Talk:Shivaji/Archive 3

Help! Need to form consensus on whether Shivaji's Hindavi Swarajya is "Indian independence/freedom"
I created a template recently - Template:Indian freedom struggle to link the various events and movements leading to the Indian independence. Specifically I linked various wars such as the First Anglo-Maratha War, Second Anglo-Maratha War, Third Anglo-Maratha War, Indian independence movement, Indian rebellion of 1857, etc. The template is a mere chronological linkage of events/movements with similar objectives. It looks something like:

Some users such as User:Rsloch, User:Slatersteven are resisting my use of the term "Indian freedom struggle" to be equated with Shivaji's Hindavi Swarajya. IMO, they have a Eurocentric view that suggests Indian freedom struggle only applies in the British context.

Please help form consensus at regarding the matter. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think any nation is evolved over a number of years.Further there is no harm in accepting the truth that 300 years back our anscestors were fighting and now we are at peace.This is how civilization progress.So instead of forcing modern concept of secularism and freedom on the past let us see as it is.It will be interesting to see Maratha-Mughal conflict over a century and then maratha-english conflict over laif a century.It was the marathas who dismembered Mughal empire and from them British took over India.Actually Marathas' was not empire like mughal but like a confederecy which was supplanated by british India 's association with princely states and finally Republic of India.Thus from mughal empire to maratha confedrecy to British company to republic india is a great transition of poilitical ideas and institutions --we can see that way. dbkasar

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shivaji" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbkasar (talk • contribs) 06:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC) name of his son is sahaji. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.15.77 (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We don't need a special template for this, template:succession box does just fine. Frietjes (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

same user multiple accounts
the following two users are continuously engaging in edit wars, have created multiple accounts to support their ill-found theory, neither gs sardesai, nor gh ojha nor sarkar discards shivahji rajput origin, the mentality of the user can be judged that he has adopted the user name of "BHONSLE" maybe to convince the wiki users.115.241.190.53 (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Mr 115.241......please dont try to start something new or try to be a detective here. Neither GS sardesai confirms Shivajis Rajput origin ( go and read the entire volume of "Riyasats " or " the new history of the marathas") and Sarkar clearly denies it in his book "shivaji and hsi times". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subhashbhosle55 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

from which world have you come from GS SARDESAI rejects the alternate origin of shivaji and mentions only the rajput origin of shivaji, shubha krishna is the direct ancestor of shivaji. You go and read similarly the book cited by you are shivaji and his times(1919) and the 1958 commoreation of jadunath sarkar disclosed his agreement with the dr balkrishna genealogy of bhosle as the genealogy is of persian sanads kept in bahamani sultan house. The fact is that the other user mathews too has the same view and has been given the ammo to distort the article122.161.13.190 (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Finding agreement on how to portray the descent controversy
Okay, the current situation is untenable; we cannot go back and forth deleting huge chunks of text and reinserting them.

Mention of the school of thought the Shivaji was Rajput certainly cannot be left out, so that's definite. Alternate schools of thought also cannot be left out. However, the Rajput content that's currently contested is not at all usable, as it's not a depiction of the controversy, it's an attempt to prove the point one way or the other. Wikipedia is not about "here's how X theory is right", and definitely not for lengthy lists of quotes to back an argument.

To make this section work, we must absolutely avoid any "... but XYZ theory is wrong, because if you look at this 1835 document..." or the like. What this section must be is something like the following (very, very simplified example):

There are varying theories as to Shivaji's community of origin. Some 19th century scholars argued that he was an X, noting that *example*example*. However, at the start of the 20th century the Y community became to prominently feature Shivaji in their political literature, claiming that *example*example*.

Note that using pre-modern sources is likely to run afoul of WP:PRIMARY; ideally, rather than citing some 1820, 1890, or 1920 authority to "prove" a point, we should be citing a post-1970 authority who describes the controversy and its various sides. Too much of this Talk page has been a "you're wrong - no, you're wrong", but at this point we need to agree that there is a controversy and work to find a way the controversy can be accurately depicted. Use of pre-modern Primary sources is not valid as we here (as WP editors) are not acting as published PhD India scholars, so instead we need to present and summarise modern academic viewpoints. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please remember to indent your reply by placing a colon before each paragraph, and add a colon more than the person you are replying to to indent one notch to the right of them. And please remember to sign each post by typing ~ or hitting the "sign" button at the top of your editing window.
 * Matthew Vanitas, I agree with you , this is a public forum and the objective here is to present a neutral and accepted theory.
 * Its should not be allowed to further caste objectives of one particular person. Chattrapati Shivaji Maharaj is a figure of reverence for the whole of India ; but particularly for the entire 96 K MARATHA CLAN, his reverence is second only to God . One author or one royal house's controvertial PRE-MODERN theory can not be presented as facts here. What is important is what is accepted as standard history by majority of people , what is accepted by the state government and taught in schools and colleges.
 * I mean how ridiculous can it be when on the wiki page of Shivaji, an unproven and contested pre-modern half rajput theory is given so much space , so much so that the most biased author like kaifi khan (who was discarded by all other authors of pre and post modern era) is also used to prove a point. This is not acceptable to any MARATHA.It seems instead of talking about the greatness of Shivaji this wiki page is trying to prove a caste point here.
 * Till this issue is resolved, none of this fake , and controvertial theory should be displayed on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subhashbhosle55 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Subhash, agreed that Shivaji is a a figure of great prominence, and it behooves everyone to tread carefully to improve and uphold the quality of the article. That said, let us refrain from passing judgement on one or the other interpretation of history; we are here to portray the perspectives, not reach conclusions regarding them. If, and I emphasise, if the bulk of current scholars, strongly favour Theory A over Theory B, yes, A should have more prominence. And, ideally, we should find current scholars that also address Theory B and note why it has fallen from favour. If a notable non-academic body (say, a political party) favours theory B or C, and that preference is depicted in neutral, third-party media or academics, those can also be noted.


 * There is a very good essay on this concept, Beware of the tigers, which explains how describing controversies is vital to Wikipedia, but engaging in controversies is disruptive. Let's maintain our collegial atmosphere, ensure that theories A/B/C are depicted as described (not "argued") by current scholars. If a given theory, even a "discredited" one has played a social/political role, it is worth noting, and if it has been rebutted by a notable scholar, that is also worth noting. I can't see having any more than two paragraphs on the topic, so if folks want to really, really get into the weeds on this, we may need to have a short summary here, and a separate article on Heritage of Shivaji or similar.


 * Let's proceed with the agreement that nobody is out to be proven "right", but the goal is to depict the various arguments in a very concise and neutral manner. Ideally, when the section is done, people will be able to say "I believe A, but I agree that the article fairly covers A, B, and C such that an independent reader gets a good grasp of the subject, and it notes that even theories which may not be true have a socio-political impact", and so on for partisans of theories B and C. I would strongly suggest we refrain from any statements like "ridiculous", "flat-out wrong", etc. and instead focus on "what arguments have been portrayed and how are they described in current scholarship." A letter by Shivaji is only important to Wikipedia in that later scholars and leaders have interpreted it; we ourselves are not out to interpret it here. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Matthew, I think the comments are fine right now and let us close this controversy. I do not see any point in creating another controvertial topic on heritage etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subhashbhosle55 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * We are not "creating" a controversial topic, we are attempting to cover a controversial topic. If folks interested in the Rajput side find the current phrasing neutral enough, we're good there. That said, I know there are other groups (Kurmi, etc) who claim Shivaji is of their group, so at some point we probably want at least a sentence or so (with proper footnotes) mentioning other popular theories. Also, the section now says he may or may not have been Rajput, but for those who disbelieve the Rajput theory, what is their belief as to his ancestral community? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * For those who disbelieve the Rajput theory, The Shivaji's ancestors belong to the Maratha clans of Satara / Ellora. Do you think we should add that in there ? The Kurmi theory is new to me ; tomorrow every community in the Hindu cultural spectrum will find something in common with any great person ( either a name , language , Kul-devi /Kul-devata , religious affiliations , etc etc ) and claim the person belongs to their caste. But that does not change the known facts as to where the person or his forefathers where born , what they spoke of where they served.I will give you another example , non on the western historians believe in the solar dynastry of Ramchandra in Dwaparyuga ( lakhs of years ago) ; they (including most Indian historians) believe in the aryan invasion theory and the vedic civilization coming from there. The Rajputs are part of one of these hordes of Aryans .But these theories have been contested and counter contested by many historians. So finally what we settle for is the accepted standard history.I do  not believe Aryan invasion theory is accepted and taught in schools and colleges in India. Similary the standard accepted history is Shivaji and his forefathers come from the Marathas of Satara/ Ellora.

Make sure to add one more : than the person who posted before you

If the Satara/Ellora theory is the predominant one among current scholars, it'd be great to add that in with a good footnote. If we have several reputable, modern scholars saying "Here are the other theories, since debunked, and most folks now agree he was Satara/Ellora" that should slant our coverage towards depicting Satara/Ellora as "generally agreed upon" and the others as socio-politically notable but not generally academically endorsed today. However, we can't firm up this stance until some folks hit up GoogleBooks (or failing that, a good library) and find us some footnotes.

Not just the Kurmis, but many communities claim Shivaji as "theirs"; while we shouldn't give these claims WP:UNDUE coverage if they're not supported outside the community, if there is a neutral, third party scholar who mentions that such beliefs exist, I could see maybe a sentence or so saying "Additionally, communities such as X, Y, and Z have claimed Shivaji as a member of their lineage.(footnotes)" On that issue, we are less interested in the fact of to whom Shivaji belonged, and more in the fact that "X belief exists and affects a given population's attitude." MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

@mathewvanita dont act like that you are so unbiased the fact is you are biased from the very begining about the rajput origin and only claiming will do no help untill without any evidence, therefore no such claim will be mentioned as their is no evidence to back them up the most authorative maratha historian Sardesai has this for persons like you --Shubha Krishna's descendants are known as Bhosles and form a younger branch of the original family.2 A grandson of this Shubha Krishna was one Babaji Bhosle who died in 1597. Babaji had two sons, Maloji (bom in 1552) and Vithoji. The only point unanswered is the name bhosle from where it comes, some kannada writers claim hoyasala as the origin of bhosle which is wrong as many marathi names have affinity with bhosle such as "GODSE","GOKHALE" these are marathi names with greater affilation to bhosle rather than hoysala. Further Sardesai notes that large number of marathi families are descendants of northern rajputs as they vary in race, physical attributes as well from the local marathi population.Page- 50-52 New history of maratha(sardesai). Go and read and also read jadunath sarkar--Sir Jadunath Sarkar commemoration volumes, Volume 1, page 181-183122.161.13.190 (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=FFzRAAAAMAAJ&q=dr+balkrishna+genealogy+correct&dq=dr+balkrishna+genealogy+correct&hl=en&ei=yahpTvCDCorJrAfJ7q3CBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA this is snippet view but i guess it should be enough to tore apart claims of people like you, the fact is 1924 disclosure of the firmans(royal edicts) has tore apart most of the non-rajput origin claim which were mostly made by kanada scholars as pointed by sardesai, they try to link hoyasala with bhosle even though no grammar of this world will derive the word bhosle with hoyasala and rather "gokhale" or "godse" are more close in their writing style specially in devnagri script. The genealogy made by dr balkrishna--http://www.archive.org/stream/shivajithegreatv030775mbp/shivajithegreatv030775mbp_djvu.txt is the best work on shivahji till date with the only book the only book to have copies of the royal edicts traslated by dr apte and the book received great value as the most well researched book on shivaji and maratha, the kannada writers went bersek on this book because their claims were tore apart, the newer version(6th edition)1994 publication however dont have the historically important sanads but the older versions carried those copies. Stop quoting sarkar as the opposer of shivaji rajput origin(shivaji and his times-1919) that time the sanads were not discovered from the royal house it was discovered in 1924 and the first man to confirm the rajput origin of shivaji was most probably the greatest maratha historian Sardesai. G.S. Now i will wait to see which historian in india with the same reputaion of sardesai, ojha and sarkar has contested the rajput origin plz let me know.122.161.13.190 (talk) 06:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.google.co.in/search?rlz=1C1DVCL_enIN409IN410&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=g#sclient=psy&hl=en&rlz=1C1DVCL_enIN409IN410&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=Sir+Jadunath+Sarkar+observes%2C+%22the+farman+fixes+the+exact+date+of+the+Maratha+acquisition+of+Kondana+and+Shahji's+first+rupture+with&pbx=1&oq=Sir+Jadunath+Sarkar+observes%2C+%22the+farman+fixes+the+exact+date+of+the+Maratha+acquisition+of+Kondana+and+Shahji's+first+rupture+with&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=19293l19293l12l19588l1l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=e22a504087e4eddb&biw=1280&bih=629 i hope this will help as well, those fools who are trying to defame sarkar by using his name as the rajput opposer and definetely unaware of the later developments the firmans(royal edicts) released in 1924 and therefore it was not the mistake of sarkar as he dont have the priveilage of the firmans but most of the history post firman released is known by the firmans and the firman is of great importance in tearing the claims of other authors the fact none of the rajput historian has written anything about maratha or shivahji on the other hand kannada historians have tried almost everything even linking bhosle with hoyasala with no possibility reason being BH and H are not at all resonating alphabets and when we deal in devnagri script then their is even less chance to derive these words together. The earlier work of sarkar(1919) being used to defame not only shivahji but also defaming a noted historian(sarkar) himself if sarkar was arrogant like you he would have never accepted his mistake but the fact is he was not in possesion of firmans during 1919(shivaji and his times) work which he started writing in 1911 and completed in late 1918.122.161.13.190 (talk) 06:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

And second thing your doubts are not reasonable because their are multiple claims over Shivaji any historian will write possibly or probably because to say with 100% accuracy is impossible as the origin of bhosle is very old but most historians dont consider other origins the fact is the genealogy of bhosle is more or less correct(according to mr sarkar as well as also sardesai) but the one mystery is the surname bhosle, ghorpade surname mystery was solved easily as it is a marathi word for those warrior who conquer some tough enemy fort but the bhosle surname is still mystery which has been noted by all sardesai, ojha , chatterjee etc but apart from that genealogy and other things only support one origin that is sisodia. Kannada historians(many of them from souther maharastra) have tried to link bhosale with hoyasala but its unlikely and neither the two are resonating words bhosle is more marathi like gokhale,godse, the "O" comes after first alphabet and ends with le-se etc rather than with hoyasala refer to sardesai history of maratha he has pointed out that few scholars claim bhosle as hoysala and also doubt the authenticity of firmans but it is obvious in this country regionalism and casteism will stay for ever and hence we cannot give any importance to kannada scholars reason they proved Vijaynagra empire kannada origin(also contested by tamil scholars) by the help of the kingdom documents which used kannada as language and now they doubt persian firmans, this will go on for ever.---http://www.google.co.in/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=mahaparinivvana+sutta+49+BC&btnG=#sclient=psy&hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=migrated+from+the+north+and+settled+in+Maharashtra%2C+representing+to+this+day+the+Rajput+or+Kshatriya+blood&pbx=1&oq=migrated+from+the+north+and+settled+in+Maharashtra%2C+representing+to+this+day+the+Rajput+or+Kshatriya+blood&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=637244l652297l10l652441l39l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=e22a504087e4eddb&biw=1280&bih=629 this is what sardesai writes that "though bhosle derivation is still a mystery but no doubt about mass migration of rajputs and other kshatriyas from north to south" and if that includes bhosle or not its not easy but mass migration of rajputs has been accepted by all ojha, sardesai, sarkar etc further these historians have atleast consider the rajput origin no one even think about the kannada origin one big reason INCEST DEFINITION. Dravidians hindu marry with cousins and near relatives in north india hindus such marriage is very very strongly prohibited and not a single maratha clan marry among their own relatives no matter how distant relatives they are.122.161.13.190 (talk) 07:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

First dont portray your personal interests, Mathews Vanitha for long has been acting for some vested interest, according to him all the various claims should be mentioned then he is wrong, the claims accpeted till a certain extent should be shown and not any other claim. Second one said GS sardesai never said bhosle are rajputs he need to read the last work of sardesai(new history of maratha-1946) 5 times he has traced bhosle to the sisodia the only missing point was he was not satisfied how did family get bhosle as "surname or name". Similarly Sarkar is not an obstacle the unpublished letters and notes published in 1958 work was the one where Sarkar was in agreement with DR Balkrishna work on the genealogy of bhosle, he term the genealogy "fairly correct" its obvious no one can say with 100% whereas the genealogy is 100% correct or not but yeah its pretty much accurate , second the word used by historians to show their own inclination is possibly, probably they uses this word for those which they favour another great historian though the writer of this portion was sardesai it was edited by majumdar as well it needs a mentionhttp://books.google.co.in/books?id=kHpDAAAAYAAJ&q=They+claimed+descent+from+the+Sisodla+Ranas+of+Chitor+and+Udaipur&dq=They+claimed+descent+from+the+Sisodla+Ranas+of+Chitor+and+Udaipur&hl=en&ei=LBJqTpSeHYiOiAevwu3OBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA. According to this it is very much possible that their was migration of these people who started bhosle branch can anyone can bring the agreement of such noted historians for alternate shivaji origin. The onus is on the opposers to prove it wrong just claiming big that these documents are wrong or that are wrong will not do and dont enter edit war. Sarkar opposition to rajput origin is based on his much earlier work(1919).Shail kalp (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Y'all are not grasping the issue here: regardless of accuracy, you are portraying the issue in a confusing way. The block of text you're re-inserting has no cohesive flow with the text amongst which it is dumped, and is a lengthy argument vice a clear summary of schools of thought. Quoting a full paragraph of an 1817 work is not helpful in this regard. The article is not a debating-space, it's a place to summarise issues. In the version I reverted to, there is a nice clear explanation of the Rajput school, which nobody has bothered to add a reference to. We aren't here to use WP:Primary sources, so please instead find one or two of the most reputable/neutral/comprehensive descriptions of the Rajput Shivaji issue, and cite those. Having a lengthy argument gets into the "methinks though dost protest too much" area. If the Rajput theory is indeed the single most supported theory by modern academics, there should be no problem finding a work by a reputable and neutral scholar from the last 30 years which concisely describes the argument and any rebuttals, which can be summarised in a few sentences. Please desist from re-inserting the bulky and misplaced chunk of text, and don't refer to deletions as "unexplained" when I've explained them in Talk and in every single Edit Summary. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

--- LETS GET ONE THING CLEAR : WE THE MARATHAS WILL NOT TOLERATE BIZAARE CLAIMS MADE BY THOSE FANATIC KANADA WRITERS LIKE DHERE / KAMAT ETC. ON THIS ISSUE WE ARE ONE......JAI BHAVANI

i have read abt claims by dhere and that buffooon is trying to link Bhosale and hoysala ;This is such nonsense, that it does not even deserve a debate; these low life fanatic kannada writers have no credibility even in their own state ; the only objective of these so called fake kannada writters is to claim credit due to others; they claim the rathores of rajastan , punjabis ,Tuljapur Bhavani , Vithoba , etc etc ; these fake writters and the supporters suffer from deep inferiority complex. I have seen many such fanatic kanads here like sarvgya, dinesh kannamdi etc etc ; beware of these people.

AGAIN : WE ARE ONE ON THIS ISSUE AND WE WILL NOT TOLERATE CLAIMS BY THESE ILLITERATE, IGNORANT, FANATIC KANNADA WRITERS LIKE DHERE.

Are you saying that people of Maharashtra have absolutely no connection with Kannada people ? The geographical proximity makes it an absurd claim. By the way, how is Kamat a Kannada name ? To me it is a Konkani Saraswat brahmin name. Jonathansammy (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

IAM talking abt the bizarre claims made by fanatic kannada writers like dhere....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhushanbush82 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhushanbush82 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

bhushan ....nobody is talking abt those discredited kannada writters...; lets not waste our time in even entertaining bizarre ideas of that kannada writter; that is out of the window ; no neutral historian has even considered their arguments.At least the half Rajput theory is accepted by some historians.

Lets get this thing straight first ; Chattrapati Shivaji was and is a Maratha, his father was Maratha; his grandfather Maloji was a Maratha; His great grandfather Babaji bhosale was a feudal lord of pedgaon (near pune) and a Maratha. Till this point it is usually agreed by all historians. Now beyond this ,there are only 2 schools of thought : one would be, from Shivajis Paternal side (FATHERS SIDE) , 6 or 7 generation before babaji , the ancestors descended from the Ranas of Mewar.

and the other is Bhosales were local feudals and there is no established migration from anywhere.This is the common accepted history and what is taught in schools and colleges in the state. None of the Maratha chronicles ever claim, nor did Shivaji ever claim to be a rajput OR ANYBODY ELSE.His claim is only that if being a MARATHA. Also, the sanads are no gospels or genealogy experts of the world. And the 1919 argument of Jadunath Sarkar stays as he never claimed to have studied the firmans or carried out any independent study.

My point to 122.......is that there is no need to write 5 paragraphs or copy paste from a 1817 book. It is already explained concisely in 2 short paragraphs

And and you can be least assured, I will not let you put biased opinions of kaifi khan , he was discredited by every neutral historian

Persian

Khan, Hamid-ud-din. Ahkam-i-Alamgiri. Khan, Khafi. Muntakhab-ul-lubab. Lahori, A. H. Padishahnamah. Nurullah, Sayyid. Tarikh-i-AH Adil Shah II. Ruqat-i-Alamgiri.

Sanads with the Rajasaheb of MudhoL Sanads with B. Itihas S. Mandala. Poona. Tarikh-i-Shivaji. Translated by J. Sarkar in Modern

someone said jadunath sarkar has not seen the persian sanads(seriously), the bibilography of dr balkrishna shivaji the great--http://www.archive.org/stream/shivajithegreatv030775mbp/shivajithegreatv030775mbp_djvu.txt however says that persian sanads were translated into english by Jadunath sarkar and into marathi by dr balkrishna and bv apte. similarly to say that shivaji and his times(1919) was his last word no its wrong that book was criticized very much first the shivaji birth date was wrong in that book dr balkrishna says 19-feb 1630 whereas jadunath sarkar said april 1627 but the date which is now accpeted is feb 1630 and not april 1627 similarly many other details such as capturing of various forts in his earlier work were dated wrongly hence if any historian changes his stance with new source its not wrong but this shows the greatness or generosity of the historian which sarkar is he may not be a ranken school historian who relies heavily on sources but still he accepted his mistake in his later works the commoreation volume(1958) similarly sardesai is inclined towards Rajput origin he has also noted the kannada scholars but do not seem to agree with them he wrote in new history of maratha-"some scholars(def kannada) detects linguistic affinity between bhosale and hoyasala and maintains a completely different origin of the great maratha raj, however shubhakrishna descenadants were known as bhosale as mentioned in sanads but their is no satisfactory reason for this" he further notes " their is no doubt that many of the present day maratha families are descendants of rajputs or kshatriyas of north india" Page-51-52 New history of maratha(gs sardesai-1946 publication). Similarly Gh Ojha another great historian of india he too maintain that not only bhonsale a hell lot of maratha are rajputs or kshatriyas of north india.(udaipur ka itihas-Pandit MM Rao Bahadur GH Ojha). Therefore the general trend is that marathas are rajputs, are their more rajputs in rajasthan than in UP/MP/BIHAR answer is no then who are "DOGRA RAJPUTS" who was gulab singh dogra who was called sher-e-kashmir by ranjit singh because gulab singh was never defeated in a single war against AFGHANS. My name is Shailesh Chavan i am told that i am a chauhan rajput reason i belong to general category therefore neither i am a shudra neither a dalit surely not a brahmin and neither a vaishya our family was always involve in marital race and i believe that many maratha like me are rajputs we are maratha because many of our generations are living in maharashtra Shail kalp (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Second thing all the maratha families have always maintained that they are rajputs, be it maloji,shahji(letter to adil shah) shivaji or his next generations similarly other maratha warriors like ghorpade,chavan,more,salunke,Pawar,Deshmukh are rajputs and if all maratha generals claim rajput then why holkar and sindhia did not claim themselves rajputs therefore the general view is that shivahji a rajput as Majumdar in his monumental work mention that "POSSIBLY" a family of sisodia may have fled to central india whereas he do not mention any other origin of maratha such as "HOYASALA" first of all bhosale is more resonating with "gokhale" "godse" "bhogle" these are all marathi names and not kannadi Hoyasala cannot derive bhosale, second thing DR BALKRISHNA work is more authentic than error filled sarkar earlier work , maharashtra govt dont accept even the date of birth of sarkar the accepted date is that by dr balkrishan.(Evn sardesai DOB is same as sarkar). Sarkar was greatest authority of mughals, sardesai greatest authority of maratha but the best book came from a non-history student(balkrishna of kolhapur).All of you should read this---http://www.resourcedesign.co.in/imgs/samplings/books/A_profile_in_courage.pdfShail kalp (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * MatthewVanitas asked me to come take a look at this discussion/article. First, a question, to MV: can you confirm that the alternate theories (the "Shivaji is not Rajput" theories) are verified by reliable sources?  I see one source in the article right now (Sharad Pawar, the Maratha legacy, by Bakshi)--are there more?  If the alternate theory is held by only a single academic, then it might be too fringe to include.  I will admit that I have only scanned both the text and this very long discussion here, so maybe I missed something, but I figured it might be faster if I asked directly. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't delved too deeply yet, just seen lots of mentions, and at least one editor amongst the spaghetti above seems to be posting refs showing doubt of the Rajput theory. I found one book which cites R. C. Dhere, and explains the argument that Shivaji was of southern vice Rajput stock, and how that theory upsets Marathas: . I can't find the original Dhere book, but Dhere appears quite widely cited indeed; no WP on him yet, but there's a Dhere draft which indicates Dhere is from Maharashtra, had a 55+ year career in writing on folk belief and legends, had a DLit, etc. Suffice to say, thus far I'm finding at least evidence that the claim is not universally accepted, and a ton of resources use the word "claim" vice "was" Rajput, and/or make reference to a belief that his genealogy was contrived by Brahmins.


 * Again, not trying to get The Truth, just wanting to reflect that even today there are a variety of theories, though as the fellow citing Dhere notes, the non-Rajput theories are quite upsetting to some folks. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There are also refs from 1872 to 1998 (the latter's author seems to check out with GoogleScholar) stating that Shivaji was a Kurmi; would that not be incompatible with being a Rajput? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, MatthewVanitas. It seems that there is legitimate disagreement among at least some writers about whether or not Shivaji are Rajput.  As such, our article must reflect this fact.  All of the claims above that these are biased, or bizarre, or whatever, are irrelevant--if the author is widely cited, and well respected, the alternative view must be included.  As always, I'm less comfortable looking to books from the 1800s for verification, but do with those as you see fit.  So, to those people objecting to this alternate theory, you have basically one recourse: show that Dhere either does not meet the reliable sources guidelines, or that this view is so fringe that it simply doesn't deserve mention per WP:UNDUE.  Note that piling on more "evidence" that Shivaji are Rajput is not helpful--you need to specifically show that the other theory is WP:FRINGE.  If you cannot do so, the information should be included. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Dheres malicious theory was fringe and undue as per Wikipedias definition ; and it is not supported even to an inkling by any reliable historian like Sardesai, Sarkar , Balakrishan , or Ojha. Infact it is extremely offending to every Maratha for it is purely mischievous and malicious. The Rajput Theory is supported by most renowed and reliable historians ; there is no doubt on this matter.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Subhashbhosle55 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * First, no page-lines. Second, evidence, please.  I don't know one Indian historian from another.  Please find a historian, publishing in a reliable journal, stating that only the Rajput theory is considered viable by historians.  Or find a historian explciitly stating that Dheres' theory is not accepted.  A Google Scholar search shows citations of RC Dhere's work, although that in and of itself is not a reliable piece of evidence due to the way citations and Google Scholar itself works.  In other words, neither I nor anyone else on Wikipedia is just going to trust you when you say Dhere's theory isn't widely considered--you have to prove it. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * the eminent historians whose references backing the Rajput theory are provided, clearly dismiss dheres theory; check through ALL the earlier evidence that is already provided before commenting . good bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhushanbush82 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, you say and I quote "I don't know one Indian historian from another". Could you explain what you mean by that ? Thank you.Jonathansammy (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems fairly self-explanatory to me. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 20:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's try and keep the quotes/summaries as concise as possible, and put [ and ] around the links to make them a compact little block. I went searching for specific criticisms of Dhere's hypothesis. I've found several mentions of them (though I've only gone through a page or so of hits on "dhere shivaji" on gBooks). Most interesting one thus far:


 * Xenophobia in Seventeenth-Century India, Gijs Kruijtzer: "Ananya Vajpeyi encourages us to take R. C. Dhere's hypothesis about about Shivaji's pastoral ancestry seriously..." Same book also mentions the Sisodia Rajput claim as "destined to remained disputed forever", which this Talk page certainly bears out...
 * Intersections: socio-cultural trends in Maharashtra, Meera Kosambi: cites Dhere's argument and builds on it.


 * Again, we are not here to debate The Ultimate Truth as to Shivaji's ancestry. We are here to ascertain what theories have currency in academia (or are historically notable), and Dhere's theory is referenced by several other academics thus far, as are the Kurmi theories. Statements like "low life fanatic kannada writers" only decrease the credibility of y'all's objections; we have to address this without bias and emotion. Thus far, I'm seeing that there are indeed multiple arguments, and that the Southern and Kurmi theories are not simply found in propaganda leaflets, but are commented on with favour by scholars. And even if that argument were solely the purview of Kannada scholars, it would still be notable and worth at least a sentence of "some Kannada scholars believe..." Am I right in guessing that "Gijs Kruijtzer" is not a Kannada name? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * TO start with the first link, Gijs argument is very generic and speaks of low caste person etc ; it does not talk anything about Dhere nor does it claim to have studied a specific genealogy or claim anything.

Secondly ; Mosambi does not build on any argument, but just quotes Dhere again ;

So my advice to you is go and find some credible historians work who present a specific case based on evidence like Dr Sardesai or Dr Balakrishnan, and not make naive statements like i have seem may scholors endorse etc.

Right now, the way it is presented is most neutral ,

And Matthew, please don't act like you have no vested interests here ??? Not just me ,if you look at the history of the discussion, many people ( including mr 122.161 .13..... ) have accused you of being biased and serving a vested interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subhashbhosle55 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I've just read over and compared everything, and I (quite unsurprisingly) find myself agreeing with MattthewVanitas' interpretations here. The Rajput theory isn't the only one covered in academic sources, and we don't follow a group's own personal analysis of who they are.  I will have a considerable amount of time on my hands tomorrow, so I can search for further sources, but it's readily obvious to me that the Southern and Kurmi theories have received some significant amount of coverage. I can't say exactly how to weight it against the Rajput claim just yet, but it is definitely worth a mention.  And I wouldn't go around calling people biased if I were you; for the record, I am an American of European descent (1/2 German 1/4 Irish, and 1/4 French Canadian), with a specialty in studying Ainu history, so I have no stake in this beyond wanting to see a balanced, accurate article. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 01:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And Matthew, please don't act like you have no vested interests here ... accused you of being biased and serving a vested interest. - Fortunately, Wikipedia has a variety of Dispute Resolution Mechanisms. If you feel I am acting in bad faith, pusing a biased perspective, or misbehaving, you are free to report me to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Bear in mind that to have any hope of success, you have to provide specific examples of my "misbehavior", ideally by using the History tab, and selecting the link showing the material I have added. You would then need to explain "MV is adding blatantly pro-Kannada material and uncited derogatory material..." or whatever it is you're accusing me of in a clear, and concise fashion such that anyone new to the situation would clearly grasp that I'm out of line. Your options at this point are to either take me to ANI, or stop making baseless accusations, as in all honesty your behaviour in making these accusations is rude and becoming disruptive. Either file and ANI report on me at your earliest convenience, or hold your peace and respond in a polite manner to the clearly-referenced statements I'm making. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In answer to JonathanSammy's query, "Qwyrxian, you say and I quote 'I don't know one Indian historian from another'. Could you explain what you mean by that ?", what I meant is that I don't know, by name or reputation, any specific scholars of the history of India. I said that because I asked for evidence of scholars saying Dhere is wrong, and Subhashbhosle55 just gave me a list of what, to me, are random names.  For all I know, Dhere is completely fringe and those names are the best in the field; or, alternatively, Dhere is one of the most widely read and revered experts and that list of names is Fringe.  Thus, I was saying that we need more than just a list of names, but an actual accounting of the specific sources and authors along with who published them and exactly what they said. I'm trying to provide a framework for discussion here--it's not enough just to assert "Nobody important agrees with Professor X"; you need to back that fact with specific proof.  So far, I see specific, clear proof that Dhere has been cited by other authors, who seem to accept his theory (or, at least, accept it as a possible alternate theory). I've also seen clear evidence that some scholars think Dhere is wrong.  What I haven't seen is any evidence that says that Dhere is so wrong that he should be considered unreliable and FRINGE.  If that last point cannot be proven, then we cannot leave Dhere (and the same reasoning applies to any of the non-Rajput theories) out of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

New section format
dont waste time on that useless, loser(qxyrian), the new format should include only those who are noted and not 3rd class kannada historians like dhere, The names of historians that can be use should be above doubt and has been quoted heavily reason being biasedness of historians. Sarkar, Ojha, balkrishan and sardesai makes the cut as all 4 are great historians(leaving balkrishna). Though not a historian dr balkrishna work is easily the best biography of shivaji and that was his first and last historical book on shivaji not difficult to think that even britannica call the work(not balkrishna) on shivaji as the most detailed and factually correct word on shivaji till date. Sarkar may be great historian, balkrishna was not a historian but his book was miles miles above that of sarkar(whose poor knowledge of marathi didnt allow him to examine the documents) further he neglected portugese and dutch accounts altogether. Now apart from that two historical sources for shivaji rajput origin that can be quoted in jayaram work on shahji(1654) and shahji letter to adilshahg(1646) both are much before shivaji coronation and tears apart fake claims of other historians. In non-rajput origin hoyasala origin can be added with "some scholars detects linguistic affinity" type of thing but at the same time no genealogy is available for that even the grandfather of maloji cannot be certained by that theory. Those men who praise aurangzeb, it is not difficult to think that they will try their best to make every hero a low caste. I can quote radha kumud mookerji here "it is fond of making hero who rises from a low origin" this statement in his work chandragupta maurya and his times show the glory which some writers who are pro-lower caste want to bestow on them. Any man who is pro muslim will be pro lower caste as we can see from our political system in india. The unsourced material of sarkar in his earlier work was not challenged(maybe because of his name or because much bigger historians such as majumdar, raychoudhuri did not wrote about shivaji) but Dr Balkrishna tears apart the claim of sarkar(he retracted later on). Similarly even though only one history book on his name Dr Balkrishna suggested feb 1630 as DOB of shivaji whereas april 1627 was suggested by sarkar, sardesai and even The great leader BG Tilak which was not accepted reason being ignoring the hardwork in ransacking the archives of various records will take time. The official DOB of shivaji is feb 1630 and not april 1627 this shows that if you have the hard work and true to your work it dont matter whom you are opposing, dr balkrishna is mainly a economists passed from university of london in economics still his word on shivaji is given more importance though at the same time a lot of critics have popped up, but as Majumdar said in calcutta in RSS yearly meeting " critics dont want to make you better they want to destroy you, only a man can be a true critics of himself. A man who came under pressure of critics never succeed" Dr Balkrishna is hated by many because of his work who has such strong evidences to prove shivaji rajput origin that other historians keep on thinking , and one more thing "History is similar to politics". Modi cannot be praised by Congress no matter what good work he do, they will criticize him of riots(with their own hands red in 1984 sikh riots) similarly a historian proven wrong by another will always criticize him, but it dont matter because any independent reader can see the amount of difference in shivaji the great(vol-1-4) and other works on shivahji by sarkar or sardesai. The sources have been neglected by many are considered by balkrishna. The sources section of various books on shivaji tell the story on their own. Come up with your suggestions what should be added in the new section, 4 historians are centre to this sarkar, ojha, balkrishna and sardesai and other scholars can be noted through "SOME" tag.

Shail kalp (talk) 05:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Apologies, but all I see in the above claims is a bunch of your opinions about whose work is better, more relevant, more famous, or whatever. Your opinions are, frankly, irrelevant to deciding what goes into a Wikipedia article.  We need specific, clear sources (that is, don't just say "sarkar, ojha, etc.".  Say their full name, with a book, publishing info, etc., so that other editors can exam the work as well.  Second, if you have verification in RS that one writer or another is more famous/revered/more matching the wider consensus of historians, please provide that; don't bother with giving us your opinions about various writers. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Shailkalp on most cases.The

Where as Qwyrxian is concerned, go through the the entire history of the conversation my friend , direct links to books of eminent historians is provided , their source of information and evidence is provided , and most importantly independent studies by different historians come to the same conclusion.

another two great historian of maratha" kincaid and parasnis" "history of maratha" have accepted shivaji bhosle and ghorpade as sisodia further have added a list of maratha who can "PROBABLY" be of rajput descents which includes-,jadhavs,pawar,chavan(including me), more, salunke, deshmukh, nashik family of maratha. Reason being why Sarkar is biased because he is heavily pro-muslim he knew that for fame and name he need to write only about muslim period of india and thats why dont go beyond that and generally according to human mentality in India a pro-muslim is 100% pro-lower castes, these people call themselves secular, liberalist etc. I can safely deduce from the neutral historians with no bias that Bhosle are rajputs and so are other maratha clans. Why did Sardesai quote only from Balkrishna work why he did not write history on his own, all of the sardesai works specially the last "new history of the maratha" was point to point copy of Balkrishna work. Initially being a very close associate of sarkar he wrote that shivaji and bhosle are not rajputs later on after Balkrishna tear away his claims he became soft and wrote " though the name(or surname) bhosle has not been satisfactorily accounted for yet their is no doubt that many of the maratha families are descendants of rajputs(or kshatriyas) or north--http://books.google.co.in/books?id=lTVuAAAAMAAJ&q=There+is+no+doubt+that+the+ancestors+of+several+present+day+Maratha+families,+as+has+been+shown+in+the+first+chapter,+migrated+from+the+north+and+settled+in+Maharashtra&dq=There+is+no+doubt+that+the+ancestors+of+several+present+day+Maratha+families,+as+has+been+shown+in+the+first+chapter,+migrated+from+the+north+and+settled+in+Maharashtra&hl=en&ei=3_dyTpSJDM6yrAe8t6ytCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA . How did suddenly sardesai goes soft one of the most hardline opposer of rajput origin(thnx to sarkar connection with sardesai) suddenly became soft, he wants to say that we cannot say with 100% authenticity that bhosle are sisodias though it is possible but not proven yet. Read his initial books he supported the same view as that of sarkar that they are not rajputs but local marahtha tribe(without any evidence as i cant see any source being cited by sarkar) but after the release of dr balkrishna shivaji the great-4 volumes(from 1932-1940) suddenly sardesai became soft on shivaji rajput origin these all show that maratha are rajputs and some historians with pre-assumption to claim glory for lower castes wanted to show that maratha are lower castes. Me being a Chavan(marahtha) can safely say that this is nothing new the leftist or marxist historians who support muslims always try to claim glory for lower castes even if it means without any evidence.Shail kalp (talk) 07:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

i still feel that the sudden change in the attitude of gs sardesai says many things itself, it is well known that sardesai and sarkar are very close associates and friends, so i cant say with confidence but i feel that sarkar influenced sardesai in his earlier works where he was completely against bhosle rajput origin(even against the migration of rajputs into maharashtra), first rajputs are found much far away from maharashtra such as chattisgarh,bihar(has almost equal number of rajputs as that of rajasthan), MP,UP(highest number of rajputs in UP) and rajput has nothing to do with rajasthan , as we can see from the Pahari Rajputs or Dogra Rajputs(kashmiri), but after the release of Balkrishna work he has heavily cited balkrishna work and himself writes that "their is no doubt that many maratha families are rajputs(or kshatriya) as shown in chapter -1" (new history of maratha-page51-52) but he also adds that "bhosle" name has not been satisfactorily accounted for yet and therefore we cannot say with 100% authenticity that bhosle are rajputs. Now question is, was he 50:50 in this description or was he still majorly against rajput origin or in favour of rajput origin. Various historians will quote sardesai in their own manner but one thing is sure sardesai cannot be called completely against shivaji rajput origin as sarkar is. Its tough to decide from his statements. Their are rajputs in Haryana who call themselves Maratha Rajputs are they maratha who migrated to haryana when maratha was rulling most of northern india before being defeated by British Empire in 1803(second maratha-anglo war). And why will Shahji call himself a rajput, some say his use of rajput word was symbolic which i dont agree maratha were aware of "Kshatriya" word he should have used Kshatriya if it was symbolic but he used Rajput. The change in views of both sardesai(great change from his earlier works) and sarkar(though very little change) suggests that tide is against them it is these historians who have softened their stance and not the reverse we maratha were rajputs and remain rajputs(or kshatriya) till end. One thing is sure that maratha are not dravidians reason, the biggest difference btw north indians and south indians is "INCEST" definition according to dravidian hindus they can marry their first cousins and on other hand north indian hindus can go any far to stop such marriages(honour killing or whatever) similarly maratha families dont marry with their relatives(dont even think about first cousin) hence dravidian origin is out of question. The other origin is rajput and one more is local, however if bhosle are locals then why is it so difficult to trace their descent these questions raises doubt that bhosle are locals because their is no link between bhosle and maharashtra before 14 century(when it was reported that rajput migration took place). Still Hoysala origin(dravidian) and Rajput origin should be mentioned to maintain neutrality(because this is a public page).But when i asses independently it looks heavily tilted towards sisodia origin, sudden change of sardesai and little change in sarkar stance points that both of them were wrong initially and its not a big deal both of them suggested april 1627 as birth date of shivaji which is not accepted, balkrishna suggest feb,1630 which is the official birth date of shivaji now.http://www.google.co.in/search?rlz=1C1DVCL_enIN409IN410&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=f#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&rlz=1C1DVCL_enIN409IN410&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=Dr.+Bal+Krishna+accepts+the+new+date+(February%2C+l630)+whereas+Sir+Jadunath+Sarkar+and+Rao+Bahadur+Sardesai+stick+to+the+old+date+(April%2C+l627).+As+regards+Shivaji's+illiteracy%2C+Dr.+Bal+Krishna+has+succeeded+in+showing+that+Shivaji+could+&pbx=1&oq=Dr.+Bal+Krishna+accepts+the+new+date+(February%2C+l630)+whereas+Sir+Jadunath+Sarkar+and+Rao+Bahadur+Sardesai+stick+to+the+old+date+(April%2C+l627).+As+regards+Shivaji's+illiteracy%2C+Dr.+Bal+Krishna+has+succeeded+in+showing+that+Shivaji+could+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=10076l11586l4l11831l5l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=626ec09c062053fe&biw=1280&bih=629 here it should be mentioned that the "great historian" sarkar has accepted april 1627 on the basis of chitnis(composed around 1820) , sarkar is an glowing example of how to neglect sources. Shail kalp (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Shail Kalp, You say Marathas don't allow cousin marriage (you should have specifically said cross cousins). In that case, how do you explain marriage of Shivaji's son, Rajaram to Tarabai ? Weren't these two cousins ? Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Shail Kalp, was Jijabai also Rajput as you claim Shahaji was ?Jonathansammy (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"The marriage of the children of a brother and sister is, however, common among most castes, whether high or low; only the Chitpavan Brahmans frown upon it." Details in  Jonathansammy (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Not just Chitpavan Brahmans, many castes frown on cousins marriage ; and in any case this is irrelevant to this or any discussion.

Bhushanbush82, the cousin marriage is relevant as far as User Shail Kalp is concerned. He states and I quote, "according to dravidian hindus they can marry their first cousins and on other hand north indian hindus can go any far to stop such marriages(honour killing or whatever) similarly maratha families dont marry with their relatives(dont even think about first cousin) hence dravidian origin is out of question." The above statement is what made me bring in the relationship between Shivaji's son Rajaram Bhosale and latter's wife and maternal cousin, Tarabai ( from Mohite family)! Even if the Sisodia claims are true, over the generations, Shivaji's male ancestors must have married local Maratha ladies and so for all intent and purposes Shivaji was product of Maharashtra than of Rajasthan. Jonathansammy (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Jonathan : i agree with u, Jijabai was also from the Maratha Jadhavs of sindhkhed ;Now from his fathers side, even if the half Mewar descent is true ( as the evidence suggests) ; generations of bhosales married to Maratha ladies; and hence Shivaji was in all aspects a Maratha.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhushanbush82 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Gents, as noted earlier: we are not going to "settle" anything about Shivaji here. Debates with "what about X factor" or "don't forget he did Y", or anything concluding with "therefore we can conclude" is likely to run afoul of WP:OR. Again, we are not deciding, we are describing, and we have gotten away from the point here: the point is that several of us submit there are several contradicting theories as to Shivaji's origins, and those various theories should be mentioned in brief. While it is fine to say "Pandit X. declared Shivaji to be a Rajput in 1685" it is not okay to say "He was a Rajput" given that the issue appears to be contested. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Matthew, Mate, you are preaching to the choir here. Jonathansammy (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I think people like me, subash, bush should stop editing thats what i am doing i am quoting few sentences which were said by qxyrian and mathew and their knowledge is so poor.

For ex "i dont know any indian historian" this was said by qxyrian what all of you think can we discuss with a user who dont know about indian historian. Mathew has given some names "aninya bajpeyee, gulitzeg(or whatver)" who are they are they historian or just any other writer who has said that shivaji is not rajput and they are using them. The theory must be accepted by atleast one of the noted indian historian. Jadunath sarkar opposes rajput origin "BUT DID HE SUPPORT KUNBI OR SOUTHERN ORIGIN" answer is no. On the other hand Pandit GH Ojha(UdaipuR Ka Itihas), Dr balkrishna(Most detalied biography of shivaji(according to britannica encylopaedia), and partial agreement of GS Sardesai with all these i can safely say shivaji was rajput and more importantly sarkar opposition is based on the "DOUBT" he has doubt he dont have any evidence to show that if shivaji was not rajput then what was his caste on the other hand rajput origin has evidence and wikipedia is full of bias and no guidelines to make sure that only knowledgable persons on that subject must be involve in the edits. Here anyone can edit just anything according to him. And their is no need to edit the wikipedia page to make maratha rajputs we are rajputs are will remain rajputs. And we dont need to claim fake rajput origin then why did Holkar and sindhia dont claim rajput origin this show that those maratha clans who are rajputs are the only one who make rajput claim however in the cover of true maratha rajputs some lower caste marathi(not maratha) have also started claiming rajput origin but the people of maratha clan know who are rajputs and who are not, you all can be happy with you wiki edits.Shail kalp (talk) 08:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The best way is not to edit, this is phobia of some users, some of my friends are so much anxious to update their facebook status similarly i have seen people who think if they will edit the wikipedia they will win over others. Here i will like to bring to notice some of the google books scholar and their blunder this is just an example.

Great Historian was always the supporter of shivaji rajput origin and made a genealogy(without any documents or texts which were discovered almost 100 years after his death), the genealogy he made somehow he got over 80% of it right , his theory of ajey sinh and sujjan sinh was confirmed by texts discovered almost 100 years after his death , his book was blatantly edited by one of the moron who dont have that much name(he is remember only as an editor of tod works) william crooke he himself added manything from here and their and many thing without any contemporary evidence(around 15th to 17th century for shivaji life) yet he added a note in tod work that shivaji is kunbi!!!!! though do not cited anything maratha marry kunbi women in marriage but will never give their women to Kunbi(call me casteist or whatever we maratha do this according to varna system). He do not cited any contemporary evidence can call it just an air based claim http://www.archive.org/stream/annalsantiquitie01todj/annalsantiquitie01todj_djvu.txt and now the real text without crooke editing--http://books.google.co.in/books?id=7B5nU7dMI84C&printsec=frontcover&dq=ANNALS+AND+ANTIQUITIES+OF+RAJASTHAN&hl=en&ei=fRV3TsnOLofxrQffzOS_Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ#v=snippet&q=raj&f=false. Now one fool in india dont even know a thing called "EDITING" and it can be done by other persons as well even after their death--http://books.google.co.in/books?id=oebiTEjJfcMC&pg=PA71&dq=sardesai+bhosle+satisfactorily+accounted&hl=en&ei=fjF3TpylL8jorQe-yun5CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

and plz go through it, he surely read the edited version of Tod Annals of Rajasthan which is written in double brackets by william crooke(editor)Shail kalp (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Shail Kalp, Everybody should be proud of their origins. Nobody is disputing that. Having said that, you did not answer my points on cousin marriages in Shivaji's family and origins of Jijabai. Jonathansammy (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Folks, neither Q nor I is claiming to be a Shivaji expert. We are, instead, pointing out that people are not addressing this issue correctly by WP standards. When I broached the topic of non-Rajput theories, we get this huge wordy outflowing of speculation above. Your personal interpretation of the Shivaji's history is not the issue. Nor, given that there are much more modern sources, are Tod and Crooke's views of direct interest, though of course we may cite modern authorities who refer (positively or negatively) to Tod and Crooke's views.


 * Instead of what we have above, what we need is a brief summary of the major current, academic theories as to Shivaji's descent, and some mention of the political consequences thereof during his life. There is zero point in arguing "I don't believe Theory X because..." since we are not here to critique theories. Provided a source is a WP:Reliable source and enough people share the theory that its mention is not WP:UNDUE, it should be included.


 * On a sidenote, please put [ and ] around your links so that you don't have this huge sprawl of html text. Note how becomes . So that should make this more concise, as should not trying to hold a debate here on the page,  when instead we need to be identifying and assessing sources, not weighing in our personal views of arguments (apologies to Jonathan if he's in the same choir on this issue). MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Jonathansammy you are right in one sense but the fact is many of shivaji ruling house were "ADOPTED" sons this is common practice in Rajput houses if the king dont have son or because of some reason their sons are no more they adopt other ones from their own family and no their is no cousin marriage in maratha. And second thing what the hell Maratha has to do with "RAJPUT" ancestry. Are their no rajputs in bihar, chattisgarh, jammu and kashmir, HIMAchal pradesh. We are Maratha Rajputs, the whole world knew that Sarkar is very very pro muslim he calls the "MUGHAL RULE" in india as golden period further i would like to point out that Mughal empire was very small empire in the time which it exists, Mauryan empire 2000 years ago was larger than Mughal itself shows the magnitude of Mughal and sarkar is calling Mughal period as india's golden period then what was "GUPTA PERIOD". It is obvious a man so inclined towards muslim will be against upper caste Hindus and that is visible. The above case was not who is better in TOD AND CROOKE(Obviously TOD) but to show that using any "google book" is unreliable that writer is assigning the editing notes of Crooke to James tod. And again their is no first cousin marriage among marathas and the stats are their to be visible 30% of south indians(karnatka, tamilnadu, andhra pradesh and kerala) it do not include Maratha(maratha is group and not those who speak marathi). Names can be derived from many things for example how did "DOGRA RAJPUTS" get the surname Dogra. One of the most marital race of India who drove muslims out of pakistan(alongside Sikh Maharaja Ranjit Singh) and Jammu and Kashmir. Similarly how did Nepal Kings are also descendant of Rana of Mewar similarly Maratha(not all but many houses in Maharashtra) are Rajputs and intermarriage dont mean much as in our society caste come from "FATHER" and not Mother. It is not important if Shivaji mother was Yadav chief daughter. Most of marathi(not maratha) castes are low caste and as we know these people are out of loop in the Varna System as they dont follow Hindu Rituals of Aryans. The marriage you are talking is neither a cousin marriage such marriages will not be counted under cousin marriages reason " Rajaram and Tarabai dont have blood relation" whereas first cousins such as my brother son and my son have blood relation on the other hand Tarabai and Rajaram will have no blood relation this is like marriage of "two daughters" in the same house these type of marriages occur in almost all rajput houses i was refering to "FIRST COUSINS" the relationship between rajaram and tarabai will be like two sisters of FAMILY-A(LETS SAY) married to brothers of family -B(ASSUME) these marriages are in rajput houses as well. But that dont means i will marry my father's brother Daughter. So you are blatantly wrong you can analyze they are not cousins infact their is no relationship(blood) between them. 122.161.192.97 (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You want to say for example i married in a house -A and if my son wants to marry in the same house then he cant marry from which world you are linking these two things this is not called "COUSIN MARRIAGE" all the rajput houses marry among each other you want to say that their next generation cannot marry!!!!!!!!!!!. You dont understand the meaning of blood relation, any relatives who have the same blood cannot marry atleast in Higher Maratha Houses specially Maratha Rajputs for example my father married my mother from House-A and similarly My father sister married a Man from House-A will you call this "INCEST" i think you dont understand the ethics of rajput houses , we maratha rajputs have so many such alliances we gave our daughter to that house and they gave their daughter to our house their are so many marriages in rajput houses of this pattern but how can they become relatives. So many rajput houses are such that two sons have married daughters from the same house these are not incest. Blood relatives marriage is barred in Maratha rajput houses and not these kind of realtions. Jijabai origin is not important at all, in indian society we dont care about our mother's origin and neither did shivaji did he claim he was yadava, he was a maratha rajput from his father side and this is not new even today its father name which is more important(plz dont start gender equality lecture). Second thing i will accept Shivaji non-rajput origin but their must be atleast more than one contemporary source which point towards it and fortunately or unfortunately their is none. The story created by historians such as Sarkar that money was paid is purely "speculative" with no evidence and neither is his book on shivaji among the best. AN economist whose all the past works were on economics he decided to write a book on shivaji(DR BALKRISHNA SHIVAJI THE GREAT) which is his first and last history book and if without any name his work get more praise than that of Sarkar or Sardesai(both of whom were noted historians) then it itself says that which work is more reliable and TO MV i am not making any edits neither i am interested in as the knowledge of some of the editors is not upto the mark to discuss all these things. Jonathan i am sure you would have understood what i said Dravidians marry their first cousins which is INCEST for maratha clans but for them its not, the example you gave is irrelavant as many rajput houses marry women from the same house again and again this is not incest. If yes then how will you justify that Prithviraj Chauhan married Sanyogita and chauhan grand father has married a girl from the same house. How can these be called cousin marriages i cant understand this. I hope i have cleared your doubt you are confusing cousin marriages with "CLAN MARRIAGES".122.161.192.97 (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

people(jealous of our rajput origin) ask me many of Shiva-ji family use "JI"  most of rajputs use that name one of the most prominent is Maha-Rao Shekhaji you can search him on net as well he was in 15th century much before any Maratha family was in powerful position the NAME "RAO" too was a name used by rajputs which later on migrated to south after rajputs arrived in deccan as you can see many maratha use "RAO" somewhere in their name(but not as surname) these are useless questions asked by those who want to downgrade "RAJPUTS" and Also "MARATHA" but all those families in maratha who are rajputs will remain rajput and the relationship between maratha rajputs and original houses of rajasthan can be seen even today they are one big family. Not only Maratha Rajputs, the contribution of Dogra Rajputs specially "GULAB SINGH" AND "ZORAWAR SINGH" cannot be forgotten rajputs of any area be it north or central india are same and have contributed maximum in freeing this country from muslims and thnx to congress they gave away lands in kashmir to pakistan and china which were won by DOGRA RAJPUTS. Zorawar Singh the brilliant rajput general who marched over 700 KM in Tibet in 1841AD was not given any importance and on other hand we gave "BHARAT RATNA" to persons like BR AMBEDKAR whose contribution to freedom in "NIL"122.161.192.97 (talk) 05:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Why you guys are mixing Maratha and Rajputs, Maratha is a clan not a caste the Maratha clan was formed by many castes which included many rajputs as well such as Bhosle, Ghorpade, Pawar, chava, more, salunke, deshmukh. I never said i am not maratha, we are maratha rajputs just as dogra are kashmiri rajputs or pahari rajputs. I never said we are not maratha we intermarry but mostly among high caste maratha we may marry Kunbi women but never gave our women to Kunbi similarly we have married Yadava women but dont marry our girls in Yadava all these show that we are above these castes we maratha rajputs are the backbone against muslim rule and thats why most of chief ministers of Maharashtra are MARATHA RAJPUTS(such as vilasrao deshmukh, ashok chavan and Prithviraj Chavan). The fact that Rana of Nepal also originated from Sesodia but no one challenge their origin and challenge maratha origin this show that it is more of politics to show that lower caste people contributed so much, this is the age of UPPER CASTE HINDU BASHING(almost all intellectual bash upper hindu castes and appease muslims and lower caste hindus) we can see all of these politcs specially in 20th century. 122.161.192.97 (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Rajputs conquered areas of pakistan and china in 19th century and our pro muslim and pro-lower caste congress govt gave it so easily to muslims of pakistan and china after india gained freedom in 1947 this is effort to show that rajputs did nothing rajputs save india for 500 years from 700AD to 1200AD from muslim which includes defeating arabs in 8th century AD. What efforts post 1947 we have made to reconquer the areas which were captured by Dogra and Pahari Rajputs. General Zorawar Singh captured western tibet in 1841 he was the only indian general(of any religion) to conquer ladakh and western tibet permanently but because he was a rajput he did not get his due similarly Some scholars want to make Shivaji a low caste maratha even though he is from best rajput family of mewar(sesod). This is disgusting on the part of few who could not lock horns with Muslims and now are claiming Shivaji and other rajputs as their own. With the backing of pandit gh ojha, dr balkrishna, CA KINCAID, db parasnis, james tod and jonathan scott and all the evidences this is a easy victory for rajput origin. Jadunath sarkar alone cant do much and further the individual assement of works have shown that DR BALKRISHNA(shivaji the great) is the most detailed and accurate work on shivaji and i know many indian historians will try their best to bash DR BALKRISHNA. Even Jadunath sarkar hated him personally even though sarkar was well known historian who was writing historical books from an age of 24, on the other hand an economist who has not written a single book on history wrote a book on Shivaji(shivaji the great(1932-1940) and it was termed as most detailed and accurate work on shivaji further other issues such as date of birth of Shivaji in this case too DR BALKRISHNA view(feb 1630) was supported and now officially accepted which irked Sarkar very much as he cannot digest that how can a part time historian leap ahead of him 122.161.192.97 (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

i guess i have cleared your doubt jonathansammy, how can they be blood relatives , Prthviraj-III(most famous chauhan) married sanyogita his grandfather was married to the girl from the same house of Jaichand you want to say that prithviraj and sanyogita are also relatives. Relative and blood relative both are different. South indians marry their first cousins as well, how will you justify marriage of many rajput brothers belonging to family-A marrying the original sisters of family-B they can marry as they are not related with blood and the notion to drag JIJABAI in this discussion is useless , i would like to ask why everyone uses his father surname and why not his mother similarly shivaji mother was not rajput and its nothing new , i have never claimed jijabai was rajput.122.161.192.97 (talk) 05:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh my God, or should I say He Bhagwan, save me from this utter utter nonsense !!! User 122.161.192.97|122.161.192.97, please learn definitions of cousin marriage before getting back to writing your comments. According to you, cousins mean people whose fathers are brothers (paternal cousins). In wider definition, cousins mean people whose parents are siblings. So Rajaram and Tarabai were maternal cousins according to western definition. By the way, Southern Hindus do not marry their paternal cousins so please get your facts right. Yes, you are right, by paternal ancestry you may be Rajput but becauseof marrying Kunbi women for centuries, in genetic sense, you may be 1% Rajput. That goes for other high caste groups in Maharashtra too. However, here we are digressing. What we should say in the article is, and best to leave it in a footnote is: Shivaji's paternal ancestors hre believed to have arrived from Rajasthan and were from the Sisodia clan (Ref). However, this is disputed by other historian. (See note). The Kunbi and other origins can be placed here. Shivaji's contribution to Indian History was immense and what his origins were are irrelevant here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathansammy (talk • contribs) 16:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Maratha Rajput or Rajput Maratha
Dear user User 122.161.192.97|122.161.192.97 or Shail Kalp,

You keep on mentioning Rajput Maratha, however there is no caste page on this group. Please create one and add all the information you have been writing about your community on this page to the new article.( with reliable references provided, of course !!) Jonathansammy (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Its Maratha rajput but their is no need to create a new page, for example Bholse and Ghorpade are Sesods. Rane surname in Maharashtra are also Rana Rajputs, their are chanvas, moreys, deshmukhs. I am busy for few days but will try my best to create a new page, i am the Shailesh but working from dial up hence different IP may appear. As you can see i have not said anything without resources that too with best books available i agree Jadunath sarkar may be a good historian but his work on shivaji is poor for example read Shivaji and his times, he has claimed big things like Bholse are shudras and blah blah and dont provide any reference. Second thing he completely lie that bhosle were known as shudra useless all the maratha tradition talks of shivaji as rajput. Sarkar is not able to even name the great grandfather of Shivaji how can we believe on that work, as a thumb rule any man who is pro-muslim is bound to be pro-shudra or even ati shudra it is nothing new Kincaid and Parasnis whose works depend on Old mahratta records have accepted the Shivaji rajput claim on the basis of maratha records. Similarly British records call Shivaji rajput then as a reader i want to ask on what basis Shivaji has been described a shudra. He is such a disgusting historian that he calls every book or text which confirms rajput origin as unauthentic or unreliable most neutral historians dont give much value to his work on shivaji and as mentioned dr balkrishna steal all the limelight. 115.240.127.210 (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.google.co.in/search?gcx=w&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=general+zorawar+singh+kahluria+rajput#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=cousin+marriages+rajput&pbx=1&oq=cousin+marriages+rajput&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=95820l99399l3l99609l23l11l14l0l0l0l0l0ll6l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=cf723a58976d5bda&biw=1366&bih=677 that kind of marriages were very common. Mother caste dont matter really atleast not in India 115.240.80.239 (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Shailesh My friend, I'am also a PAWAR   , but LET US STOP THIS DISCUSSION HERE ; CHATTRAPATI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ was a KARMAYOGI , not a janma-bhogi ; The proven fact is that he was a Maratha ; now if some evidences suggest that generations ago, his ancestors from his fathers side came from Mewar, That is ok ; but  he is still a Maratha ; and we all are proud of it. JAI BHAVANI - JAI SHIVAJI  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhushanbush82 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear user User 122.161.192.97|122.161.192.97 or Shail Kalp, Why don't you add your information regarding Bhosale family on the Sisodia page ? Jonathansammy (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

MR Bhushan i am also from a maratha "CHAVAN" family and what i am saying is true second thing all the evidences are contemporary of shivaji, such as peot jayaram, or shivabharat of paramanand all these books are written during shivaji time and their is no doubt about it further the persian sanads have proved it beyond doubt and i dont think i will repeat it again and again in short, those who want to consider Shivaji rajput they will consider him rajput(including shivaji family and other maratha rajputs) and those who want to consider him of any other origin they can continue to do so. The "HOYSALA" origin is funny i detect more linguistic affinity between BHOSLA AND KHOSLA(PUNJABI HINDU SURNAME) rather than with Hoyasala. AS DR RK MOOKERJI notes that such affinity can never be true only derivations by grammar can be linked to name changes or other things such as native villages or some special incident. None the less my job was to give all the material to make sure that neither is Jadunath sarkar theory correct and neither is his work best work on shivaji. Its frutiless to discuss this theory any longer as our discussions will never end Shail kalp (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

i agree that this discussion further on is now fruitless and will only fume some of the jealous hearts. And ofcourse SHivaji himself wanted to unite all Hindus irrespective of their castes and the modern day Islamic Free India is a gift of Shivaji and our Maratha ancestors not only for us but for every hindu of India. JAI MARATHA JAI HIND.Shail kalp (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * " Chattrapati SHIVAJI Maharaj Ki Jai " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhushanbush82 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a reason to say that those who believe Shivaji was a Shudra will not change their views even if all the evidences(all the contemporary) point towards Shivaji Sisodia origin, they will term all the evidences which point towards Shivaji rajput origin as fake or not authentic or not reliable and many other things. The initial chapters of "HISTORY" is that "history and politics" are both the same thing, can you expect Congress party to accept that "NARENDRA MODI" is the best CM and GUJARAT is the best state they have lot of evidences against MODI of his involvement in Riots , if they have then let the "COURT" decide and whenever their is some court judgement it always point towards the fact that MODI is innocent similarly those historians who are against Shivaji or Maratha rajput origins they are not going to change their view even though i cant find any contemporary source which mentions shivaji as "SHUDRA" the three sources which mention shivaji family as "FAMILY OF SOIL or shudra" are

-91 qalami bakhar(composed in 1760, but some historians such as jadunath sarkar try to give it a date of 1685) -Shiva Digvijay(written in 1818-1819, this work is written even later than Chitnis(1810) -Shedgaonkar(written as late as 1854)

These 3 books are called the "PILLARs" of Shivaji Shudra(or low ) origin. How can anyone believe on such late texts atleast i cant believe infact Jadunath sarkar and BA SALETORE(a very hard core kannada historian who has habit of proving every dynasty kannada origins) issued letter and notes "DOUBTING" the authenticity of "MUDHOL FIRMANS" atleast i cant see that any neutral historian doubted the authenticity and further those historians(jadunath sarkar) who dont even know the correct date of "SHIVAJI" birth and who calls our Chatrapati Maharaj Illiterate and Aurangzeb a great Emperor cannot be hoped to remain neutral they will always have the bias for "MUSLIMS" and "LOWER CASTE HINDUS". Similarly we are maratha and also rajputs and we are not going to give in to the silly tactics of historians such as "JADUNATH SARKAR" or Kannada Historian let them say what they want to we are Rajputs and if we are not than why are we in "UPPER CASTE" category as we are not in any reservation category lists, government infact took the lands of our ancestors in maharashtra and distrubted it to lower caste kunbi and shudras.

Jonathan sammy i am not adding these info on sisodia as i dont want to get into another hectic discussion, those who want to say we Maratha are shudras let them say so but neither will we and nor will any neutral historian accept this. It is obvious that Non-rajputs and non maratha rajputs will be jealous of rajputs achievements against muslims such as Muhammad Ghori was defeated only once by any Hindu king he was a rajput, Mahmud of Gazni was defeated twice both by solanki rajputs, khilji dynasty was defeated only by Sisodia rajputs and similarly Shivaji was a rajput and other Kshatriya groups will be jealous of our achievements my job was to furnish all the records which spoke of Shivaji as rajput and of those which spoke of Shivaji as shudra anyone can see that Shivaji shudra origin was invented after it was clear that Maratha has got the better of Mughals and other muslim kingdoms of India around 1750-1760(91 qalmi bakhar). For example did you expect that sarkar would accept shivaji as rajput answer is no, he was egomaniac and as expected he doubted the "MUDHOL FIRMANS" though on which basis remains completely useless similarly many other historians specially Kannada historian will take the support of Jadunath sarkar in doubting the authenticity or reliability of Texts which talk about shivaji sisodia origin reason they all have vested interests and they are not going to accept the truth so let them what they are and we will be what we are. We dont need agreement of Sarkar who has given wrong date of birth of Shivaji. I have given all the info about shivaji sisodia origin if you wanted to edit sisodia page then go ahead but again you will be encountered by the so called Shudra origin propagators of Shivaji.Shail kalp (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Shail kalp (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * " Chattrapati SHIVAJI Maharaj Ki JAI "

JAI BHAVANI - JAI SHIVAJI - JAI MARATHA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhushanbush82 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

help at battle of assaye
i was editing the battle of assaye, the box content was edited but now the whole format is disturbed i dont know whats wrong i try correcting it many times but to no avail, plz look at battle of assaye.Shail kalp (talk) 06:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Founded an empire?
The lead says that he founded an empire, and this is mentioned again in the caption of an image, yet it doesn't seem to be in the main text anywhere. ( Hohum  @ ) 19:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)