Were the Suri Muslims Who Fought with Maharana Pratap “Jihadis” or “Terrorists”?History, Memory, and the Danger of Modern Labels (Part 3)**12. Loyalty Over Religion: The Reality of Medieval IndiaModern society often views history through rigid categories:religionnationalismideology
**Were the Suri Muslims Who Fought with Maharana Pratap “Jihadis” or “Terrorists”? History, Memory, and the Danger of Modern Labels (Part 3)** 12. Loyalty Over Religion: The Reality of Medieval India Modern society often views history through rigid categories: religion nationalism ideology But 16th-century India did not function this way. A person’s identity in that era was shaped primarily by: loyalty to a ruler defense of homeland personal honor and dignity Religion was a private belief, not the sole basis of political allegiance. That is why: Muslim commanders served Hindu kings Hindu generals fought for Muslim rulers 📌 Such alliances were not unusual—they were normal. 13. Why Muslim Warriors Fought for Hindu Rulers Hakim Khan Suri’s decision can be understood through three historical realities: a) Regional Autonomy Mewar represented independence. Akbar’s expansion threatened local self-rule. b) Political Rivalry Afghan–Suri groups had long political conflicts with the ...