Talk:Rajput/Archive 21

Intercaste Marriages
What is the percentage of inter-caste and inter-religious marriages in the Rajput community? If it is less than 20%, aren't they anti-social? Maaparty 17:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

race/caste?
Are rajputs a race or a caste? Since jatts claim to be a race and also claim to be born of "rajputs?" or rajputs were blueblooded kshatriyas who came under the umbrella term rajput? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alokbagga (talk • contribs)
 * Can you show me---jatts claim to be a race and also claim to be born of "rajputs?",rather reverse has been found to be true as per comments in Archieve 21.Plz don't distort the facts.Holy -- + -- Warrior 10:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

hey I have been told that rajpooths are a caste, (I am one too rajpooth chib from the punjab side of pakistan) I know there are others ghekar and chohan and patee, I am unsure of other muslim rajpooth sub-types, if someone knows please do let me know! It would be nice to know the other sub-types. Jatts for what i have deduced in the pakistani community are land owners, they are from the cast choudary (of which there is 7 sub-types) and are not really related to rajpooths (you need check other websites for any relation i haven't found any) 23/8/2006

the term 'rajput' applies to a social status wielding political power. the rajputs are of kshatriya caste. rajputs might belong to same race 'aryan' but they do not belong do not belong to the same stock of people for example there are gujjar rajputs ( gurjara prathihara) and scythian rajputs but all of them are ultimately aryans.

soni/maid rajputs!
Could someone edit this article to include maid/soni rajputs of punjab!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alokbagga (talk • contribs)

If you are sure you should edit yourself. Holy   +    Warrior  13:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

* Mr Bagga do you not mean "Mair Rajputs" of Punjab

Atulsnischal 08:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

ghakkars are no way rajputs,nowhere in any of the anciant scriptures are they mentioned as rajputs,they are of iranian origin and came around the time of muslim invasions,so unless iranians are rajput???????? so please dont put info which is not verified and yes the did rule upto the area from pindi to gujrat in pakistan but were repelled from the onslaught of gujar singh bangi they assume the title raja which does not mean rajput.It just is a way of saying i am a ruler but not rajput Rajput is a collection of the 36 royal houses of india and were brought into presence to defend india from the muslim onslaught Some of these clans are Solankis.chauhan ,bhatti,gurjar partihara.rhatore,bargujar,sisodia,rhangar etc they are from the four different houses 9 clans for each house and there offshoot branches and it is only these that are true rajaputras the rest are just ,MAKE IT UP AS YOU GO ALONG JUST BECAUSE YOU CONTROL A CERTAIN AREA AND CLAIM THE TITLE OF RAJA DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE A RAJPUT YOU CAN ONLY BE RAJPUT IF YOU ARE DESCENDED FROM THE ORIGINAL 36 OR THERE OFFSHOOTS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.231.58 (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Meir rajput were true rajput
They are not only a goldsmith.they are from a martial caste.

Help Expand the new Article on "Mair Rajputs" from links and references provided

 * Hi included a seperate page on Mair Rajputs, I have provided all references and external links, when you get time read the references and help expand the "Mair Rajput" page. Thankyou


 * I have interconnected the Mair Rajput page to many related categories and pages on Wikipedia


 * I have a request, please refer to External links and write the Mair Rajput page in as much detail as possible in your own words, so that is is copywrite free, include all the families and gotras mentioned too for all of us to see, Thankyou

As per the External Link: http://mairrajputs.tripod.com/notable.html


 * Bagga: "The Bagga claim descent from Rao Chhabila of Delhi whose complexion was bagga, which means white in Punjabi whence this name" (Rose 440). There was also a Bagga chief in northern Punjab. His name was Budh Singh Bagga and he is described by Saggar. "He was the son of Sardar Amar Singh Bagga and was of the Kanhaya Misl. He inherited the family estates in 1795. He held Majitha, Sukalgarh, Bhagowal and other territories in Amritsar and Gurdaspur districts" (Saggar 61). He fought against Maharaja Ranjit Singh in 1809 after failing to meet the latter's demands. Ranjit Singh won and confiscated all of Bagga's estates including the three districts of Behrampur, Dharamkot, and Sukalgarh. He left to Budh Singh Bagga an estate at Dharamkot which Bagga held until his death in 1846.

Interesting, I am also a Mair rajput, please help expand the "Mair Rajputs" page.

Thanks

Atulsnischal 07:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

== Mair rajputs are not kshatriya.they are goldsmith only

A/C ==to shastras/smritis goldsmith was sudras.they are in not in army so they are not a martial cast also.people often beat their easily.hi hi hi

revert war
Editors plz refrain from rv war I would rather request the user who posted on my talk page to edit in stepwise manner without changing whole article in one go citing reasons Thanks. Holy | Warrior  11:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Section Famous Rajput
Editors plz include only prominent people.(Idealy there should not be more than 10 names,with single line summary).Do these people merit inclusion?  HW  11:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Anoop Chauhan - Senior Marine Engineer
 * Pankaj Kumar Chauhan - engineer and Ph D, A product from IIT Kharagpur
 * Mrityunjay Chauhan - environmental engineer
 * Dr. LS Chauhan - Leader in tuberculosis research.
 * Dr. Vijay Singh Chauhan - cardiologist
 * Anand kumar singh "chauhan"-B.tech._national institute of foundry & forge technology [varanasi]

Why to discuss this? --- Maratha and British suzerainty (18th-20th c.)
As this is very wel known that the Maratha's were trying to protect many Rajputs, this is their internal fightings called marathas for taking help. Other point, If there would have been great differences then there would have no relations right from Mahadaji Shinde (The man who established the Scindia family) till the Madhavarao Scindia with Rajput families. Mahadaji's Mother was from wel established Tanwar Rajput Family. This family is settled in Marathawada region(Since 1550 AD). Currently have relations with respected maratha families. As per History there are no hatred in Rajput and Maratha Families. Marathas always respected Rajputs and had tried to help them in many ways. -- Rajput Maratha.

Mall sainthwar (rajputs)
This article is on AfD, comments appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Origin of (rajputs)
90% of the roayl rajput dynasties descended from Gujjars. The Gujjar rulers, ruling petty states, who could not face the invaders in 13-th century accepted the services of Invaders. The invaders then called these Kings as Rajputs (And not Kings or Raja).

Sikh Rajputs: Hinduism, Sikhism and Punjabi Hindu Rajputs
Punjabi Hindus hold Sikhism in high regard, many Punjabi Hindus not only in India but worldwide today visit their local Gurudwaras regularly and adhere to the preaching’s of the Guru Granth Sahib. Sikhism is traditionally seen as a religion of warriors who were protectors of Hindus against marauding Islamic invaders who seeked to convert Hindus to Islam by lethal force. There has been a long standing practice in Punjab which still continuous where Hindu families give their first born son to the Guru to be baptized as a Sikh and join the Guru’s army of protectors. Many Punjabi Rajput families too have been giving their sons to be enrolled in the Guru’s Army and baptized as Sikhs. Thus there are many Hindu, Punjabi Hindu Rajput and Punjabi Hindu Mair Rajput families whose kin are proud followers of Sikhism today. Thus there are many Sikhs who call themselves "Sikh Rajputs" today and still use Rajput family names.

Atulsnischal 23:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Copied from "Muslim Rajputs" and also from "Rajput Wikipedia": Muslim who claim to be Rajputs
Okay I won't delete the above paragraph again, sorry, I apologise.There are 3 million of us Rajput muslims in Pakistani Punjab,please don't deny us our heritage...indeed we are proud to be associated with Indians in this way. My Muslim clan meet their Hindu clansmen everyear in Delhi..and we promote Love!!! Now, please don't delete mine below either okay? Otherwise this tit for tat will go on until we involve Wikipaedia, okay! Also, Sikhism is not a sect of Hinduism as it is an independent religion in its own right. HH Sohail, The Raja of Chibistan

Somebody recorded recently that if Rajputs were to convert, they could no longer be called Rajputs!With all due respect perhaps he should read the paragraph below...and remember that unfounded taunts are not very noble. The Discovery of India by Jawaharlal Nehru no less, (Oxford Uni.Press 1985, p62) puts into context the concept of unifying 'lineal' inherited identity with 'religious' duty, "The fact of subsequent conversion to other faiths, did not deprive them of this heritage; just as the Greeks, after their conversion to Christianity, did not lose pride in the mighty achievements of their ancestors, of the Italians in the great days of the Roman Republic and early empire." (p341), "...Christians, Jews, Parsees, Moslems. Indian converts to these religions never ceased to be Indian on account of a change of their faith...."

Nehru also mentioned his own personal experience with Muslim Rajputs as he grew up, "I grew to know; the Rajput peasant and petty landholder, still proud of his race and ancestry, even though he might have changed his faith and adopted Islam." More importantly he bears testament to the fact that despite his change of faith, a Rajput is still referred to and recognised as a Rajput.(The Discovery of India, 2004, Penguin, p51)

2006 86.140.142.66 - 86.140.142.66

Answer to above comment

Sir,

Please dont vandalise "Rajput Wikipedia" and delete text randomly, on your insistence I have included a link to Muslim Rajput page from English Wikipedia. It is a well known fact that Hindu Rajputs never in the history of India ever converted by the millions to Islam because of their own free will, they were defeated in unequal wars and forced to convert, those who didnt agree to be converted to Islam were slaughtered by the thousands in front of the very eyes of those who panicked and gave in thus embracing Islam. Invading enemy was famous for raping, slaughtering, and distributing both women and children among themselves after the Rajput (hindu) men died in battle or were slaughtered for not converting.

Please face the truth and the plain facts, this is the knowledge age, no body can afford the excuse that he is from a blindfolded brainwashed lot and dosent know any better.

Sincerely

Best wishes to all who cliam to be Rajputs "Jai Mata Ki"

Atulsnischal 06:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sir, You are a very venomous 'oxy-moronic'person that is bent on giving your version of History to any that is gullible enough to hear you.My own ancestor Raja Shadeeb Kumar converted on the orders of Akhbar, and its true that if he did not, he would have lost his State and most likely his head. So, the tactful Raja that he was, he kept his State, by what he called 'adding another god to the 14 he already believed in.Soit seems he did not convert from the heart but,his future generations were spared the ignorance of idolatory and became believers in the one true God of Abraham. Much bigger and powerful Rajputs had the luxury of making pacts with the Moghuls and indeed mixing their blood with Rajputs to the extent that Emporer Jahanghir was half-rajput! However, some like the Mewars considered conversion a fate worse than death. However, raping was never allowed my Muslim armies and any distribution of women was as wives.. and this prevents societies taking advantage of vunerable women who would other fall into disrepute or be victims of abuse. Sure, there was great animosity at times, but the Mughals could not have ruled India without the aid of Rajputs.

HH THE RAJA OF CHIBISTAN

2006 86.140.142.66 - 86.140.142.66


 * Strange then that despite all of this, Raja Man Singh Kachwaha was not only a general for these Invaders but also gave his sister's hand in marriage to them? I dont think it was for rape, so who is wearing the blindfold?


 * Again, this article doesn't justify Muslim Rajputs to the Hindu extremists, it just describes them. Important difference. Please save the POV slants for a pro nationalist chat room. This is an encyclopedia.


 * Best wishes to all people, whatever they are, Wasalaam ul ahl e Haq!

--Raja 12:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well ofcourse, I will atleast side with you on wishing all people, peace and brotherhood and all the best to everybody of all faiths.

Sincerely

Atulsnischal 07:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

a rajput will always be a rajput no matter what creed he adopts to lead his life. a proud muslim rajput of bargujar clan from haryana

i have observed numerous times when visiting rajput websites that hindu rajputs are loggerheads with muslim rajputs. this shows a parochial view of hindu rajputs and does not come up with the dignity of which the rajputs have long been famous for. I, as a muslim rajput, cannot change my lineage merely by changing my religion. a son of a rajput will still be called and known as a rajput even if he is not a hindu. because once a child is born to a person who is a member of a particular community, he cannot be altered by social means to belong or to be outcasted to any other community. it is therefore technically wrong to say that those who converted to other religions from hinduism have become an alien to those who are still hindus. imagine if the entire hindu rajput population in india ceases to be hindus what will happen to their lineage? of course it will remain unchanged. if i am a bargujaar rajput i cannot change my own identity after changing my faith. so i request hindu rajput fellows to have a generous heart and stop treating muslim rajputs as aliens. thankyou   a muslim bargujar rajput beri  haryana india

-- It is the same argument as with jewish people. mostly jewish are associated with the religion of judaism. but the fact is that many jewish people are not religious but are also muslims or christians. this does not change their jewish heritage. the catholic cardinal of france said "I'm catholic and jewish." the same thing with rajputs. many rajputs are muslims but that does not change their background and history. i'm muslim and rajput and i'm proud of our ancestors, how they defended india but i'm also proud to be a muslim today. - rajputking

oh dear
what happened to the ToC of this page? What's with all the "the"s and unmotivated section hierarchies? It looks like a cow has eaten it. Can you try make it look like a Wikipedia article again? I am afraid we'll have to revert to 6 January for now. dab (𒁳) 10:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

your save is useless as it nullifies lot of useful info. please help improve the current revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.65.129 (talk • contribs)
 * since you butchered the "current version" of January 6, I might say the same.dab (𒁳) 11:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

if you want to refactor this article, wikiquette expects you to make a coherent proposal to this talkpage first, and listen to feedback before going ahead. You'll find support for some of your proposals, while others will be rejected. You'll then go ahead with the parts that found consensus. If you keep ignoring this process, you'll keep getting reverted. dab (𒁳) 19:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop being disruptive. You are saving a version which is incoherent. If you have any constructive suggestion please discuss them here. I have not seen you contribute a single line so far. 202.142.65.129 07:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * you may want to read the archives. it was hard work to get the article into its present shape. I do not mind your additions at all, just, for pity's sake, make an effort to understand WP:MoS first, in particular Manual of Style (headings). Present your reasons for changing the ToC, and be aware that we don't want sections titled "The Definition" (hint, begin with dropping the article). We also don't want Devanagari transliterations given in the section headers. Titles like "The Contributional Configuration" are just confused. I think there is a language problem here. People will certainly be prepared to help you clean up awkward wording, but not if you're pushy about it. Now I kindly suggest you present a clear case of what you want here on talk. dab (𒁳) 08:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

the present ToC is as follows: this is much cleaner than the chaotic ToC you are trying to introduce; but it should still be cleaned up. "demographics" and "cognate communities" should be merged. "origins" could be merged into "history", and the list of individuals should be exported to a List of Rajputs article, and only individuals with their own articles should be kept for reasons of WP:V. The history section is far too long and should be cut down to a clean summary of history of Rajputs. The lead should be one or two brief paragraphs giving the bare essentials (WP:LS). Try to help out making this article cleaner, not muddier. dab (𒁳) 09:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) demographics
 * 2) origins
 * 3) history
 * 4) culture and ethos
 * 5) cognate communities
 * 6) list of Rajputs

other version is far superior and clear. It is organised into 4 clear sections albeit needs tightening up.
 * Who rajputs are
 * How are they organized
 * What they stood for (they are kind of unique in world diaspora: scottish highlanders come close to rajputs if you want an analogy)
 * What they did ie there history
 * Modern rajputs

So I am changing it back and time permitting will tighten it up. We can have more discussion once I do that. Baikal 14:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * clear? you have twenty-one h2 sections, among them jewels like "The Finest Stories of the Rajput Valour". Your "organization" section appears to have some value, why don't you try insert it into the existing article without messing it up. You really need to get off your "The Configuration" thing, it's silly.  My good fellow, we have Category:Rajputs, there is no way we'll do a h2 section on individual ruler, let alone eleven h2 sections on individual rulers, as you apparently insist.  dab (𒁳) 14:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It will be far more uphill task to fix the version you last saved. I have started tightening rajawat's version and let us all work on that. I will fix the multiple h2 sections. Any other objections? Baikal 16:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Back to khokla humbug. I predict that the "tightening" will take that version back to the pristine bull created by SS. The "configuration" thing and "finest stories" are not the troll's creation, so of course he will tighten that out. Even otherwise, I have reason to be certain (not just beyond reasonable doubt) that Baikal is SS, and went back 310 revisions when he made this edit. Not the slightest AGF is warranted at any time on the Rajput page. So Bachmann, grip the bullshit machine by the horns, stop feeding the trolls and start banning them instead. SS, you need to play a lot, lot more with images on the page of that other khokla tinpot, Idi Amin (and then there is Bikini, LOL!!) before you can gather any credibility to appear on the Rajput page. And even then I shall know you. So get a life outside WP, I say, and begone. ImpuMozhi 18:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Start behaving schoolboy. This is a place for serious people and not kids. Baikal 06:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be surprised, SS hasn't given us the honour for a while; you are right, I shouldnt FTT. time to semi-protect my talkpage again I guess :) dab (𒁳) 18:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There are bunch of incorrect information in your version of the page. Just to pick one: Emergence of rajputs in 7th century A.D. What makes you make such claims? Ofcourse you can find books mostly by Colonial English who propounded such theories. These are ofcourse discarded by quite a few modern historians who have discovered genealogies of rajput kings going back to ancient Indian kings. So I repeat you are welcome to show your editorial skills and knowledge in poingting out mistakes in this version. Baikal 06:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * you are most welcome to work on the article. You are, for example, welcome to add fact to unsourced statements that appear dubious to you. The present version isn't "mine", and there is a lot of material in it that I haven't verified. It's just that as long as you insist on replacing the entire article with a wholly different version that we'll be getting nowhere. dab (𒁳) 10:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * in fact, strike the 'welcome', I agree with ImpuMozhi that this is another SS sleeper account. The signature of dumb stubborness combined with a certain stealthy cleverness (slow but steady learning curve how socks are recognized) is inimitable. dab (𒁳) 10:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

WHY IS THERE A REVERT WAR GOING ON, ON THE "RAJPUT" PAGE
Please work with info in this following important version and retain all of it in the final version:

Revision as of 06:59, 30 January 2007 by Baikal. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajput&oldid=104283145

And please only contribute to facts if you are knowledgable and have done some serious research from credible sources, if some of us are not so good in English / Grammer, it being not our first language, please help in correcting the English not in adding or substacting facts.

Please let this article be a truthful representation of Rajputs not an ongoing controversy and a Revert War.

Sincerely

Atulsnischal 09:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * you are reverting to the troll's version, Atulsnischal. If it has anything you'd like in the current version, I am sure we can help you insert it in impeccable English prose. Revert-warring doesn't make you look "knowledgeable", pinpointing inaccuracies does. Some flaws of your favoured version are pointed out above; to begin with, it re-states much material from other articles. There is a list of Rajputs article you may want to work on, we do not want a copy of this list here. There is a History of Rajputs article, we do not want to re-state a detailed list of kings here. See also Main article fixation. dab (𒁳) 10:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Take up some good grammar book to see the proper uses of 'THE', a definite article. This should put at rest the quarrel over use of 'THE'.Why make a fuss over removal of unverified material passed on as HISTORY? Debashishh 14:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many revertions but let it be.Wikipedia must watch or there must be something to watch how the people edits.There have been constant efforts to spoil Rajput History since Muhammad Ghori.Strange versions being introduced.The only thing is that Kshatriya community of royal houses was divided into to many kingdoms and chiefdoms.To differantiate thease from other Kshatriyas who were only army officers or personnell word Rajput was used which is is clearly Apbhramsa or corrupt word of Rajputra in Sanskrit.Word Rajputra has been used in Mahabharata and by Panini.And clearly it referred to son of kings or sons of royal houses or in other words princes.Gradually it deformed into local dilects or in the language of public.You must take into count that Sanskrit was never a language of people in India.It was a high class language for learned and scholerly men.Like Sanskrit Farsi English could not find there place in common people.Great epic Ramcharitmanas got populerity because it was written in the language people understood.Same is the case with lord Buddha who spoke local language.This can be true even for Akbar who not only in language but in all spheres of life introduced localization.His half brother and son of Bairam Khan, Abdurahim Khankhana created poems in Hindi.Some mischievious person found a picture of three or four persons and it is set to represent all thousands of years of history of sacrifice,Honesty,Loyalty,Bravery.Even other castes have been shown to be greater then Rajputs in pictures.

But the Picture clearly shows the position of a Rajput now.Deprived of his lands,Job, some decietful Maphia wants to discredit their history and selfrespect.

The right of expression is honoured in present society but they will express vulgar things and include them in Wikipedia.The person with reasonable thinking and behaviour finds him at no place.Wikipedia can be edited by anybody so we find strange things everyday.I found some Reddy was the last king of delhi.I also found Rajput Prime Ministers and even present vice President, and others as actors and born in 1975 onwards and fan of Preeti Zinta.This vandalism and vulgerism must stop at wiki pedia.

Why dont wikipedia men understand that this is being also regarded as source of right information in present time.I would suggest 'Allow edits but not anything at anywhere and abuse at every place'. I would request all wikipedians to change this image which is claimed to be Rajput soldiers.Nobody knows what was the caste of persons portrayed as Rajputs.

--Shivbramh 15:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC) The image of Rajputs

The image which appears on this page does not symbolize Rajput charecter.I dont know who found it and fixed it hear.Kindly remove it and put some good pictures.There are many famous Rajput personalities and monuments.

--Shivbramh 14:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Just as there are no "Muslim Brahmanas". There are no 'Muslim Rajputs' too. The term muslim rajput is an oxymoron. Show me one muslim general in any historical work, whose primary identity was that of being a Rajput, and it shall be proved the muslim-rajput is not an oxymoron.

spendurti

there are many hindu gujjars as well as gujars amonst muslims, jat hindus as well as jaat muslims why not rajput muslims???????? being a rajput is a social issue rather than a religious. kshatriya title was a political empowerment of a particular clan endorsed by religion. religion cannot work in isolation. it functions with social forces.

wasim singh bargujar

We dont have any objections if Muslims consider themselves to be of Rajput origin.This is historical fact that many Hindus including Rajputs converted into Islam during medieval period.

Rajputs in medieval period were very perticuler about purity of their blood.There are many rules about marriage.The persons who did not follow them gradually lost their identity as Rajput.There are many examples Rajputs becoming Jats, Gujars, and mixing in another caste.

You must be aware that if a Rajput king married woman of another caste, the marriage was allowed but the queen was not allowed to enjoy the same status as the queen from Rajput caste.This was not the practice in ancient India.I believe during medieval period Rajputs became more conservative because they felt a threat to their identity and religio

--Shivbramh 04:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Patrilineages
We have two statements here which do not agree:


 * "Rajput belong to two great patrilineages"

then (later)
 * "three patrilineages (vanshas)"

Only two are identified. Which is correct?Fconaway 05:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There are only two. Three is incorrect. Also whoever is adding non-sense please stop. Dilli was won by chauhan and not gifted.

Efforts to hijack Singh article
Editors of this Rajput article are requested to work on the article Singh, as some people are making constant effort to hijack the article and keep it only for Sikhs saying that provide reference if Singh is a Rajput common name, they keep erasing reference that Sing is a Rajput name at all. They keep proving that Singh is a Sikh name only. I suspect these are foreign editors who have no idea what they are talking about obviously.

See this version of the article that erases all reference that Singh is a common name used by Rajputs: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Singh&oldid=153438525

Kindly provide a lot of references and facts that Singh is a Rajput name and also provide how many Rajputs may be using it as a middle or as the last name because I know Rajputs who migrated outside Rajasthan to other states many hundred years ago have lost touch and now use it now as their last name.

Kindly help to work on Singh article when you all get some time, Thanks

Atulsnischal 06:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added a reference to the book Isbn: 8170231396 A History of the Sikh People (1469-1988) by Gopal Singh in which he states that the appelation of the name Singh was used by the Rajputs long before being adopted by the Sikhs in 1699.

Gorkhali 00:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic group info box
Why dont you create a ethnic group info box, see the Punjabi, Persian, Gujaratis, Sikhs etc. for the Rajputs. It looks so much neater. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.105.94 (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Because Persian is a nationality and culture. Gujaratis and Punjabis are both based on culture, geography and language groups. Sikhs are a part of one faith. The Rajputs come from different parts of India, speak different languages, might have slightly varying customs depending on their region, its a Jati, not an ethnic group, like the Samurai of Japan.

Gorkhali (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Rajput Muslims
Rajput Muslims -

I found in many history books that Many Rajput by their will changed to Muslims before the Muslim invadors came to India. This was the period of the King Harsh wardhana. We should not hate these Rajputs. In the same line I must say that If they are turning back to Hindu religion we must respectfully take back them in our fold - at last that is our blood.

There were many reasons that the Rajput turn to Muslim. So one should not make a hatred statement about these Rajputs. Yes I call them Rajput because they are our blood.

The another thought process I found that there is very sharp difference saying we are this Rajput and that Rajput. I would like to ask any Rajput who claims very cleanly that 'he is Rajput' - the status you got as a Rajput is from common man. I mean to say that when some families from Farmers line took part in wars and they turned to be the kings - Rajas.

When this fact is clear like a sun light why we ourself distinct from the fact that The Rajput is nothing but a raised status of living and a respectable designation. When we ourself are raised why we hate others? They will automatically respect us. By forcing others to respect is no way good, it reverses in negative manner.

In the period of ASHOKA - many Rajputs accepted the dharma of BUDDHA. The Royal Dharma. But since we worshiped - Eklingji and Kali ma for thousand of years, it was difficult for our families to turn to Buddhisam. Also learned BRAHMINs pushed to continue with our traditions.. Finally these brahmins accepted Buddha as 10th avatar of Vishnu. As there were many gods so they added this one Avatar.

The BRAHMINS always abandoned the poor Rajput families from performing poojas., When these bad traditions continued Rajputs from good origins also driffted to other Dharmas. Some kings families defeated or mislead by brahmins take revenge by turning to other dharmas.

As today we Rajputs strongly hate the BRAHMIN's superior status, the same situation might have occured a long back.

Now its very important for us to maintain our Rajput status. We must learn to change our attitude towards others, time is changing and now sword is not the power the Power is in our presentation and dedication to the good Path that we are following for our won prosperity.

Now the power is in knowledge and Money., we must strive hard for reaching to our status. Bhikari ko koi Raja kyon kahe?

-- Rajput —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.80.57.2 (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

WHO ARE TRUE RAJPUTS
there are lot of different sub catagories of rajputs, for example [KHOKHAR, MOKHAR, AWAN AND CHOHAN] all claim to be rajputs in pakistani punjab. and currently lots of people are entring in rajputs therefore there is no clear seperation of the true caste. i believe all above four out of which(mokhars are expired) are the true predecessors of RAJPUTS. any comments with reasonable history will be appriciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.166.89 (talk) 06:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem bro. Awans are not Rajput and neither does their geneology or historians claim as such. I think this was a mistake by an unlearned wikipedian.
 * I have never heard of Mokhar or what gotra they represent so cannot comment.
 * Kokhars are on the whole Tarkhans and Jats. But in Pind Dadan Khan, we certainly do have a tribe called Kokhar Rajputs who have absolutely no lineal bonds with Jat Kokhars at all. I have met a prince of this Kokhar Rajputline many years ago and his geneology encompassed many names of known Kokhar rulers such as Jasrat and Sheikha etc (sadly today, many deluded Jat historians have sought to steal theirs and other Rajputs history as their own. Some even dare to question Rana Sangha's Rajput lineage!). Their ancestor Rai Dadan Khan, was a Suryavanshi prince who recieved the plains of Pind Dadan Khan from Mughal Jahangir I believe. Knowing this family quite closely, I can definitely say they are nobles and accepted Rajputs by many pure Rajputs. The family state that an ancestor of their tribe had the name Kokhar, and did not belong to the actual Kokhar tribe itself. The popularity of this name would be appreciated, when one considers that certain Awan's named a child Kokhar after his mother's familial line, hence starting the Kokhar Awan line. This is a explanation from a few sources.
 * Chauhans are ofcourse renowned agni vanshi Rajputs and hence do not need my endorsement here. But for what it's worth, only Kokhars of Pind Dadan Khan only (who hold the title of Raja - not the Kokhars of Punjab - nais and Jats) and Chauhans are recognised as Rajput in Pakistan. None of the above mentioned tribes are recognised nor claim to be, Rajputs at all. ''


 * Peace.--Raja (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Article is in BAD shape
I actually wanted to learn about what "Rajput" means when i came to this page. In stead I find disorganised information mixed with a LOT of very clear snobbery. So you enjoy the fact that your ancestors opressed the poor and lorded it up without ever doing a proper days work - fine by me, but I dont want to read about it in an encyclopedia. Can someone with a decent education and some knowledge of the subject write me a clear, concise and scholarly article that tells me facts with maybe the odd interesting aside?

Seriously, this reads like Nietzsche and Robert E. Howard got together and decided to write a script for a Bollywood movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.83 (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Castes and Tribes of Punjab: A hidden agenda of Punjabis
Some Punjabi Supremacist is embedding the external link "ethnic and social groups of Punjab" everywhere. These Punjabi supremacists have a hidden agenda as they want to imply all Rajputs are from Punjab. The fact is Rajputs are present all over India, and their percentage is highest in Rajputana (Rajasthan). See this link.

The reason these Punjabis embed Punjabi links on these pages is because they want all power in India to flow from Punjab. They want to Psychologically subjugate the rest of India.

We must find out who these Punjabi supremacists are? And ban them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SanjayMohan (talk • contribs) 00:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have created a template specifically for Rajput groups and removed the Punjabi one. I would appreciate a knowledgeable person checking the template for completeness and accuracy.--Diannaa (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If someone can provide the complete list of 36 clans of Rajput, it would be helpful. Ikon  No-Blast  18:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * SO true! For starters I am working my way through the groups listed on my new template, "Rajput Groups of India", categorising them into the four main Rajput groups (vanshis), and developing a new template in my sandbox. There are more than 36 groups in the starter template already.  The initial source was the  "Ethnic and social groups of the Punjab" template.  There are also 150 groups listed in Category:Rajput clans and 142 groups in Category:Rajputs.  There is definitely some overlap in those two categories and with the starter template. Some are sub-categories of one another. I will do as much as I can using the info available here on our wiki and other sources online.  There is little at my local library on this topic.  --Diannaa (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

rajputs are sons off gujjars  ie; sons off kings (gujjar)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.101.75 (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Article reads like a Community Brotherhood pamphlet. Citations and Critiques must be enforced to make it scholarly and objective
This article is reads more like community brotherhood (biradari) eulogy and less like a scholarly work written with objectivity.

Credible citations should be enforced for every single clan mentioned in the list. The work of colonial historians should not be regarded as the sole authority because most of them are not primary sources or secondary sources of history.

Just because any given clan is presently considered or not considered 'Rajput' should not be reason for the inclusion and exclusion from the list of Rajput clans. Instead the connection of the clans to ancient chandravanshi, suryavanshi , etc lineages must be credibly proven with the help of citations from the primary sources and other reliable sources.

--Internet Scholar (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Article needs grammar and spell-check. It is not neutral nor objective enough. Gammadion (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC).

Trolling reports
to facilitate reporting new sock accounts, place on the account's userpage and place a note on WP:AIV, and an admin will deal with it promptly. dab (&#5839;) 09:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I hav reverted a vandal by IP 122.167.38.7 Who seems to b shudra caste n he is unnecessarily spreading hatred material for causing rift between Rajputs n Rajus. By his comments its clear he is black dravidian shudra who pretends to b Vysya, he earlier also tried to vandalize Rajus (andhra Kshatriyas) n Arya Vysyas wiki pages with name Yenkatashetty. Request moderator to keep an eye on this sock puppet Yenkatashetty n his IP 122.167.38.7 Indianprithvi (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference to Guru Gobind Singh
I have removed the paragraph on Guru Gobind Singh. It was out of context and entirely POV.: Ajjay (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Now someone has added Banda Bahadur.Nothing is known with certainity about his origins.No authentic record of his first forty years exist.So please don't speculate in this article.Keep it authentic.Ajjay (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Its better to spell Bargujar as Badgujar

Dhangar
===See also=== Dhangar. The “Ain-i-Akbari” describes Dhangars as being a proud, refractory and domineering race of Rajputs, living in the Basim Sircar and, with numerous armed forces, occupying the forts and controlling the surrounding districts. They came (to present day Maharashtra) prior to the Nizam becoming subhedar of Deccan (present day Maharashtra)on behalf of the King of Delhi. They have Rajput Gotras in their clan system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spidermen (talk • contribs)


 * to the See also Section.Unsigned1 (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A request
In the paragraph that describes Bargujar rajputs, King Rama is mentioned in the second last line. Please create a hypertext link under the word "Rama" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rama) so that the readers who are not very familiar with hindu culture would know that King Rama mentioned here is same as God Rama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuraghav (talk • contribs) 13:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Someone has added the requested link. --Diannaa (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Another request
Hi everyone. I'm currently trying to remove links to the disambiguation page Punjab. There's at least one internal link to Punjab that needs to be piped to Punjab region. Can someone fix it please? Thanks 163.1.181.208 (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ - I have checked this out and could find no links as described, as of today. --Diannaa (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Request wikilinking
Please can A. K. Warder be wikilinked in the references section? Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅--Diannaa (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You have missed out.

"Huaz Khasia" and "bhardawaj's"

it is one of the very rajput important families in india. supposed to be the descendents of the pandavas.

Huaz khasias are the royal kshatriya descents from the suryavansha family from the anceint kuru and hastinapur area

bhardawaj's are the close realtives of the hauz khasia.

it is one of the important minorities of rajputs mainly in northern india.

they should be a part of suryavansh's if you would like to mention.

prof. sunny micheals

indian culture and civilizations delhi university —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.156.66 (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You have missed out.

"Huaz Khasia" and "bhardawaj's"

it is one of the very rajput important families in india. supposed to be the descendents of the pandavas.

Huaz khasias are the royal kshatriya descents from the suryavansha family from the anceint kuru and hastinapur area

bhardawaj's are the close realtives of the hauz khasia.

it is one of the important minorities of rajputs mainly in northern india.

they should be a part of suryavansh's if you would like to mention.

prof. sunny micheals

indian culture and civilizations delhi university —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.156.66 (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * How can these two particular families be claiming Pandava lineage when they are also claiming Suryavanshi/Solar lineage? It is a well known fact that the Pandavas were representative of the Chandravansh/Lunar lineage, therefore this is impossible?--~Raja~ (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Virwar
This article has just been created. I have no knowledge in this area so suggest other editors take a look. If genuine/notable needs cleanup, wikification and possibly merging into this article. If not genuine/notable can someone nominate for AFD. Exxolon (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Text reflects Glories of Rajput clans without proper citations?
content text at many places Glorifies Rajput clans their bravery and heroism without proper citation, proper source should be mentioned or text should say that "it is believed that...".

Examples : ". They proved their chivalry by fighting with honor and the mercy that they showed to the vanquished. When fighting against the hordes of Arabs, Moghuls, Afghans, and Turks, many preferred to die rather than to forsake their ancestors' faith (Hindu dharma) for Islam."

No citation/example of mercy given here, neither anything to support "many preferred to die rather than to forsake their ancestors". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepkamal (talk • contribs) 06:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Rajputs using Surname Rana and Rathore
Hi, Its a topic which is still uncleared from the Description of Rajputs given in this page, In the index no Rana Surname is used.. but Rana's are Rajputs and It should be included and explained in the description of Rajputs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonikrana (talk • contribs) 08:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

HELP!!! NEEDED for Article on Sikh Rajputs
Someone put a tag on "Sikh Rajputs" article that it will be deleted in five days etc., this article can not be deleted as Sikh Rajputs exist and most claims made in the article are true as well known to local Indians in Punjab only the need is that some interested and knowledgeable editors with access to proper history books etc. can eventually come forward and develop the article properly in time, quoting credible sources. Foreign born and raised editors with no direct local Indian knowledge are requested not to vandalize it as per their own fastly held thoughts and beliefs.

Thanks

Atulsnischal (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi

When you get time kindly assist with developing the article, it needs some badly needed refs too, it is being vandalized, check talk page.

Thanks

Atulsnischal (talk) 06:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Origin of Rajput
The term Rajput came in existence in seventh century. The earlier history of period prior to this needs to be expanded with proper references. Thakur Deshraj is one of the prominent Historians from Rajasthan. He has mentioned about Rajputs in his book on Jat history page 113-114, w.r.t Imperial Gazetteer of India Vol 2 (page 307-308),
 * "Then between the 7th and 8th centuries the old racial divisions passed away and a new division came in founded upon status and function....
 * The rise of Rajputs determined the whole political history of time. They made their first appearance in 8-9th centuries; most of the greatest clans took possession of their seats between 800 and 850 AD. ... Their origin is a subject of much dispute." (Imperial Gazetteer of India Vol 2 p.308))

When Rajput word was not created and was not in use prior to 9th century how they are related with Rama or Pandawas. We need proper references.burdak (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC). The Rajputs are descendants of aryans. The Rajputs claim beeing also descendants of Huns and Hephtalithes. What´s with that? Possibly they are even right. They use the sufix- kul in their (clan) names which could drive from a Proto-Turkic and Proto-Mongolic word (both groups are belongiing to the altayic race) that stand for Son. In Modern Turkic languages the term turned into Ogul, in anatolian turkish they also use Oglu like BostanciOGLU. Another possible answer could be that kul from kula for family, race, caste comes from Sanscrit, see Mehrakula, Race of Mitra or Caste of Sun(goddes) in the sense of holly and powerful--88.69.48.109 (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Clan names and Gotras
I really cannot deal with the main article because this is not a university setting and it seems everyone has their opinion. However, what I do find ridiculous are the names of non-existent clans and non-existent gotras. Also, the fact that people are listing names of Brahmins and Buniyas as Rajputs which is a bit too much.

I really feel sad for this article because it is completely a mess and holds no credibility.

Gorkhali (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Migration and movement of Rajputs,
I would suggest that we discuss how Rajputs are spread over the Indian subcontinent. It must be known that Rajputs ruled once rawalpindi to kannauj and deep down malwa once. The ruler of kashmir is a bhagel rajput, Himachal hills were ruled by chandravanshi tomar kings, garhwal was ruled by a punwars and kumaon hills by chand Rathores.

We need a sub head how Rajputs migrated and how they are spread. Rathore decended from Jai Chand Rathore ruler of kannuaj and were forced to migrate to Thar desert after loosing to muslims a small section survived and made way to kumaon hills, its well documented history.

Over the centuries rajputs found way in differenbt kingdoms in search of livelihood and also to escape mulsim excesses. Ranas spread over hills after Chittor was sacked by Akbar and they left Rajasthan to find new homes.

Lets not restrict a article over just few kings and famous names and mostly Rajputana. It should discuss too eastern UP rajputs and hill rajputs. Heavy recruitment of rajputs by British was done from hill regiments (Kumaon,Garhwal and Dogra) and rajputana and rajput of eastern India. Rajput glory and ancestory should be discussed in a non partisan manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratan S (talk • contribs) 04:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Bais Rajput
A respected request to the honourable editors of this article:

More info needed on Bais Rajputs, mentioning needed in sections relevant to:

People of this Rajput clan migrated in this region and now live here so should be mentioned along with the other clans. They are a prominant part of the line of defence. Which lineage the clan belongs to.
 * 4.5.3 Rajput of the Panjab Hill States and Kashmir:
 * 5.4 Saka:
 * 8 Rajput Lineages/Vanshs:
 * A personal paragraph on the clan such as the 'Pundir' paragraph, as the Bais are too a Suryavanshi branch of Rajputs, one of the thirty six royal rajput clans. They are also the descendent of Lakhshaman Ji and brother Sri Rama.

Dhangar also need mentioning and when mentioned, Bais should also be mentioned as they are one of.

This is a big tribe that is one of the 36 Royal Lineages. Much info available on it's own wikipedia page.

Please include the clan in the requested for many reasons.

There is no such term as "Muslim Rajput". Its a gross ignorance of facts and truth written in History. Its a lie which cannot be made a truth by any means
This article contains much anti-Muslim propaganda. The Mughal men and women extensively married into Rajput families and adopted the Rajput heritage. Many Rajputs chose, from their own free will, to be Muslims because of issues with Hinduism or Sikhism. I suggest that this page should contain a section for Muslim Rajputs. Also their are some inaccuracies: Under Heading Culture, Ethos- Jauhar: "The practice is often described in terms of the women alone, but should correctly be understood as including the death of the men on the battlefield. As generally described, Jauhar involved: Jauhar was a practice committed by Rajput families even during the time of Rajput civil wars before the arrival of the Muslims. This practice was not specifically linked to Muslim armies. Rajputs, when they fought amongst themselves, also were brutal against enemy tribes. This should read:
 * 1) A defending Rajput army being besieged inside a fortification by an invading Muslim army;"

" A defending Rajput army being besieged inside a fortification by an invading army"
 * ✅--Diannaa (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Under the Heading Legacy - Rajputs as a line of defense: When fighting against the hordes of Arabs, Moghuls, Afghans, and Turks, many preferred to die rather than to forsake their ancestors' faith (Hindu dharma) for Islam. While the nations of the Middle East fell in a matter of a few years to the rapid advance of Islam's new followers, the Rajput men and women refused to let them capture India for over 500 years. The heroism and sacrifice displayed by these tribes is undisputed and unmatched in the chronicles of Indian history. Was it only the Arabs, Moghuls, Afghans, and Turks whom the Rajputs faced? What about the inter-Rajput wars amongst themselves? The wars between Buddhist and Hindu Rajputs immediately before the Muslim invasion? The invasions of other Indian groups against the Rajputs form the east and southeast? Going even further back in history, what about the invasions of the Greeks, Persians, and Central Asian tribes (of whom the Rajputs are one of them)?

Second, many Rajputs DID embrace Islam and this was not forsaking ancestors' faith. The ancestors of the Rajputs weren't all Vedic Hindus, they consisted of Buddhists, Non-Vedic Hindus, and ancient Pre-Hindu Aryan religions.

Third, the nations in the Middle East did not fall because they were weak compared to the Rajputs of Northwest South Asia, but because the Muslims offered an alternative lifestyle which appealed to the populace. Sindh and Balochistan also DID fall in a few of years and so did the Pathan areas of modern-day Pakistan and Afghanistan because Islam won the hearts of the common folk. The conquest of the Punjab was slower due to the fighting of the Rajputs, but today more than 75% of Punjab is Muslim, including many of the Rajputs of Punjab. This was accomplished more through preaching of traveling scholars than armies. Where Islam did gain a foothold in South Asia, it stayed. Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh are a testament to this.

It should read:

''When fighting against the invading armies of Greeks, Persians, Central Asians, Arabs, Mongols, Moghuls, Afghans, Turks, other Indian nations, or other Rajput tribes, many preferred to die rather than to surrender. Whether Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, or Buddhist, Rajputs were known for their bravery in battle. The heroism and sacrifice displayed by these tribes is undisputed and unmatched in the chronicles of South Asian history.''

END —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmmariKhan (talk • contribs) 08:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Abbysingh (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)My Friend, Muslim Rajput is an imaginary term which holds no truth. Weak Rajputs during the muslim rule were forcibly converted to Islam as was the practice followed by Muslim invaders. During Mughal times the conversion was always'FORCED' and its a fact, without a doubt. So there can be either a Muslim or a Rajput. Mixing the two is ridiculous and seems to be an attempt to somehow keep the long lost affiliation to the famed Rajputs. Any Rajput who was converted to Islam wasn't a true Rajput in practice. As for a true Rajput self respect and allegiance to Hinduism was of the prime value and ultimate concern. A true Rajput laid down his life but never accepted Islam as his religion. Only the weak and timid who were not worthy to be called as Rajputs fell for muslim conversions. Sorry to say this Pakistani army which comprises of so many so called falsified 'Muslim Rajputs' helped spreading terror in India killing innocent people including children and women. Thats not a trait of a true Rajput. If you bother to read the bloody & cruel mughal history of Indian you will clearly recognize that these inhuman, ogre like cruelities are atypical of muslim invaders of yesteryears. And it shows in Pakistan's conduct so far.'Discovery of India' a brainchild of Nehru has been proved time & again that it was a result of his own misconceptions & perceptions. It is unauthentic in every respect.Col. James Tod travelled to the length & breadth of Rajputana to write his epic 'Annals & Antiquities of Rajasthan' and to record/corroborate the first hand factualities. And if he doesn't mention the term 'Muslim Rajputs' it shows that this term does not exist, given the nature of studies comprising his vast travalogue. Its your own creation marred with illogicality and created out of nothing. In India Qaimkhani muslims are called as muslims and not as Muslim Rajputs. The two words are opposite like North pole and South pole. Muslim is a religion and Rajput is a caste belonging to Hindu religion. A Rajput cannot be linked to Muslims. A convert is a convert. The story is histoy now. All muslim converts are muslims and that is the ultimate truth. To label them as Muslim Rajput is a great injustice to them. It shows the divide among the muslim world which claims to not to distinguish one muslim to another in terms of high or low. Even people who migrated from India to Pakistan during partition in 1947 are still called as Muhajirs. The differnce is palpable. We in India respect religious sanctity thats why we repect even the converted ones to be a true muslim and not confuse the world with two contrasting themes. So the labelling starts at your end and finishes at your end. Nobody accepts your misconstrusion here in India. Its for your own people to dance in a false glory which further divides your side of the world. Also you dont have even an iota of informtaion about history. Its all gibberish. Your ridiculous statement- "Do not forget that at the least 30% of all Rajputs today are Muslims. At most half of royal Rajput families are Muslim" - this statement shows your utter lack of knowledge, disregard to truth and depth of frustration. Frustration of not belonging to a Rajput clan. Check your knowledge on our sacred practice of 'Jauhar & Saka'. You dont have even a glimpse of what they actually are.Dont just talk rubbish with whatever comes to your head. Muslim historians and especially those in Pakistan have transmogrified the facts and truths of history to their own advantage. And i know it is difficult to fathom the truth.Its an effort to fool themselves to believe they are something great and which they are not. Its a lie they are propogating without even thinking that Allah will punish them and wont let them go to heaven. Thank you very much, rgds, Abhishek Singh Chauhan, Rajputana.

There is a complete seperarte article for Muslim Rajputs and no need to incorporate it here since it has already caused a lot of grief. Maybe you should understand that this is not propaganda but history and fact, it happened, its recorded and most of our records are actually from Muslim historians who cheerfully recorded the deaths of Rajputs and how many Rajputs chose death as opposed to conversion to Islam.

Really its crying "Wolf" when you claim its propaganda, however what is propaganda is to deny history and the fact of what happened, no matter how painful that truth is.

The Muslim Rajput article is already turning into a joke, maybe you can go an fix it. They are claiming that Jinnah was a Rajput when everyone knows his father was a Parsi and Mother was a muslim.

cheers

Gorkhali (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Everyone knows that Rajputs were always fighting against Invading Muslim Rajputs. Karan112 (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No, there has been a strong tradition among Indian Hindus to minimize the role of both Islam and Muslims in the history of the subcontinent. Muslim Rajputs are a major part of the history of South Asia, and to deny this is merely self-delusion. Don't forget that all the original Aryan lands are located in modern-day Pakistan, the Indus river being the heartland of Aryan culture in South Asia. This also explains the difference of physical appearance among Pakistanis and Indians, also exemplified between Muslim Rajputs and Hindu Rajputs. Furthermore, Mohammad Ali Jinnah was a Rajput. He was a Bhatti, and if you are Rajput, you will know exactly that this is a Rajput tribe. His father was not Parsi, his wife was a convert from Parsi to Islam. He was fully Muslim, hence he became a leader of all Muslims in South Asia.

Muslims Rajputs can't invade their own lands. Those who are Rajput today in Pakistan are the direct descendants of the ancient Aryans. The proof is in the lighter skin complexion and local Punjabi, Kashmiri, and Sindhi cultures which are fully Aryan with no Dravidian influence. Most the Hindus claiming to be Rajput are mixed with Dravidians and not full Rajput. Sikh Rajput are full Rajput because they are from Punjab, which is an Aryan land since ancient times.

Rajputs are an Aryan people. The Aryan heartland is in Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan (including Kashmir). Unfortunately too many people in India are claiming to be Rajput, even though they are not.--AmmariKhan (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

AmmariKhan: Rather to say Muslim Historian have tried to minimize the role of Hindus and Rajputs. Historians in Pakistan are notorious of causing such academic carnage which is a prime constituent of their anti India propoganda. Tell me the reference which shows that Jauhar were committed even during the fight between the Hindu kings. Destroying the dignity of women was against the moral, ethical values of the Rajputs. Jauhar were only committed against the invading muslim armies for you know that its written in Quran to destroy the dignity of the kafir women et al. It was with the mighty swords of the Rajputs that India was never converted to Islam as happened to Persia (Iran),Constantinople(Turkey), Egypt etc.It is always permissible in your religion to wreck havoc on Kafirs. Need i say more. And please read Jaswant Singh's latest book which says Jinnah was a Khoja. Abbysingh (talk) 08:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Rajput Discussion page
&quot;Jay Mataji Ki&quot; (&quot;Hail the Mother Goddess&quot;) and welcome to all Rajputs on Board of Wikipedia. Many chapters of Rajput history are fabricated to glorify those invaders for covering up their cowardice deceptive act against brave deeds and generous quality of Rajput but no one can hide sun from shining and so is for Rajput dignity and pride.
 * Same like real Rajput History this article of Wikipedia too have seen many war and vandalism activities with ample of edits and counter edits right after its creation with piles of archived pages you can find over here. Please put your views here sensibly with counter support and reference. When you feel, your contributions to article is counter edited with contrast to your input or some thing like ‘U’ turn then do not get up set but cool down and try to defend your point. Let other too have their “Click Business” here and again keep it in mind that Wikpedia it self is creation and compilation of treasure like you and many.
 * Just for the information of some ‘new user’ of this ‘volatile’ Wkipedia article, that many users have lost their ‘edit sword’ (permanently blocked) here, may be bitter taste for them, so all user over here, try to keep things proper way otherwise will get same fate like those ‘lost warrior’ and you may get blocked too for ‘interfering’ too much to those “privileged administrators” over here.

…..____________________, ,__ ……/ `—___________—-_____] – – –  Now No more sword    <font color="#FF0000"> <font color="#FF0000"> <font color="#FF0000"> <font color="#FF0000"> ––┼>>>>>>>>>>>> war but &quot;Sensible Edit&quot; bullet war </b> –  –  – &#9617; &#9618;&#9619;&#9619;&#9608;D …../_==o;;;;;;;;_______.:/ …..), —.(_(__) / ….// (..) ), —-” …//___// ..//___//

--<font color="#0000FF" size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mc <font size="4" color="#FF9900" face="Times New Roman">Bapu (<font size="3" color="#0000FF">ta <font size="3" color="#FF9900" >lk ) 08:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

HELLO?
It seems that this page is dead. Are there any editors out there that have the wikipedia privileges to edit this page? Why does it seem that no effort is being made to edit this page with in the last six months? Please can somebody actually act on this as there are so many fair and important requests that need fulfilling.

PLEASE MAINTAIN THIS PAGE! --BhainsRajput (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

absolutely pathetic how the crap keeps piling up on this page. All India topics suffer from this symptom, but this must be one of the worst. I did a deep revert to a version that was still halfway reasonable about a year ago. --dab (𒁳) 11:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit required
Under sub section Surnames, please add link to Bais Rajput homepage by rewriting Bais with at the front and  at the back. Also noticed 'rajput saini' oddly written in the surnames subsection too. Please look into this as it seems like tampering. --90.214.246.12 (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

cleanup
please do NOT add further detail to this page. The efforts needed are: sorting through the material, tightening it, and throwing out the bad stuff. This is a WP:SS article. If you want to add further detail, go to the sub-articles. To discuss Rajput clans, edit Rajput clans. To discuss Rajput history, discuss Rajput history. Etc. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 14:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

want to clarify some doubt in rajput surname
rana=rane,deora=deore,devra=devre are this surname fall under rajput as the nature of prakrit language that is comman sanskrit language use in maharastra (marathi) wher letter "a" becomes "e" .sonu 08:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagarsinghdevre (talk • contribs)

are RANE, DEORE, and DEVRE rajput ,comman surname found in maharastra
RANE:-The Surname used as rane in Maharastra and they add singh as ther middle name, for example The Chief Minister of Goa Pratap Singh Rane. RAORANE IN Maharastra are from this clan.They are from family of Rana Pratap from Udaipur.Their kuldevat is Eklingaji from Rajasthan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.97.187.205 (talk) 12:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

DEORE:- The Surname used as Deore in maharastra and many peolple add singh as the middle name.

DEVRE:- The Surname used as Devre in Maharastra and many peolple add singh as the middle name, for example Rajendrasingh Bhimsingh Devre (Samajwadi Party)Jalgaon, Maharastra (Election 2004) taken reference from(www.ejalgaon.com/career). And also find devre surname in kshatriya socity.Copyright © 2008 Kshatriya Society. reference from kshatriya community potral. Hada Kshatriya: Gothra - Vatsa. Devi - Ashapuri. Guru - Vashishtha. Ved - Samved. King Maniklal was from Hada vansha. One of the famous personality from this vansha is Ramdeva. Hada Kshatriya Vansha is also popularly known as Hadouti. States - Bundi, Kota. There is a history of Brave Hada Rani. Branches - Udawat, Devra, Devre, Jaitawat, Chandrawat it seems that devre surname is reffered as rajput surname in the community potral. THIS SURNAME MATCH TO COMMAN SURNAME OF RAJPUT COMMUNITY THAT ARE 1.RANA = RANE 2.DEORA = DEORE 3.DEVRA = DEVRE I THINK THAT DUE TO THE NATUER OF LANGUAGE USED IN MAHARASTRA (MARATHI) THE SURNAME ARE JUST CORRUPTED. CORRUPTION OF SURNAME FOR EXAMPLE:- 1. MANY PEOPLE WRIGHT CHOUHAN AND MANY WRIGHT CHAUHAN. 2. MANY PROPLE WRIGHT ROTHORE ,RATHOR ,RATHUR,RATHOUR. 3. MANY PEOPLE WRIGHT PARMAR AND MANY WRIGHT PARMARA. 4. MANY PEOPLE WRIGHT YADAV AND MANY RIGHT YADAVA.sonu 08:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagarsinghdevre (talk • contribs)

RAJPUT SATTELED IN MAHARASTRA
DORE GUJARS, who number forty-one families. [The forty-one families, kuls, are: Pavars of Dhargadh, Chohans of Nagelgadh, Simal of Dodgadh, Ghelot of Ahirgadh, Kaba of Dhondgadh, Khavi of Modgadh, Solanki of Rohadgadh, Chauthan of Kampegadh, Mori of Chitodgadh, Nikumbh of Modgadh, Toka of Asirgadh, Gohel of Khedgadh, Chavda of patangadh, Jhala of Patargadh, Dodiye of Jaitpur, Vaghela of Budhelagadh, Huna of Akhilgadh, Survate of Bubbati, Gujaric of Palegadh, Padhikar of Sodhagadh, Nimbol of Jhatangadh, Devare of Taragadh. Bhagesa of Ramgadh, Kagva of Kalpigadh, Wanhol of Dhauhaligadh, Dode of Krishnagadh, Tovar of Delhi, Khapre of Gajyaiwadh, Khichi of Analvadgadh, Jadav of Junagadh, Makvane of Makdaigadh, Barod of Bahmangadh, Dabhi of Kapadvagadh, Harihar of Hormajgadh, Gaud of Ajmir, Javkhedye of Shvetbandha, Sakhele of Ranjea, Bhatele of Jotpur, Suryavanshi of Sarvargadh, Borsi or Borad of Borigadh, and Kalumba of Rumigadh. Mr. J. Pollen, C. S,] are said originally to have been Dor Rajputs. [Dor Rajputs have disappeared from Rajputana where they were once famous and included in the thirty-six royal races. (Tod's Rajasthan, I. 105).

REFERENCE FROM :- www.maharashtra.gov.in/pdf/gazeetter_reprint/Khandesh/population_race.

The Rane Rajputs have such surnames as Jadhav and Shisode, and any two of their tribes can intermarry. They have sixteen houses in Yaval, and they do not eat with Kunbis. The Rane Rajputs of Dandaiche and Sindkheda hunt and eat flesh, fowl and fish, and drink wine. Their women never appear in public and would die rather than work on roads or in fields. They sew bodices, but neither spin nor weave. Besides these four classes, Suryavanshi Rajputs are found in Nimar and on the borders of Savda and Bhusaval. They neither eat with other Rajputs nor allow widow marriage. The higher families are known by the title of Thakur.

REFERENCE FROM :- www.maharashtra.gov.in/pdf/gazeetter_reprint/Khandesh/population_race.

Some common surname of Maharastra: -

Rane,Deore,Devre,Rathore,Shisode,Jadhav.

1.RANE: - Is most common surname found in Maharastra, and it resemble with that of Rana’s  surname found in Rajputana  as for the behavior  the people of Rajput who fight bravely in battle field have such a title of Rana’s. It seem that the Rajput who fight bravely in Maharastra have such title of Rane’s. “It seems that due to the nature of prakrit language used in Maharastra that is marathi the Rana is pronounced as Rane”. The Rane Rajputs have such surnames as Jadhav and Shisode, and any two of their tribes can intermarry.

REFERENCE FROM :- www.maharashtra.gov.in/pdf/gazeetter_reprint/Khandesh/population_race.

2.DEORE: - Is most common surname found in Maharastra, and it resemble with that of Deora  surname found in Rajputana. “It seems that due to the nature of prakrit language used in Maharastra that is marathi the Deora is pronounced as Deore”.And many people in Deore community add singh as middle name.

Deore Or Deora are descendent of Chouhan or Chauhan rajput of Agnikul Rajput or Agnivanshi Rajput.

3. DEVRE: - Is most common surname found in Maharastra, and it resemble with that of Devra surname found in Rajputana. “It seems that due to the nature of prakrit language used in Maharastra that is marathi the Devra is pronounced as Devre”.And many people in Devre community add singh as middle name. For example:- Rajendrasingh Bhimsingh Devre (Samajwadi Party).

Devre Or Devra are descendent of Chouhan or Chauhan Rajput of Agnikul Rajput or Agnivanshi Rajput.

Hada Kshatriya: Gothra - Vatsa. Devi - Ashapuri. Guru - Vashishtha. Ved - Samved. King Maniklal was from Hada vansha. One of the famous personality from this vansha is Ramdeva. Hada Kshatriya Vansha is also popularly known as Hadouti. States - Bundi, Kota. There is a history of Brave Hada Rani. Branches - Udawat, Devra, Devre, Jaitawat, Chandrawat.

REFERENCE FROM :-

REFERENCE OF NAME IN EXAMPLE IS FROM:- 02nd April: Election 2004 Nomination Scrutiny: All the nominations received for Parliamentary elections 2004 were scrutinise on 01st April. The authorities found two nominations incomplete/ disqualified from Jalgaon while three from Erandol. After final scrutiny, the party wise candidate listing is as under: Jalgaon Parliamentary Constituency: Dr. Ulhas Vasudev Patil (Congress I), Y. G. Mahajan (B.J.P.), Pandurang Eknath Patil (P.E. Tatya Patil - Samajwadi Party), Dnyaneshwar Divakar Patil (Independent), Ravindra Tulsiram Gavai (BSP), and Dagdu Kitab Tadvi (Independent). Erandol Parliamentary Constituency: M. K. Anna Patil (B.J.P.), Vasantrao Jivanrao More (NCP), Rajendrasingh Bhimsingh Devre (Samajwadi Party), Suresh Pandurang Patil (Hindustan Janta Party), and Gautam Sambhaji More (BSP). Now final picture will be clear only after 5th April, which is last date of withdrawing nominations.

http://www.ejalgaon.com/news

REFERENCE OF DEVRE AS HADA RAJPUT FROM :- RAJPUT VANSHAWALI It is very interesting for the current generation to know that your family stream goes back to one Rajput Raja - Lord Emperor. A Rajput vansha tree begins with one of the 36 Rajvansha. Renouned research scholars of our community Late Dr. Indradev Singh Nikumbh and Thakur Ishwarsingh Madadh had published Kshatriya Bhaskar and Rajput Vanshawali after studying different materials on Rajput Vansha. They also included valuable informations by one english scholar Col. Tod. Here we are giving a brief summary of popular vanshas. You can try to search history of your forefathers and to relate your family with appropriate Rajput King.

Kshatriya Community Portal.htm Copyright © 2008 Kshatriya Society.All rights reserved. Powered by : Geomatic Systems

4.RATHUR: - Is most common surname found in Maharastra, and it resemble with that of Rathor  surname found in Rajputana. “It seems that due to the nature of prakrit language used in Maharastra that is marathi the Rathor is pronounced as Rathur”.And many people in Rathore community add singh as middle name.

REFERENCE FROM :- wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathore

5.SHISODE: - Is most common surname found in Maharastra, and it resemble with that of Shisodya  surname found in Rajputana. “It seems that due to the nature of prakrit language used in Maharastra that is marathi the Shisodya is pronounced as Shisode”.And many people in shisode community add singh as middle name.Shisode are descendent of Surjavanshi Rajput from Ghelot Rajput. His clan was renamed Sisodia after the name of their village "Sisoda". The Sisodia (also known as Sesodia or Shishodia or Shishodya or Sisodya or Sisodhya).

REFERENCE FROM :- www.maharashtra.gov.in/pdf/gazeetter_reprint/Khandesh/population_race.

6.JADHAV: - Is most common surname found in Maharastra, and it resemble with that of Jadav,Jadon  surname found in Rajputana.And many people in Jadhav community add singh as middle name.As pre record Jadhav are the descendent of yadav  or Chandervanshi rajput. For example:- Khashaba Dadasaheb Jadhav, India's first individual Olympic medalist. Namdev Jadav (Victoria Cross recipient)

REFERENCE FROM :- wikipedia.org/wiki/Yadav Sagar singh devre jklqwe@gmail.com p no. 9424281450

sonu 09:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagarsinghdevre (talk • contribs)

MARATHA ARE RAJPUT
Some rajput clan are divided and made a new clan for a common cause whom are know as or whom called as mahrattas or Marathas.

Maratha clan system :-Kshatriya, warriors, commoner and peasants.

Its seem that Marāthās or Mahrattas is a Rajput clan.

The list of main clans and their sub-clans or lines tended to differ from time to time, and by book to book. A commonly-accepted 96 clan list includes 24 suryavanshi clans, 24 chandravanshi clans, 24 bramhavanshi clans and 24 Nagavanshi clans. Past political conditions were harsh and chaotic. Name changes occurred for many reasons. People changed their name to shield themselves from military conflicts, or from religious, political, caste persecution and discrimination. Others did so to hide from a criminal past. Some people chose to go underground, or migrated to a different region and changed their name in the process. Evidence suggests[citation needed] that some people or an entire clan changed their name but did not change their caste when they migrated to new region or came an under government. It is difficult process to identify and prepare clans lines that are completely correct and some Maratha surnames and clans are missing from this list. The list in this article was created by the scholar Vyasa rishi with the help of other rishis such as Vamdev, Shuk and others. They established that the Great Maratha clans are descendants of all 56 Royal Houses of India. According to Arya, the Hindu religion in India was divided into 56 sub nations. The Mahabharata War was destructive and left these nations in general disarray.[citation needed] This was the start of the Kaliyuga age. In order to keep the religion alive, the rishis linked the Kshytriyas, warriors, and Royal houses with a strong bond by creating the Maratha Clan System from the 56 royal houses of India. Before the 12 century there was no difference between southern Kshatriya (Marathas) and northern Kshatriya (Rajputs). The first Rajput clan list was prepared in 12th century and the difference was set. Intermarrying and other Kshatriya traditions were stopped.

VERY IMPORTANT TO NOTE:-IN MAHRATTAS OR MARATHAS CLAN SYSTEM MARATHA IS REFFERED AS A GROUR OF PEOPLE ASSOCIATED TOGETHER FOR A COMMON CAUSE. THE GROUP OF PEOPLE INCLUDE KSHATRIYA, WORRIORS, COMMONER,AND,PEASANTS OR KURMI OR KUNBI CASTE.

Kshatriya :- is one of the four varnas in Hinduism. Initially in ancient Vedic society, this position was achieved on the merits of a person's aptitude (guna), conduct (karma), and nature (swabhava). The earliest Vedic literature listed the Kshatriya (holders of kṣatra, or authority) as first in rank, then the Brahmins (priests and teachers of law), next the Vaisya (merchant-traders), and finally the Sudra (artisans and labourers). Movements of individuals and groups from one class to another, both upward and downward, were not uncommon; a rise in status even to the rank of Kshatriya was a recognized reward for outstanding service to the rulers of the day.[1] Over the years it became hereditary. In modern times, the Kshatriya varna includes a broad class of caste groups, differing considerably in status and function but united by their claims to rulership, the pursuit of war, or the possession of land.

warriors :- In tribal societies engaging in endemic warfare, warriors often form a caste or class of their own. In feudalism, the vassals essentially form a military or warrior class, even if in actual warfare, peasants may be called to fight as well. In some societies, warfare may be so central that the entire people (or, more often large parts of the male population) may be considered warriors, for example in the Iron Age Germanic tribes or the Medieval Rajputs. According to the Random House Dictionary, the term warrior has two meanings. The first literal use refers to "a person engaged or experienced in warfare." The second figurative use refers to "a person who shows or has shown great vigor, courage, or aggressiveness, as in politics or athletics."

commoner :-any member of the Royal Family.

peasants :- Kurmi (Hindi: कुर्मी), In Hindu society there have traditioanlly been four varnas - 1. Bharmanya 2. Kshatriya 3. Vaisya 4. Kshdrya, - these were decided on the basis of the work done by individuals.People from Kurmi community belong to a caste of Kshatriya varna. Kurmis are believed to be the direct descendants of the earliest Aryan tribes, as well as the well known Suryavansha Kshatriya dynasty in the line of Lord Rama. "Kurmi" is the chief ancient agricultural caste of India. The Singraur, Umrao, Awadhya, Gangwar, Kanbi, Kapu, Katiyar, Kulambi, Jaiswar, Kulwadi, Kunbi, Kutumbi, Patel, Sachan, Verma all are sub communities comes under community "Kurmi". "Kurmi" in Sanskrit, which is frequently used in the Ramayana, literally translates as "I can" or "I am able", or "within my power to act". In other words, those who are not Kurmi are not able,incompetent or without power to act. Some very common examples of the usage of the word in Sanskrit from the Ramayana are as follows : 1)'yat na kurmi' sadresam priyam... (Valmiki Ramayana, Book 6, Sarga 1). 'I am not able' to do a pleasant act... 2)'na kurmi' tvam bhasmam (Valmiki Ramayana, Book 5, Sarga 22) According to the Revd. Sherring, "The Kurmi has a strong, bony hand, natural to a man of his employment. He is frequently tall and powerful, manly outspoken and independent in manner and is altogether free from cringing obsequiousness". Colonel Dalton of British East India Company, while doing classification of Indian castes, regarded them as the descendants of some of the earliest Aryan Colonists and described them as a brown, tawny-colored people, of an average height, well proportioned and with a fair amount of good looks. They show well-shaped heads and high features, they are unquestionably Aryans in looks. Grey eyes and brownish hair are sometimes met with amongst them The women usually have small and well formed hands and feet [1] The Aryan link remains unproven. See Aryan Invasion Theory. The link between Kurmis and agriculture has been justified on the grounds of linguistic affinities between the root "ar" (bravery, heroism, found in English and Greek hero, Russian geroj and Sanskrit arya) and other words for cultivators i.e. those who labour nobly (Russian oratel or ploughman, Airga in the Zend-Avesta), as well as in the legend of King "Prithu", who tamed the earth to make fertile again. It is for this reason that the Sanskrit word for "earth" is "Prithvi", in honour of the Aryan king "Prithu" who first cultivated the earth. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, "cultivators of the Earth are the most virtuous and independent citizens." Kurmis have been held as straightforward, brave and stubborn in their nature, and during the late 15th century tended to be held as warriors by most natural farming clans. Especially in Maharashtra where they took up arms against the mughals and other foreigners under the Indian hero Shivaji. Likewise, they also took up arms against the British and a Kurmi general commanded the armies of the Begum of Oudh in her fight against the Bristish in 1857. Kurmis today are to be found in all professions including politics, films, medicine, law, administrative services, and business as well as the traditional occupation of agriculture. [edit] Kshatriyas and agriculture As per ancient Hindu texts, agriculture is permissible to Kshatriyas under special circumstances[78] in the absence of opportunities in the military and feudal apparatus of a righteous Aryan king. Indeed, the service in the army of an unrighteous, or a 'Yavana', or a 'Maleccha', king was the biggest imaginable anathema for a concentious and observant vedic kshatriya in ancient India. A vedic kshatriya was not a mercenary soldier but a defender of faith and righteous order (dharma). All other kshatriya origin Hindu tribes in Punjab, like Minhas, Janjua, Salahri, etc, in the absence of opportunities in the armies of observant vedic kings turned to agriculture in some way.

Common Rajput surnames include: Hada, Jaswal, Janjua (Janjuah), Sulehri, Thakur, Tomar, (Tanwar), Chauhan,Pathni/Pathani [पथनी], Pokhariya, Gahlaut or Gehlot or Rana, Rathore, (Rathod), Ranawat, Pundir, Parmar (Panwar), Jadaon, Jadeja [જાડેજા], Kushwaha or Kachwaha, Bhatti or Bhati, Deora, Papola, Pankaj, Bisht, Digari, Rautela, Sirari, Manral, Minhas (Manhas), Khurmi, Katoch, Parihar (Prihar, Parhar), Shekhawat, Bhadoria, Rawal, Rawat, Sikarwar, Surwar, Sankhla, Solanki, Chandel, Shahdeo, Pawar, Dhakare, Kanwar, Zala, Dangi, Madadh, Lodhi, Singraul.

Common Maratha surnames include: Ahirs, Bhosale or Bhonsle(is a rajput surname descendent from sisodia rajput clan), Chavan or Chauhan, Chalukya (Chalke) or Chalukyas, Gujar (Bargujar) or Gujjar, Gaikwad or Gaykawad or Gaekwad, Jadhav or Yadava, Kardam or Kadam or Kadambas or Kalhapure Maurya or Morey or Moray or More, Nalawde (Nal) or Nala, Pawar or Ponwar or Paramara, Pratihara or Parihara, Palwe or Pallava or Palav or Pallavas, Rathod or Rothe, Chandle or Chandela, Rane or Rana, Raut or Raoot, Shilahar or Shelar or Shelor ( Silhara dynasty), Salvi or Satavahanas, Andhras, Salunkhe, Salunke, Solanki, Shisode, Sisodia, Thakur, Thakoor, Thakore, Tonwar, Tuwar,Tomara, Taware, Surve,

References:-WIKIPEDIA             sagar singh devre sonu 11:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagarsinghdevre (talk • contribs)  sonu 11:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Clan names and Gotras
One more Rajput surname is Saroya.

V S girl (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

A Rajput Surname
Please add Saroya to Rajput Surnames.

V S girl (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Dogra/Jammu Rajputs == According to the famous history book 'Glimpses of History of Jammu and Kashmir' written by Jyoteeshwar Pathik chronology of Jammu rulers dates back to Ramayana period. Although the region has undergone so many territorial changes since then but the dynasty has remained undisturbed.According to Hashmatullah Khan and Nargis, Raghuvansha was an important dynasty of Ayodhya and in the fourth generation came kind Dashratha. The dynasty ruled Ayodhya till Mahabharata time. Aking named Brahdbal belonging to this dynasty particated in the Mahabharata war. He supported Kauravas and was killed by Abhimanyu, the son of Arjuna. Later, Sudarshan, a king from this very dynasty ruled Ayodhya. Sudarshan had two sons- Agnibaran and Agnibarab. On the death of Sudarshan (BC 1600-1560) Agnibaran was enthroned. As a protest against the indifferent nature of his brother, Agnigarb left the kingdom and become a recluse. He settled on the banks of the Ganges. After some years of secluded life, he migrated to Punjab with a caravan of Sadhus and reached Kangra (Nagarkote)in the Shivalik hills. He was known to be Rajrishi due to his saintly qualities. When the Raja of Kangra (Nagarkote) came to know he met him and enquired about his ancestors of Raghuvansha,he offered the hand of his daughter and gave him a part of his territory. The river Ravi was then boundary of Nagarkote Kingdom those days but Agnigarb was not satisfied with this. He later crossed Ravi and captured some villages in Kathua area and declared himself a sovereign king. After his death, his son Bayusharba (BC 1530-1500) married the daughter of Rajput chieftain of Parole (Kathua). Here is the further chronology. Bayusharba |                       Parmitra (BC 1500-1477) |                       Raja Agnigarb II(BC 1380-1350) |                       Bahulochan (BC 1350-1320) |                       Jambulochan (BC 1320-1290) |                       Dharam Karan (BC 1290-1260) |                       Raja Shakti Karan (BC 1200-1177) |                       Raja Tej Baran (BC 560-530) |                       Raja Bodh Arjun (BC 500-460) |                       Raja Sarbhaladhar (765-801 AD) |                       Raja Bhuj Dev (965-975 AD) |                       WORK IN PROGRESS (will be updated soon)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuvann (talk • contribs) 12:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Information About Rathore(Mertiya)
Hi,

This is ranjeet Singh Rathore

I Want to Know Vanshawali Of Rathore Vansawali Of Rathore(mertiya) & More Information About Rathore As Horse, jhanda,talvaar,nagara,kuldevi,

My Id Is Ranjeet.Rathore369@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.64.156 (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yuvraj Singh is a jat, not a rajput
Yuvraj Singh is a Jat, his mother is a khatri arora, he has nothing to do with rajputs, plz remove his pic from the sikh rajput section Tikka Sangram Singh (talk) 01:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Rajput
Glad to see the Rajput page has finally turned into a Pro-Pakistan propaganda page.

Bhutto and Jinnah Rajputs? Give me a break.

Keep up the good work in using Wikipedia as a platform for politically motivated propaganda.

Gorkhali (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Random Information
I have found the following piece of text which I believe should be removed from the article:

The information below is taken from Rose's Glossary of the Tribes & Castes of India, Volumes 1 & 2.

Since the article is semi-protected, I would rather discuss it rather than just go ahead and remove it. If there is no objection, I will remove it myself --Maurice45 (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Images
What happened to all the images? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 205 FCs served 04:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you go to the main article and hit the History tab, you can see where two pics were removed recently. Both were removed automatically by Wikipedia, and it appears one was deleted at the source, and another deleted by WP:CSD, probably because the poster failed to provide copyright information.  If people don't follow proper procedure when putting things up, they won't last.  Speaking of which, has nobody else noticed that the article breaks down into gibberish towards the end, where someone cut out some part of the tables going into the Sources, following the words maintaining the semblance of?  If you go back into the History of the article, you can probably pinpoint where someone ignorant cut out material and ruined the article structure there. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, there's tons that were in the article before the trimming, now aren't, including at least one featured picture. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 206 FCs served 20:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection review

 * 13:15, 23 January 2007 Dbachmann protected Rajput ‎ (edit warring anon [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]) (hist)
 * 02:44, 24 March 2007 Centrx unprotected Rajput ‎ (hist)
 * 05:32, 8 February 2008 YellowMonkey protected Rajput ‎ (edit war [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) (hist)
 * 17:30, 20 May 2008 Nakon changed protection level for "Rajput" ‎ (try unprotection [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]) (hist)

So the last change to the protection log was nearly 18 months ago and it's been semiprotected all that time. I'd like to review that to see if semiprotection is still considered necessary. As well as welcoming views from regular editors I've contacted Nakon, the last protecting admin. --TS 03:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

please take a look at the talk archives. --dab (𒁳) 14:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Rajput Discussion Page
Jay Mataji Ki (Hail the Mother Goddess) and welcome to all Rajputs on Board of Wikipedia. Many chapters of Rajput history are fabricated to glorify those invaders for covering up their cowardice deceptive act against brave deeds and generous quality of Rajput but no one can hide sun from shining and so is for Rajput dignity and pride. I am also been advised to comply with general wiki ‘guide line’ by none other than my dear friend Diannaa  (Talk) who is a administrator (member of WP:GOCE) for this Rajput article page and have obeyed him with removal of saffron colored <font size="2" color="#FF9900">Rajput  headers but putting back penny again over here and hope he will not mind at least on discussion page -:) !  --<font color="#0000FF" size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mc <font size="4" color="#FF9900" face="Times New Roman">Bapu (<font size="3" color="#0000FF">ta <font size="3" color="#FF9900" >lk ) 08:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Same like real Rajput History this article of Wikipedia too have seen many war and vandalism activities with ample of edits and counter edits right after its creation with piles of archived pages you can find over here. Please put your views here sensibly with counter support and reference. When you feel, your contributions to article is counter edited with contrast to your input or some thing like ‘U’ turn then do not get up set but cool down and try to defend your point. Let other too have their “Click Business” here and again keep it in mind that Wikpedia it self is creation and compilation of treasure like you and many.
 * Just for the information of some ‘new user’ of this ‘volatile’ Wkipedia article, that many users have lost their ‘edit sword’ (permanently blocked) here, may be bitter taste for them, so all user over here, try to keep things proper way otherwise will get same fate like those ‘lost warrior’ and you may get blocked too for ‘interfering’ too much to those “privileged administrators” over here.

Singh surname
The article says "Rajputs were the first to use Singh as surname", which is a Blatant lie, and wikipedia is used for such a propaganda. Actually, it was used much before the word Rajput was coined. There is a full geneology of ancient Ahir kings of Nepal, who used this surname, like Bada Simha, Vijay Simha, Jyoti Simha. Also it was used by Deccan Ahir kings like Rudra Simha. Either accept they copied Ahirs or remove this claim. Ikon No-Blast  19:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have changed the wording so it is clearer that they were the first in India to use this name. It said that already, but I made it clearer. --Diannaa (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't forget Nepal has always been a Hindu kingdom, you can't disaccociate with ancient india. Further, Deccan is part of India and Rudra Simha was not a Rajput. I wonder why this claim is necessary here in the first place, when no other group with similar history is making such claim. 122.162.176.160 (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay I have removed the reference to the Singh surname as that seems to be the consensus. --Diannaa (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel there is no need to remove the reference since, Singh and Simha are two different words. Actually Singh does not mean lion but it is clearly a misform of word Sinh meaning lion. This epithet is often used by warrior people of Hindu communities from north. Who also claim to be of Rajput heritage. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 06:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Translate
kirar rajput bhi agniwansi kshatriya hai prathviraj parmal or gaharwar ( bela ka gona )vansh ke yudh me 300000 lakh ranbakure mare gaye bache to sirf prathviraj, alha and raja parmal us samay rajput samaj me karib 3 lakh jawan rajput mahilaye bidhwa hui, rajputo me vidhwa vivah ki anumati nahi thi lekin rajputo ka ek tapka jo kaphi udarbadi tha usne socha ki itni vidhvao ko mar bhi nahi sakte. to kyo na vidhva vivah parampara suru ki jaye lekin samaj ke thekedaro ko yeh bat thik nahi lagi or unhone kaha ki yadi tumne vidhwa vivah parampara dali to tumko rajput samaj se bedakhal kar diya jayega lekin udarwadi rajput samaj ke kuch logo ne samaj ke thekedaro parbah kiye bina hi (natra, kara dhara) ek nayi vibah pratha suru ki jiske karan ham logo ka nam kirar rajput pada baise ham log chouhan surname likhte hai hum khshetriyo ke hi bansaj hai lekin udarwadita ke karan ham aaj kirar khsatriya samaj ke nam se jane jate hai, yadi kisi ko koi sak hai to rajasthan jakar rao bhato se pata kar le ki ham rajput hai ya nahi

prem singh chouhan ...someone translate please. 74.98.219.137 (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Real Rajputs
muslims cannot be Rajputs. Rajputs that converted to islam in the past gave up their right to be Rajputs when they converted because Rajputs are Hindu warriors and their sole purpose is to defend the Hindu faith not change their religion. So there is no such thing as a muslim Rajput. So please fix this in Wikipedia where it talks about what religion they follow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyalXI (talk • contribs) 02:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

POV, as well as discrimination, are not Wiki. Please refrain from making such comments again in the future. Thank you --Maurice45 (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes he is right muslims don't follow hindu varnas after embrasing Islam.

Pending changes
This article is one of a number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Pending changes/Queue  are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC).
 * I think this is a good candidate for the Pending Changes test. <font color="#006600" face="Felix Titling">Diannaa <font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">TALK 00:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)please dont call  those people as rajputs who converted to islam or faught for the mughals because a real rajput is a strong warrior and he never accept other soverginity.

Image removed from Rajput
What is wrong with image File:Rajlogo.jpg which removed from Rajput? You only corrected citation earlier which was quite okay. This image is there for last six year without any dispute at home page at one of the oldest and leading Rajput discussion group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rajputworld with image source reference http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/12125144/homepage/name/homepage.jpg?type=sn. This Rajput article was once wrestling battle with many vandalism editing which you User:Diannaa succeeded in crafting it at quite good level.--Mcbapu (talk) 04:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for providing the source for the image. I am moving this discussion to the talk page of the article so others are aware of it. -- Diannaa (Talk) 05:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is the reason I removed the image: The letters RW across the top of the image led me to believe that the image was from a group or even a private business, and thus might promote someone's private business or club on Wikipedia. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Now that the source of the picture is apparent - it is from a group on Yahoo.com - I think it should not be included, as it promotes the Yahoo group particularily and is not a Rajput symbol per se. Please do not re-add the image unless a consensus of editors on this page tell me I am wrong. Thank you for your kind words about my efforts on the Rajput article. Regards, -- Diannaa (Talk)


 * Okay but that old image too was created by me and was placed there on Yahoo group with out any commercial or whatsoever interest but simply to depict Rajput related picture to décor content overall. If it is confusion for letter RW or promoting again any group say Yahoo or any one else then in that case new image File:Wikirajlogo.jpg is created and placed with letter Wiki. I believe any Rajput related content without showing sword and shield will be like car without tyres. It must have some such picture to décor its mood. Sword Khanda (sword) and shield is synonym to word Rajput. Don’t treat this as vandalism but to add some thing appropriate. You can create opinion debate for deletion if it is offensive or objectionable to any one.--Mcbapu (talk) 07:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree this image is more acceptable than the previous one but I would still like to hear opinions from other editors. Please note I did not find the picture offensive or vandalism, but against Wikipedia policy as promoting a private group or club. It also does not matter who created the image; what matters is that the correct licensing as permission for use on Wikipedia is in place.-- Diannaa (Talk) 13:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Utcursch is not in favour of keeping the image either and he has said so here. -- Diannaa (Talk) 03:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The image is not an official symbol. The Roman script is especially misleading. utcursch | talk 15:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Mcbapu implies that I am in favour of keeping the image when actually I am not. I have started a discussion on the Rajput talk page. Regards, -- Diannaa (Talk) 03:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It is never said or claimed image as “official symbol” but to décor article with such appropriate image to show mood and tempo of article. Again when User:Utcursch asked further counter support reference against citation of new image, two more references were  provided.

In nutshell, subject matter itself is matter of controversial issues( List of controversial issues) where consensus will never achieved but to ‘accept’ to those most widely accepted ‘fact’. If Birth Certificate can suffice ‘Father-Son’ relation, then don’t drag it to have further ‘DNA report’ to support scientific evidence for ‘Father-Son’ relation. --Mcbapu (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)--Mcbapu (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The references you provided show that the image came from Yahoo. This does not support whether this is a valid Rajput symbol or not. In fact, you have plainly stated that it is NOT a Rajput symbol. We do not put images in the artices merely as decoration, but to illustrate the content in an encyclopedic way. So, to summarise, the reasons your image does not qualify for inclusion in the article are as follows.
 * Image is almost the same as the one on the Yahoo page and thus may promote this group more than illustrate the Rajput clan. People might be led to believe that the Yahoo group is connected with or endorsed by Wikipedia and this is not the case.
 * Image was created by the person who added it and is thus self-published
 * Image does not add anything to the article or illustrate any points made in the article. See Images
 * Image is not a Rajput symbol but merely a decorative illustration created by the uploader and is therefore unencyclopedic content.
 * I am removing the image again. Please do not post it again, as this may be considered disruptive. See Disruptive editing. Please remember that we are building an encyclopedia her and not a miscellaneous collection of stuff. You have an interest in keeping this a high quality article so I am sure you will understand that under Wikipedia rules this image does not qualify for inclusion. This is not merely my opinion but the rules of this website. Thank you. -- Diannaa  (Talk) 19:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay. You being administrator for this Rajput article (key member of WP:GOCE) can act in the manner you feel appropriate. Now signing off away from this page. Regds —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcbapu (talk • contribs) 10:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

rajput zindabad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.121.200.192 (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ahirs and yadavs are ancient warrior castes and not rajputs?
Yadu was the eldest son of Yayati (father of Yadavs). It is written in the Vishnu Puran that he did not inherit his father's throne. He, therefore, retired towards Punjab and Iran. He had five sons out of whom Except Satjit and Krishna, three remained childless. Satjit had three sons Bibai (Biveya), Hai (Heya) whose descendants are Jats of 'Heer' gotra and Ahai (Aheya) who founded the Ahir community.

proof:- History of the Jats, Rohtak, India (1938, 1967)

Rajputs and huns tribe and they never used "Yadav" as last name or surname ever in indian history.So Rajput's clam they "yadav" use to be thier last name is completely incorrect and untrue.

ahirs and yadavs are one and the same thing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.132.133 (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Jadaun is apabhransha of Sanskrit Yadava. Jadaun, a vernacular form of Yadava, is a bonafide Rajput lineage which is still in existence. The Sankrit mural and texts mention these Rajput lineages as Yadava only. And so are Sammas (from Krishna's son Sambh), Jadejas, etc.  Please don't push your personal theories about the facts already well established. If you look around, you can easily find references for this.--History Sleuth (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Permabanned editor Internet scholar aka history sleuth, don't confuse Yadav with jadaun and also don't forget the same Sammas are called Ahir Ranas. Ikon  No-Blast  07:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a relationship between ahirs and rajputs.

AJGAR:- Ahir,Jat ,Gujjar and Rajputs are all ancient foreign nomads and all same.
The Sisodia’s were of Scythian origin and historians derive their name from Sassanian, just as Jat derives from Gatae, Ahir from Avar, Gujar from Khazar, Thakur from Tukharian. The Scythian or Saka tribes were the last pre-Islamic migrants into India. Some entered the plains through the Bolan Pass, and settled in Rajasthan which is why some Rajput, Gujar and Jat clans such as Pawar, Chauhan, Rathi, Sial etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.132.133 (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting discussion indeed is going on on this talk page. I want to say something in relation to the origin of this community Rajput. Rajput are essentially a mixture of many races and clans coming in India from the west and that includes, as mentioned here Scythians, Parthenians, Persian, Kushan, Gujar, Hun and other minor tribes. however, ever since the word rajput was attached with a sense of prestige all surrounding communities began to call them as rajput. As for lineage of lunar side one should see the prawar granthi or Darpan of ancient Hindu chronology and there one will see no mention of these tribes from which rajput developed. All tribes those made rajput community of today are termed as mleshchha and that means they belong to no lineage at all. When we talk of lineage in terms of solar or lunar it has reference to Kashyap muni; because, it is said in the ancient books which includes, Mahabharata that Bramha adopted Kashyap muni and he had first son and he was called Surya, Kashyap had one more son called Atri and Atri gave birth to many sons and out of them seventh was Soma. All lineages are related to these two ancient kings and so we cannot accept any claim that these people had any thing to do with either solar or lunar lineage.

Looking to the facial appearance it is very clear that rajputs of Punjab (Jats) are essentially of Hun line and those in Rajasthan and MP are inheriting of Scythians, Parthenians, Persian, Kushan, Gujar races. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 07:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Rajputs ,jats ,ahir/Yadav and Gujjars are same and ancient nomadic tribes
Fact is Rajputs are ancient hun tribes and were never mentioned in Historic religious or vedic books.The word Raja-putra in some vedic books which Today rajputs say and corelate that raja-putra means rajputs in vedic books is wrong as Raja-Putra in sanskrit and hindi means "Raja as King and Putra as son ."Kings- son" can be any person from any caste or tribe.

Jats were considered shudras in hinduism by bhramins however the great Sikh guru converted them to sikhism and improved their social status.And since then they became above Ahir/Yadav and Gujjar which left behind.

Rajput word came into existance in 6 bc .Their status were raised by bhramans of that era who used to protect them and donate money and in return bhramins gave them top status. Jats ,ahirs/Yadavs and Gujjars were considered shudras by bhramins as they were against Bhramins.

Rajputs were Huns tribe ,Jats were Getae tribe, Ahir/ Abhira ar Yadavs were Avar tribe people, and Gujjars were great Khazar tribe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.129.35 (talk) 11:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The Actual word is not Rajput, it is Ruj, meaning semen or sperm. One may check Visnu Purana. Ikon  No-Blast  03:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The actual word is rajput.In the Rigveda, chapter 10, hymn 90, purusha sukta, verse 12, it says, "Rajanya bahu kirtah".The kings were made from the arms. In the 7th century Harsha Vardhan proudly calls himself Rajput. If it was derogatory term why would Harsha call himself Rajputra. Hindu and sikh priests proudly write maharaj with their names. You can see this on Hindu and Sikh channels on sky t.v. The so called historians cannot be more experts on sanskrit language than these priests. Rajputs have been mentioned as princes by Chanakya Kautiliya, in his Artha Shastra. Rajput means prince, everything else is nonsence. The above comment is insulting, slanderous, blasphemous, inaccurate and totally unacceptable. this kind of comment can only be made by someone who has a grudge against rajputs. This is a Rajput page. if someone has not got anything nice to say about Rajputs then I suggest they should go back to their own page.Rajputs are royal caste of Indian Suncontinent, descended from Chandervanshi and surajvanshi lineages,Raj rishis and avatars. "Hum ko mita sake zamane mein dam nahin, Ham se zamana khud hai zamane se hum nahin".Rajbaz (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation Required
I think this page should be shifted to Rajput(Hindu), and a disambiguation page should be here like Yadav, listing, Rajput Muslim, Ranga, Rangarh etc., Ikon  No-Blast  18:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This Page reduces Wikipedia's Credibility
To Diana and other admins who are monitoring this page. Please, write this page in a better way. Presently, the page is full of fictions, to put it more correctly, Nonesense. First, you must tag the article that it is not reliable, because such type of pages only reduces the credibility of Wikipedia. If, editors are serious, it is better to delete this page and start over again, else, revert to 3 years back version, which was developed with such painstaking efforts. Existence of This page in present state is like abusing the editors who for years have devoted their time and resources into this article, and which is now part of Talk Page archives, and older versions. I hope someone would listen here. Ikon No-Blast  20:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you provide at least a few concrete examples as to exactly what you see as the major problems? Otherwise it's impossible to differentiate your concerns from those of people who just want to press a POV or fringe theories.  If you can point out specific grievous errors, and link us to reputable sources that contradict them, that would go a long way towards clarifying your concerns. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ikonoblast, i think you are putting your own credibility on line.I have gone through Vishnu Puran but i have not found the word ruj.In fact, the meaning of raj is given as "to shine" or "to be splendid". You have to provide proper proofs if you want to be taken seriously. By the way i found that if a rajput marries a brahmin woman the children are called "Suta". The writer of vishnu puran is a Suta called Loma harshana.Rajbaz (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, I emphasise that, while it may be interesting to do one's own research in the Vishnu Puran, and findings therein are immaterial to this article because original research is not admissible to Wikipedia. If you find a linguistic claim set forth by a reputed researcher, you can cite that and quote it, but you can't come to a conclusion independently, cite it to an original text, and add it here. If you achieve some great revelation in your research, it must first be published in a reputable academic journal or book, and only then added here. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

H.H.Wilson is a reputed researcher. The meaning of Raj is in the footnotes of his translation of Vishnu Purana and the origin of the Suta caste is also in the footnotes and not in the main text.H.H.Wilson is one of the fathers of Indology.In the Artha Shastra,part 3, chapter 7, page 215, Chanakiya says that if a kshatriya marries a Brahmin woman the children are called Suta.

Rajbaz (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This entire article is written without any reference. It does not quote a single scholarly opinion on the subject. It is full of personal opinions of the editors. Rajbaaz again and again try to refute the vishnu purana. Ok, I have failed to give you the online citation, where it mentions creation of Rajput, so till I give you, you can forget it. But, why there are no scholarly opinions on any matter in the entire article, and if someone provides, it would get deleted. That is not the way to go, and definetily not on the subject which has been scrutinzed by so many scholars of repute. Ikon  No-Blast  19:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Who exactly is deleting proper academic/neutral citations? I've been following this page for a while, and I'm not seeing much of anyone adding actual footnotes. Rather than complain, why not add a few footnotes? If they're properly done, we can protect them. Do note, however, that citing the Purana or similar sources and using that to argue a case is WP:OR. So if you do cite a primary source, you can only cite what it says, not use it as evidence to make a larger argument (like the many pages where people say various farming castes are Kshatriya, and then cite the Purana saying that warriors can farm if they have to, without any actual evidence showing that such is the case for Caste X). This page has a lot of talk on Discussion, but I don't see many real attempts to improve it. I'm not an expert myself, I'm just here to revert vandalism. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

All historical and ancient literature has clear reference to Rajput ruling and warrior class and this fact is part of the folklore and psyche of the people where Rajputs live. Rajputs have always first and foremost been associated with Hinduism. Their mythical origin is part of Hindu tradition. People like Iconoblast have not come out with anything significant except a desire to revise the common understanding of the term Rajput and well accepted dominance of Rajputs  in Indian history. Their approach is quite likely to be guided by   socio-political agendas to revise ancient social ordering in the new democratic dispensations.Anikumar0071000 (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Ruling class
This discussion has been copied from the user talk page of Mdmday.

I have reviewed the three sources you used when you insterted the phrase "ruling class" into the article Rajput. The book by Balfour and the PDF file do not actually use the phrase "ruling class", and the third is a travel guide's website (not a scholarly reliable source). You also inserted the word Hindu, but there are Muslim Rajputs as well so that word needs to be removed. I invite you to discuss these edits on the talk page of the article before you insert them again. Thank you. -- Diannaa (Talk) 21:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It does plg go through the whole PDF file, whereas its not a just a travelling guide, its a site abt Rajput's History.Mdmday (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If you could please tell me what page of the PDF it uses the phrase "Ruling class" that would be helpful. I have performed a search and did not find it. Thanks-- Diannaa (Talk) 21:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You just need to look at the already mentioned sources including the well known Rajput royal families like that of Jodhpur, Jaipur and Udaipur.Mdmday (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

As per WP "Ruling class" means "the social class of a given society that decides upon and sets that society's political policy - assuming there is one such particular class in the given society". Rajputs have been Maharajas, which is a ruling title.Mdmday (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Source regarding ruling class http://books.google.co.in/books?id=UQUtQzPtC6wC&pg=PA272&lpg=PA272&dq=rajput+ruling+class&source=bl&ots=LjUUd-bFX6&sig=4YGdrdFlUqsZLz_QTjAyia46Dxo&hl=en&ei=KNLuTMuCDc_Icerq2Z0K&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCAQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=rajput%20ruling%20class&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdmday (talk • contribs) 21:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The sources do show that the Rajput ruled at different times in India and other related places, but none of the sources uses the phrase "ruling class" so maybe a different wording would be more appropriate.


 * Your second point about the word Hindu, I do not want people misleaded into thinking all Rajputs are Hindus. Some of them are Muslims. This has been a sore point with many people that read and edit this article. -- Diannaa (Talk) 21:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Plz check the above mentioned source abt "ruling class"

As far as Hindu part is concerned, i'll like to mention it again that "Rajput" itself is a Hindu caste, if u talk abt ppl who converted, then they wont be the Rajputs, most rajputs who converted took up the title of Sheikhs or other nobilities but gave up their Rajput title.Mdmday (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The way I understand it is that it was originally a Hindu caste, but some Rajputs converted to Islam when the moghuls invaded. They did not give up their rank in society to do so, and are thus both Rajput and Muslim. This is the interpretation that is used in the article and it has been that way for quite some time. I did check the sources about "Ruling class", and that is why I still disagree with you. The sources you quote do not use the phrase. The fact that they ruled most of the princely states is covered in the second paragraph of the lead. -- Diannaa (Talk) 21:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No, plz read it, when u r talking about converted ones, then they are not Rajputs but the ones who lived under a Mughal rule and didn't convert were Rajputs like majority of them. I think u need to study the Hindu Varna system for this. Rajput is part of Kshatriya varna of Hinduism. As per WP "Ruling class" means "the social class of a given society that decides upon and sets that society's political policy - assuming there is one such particular class in the given society". Rajputs have been Maharajas, which is a ruling title.Mdmday (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I know that. I just think the information already appears once in the lead, and it does not need to appear twice in the lead. -- Diannaa (Talk) 22:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Which info? Mdmday (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC) Rajbaz (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This gives specifics about what they ruled and when and where. So to add the phrase "ruling class" to the opening paragraph of the lead repeats information imparted in the second paragraph of the lead. You just don't need it, and you have no sources that use that particular phrase. - Diannaa (Talk) 22:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Fine, don't add "ruling class" for now, we will add it after finding the other sources.Mdmday (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Chinese historian Hieun Tsiang has mentioned in chapter eleven that "the second class are called Kshtriyas, the Ruling caste.For ages they have been the Governing class.They apply themselves to virtue and kindness". Then on chapter twelve he says that "The succession of kings is confined to the Kshatriya caste,who through usurpation and bloodshed, have from time to time raised themselves to power.Although a distinct caste, they are regarded as honourable (or Lords)".He has also mentioned that harshavardhan was a Vaisya, not a kshatriya.Besides Harshvardhan he also mentions a few other rulers as Vaisya or Shudra.These were different from the Kshatriyas.He calls Kshatriyas a distinct caste.According to the caste system Kshatriyas or rajputs are supposed to be the Ruling or Governing class or Varna as well as warriors. Rajputs are Rulers first and warriors later. Rajbaz (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
Hi.
 * I have changed the wording of the opening sentence to match correct English grammar and syntax.
 * I am not keen to have the phrase "in India" appear in the opening sentence since Rajputs live in Pakistan, Kashmir, Bangladesh, all over the world through immigration. Is there some way this bit can be re-worded or removed? -- Diannaa (Talk) 20:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Rajput & Kshatriya
I have noted that you User:MatthewVanitas took the lead on my comment directed to user Mkrestin about  removing the word Kshatriya from Rajput article lead sentence. By trying to juggle with the words and giving and edit summary as such. By juggling the words, please note that Rajput's do not cease to Kshatriya. Please instead of juggling try to remove word Kshatriya and give authentic support to you biased view. Kshatriya is already classifed as a verna. Writing Hindu Kshatriya or Kshatriya varna does not change the fact that Rajput are Kshatriya. Like I had said in that article let anyone remove word Kshatriya & let the floodgates open. And if any one cannot give authentic support Rajput are not Kshatriya then let other editors who object and remove the word Kshatriya & Rajput in other articles will be charged of vandalism. Cheers!!R P Jethwa (talk) 07:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is not mine; the problem is that editors have largely neglected to provide any footnotes for this article.  So far as I and any neutral editors are concerned, any contestable claim which is not supported by a reputable foonote is subject to removal.  It is not incumbent to me to prove that Rajputs are not Kshatriya in order to remove the word.  It is incumbent upon you to find a proper footnote if you want the word included. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

In the "Encyclopaedia of mankind" Rajputs are described under the heading Kshatriya.The Encyclopaedia calls Rajputs " kshatriyas par excellence".Throughout history Rajputs have been known by various appelations.In the Rigveda Chapter 10 Rajputs are called Rajaniya.Raja or Rajan is singular for a king and Rajaniya is plural for kings.Later on Rajputs came to be called Kshatriyas.Then in the 6th century the word Rajaputra became popular.Nowadays rajputs are famously known as Thakurs, especially in Rajasthan.Rajputs have got lot of titles that they use before their names, e.g.,Raja, Rana, Rai, Rao, Rawal, Thakur and Chaudhry.Chaudhry is also used by some non-Rajput communities.It means village head or land owner.The other titles are used by Rajputs only.Sometimes people and nations are known by several names.For example, British are also known as English.Jews have been known as Hebrews, Israelites, Yahudi, Judas and Jews.Rajbaz (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm seeing a lot of typing, but I'm not seeing a lick of footnoting added to the article. My concern is that there are a lot of caste articles adding "Kshatriya" when a look at historical texts indicates they were Shurda until the 1920s when they started calling themselves Kshatriya, organising politically, and getting Brahmins to "discover" a Kshatriya ancestry for them.  Particularly thinking of the Kunbis in this example.  The Rajputs appear to have their own issues, where a lot of non-Rajput tribes were pulled into the Rajput sphere over time for various political/economic reasons, losing their original caste.  It's a complicated issue that shouldn't be oversimplified.  But the main takeaway is that potentially controversial statements (and most caste identifications fall in that category) should be backed up with proper footnotes.  The article Rajput is chronically under-footnoted, and this greatly reduces its credibility. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Those so called Neo- Kshatriyas are Kshatriyas in name only.They are not accepted by other people.To claim something is different and being accepted is different.At the end of the day it all comes down to inter marriage.Rajputs marry within Rajputs.The other so called Neo Kshatriyas marry within their own castes.If their claims to Kshatriyahood are valid then ask them why don,t they inter marry with each other.For example why don,t Kunbis, Marhattas, Gujjars, Arains, Sainis, Ahirs, Jats etc. intermarry with each other.A jat will never give his daughter to an Arain or Gujjar, A Gujjar will never give his daughter to a Jat or Arain, an Arain will never gave his daughter to a Jat, Gujjar, Ahir, Marhatta, or Kunbi etc. Non-Rajput tribes were not pulled into Rajput sphere.This is a totally baseless claim.I have had a look at the Kshatriya page and gone through the links provided.The so called peasant states were not peasant states.They were Rajput states founded by Rajput princes.Shekhawat state was founded by a Kachhwaha prince from Jaipur in the 15th century.Bikaner state was founded by a Rathore prince from Jodhpur.Ratlam state was also founded by a Rathore prince from Jodhpur.Ranthambhore, Kotah, Bundi were founded by Chauhan princes from Dehli.Rathores of Jodhpur came from the kanauj state.Bhattis of Jaisalmer were established in Jaisalmer since 1156 before the coming of muslims and remained in Jaisalmer thrughout the muslim period.Jaisalmer state is the only state that was never lost to the muslims.Refer to the bhati article to find out more information on their origins and antiquity. Rajpts never married out side of their caste.The matrimonial alliances with the Mughals were one way traffick.Rajputs never married muslim women.They were offerd but Rajputs had refused. The only peasant states were sikh, Jat and Marhatta states. It is a simple issue that has been complicated or appears to be complicated.This article is not underfooted.This is just for reference. If you want further information you should go to the dozens of articles that are related to this article e.g.Chandervanshi, Surajvanshi, Yadu, Puru, Raghu, Bhatti, Chauhan, Rathore, Janjua, Muslim, Ranghar,Shekhawat, Kachhwaha, Sisodia etc.Or if you are really interested in the earlier history of Rajput Royal tribes you should consult one of the puranas.The only one available on line is Vishnu purana.Puranas are similar to the old testament of Jews.The word purana means old.These puranas were especialy written for the purposes of keeping Geneological records of rajput royal families.They were kept by a special caste called bhatts or bards. Rajbaz (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Many clans of AHIRS are included in Rajputs
Ahirs are included in in 36 royal races of Rajputs. Many clans of Ahirs like Ahir Sorathia, Ahir Maschoiya, Aheers and Harals of Pakistan, Dhangars of Maharastra and lastly Aharwar or Ahars of UP and Madhya Pradesh, are known as Chandravanshi Rajputs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumitkachroo (talk • contribs) 10:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Propose sweeping cleanup of History of Rajputs
I checked out History of Rajputs, and the article is extremely disorganised, with varying referencing formats, no clear chronology in most of it, huge chunks of very short sections focused more on identifying sub-groups than actually providing history, etc. I've proposed sweeping cleanup on the Talk page of that article. Please provide any input on that page as I prepare to wade in with a cleaver. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)