Talk:Rajput/Archive 16

Cry for moving to other things
There is so much that is wrong with the content of this page -- no respectable encyclopaedia can read like this; it is boastful, bombastic and PoV to the point of being ridiculous; it is absolutely replete with historical inaccuracies. Does nobody care about anything other than having it known that some rajputs have in the past embraced Islam? Does that MATTER?? Can we please move on to making this page readable, at the very least?

This disregard for everything but that one point makes me wonder whether anyone out there actually knows anything about history in general, apart from holding an immovable opinion on identity issues. - ImpuMozhi 18:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Taking the fiction out of history has become a battle in case of this article and that of few others. Unfortunately many editors like the encyclopedia to be a storybook and present their view of the world and events. As far as the discussion regarding the Muslim Rajputs goes, it really does matter for our own identity and for the accuracy of the information presented in this encyclopedia that we acknowledge and honor the historical facts. We have tried many times to take the storytelling and biased information out of the article but they are always back. You are welcomed to try and make it cleaner. خرم Khurram 19:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

A few rajputs have converted to Islam. What's the big deal? Why not describe any achievements of those converts on an exclusive page dedicated to the "muslim-rajput" community? In converting to Islam, those converts rejected their rajput identity and adopted a new identity as muslims. Regarding that: What would be a travesty upon "the accuracy of the information presented in this encyclopeadia" is to give undue importance to the fact that a few rajputs converted to Islam. Once that insistance is given up, I hope to be able to deal with the story-spinners to get a more objective and professional version of this page accepted. ImpuMozhi 20:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Why do you want to insult the choice made by the forefathers by making rajput-ism a central point of your identity?
 * Converts will have a different viewpoint on history, identify with different emotions, have a different CULTURE. Why not describe that in a different page?
 * Why to burden the remaining rajput community with the baggage of reconciling converts?

ImpuMozhi,

>>First of all my friend, our forefathers never left their identity of Rajput and our religion does not prohibit it. It is a known fact in the history and how can we let anyone take our identity from us for that matter?

>>I think like many we are confusing the culture with the religion here. Culture is something different than a religion. People practicing different religions live and contribute to the same culture. In every society in the world this is the known and proven fact so the converts have the same culture as they did before. The only thing that changes is the religious beliefs. As far as Emotions go, I do not think the intensity of emotions change, it is only the direction that changes. Describing them in different page means accepting their status as not legitimate Rajputs. I can personally agree to it if we have pages for Hindu Rajputs, Sikh Rajputs as well but if we are to have a page titled as "Rajput" then Muslim Rajputs have to be in it as they always had been in history.

>>We are not trying to burden the other community with anything. It is just about saying and promoting what is and has always been historically correct.

>>You may say that a few Rajputs converted to Islam but that "few" is a very considerable amount and proportion and to those "few" people their identity is not less important than for the "majority". Also in terms of number I do not think Hindu Rajputs are that more in numbers than their Muslim counter parts.

It is all about identity and I am not mistaken when I say that we, the Muslim Rajputs, are not less tenacious in keeping our identity alive and honored. This is our right and we have the means and will to protect it and never can we allow it to be misplaced or mistreated. Had it been a website like others on the web, I personally would not have bothered, but it being an encyclopedia demands that the correct information be posted here and I think it is more of a duty than a privilege.

خرم Khurram 21:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * also to add that if we agree to shiv and others that Muslims are not rajputs then they might continue saying that muslim cannot be gujjar, jats etc etc..
 * please try searching, our ancestors have never denied there Rajput identity and we know very well where our roots are.(shiv doesnt even reads the discussion and keeps on arguing)


 * I totally agree to Khurram. Wisesabre 01:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Indians vandalising Wikipedia!
It seems now the Govt. of Pakistan may need to intervene to give the place the muslim rajputs have been fighting for so long!! (read the last letter! ) Ss india 09:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

How does this contribute to the article? I think the above comments are categorized as Personal Attacks according to Wikipedia's policy. Please refrain from it as it is not helpful for any of us.

خرم Khurram 15:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This doesnt contribute to the article itself, but rather highlights the anguish faced by anyone who sees their pages being destroyed. Theres nothing personal or attacking about it. Or perhaps thats also only my POV??? Ss india 16:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ss,
 * You did nothing wrong in posting this newspaper article. I agree with you there is nothing personal nor attacking in what you posted. Do not be afraid in making your posts.  So far you have shown great maturity in all your posts.  Keep up the good work.


 * Shivraj Singh 18:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

lol i agree with Khurram that this doesnt belong here. BTW Official Pakistan Govt. versions of South Asian history are a joke. They shouldnt have a place here either. अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 16:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I think any "official" history is almost always fake. Don't you agree?

خرم Khurram 16:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This is fantastic!! I never expected pakistanis to appeal to their government to resolve this dispute! Congrats everybody! we are actually making news. Paranoia of pakistanis indeed manifests itself in comic ways. Congrats ss_india to dig up this newspaper letter.

-- sisodia

sisodia this is not the only page which is disputed by pakistanis. try the pages on Indo-Pak wars.

अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 09:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Aryan what are they disputing on Indo-Pak wars? Are they claiming they won them?
 * Shivraj Singh 18:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Yea in 1948 India invaded Kashmir, in 1965 Pakis won, in 1999 Pakistan won the wr but India won diplomatic war, LeT are freedom fighters.... next thing i'll be seeing here that worlds flat! Check the talk page for Kargil War where unqualified editors tried to put disputed tag.

अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 15:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Aryan I will look into these pages as well. Shivraj Singh 18:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Another view
I might be kicking up a storm here which is not what I want to do. Didn't Shivaji declare himself to be a Rajput through a Brahmin priest?(something Bhatt - started with a G - Gangadhar? if I remember correctly.) This was so that he could be coronated King. I don't see the point of the fighting - if Muslims want to be called Rajputs, so be it. You can put in both points of view - isn't that what a neutral article is supposed to do ? Wouldn't that be acceptable?

(unsigned)

Excusez moi, being a Maratha i can tell you, Shivaji did indeed descend from the line of Mewar but he never considered him to be a Rajput, he was first and formost a Maratha. Many of our clans have substantial Rajput ancestry. Gngadhar Bhat was called to declare Shivaji as the "King under the umbrella" since local Brahmins were hostile to Shivaji since he tried to reform various Brahminical customs and was a disciple of Ramdas (who challenged Brahminism).

अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 02:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Updates
I have moved two sections created by Shivraj Singh to separate pages.

Rajput Clans Rajputs and Invasions of India

They are of significant interest. Rajputs and Invasions of India presents a particular perspective, however readers of Wikipedia will find it very useful.

--Malaiya 23:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Shahis and Janjuas
The Shahis of Gandhara ruled for much longer time than is usually thought.

Hsuan Tsang in 630 AD encountered a Kshatriya ruler of Kapisa, who is sometimes considered to the Sahi king Khingala who had the maha-vinayaka statue of Gardez installed. The statue has an inscription at the bottom.

The Buddhist Gilgit manuscripts also mention a Sahi king. Sahi kings are also mention by the Jain author Mahesara Suri who wrote Kalakcharya- kathnaka.

In Khajuraho, the main deity in the Lakshmana temple of Chandella Yashovarman is Lord Vaikuntha (i.e. Vishnu). According to the inscription of 953 AD, it was once in the possession of a Shahi king, who gave it to King Herambapal, whose son in turn gave it to Yashovarman.

Some Janjuas are still Hindu/Sikh. If they are indeed descendants of the Shahis, they indeed have distinguisehd ancestors.

Rajatarangini of Kalhana frequently mentions mentions the descendants of the Shahi clan and referes to them as Rajaputra.

Mahabharata does suggest presence of the Yadu clan (which is associated with Chandra vamsha) in that region. According to the tradition the Bhattis of Jaisalmer once ruled Gazna.

--Malaiya 23:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

> 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?

I'm afraid you are. Mon-ism is the metaphysics that the whole is essentially one principle, has one basic value. There's no notion of command or creator. Mono-theism believes that there is one personal God and he 'ought' to be worshipped. Monism does not postulate this ought. Monism is not dogmatic - that is the beauty of it, and that's what gives its essential Aryan feature. http://www.hvk.org/hvk/articles/0597/0036.html

> Monistic Theism is a form of Monotheism that is found in Hinduism.

Pls. read that link carefully which you yourself gave; it clearly says monistic theism is 'not' monotheism. It is different from it.

> AMbroodEY also says that Hinduism is a MONOTHEISTIC religion

Well, AMbroodEY is wrong.

> 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?

Its as simple as the fact that Hinduism acknowledges other creeds and affirms that these other creeds have their own place in the Whole. Islam doesn't. Should a Muslim take to another path, it immediately pronounces, he is a sinner and Allah will punish him and he will burn in hell. And likewise, it considers a non-muslim a heretic and cries for his annihilation or conversion! Sin, guilt, retributive justice, that there should only be one creed, and saying all paths are Allah's - these exist only in semitic monotheism because it has no concept of Dharma.

> 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?

I already did! It was point 1) in the two categories I listed. In which case I said, it gradually forms a class in itself. Which further means it can't be said that Hindu Rajputs and 'Muslim Rajputs' are very similar. They aren't. Perhaps you could answer what I asked Shivraj Singh - how many Muslim Rajputs fought against Islamic aggression in India??

> 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.

Sufism was heavily influenced by Hinduism and Hindu Bhakti movements. So sufism is not completely Islamic.

> 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.

The original Hindu purpose of the caste system was so that each nature could develop its potentialities fully and become the best that each is. Guru Nanak understood this; he didn't oppose the caste system, only the exploitation and degeneration of that system, not the idea of the caste itself. These are all nuances. Any true Sikh will understand that.

Suryabandhu

Surya my friend,

As I have admitted previously, I am not a scholar on Islamic studies and only knows what an average Muslim knows but I am afraid to mention that your concepts about Hindusim are in direct contrast with those presented in this encyclopedia and those of many respected scholars. You said that the purpose of caste system is to let every creed flourish. But Hinduism also said that "Truth is ONE". Actually as far as the basics are concerned, the Hindu belief are almost the same about the unity of the God as any other Abrahamic religion but the different comes to the authority of that God. It is now proven that upon their enterance to India, the Ariyans adopted many customs and beliefs of the Darawarian people and among them was the concept of deities and authority of God. The word Dharma also is not Hindu in its origin. Ashoka the Great used this word in his code of law for the first time so the word itself does not have religious origins. It rather has an administrative origin.

There were many Muslims who fought against Musilm Emperors. The term Islamic Aggression looks somewhat childish to me since India has always been attacked by outer forces no matter who was the ruler. This event didn't stop even when Muslims were ruling it. Ghauri, and all the invaders after him came and defeated the Muslim Empires primarily so I think it is completely unjustified to term anything as Islamic aggression. I hope you understand.

To your question about a Muslim Rajput having a soul, I would say that every Rajput has a Muslim soul in him and some recognize it and other don't.

Regarding Baba Jee Guru Nanak what I had said was that he opposed the concept of caste as a tool to identify someone as higher and others as lower just by birth (Just like teachings of Islam). I don't know if he said that no one is Rajput or not but he never accepted the division of Brahmin, Kshytria, Vaisha and Shudra.

Finally, don't you think we are moving away from the topic my friend?

خرم Khurram 15:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Kinship and descent groups
Monier-Williams an outstanding Sanskritist and compiler of the standard sanskrit dictionary translates a series of terms essentially connected with descent groups and kinship relations: -  vansha, kula, jati, gotra, jana, varna. [Page 652] M Monier-Williams A Sanskrit English Dictionary New York 1976.

Rajput claimants have to adhere to this ancient classification system of India and have to be bound by and beleive in each one of vansha, kula, jati, gotra, jana, varna. Rules are clearly laid out and cannot change if muslims or westerners are not happy with them.

--DPSingh 11:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sez who? Your statement comes down to "The rules exist, and you must obey them!" But who makes the rules? Who enforces them? Rules are ideas held by humans and enforced by humans, and humans often change their minds about rules. Or fight over what they are, which is what is happening here. Zora 13:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Answer to all your questions is obvious: Indian society. Every individual is bound by the rules of the society and these rules were laid down when the first cultures arose in antiquity. To every Indian they are very obvious but to outsiders they are arcane. You should read some literature of the British time, who were baffled by kinship and castes in India and tried to write books on this subject.

--DPSingh 11:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC) I have just one point that I have been making again and again and again. If the Muslim Rajputs have always been acknowledged and accepted in the history then why do we have all this discussion now? Is it so difficult to comprehend?

خرم Khurram 15:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Quite a few people also suggested a separate page. What did you think of that? Ss india 17:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

We can have that if we have seperate pages for Hindu and Sikh Rajputs as well and clearly acknowledge that Muslim Rajputs are no less Rajputs than their Hindu and Sikh counterparts.

خرم Khurram 17:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

> I am afraid to mention that your concepts about Hindusim are in direct contrast with those presented in this encyclopedia and those of many respected scholars.

Dear Khurram, You only have to take the effort to go through the original source to see if I'm wrong or not. Nevermind encyclopaedias. That's upto you.

> But Hinduism also said that "Truth is ONE".

Yes, but it didn't say "There is ONLY ONE TRUTH"; that's the difference.

> Actually as far as the basics are concerned, the Hindu belief are almost the same about the unity of the God as any other Abrahamic religion but the different comes to the authority of that God.

I have already made my case for the difference between monism and monotheism.

> The word Dharma also is not Hindu in its origin.

Dharma comes from an Indo-European root *dhr- http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE96.html

> Ashoka the Great used this word in his code of law for the first time so the word itself does not have religious origins. It rather has an administrative origin.

The mention of Dharma is as old as our Vedic literature... http://www.vri.dhamma.org/research/95sem/sem9505c.html

> To your question about a Muslim Rajput having a soul, I would say that every Rajput has a Muslim soul in him and some recognize it and other don't.

See. Again and again, you exhibit how Islam is un-dharmic! "Every Rajput has a Muslim soul" is a clear example of monotheistic tyranny and narrow-mindedness. Why stop it there?! Why don't you say every being has a Muslim soul!, lol... you'd have just recited the Quran. All of which just validates the very first post I made here.

> Finally, don't you think we are moving away from the topic my friend?

You cannot even name any so called Muslim Rajputs or Muslim Rajput armies who share a common historicity with Hindu Rajputs in fighting off the Islamic invaders. So, I think its a little premature to conclude as that anonymous writer of the 3rd message on archive 3 that "a Rajput is a Rajput no matter whom/what he prays to".

Suryabandhu

Surya my friend,

First of all, yes indeed the soul of every human being is "Muslim" and this is the equality that Islam speaks of. No one is smaller than anyone else. No one is inferior to anyone but on the basis of one's own deeds. You call it Narrow-mindedness my friend we call it equality.

I think the word "Dharma" entered the Vedic literature at a very later time since it is proven that Ashoka was the first one to use it.

Fighting Muslim invaders. Well as a matter of fact my friend, Rajputs themselves were invaders. Since the pre-historic times, India has always been a favorite abode for Central Asian invaders. Why are we so much enthusiastic about the term Muslim invaders? Why not talk about the role of Rajputs in times of Aryan invasion? In times of Indo-Scythian invasion? Muslims and Muslim Rajputs fought the invading armies not less than any Hindu dynasty or army. After Mahmud of Ghazni, every invading army primarily overthrew a Muslim dynasty be it Ghauri, Tughlaq, Babur, Nadir Shah, Ahmad Shah etc. So whom do you consider invader and whom defender? Was India only the part being ruled by the Hindu rajputs? But the term "Hindu" itself is a foreign term not local to the sub-continent and it was not associated with a religion until the 20th century. I have repeatedly said that there is a lot of religious rhetoric and misconceptions spread by the social hierarchy just to strengthen their rule. These fancy stories, although far from truth and reality, are an important ingredient of the recipe favorite among the power hungry circles of both Pakistan and India and it is sad to witness that even the literate people of the two countries are closing their minds to logic and are clinging to these myths and terminologies that do not have any factual base.

I have a question though. Does Hinduism allow a person marrying to two sister at the same time?

خرم Khurram 19:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "I think the word "Dharma" entered the Vedic literature at a very later time since it is proven that Ashoka was the first one to use it." May I please nominate the above for Comment of the year. It shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the topic being talked about. But still don't give up... everyone is enjoying these funny observations for sure. Buddy, pick up the Bhagvadgita, and check out the first word of the first shlok (verse) "Dharmkshetre kurukshetre....." and then resolve to think before you post. Frankly with this, I am getting more convinced that having two pages will allow enough space for both groups. But, the pages should be called Rajputs(in India), and Rajputs(in Pakistan). That way the reader can go from the main page to the region, and not religion he chooses. Of course depends on how many guys like this idea. Ss india 10:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

dharmán- as an n-stem is in the Rigveda, where it means "support, prop", but also "order of things, law". the thematic stem dharma- is in the Atharvaveda. It is fair to say that the concept is present from the earliest literature, but of course the word's precise meaning has evolved together with Hinduism. I don't see what this has to do with anything, though. Every language has some word for "law", so what? dab (&#5839;) 11:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

For the benefit of Non Indians
Continuing from kinship discussion I feel there is lot of confusion in the minds of non-Indians.

Kinship and descent groups in India are based on the rules laid out for vansha, kula, jati, gotra, jana, varna. Every hindu adheres to these regardless of being a Kshatriya/Brahmin/Vaishya or Shudra (ancient classifications of Indian society). For example Shudras worship there kuladeva and kuladevi and so do Brahmin,Vaishya and Kshatriya. Religions which arose in India like Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism which had lot of voluntary conversions of practising hindus into there fold are still viewed as "same" by other hindus from a day to day point of view.

In Indian society acceptance is measured by a desire to forge a new relatioship with a person i.e marriage. Marraiges between all combinations of Jains,Buddhists,Sikhs and Hindus are acceptable. Indian society does not accord the same equality to followers of other religions like Christianity and Islam though they have been living in India for many hundreds of years. Followers of these religions do not fit into rules of Indian society and are hence considered "without jaati". Consequently Indian society does not accept Hindus/Jains/Sikhs/Buddhists marrying Christians or Muslims.

There are Buddhists outside India also and these rules do not apply to them for example in Japan, China or Thailand.

When some rajput women married mughals rajputs did not marry muslim women deliberately because this union would have produced children which could not have fit into the rules of Indian society. Such children could not continue with the jaati of there father. Similar transition of jaati took place if a brahmin married a vaishya. Parent's jaati could continue in a child if and only if both parents belonged to the same jaati to begin with.

--DPSingh 13:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Ss; I agree with your suggestion, but region could still be a problematic classification, because someone could soon argue Pakistan was once India, etc. and on and on. So we must tackle this issue and nip it at the bud. I think Religion is a good criterion. Another suggestion would be taking the chronological way, which would be least controversial and we'd be able to just stick to the facts. We begin with the origins of the Rajputs and show how they evolved, spread, and developed over time.

I don't see any point in debating with Khurram anymore. My point is made, and my Guruji says you cannot combat narrow-mindedness with reason!

Khurram, when you can "really" answer my question of how many so called Muslim Rajputs fought side by side and hand in hand, with fellow Hindu Rajputs against Islamic invaders, then we'll have something to talk about. Pls. don't try to bluff your way out by saying Rajputs were invaders too. That's not the point. Rajputs are bound together by a common factual historicism of having fought off Islamic invaders - whether you like to acknowledge this or not - its a fact. Now, how many Muslim Rajputs can be said to have been a part of 'that history'??? If there are none, then the suffix muslim-RAJPUTS has only so much meaning that it conveys, when Islam seeps through Rajput blood, the end result is a Mujahideen and the birth of a Mujahideen culture.

Full stop.

Then you can start a separate new page on Mujahideens, who are in no way similar to Hindu Rajputs.

Suryabandhu

Disagrements?
Went through all archives and disputes can be categorized: 1. rajputs and non-rajputs differ on how easily India was conquered. 2. role of rmarathas,sikhs,rajput as vanguards of hindu religion. Contrast with Zoroastrians/Persia under Yezdezird during Invasion of Persia. 3. rajputs that converted are rajputs or not. Point 3 I have addressed in kinship and descent group section and For Benefit of Non-Indians section.

rajputs and non-rajputs differ on how easily India was conquered
This point is addressed by W.W. Hunter, THE INDIAN EMPIRE, ITS PEOPLE, HISTORY AND PRODUCTS, First published: London: Trubner & Co., Ludgate Hill, 1886, ISBN 81-206-1581-6. [CHAPTER X. Page 268].

'''Within a hundred years after his (Muhammad's) death, his followers had invaded the countries of Asia as far as the Hindu Kush. Here there progress was stayed and Islam had to consolidate itself during three more centuries before it grew strong enough to grasp the rich prize of India. But almost from first the Arabs had fixed eager eyes upon that wealthy country. Fifteen years after the death of prophet, Usman sent a sea expedition to Thana and Broach on the Bombay coast (647 ? AD). Other raisds towards Sind took place in 662 and 664 with no results.'''

[ Skipped a para where attack on Sind and its recapture by rajputs is described]

'''The armies of Islam had carried the crescent from the Hindu Kush westwards, through Asia, Africa and Souther Europe, to distant Spain and Gaul, before they obtained a foothold in Punjab. This long delay was due, not only to the daring of individual tribes, such as Sind Rajputs, just mentioned but to the millitary organization of the Hindu Kingdoms.''' [ Para continues where Hunter goes on to describe various Rajput/Hindu kings of this era throughout India. There were very many of them. ]

'''Each of these groups of kingdoms, alike in the north and in the south, had a certain power of coherence to oppose to a foreign invader; while the large number of groups and units rendered conquest a very tedious process. For even when the overlord or central authority was vanquished, the separate units had to be defeated in detail, and each State supplied a nucleus for subsequent revolt. We have seen how the brilliant attempt in 711, to found a lasting Muhammedan dynsaty in Sind, failed. Three centuries later, the utmost efforts of two great Musalman invaders from the north-west only succeeded in annexing a small portion of the frontier Punjab Province between 977 and 1176 A.D. The Hindu power in Souther India was not completely broken till the battle of Talikot in 1565; and within a hundred years, in 1650, the great Hindu revival had commenced which under the form of Maratha confederacy, was destined to break up the Mughal Empire in India. That Empire, even in the north of India, had only been consolidated by Akbar's policy of incorporating Hindu chiefs into his government(1556-1605). Up to Akbar's time, and even during the earlier years of his reign a series of Rajput wars had challenged the Muhammadan supremacy. In less than two centuries after his death, the succesor of Akar was a puppet in the hand of the Hindu marathas at Delhi.''' '''The popular notion that India fell an easy prey to the Musalmans is opposed to the historical facts. Muhammadan rule in India consists of a series of invasions and partial conquests, during eleven centuries, from Usman's raid, circ.647, to Ahmad Shah's tempest of invasion in 1761 A.D.''' '''At no time was Islam triumphant throughout the whole of India. Hindu dynasties always ruled over large areas. At the height of the Muhammadan power, the hindu princes paid tribute, and sent agents to the Imperial court. But even this modified supremacy of Delhi lasted for little over a century (1578-1707). Before the end of that brief period the Hindus had begun the work of reconquest. The native chivalry of Rajputana was closing in upon Delhi from the south; the religious confederation of the Sikhs was growing into a military power on the north-west. The Marathas had cobmined the fighting powers of the low-castes with the statesmen ship of the Brahmans, and were subjecting the Muhammadan kingdoms throughout all India to tribute. So far as can now be estimated, the advance of the English power at the beginning of the present century alone saved the Mughal Empire from passing to the Hindus.'''

role of rajputs/marathas/sikhs as vanguards of hindu religion. Contrast with Zoroastrians/Persia under Yezdezird during Invasion of Persia
This section is from THE PARSEES, THEIR HISTORY, MANNERS, CUSTOMS AND RELIION. DOSABHOY FRAMJEE. First Published LONDON: SMITH, ELDER and CO., 65, CORNHILL: 1858. [Page 3]

'''Suffice it to say, that with Yezdezird, the forty-fifth king in te descent of the race of Kaimurs, ended the ancient Persian monarchy. The neighbouring and wealthy empire of Persia presented too tempting a prize to the fanatic and ambitious spirit, evoked by Mahomed, to remain long unmolested, and in the middle of the seventh century of the Christian era, the Arab sword invaded Persia, under Caliph Omar. In a fierce and well-contested battle with the Persians at the village of Nahavand, about fifty miles from the ancient city of Ecbatana, the fate of the empire was decided.....Yezdezird, abandoning his kingdom as lost, fled the country; and after wandering in solitude and disguise for a period of ten years, was at last treachersously slain by a miller to whom the secret of his identity had been confided (651 AD).'''.... '''Thus on the conquest of Persia, the Mahomedan soldiers of the Caliphat of Baghdad traversed the length and breadth of the country, presenting the alternative of death or the Koran, and compelling the conquered nation to accept the one or the other. By these oppressive and cruel means, a hundred thousand persons are said to have daily abjured the faith of there forefathers; and the fire-temples and other sacred places were destroyed or converted into mosques.'''

Same intensity of conversion by sword could not occur in India because of rajputs,marathas and sikhs at different periods of last 1100 years.

--DPSingh 13:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * DPSingh, the sources you're using are more than one hundred years old and both outdated and biased. It is simply not true that the earliest Muslims forced conquered peoples to convert. They prevented conversions. They wanted the new subjects paying jizyah, the tax on dhimmis, and suspected would-be converts of tax evasion. See The Formation of Islam, by Berkey (2003). Zora 18:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * A lot of our holy texts are older than a few thousand years as well. With your twisted logic, I would consider them as junk? There is ample evidence of how this religion has and even today is spreading. Do you want us to show newspaper reports now? Ss india 10:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Zhora you are not making any sense. I am not sure if you are intentionally spreading false information. By not believing facts presented by Hindus and Parsis (followers of Zoraster. Dosabhoy Framjee is a Parsi) about what atrocities happened to there religion and there people and having taken sides with Muslims even when there is overwhelming evidence against them i.e. mass sacle temple defiling in Persia and India, mass conversions and slaughters suggests that you are doing all this with a very definite intention. You can keep your garbage history to the confines of your gray cells. You are the just like the vandal described in the second link.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/12/05/wikipedia.rules.ap/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/11/wikipedia.ap/index.html

--DPSingh 10:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Khurram,

I think somebody on these pages made a remark saying that "Why burden the remaining Rajputs

with the baggage of reconciling the converts". This I believe sums up the position of Hindu

side quite accurately. The thing is that in the past some of the Rajputs converted, under

whatever circumstances, to Islam. Now are the Hindu Rajputs supposed to mangle their own

glorious history which they have practically written in their blood, lest it offends the

fine sensibilities of Muslims who left the samaj centuries ago? Think from the perspective

of the other side for once, and you will understand the emotions involved. The thing is that

whoever left, left and was quickly forgotten. Hindu Rajputs never had any marital

relationships with the converts, the criterion which fairely accurately draws the boundaries

of the kinship in the subcontinet.

Rajput ethos are deeply rooted in the Raj-Dharma ideals of Hinduism, where a King is

protector and provider of his subjects, not a jehad waging fanatic. Try as I might, I can't

see how can we accomodate "Muslim Mujahid Royals" in this definition. Tomorrow, if some

Rajput goes ahead and become a follower of fancy new age religions like Scientology, I

wonder how shall we modify the definition of Rajputs to accomode such fellow. ___________________________________________________________________________________________

" It is simply not true that the earliest Muslims forced conquered peoples to convert." @Zora: Again that is YOUR POV. So a Hawaiian who isnt even remotely related to India tells us that our history is false and my ancestors were bigoted. Miss infact the history books written in 19th century give us an accurate reading as in those days Muslim writers openly gloated about the conversions as opposed to quiet sanitising of Islamic history these days. Not everyting you read is right. I'm sick of people quoting Karen Armstrong and her ilk. My people were forcibly converted, made to pay jizyah in their own land AND they fought that. I'm proud of it. Though i dont blame modern day Muslims for that, but i firmly believe in telling the truth even if its "uncomfortable" for some people. the onus is on Muslims of South Asia to accept the fact that many of their ancestors did convert under duress and compulsion and move on.

अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 17:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Samething Again
Wow it was not a great catch-up to do. First about the word "Dharma", please tell me when was the first written account of Bhagvad Gita produced? (I am talking about the research proven version)

Secondly, Rajputs have a glorious history, no matter whether they are Hindu or Muslim or Sikh. Muslim Rajputs never left the samaj, they were the very part of it and they still are. They are not less accomplished than their Hindu counterparts. Had there been the case that whoever was left, left and quickly forgotten then how was it that the Muslim Rajputs kept on ruling, in the very heart of Rajasthan for centuries and were treated and accepted as legitimate Rajputs? Why wasn't there an outcry at that time? Why isn't there any documented proof that upon leaving the religion one ceases to be a Rajput? Why still Sikhs are being considered as Rajputs although they follow a different religion that clearly defies Hinduism and its Verna Caste System? Jihad waging fanatic? My friend, it is again sad to hear that from you. Not every war that a Muslim king fought was a Jihad just like not every war that a Hindu Rajput waged was a Dharma. Who do you think was evil and who was a saint when Marathas attacked Rajputs? Who was good and who was invader when Rajputs signed treaties with the British to fight agaisnt Marathas?

I think you are modifying the definition of Rajput when you are trying to say that only Hindus can be Rajputs since this has never been the case. I have kept on saying it again and again that please provide me with at least one true historical proof that denies the existence of Muslim Rajputs in the history of the Sub-Continent.

A lot of my friends do talk about Hinduism. Can you tell me what is Hinduism? When was it given its name "Hinduism"? What is the meaning of Hindu? Where did this word come from? When was it that the followers of a particular religion started being called "Hindu"? The term Hindu Rajput didn't exist before nineteenth century.

And finally, I regret that people still are bringing Islam into all this and are saying things that are not related to this article. What the ideology of Islam is about different things is a separate issue. Those who can't win in the battlefield keep on crying and whining afterwards and there is a lot of literature where you can find it. The land belongs to the one who earns it. If India or Persia did not belong to Muslims then Rajputs were not natives of India, how can this land by theirs? The natives of India are the drawidian people who were pushed to the South by the invading armies of Aryans.

Finally, no matter how much you hate Islam and Muslims, the existence of Muslim Rajputs in India is a fact that has clearly been recorded in history and there is nothing that anyone can do about it and without a fair mention of them, there can not be a neutral and knowledgeable encyclopedia.

Zora, I am sorry that you are facing such hardship on this page but I can only admire your commitment to the truth. Thank You.

خرم Khurram 20:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Fellow rajputs ignore Muslims
from now on. Though make sure you all maintain the version of rajput page that is endorsed by all rajputs. I have just saved the page to Shivraj Singh's last save and you all make sure to do the same.

--DPSingh 07:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello everyone...

Im posting on this page after a long time...Initially there was an individual called Kartavya Virya Singh Jamval who posted a lot of original, validated information about rajput history etc. Unfortunately some westerners here (and later on some muslims ) started throwing muck on his posts inspite of him giving validated citations and reasonings !

I hope he comes back to post ! I sorely miss his knowledge and attitude !He would have ripped apart all these allah-ist freaks.

Now i see in that span of time, there has been a veritable war here !

here are his posts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajput/Archive01)

although I would like to also mention that the main page has many grammatical and spelling mistakes and one small error -->''Suryavanshi trace there lineage to Lord Rama, Somvanshi to Som and Agnivanshi orginated from fire. Yaduvanshi trace there lineage to Lord Krishan.''

Actually the suryavanshi trace their lineage to the vedic Sun God surya (the line of which Lord Ram was also born in.)

anyways' I agree with DP singh above..There's no need to argue with the camels. a waste of time...We just have to ensure that their habit of manipulating facts is controlled.( and the main page is not tampered with .)

I urge someone or anyone who is interested to keep having a look here from time to time to check if the content has been changed.

As Swami Vivekananda once indicated too much filth has been thrown at the feet of the pitrubhoomi..its time to throw it back.

Glory to Bharatvarsha. regards, Shonan talpade. ( 13 DEC 2005 )

Shonan,

Go ahead and correct info about Suryavansh and any spelling, grammatical errors also.

--DPSingh 09:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Another topic I would like to discuss is about the true story of how Prithiviraj Chauhan actually chased ghori back to Afghanistan and killed him there. Unfortunately Chauhan died of his injuries and was buried near kabul. how come we are never taught all this in schools ?

read the story here.

http://arizona.indymedia.org/news/2005/08/29964.php

Shonan, Go ahead and create an account for yourself. Chand Bardai had a famous couplet about the shot that killed ghori. Let us discuss Prithviraj more. One of the greatest rajput king.

-- DPSingh 10:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks .will do. If you could kindly also have a look at the Kshatriya discussion page on wikipedia. Some nut has been making the most hilarious and ridiculous statements about kshatriya-ism and also Buddha and rajput origins.

I disciplined his fantasies so far. LOL .His arguments are rather hilarious. I'm waiting for his next set of confused lies. provides for a good laugh !

--shonan

To Mr.D.P Singh No need to be crestfallen ,Dear Dp Singh...I took the time to read all the vast camel talk in the previous archives ( all those khurrams,zoras,wisesabres etc etc ).

Let them start their jihad again..I'm waiting..IEk Ek ko seedha nahin kiya na..( woh bhi fursat mein )....watch the fun. ;)

Jai Shri Ram. Shonan Talpade 13 DEC 2005

Please contribute positively
DP and Shonan, can you please contribute to the article instead of indulging into Personal Attacks?

خرم Khurram 15:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

DPSingh, if you don't cut out the disparaging remarks and the incitements to edit-warring, I am afraid you will find yourself in violation of Wikipedia policy. Your actions are clearly disruptive, and if you don't alter your behaviour, you will find that you may be blocked from editing for disruption of Wikipedia. dab (&#5839;) 16:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * in case that was unclear, I am referring to comments along the lines of "Fellow rajputs ignore Muslims from now on. Though make sure you all maintain the version of rajput page that is endorsed by all rajputs." above. dab (&#5839;) 18:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

History 101
Bhagvad Gita was written after King Ashoka and Kuran was written before Muhammad was born. What next? All rajputs are descendants of Muhammads relatives and invaded India and converted to Hinduism?

Shivraj Singh 19:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Dbachmann. forgive me for speaking when u havent referred to me..but noone here ( especially us true hindu rajputs) are disrupting anything. so there's no need to sound condescending .Please direct your ban threats elsewhere. --shonan.


 * WP:NPOV. being a Hindu Rajput or a Muslim doesn't count for anything on WP. All that counts are your sources, so why do you keep talking about editors instead about their sources? We will not turn this article into a self-aggrandizing piece. Yes, most of the bhagavad gita was most likely written after Ashoka. Only, it is difficult to date, because there are no historical records of the period. dab (&#5839;) 07:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Dab, Do you know what language Gita was written in? Do you also know what language was in use during Ashoka's reign? Figure that out and then we will talk. There is nothing like muslim rajput. A lie has no place in an encyclopedia.

--DPSingh 12:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I know the answers to your questions, and any schoolboy can look them up on Ashoka and Bhagavad Gita. What is your point? Original Sanskrit texts are composed to this day. Surely you don't claim the Puranas are earlier than Ashoka, for example? Your withering contempt has very little effect on people here, and if you think that the Gita was written in 2000 BC, I can also believe that you would argue that non-Hindus are non-human, or that humanity originated in the IVC (or on the North Pole, as the case may be). dab (&#5839;) 20:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

For all the Muslim rajput jihadi brigade
Ever heard of calling a spade a spade ..thats not a personal attack. ( likewise bullshitters should be called bullshitters)

now what are your next arguments ? 1)The entire world lived in ignorance before muhammed ( and thenon-muslim world till date does !) 2)All rajputs were or are allah's faithful servants ? 3)Islam will rule the world. blah blah blah ? The problem with your mentality is that you want the honour of a rajput identity with the garnishing of islamism on it.

sorry mate it doesnt work like that....anyways....I'm waiting for your next set of debates..You watch how i shall tear open your arguments.

try !

--shonan

"you want the honour of a rajput identity with the garnishing of islamism"

LOL. And they want two little cherries called Mujahidin and Ghazi on top of the Garnish.

btw, if somebody needs a little help in how to continue editing wikipedia even after getting banned, do drop me an email. I am as usual permanently outlawed by wikipedia and I keep coming back despite pakis crying to all those goras to keep me away.

-- sisodia the outlaw.

FIRST SET OF ANSWERS FOR KHURRAMS QUESTIONS
Can you tell me what is Hinduism?What is the meaning of Hindu? Where did this word come from? The real term of the vast set of philosophies and cultures broadely classified as "hinduism" by the britishers is "Sanatan Dharma" or "Arya dharma"

'''The word Hindu is an ancient greek/persian nomenclature for the people living around the Indus river of yore. Indus--Sindhu--Hindu (aspirated H)'''

When was it given its name "Hinduism"? by the britishers maybe..Doesnt bother "hindus" anyways.

When was it that the followers of a particular religion started being called "Hindu"? '''Maybe around 5 B.C by the ancient greeks and persians who followed derivatives of the ancient vedic religion..Hindu was a kind of nickname for their neighbouring similar religious civilisation. (refer point 1)'''

Would muslims agree if some people call Islam as Mohammedanism LOL..likewise a mundane( and improper) name for the ancient vedic faith of sanatan dharma is "hinduism".

The term Hindu Rajput didn't exist before nineteenth century. '''Wrong again wise guy !..I have personally read references to rajaputto in the pali buddhist nikayas dated--circa 150 B.C ( Pali- rajaputto, Sanskrit-Rajaputra, Hindi-rajput)..as i have forgotten the particular scripture and verse no etc. I as yet cannot give a reference for that..

but as is written in the main page of wikipedia : Rajput, The term Rajputra has been used since the time of King Harshavardhana ,circa 5-6th Century A.D.'''

so Khurram..you were still wrong !

strike one !

Try again,son ! -Shonan

Shiv,

Again you are haughty to our religion and our Holy Book. You have been warned and advised multiple times to be civil and avoid from Personal Attacks. Please forgive me if I bring your work in attention to the administrators.

By providing the date of first written account of Bhagvad Gita, you have however, proved the point that the word "Dharma" appeared in the order of Ashoka before it did appear in Bhagvad Gita and this is the correct historical stand. If you want to dispute it then please dispute it with the researchers who have said it.

Shonan,

Thanks for your effort. You have, in a sense, proved my point that the word Hindu was not associated to the religion "Hinduism" before the nineteenth century. India was named after the river Indus and not after a religion and its inhabitants, be them Buddhist or others, were termed as Hindus by the outer world. Since the word itself was not associated with the religion before nineteenth century hence there was not mention of the term "Hindu Rajput" before that time. So my friend, in the ancient literature you will never find the word "Hindu Rajput" and this was my point.

خرم Khurram 21:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

_______________________________________

Khurram:> First about the word "Dharma", please tell me when was the first written account of Bhagvad Gita produced? (I am talking about the research proven version)

A link was already provided recording its mention back to the Vedas.

> Secondly, Rajputs have a glorious history, no matter whether they are Hindu or Muslim or Sikh.

If that is so, then the mention and insistence of a sep. Rajput-Muslim identity wouldn't have been necessary at all.

> Muslim Rajputs never left the samaj, they were the very part of it and they still are. They are not less accomplished than their Hindu counterparts. Had there been the case that whoever was left, left and quickly forgotten then how was it that the Muslim Rajputs kept on ruling, in the very heart of Rajasthan for centuries and were treated and accepted as legitimate Rajputs?

Who are these Muslim Rajputs? What are their contributions to Indian history, culture and overall to our national heritage? What are their achievements? Please list them.

> Why still Sikhs are being considered as Rajputs although they follow a different religion that clearly defies Hinduism and its Verna Caste System?

1. Sikhs are regarded as Rajputs because of their obvious contributions to safeguarding the dharm of our land and its people, maintaining a religious continuation with Vedic Hinduism. 2. Sikhism doesn't defy Hinduism; it refines it. 3. Sikhism doesn't negate caste-system, only caste-prejudices.

Sikhism says, "...though the Truth is one, the roads to it are many, and, therefore, the Sikhs pray that, "Let all be saved through whatever path can save them". Sikhism generally endorses the view of the medieval saint that, "the heart of so great a mystery cannot ever be reached by following one road only"." http://www.sikhlink.com/sikh/EssentialsofSikhism.htm

I hope that quote makes it all clear.

When Islam says "equality" - it means, every soul is Muslim, all are Muslims, the path of Allah is 'the' only 'true' path, and all those who disagree with that are sinners,

Now the real meaning. When Sikhism speaks against casteism, it is so that "all may be saved through whatever path can save them". Sikhism defends, encourages and promotes Vedic monism; it respects and upholds the right of different creeds, different natues; while when Islam says 'against casteism', it is a levelling down of everything to a sameness, everything is Muslim, the only road is Allah's and calls this "equality"! lol

What sheer narrow-minded tyranny.

Sikhism is soooooooo different from Islam. When Guru Nanak preached against caste, he said, a caste is not in name alone, a man is determined by his deeds; it believes in Karma - Shri Krishna already said this in the Bhagavad Gita. Because some Muslim saints are named, it doesn't make Sikhism Islamic!

> My friend, it is again sad to hear that from you. Not every war that a Muslim king fought was a Jihad...

What other ethics do they know of?

> ...just like not every war that a Hindu Rajput waged was a Dharma. Who do you think was evil and who was a saint when Marathas attacked Rajputs? Who was good and who was invader when Rajputs signed treaties with the British to fight agaisnt Marathas?

Atleast, we have a concept of Dharm that decides whether a war was Dharmic or not, but what does Islam know other than Jihad? which merely is the yardstick for 'justification' of war, and not justice. Don't commit the error of equating jihad with dharma.

> I have kept on saying it again and again that please provide me with at least one true historical proof that denies the existence of Muslim Rajputs in the history of the Sub-Continent. ...no matter how much you hate Islam and Muslims, the existence of Muslim Rajputs in India is a fact that has clearly been recorded in history and there is nothing that anyone can do about it and without a fair mention of them, there can not be a neutral and knowledgeable encyclopedia.

Question is, were/are they worthy of being documented at all?

> The term Hindu Rajput didn't exist before nineteenth century.

It didn't exist before the nineteenth century, because there was no need for its emphasis; it was already something implied. Pseudo-secularism made the emphasis necessary.

> The land belongs to the one who earns it.

"The true effectuation of a will does not come by coercion but by awakening the same willing in the other." [Heidegger]

Physical subjugation and mere coercion cannot tap into this archaic bond - of a land and its people; that awakening can only happen through some form of naturalness - like the Rajputs (whether their origins are foreign or native), they were able to form a "whole" with the rest of the people. This is clearly proven by the whole ethos of the Ashvamedha.

That's why Islam still requires the concept of a "tabligh"! lol, because even Islam found out, a land just doesn't belong to one who merely plunders and subjugates it.

When one awakens a "same willing" in another - that is proof of a natural kin-ship. A Rajput is thus called, 'son of a King' - kin and king share the same root. Its not merely about wearing crowns.

> And finally, I regret that people still are bringing Islam into all this and are saying things that are not related to this article. What the ideology of Islam is about different things is a separate issue.

If you really believe that, that religion is not important and is irrelevant, then why not discuss Rajputs as a whole? Why the need for the characterization 'Muslim'-Rajputs? But you can't right? Because they don't share a common historicity. Its a different class. And religion makes a difference.

Suryabandhu

Khurram..

So far In all the previous archives ,Almost all your ridiculous arguments have been rebuffed by various people here. When you get cornered..Instead of admitting your defeat,you very deftly try to eel-wriggle away and raise some other "controversial" topic...worse..You very shamelessly continue to keep arguing (to prove your real agenda--of Islamic supremacy)

well..two can play at this game.

you wrote---You have, in a sense, proved my point that the word Hindu was not associated to the religion "Hinduism" before the nineteenth century

You can't understand english or what ? Refer to my earlier answers to your post. Im not here to type the same explanations over and over. once again to answer your question..and please read carefully. THE WORD "HINDU" IS A GENERIC NAME GIVEN BY OUTSIDERS TO THE PEOPLE FOLLOWING THE VEDIC RELIGION ON THE BANKS OF THE INDUS RIVER. THE BRITISH/WESTERN NAME FOR THE ANCIENT INDIAN RELIGION AROSE IN THE 19TH CENTURY. THE NAME...THE TERM...THE TITLE for the religion ....( not the religion itself! )

i'll explain better. Now muslims claim that Adam was the first muslim and Allah was the God of Adam.( a view that christians and jews dont endorse )As you will agree Muslims froth at the mouth if others call them Mohammedans or Allah-ists.

The word mohammedan was also invented during the 19th century.....Muslims think that Islam came with the beginning of this world with Adam..the rest of the world believes it started in the 6-7th century AD

A very vulgar metaphor for this would be--Something like a son telling his father, that since we share the same surname and i'm more recent that you..I'm more perfect and ultimate than you !

A typical case of a self-created religion claiming dominion over previous philosophies. getting the point ?

So my friend, in the ancient literature you will never find the word "Hindu Rajput" and this was my point.


 * First and Foremost ,I'm not your friend.

Its just a social and mental conditioning of muslims who's ancestors may have been rajput.
 * secondly...likewise the term Muslim rajput is not endorsed by any branch of mohammedanism literature.


 * Thirdly,the only ancient indian literature u may have read would be poorly translated scraps of text on webpages on the internet written by pseudo scholars.

Finally let's compare the creation myths. The rajputs believe that their origins lay with either the Sun,the Moon or fire. Muhammed in his final sermon declared that all humans were born of Adam & Eve.

So who is a muslim rajput then Khurram...Originally born of Adam & Eve or born of the force of Sun, moon or fire.? certainly can't be a combination of both ( even for argument on myths )

Choose one option plainly without twisting or changing or distorting the topic.

answer that.

---shonan

Khurram
By now you are seeing so much of the love pouring forth from your rajput 'brothers'. There is obviously nothing that I see an agreement upon. You also cannot ignore sources, references that you do not like by calling them unreliable, outdated whatever. As DP, Suryabandhu were saying, there doesnt seem to be much sense arguing here. Please go work on the muslim rajput page, and I am quite sure no one here is interested in vandalising it. This page should not have that ugly "disputed" tag on it that you seem to like putting up wherever you go (Rajput clans for instance). Also putting the islam-hate angle to this is not going to help at all because that is not the point. Its a matter of how the term Rajput is taken in everyday life in the land where the rajputs originated and live today. You do not need to refer to some expert british "Indologists" (total sanskrit pandits all of them for sure) to prove how two particular communities live -- just see it for yourself!! Also you mentioned above that you want muslim rajputs to be mentioned as no less rajputs on this page...why??? if you believe you are on the right side why seek this stamp of approval from the hindus? Ofcourse if you enjoy getting it from all sides on this page, then carry on enjoying. Ss india 11:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll say it once again: stop the "Muslim" asides and all the nationalist Hindutva cruft. I don't know if "Muslim Rajputs" is warranted, but it will not become a pov fork: It will be a sub-article of this one, or merged back here. your clueless asides against "Indologists" and "Britishers" do not present you in a more favourable light. If you only care about the Hindu point of view, why don't you go and spread it on hi: to your heart's content. This is the English Wikipedia, and we defend the NPOV principle. Which means that academic resouces (in this case, Indologist literature) takes precedence. Your wholesale reverts will avail to nothing. If you would stop the namecalling, and begin addressing Khurram's valid concerns, arguing point by point rather than insisting on having your biased version all at once, you might make progress. If you don't have the patience to do this, you've come to the wrong place: the internet is big, and you can host your Rajput article at any free webspace provider. If there is a "Muslim Rajput controversy", document it (and no, links to this talkpage don't count), and we'll have a "Muslim Rajputs controversy" section. dab (&#5839;) 12:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

page should not have that ugly "disputed" tag on it that you seem to like putting up wherever you go (Rajput clans for instance). Also putting the islam-hate angle to this is not going to help at all because that is not the point. Its a matter of how the term Rajput is taken in everyday life in the land where the rajputs originated and live today. You do not need to refer to some expert british "Indologists" (total sanskrit pandits all of them for sure) to prove how two particular communities live -- just see it for yourself!! Also you mentioned above that you want muslim rajputs to be mentioned as no less rajputs on this page...why??? if you believe you are on the right side why seek this stamp of approval from the hindus? Ofcourse if you enjoy getting it from all sides on this page, then carry on enjoying. Ss india 11:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll say it once again: stop the "Muslim" asides and all the nationalist Hindutva cruft. I don't know if "Muslim Rajputs" is warranted, but it will not become a pov fork: It will be a sub-article of this one, or merged back here. your clueless asides against "Indologists" and "Britishers" do not present you in a more favourable light. If you only care about the Hindu point of view, why don't you go and spread it on hi: to your heart's content. This is the English Wikipedia, and we defend the NPOV principle. Which means that academic resouces (in this case, Indologist literature) takes precedence. Your wholesale reverts will avail to nothing. If you would stop the namecalling, and begin addressing Khurram's valid concerns, arguing point by point rather than insisting on having your biased version all at once, you might make progress. If you don't have the patience to do this, you've come to the wrong place: the internet is big, and you can host your Rajput article at any free webspace provider. dab (&#5839;) 12:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at the de:: version as well...."Sie sind fast ausnahmslos Hindus." Means anything to you???? Or maybe go ahead and put the tag on there as well. Ss india 13:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * de: is of course no authoritative source, but your quote translates to "the vast majority of them are Hindu". Meaning that there is a non-Hindu minority. I don't think this is disputed. dab (&#5839;) 15:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Who the hell do you think you are? Muslims have been ranting and belitlling here for more months now and you come to defend them. Get lost.

--DPSingh 12:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Fellow Rajputs Sisodia,Shiv,Shonan,Ss,Suryabandhu
I dusted off ibbetson that someone has been citing here and on para 446 in census report of 1881 he mentions that Gaurwa rajputs of Gurgaon and Delhi, though retaining the title of Rajput in deference to the strength of caste feeling and because the change in their customs was too recent for the name to have fallen into disuse, had for all purposes of equality communion or intermarriage ceased to be rajputs since they took to Karewa or widow marriage. These muslims have been touting Ibbetson. When Gaurwa ceased to be rajputs just by changing the custom of widow-remarriage the retention of rajputi by conversion to islam is ape-shit.

--DPSingh 12:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

"Shonan" on the name 'Rajput'
''I know the answers to your questions, and any schoolboy can look them up on Ashoka and Bhagavad Gita. What is your point? Original Sanskrit texts are composed to this day. Surely you don't claim the Puranas are earlier than Ashoka, for example? Your withering contempt has very little effect on people here, and if you think that the Gita was written in 2000 BC, I can also believe that you would argue that non-Hindus are non-human, or that humanity originated in the IVC (or on the North Pole, as the case may be).''

The person who posted this (dbachmann)..who thinks that the gita was composed after ashoka etc etc ..had once upon a time also posted this :

''"-put" in "Rajput" is not a sanskrit suffix for son. Raj-put originated from the word Rajputana (a mixed word variation from the sanskrit word rAjasthAna, the region of royal palaces). The word is not ancient and has no reference in the Vedic texts. -- Dbachmann 10:18, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)''

then when effectively rebuffed...

1)Rajput comes from sanskrit Rajanya + putra. Rajanya-- Royal /King. putra--- son. 2) Rajasthan-- Land of kings and Rajas and NOT region of royal palaces. That would be 'Mahal stan' or Haveli stan in the rajasthani language'' --Kartavya Virya Singh Jamval.

and Lo and behold !..a deft escape !. LOL

2) Rajasthan-- Land of kings and Rajas and NOT region of royal palaces. That would be 'Mahal stan' or Haveli stan in the rajasthani language --Kartavya Virya Singh Jamval. I would agree. I was only pointing out that there seem to be people contesting this. Dbachmann 09:22, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajput/Archive01)

LOL.The hypocrisy here is hilariously unbelievable. -Shonan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.238.195 (talk • contribs)

a little bit out of context, don't you think? In any case, if you think it laughable that Ashoka predated the Gita, I'm afraid you'll find laghuable most of Indology and Sanskrit scholarship. You are free to laugh all day, of course, but I would then ask you not to clutter already crowded discussions on Wikipedia. If you cannot accept WP:5P, you should look for a different platform to air your opinions. If you take a look at the discussion you quote, you will realize that most of what you attribute as my statements are in fact statements by other people which I cited and then questioned. If this is a sample of your scholarship or cognitive faculties, good lord, I doubt you will do much on Wikipedia. dab (&#5839;) 10:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

protection
I've protected the article until everybody shows some good faith and discusses edits point by point, rather than switching to and fro versions. "Good faith" will also include not separating "Hindu" and "Muslim" editors (many Wikipedians are neither, what do you say to that), but discussing the edits, sourcing every pov, rather than the editors. For example, if you don't like the statement "There are many Muslim Rajputs in Pakistan, and some also in India.", ask for an unambiguous source. If no source is brought forward, remove the statement. If there is a source, but you question its validity, quote the source, saying "According to XY, there are ...". I certainly don't endorse a "Muslim" version. I rather have no opinion on the matter, and I expect everyone to beat it out source by source, rather than this annoying edit-warring between a "Rajput" and a "Muslim" version. dab (&#5839;) 15:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Same old story mods sucking upto to Muslims and dismissing us a mere Hidutva guys. Do you even understand the concept of Hindutva, what has it got to do with this article? I'm an atheist and least likely to be associated with religious natonalism of any kind. You dont go through archives and say that we are solely responsible for this problem? Look at the archives and article history. These Hindu guys feel their identity is being attacked. Historically Rajputs have been seen as defenders of India (& Hinduism) against Islamic onslaught. Whilst Khurram is probably the most balanced Muslim editor here, Wisesabre has been making his POV edits to this artcile since August yet it is only Shiv who is blocked for 3RR violation. Mods explain yourself.

अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 18:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * other then reverts, I had only tried twice or thrice to add my goth in list.


 * We ,in western Punjab not at all minority. My grandparents called them Rajputs and even there parents also. It seems to me that large amount of muslim rajput population lived in eastern punjab and in 1947 they migrated to Pakistan (my family is also from Hushiarpur,India). so there are few or no muslim rajputs in India. now new generation of India thinks that we are hijacking there identity. this isnt the case. even on graves here in Pakistan word rajput is written with there names.


 * I belive the only solution to this artice is we should learn to tolerate each other and we should give space to each others POV. Wisesabre 18:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

guys, meaning AMbroodEY: wrong approach. instead of accusing me of "sucking up to Muslims", discuss the topic. I don't care about Muslims or non Muslims. I don't care if you are an athest (but yes, I know the meaning of Hindutva). Come forward with your references and your proposed changes to the present "bare bones" article. Once the discussion gets to back on topic we can unprotect the article. I would prefer to do this sooner rather than later, since protection is considered harmful, I am afraid you'll have to stop talking about Muslim editors, and admins "sucking up to" Muslim editors. You'll have to begin an educated dialogue about Rajputs which happens to be the topic of this article. If you think I am abusing my privileges, you may leave a note on WP:AN/I and see what other admins think. Myself, I consider this a clear case of off-topic escalation, and temporary protection is one tool we have to get the discussion back on topic. Thus, propose your changes, civilly and succinctly, and we can talk about them. You have to understand that I don't care whether there are "Muslim Rajputs". I am trying to stop an edit war. I certainly think that Wisesabre will have to present references more verifiable than his grandparents if the "Muslim Rajputs" term is to stay. If Wisesabre can provide solid evidence that there is a substantial number of Muslims in western Punjab who self-describe as Rajputs, the article will record that. The article will also record that Hindu Rajputs reject the "Rajputness" of these people: if there is a dispute, the article will simply say there is a dispute, no need to edit-war. dab (&#5839;) 18:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Following sites confirm the existance of Muslim rajputs. Some links are from India also.  . even this dedicated site by hindus also admit that there are muslim rajputs  (I do not totally agree with this article) The main (Muslim) Rajput tribes of the Punjab are: Bhatti, Punwar, Chauhan, Minhas, Tiwana, Noon, Ranghar, Khokhar, Ghakkar, Meo, Chib, Gheba, Jodhra, Janjua, Sial and Wattu etc. Wisesabre 19:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * that's fine, if your adversaries accept the evidence, but at this stage it would seem better to quote academic literature to be on the safe side. Sadly, your rajputsamaj article cites no sources other than, which in turn cites no sources at all. dab (&#5839;) 19:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This page has been protected many times and the reason no consensus has been reached is because muslims have not provided any references. I created parts of rajput page using 61 books which are all mentioned in the references section and each one of rajputs agree with this page only muslims do not.
 * Also muslims claims of calling themselves rajputs have been based on Ibbetson's book which Digivijay posted an excerpt from and shows these muslims are lying.
 * Census reports are useless because a clerk walks up to somebody's house and asks them what are you. They can reply I am xyz and that is what gets recorded.  In this world anybody is free to claim anything but that does not mean others are obligated to accept there claims.  Muslims cannot be accepted as rajputs. Period.
 * Forgot to say this. Do not make stupid claims that Gita was written during Ashoka's time.
 * Shivraj Singh 21:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

DAB,

First of all thank you for intervention. The discussion on this page really needed some moderator input. Unfortunately most of my friends here have put more stress on Islam and Muslims than on the actual topic. The term Rajput has always been independent of one's religion and this fact is evident by Sir Denzil Ibbetson's "Tribes and Castes of Punjab and NWFP", a report that was based upon the 1883 census of India. This was the very first documented evidence regarding different castes in India, their customs and their population in different areas. This work marked the first most authenticated effort on the subject and is accepted as an authority among all the researchers of the subject across the globe. In his work and specifically in the section regarding Rajputs he wrote that changing religion does not change one's caste in India. In his work he mentioned the localities of Rajputs alongwith their population with respect to religion in a particular area and used the references provided by the Muslim, Sikh and Hindu Rajputs to research the origins of different goths and the caste itself. The official records of Government of India back up this fact before, during and after the British rule. During the partition, most Muslim Rajputs migrated to Pakistan, as they were mostly inhabitants of Punjab and Rajasthan, the adjacent territories to Pakistan. We can somehow attribute the lack of knowledge about Muslim Rajputs to the migration stated above but any scholar and researcher on the subject shall know about their existence and identity.

My friend AMbroodEY represented the POV of our Hindu counterparts by saying that they feel as if their identity is being threatened but we, the Muslim Rajputs also feel that our identity is being threatened when it is said that a Rajput can only be a Hindu. What myself and other Muslim Rajputs are saying is that the Rajputs, be them Muslims, Sikhs or Hindus have always been termed and treated as Rajputs regardless of their religion and this is a proven historical fact. It is for this fact that I think we should not had this discussion to begin with since from the very first recorded history of the caste itself there is absolutely no evidence that Muslims cannot be, or for that matter, are not Rajputs.

خرم Khurram 20:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Khurram, a simple google search on "denzil ibbetson" turns up, as first result, the information that he was blamed by viceroy lord Minto for giving misleading advice on the then prevailing situation in Punjab. It is perfectly possible that Ibbetson was deluded on matters requiring deeper insight, although "castes and tribes" may have been a particular interest of that Victorian gentleman. Also, I will suggest to you that the comment "changing religion does not change ones caste in India" is the kind of off-the-cuff comment that many people may be inclined to make with reference to certain things, such as the persistence of traditional vocations and the retention of certain cultural traits. Indeed, it may even be an urbane rendering of the "these people will never improve" comment.


 * I have read as much of the rajput debate as my patience would allow, and I find no actual reference cited for the existence of "rajput-muslims" except this book. Do you have any other substantiation, even on the net (not the most reliable of sources on clan practices) that substantiates for your oft-repeated assertion that “…the Muslim Rajputs have always been acknowledged and accepted in the history…”? It defies logic for converts to be “acknowledged and accepted” as members of the very group that they rejected.


 * Nevertheless, neither their rejection of their heritage nor the reciprocal excommunication dealt out to them by the main rajput community need prevent the development of an encyclopedic article on their fortunes. My dear Khurram, why not develop such a page where you can provide information on that community? I would only suggest that you make it clear on such a page that only a few of the ancestors of present members of the community were ever rajput, the rest being muslims of other backgrounds. Please see the point in making a separate page. The main “Rajput” page should be left to standard rajputs, just as the main “Finland” page cannot devote bigtime space to “Finnish-Texans”. ImpuMozhi 06:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Reciprocity on other pages
A few people whose forbears were Rajputs and converted to Islam are insisting "that we acknowledge and honor the historical facts" resultant from that act. Others insist likewise that the idea of "rajput lineage" be given equal space (idea being that if one ancestor in say 1024 known ancestors of a person was rajput, that entitles a person to claim "rajput lineage"). What is good for the goose is good for the gander. One may consider accepting these viewpoints if these people will secure commensurate reciprocity on other, related pages, such as:
 * Islam. Based on these arguments, much real need exists to prominently affirm on the Islam page that "many muslims are rajputs" and elaborate at length on what that means, for the education of the less informed
 * Arab. Crying need exists to point out in the introductory paragraph the fact that the arabs are no more than a branch of the larger Jewish clan (like rajput muslims), being supposedly descended from Abraham and Hagar. If that is accepted, it should help end all conflict in the region, and our busybodies would have achieved something.
 * Sweden, Finland and Texas, to say nothing of Hawaii. All these pages need to make appropriately fulsome reference to "Swedo-Finnish Texans", the identity to which one of our editors purports to subscribe. To be sure, the fact that "Swedo-finnish texans" have produced atleast one Wikipedian certainly enjoins this.

One may point out endless other pages as candidates for similar efforts, but let us not labor the point.

Let me clarify that I vote wholeheartedly for providing all possible information about various ethnic groups, even the apparently oxymoronic “muslim-rajputs”, based on the knowledge and evident good faith of at least some of our wikipedians (take a bow, Khurram, your unfailing courtesy if heartwarming). I just do not wish to see it impinge on the main Rajput page; I have previously proposed a separate page, linked from the “see also” section of the main rajput page.

ImpuMozhi 03:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Just another rant
People involved in the quarrels on this page have shown a remarkable lack of interest in any matter concerning serious history. Neither the ridiculously hagiographic 'rajput pride paltan', whose bibles are the laughable bardaic songs of the court-balladeers of sundry (otherwise loser) rajput chieftains, nor the single-point-agenda "rajput-muslim" brigade with their unsustainable claims, seem to care for the factual accuracy of other information presented on this and related Indian history pages. This is possibly because both parties wish to bask in the supposed glories of their reputedly rajput ancestors.

However, the circumstance obstructs the efforts of others who wish to present a matter-of-fact, hopefully objective history of India and the princely states. Particularly regrettable is the fact that this "muslim-rajput" business has provoked the ingress of hordes of motivated PoV purveyors, who are now making life miserable for people interested in writing about rajput-ruled states and the mughal period, a major chunk of Indian history. This group is not only completely impervious to reason, but is also UNLETTERED and unread, except for some hand-me-down fairytales. Not only do they have no CONCEPT of objective history, their fables are also expressed in abominable language and composed without regard to relevance, priority, brevity or even chronology. They are impossible to read. One of these people has cited some 65 references to the Rajput article. The cited works are in fact none-too-scholarly, I will even call them an execrable selection; they are mainly written in Hindi for an audience of children and others with no intellectual pretensions. What analysis is to be expected from a book entitled "The luminous life of Maharana Pratap"? and please believe me, this is one of the more promising titles. That wikipedian cites this list en masse for all his gratuitous interventions on other articles, without attempting further specificity, which makes me suspect that he has not read even this prize selection properly!

The situation is such that a whole set of history-related pages is thus infested and cannot be worked upon. Does anyone out there wish to apologise for causing this grief?? What with this page being generally given over to insanity, this rant of mine will hopefully not be regarded as untoward or out of place.

ImpuMozhi 04:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Adding
Just to give idea of social status of muslim rajputs. I have Searched using different names used by rajputs with there name + Muhammad.Wisesabre 04:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This only shows that some rajput people have converted in years past to Islam. How does it establish that they should still be considered rajputs? Also, why the reference to "status"? ImpuMozhi 05:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * right, I only wanted to show what is the social status of people who use rajput names. (Not just me and Khurram) Wisesabre 06:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Suryabandhu
Khurram: > Unfortunately most of my friends here have put more stress on Islam and Muslims than on the actual topic.

You haven't had the decency to answer a valid question as - if religion is unimportant and irrelevant, then the necessity of mentioning 'Muslim'-Rajputs shouldn't matter at all! The very fact that you say you fight for your identity and by that you mean Rajputs who ARE Muslims, makes it amply evident the "actual topic" "is a stress" on Islam and Muslims. If you have any Rajput blood in you, atleast have the self-honesty to face and admit that fact. Religion is obviously important and does make a difference.

> The term Rajput has always been independent of one's religion...

Oh really? That statement just came out of the mouth of a hypocrite who three days back had the spineless audacity to say, "Every Rajput has a Muslim soul"! and IS a Muslim whether he acknowledges this or not!

For the third time, you are asked, How many so called Muslim-Rajputs fought against Islamic invaders with their Hindu Rajput brothers, "independent of religion" and religious concerns?

What are the achievements of Muslim-Rajputs to our national heritage "independent of religion"? Please list them.

Unless those questions can be answered, I don't think the existence of so called Muslim-Rajputs are worthy of being documented. The onus is on you to prove their worth.

> and this fact is evident by Sir Denzil Ibbetson's "Tribes and Castes of Punjab and NWFP", a report that was based upon the 1883 census of India.

DP Singh has just found you out for a case of "selective reading". Nice mischief!

> We can somehow attribute the lack of knowledge about Muslim Rajputs to the migration stated above but any scholar and researcher on the subject shall know about their existence and identity.

Ok, till such a researcher/scholar comes up with something more substantial, rest the case.

> the Muslim Rajputs also feel that our identity is being threatened when it is said that a Rajput can only be a Hindu.

I see. And its 'ok' when you impose your say - "Every Rajput has a Muslim soul" and IS A MUSLIM??? You think you can get away with saying something like that on an open forum, and then cry when you face the backlash to your own words? You owe an apology to all your "hindu-counterparts"!

Anyway, our Vedic ancestors settled this question once and for all.

They distinguished the 'other' as "those who did not revere Sacrifice - 'a-yajvanah'. These were the mlecchas,... who have no worship ['worth'-ship] (Yaj-), with whom there is no covenant (a-vrata-)" [Calvert Watkins]

"The foolish, faithless, rudely-speaking niggards, without belief or sacrifice or worship, Far far away hath Agni chased those..., and, in the cast, hath turned the godless westward." [RV., 7.6.3]

Since so-called Muslim-Rajputs share no covenant with us, in worship (worth-ship), to us, they are a-yajvanah, out-castes, Rajput or not; for even the Veda speaks, 'protect us, and keep our kins who have strayed away from the path, far away from us.'

Khurram, Religion is from re-ligare; it means - "that which binds us back to our essence".

The essence of a Rajput is his Virya/Kshatriya-ness.

The essence of a Kshatriya is his (Kshatriya-)Dharm.

The essence of Kshatriya-Dharm is to uphold and defend Dharm as a whole.

The essence of Dharm is the very foundation of Vedic Bharath.

Those who have read Tod's annals and antiquities on Rajasthan, will know, he said, "the Scythian/Rajput horse worship led to a sword worship, from asva horse, the sword asi was revered." Without saying anything more, he compresses our vast, rich, complex beliefs, in a single, simple line.

The horse Asva, is a metaphor for the sun, for the fire of the sun, but more importantly for the sun as dharma-maintainer.

Asi, the sword, also means - "you ARE.", as in tat tvam asi. The sword was worshipped because it was seen by them as that which protects Dharma, '''the very basic Dharma of "you ARE". - which Islam oppresses.'''Asi also came to stand for a river - river of rebirth, of the twice-born, who initiate and take upon themselves the task of upholding Dharma.

The horse and the sword were metaphors for the sun, and the sun itself was a metaphor for the dharmic thought "I am That". The sun is thus called So-ham. The Rajput held the banner of this Sun!

The Sikhs never strayed from this either. In Bachitra Natak Guru Gobind Singh says:

Hum eh kaj jagat mo ae dharam het gur dev pathae jahan tahan tum dharam bitharo dusht dokhian pakar pachharo

[for this purpose I came into this world. God sent me for the sake of Dharam. Where ever you are, spread dharam. Root out the oppressors and the wicked]

Islam is a complete and a very negation of this concept "you ARE."! It preaches you must be, you should be, you ought to be... It is un-dharmic.

The whole meaning of the Sword 'Asi' is alien to them.

Rajputs can have nothing to do with such undharmic, a-vratas (law-less ones)!

You may speak of rajput-Muslims (not Muslim-Rajputs!), but then don't falsely try and equivocate such Muslims with Hindu-Rajputs and say, "a Rajput is a Rajput irrespective of what/whom he prays to." That is flatly wrong.

> What myself and other Muslim Rajputs are saying is that the Rajputs, be them Muslims, Sikhs or Hindus have always been termed and treated as Rajputs regardless of their religion

Rajput is not a mere title. It is a living creed that has sworn its oath to Dharma upon its blood. This goes for someone too here, who thinks 'Muslim' is a mere "social status". Good joke!

> ...from the very first recorded history of the caste itself there is absolutely no evidence that Muslims cannot be, or for that matter, are not Rajputs.

I have just torn this logic. See above. And when you have the time, look at the root and the purpose of the word caste.

Fair would be for you to go to the Muslim page of Wikipedia, and begin a section there! on Muslims from an ex-Rajput line.

Suryabandhu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryabandhu, Kinsman of the Sun (talk • contribs)

towards unprotection
apart from some rants and insults from anonymous IPs, I think the general tone of discussion is slowly improving. Suryabandhu, you should stay on topic. Your position is clear, but you must understand that you have to counter references with references, not with a florilegium on Hinduism. "That is flatly wrong" is a useless statement, on Wikipedia. It would have to read "That is flatly wrong, according to H. L. Peabody (1952), p. 68" (of course using a real reference). Otherwise you are just wasting time.

To keep this discussion readable, may I ask everyone to Khurram and ImpuMozhi show how it is done. Khurram cites Denzil Ibbetson, so that is clearly something that may be added to the article. ImpuMozhi says that Ibbetson was criticised by Minto, so that is another thing that we can add to the article. This is the civilized way of documenting a dispute. Ranting and shouting insults on the talkpage is the uncivilized way, and all our esteemed Hindu Rajputs acheive by doing this is discrediting their side of the argument. Evidently, "Rajput ancestry" is just a claim. This article is about documenting such claims, i.e. it is precisely about people who self-describe as Rajputs if you walk up to their door and ask them, as long as these findings are published in verifiable sources. That's all. If you don't agree with a statement, add fact. If no citation is brought forward, remove it. If our esteemed Hindu Rajput editors can agree to work on the article in this way, point by point, instead of indulging in major reverts, we can unprotect the article. There will always be anonymous IPs who revert or add nonsense; these may just be reverted, and will be blocked from editing if persistent. In my view, the case is very simple. THere are some people who think that being a "Rajput" is determined by your ancestry, regardless of religion. Some other people think that if you convert from Hinduism to Islam or some other religion, you cease being a Rajput. These are just two povs, and we can describe them both, side by side. Nothing is easier. dab (&#5839;) 10:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * get an account
 * sign their posts, using four tildes, ~
 * use proper indenting to indicate where their reply applies
 * keep it short and to the point

Dbachmann:> Suryabandhu, you should stay on topic. Your position is clear, but you must understand that you have to counter references with references, not with a florilegium on Hinduism.

Oh, No no no. What you call florilegium is a quick weeding of a Mephitinaic euphoria that's been all over this place - you must have the smell confused! Since religion quite obviously plays importance, even by those who continue to insist religion is irrelevant, I don't find myself to have wavered off-topic.

> "That is flatly wrong" is a useless statement, on Wikipedia. It would have to read "That is flatly wrong, according to H. L. Peabody (1952), p. 68" (of course using a real reference). Otherwise you are just wasting time.

I didn't have to say "according to...", etc., since my references were already and clearly stated in the body of my message - namely, the Rig Veda and Tod's annals and antiquities of Rajasthan. So the statement "That is flatly wrong" is a logical, sensible and a meaningful pro-ceeding from that.

By the way, the matter of Ashoka is a red-herring. It bears no relevance to the notion of Dharm, which can be traced as far back to the RV. And just in case, it does have relevance, the uttered statement by Khurram that

1) "Ashoka used it 'only' in an 'adminsitrative' sense" is wrong, according to Ashoka's own edicts.

2) "Before Ashoka dharma was not used in a religious sense" is again wrong, as is evident from the Pali canons.

You say, > THere are some people who think that being a "Rajput" is determined by your ancestry, regardless of religion.

Who are these people? Khurram has just stated that "every Rajput has a Muslim soul" and "is a Muslim whether he acknowledges this or not". - so the "regardless of religion" is a false premise. That's why I said, if Khurram believes every Rajput is ultimately a Muslim, etc., he should voice such entries in the Muslim page on Wikipedia.

There are no two points of view; only one.

I appreciate your need to keep this discussion civil.

Suryabandhu, Kinsman of the Sun 11:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Suryabandhu

that's cool. I'm just saying, stay on topic. A "weeding of a Mephitinaic euphoria" whatever that is is not any more on topic than a florilegium, or meditations on the etymology of "religion" or "asi". I will obviously oppose statements like "every Rajput has a Muslim soul". Can we see the diff of Khurram saying this? Or just forget it as rants past? "Who are these people?" -- now this is on topic. Ask for references. If we have no clear references for "Muslim Rajputs", we will not talk about them. "There are no two points of view" is a little daring in the face of the riot on this talkpage, now here I would say "that is patently not the case". We can talk about the Rigveda, but it certainly isn't a reference on 21st century demographics of South Asia. So far we have: these are good refenrences, and we can quote them. See? it's easy: two lines, not pages of mudslinging. Now keep coming with the quotable references. I shouldn't have to google ISBNs for you. I don't know what to do with references like "Kshatriya Vamshavali, Thakur Udainarain Simha" in the article. Let's agree that we want ISBN'd references, or Indologist journal articles. Maybe we can even get some ISBN'd 20th century literature, yes? Once you listed them in "References", you don't just paraphrase them to your liking, but you refer to individual pages in the article body. Agreed? dab (&#5839;) 12:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Denzil Ibbetson, "Tribes and Castes of Punjab and NWFP" (1892) ISBN 8120605055
 * Tod, "Annals and antiquities of Rajasthan" (1829) ISBN 8170691281
 * I dusted off ibbetson that someone has been citing here and on para 446 in census report of 1881 he mentions that Gaurwa rajputs of Gurgaon and Delhi, though retaining the title of Rajput in deference to the strength of caste feeling and because the change in their customs was too recent for the name to have fallen into disuse, had for all purposes of equality communion or intermarriage ceased to be rajputs since they took to Karewa or widow marriage. These muslims have been touting Ibbetson. When Gaurwa ceased to be rajputs just by changing the custom of widow-remarriage the retention of rajputi by conversion to islam is ape-shit. --DPSingh 12:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You don't understand. You can "dust off" Ibbetson, no problem. After all, the book is a century old, and may easily be completely outdated. Just, you have to do your "dusting" by citing ISBN and page number. Please do. Is this an actual quote of Ibbetson:
 * Gaurwa rajputs of Gurgaon and Delhi, though retaining the title of Rajput in deference to the strength of caste feeling and because the change in their customs was too recent for the name to have fallen into disuse, had for all purposes of equality, communion or intermarriage ceased to be rajputs since they took to Karewa or widow marriage.
 * You have to make clear which part is the actual quote. Preferably citing the page, so people can check. If this is a quote, we can easily put it in the article. You people are very slow getting your quotes together. Have you no libraries? As soon as we have two unambigous references making opposite claims regarding "Muslim Rajputs", we can open a "Controversy" section. So far, we have no properly quoted reference (not a single one! are you here for the abuse, or to write an article??) -- I had to search for publication dates and ISBNs myself. Please, people, show some productiveness. There is Warder (1972) and Thakur (1974), but nobody bothered to quote them, or explain why they are in the "References" section, or even give ISBNs. I can't believe that you keep jumping at each other's throat instead of doing actual research. See below for the books I could find in ten minutes. I can't believe nobody even quoted Kasturi (2002), a book called "Embattled Identities", which seems to be precisely about the dispute you are having  . Both sides have shown the behaviour of barbarians, not encyclopedists. Now sit down and write an article. Begin with Kasturi and summarize her take on the 19th century developments. You may begin here (amazon's "search inside"). dab (&#5839;) 13:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Kasturi
here is Kasturi (2002), page 2 (front matter! this is all incredibly trivial, any highschooler could do this research for you)
 * By the late nineteenth century, there was a shift from an emphasis on questions regarding the political relations amongst the Rajputs to a concern with kinship. Writers such as Lyall and Baden-Powell popularized an understanding of Rajputs as "tribal", which was premised on a social organization based on kinship. The fact that genealogies (vamshavalis), systematically collected by settlement and revenue officials, now became the basis of authenticating rights to property helped move colonial "models" and theories on Rajput kinship centre-stage. Colonial anthropology was soon replete with Rajput lineage histories, focusing on their supposedly "pristine" origins. While officials traced the actual kinship bonds binding members of a genealogical tree together, they were more interested in investigating the symbolic kinship ties of these groups to a ritual hierarchy of thirty-six "royal" clans. In this period, there was a corresponding increase in interest in Rajput social structures, on which copious information was collected. Most British officials perceived lineage and caste structures as timeless rigid hierachies, based on elaborate and mechanical networks and rules of status, percedence and rank. Also, officials were puzzled when families evoked more than one level of identity, for members of the same clan often called themselves by different names. What they did not understand was that most lineages subscribed to multiple identities, which overlapped and coalesced, working against an absolute definition imposed from above. Although official analyses perveived the flexibility of these hierarchies in the face of overwhelming evidence, they seldom recognized the historical circumstances shaping Rajput identities. [footnote: Lineages were linked to different networks, both sacred and profane. Branches on a stratified lineage could be either Hindu or Muslim. While acknowledging these complexities, this study will focus on "Hindu" Rajputs.] (emphasis mine)

dab (&#5839;) 14:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Repetition of discussion does not mean a conclusion. All this stuff you are asking has been discussed gazillion times. Ibbetson was raised a source earlier which has been debunked by Digvijay. So will be Kasturi.


 * Bachman you stay out of it because doing a smart grep on the internet does not make you an expert and we have had a plethora of such instant experts. If you want to learn something Digvijay posted rules of "kinship and descent" on this talk page. Read them. Also search internet what happened to sons of rajputs from hindu non rajput mothers. e.g. Banbir, Mahpa etc.


 * Friends from pakistan get over the fact that muslims can be called rajputs. Write down what would you like to say about the conversions of rajputs to Islam, which is a historical fact. This is what I wrote down and I am willing to accept modifications:
 * History has also recorded that a very small minority amongst rajputs did convert to Islam. Most of these converted to save there land / kingdom or remain a chief in the army. Some of the conversions of rajputs, it is claimed, happened at the hands of muslim saints. There has been some discussion whether this group can be considered Rajput which can be seen at the talk:Rajput page.


 * From somewhere within the above lines we can have a link to the page that you want to setup for your group.


 * Shivraj Singh 17:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Just want to clear a confusion. DP made a point and it is true that in most cases widow marriage entitled one to lose the title of Rajput (Hindu followers only) but this practice is not uniform as some Hindu Rajputs can confirm and we see in history that some of those Rajputs who married widows and their descendants are glorified Rajput heroes. So this was not a uniform rule in Rajput history.

One clarification, my comments about everyone having a Muslim soul was a way to say that we can not come to a conclusion by promoting our religious idealogy and nothing more. I am sorry for any confusion that might had arisen from it.

Denzil Ibbetson might had been criticised for a specific decision but does it has to do anything with his work on tribes and castes of India? Also the data that he provided was based upon the census report and as DP has mentioned, he wrote the facts as he found them.

ImpuMozhi, I am sorry my friend for the grief that has been caused by the so elongated discussion on this page. In my view, as I have mentioned above we shall not have had this discussion to begin with and it is nothing but sad to witness all this.

خرم Khurram 16:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * in view of the citation above, I find it eminently plausible that the notion or title of "Rajput" was not handled by some single central authority. We will try to describe how many-layered and complicated the notion is, and we will have a section on the happenings of the 19th century, without which it will be impossible to understand the 20th century situation. Now if both ImpuMozhi and Khurram agree to adhere to WP:5P, in particular WP:CITE, I think we can unprotect. Unsourced statements and edit warring will just be reverted of course. I will try to sketch the complicated situation by referring to Kasturi. I don't know how competent or accepted Kasturi is, it is just the most up-to-date reference I could find. Everyone will be free to cite other references, as long as strict verifiability of the literature is satisfied. A look in Kasturi's bibliography will give you a wealth of other 20th century literature on the topic, you'll all just have to do some work consulting it. So what do you say, Khurram and ImpuMozhi, shall we unprotect again? dab (&#5839;) 16:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I for one totally agree to the approach that you have suggested. Research, discussion and then putting the material into the article is the correct approach. I am not confident about the unprotecting of the actual page and would like to suggest that we first create at least a blue print of our findings and then change the page. My only concern is that if we unprotect it, we might again find ourselves indulged into the edit warring and other activities like that but this is just my personal opinion. We can start by the pre 19th century work (I suspect there is some) and then move forward recording and comparing the later work. I think there is much to discover about the Rajputs, their origins and the dynamics of their culture and its evolution over centuries. خرم Khurram 17:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * yes, I'd like to hear some "Hindu" voices saying they feel bound to WP:5P first, too. In the end, there will be no end to vandalism and stubbornness, and we'll always have to revert sub-standard edits. But we need a small group of editors who feel obliged to defend the encyclopedicity of the article. Personally, I couldn't care less whether or not there are Muslim Rajputs, and I'll just watch the article and revert biased and unsourced statements from either side. dab (&#5839;) 21:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't agree more.
 * خرم Khurram 22:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

proposed References section
just add relevant publications with ISBNs. Take the discussion elsewhere to keep this section readable.
 * Denzil Ibbetson, Tribes and Castes of Punjab and NWFP (1892) ISBN 8120605055
 * Tod, Annals and antiquities of Rajasthan (1829) ISBN 8170691281
 * Anthony Kennedy Warder, An introduction to Indian historiography, Monographs of the Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, University of Toronto, Popular Prakashan (1972), ASIN B0006C8HP2
 * Upendra Thakur, Some Aspects of Ancient Indian History and Culture, Popular Prakashan (1972), ASIN B0006C8HP2
 * DeWitt C. Ellinwood, Jr,, Between Two Worlds: A Rajput Officer in the Indian Army, 1905-21: Based on the Diary of Amar Singh of Jaipur, Hamilton Books (2005), ISBN 0761831134
 * Dirk H. A. Kolff, Naukar, Rajput, and Sepoy : The Ethnohistory of the Military Labour Market of Hindustan, 1450-1850, University of Cambridge Oriental Publications, Cambridge University Press; (2002), ISBN 0521523052
 * Lindsey Harlan, Religion and Rajput Women: The Ethic of Protection in Contemporary Narratives, University of California Press (1992), ISBN 0520073398
 * Pauline Van Lynden, Rajasthan, Assouline (2003), ISBN 2843234468
 * Kasturi, Malavika,  Embattled Identities Rajput Lineages, Oxford University Press (2002) ISBN 01956-5787-x
 * Bhattacharyya, Sukum, Rajput States and the East India Company ISBN 11418-7209-9
 * Hallissey, Robert C, Rajput Rebellion Against Aurangzeb: A Study of the Mughal Empire in Seventeenth-Century India University of Missouri Press (1977) ISBN 08262-0222-5
 * Leigh Minturn, Swaran Kapoor, Sita's Daughters: Coming Out of Purdah-the Rajput Women of Khalapur Revisited  Oxford University Press (1993), ISBN 01950-7823-3
 * Dowager Maharani of Couch Behar, The Rajput Princesses, Aryan Books (1997) ISBN 81730-5025-2

Rajputs and Marathas
Well some editor Malaiya who has incidently edited this article before, have been puttin Rajput POV edits on Maratha article by claiming all our great clans and leaders are of direct Rajput descent. Now its my turn to feel that my identity is being attacked. Is there any credible evidence to suggest that Rajputs were migrating to Maharshtra as late as 16/17th century and do other martial races like Gurkhas and Marathas who are/claim of Rajput/part-Rajput descent deserve a mention on this article? अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 17:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Aryan, I will talk to Malaiya on the Maratha talk page.  Shivraj Singh 17:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Khurram: > One clarification, my comments about everyone having a Muslim soul was a way to say that we can not come to a conclusion by promoting our religious idealogy and nothing more.

Incredible! The reason one cannot come to any conclusion based on religion is because everyone has a muslim soul ultimately! What circular logic! Because Islam can only allow you so much of a perspective, doesn't mean, all religions are like that. You got that?

Dbachmann: > meditations on the etymology of "religion" or "asi"... is not on topic...

Factually, and contextually, they are. What you call 'meditations' happen to be raw basics, which 'had to be' brought in, 1) to avoid any miscommunication

2) to avoid any confusion or twisting of concepts

3) seeing some were unaware of their meanings at their very basic.

Aren't we all a wee bit more educated now?, and you were complaining of barbarism...

> "There are no two points of view" is a little daring in the face of the riot on this talkpage, now here I would say "that is patently not the case".

I mean to say and still do, there are no two points of view as in one that takes into religious considerations, and one that 'apparently' doesn't. The latter is a false premise. There aren't two povs. operating, only one; because even those who voice the pro-Muslim-Rajput views, operate from a categorization based on religion. No amount of denying can change that fact. As you will observe by your own citing of Kasturi. The part you highlighted -

> [footnote: '''Lineages were linked to different networks, both sacred and profane. Branches on a stratified lineage could be either Hindu or Muslim'''. While acknowledging these complexities, this study will focus on "Hindu" Rajputs.]'' (emphasis mine)

Stratification is the process of grouping members of the population into relatively homogeneous subgroups.

So, to stratify a lineage into 'Hindu or Muslim' so that a 'homogenous' subgroup is possible (which is what stratyfying means), means Religion was the criterion used.

I hope that makes it clear, when I say, there are no two povs. operating; religion is and was a criterion. It is and was relevant. Khurram can deny this to his heart's content, since I don't expect him to admit it after the numerous times he's said here "religion doesn't matter", while still insisting on highlighting a Muslim-rajput identity, but it doesn't change facts.

That lineage could be stratified all the more shows, Hindu Rajputs and Muslim Rajputs were two separate sub-groups, each a class of their own and in no way can be said, they are similar. Obviously, to Kasturi (as to anyone honest for that matter!), a rajput was seen "according to who/what he prayed to" and was accordingly stratified. The statement made by the poster in message 3 in archive 3, that "a rajput is a rajput irrespective of who/what he prays" is thus false and incorrect. This was my original point.

> We can talk about the Rigveda, but it certainly isn't a reference on 21st century demographics of South Asia.

It most certainly is one while discussing Rajput ethos, and this page is on all things Rajput. All things in context.

61.247.240.26 18:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Suryabandhu

Surya,

>>Incredible! The reason one cannot come to any conclusion based on religion is because everyone has a muslim soul ultimately! What circular logic! Because Islam can only allow you so much of a perspective, doesn't mean, all religions are like that. You got that?

As I mentioned earlier we are drifting away from the topic again so I opt not to indulge in the argument of religion any more. I will however really appreciate that you at least show the same respect to my religion that I have shown for yours.

خرم Khurram 19:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Khurram: > As I mentioned earlier we are drifting away from the topic again so I opt not to indulge in the argument of religion any more.

You say this when you still cannot answer the questions that were previously addressed to you.

> I will however really appreciate that you at least show the same respect to my religion that I have shown for yours.

I'm sorry, but I don't feel I have offended your religion. I have merely only been pointing out facts and logic. I think we must be honest and courageous enough not to turn a blind eye to certain undeniable facts.

61.247.240.26 20:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Suryabandhu

>>I'm sorry, but I don't feel I have offended your religion. I have merely only been pointing out facts and logic. I think we must be honest and courageous enough not to turn a blind eye to certain undeniable facts.

Thank you my friend and I really appreciate it. Maybe Islam is not what you conceive it to be my friend. Please give this assumption a fighting chance before you comment on Islam. I will be much obliged.

خرم Khurram 21:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

To Khurram, I repeat my very simple question to you.

Could u kindly answer

''The rajputs believe that their origins lay with either the Sun,the Moon or fire. Muhammed in his final sermon declared that all humans were born of Adam & Eve.''

So who is a muslim rajput then Khurram...Originally born of Adam & Eve or born of the force of Sun, moon or fire.? regards, Shonan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.238.195 (talk • contribs)


 * Shonan, Wikipedia is not built by the Socratic method. We need you to make a statement about the standards of editing required first, so we can unprotect the article, so don't go off on a tangent religious sermon. I inserted a fact template for you in your quote (?) above, because it is a perfect example of a statement that needs to be sourced. "The rajputs" (which ones) "believe" (when? In 500 BC? Or does every Rajput believe this, literally, today? Do you also cease to be a Rajput if you go to university, and believe that the Sun is a main sequence star?). This discussion is perfectly on topic if you remember to quote your sources. I know this may seem foreign to you, but this is an encyclopedia. We don't have gurus, we don't have muftis, we simply summarize and present the literature, nothing else. And please, sign your posts and get an account. dab (&#5839;) 10:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Get into a habit of reading material already presented. [Kinship and descent groups]

[For_the_benefit_of_Non_Indians]

Every rajput has descended from the line of Lord Ram, Lord Krishna, or Lord Som.

--DPSingh 11:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Get in the habit of being civil, even on the internet. I looked at your link, and it is just you again making unreferenced claims. This is not a "presentation". "Indian society" doesn't have an ISBN, and I daresay it is heterogenous. Muslims, like it or not, are a minority constituent of Indian society. I don't see you citing a single ISBN. You cite Monier-Williams for the meanings of Sanskrit terms that are undisputed in the first place. The question I am posing to you, DPSingh, for the fourth time now, is, will you, or will you not, consider yourself bound to WP:5P, in particular WP:CITE. Your silence seems to imply that you do not. This doesn't matter. We will not keep this article protected because you can't adhere to policy. If you do not, however, and continue to insist on editing regardless, you will be rolled back, and if you persist, you will be blocked from editing. It's as simple as that. You think you are right, so get in a library and quote us some literature, anything else is empty talk. FYI, "Non Indians" are not stupid, and they can read. For example Kasturi, which I quoted above. I realize Rajput lineages are complicated or "baffling", from reading this single page of Kasturi alone, and I learned more from this single page than from tomes of your circular arguing. Do you think you are the only people on earth suffering from a bloated ethnic pride? Go look at Talk:Macedonia whic is full of people hatin each others' guts because they think they are the only true Macedonians. You can learn a lot there, especially how childish it looks when seen from the outside. dab (&#5839;) 11:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

OK since you have read and still struggling. Indian society has laws which were set in antiquity on what defines kinship and descent. This does not have an ISBN. 82 crore hindus follow them implicitly. All four divisions of Indian society i.e Rajput/Shudra/Brahmin/Vaishya have same laws governing them.

A descent group is defined by having common : vansha, kula, jati, gotra, jana, varna.

A child keeps his/her jaati if both mother and father have same jaati. e.g a rajput marrying a brahmin women cannot have rajput children.

kula is protected by hindu gods.

In India, unlike in the west, aceptance of someone "same as yourself" is dictated by if you are willing to marry with them. Hindus and hence rajputs do not intermarry with christians or muslims because the followers of these two religions are considered having no jaati and hence are outside the system.

Finding the word muslim rajput in a book and on the internet means little. There are people claiming that in India as well as Pakistan. Question is that do others accept there claims. Answer is simply no. The reasons for non-acceptance are explained above.

Lastly to draw a parallel can you categorize all christians as Jews? Will Christians accept that? Can you categorize most muslims as jewish since they have jewish blood? Try calling a christian a jew and a muslim a jew.

--192.94.94.106 13:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * you just don't get it, do you. Or do you think you are the first person on earth giving a written account of Indian society? Ever heard of Indology, the academic field dedicated to doing exactly that? You are just some random guy on the internet. What you say may well be true, but it is irrelevant. If what you say is as evident and undisputed as you claim, it should be the easiest thing in the world to quote Indological literature, which will have ISBNs, supporting it. Take ten minutes and read the encyclopedia article. This is what we are doing here. It is really sad that you can write English and have internet access, but you don't grasp the most basic concepts of academia or literature. This is not a chatroom about Hindu topics. This is a discussion page for grown ups who attempt to write an encyclopedic article. Come back when you have understood what an encyclopedia is, and then we can have a word about Rajputs or Hindus.  dab (&#5839;) 14:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Page 27 of [this book] --192.91.75.29 18:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * great! now we're getting somewhere. you may have noted that I have listed this book above,
 * Lindsey Harlan, Religion and Rajput Women: The Ethic of Protection in Contemporary Narratives, University of California Press (1992), ISBN 0520073398
 * so all you need to do now is produce a coherent paragraph containing "According to Harlan (1992:27), many Rajputs of Rajasthan are nostalgic about their past and keenly conscious of their genealogy.". That's the way to go. dab (&#5839;) 18:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Also it opens the rooms for research. Once we know that Rajputs associate themselves with Sun, Moon and Fire the next step is to find when did they start associating themselves with Sun, Moon and Fire? How different Rajputs Kuls were divided among different Vanshs and when was this division first started? I think these are all basic research questions that help the understanding the topic better.
 * خرم Khurram 21:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * except we won't do that research; if it is covered in Indological literature, fine; otherwise, WP:NOR. Now, in a description of the history of the Rajputs, it is perfectly obvious (I hope), that before Islam reached India in the Middle Ages, there were no Muslim Rajputs, and at least according to the references quoted above, they did in fact put up a considerable defence. The section could be structured,
 * Origins, early history
 * Islamic invasion
 * British Raj
 * since 1947
 * It will be difficult to evaluate when Rajputs originated, since early Indian history is in obscurity. It is, of course, a matter of the history of Hinduism growing out of Vedic civilization. We will have to separate myth from actual attestation, but of course also the myths have their place in the article, as documented popular belief. Actual history begins with the 6th century, in this case, apparently. dab (&#5839;) 22:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)