Were the Suri Muslims Who Fought with Maharana Pratap “Jihadis” or “Terrorists”?History, Memory, and the Danger of Modern Labels (Part 2)**6. Understanding the Modern Meaning of “Terrorism”The word “terrorist” is a modern political and legal term.Before applying it to historical figures, we must understand what it actually means today.

**Were the Suri Muslims Who Fought with Maharana Pratap “Jihadis” or “Terrorists”?

History, Memory, and the Danger of Modern Labels (Part 2)**

6. Understanding the Modern Meaning of “Terrorism”

The word “terrorist” is a modern political and legal term.

Before applying it to historical figures, we must understand what it actually means today.

In contemporary usage, terrorism involves:

Deliberate violence against civilians

Fear as the primary objective

Ideological or religious extremism

Targeting society rather than enemy soldiers

Now we must ask an honest question:

👉 Do the actions of Hakim Khan Suri and his soldiers fit any of these criteria?

The answer, based on historical evidence, is no.

7. How Hakim Khan Suri Actually Fought

Hakim Khan Suri:

fought on a clearly defined battlefield

faced a state army, not civilians

followed the war ethics of his time

commanded soldiers, not mobs

There is no historical record that he:

attacked villages

killed non-combatants

spread fear among civilians

used religion to terrorize people

The Battle of Haldighati was:

army versus army

soldier versus soldier

📌 This is warfare, not terrorism.

8. Why Applying Modern Labels to the Past Is Dangerous

Terms like terrorist, jihadi, or extremist emerged in the 20th and 21st centuries, shaped by:

nation-states

modern media

ideological conflicts

Applying these terms to the 16th century is historically misleading.

It is similar to calling:

Maharana Pratap a “modern nationalist”

Ashoka a “human-rights activist”

📌 Wrong era, wrong language, wrong judgment.

History must be understood on its own terms, not through modern political vocabulary.

9. Trust as Historical Evidence

One of the strongest arguments against the “terrorist” label is trust.

Ask yourself:

Why did Maharana Pratap trust Hakim Khan Suri?

Why was he given a commanding role?

Why is his name remembered with respect?

Trust is never placed in:

fanatics

unpredictable extremists

people driven by blind ideology

Trust is placed in:

loyalty

character

shared purpose

📌 Maharana Pratap’s trust is historical evidence of Hakim Khan Suri’s integrity.

10. Shared Indian History, Not Divided History

Pre-colonial India was not divided strictly by religion. It was shaped by:

alliances

regional politics

loyalty and honor

Muslims fought for Hindu kings.

Hindus fought for Muslim rulers.

This was normal, not exceptional.

Hakim Khan Suri and his fellow soldiers represent:

India’s shared historical fabric

coexistence in practice, not theory

📌 This is the India that existed before modern communal labels.

11. Why This Question Matters Today

Why does this debate still matter?

Because:

ancestors are judged using modern hatred

family histories are questioned unfairly

shared heritage is replaced by suspicion

Your family’s memory of migration across the Ganga and service alongside Maharana Pratap challenges simplistic narratives.

It reminds us that:

history is complex

identity is layered

labels are dangerous

Part 2 Summary

In this part, we established that:

“terrorism” is a modern concept

Hakim Khan Suri’s actions do not fit its definition

applying modern terms to medieval history distorts truth

trust between warriors proves character, not extremism

What Comes Next (Part 3)

In Part 3, we will explore:

loyalty versus religion in medieval India

why Muslim warriors naturally supported Hindu rulers

how historical distortion damages society

the final conclusion

Written with AI