A single comment from a politician has thrown history into the hot seat, stirring up a storm that’s got everyone talking.
On March 21, 2025, Samajwadi Party (SP) MP Ramji Lal Suman stood up in the Rajya Sabha and dropped a bombshell: he said that Rana Sanga, the legendary 16th-century Rajput ruler, was the one who invited Mughal emperor Babur to India to take down Ibrahim Lodi, the Sultan of Delhi. And he didn’t stop there — Suman branded Rana Sanga a "traitor", setting off a firestorm that’s spilled from Parliament to the streets.
The Controversial Statement
Suman’s words were sharp and deliberate. During his speech, he challenged what he sees as double standards in how history is judged. During his parliamentary speech, Suman questioned the selective criticism of historical figures, stating:
“Indian Muslims don’t worship Babur as some hero”, he said. “But let’s ask the real question: who brought Babur here? It was Rana Sanga, who called him in to beat Ibrahim Lodi. So if Muslims are tagged as Babur’s descendants, then shouldn’t Hindus be called the descendants of the traitor Rana Sanga? We’re quick to bash Babur, but why does Rana Sanga get a free pass?”
It was a provocative jab, and it hit a nerve.
Political Reactions
The fallout was immediate and intense. The Rajput community, proud of Rana Sanga’s legacy as a warrior king, didn’t take kindly to the "traitor" label. Members of the Karni Sena, a Rajput group, stormed to Suman’s residence in Agra, staging fiery protests that turned ugly — clashes broke out, and police officers ended up injured in the chaos. The anger was palpable, with many feeling Suman had insulted a revered figure. But not everyone’s against him. SP chief Akhilesh Yadav stepped in to back his MP, saying history shouldn’t be a one-sided blame game and that tough discussions like this need to happen. It’s a classic political divide — outrage on one side, defiance on the other.
Historical Context and Debate
So, what’s the real story? Did Rana Sanga actually invite Babur? History doesn’t give us a straight answer — it’s more like a puzzle with missing pieces. Some old accounts float the idea that Rana Sanga, a powerful Rajput leader, might’ve reached out to Babur for help against Ibrahim Lodi, who ruled Delhi in the early 1500s. The theory goes that Rana Sanga saw Babur as a useful ally to topple a common enemy. Babur did defeat Lodi in 1526 at the Battle of Panipat, kicking off Mughal rule in India. But here’s where it gets messy: just a year later, in 1527, Rana Sanga was leading a massive coalition against Babur at the Battle of Khanwa — and he lost. That fight paints them as bitter enemies, not buddies. Historians argue over this: was there a deal that soured, or is the "invitation" story a stretch? It’s a gray area, and that’s what’s fueling the fire now.
Conclusion
Suman’s comment has ripped open a sensitive wound, showing just how much history still matters in today’s politics. Calling Rana Sanga a traitor isn’t just a throwaway line — it’s a spark that’s lit up protests, debates, and some serious soul-searching. Sure, digging into the past can help us understand where we’re at, but it’s a minefield. One side’s hero is another’s villain, and the truth? It’s tangled up in centuries of dust. This whole uproar is a reminder: when history and politics collide, it’s less about facts and more about feelings — and we’d do well to tread carefully.