Talk:Rai Sahasi II

Another BS POV fork

 * With dubious claims taken from fake references from Cheema.Needs AfD.Hkelkar 12:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Raja Sahasi II A Rajput ruler ??
I doubt the claim that Raja Sahasi II was a last Raput ruler. The term Rajput had not come in use at that time. In Chachanama the word has been used only one time. Thakur Deshraj is one of the prominent Jat Historians. He has mentioned about Rajputs in his book on Jat history page 113-114, w.r.t Imperial Gazetteer of India Vol 2 (page 307-308),
 * "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 appearanca in 8-9th centuries; most of the greatest clans took possession of their seats between 800 and 850 AD.

Thakur Deshraj has mentioned in "Jat History" book at page 700 that Raja Sahasi II was a Mauryan jat. Rai was his title. Consequent reactions of Jats in Sindh against the rule of Raja Dahir seem to prove this theory. He has mentioned on page 703 about treachery of one 'Kaka' of Channa clan, who mixed up with Mohammad Bin Qasim, which led to victory of Mohammad Bin Qasim. Facts may be further verified. burdak 12:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have remedied the issue mentioned in the above, 6-year-old thread.  dci  &#124;  TALK   05:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Rai Sahasi II was a Rajput ruler. This fact is authenticated by Chachnama. Because Rana Maharath of Chittor attacked Chach claiming his right to kingdom as he was Rai Sahashi's brother. Now, it is a known fact that Chittor was a Rajput kingdom. So adding back Rajput again. Jethwarp (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems a sensible edit - I've gone through and fixed some language issues. I don't think I changed the meaning of anything, but please feel free to edit further if I did. I also removed the coherent subject tag. I think the subject is clear - the individual in question - but there is some extra information about his successor that confuses it a little bit. I think that's important but I think expanding the rest would resolve any concerns, rather than tagging for coherence when the lack of coherence isn't really clear. If that makes sense...? Stalwart 111  09:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * All looks good, and I agree with Jethwarp about including "Rajput." My intention is to take on Muhammad bin Qasim, but I don't have abundant time at the moment and will begin working on it later today.   dci  &#124;  TALK   13:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)