioner while strictly adhering to the guidelines issued by the apex court in the Arnesh Kumar case. The court in its order dated June 19 also issued notice to the first informant - former MLA and Suman's son Randhir Suman, who had lodged FIR against members of Karni Sena at Hariparwat police station in Agra district immediately after the attack on March 27. Live Events Another FIR was lodged by a sub-inspector, who was posted in the security of MP Suman on June 1, on the same issue at Hariparwat against members of Karni Sena. Petitioner Rana had challenged both the FIRs and had sought stay on his arrest in the cases. Rana's counsel argued that he has not been named in the FIR and 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 March 21 suggesting that Rana Sanga had invited Mughal emperor Babur to India to defeat Ibrahim Lodi. 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, members of Karni Sena allegedly attacked and vandalised the residence of Suman in Agra.
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- Hindustan Times
HC stays arrest of Karni Sena leader in Agra MP house attack case
Jun 21, 2025 09:10 PM IST The Allahabad high court has stayed the arrest of Karni Sena leader Okendra Singh Rana in connection with two FIRs related to the alleged attack on the residence of Samajwadi Party Rajya Sabha MP Ram Ji Lal Suman in Agra. The incident followed a controversial statement made by the MP in the Parliament about medieval Rajput ruler Rana Sanga. On March 26, members of Karni Sena reportedly stormed the MP's residence in Agra, leading to property damage and a tense security situation. (Sourced) A division bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Harvir Singh passed the interim order and fixed the matter for further hearing after six weeks. The bench clarified that the protection granted would depend on the petitioner's cooperation with the ongoing investigation. The court further directed that the investigating officer may arrest the petitioner if credible evidence emerges during the investigation, but only after recording reasons in writing and by the Supreme Court's guidelines laid down in the Arnesh Kumar case. The first FIR (first information report) was lodged by Randhir Suman, a former MLA and son of MP Ram Ji Lal Suman, at Hariparwat police station in Agra on March 27, a day after members of Karni Sena allegedly vandalised the MP's residence. A second FIR was filed by a sub-inspector deployed in the MP's security. Rana, the petitioner, sought protection from arrest in both cases, contending that his name did not appear in either FIR and that he was later falsely implicated during the investigation. On March 26, members of Karni Sena reportedly stormed the MP's residence in Agra, leading to property damage and a tense security situation.
Time of India
4 days ago
- Time of India
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.
