Justifying Defeat: A Rajput Perspective On The Age of Akbar: Cynthia Talbot

Journal of the Economic and
Social History of the Orient 55 (2012) 329-368 brill.com/jesh
Justifying Defeat:
A Rajput Perspective on the Age of Akbar
Cynthia Talbot*
Abstract
This article explores a darker side of cultural dialogue—the experience of subjugation to a
cultural “other”—through a case study of Rao Surjan of Bundi, a Rajput warrior who was
defeated by Mughal emperor Akbar in 1569. Surjan’s surrender of Ranthambhor fort was
celebrated in Mughal chronicles such as the Akbarnama but condemned in Nainsi’s Khyat
and other Rajput texts. Drawing primarily on Surjanacarita, a Sanskrit poem from about
1590, this article examines the literary strategies that were employed to justify Surjan’s
submission to Akbar and his subsequent career as a Mughal mansabdar (imperial rank-
holder).
Cet article explore une facette sombre du dialogue culturel—l’expérience de la soumission

à un « Autre » culturel—à travers l’étude du cas de Rao Surjan de Bundi, un guerrier rajput
qui fut vaincu par l’empereur moghol Akbar en 1569. La reddition de la forteresse de Ran-
thambhor à l’initiative de Surjan fut un objet de célébration dans les chroniques mogholes
telles que l’Akbar Nama, au contraire du Khyat de Nainsi et d’autres textes rajputs qui la
condamnèrent. S’appuyant essentiellement sur le Surjancarita, un poème sanskrit datant
d’environ 1590, cet article examine les stratégies littéraires employées pour justifier la
soumission de Surjan à Akbar et sa carrière ultérieure en tant que mansabdar (dignitaire)
moghol.
Keywords
Rajput, Akbar, Indian historiography, Bundi, warrior ethos
*) Cynthia Talbot, Department of History, University of Texas at Austin, ctalbot@austin

.utexas.edu. Various versions of this article have been presented over the years at the Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania, the Annual Conference on South Asia at Madison, the University
of Michigan, the University of California-Los Angeles, and Columbia University. I am
grateful to the audiences at these places for their many helpful comments and reactions.
Among the numerous colleagues to whom I am indebted, I must mention especially Alli-
son Busch, Kumkum Chatterjee, and Rick Saran for their encouragement and assistance.
To Corinne Lefèvre and Inès Zupanov, I extend my thanks for a stimulating workshop and
the opportunity to share this work in published form.
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2012 DOI: 10.1163/15685209-12341238
330 C. Talbot / JESHO 55 (2012) 329-368
Introduction
The Mughal emperor Akbar (r. 1556-1605) is acclaimed today not only for
his military successes, which laid the territorial foundation for a long-
lasting empire, nor just for his administrative acumen, which led to the
adoption of bureaucratic practices that strengthened the state. More than
any other figure in India’s past, Akbar is thought to embody a cosmopoli-
tan outlook that appreciated the human diversity of South Asia and was
inquisitive about the peoples in the world beyond it. By exploring a range
of cultural beliefs and practices and by incorporating men from a variety of
communities into his ruling class, Akbar singlehandedly—or so it is often
implied—instigated the formation of a composite high culture that encom-
passed both Indic and Islamicate traditions. In dress, architecture, and eti-
quette, and in numerous other ways, the Mughal court developed a
common idiom that resulted from the ongoing cultural dialogue between
the diverse partners in the enterprise of empire. Only the most politically
powerful were involved initially in this sophisticated culture, to be sure,
but aspects of their courtly style and attitudes were gradually disseminated
down the social ladder and out to the peripheries of the subcontinent.
Although Akbar’s curiosity about other religions, literatures, and cus-
toms certainly contributed to the cosmopolitan atmosphere of his court,
more important in the long run was his policy of inducting men of Indian
origin, both Muslim and Hindu, into the imperial service.1 Akbar’s most
notable departure from the personnel practices of earlier Indo-Muslim
kings was in his offering of high-level positions to a number of Hindu
chiefs who acknowledged his overlordship, particularly among the Rajput
community of warriors from western India. One Rajput lord who submit-
ted to Mughal authority was Surjan of the Hada lineage, who is depicted
bowing down to the seated Akbar in Figure 1.2 The event illustrated in this
painting from a manuscript of Akbarnama, the official chronicle of Akbar’s
reign, took place on 22 March 1569, after a month-long siege of
1)
For details on Akbar’s policy, see I.A. Khan, “The Nobility under Akbar and the Devel-
opment of His Religious Policy, 1560-80.” In India’s Islamic Traditions, 711-1750, ed. R.M.
Eaton (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003): 120-32.
2)
I have dropped the final “a” in Indian personal names (e.g., Surjan), in most cases, fol-
lowing the Hindi rather than Sanskrit practice. In a few instances, as with the Sanskrit poet
Candrashekhara and the hero memorialized in Sanskrit as Hammira, I use the Sanskrit
form of the name.
Justifying Defeat: A Rajput Perspective on the Age of Akbar 331
Ranthambhor fort.3 After surrendering the fort to the emperor in person,

Rao Surjan, the lord of Ranthambhor, joined the imperial service and
“became one of the great amirs” or court nobles, as Akbar’s son and succes-
sor Jahangir tells us in his memoirs.4 Surjan’s descendants from Bundi and
relatives from a junior branch established later at Kota remained active in
their service to the Mughals, participating repeatedly in seventeenth-
century campaigns in the Deccan and the northwest.5 Surjan’s ready accep-
tance of Mughal sovereignty thus had long-lasting consequences for an
entire lineage of Rajput warriors, as well as for the empire. In this article, I
will engage in a close reading of texts narrating Surjan’s submission to
Akbar and his subsequent career as a Mughal officer, in order to explore the
various meanings of honorable defeat and political subordination in this
context of cross-cultural encounter.
While Akbar’s creation of a noble class that included Rajput lords has
been universally lauded by modern commentators, our view of Akbar’s
policies has been limited largely to the vantage point of the imperial court.
Similarly, the recruitment of Rajput warriors has typically been analyzed in
terms of its impact on the state system as a whole or its benefit to a par-
ticular lineage over several generations. Only a few scholarly studies have
examined the alternative perspectives offered by texts produced at local
Rajput courts and composed in Braj Bhasa or other Indian languages.6
These literary works do not allow us to recapture actual experiences, of
3)
The painting is 13.4 × 8.3 inches and is at the Victoria and Albert Museum, London
(IS.2:75-1896).
4)
Jahangir, The Jahangirnama: Memoirs of Jahangir, Emperor of India, ed. and trans. W.M.
Thackston (Washington DC: Freer Gallery of Art & Oxford University Press, 1999): 288.
Surjan’s title in Persian texts was Rai (prince, chief ); in Braj Bhasha and other Indic ver-
naculars, it was Rao.
5)
For example, see the biographies of Madho Singh of Kota (r. 1630-48) and Chatrasal/
Satrsal Singh of Bundi (r. 1631-58) in Shahnavaz Khan Awrangabadi, Maʾasir al-umara,
trans. H. Beveridge, 2nd ed. (Patna: Janaki Prakashan, 1979): 2:1-3, 722-4.
6)
See, e.g., A. Busch, “Literary Responses to the Mughal Imperium: The Historical Poems
of Kesavdas.” South Asia Research 25 (2005): 31-54. See also her Poetry of Kings: The Classi-
cal Hindi Literature of Mughal India (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011) and “Por-
trait of a Raja in a Badshah’s World: Amrit Rai’s Biography of Man Singh (1585)” in this
volume. See also H. Pauwels, “The Saint, the Warlord, and the Emperor: Discourses of Braj
Bhakti and Bundela Loyalty.” JESHO 52 (2009): 187-228; and C. Talbot, “Becoming Turk
the Rajput Way: Conversion and Identity in an Indian Warrior Narrative.” Modern Asian
Studies 43 (2009): 211-43. Excerpts from the Rajasthani chronicler Nainsi are studied in
R.D. Saran and N.P. Ziegler, The Mertiyo Rathors of Merto, Rajasthan, 2 vols. (Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Centers for South and Southeast Asian Studies, 2001).
332 C. Talbot / JESHO 55 (2012) 329-368
course, but their rhetorical strategies and omissions can indicate what
aspects of submission to or service for the Mughals were most noteworthy
or problematic to Rajput sensibilities. How did texts commissioned by
Indic warrior lineages affiliated with the Mughals reflect on their subordi-
nation or treat the events that led to it? In the case of Rao Surjan, we are
fortunate to have available a Sanskrit text about his life that was completed
just a few years after his death in 1585.7 I will draw heavily from this little-
studied work, the Surjanacarita of Candrashekhara, in the following pages.
Because it is contemporaneous with Akbarnama, which was composed, in
Persian, between 1589 and 1595 by Akbar’s confidante Abu’l Fazl on the
emperor’s command,8 a comparison of the two accounts allows us to
glimpse a cultural dialogue in progress concerning Rajput acquiescence to
superior Mughal power.9
The Mughal attitude toward conquered subordinates may have been
more ambivalent than is intimated by illustrated manuscripts from the
court, or so a report from Munhato Nainsi, the famous Jodhpur chronicler,
suggests. On the one hand, the painting of Surjan in prostration (Fig. 1)
stresses his subservience, for Surjan was forced to display publicly his rever-
ence for the mighty emperor, who is seated on a temporary throne under
a cloth canopy. Behind Surjan is a Muslim noble who is using both of
his hands to guide Surjan’s movements; this is probably a reflection of
the highly ceremonial nature of Akbar’s court, which required the pre-
cise execution of ritual.10 In the most famous visual rendering of a Rajput
accepting Mughal authority, that of Sisodiya Amar Singh’s submission to
Prince Khurram in 1615, a noble similarly stands behind the Rajput king
7)
Two editions of this work exist, each based on a single manuscript: Candrashekhara,
Surjanacaritam, ed. J.B. Chaudhuri (Calcutta: Pracyavani Mandira, 1951) and Can-
drashekhara, Surjanacaritamahakavyam, ed. and Hindi trans. C. Sharma (Kashi: C. Sharma,
1952). The Chaudhuri edition contains three more verses; otherwise the texts are virtually
identical. I cite the verses as they are enumerated in the Sharma edition [henceforth SC ].
8)
S. Moosvi, “Making and Recording History: Akbar and the Akbar-Nama.” In Akbar and
His Age, ed. I.A. Khan (New Delhi: Northern Book Centre, 1999): 182, 185.
9)
Note that Amrit Rai’s Mancarit, a Braj Bhasa text, dates from 1585 and thus was com-
posed in the same decade. For an insightful analysis, see A. Busch’s “Portrait of a Raja in a
Badshah’s World” in this issue. Busch suggests that processes of cultural dialogue contrib-
uted to the production of “historical” (that is, dynastic and biographical) texts at both
Mughal and Rajput courts during Akbar’s reign.
10)
Princes who submitted to the Delhi sultans similarly had the hand of the sultan or his
delegate placed on their backs; Peter Jackson describes this as “a characteristic reassuring
gesture” (The Delhi Sultanate [Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999]: 194).
Figure 1: Rai Surjan Hada making Submission to Akbar Mukund and

Shankar. (Photo © Victoria and Albert Museum, London)
334 C. Talbot / JESHO 55 (2012) 329-368
and uses a hand to guide him downward.11 On the other hand, Surjan’s
elegant dress and jewels establish him as a man of elevated status, despite
the hierarchy clearly portrayed in the painting. Akbar’s high regard is indi-
cated by the benevolence with which his hands rest lightly on Surjan’s
shoulder and turban. Overall, then, this picture signals respect on the
part of the Mughal state toward its newly subjugated subordinate.12 Yet
Nainsi, writing in Rajasthani in the middle of the seventeenth century,
implies that Akbar actually held Surjan in contempt. According to Nainsi,
Akbar had a picture of Surjan in the guise of a dog—an animal despised in
South Asia—placed on a gateway into Agra fort, thereby causing Surjan
great shame.13
Whether Nainsi’s account of this blatant insult to Rao Surjan by his
liege lord was accurate can no longer be determined. If nothing else, it
makes evident the complexity, variety, and even inconsistency in cultural
responses to the changing circumstances resulting from Mughal expan-
sionism. My analysis here focuses mainly on one man and relies heavily on
a single text, Surjanacarita: it is a limited glimpse into what was no doubt
a spectrum of different personal and literary reactions to the experience of
being conquered and/or switching political allegiances. Some of the varia-
tion in literary discourse on war and defeat in early modern India results
from a multiplicity of textual genres, languages, and audiences, but fluc-
tuations in individual loyalties and changing political contexts also add to
the diversity of voices. An example of a man with shifting affiliations is
Rathor Mamdan Kumpavat, a Rajput warrior who in the course of his
long military career from 1550 to 1600 served two Rathor rulers of Jodh-
pur, two Sisodiya kings of Mewar, and the emperor Akbar.14 Given the
multiple realities and narratives, no single study can claim to survey
11)
One version of this scene was made c. 1618 (Jahangir, Jahangirnama: 166). A second
rendition dates to c. 1620-8 (E.J. Wright, ed., Muraqqaʿ: Imperial Mughal Albums from the
Chester Beatty Library, Dublin, Alexandria, VA: Art Services International, 2008: 260-1). It
was painted again, c. 1640, for inclusion in a Padshahnama manuscript now in Windsor
Castle (Wright, Muraqqaʿ: 263).
12)
I thank Stewart Gordon for pointing this out to me, as well as the significance of the
robes of honor that were presented to Surjan’s sons.
13)
Mumhata Nainsi ri Khyat, ed. B. Sakariya (Jodhpur: Rajasthan Oriental Institute,
1984): 1:99-100.
14)
N.P. Ziegler, “Some Notes on Rajput Loyalties During the Mughal Period.” In Kingship
and Authority in South Asia, ed. J.F. Richards (Madison: South Asian Studies, University of
Wisconsin–Madison, 1978): 217-9.
comprehensively how Rajputs regarded Mughal dominion over them,

much less the Rajput heroic ethos as a whole.15 Yet, because so little schol-
arly effort has been expended on understanding the perspectives of those
Rajput lineages who joined the imperial enterprise, a close reading of one
Rajput text, juxtaposed to literature produced at the Mughal court, can
still provide us with fresh insights.
While the focus of my investigation is how defeat at the hands of the
Mughals and subsequent military service for them was regarded by their
Rajput subordinates, this issue can be explored only through consideration
of the Rajput warrior ethos and traditional Indian ideas about kingship. I
begin with a description of Akbarnama’s treatment of the siege and surren-
der of Ranthambhor fort, as a reflection of the Mughal court’s understand-
ing of events. Before contrasting Surjanacarita’s version of this episode
with Akbarnama’s account, I first present a sketch of the larger context
of political history within which Surjan’s submission to the Mughals
occurred. Surjanacarita’s rendition of the surrender is followed by a brief
discussion of Rajput notions of martial honor, as a means to understand
why Surjan’s actions were condemned by some later chroniclers. A lengthy
analysis of the way Surjan’s subsequent career as a Mughal officer is pre-
sented in Akbarnama and Surjanacarita comes next, necessitated by the
radical difference in the two accounts. I conclude by arguing that Surjan
and other high-ranking Hindus consciously adopted a royal mode of lord-
ship after becoming subordinates of the Mughals. This not only enhanced
the prestige of warrior lineages but also obscured the reality of their
subordination.
The Conquest of Ranthambhor in Akbarnama

The conquest of Ranthambhor in 1569 is described at length in the text of
Akbarnama, the officially sanctioned account of Akbar’s reign. It received
even more emphasis in the illustrations accompanying the Akbarnama
manuscript made for the emperor, where it was commemorated in five
paintings.16 Only Akbar’s three-year campaign against rebel Uzbek nobles
15)
For a study of the heroic world of western Rajasthan, based on prose and verse accounts
of the epic figure Pabuji, see J. Kamphorst, In Praise of Death: History and Poetry in Medi-
eval Marwar (Leiden: Leiden University Press, 2008).
16)
The paintings relating to Ranthambhor, in the collection of the Victoria and Albert
Museum, are IS.2:72-1896, IS.2:73-1896, IS.2:74-1896, IS.2:75-1896, and IS.2:76-1896.
336 C. Talbot / JESHO 55 (2012) 329-368
and their Afghan allies in eastern India (1564-7)—an early internal chal-
lenge to his rule—and his dramatic conquest of Gujarat (1572-3)—the
last time the emperor personally led troops into the battlefield—merited
more coverage in the 116 paintings that survive from the imperial manu-
script.17 While the fort’s strategic importance partially accounts for the
acclaim that followed its conquest, there were several other factors involved,
such as the fort’s reputation during the earlier Delhi Sultanate period, the
relative ease with which it was taken, and the timing of the victory.
Built on a hill in rough, forested terrain 130 miles southwest of Agra,
Ranthambhor had long been considered formidable. A previous attempt
to subdue this “fortress famous for its height and solidity” had failed, and
so, in February 1569, the emperor took charge of the matter himself.18 The
Akbarnama illustrations highlight the Mughal expertise in siegecraft that
made their victory possible.19 In the first of the five Ranthambhor paint-
ings, bullocks are shown dragging a cart laden with a cannon up a precipi-
tous incline.20 In the upper left hand corner, three cannons are already in
position, and two are firing. Abu’l Fazl’s text states that Akbar had climbed
the hill the day after his arrival in order to view the terrain, and the second
painting shows Akbar doing so. He is depicted high on a slope, gazing at
the distant fortress, while his soldiers are busy setting up an encampment
in the foreground. After some days, Akbar ordered the construction of
sabats, covered passageways, to protect the attackers so that they could
move closer to the fortress. A third painting shows the Mughal forces
The illustrations in this Akbarnama are generally thought to have been produced between
1590 and 1595, while Abu’l Fazl was in the process of writing the text.
17)
G. Sen, Paintings from the Akbar Nama: A Visual Chronicle of Mughal India (Calcutta:
Lustre Press under arrangement with Rupa, 1984): 42-5.
18)
The quote appears in Abu’l Fazl, The Akbar Nama of Abu-l-Fazl [henceforth AN ], trans.
H. Beveridge (Delhi: Ess Ess Publications, 1977): 2:132-3; Mughal forces were en route to
besiege Ranthambhor on another occasion but were diverted to quell a disturbance (AN 2:
484). The conquest of Ranthambhor in 1569 is described in AN 2: 489-96.
19)
T.K. Rabb suggests that the Ranthambhor siege was highlighted in the Akbarnama
manuscript partly because it afforded painters an opportunity to display the might of
Mughal artillery. All five paintings of Ranthambhor have been reproduced in his “Artists on
War: The Illustrators of the Akbarnama.” MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History
10/3 (1998): 58-63.
20)
Because of its dramatic composition, this painting has often been reproduced. One
example is J. Gommans, Mughal Warfare: Indian Frontiers and High Roads to Empire,
1500-1700 (London: Routledge, 2002): 132.
sheltered behind a sabat and shooting long siege guns at the walls of the
fortress, whose occupants look down with alarm.
The chronicle reports that, once the sabats were in place, Ranthambhor’s
walls were soon breached and Surjan quickly capitulated, about five weeks
after Akbar’s arrival. Negotiations between the two warring parties took
place over several days, beginning with the emergence of Surjan’s two sons
from the fort. They “begged the pardon of their father’s offences,” obtained
the emperor’s forgiveness, and received robes of honor.21 By participating
in this well-established ritual of robing, Surjan’s sons not only acknowl-
edged the superiority of the Mughals but also their willingness to enter
Mughal service. After a few days, Surjan himself came out of the fort and
“tendered suitable gifts, and the keys of the fort, which were made of gold
and silver.”22 It was at this time that Surjan bowed before Akbar in submis-
sion, as portrayed in the fourth painting of the set. Surjan finally left the
fort three days later, having agreed to proceed to the capital, while his sons
attended the emperor. The final scene from Ranthambhor in the Akbar-
nama manuscript is the emperor’s triumphant entry into the fortress.
Abu’l Fazl, the author of Akbarnama, boasts about the ease with which
his emperor won this victory, saying:
The conquest of such a lofty fort, which great rulers had not been able to accomplish
after long sieges and which Sultan Alauddin had taken with great difficulty after a year,
was effected by His Majesty the Shahinshah in the space of one month.23
The sultan mentioned here is Ala al-Din Khalji (r. 1296-1316), the most
successful military leader among all the rulers of the Delhi Sultanate.
Among his accomplishments was the subjugation of Ranthambhor, prob-
ably the most politically important fortress in Rajasthan in Ala al-Din’s
time. It was the home base of a line of Cauhan warriors descended from
Prithviraj Cauhan (r. c. 1178-92) of Ajmer, who had been defeated by
Muhammad Ghauri in 1192. The drawn-out struggle between Hammira
(r. 1283-1301), the last king of this prestigious Cauhan lineage, and Ala
al-Din Khalji has been commemorated in several poems, including the
Sanskrit Hammira-mahakavya and Surjanacarita. It was only “through an
exercise of strong will,” in the words of Ala al-Din Khalji’s chronicler Amir
21)
AN 2: 494.
22)
AN 2: 495.
23)
AN 2: 495.
338 C. Talbot / JESHO 55 (2012) 329-368
Khusrau (1253-1325), that the Delhi Sultan successfully captured the fort
in 1301.24 Ranthambhor’s conquest thus offered a favorable comparison
between Akbar and Ala al-Din Khalji, Akbar’s mightiest predecessor among
all Indo-Muslim kings. Akbar’s superiority was confirmed, in Abu’l Fazl’s
view, by his ability to subdue Ranthambhor easily. This accomplishment
continued to be a source of pride at the Mughal court, as revealed in the
memoirs of Akbar’s son and successor, Jahangir, who notes that Akbar cap-
tured Ranthambhor much more quickly than had Ala al-Din Khalji.25
Akbar and the Rajputs: The Political Context

The fate of the warriors besieged in Ranthambhor in 1569 was far better
than what their counterparts had experienced a year earlier at Chittaur,
arguably the most famous Rajasthani fortress of all time, which had also
been captured previously by Ala al-Din Khalji.26 Situated on an isolated
plateau well above the surrounding countryside, Chittaur had massive
stone ramparts that encircled its outskirts and a large, well-stocked inte-
rior. Its lord, Udai Singh of the Sisodiya dynasty, had prudently withdrawn
from his stronghold before the Mughal siege, but he left behind a garrison
of staunch defenders. Here too the Mughals built a large sabat, and they
also excavated tunnels leading toward the fortifications. The first attempt
to detonate mines killed many of the Mughals’ own troops, but Chittaur’s
walls were eventually breached after a four-month siege. Chittaur’s defend-
ers did not, however, lay down their arms even then, and nearly thirty
thousand were killed in the fighting inside the fort.
The seizure of Chittaur was of considerable symbolic significance for the
Mughals, but it had exacted a high price in time, manpower, and supplies,
without fully achieving the goal of subduing the Mewar kingdom. Its ruler
evaded capture, and his successor, Rana Pratap, continued to resist the
empire for decades. In contrast, the conquest of Ranthambhor had
24)
M. Habib (trans.), The Campaigns of Alauddin Khilji being the Khazai’nul Futuh
(Treasures of Victory) of Hazrat Amir Khusrau (Bombay: D.B. Taraporewala, Sons & Co.,
1931): 41.
25)
Jahangir, Jahangirnama: 288. I thank Corinne Lefèvre for bringing this to my attention.
26)
On the numerous retellings in Indic languages of Ala al-Din Khalji’s conquest of Chit-
taur, supposedly motivated by his desire to possess its queen, see R. Sreenivasan, The Many
Lives of a Rajput Queen: Heroic Pasts in India c. 1500-1900 (Delhi: Permanent Black,
2007).
proceeded quickly and with little bloodshed. Even if Ranthambhor was a

less valuable fortress than Chittaur, the Mughal military campaign there
had gone much more smoothly. This may explain why the conquest of
Ranthambhor merited five single-page paintings in the imperial Akbar-
nama manuscript, compared with the two double-page illustrations allot-
ted to the Chittaur siege.27 That ease of conquest affected what was included
in the official history is demonstrated by the cursory coverage of other,
more prolonged, sieges that had less conclusive results, such as the eigh-
teen-month siege of Jodhpur city in 1564-5, during which the fort was
captured but not its lord.28 Another variable that significantly influenced
Akbarnama’s coverage of events was Akbar’s presence; the military cam-
paigns led by the emperor himself provided more opportunities for Abu’l
Fazl to praise his extraordinary qualities. This was all the more true when
Akbar’s achievements superseded or surpassed those of previous conquer-
ors: Chittaur and Ranthambhor had been captured not only by Ala al-Din
Khalji centuries earlier but also, in the 1540s, by Sher Shah Sur, the nem-
esis of Akbar’s father Humayun.29
When Rao Surjan capitulated to Akbar in 1569, the emperor had only
a handful of Rajput subordinates. The first Rajputs to join their fortunes
to Akbar were the Kachwahas under Bharmal (or Bihari Mal), whose
daughter was married to the emperor in 1562. Bharmal’s son Bhagwantdas
and grandson Man Singh were both sent to the imperial court at this time.
Another Rajput lineage that allied themselves with the Mughals in 1562
were the Rathors of Merta in western Rajasthan, a junior branch of the
Rathors of Jodhpur. They, too, gave a daughter in marriage to Akbar, in
about 1563.30 By this time, the Mughals had control of some key sites in
27)
About ten years after the illustrations were completed for the imperial Akbarnama man-
uscript, another illustrated version was produced. The siege of Ranthambhor was not
thought worthy of illustration in this later manuscript, although the Chittaur siege was
(L.Y. Leach, Mughal and Other Paintings from the Chester Beatty Library, London: Scorpion
Cavendish, 1995: 1:234). The reasons for this change in attitude are not clear.
28)
R.D. Saran, “The Mughal Siege of Jodhpur, 1565,” unpublished manuscript. I am
grateful to Rick for sharing this article with me.
29)
B.A.K. Matta, Sher Shah Suri: A Fresh Perspective (Karachi: Oxford University Press,
2005): 159, 185.
30)
F. Taft, “Honor and Alliance: Reconsidering Mughal-Rajput Marriages.” In Idea of Raj-
asthan, vol. 2, ed. K. Schomer et al. (Delhi: Manohar Publishers & American Institute of
Indian Studies, 1994): 226.
340 C. Talbot / JESHO 55 (2012) 329-368
the Rajasthan region, such as Ajmer and Nagaur, as well as the neighboring
region of Malwa.
Affiliating themselves with a Mughal polity based in Delhi or Agra was
not unprecedented for the warriors of Rajasthan, who had been both fight-
ing and serving various Muslim lords for centuries. One of the most famous
Hindu-Muslim coalitions, which included many Afghan lords along with
Rajputs, was led by Rana Sanga of the Mewar kingdom and confronted
Akbar’s grandfather Babur in battle at Khanua in 1527. During the years
of the Sur interregnum (1540-55), when Akbar’s father Humayun was
forced into exile, numerous Rajasthani forts were in the hands of Afghan
commanders, who were deeply enmeshed in regional politics. The situa-
tion was equally unstable in the early years of Akbar’s reign, with forts and
lordships in constant contention. Amid political flux and uncertainty,
Rajput leaders often sought alliances with more powerful Muslim rulers, in
order to bolster their local power; such alliances were particularly crucial
when Rajputs were faced with serious competition from kinsmen for con-
trol over a town or territory.
The Mertiya Rathors, a junior branch of the Rathor family of Jodhpur,
illustrate a Rajput lineage who purposefully allied themselves with the
Mughals in order to gain an edge over local rivals.31 When Akbar took the
throne, the Mertiya Rathor leader was Jaimal Viramdevot, who struggled
to maintain his small territory against the expansionist ambitions of the
Jodhpur king, Rao Maldev. The two men became embroiled in a larger
regional struggle when they chose opposing sides in the conflict between
the Sisodiya king, Udai Singh, and the Afghan Haji Khan, a former associ-
ate of Sher Shah. Merta fort was seized by Rao Maldev in 1557, after the
Sisodiya faction lost a major battle. Jaimal then approached the Mughal
court for assistance in regaining his ancestral lands; once Merta was sub-
dued, Akbar assigned it to Jaimal as his official territory.32
The Kachwahas of Amber were another minor lineage who associated
themselves with the Mughals at a time of dissension within their own
ranks. Succession to leadership of the lineage had become muddled since
the death of Kachwaha Puran Mal in 1534, whose son Suja was too young
31)
The details below are taken primarily from Saran and Ziegler, Mertiyo Rathors: 346-8.
32)
The story might have ended there, with the Rajput leader who had allied himself with
Mughal power on the ascendant, but Jaimal’s contact with the Mughal court had been
mediated by Mirza Sharaf al-Din Husayn, who rebelled against Akbar in late 1562. Believ-
ing that he too would come under suspicion, Jaimal took refuge with the Sisodiya king and
was one of Chittaur’s leading defenders during the Mughal siege of 1567-68.
to take over. Rule was eventually assumed by Bharmal (or Bihari Mal), the
youngest brother of Puran Mal, but Suja found an important ally decades
later in Sharaf al-Din Husayn, a regional lord who was Akbar’s brother-in-
law. The threat posed by Suja to his control of Amber fort appears to have
been the reason that Bharmal initiated contact with Akbar in 1562.
Through the decision to join forces with the Mughals, Bharmal and his
descendants were confirmed in their position as rulers of Amber and expe-
rienced a meteoric rise in their fortunes.33
Surjan’s Hada lineage was similar to the Kachwahas and Mertiya Rathors
in being insignificant before their association with the Mughals. Surjan,
too, faced rivals among his kinfolk but, unlike the case with the Rathor
Jaimal or Bharmal of the Kachwahas, he did not require Mughal help to
keep his home fort safe from challenges within the lineage. Instead, Surjan
owed his position to the intervention of the Sisodiya king of Mewar, a
dynasty to whom the Hadas had long been formally subservient. When
the warriors of Bundi became dissatisfied with their Hada lord in 1554,
Maharana Udai Singh of Mewar deposed him and put Surjan in his place.34
Surjan, a relative newcomer to power, made an astute political move when
he surrendered Ranthambhor to Akbar after only limited resistance. The
decision to ally himself with the Mughals gave Surjan continued control
over his home base of Bundi and led to his family’s greater prosperity in the
decades to come.
Scholars have regarded Akbar’s initial recruitment of Rajput subordi-
nates as part of a larger effort to counterbalance the dominance of Central
Asian nobles at the Mughal court.35 Mughal rule over North India was still
very precarious when Akbar took the throne as an adolescent in 1556,
because his father Humayun had only fought his way back into power the
previous year. In addition to the continuing threat from Afghan lords and
Hindu kings, Akbar faced recurrent challenges to his authority from his
own Central Asian nobles, as well as his half-brother, Mirza Muhammad
Hakim, based in Afghanistan. By inducting a number of Persians and
Indian Muslims into the imperial service in the early 1560s, along with a
33)
A. Husain, The Nobility under Akbar and Jahangir: A Study of Family Groups (Delhi:
Manohar, 1999): 87-9; A.R. Khan, “Akbar’s Initial Encounters with the Chiefs: Accident
vs. Design in the Process of Subjugation.” In Akbar and His India, ed. I. Habib (Delhi:
Oxford University Press, 1997): 1-14.
34)
Saran and Ziegler, Mertiyo Rathors: 98-9; R.S. Mathur, Relations of Hadas with Mughal
Emperors, 1568-1720 A.D. (Delhi: Deputy Publications, 1986): 38-49.
35)
I.A. Khan, “Nobility under Akbar”: 122.
342 C. Talbot / JESHO 55 (2012) 329-368
few Rajputs, Akbar was attempting to create a loyal cadre of supporters,

but the Kachwahas, Mertiya Rathors, and other Rajputs who took service
with the Mughals early on played minor roles initially in Mughal military
affairs.36 Akbar expended little energy subduing the Rajasthan area, which
had more strategic than economic importance. Only after the emperor had
managed to quell a rebellion among his Central Asian nobles in the mid
1560s did he become more vigorous in his efforts to subdue the Rajput
chiefs as a whole.37
The victories at Chittaur and Ranthambhor in 1568-9 were, in retro-
spect, pivotal events in the Mughal subjugation of Rajput lords. Awed by
Akbar’s military might, and his willingness to be ruthless, the major Rajput
lineages soon fell in line. The impact of the sieges can be inferred from the
testimony by the Indo-Persian chronicler Badaʾuni that, “when the news of
the taking of Chitor and Rinthambhor became spread abroad on all sides
and in all directions,” the Baghela Rajput ruler Ramcand of Bhatta volun-
tarily gave up Kalinjar fortress to the emperor.38 Among the Rajput lin-
eages who submitted to Akbar in the immediate aftermath of these
impressive Mughal conquests were the Rathors of Bikaner and the Bhatis
of Jaisalmer, in 1570.39 Within the next few years, almost every Rajput
lineage had acknowledged Mughal overlordship, with the notable excep-
tion of the Sisodiya rulers of Mewar. Rajputs were henceforth given greater
responsibilities in administration and appointed as commanders of mili-
tary campaigns.
36)
S. Chandra, “Akbar’s Rajput Policy and Its Evolution: Some Considerations.” Social
Scientist 20 (1992): 62.
37)
I.A. Khan, “Nobility under Akbar”: 123.
38)
Abd al-Qadir Badaʾuni, Muntakhab al-tavarikh, trans. W.H. Lowe (Calcutta: Asiatic
Society of Bengal, 1884): 2:124. Badaʾuni goes on to state that Ramcand had bought Kal-
injar “for a considerable sum of money” from a Bijli Khan, who must have been a minor
Afghan commander. Abu’l Fazl, in Akbarnama, similarly reports that “during the evil time
of the Afghans he [Raja Ramcand] got possession of it by giving a large sum of money to
Bijli Khan” (AN 2: 499). Kalinjar had passed into Afghan hands under Sher Shah Sur, who
received a mortal wound during his successful assault on the fort in 1545.
39)
For details on Bikaner’s situation, see G.S.L. Devra, “Raja, Mansab and Jagir: A Re-
examination of Mughal-Rajput Relations During the Reign of Akbar.” Social Scientist 20
(1992): 70-81.
Surjanacarita’s Counter-perspective on Ranthambhor

It is in this context of changed political circumstances for most Rajputs
that Surjanacarita was written, two decades or so after the conquest of
Ranthambhor. Said to have been commissioned by Rao Surjan himself,
this Sanskrit poem continues its narrative of events through the coronation
of Surjan’s successor, Bhoj (d. 1607), to whom an entire canto is devoted.
It must therefore have been completed sometime after Surjan’s death in
1585, possibly even on the command of Bhoj rather than his father.40 Can-
drashekhara, its author, is not known to us from any other work. Among
the scant biographical details he provides are the fact that he was living in
Banaras while composing Surjanacarita and that he was a Gaudiya (i.e.,
Bengali) by origin. That only two manuscripts of Surjanacarita survive
suggests that the text had a limited audience, perhaps circulating only
within the Bundi court. Although the title, Life or Deeds of Surjan, implies
that its contents would focus solely on Surjan, more than half of the poem’s
approximately 1450 verses concern his ancestors, including Prithviraj
Cauhan and Hammira of Ranthambhor. Such an emphasis on the illustri-
ous genealogy of the hero is typical of the historical mahakavya, a genre of
courtly literature whose purpose was to proclaim the hero’s greatness.
Surjan’s early days as a king are also narrated in the formulaic manner of
the mahakavya, beginning with a victorious military campaign (vijaya
yatra) immediately after ascending the throne. Having demonstrated his
martial qualities, Surjan proceeds to the next deed required of a royal hero,
the winning of a princess sometimes equated explicitly with the Goddess
of Royal Fortune, Rajya-Shri. Only then is Surjan ready to engage in the
great battle or other admirable exploit that constitutes the climax of a stan-
dard courtly poem. The mighty emperor (samrat) Akbar has brought all
the earth under his control, the poet tells us, aside from the fortress of
Ranthambhor, where he had sent his warriors thirteen times in past, only
to be repulsed on each occasion. Now Akbar has decided to lead an assault
on Ranthambhor himself. Getting word of this, Surjan also sets out with
his army, presumably from his main fort, Bundi, and crosses a raging river
to arrive at Ranthambhor.
40)
Vamshabhaskar, a mid-nineteenth-century chronicle commissioned by a Bundi king,
states that Surjan died in the (Vikram) Samvat year 1642. Surjan’s successor, Bhoj, was
crowned in the lunar month of Margashira (November-December) 1585: Suryamalla
Mishran, Vamsha Bhaskara Mahacampu, ed. C.P. Deval. Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, 2007:
5:3377-8.
344 C. Talbot / JESHO 55 (2012) 329-368
The battle takes up all of the following canto. It takes place out in the
open, among men mounted on horses, whose primary weapon is the bow
and arrow. The initial onslaught of the Mughal army is devastating to the
Bundi troops—it is literally a blood bath—and Surjan therefore person-
ally enters the fray. So rapidly did he shoot arrows that he seemed to be a
catur-bahuman, one who possesses four arms; it is, according to this poem,
from the word catur-bahuman that the vernacular name for Surjan’s Cau-
han clan was derived. The relentless torrent of Surjan’s arrows forces the
Mughal troops into retreat, but their headlong flight is halted by Akbar,
who urges them back onto the battlefield. The Mughal troops turn around
and join forces to attack Surjan, whose horse is slain, his bow-string cut,
and his armor pierced. Akbar praises the prowess of his opponent and
then, because the sun is setting, calls his troops off. The wounded Surjan
returns to his fort.
Surjan is preparing for another day of battle as the next canto begins.
On the way out of the fort, he is stopped by an emissary from Akbar, who
tries to persuade him that it would be folly to continue to resist the
Mughals. Although the poem does not name this emissary, the chronicler
Nainsi identifies him as the Kachwaha Rajput, Bhagwantdas.41 Akbar’s
envoy insists that there is no hope of Surjan’s withstanding Akbar’s might
and that it would be arrogant not to make peace with a far more powerful
enemy. And, he asks most pertinently, had Surjan not heard of the calam-
ity that had befallen Hammira? The implication of this reference to the
(distant) ancestor of Hada Surjan, who had died defending Ranthambhor
from Ala al-Din Khalji centuries earlier, was that it was useless to resist
superior force. Death, in other words, would be Surjan’s fate, if he similarly
persisted in a stubborn refusal to surrender Ranthambhor.
The Rajput intermediary urges Surjan instead to accept Akbar’s offer,
made only because of his great admiration for Surjan. The Mughal propo-
sition is, in brief, to exchange Ranthambhor for three other places: an
unnamed province along the Narmada River, the entire vicinity of Mathura,
and the city of Kashi. The sanctity of the Narmada, Mathura, and Kashi,
41)
Nainsi, Khyat: 99. The later Bundi chronicle Vamshabhaskar also identifies the emissary
as Kachwaha Bhagwantdas and describes him disparagingly as a man who had destroyed his
own dharma (Mishran, Vamsha Bhaskara: 5:3230-1). Scholars have generally accepted this
identification, partly because Akbarnama mentions the presence at Ranthambhor of one of
Bhagwantdas’s servants, although it does not explicitly place Bhagwantdas there.
is emphasized, so Surjan, who desired to visit these holy sites anyway,

agrees to Akbar’s generous terms of surrender.42 Surjanacarita’s assertion
that Akbar was greatly pleased by Surjan’s prowess and was therefore offer-
ing him three territories in return for a single fort suggests that Surjan was
in fact being honored by the emperor. In effect, the poem portrays the
resolution to the siege as a triumph for Surjan. It was not a case of one king
defeating another ruler of equal stature, we infer from these verses, but
rather of a mighty world-conqueror appreciating the worth of a lesser king.
Candrashekhara implies that Surjan’s battle against the Mughal forces was
essentially a test of his character and, having successfully met the chal-
lenge, he was allowed to become an esteemed subordinate, not just a
defeated foe.
The poet had taken pains earlier to make plausible this scenario of a
mighty emperor who was impressed by a valiant, if less powerful, foe.
From the moment Akbar appears in the poem, he is lauded in lofty terms,
as the strong man who disappoints the desires of his enemies with the
hint of a frown, as one who had established sovereignty over the whole
earth, as exceedingly intelligent and generous, and the like.43 Surjana-
carita’s extravagant praise of Akbar must have seemed appropriate when
it was composed, some twenty years after Ranthambhor’s conquest.44
Akbar’s paramount position was now firmly established in North India,
and legions of lesser lords paid him homage. By building Akbar up to be
a paragon among kings, Candrashekhara was obviously trying to deflect
any recrimination of Surjan for having been defeated. Yet the poet did not
wish to diminish too much his patron’s stature, so he put complimentary
words about Surjan in Akbar’s mouth. In the poem, Akbar watches Sur-
jan’s incredible battle prowess from the sidelines and cannot fail to think
highly of him.45 In this manner, Surjan’s innate worth and unquestionable
valor was stressed.
42)
SC XVII.1-22. (Roman numerals denote the canto, Arabic numerals the verse.)
43)
SC XVI.5-7.
44)
For an analysis of how differing political circumstances affected representations of rival
kings in the Deccan, see C. Talbot, “Inscribing the Other, Inscribing the Self: Hindu-
Muslim Identities in Pre-colonial India.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 37/4
(1995): 692-722.
45)
SC XVII.54.
346 C. Talbot / JESHO 55 (2012) 329-368
The Ambivalence of Surrender

Surjanacarita shares a positive image of Akbar with Akbarnama and
appears, at first glance, to narrate Surjan’s submission to the Mughals in an
unproblematic manner. But there is one jarring note: the Mughal emis-
sary’s invocation of the memory of a previous commander of Ranthamb-
hor fort, Hammira.46 The reference to this celebrated Cauhan hero and
Hada ancestor is supposed to have a salutary effect on Surjan, because
Hammira’s resistance to Ala al-Din Khalji, the Delhi sultan, proved costly
in terms of lives and was useless in the end. Yet Surjanacarita had earlier
delivered a very different message about Hammira, while lauding the gran-
deur of the Hada genealogy.47 In Surjanacarita, as in the older mahakavya
named after him, Hammira’s fatal flaw is hubris.48 While touring the coun-
tryside, performing pilgrimages and bestowing religious gifts, the Cauhan
king hears that Ala al-Din Khalji is taking advantage of his absence to
assault Ranthambhor. Hammira does not hurry to succor his besieged fort,
presumably from over-confidence.49 Hammira compounds his troubles
upon his return to Ranthambhor, by refusing to hand over the Mongol
officers of the sultanate who had taken refuge with him and to pay any
tribute to the sultan. The situation becomes hopeless, as Hammira’s war-
riors and subjects steadily desert the embattled fort, surrounded by a huge
contingent of sultanate cavalry. Knowing that defeat was inevitable, Ham-
mira is determined not to yield the fort without a fight. He therefore orders
his women to commit jauhar, the collective suicide of Rajput women in
the face of imminent defeat, while he leaves to die valiantly on the battle-
field. Like the folk heroes of Rajasthan’s oral epics, Hammira’s death was
glorious precisely because his sacrifice would be in vain.50
46)
SC XVIII.16.
47)
From the length of its account of Hammira, which comprises about a tenth of the poem
(SC XI and XII), we see that the conquest of Ranthambhor by Ala al-Din Khalji in 1301
was just as significant in this Sanskrit text as it was in the Persian Akbarnama, both dating
from c. 1590.
48)
Nayacandrasuri’s Hammira Mahakavya was composed in the fifteenth century: ed. M.
Jinavijaya (Jodhpur: Rajasthan Oriental Research Institute, 1993). For a discussion of this
text, see M.B. Bednar, “Conquest and Resistance in Context: A Historiographical Reading
of Sanskrit and Persian Battle Narrative.” PhD diss. (University of Texas at Austin, 2007).
49)
SC XI.74.
50)
J.D. Smith, “Heroes, Victims, and Role Models: The Inhabitants of the Rajasthani Epic
World.” In Tessitori and Rajasthan: Proceedings of the International Conference, Bikaner,
21-23 February 1996, ed. D. Dolcini and F. Freschi (Udine: Societa Indologica, 1999):
118-9.
The lengthy tribute to Hammira in Surjanacarita ends with the state-

ment that, though he had shed his mortal body on the battlefield, he had
gained an eternal body in the form of fame.51 The extravagant praise for
Hammira here is very different from the dismissive tone later in the poem,
when Hammira’s fate is cited as an example of one to avoid. It is difficult
to imagine Candrashekhara forgetting the earlier verses he had composed
commending Hammira, so perhaps the emissary’s allusion to Hammira
was meant to be ironic, or perhaps it reveals the poet’s own ambivalence.52
Whatever the explanation for the dissonance in messages, the extended
paean to Hammira provides us with a clear paradigm of appropriate behav-
ior for a Rajput hero. The poem’s focus on famous Cauhan heroes of the
distant past indicates that the Hada lineage lacked illustrious ancestors in
its immediate past; it also reveals the tremendous prestige of legendary
warriors like Hammira, who never laid down their arms. For, as Can-
drashekhara has Hammira proudly proclaim in Surjanacarita, Cauhan
heroes either vanquish their enemies in battle or give up their lives—they
have no third option.53
Rajput tradition did, in fact, admit of a third option. Despite the rhe-
torical stress on resistance, even at the cost of one’s life, warriors often did
abandon besieged forts and leave them to the enemy. This was known as
“going through the door of dharma,” in reference to the small doorway or
side gateway through which a fort’s defenders could safely depart. In one
example, from the seventeenth-century Rajasthani text Marvar ri Par-
ganam ri Vigat by the chronicler Nainsi, a military servant of Rao Maldev
of Jodhpur is told by his master to leave Merta fort to the enemy, presum-
ably in order to conserve fighting power. He vacated the fort reluctantly
for, as the chronicle says, he was “not the sort of Rajput who abandons a
fort and goes away, but Rav Maldev was telling him: ‘You are causing the
loss of my domain.’”54 As Richard Saran and Norman Ziegler note, while
it was acceptable for a Rajput to exercise this option, the warrior’s hesita-
tion in doing so in this episode indicates that it was not considered entirely
51)
SC XII.77.
52)
Allison Busch observes that Keshavdas, the famous poet from Orcha, likewise exhibits
an ambivalence toward his hero and patron, Bir Singh Deo, who is lauded as a perfect king
in one section of the poem Virsimhdevcarit. But on occasion the poet also treats favorably
Ram Shah, the elder brother whose throne Bir Singh seized, as well as Abu’l Fazl, whom Bir
Singh killed on the command of Prince Salim, the future Jahangir (Busch, “Literary
Responses”: 39-40).
53)
SC XII.49.
54)
Saran and Ziegler, Mertiyo Rathors, 1:135.
348 C. Talbot / JESHO 55 (2012) 329-368
honorable.55 Recourse to the dharma-door, whether literally or metaphori-

cally, was apparently well known, for it is also mentioned by the distin-
guished poet Keshavdas, in a work written in the Rajput kingdom of Orcha
in 1607.56
Later commentators did not commend Surjan’s prudence in pursuing
an alternative to conquest or death, despite the rise in fortunes his lineage
experienced as a consequence of Surjan’s decision. Nainsi’s anecdote about
Akbar having an image of Surjan in the likeness of a dog publicly displayed
has already been mentioned. When this act of contempt toward Surjan
is compared to the respect shown to Mertiya Rathor Jaimal and Sisodiya
Patta, it becomes even clearer that Surjan was blamed for failing to resist
the Mughals vigorously. For, according to Nainsi, Akbar had statues made
of Jaimal and Patta—the leading defenders of Chittaur in 1568 who both
died in combat—that depicted them in human form and mounted on
elephants like royalty.57 While Surjan was, in other words, judged despica-
ble, Jaimal and Patta were venerated. It would seem counterproductive for
Akbar to insult publicly one of his high-ranking officers in such a manner,
so this anecdote may merely be gossip that Nainsi found worth repeating.
Perhaps the harshest verdict on Surjan comes from James Tod, writing
in English in the 1820s, who asserts that Surjan’s surrender of Ranthamb-
hor constituted a “dereliction of duty” and was a source of humiliation to
Surjan’s lineage ever after. From the day that the fort was handed over to
Akbar, Tod informs us, “no Hara [i.e., Hada] ever passes Ranthambhor
without averting his head from an object which caused disgrace to the
tribe.”58 In order to underscore the shamefulness of Surjan’s behavior, Tod
tells the story of Sawant Singh, a former commander of the fort, who was
also a member of the Hada lineage. Sawant Singh refused to accept Surjan’s
surrender of the fort and, knowing full well that his resistance could be no
more than symbolic, he gave his life obstructing the Mughal entry into
Ranthambhor. Tod thereby juxtaposes Surjan’s censurable act with the
55)
Saran and Ziegler, Mertiyo Rathors, 1:134 n. 433.
56)
I am grateful to Allison Busch for informing me that Keshavdas refers to the dharma-
door in verse 8.58 of Virsimhdevcarit (personal communication, 29 March 2010). J. Tod
seems to view the practice somewhat more favorably, as he translates dharma-dvar as “the
gate of honour” (Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, ed. W. Crooke, Delhi: Low Price
Publications, 1990: 2:1006). The phrase “dharma-door” also figures in Candbardai’s Prith-
viraj Raso, ed. K. Mohansimh (Udaipur: Sahitya Sansthan, 1954): 50.3, 50.13, 50.31.
57)
Nainsi, Khyat 1:99-100.
58)
Tod, Annals 3:1483.
more laudable, because martial, conduct of another man, just as Nainsi

had placed Surjan in comparison with the defenders of Chittaur.
The condemnation of Surjan may arise from his status as a Mewar sub-
ordinate when he yielded possession of Ranthambhor to the Mughals.
That Rao Surjan was a military servant of Maharana Udai Singh of Mewar
is acknowledged by Indo-Persian and Indic-language histories alike.59 The
Hadas had been subservient to the Sisodiya dynasty of Mewar for genera-
tions and enjoyed a particularly close relationship with them from the time
of the renowned Rana Sanga (r. 1509-27), who was mortally wounded at
the Battle of Khanua fighting against the Mughal Babur. Maharana Udai
Singh, the Sisodiya ruler at the time of Surjan’s submission to the Mughals,
was in fact a close relative of Hada Surjan, for Udai Singh’s mother was a
sister to Surjan’s father.60 Marriages between Rajput women of less power-
ful lineages and their male overlords were a common way to consolidate
bonds of political allegiance and carried with them the expectation of mil-
itary service by the bride-giving group. In fulfillment of such expectations,
Surjan’s father died in 1535 while defending the Sisodiya capital Chittaur
against the assault of Bahadur Shah of Gujarat. The kinship tie between
them may explain why the Maharana selected Surjan to lead the Hadas in
1554, after deposing the existing chief from a more senior line. Without
Udai Singh’s personal support, Surjan would never have attained his posi-
tion as head of the Hada lineage.61
Surjan may even have owed his command over Ranthambhor to the
Mewar king, although there is a notable discrepancy in the various his-
torical accounts on this point. Because Mewar had an old claim to the fort,
which Rana Sanga had bequeathed to his infant sons Vikramaditya and
Udai Singh upon his death in 1527, it is not surprising to find Kaviraj
Shyamaldas, a court bard from late nineteenth-century Mewar, asserting
that Udai Singh had given charge of Ranthambhor to Surjan. This asser-
tion had been made much earlier by Nainsi, the mid-seventeenth-century
chronicler from Jodhpur, who adds the detail that Surjan held Ranthamb-
hor for fourteen years before Akbar besieged it.62 (We can surmise that
59)
For example, AN 2:132 and Nainsi, Khyat: 98-9.
60)
Maharana Udai Singh’s mother Karmeti Bai was a daughter of Hada Narbad, the father
of Surjan’s father (Mathur, Relations of Hadas: 35).
61)
Saran and Ziegler, Mertiyo Rathors, 2:99; Mathur, Relations of Hadas: 38-40.
62)
Nainsi, Khyat, 1:98; Kaviraj Shyamaldas, Virvinod: Mewar ka Itihas, part 2 (Delhi:
Motilal Banarsidass, 1986): 1:83-4.
350 C. Talbot / JESHO 55 (2012) 329-368
Nainsi, who compiled his chronicle from multiple sources, was here rely-
ing on information acquired from Mewar.) On the other hand, Indo-Per-
sian texts from the late sixteenth century agree that the fort had been
captured by Sher Shah Sur in 1542 and passed on to a succession of Afghan
warriors before Surjan “purchased” it in about 1557.63 Since Kalinjar fort
is also said to have been sold by its Afghan commander to a Rajput chief
during this period, it is possible that the Mughal chronicles were trying to
deny legitimacy to the prior occupants of these forts.64
Since Surjan was a Mewar subordinate, it could be argued that Surjan
acted wrongly by surrendering the fort without having received his over-
lord’s permission.65 Military service for the overlord—to the extent of dying
on the battlefield—was, in Norman Ziegler’s opinion, one of the three
basic tenets of the Rajput warrior code. This requirement could sometimes
conflict with the other two obligations—to avenge one’s father’s death and
to abstain from killing warriors belonging to the same clan ( gotra)—as well
as being detrimental to one’s own family.66 It is Surjan’s supposed betrayal
of Mewar that seems to be at the root of Tod’s antipathy toward him. Tod
rebukes Surjan, saying that he “was faithless to his pledge” to hold Rant-
hambhor as a “fief of Chitor,” when he “flung from him the remnant of
allegiance he owed to Mewar.”67 As is well known, Tod viewed Rajasthan’s
history from the perspective of the Mewar court, where he was based dur-
ing his tenure as the East India Company’s first political agent posted to
the Rajputs.68 Although Shyamaldas, a later historian from Mewar, is less
disparaging of Surjan than is Tod, he too makes sure, in his officially com-
missioned history, that the reader realizes others thought poorly of Surjan’s
actions. To that end, Shyamaldas asserts that the chronicler Nainsi had
63)
Abu’l Fazl reports that the Afghan commander, Jajhar Khan, “saw that the maintenance
of the fort was beyond his powers and, with the evil intention of preventing its falling into
the hands of the imperial servants, sold the fort to Rai Surjan” (AN 2:133). Badaʾuni refers
to the commander as Sangram Khan and states that he first negotiated a surrender with
Mughal generals after a long siege, but, when no money was forthcoming from them,
instead gave the fort up to Surjan for compensation (Muntakhabut al-Tavarikh 2:25-6).
64)
See note 38, on the purchase of Kalinjar.
65)
Richard Saran, personal communication (October, 2005). On Surjan’s ties with Maha-
rana Udai Singh of Mewar, see Saran and Ziegler, Mertiyo Rathors, 2:99-100.
66)
Ziegler, “Some Notes on Rajput Loyalties”: 232.
67)
Tod, Annals, 3:1480, 1483.
68)
C. Talbot, “The Mewar Court’s Construction of History.” In The Kingdom of the Sun:
Indian Court and Village Art from the Princely State of Mewar, ed. J. Williams (San Fran-
cisco: Asian Art Museum, 2007): 12-33.
charged Surjan with disloyalty (namak-harami), a statement not supported

by Nainsi’s text as it exists today.69
In contrast to histories reflecting a Mewar point of view (such as those
written by Nainsi, Tod, and Shyamaldas), both Akbarnama and Surjanac-
arita portray Surjan’s submission to a greater Mughal might as a positive
act. These two texts vary considerably in their details of the clash: one
presents a siege, while the other describes cavalry warfare in the open. But
in both instances, the encounter ends with a negotiated surrender that was
basically cordial, and Surjan is incorporated into the Mughal imperial ser-
vice as a respected subordinate. Yet the episode is not entirely unproblem-
atic in Surjanacarita’s version of events. This Hada-sponsored text makes
the point, rather indirectly, that Surjan’s conduct differed from that of his
predecessor and ancestor, Hammira, who gave up his life rather than cede
Ranthambhor fort to another powerful conqueror (also Muslim, although
this point is not made explicitly). The laudatory biography of Hammira in
an earlier section of the poem makes it evident that the poet was well
acquainted with the norms of the Rajput warrior code. The dissonance
between the acts of the two heroes Surjan and Hammira in Surjanacarita
is therefore probably an expression of ambivalence on the part of the
author, in a muted reflection of the condemnation of Surjan’s behavior by
some Rajputs. Later in the narrative, however, this biography of Surjan
deviates much further from the narrative of Akbarnama, as the poet con-
trives a creative approach to achieve a positive presentation of his subject.
Surjan’s Career as a Mughal Officer

While Rao Surjan is remembered primarily for surrendering Ranthambhor
fort in 1568, he lived for another seventeen years. Both Akbarnama and
Surjanacarita furnish us with some details about Surjan’s subsequent activ-
ities, and these two accounts diverge from each other in striking ways.
According to the official chronicle produced at the Mughal court, Surjan’s
career as a high-ranking officer in the imperial service lasted about fifteen
years. He first served as governor of Garha, in the region of central India
later called Gondwana, the area along the Narmada River alluded to in
Surjanacarita as the first of three territories that Surjan allegedly received
69)
Shyamaldas, Virvinod, 108, 111. Note that Nainsi reflects the Mewar perspective in
stating that the Mewar king made Surjan the commander of Ranthambhor fort.
352 C. Talbot / JESHO 55 (2012) 329-368
from Akbar in exchange for Ranthambhor. In 1575, Surjan was transferred

to Cunar district, in the mid-Gangetic plain.70 Cunar, 40-45 kilometers
south of Banaras, was a major fortress that guarded both the land routes to
eastern India and the passage along the Ganges River. The district of Cunar
was smaller than Garha, and its revenues were smaller,71 yet this appoint-
ment can, because of Cunar’s strategic importance, be regarded as a pro-
motion for Surjan. Cunar fort has been called “the gateway to eastern
India,” a position that was particularly critical in the 1570s, as the Mughal
empire sought to subdue the Afghan lords of Bihar and Bengal.72
Akbarnama reports that, soon after Surjan was assigned to Cunar, his
eldest son, Dauda (or Duda), returned from the imperial court to the Hada
base at Bundi without permission and was causing problems. Surjan and a
younger son, Bhoj, were among the Mughal officers dispatched to Bundi
in 1577 to pacify the territory. The fortress was quickly seized, but the
countryside around it remained troubled, with Dauda ensconced in the
nearby hills and destitute Mughal soldiers plundering at will. A Mughal
force that included Hada Bhoj spent several months subduing the area,
while Surjan headed to court to pay his respects. Bundi, which Dauda
seems to have been administering on behalf of his father, was subsequently
given by the emperor to Bhoj.73 According to Maʾasir al-umara, an eigh-
teenth-century compilation of biographies, Rao Surjan was raised to the
personal rank (zat) of 2,000 in the hierarchy of official ranking (mansab)
after this incident, having just demonstrated his loyalty to the empire by
taking up arms against an insubordinate son.74
Rao Surjan carried on his duties for the empire for several more years.
He is named in Akbarnama as one of several nobles commanded in 1580
to join the Mughal army’s campaign against “the greatest rebellion” of
Akbar’s reign.75 The insurgency was led by disgruntled Mughal officers and
70)
AN 3:223.
71)
Compare the statistics for C(h)unar sarkar (administrative district) in Abu’l Fazl, The
Ain-i Akbari, trans. H. Blochmann (Delhi: Low Price Publications, 1989) to those of Garha
sarkar (2:176, 210).
72)
C.B. Asher, The Architecture of Mughal India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1992): 149, 85-6, 88.
73)
AN 3:258, 284-6.
74)
Awrangabadi, Maʾasir al-umara, 2:918-9.
75)
AN 3:422, 453. The characterization of this revolt as the greatest rebellion of Akbar’s
reign comes from A. Wink, Akbar (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2009): 5.
Afghan lords in eastern India, who proclaimed that the rightful ruler of the
empire was not Akbar but his half-brother, Mirza Muhammad Hakim of
Kabul.76 Rao Surjan participated in the fighting in Bihar in 1580 and in
the subsequent expedition against Mirza Hakim in 1581, which entailed
crossing the Indus River on the way to Kabul.77 In 1583, Surjan was again
ordered to reinforce an imperial army sent out to quell rebellion in Bengal,
but victory was won before his departure for the east.78 Shortly thereafter,
Akbar reorganized his administration and appointed Rao Surjan to a com-
mittee headed by the imperial prince Danyal, which was charged with “the
superintendence of faith and religion and of wisdom and work.”79 Abu’l
Fazl, author of Akbarnama, was on this committee with Rao Surjan, under-
scoring the shared cultural space inhabited by these two men and the texts
associated with them. A later chronicle from Bundi states that Surjan died
in Banaras in 1585.80
Rao Surjan’s participation in several large Mughal campaigns, his admin-
istrative responsibilities, and his rank of 2,000 zat all attest to this Rajput
warrior’s success as an imperial servant.81 Only a handful of Hindus attained
higher rank during Akbar’s reign, including several members of the
Kachwaha lineage, as well as the Rathor ruler of Bikaner and Akbar’s
finance minister Todar Mal. Although he did not belong to the highest
echelon, Surjan certainly occupied a prominent position, sharing the rank
76)
On Mirza Hakim, see M.D. Faruqui, “The Forgotten Prince: Mirza Hakim and the
Formation of the Mughal Empire in India.” JESHO 48/4 (2005): 487-523, and S. Subrah-
manyam, “A Note on the Kabul Kingdom under Muhammad Hakim Mirza (1554-85).”
La transmission du savoir dans le monde musulman périphérique, Lettre d’information 14
(1994): 89-101.
77)
AN 3:519. See Wink, Akbar: 32-5 for a description of the campaigns in which Rao
Surjan participated.
78)
AN 3:591.
79)
AN 3:598.
80)
Mishran, Vamsha Bhaskar 5:3377.
81)
Mansab means a rank in the official hierarchy of the Mughal empire, while zat (literally,
“essence” or “person”) was a number that denoted one’s personal rank. In the last years of
Akbar’s reign, a second number was introduced alongside the zat: sawar (“cavalry”) speci-
fied the number of horses and horseriders the rankholder (mansabdar) was obligated to
supply (M. Athar Ali, The Mughal Nobility under Aurangzeb, rev. ed., Delhi: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 1997: 39). In this article, I cite only the zat number.
354 C. Talbot / JESHO 55 (2012) 329-368
of 2,000 with the famous brahmin Birbal.82 All in all, Rao (Rai in Persian)
Surjan is shown to be, from the perspective of the Mughal court, a valued
warrior subordinate.
Surjanacarita on Surjan’s Life after Ranthambhor

Surjanacarita portrays Surjan’s life after the surrender of Ranthambhor dif-
ferently. The poem places Surjan in only three locations after Ranthamb-
hor, the three areas that Surjan supposedly obtained in exchange for the
fort: “a territory made sacred by the proximity of Narmada River, the city
of Shiva (Kashi) that is beautified by the pure Ganga River, and the entire
realm of Mathura, which is resplendent because of the Yamuna River.”83
Because of their association with these holy rivers, all three places are
described as sanctified sites (tirtha). Only the first of these fits well with the
Akbarnama account, for Garha province, to which Surjan was initially
assigned, is the modern Jabalpur area, on the upper Narmada river. In
Surjanacarita, however, Surjan’s years in Garha are covered in a cursory
manner, in a mere three lines. They tell us only that he stayed there for
some time and subjugated the local residents.
In contrast to the extreme brevity with which his sojourn in central
India is treated, fifty verses are lavished on Surjan’s next destination,
Mathura, the beloved city of the god Krishna. There is much praise of the
locality, with frequent allusions to incidents from Krishna’s life, such as his
birth and killing of the evil king, Kamsa. Surjan is described as traveling
along the Yamuna river from Mathura and reaching Asmant (also known
as Akrur) Ghat; he went on to Vrindavan, the site of Krishna’s youth. We
get descriptions of Vrindavan’s flowers, birds, and other sylvan delights, as
well as reminders that this was the sacred ground where Krishna played his
flute for the gopi (cow-herding) women whose clothes he once stole as they
were bathing and with whom he danced the ras-lila late at night. Surjan
82)
I use the rankings listed by Abu’l Fazl in the thirtieth chapter of The Ain-i Akbari as the
basis for my statements. The Kachwaha chiefs Raja Bharmal, Raja Bhagwantdas, and Raja
Man Singh all attained the rank of 5,000 zat, the highest level that could be attained out-
side the imperial family during Akbar’s reign. A fourth Kachwaha, Bharmal’s son Jaganna-
tha, rose to 2,500, while Raja Todar Mal and Rai Rai Singh of Bikaner were ranked at
4,000. These six men were the only Hindus out of the seventy-one officers above Rai Sur-
jan’s level; ranked at 2,000, along with Surjan, were Birbal, a Baghela lord, and a second
Bikaner lord (Abu’l Fazl, The Ain-i Akbari, 1:323-454).
83)
SC XVIII.7-8.
also visited Mount Govardhan, which Krishna had raised to shelter the
local people from the wrath of the rain god Indra. Much is made of the
monsoon weather, for Surjan is said to have passed the rainy season in this
idyllic place.84
The poem continues to cast Surjan in the role of pilgrim, as he travels
beyond Vrindavan to the sacred confluence of the Yamuna and Ganga Riv-
ers and finally to Shiva’s city, Kashi. Another forty some verses describe
Surjan’s religious charities and eventual death there. Before the poet turns
to his eulogy of Surjan’s extensive career of gift-giving, he holds forth on
the greatness of Kashi, the best of all tirthas. It is like a boat that takes
everyone across to the other side, for merely by dying there one can obtain
liberation from rebirth. In this city, which is Shiva’s second body, Shiva
whispers the Taraka mantra into the right ear of those who are dying.
Hence, his family priest implores Surjan to stay in Kashi and pass the
remainder of his life like a sage.85
Once in Kashi, Surjan begins to perform meritorious works: feed-
ing and clothing the needy and otherwise giving them what they want,
making gifts to anyone who wears the sacred thread (indicating brahmin
status) without questioning their qualifications, building temples, and
excavating huge reservoirs. So, for instance, the poet tells us that “because
of his daily provision of a deluge of food in Shiva’s city Kashi, the god-
dess Annapurna [lit., “she who is full of food”] abandoned any worry
about nourishing the creatures living there.”86 Surjan also presents a jew-
eled golden crown to Lord Vishvanatha, the renowned form of Shiva wor-
shipped in Kashi, and performed a tula-dana (the gift of one’s weight in
gold). His lavish munificence led the poet to dub him a kalpavriksha, or
wish-fulfilling tree for the mortal realm, comparable to the celestial kal-
pavriksha that gave pleasing fruits, flowers, and leaves to the gods.87 Surjan
eventually dies while still residing in Kashi, and like all those who are
fortunate enough to pass away in that hallowed place, he attains moksha
(liberation).
The spiritual reward that Surjan received for going to Kashi is presented
as a fate far superior to that awaiting other men, or at least other warriors.
Knowing that his destiny was liberation, says the poem, King Surjan now
84)
SC XVIII.25-72.
85)
SC XIX.10-30.
86)
SC XIX.33.
87)
SC XIX.31-45.
356 C. Talbot / JESHO 55 (2012) 329-368
regarded the kingdom of heaven as worthless as a blade of grass.88 Indeed,

we are told that “Rambha and the other heavenly maidens were left with
nothing to do, while Indra’s fear vanished and he sat sprawled out on his
lion-throne.”89 Here Candrashekhara alludes to the widespread belief that
warriors who died in battle could look forward to an afterlife in heaven,
surrounded by beautiful celestial women. Medieval poems often refer to
the celestial women watching battles from above and choosing which
champion they would “marry”; they were disappointed in their hopes of
dalliance with Surjan, because he bypassed heaven in favor of moksha. On
the other hand, Indra, the king of heaven, was relieved that Surjan would
not be coming to his realm; knowing that he would not have to share his
sovereignty with Surjan, Indra could now stretch out comfortably on his
lion-throne. The implication is that other Rajputs, those who died fight-
ing, could at best look forward to an after-life in heaven, whereas Surjan
“became absorbed in the Supreme Brahman that gives unbroken bliss” and
“bore the body of Shiva for all time.”90 The fact that Surjan obtained the
purest and most laudable of all human goals, liberation, is reiterated in
several verses, to make sure that the point was clear to the audience.
The narratives of Rao Surjan’s life after the surrender of Ranthambhor
in Akbarnama and Surjanacarita are so divergent that they can scarcely be
reconciled. While Surjan’s career as a Mughal subordinate is the only facet
of him we see in Akbarnama, Surjanacarita manages to efface almost com-
pletely these fifteen years of military service. Following a brief allusion to
Surjan’s official position at Garha, in central India, the poem depicts Sur-
jan’s life thereafter primarily as one of dedication to pilgrimage and good
works, most notably at the sacred sites of Mathura-Vrindavan and Kashi.
Candrashekhara’s lengthy description of Surjan’s sojourn in Mathura-
Vrindaban is particularly striking, because Surjan was never sent there for
official purposes and could not have stayed very long. Another sign of the
poet’s desire to highlight his patron’s piety is his consistent use of the name
Kashi rather than the more mundane Banaras, as a means to invoke the
sacred character of the city. That Surjan was assigned by the Mughals to
Cunar fort, 40-50 kilometers from Banaras and in a different administra-
tive district (sarkar), is never mentioned. Surjanacarita thus suppresses the
88)
I am following the interpretation of editor C. Sharma of verse XIX.49, as indicated by
his recasting of it in both Sanskrit and Hindi prose.
89)
SC XIX.49.
90)
SC XIX.47-8.
reality of Surjan’s official career and his military activities on behalf of the
empire, including his complicity in the Mughal subjugation of Bundi
while it was under his son Dauda’s control. By stressing his subsequent
religious activities instead, the poem implies that Surjan abandoned his
previous lifestyle as a warrior at the same time that he abandoned Ran-
thambhor fort.
Despite Candrashekhara’s earlier insistence that Akbar was a paragon
among emperors in whose service any king might rejoice, the extensive
account of Surjan’s religious activities after Ranthambhor sends a more
mixed message. Candrashekhara betrays a discomfort with the reality of
Surjan’s subordination to the Mughals, in going to such lengths to deflect
attention from Surjan’s work for the empire. Even so, he is able to come
up with an innovative solution to the question of Surjan’s warrior honor
that shows his hero in the most favorable light. Employing the concept of
the purusharthas, the four goals of life, within which moksha outranks the
other three goals of dharma, artha, and kama, Candrashekhara implies that
his patron achieved something far greater than what the average warrior
could attain by following the Rajput ideal of fighting until death. Sur-
jan’s moksha, in other words, trumped the kshatra-dharma, the way of the
warrior, that led, at best, to heaven. In this way, Surjan is shown to have
made the right choice by submitting to the Mughals, for he would not
have attained moksha otherwise, that is, had he not been posted to Cunar
by Akbar.
Pursuing a Royal Paradigm

Whether in choosing moksha over the warrior’s heaven or in offering his
devotion to Krishna and Shiva-Vishvanatha rather than to clan goddesses
or other local deities, Surjan is cast throughout this section of Surjanacarita
as a king rather than a mere warrior. The magnificent acts of religious gen-
erosity he reputedly engaged in at major religious sites are a strong marker
of lordly status, for extravagant gift-giving to learned brahmins and famous
temples had for many centuries been considered befitting of royalty. The
more prestigious, and expensive, lifestyle adopted by Surjan toward the
end of his life was possible only because the Hadas had benefited finan-
cially from joining the Mughal imperial enterprise. In pursuing a more
kingly image, Surjan (or those who fashioned his public persona) could
obscure the recent humble status of his family, and he could distance
358 C. Talbot / JESHO 55 (2012) 329-368
himself from inconvenient aspects of local warrior norms, such as the

notion of the feud. This is not to say that all martial qualities were abjured
in the literary portrayal of Rao Surjan—his fighting abilities are, after all,
said to have been lauded by Akbar—but once he becomes a Mughal sub-
ordinate, in the poem’s rendition of his life, Surjan’s reputation rests solely
on a religiosity that is manifest not in ascetic practices or extreme devotion
but in the beneficence that is associated with kingship in Indian culture.
The Hadas were not alone in wishing to transcend their local warrior
origins and ethos through cultivation of an aristocratic manner and adop-
tion of lordly practices.91 Even a cursory glance at the activities of other
Hindu nobles in Mughal service in this era reveals that they similarly
engaged in conspicuous religious patronage, often at the same places as
those selected by Surjan. The Braj region encompassing Mathura and Vrin-
davan, where several key sites associated with Krishna’s life had been “redis-
covered” by religious specialists in the early sixteenth century, was a
particular favorite of the Mughal court.92 While Kachwaha interest in the
Braj region had begun soon after its revival as a religious center, the
Kachwaha involvement increased greatly in the time of Bharmal, the first
member of the lineage to ally himself with Akbar. Bharmal was instrumen-
tal in getting the emperor to make a large grant of tax-free land to one of
Vrindavan’s religious leaders in 1565, the first of several grants to thirty-
five temples in the Braj area during Akbar’s reign. Local legend explained
Akbar’s fondness for the locality by claiming that the emperor had visited
Vrindavan in 1573 and had a vision that impelled him to acknowledge the
site as holy.93
Other trusted Hindu nobles also extended their support to these reli-
gious establishments. Todar Mal, Akbar’s eminent officer of Khatri caste
background, instigated an imperial order confirming temple personnel in
Vrindavan in 1568, and he made his own grant there in 1584. Akbar’s
famous brahmin minister Birbal also succeeded in having a grant made, in
91)
The conspicuous religious patronage noted here is part of a larger phenomenon, the
creation of a Rajput “Great Tradition” in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, in which
Rajput status became hereditary and aristocratic, as discussed by D. Kolff, Naukar, Rajput
and Sepoy: The Ethnohistory of the Military Labour Market in Hindustan, 1450-1850 (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990): 72-3.
92)
C. Vaudeville, “Braj, Lost and Found.” In Myths, Saints and Legends in Medieval India
(Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1996): 55-8.
93)
F.S. Growse, Mathura: A District Memoir, 3rd ed. (North-Western Provinces and Oudh
Government Press, 1883): 241.
1580.94 Kachwaha Bhagwantdas, son and successor of Bharmal, had a

temple and tower built in Govardhan, sometime before his death in 1589.95
Although the Bundela Rajputs of Orcha did not sponsor construction in
the Braj region prior to the reign of emperor Jahangir, Hada Surjan’s con-
temporary Bundela Madhukar Shah (r. 1554-92) was devoted to a reli-
gious figure based in Braj.96 While members of the Kachwaha lineage may
have been the most prominent donors in the Braj region, other leading
Hindus associated with the courts of Akbar and Jahangir also vied for the
prestige of endowing temples and religious sects there. Kumkum Chatter-
jee has suggested that the appeal of Krishna-worship to the Mughals and
their servants may have derived from its parallels to the imperial ideal of
devoted service to the emperor.97 Perhaps Surjan was even encouraged to
make a pilgrimage to Mathura, as a testament to his affinity with the cul-
ture of the court.
The city of Banaras was, like Mathura, undergoing a religious renais-
sance in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Banaras had a millennia-
old reputation for sanctity, as the city of Shiva and as a place where bathing
in the Ganges River was particularly efficacious. From the sixteenth cen-
tury on, Kashi was revered above all other places for its power—due to
Shiva’s presence—to liberate those who died within its precincts.98 This
aspect of Kashi’s identity as a sacred site became increasingly prominent in
religious texts—such as Narayana Bhatta’s mid-sixteenth century Tristha-
lisetu, a Sanskrit work on the merits of pilgrimage to the holy cities of
Banaras, Prayag, and Gaya—and is reflected in Surjanacarita’s assertion
that the Hada lord had achieved liberation in Kashi.
The importance of Banaras as a center of Sanskrit learning was also
growing. Narayana Bhatta, the author of Tristhalisetu, is but one of many
intellectuals who were based in Banaras during the Mughal era, a number
of whose families had come originally from South India or the Maratha
94)
T. Mukherjee and I. Habib, “Akbar and the Temples of Mathura and Its Environs.”
Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 48 (1987): 235-9.
95)
A. Entwistle, Braj: Center of Krishna Pilgrimage (Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 1987):
159.
96)
Pauwels, “The Saint, the Warlord, and the Emperor”: 190, 212-7.
97)
K. Chatterjee, “Cultural Flows and Cosmopolitanism in Mughal India: The Bishnupur
Kingdom.” Indian Economic and Social History Review 46/2 (2009): 157.
98)
C. Minkowski, “Nilakantha Caturdhara’s Mantrakasikhanda.” Journal of the American
Oriental Society 122 (2002): 336-8.
360 C. Talbot / JESHO 55 (2012) 329-368
country, in western India.99 Research by Christopher Minkowski, Rosalind

O’Hanlon, and others is clarifying the centrality of Banaras in pan-Indic
intellectual and religious networks during the early modern period.100
While the majority of Banaras intellectuals may have been brahmins, this
was not always true, as we find in the case of the man who composed Sur-
janacarita. Only one verse in the poem provides biographical detail about
the author: Candrashekhara, son of Jitamitra, a Gaudiya (i.e., Bengali) of
Ambastha family, who was living in the city of Lord Vishvanatha.101 “Amb-
astha” is a label used by both the Kayastha and Vaidya communities of
Bengal, who were similar in their high degree of literacy and their common
work as scribes or clerks. Bengali Vaidyas, because of their origins as experts
in medical knowledge, were particularly noted for their command of
Sanskrit.102 Learned men from all over India thus congregated in Banaras
in Surjan’s day.
Given the pan-Indian prestige of Kashi as a sacred site and center of
learning, we can understand why Hada Surjan wanted to spend his last
years there. Other Hindu nobles of the Mughal empire, most notably
Todar Mal, were similarly attracted to the place during Surjan’s lifetime.
The brahmin Narayana Bhatta may have provided the impetus for Todar
Mal’s commissioning of a new temple for Kashi’s great deity, the form of
Shiva known as Vishveshvara or Vishvanatha, around 1585. The previous
temple had either been demolished or become dilapidated; in its place
Todar Mal had a large structure built that consisted of a square central
sanctuary with antechambers leading to pavilions on each of the four sides.103
What exactly Surjan contributed to the built environment of the city is not
known, although James Tod reports that Surjan built eighty-four build-
ings and twenty baths there.104 Vamshabhaskar, a Bundi chronicle from the
99)
R. O’Hanlon, “Letters Home: Banaras Pandits and the Maratha Regions in Early Mod-
ern India.” Modern Asian Studies 44 (2010): 201-4, 217-9.
100)
In addition to the articles by Minkowski and O’Hanlon cited above, see, for instance,
S. Pollock, “New Intellectuals in Seventeenth-Century India.” Indian Economic and Social
History Review 38 (2001): 3-31.
101)
SC XX.64.
102)
K. Chatterjee, “Scribal Elites in Sultanate and Mughal Bengal.” Indian Economic and
Social History Review 47 (2010): 450, 458.
103)
O’Hanlon, “Letters Home”: 218-9. M. Chandra thinks that Todar Mal’s involvement
was instigated by his son Gobardhan who was stationed close-by in Jaunpur (Kasi ka Itihas
[Bombay: Hindi Granth-ratnakar, 1962]: 215-6, 206-7).
104)
Tod, Annals 2: 1482-4.
mid-nineteenth century, informs us that Surjan had a palace constructed

in Banaras, around which he settled his dependents.105 Surjan’s generous
gift-giving in Kashi is similarly praised in Lalit-lalam, a poem on aesthetics
from the 1660s or 1670s, which was commissioned by a Bundi lord.106
The sponsorship of Surjanacarita, a Sanskrit text in the mahakavya
genre, was itself a declaration of royal status for the Hadas. This elaborate
form of poetry harked back to the classical era and had been redeployed in
early medieval times as a means of publicizing the hallowed pedigree and
admirable exploits of great rulers.107 It was a literary genre that kept the
spotlight on one hero at a time, overshadowing all other participants in the
larger social context—Surjan’s own subordinates, his clan, the class of
Rajput warriors, and, to a considerable extent, even the Mughal empire.
Besides implying that Surjan was the equal of the powerful kings of the
past, the existence of a Sanskrit poem about him suggested a level of
sophistication and connoisseurship at his court that could be achieved
only by a mighty lord.108 Surjanacarita’s commemoration of Surjan’s life
was hence one of several strategies undertaken by Surjan and his family to
ensure that he was envisioned as king.
The Hada lineage did not limit its appropriation of a kingly style to
extravagant gift-giving, the construction of buildings, or the commission-
ing of courtly poetry. From the time of Surjan’s successor Bhoj (r. 1585-
1607), if not earlier, the Hadas also behaved like royalty through their
patronage of the visual arts. A set of Ragamala paintings was produced in
Cunar in 1591 that is clearly tied to the Hadas, because other Ragamala
sets based on it were produced at Bundi for the next two hundred years.
As Milo Cleveland Beach states, “the Chunar Ragamala must now be
105)
According to this work, it was well known that Surjan had commissioned buildings
only in Kashi and not in Bundi, but the details of his building activities had been lost when
the Bundi archive was looted by a Kota king (Mishran, Vamsha Bhaskara, 5:3290-1,
3378-9).
106)
Verse 24 in Matiram, Lalit-lalam, ed. O. Sharma (Delhi: Sanmarg Prakashan, 1983): 21.
I thank Allison Busch for bringing this text and its mention of Surjan to my attention.
107)
For a recent discussion of medieval mahakavyas based on a historic figure, see
L. McCrea, “Poetry Beyond Good and Evil: Bilhana and the Tradition of Patron-centered
Court Epic.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 38 (2010): 503-6.
108)
For an interesting comparison, see K. Chatterjee’s discussion of the Malla kings of
Bishnupur, a minor kingdom in eastern India, who similarly sought to associate themselves
with Sanskrit and brahmin traditions (“Cultural Flows and Cosmopolitanism”: 170).
362 C. Talbot / JESHO 55 (2012) 329-368
recognized as the first set attributable to a specific Rajput patron.”109 Since

no previous Bundi chief had patronized painting, this Ragamala set repre-
sents a definite change in Hada practice, which reflects its increased pros-
perity but, even more, its aspirations to act in a kingly fashion. In this case,
the Hadas were drawing not on a classical Indic idiom but on an Islamicate
one. The Muslim artists who produced the paintings were trained in the
imperial studios, and so “the Ragamala series is a direct offshoot of the
Mughal style.”110
The set of paintings from Cunar highlights the range of cultural dia-
logue at the Mughal court, where nobles from different regions and eth-
nicities were constantly mingling. In the same way, Akbarnama and
Surjanacarita were part of a larger cultural dialogue consisting of the
numerous histories and biographies that were being produced at imperial
and subimperial courts, as well as by the personal relationships forged
between individuals such as Abu’l Fazl and Rao Surjan as they carried out
their imperial duties together.
Conclusion
Raja Man Singh of the Kachwaha lineage, a slightly younger contempo-
rary of Rao Surjan, is widely touted as a success story in the standard nar-
rative about Akbar’s ecumenical court. Despite his original status as an
outsider among the largely Central Asian nobility of the empire, Man
Singh rose to the highest rank (mansab) that could be attained, except by
an imperial prince. Man Singh was also the most successful of Akbar’s
Hindu subordinates in publicly acting like a king. As Catherine B. Asher
has shown, Man Singh’s building activities were both copious and diverse:
he commissioned temples and palaces in sites such as Amber and Rohtas
that were linked to his family or to his official assignments.111 Man Singh
also extended much patronage to the famous holy sites of Vrindavan,
Kashi, and Gaya.
109)
M.C. Beach, Rajput Painting at Bundi and Kota (Ascona, Switzerland: Artibus Asiae
Publishers, 1974): 12. I have also drawn on pp. 6-10 in this paragraph.
110)
Beach, Rajput Painting: 8.
111)
On Raja Man Singh, I have relied primarily on C.B. Asher, “The Architecture of Raja
Man Singh: A Study of Sub-Imperial Patronage.” In The Powers of Art: Patronage in Indian
Culture, ed. B.S. Miller (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1992): 183-201.
Man Singh exemplifies the larger trend among Hindu nobles at Akbar’s
court of adopting the style and practices of classical Indic kingship. At
Kashi, Man Singh built a centrally located temple that was destroyed in
the late seventeenth century; his name is also associated with the Man-
mandir and Mansarovar ghats along the Ganges river.112 Best known is the
Govindadeva temple that he had constructed in Vrindavan in 1590. Asher
describes it as “by far the largest temple constructed in north India since
the thirteenth century.”113 In addition to its size, it is notable for the use of
the idiom of imperial Mughal architecture, including an exterior of red
sandstone and an interior that was arcuated, domed, and vaulted. While
the buildings sponsored by Man Singh spread the imperial message among
Akbar’s subjects, they simultaneously provided Man Singh with a kingly
stature. He became such an impressive figure that minor lords, such as
those of Bishnupur in Bengal, were inspired to emulate his courtly ways,
according to the research of Kumkum Chatterjee.114 It was, in other words,
Raja Man Singh, the Rajput lord, who provided the model of kingship for
the Bishnupur rulers, not the Mughal emperor himself.
How the Kachwahas regarded their relationship with the Mughals is a
question that is only beginning to receive the scholarly attention it deserves
(see Allison Busch’s article in this volume); literature produced at Mewar
and other Rajput courts is often contemptuous of Kachwaha collaboration
with the imperial overlords. Much remains to be learned about the cultural
dialogue that occurred not only between the Mughals and their non-
Muslim associates but also between the various Rajput lineages in the
imperial service. We can glean from the case of Hada Surjan that attitudes
toward Rajput submission to the Mughals were not uniform in the region
and could even vary within a single text like Surjanacarita. While Can-
drashekhara construed Surjan’s incorporation into the imperial service as a
honor conferred on Surjan, the poet also bestowed profuse praise on Ham-
mira of Ranthambhor, who had defiantly and definitively rejected the path
112)
These ghats are named by Moti Chandra, who reports that Raja Man Singh is said, in
local Banaras tradition, to have built numerous temples (Kasi ka Itihas: 215). R.N. Prasad
quotes a few sentences from the Jahangirnama that refer to Raja Man Singh’s building of a
temple in Banaras that was the largest there at the time (Raja Man Singh of Amber [Cal-
cutta: The World Press, 1966]: 153), but I have been unable to find the passage in the
translated text.
113)
Asher, “Architecture of Raja Man Singh”: 184.
114)
Chatterjee, “Cultural Flows and Cosmopolitanism”: 159-60.
364 C. Talbot / JESHO 55 (2012) 329-368
that Surjan chose. Furthermore, Candrashekhara did his best to direct

attention away from Surjan’s official career and toward Surjan’s religiosity.
That there was some anti-Mughal feeling is evident from a well-known
poem in Rajasthani ascribed to prince Prithviraj Rathor of Bikaner, whose
lineage had accepted Mughal overlordship in 1570, soon after the siege of
Ranthambhor. Prithviraj’s poem is addressed to Rana Pratap of Mewar, the
legendary successor of Udai Singh, sometime after Rana Pratap had fought
the Mughals to a standoff at the Battle of Haldighati (1576). Prithviraj
repeatedly castigates those warriors who submitted to Akbar as sellers of
their Rajputhood (rajputvat) and squanderers of their kshatriya qualities
(khatriyan); only Rana Pratap, in refusing to come to terms with Akbar,
had supposedly maintained the dharma of warriors.115 These are surprising
sentiments from a man who fought in Mughal campaigns at Ahmadnagar
and Kabul, although allegiance to his lineage leader might have compelled
him to do so.116 Another possibility is that the poem was composed by a
different, perhaps later, author.117 Cultural memory may have attached it
to Prithviraj Rathor’s name merely because he was a contemporary of Rana
Pratap and famous as the author of a poem on Krishna and his wife Ruk-
mini. Whatever its origins, the poem expresses a distinct belligerence
toward the world outside the tight-knit sphere of the Rajput warrior lin-
eages and their concerns.
Once Surjan accepted Mughal suzerainty, he too largely left the local
realm of the Rajputs and eventually settled down in the ancient, urbane
city of Banaras. The more aristocratic mode of lordship he adopted as a
Mughal officer, and the royal style of beneficence described in his poetic
biography, were no doubt occasioned in part by Surjan’s greater affluence
and exposure to a courtly milieu. But Surjan was also provided the oppor-
tunity to transcend the constraints of Rajput warrior culture and society in
favor of a more prestigious and privileged lifestyle in the mode of a king.
I have argued that a conscious decision was made that Surjan should
enact a kingly role in a primarily Indic idiom, and I believe that the same
115)
For the text of this poem and an English translation, see Prithiraj Rathaur, Veli Krisana
Rukamani ri, part 1, ed. L.P. Tessitori (Calcutta: Asiatic Society, 1919): iv-v. I thank Rick
Saran for bringing this to my attention.
116)
Prithiraj Rathaur, Krisan Rukamani ri Veli, 2nd ed., ed. Narottamdas Swami (Agra:
Sriram Mehra, 1965): 24.
117)
The poem circulated among Bikaneri bards in the early twentieth century, but Tessitori
was unable to find any old or accurate manuscripts of it (Rathaur, Veli Krisana: iv n. 3).
can be said of other high-ranking Hindus inducted into Akbar’s newly

inclusive ruling class. As with the Hadas and the Kachwahas, the families
who joined Mughal service early on were, in most cases, of minor (or con-
tested) rank and experienced a considerable rise in status and wealth. Partly
in order to celebrate their more elevated positions—and because they were
now operating in the larger geographic setting of North India as a whole—
several Hindu nobles in Mughal service chose to become lavish patrons of
public religion, particularly at the famous sacred sites of Vrindavan and
Kashi. Religious patronage of this sort had been practiced not only by
Indic emperors in the medieval era but also by the tributary kings who
owed them obeisance. Despite this refashioning of themselves as pious
lords akin to those of the pre-Mughal past, however, the old Rajput war-
rior code was not entirely discarded, if Surjanacarita is any indication.
While reactions and responses to the rapidly changing reality of Mughal
expansion must have varied considerably among the diverse patrons who
were subjugated and their poets, Surjanacarita’s portrayal of its hero is
infused with an ambivalence that seems fitting, given the multiplicity of
cultural dialogues in which Surjan was engaged simultaneously as the
leader of a local warrior lineage, a high-ranking Mughal imperial servant,
and a kingly patron of Hinduism.
Bibliography
Abbreviations
AN Abu’l Fazl. 1977. The Akbar Nama of Abu-l-Fazl, trans. Henry Beveridge. Delhi: Ess
Publications.
SC Candrashekhara. 1952. Surjanacaritamahakavyam, ed. and Hindi trans. C. Sharma.
Kashi: C. Sharma.
Abu’l Fazl. 1989. The Ain-i Akbari, trans. H. Blochmann, 2 vols. Delhi: Low Price Publications.
Asher, Catherine B. 1992. The Architecture of Mughal India. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
——. 1992. The Architecture of Raja Man Singh: A Study of Sub-Imperial Patronage. In
The Powers of Art: Patronage in Indian Culture, ed. Barbara Stoler Miller. Delhi: Oxford
University Press: 183-201.
Athar Ali, M. 1997. The Mughal Nobility under Aurangzeb, rev. ed. Delhi: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Awrangabadi, Shahnavaz Khan. 1979. Maʾasir al-umara, trans. Henry Beveridge, rev. Baini
Prashad, 2nd ed., 3 vols. Patna: Janaki Prakashan.
Abd al-Qadir Badaʾuni. 1884. Muntakhab al-tavarikh, vol. 2, trans. W.H. Lowe. Calcutta:
Asiatic Society of Bengal.
366 C. Talbot / JESHO 55 (2012) 329-368
Beach, Milo Cleveland. 1974. Rajput Painting at Bundi and Kota. Ascona, Switzerland:
Artibus Asiae Publishers.
Bednar, Michael B. 2007. Conquest and Resistance in Context: A Historiographical Read-
ing of Sanskrit and Persian Battle Narrative. PhD diss., University of Texas at Austin.
Busch, Allison. 2005. Literary Responses to the Mughal Imperium: The Historical Poems
of Kesavdas. South Asia Research 25: 31-54.
——. 2011. The Poetry of Kings: The Classical Hindi Literature of Mughal India. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Candbardai. 1954. Prithviraj Raso, ed. Kaviraj Mohansimh, 4 vols. Udaipur: Sahitya
Sansthan.
Candrashekhara. 1951. Surjana-caritam, ed. Jatindra Bimal Chaudhuri. Calcutta: Pracya-
vani Mandira.
Chandra, Moti. 1962. Kasi ka Itihas. Bombay: Hindi Granth-ratnakar.
Chandra, Satish. 1992. Akbar’s Rajput Policy and Its Evolution: Some Considerations.
Social Scientist 20: 61-9.
Chatterjee, Kumkum. 2009. Cultural Flows and Cosmopolitanism in Mughal India: The
Bishnupur Kingdom. Indian Economic and Social History Review 46: 147-82.
——. 2010. Scribal Elites in Sultanate and Mughal Bengal. Indian Economic and Social
History Review 47: 445-72.
Devra, G.S.L. 1992. Raja, Mansab and Jagir: A Re-Examination of Mughal-Rajput Rela-
tions During the Reign of Akbar. Social Scientist 20: 70-81.
Entwistle, Alan. 1987. Braj: Center of Krishna Pilgrimage. Groningen: Egbert Forsten.
Faruqui, Munis Daniyal. 2005. The Forgotten Prince: Mirza Hakim and the Formation of
the Mughal Empire in India. JESHO 48/4: 487-523.
Gommans, Jos J.L. 2002. Mughal Warfare: Indian Frontiers and High Roads to Empire,
1500-1700. London and New York: Routledge.
Growse, F.S. 1883. Mathura: A District Memoir, 3rd ed. Allahabad: North-Western Prov-
inces and Oudh Government Press.
Habib, Muhammad, trans. The Campaigns of Alauddin Khilji being the Khazai’nul Futuh
(Treasures of Victory) of Hazrat Amir Khusrau. Bombay: D.B. Taraporewala Sons.
Husain, Afzal. 1999. The Nobility under Akbar and Jahangir: A Study of Family Groups.
Delhi: Manohar.
Jackson, Peter. 1999. The Delhi Sultanate: A Political and Military History. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Jahangir, Nur al-Din Muḥammad. 1999. The Jahangirnama: Memoirs of Jahangir, Emperor
of India, trans. and ed. Wheeler M. Thackston. Washington, DC: Freer Gallery of Art,
Arthur M. Sackler Gallery.
Kamphorst, Janet. 2008. In Praise of Death: History and Poetry in Medieval Marwar (South
Asia). Leiden: Leiden University Press.
Khan, Ahsan Raza. 1997. Akbar’s Initial Encounters with the Chiefs: Accident vs. Design
in the Process of Subjugation. In Akbar and His India, ed. Irfan Habib. Delhi: Oxford
University Press: 1-14.
Khan, Iqtidar Alam. 2003. The Nobility under Akbar and the Development of His Reli-
gious Policy, 1560-80. In India’s Islamic Traditions, 711-1750, ed. Richard M. Eaton.
Delhi: Oxford University Press: 120-32.
Kolff, Dirk H.A. 1990. Naukar, Rajput and Sepoy: The Ethnohistory of the Military Labour
Market in Hindustan, 1450-1850. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leach, Linda York. 1995. Mughal and Other Paintings from the Chester Beatty Library. Lon-
don: Scorpion Cavendish.
Mathur, R.S. 1986. Relations of Hadas with Mughal Emperors, 1568-1720 A.D. Delhi:
Deputy Publications.
Matiram. 1983. Lalit-lalam, ed. Omprakash Sharma. Delhi: Sanmarg Prakashan.
Matta, Basheer Ahmad Khan. 2005. Sher Shah Suri: A Fresh Perspective. Karachi: Oxford
University Press.
McCrea, Lawrence. 2010. Poetry Beyond Good and Evil: Bilhana and the Tradition of
Patron-centered Court Epic. Journal of Indian Philosophy 38: 503-18.
Minkowski, Christopher. 2002. Nilakantha Caturdhara’s Mantrakasikhanda. Journal of the
American Oriental Society 122: 329-42.
Mishran, Suryamalla. 2007. Vamsa Bhaskara Mahacampu, ed. Candra Prakash Deval, 9 vols.
Delhi: Sahitya Akademi.
Moosvi, Shireen. 1999. Making and Recording History: Akbar and the Akbar-Nama. In
Akbar and His Age, ed. Iqtidar Alam Khan. Delhi: Northern Book Centre: 181-7.
Mukherjee, Tarapada, and Irfan Habib. 1987. Akbar and the Temples of Mathura and its
Environs. Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 48th Session: 234-50.
Nainsi, Munhata. 1984. Mumhata Nainsi ri Khyat, vol. 1, ed. Badariprasad Sakariya. Jodh-
pur: Rajasthan Oriental Research Institute.
Nayacandrasuri. 1993. Hammira Mahakavya, ed. Muni Jinavijaya, 2nd ed. Jodhpur: Rajas-
than Oriental Research Institute.
O’Hanlon, Rosalind. 2010. Letters Home: Banaras Pandits and the Maratha Regions in
Early Modern India. Modern Asian Studies 44: 201-40.
Pauwels, Heidi R.M. 2009. The Saint, the Warlord, and the Emperor: Discourses of Braj
Bhakti and Bundela Loyalty. JESHO 52: 187-228.
Pollock, Sheldon. 2001. New Intellectuals in Seventeenth-Century India. Indian Economic
and Social History Review 38: 3-31.
Prasad, R.N. 1966. Raja Man Singh of Amber. Calcutta: The World Press.
Rabb, Theodore K. 1998. Artists on War: The Illustrators of the Akbarnama. MHQ: The
Quarterly Journal of Military History 10: 58-63.
Rathaur, Prithiraj. 1919. Veli Krisana Rukamani ri Rathora raja Prithi Raja ri Kahi, ed. L.P.
Tessitori. Calcutta: Asia Society.
——. 1965. Krisan Rukamani ri Veli, ed. Narottamdas Swami. Agra: Sriram Mehra.
Saran, Richard D. [N.d.] The Mughal Siege of Jodhpur, 1565. Unpublished manuscript.
Saran, Richard D., and Norman P. Ziegler. 2001. The Mertiyo Rathors of Merto, Rajasthan:
Select Translations Bearing on the History of a Rajput Family, 1462-1660, 2 vols. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Centers for South and Southeast Asian Studies.
Sen, Geeti. 1984. Paintings from the Akbar Nama: A Visual Chronicle of Mughal India.
Varanasi: Lustre Press under arrangement with Rupa and Co., Calcutta.
Shyamaldas, Kaviraj. 1986. Virvinod: Mevara ka Itihasa, 4 vols. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Smith, John D. 1999. Heroes, Victims, and Role Models: The Inhabitants of the Rajast-
hani Epic World. In Tessitori and Rajasthan: Proceedings of the International Conference,
Bikaner, 21-23 February 1996, ed. Donatella Dolcini and Fausto Freschi. Udine: Societa
Indologica: 109-26.
Sreenivasan, Ramya. 2007. The Many Lives of a Rajput Queen: Heroic Pasts in India c. 1500-
1900. Delhi: Permanent Black.
368 C. Talbot / JESHO 55 (2012) 329-368
Subrahmanyam, Sanjay. 1994. A Note on the Kabul Kingdom under Muhammad Hakim
Mirza (1554-85). La transmission du savoir dans le monde musulman périphérique, Lettre
d’information 14: 89-101.
Taft, Frances. 1994. Honor and Alliance: Reconsidering Mughal-Rajput Marriages. In Idea
of Rajasthan, vol. 2, ed. K. Schomer et al. Delhi: Manohar Publishers and American
Institute of Indian Studies: 217-41.
Talbot, Cynthia. 1995. Inscribing the Other, Inscribing the Self: Hindu-Muslim Identities
in Pre-colonial India. Comparative Studies in Society and History 37.4 (1995): 692-722.
——. 2007. The Mewar Court’s Construction of History. In The Kingdom of the Sun:
Indian Court and Village Art from the Princely State of Mewar, ed. Joanna Williams. San
Francisco: Asian Art Museum: 12-33.
——. 2009. Becoming Turk the Rajput Way: Conversion and Identity in an Indian War-
rior Narrative. Modern Asian Studies 43: 211-43.
Tod, James. 1990. Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, ed. William Crooke, 3 vols. Delhi:
Low Price Publications.
Vaudeville, Charlotte. 1996. Braj, Lost and Found. In Myths, Saints and Legends in Medi-
eval India. Delhi: Oxford University Press: 47-71.
Wink, Andre. 2009. Akbar, Makers of the Muslim World. Oxford: Oneworld Publications.
Wright, Elaine Julia, ed. 2008. Muraqqaʿ: Imperial Mughal Albums from the Chester Beatty
Library, Dublin. Alexandria, VA: Art Services International.
Ziegler, Norman P. 1978. Some Notes on Rajput Loyalties During the Mughal Period. In
Kingship and Authority in South Asia, ed. J.F. Richards. Madison: South Asian Studies,
University of Wisconsin–Madison: 215-51.
Copyright of Journal of the Economic & Social History of the Orient is the property of Brill Academic
Publishers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.

Justifying Defeat: A Rajput Perspective On The Age of Akbar: Cynthia Talbot

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Justifying Defeat: A Rajput Perspective On The Age of Akbar: Cynthia Talbot

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of the Economic and

Social History of the Orient 55 (2012) 329-368 brill.com/jesh

Cet article explore une facette sombre du dialogue culturel—l’expérience de la soumission

*) Cynthia Talbot, Department of History, University of Texas at Austin, ctalbot@austin

Ranthambhor fort.3 After surrendering the fort to the emperor in person,

Figure 1: Rai Surjan Hada making Submission to Akbar Mukund and

comprehensively how Rajputs regarded Mughal dominion over them,

The Conquest of Ranthambhor in Akbarnama

Akbar and the Rajputs: The Political Context

proceeded quickly and with little bloodshed. Even if Ranthambhor was a

few Rajputs, Akbar was attempting to create a loyal cadre of supporters,

Surjanacarita’s Counter-perspective on Ranthambhor

is emphasized, so Surjan, who desired to visit these holy sites anyway,

The Ambivalence of Surrender

The lengthy tribute to Hammira in Surjanacarita ends with the state-

honorable.55 Recourse to the dharma-door, whether literally or metaphori-

more laudable, because martial, conduct of another man, just as Nainsi

charged Surjan with disloyalty (namak-harami), a statement not supported

Surjan’s Career as a Mughal Oﬃcer

from Akbar in exchange for Ranthambhor. In 1575, Surjan was transferred

Surjanacarita on Surjan’s Life after Ranthambhor

regarded the kingdom of heaven as worthless as a blade of grass.88 Indeed,

Pursuing a Royal Paradigm

himself from inconvenient aspects of local warrior norms, such as the

1580.94 Kachwaha Bhagwantdas, son and successor of Bharmal, had a

country, in western India.99 Research by Christopher Minkowski, Rosalind

mid-nineteenth century, informs us that Surjan had a palace constructed

recognized as the ﬁrst set attributable to a speciﬁc Rajput patron.”109 Since

that Surjan chose. Furthermore, Candrashekhara did his best to direct

can be said of other high-ranking Hindus inducted into Akbar’s newly

You might also like