Talk:History of Rajasthan

Citations needed for historical facts
The article mentions in ancient history section about kingdoms of Rajputs in 6th century. The term Rajput was invented about 7th century AD. It seems speculation. Thakur Deshraj is one of the prominent Historian. He has mentioned about Rajputs in his book on Jat history page 113-114, The Gazetteer of India Vol 2 (page 307-308), Which deals with the Rajputs writes as under:


 * "Then between the 7th and 8th centuries the old racial divisions passed away and a new division came in founded upon status and function.... The rise of Rajputs determined the whole political history of time. They made their first appearance in 8-9th centuries; most of the greatest clans took possession of their seats between 800 and 850 AD. ..."

In view of these facts the ancient history of Rajasthan needs revision. If the contributors feel they have facts they may provide in the article. So I have put citation tags. --burdak 04:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:INDIA Banner/Rajasthan workgroup Addition
Note: WP India Project Banner with Rajasthan workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Rajasthan or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate, please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) - 07:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing claim of gujars as rajasthan was a gujarrastra
I am removing this line as I have checked the reference link and it says this implies to a neighboring state Gujarat not rajasthan. Gujarat was refered as gujar rastra not rajasthan.115.119.104.226 (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Potentially Problematic Use of "self-respect" and "sacrifice" in this entry
I have some concerns regarding the use of the terms "self-respect" and "sacrifice" in the following sentence in this entry:

"The traditional sacrifice and the self-respect of the Rajput women are also worth mentioning while discussing the imperial rule of Rajasthan during the medieval epoch."

Clearly, no person should ever have to choose between death and being subjected to a loss of sexual autonomy and agency. However, the unfortunate truth is that women have often been deprived of their autonomy by means of rape in the aftermath of wars and other conflicts. In this context, to some women, the personal decision to take one's own life in order to prevent being deprived of one's agency and autonomy may seem like the right choice. Others may decide to live through this horrific deprivation, hoping to regain agency and autonomy gradually. Neither choice need be glorified or privileged over the other. It is an entirely personal choice that each woman makes for herself.

Nevertheless, in many patriarchal societies, women who "fight bravely" to protect their "honour", even to the point of death or grave injury (here honour is a proxy for sexual "purity" or "chastity") are exemplified as "good" and "honourable", whereas those who do whatever it takes to survive (including cooperate with those who are attempting to molest or rape them) are viewed suspiciously and may even find themselves subjected to further abuse by their families and/or society at large.

Given this broader context, the use of the term "self respect" and "sacrifice" in this wiki entry seems problematic to me. Characterizing the decision to commit suicide in order to prevent the loss of one's sexual autonomy as a demonstration of one's "self respect" reinforces the notion that self respecting women must choose "sexual purity" over their lives. That is, it ties sexual purity with self respect, when in fact, the two need not necessarily be inseparable. The use of the term "sacrifice" in turn strengthens the patriarchal notion that a woman's sexuality is a fragile community asset rather than merely one of the myriad expressions of her agency and autonomy. For whom is this sacrifice?

Rather than use these problematic terms, I think that an encyclopaedic entry should use more neutral language. A simple sentence such as the following might suffice:

"the practice of jauhar merits mention here".

Pre history is added in Ancient History.
The Ancient History section is wholly dedicated to pre history which should be a different section. There is nothing in the article about ancient history which should be added in the ancient history. Sajaypal007 (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in History of Rajasthan
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of Rajasthan's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Crump and Toh. Page 208": From History of Jaisalmer: Crump and Toh, p. 208. From Rawal Jaisal: Crump and Toh. Page 208. 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Maharaja Suraj Mal.jpg