पुणेरी मिसळ

Sunday, 1 September 2024

The unwarranted glorification of Karna - Part 1

Recently, I came across an image shared on facebook, which depicted a picture and read,

“Childhood was when we thought Arjuna was the Hero”

“Adulthood is when you realize that Karna is the real hero”

Real hero of what? Molestation? Lies? Pride?

Care to read the Mahabharata in its full? Care to read its translations – NOT interpretations.. Remove your 21^st century lens of societal morality and just look at his actions, his behaviour, his speech, his character.

Nothing denigrates Karna’s character more than his treatment towards Draupadi in the Sabha Parva.

After Vikarna (one of the Kauravas) puts a strong case for the Adharma done by Duryodhana vis-à-vis Draupadi, none in the assembly have the gumption to say anything on the Adharma done by Duryodhana. Vikarna decisively concludes the illegitamcy of the whole Draupadi episode by saying:

चत्वार्याहुर्नरश्रेष्ठा व्यसनानि महीक्षिताम् ।
मृगयां पानमक्षांश्च ग्राम्ये चैवातिसक्तताम् ॥ २० ॥

एतेषु हि नरः सक्तो धर्ममुत्सृज्य वर्तते ।
तथायुक्तेन च कृतां क्रियां लोको न मन्यते ॥ २१ ॥

तदयं पाण्डुपुत्रेण व्यसने वर्तता भृशम् ।
समाहूतेन कितवैरास्थितो द्रौपदीपणः ॥ २२ ॥

साधारणी च सर्वेषां पाण्डवानामनिन्दिता ।
जितेन पूर्वं चानेन पाण्डवेन कृतः पणः ॥ २३ ॥

इयं च कीर्तिता कृष्णा सौबलेन पणार्थिना ।
एतत्सर्वं विचार्याहं मन्ये न विजितामिमाम् ॥ २४ ॥

Translation:

"Wise men say that kings are prone to four vices: hunting, drinking, gambling, and excessive attachment to women."

"A man attached to these vices abandons righteousness, and actions performed under such influence are not considered valid by the people."

"Therefore, as Pandu's son (Yudhishthira) was deeply engrossed in this vice, being deceitfully invited by gamblers, he staked Draupadi."

"Draupadi, the faultless one, is the common wife of all the Pandavas, and Yudhishthira had already lost himself before staking her."

"Moreover, Draupadi was called forth by Shakuni for staking purposes. Considering all this, I believe that she has not been rightfully won."

Analysis:

· Vikarna lists the common pitfalls that lead rulers astray, setting up his argument by acknowledging human weaknesses.

· Indicates that Yudhishthira fell prey to one such vice: gambling.

· Actions taken under the influence of vices lack moral and legal standing.

· Vikarna suggests that Yudhishthira's staking of Draupadi while ensnared in gambling is invalid.

· Emphasizes that Yudhishthira was manipulated into the game, and his judgment was impaired.

· Implies that the circumstances were unfair and exploitative.

· Points out that since Yudhishthira had already lost his own freedom, he had no right to stake Draupadi afterward.

· Highlights Draupadi's shared marriage, questioning the sole authority of Yudhishthira over her.

· Vikarna concludes that Draupadi's staking and subsequent humiliation are illegitimate.

· His reasoning is based on principles of justice and dharma, considering the flawed and unethical circumstances.

Karnas response to Vikarna highlights his lack of subtlety when it comes to Dharma. He starts off by belitteling Vikarna, and follows it up with a perverted sense of Dharma. This completely transgresses any level of decency and morality. In fact, once he establishes his position, he advances to call Draupadi a prostitute and an unchaste woman and is the chief instigator who calls for Dushasana to disrobe Draupadi.

Karnas rebuttal to Vikarna, infact lacks any merit and instead focuses on belittling Vikarna and his position and age, rather than debate on the merits of the points raised.

तस्मिन्नुपरते शब्दे राधेयः क्रोधमूर्छितः ।
प्रगृह्य रुचिरं बाहुमिदं वचनमब्रवीत् ॥ २६ ॥

दृश्यन्ते वै विकर्णे हि वैकृतानि बहून्यपि ।
तज्जस्तस्य विनाशाय यथाग्निररणिप्रजः ॥ २७ ॥

एते न किंचिदप्याहुश्चोद्यमानापि कृष्णया ।
धर्मेण विजितां मन्ये मन्यन्ते द्रुपदात्मजाम् ॥ २८ ॥

त्वं तु केवलबाल्येन धार्तराष्ट्र विदीर्यसे ।
यद्ब्रवीषि सभामध्ये बालः स्थविरभाषितम् ॥ २९ ॥

न च धर्मं यथातत्त्वं वेत्सि दुर्योधनावर ।
यद्ब्रवीषि जितां कृष्णामजितेति सुमन्दधीः ॥ ३० ॥

कथं ह्यविजितां कृष्णां मन्यसे धृतराष्ट्रज ।
यदा सभायां सर्वस्वं न्यस्तवान्पाण्डवाग्रजः ॥ ३१ ॥

अभ्यन्तरा च सर्वस्वे द्रौपदी भरतर्षभ ।
एवं धर्मजितां कृष्णां मन्यसे न जितां कथम् ॥ ३२ ॥

कीर्तिता द्रौपदी वाचा अनुज्ञाता च पाण्डवैः ।
भवत्यविजिता केन हेतुनैषा मता तव ॥ ३३ ॥

Translation:

"When the noise subsided, Karna, the son of Radha, filled with anger, raised his arm and spoke these words:"

"Many faults are evident in Vikarna; these will lead to his destruction, just as fire born from wood consumes it."

"Even though prompted by Draupadi, these elders have said nothing, implying that they consider Draupadi rightfully won according to dharma."

"But you, O son of Dhritarashtra, speak out of mere childishness, uttering in this assembly words inappropriate for your age and experience."

"You do not truly understand dharma, O younger brother of Duryodhana, as you foolishly claim that Draupadi, who has been won, is unwon."

"How can you consider Draupadi unwon, O son of Dhritarashtra, when Yudhishthira had staked and lost everything he owned in this assembly?"

"Draupadi is included in all his possessions, O best of the Bharatas. Thus, how can you say that Krishnaa (Draupadi) is not rightfully won?"

"Draupadi was called upon verbally and permitted by the Pandavas; on what grounds do you consider her unwon?"

· Karna reacts with intense anger to Vikarna's defense of Draupadi.

· Karna accuses Vikarna of overstepping and exhibiting flawed judgment.

· Karna interprets the silence of the elders as tacit approval of Draupadi's loss.

· Attempts to undermine Vikarna's argument by appealing to authority and consensus.

· Karna belittles Vikarna by calling him immature and inexperienced.

· Seeks to discredit Vikarna's reasoning by attacking his credibility.

· Karna asserts that Vikarna lacks understanding of true righteousness.

· Labels Vikarna's argument as foolish and ignorant.

· Karna argues that since Yudhishthira had the authority and staked Draupadi after himself, her loss is legitimate.

· Ignores the argument that Yudhishthira had lost his own freedom before staking her.

· Karna maintains that as Yudhishthira's wife, Draupadi was part of his possessions and subject to being staked.

· Karna argues that the Pandavas' silence or lack of protest implies consent.

· Overlooks the moral and ethical implications of the act.

Karna’s views on the unrighteous act that follows on Draupadi is lacking in moral in every sense

मन्यसे वा सभामेतामानीतामेकवाससम् ।
अधर्मेणेति तत्रापि शृणु मे वाक्यमुत्तरम् ॥ ३४ ॥

एको भर्ता स्त्रिया देवैर्विहितः कुरुनन्दन ।
इयं त्वनेकवशगा बन्धकीति विनिश्चिता ॥ ३५ ॥

अस्याः सभामानयनं न चित्रमिति मे मतिः ।
एकाम्बरधरत्वं वाप्यथ वापि विवस्त्रता ॥ ३६ ॥

यच्चैषां द्रविणं किंचिद्या चैषा ये च पाण्डवाः ।
सौबलेनेह तत्सर्वं धर्मेण विजितं वसु ॥ ३७ ॥

दुःशासन सुबालोऽयं विकर्णः प्राज्ञवादिकः ।
पाण्डवानां च वासांसि द्रौपद्याश्चाप्युपाहर ॥ ३८ ॥

Translation:

"If you think that bringing her into the assembly in a single garment is unrighteous, then listen to my response on that matter."

"The gods have ordained that a woman should have only one husband, O joy of the Kurus. But she belongs to many; thus, she is certainly a whore."

"Therefore, bringing her into the assembly is not surprising in my opinion, whether she is clad in a single garment or even disrobed."

"All the wealth of the Pandavas, including this woman (Draupadi) and the Pandavas themselves, have been rightfully won by Shakuni."

"Duhshasana, this young Vikarna speaks as though he is wise. Remove the garments of the Pandavas and Draupadi."

Analysis:

· Karna addresses possible objections regarding the manner of Draupadi's treatment.

· Prepares to justify even the humiliation inflicted upon her.

· Karna slanders Draupadi by questioning her morality due to her polyandrous marriage.

· Uses this as justification for her mistreatment, reflecting deep-seated misogyny.

· Karna justifies the public humiliation and attempted disrobing of Draupadi.

· His words incite further abuse against her, showing his complicity and cruelty.

· Karna reiterates that all losses incurred by the Pandavas are legitimate.

· Ignores the deceitful and unethical means employed by Shakuni.

· Karna orders Duhshasana to disrobe the Pandavas and Draupadi, escalating the humiliation.

· His command directly incites a grave act of disrespect and violation.

This one example from all of Mahabharata is enough to highlight Karna as he was. In other Parvas, Karnas true demeanour comes out – that being boastful, arrogant, petty and jealous. Karna may have had many good qualities, but his bad ones far outweigh the good.

11 akshauhinis forces partook in the Mahabharata war as Kauravas, but Vyasadeva in the very first chapter of Aadi parva itself, names and lists out the 5 biggest Adharmis in the entire epic – these are Duryodhana, Karna, Shakuni, Dushasana and Dhrutarashtra. Everything else that follows, thus, has to be looked at from this lens only.

दुर्योधनो मन्युमयो महाद्रुमः स्कन्धः कर्णः शकुनिस्तस्य शाखाः ।
दुःशासनः पुष्पफले समृद्धे मूलं राजा धृतराष्ट्रोऽमनीषी ॥

Sunday, 27 June 2021

मृग नक्षत्र

अमर व्याध हा अमर हरिण तो मृगयेचा सोहळा

अजरामर हो दिगंतरातुन हा मुलुखावेगळा!

उरात रुतला बाण परंतु खंत मृगाला नसे

प्रकाश उधळित नील पथाने संथ पुढे जातसे!

तीर सोडूनी एक राहिला मुग्ध उभा पारधी

वाट पहातो हरिण, यायचा शर दुसरा तो कधी?

अमित युगांचे कण ओघळती मृगया नच हो पुरी

परस्परांच्या सौंदर्याचे दास्य जडे अंतरी!

विचित्र या मृगयेत शिकारी एकच शर सोडूनी

मृगामागुनी अगतिक हिंडे विद्ध स्वतः होऊनी!

-कुसुमाग्रज

Friday, 10 January 2020

बचेंगे तो और भी लड़ेंगे

10 Jan 1760 is the Hautatmya diwas of Dattaji Shinde. In a pitched battle against the combined forces of the invading forces of Ahmed Shah and the "local anarchist" Najib Khan Rohilla, Dattaji fell at the battle of Buradi Ghat. Sometimes, I wonder, if later historians while studying our history, came up with a popular marathi phrase of "satarashe sath(chi) vighna.(seventeen sixty hardships)" based on the happenings, events movements between this date and the culmination on 14th Jan 1761. The lead up to Panipat was full of difficulties which could have led to the popularization of the phrase, along with "Sankrant Kosalane" for the disaster that struck on the fateful day. If not, we should make it a point to remember it as such, considering the terrible price we had to pay a year later.

Let us also never forget Najib Khan Rohilla- the person who killed Dattaji. A recurring blot of a character throughout Indian history he was a catalyst for the third battle of Panipat. It is essential that we identify these modern Najibs and unmask them before they unleash any more cross border Abdalis on us. We can see them peeping up from various campuses all over the country.

Prabhu Ramchandra gave us Hindus a very wise teaching which reads मरणान्तानि वैराणि निर्वृत्तं नः प्रयोजनम्।[Enmity ends with death; it is of no use to desist] This was always respected, with the notable exception being Najib. Maratha armies, under the command of Visaji Pant Biniwale and Mahadji Shinde later in 1771 defeated his son Zabita Khan, captured Patthargadh and gave Najib his much needed Azadi from a claustrophobic tomb.

These Najibs should never be forgotten as they are entrenched in our society - scheming to find schisms in your ranks and exploit it for their own selfish motives and benefits.

Neither should we ever forget our history and our mistakes. We had our share of Satarashesath Vighna - the reasons for which are well established. No more should they repeat. Panipat 3 could have been won, maybe should have been won. Panipat 4 is in the making, and if we are to win, reflecting on our history is a must.

Keeping in mind the possibility of the inevitable and the generosity of the bridge building Najibs of today for wholesale mass reporting and stifling a differing opinion than their own, we will remember the warrior Dattaji with his famous last words to carry us through any darkness that may befall and give us the strength to fight - "बचेंगे तो और भी लड़ेंगे."

||हर हर महादेव||

Saturday, 27 April 2019

रालेमधली अनोखी उबरस्वारी

परवा कॅलिफोर्निया वरून रालेला परत आलो, तेव्हा विमानतळापासून घरी यायला उबर केली होती. उबरचा ड्रायव्हर आफ्रिकन-अमेरिकन होता. आत्तापर्यंत जेव्हाकेव्हा उबर वापरली आहे, तेव्हा आफ्रिकन-अमेरिकन ड्रायव्हर असला की गप्पा मारायला धमाल येते असा माझा अनुभव आहे. अनेक विषयांवर हे लोक खूप सहज आणि मोकळेपणाने बोलतात. अनेकदा खूप कमी शब्दात किंवा काहीच न बोलता आयुष्यातले कटू प्रसंग, सलणाऱ्या भावना आणि उघड जरी नसला, तरी गौप्य पद्धतीने चालणारा वर्णभेद यावर काहीतरी खोल बोलून जातात, नकळत व्यक्त होऊन जातात.

सहसा हवा, अमेरिकेत कधी आलात, त्यांचा आणि माझा मूळ गावं/देश याबद्दल बोलण्याने संवाद सुरु होतो. बरेच लोक तितक्यावरच थांबतात, पण नकळत गौरवर्णीय विरुध्द कृष्णवर्णीय यांतला नकळत होणारा फरक चटकन सांगून जातात. पण बरेच लोक मोकळेपणाने बोलतात. आफ्रिकेतल्या सुदान, सोमालिया, किंवा इतर युद्धग्रस्त देशातून पलायन करून आलेले अनेक लोक इथे उबर ड्रायव्हरचं काम करताना दिसले आहेत. आपल्या देशी परत जाऊ शकत नाही याची त्यांना प्रचंड खंत असते आणि ते दुःख अनेकदा दिसून येतं. पण यातल्या अनेकांना भारताबद्दल जबरदस्त कुतूहल आहे. त्यांचे अनेक मित्र दिल्ली विद्यापीठातून शिकले आहेत. मुंबई आणि पुणे विद्यापीठे देखील यांना माहिती असतात. माझ्यासाठी इथे आल्यावर हे सगळं ऐकणं जरा नवीनच होतं.

परवाचा माझा झालेला मित्र, “गाम्बिया” नावाच्या अतिशय छोट्या देशातून आला होता. पश्चिम आफ्रिकेतील सेनेगाल नावाच्या देशाच्या मधोमध एका नदीचं खोरं आहे, आणि या नदीच्या लागतची एक छोटीशी पट्टी म्हणजे हा गाम्बिया देश. पूर्ण पश्चिम आफ्रिका फ्रेंचांनी गिळंकृत केले असताना या नदीच्या खोर्यात इंग्रज शिरले होते. नकाशावर हा देश बघितला होता, पण फारशी माहिती नव्हती. माझ्या या नव्या मित्रामुळे तीही भरपूर मिळाली.

सहज बोलता बोलता जगात कुठे काय सुरु आहे यावर विषय घसरला. पाश्चात्य देशांनी सत्ता केंद्रित करण्यासाठी जगात “गरज नसताना कशी युद्ध केली” यावर विषय गेला होता. सिरीया, इराक, विएतनाम, कोरिया, किम जोंग उन, ट्रम्प, अफगाणिस्तान, कोल्ड वॉर, आणि अशा कितीतरी विषयांवर गप्पा झाल्या.यावर काही महानेत्यांच्या पोकळ विचारांचे धिंडवडे काढले गेले. त्यातच एक कमालीचं वाक्य ऐकायला मिळालं.. “Some countries think that they spread non violence. But they are the most violent countries in the world- involved in most unnecessary wars. If anyone asks them why, the response is “Our violence is to uphold non-violence” and that is complete BS”. खरोखर विचार करण्यासारखा मुद्दा आहे हा. पुढे गप्पा मारता मारता लोकशाहीची गरज नसताना केलेली अंमलबजावणी, फसलेली लोकशाही आणि काही ठिकाणी हुकुमशाही का योग्य होती हे संभाषण पण झाले. तेव्हा “Let me tell you- If people are ruled by an idiot they don’t want, it is called dictatorship. But if they are ruled by and idiot they elect, its called democracy” असे नवे ज्ञान मला मिळाले.

एखाद्या उबर ड्रायव्हर बरोबर मी या गप्पा मरीन याचा मी स्वप्नात देखील विचार केला नव्हता.

पुढे सोशल मिडिया, केम्ब्रिज अनालीटीका, निवडणुकी, याकडे विषय वळला हे स्वाभाविकच होतं. “How is our friend Mr. Modi doing? You think he will get elected again?” हा प्रश्न ऐकून मी ५ मिनिट सुन्न झालो होतो. अमेरिकेतल्या तशा छोट्याशा शहरात गाम्बिया नामक चिमुकल्या देशातून आलेला एक माणूस इतक्या उत्साहाने भारतीय निवडणुकीकडे लक्ष ठेऊन आहे, यावर विश्वास बसत नव्हता. पुढची १० मिनिटे मोदिनी किती भारी काम केलं आहे, हे मी त्याच्याकडून ऐकलं, आणि “If I was Indian, I would always vote for him” हे विधान ऐकून थक्क झालो. मी मोदी समर्थक आहे- विचारधारेमुळे, संघाच्या संस्कारामुळे, भाजपबद्दल आपसूक असणाऱ्या आकर्षणामुळे मी, किंवा माझ्यासारख्या इतर कोणी हे विधान करणे अगदी स्वाभाविक आहे. पण, परत, आफ्रिकेतल्या छोट्याशा देशातला तो माणूस, भारतात असलेल्या त्याच्या मित्रांच्या बोलण्यावरून, भारतात एकूणच इंटरेस्ट घेऊन निस्वार्थ मानाने हे म्हणतो हे खरोखर विशेष आहे. “Sometime I wish our African countries had a leader like Modi – we would have been so much ahead of where we are now” या वाक्याने तर मी अक्षरशः बधीर झालो होतो.

आपल्याकडे आज एक राष्ट्रपुरुष, विश्वपुरुष उभा करण्याची संधी आहे. भारतातच नव्हे, तर इतर अनेक देशात मोदींचे भारतीयइतर चाहते आहेत, ही कल्पनेपलीकडची गोष्ट आहे. आपण फक्त एक सक्षम पंतप्रधान नाही तर कदाचित एक विश्वमार्गदर्शक बघतो आहोत. भारतातच नाही, तर इतर अनेक देशात मोदी यांच्याकडे लोक आशेने बघन आहेत, यात काही शंका नाही. एक भारतीय आणि त्यातून मोदी समर्थक म्हणून आपल्याला अजून किती काम शिल्लक आहे, त्याचा आवाका काय आहे, ते डोळ्यासमोर उभं राहिलं.

विमानतळावरुन घरी यायला पाउण तास लागला, आणि या सर्व गप्पांच्या नादात तो कसा गेला तेच कळलं नाही. पुढचे दोन दिवस यावरच विचार सुरु होता. अमेरिकेत येताना तिथल्या लोकांबद्दल- विशेषतः आफ्रिकन अमेरिकन लोकांबद्दल मनात काही स्टीरियोटाईप आणि पूर्वग्रह करून आलो होतो- ते आत्तापर्यंत बऱ्याच प्रमाणात ढासळले होते- पण त्या “सामान्य टॅक्सी चालकाबरोबर” झालेल्या बोलण्यानंतर तर ते पूर्णतः कोसळले आहेत. या देशात खरोखर हिरे विखुरले आहेत.

Saturday, 19 January 2019

Why the Mughals could never really capture the Deccan.

I had written this as one of my Facebook posts a few years back. Today, on the insistence of my photographer par excellence friend Kapil, I'm sharing this write-up as a blog post. I have independently written a more detailed answer on Quora which can be accessed here[1]. Additionally, I have written on the importance of forts, and their role in the 27 Year war of independence, which can be found here[2].

This article, and the articles on the two links I shared are my humble offerings to Shri Ninadrao Bedekar, the person who painted in great detail the life, times, policies, and a new perspective on Shivaji,the Marathas, and the indomitable spirit of the Sahyadris. In memory of the great historian who enthralled and inspired so many of us.

Why Aurangzeb could never quite capture the Deccan despite possessing the worlds biggest and best equipped army of the time, was mainly due to the underestimation of both- the terrain here as well as the brilliant tactics of Marathas. Even though he did not wholeheartedly support it, Aurangzeb had to split his army in two and open two fronts- one in the Deccan where he attempted to capture important and strategic forts such as Raigad, Panhala, Rajgad, Vishalgad, Sinvhagad, Torna, Satara, Sajjangad(Parali) whereas the second division of his army, under the command of the brilliant general Zulfikar Khan was sent south to capture Jinji, which was now the capital of Marathas. Rajaram Maharaj had successfully evaded the Mughal forces first at Raigad then Panhala, Vishalgad and had finally reached Jinji, from where he fought Zulfikar Khan for 7 years. This was a huge stretch to the Mughal Supply lines, and brilliant Maratha generals such as Santaji Ghorpade and Dhanaji Jadhav ruthlessly cut off these already stretched lines. The movement of these two were so lightening that it was impossible to predict where they would turn up.

Jinji burnt a huge unsustainable hole in the Mughal treasury and did its job. In Maharashtra he managed to reduce the tactically important forts mentioned above, but needed months of siege. Once the marathas thought that their positions on these forts (all of which rise atleast 1000-2000 feet from surrounding areas and are extremely difficult to climb) was untenable-if they were out of food or ammunition, they would take money from the mughals and surrender the fort- but applied a scorched earth policy wherein all food and ammunition was burnt. When the Mughals received the empty fort, they used to stack it up with grain and ammunition and do whatever repairs were needed to strengthen it. Once all this was done, the Marathas would surprize attack the forts and retake it without much losses. In the end, they ended up retaining the fort in a better position than which they had left it in. This "business" continued for 27 years and Mughals went bankrupt.

The other decisive factor was the full manipulation of the season. Winter was usually the time for war and campaigns and generally these campaigns lasted till the summer. Marathas held on to their positions till the rains arrived and opened negotiations with the Mughals once it started raining. Most of the important forts overlook a river valley, and as such, any besieging Mughal force was camped along the banks of these rivers- which were prone to flash flooding. As soon as it started raining heavily enough, Marathas opened talks so that Mughals would have to shift their bases to these valleys, and as a result, were prone to the attacks by the natural elements. The story of Urmodi river devastating the mughal camp at the foothills of Sajjangad is quite famous.

The legacy of Shivaji Maharaj had lived on through to the Marathas. In a bakhar, there is a quote attributed to Ch.Shivaji, which roughly translates as: "Today, we control 350 forts. One day will come when Alamgir(Aurangzeb) will come to deccan. I will fight each of my fort for atleast a year against him. That Alamgir will need a lifetime of 350 years to capture deccan." When Aurangzeb finally came to deccan in 1682, he started his war by capturing a small hillfort called Ramsej near Nasik. An army of 50,000 was sent to reduce the fort under the command of a high ranking official- Shahbuddin Khan Gaziuddin Firoz Jung. Ramsej is a small fort which can hold not more than 500 people. We dont know who was incharge of the fort. But this anonymous killedar not only defended the fort- he with his 500 men defended it for five and a half years. How was the Alamgir then supposed to win the deccan in his lifetime?

Finally the most important factor was an unseen one. Mughals possessed the finest generals of the time- Zulfikar Khan, Ikhlas Khan, Mukarrab Khan, Feroze Jung etc. Marathas had Santaji, Dhanaji, Ramchandrapant, Shankarji Narayan, etc. but they also had the invisible General Sahyadri on their side. The above mentioned Maratha generals enlisted the help of General Sahyadri in each and every campaign and he assisted them everytime, thereby creating a havoc in mughal camps. If it is said that the Russian General Winter defeated Napoleon and Hitler, then most definitely General Sahyadri not only defeated Aurangzeb, but decimated his forces, and crumbled his empire.

Some photos of General Sahyadri- the heartland of Maratha country.