Talk:Rajput/Archive 22

kirar rajput
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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.144.33.81 (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Doesn't this belong in Hindi Wikipedia? This is the English language WP. Fluency in Hindi is not expected here.  The majority of us who aren't fluent have no chance to understand or respond. LADave (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Kirar Rajput list:- 1) Shiv Raj Singh Chouhan (CM of Madhya Pradesh) 2) Lakhan Singh (MLA, Bhitarwar, Gwalior) 3) Maniram Dhakad (MLA, Joura, Morena) 4) Prahlad Bharti (MLA, Pohari, Shivapuri) 5) Thakur Gulab Singh Kirar (Chaiperson, Akhil Bhartiya Kshatriya Samaj) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.224.82 (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

AHIRS ARE ALSO FROM CHANDRAVANSHI YADUVANSHI LINEAGE
The cattle and the stick: an ethnographic profile of the Raut of Chhattisgarh

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=VD-QTZagH8qycMXUmYsK&ct=result&id=wT-BAAAAMAAJ&dq=krishna+was+abhira&q=kshatriyas The Abhiras are equated with Ahirs, and they  from the Yaduvanshi lineage, a major branch of the Chandravanshi Kshatriyas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.129.35 (talk) 11:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Ahirs are included in in 36 royal races of Rajputs. (see: 36_royal_races 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.


 * Ahirs and JATS are listed as a Other Backward class so they cannot be Rajput. http://www.ncbc.nic.in/backward-classes/maharashtra.html -- Diannaa  (Talk) 14:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi User:Diannaa even Rajputs are listed as Other Backward Class

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZzbkTbqgGEoC&pg=PA283&dq=rajputs++are+other+backward+class&hl=en&ei=M482TYTTAoOdlgeThLXMAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&sqi=2&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=rajputs%20%20are%20other%20backward%20class&f=false

Those listed in the OBC category are not Rajputs but wannabe Rajputs. Rajputs never asked for reservations. A Rajput expects no quarter and gives no quarter. He does not demean himself by asking for reservation even if he has to starve to death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.46.196 (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Arab muslim invaders came to Sindh in seventh century. They have not been given Kshatriya or Rajaputra status. Ghaznavis came to Punjab thousand years ago. They have not been given Kshatriya or Rajput status. Ghoris, Khiljis, Tughluqs, Lodhis, Suris, Mughals, Europeans, British, none of these invaders were never ever given Kshatriya or Rajput status. No true hindu can ever imagine to give Kshatriya or rajput status to a foreign invader. The same is true for previous invaders from Greeks, Parthians, Bactrians, Skythians, Kushans to Huns.The muslim rule was more wide spread than these previous invaders. Yet we find that after more than a thousand years of muslim foreign rule all the hindu castes are still alive and kicking. Rajputs, Jats, gujars, ahirs,Brahmins, Vaisyas etc.None of them are missing.All these previous invaders used to become Budhists.They were never accepted as hindus.So, the question of giving them Kshatriya or Rajput status never ever arises. The muslim invaders had all been defeated by Rajputs, Jats, Sikhs and Marhattas before the British took over from everyone. Similarly, the previous invaders had been defeated by Mauryas, Guptas, Yashodharman and Harshevardan etc. People should make comparative studies before making any statements.Historylover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.121.200.192 (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hindus are very courageous people.I truly admire their courage.They fought off every invader, bravely. They never gave up.They braved the storms of muslim invasions for more than a thousand years.Previuosly, they had successfully fought off the invasions from Greeks to the Huns.Presently, Hindus have successfully overcome invasions of muslims and europeans.Hindus are real die hards. They are tough nuts to crack. They never get tired of defending their beloved homeland Bharatvarsh, the Indian sub-continent. Historylover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.121.200.192 (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

रजपुत्र
I have added the real sanskrit term. I think there should be a section devoted to etymology of this term itself. Notable fact is this term has nothing to do with aristocracy. Historians think it was a derogatory term. Ikon No-Blast  17:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That was a great addition to the article. If you have any sources on the etymology that would be a very worthwhile addition as well. -- Diannaa (Talk) 18:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Ikon are you Ravi Chaudhary of the 'etymological research' fame who linked Jats to Jutland, Mann Jats to Mann of Germany and other such bizarre conjectures?

This is for the attention of Dianna and Ikonoblast.I have been on Vishnu Purana page on Wiki.At the bottom there is a link to a translation of Vishnu Purana by H.H.Wilson.I have checked the translation but i cannot find the "ruj" word.Can you tell me which page or chapter this word ruj is on?. There is a word rajas, but it means passion,Sattva means purity and goodness and tamas means ignorance,darkness or gloom.Rajbaz (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Vishnu Purana while mentioning creation of Rajputra, describes them as रज, not राज, and that is the point. They were earlier known as Brahma Ksatriya, which means of partial brahmana descent. The term was completely abondoned at around 12 century AD, and then Rajput word gained popularity. Brahma Ksatriya, were considered below other ksatriya, and it is well documented. The article tries to relate to rajputras of ancient sanskrit texts which meant sons of kings which is flase. You have to admit it is brahma ksatriya becoming रजपुत्र and later on Rajput, and not the rajputra of ancient literature which the article tries to claim. Also, these Brahma Ksatriya were looked down upon by both Brahmins and original ksatriyas, as the documents in the old archive of Rajputana itself shows saying "They are ksatiya and we are Brhma Ksatriya"  Ikon  No-Blast  18:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have checked the online English to Sanskrit dictionary. In Sanskrit semen means reta or shukra. It does not mean ruj. It is a figment of your imagination.First, you have to prove ruj means semen before we discuss anything further.In Punjabi dialect, Jaat becomes jutt, Bhati becomes Bhutti, saat "No.7" becomes sutt, Raajpoot becomes rujpoot. it must be a spelling mistake or the writer might be a punjabi.For your information the term rajput was popular in the 7th century. Arab historians who came with bin Qasim, they have mentioned Rajputs as well as thakurs.again, it is a figment of your imagination. I have already mentioned about Harsha calling himself Rajputra in 7th century.You have already admitted that Rajputs are mentioned in ancient sanskrit literature.In the past Brahmins became Kshatriyas, vaishyas, shudras,mlecchas also became kshatriyas.drona acharya.Ravana,Parshurama were Brahma kshatriyas and rulers.Kshatriya means warrior.Anybody can become kshatrya.But they cannot become rajputs.to be a rajput one has to belong to suraj vansh and chander vansh.Rajputs belong to chander vansh and suraj vansh.If present day rajputs are not real rajputs of the ancient Sanskrit literature then who are the real ones and where are they now?.Rajbaz (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

In his Annals and antiquities of Rajputana, volume one, page 103, Col. James Todd says that Bhatis, Sammas and Jarejas are descended from Shri Krishan ji maharaj.Shri Krishan ji maharaj was a yadu prince from Mithra.In Mithra, there are still original Yadus living there since the times of Shri Krishan JI Maharaj and Mahabharata.the state was called Karauli and the chief of Karauli was Rao Manohar Singh who became Todds friend.the Yadus of Karauli are original Yadus and original kshatriyas and they call themselves Rajput.The point is that the Yadus of Karauli are original Kshatriyas of ancient literature living in their original homeland for the past five milleniums and proudly calling themselves Rajput.Therfore, present day Rajputs are original kshatriyas and original Rajputras of ancient literature belonging to Suraj Vansh and Chander Vansh.Rajbaz (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The Sanskrit material has now been removed from the article as it does not say Rajput, it says something else, which some readers of this page found offensive. I will continue to watch the page and will be monitoring all changes. -- Diannaa (Talk) 23:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way Iconoblast, what is your caste or background?.Rajbaz (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have copied the following question from my talk page:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratap Singh Rajawat (talk • contribs) 11:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply:
 * The word "enjoyed" was changed back to "enjoy" because Rajputs still have this reputation.
 * "and every part of Indian subcontinent" was removed because this information is already in this paragraph.
 * "Kshtriyas always remained in prominence in the Indian subcontinent" this phrase is not needed as it would be the third time you tell us that they live on the Indian subcontinent.
 * "But after Buddhism declined in India" The lead is supposed to summarise the rest of the article, and Buddhism is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. Also this phrase impies that the rise of the Rajputs is somehow tied to the decline of Buddhism and I am pretty sure that is not the case.
 * "their rose a new name and it was RAJPUTRA.Deformation of this name was Rajput." Please read the above discussion about Sanskrit. I think the word "deformation" might be offensive to some people and thus this section was removed.
 * OK, there are my reasons for the removal and rewording of some of the content added by Pratap Singh Rajawat. The article is becoming contentious again, and feelings are getting high. Please discuss these changes on the talk page of the article if you wish to re-instert any of them. Thank you. -- Diannaa (Talk) 16:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Rajbaz and diana. Sorry for arriving late on this page, but I am too busy these days. First let me clarify regarding Ruj. There are many sanskrit words, which are not unfamiliar to indians derived from Ruj, (रज), let me jot down few so that its meaning become clear,

Rajaswala - A women who attains puberty or whose manstruation cycle starts, Rajoniwritti- A women whose manstruation cycle stops.

See, even a person who is unfamiliar with this language would be capable of the connotations of Raj(रज). Anyway, I don't want to insert anything offensive. Sanskrit is a scientific language, if you understand the roots you can derive the meaning, you don't need to rely on any online dictionary. Someone called Sumitkachroo has removed a cited narration in Culture and Ethos too. Well, that too may sound offensive to some, and I would again not like to press for it. If anybody has some personal questions, I am available on chat, you can communicate with me there, as this talk page is not meant for that. Ikon No-Blast  16:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This account by Ferishta, says it in better way.. Ikon  No-Blast  21:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I have gone through the link you provided. Ferishta actually gives more than one theory.On the same page he says that sons of Rajas were called Rajput.Another theory given on page 19 "xix" is that the sons of a king called Sooraj were given the title of Rajput by their brother Bhay Raja.The concubines of Rajas were called "golis" and the children of these golis were called "golas".When the children of golis used to go out of the palace and people used to ask them who they were and thses children used to say that they are rajput too.But nobody used to believe them.this is the reason that the respectable title of rajput became degraded in some areas of Rajasthan.Otherwise, all over Rajasthan and the Indian subcontinent Rajput title is respectable.Sometimes, respectable titles can become degraded if degraded people start using them.For example, on page xvi 16, in the footnotes, it says that the title "bye" is a respectable title for a lady but in some areas it is degraded because singing girls started using it.Meera the famous saint of 16th century is called Meera Bai. The wife of Mughal Emperor Jahangir is called Jodha Bai.the singing girls of Lukhnow are famously called Bais.Therfoe,In Lukhnow the title "Bai" is degraded.In English, the title "Madam" is respectable title for a lady.But, the women who run brothels are also given the title "madam".In this case the title "madam" becomes degraded.I hope this helps to clarify the situation.Rajbaz (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you sure, you have gone through the same link I provided?? Ferishta, didn't try to give many theory on the origin. He is simply saying,

"After the death of Raja Vikramajeet(Vikramaditya) Rajput rose to power". It is true! After that he tells who are these Rajpoots - Children born from female slaves of the kings. Then he elaborates how they gained power and how different clans emerged, so he tells about Bhay Raja. He is definitely talking about the same "Rajpoots", not any alternatives. Your third theory was not found in this book. Search for gola, goli, golas, golis didn't return any result. Yes, search for concubine did return a result but was irrelevant. Ikon No-Blast  19:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: I am very much interested in this gola, goli link because Rajputs of UP & Bihar are called Gola Rajputs and also claim they are actually from Rajasthan, but Rajasthani Rajputs considers them inferior. Ikon  No-Blast  20:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

 'Ikon Blast is none other than Ravi Chaudhary'Bold text' who let his imagination run wild with 'etymological research' to fabricate a  history for his caste men for political purposes'Bold text'Bold text' but now seems to have abandoned the idea in the face of overwhelming evidence negating his pet hypotheses. He is a clever person no doubt but a thorough fabricator of lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.46.196 (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

There are Rajputs called Gauchar Gohil.Gauchar means cow grazers.some Gohils became pastoralists.It could be these pastoralist Gohils who are called Goalas. Gola or Goli is corruption (short form) of Gohils or Goalas.Just like the word Jew is corruption (short form) of Yahudi.Rajbaz (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ferishta's account is important because Puranas mention sakas got defeated in a war against Gupta Ruler, and had to pay several taxes imposed on them, one of which was Kanyopdanam which means Gifts of virgins. So, you may infer who the Famale slaves were?? Ikon  No-Blast  19:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

On the previous page of the link you provided, Ferishta says that some Hindus assert that at the beginning of the Kalyug Kshatriyas started calling themselves Rajpoot. Some Hindus say that the sons of Raja Suraj were called Rajpoots, some say that after Raja Vikramaditya in 57 bc. Kshatriyas started calling themselves Rajput. Ferishta mentions these 3 origins along with the one you are insisting on. Read the part on Hindus again with your open eyes.Stop insisting on one theory only.Rajputs are not Brahma Kshatriyas or Gupta descendants. Rajput are true Kshatriyas, belonging to Suraj vansh and Chander vansh Royal families. Guptas had a 15 minute fame and then they dissappeared into thin air. Guptas had Rajput soldiers in their army. It was Rajput soldiers who fought bravely against foreign invaders, Hunas, Scythians, Kushans etc.Harshevardhan was a Rajput too.Just like in British and Mughal times Rajputs had their independant states, so they did in the Guptas times too. Romila Thapar in her "History of India" mentions that in Gupta times there were Independant states and these states could have been ruled by local rulers called Rajputs. When Gupta empire became weak Rajput rulers asserted their independance.When Mughal empire became weak Rajput states asserted their independance. Rajbaz (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, you seem to be distorting the original presentation, while claiming "Ferishta says that some Hindus assert that at the beginning of the Kalyug Kshatriyas started calling themselves Rajpoot." The original sentence says - Some of the Hindus assert that the tribes of Brahmin and kshtriya are present since time immemorial, but the Rajputs are a modern tribe known only in kalyuga. Also about Raja Suraj, he does not say the way you present. He says, "Rajas not satisfied with their wives frequently had children from their female slaves, who though not legitimate heir, were styled Rajpoot, or sons of Raja Sooraj". It is very similar to when we say Dalit or Harijan or children of God. Also, you need to see if these people mentioned in Tariq-i-Sorath, deserves to be called from original Surya/chandra lineage, you are talking about:

I am not distorting. You don,t seem to understand.On page nineteen xix Ferishta says that "some are of the opinion also (the word also is very important word to keep in mind) that Bhay raja invested all his 34 four brothers with the title of Rajput.When Ferishta uses the word "also" he is actually expressing a different opinion than the previous one.Raja Suraj had 35 sons.They were all Rajkumars.After Raja Suraj, his eldest son Bhay Raja becomes king.Bhay Raja,s brothers lose their title of Rajkumar because now Bhay Raja,s sons are the new Rajkumars. So, Bhay Raja tells his 34 brothers that they are not Rajkumars anymore because their father Raja suraj is not king anymore.He tells them that they are sons of Raja only.Raja ke bete. Raja ke putar or Rajaputras.Rajkumar is a real prince.Rajput is an ordinary title for the people who belong to the Suraj vansh and Chander vansh royal families.Ferishta does not mention that all the 34 brothers of Bhay Raja were from the females slaves of his father.They were his real brothers from his father,s legal wives.The character called Vidur in Mahabharata was from a female slave.The Mahabharata does not call him rajput. as about your claim about Brahma Kshatriyas. Parshuram,s mother was Kshatriya and his grandmother was also Kshatriya.Drona Achariya mother was also Kshatriya but nobody calls them rajput.You can check this out in the Vishnu Puran.I beleive in traditional point of view about Rajput origins.TPOV is that rajputs are pure Kshatriyas, true Kshatriyas, belonging to the Chander Vansh and suraj Vansh royal families.No Brahmin, no Vaisya, no Shudra opposes this view.We don,t have any chalengers. Let me give you an example from Jewish religion.Jews are descended from Abraham,s wife Sarah,s son Isaaq. Besides sarah Abraham had a slave girl called Hagar. Hagar,s son was Ishmael.Arabs are descende from abraham,s son Ishmael.Jews look down on Arabs because threy are descended from slave girl hagar.Arabs agree that they are descended from Hagar,s son Ishmael.But Arabs say that abraham had married Hagar before ishmael was born. Jews deny this.This was 3500 yers ago but both communities have not forgotten their origins. How could rajputs have forgotten their origins with so many Puranas and other books.Rajbaz (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Rajbaz (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC) Mandalika, the Abhira ruler of Somanatha, was also among the confederate princes who pursued Mahmud's army. Mahmud could not withstand the onslaught. Muslim army did not make a stand but fled. It was a rout. "Shah Mahmud took to his heels in dismay and saved his life, but many of his followers of both sexes were captured.... Turk, Afghan and Mughal female prisoners, if they happened to be virgins, were accepted as wives by the Indian soldiers.... The bowels of the others, however, were cleansed by means of emetics and purgatives, and thereafter the captives were married to men of similar rank."Low females were joined to low men. Respectable men were compelled to shave off their beards, and were enrolled among the Shekavat and the Wadhel tribes of Rajputs; whilst the lower kinds were allotted to the castes of Kolis, Khantas, Babrias and Mers." Ikon No-Blast  18:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You misquoted Vishnu Puran and now you want to forget about it after your claim was refuted. I am sure you are misquoteing Tarikh e sorath. The Shekhawat clan only came into existance in 15th century.Mahmood lived in 10th century.rao Shekha ji was born in 1433. Check it out on Shekhawat page on Wiki.The prisoners were Hindu prisoners that the muslims had captured.After looting Somnath muslims collected so much gold and silver and other treasures that they decided to abandon the Hindu prisoners.By coming into contact with muslims these Hindu prisoners had lost their caste and their Dharam had become bhrasht. they may have been forced to become muslims, too.To get back their caste status and Dharam these prisoners were put through these cleansing ceremonies. Afterwards the prisoners were allotted to their former caste status and their Dharam was restored. Like you, Ferishta was not an original researcher. he collected all these bundle of books and then copy pasted every thing into his book.We cannot verify his claims about Rajput origins. All he says is that some Hindus assert. That is all.He does not quote any scriptures.Remember the Wiki policy of original reseach and verification.I am sure these rumours about rajputs are spread by muslims because they were enemies of Hindus in general and Rajputs in particular.Ferishta was enemy of Hindus too.Mahmood Ghaznavis ancestors were slaves, Ghoris were slaves and Aibak and Altamash and Khiljis etc were slaves too.Actually the muslim rulers of Dehli before Mughals are called Khandan e Ghulaman( slave dynasty).It was these muslim slave rulers who had spread disinformation about rajputs. Ferishta gives three different time periods for Rajput origins.Post Kalyug, post King Vikramaditya and raja Suraj.He does not mention any names nor does he quote any scriptures. So forget about Ferishta. I am sure he was a slave too. Rajbaz (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Can an expert improve the definition in the introduction, please?
At present it is very difficult to grasp the essentials of what a Rajput really is, or the significance of their role in Indian society and history, from the introduction. The Rajputs are described as "one of the major groups" [of Kshatriyas], which if I may say so is a hopelessly vague phrase. Are there two major groups or two hundred? Are the Rajputs the largest major group or the smallest? The highest ranking or the lowest? The reader is not told, and the article then embarks on a detailed history which cannot be properly understood if one is floundering for an understanding of the very word Rajput.

Further down in the identity and major clans section the following text appears:


 * "The word Kshatriya ("warrior") was used for the Vedic community of warriors and rulers. To differentiate royal warriors from other Kshatriyas the word Rajputra was used. Rajputra eventually was shortened to Rajput"

This clarifies things considerably. It seems that the Rajputs are the higher status Kshatriyas. But were all Kshatriya rulers Rajput, or only most of them? And how can their status as "royal warriors" be reconciled with the reference to "non-aristocratic" Rajputs in the introduction? Alternatively, how can there be 60 million people of royal status? It seems that the clan identity and the issue of purported common ancestry are at the heart of this, but they aren't mentioned in the introduction.

I would be very grateful if an expert could rework the introduction so that the essential role of the Rajputs can more readily be understood. Choalbaton (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. That is the best way forward.What is needed is chronological history.Don,t worry, we will get there one day.Rajbaz (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Rajputs are the traditional and the hereditary rulers, administrators, warriors, landowners and lawmakers of the Indian sub-continent.In other words government of the day.In times of peace rajputs had to keep law and order in the country and in times of external threat they had to go to war against the foreign invaders.Rajputs are divided into two main divisions, Chandervansh the moon dynasty and Suryavansh the sun dynasty.Brahma is the ancestor of the Rajputs.Brahma ji had two sons, Atri and Marichi.Atri,s son was Soma. Soma means moon and he is the real founder of the moon dynasty.Soma is also called Indu and Chanader. Indu and Chander also mean moon. Therefore Chandervanshi are also called Induvanshi and Somvanshi.Soma performed the Rajasuya ceremony and he was coronated king at Prayag (modern allahbad).Brahma ji,s other son was Marichi, Marichi,s son was Kashayap, Kashayap,s son was Vivasvant.Vivasvant is also called Surya the sun.Vivasvant is the real founder of the sun dynasty.Vivasvant became king of Ayodhya.Ayodya is the first capital of the sun dynasty and Prayag is the first capital of the moon dynasty.The descendants of these two kings came to be called Rajput and Kshatriya and they spread out all over the Indian sub-continent and beyond.The descendants of these two royal families divided into numerous clans and branches and became founders of states and empires all over the Indian sub-continent and beyond.Rajbaz (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, the above summary has no footnotes, and doesn't really do us any good on the Talk page. Further, I have concerns classifying an entire massive socio-ethno-linguistic group as "rulers". Were there no Rajput farmers or traders?  Or were ethnic-Rajput traders/farmers no longer considered to be Rajput?  Were Rajputs rulers of other Rajputs?  In those cases, it seems contrived to label them "rulers" as a class, anymore than to be amazed that Ireland was ruled by, of all things, Irish kings at one point.  Further, were there not plenty of areas that never had a Rajput ruler?  Would it not be clearer to specify the areas which were historically ruled by Rajputs, rather than give a false impression that the entire length and breadth of India was ruled by Rajputs?  Again, I'm not at all against recognising Rajput accomplishments, but they should be footnoted to reliable sources and clearly-defined as opposed to abstract generalties like "all Rajputs are kings and warriors" when, simply in terms of economic sense, I doubt Rajputana functioned like that. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

MathewVanitas...Yes you are right Rajputs were typically not farmers or traders. If they forsook the profession of arms and ruling, or were compelled to do so, for trading or farming they were no longer considered Rajputs by Hindu society. It did not imply traders were inferior. It is just the way Hindus society was organised for centuries. There are well know trading castes and even farmer communities who still remember their transformation and circumstances surrounding the event from Rajput to other Hindu social groups. Rajput groups were always a competitive development and those who did not live upto the stiff code of honour, valour on the battlefield or indulged in widow remarriage or did not subscribe to tough traditions like sati were outcasted as per Hindu norms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.46.196 (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That is informative; can someone provide actual footnotes evidencing the point "Rajputs were by definition warriors or rulers, and groups could lose Rajput status if they forsook these occupations"? Further, do we have to draw a distinction between modern and historic Rajputs?  That is, if someone is "Rajput" today but are neither the mayor of a town, the owner of a rice plantation, or in the Indian Army, are they de-listed as Rajput? MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Societies continue to evolve and today India is in the midst of great transformation dynamics- rise of Dalits like Mayawati along with other OBC communities all over India. Hindu culture as typified by the Rajputs is under threat from not merely atheism and other religions but also all manner of Babas including those propagating their following over TV and other media. Rajputs themselves have been constantly attacked in media ever since Indira abolished the Privy purses to garner absolute unbridled power to declare that corruption is a worldwide problem. The way traditional Hindu priests are continually vilified and suffer from a lack of direction and organisation the Rajput is also today at directionless  crossroads. His basic characteristics viz. valour, directness, discipline, principled behaviour, an element of autocratic tendencies based upon Hindu tradition have very few takers. Also the economic structure of the Rajputs has been dismantled to make way for newer political classes and groups to rise. Rajputs have been the biggest sufferers of the the new economic policies such as Licence Raj, 'socialism of the Congress', abolition of Zamindari, imposition of land ceilings to name few. Being primarily rural gentry Rajputs have been deprived of education as have other rural groups. But while the Rajput lost his land to legislation the other rural groups have been compensated by the transfer of land to the tiller, reservation in jobs and education for OBC, by OBC lead governments. But MatthewVanitas your question "if someone is "Rajput" today but are neither the mayor of a town, the owner of a rice plantation, or in the Indian Army, are they de-listed as Rajput? " is too naive. Obviously today there is no arrangement to identify and record who is Rajput. Earlier this was the task of Bhats/Jagas/Charans to record the family tree of a Rajput. There was an economic arrangement to support this. Today the centuries old records of Bhats/Charans/Jagas themselves are crumbling and would shortly be lost for ever. Perhaps these records serve no useful purpose today except maybe to someone who wants to decipher aspects of genetics and human evolution. Moreover, research on the socio economic conditions is I think outside the purview of the contributors to the Article on Rajputs. Of course credible research can be quoted. There is a demand for caste based census. Such inputs might be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.116.60 (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC) In earlier times the caste status of an individual was determined by caste based self governing panchayats supported by inputs from the Panditji. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.116.60 (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Move large section of History to Rajput history?
A huge portion of the article is currently taken up by History, while the article Rajput history (recently heavily cleaned) is far shorter. I would suggest that we move the current History section to Rajput history, footnoting it as we go, and then summarise the overall gist of Rajput history into 1-3 paragraphs in this main article, with a tag at the top. Glancing at other non-Indian articles for ethnic/social groups, their history sections are generally far shorter summaries, and the bulk of the article is demographics, culture, politics, etc. I'd submit this move will help concentrate the history issue in one main location, and make the article generally more manageable. Thoughts? MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support this idea. -- Diannaa (Talk) 22:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Will be chopping History section to Rajput history either tonight or in the next couple evenings. Preparing for great fuss once enacted despite early warnings. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

RAJPUT_THE ROYAL WARRIOR RACE.


 * Brahma is the ancestor of the Rajputs.Brahma had two sons, Atri and Marichi.Atri,s son was samudra.Samudra,s son was soma.Soma is also called indu and Chander.All three names mean moon.Soma is founder of Chander vansh or moon dynasty.
 * Brahma,s other son is called Marichi.Marichi,s son was Kashyap.Kashyap,s son was Vivashvant.Vivashvant is also called Surya or sun.Vivashvant is the founder of Surya vansh or the Sun dynasty.
 * Suryavansh or the Sun dynasty.
 * Vivashvant,s son was Manu.Manu was a Rajrishi or king sage.Manusmriti is attributed to Manu.In his Annals Todd calls Manu the law giver of the Hindus.The same way Moses is called the law giver of the Jews.This makes Manu the founder of Hinduism.Manu,s son was Ikshvaku.Ikshvaku was a great king who became founder of Ikshvaku kul(clan).
 * Ninth from Brahma is Prithu.Before Prithu,s time people used to live in villages.It is said that Prithu introduced cultivation,erected new cities,leveled the earth for cultivation,built roads for travel and trade and founded the Suta caste for keeping geneological records.
 * The other important kings were, Harish chandra 36th, Sagara 44th, Raghu 2nd. 64th and Rama Chandra 67th.Raghu was a great king.He became founder of Raghu Kul(clan).
 * Rama Chandra was the 7th avatar of Vishnu.He is worshipped as Avatar or Incarnation of Vishnu Bhagwan.His sons were Lava and Kusha 68th.
 * Agni varna was 88th.He coulg be the founder od Agni Kul(clan).Chauhan,s and Parmar,s have been called Raghu vanshi on some of the copper plates that have been found recently.Agni varna belonged to Raghuvansh.
 * Brihadbal 98th fought in Mahabharat.)*Prasenjit 2nd 119th was contemporary of Mahatma Budha,the founder of budhism.
 * 123rd was Sumitra, who was forced out of Ayodhya by Mahapadma Nanda of Magadha in thr 4th century b.c.
 * 124th was Kurma who became ruler of Rohtas in Bihar.
 * In his annals Col. James Todd says that after 4th century b.c. Rajputs or the Sun and Moon dynsties lost their paramount power and Vaisya, Shudra and foreign tribes came to power.They probably became vassals just like the muslim and British periods until they got their chance to assert themselves in the 6th century a.d.


 * Capitals of the sun dynaty.

After 4th century B.C. Ramachandra,s son Kusha,s descendants moved from Ayodhya and went to Rohtas in Bihar.Their present day descendants are Kushwahas of Jaipur.In his Annals Tod says that Kushwahas, genealogical records are imperfect. Ramachandra,s other son Lava,s descendants moved from Ayodhya to Saurashtra and then to Chithor in Mewar in 714 A.D.Ranas of Udaipur or Mewar claim descent from Ramachandra,s elder son Lava.Tod says that their geneological records are perfect.
 * Ayodhya,Mithila,Champapura,Rohtas etc.

foreign accounts (greek,roman and chinese).

In the Indika Megasthene says that from Brahma (father Baccus) to Alexander, there have been 154 kings who reigned for 6451 years and 3 months.This means Brahma lived in 6778 b.c. or 8788 years to date.This makes the Sun and Moon dynasties the world,s most ancient royal dynasties.
 * Indika gives us 154 kings from Brahma to Alexander and Todd gives only 124 kings.This means 30 names have gone missing since Alexander,s time.It is likely that some names went missing from Brahma to Alexander also.If we divide 6451 by 154 it gives us 41.88 years for each king.this means the list of kings is incomplete.Todd has calculated 17.5 years for each king.If we multiply 154 by 18 it gives us 2772 years.This only takes us back to 3099 B.C.More than half the names are missing.Fortunately, we do have a complete list from Katoch Rajputs of Kangra.Katoch list gives us 488 generations to date.If we multiply 488 by 18 it gives us 8784 years from Brahma to the present time.This is the nearest figure to 8788 years that we calculated above.It almost hits the bullseye.TBC.Here is the ref. for Megasthene,s Indika..Rajbaz (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Chandarvanh,Somvansh,Induvansh or the Moon Dynasty.
 * Brahma,s other son was Atri.Atri,s son was Samudra,Samudra,s son was Soma,Chandra,Indu or the Moon.Chandar is the founder of the Moon dynasty.
 * Chandara,s son was Brihaspati,Brihaspati,s son was Boodha,Boodha,s son was Pooroorva or Pururavas,Pooroorva,s son was Ayu,Ayu,s son was Nohas or Nahusha,Nahusha,s son was Yayati.
 * Yayati was a great king.He had five sons,Yadu Puru,OOra or Oorvasa,Druhyu and Anu.Tod gives geneologies of the first three but not the last two.
 * Yadu,s sons were Kroostha and Haihya.The famous Sahasra Arjuna and Talajanghas were descendants of Haihya.From Karoostha,s lineage were,Andhak,Shoora,Seni,Bhoja,Vasudeva and Hari Krishna, Who was 55th.
 * Hari Krishna became king of Mathura.Then he moved to Dawarka.He was a great king.He is the 8th Avatar of Vishnu.He is worshipped as an Avatar of Vishnu Bhagwan.the Hindu Holy book Bhagwat Geeta is attributed to Shri Krishan ji Maharaj.This makes him the founder of present day Hinduism.
 * shri Krishna,s son was Pradyumna,Pradyumna,s sons were Anirudha and Vajranabha,Vajranabha,s sons were Sankhanabha and Khira.Tod says that Bhatis of Jaisalmer are from Sankhanabha,s lineage.
 * Vajranabha became king of Mathura.Sankhanabhs and Khira migrated to the north.Khira,s son Judhbhan became king of Behra or Bhaira in Jehlum, Punjab.The hills of Jodh in Jehlum are named after these Yadus, Yadu ka dang.The famous salt mine of Jehlum are named Khura or Khewra after Khira.
 * Sankhanabha became king of Marusthali in Zabulistan,Afghanistan.In Sankhanabha,s lineage was Prithibahu,Prithibahu,s son was Bahubal,bahubal,s son was Subahu.Subahu (sophagasena) fought against Antiochus the great (Greco-Syrian emperor).Subahu,s son was Rajh,Rajh,s son was Gaj.In Raja Gaj,s time invaders came from the north.The Yadus abandoned Zabulistan and came to Punjab.In 16 A.D. Raja Gaj,s son, Raja Salwan founded Salvahanpur(Sialkot).Raja Salwan was a great king.
 * Raja Salwan had 15 or 16 sons.They all became kings in Punjab.Raja Rasalu and Puran Bhagat are his famous sons.They are folk heros.
 * Raja Rasalu is the greatest legendary figure of Punjab.He was a great warrior.He fought against Scythians or Bacterians in the north.The tale of his bravery"Qissa Raja Rasalu" is still sung in Punjab by folk singers.
 * Puran Bhagat is also very famous.He became a Yogi(Jogi),religeous person.His tale "Qissa Puran Bhagat" is also sung by folk singers.
 * After Raja Salwan, his elder son Raja Baland inherited the throne of Sialkot.Raja Baland had 7 sons.His elder son was Bhati.After Raja Baland his son Raja Bhati inherited the throne of Sialkot.
 * Raja Bhati was a great warrior and king.He conquered 14 countries.He became founder of Bhati dynasty.Tod says that before this Bhatis were known as Yadus.after Raja Bhati the name was changed to Bhati or Bhatti.In Raja Bhati,s lineage was Raja Mangal Rao.
 * In Mangal Rao,s time invader kink Dhundi of Gajni conquered Sialkot and Raja Mangal Rao fled to Lakhi Jungle in Haryana and founded Tanot.Raja Mangal Rao, son was Raja Majam Rao,Raja Majam Rao,s son was Raja Kehar Rao.
 * Raja Kehar Rao built the fort at Tanot in 731 A.D.After Tanot, Derawar was founded, after Derawar, Lodorva,after Lodorva, Jaisalmer,in Rajasthan.
 * Jaisalmer was founded by Rao jaisal from Lodorva in 1156 A.D.It was conquered twice by Muslims but Bhatis reconquered it again from muslims.Jaisalmer remained Bhati capital throughout muslim period to the present day.

Puru Dynasty.


 * Yayati,s other son was Puru.Puru was a great king.From Puru,s lineage was Bharat.Bharat was a great king.He was founder of Bharat kul(clan).India is also named Bharat after him.From Bharat,s lineage was Hasti. Hasti was a great king.From his lineage was Kuru.Kuru was a great king.He became founder of Kuru kul(clan).TBC.Rajbaz (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Rajbaz. The talk pages of articles are for discussing improvements to the article, not for making posts of this kind. If you have suggestions for improvements to the article, please post them here. Unfortunately the material you are posting cannot be used in the article unless you can supply us with sources. -- Diannaa (Talk) 22:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Indika by J.W.McCrindle.Rajbaz.TBC.Rajbaz (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Kshatriya Reference
I have added the dispute element to the ksatriya reference in the lead section, with only one ref., for now. If someone want to delete that, I have no objection, however, it is advisable you totally remove kshatriya references from this article. You may use Warrior clan or other similar words. It has been proven by too many authors that Rajput can't be kshatriya, who has existed till the era of Buddhism. Ikon No-Blast  19:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

IkonBlast is a contributor with a bias and seems to have  a political purpose. He is giving a lone reference which is itself unreliable. So he is bargaining to remove the reference to Kshatriya in the lead section in lieu of removing his derogatory reference. He did not choose to quote the translator who negates reliance upon Ferishta. As to how much Ferishta is to be relied upon for understanding the origin of Rajputs, the translator says "After a rapid and imperfect account of Hindoo history previously to the Mahomedan invasion, Ferishta' 'Bold text'Bold text'gives a sketch of the conquests of the early Arabians in Persia, their progress into Chorasmia, and their settlements in the north-eastern parts of Iran." On what basis does Ikon says Kshatriya existed only till the era of Buddhism. Rajputra and Kshatriya are equally ancient terms in Sanskrit and continuing till today. A Rajputra was always also a Kshatriya even if every Kshatriya was not a Rajputra.


 * You may be correct in assuming that I am biased. However, that is not going to help you in anyway, because this is not the only reference, Manickam, Wilsom too has said the same because the word is still in use in Rajasthan with similar connotations. If you feel Rajputs are Kshatriya, it would be far better to open a section and list Arguments in favor of your claim backed by evidence. Sharma and Ojha has tried to prove it, but they have been dismissed by others as belonging to Saffron Brigade or Brahminical School of Historians. Still you can bring their view here and let the reader decide. Regarding my edits, I have only recently touched this page. Caste bias comes naturally to an Indian, whether it is You or Me. However, I am pleased to see no indian Admin is active on this page, and this should be the policy, because they can't be trusted on these issues. Ikon  No-Blast  19:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ikon for admitting your bias. Ask anyone in any street of India whether Rajputs are Kshatriya or not. Do not label people as Saffron Brigade etc. Leave your political bias out of this discussion. Clever arguments can win legal cases but cannot hide the truth. Ferishta mentions in the book quoted by you that Rajputs have existed since the Vikram era i.e 1600 years before Ferishta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.85.207 (talk) 07:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * So, You want to rely on Ojha and Sharma!! Yes, these Ojha and Sharma can be found in every street and so their reputation is also like those Ojhas & Sharmas you find in the street. Just go ahead and quote their Funny Logic. But, you should quote them alongwith other credible sources. I just wanted to say that If you want to make noise Do it Right Way, not the way you have done so far. By the way, Were you aware of Ojha? Ikon  No-Blast  21:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I am a man in the street. I do not know any Ojha or Sharma but if they speak the truth why should anyone have a quarrel with them? You opened me to Ferishta and I quote Ferishta to tell you that Rajputs have existed since the beginning of the Vikram era - i.e roughly 1600 years before Ferishta and 2000 from today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.191.46 (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, if I hurted you. Ojha is quotable, whether I or others agree with him or not. He has shown that Body measurement described in scriptures suggests kshatriya may be similar to Rajputs, and Rajputra was a frequently used words for some kshatriya kings. He has also shown some of the practices ascribed to Rajputs only actually exists in Hindu scriptures and not brought by them from outside. You can quote him. Ikon  No-Blast  17:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Saini??
How does the Saini page in wikipedia claim to be Rajputs?


 * Read Ref. --120.59.49.128 (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

sainis are Mali people however some users have falsely glorified their caste page.
 * Rajput Malis adopted Sainis surname in 19th century to get jobs in Army and dragged Sainis real history into sh*t. --120.56.183.44 (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note that Saini's of Punjab, Chandigarh, Jammu & Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh are related to Shoorsaini clan. They migrated these to areas from Mathura during different periods of time. There are some other clans that started using Saini as their last name during 19th century to get recruited in military during British rule however they have different origin history. Following are some of the references with source that support this statement:

origin of abhiras or ahirs.
In the manusmriti it says that if a brahmin marries a vaishya woman the offspring is called ambshatt.Then again if a brahmin marries an ambshatt woman the children are called abhiras or ahir.Ambshatt is a mixed caste and Abhira is also a mixed caste or double mixed caste.The conclusion is that the Abhiras belong in Brahmin caste or Vaishya caste but they do not belong in Kshatriya caste at all.To be called a Kshatriya is exclusive right of Rajputs.Nowadays it has become a fashion to call oneself a Kshatriya.It is due to Kshatriya caste being the highest caste.Nobody wants to call themselves by any other caste due to the popularity of the Kshatriya caste.Kshatriya means being king,warrior, landowner and having power and glory.Rajbaz (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

According to famous Jat historian Hukam Singh Pawar book The Jats, their origin, antiquity, and migrations--page -128

"Rajputs are those Jats and Ahirs who rose to political eminence through the blessings of the priests at Mount Abu."

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=nsqaTYCEDcvKrAeEjOHuBg&ct=result&id=JRNuAAAAMAAJ&dq=jats++and+ahirs+of+pakistan&q=the+Rajputs+are+those+Jats+and+Ahirs+


 * This is 21st century man! Nowadays Brahmins are cleaning public toilets. So Varna will not give you Everything. State of Brahmins in 21st Century --120.56.191.49 (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC) and Rajputs survived till today as they give their females to please Mughals.Jodha bai is just an example.

What nonsense.Rajputs never made matrimonial alliances with British but they remained in power during British rule.So did Sikh jats, Hindu jats, Marhattas and muslims of Bhopal,haiderabad and Junagadh.The reason Rajputs made matrimonial alliances with Mughals is because Akbar the great had given up islam.akbar had become a murtad (an apostate).Ask any muslim priest from The Indian subcontinent and they will tell you.Also there were conditions which were against Islam for these alliances.1. The Rajput queen will remain a Hindu and will not become a muslim.This was against Islam because a true muslim cannot marry an Idolator.2.The son of Rajput queen will become the next king.3.Jizya will be abolished and hindus will not be treated as slaves.4.all the subjects will be equal in the law.Akbar had started a new religion called Deen-e-Ilahi,religeon of God.Mughals needed Rajput help against Pathans and Rajputs needed Mughal support against Pathans.Because during the rule of Sher Shah Suri the Pathan king rajputs had been nearly wiped out and Hindus had suffered tremendous atrosities at the hands of Pathans.Mughal -Rajput alliance was a necessity. Anyway i don,t think that Rajputs married their real daughters to the Mughals.Rajputs had a tradition of having concubines.I am sure that the daughters from these concubines were given to the Mughals.I have seen portraits of Jodha bai in Mughal paintings.She wasn,t good looking. If you think that rajputs stayed in power by marrying their females to the mughals then why don,t you come to power by marrying your females to the present day kings.There are still some kings left in the world.No body will spit on your females.Try this experiment and if you succeed then let me know.Then i will beleive that yes Rajputs stayed in power by marrying their females to the mughals.Until then don,t ever say this again that rajputs stayed in power by marrying their females to the mughals.Because this is offensive and against wiki policy.Rajbaz (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Whether it is 21st century a.d. or 21st century b.c.,it does not matter.Upper caste people have been doing menial jobs for thousands of years.This is nothing new.Varna never gave anyone anything.Upper caste people always had to work hard for a living.Nobody gives anyone anything on a platter.For example,whatever power Rajputs had during muslim and British rule it was with power of their arms.Muslims and British were scared of Rajputs.That is why they let the Rajputs rule some of the states in India.Rajputs had to go through sakha and jauhar many times.whenever a new invader came Rajputs had to go through bloodbaths.whatever states and jagirs and lands Rajputs had before partition had been earned with blood and sweat.Nobody gives anyone anything for free.According to varna Rajputs are supposed to be rulers,but how many people are prepared to vote Rajputs into power.no one.In the future whenever Rajputs come to power it will be through the power of their arms.Life is a struggle and so is varna.Rajbaz (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * We have a Wiki policy on "not saying that Rajput women married Mughals"? Look, there is a whole lot of random discussion on this page and not much of actual sourcing, or comments on that changes people would like to see, or what content they dispute.  This is not a forum, it is a page on improving the article.  If you want to see something done, post saying "Hey, I think we should cover the series of fortresses built by Rajputs in the 1300's, and here are two sources that cover the topic in detail.  Following are a couple sentences I'd like to insert, thoughts?"  In the meantime, this Talk page is becoming a chaotic jumble of noisy opinions and hurt feeling; but better the Talk page than the article itself. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Gujjars are fathers of rajputs The Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India-page-23

says that Gujars are parents of several Rajput clans.

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Ri7pgHOQC8UC&pg=PA21&dq=ahirs+of+gujarat&hl=en&ei=rS2MTbuHHsf4rQfOx-XSDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ahirs%20of%20gujarat&f=false

The same link says on page 24 that Ahirs are divided into many clans.In north India it is divided into Juduvanshi,Nandvanshi and Gowalvanshi .And Jaduvanshi claimed to be descended from the Yadavas,who now for the Yadu and Jadon-Bhatti clans of Rajputs.Which means Yaduvanshi ahirs ,Bhati ,Jadaun & Khanzyada have same roots.

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Ri7pgHOQC8UC&pg=PA21&dq=ahirs+of+gujarat&hl=en&ei=rS2MTbuHHsf4rQfOx-XSDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=jadon-Bhatti&f=false

And lastly a very famous British historain by the name of A.H Bingley wrote a book "Handbook on Rajputs" which on page 26 says that "In ancient India evey man was necessarily a soldier, and every every soldier was according to vedas a Kshatriya.Such a thing as a Brahman or Ahir King was an utter anomaly, and if by chance or by force any lower caste man succeeded in rising to power,a fabulous Rajput origin was at ance decised for him,and his descendants admitted into the soldier brotherhood.Several foreign elements were thus united to form the Chhatri caste, and the profession of arms, with it's absorbing passions, welded them into one race"

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Cc2HyXP5dygC&pg=PA163&dq=Ahirs+descent++Rajputs&hl=en&ei=uUZrTcOuJ8bprAef9vzCCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBQ#v=snippet&q=Ahir&f=false

What nonsense.I think it is the other way round.Rajputs are fathers of every one.I can say Bingley was Bengali because his name sounds exactly Bengali.Bingley or Bengali means same thing.Scriptures are full of references about Kshatriya kings, Brahmin kings, vaisya kings, shudra kings, Meleccha kings.Ahir are a cross between brahmin and ambshatt.They are mixed caste.

My not so dear casteist Rajbaz, If Ahirs are cross between Brahmins and ambshatt , then Rajputs are cross between , jats, Ahirs , Gujjars , Nais , Muslims and list goes on.Sumitkachroo (talk) 09:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

All Yaduvanshi's are Ahirs. The cattle and the stick: an ethnographic profile of the Raut of Chhattisgarh

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=VD-QTZagH8qycMXUmYsK&ct=result&id=wT-BAAAAMAAJ&dq=krishna+was+abhira&q=kshatriyas

Book Studies in Rajput history says :-

The degraded Rajputs who took to cultivation became merged in the Jat Ahir and Gujar community is a fact which cannot be altogether ruled out.

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=UciiTe3BGMXtrAeZr7T5Ag&ct=result&id=F149AAAAMAAJ&dq=Studies+in+Rajput+history+and+ahir&q=Jat+Ahir+and+Gujar

Nepal Rajputs?
Nepal's Shah and Rana ruling familes claim (or claimed) Rajput ancestry. Nepal is pretty far from Rajasthan, so these claims may need closer examination.

In fact Prithvi Narayan Shah who began unifying Nepal in the mid-1700s at that time called himself "King of the Magars". In List of monarchs of Nepal, you can observe painted portraits striving to make the Shahs look Rajput, mustaches and all. However the actual photos make them look much less Indo-Aryan. And did Mahendra never leave home without wraparound sunglasses because his eyes would have been the giveaway?

The Ranas seem to have been the Kunwars until they forced a Shah king under their thumb to give them the title. The likelihood that his is a title rather than a family name becomes clearer when you consider that whatever her husband is titled, a queen is a "Rani"; Rana is just the masculine form.

Stepping back and trying to generalize, perhaps what is going on is that by orthodox Hindu belief rulers are born to rule; necessarily born into the ruling caste. Without the right birth, a self-made upstart has zero legitimacy and can expect to be overthrown at the earliest opportunity. Therefore if a dynasty is to have a future, it must have OR MANUFACTURE a suitable genealogy. Perhaps they kept Brahmans on retainer, who could be persuaded to cook something up.

If this is true, not only in Nepal but in India at a distance from Rajasthan there may have been other ruling families claiming Rajput ancestry whether it was true or not. If so -- and if there is corroboration in "the literature", perhaps a section on this belongs in the Rajput article. LADave (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If you think it is so easy then why don,t you try to manufacture a suitable geneology for yourself.British failed, Mughals failed (although half caste),Ghoris and Ghaznavis failed,Greeks failed, Scythians failed,Kushans and Huns failed to cook something up.The reason British left India is because they knew once they lose power they will be treated like untouchables.For the same reason muslims ran away to Pakistan.Caste is the biggest weapon for the national security of India.It is the best defence.It keeps away the invaders.If they do get in, the caste defeats them in the end and they become slaves of the Hindus for ever.By the Greeks and British went all the way to India and you beleive it.Then, why do you find it impossible for some Rajputs to go from Rajasthan to Nepal?.Rajbaz (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Can we cool our nationalistic/religious ardor a mite? We're not here to debate how wonderful India or Hinduism is, we're here to discuss how to improve this article. LADave raises a great point; if we can find references about various groups claiming Rajput status, that would be a very interesting addition.  I have run across Wikipedia sub-caste articles that have claimed Rajput status, and in several cases I've had to add footnotes clarifying "claim Rajput status, but are held by academics to be Shudras "  Understandably, I get a lot of IPs reverting my edits, but footnotes win out over personal opinion.  I would definitely support a sub-section on "claims of Rajput origin" or similar to illustrate the controversy.  A similar section is probably needed at Kshatriya. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Razbaz - While it may not have been impossible to travel from Rajasthan to Nepal, the mainstream historical thesis seems to be that some high-caste Hindus entered Nepal as they fled north from Muslim invaders. This could explain hill kingdoms founded or taken over by refugees from Bihar and U.P. more easily than by refugees from Rajasthan.  In the dangerous conditions of an invasion and the unsettled aftermath, it would have been sensible to take the shorter, faster routes from Rajasthan into the western Himalaya or Hindu Kush, or to have headed south.


 * Historians debate how much of the Hinduization of Nepal was due to refugees moving north out of India and how much was due to steady eastward spreading of Paharis. This still continues or did until the King of Bhutan saw the demographic writing on the wall and expelled ethnic Nepalis. LADave (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I can trace my ancestry back to 9000 years, upto 7th millenium B.C. The geneological record keepers are still on the pay list of Rajputs.It was only Rajputs whose geneological records are kept.Other castes never kept their records.At the harvest time the village record keeper comes to claim his share. It would have been foolish to go north or south because thse regions were dominated by muslims.The Nepal hills were the safe zones to go to.Rajbaz (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * But if the geographic distribution of Muslims before partition (see this map) was any indication, Himachal and Uttarkhand should have been as safe as the "hills" further east, whereas getting beyond the Sarda through present-day U.P. and Bihar looks to have been risky. The map shows a virtually Muslim-free zone in southeastern Rajasthan. It seems much more reasonable to have gone there.


 * Looking at population movements during Partition by analogy, travel was mostly limited to cross-border exchanges in the Panjab and Sindh over two or three hundred km. at most, and this was with benefit of railways. It strains credibility to imagine refugees moving on foot or even horseback many times these distances.  For example sraight-line distance from Jodhpur to Kathmandu is over 1,200 km.  Two or three months by foot under the best of circumstances, which an ongoing invasion obviously wasn't.
 * If you are going to claim knowing your family's genealogy back to 7,000 B.C., that strains credibility even more. It's like genealogy in the Jewish-Christian Bible back to Adam and Eve. I see, I read.  I don't necessarily believe, even though I am probably supposed to! LADave (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * These are meaningless speculations. Jews can trace their geneology to Abraham and Sarah, but not to Adam and Eve.Rajputs can trace their geneology to Brahma and Saraswati.Read col. James Tod,s "Annals and antiquities" and find out for yourself.Rajbaz (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As the story goes, there were ten generations from Adam to Noah, then ten more from Noah to Abraham. Noah and his immediate family were the only survivors of the deluge, or so it is claimed.  Science refutes some of this.  The flood may have been the refilling of some part of the Mediterranean Basin. Something to do with the Aral Sea, Caspian Sea, Black Sea or the Mediterranean itself as sea levels rose after the Pleistocene.  It may have been a (pre)historic event, but at most a regional catastrophe. According to science, mankind had already spread over six continents and the animal kingdom did not need an Ark either. Or perhaps it was a tsunami.  Also terrible thing as we saw in 2004 and again this year; not a threat of extinction.


 * Getting back to India and Nepal, genealogy is hardly unalloyed science. Especially when claims of divine descent enter the discussion, we have entered the realm of mythology.  We should be talking about claims and stories more than claiming facts.  Alternative narratives are definitely in order, as I sketched out with the comparison of what actually happened during Partition, with what is claimed to have happened in the Middle Ages.


 * James Tods' work was written 180 years ago, and that raises questions. Science and standards for historical research have changed meantime.  In this very republican age, claims of royal lineage are viewed with more scepticism.  Nevertheless, if you think this work is important, why not add a synposis of it to the article James Tod? Then you could link to it from the various articles about Rajputs.  LADave (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Notable ommissions in article: agricultural caste, pre-Hindu/Kshatriya status, OBC
I've mostly been specialising in Maratha/Kunbi-Kurmi/agricultural castes recently, but wanted to duck back in here for a second. From what I've been running across, there are several issues really not covered in this article that should be:
 * Importance of agriculture in Rajput history. The Rajputs certainly were a martial race, but they were also categorised as an agricultural race, and both historically and now are heavily involved in agriculture.
 * The Rajputs entered Hinduism later than other groups, so their varna/caste status has changed over time as they entered Hinduism, and then were able to assert Kshatriya claims based on their military service to Hindu rulers. Though some of this belongs in the History article, there should be at least some mention of it in whatever section where we discuss varna.
 * There were points under the British where the Rajputs campaigned for preference as an OBC, and I believe in some areas (outside Rajasthan?) were categorised as such.

Does anyone have an argument why any of the above is invalid, or do we have general consensus to include the above (with reliable footnotes) as we move forward? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

MathewVanitas, it needs to be understood that in those times Agriculture was almost the whole economy and Rajputs as the rulers controlled the economy i.e agriculture and so were always deeply associated with agriculture but that did not make them cultivators the same way the CEO/MD/Chairman/Owner of a company cannot be equated with the worker. If the owner loses his shares or the company goes bankrupt he (or his descendants) may become ordinary workers. Every group of villages was controlled by a Rajput family. As population increased and landholdings became small a Rajput might have taken to the plough for economic reasons but such typically such families fell from the ranks  into classes then percieved by all to be lower. The room at the higher levels was always restricted alongside a lot of wannabe groups. Virtually every rural community has sections which remember and claim their Rajput connection.

Historically social and political evolution is never a cut and dried affair. Rajputs could not have sprung upon the Indian soil one fine  morning in the 6th Century AD and become rulers. Hinduism is a very inclusive philosophy and surely it stands to reason that even elements of foreign migratory communities would have been incorporated into the Kshatrya fold if they displayed merit and understanding. Old ruling Kshatryia families also would surely have adopted themselves to the newer religico-political realities and forged bonds with newer blood & steel meritocracies. The task of assimilation and integration has been continuously carried out under the guidance of the Brahmins; and those Rajput rulers who had a connection with ancient Chandravanshi/Suryavanshi rulers were placed higher than the others (such as Agnikul) even if the latter acquired more power. Hindu philosophy and society has always been merit based. In North India the Jats have always been noted for hardwork and high agricultural productivity and hence acquired landholdings which continue till today. Earlier land was never a scarce commodity and productive hardworking classes were always in demand to expand the agricultural economy. Of course the hardworking tiller had to be protected from freebooters and political adventurists who would have been aplenty in those times of poor communications and weak central control; the economy never provided full year round employment and it was common for idlers and other malcontents to join violent gangs (Thugs, Pindaris, any invading army on the move etc) If a person did not like hard work in the fields he took to other vocations including pottery, haircutting & allied services, scavenging, making shoes etc or even dacoity, theiving or contributing to the political turbulence.

'''As regards OBC, while groups such as Gujjar, Ahir, Yadav were straightaway classified OBC and these groups acknowledged their social backwardness, sections in other groups have begun perceiving that the OBC reservation has already gone too far and either they also be covered by reservations or the basis of reservation be changed to economic or reservation be done away with althogether. These other groups include virtually all other social groups including Brahmins the highest in the Hindu social order. However, till today no Rajput or Brahmin group has been granted OBC status in any state'''  Presently their voices are weak but there is a strong undercurrent against reservation which were proposed for only 14 years in the Constitution but have continued for 62 years for purely political reasons. There is a groundswell of opinion against the political pranks of Divide & Rule by the post independant rulers promoting Exclusiveness & Reservations rather than Empowerment and Education resulting in  world beating records in Illiteracy, Poverty, Malnutrition, widespread Corruption on a massive scale and  sub optimal national performance. Rural India has been largely deprived of education in the last 60 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.110.182 (talk) 10:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a good idea. -- Diannaa (Talk) 19:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

OBC issues

 * The term OBC was not used in British times. Rajputs have never been included in OBC category. Some groups such as Lodh or Kashyap (who are actually Dheemar/Jheemar i.e fishermen)  have liked to include 'Rajput' as as suffix to refer to their group as Lodh Rajput and kashyap Rajput but are never considered Rajput by other groups. Such groups are included in the OBC category but are not Rajput. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.111.245 (talk • contribs)


 * My mistake, some of these examples are much more recent, thanks for the catch. Check out the following cite, which includes such mentions as: "...the Rajput Reservation Front leaders compared Rajputs to Jats, who were already on the [OBC] list, in terms of their representation in office and at various universities... all in an attempt to get Rajputs on the OBC list." (. If we can find a few more cites, maybe trace this issue further, might it be worth including? MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The local-language name for this group is Rajput Arakshan Manch. They have some amount of news coverage and a few gBooks hits; it might also be worthwhile making an article about that group itself. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

While groups such as Gujjar, Ahir, Yadav were straightaway classified OBC and these groups acknowledged their social backwardness, sections in other groups (virtually all other so called non-backward social groups including Brahmins,Vaishyas, Jats and Rajputs) have begun perceiving that the OBC reservation has already gone too far and either they also be covered by reservations or the basis of reservation be changed from social to economic or reservation be done away with altogether. '''Some Jat and Vaishya groups have been included in the OBC reservation list in some areas. However, till today no Rajput or Brahmin group has been granted OBC status in any state. The Social Justice Front and Rajput Karni Sena of Rajastan are seeking reservation for Rajput, Brahmin and some other communities on an economic basis'''. Pls check out this link for news reports related to Brahmin/Rajput/other non backword group reservation demands refered in  the Jat group discussion http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/4047 Brahman Arakshan Manch link> http://www.outlookindia.com/printarticle.aspx?218796  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.110.182 (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Many other so called non - backward groups are seeking rationalisation of reservation; just need to do a simple google search for 'arakshan' or 'arakshan manch' plus the name of the group for news and activites related to reservation. For Kayasta/Vaishya/other activities google the following->Arakshan Samapti Abhiyan Sanyukta Sanstha Manch, Vaishya Aarakshan Manch, Swarn Aarakshan Manch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.110.182 (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, getting some really good info here. So, thus far, we're seeing that this may merit a sentence (pending proper footnoting) saying something along the lines of "There are political groups including Rajputs, that in the 2000s sought OBC status in Rajasthan for economic reasons"? MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It might be more appropriate to refer to these groups as 'social groups' rather than 'political groups'. Rajput, Brahmin, Vaishya, Kayastha are not political groups, rather social groups. Political groups may be aligned to perceived interests of these groups in the usual fluid political situations. Since OBC reservations affects every social group in India a reference to it in an article specific to Rajputs might not be most appropriate;  a separate article on OBC reservations may be created in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.110.182 (talk) 11:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

marathas are not rajputs
Marathas are not rajputs. This article has lot of false information. In fact marathas defeated rajputs many times. Rajputs made alliance with muslims for defeating muslim invaders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.174.210 (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment needed at Talk:Khatri
There is a dispute at on the page Khatri. keeps reverting the article to a version which says:


 * "Khatri is the name given to Mair Rajputs, Sikh Rajputs and Muslim Rajputs"

The citations provided to support this statement (and some other statements) failed verification -- other editors checked the sources provided, but could not find any text which says that Mair/Sikh/Muslim Rajputs are Kshatriya.

The page has been protected now to prevent a revert war, and the current version of the page contains the above claim of Rajputs being Khatri in the intro.

If you are knowledgable about the topic Rajput, or have a source which proves/disproves the above claim, please help resolving the dispute at Talk:Khatri. utcursch | talk 06:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)