Talk:Samrat Hem Chandra Vikramaditya

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Military work group.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
	A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed by the India WikiProject.
	This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: Associated task forces (general topics): Military biography task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): Indian military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500–c. 1792)

Hi! This is Regupathy 13:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC). I have to be clear in one fact. Actually Akbar hessitated to kill Hemu. It was Bairam Khan,who actually killed Hemu. When Bairam Khan asked Akbar to kill Hemu, Akbar just took his sword and kept near the neck of Hemu. He did not killed Hemu. But Bairam Khan did not want Hemu to be excused. So Bairam Khan at once thrushed the head of Hemu and killed him.

Hi this is Ketan Shah. There is no evidence that Hemu betrayed Suris.!Ketanashah 07:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

9th March 2008:-- Hi! This is Sudhir Bhargava. Please find references for the additions on the site HEMU: There are several books which can provide references to what has been written on HEMU site. Some of them are:

1)'Anokha Aarohi'by Mrs. Kranti Trivedi Published by Sulabh Prakashan,Lucknow; This book explains Hemu's family life,Parentage,Haveli in Rewari and many personal details.

2)'Akbar:The Great Mogul',By Vincent A. Smith (Oxford, 1926) This book describes Hemu's wars before he became a Vikramaditya king, how he made changes in administration after winning Delhi, and how he went to war at Panipat and what happened after the war.

3)'Akbarnama'by Sheikh Abul Fazal translated by Dr. Mathura Lal Sharma, published by Kailash Book Sadan;pages 155-156 describes Hemu's army before accession to Delhi,his winning 22 wars,size of his army,and winning of Delhi.His coronation and starting 'Vikramaditya Dynasty'

4)'THE MUGHUL EMPIRE'By Prof. R.C.Majumdar:Appendix (By the Editor)-Himu-A forgotten Hindu Hero,p.100-101,published by Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan. The writer describes Hemu's Delhi victory, his coronation,his relations with Afghans,his starting coins,re-establishing Hindu Vikramaditya Dynasty etc.

5)Aaine Akbari describes many aspects of Hemu's life.

6)'Hemu-Nepolean of Mediavel India' describes Hemu in detail, but wrongly, he calls him a Vaish of Rewari,though he was a Brahman.

There are dozens of books on Hemu.But only AKBARNAMA is considered authantic.That should not be so.Just because Akbar won the 2nd battle of Panipat and Hemu lost his life,entire history was written by Akbar's Men, who wrote Hemu a low-caste Bania, a baqqual, some even wrote him a shudra. That is not true. He was a Brahman and his Haveli in Rewari, shows that he came from a well to do family.First Floor of his Haveli was renovated in 1540-41(as described in book Anokha Aarohi) with Portguese architechture, which can be seen even today i.e.7th March 2008.That tells alot about him.

I can be contacted at sudhirkbhargava@gmail.com

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.128.108 (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 

Contents 1 Citation in "Early Life" section 2 Hemu v/s Jodha Akbar 3 Sections marked POV 4 Starting of Hindu Vikramaditya Dynasty 5 Battle of Panipat and Death

[edit] Citation in "Early Life" section

This part seems to be a source of contention, perhaps a citation is in order?

"His father Rai Puran Das was engaged in 'Purohiti', the performing of Hindu religious ceremonies as a profession. Due to the Mughal Rule in India, and persecution of Hindu religious ceremonies by Mughals, 'Purohiti' could not earn much."

I'm not an expert, but with so much deletion and reposting, I would say it needs a citation...Dragonsscout (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'would like to put an old picture of 'Rai puran Das' father of Hemu on the website, in the portion Early Life. Please advise how to go about it.I can be contacted at sudhirkbhargava@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudhirkbhargava (talk • contribs) 15:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hemu v/s Jodha Akbar

I've marked this as POV especially in reference to the following lines:

Indian Hindi film Jodha Akbar has shown the great Hindu king Hemu Vikramaditya shabbily. Director Ashutosh Gowarikar has misused the names from the history to gain commercially from the movie. Salilb (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Salilb

A particular user with IP 117.198.129.163 and 117.198.129.244 is continuously reverting these changes. Salilb (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sections marked POV

I've marked some stuff as POV:

• The section 'Rise to Generalship and earning title of Samrat (Emperor)': The tone of the wording seems very biased.
• The section 'His Victories like Napoleon and fall of Akbar's Agra': The title itself is biased. The title should be neutral, and comparisons to Napoleon could be kept in quotes about Hemu.
• The sub-title 'Aftermath of Hindu Raj' is biased.
• The entire section 'Hemu v/s Jodha-Akbar' should be removed, I think. It has the contributor's own remarks, eg. "How Akbar can be called an Emperor under these conditions?". A new section 'In media' could be made where it can be stated that Hemu has been depicted in the film Jodha Akbar. How he has been depicted, that is certainly POV.
• The sub-title 'Perpetuating the Glory of Hem Chander Vikramaditya' could be changed to 'Legacy of Hem Chander Vikramaditya'

Please discuss here, before the POV remarks are removed.

Salilb (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Salilb

I must say that you have vandalised the entire page, which was prepared after deep research and collecting/reading several books.

1)Right from the beginning when I started working on this page couple of months ago,many readers demanded citations to what I wrote.Now when citations have been put,objections like 'tone of wording is biased' or 'books are biased'doesn't hold good.I have tried to put words as they appear in the books.

2) In the second objection you say 'title is biased'.See there is a complete book by the title'HEMU-Napolean of Medieval India',a copy of which I posses too! I have put only a few sentences from that book on this page.But yes, I think we can remove the words "Akbar's" from this sub-title.That would make it more neutral.

3) The next sub-title 'Aftermath of Hindu Raj'has nothing objectionable.In the medieval period Hemu had established Hindu Vikramaditya Dynasty in North India,also called Hindu Raj, and he brought about many changes in short period he was on throne,they need to be mentioned when Hemu is written about.These are the lost things in history,and wikipedia,the great encyclopedia of present times is the right place to provide this information to the present generations. So your first three objections concerning biased nature of write-ups do not hold good. I could accept them as biased if they were not with proper citations/references.But if you mean all the books are biased and do not make sense then it is a different matter.All the books and writers are recognised.

4) Your fourth objection is intriguing!I fail to understand why you defend the Film Jodha-Akbar so aggressively. In the past also,you have put POVs on this para.This has been a controvercial Hindi film, which denigerated medieval Hindu Kings.The treatment meted out to Hemu in the movie is objectionable and must be a part of any write-up.The movie was stopped from exhibition in many Indian cities and some cases are still pending in courts.Some more are likely to be filed.This section makes readers aware on the facts only.Here we can remove the sentence"How Akbar can be called an emperor under these conditions" You are right, it is not from any book.Rest of the section is just O.K.

5) The fifth section "Perpetuating the Glory of Hem Chandra Vikramaditya" has also nothing objectionable.The new Samvat day of Ram Navmi this year was dedicated to the memory of great hindu king "Hem Chandra Vikramaditya" by several organisations in Haryana this year.The main function was held at Panipat and attended by eminent Indian personalities as speakers, and orginised by 'Rashtriya Yoddha Smarak Samiti'.The function was celebrated to perpetuate and glorify the memorary and achievements of this great medieval warrior. There is nothing like legacy or whatever.There is no reason to change this title. I fail to understand why you have deleated the titles of Hindu Kings from this chapter for example, from 'Samrat Hem Chandra Vikramaditya' to Hemu, from Maharaja Prithvi Raj Chauhan to Prithvi Raj Chauhan and from Chhatrapati Sadashiv Rao Bhau to Sadashiv Rao Bhau.The fact is that the memorial going to be raised in Panipat will bear the names with their titles included. Do you think Hindu Kings cannot have titles?

I have explained all the points.Please advise at an early time on how to complete this page.Putting POVs every time shows pages in disrespect,discourage the writers and shows that wikipedia is not interested in some serious work,otherwise how it is that every now and then,despite putting citations,POVs are put and editings stopped.

Sudhirbhargava —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudhirbhargava (talk • contribs) 07:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'd disagree that I "vandalised" the page. I tried to make some copy-edits, remove some redundant facts (the fact that Hemu won 22 battles was repeated throughout the page. A fact like this is strong enough that it need not be reiterated.) and the POV claims. My comments for your points:

1. As I said (in my mail to you), the books which you are refering to are biographies of Hemu which will no doubt glorify him. Wikipedia is for facts which are presented neutrally, not to portray anyone in a good or bad way. Esp in cases of biographies, the facts should lead the reader to make conclusions about the person. The tone used in the books you have cited are unencyclopaedic. I'm trying to help make it sound neutral.

2. Calling Hemu the 'Napoleon of medieval India' is definitely a Point of View of the author of the book. I'd rather call Napoleon the 'Hemu of France' since he came 3 centuries after him but that would be my point of view! A neutral title could be 'Hemu's campaigns' where the facts could lead the reader to concur if Hemu was the Napoleon of India or if Napoleon was the Hemu of France :)

3. 'Hindu Raj' can refer to several reigns: right from Pushyamitra Sunga to Shivaji. A better title, in my opinion would be 'Hemu's reign as Samrat'.

4. The para on the film Jodha Akbar is undeniably POV. It is a fact that the movie was made and Hemu was depicted in it, but it is an opinion that the film denigrated him. No, I haven't seen the film (I don't plan to watch it either!), but opinions are meant to be in film reviews, not on Wikipedia - so I disagree when you say that your objections "must be a part of any write-up".

5a. 'Glory of Hem Chander Vikramaditya' is unencyclopaedic. It can be mentioned that functions have been held in memory of Hemu, but I dont think it is necessary to write details about what happened at the functions. Every year, Gandhi's birth anniversary is celebrated at various functions, I hope you dont think the details of every function held should come up on Wiki! I think a better idea would be to link to a news page mentioning this function. If the function was that prominent, some newspaper must have definitely covered it.

5b: Firstly, it is wrong that Sadashivraobhau was a Chhatrapati. He was the brother of Peshwa Balaji Bajirao and the commander of the Maratha forces. Secondly, I'm not sure if Prithviraj Chauhan used the title of 'Maharaja', at least the Wikipedia article on him doesn't say so. About using titles in wiki pages, complete titles are mentioned in the articles on the persons so it is enough to give the more common name like Prithviraj Chauhan, Akbar, Shivaji, etc. and not use the complete title for every reference.

I certainly dont mean to disrespect or discourage your effort. If at all, I'm only helping contribute to make a better page.

Salilb (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Starting of Hindu Vikramaditya Dynasty

I have objections to the following lines that have been added: 1. "His Afghan officers were temporarily reconciled by a liberal distribution of plunder to the ascendancy of an infidel." This has been directly taken from the referred source and the line is an opinion of the author of that source. 2. The last line "after centuries of foreign rule" is not factual, unnecessary and POV to an extent. I think it needs to be removed.

I'm not making any changes since I'd like someone else's opinion on these. Salilb (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd back you up. This article's got insane POV issues. We can't even verify these books that are being used. I'm at a bit of a loss on what to do, to be honest. GlassCobra 08:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding this article to the Indian History Wikiproject to involve more people. Salilb (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

My submission to your two objections is as follows:

1) You are right, I have taken it directly from referred source and the citation is given.But I wonder what is abnormal in this sentence,and I may tell you this is not a new addition,it was there some 5 days ago.Two other historians Sir Wolsey Haig and Vincent A. Smith have also written that the reason Afghans kept on supporting Hemu was his libral distribution of plunder to them.The word infidel is used by the writer only,and is mentioned by dozens of historians.

2)Your objection that "after centuries of foreign rule" is not factual,unnecessary and POV to an extent and should be removed,surprises me. Salil ji you are an authority on wikipedia and correct and delete several write-ups from pages, must be having a vast knowledge. But I think this sentence is just OK. My information says that before Hemu ,who acceeded to Delhi throne in 1556,Prithvi Raj Chauhan was the native king who ruled Delhi up to the year 1192,when he was defeated by invader Muhammed Gauri at the second battle of Taraori in present day Haryana.That makes a time lag of more than 350 years when the native ruler could acceed to Delhi's throne.So please advise why it is factually wrong?

Also you said it is unnecessary! I would say that this was a great achievement of Hemu and deserves mention, and achievement like this is precisely the reason why Hemu should have a page on Wikipedia.

You also said here that it is POV. That confuses me on the term POV itself, and what it means on wikipedia. See there are two numbers from history 1192 and 1556. Prithvi Raj Chauhan,who was the native ruler of Delhi was defeated by Muhammed Gauri,an invader, in Battle of Taraori which took place in 1192. From 1192 to 1556 foreign invaders ruled from Delhi.Then in 1556 Hemu,who was native king acceeds to power in Delhi. And so we write that Hemu acceeded to Delhi,after centuries of foreign rule.How come this is a POV,this is a simple fact!

After reading your and Glasscobra's comments I also suggest that this page should be referred to some historians.All the references/citations I have given are from what historians have written.As you mentioned Salilji,that these citations are from biographies,do not hold good. Infact there is nor a single biography on HEMU yet,and one is being written now. So there is no case of unnecessary glorification or perpetuation,but his great accomplishments have to be mentioned.

For the time being I am stopping all additiond/citations etc. on this page,till whatever is written is accepted/corrected and OKayed.I hope there is a time limit for this exercise,so that page could be completed at an early time.

--Sudhirbhargava (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

According to me, the abnormality in the line is that it conveys that it is a fact that Hemu was indeed an 'infidel' which is probably the point of view (POV) of his Afghan generals. A neutral fact is that "Afghans supported Hemu because he distributed his plunder with them". The fact that they considered him an infidel is a different matter. Probably the fact could have been stated in a better way?

My thoughts on Foreign Rule. Firstly, what we mean by by "native ruler" is POV. According to me (my point of view :)), "native" means that the person was born in the region he ruled, then Akbar was a native since he was born in Amarkot in Sindh. So was Sher Shah because he was born in Sasaram in Bihar. Secondly. it is incorrect that there were only foreign invaders ruling North India since 1192 because there were the Guhila or Sisodia Rajputs (Rana Hamir, Rana Sanga being prominent rulers), the Gahadvelas who were ruling Kanauj (for a short time) and the Solanki Rajputs who were not foreign invaders. Among the Sultans of Delhi, not all of them were invaders. Then I called it unncessary because it is enough to state that Hemu started a Hindu kingdom (which means he patronised Hinduism, but lets not go into that for now) even though there were other Hindu kingdoms around at that time.

Lastly, please relax, there is no time limit for completion, but I can assure you my help on trying to make the article as complete and comprehensible as possible. We might not agree on some issues, but that doesn't mean I'm discouraging or disrespecting your efforts.

Salilb (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Panipat and Death

Seeing as how my minor edit was reverted, I'm going to now ask what is meant by smotted before editing anything. I think the word was probably "smote," but I'm not positive.Dragonsscout (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

'Smotted' does not mean anything - it should be corrected. The verb in question is 'smite', past tense 'smote', participle "smitten". "Akbar smote Hemu" or "Hemu was smitten by Akbar".

Salilb (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)