Talk:Rajput/Archive21

Holy warrior, In sanskrit ,there are 3 possible word which mean semen 1)'urdhva' 2)Tejah ( which may also mean lustre ) 3)virya,( which may also mean valour )

Your sources are incorrect. -Son of Kurus 19:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

For more information on a fair take of Rajput history and identity:

http://horsesandswords.blogspot.com/2006/04/limitations-of-rajputs.html

http://horsesandswords.blogspot.com/2005/12/rajputs-in-school-textbooks.html

http://www.airavat.com/guerrila_warfare2.htm#Kazzaki

http://www.airavat.com/

http://www.airavat.com/guerrilla_warfare3.htm ~Suryabandhu

_________________________________

Is It RUJ or RAJ Plz check Vishnu Purana I think it is Ruj not Raj in original sanskrit version meaning semen.Holywarrior 08:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Holywarrior, you were already corrected about this on the Kshatriya wikipedia page. Still spreading your senseless "bastards" theory?


 * In any case, you are wrong. Ruj does not mean semen. It means "breaking, crushing, shattering,

to break, break open , dash to pieces , shatter , destroy RV, to cause pain , afflict , injure, to cause to break ; to strike upon, to hurt, injure , kill." (Sanskrit Lexicon)

Suryabandhu

___________________________________

OTHER VERSIONS/VIEWS
Holywarrior 08:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Great Hockey Player Dhyanchand too should be included in the list of Famous Rajputs.210.211.162.204 16:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The subject raises much emotion.

for another historian's account:

Extract from R S Joon's book- History of the Jats( first printed 1938, translated and reprinted 1967)( entire book is online in the files section- membership required- all welcome)

CHAPTER VIII -JATS AND RAJPUTS

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/1087

For other material see archives and files in

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/

Best regards

Ravi Chaudhary 18:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If all rajputs originated from Jats how come rajputs always ruled over Jats? Your sources somehow do not seem trustworthy.  I have nothing against Jats they are a brave race.  But it has become a fashion in India for almost everyone to find some connection with rajputs. Worst, Indian commie hisory writerz would almost attest to anything, like hindus convrted to Islam by sufi saints, rajputs were cowrds. -Rajguru

Response> Dear Rajguru

Nowhere is it suggested that ALL rajputs originated form the Jats. Many of them are descendants of Bhils, Gonds, Gujars and so on. Some are descended from Jat clan. - Solanki, Bhatti, Pawar,

Which is why I directed you and others to the discussions in the Yahoo Jathistory group and to Joon’s book now online

The term Rajput, is unheard of prior to 11th century, and does not come into prominence until the 14th century. Upto the 15th the rulers of Mewar were still calling themselves Jats.

The Rajputs have NOT always ruled over Jats. It is only in Rajasthan, and that too for a short period that they gained prominence. That too only because they were supported in establishing their power, first by the Muslims, and then by the British.

In Punjab, modern Haryana, Western U.P, the rajput phenomena never arose. You must ask yourself why not!

All that has happened, in a nutshell, is the British Historians, James Todd etc, glorified the rajputness, and that became the line that was followed by the Indian historians that followed.

I am not going to go into discussions like Rajputs were cowards. That is unseemingly and unproductive. It is fact that they acted as the military contractors for the Muslims, conquered India for the Muslims, and later served the British, to put down the revolts of the other Indians.

You need to look no further than the main article and see what is says about the Rajput- Muslim and later on the Rajput- British relationship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajput

quote” Mughal-Rajput alliance"

Babur's son Humayun was an ineffectual ruler who perforce spend long periods in exile. His son was made of a different mettle; Akbar consolidated his inheritence and expanded what had been the "Delhi sultanate" into a wide empire. A main factor in this success was indubitably his co-option of native Rajput chiefs into his empire-building project; his reign countenanced, for the first time, the involvement of Hindus in the affairs of the empire. The Rajput chiefs collaborated with alacrity, an alliance cemented by marriage, with numerous Rajput noblewomen being wed to mughal grandees. The Kachwahas were the first to give a daughter to Akbar; they pioneered a trend that soon turned pervasive and played no small role in extending Rajput influence across the Indian sub-continent, from Bengal to Afghanistan to the Deccan. Indeed, two successive mughal emperors, Jehangir and Shah Jehan, were born to Rajput mothers.

Rajput chiefs served as mughal officers and administrators across the mughal empire and enjoyed much influence in the government. In this period, the aristocratic image of the Rajputs can be said to have finally crystallized; consequently, caste-divisions became rigid. The trend of political relations between Rajput states and the central power was the precursor for similar relations between them and the British. “”

The Jats are not looking for a connection with the rajputs, but are simply reclaiming their history, much has which been incorrectly ascribed to the Rajputs.

I will request you and others to read the material and on line books  at :

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/

You are all welcome to join the group, read the on line books, and join in, in the discussion there or here.

Normal Etiquette is expected.

Ravi Chaudhary 21:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Section title
I feel that we need to do away with section titles in Devnagari Script. If mentioning is important, it can be done in the body of the section. Wikilinking devnagari script is just redundant linking and looks poor for English encyclopedia. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

the so called mughal_rajput alliance was more of a compromise than an alliance.matrimonial alliances were sacrifices rather than alliances.after centuries of foreign rule some rajputs changed faith while others made matrimonial alliances in order to save the life,property,honour of the hindu nation.i don,t which is worst,changing your faith to save the hindu nation or making matrimonial alliances.in my opinion sacrificing one,s honour is the ultimate sacrifice.everyone suffered,most of all rajputs and then the jats.no stone was left unturned by the invaders.no hindu was safe from the foreigners.we are all one nation and one people.the differences are in lineages and professions(caste,varna).rigidity of caste came into existence as soon as caste was established.the descendants of rajrishis became rajputs(rulers and warriors) and descendants of brahmrishis became brahmins.the descendants of other people fell into the castes(professions) of their forefathers.kings passed their kingdoms to their descendants,priests passed their priesthood to their descendants and other professionals passed their professions or skills to their descendants.this is how caste became rigid.caste is about specialisation.caste wants to make a person master of his trade,not a "jack of all trades and master of none".this is what "merit" is about.some rajputs lost power and their descendants adopted other professions and that is why you find rajput tribal names in non_rajput castes.others married into non_rajput castes and passed their tribal names to their descendants.that is why you find rajput tribal names in non_rajput castes.some were thrown out of their caste for some social reasons and they lost their caste and adopted some other caste but kept their tribal identity but lost their caste status.caste or class is not unique to hinduism.it exists in other religions and cultures also.people all over the world get discriminated against for one or the other reason.at the end of the day we are all human beings and we all do have our likes and dislikes.

A useful list
Over a hundred Rajput-related pages have been vandalized overnight by User:Tamzigh, revertions being to the version just prior to my last edit. Not only my edits but those of other people have thus been erased, and two perfectly valid categories cleaned out. How does all this help the Cause? No way is this going to break the resolve of the 4-5 people who are facing this vandalism. Anyway, here is a useful list. ImpuMozhi 13:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Bimbisara
 * User:Pulastya ram
 * User:Rajat Guha
 * User:Ajat
 * User:Manthan Rudra
 * User:Chandragupta M
 * User:Purandar
 * User:Jujhar
 * User:Y not
 * User:Carbur permabanned
 * User:Tatra permabanned
 * User:Tamzigh
 * User:Arjun Singh
 * user:Partha rathore
 * User:Moulin rouge
 * User:Tykwndo19
 * User:Rajguru
 * User:Fateh Singh
 * User:131.151.90.152
 * User:202.138.112.252
 * User:220.225.171.198
 * User:60.254.51.66
 * User:64.12.116.7
 * User:220.227.204.38
 * User:192.91.75.30
 * User:192.94.94.106
 * User:192.94.94.105
 * User:192.91.75.29

Deletion
Page Rajputra History has been created by transfer from the old Rajput page. Another page named "History of Rajputs" already exists. Can the new page be deleted speedily? ImpuMozhi 14:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Help
The varmint who infests this page has had another day at his nefarious anvil. I challenge anyone to find one edit made by User:Tatra (or indeed any of the others) that is not a vandalism of my edits. Surely there must be some method of negating this unmitigated nuisance? I spent all day yesterday correcting the two previous bouts of vandalism, and wake up this morning to find it all undone, with choice edit summaries to boot. How much of my time and energy is to be expended in bandying reverts with the likes of this detestable louse? ImpuMozhi 14:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * after all the bother with this article, undiscussed or aggressive edits should be reverted with prejudice. Don't engage in spouting insults, ImpuMozhi, just revert to the last good version. Editors disrupting this article will be blocked from editing. dab (&#5839;) 15:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Why my edits were reverted
I made following edit yesterday Modern Historians tend to view rajputs as descendants of Scythic pastoral people. This theory has been sustantiated by anthropological research which has yielded compelling proofs of them being scythic.Evidence has been traced to their geneology too.Many Rajputs who call themselves of Yadav lineage too have been found to be of same scythic stock somewhat similar to Pathans following jewish customs (like circumcision on 8th day) who like Rajputs also trace their lineage from Jadon ,nothing to do with yaduvansh of lord Krishna Was I wrong in saying so.I am neither a new user nor new to the topic.I have done enough discussion on Rajputs On Kshatriya page.I am just amazed to see what kind of admin is prevailing on this page,which is trying to protect an unscientific version.Impu Mozhi should have given some kind of explanation for reverts.He not even shifted the topic to talk page.Unimpressive.Holywarrior 14:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

holywarrior,what is your caste,clan,lineage?.your so called modern historians are anti_rajput propagandists.nothing more.you cann,t swallow rajput greatness.admit it,you are jealous.jealousy is a common human trait.yadus may have mixed their blood with central asians after they migrated up north at the time of sahasra arjuna and then after the civil war at dwarka more yadus migrated up north and again mixed their blood with the central asians.if greeks,british,dutch,french,arabs can go all the way to india then why cann,t indians end up in iran,central asia and europe?.ajay singh.(contributed by user:195.8.175.8 )

well you say may have.nay it was indeed. Lineage of every individual on earth can be traced to few individuals in the past.But we are talking about historical lineages.Why do you think the people who had glorified Rajputs would be jealous of them(Todd/Cunnigham).Rajputs are only one of the martial races ,who rose to prominence for a time period.There are many more who are many many times taller than these self centric people both in terms of achievements and number of years they ruled.Talk sense.Holywarrior 13:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Map
Here is a map of approximate holdings of the Rajput kingdoms at their height in the middle-ages. Vastu 17:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Plz quote the source too.Holywarrior 15:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * guys: no wholesale reverts. I have no opinion on your edits, just add them individually. Reverts to October 2005, removing warning templates, as you just did qualifies as vandalism. If you do it again, I will protect the article for now. There has been enough fooling around here, if you want to make a change, do it and see how people react. You didn't 'make a change', you replaced the article with something entirely different. dab (&#5839;) 10:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * thanks for making a good faith edit, Holywarrior. That doesn't mean it will be accepted by everybody, but if people object to this one, they should explain themselves on talk, and reverts fall under the 3RR as content disputes (unlike the mindless sock wars that keep re-erupting from time to time). dab (&#5839;) 11:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello to all!
Hello to all. It has really been a matter of great concern that this page has remained subject to repeated edit-warring and repeated insertions of unencyclopediac contents. Such actions lower the credibility of wikipedia and results into wastage of our resources. I have always refrained from involving myself with the modification of contents of the page as I found a number of editors were already involved with the page. While I would not like to comment on the current quality of contents of the page, I quote below certain excerpts written by J. Todd in 1920. They have been since been reproduced in several contexts and texts, and also find mention in a book named Dictionary of Hindu Lore and Legend (ISBN 0500510881) by Anna Dallapiccola.

Rajput(s) ‘king’s son(s)’. Collective name designating a large number of KASHATRIYA clans, which settle in Rajasthan, and were famous for their chivalric behaviour, the prowess of their heroes and their unswerving allegiance to Hindu tradtion. Among the various legends surrounding their origin, one maintains that the Rajputs were created by the gods from the sacrificial fire pit of the sage VASISHTHA on Mount Abu to help the BRAHMINS against the onslaught of the barbarians. Thus, their lineage is known as Agni—kula or ‘fire family’. However, the Rajputs probably descend from warrior groups that invaded India from the 4th to the 7th centuries. These eventually settle and married into local families creating new clans, replacing those celebrated in the epics. Despite their various origins, Rajput clans claim to be of ARYAN descent tracing their families back to the Solar and Lunar dynasties. They played a pivotal role in fighting the Mughals and entered their service, while others persevered in their desperate resistance. The history of the Rajput clans is filled with tales of violence and warfare of celebration of heroism and martial tradition. Their strict code of honour dictatedthat, when a fort was about to fall, the men would come into the open and die fighting, while the women would commit jauhar, i.e. mass SUICIDE, to avoid being capture alive. In questions of ceremony and purity they were as strict as the most orthodox of Hindus. They took pride in their ART and ARCHITECTURE, as testified by numerous monuments, such as Hindus and Jain TEMPLES, forts, and their superbly decorated palaces. The Rajput tradition of Indian PAINTING is among the finest in India.
 * QUOTE
 * UNQUOTE

I would like to take this opportunity to wish that the contents of the page get suitably modified to reflect the reality. The claims of certain social groups who may have been descendents of Rajputs after some of their forefathers underwent voluntary conversion or were forced to convert to other religious faiths, to stake a claim to be part of the Rajput and share their cultural and historical heritage, without sharing their culture, tradition, and religion, is not acceptable and can safely be termed as a self-befooling process, particularly so when such conversions happened centuries before and the converts actively participated in destroying and defiling the Rajput’s cultural and historical heritage instead of enriching the same. We the wikipedians, as editors to an encyclopedia, must avoid such self-befooling process. Regards. --Bhadani 12:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So what is new that needs to be added,Bhadani must specify which conversion he is talking about--Conversion of Indo-scythic into Rajput or Rajput converted to Islam.Indo-Scythics had their own independant history which in noway is inferior to any race in the world that they would seek connection to other people.Holywarrior 13:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Bhadani is correct. This page as created by trolls is not a fair refelction of rajputs. It reflects only the whims and imaginations of a select few who are completely clueless about rajputs and there history. BTW if you did not get it he is talking about Muslim conversions. Y not 10:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a matter of gratification that the Rajput page, as it now stands, corrosoponds sentence-by-sentence, every sentence included, to the quotation from James Tod supplied in the preceding comment. Indeed, the corrospondence would be eerie were it not the case that much of our perception of Rajput history, much of the image we have of the community, is informed by James Tod's works of the early 1800's, which were based on an extensive survey of bardic literature and of official records maintained by various Rajput courts.
 * As far as I can make out, the desired "suitable modification to reflect reality" could only be in reference to the comments following the quotation and not pertaining to the contents of the quotation itself. Regarding the disputed claims of certain social groups, please note that the present wording does not declare that these claims are valid; it only documents the fact that there exist such claims, as evidenced by a census report: there are people who claim to be Rajputs but have social identities distinct from the mainstream community, which is of Kshattriyas belonging to 36 defined clans. This is clearly stated in the Cognate Communities section, which documents the claims of several such communities, whether Hindu, Sikh or Muslim. I had to struggle to ensure inclusion of this nuance in wording, which sets out the exact truth of the matter, and I do not know how the matter can be dealt with any better.
 * I agree that the CC section may seem a 'collection of oddities' at first glance, but while reading an encyclopaedia, one must not be surprised at having learnt something new [[image:wink.png]]. I myself was initially astonished that such claims were being pressed. It may seem incredible now, but my initial interventions on the talk-page were actually in favour of not undermining credibility by including these claims, which I regarded as untenable. One lives and learns. Regards, ImpuMozhi 14:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

ImpuMozhi has restored the Scientific Hypothesis version which I had called Scientific view.Will he explain how come with plethora of evidences Their view should still be called hypothesis.Are you not trying to derate the scientific works done on Rajputs. And what do you mean by Many people don't see...... Sounds POVish should be removed.Holywarrior 05:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC) ImpuMozhi if you don't reply as usual, I will revert your edits and you will not complain.Holywarrior 07:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

==


 * user:Arjun Singh what is this you have made so many edits in one go and all citations too have gone away,template too is not visible.Admins may not approve your action.Holywarrior 08:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Arjun Singh, if you feel strongly about this article, you should review the talk archives for an overview of its history. Reverting to the sock version outs you as another rajput sock. With the dozens of socks unleashed here, I am banning new socks without warning by now. You are welcome to work on this article, but this necessarily means that you collaborate with other editors here: discuss each change you wish to make to the current version and see what people have to say about it. You have a fair chance of changing the article, step by step, but doing major reverts is a waste of your time: they are just reverted again. This is how Wikipedia works: live with it, or put up a private homepage somewhere instead. dab (&#5839;) 11:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)