User talk:Manavati

Welcome!
Hello, Manavati, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Zaan Khan, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion nomination of Zaan Khan


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Zaan Khan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Zaan Khan


A tag has been placed on Zaan Khan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2021
Hello, I'm Alivardi. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Alivardi  (talk)  22:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that I re-edited it & added the reference. Please review. Manavati (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Manavati! Your additions to Jagat Gosain have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted.  All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Translation. See also Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jagat Gosain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Persian. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shahryar Mirza, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shahzada.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jagat Gosain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Consort.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

"￼" symbol appearing in your edits
Just wanted to let you know that you've been mistakenly leaving OBJ symbols (￼) scattered throughout your edits, for example here. I've been removing them, but I can see there are many still appearing, for example in the "Family" section of the Maldev Rathore article. I'm not sure why they're appearing but maybe keep an eye out for them in the future. Alivardi  (talk)  22:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure! Thank you for informing. They didn't initially appear after I finished my edits. I'll make sure to recheck them again. Manavati (talk) 06:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Sukaphaa
The House and Dynasty have different meanings. For example, Gadadhar Singha belonged to the Tungkhungia house and the Ahom dynasty. Please do not mix them up. Chaipau (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure! I'll correct the ones I messed up. Thanks for informing. Manavati (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Shahzada Khanum Begum for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shahzada Khanum Begum is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Shahzada Khanum Begum until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ➤ Tajwar.thesuperman  Talk 09:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Shahzada Khanam for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shahzada Khanam is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Shahzada Khanam until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ||  Tajwar.thesuperman   💬  10:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

With reference to Marium uz Zamani held a high rank in the harem.
Akbarnama Vol III p 13, states that the "auspicious sister of Bhagwant Das held a high rank in the imperial harem." Please do read this vol of Akbarnama. Another thing, Findly notes is that in the imperial harem, the highest rank was that of the mother of the Emperor and next to it the empress. Badayuni in his first two volumes refer to the mother of Shah Salim as Mallika and only in the third vol he condemns Akbar, his secular nature, Birbal's influence on Akbar and uses the word cursed Birbal and then the daughter of Raja Bharmal influence with words like he had fallen into her trap when he stated that Akbar let her remain a Hindu and then himself occasionally participated in the pooja she performed. He also in that very vol recording Akbar's affection for her states that she did some magic on Akbar as being a Hindu, Akbar favoring her drew the irk of many conservative Muslims. My reference stands true. Akbarnama itself states that she held a high rank in the harem during Akbar's reign. Hope this suffices. Do let me know if there is any doubt about any of the references I state. Thank you! Nush1125 (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

AkbarnamaVOL III page 13

“When the world-conquering armies had been deputed, the Shāhinshāh proceeded stage by stage. On the day that he reached Sirohī, Mādhū* Singh and a number of men were sent to fetch that nursling of fortune's garden, Shahzāda Sulān Daniel, who had been conveyed from Ajmīr to Amber, so that he might be brought back to Ajmīr, and might come under the shadow of the Presence. The auspicious sister of Rajah Bhagwān Das, who held high rank in the imperial harem, was sent off from Ajmer so that she might be present at the mourning for her brother Bhūpat, who had fallen in the battle of Sarnāl”. I am posting the whole paragraph for your reference. Additionally, this text verifies that she accompanied Akbar to his campaign of Gujrat where Akbarnama also states Akbar took his sons Salim and Murad. Also is there any way we could upload the pictures of Mariam Zamani palace of Fatehpur Sikri and the palace of Mandu?

She's mentioned as high ranking, but that does not mean highest ranking among wives. If I'm not wrong, didn't you write her rank wasn't highest next only to Mariam Makani. This is not mentioned in Akbarnama. She is indeed but her next to Queen Mother isn't mentioned.

About rest of the part, if I removed anything from Badayani. I express my apologies. I didn't intend to do it and removal must be a mistake on my behalf.

You can add pictures through your Wikimedia Commons account. Manavati (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Ruqaiya sultan being dowager empress
You mentioned that most changes have been biased but what was mentioned there is a bunch of concocted stories. I would like to ask you a few questions:

-No reliable source has ever mentioned her as empress or dowager empress ie Mallika still people out of their sheer fantasy have written it. Eraly in Nur Jahan book refers to her like this but she herself while mentioning Mariam Zamani uses the same word, Dowager Empress. How could two people literally have the same title? If Ruqaiya sultan's page seems apt to have that heading, consequently adding the same to Mariam uz Zamani can also not be questioned.

-Secondly the house in Fatehpur Sikri, Anup talao is in the mardana section and is recorded to be a place where Akbar used to receive guests. Once such incident mentioned is Akbar received Badakshan still people have lied about that place on her page and posted it as her palace.

-Regarding Salim's succession to the throne, Akbarnama clearly mentions all the people involved in his pardoning ie on the forefront Salima begum and Mariam Makani. People themselves have added her name again out of sheer fanaticism. Why would Akbaranma not mention her name when we know she held much respect in the harem when all others are mentioned.

-Regarding her influence on Akbar, neither Akbarnama, Jahangirnama, Padshahnama nor even the book of Badayuni mentions it. She is not even mentioned once in Akbarnama and this is being stated by someone who had read Akbarnama, not by any random reader. All the travelers too from the Akbar era do not mention about her except for the trying to secure pardon with Mariam Makani for a Shia Muslim which they both failed and during Jahangir's reign her events with Nur Jahan are recorded, nobody mentioned her securing highest rank in Imperial harem anywhere, people stating Findly mentioning it have again lied as even she mentions that out of her exalted lineage she commanded respect, never as dowager empress or having secured highest rank in the imperial harem.

-Jahangir in his memoir describes her as an honored wife of Akbar, not the most honored or favorite (another lie). Describing her death, Manavati please do check the last line, Jahangir never referred to her as a chief wife, I implore you to once objectively check Jahangirnama yourself. Another lie stated is that Jahangir mentions her with fondness in his memoir but that is incorrect. Throughout Jahangirnama she is mentioned just twice once where he states about her raising Khurram and loving him and the other is of that Kabul hunting trip that I previously mentioned. You may personally go ahead and read it. Nowhere in those texts does he insinuate any intimacy with her. She is mentioned with honor no doubt, but there is no mention of her qualities or anything. Even the historians state that the respect she commanded was much due to her supreme lineage. In contrast, when he states about Salima begum, he praises her like nobody indicative of the endearment those two held. The number of lies people have surfaced on her page trying to cloud the ladies who indeed were held in high esteem by Akbar like Salima begum, Mariam Zamani has no end.

-About the pilgrimage edit, there truly is no other bigger misleading story than this. I wish I could add a screenshot of this page, Jahangirnama states that Jahangir ordered a hunting trip to Kabul which was accompanied by his entire harem, Mariam Zamani, his children(therefore even Ruqaiya was taken), and people say she undertook a pilgrimage to Kabul accompanied by Khurram and Jahangir. Jahangirnama, Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri states in 1607: "After marching to Lahore following Khusrao's rebellion, I ordered my son Khurram to bring Her Majesty Mariam uz Zamani and my harem to me. When their entourage came nearer, I got on the boat and attained the happiness of paying homage and greeting my mother in the vicinity of the village named Dhar. After executing the rites of Korunish, Sajda, and Taslim before my exalted mother and after observing the formalities of the young owe the elders under the terms of Genghis code and Timurid law we proceeded forward."(there were all his stepmothers including Salima begum) in between there is a description of the journey which is very long and then Jahangirnama further states "On the fifth day had the honor of visiting Babur's grave(after touring gardens made by many of his relatives including one of Hamida Bano begum on the fourth day). Ruqaiya sultan begum, Mirza Hindal's daughter had not yet visited father's grave but on that day she did."

Now, please check what has been written on the page of Ruqaiya begum you would undoubtedly see the difference between actual information and how it was twisted to pose her as someone she was not? I have tried to bring out factual information there, not any twisted information to fuel my narration.

-I saw that on Mariam Zamani's page all that was written of her during Akbar's reign was that she might have few privileges during his reign. How much of a lie is that. Badayuni, Akbarnama marks her out of such respect. People state that she never held any respect before giving birth to Salim but then again why would Akbar take a barefoot pilgrimage with her to dargah Ajmer praying for a son(check Aziz Ahmad book, he puts this claim saying the acknowledgment of medieval period document), There are literally Imperial records stating the conversations that Akbar used to have with her regarding her trading endeavors with words 'long' and 'often held'. So much for somebody who 'might have had some privilege'. Why has Wikipedia supported such false claims? Her life story had been completely shredded just owing to the religious differences Hindus and Muslims possess in today's era. People have made Wikipedia just a page for stating their concocted stories and nothing more.

-Please let me know if there is any way I could post pictures of the texts here. I would love to share and show you the ambiguous references that have been mentioned on her page. One such reference is the Twentieth wife, people have stated references from the same but I want to post the first page of that book stating that this book is a work of fiction and names, characters, and events have been described as per the author's imagination and fictitiously. There are even more. Pelsaert and De Laet journal reference is given. This is also the journal that states Mariam Makani to be the mother of Jahangir and wife of Akbar although we both know that is incorrect. Also this journal states Shahzadi Khannum to be the daughter of Jahangir but in reality, she was the sister of Jahangir and daughter of Akbar. How can such an ambiguous reference be stated?

-You even undid a mention about her marriage effect on Akbar which anybody who has read Akbarnama and Muntakhab-ut-tawarikh would know is not false. Abul Fazl while describing his aversion for childhood marriages states that His Majesty feels which again validates that it came out of his experience. Badayuni says that Akbar in those discussions says that there is less sexual vigor between such couples as once they achieve manhood they eye each other more as siblings than a couple. I have just laid out the facts there.

-Also, I feel the text here now is too long and I apologize for the same but additional information I would like to state is that people say she was politically very active during Jahangir and Akbar's reign but that again is incorrect. To substantiate the same people say that she along with Salima begum secured pardon for Mirza Aziz Koka but that is not true. The Christian missionary who was present at the court states that it was Salima begum who interfered publicly and secured pardon. How have people added Ruqaiya's name to every endeavor and action Salima begum made?

-Another false piece of information is of Khurram's being Akbar's favorite. It was Khusrao who was eyed by Akbar as his real child. In fact, Akbar's affection for Khusrao was the prime reason that made Salim insecure and feared that he would be given the throne. In 1595, during a debate being held at Akbar's private chambers where Salim was also present, a Christian missionary notes that all the Christians on seeing Jesus Christ's picture bent and started to raise their hands to create a gesture of respect. Khusrao on seeing this immediately did the same, on seeing this, Akbar being proud as hell publicly said to Salim that Look at your son and gave Khusrao a pat on his head(recorded by a European clergyman who served in Akbar's court). In 1603, Akbar raised Khusrao rank as par with Salim, you would have surely read it in chronicles as I think you might have read some personally. Badayuni states that His Majesty use to see himself in khusrao. A missionary at Akbar's court notes that at the age of 18, Khusrao was everything that his father was not personable, brave, and talented battlefield commander. Even Akbarnama records praise for this unfortunate charismatic prince. It states him 'as a possessor of great khirid(wisdom) with a khurad(small)' meaning small kid with great wisdom. Abdul Fazl states :

"on 28th March 1594, Akbar made a decision which had no precedent and neither it saw a feat of this kind being repeated in the future, in the Mughal empire. He granted Khusrao a high imperial rank of panz Hazari ie 5000(even though Khusrao was 6 years old at that time). Along with high-ranking mansab, Akbar assigned the financial resources of the newly conquered province of Orrisa to Khusrao. The emperor also appointed his maternal uncle, Raja Man Singh, as his ataliq. Further His Majesty insisted that prince khusrao was to remain under his exclusive charge. His Majesty proclaimed that I love my grandchildren more than my sons". 16th August 1604, was an important day in history. Akbarnama states that Akbar made Khusrao a mansabdar of 10,000 forces which was the highest imperial rank existing at that time. After receiving this rank, his status was equal to his father Salim. Akbar also assigned him drum(this honor was reserved only for the emperor) and a tuman-togh(raising Khusrao to authority just below him). These honors were not even held by Salim wh was the heir apparent.

It was this man who was feared by Salim as Khusrao publicly start to deem Akbar as 'Shah baba' and Salim as 'Shah bhai'. Jahangir's jealousy for him is not hidden even during his reign for people use to consider him as the rightful heir to the throne than Salim himself, Khurram is out of the question. May I also mention that the reference claiming that Salim said that my father referred to Khurram as his real child and recommended him to me from all my children was not correct in fact to cloud Akbar's affection for Khusrao he made this claim as Salim is recorded to have treated him as his competitor, for it was Khusrao that posed him a threat, during the reign of Akbar, after the death of Daniyal. The much-vaunted bond between Khurram and Akbar is stated by Jahangir, who in reality was against the personally groomed grandson of Akbar. I will also mention one incident from Jahangirnama only which proves the unreliability of Salim: In 1622, when Khurram rebelled Jahangir who first spoke disparagingly of Khusrao and high praise for Khurram, right after the rebellion refers to Khurram as Bedawlet and says 'Pervez as my precious, favored son'. Please let me know if you wish to know anything more in this regard. Also for reference to Akbarnama info, I stated, please check Akbarnama, Vol 3, page 651. It also might be interesting for you to know, while Shah Jahan mentions the good bonding he had with his grandfather, Akbarnama though mentions the Akbar's fondness for Khusrao. (I would wanna clear up one thing, Khurram was indeed very close to Akbar for he stayed niched to Akbar at his death bed and Akbar too use to see a promised prince in him for when Akbar granted him, literary teachers, Khurram exhibited a preference for more practical pursuits like learning warfare strategies and this move of his filled Akbar's heart with pride). Khusrao, Akbar, and Khurram would be a separate topic altogether, but I hope I would have squeezed the gist for you and Wikipedia has no mention of any such thing even though the source here is Akbarnama itself.

-Another concerning story that apparently you consider unbiased is of a soothsayer predicting Khurram to be the future emperor. There is no mention of any soothsayer predicting Khurram to be the future Emperor and not a single reliable text that records this incident. Padshanama states that about astrological signs of his birth which were pleasing to Akbar but even Padshanama doesn't mention any soothsayer predicting his accession to the throne before his birth. People on that page have added false references, you may verify yourself Fictional novels like the twentieth wife state them but the author herself has clarified that it is not true. I implore you to not support such fiction-stricken versions of that page and produce factually more correct information.

Nush1125 (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Dowager Empress is just a way refer to the late Emperor's wife. All legal wives or chief wives of the Emperor can be referred as such. Ruqaiya Begum is a legal and chief wife (as per Jahangirnama) of Akbar.

I probably missed that part, the page looked quite a mess. If you did add reference, please re add it.

I do not consider her the chief most wife of Akbar but she was one, Jahangirnama (yes I have read it) mentioned it on her death. She was not stated as influential anywhere is something I agree. As you could see, I removed the Padshah Begum part from infobox.

About succession part thank you for mentioning that as I sincerely forgot Wikipedia has kept that part.

About marriage part, are you sure the sexual vigor part was indeed in reference to Ruqaiya and not generalize?

Did the page mentioned she went there alone with Khurram and Jahangir? Did it just not mentioned she visited the grave with Khurram and Jahangir?

Is it mentioned Akbar took pilgrimage with her? Please tell me the reference. Akbarnama doesn't mentioned his wives well, so it's hard to get who's chief from it. Others are not much famous which results in the page being such way.

About Shah Jahan I have extensively read on him. I'll check about the favorite part and shall inform you. Anyhow Khurram was indeed favoured by Akbar but he did not consider the child as an heir.

I'm sorry about future emperor part, I did change it before but it was probably reverted back and I failed to notice.

Also Twentieth wife far from facts. If you apparently it I'm an Twentieth wife fan, let me inform I loathe that the whole Trilogy.

One thing - You mentioned Khurram was slowly returned to his mother at age of 8, which is a blant lie. The year 1600, Salim and his harem were far from Khurram who was with Akbar. Ruqaiya keeping Khurram away is from twentieth wife. While I have a disdain for Ruqaiya, painting her as black is not acceptable.

Manavati (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for correcting me on the transfer of Khurram. Duly noted.

Here I'm talking in regard to Jahangirnama's comment describing Ruqaiya's death and Jahangir mentioning her fondly. I'm stating this from Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri. Preface:- "greatly indebted to Sayyid for his disinterested labors, but his text seems to have been made from single and defective MS." "A translation of what Dr. Rieu calls garbled memoirs of Jahangir was made by Major David price and published by the oriental translation committee of the Royal Asiatic society in 1829. The author of this work is unknown and its history is an unsolved problem." The translator of Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri states that this very piece of work was made from the defective manuscript. His statements in the preface: "But it is certain that it is in its part at least, a fabrication and that it contains statements that Jahangir could have never made. Besides being inaccurate, the garbled or spurious memoirs are much shorter than the genuine work which does not go beyond the fifteenth year of his reign. Dr. Rieu remarks that it is to be regretted that so poor fabrication as the garbled memoirs should have been given to the world as a genuine production of Jahangir."

Most of us are under impression that these Persian texts came to us as it is from the imperial Mughal library and from there they were taken up for translation and hence we got English translations. But this is not what is true. There are several works that claim to be autobiographical memoirs of Mughal emperor Jahangir. All these translators and the Asiatic Society of translation state that there is no clear version of Jahangirnama that came from the emperor himself. Multiple copies were found and few of them were outrightly rejected as they contradicted each other describing the same event. The orientalist historians(Sacy, Gladwin, etc) in 18 century were confused over the reason for this anomaly and stated the same but shied away from digging to the root cause of the problem and introduced terminology- 'less genuine' and 'more genuine'. Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri is stated to be more genuine not accurate even by the translator himself. To compound this matter these copies were edited several times by various historians and the last known editing was done by Muhammad Hadi in the 18th century. He completed and wrote the account of the last few years in the memoirs of Jahangir which were left unwritten by him. They noted this in the declaration itself of the memoir of the original Persian manuscripts.

As you read, the translator of Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri states that after the 15th year of Jahangir ie 1620, his accounts stop, but Sacy and Gladwin note that in 1622 of his reign, due to his declining state of health, he stopped dictating his manuscripts and entrusted it to Mutamad Khan who continued writing his memoirs till the beginning of 1624 and after that, no information is recorded in the original manuscripts. Now, this is what I was trying to get you to. Jahangir never stated anything about Ruqaiya's death. In fact, after 1624, there is no Jahangirnama from his reign only, let only his words that mentioned her fondly during her death. The editors themselves have stated that post-1624, the work was added in the 18th century to the original Persian manuscripts by historians with no reference to any of the original work of Jahangir as it never existed, no work is of Jahangir from 1622-1627. Now Manavati, how can the statement Jahangir states fondly of Ruqaiya describing her death and mentioning her chief wife stand true in such a scenario? Now you see Jahangir himself never stated any of it, neither did any member from his court who continued work for two years 1622-1624. The historians that added information state a lot of anomalies throughout Jahangirnama which later historians have described as conflicting points(have a look at second last para). One that identity of his mother completely vanished and in few versions, Jahangir is noted to describe the words for her which even the historians and translators have rejected and disbelieved. Out of all the Mughal chronicles. Jahangirnama is the only one that is disputed by the historians for they say none can be deemed as the one that came from Emperor Jahangir himself.

In addition to this, an interesting fact, see the description of Mariam Zamani's death. Anybody with a blink of an eye could state that under no way Jahangir's revered any of his stepmothers or loved them above his mother then how cum it's stated so lifelessly? It is a false claim that Jahangir mentioned her as a chief wife. There are only two accounts of Ruqaiya in that which are dictated by Jahangir himself falling into the description of the reign that historians describe the content was dictated by the emperor Jahangir himself 1605-1622. Like I told you, the upbringing of Khurram and other the Kabul hunting trip that too on her page is told as a pilgrimage she undertook and took Khurram and Jahangir with her which is if not at least, bogus statement. The twisted comments made on her page, along with people not fully knowing the truth of Jahangirnma have created a sheer screen of lies and concocted stories. The first version of Jahangir's memoir called Tarikh-i-Salim Shahi(nobody knows who wrote this biography, original Persian, this manuscript was translated by Sayyid who was condemned by the translator of Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri, stating he feels sorry that such a work has been produced for the world as words of Jahangir) holds no such records of her death but again Jahangir never said anything beyond 1622 so it's futile to even discuss this. There are 4 other versions than these two, each of them ending at 1624 originally. In total as recorded by the Royal Asiatic Society, the total claimed memoirs of Jahangirnama recovered are nine.

This is with no context to Ruqaiya, this is now an analysis of Jahangirnma, version 1 and version 2. These two have statements that contradict each other. About the eradication of Mariam uz Zamani's powers and her identity, this is undoubtedly true as Tarikh-i-Salim Shahi states that the daughter of Raja Biharimal was no favorite with destiny in the harem. The direct contrast to this is noted in Akbarnama stating her high rank in the harem and the only wife of Akbar who has been mentioned stating having a high rank in the biography of her husband. Even Salima begum is mentioned in Akbarnama with much reverence and praises but even despite the respect she commanded was not recorded as holding a high rank. (Even though I know three historical accounts, nonfictional mentioning her having a superior rank, Dirk Collier for instance states that Muslim harem was looked after by Salima begum, he researched on Akbar for 7 years). Hindu wives of Akbar were not under any Muslim wife of Akbar, they resided separately than Muslim wives in the imperial harem, the chief among them was Harka bai as worded his chief Hindu wife who was like Salima begum, he states accountable to Emperor Akbar himself along with Mariam Makani(Dirk Collier and Henry Beveridge). As per accounts of Badayuni, his Rajput wives were more powerful than others and even there he criticizes Akbar for giving them so much power. Akbar Badayuni recorded for his Hindu wives stopped eating beef. He writes that since his initial date of youth, Akbar ordered after his marriage to the fortunate daughter of Raja Biharimal burning of hom continuously in their palaces. Badayuni states that it was his Rajput wives who use to fix the marriages of his sons. In fact, there is one account, in which his Hindu and Muslim wives combined and rebelled against him, and therefore he had to bow before their wishes. Akbarnama primarily records two wives of Akbar in an extensive manner, Harka bai and Salima begum, and both of them are praised multiple times. Ruqaiya begum is not even mentioned once. Akbarnama, for instance, states the intelligence of the daughter of Harka bai. Mariam Zamani throughout like Salima begum has multiple tender references in Akbarnama which somewhere I feel were not even required. Badayuni himself describes what prodigious influence she held and Akbar's affection for her. He also mentioned Salima begum respectful status. Why was the statement 'no favorite of destiny' added which again was absent from all other original Persian manuscripts of Jahangir and just was present amongst two memoirs? The crucial note is also this that translator of Tuzuk-I-Jahangiri, in preface also states that even this work is made from the defective manuscript, although he states he has made a sincere endeavor to make it as correct as he could(but even under that circumstance, Jahangir accounts could be brought close to reality only till 1624 or to be precise till 1622 post that the work is not of Jahangir's reign). Two people were most despised by the conservative Muslims from Akbar's court for making him secular, Birbal and daughter of Raja Biharimal which can be understood from Muntakhab ut Tawarikh as he himself was a part of them. Interestingly, Birbal is criticized in all the volumes, Badayuni mentioned him as cursed Birbal in vol 3(in original Persian text but English translators have omitted that word) however in the first two volumes daughter of Raja Bhiharimal is mentioned with beautiful adjectives like gentle, fortunate, generous, beautiful and often as Mallika Hind but vol 3 where he unleashes his wrath for Akbar's liberal nature and secular policies in an unabashed manner and this vol was released after Badayuni's death, there he makes note of her, accusing of influencing Akbar and performing some magic on him. In vol 3 Badayuni even criticizes Akbar for giving her this much power. The first two volumes were brought into the public eye after Akbar's death but the third vol was released after Badayuni's death. There he states that Akbar participate occasionally in the pooja she performed. Her influence and freedom of speech in court matters and even taunted him publicly. He states that Akbar had fallen into her trap. His refraining to state any disrespect for her in vol 3 indeed shows that he was afraid to even after the death of Akbar stating his hate and aversion for her, this would be primarily because of Jahangir, and Jahangirnama vol 1 states that she was no favorite of destiny in the harem. This is prominent proof that people later have indeed stated false statements about her trying to belittle her. She is also noted to have drawn irk of Aurengzeb for the latter's ideology was totally opposite to his great grandmother's. Another piece of info about Harka bai noted is that Maham Anga became very fond of her in her last days. (historian Mr. Lal)

I also want to additionally state four more facts, describing Salim's birth Badayuni records a statement of Akbar for Salim's mother. Akbar said, "it is right for that piece of the moon". He publicly called her a piece of the moon at that time and stated 'it is right for her giving birth to his apparent heir'. Aziz Ahmad too records a pilgrimage of Akbar and Marium Zamani in 1566 to Ajmer to pray for a son. As per what I understand there can be three reasons for Akbar wanting an heir out of her, first, she lost her twins, secondly, Akbar for some reasons always considered her very auspicious, this can beside being understood by the name he bestowed upon her could be understood from Akbarnama where mostly she is always mentioned with words auspicious, matrix of the sun of fortune, casket of success, etc. and thirdly Akbar's unexceptional fondness for her clan and their traits. But that statement insinuates that Akbar was happy to have her as the mother of heir-apparent out of his affection as recorded by Badayuni and other authors of that time. Second, Christian missionaries have recorded a Farman issued to them by Marium uz Zamani in the year 1582 giving them a tax-free land which was Akbar's reign. A paper was also present in the Asiatic Society of Bengal, India on this matter around the 1900s. Thirdly, Findly notes she was a prime shield of Khusrao. Post Salim's accession the people who begged pardon for Khusrao, (who was not only Akbar's favorite but also cult favorite) were Marium Zamani, Salima begum, Shakr un Nissa begum, Firoze Khannum. Marium Zamani in fact wrote a strong-worded letter to Jahangir about her concern for Khusrao's safety and stated that Khurram (who was after his death) if kills Khusrao, would lead to this thing happening again down the Mughal empire and Findly states that her foretelling proved true, Aurengzeb case we all know. I will make another topic on talking about Khusrao and Akbar and stating proper references that record Akbar's desire for Khusrao to succeed after him, many of them which are in Akbarnama vol 3 as well. This charismatic prince if you will acknowledge about would indeed even fill your heart with admiration for him. His charisma was so much that even Nur Jahn when wanted to retain her power firstly thought of the cult favorite Khusrao and sought to him with the marriage proposal of her daughter and bringing him to the throne. (Also the beautiful love story of Khusrao and his wife, daughter of Mirza Aziz Koka is much more devotional and exceptional than Shah Jahan's and Mumtaz, also mentioned in Nur Jahan Empress, Findly). This prince met an unfortunate ending. Fourth, about Daniyal, though I do feel that he was not born to Mariam Zamani after reading Akbarnama for the reference describing his birth is indicative of not a noblewoman, surprisingly many of Daniyal's marriages are recorded to be held in her palace (this is recorded in Rajasthan imperial state archives, his two Hindu marriages were held at her palace, first marriage held at Marium Makani's abode). Akbarnama describing the death of the mother of Daniyal I do feel is not of the birth mother but foster mother. His birth mother truly shall remain a mystery. Reasons now, the sentence stating this says the mother of sultan Daniyal who belonged to the family of chastity* died. A concubine we may consider can be referred might be as chaste but referring to her belonging to a family of chastity is impossible. This also is not a startling point, as Akbarnama vol 1 mentions Maham Anga as the mother of Akbar, similarly, a translation of Jahangrnama states Nur Jahn to be the mother of Khurram which is incorrect. The Persian memoirs or translation into English of Mughals have many times mentioned foster mother, stepmother simply as mother later creating confusion so this case of Daniyal is also acceptable. Jahangirnama states that he was born to a concubine, accepted but why doesn't mention whom he was assigned to. As much as we know Akbar, under no circumstance was he to give a son to a concubine to be raised, Mariam Zamani is even absent from there as she was the one who raised him is evident from the Rajputana records. Also if you would visit Jaipur library of imperial records, looking for the accounts of the Amer clan, you would find Akbar sending Shahzada Daniyal to Amer, assigning care to Rani Champavati(now Padmavati was the mother of Bhagwant Das and Harka was born to Champavati). He was assigned to the care of the mother of Mariam Zamani not the mother of Bhagwant Das though Akbarnama states just Rani of Raja Bharmal, Rajputana records elucidate much better. This was also the campaign where Akbar took Mariam Zamani with him along with his sons, to his campaign of Gujrat. (1572-1573) Nush1125 (talk) 08:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I have been observing how seem to write things. It seems you are under the impression that I lack basic knowledge on everything regarding mughals. Most of things you have mentioned from the 1st message itself are basic knowledge for anyone who has read the court chronicles on Mughals. The way you everything looks way too much undermining. Court chronicles being tampered is basic knowledge, Ruqaiya not being mentioned more than thrice is basic knowledge, names of mothers of Bhagwant Das and Mariam is basic knowledge to ones who do actually read history.

Also Daniyal lived only for a few months with the Queen of Amer. He was returned on May 1573. This is mentioned in Akbarnama itself. There is no need to head for Rajput records in this matter. So the Rani did not raise him. She only took care of him for few months. This would be irrelevant information to Jahangir.

I'm sorry but the way you are assuming that I lack the basic decency to read the actual books and understand the downsides seems to sour to me to interact with you. Manavati (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I apologize if anyway my text seemed to disrespect you. Rest assured, no way I assumed you didn't possess knowledge about Mughal chronicles. When you said that Jahangir did speak fondly of her, that made me just express that 1622 point, it made me seem that you believe that it was Jahangir who spoke fondly of her during her death but in reality, Jahangir never expressed any of that, he made only first two points and historians in his name have stated it later. I sure in any way didn't want to come forth as someone with preconceived notions about your knowledge. I sincerely apologize for the same. Thank you Nush1125 (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Jagat Gosain
I have a doubt which I want to clear, about her death. Many sources state that she was cremated not buried. The medieval chronicles I have read Akbarnama, muntabkh-ut-tawarikh, and Turk-i-Jahangiri do not mention anything in this regard. Even Jahangir doesn't say anything about the same.

Could you please tell me what is truth? However one of my friends has brought into my knowledge that Michael H Fisher in his book a short history of Mughals has noted that Shah Jahan also ordered the construction of a temple in the memory of his mother, much like his father Salim had a mosque built in the honor of his mother Hazrat Marium uz Zamani but this temple he stated was destroyed during the British rule during some possible rebellion. Was she cremated or buried or in memory of his mother built a cenotaph on the place of her cremation? Nush1125 (talk) 09:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Amal-i-Salih mentions her death better than others. It says "Khaak" which could mean both cremation or burial, so it cannot be answered. I am yet to find reference to temple built by Shah Jahan for her.

The cenotaph was built barely 100 years back. It's inscribed there too. The area of Arjun Nagar, Agra was the Dehra Bagh and/or Nur Manzil Bagh. Her tomb was located there which was destroyed by British for it's marble. It did house a marble cenetoph though, so she could be buried. Also since the cenetoph was underground, I can be sure if it was destroyed too or they just buried it.

The cremation rumor comes from the Cenetoph or Chattri built for her in 20th century. Since cenetoph are usually empty tomb, this rumor started. Manavati (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Amar Singh Rathore
 * added a link pointing to Rajkumar
 * Azz-ud-din Mirza
 * added a link pointing to Shahzada

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

March 2022
Hello, I'm JalenFolf. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Jodhi Bibi. Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jalen Folf  (talk)  19:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Apologies for a second notification about this, but I'd like to add to this. While I do agree with you solely based on the content in the target that the reference in question is absurd, blanking a redirect is not a valid solution to state a case. The appropriate thing here to do is to start a discussion at WP:RFD. Since the redirect was made all the way back in 2007, speedy deletion criteria R3 does not apply, as the criteria only applies to recently created redirects. Jalen Folf   (talk)  19:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure! Thanking for informing. I'll keep that in mind. Manavati (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Single Purpose Account
Your edits seem to be focused on single narrow subject regarding historical marriages. You should introduce yourself with WP:SPA, if you are not already aware. History quester (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I understand your concern and wish to inform you that I, unfortunately, do not have and am currently unable to go in-depth knowledge with most things. I've only add/check things which I had already known about through more than one sources. My current situation isn't allowing me to read and learn more about newer things. While I completely understand your concern, I do not wish to judge or indulge about things before knowing about them in depth. Anyhow, thank you for your concern. Manavati (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Jagdish Gahlot's book
You made this addition on Gora Dhay page and added the reference of Jagdish Gahlot's book, there is tag of "qn" on it and I asked at resources exchange too but nobody have that book. See WP:Verifiability, you put the citation including page number of the book so you must have access to the source, please insert the quotation of the book or otherwise that citation will be removed. Sajaypal007 (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello Sajaypal007, I wish to extend my apologies as I inform you that it seems the book has been removed from the website I had read on. I shall remove the citation for the time being and re add when I find the book again.

I also wish to ask if there is some issue with the book "The house of Marwar" by Dhananjaya Singh? An user removed the book citation. Manavati (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Prima facie this looks like a coffee table book, what are the credentials of Dhananjaya Singh? Is he a historian ? What are his qualifications and other works if any? Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Category:Rajput Princesses has been nominated for renaming
Category:Rajput Princesses has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Skarmory  (talk •   contribs)  09:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Kishanawati Bai
I wish to ask you about Kishanawati bai, daughter of Raja Bharmal and wife of Haji Khan. I noticed that you mentioned her in the third place amongst the issues of Raja Bharmal however my only concern is that in Akbarnama, Abul Fazl writes that the eldest daughter of Raja Bharmal was Harka Bai. This directly goes against the later historians who mention Kishanawati to be the eldest daughter of Raja Bharmal. How do you view this discrepancy between different sources both of which can't be termed unreliable in any case.

Also, do you know when Haji Khan died? Is it possible that this marriage happened after Harka Bai's marriage but then again if Raja Bharmal was to marry his daughter to Haji Khan, he would have done it in the mid-1550s somewhere in 1556-1558 considering the timeline of political exigencies of his kingdom. Nush1125 (talk) 06:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Apologies the answer is in a messy manner. I'm not sure about when Haji Khan died but the marriage is likely to occur before Harka Bai's.

It could be Kishnawati was either later historians made a mistake and called her eldest or Kishnawati was child of a concubine and that way not even a princess (Rajput differentiate between children born to Queens are Pardayat/concubines) and hence not considered/skipped by some who failed to inform Abul Fazl.

If Harka Bai was indeed older, it could be she was already engaged to someone else (and the marriage didn't happen due to unforseenable circumstances) and hence Bharmal chose his younger daughter or Bharmal loved Harka Bai too much to give her away too soon. Given in Indian society, elder daughter get married first, historians mistaken her as older.

I think main problem is Kachwaha historians of that time apparently don't mention their princesses properly. (At least as far as I know) Manavati (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Harka bai was indeed engaged twice before her marriage to Akbar. Her first engagement that is dated was when she was 10 years old but her fiance died when she was 13. Then she was engaged to someone else for 8 months but that engagement was broken. The reason is not mentioned. This would actually settle your suggestion as to why Kishnawati was married first due to political exigencies at the same time retaining Abul Fazl's statement that the eldest daughter of Bharmal was married to Akbar. Thank you so much, it settles with my brain. Will try to look further. Thank you  Nush1125 (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad to help. In case I find more authentic sources, I shall mention them!

Also could you please tell where you found about her previous engagements? I've tried to find but sadly could not. Manavati (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

These engagements are noted in the Imperial records of Amer itself. I will list down the details: Amer Raja Vanshawali, Jaipur, MS, pg 63. Furthermore, it says that the rival claimant to the throne of Amer with the Mughal interference for support to rivals, the settlement of which ultimately lead to this marriage with Akbar. In my understanding, this refers to Sujamal and Shariffudin affair. Nush1125 (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Manavati (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Help
Hey, I would like to ask for your opinion on Salima Sultan Begum. Recently I was thinking about the status of Empress consort. I have added Mariam-uz-Zamani and Salima begum as empress consort but now I stand somewhere doubting the reference for the latter. Marian Zamani has been listed by many as chief consort but the problem arises with Salima Sultan as she almost not been mentioned as a chief wife of Akbar however many historians cite her as a very respected and one of the favorite wives of Akbar. I was hoping if you could suggest to me whether these sources who mention her as a very respectful and one of favorites could be used to justify and list her as an empress consort of Akbar. I have tried a lot to get one reference where she is stated as chief consort but could not rather I have encountered her status as Padshah begum which is erroneous since Badayuni mentions Hamida Begum as Begum Padshah. I will highly appreciate your opinion on this. Thanks Nush1125 (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

If there are not enough references (either primary or secondary), it would be better to remove her from that position. Her being "Padshah Begum" is a mix up of latter era historian with Saliha Banu, Jahangir's Padshah Begum. Manavati (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Rajput Mughal marriage alliances for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rajput Mughal marriage alliances, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Rajput Mughal marriage alliances until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)