I have often been asked about where the truth lies regarding the supposed grave of Prithviraj Chauhan in Ghazni. It has grabbed public attention ever since the Sher Singh Rana episode.

Mr. Rana mentions in a facebook live address that Prithviraj killed one of the Ghori brothers (Shahabuddin and Ghiyasuddin) with the shabdavedhi arrow at Damiak, Pakistan near the authentic border at Indian province of Kashmir.

https://www.facebook.com/ranashersingh17/videos/5111009919020537

As Mr. Rana was fumbling while mentioning the exact year of this incident. I couldn’t pin it and have to content with a range of few years just after 1200 AD ( likely 1203/1206 AD).

The testimony of contemporary and near contemporary sources in both Indian and Muslim traditions exposes the glaring gaps in his statements. Some of the points to prove that our King died in Ajmer :

None of the contemporary and near-contemporary muslim sources like Taj-ul-Maasir and Jawami-ul-Hiqayat, etc mention Prithviraj being in Ghazni ever. They either mention his death around the battlefield of Tarain, or in Ajmer. Most importantly they put his demise immediately or soon after the battle of 1192 AD, not 10_15 years later.On the Indian side again, near-contemporary Jain sources ‘Kanyanayaniya Mahavir Pratima Kalpa’ and ‘Prabandha Chintamani’ point us towards death in Ajmer.Hammir Mahakavya also says that Prithviraj’s younger brother Hariraj did the last rites of fallen hero, which again suggests death in Ajmer and not Ghazni for sure. Hariraj had succeeded Prithviraj on the Ajmer throne. Dhili genealogy tells us that Ghori won Delhi from Tomars within weeks of winning Tarain. Muslims sources also mention few others places/outposts around Tarain that the muslim armies occupied after the Tarain battle, as part of consolidating the gains.
Amidst all this, where did Ghori have the time to : 1) leave India, go back to Ghazni with Prithviraj, 2) torture and kill Prithviraj and 3) then come back to India, launch another campaign to take Delhi. Considering the logistics and marching pace of 12th century armies, it is simply impossible.

It is also baffling and beyond reason to assume that an important Indian King was in captivity of Ghurids from 1192 AD to 1203/06 AD. Yet no source mentions about this longer than a decade’s captivity of his, not even the Raso which takes him to Ghazni by the way.

Whether Ghori wanted to negotiate with Prithviraj, torture him or kill him. All of these could easily be done while he was staying in India. He didn’t need to lose his momentum in India after a much-awaited & spectacular victory. It was time to solidify the precious gains and not illogically sprint back home. That is what the smart and wily Shahabuddin did as well.

What we just said finds a very close precedent. When Ghori had earlier got hold of the last Ghaznavid royalty in Lahore by deceit. He didn’t escort them to Ghazni personally. He had them sent to Ghazni as captives (killed later), while Ghori himself stayed back in the Punjab region to consolidate his gains.

Then what about the supposed grave of Prithviraj Chauhan in Ghazni?
Polarizing narratives have their own needs. It was a public motivational resource for local muslim powers in Afghanistan to propagate Prithviraj as a beaten kafir foe to spit upon. Such needs necessitate the creation of their own memories and they need not conform to the plain old vanilla truth.
We see similar trajectory in India where on one side the ‘char bans chaubis gaz’ echoes even today. While on the other you would see numerous graves with dubious to no historical tracking in/around Bahraich. These are touted as being the remains of Ghazis who fought with Salar Masud in the iconic battle of Bahraich, while muslim forces are said to had a devastating defeat with hardly any survivors, just like Tarain-II for Rajputs.

It is also said wrongly by Mr. Rana that upon being captured in the first battle of Tarain, Ghori says that he was just the deputy of his elder brother the Sultan and was simply following orders.
This utterance of Ghori is found only in Ferishta’s account which comes 400 years after the events. There as well Ghori makes this statement only just before the second battle of Tarain when both armies were pitched in camps against each other and indulging in diplomacy. It wasn’t same d by Ghori after his defeat and the supposed capture in the first battle of Tarain as Mr. Rana claims.

There are multiple reasons why Prithviraj did not pardon Ghori in the first battle of Tarain and we have covered them in our book. One of them relates to the Indian outpost of Sarhind which Ghori captured just before Tarain’s first battle.
Ghori had placed a garrison of 1200 soldiers in Sarhind fort under Ziauddin Tolaki and asked him to hold the fort till he comes back from Ghazni. Things didn’t go per plan when the Rajput armies arrived swiftly and Ghori had to turn back from his return journey to face them.

If Ghori was captured in Tarain-I, then obviously Prithviraj Chauhan would demand from Ghori to first empty the Sarhind fort of his garrison. Shahabuddin Ghori, then at mercy of Prithviraj, would have readily obliged in order to live [ By the way, fall of Sarhind outpost was the trigger of both the Tarain battles ].

History however tells us differently. We know from contemporary/near-contemporary sources that the Ghurid garrison at fort of Sarhind didn’t vacate. It was under siege for months even after the battle of Tarain-I. Per Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, the garrison fell only few months before Ghori returned to India for the second battle of Tarain. It means that in Tarain-I, Ghori wasn’t even captured that the question of pardon or meeting such demands would arise.

Based on multiple muslim sources, it seems that post Tarain-I the Rajputs had chased the fleeing Ghurids for 40 miles up to the Sutlej river where the border was back then.

At the same time of 15-16th centuries’ junction when Raso was gaining mainstream popularity, Ferishta too was writing a comprehensive history of Muslim dynasties. He covers the history of Prithviraj, Ghori and Tarain episodes etc. Yet Ferishta makes no mention of Shahabuddin’s or Ghiyasuddin’s death at the hands of Prithviraj Chauhan. He writes of Prithviraj being captured and executed not far from Tarain.

Summing up the sources forms an interesting picture. In terms of the lifespan and death of important figures, muslim sources present a more consistent picture throughout the centuries. Centuries after Tarain, with the arrival of Mughals, the Indian sources (like Raso) however diverge in a big way from their predecessor accounts’ narrative.

Considering the above evidences, it is clear that Prithviraj Chauhan wasn’t taken to Ghazni. Accordingly the remaining assertions of Raso and Mr. Rana are questionable at the least.

Mr. Rana is also at pains that people question shabdavedhi bana incident and consequently the greatness of Prithviraj as well. His subsequent emphasis on connecting the shabdavedhi bana and greatness, betrays a constraint that for Prithviraj Chauhan to be great, he must fire the shabdavedhi bana or else all is lost. I don’t know whose compelling reasons necessitate this portrayal. Because there is plenty in the life of Prithviraj which is more factual than the shabdavedhi and which also makes him great.

Mr. Rana then continues that Raso’s author Chandavardai must have gone to Dhamiak/Ghazni looking for Prithviraj after more than 10 years of the captivity since the 2nd battle of Tarain. This fiercely violates against the nature of close relationship between Prithviraj and Chandavardai, as depicted in the latter’s Prithviraj Raso. In the Raso, Chandarvardai’s journey takes place immediately after the battle and captivity of the King. He is shown desperate to reach Prithviraj and undertakes an arduous trip of more than 30 days disregarding thirst and hunger. Are we supposed to believe this best friend of Prithviraj forgot about him for 10-12 years before the resurgance of a sudden emotional outburst?

After arguing that Shahabuddin’s tomb is in a jail within the kot Dhamiak because he died there only at the hands of captive Prithviraj. Mr. Rana then also guesses that the King killed by Prithviraj’s shabdavedhi could have been Ghiyasuddin!

Can we please be sure of who he killed. In any case, no source of history mentions Ghiyasuddin to have died at Dhamiak/Ghazni at the hands of a kafir King. His tomb is in Herat from where he ruled. Muslim chroniclers consistently maintain that Ghiyasuddin managed in the north and west while Shabuddin in the south and east (toward India). Going by the great logic of tombs by Mr. Rana (that they’re built exactly where the person died), shall we shift Prithviraj to Herat as well now?

Coming to Mr. Rana’s repeated argument that there used to be a jail in the fort and why would the Ghurid Sultan be buried in jail if he hadn’t died there (supposedly at the hands of Prithviraj).
There is no evidence to indicate that such a jail was operative in that Fort during the time of Ghiyasuddin or Shahabuddin Ghori. If it was, then the last Ghaznavid royalty captured by Shahabuddin in 1180s would have been sent to Dhamiak and not Ghazni as the case is.

Mr. Rana also states that since Shahabuddin Ghori was called a shahid, so he must have been killed by a kafir and hence Prithviraj Chauhan. I don’t know why he forgets that Ghori’s death as recorded in muslim sources is at the hands of a band of Kokhar assassins who then happened to dwell in good numbers in both faiths – Hindu and Muslim.

Numerous sources on both sides clearly state that Prithviraj Chauhan had died in 1192 AD, including the earliest Indian sources like Prabandha Chintamani and KanyaNayaniya Mahavir Pratima Kalpa. Despite this, Mr. Rana keeps stressing without evidence that the Ajmer King died in 1203 or 1206 AD.

How far are we going to stretch things, just to buttress the narrative that we want to tell the world. Has truth become so inimical to tell?