In an emphatic assertion, deputy chief minister of Rajasthan Diya Kumari recently claimed that during her tenure as a Member of Parliament in 2021, she oversaw the revision of an inscription at Haldighati to declare Maharana Pratap the victor of the 1576 Battle of Haldighati, overturning a previous narrative that recorded his defeat.Describing this as her “biggest achievement,” Kumari’s statement has ignited a firestorm of debate, touching on issues of historical accuracy, cultural pride, and the role of public figures in shaping historical narratives. Maharana Pratap, a towering figure in Indian history, is celebrated as a symbol of resistance against Mughal dominance. However, altering a historical inscription to reflect a particular outcome demands rigorous scrutiny.This rejoinder delves into the historical facts of the Battle of Haldighati, evaluates the implications of revising its narrative, and explores whether such actions restore pride or risk distorting history.The Battle of Haldighati: A historical overviewThe Battle of Haldighati, fought on June 18, 1576, was a pivotal clash between Maharana Pratap, the ruler of Mewar, and the Mughal forces led by Raja Man Singh, a trusted general of Emperor Akbar. Historical records, primarily from Mughal sources such as Abul Fazl’s Akbarnama and Abdul Qadir Badauni’s Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, provide a detailed account of the battle.These sources indicate that the Mughals achieved a tactical victory, controlling the battlefield after intense combat. Maharana Pratap, outnumbered and outmaneuvered, retreated into the Aravalli hills, where he continued his resistance through guerrilla warfare. The Mughals, despite their battlefield success, suffered significant losses and failed to capture Pratap or subdue Mewar entirely.Rajput chronicles, such as the Amar Kavya and later oral traditions, offer a contrasting perspective, emphasising Pratap’s bravery, leadership, and the legendary exploits of his horse, Chetak. These accounts frame the battle as a moral victory for Pratap, highlighting his refusal to submit to Mughal authority.Historians like R.C. Majumdar, G.N. Sharma, and K.S. Lal, corroborate the Mughal tactical victory while acknowledging Pratap’s strategic retreat and subsequent campaigns. By 1582, Pratap had reclaimed much of Mewar, demonstrating that the battle was not a decisive defeat but part of a prolonged struggle. This nuanced outcome resists binary labels of “victory” or “defeat,” reflecting the complexity of the conflict.Diya Kumari’s revision: Context and controversyDiya Kumari’s claim that she changed the Haldighati inscription to state that Maharana Pratap “won the war” aligns with a growing movement to reframe historical narratives in favour of indigenous heroes. The original inscription, reportedly stating Pratap’s defeat, likely reflected the Mughal perspective that dominated early historical records. Such inscriptions, often maintained by institutions like the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), aim to provide factual accounts for public education.Kumari’s revision, undertaken in 2021, appears to draw from Rajput traditions and nationalist sentiments that celebrate Pratap’s resistance as a triumph of spirit over material odds.However, this change raises critical questions about historical integrity. Declaring Pratap the victor oversimplifies a complex event, potentially prioritising cultural symbolism over evidence. While the revision may resonate with those who view Pratap as a national icon, it risks undermining the credibility of historical sites as sources of objective knowledge.The lack of new primary sources or archaeological evidence supporting a Pratap victory further complicates the claim, suggesting that the change may be driven by ideological or political motives rather than historical rigor.The role of inscriptions in shaping collective memoryHistorical inscriptions at sites like Haldighati serve as more than mere markers; they are educational tools that shape public understanding of the past. The original inscription, by emphasising the Mughal victory, may have marginalised the Rajput perspective, which views Pratap’s resistance as a defining act of heroism.Diya Kumari’s revision can be seen as an attempt to reclaim this narrative, aligning with broader efforts to decolonise historical interpretations influenced by Mughal or colonial records. Some would argue that the revised inscription restores Pratap’s honour, correcting a perceived injustice in how history has been presented.Yet, inscriptions carry the weight of historical authority, and altering them without robust evidence risks eroding public trust in historical narratives. The 2021 revision reflects a broader trend in India to reframe history to emphasise indigenous pride, as seen in debates over figures like Shivaji or the renaming of cities. While these efforts resonate with cultural aspirations, they must be balanced against the need for empirical accuracy to ensure that history educates rather than misleads.Cultural pride vs. historical accuracy: A delicate balanceMaharana Pratap’s legacy as a symbol of defiance against overwhelming odds is central to Rajput and Indian identity. His refusal to submit to Akbar, despite the tactical loss at Haldighati, embodies a narrative of resilience that continues to inspire. Diya Kumari’s claim that revising the inscription was her “biggest achievement” suggests a belief that correcting perceived historical imbalances strengthens cultural unity.This sentiment is echoed in public discourse, with some users on social media praising the revision as a reclamation of Rajput pride and a counter to narratives imposed by external powers.However, historical accuracy demands fidelity to evidence. The Mughal tactical victory at Haldighati is supported by primary sources, including Mughal court records and contemporary accounts, while claims of Pratap’s victory rely on later interpretations and oral traditions. By declaring Pratap the winner, the revised inscription may inspire pride but risks distorting the historical record.This tension highlights a broader challenge: how to honour cultural heroes without rewriting history to fit contemporary narratives. A more balanced approach might involve contextualising the battle’s outcome, acknowledging both the Mughal tactical success and Pratap’s enduring resistance.The political dimension: History as a toolAs a political figure and a descendant of Raja Man Singh, Diya Kumari’s role in revising the inscription carries additional layers of complexity. Critics have noted the irony of her altering a narrative tied to her ancestor’s victory, suggesting that the move may be a strategic alignment with modern nationalist sentiments.In Rajasthan, where the Rajput identity plays a significant role in politics, the revision could bolster Kumari’s image as a champion of regional pride. This raises ethical questions about the use of historical revisions for political gain. Public figures must navigate such actions carefully to avoid accusations of manipulating history for electoral or cultural leverage.The revision also reflects a broader trend in Indian politics, where historical narratives are increasingly contested to align with contemporary ideologies. From textbook revisions to monument renamings, these efforts often aim to reshape public memory in ways that resonate with current political agendas. While such actions may galvanise support, they risk polarising society by prioritising one narrative over others, potentially alienating communities with differing perspectives.Implications for historical discourse and public educationThe revision of the Haldighati inscription underscores a fundamental question: who controls history? Inscriptions, textbooks, and public monuments are battlegrounds for competing narratives, with each side vying to shape collective memory. While Diya Kumari’s actions may reflect a desire to correct historical imbalances, they also risk polarising discourse by prioritising one perspective over another.A balanced approach would acknowledge both the Mughal tactical victory and Pratap’s enduring resistance, presenting a nuanced narrative that respects evidence while honoring cultural significance.Alternative approaches could achieve the goal of celebrating Pratap without altering historical outcomes. For instance, adding contextual plaques at Haldighati to explain the battle’s dual narratives – tactical defeat and moral victory – could foster a deeper understanding of its complexity.Public discussions, educational programs, or digital archives could further engage communities in exploring Pratap’s legacy, encouraging critical thinking over dogmatic assertions. Such efforts would ensure that history serves as a bridge between past and present, uniting rather than dividing.Honouring heroes without rewriting historyDiya Kumari’s revision of the Haldighati inscription reflects a well-intentioned effort to honour Maharana Pratap’s legacy and restore cultural pride. However, historical records, supported by Mughal accounts and modern scholarship, indicate that the Mughals won the Battle of Haldighati, with Pratap’s retreat enabling his continued resistance.While the revised inscription may inspire unity and pride, it risks distorting history by prioritising narrative over evidence. As stewards of history, public figures must balance cultural reverence with empirical integrity, ensuring that sites like Haldighati educate and unite.A nuanced inscription that acknowledges both the tactical outcome and Pratap’s heroic legacy would better serve the public, fostering a richer understanding of India’s complex past. By embracing both pride and truth, we can honour heroes like Pratap without compromising the integrity of history.Hasnain Naqvi is a former member of the history faculty at St. Xavier’s College, Mumbai.