PITU GOTRA CONTD K R IRS 30524 31524 ARMED FORCES AND BRAHMINS WITH
STRANGE FACTS
I Sundararajan Padmanabhan
General PVSM, AVSM, VSM
Nickname(s) Paddy
Born 5 December 1940 (age 83)
Trivandrum, Travancore, British Raj
(now Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India)
Allegiance India
Service/branch Indian Army
Years of service 1959-2002
Rank General
Service number IC-11859[1]
Unit Regiment of Artillery
Commands held Southern Army
Northern Army
XV Corps
Awards Param Vishisht Seva Medal
Ati Vishisht Seva Medal
Vishisht Seva Medal
General Sundararajan Padmanabhan PVSM, AVSM, VSM (born 5 December 1940 in
Thiruvananthapuram, Travancore) is a former General Officer of the Indian
Army. He served as the 17th Chief of Army Staff of the Indian Army. Gen.
Padmanabhan succeeded General V.P. Malik on 30 September 2000. He also
served as Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee.
Padmanabhan was born in a Tamil Brahmin family He was schooled at the
Rashtriya Indian Military College, Dehradun. In 1956, Padmanabhan joined
the National Defence Academy and then the Indian Military Academy, from
where graduated in 1959.Padmanabhan was commissioned into the Regiment of
Artillery on 13 December 1959.
He attended the Defence Services Staff College, Wellington in 1973. Post
this, he commanded an Independent Light Battery from 1975 to 1976. He then
commanded the Gazala Mountain Regiment from 1977 to 1980. He also served as
Instructor Gunnery at the School of Artillery, Deolali and two terms as an
instructor at the Indian Military Academy.
AS a Brigadier, he attended the prestigious National Defence College, New
Delhi. He then commanded an Infantry Brigade from December 1988 to February
1991 at Ranchi, Bihar and Punjab and was then appointed as the General
Officer Commanding an Infantry Division in Punjab from March 1991 to August
1992. He served as Chief of Staff, III Corps from September 1992 to June
1993. After his promotion to Lieutenant General, he took over as the
General Officer Commanding XV Corps in the Kashmir valley from July 1993 to
February 1995. It was during his tenure as the XV Corps Commander, that the
Army made big gains over the militants in Kashmir and could even scale down
its operations. He was awarded the Ati Vishisht Seva Medal (AVSM) for his
services as the XV Corps Commander.
General Padmanabhan held the appointment of Director General Military
Intelligence (DGMI) after the successful culmination of which, he took over
as the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief Northern Command at Udhampur on
1 September 1996. Before being appointed as the Chief of Army Staff, he was
the GOC-in-C of Southern Command.He retired on 31 December 2002, after
completing more than 43 years of distinguished military service. He has
authored two books. He presently resides in Chennai.Gen. Padmanabhan is
also an author of Indian military fiction, including the 2004 novel Writing
on the Wall, the plot of which involves India fighting a war simultaneously
with Pakistan while improving relations with China.
Param Vishisht Seva Medal
Ati Vishist Seva Medal
Vishisht Seva Medal
General Service Medal
Siachen Glacier Medal
Special Service Medal Raksha Medal
Sangram Medal
Operation Vijay Medal
Sainya Seva Medal
50th Anniversary of Independence Medal
We see a line and lines of medals over their dress and some of them are
mentioned above.
25th Anniversary of Independence Medal
30 Years Long Service Medal
20 Years Long Service Medal 9 Years Long Service Medal
Lieutenant-Colonel Indian Army 16 August 1978
Colonel Indian Army 8 February 1985
Brigadier Indian Army 13 April 1986
Major General Indian Army 16 November 1991
Lieutenant-General Indian Army 1 November 1993
General (COAS) Indian Army 1 October 2000
He did not know this morning, but on the other side of the border, General
Pervez Musharraf was saying much the same: “I personally conveyed messages
to (Indian) Prime Minister Vajpayee through every international leader who
came to Pakistan, that if Indian troops moved a single step across the
International Border or the Line of Control, they should not expect a
conventional war from Pakistan.”
At the fag end of the year, just as at its beginning, fate has had a
strange way of clubbing the two generals together in the headlines. One is
a commando by training; the other an artillery officer. One has the
political authority to decide whether or not to wage war while the other
has only the military authority to prepare for war and leave the decision
to the politicians.
On January 11, Padmanabhan addressed a press conference for the first and
last time, a day before Musharraf made what was touted as a “landmark”
speech in which he promised to disband the jihadi infrastructure.
Padmanabhan — Paddy to his friends — was fielded by the government to
pre-empt Musharraf and at the same time pile on the pressure. He did his
job well, too, surprising the media and the political establishment with
his erudition and air of quiet confidence.
“We are not a flappy army,” Padmanabhan had said. “We know what to do, all
our plans are clearly laid out... yes, it is true, that (in the
India-Pakistan context) everything is under the glare of the world’s media.
But the challenge lies in retaining the element of surprise even then.”
Should Pakistan use the nuclear option, Padmanabhan went on, its existence
will be in doubt.
And now, on the eve of calling it a day, General Padmanabhan has to contend
with General Musharraf again. Musharraf has claimed it was Pakistan’s
threat to press the nuclear button that staved off a war.
At least twice in the last 12 months, India and Pakistan nearly went to
war. The first was in January and the second, in May, after the attack on
the army camp in Kaluchak, Jammu. In January, the armed forces had
mobilised in three weeks in the wake of the attack on Parliament. In May,
Padmanabhan was in Kathmandu, where he said the time was ripe to take
action. In January, the situation was defused somewhat by Musharraf’s
speech. In May-June, Vajpayee blew hot in Kupwara, on a visit to Kashmir,
and blew cold in Jammu when he said the skies are clear of war clouds.
It will be some time before the full story of Operation Parakram is known.
Padmanabhan today said “it was too close to events” for him to speak out.
He was not contemplating a book in the near future. At the same time, he
was clear that the army had presented a plan of action to the political
establishment.
“When we assess our adversaries, we assess all its capabilities. We had
evaluated it and were ready to cope with it,” Padmanabhan said when asked
if Pakistan’s nuclear threat had been accounted for.
Critics of General Padmanabhan have been known to suggest that he was
presented with a rare opportunity. Not since the Bangladesh war — not even
during the 1999 Kargil war or during Operation Brasstacks in 1987 — had an
army chief been able to fully mobilise his forces. Despite that, the
critics suggest, the army headquarters was not able to present an option
that the political establishment considered viable. Such action, they again
suggest, would not have required mobilisation on a huge scale but special
forces (commando) operations across the LoC.
Padmanabhan took charge as army chief after a series of important
assignments. He is rated most highly for his stint in Kashmir, first as
commander of the Valley-based 15 Corps and later as northern army commander.
He dared speak out his mind on the cost of retaining Kashmir — that it will
have to be a level of contained militancy that cannot be eliminated. He
even risked annoying Farooq Abdullah. He backed up political efforts to
spread confusion in the ranks of the under-ground.
“He had developed into a fine counter-insurgency expert,” said an officer
who has served under Padmanabhan.
“Maybe, that was his forte which turned out to be a handicap when presented
with the opportunity to lead a full army to war.”
There are other experts, serving and retired, who rate General Padmanabhan
as a highly accomplished officer comparable to the late General
Krishnaswamy Sundarji. No army chief, they say, has been able to ensure a
year-long training in war. The results of the total mobilisation of the
forces deserve to be assessed over the next two to three years and not
immediately.
“It is simple, really,” a retired major general pointed out. “Padmanabhan
thinks like an artillery officer. Every artillery man wants his batteries
of big guns ready at all times, keeps the powder dry, the machines oiled
and checks for defects. Padmanabhan has used the opportunity presented to
him by circumstances to do the same with the whole army. Now we know where
it is rusty and where it is not. Now we have a bedrock of information on
which to build up further.”
Padmanabhan is acutely aware of this but is not given to
self-advertisement. “We now have the best trained army. There has been a
year-long practice in waging war,” he claimed this morning.
----------------------------
OPERATION PARAKRAM BY col Gurmeet 2011
Today marks the tenth anniversary of the horrific attack on Parliament
which sparked off India’s attempt at military coercion vis-a-vis Pakistan.
But the lessons learnt seem to have been ignored. Lack of political will
and a coherent decision-making process are still lacking, thereby
undermining the nation’s credibility.
India’s first attempt at military coercion achieved only limited success.
Operation Parakram, launched in the wake of the December 13, 2001 terrorist
attack on Parliament, was the first full-scale mobilisation since the 1971
Indo-Pak war. It began on December 15, 2001 after the Cabinet Committee on
Security’s (CCS) decision and was completed on January 3, 2002. It finally
ended on October 16, 2002 when CCS belatedly recognised that the law of
diminishing returns had been operative for many months already. In a
face-saving move, CCS declared that troops were being “strategically
relocated” and constant vigil would be maintained, especially in J&K.
Though the 10-month deployment ended without a conflict, the two nations
came close to war on at least two occasions. The first window of
opportunity came in the first week of January 2002 soon after the Indian
Army had completed its slow-paced mobilisation. In the snow-bound areas of
J&K the army had relatively few options to launch offensive operations
across the LoC, but in the plains of Punjab and Rajasthan the climatic
conditions were ideal.
The United States and other Western governments, however, stepped in with
astute diplomatic manoeuvres resulting in General Musharraf’s ashen-faced
commitment in a nationally telecast speech on January 12, 2002, that
Pakistan “will not permit any terrorist activity from its soil”. India
backed-off, but troops remained in place in their deployment areas on the
international border (IB) and the three strike corps remained poised in
their concentration areas.
The second opportunity presented itself after a terrorist attack on the
family quarters in the Indian army garrison at Kaluchak near Jammu on May
14, 2002. The summer weather was conducive for offensives across the LoC in
Kashmir Valley as well as the Jammu division south of the Pir Panjal
mountains. In Punjab and Rajasthan, though the 40-degree plus temperatures
were hard on man and machine, the disadvantage was common to both the sides
and major offensive action was possible. By this time the Pakistan army had
also mobilised and was poised in defence. Despite high-pitched rhetoric and
extensive saber-rattling, the government did not approve military strikes
across the border.
While the formations responsible to defend the border – “holding” or
“pivot” corps –were ready for battle within 72 to 96 hours of receiving
orders, the three “strike corps” (1, 2 and 21 Corps) took almost three
weeks to complete their mobilisation because their fighting echelons are
based at long distances from the border. Hence, it was only in the first
week of January 2002 that major offensive action could have been undertaken
by the land forces.
This time the mobilisation was total. All leave was cancelled and the
soldiers re-called for active duty. Almost all training establishments were
closed down. Extensive operational familiarisation exercises were conducted
and operational plans war-gamed, updated and refined. Ammunition trains
brought reserve stocks to forward ammunition points. In the first week of
January 2002, expectation about the impending offensive action had reached
fever pitch and morale was at an all time high. However, the troops had no
way of knowing that the national aim was to practice coercive diplomacy.
The army also addressed shortcomings in training that initial mobilisation
had revealed. There were unacceptably large casualties and it was
officially stated that till March 15, 2002, the army had lost 176 men in
the operation due to mishaps in minefields, mishandling ammunition and
explosives and traffic accidents. The defence minister reportedly stated in
Parliament, that up to July 2003, the army suffered 798 casualties. It
clearly emerged that the army’s mine laying methodology and training and
the system adopted for marking minefields to keep civilians and cattle away
needed substantial improvement.
The cost of sustaining Operation Parakram was reported to be have been
pegged by India’s National Security Advisory Board (NSAB) at Rs 7 crore a
day. This works out to approximately Rs 2,100 crore over 10 months and,
presumably, does not include the cost of mobilisation and de-induction. The
minister told Parliament in October 2002 that Operation Parakram had cost
Rs 8,000 crore, excluding Rs 300 crore compensation paid to people in
border states where troops were deployed. Lessons Learned – and not Learned
Perhaps the most important lesson emerging from the standoff was the
inordinately long time that strike corps needed to mobilise for war. By the
time these elite formations were ready to deliver a massive punch, the
international community had prevailed upon India to give General Musharraf
an opportunity to prove his sincerity in curbing cross-border terrorism.
These strike corps are designed to penetrate deep into Pakistan and run the
risk of crossing Pakistan’s nuclear threshold early during an offensive
campaign. The lack of coherent politico-military decision-making was
clearly evident. It is not at all clear whether any military objectives
were actually assigned by the political leadership. Asked whether the
deployment was aimed at attacking Pakistan, the then army chief Gen
S.Padmanabhan, said, “There were many aims, which were fulfilled.” However,
he also said, “Whenever there is a situation calling for thearmy’s help,
the latter’s role should be well defined to avoid confusion.” Gen V. P.
Malik, General Padmanabhan’s predecessor wrote in the Tribune: “Despite
speeches and international commitments…. Musharraf’s efforts to rein in
Jihadi groups… remained cosmetic and tactical… Infiltration across the LoC
and other ISI operations continue… There is no let up in terrorist acts…”
When mobilisation began, Vijayanta tanks of 1970s vintage, artillery guns
that were even older and many other obsolete equipment were in frontline
service. Analysts pegged the overall Indo-Pak combat force ratio at
approximately 1.15:1.0 in India’s favour during the Operation. Speaking as
an MP in the Rajya Sabha less than a week after mobilisation began, former
army chief Gen Shankar Roychowdhury blamed the “recurrent political
controversies on military procurement in the last 15 years” for having
“crippled the army’s modernisation programme.” Sadly, not much has changed
in the last decade despite well-reforms in defence procurement procedures.
Inordinate delays in decision-making and bureaucratic red tape continue to
mar acquisitions, a large chunk of the defence budget is still surrendered
year after year, large equipment shortages continue to persist and a CDS is
yet to be appointed.
Strategic analysts in India were concerned at the adverse impact of the
lack of resolute action on the credibility of India’s deterrence. Former
air chief A. Y. Tipnis said at that time: “We have shown enormous patience,
now it is time to show we have resolve too. Inaction is damaging our
credibility; people have begun to believe India incapable of taking any
action.” Brahma Chellaney wrote: “The harsh truth is that the government
played a game of bluff not just with Pakistan but also with its own
military… When a nation enjoys credibility, it can usually achieve its
objectives with a mere threat to use force. However, when there are serious
credibility problems, even modest objectives are difficult to accomplish.
Vajpayee ended up practising coercive non-diplomacy.”
The aim of politico-military coercion is to induce a change in an
adversary’s policies and actions through a credible threat of devastating
punitive action in case of noncompliance. While trans-LoC terrorism from
Pakistan continued, there was a definite reduction in its intensity. On the
other hand, Pakistan steadfastly refused to either terminate the activities
of the LeT and the JeM, detain their leaders and block their funds or to
hand over even one of the 20 terrorists India had demanded. Training camps
and other facilities for terrorists also continued to operate in POK.
Hence, the government’s aim of launching Operation Parakram was only
partially achieved and the credibility of India’s coercive diplomacy and
military superiority was seriously undermined. Also, the opportunity to
strike at the roots of terrorism in POK was once again squandered. Lack of
political will was again demonstrated after the terror strikes in Mumbai on
November 26, 2008, despite credible evidence that these had been launched
by the LeT at the behest of the Pakistani army and the ISI.
As long as the Pakistani army continues to exercise a tight stranglehold
over Pakistan’s polity, unbridled control over its nuclear weapons, retains
its unjustifiable size of 500,000 personnel in uniform and enjoys American
patronage as a frontline state with MNNA (major non-NATO ally) status –
which brings with it new military equipment, loan waivers and the
rescheduling of loan payments on easier terms over longer periods – it will
have no incentive to move towards genuine peace with India. The Kashmir
issue is only the symptom of a much larger fundamental malaise. The
Southern Asian region is likely to continue to witness periodic bouts of
hostility between India and Pakistan, tempered by short interludes of
tentative peace.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
II Krishnan Raman (c. 11th century CE) was an officer in the Chola
army who served as the Commander-in-chief of the Chola forces under
Rajaraja Chola I. He held the title Mummadi Brahmarayar Niyomanam.
Krishnan Raman was a Vaishnavite Brahmin who joined the Chola Army at an
early age. Krishnan Raman joined the service of Raja Raja Chola and rose to
become an important Senapati or commander. He was given the title Mummadi
Brahmarayar Niyomanam. The Leyden Copper plates are an important source of
information about him. Krishnan Raman's achievements as an officer won him
administrative roles and he was made a Tirumandira Olainayagam, who was the
highest officer in the bureaucratic setup. Krishnan Raman became the
commander-in-chief of the Chola army under Raja Raja's son Rajendra Chola
and assumed the traditional title Rajendrachozha Brahmarayan. He was
succeeded by his son Jananathan who distinguished himself in many of the
Chola campaigns. Jananathan was known as the crest jewel of the Cholas.
Krishnan Raman is known for the religious endowments he made. He was
one of the main donors to the Peruvudaiyar temple at Thanjavur.
Inscriptions in the *Rajarajeswaram temple indicate that Krishnan Raman*
constructed the fortifications around the temple. This wall is known as
Krishnan Raman Tiruchurrumaligai. This is one of the oldest surviving
defensive walls around any Chola temple. A metal image of Ardhanariswara
was donated by him in 1014 CE. Krishnan Raman's son Maraiyan Arumoli, also
known as Uttamachola Brahmarayan, also served as Senapathi or army
commander in the Chola army. He assisted Rajendra Chola in building a
temple for Pidari near Kolar in 1033
There’re 772 plates all over the Chozha mandalam; and 55 plates were
examined by a Netherlands archaeologist cum world historian LEYDON (CALLED
LEYDON PLATES) which do contain the plates from Raja raja Chozhan. And
Indian govt is yet to get them back In all the plate wherever Rajaa Raja
Chozhan is mentioned Father was the commander; wherever Rajendra Chozhan
commanded his son was with him.
All the plates mainly from Tiruvenkatu and called tiruvalankadu plates
also. Some of them:
[17] Rajarajaâ’s conquests as described above also commenced with his
march to the south against the Pandya king.
[21] An inscription (No. 333 of 1917) recently copied at Ennayiram in
the South Arcot district (vide Madras Epigraphical Report for 1918, p. 145
f.) states that Rajendra-Chola assumed the title Gangaikonda-Chola after
defeating the kings of the north and receiving (from them) the waters of
the Ganges with all the pomp of a conqueror. This is not by itself enough
to suggest that Rajendra-Chola personally conducted the northern campaign
as suggested in the report.
Two executive (karumemarayum) officers of the king and two arbitrating
(naduvillirukkum) officers passed the order that the royal writ may be
entered in the account books just as it had been signed and issued by the
four *secretaries (Olai-nayakam)* on the strength of a letter received from
the officer who wrote the orders of the king, evidently under his direct
dictation. This order was further supported by the approval and signature
of three chief executive officers. Accordingly on the 90th day of the same
year, two officers of the department of taxes (puravuvarithinaikalam), and
the officers called varipothagam, mugavetti, varri pothaga-kanku,
variellidu, pattolai and Kizhmugavetti being present, the necessary entries
were made in the registers.
There are three dates given in the Tamil portion of the inscription. The
first which occurs in line 6 was the eight-eighth day of the sixth year
when perhaps the king orally ordered the release of Palaiyanur from being a
brahmadeya of Singalantaka-chaturvedimangalam, its inclusion as a
vellan-vagai and a devadana, and its permanent settlement. The second ate,
viz., the ninetieth day of the sixth year which occurs in line 62, was
actually the day on which the written order was issued under the signature
of the several officers of the king and was perhaps also entered in the
books of the issuing office. The third date which occurs in line 517 and is
one year and 65 days later than the second date was evidently the date on
which the grant was executed and the necessary entries made in the account
books of the villages concerned. The long delay in the execution of the
king’s order must have been due either to the complicated system of
administration or to the details of procedure adopted in separating
Palaiyanur from Singalantaka-chaturvedimangalam. [1] Perhaps before it had
become a brahmadeya of the assembly of Singalantaka-chaturvedimangalam.
(V. 61.) His son Arunmolivarma[3] was born (like another) Murari (Vishnu)
supporting on his two arms, long like the prasa (weapon), the glorious
(goddess) Sri (Lakshmi) who closely embraced the whole of (his) body, and
bearing on the palms (of his hands), the sankha and chakra in the form of
auspicious marks.
(V. 70.) Having ascertained by the marks (on his body) that Arunmoli was
the lotus-eyed (Vishnu) himself, the able protector of the three worlds
that had incarnated (on earth), Madhurantaka installed him in the office of
heir-apparent, and (himself) bore the burden of (ruling) the earth.
(V. 82.) “Since Rajaraja, an expert in war, of the (same) name as myself,
has been killed by a powerful club, I shall, therefore, kill that Andhra
(king) called Bhima though (he may be) faultless.†So saying he
(Arunmolivarman) killed him (i.e., Bhima) with a mace
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
III Raja J. Chari has a distinguished career marked by significant
achievements in both the United States Air Force and NASA. Here are some of
his notable accomplishments:
*Military Career*
1. *Service in the US Air Force:*
· Chari is a Colonel in the United States Air Force and has served
as a test pilot and commander.
· He has accumulated over 2,000 hours of flight time in various
aircraft, including the F-35, F-15, and F-16.
· He graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy with a Bachelor of
Science in Astronautical Engineering and Engineering Science.
· He also holds a Master’s degree in Aeronautics and Astronautics
from MIT.
2. *Test Pilot School:*
· Chari graduated from the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School, which
further honed his skills as a test pilot.
· He has contributed to the development and testing of new aircraft
systems and technologies, playing a crucial role in enhancing the
capabilities of the US Air Force.
*NASA Career*
1. *Astronaut Selection:*
· Chari was selected by NASA in 2017 as part of the 22nd group of
astronauts, known as the "Turtles."
· His selection was a testament to his exceptional skills,
technical expertise, and leadership qualities.
2. *Space Missions:*
· Chari was a part of the SpaceX Crew-3 mission, which launched to
the International Space Station (ISS) in November 2021.
· During this mission, he served as the mission commander, leading
the crew in various scientific experiments and operational tasks aboard the
ISS.
3. *Artemis Program:*
· Chari has been actively involved in NASA’s Artemis program, which
aims to return humans to the Moon and eventually send astronauts to Mars.
· His contributions to the program include participating in key
mission planning and training activities, ensuring the success of future
lunar missions.
*Awards and Honors*
- Chari has received several military awards and decorations,
recognizing his service and achievements in the Air Force.
- His nomination for the rank of Brigadier General by President Joe
Biden is a significant honor, reflecting his outstanding contributions to
both the military and space exploration.
*Contributions to Science and Technology*
- As an astronaut and test pilot, Chari has contributed to advancements
in aerospace technology and human spaceflight.
- His work in testing new aircraft systems has helped improve the safety
and performance of military aviation.
Overall, Raja J. Chari's achievements reflect his dedication, expertise,
and leadership in both the United States Air Force and NASA, making him a
prominent figure in the fields of aerospace and defense.
Raja J. Chari is married to Holly Schaffter Chari. Together, they have
three children.
*Family Background*
- *Spouse:* Holly Schaffter Chari
- Holly is involved in various supportive and community activities,
often participating in events and programs associated with military and
astronaut families.
*Personal Background*
- *Heritage:* Raja J. Chari is of Indian descent. His father, Sreenivas
Chari, immigrated to the United States from India, and his mother, Peggy
Egbert, is American. This multicultural background has been a source of
pride for Chari, and he often acknowledges the influence of his heritage on
his values and achievements.
Raja J. Chari's family has been a significant source of support throughout
his demanding career in the military and as an astronaut. Their support has
been vital as he balances the challenges of his professional
responsibilities with his personal life.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
IV Tatya Tope, was a renowned commander during the Indian Rebellion
of 1857, a significant chapter in India’s fight for independence. Born as
Ramachandra Panduranga Yewalkar to a respected Marathi Deshastha Brahmin
family in Yeola, near Nasik, his early life was steeped in the rich
traditions of his heritage. Tatya Tope assumed the title “Tope,” denoting a
commanding officer, and his first name, Tatya, meant General, reflecting
his future role as a leader.
A devoted follower of Nana Saheb of Bithoor, Tatya Tope’s journey in the
rebellion began with great zeal. He played a pivotal role in crucial
battles, including the capture of Gwalior alongside Rani Lakshmibai of
Jhansi. Despite his determination, he faced defeats at the hands of General
Napier’s British Indian troops, leading to the abandonment of certain
campaigns.
Official records revealed that Tatya Tope hailed from a Maratha
Vashista Brahman
lineage, his father being Panduranga Yewalkar, and his mother, Rukhma Bai.
His stature and distinctive appearance, always adorned with a white
chukri-dar turban, left a lasting impression on those who encountered him.
Tragically, Tatya Tope met his fate at the hands of the British Government,
facing execution at Sipri (now Shivpuri) on 18th April 1859. His story
remains a poignant testament to the struggle of countless Indians during a
pivotal era in the nation’s history.
Catalytic Moments: Tatya Tope’s Role in the Indian Rebellion of 1857
Following the eruption of the Cawnpore (Kanpur) rebellion on 5 June 1857,
Nana Saheb emerged as the leader of the insurgent forces. After the British
forces in Cawnpore capitulated on 25 June 1857, Nana was formally acclaimed
as the Peshwa later that month. Following a defeat, Nana’s troops were
compelled to retreat to Bithur. Subsequently, Havelock’s forces crossed the
Ganges, prompting a retreat to Awadh. It was during this period that Tatya
Tope assumed the role of Nana Saheb’s representative in Bithur.
Tatya Tope played a significant role in the tragic events of the Cawnpore
massacre on 27 June 1857. Despite the onslaught, Tope managed to maintain a
resilient defensive position until he was eventually dislodged by the
British forces on 16 July 1857. Later, he engaged in a fierce confrontation
with General Cyrill during the Second Battle of Cawnpore, commencing on 19
November 1857 and lasting for seventeen intense days. However, Tope and his
army met defeat when the British, under Sir Colin Campbell, launched a
decisive counterattack. Following this setback, Tope and fellow rebels
sought refuge with the Rani of Jhansi, extending their support to her cause
during these challenging times.
K RAJARAM IRS 30524 31524
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZoo-HbS%2BCWYG0gD4XR%2BLS2h54EzU_03iwUaGCB8TyrH2sg%40mail.gmail.com.
