Talk:Rajput/Archive 15

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between DATE and DATE.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Foo/Archive02. (See How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. 68.239.123.110 04:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Intersting
This seems to be an interesting free access online book related to Rajput women... I thought it might be of interest to some of the editors here. gren グレン 11:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Found the Mirabai part interesting. Ss india 12:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ss (Shiv, Ss, Sisodia), I was not talking about the "everyday norm". I was talking about the "rule" that Shiv tried to prove. Remember when something is said to be a rule, it is a rule. Shiv pointed it out to make a point that Sir Denzil Ibbetson was not aware of Rajput customs or their values. My point, as I know you have very well understood, is that religion was not thought of that big of a problem by the "Great" Rajput kings of the past (whose lineage many of us claim) and thus Shiv's point was absolutely false. As far as your claim about everyday life is concerned, I think the history will repeat itself only if some Muslim emerges to be that powerful again:).


 * And if you read Raja's comment more carefully, he was not implying that Salahuddin was a Rajput, he was saying that as Hindus have Khastariyas, Islam has Mujahids for the same purpose and he gave an example of Salahuddin in order to make it easier to compare. As far as Rajput not being Khashtariyas is concerned, Rajputs were "given" the title of "Khastariyas" they did not have it be default so it is clear that one does not need to be a "Khastariya" if he is a Rajput. You negate this idea and you are saying that all your ancestors who came before Rajputs being annointed as "Khashtariyas" were not Rajputs.


 * I'm not sure what rule you are talking of, but aren't there exceptions to every rule. Lets talk more on this 'rule', and we will see. I hope you do realise that all Kshatriyas are not Rajputs, but Rajputs are Kshatriyas. Giving anyone the Kshatriya title (assuming some outsiders were given this - I wonder), means making them a part of the caste system, and the religion. Once out of the religion, there is no meaning left in the claim. Just like the people corresponding to the other castes but following different religion are not going to use the same terms as 'Brahmin' etc. If you claim a royal ancestry, you can always use a similar term. Call it an anti-muslim stance if you will, but once converted they simply lose their position within the Hindu society, and not much can be done about that. A simple (perhaps sad and hard to face fact), but you will find numerous instances of this both in real life and in fiction. You can travel through India if you haven't and you can see the segregation - perhaps Jodhpur would an interesting place for you to start. In literature, there are any number of authors you can pick up - try Amrita pritam if you want to read a frank though unpleasant portrayal of the horrors caused by the forced conversion in pre-partition India. Ss india 10:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Finally by saying Don't ponder too much on Hindu philosophy, I guess its sufficient to say here that it doesn't preach people to think that whatever they can reach out and grab is theirs to take. are you concluding that the act of attacking other people and conquering their lands is against Hinduism and those who commit this are bad Hindus and should be resisted?

خرم Khurram 14:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ofcourse this will depend on the context isnt it. There are right and wrong among all people, and everyone likes to believe he is on the right side, and will oppose the wrong, bad guys. Ss india 10:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ss india,
 * You are right when you say that "Khastariya" is a religious term and is associated with only Hinduism. Here I would like to make a few points. First the division of "Khashtariya" was first given by "Mannu" in "Mannu Samrati" and it was included in the religion after that so it is not something that was in the Hinduism from the begining. Secondly the "Rajupts" were not always "Khashtariyas", they were given the title of "Khashtariyas" by the Brahmins to suppress the Buddism and this task they completed with excellence. Finally, today more and more Hindus are denouncing the division of Mannu and these include Hindus of all castes and sects and I will not be surprised if the Hindus of the later half of this century completely abandons this concept. Anyway the point that I am trying to make is that being a Rajput and being a "Khashtariya" are two different things. If you are a Hindu and a Rajput then you are a "Khashtariya" but if you are not a Hindu, you can not be a "Khashtariya" but you can still be a Rajput and this is the fact that is evident for almost a thousand years of history. All along history Muslim Rajputs were considered as legitimate Rajputs and still today they are. As a matter of fact I was very much surprised by the comments on this talk page since I had Hindu Rajput friends back home and here in the US and never did anyone say to me that I am not a Rajput. I got hold of Sir Denzil Ibettson's work to know more about the issue and the historical standing of Hindu Rajputs on this issue and yet he clearly stated in his work that changing one's religion does not change one's caste. We also see that during British Raj, the army units had specific qouta for "Muslim Rajputs" and we still witness the acknowledgement of "Muslim Rajputs" officially in India today. How was it possible that a group as powerful as Rajputs were allowed the government to propogate something that was not only against their belief but rather insulting to their lineage and honour?


 * Even the wars between Pakistan and India witnessed on many occassions the mutual respect and acknowledgement by the Rajputs of all religions to each other. What Raja, Zora, Goethean, Wisesabre and myself are trying to say is that Muslim, Hindu and Sikh Rajputs had always been recognized as kins and legitimate Rajputs in the history and there is no reason why it shouldn't be such even today and in the days to come. I agree with your reply to the religion question but I am afraid that comparing a religion's teachings with those of another is a completely different debate so I will refrain myself from indulging into it.

خرم Khurram 15:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Dude, there is no such term as Khastariya in Hindu society. Probably you meant Kshatriya. Next time get some education before opening your big mouth.

-- sisodia

Sisodia, do you know a term called "Proper noun"? And as far as education is concerned, I have said earlier, mine is far more and better than yours. BTW what class are you in? ;)

خرم Khurram 20:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

It is clear you do not know difference between a "common noun" and a "proper noun". It is also obvious who is better educated. Shivraj Singh 04:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

So you are saying that "Khashtariya" is a "common noun" ? Interesting.

خرم Khurram 16:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Debate, or writing an article?
I have a feeling that you guys are having so much fun bashing each other that you've forgotten we're here to write an article. I put up a draft of a new verson at Talk:Rajput/Temp. Could please help me with it? Zora 07:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Something to lighten the mood
This is indeed funny. Apparently I am blocked from editing this page because I am "screaming and threatening". Really!! Just go to blocked users' list and you will find my name there.

Come on my muslim friends. What is so threatening about me? I won't jump out of your computer monitors and beat you up. Have some heart. You are all 'Rajputs' afterall, aren't you.

sisodia

Sisodia,

I am sorry to hear that you were banned. Although I don't know who reported you but you knwo banning someone is an action taken by the admins and they do not take an action just because of reporting. I would suggest that you contact them and inquire about why were you banned. "Threatning" anyone is not nice anyway during a "civil" conversation and I think this is a wikipedia policy. As far as jumping out of monitors is concerned, I think many of us wish that only if you can :)

خرم Khurram 15:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Claims of Iranians being rajputs
b) Muslim claim: Muslims like Ghori's followers etc should be considered rajputs. Shivraj Singh 18:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You seem very confused at this point. We dont assert this at all. You are very preoccupied with your own assumptions here. A mild point ref this was made by wisesabre I believe in a theoretical sense, but not supported or asserted by us or him. Drop the argument, it's stale.--Raja 13:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Real Rajputs, are tall, strong, Caucasian, light or lighter skinned, disciplined, smart and tough. They don't look or act

like any of the Hindus. That is because the true Rajput is a foreigner who comes from the regions around Iran, Turkmenistan,

Afghanistan, Turkey and Khazakstan. Even a blind person can notice this. Hindu is just a term British and Muslims coined for

the countless races and religions which make up South Asia. But Scythian Rajputs are of Iranian, Turkish and some Greek blood.

Scythians, White Huns, Medes, Hephthalites are the Turkish, Iranian and Central Asian ancestors of the Scythian Rajputs.

Rajput is a racial term, I know most people aren't Rajputs in India, so they want to erase the truth. But looks and actions do

not lie. The real Rajputs are nothing like the rest of the people in India and Pakistan.


 * Wisesabre/Khakhan and yourself have spoken words to this effect. Do not hide behind the veil again. Shivraj Singh 17:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Wake up and smell the coffee. It's stale. We dont hide, you're the one stuck on the path of stubborness, not us--Raja 19:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Here are the excerpts that have amused me over last few months. Let us enjoy some more denials and hiding behind the veil..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajput/Archive01#Baseless_arguments_against_Rajputs

many outsiders were upgraded to Rai/Raja/Rajput status through might and war became Rajas i.e. the Ghakkar/Kokar who are essentially Iranian Sassanids, but gained Royal title and acceptance as one through sheer determination and unrelenting campaigns against other powerful clans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajput/Archive03 ''Another good example of this is the Ghakkar/Kokkar Sassanids. They were ousted from Iran and they gained settlement in India. They were a Royal Dynasty which ruled Iran for 600years. During their stay in India, they rested not on their laurels but fought for many centuries. They adopted the Hindu faith for a period, then accepted Islam (the majority). Their martial blood never let up regardless the faiths they converted to. The mentality was essentially the same throughout the centuries, over a 1000yrs of which is recorded in India history. Does this mean that they were only noble, valiant and martial whilst they were Hindus? They weren't Chandravanshi, Suryavanshi or Agnikula, yet they were called Rajput by the Pundits of their respective conquered regions due to their warlike nature and noble brave acts. Many authentic Rajput houses even engaged in marriage between these 'New Rajputs' despite the well known tradition that Rajputs don't marry non Rajputs. This essentially Iranian Dynasty which interchanged between 3 faiths in the last millenium has retained this status from the REAL Rajputs who had power and prestige of the day (not us modern day speculators- but the living and breathing Royals of the Rajput era. I don't consider todays 'Rajput Houses' as one of those, who are powerless remnants of the past.) It is a well known fact that Scythic and Hunnic tribes were absorbed into the fold as Kshatriyas/Rajputs too. So even lineage itself has been questioned here. It is therefore more status based than Religion based.''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajput/Archive03. Here one of you is trying to say even saladin was somehow a jihadi rajput.

''All these points prove that a Rajput is a product of both nature and nurture. Born into a house of ideals, raised with a Martial upbringing with a strong sense of honour and nobility. Thus we Muslim Rajputs may not be Kshatriyas, but we are Mujahids, which means 'one who engages in Jihad' and the ideals of a Mujahid are much more strenuous and honour bound in the sense that we must act with the knowledge that we will be accountable to our Lord one day..... . It was this similarity that made the transition from Hindu Kshatriya Rajput into a Muslim Mujahid Rajput an easy one seeing as the ideals are extremely similar. A perfect example of a perfect Mujahid Royal can be seen in Sultan Salauddin Yusuf Ayyubi of the Crusades who liberated the Holy Land from the Crusaders.''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajput/Archive11

''One thing I have noticed in this article about Muslim Rajputs is that they somehow feel it is somewhat less prestigious to be a Rajput than an Arab. The authors’ observation regarding Wattu and Kharral families is eye-opening. They bend over backwards to deny their Rajput roots.''

http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/punjabis.html

''Almost 60% of the population of the Punjab comprises of Rajputs and Jats and the various branches of their race such as Awans, Khokhars, Ghakkars, Khattars, Janjuas, Arains, Gujjars, etc. though the Awans, Khokhars and Khattars claim common ancestry from Qutb Shah who is said to have come from Ghazni with Mahmud Ghaznavi, scholars hold the view that they were most probably converted by Qutb Shah during Mahmud Ghaznavi's reign and were not his descendents. This tendancy of claiming foreign origin by some of the local tribes is not uncommon. Even admittedly Rajput tribes of famous ancestry such as the Khokhar, have begun to follow the example of claiming connection with the Mughal conquerors of India or the Qureshi cousins of the Prophet.''

''A branch of the Wattu Rajputs of the Sutlej by an affection of peculiar sanctity, have in the course of a few generations become Bodeas and now deny their Rajput and claim Qureshi origin. There is a Kharral family lately settled in Bahawalpur who have begun to affect peculiar holiness and to marry only with each other and their next step will certainly be to claim Arab descent.''

Though Arains claim Iranian descent, they too are generally considered of Rajput origin, but Rajputs having Scythian-Kushan-Hun origins are indeed related to Iranians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajput/Archive11

''Pakistan Govt. routinely names its missiles after Muslim conquerors of India like Ghauri, Gaznavi and Babur. (In fact I wonder why haven’t they come up with a missile called ‘Taimoor’, probably they are saving that name for the first ICBM they make. ) Anyway, since Punjab was the first Indian province in the path of these invaders, it is reasonable to assume that Punjab bore the brunt of the fury of these boys. And since Punjabi Muslims were martial and warlike people (we all seem to agree on this, don’t we ), it is also reasonable to assume Punjabi Rajputs crossed swords with invaders.''

''In fact there is historical evidence for this. Ghauri was killed by Khokhars’ in a battle. Babur was given tough time by Yusufzais (not Rajputs, but another ‘martial’ race of Pakistan nevertheless). Mahmud Gaznavi’s battles with Hindu Shahi kings are too well known to be mentioned. Hindu Shahi kings were Punjabi Rajputs, most probably early Janjuas.''

''So my point is that, why doesn’t Pakistanis name their missiles after Jaipal (Hindu Shahi king who defended Punjab against Gaznavi), Dahir (who defended Sindh against Arabs) or the Khokhar chief who didn’t let Ghauri go unchallenged from Punjab. Isnt this the typical behavior of converted people; Desperately trying to identify with the invaders who defeated their ancestors.''

''Let’s face it Raja, Khurram etc. You guys are in minority. Even the Pakistan Govt prefers to identify more with Ghari and Gaznavi than Dahir and Jaipal. Islamic identity supersedes bloodlines in Pakistan, even if it means celebrating the defeat of their ancestors and honoring the enemy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajput/Archive11

''But to take pride in their bloodline is a must for being a Rajput. After all, the term ‘Rajput’ is an ethnic marker and not a religious one. How can one call oneself a Rajput if even after knowing the depredation of Turks and Mughals in their homelands one honors them by naming missiles after them.''

''I quote following text from the stories of Sayid Bhuta, a Punjabi author. Full text can be found at''

http://www.lokpunjab.org/articles/stm_articles/article_detail.asp?ID=186&No=1

''The story by Saeed Bhuta revolves round a character named Bhagi Khokhar who on the pattan (belt) of the river Chenab remembers the Punjabi girls who were captured by the Mughal invaders like Amir Taimur and his grandson Peer Muhammad and were auctioned in the markets of Bokhara: Takkey mul vick gayyan dhian Bukharey mandi charrh gayyan bhainan (Our daughters were sold at throwaway prices and our sisters were auctioned in the markets of Bokhara).

Bhagi Khokhar remembers all those who had resisted foreign invaders, including Alexander. She remembers Porus, Jasrat Khokhar and Sheikha Khokhar and in the end says: "there are no more fighters in the valley of Chenab. Those who never pocketed an insult have gone. They fought back like brave and honourable men.''

''So my point is, unless Pakistani Rajputs denounce the atrocities of Turk warriors in Punjab, they can’t be accepted in Rajput community. Can a true Rajput glorify the Turks who sold their daughters in the markets of Bukhara? Do some soul-searching brothers.''

''I am much pleased to know that (at least some of) the Muslim Rajputs seem to know where their roots lie. So let’s make this article an inclusive one. This wikipedia page should be a memorial to all Rajput heroes, from kings of Mewar to Raja Jaipal, Jasrat and Dahir. And let’s not forget Banda Bahadur, a Sikh Rajput who fought against the tyranny of Mughal Empire in Punjab. (Actually I am not sure about Dahir. Was he a Rajput or a Brahmin?). Let’s keep aside the rhetoric and focus on ethnic Rajputs (irrespective of their religion) and their role in the subcontinent’s history.''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajput/Archive12

''You are pushing a theory which holds no water. Rajputs can only be from Hindu religion. If you had your way soon some of you would be claiming that followers of Ghori etc are also rajputs. Check with other Pakistani rajputs many of whom want to identify themselves with Arabs/Turks/Ghoris etc. --comment by 203.101.50.154''


 * But if thats the case why are Ghakkar Kayanis who are ultimately of Sassanid origin called Ghakkar Rajputs? (Iranian Shahi Dynasty which ruled Iran for approx 600years before Ghakkar Shah-the patriarch came to India with Shahabuddin Ghauri) They are widely recognised as a Rajput clan owing to their similar characteristics and royal lineage yet they are neither Chadravanshi, Suryavanshi or Agni kula? - Raja

Shivraj Singh 04:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Shiv my friend, do they offer classes on "logic" in your area? Please go and take some if they do. Never in the excrepts that you have provided is said that "Ghauris and others are Rajputs." About Gakhhars, don't trust us, read the work of Sir Ibbetson (Yes this name will be coming up again and again since his is the first authentic work on the castes of Punjab and NWFP). Don't trust him, go ask some Gakhhar Mirasi. And as far as the comment about Salahuddin is concerned, I think Raja was trying to point out to the similarities in roles that Rajput had with the warriors of other cultures.


 * Anyway here "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajput/Archive12"
 * you are trying to put your words in our mouth when you said,

''You are pushing a theory which holds no water. Rajputs can only be from Hindu religion. If you had your way soon some of you would be claiming that followers of Ghori etc are also rajputs. Check with other Pakistani rajputs many of whom want to identify themselves with Arabs/Turks/Ghoris etc. --comment by 203.101.50.154''
 * We, the Muslim Rajputs rejected this effort of yours at that time and we still reject it. No Muslim Rajput wants to be categorized as Arab,Turk or Ghori etc. and being a Rajput is not a matter of religion. This is the true historical fact recorded by the earliest historical evidence and we stand by it. Even in India Muslim Rajputs are considered as Rajputs and this fact is evident from the official web sites of Indian provinces and districts.


 * BTW in a comment of yours to Zora did you want to imply that giving a daughter to a Muslim is something that is against Rajputhood? Also regarding your answered to read about Hindu philosophy. Do you want say that Hindu philosophy says NO to conquering other people's lands? ( I bet that you will not answer this question in the way that you tried to imply it:) ). Also you said that people who had nothing to eat and nothing to wear conquer lands. So you are implying that the Rajputs were not able to defend their land because they had plenty to eat and wear? Does anyone else agree with this logic?

خرم Khurram 20:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This is indeed a funny discussion. "Did you want to imply that giving a daughter to a Muslim is something that is against Rajputhood?" I advise you to think on this a little and the cases (real everyday ones) where this is actually happening, and the answer should be clear. Don't ponder too much on Hindu philosophy, I guess its sufficient to say here that it doesn't preach people to think that whatever they can reach out and grab is theirs to take. On the matter of the motivation to conquer - ofcourse if people have enough, they wouldnt be seeking greener pastures. What I can see above is that 'Muslim Rajputs' do not claim to be Kshatriya (indeed how could they?), and that is the very point which needs to be talked further since - a rajput who is not kshatriya???? a realllly grey area indeed.  Ss india 10:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

"It was this similarity that made the transition from Hindu Kshatriya Rajput into a Muslim Mujahid Rajput an easy one seeing as the ideals are extremely similar. A perfect example of a perfect Mujahid Royal can be seen in Sultan Salauddin Yusuf Ayyubi of the Crusades who liberated the Holy Land from the Crusaders."

As is clear from the above comments, a case was really made by the muslim side to portray Salahuddin as a Rajput. That I really find fantastic! This is profoundly idiotic and certainly made me think twice if guys like Raja/Khurram/Wisesabre etc are worthy of my time.

What next is coming? Japanese Samurai and Christian Knights to be classified as Rajputs?

I will have more to say once I can control my laughter.

--Sisodia 02:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Your groups frivolous claims of Quereshi being rajputs/jihadi royals being rajputs/Qutub's followers being rajputs/Salahuddin being rajputs are the crux of discussion. Shivraj Singh 17:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Prove it. :) I maintain that we never said it and we don't say that they belong to the Sub-Continent race of "Rajputs".


 * خرم Khurram 17:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What is there to prove? Your buddies sourced material presented above.   Shivraj Singh 18:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What you are not understanding is that no one has ever said that "Saladin" or Qutubs or Ghauris are or were "Rajputs". For more than a month you have been saying it and since the same amount of time we have been trying to tell you that you are having a misconception. Why can't you read it when we say that "We do not say that they are Rajputs"?

خرم Khurram 18:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Having difficulty understanding english of your friends? When will you stop lying? Shivraj Singh 19:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Not in reading but maybe in comprehending. Ok tell me one instance when anyone, any Muslim Rajput on this page has even once replied to your accusation by saying "Yes we call the Ghauris, Qutibs etc. as Rajputs"? Maybe this can clear some fog :)

خرم Khurram 19:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It was this similarity that made the transition from Hindu Kshatriya Rajput into a Muslim Mujahid Rajput an easy one seeing as the ideals are extremely similar. A perfect example of a perfect Mujahid Royal can be seen in Sultan Salauddin Yusuf Ayyubi of the Crusades who liberated the Holy Land from the Crusaders.


 * This comes from one of you. But ofcourse you knew this. Shivraj Singh 19:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure it do know it but I am unable to find the word "Rajput" in it. Can you please help me find it in there?

خرم Khurram 20:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Current situation
see what shiv has done to make wikipedia a RAJPUT_PEDIA  الثاقب &#91;&#91;user:wisesabre&#124;(WiseSabre&#124;]] &#91;&#91;User_talk:wisesabre&#124;talk)]] 04:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

What he has done is to speak the truth courageously. Grow up boys. The "Quaid-e-Azam Government Higher Secondary School, Faisalabad"'s version of history is pure baloney. you should leave bhind your sarkari history in your sarkari schools. This is what the truth is and sooner you get aquainted with it, the better for your country. Doctoring of history is what has made pakistan a failed state.

sisodia the outlaw. (I am still blocked, so I guess 'outlaw' nickname kind of suits me well :-) what do u say?)
 * Why not? Why cant a Rajput become a Jew? We have already proven Rajputra is lineage based and not 'religion' based although it's origins lay in Hinduism for a major part. The original Aryans had a Rajanya system before the dictated Varna anyway, so it was suited into Hinduism before, why not into Judaism, Islam and indeed Christianity? Or is it your insecurity that so many of your own became non Hindus that is harder to come to terms with? :) --Raja 18:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * ) I like the name of the school. Talking of current situation, I was looking at the 'temp' page our friends have put up, and indeed the point of who is and who is not Rajput is discussed in a little too much of detail. If 0.01% (or 0.001%?) of people who claim to be rajput, say they are the 'muslim' kind, I wonder if it needs to be discussed for so long. Why not a page called 'Muslim Rajput', and people who believe such a group exists, will reach there as soon as they type it in the search box. Distorting the very definition is really unfair, just to please everyone who happens to be editing in here. Also the portion about castes, where are you getting all this from? And Christian Rajputs?? Whats that all about? Any jewish ones in line too? Ss india 12:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting
It's really entertaining to note that a source on Rajputs is now also re writing his version of history on Muslim kings as well. Your friends are 'outlawed' for good reason. Falsehood and prejudice is little tolerated anywhere, why should wikepedia be any different. No matter how many times questions were requested to be answered, you all run and make other 'comfortable' assumptions regarding true history, or your version of it. At least we are not so pre occupied about another's identity as you are with ours. :)

Wisesabre, Khurram, keep up the good work, it's well noted. --Raja 18:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

So what are issues here?
Well i'm rejoining this convo since a very long time.. fill me in the details.

AMbroodEY 10:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

From my POV, the issues are that we have one editor who takes an extreme "communalist" view of Rajput identity, defining it as caste rather than lineage. Only Hindus can be Rajputs. This editor used various anon IPs and sockpuppet accounts to remove any alternate POVs, until admins finally intervened and protected the article. The various combatants have since pursued their debate on this talk page, to no particular purpose so far as I can tell. I have started an alternate version of the article at Zora 22:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Zora,

Not all of your efforts are being neglected. I provided you with the comments taken from Sir Denzil Ibbetson's work that you have incorporated in that article. I can also provide you with the official accounts of the Indian government and those of the British government that clearly reognize "Muslim Rajputs" as Rajputs. But I have come to the conclusion that for our friends Shiv and Sisodia at least, no argument can make their POVs changed and until that is the case, there is no need of bringing these things up.

خرم Khurram 16:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Zora,

Yes Rajput is indeed a caste. Rajputs are descendents of India's Sythian conquerors who ingled with the Indo-Aryans. But they cant be strictly called a community as such since genetically they are similar other people like Jats,Gujarathis,Marathas,Bhumhars,Thakurs,Yadavs etc. who are also of Scythian or part Scythian stock. When one converts to Islam (whatever be reason, it shouldnt be an issue here) he should technically lose his caste. It is difficult to ascertain the claims of Muslim Rajputs since theres a high possibility that they are of part-Rajput descent rather than whole. Unless ofcourse Rajputs preserved themselves as a community under Islam. We can have one compromise here. Lets call them "Muslims of Rajput descent" or "Muslims claiming Rajput ancestry". We can have an entirely different article for them. And i think, the most contentious issue here is conversion. Lets not get into it. Ofcourse many might have converted of free will but many were also compelled to convert.

AMbroodEY 08:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Just to quote some interesting points raised above -- ''Why not? Why cant a Rajput become a Jew.'' Buddy why are you making such a huge mess of a really simple issue? Yes, a rajput can become Jew, Christian, whatever, but the question is not that --- it is whether a Jew can become Rajput and the answer is no....

''We have already proven Rajputra is lineage based and not 'religion' based although it's origins lay in Hinduism for a major part. The original Aryans had a Rajanya system before the dictated Varna anyway, so it was suited into Hinduism before, why not into Judaism, Islam and indeed Christianity?''

Proven this or that..how?? Anyway, did you happen to take a look at the link someone kindly pasted above about rajput women and religion. Religion is an important aspect of their lives, and just by practising it and adhering to it doesnt make them anti-other religions as you have been constantly screaming above! Also, whats your point in saying the Varn system came later....so did many many other things, simply because this religion has no single starting point, and is a constantly evolving one. This is why it has, and will succeed in getting rid of aberrations that do creep in from time to time. Are you suggesting that the other religions you named above are or have a Varn system??????

''Or is it your insecurity that so many of your own became non Hindus that is harder to come to terms with? :''

Hahaha good one, do keep coming with up more such comments, keeps the conversation quite entertaining. Ss india 10:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

AMbroodEY,

I would like to differ from your point in the light of the written historical evidence. The fort of Bhatnair had been ruled by Muslim Bhatti Rajputs till 19th Century. Similarly, in the very first work on the Indian castes and tribes, we do not find any distinction between Hindu and Muslim Rajputs in terms of being Rajputs. In the times of British India, there were specific qouta for Muslim Rajputs in the British Army regiments. All this talk about Rajputs only being of Hindu religion does not have any historical background whatsoever. All this talk started to emerge way after partition and still the official standing of the Indian government is different from the claim presented by many Hindu Rajputs here.

خرم Khurram 14:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Ibbetson, Denzil: Punjab Castes: This book reproduces the most important portion relating to Races, Castes and Tribes of the Original Report of the Census.....

Ibbetson reproduced the census report verbatim. Was'nt it argued earlier census reports are not accurate?

Digvijay ---

Digvijay, I think it depends the way you see it. If we are talking about the actual numbers of the people living in an area, there can be a statistical margin of error in it. But when it comes to common and popular beliefs, I think it cannot be the case that the census report completely misses the point of conflict between two entities without even mentioning the existence of one. This becomes aggravated when the point of contention lies directly in the sole of census i.e., counting the number of people that belong to a particular caste in a particular area. Had there been "any" objection by the Hindu Rajputs about the lineage or "Rajputness" of Muslim Rajputs, it was impossible for it not had been noticed in that report. Also the arguments that are given to prove that Muslims cannot be Rajputs apply equally to the Sikh Rajputs and this evidance is enough to negate the whole proposition logically and morally.

خرم Khurram 15:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Khurram,

I indeed respect you for acknowledging your Rajput heritage. But Indian Govt. is no authority on caste. Many a times people are classified into certain castes by opportunistic politicians for votes! My point is that its nearly impossible to preserve pure Rajput lineage when one converts from Hinduism, (since in olden times Hindus didnt marry outside their caste).

As for Zora, i object to her mediation here. She has a distinct leftist-communist bias which is evident from her other edits and from discussion pages here. Word communalist is a sort of a joke. It can be argued even Indian leftists by their own defination are "communalist". What worries me here is that, the Indian history books of the 1970's and 80's by Romilla Thapar et al. are held as some sort of authority on Indian history here. Those textbooks served just one purpose.. grinding Indians into communism. I'm not with those Hindutva fundies, but it is my firm belief that we must present the facts even if they may seem to "demonise" certain communities,rulers,dynasties.

AMbroodEY 17:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

AMbroodEY,

I think we have a little confusion here. If you say so then I do not take Indian government as an authority on caste. But we need to come up with some true historical evidence for any claim that we make. What I am telling is an understanding from the earliest documented effort on the issue and it does not show any difference between Hindu and Muslim Rajputs. All this debate was nowhere to be seen even late after 1947 when it became necessary for the fenatics on both parts of the border to use religion for their political ascession. There is no historical record in the united India that even hinted the difference between Hindu and Muslim Rajputs. And as far as the argument about Rajputs not marrying out of the caste is concerned, I think it will suffice to remember how many Rajput wives Akbar had.

As for Zora, I think she is trying harder than many Rajputs involved in this talk to clean up the article and provide the world with a true picture of what a Rajput really is. I for one, really respect her efforts.

خرم Khurram 19:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Khurram > Thus we Muslim Rajputs may not be Kshatriyas, but we are Mujahids, which means 'one who engages in Jihad' and the ideals of a Mujahid are much more strenuous and honour bound in the sense that we must act with the knowledge that we will be accountable to our Lord one day..... . It was this similarity that made the transition from Hindu Kshatriya Rajput into a Muslim Mujahid Rajput an easy one seeing as the ideals are extremely similar.

Jihad is a war, and not even that, a struggle bound by sub-mission, and the Mujahid - one who engages in it for the sake of Allah. To submit is to (c.1374) "to place (oneself) under the control of another," from L. submittere "to yield, lower, let down, put under, reduce," from sub "under" + mittere "let go, send." Sense of "refer to another for consideration" first recorded 1560.

The Mujahideens are Allah-bound, than honour-bound!


 * Ofcourse they are honour bound. They are taught to maintain the dignity and honour of all, even the captives. Whether the turks or afghans adhered to this or not, the ideal will always be the ideal set. --Raja 22:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * some one from India tried to edit Talk:Rajput/Archive14 and added above lines. for the time being i have reverted his edits.Wisesabre 02:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Honour in the mouth of a slave is not the same as that uttered by a Kshatriya.
 * Thats your POV Im afraid. A slave of truth is more honourable than a slave to ego and stubborness I believe :) --Raja 22:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The mujahideen slave does not know the difference between a war of Justice (Dharm Yuddh) and a Justifiable war. He calls this latter "holy war" and himself honour-bound! Justice and Justification are two different things.
 * Actually your floating off the point here. The example was given when someone asked how a Muslim can be a kshatriya. The explanation I believe was given to provide evidence that there exists in Islam a path of a noble warrior. There will differences ofcourse, but the ancestors of Muslim Rajputs deemed this path superior for whatever reason and left the domain of Hinduism for it. You may not like it, but it happened. --Raja 22:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Know this, to throw oneself into the thick of the battle can be a sign of cowardice! That is the definition of the fanatic Mujahideen passionate onrush...
 * Again your POV. To argue senseless arguments on an issue you are floating off is a sign of something, but I will leave that to the readers :) --Raja 22:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Our Bhagavad Gita espouses the Warrior to fight, if and because it is his nature to do so, - not for God, not for victory, not for defeat, not for heaven or hell or redemption... that is OUR kind of intense dispassionate fanaticism, not measured by how much blood you shed, how many throats you slit, how many cows you slaughtered, how many children you bred or how many women you raped.
 * I am sure. After all my ancestor Arjun was the one who learnt it before any other Kshatriya in the history of the Sacred Gita. --Raja 22:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

You still need Allah-regulators, a witness to redeem yourself before, to be on your best behaviour, "to be accountable to"... - imagine then this pitiful creature called Khurram saying, that makes the Mujahideens more strenous warriors than the Rajput Kshatriyas!!! What a laugh!
 * But that is contradictory because ofcourse Brahma is witness to all you do? Is he not? If he isn't and a Kshatriya is an exclusive authority beyond the realms of Brahma's control and justice, then I can agree with you. This sadly isn't case. --Raja 22:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

We need no witnesses, because we breathe one with Dharma.
 * No witnesses were demanded.--Raja 22:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Lastly, the ethics of Jihad is to - destroy or convert.
 * This is your POV again--Raja 22:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

- That should point out the deep inbred insecurity of these so called "brave" "honourable" "warriors"...
 * Another POV--Raja 22:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

That forever makes Jihad a struggle "against" something, someone..., and thus the Mujahideen, a mere negative reactionary grp. of mercenaries yearning for their promised beloved 72 virgins and what not...

Seeing that there were no real points, then there is very little to bury except the shattered, battered corpse of your redundant argument.
 * I agree, you made very little to the dispute here and shed no constructive light here at all.--Raja 22:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Suryabandhu, Kinsman of the Sun --Raja 22:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC) Kinsmen of the Lunar Race

> > The Mujahideens are Allah-bound, than honour-bound!

Raja >:Ofcourse they are honour bound. They are taught to maintain the dignity and honour of all, even the captives. Whether the turks or afghans adhered to this or not, the ideal will always be the ideal set.

"Hajja_j’s objective in invading Sind is explained by the correspondence between Hajja_j and Muhammad (recorded in Chach-Na_mah, E.D., I, 164, 173). Muhammad is quoted as saying in a dispatch: "The nephew of Ra_ja_ Da_hir, his warriors and principal officers have been dispached, and the infidels converted to Islam or destroyed. Instead of idol-temples, mosques and other places of worship have been erected, the khutbah (Friday sermon preached in the mosque) is read, the call to prayers is raised, so that devotions are performed at stated hours. The takbi_r and praise to the Almighty God are offered every morning and evening." The dispatch is forwarded with the head of the Ra_ja_; Hajja_j replies the general: "Except that you give protection to all, great and small alike, make no difference between enemy and friend. God says, ‘Give no quarter to infidels, but cut their throats. Then know that this is the command of the great God. You should not be too ready to grant protection, because it will prolong your work. After this give no quarter to any enemy except those who are of rank.""

Yes, we see what kind of "honour" "ideal" was set indeed...

> > Honour in the mouth of a slave is not the same as that uttered by a Kshatriya.

> : Thats your POV Im afraid.

Isn't everything?

> A slave of truth is more honourable than a slave to ego and stubborness I believe :) --

Honour is a conscious expression of an instinct for nobility, and nobility is essentially an instinct for fairness or Natural Justice. Not all war-mongrels and heroic-martyrs (for Truth) necessarily possess this. Honour is not proved by dying for some truth; there's more Honour, when truth is a result, having come out of one's own burning, and death is in the interest for this truth, and not for the Truth. That makes us venerable.

> >The mujahideen slave does not know the difference between a war of Justice (Dharm Yuddh) and a Justifiable war. He calls this latter "holy war" and himself honour-bound! Justice and Justification are two different things.

> : Actually your floating off the point here.

Not at all; Khurram speaks of an easy transition from Hindu Rajputs to Muslim Rajputs because of "similar" ideals of Kshatriyahood. This is in error.

Justification by faith and waging a war by that does not make it a "holy war", and the mujahideen "honour-bound" or more "strenous fighters than rajput kshatriyas"; justification and justice are two different things. A creature following the tenets of "destroy or convert" can have abs. no inkling of what natural Justice means. Its not a good cause that makes a holy war, but a good war that makes even a cause holy. Belief only proves its own strength, not the truth of what is believed! The Mujahideen faith is a mere substitute for real courage, real valour, real honour, as are all "faith", and "justifiable wars".

"Do you have to salt your truth so much that it can no longer even quench thirst?" [Nietzsche]

LOL...

> there exists in Islam a path of a noble warrior. There will differences ofcourse, but the ancestors of Muslim Rajputs deemed this path superior for whatever reason and left the domain of Hinduism for it. You may not like it, but it happened. --Raja 22:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

That is fine by me; but I object to the saying that, that "nobility" is "similar". For instance, there is an evil of the strong which harms others without giving thought to it - it has to discharge itself; and there is an evil of the weak - it "wants" to harm others and to see the signs of suffering it has caused... Honour, Nobility, Courage are not objective absolutes; but have different connotations in differing mouths...

> : But that is contradictory because ofcourse Brahma is witness to all you do? Is he not? If he isn't and a Kshatriya is an exclusive authority beyond the realms of Brahma's control and justice, then I can agree with you. This sadly isn't case.

What nonsense! A Kshatriya who "knows" he is one is already Brahma-become; there is no standing before a Brahma or any other. He IS hisSelf. A Kshatriya breathes one with Dharma because, performing anything from out of your own nature, is already Dharmic.

> >We need no witnesses, because we breathe one with Dharma. > :No witnesses were demanded.--

Allah-regulators still existing Capslocked in thick black bold lettering...

> > Lastly, the ethics of Jihad is to - destroy or convert. > :This is your POV again--

Only someone ignorant of the Quran would speak that. Jihad is a militant propaganda - "striving to spread the faith" as it has been concretely shown throughout history. No theoretical definitions are necessary.

> > That should point out the deep inbred insecurity of these so called "brave" "honourable" "warriors"...

> : Another POV

Another valid POV, grasped at the crux.

> :I agree, you made very little to the dispute here and shed no constructive light here at all.--

Certainly more than you, and in neat brevity.

Suryabandhu

Raja,Suryabandhu... shoo.. go away and fight somewhere else. Raja you are deluding yourself, by thinking all Rajputs converted out of free will. Yes many were forcibly converted, accept the fact and move on.

AMbroodEY 16:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Khurram,

Well lets work on alternative version. I'm not of direct Rajput descent, i'm a Maratha (who are of part-Rajput descent) hence i hopefully wont fall into traditional Rajput nationalistic trappings. Well i may help you in researching for the article as my knowledge of Rajputs is limited as there arent that many here in UK.

AMbroodEY 16:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmmm
Suryabandhu,

"A pitiful creature Khurram", very well put indeed. BTW I do not know what your definition of "pitiful" is, I find myself to be one because I am engaged in a discussion with those who do not listen to any logic or fact. They live in fantasies and continously deny and oppose any sensible effort that is made to contribute to this article. I am afraid that you are wasting your breath here by trying to explain the properties of a "Khashtariya" since this debate is not about "Khashtariyas" it is about "Rajputs" who, off course, were placed as "Khashtariyas" by the "Brahmins" (I hope you know the difference). Also you said a lot about not being answerable to anyone. Does this "anyone" include the king too? ;)

خرم Khurram 16:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

AMbroodEY,

Thanks for the offer buddy. Actually I have ordered many books through my library here in Florida and I have in my possession some of them. I myself was not sure about the historical standing about the issue until I got hold of Sir Denzil Ibbetson's work. Prior to that my own knowledge to the issue was limited to what was told to me by the elders and the Mirasis (lineage keepers) of my village.

خرم Khurram 16:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Okie, i'll be on it. After all blood is thicker than water!

AMbroodEY 16:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Cool. I am sure you can order a copy of the work of Sir Denzil Ibbetson through your library as well. I will highly recommend it not only for the current issue but also for a feel of what India was in those times (a subject that interests me more than this debate here).

خرم Khurram 17:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Well i think we should first start from origins of Rajputs i.e Indo-Scythians deserve a mention. I cant find any sources on Rajputs before Muslim era in India .. do you know any? AMbroodEY 17:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

No actually I never put my focus on that and this is a valid point that you have made. I was pitifully so much entangled into the debate on whether Muslims are Rajputs or not. I will for sure try to dig into this matter. I remember reading somewhere that in the late times of Muryan Emperors, there was no mention of Rajputs in the work of a Chinese historian and it was described that the religion of most of the population was "Buddhism" at that time. Only after 80 years of the above-mentioned Chinese work, do we find the first mentioning of the term "Rajupt" in history, somewhere in late 600s AD. I am not exact about the references but will for sure work on finding that.

خرم Khurram 17:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Well Khurram, it appears that term "Muslim Rajputs" will be unacceptable to many here. There are always goona be people will revrt to old versions. Hence i've decided to refer to "Muslim Rajputs" as "Rajputs of Muslim Descent". There is a feeling among Hindu Rajputs that their identity is being attacked and being appropriated by Muslims. Well i think it would be sensible to have a separate article on "Muslims of Rajput descent" while we can deicated a small space for them in the main article itself. I dunno how you feel about this. But i feel this is the only way to solve this edit war.

As for Buddhism, almost entire India was Buddhist by 6th century. Only Hindu revival in 8th century and comming of Islamic armies in subcontinent splet doom for Buddhism in India.

AMbroodEY 18:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

AMbroodEY 18:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting
I had my doubts about the original protection--if there was an edit war, it was an extremely slow one. I'm unprotecting because two weeks is several times longer than I think an article should ever be protected without even a tentative period of free editing. Please work together and refrain from personal attacks. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Khurram > I find myself to be one because I am engaged in a discussion with those who do not listen to any logic or fact.

It is also possible that your logic is flawed?

> I am afraid that you are wasting your breath here by trying to explain the properties of a "Khashtariya" since this debate is not about "Khashtariyas" it is about "Rajputs"

I see you have difficulties comprehending; no wonder you think its others who don't get your logic! I am not explaining any "properties" but setting right your remark that similar Kshatriya ideals made the transition of Hindu Rajputs to Muslim Mujahideen Rajputs easy and the latter are better warriors. That equivalence is an error for the reasons I have mentioned. Second, initiating self-discipline from the knowledge one has to be answerable to Allah - that is a poor trait of a warrior, not greater, as you seem to believe. Pitiful is, the criterion you have set for judging a warrior's greatness and his honour.

> Also you said a lot about not being answerable to anyone. Does this "anyone" include the king too? ;)

This is what I mean, lol.

The Perspective of "being answerable to" is a typically semitic trait. I said we need no witnesses, to re-deem ourselves before; its not about being answerable or not. You said the Mujahideen are more strenous and honour-bound warriors because they act with the knowledge of being answerable to God; I'm saying, Honour to us, is not judged that way, but from the point of view of whether - 1) we are one with our own nature (which gives us our natural discipline) 2) we act dispassionately to maintain natural justice.

Such criteria demarcates real honour-bound warriors from mere regulated martyrs, who are (mis)taken for 'kshatriyas'... like you have.

I hope that's clear; else, I have enough breath to waste on you.

> who, off course, were placed as "Khashtariyas" by the "Brahmins" (I hope you know the difference).

I hope you learn how to spell Kshatriyas properly first! (Even Florida can't do much about your English, huh... pitiful again...)

Not sure, if this link has already been discussed here before, but some views on Bhatia Rajputs from the Hindunet forum: http://urlsnip.com/817395

Suryabandhu

AMbroodEY,

Well actually the Muslim Rajputs are not of Muslim descent. We are the descendants of the same people that other Rajputs of different belief are. We are different that we follow a different religion. Also I do not know why so late the term "Muslim Rajputs" have become an issue since it has never been the case in the previous thousand years.

Erhm.. it should've read "Muslims of Rajput Descent". AMbroodEY 20:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Suryabandhu,

First can you please prove from any record when and where did I mention that a Mujahid Rajput are more honorable than a "Khashatriya" Rajput? I think your honor shall also have the characteristic of not accusing someone for what he has not done :) BTW I spell the word as I pronounce it and as correctly be pronounced by others. You are, off course, free to feel pity about it :)

Judging the greatness of a warrior, to me, lies in his commitment to the cause that he fights for. This cause can be the spread of religion that he believes in, destruction of the people whom he looks upon as enemies, accumulation of greater wealth and land for himself and his pride and so on. An even greater warrior is one who corrects his beliefs when he comes to know about the flaws in them since fighting the outer world is always easier than fighting your own self. The success of a warrior is not judged in the letters and forums, it is always found written in the history in the way of who won over whom and who ruled over whom. Remember, the loser of a war does not have any right to call himself superior to the one he lost all that belonged to him.

You have talked a lot about acting in compliance of your own nature. A lot has been thought, written, spoken and imposed on the mankind since its creation to define the true human nature, its demands and responsibilities and so on. In almost all the societies the answer to this question has come from the religion. When you say that a Hindu Rajput warrior does not fight for anyone but for his honor, then aren't you saying that a Hindu Rajput does not fight for his religion but for what he thinks of as honorable? Because if he fights for his religion, then every religion has the ultimate goal of a human to be appeasing the Supreme ONE no matter how we name Him. Also you said that one is honorable if he acts "dispassionately to maintain natural justice". How are you going to define the "natural justice"? Who tells a person what is and what is not a "natural justice"? Also do you mean that a "Khashtariya" is not answerable to anyone for anything or was that comment just about war?

Finally, this talk is not about discussing the beliefs of one and comparing them to those of others. In the "civil" world of today it is not considered a good trait that you make fun of someone's beliefs in an open forum like this one. Although I see some maturity in your age through your posts, please try to show the same maturity in your comments and attitude towards other people and their beliefs.

خرم Khurram 19:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

AMbroodEY,

Got your point. Actually my friend what I am trying to say is that until very late the 20th century, the existance of Muslim Rajputs had always been acknowledged and accepted at all levels and for all the purposes. The concept that Muslims can not be Rajputs has somehow been propogated sometime during the last quarter of the previous century and it defies the historical facts. If we take that only Hindus can be Rajputs then the Sikh Rajput rulers of Patiala and other states should also be considered as non-Rajputs since they are not Hindus as well. This clearly had never been the case. Changing one's religion has never effected one's caste in India and this is the true historical standing. Also the conditions upon which one was classified as a "Jat" status also kept on varying throughout history and even people involved in the same act were sometimes termed as "Jats" in consequence while on other times they retained their title of Rajput. Actually the term "Rajput" had always been a dynamic one and there had never been a strict code that was followed by all the Rajput tribes. The only code of conduct for one's being a Rajput as I have so far concluded was "Might is right". If you are strong enough, you can get other accept you as a Rajput no matter what you do and how you do it. Anyhow one thing that the history is absolutely certain about is that change of religion has never been a reason for one to lose his caste in India and there is no evidence to prove the contrary.

خرم Khurram 21:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

One thing i dont understand is that A muslim has no caste, this caste system is forbidden in Islam. It is totally aginst the teachings of Islam. You are right in the sense that Rajput can be of any religion. For example if any of the Hindu Rajputs becomes a non believer/ christian he will still be a Rajput.

But one thing you must remember is that when one CHANGES, he may no longer be considered by rest of the group as the same. This is the case with the Hindus who reject the converts to Islam as no longer being part of thier caste once they have converted. Which i think is a fair Point of View. On the other hand converts may wish to keep thier identities, so for them they dont see a major change the way they live.

Kuhhram, difference between a Sikh Rajput and Muslim Rajput would be that the Sikhism is a Dharmic Religion hence Sikh Rajput would have more acceptance than Muslim Rajput. Traditionally Muslim and Hindu relations have never been good. That my friend is the reason why most people here dispute your ancestry. I'm supportive of Muslims who acknowledge their pre-Islamic past unlike most in the sub-continent. Only when most of the sub-continents Muslims stop pretending to be Qureshis and Sayeeds and it dawns upon them that we are same people, we may see resolution of our disputes.

AMbroodEY 07:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hindus intermarry with sikhs today. Sikhs celebrate hindu festivals and vice versa too. No Sikh or Hindu marries with Muslims of any variety.

Digvijay

To Khurram...

I've been reading your posts for some time now.

Ok you consider yourself to be a rajput..fine.. can you list your 1) Gotra 2) Shakha 3) Veda 4) Pravar Rishis 5) Kulguru 6) clan deity 7) Vansh.

then we shall see...end of argument ?

best regards Shonan Talpade

I think we need a new line here
AMbroodEY,

My friend let me say that there is a misconception about the castes in Islam. See when we say that someone is Sayyed or Qureshi, we are asserting that person's caste. Islam does not forbid one from having castes rather it is said in Quran that you have been divided into tribes so that you can distinguish yourself among others. Even for marriages there is a prefernece to wed among one's "Kafu" meaning near relatives or tribe but it is not compulsary. What is normally misunderstood is that Islam forbids the notion of some people being superior than others. Islam states that your being superior is determined by your own deeds and not by those of your ancestors or family. So if a person is pious, in Islam he deserves more respect than a person who is less pious irrespective of his lineage. Similarly Islam strongly suggests to its subjects to make the rightousness as the key for choosing a life partner rather than anything else but it does not forbid one from making other criterian as long as they are within Islamic rules and laws.

Also I totally agree with your point that after one has converted to Islam, the Hindus have the right of not considering them as one of them. But here are two things, first that it must have happened at the time the conversions were practiced, second any change must be done to the religious status. Now for the first argument, I have not found any evidence that after conversion Muslim Rajputs were not considered as Rajputs. For the second argument, I believe that by changing one's religion one is no more a "Khashtariya" which is a religious division but one still remains the son of his father and mother and this is what determines one's caste. Relations between Hindus and Muslims as two religious entities were not bad until 20th century when British, for their own purposes, started to promote them. I surely understand that the only point of resistance is Islam in this case and I think I can understand the reason of it but isn't it our responsibility to come out of that darkness and to the light of truth and harmony?

Also since I do not know much about the term "Dharmic" religion, I am no authority to talk much about it but I know that Sikhism has its roots as much in Islam as it has in Hinduism. In my point of view, I think Islam and Hinduism too have many commonalities and I personally am inclined that the teachings of Lord Krishan resemble those of the Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H). Acceptance of Sikhs Rajputs and not Muslim Rajputs has to do more with the politics I believe than to the issue of being Rajput. At the time of partition, most Muslim Rajputs were residing in the areas of Punjab, Delhi and Rajasthan and almost all of them migrated to Pakistan. This naturally created an absence of Muslim Rajputs in India and the propaganda that arose in the 70's complemented to it. For an example, before partition my village was the only village of Rajputs in our close vicinity and it was one of the only two Muslim villages in that locality. All the surrounding villages were of Sikh Jats and Hindu Datts. Now the recognition of the village as being the only one of Rajputs could not have been carried had it not been accepted by the people of the surrounding area. To add to this matter I think it will not be out of context if I tell that "Kartar Pur", the village that Baba Jee Guru Nanak Dev inhabited is about three miles from my village and my village was inhabited way before "Kartar Pur". So even before Sikhism, my village was there being the "Only" Rajput village of the area and that is why it is named as "Chanderkey Rajputan". Had there been any issue with our identity, a village's name and identity could in no circumstances have survived almsot 7 centuries as it did and does.

Finally my friend, no Muslim categorize them as Qureshis or Sayyeds unless they belong to that cast. A Rajput Muslim still carries his caste name and so do others. As a matter of fact if you take a list of Parliment members of Pakistan you will find out that Rajput outnumber any other caste.

Digvijay,

Marriage is purely a religious issue and Hindus marrying Muslims is proven from the history my friend. It still is going on as I believe the wife of the current superstar of Bollywood (Shah Rukh) is a Hindu. Am I wrong?

Shonan Talpade

To answer your question, we are Chandra Vansi Bhatti Rajputs who came to Narowal from "Chautala" village of Sirsa district in the times of Ibrahim Lodhi. For your other questions, since we are Muslims, we worship the Supreme one known as Brahma in Hinduism and as Allah in Islam. Our Veda is Quran delievered to us by the Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) that has similar teachings in it as were delivered by Ram Chandar Jee and Krishan Jee.

خرم Khurram 16:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh..well we'll just leave the Sayeeds issue aside. But i believe that many Pakistanis have falsified their ancestries claiming Arab descent. Being a history buff, i've read "Pakistan Studies" and found it dissappointingly misleading and vitriolic. Since i'm not a Rajput my knowledge of Muslim Rajputs has been limited. I actually stumbled upon this page when researching the Rajput lineage in my clan the Maratha Solankis who are Chandravanshis.

Being a Nastika i've little intrest in religion though i see myself as a Hindu in cultural sense. Check the wikipedia article on Dharmic religions.

Lastly lets begin working on the article... Enough of talking i say.

AMbroodEY 17:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

> First can you please prove from any record when and where did I mention that a Mujahid Rajput are more honorable than a "Khashatriya" Rajput? I think your honor shall also have the characteristic of not accusing someone for what he has not done :)

Ditto. And, I already did at the very beginning of my first post here. I think your honour shall also have the characteristic of remembering something that has one has uttered oneself, besides good reading. But here you go again; you have said on this forum - "Thus we Muslim Rajputs may not be Kshatriyas, but we are Mujahids, which means 'one who engages in Jihad' and the ideals of a Mujahid are much more strenuous and honour bound in the sense that we must act with the knowledge that we will be accountable to our Lord one day..... . It was this similarity that made the transition from Hindu Kshatriya Rajput into a Muslim Mujahid Rajput an easy one seeing as the ideals are extremely similar."

> BTW I spell the word as I pronounce it and as correctly be pronounced by others. You are, off course, free to feel pity about it :)

That's "of course",... Atleast now you know what pitiful means...

> Judging the greatness of a warrior, to me, lies in his commitment to the cause that he fights for.

And what is the source of that commitment? Answerable to Allah?... Square one? Nice waltz.

> Remember, the loser of a war does not have any right to call himself superior to the one he lost all that belonged to him.

If he does concede that war is lost... Its ultimately the warrior who draws that ceasura.

> A lot has been thought, written, spoken and imposed on the mankind since its creation to define the true human nature, its demands and responsibilities and so on. In almost all the societies the answer to this question has come from the religion.

Not necessarily. (The Pre-Platonics for example.) But, I am not talking of a universal human nature in gerenal, but each life in its unique peculiar particularity. A farmer who has realized he is one, and faces the day with a shovel in his hand is also a warrior. To war, is to live out the highest you can be, and the highest you can be is your own self-nature. To constantly become and overcome is war. I think this is beyond your scope of understanding, as you have just stated you have no idea of "Dharmic religion"; this is because your religion does not recognize, has no notion of such a concept. To repeat, a creature going about the tenets of "destroy or convert" can have no inkling of what natural Justice (Dharma) means. It only understands justification.

> When you say that a Hindu Rajput warrior does not fight for anyone but for his honor,

I did not say that; read properly. Not even for his honour, but his honour lies in fighting because that is his self-nature.

> then every religion has the ultimate goal of a human to be appeasing the Supreme ONE no matter how we name Him.

Appeasing??? lol, not every religion!

> Also you said that one is honorable if he acts "dispassionately to maintain natural justice". How are you going to define the "natural justice"? Who tells a person what is and what is not a "natural justice"?

Its so nice to have a Prophet, isn't it?! The Great natural Justice sustains itself, and the dispassionate ones recognize not only that, but their own place within it.

> Also do you mean that a "Khashtariya" is not answerable to anyone for anything or was that comment just about war?

The issue was about redemption and Honour before witnesses.

> Finally, this talk is not about discussing the beliefs of one and comparing them to those of others.

Merely calling your attention to your own statements where you did just that!

> In the "civil" world of today it is not considered a good trait that you make fun of someone's beliefs in an open forum like this one.

"Civil" - what does that word mean in the mouth of a fanatic religion? No sarcasm intended. And since when did pointing things out honestly, calling a spade a spade, become "make fun of"? I write with extreme seriousness.

> Although I see some maturity in your age through your posts, please try to show the same maturity in your comments and attitude towards other people and their beliefs.

If you merely show respect to earn respect, then you should have thought twice before writing with that same attitude and maturity you expect from others - if they know what the difference between a Brahmin and a Kshatriya is...

I would like to ask you, if you are loyal to and passionate about Islam, its mission/vision/ideals, ultimately, what value does your Rajput lineage really hold for you, assuming it does?

Suryabandhu

AmbroodEY,

The thinking that Muslims Rajputs of Pakistan tend to change their lineage and become Qureshis etc. is an example of poor understanding that the Pakistanis and Indians have about each other. Let me assure you that never even once had I ever met a person who does not take pride in him being a Rajput or Jat or any other caste for this purpose. There is a lot of false propaganda that is going on here on the web and many people are falling victim to it. As I said earlier that even today Rajputs are the largest proportion of Pakistan's national assembly, Army and social system. In a country like Pakistan where Rajputs dominate almost every leading aspect of life, how can someone change his caste to some other? It does not payoff him in any way and I have never seen it happening.

Suryabandhu,

I am challenging you that your claim is wrong that I ever said that a Mujahid Rajput is better than a Hindu Rajput. Please prove it or otherwise I think you owe me a big apology. We will talk after you have proven your claim. :) (Hint: Read that post carefully and then draw the conclusion)

Just to answer your last question about what does my Rajput lineage really hold for me, let me say it in six words "Courage To Die For The Truth".

خرم Khurram 19:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

If the third message on archive 3 isn't yours (of course there is no way of knowing it one way or the other), you have my apology. But this does not affect the validity of the points raised. Thank you for your reply; will continue after you accept or deny that that statement was made by you.

S.

No my friend it really is not mine. I try to keep the religion and lineage as two different issues. I appreciate your having faith in my word regarding that statement not being mine. You have my gratitude for that.

خرم Khurram 19:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It was actually Raja who wrote it. What we are discussing is your beliefs.  It has been claimed by you guys that a hindu rajput has an equivalent in mujahid royal who in turn is a jihadi and Salahuddin was given as an example.  Then some of you claimed  Mohammed's Quereshi tribe are rajputs/ Sassanids descendants are rajputs/ Qutub Shah's descendants are rajput and some of you claim ancestry of Mughals/Arabs etc.
 * Then another claim was made that your group is powerful in Pakistan and controls military and politics.
 * This said group now names it's missiles in Pakistan after Babur etc. Why would this be?
 * Why not after Arjun or others? Reasons are simple.
 * a) Either majority of you really believe that you are descendants of Quereshis/Mughals etc and hence want to glorify your muslim ancestors.
 * b) Or you beleive something and for argument you are saying completely different thing.
 * a) above is fine but b) has a bug.
 * Shivraj Singh 17:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Very well; consider my post directed to whoever wrote this at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajput/Archive03#Answer_to_Wisesabre

Who also claims to be a Muslim Rajput of the Chandravamshi line, also trying to keep the issue of religion and lineage apart. Coincidence or what! Anyway;

One final point. The poster says there -

"Rajputra is a different entity (hereditary) from this and I will explain why. The Hindu preachers state that anyone can become a Kshatriya regardless of their lineage, it isn't hereditary (as per the above article by Ms Holm) and is a state of mind and nurturing. Therefore if one leaves Hinduism then he is no longer subject to the Varna in that sense. However if one is the son of a Royal house,he is still a Royal. Rajputra is a simple term which unfortunately is being made into something more, it's being made synonymous with Kshatriya as if one becomes one regardless of his acts and deeds just because he is born into a Rajput dynasty. The Kshatriya status is a religious ideal which one strives to meet, thus proving one isn't born a Kshatriya. It's nurtured and learnt. Rajputra is a hereditary title by it's very meaning 'Son of a Royal'... ...Rajputs are Rajputs, that is there heritage and lineage regardless of what others believe. Whether they pray to Allah, Ram, Guru, Bhuddha or Jesus Christ."

Maybe. Maybe... But I am of the opinion religion isn't something non-hereditary, out of the fold of a bloodline. As if, it would make no difference if a Rajput was a Muslim or a Hindu or a Jew... Because life shows what is dissimulated for a long time at last becomes nature. It sublimates itself into a natural instinct over a period of time. I would say, whether its Hinduism or Islam or any religion, over a period of time, it gradually unfolds as a new class in itself. Religion too turns into a new hereditary marker. I would be cautious about concluding "a Rajput is a Rajput no matter whom/what he prays to". Experience certainly shows otherwise.

Suryabandhu


 * @Suryabandhu did you replied that answer? I thought Khurram replied that to me :| ~(confused)
 * @Shiv you are mixing things and you are not trying to understand the point.For once and for all listen "For us anyone who claims to be Rajput his father atleast should be a rajput" and "We donot belive on any HINDU system". now you should not discuss this point atleast that we claim mughals and arabs are rajputs.Wisesabre 19:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You cannot make frivolous claims and then disown them. After the fallacy in your argument is pointed you want to disown your beliefs that your group argued about earlier?  This is not good. Shivraj Singh 19:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Some clarifications and comments
Shiv,

My friend, I do not think it is reasonable to waste any more logic on you but just as another vain attempt let me tell you one thing, Pakistan was founded on the religious basis and has Islam as its roots. There was no other reason for the division of the sub-continent but religion and in a state that had been founded on the name of a religion; it is not inappropriate to name its landmarks upon the names of religious figures or the prominent figures who followed that religion. Furthermore I do not know why do you think that Babur was less Indian than any other Indian despite of the fact that he and his progeny ruled India.


 * Then stop wasting our time with your claims of being rajputs. If all of you like Islamic figures then you should find your ancestors in those figures.  If your current generation does not even have the guts to name historic monuments and other stuff on the people from whom you claim descent then what kind of rajput are you? Perhaps you are not.
 * Shivraj Singh 20:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Suryabandhu,

Thanks for your comments my friend but if I may then I would like to differ from the point that religion can be hereditary. In a sense this is true since a person born to a Muslim house will quite naturally learn about Islam and has a greater probability of remaining a Muslim all along his life. But the powers of wisdom and learning that have been bestowed upon the human beings very often compel one to think deeper about his beliefs and ask questions about them. This is a continual process and not only religion but every aspect of human life becomes affected by it. As you know this behavior is very much necessary to keep the mental evolution and progress alive. So I would say that although everyone is born with some higher probability of following a religion, the ultimate decision is made by one's consciousness and wisdom and thus, in my point of view, we can not count religion as hereditary.

Regarding a religion holding a class in itself, I would say that almost as much as this comment is true so is the fact that any such division among the subjects of a religion is made in direct contrast to the teachings of the founder or original propagator of that religion and one with knowledge and courage must fight them rather than accepting them. To be honest with you, I have nothing to say against Hinduism or Hindu Rajputs and I think all the confusion and edit war going on this topic can easily be attributed to the pathetic lack of direct interaction that the people of the sub-continent had been deprived of since 1947. The sole point that I am trying to make here is that there was never any difference among the identity and validity of Muslim Rajputs in history and there is no reason why we shall not be thinking of each other as blood relatives today.

Wisesabre,

My brother instead of saying that we do not believe in any Hindu system, I think we should say that we do not believe in the caste system that says that some people are inferior and others are superior just by birth. I hope you will understand as there are ideas in Hinduism that are nothing but what we believe in as Muslims.

خرم Khurram 19:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Shivraj Singh is back
... and has restored his preferred "Hindu" version of the article. I'm too tired to deal with it tonight. Zora 09:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Zora we refuse to have the articles on our culture, history and identity being moderated by self appointed admins half a world away. You miss, are not qualified for moderating this article especially since you've shown distinct pro-Muslim bias in many articles.

For example you wrote Rajputs are followers of Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam and Christianity. Christianity??? Thats rare. Is there a some kind of movement in Wikipedia to share our histories and identitites?. There isnt a sizeable population of Christian Rajputs.

Rajput is essentialy a caste THATS what it is. South Asian Muslims as Khurram says from his posts also follow caste system. Many Hindu and Sikh Rajputs dont recognise Muslim Rajputs as Rajputs thats what they are fighting on. Also it is difficult to preserve ones caste when one becomes Muslim.

Zora for you whatever we write on essentially our subjects is bigoted but the Muslim POV are the supreme truth isnt it?
 * NO, because I'm a BUDDHIST. Belong to one of the dharmic religions, OK? I think I'm qualified to intervene in the madness here because I am thousands of miles away and have no stake in this argument. There seem to be two positions, Rajput as caste and Rajput as lineage, and I want to see them both represented. I am well aware that "caste" in particular is a tricky matter. Someone can claim to belong to a certain caste, but if other people claiming that caste refuse to accept him/her, by refusing to intermarry or share food, then the claim falls to the ground. If someone accepts him/her as a fellow caste member and other caste members disagree, the accepting person may find him/herself an outcaste too! So there's every reason to be careful in acknowledging people or groups with dicey claims.


 * You seem to feel that if you let this article say that there can be Muslims of Rajput descent that you're admitting them to the caste, that it's equivalent to sharing food with them, and that you're going to be polluted or dishonored by the article. But I don't think that follows. I think that we can make it perfectly plain that for many Hindu Rajputs, any demonstrable Rajput lineage is completely negated if the Rajput by lineage belongs to a non-Hindu religion. As long as we attach "by caste" or "by lineage" to each use of the word Rajput, we're keeping the distinction clear. Now you will probably say that "Rajput by lineage" is meaningless. OK. We can say that this is one widespread POV. But we ALSO have to express the POV of those Rajputs by lineage who are proud of their ancestry, even if they don't expect to eat with Hindu Rajputs or marry into their families. Zora 08:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Zora i dont care which religion u belong to. I'm atheist, i have a few Buddhist relations as well. As for not sharing food.. thats bullcox. Those archaic customs are no longer followed by modern day Hindus. Its not the matter of caste-pollution. The main point is that historically Rajputs are seen as people who fought Muslims for the protection of Indian culture. Hence many here, acknowledging Muslim Rajputs is tantamount to losing their history. I'm not against Muslim Rajputs... i'm fine with that.

Lets define Rajput... is Rajput a person of Rajput ancestry or a person who follows Rajasthani culture? I'd say that even if a person is a Rajput by ancestry yet is culturally something different, he wont be called a Rajput regardless of his religion.

AMbroodEY 11:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW Shivraj isnt the only one making POV edits this article, i havent seen the others being banned. May i ask why?

P.S I'm not necesssarily diregarding your POV. But Zora shouldnt moderate here. AMbroodEY 14:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

AMbroodEY,

You mentioned the term "Dharmic Religion" in regards to Hinduism and Sikhism but I wonder how do you exclude Islam, Christianity, Judism and other similar religions since they all, in essence talk and teach about the same things?

Also Sikhism has, probably, more Islamic elements in it than Hindusim then how can it still be considred as Dharmic while Islam is not considered to be one.

خرم Khurram 18:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Khurram,

Dharmic reliions are those religions which expound the concept of Dharma. These religions (Hinduism,Buddhism,Jainism and Sikhism) donot consider their religion to be the only path to God. And share many concepts like meditation, reincarnation (except Buddhism) etc Hindus and Sikhs often intermarry. Well i'm no authority on this. You better check the article.

AMbroodEY 08:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Khurram: > But the powers of wisdom and learning that have been bestowed upon the human beings very often compel one to think deeper about his beliefs and ask questions about them. This is a continual process and not only religion but every aspect of human life becomes affected by it. As you know this behavior is very much necessary to keep the mental evolution and progress alive. So I would say that although everyone is born with some higher probability of following a religion, the ultimate decision is made by one's consciousness and wisdom and thus, in my point of view, we can not count religion as hereditary.

I would differ with you there. For instance, see pgs. 28, 29, 31, 32: http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/fustel/AncientCity.pdf

"This religion could be propagated only by generation. The father, in giving life to his son, gave him at the same time his creed, his worship, the right to continue the sacred fire, to offer the funeral meal, to pronounce the formula of prayers. Generation established a mysterious bond between the infant, who was born to life, and all the gods of the family. Indeed, these gods were his family - theoi eggeneis ; they were of his blood - theoi sunaimoi". ...This "domestic religion was transmitted only from male to male".

In the ancient days, and in the Aryan way, religion was something that was passed down/transmitted; the idea of "conversion" and there being a "choice" of one!, began with the bogus Christian "doors open to all", at which point religion started to dissociate itself from race - all dregs and anyone and everyone, with no lineage took up authority on rites and customs they had no knowledge or understanding of.

You speak about rational thinking and exercizing intelligence and will to choose - I say such a converter -

(1) then already had the calling of a different race-soul inside him. (in which case, it slowly evolves into a different class in itself.)

(2) or even though after all rational thinking, he "wants to believe" a certain faith, and takes that path also, the instinct of his real religion could still be dormant inside him (Buddhism from Vedism for example) - "...the persistence of an idea, of an attitude, of a belief through generations ends up finding expression in an instinct, in something which penetrates into the blood, lives and acts in the blood, and, in many cases, completely irrespective of everything that the individual, as reflexive consciousness, thinks and believes he wants". [Evola, Jewish Problem]

So, a Rajput Muslim either (1) already had the race-soul of a Muslim (2) or is still a Hindu despite the fact that he "thinks" and "believes he is Muslim" and "practises" Islam.

Religion, from re+ligare means "binding back". It is a bond, a knot, a cord, much like a child and its mother. Genetic heritage bonds a new child with the family gods. ... Religion holds blood together and blood holds that bond with the gods together.

"I am strong against my enemies, from the songs which I receive from my family, and which my father has transmitted to me." [Rig-Veda, Langlois, trans., v. i. p. 1 13.]

Religion thus comes to be not just spiritual, but also a material bond, in that, the strength of his father and forefathers shaped by a particular belief "actuali-izes" in him.

Do see pgs. 31 and 32 in the above link.

Suryabandhu

Khurram: > Also Sikhism has, probably, more Islamic elements in it than Hindusim...

Could you please point out what Islamic elements you are referring to? Thanks.

Suryabandhu


 * beard and turban lol Wisesabre 03:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hindus in India sported beard and wore turban before islam was born. You learn things from us and then claim you invented it?
 * Shivraj Singh 05:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Suryabandhu
We are arguing with people who cannot even acknowledge there "real" forefathers in there own country!! Shivraj Singh 05:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I notice a constant attempt to drag in Sikhs into the whole argument and calling them 'similar' to muslims and putting them amongst non-hindus. Need we say it again and again that Sikhs do not really need to be mentioned seperate from Hindus in this context at least. They are very much a part of us.... Ss india 11:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Guys,

I am your good old bugbear Sisodia!! I am back after a long hiatus. I spent the interim time in doing in some research on the so called "Muslim Rajputs". Most of the Muslims who claim Rajputs ancestry belong to west punjab castes of Awans, Khokhars, Ghakkars, Janjuas etc. I dug thru many medieval era texts, chiefly belonging to mughal era and I found out that the above mentioned tribes/castes were never referred as "Rajputs" in those medieval texts. They were ALWAYS addressed by their tribal names (i.e. Khokhar, Gakkhar and so on). And all along the word "Rajput" was a common denotifier for Rajasthani tribes/castes such as Rathores, Sisodias, Kachchhawahas etc.

Only in the historical texts from the British period onward we find these west punjabi castes OCCASIONLY being called "Rajputs", but here too the term Rajput is applied very cautiously by the Britishers for these people. And interestngly enough, some of these castes also referred to themselves as Jats (Khokhars, to give one such example). See this link below

http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/punjabis.html

What inference can we draw from this startling fact? Isn't this quite likely that these west punjabi castes were in reality of Jat origin. British period was the time when the term "Rajput" got glorified to a large extent, cheifly due to efforts of authors such as James Tod. Once a certain romanticism got attached to the word Rajput, It is highly likely that these Jat communities jumped on the opportunity to claim Rajput heritage.

I belong to Rajasthan and I can claim authoritatively that In Rajasthan, Jats and Rajputs will never confuse their castes. If in west punjab some castes like Khokhars refer to themselves Jats or Rajputs as it suits them, it certainly betrays a Jat origin of these castes.

I challenge the Muslims editors to produce one pre-british text which refers Khokhar/Gakkhar/Janjua as Rajputs.

Also, it is very sweet and comforting to connect Janjuas of today with the Hindu Shahi royal family of Mahmood Gazani's times, but is there a single historical texts available that can establish this connection?

-- sisodia

Shivraj Singh...as in Rathore? jw

Rajput lineage issue
Hi Zora, I see from your message that you accept that no muslim can claim to belong to the Rajput "caste"; you accept that if other Rajputs do not intermarry / otherwise associate with them, "that claim falls flat". In the absence of intermarriage, how do those muslims preserve a rajput lineage? Do they NEVER in all time past and future wed other muslims? What Koranic word endorses the enforcement by community elders of such a rule? Do "muslim rajputs" expel deviants as standard rajputs do? If so, pray tell us what reasons, apart from marriage with their co-religionist muslims, results in such expulsion?

"Muslim rajputs" are entirely unheard of in India, and even if there is the odd character in Pakistan who claims rajput blood, he surely cannot claim rajput "lineage" given his almost definately mixed blood. At most, his few drops of rajput blood can make for some after-dinner conversation, but he is no more rajput than the British royal family is "Turkic by lineage", being descended from Genghis Khan among others.

This whole issue is bizarre and unreal. Are we to have other Indian pages vandalized with insistant references to "Muslim-Brahmins" and suchlike? Because, nonwithstanding some superficial civility, vandalism is what this unreasonable insistance amounts to. There is in fact much that is wrong in the tenor of the version insisted upon by Shivraj Singh & Co; we need to move on to containing those unsustainable excesses instead of dissipating energy on something as untenable as the idea of "muslim rajputs".

ImpuMozhi 07:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't understand this at all. It seems to me that one can claim to be descended from X if any ancestor was X. Of course, you have to be exact. That's why, here in Hawai'i, you have people who say that they are "chop suey" (fried noodles with many different ingredients) and go on to say that they are Hawaiian-Chinese-Portuguese-Irish. If they have illustrious ancestors, like Hawaiian royalty or early missionaries, they may let you know that too . There's certainly no thought that intermarriage is bad. Usually, it is considered to make you more interesting, or more acceptable to various social groups. (Common advice for politicians is "If you don't got it, marry it.") I understand that you feel differently -- as is obvious from the matrimonial ads and all the books about caste, many Indians do. But this shouldn't be assumed, as an immutable fact, like the laws of logic -- it's just an idea that many people share. Try to describe the ideas from the outside, as if you were a visitor from Mars, rather than just assuming that everyone thinks just like you do. Zora 11:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * So then perhaps you would kindly put it on the British Royal Family page that they are of "Turkic lineage" and also on the Muhammad page that the Prophet was of "Jewish lineage". This will help broaden and improve the minds of millions of normal but bewildered people; more importantly, the ensuing edit war will generate a whole lot of gainful employment and hopefully some of the people here can move on those fresh pastures. Unreal, unreal, incredible. ImpuMozhi 21:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, you're assuming that one is in or out, all-Turkic or not-Turkic, all-Jewish or not-Jewish. But us folks of mixed heritage (I'm Swedish-Finnish-Texan ) acknowledge all our ancestors. The British royal family would have no problem admitting that one of their ancestors was a Turk, if that were true. Now I can see that if you're in the middle of war (as the Hindutva folks seem to believe themselves to be) you'd want to draw sharp lines between groups. If you were at war with Thailand, you'd look askance at anyone who said, "My grandmother was Thai, so I'm part-Thai". But that wouldn't alter the fact of having a Thai grandmother. In this case, you have Muslims who say, "I have Rajput ancestors." They're not lying. They do. I'm also willing to believe that most Hindus don't accept them as Rajputs. That also seems to be true. So can't we describe it just like that? Keeping to the facts that everyone would admit? Zora 09:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No. Do not equate your american experience as a standard according to which the entire world operates. America is a 400 year old culture and americans in general have no idea about the ancient world culture. You are calling us "hindutva folks" and I wonder why no admin especially Dmcdevit is taking you to task for it?
 * Your argument is flawed because if what you said is true whole bunch of marwaris and jains would be calling themselves rajputs. There is a reason why they do not do so.  Muslims cannot be rajputs because :
 * a) these guys do not acknowledge there own rajput ancestors in there own country for fear of mullahs.
 * b) they have been making frivolous claims that muhammads tribesmen are rajputs/iranians are rajputs/descendants of arbas,mughals are rajputs/muslims who do jihad are rajputs. People who hold such beliefs how can we accept a single claim from them?
 * Shivraj Singh 16:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

>>these guys do not acknowledge there own rajput ancestors in there own country for fear of mullahs.

Oh yeah? We acknowledge our own Rajput ancestors but we do not say that whatever they did was right. And we never had and we do not have any reason to fear anyone.

>>they have been making frivolous claims that muhammads tribesmen are rajputs/iranians are rajputs/descendants of arbas,mughals are rajputs/muslims who do jihad are rajputs. People who hold such beliefs how can we accept a single claim from them?

Prove it. خرم Khurram 17:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Zora, I do appreciate that one would wish to acknowledge all of ones ancestors, and that one would take pride in being associated with many diverse cultures. I really do. But the place to talk of such mixed heritages is on a separate page of its own.

You say you are Swedish-Finnish-Texan. I wonder whether on the Finland page, they devote bigtime space to such an identity? Do they say "some Finns have moved to Texas - - - - they form the community of Texan finns - - - - some texan finns have wed those of swedish heritage etc etc etc? why not leave the rajput page to standard rajputs, create a separate page for muslim-rajputs and write about that community there?

ImpuMozhi 18:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Same Logic Again
Suryabandhu,

First of all thanks for your reply. You have very nicely presented your point. For your example of religion being hereditary, I am not sure if it is regarding Hinduism? Also Aryans were not Hindus. Initial records indicate that they were monotheists and later upon conquering different lands, they gradually adopted the customs of their conquered land. As a matter of fact, in almost every religion today, you can find the trace of monotheism and it is not very hard to find out that this idea is the very foundation of those religions. You have mentioned the religion of the soul; I think it will not be inappropriate to present the Islamic view on this issue. Islamic view is that every child is born as a Muslim and it is the people around him who later transform him into other religions. So in a Muslim understanding, a Hindu Rajput has a Muslim soul in him and he practices Hinduism and it is his duty to find where his soul really lies. My only purpose for quoting this Islamic POV was that different religions have different views about the soul and its conditions and maybe it is not a good parameter to decide the reason of adopting a religion.

I totally agree that religion is not spiritual but a material bond and a very strong one in that sense, but I do not think that a religion changes your lineage. Maybe you will agree that many people see things differently than their forefather did or do and behave differently and sometimes in direct contrast to their parents or society. The word "generation gap" is an obvious testament to this criterion. We certainly do not take the lineage from a person if he/she has different ideas than his/her parents or forefathers. Even in Hinduism today its followers are no longer practicing so many religious taboos that few centuries ago would have caused you get out of the religion. Having new and different ideas than the previous people has always been and will always remain the main characteristic of human beings and no system can survive in opposition to this trait. You quoted a verse from "Rig-veda" but it is unclear that in what context has it been said but my understanding is that here the family traditions are being talked about and not the religion.

As far as the similarities between Sikhism and Islam are concerned, let me point out three that directly relate to this article.

1. Sikhism is a monotheist religion, negating any deity. 2. Sikhism is against idol worship (moorti pooja). 3. Sikhism is against Verna caste system (That some are superior to others just by birth).

Ss india,

Sikhs are completely different identity that the Hindus and they are, in no context, the same as Hindus.


 * All I can suggest is to take a look at the ground reality in terms of how close the two (Hindu Sikh) communities are, instead of totally relying on your "Sir Denzel Washington"'s ;) hallucinations. Ss india 17:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well put User:Ss india. BTW what is your name?Shivraj Singh 17:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Sisodia,

As per your claim regarding Khokhars about being both Jats and Rajputs, what about Bhattis? Aren't there both Jat and Rajput Bhattis in Rajasthan? Now we talk about pre-British text to show the existence of Muslim Rajputs. We sure can provide the proof, ever heard of Dulla Bhatti or Sandal Bar? You might have never heard about them then I would recommend any Sikh text that is pre-British and in that read about Rai Bular Bhatti. On the other hand can you provide a pre-British text that says that there were no Muslim Rajputs in those times? And the debate is not only for Rajputs, what about all the Jats that are Muslims?

You do not hear about Rajput Muslims because

ImpuMozhi,

Brahmin is a religious division just like "Kshytria". Rajput is a bloodline. The two are very different.

AMbroodEY,

It is hard for me to find the defintion of "Dharma" being inconsistence with Islam or Christianity. They both advocate for the rule of justice and harmony. So why aren't they Dharmic relgions by definition of Dharma?

Also maybe you are getting too personal with Zora. I think her contributions to this talk are and have always been positive regardless of points of differences. I am sorry to see a person of your caliber restoring to personal attacks.

خرم Khurram 16:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Khurram,

I believe Zora has displayed a more than acceptable amounts of Muslim bias on other pages. I may have been too personal with her. I guess i'm sorry.

BTW Hinduism is A MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION. May be the Wiki article on Hinduism clears your doubts. Hindus believe in Ekam Sat, "God is one but sages know it differently" meaning all paths in essence represent the one God.

As for Idol worship, its a misnomer. Hindus worship symbols of God. Idol worship implies the belief that the idol itself is God. But that is not the case with Hindus, "idols" are a way of communicating with god. It can be argued that Koran is a sort of "idol" for Muslims. What about Sufi-grave worshipping?

Aryans werent Hindus, they followed Vedic Dharma of which Hinduism is direct descendent.

AMbroodEY 17:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Some suggestions
There has been a lot of passionate discussion and several interesting questions have been raised.

This suggests that there is great interest in the subject, and the readers of Wikipedia (who are, in some sense the owners of Wikipedia) will benefit by reading about some of the issues and facts.


 * 1) I suggest that the major arguements which are part of the Hindu/Muslim discussion be summarized in a separate easy-to-read article. Let the discussion continue.
 * 2) The detailed discussion of wars and its connection with religion in the subcontinent, specifically the Rajput community should be a separate article.
 * 3) Some details about the clans, added by Shivraj Singh, are valuable, and should be here.
 * 4) History of Muslim Rajputs is not very well known. I suggest that further information should be located and and added to the brief article already in place.
 * 5) An article should not be too long. People just don't read long articles.
 * 6) The article needs a carefully selected set of references, and some details about the references be added (for example year, publisher etc) so that interested students or researchers can locate the reference.

--Malaiya 16:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Malaiya,

I agree with your suggestions but I would like to make one point that Rajput shall not be presented as a Hindu entity and the article must neither be biased nor should it be used to praise one or more different personalities of history.

خرم Khurram 16:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Taaooji,

Thats what these guys are fighting for... For them denying the fact that Rajputs are generally regarded as a Hindu entity is akin to losing ones identity. Lets word it like "Rajputs though overwhelmingly Hindu can also be Sikh or Muslim". अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 17:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * How can we accept the claims of people who cannot even acknowledge there own ancestors in there country? Couple that with there (there means not personally one but the entire group: Raja/Wisabre/Khakhan/pakistani rajput sites etc) claims of iranians/muhammads tribesmen/qutub shah's descendats/salhuddin/Sassanids/Ghazni's descendants etc being rajputs makes there argument absolutely frivolous.
 * Sikhs are lot closer to hindus then muslims. Have you seen how harmandir sahab is decorated on Diwali?  Has Jama Masjid ever been decorated like that on diwali?  Sikhs and Hindus marry freely and marriages are very acceptable.  Hindus, forget rajputs, marrying muslims is an exception.
 * Rajputs are a subset of Kshatriya. In other words there are more kshatriyas then rajputs but each rajput is a kshatriya. Ask any hindu rajput you know are you a kshatriya and record what answer you get.  Each one of 40 million rajputs would answer yes we are kshatriya. Rajput is hindu only.
 * Some Jain/Marwari lines had rajput forefathers. e.g Oswal line started from a bhatti rajput. Today none of them is considered rajput i.e neither jains nor marwaris are considered rajputs.
 * Fundamentally rajputs fought to defend there religion, and they are the reason along with marathas and sikhs why India has 82% hindus today and not 95% muslims as it happened in iran/Iraq/Turkey/Saudi/Egypt etc.


 * Malaiya: section on wars is integral to the page. Most rajpus and Indians just do not know enough about what happened in that period.


 * Muslim side is insisting on censoring anything that is unpleasant to them. Mind you they do not want to share any references to support there claims though.  Why should history be what is written in baburnama where he always defeated 100,000 with a force of 12000. His treachery by breaking shiladitya has to be mentioned and so do descriptions of other wars.


 * Lastly there is nothing like "muslim rajput".


 * Tomorrow if I start claiming I am lord Buddha and make a page on Wikipedia would that be reasonable? No. Any POV is fine but it has to have a reasonable basis.

Shivraj Singh 17:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete old archives?
I see no point in keeping most of them, except that some of them make a highly entertaining read. Guys, we've actually contributed next to nothing towards the article whilst this talk page threatens to be the longest in wiki history!

अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 17:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Nope. Our friends on the other side of the argument have a tendency to forget there own claims. Archives keeps them honest. Shivraj Singh 17:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Khurram: > For your example of religion being hereditary, I am not sure if it is regarding Hinduism?

Any religion, I think, broadly falls within those two categories I posted.

> Also Aryans were not Hindus. Initial records indicate that they were monotheists and later upon conquering different lands, they gradually adopted the customs of their conquered land.

One of the very basic tenets of Hinduism, is upholding the Vedas as sacred. These were Aryan compositions, not only in blood, but in spirit also. No, they weren't monotheists, but monists. Huge difference.

> As a matter of fact, in almost every religion today, you can find the trace of monotheism and it is not very hard to find out that this idea is the very foundation of those religions.

Not necessarily. Early Aryan religions, whether of the east or the west, were monistic, and later evolved into henotheism and polytheism.

> Islamic view is that every child is born as a Muslim

By that very statement you make, I hope you understand why Islam is not and cannot be a dharmic religion. Hinduism acknowledges not one creed or nature, but different natures, different beliefs, and their right to existence and abide in their own natures. Islam and all semitic religions negate this, by imposing "one law for all" - which is sheer tyranny, and therefore unjust and undharmic.

> a Hindu Rajput has a Muslim soul in him and he practices Hinduism and it is his duty to find where his soul really lies.

Again, this could be either of the two categories.

> I totally agree that religion is not spiritual

I meant to say 'not only' spiritual...

> I do not think that a religion changes your lineage.

I believe one's religious views, over time, definitely impact your lineage. They are carried over like hidden memes in the blood.

"But at the bottom of us, `right down deep', there is, to be sure, something unteachable, a granite stratum of spiritual fate, of predetermined decision and answer to predetermined selected questions. In the case of every cardinal problem there speaks an unchangeable `this is I'; about man and woman, for example, a thinker cannot relearn but only learn fully - only discover all that is `firm and settled' within him on this subject. One sometimes comes upon certain solutions to problems which inspire strong belief in us; perhaps one thenceforth calls them one's `convictions'. Later - one sees them only as footsteps to self-knowledge, signposts to the problem which we are - more correctly, to the great stupidity which we are, to our spiritual fate, to the unteachable `right down deep'. -" [Nietzsche]

> You quoted a verse from "Rig-veda" but it is unclear that in what context has it been said but my understanding is that here the family traditions are being talked about and not the religion.

No; it was meant to convey, religion/religious beliefs shape our character, which shapes our fate [Hippocritus], weaving into us. If someone's forefather's belief gives that person 'strength' (as in that RV verse), then religion becomes 'a part of him'. This factor cummulates over generations, sometimes lying dormant, sometimes actively showing up.

> As far as the similarities between Sikhism and Islam are concerned, let me point out three that directly relate to this article. 1. Sikhism is a monotheist religion, negating any deity.

Sikhism again is monistic. My Guruji explained this once -

"Sanskrit Ekam ..cognate to 'one' or 'unified' meaning ..each one has the sense of unity within himself/herself. An apple feels itself as itself, an orange feels itself as itself, etc.

so actually its not 'we are all one '..........its we all feel our 'one'." In this aspect, Sikhism is a continuation of Vedism.

> 2. Sikhism is against idol worship (moorti pooja).

This aspect of Sikhism is a refined continuation of the Brahman concept in Hinduism, which propounds, that form and the formless are both Brahman, which even Buddhism carries on - "form is emptiness and emptiness is form"; that's why Sikhism reveres Chandi-ma, among naming other vedic deities in the Dasamgranth. The Dasamgranth has whole sections dedicated to Ayudha-pooja (worship of weapons), where every weapon is treated like a moorthi, a force of a God/Goddess. 'Against idol-worship' thus may share this commonality with Islam, but it needn't be an Islamic feature, because Sikhism merely fine-tunes Hindu beliefs, by elevating 'idol'- worship into 'power-of-the-idol' worship or ayudha pooja. That way, Sikhism propounds idol-worship even more strongly! by sharpening the focus not on the idol but the power of the idol. > 3. Sikhism is against Verna caste system (That some are superior to others just by birth).

http://www.punjabheritage.com/mixture.htm

Suryabandhu

Shivaraj Singh: > We are arguing with people who cannot even acknowledge there "real" forefathers in there own country!!

I wonder how many "Muslim-Rajputs" fought against Islamic aggression? Lets get that answered first!

Ss India:> I notice a constant attempt to drag in Sikhs into the whole argument and calling them 'similar' to muslims and putting them amongst non-hindus. Need we say it again and again that Sikhs do not really need to be mentioned seperate from Hindus in this context at least. They are very much a part of us....

In this context, yes, I agree.

Suryabandhu

Suryabandhu,

What my understanding of Monistic is that we believe there is only ONE Creator/Energy in this universe and everything happens upon his command. Am I wrong? Monistic Theism is a form of Monotheism that is found in Hinduism. AMbroodEY also says that Hinduism is a MONOTHEISTIC religion and I think you both are saying the same thing in different words. The shaping of one's character is a combined effect of religion, environment, ideas of one's family and one's own decision about what is right and what is wrong. That is why we see that people have different ideas even though they are born to the same parents. The magnitude of this difference every so often makes us witness diversions from standard practices and changing one's religion is one of them.

>>By that very statement you make, I hope you understand why Islam is not and cannot be a dharmic religion. Hinduism acknowledges not one creed or nature, but different natures, different beliefs, and their right to existence and abide in their own natures. Islam and all semitic religions negate this, by imposing "one law for all" - which is sheer tyranny, and therefore unjust and undharmic.

My friend Islam only says that everyone is born equal. I do not know how Hinduism acknowledges many natures but in Islam it is that every child is born without any sin and nothing but the right in it and with a pure soul that knows who his Creator is. This is what Islam means when it is said that every child is born as a Muslim. Does Hinduism have any other pure natures? Also I am not an authority on the spiritual ideas of Islam but I know that in Islam Soul is very important and the whole Sufism revolves around the purification of one's soul so that it can reach the place that it is created for. In the same token that you have said that the ideas sink into one's blood, why it can't be the case that one's blood already contains Islam in it and that all one needs to do is to dig down in him? Why shouldn't we give this argument a chance to prove itself?

The words of Guru Jee that you have reported similarly correspond to the idea of "Wahdat-ul-Wajood" in Islamic Sufism. I also call Sikhism closer to Islam because of the fact that a large portion of "Guru Garanth Sahib" contains the teachings and verses of Muslim Sufis and their idealogy. Similarly the laying of foundation stone of the Golden Temple by Hazrat Mian Mir was a pure testament to this fact.

You have very kindly presented me with an outer link but all that I can say is that it is clearly written in the teachings of Baba Jee Guru Nanak that he opposed Verna Caste System and this is the teaching that he preached to his Sikhs (Students).

AMbroodEY,

Your suggestion is fair enough and I have no problem with that.

خرم Khurram 22:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)