Misplaced Pages

Talk:Rajput

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mahensingha (talk | contribs) at 14:31, 3 April 2015 (Fixing style/layout errors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:31, 3 April 2015 by Mahensingha (talk | contribs) (Fixing style/layout errors)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rajput article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIndia: History Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconHinduism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Asian / Indian / South Asia
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Asian military history task force
Taskforce icon
Indian military history task force
Taskforce icon
South Asian military history task force
WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by diannaa, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on January 20, 2010.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rajput article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35Auto-archiving period: 3 months 

Template:Castewarningtalk

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Rajput Mughal Alliance

+ + Beginning in 1561, the Mughals actively engaged the Rajputs in warfare and diplomacy. + Toward the end of the 16th century, the Mughal emperor Akbar entered into a series of alliances with numerous Rajput ruling houses, arranging marriages with Rajput princesses for himself and for his heirs. Mughal-Rajput marriages continued until the early 18th century, bringing many Rajput states into the imperial fold without costly military subjugation. The Rajput practice of giving daughters to the Mughal emperors in return for recognition as nobility and the honour of fighting on behalf of the Empire originated in this arrangement and thus the Mughals were often able to assert their dominance over Rajput chiefs in north India without needing to physically intimidate them.

Furthermore, the Rajput relations with Mughal were consolidated by marriage and blood ties; the Akbar's successors, Jahangir and Shah Jahan were sons of Rajput Princesses is therefore not insignifant.


Political Effect of Alliances

The political effect of these alliances was significant. The interaction between Hindu and Muslim nobles in the imperial court resulted in exchange of thoughts and blending of the two cultures. Further, newer generations of the Mughal line represented a merger of Mughal and Rajput blood, thereby strengthening ties between the two. As a result, the Rajputs became the strongest allies of the Mughals, and Rajput soldiers and generals fought for the Mughal army under Akbar, leading it in several campaigns including the conquest of Gujarat in 1572.


Further Reading- 1. Singh, Nau Nihal (2003). The Royal Gurjars: Their Contribution. Anmol Publications. pp. 329–330. ISBN 978-81-261-1414-6.

  • Kisari Mohan Ganguli, The Mahabharata of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa Translated into English Prose, 1883-1896.


More books--

NO link between Vedic Kshatriyas(old Rajas) and medival Rajputs in many cases.


The story of agnikula is not mentioned at all in the original version of the Raso preserved in the Fort Library at Bikaner.

According to the book,a glimpse of medieval Rajasthan by Naravane & Malik the Agnikula theory for Rajputs was invented in 16th century to legitimise the “conversion” of foreign people as pure Kshatriyas.

In the book by Satish Chandra,


In fact, according to a number of scholars, the agnikula clans were originally Gurjaras (or Gurjars) and was prominent clan of the Gurjars (or Gujjars). Several scholars including D. B. Bhandarkar, Baij Nath Puri and A. F. Rudolf Hoernle believe that the Pratihara were a branch of Gurjars. Prithviraj Chauhan,according to several scholars, was a Gurjar. Historian Sir Jervoise Athelstane Baines states that the Gurjars were forefathers of the Sisodiyas.


, Rajputana was essentially the country of the Gurjars. Historian R. C. Majumdar explained that the region was long known as Gurjaratra (Gurjar nation), early form of Gujarat, before it came to be called Rajputana,later in the Mughal period,16th century.


Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi, kindly replace the following line (found under the heading of "origin"):

"Aydogdy Kurbanov says that the assimilation was specifically between the Hephthalites, Gurjars, and people from northwestern India, forming the Rajput community."

Please replace it with this line:

"Several historians, such as W. Crooke , V.A. Smith , A.F. Rudolf Hoernle , Sir. Athelstane Baines , Aydogy Kurbanov , D.R. Bhandarkar , and R.C. Majumdar , believe that the Rajputs originated from Gurjaras and Hunas that formed blood alliances with the native rulers of North India."

The reasons for this request:

The previous statement does not do justice to the fact that a large number of historians trace Rajput origin from the Gurjaras. The readers deserve to know about the several different mainstream historians who take this position. The old statement gives the impression that only a generally unknown Russian historian, called Aydogdy Kurbanov, originates Rajputs from Gurjaras, which is contrary to reality, and thus, deceiving to the readers.

I have tried to substantiate my edit with academic references, however, if you find something missing, do contact me, and I will comply with whatever is required.

Thanks, and I hope this edit will be implemented as soon as possible, in spirit of keeping the flow of information open and available to all readers.

Best regards! --Axtramedium (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. Richards, John F. (1996). The Mughal Empire. Cambridge University Press. pp. 17–21. ISBN 978-0521566032.
  2. Imaging Sound: An Ethnomusicological Study of Music, Art, and Culture in Mughal India Bonnie C. Wade + University of Chicago Press, 1998 - Art - 276 pages
  3. Against History, Against State Shail Mayaram Orient Blackswan, 01-Jan-2006 - 320 pages
  4. ^ Chandra, Satish (2005). Medieval India: From Sultanat to the Mughals Part - II. Har-Anand Publications. pp. 105–106. ISBN 978-8124110669.
  5. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/490092/Rajasthan/46056/History
  6. Wadley, Susan Snow (2004). Raja Nal and the Goddess: The North Indian Epic Dhola in Performance. Indiana University Press. pp. 110–111. ISBN 9780253217240.
  7. Sadasivan, Balaji (2011). The Dancing Girl: A History of Early India. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. pp. 233–234. ISBN 9789814311670.
  8. Dana Leibsohn, Jeanette Favrot Peterson (2012). "Seeing Across Cultures in the Early Modern World". Art. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. pp. 89–90. Retrieved 21 October 2014.
  9. Sarkar 1984, pp. 38–40 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSarkar1984 (help)
  10. ^ M. S. Naravane, V. P. Malik. The Rajputs of Rajputana: a glimpse of medieval Rajasthan. APH Publishing, 1999. ISBN 8176481181, 9788176481182. Pg 20
  11. S.R. Bakshi. Early Aryans to Swaraj. p. 325. It has been reported that the story of agnikula is not mentioned at all in the original version of the Raso preserved in the Fort Library at Bikaner. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  12. Satish, Chandra (1996). Historiography, Religion, and State in Medieval India. Har-Anand Publications. ISBN 8124100357.
  13. Dasharatha Sharma (1975). Early Chauhān dynasties: a study of Chauhān political history, Chauhān political institutions, and life in the Chauhān dominions, from 800 to 1316 A.D. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 280. ISBN 978-0-8426-0618-9. According to a number of scholars, the agnikula clans were originally Gurjaras.
  14. Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (1834). Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, Volume 1999. Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland. p. 651. By that marriage Harsha had contracted an alliance with the dominant race of the Gurjaras, of whom the chohans were a prominent clan.
  15. Cite error: The named reference Jamanadas was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  16. K.M. Munshi (1943). The Glory that was Gurjardesh.
  17. Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (1834). Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland. Cambridge University Press for the Royal Asiatic Society. p. 648. The Parihars (Pratiharas), as Mr. Bhandarkar rightly points out, were one of the divisions of the Gurjaras.
  18. Chopra, Pran Nath (2003). A comprehensive history of ancient India. Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd. p. 196. ISBN 81-207-2503-4, ISBN 978-81-207-2503-4. Al-Masudi who visited his (Gurjara mahipala) court, also refers to the great power and resources of the Gurjara pratihara rules of Kannauj.
  19. Bhandarkar, Devadatta Ramakrishna (1989). Some Aspects of Ancient Indian Culture. Asian Educational Services. p. 64. ISBN 8120604571.
  20. Baij Nath Puri, The history of the Gurjara-Pratihāras,Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1986, pp.1–3
  21. Dasharatha Sharma (1975). Early Chauhān dynasties: a study of Chauhān political history, Chauhān political institutions, and life in the Chauhān dominions, from 800 to 1316 A.D. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 280. ISBN 0842606181, ISBN 9780842606189. According to a number of scholars, the agnikula class were originally Gurjaras.
  22. Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (1834). Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, Volume 1999. Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland. p. 651. By that marriage Harsha had contracted an alliance with the dominant race of the Gurjaras, of whom the chauhans were a prominent clan.
  23. Cite error: The named reference Sir Jervoise Athelstane Baines 1912 31 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  24. Sir Jivanji Jamshedji Modi (1930). Dr. Modi memorial volume: papers on Indo-Iranian and other subjects. Fort Printing Press. p. 521. Rajputana was essentially the country of the Gurjaras, Gujarat came to be called after...
  25. Asiatic Society of Bombay (1904). Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay, Volume 21. p. 416. But this much is certain that Rajputana was essentially the country of the Gurjaras {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  26. Cite error: The named reference R.C. Majumdar 1994 263 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  27. Sir Herbert Hope Risley: People of India. Second Edition. Page XX. "It is now generally admitted that these Hun princes rapidly became Hinduised and that from one of their clans, the Gurjara, the present Rajputs were largely, if not wholly, derived."
  28. J. R. A. S. 1909, pt, I, pp 53-54. "The famous Parihar (Pratihara) royal clan of Rajputs really is only a subdivision or section of the Gurjaras"
  29. Ibid, 1905, p. 29. "Haricandra (a Gurjara king) ...married a real brahmana woman...and...a noble lady of the country, a real Kashtriya princess. The sons of the latter lady naturally adhered to the noble "passions" of their class,...and as an indication of their noble birth, as sons of rajni or princess, they were called rajputra or Rajput, that is princely sons. Thus there arose Parihar Rajputs."
  30. A. Baines: Ethnography, p. 31. "The sun and fire-worshiping Huna or Gurjara was converted into the blue blood of Rajputana, and became the forefathers of the Sisodia, Cauhan, Parmar, Parihar and Solanki or Calukya, and perhaps of the Kachvaha lines"
  31. Kurbanov, Aydogdy: "The Hephthalites: Archaeological and Historical Analysis". p. 243. "As a result of the merging of the Hephthalites and the Gujars with population from northwestern India, the Rajputs (from Sanskrit "rajputra" – "son of the rajah") formed."
  32. D.R. Bhandarkar : Some Aspects of Ancient Indian Culture. p. 64. "Another foreign horde, that came into India with the Huna, was the Gujar, sanskritised into Gurjara or Gurjara. One clan of this race was Pratihara or Gurjara-Pratihara." (The Pratiharas are the highest ranking Rajputs)
  33. Ep. Ind. , Vol. III, p.266; J. Dept. of letters, Cal. Univ,. Vol. X, 1923, p. 6. "That the Pratiharas belonged to the Gurjara tribe is proved beyond all doubt by suck expressions as Gurjara-Pratiharanvaya occuring in Mathanadeva's inscription".
Not done for now: Thanks for your suggestion; you've obviously taken some time to find these sources. Unfortunately, I haven't added this to the article since the sources you provide are all very old. The latest, Bhandarkar, appears to be from 1940 (Kurbanov's cited doctoral thesis, by contrast, is from 2010). Citing all of these historians by name in the article therefore gives a misleading impression that they are representative of the current state of the field. If you want to demonstrate that there are "several different mainstream historians who take this position" (in the present tense) then you'll need to provide more recent reliable sources. Have a look at Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (history) for more detail, particularly concerning the importance of recent scholarship. Feel free to edit and reopen your request if you can find such sources. —Nizolan 23:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Real History Of Rajput

According to Hindu myths this caste used to exist from Satyug. The truthfull king Raja Harishchandra was a Suryavanshi Rajput. In Treta yug Lord Ram was born in a Raghuvanshi Rajput Family. In dwapar yug Lord Sri Krishna was born in Yaduvanshi Rajput Family. Even in Rigveda the word Kshatriya was used to describe Rajputs. In Kaliyuga the first great Rajput was born as the name Gautama Sidhhartha who later came to be known as Gautam Budhha. Saurabh Singh Gautam (talk) 10:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka See what I have done 14:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Rajputs own claim

There's nothing wrong with writing about Rajputs own claim, in fact if it was Britannica wouldn't have done this. The opening lines of origins section should begin this way, Rajputs claim Kshatriya ancestry and this is also a subject of debate. It would also render the origin section more sensible than its existing form Decentscholar (talk) 08:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

... also...? What other thing is debated? Forget how Britannica do it - the article already relies far too much on the thing. Placing the Rajput varna claim first when it is based purely on folk-lore, rather than academic study, seems like undue weight to me. - Sitush (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I never said their belief (based on whatever) is true or not. but belief is a belief, its a fact that they believe so, so it is ought to be written. really how belief or claim of someone can be undue weight when we're already saying its a subject of debate.

Take an example, Muslims consider Adam to be their ancestor and all humanity, we wrote this on wikipedia without any academic writing, for this is written in precise words, Muslims believe Adam to be their ancestor, how that really creates undue weight, that's belief or claim of a group of people. may be someone of us do not agree but this is the way they consider it. so It may not be a fact that Adam is ancestor of all humanity, but its a fact that Muslims believe him to be so. The language we use obviously matters, I am asking you to mention it in a very reasonable way! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decentscholar (talk • contribs) 15:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, actually I had taken your silence as acceptance. My innocent question to u, you too had no consensus for undoing this change. do you think you don't need it, its only for other editors? don't mind, its innocent question, i have noted long that you maintain some kind of supremacy for yourself everywhere! is it really that my contributions to wikipedia are not legitimate unless you don't disagree with it. Again please don't mind, I'm not at all discouraging you. - Decentscholar (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Believe me, if I agree with you then I will say so. Due to the sheer number of articles that I deal with, and the repetitive nature of arguments such as yours, I tend nowadays to say my piece once. If others weigh in then that becomes a different story but, right now, the content that you are trying to change has existed for some considerable time and has been reviewed by some very experienced contributors. For what it is worth, I got some thanks for reverting you. - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
well, I'm never biased, it must be your point of view. In accordance with your argument, I'll just make a change that existed for a long period of time and it was undone without any reason. Cheers! Decentscholar (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
And I have had to revert you again, sorry. There is a long-standing consensus that we do not state varna in the lead section of an article. This has been discussed at venues such as WT:INB and I rather think it has also been discussed previously on this talk page. - Sitush (talk) 04:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Tod

Tod may be very unreliable but Jason Frietag never said he was manifestly biased. what exactly he's saying is that, Tod is extremely important (or essential) to configure the present image of Rajputs. how can we misinterpret these simple words. we're suppose to do literal interpretation of his words! Decentscholar (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Read James Tod, which is a featured article and got an extraordinary amount of scrutiny prior to being nominated as such. Read the cited page of Freitag. Are the words "manifestly biased" there? What Freitag is saying is that to understand the Rajput veneration of Tod it is necessary to understand how enamoured Tod was of them and how little he bothered to query their vanity etc. He was manifestly biased in their favour.
The passage exists in this article because far too many Rajput contributors were trying to treat Tod as some sort of oracle here, wanting to insert his glorification which itself was basically a transcript of their ancestor's words as spoken to him - a vicious circle of puffery. He wasn't an oracle; he isn't.
I am seriously toying with the idea of asking admins to watch out for Rajput contributors here and then forcing them to limit their contributions to this talk page, as per WP:COI. It gets ridiculous sometimes, it really does. - Sitush (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for clarification, by the way let me tell you some more wise words, let say I spent most of my life in London with local interactions and you a non-londoner claim to know more about London than me!?! that may be something in theory but practically its not. similar way Tod may be very unreliable but he spent most of his time with Indian people, Thus, he would obviously be more reliable than so called modern historians without any practical experience of things! so, It can't obviously be said that 'Tod being unreliable' or 'some modern historians being reliable' is an absolute truth! Decentscholar (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Completely irrelevant. See WP:V and WP:RS. - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

I have an edit request regarding History section. The subheading origins should come after the subheading of Rajput kingdoms, the reason is that former is subject of debate (in other words its uncertain). It seems weird too keep uncertain thing over the certain thing (which is also probably the subject matter of article). 168.235.196.199 (talk) 11:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I think showing things chronologically works better. Reversing the order might also seem a bit like puffing-up, ie: showing the stuff that Rajputs love to boast about before the stuff that is less certain. - Sitush (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Well you are probably retaliating Rajputs ;) Because I didn't ask to decorate them. Its just that article seems weird in this way.202.69.11.20 (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Mughals and Marathas

@Sitush , Mughals and Marathas must be mentioned in Rajput page. Rajputs had a great history with both of them. Even today, People know Rajputs for their friendship ( Raja Man Singh etc.) and rivalry (Rana Pratap etc.) with Mughals. As far as the Marathas are concerned, two great Maratha leaders had Rajput blood in them- Shivaji ( most probably from father's side) and Mahadaji Shinde (from mother's side) and also notably Maratha-Rajput conflicts. Not a single reference to them in this page, I think, is distortion of history. Thank you.Ghatus (talk) 09:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

We have quite enough Maratha pov-pushing on this project as it is. You'll have to come up with some sources. - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It is just to hide the fact of political marriage alliance issue as some of the Rajput princess were married to Mughals. Earlier, I added Mughal Maratha alliances with sources, but were removed and found insignificant by the eminent editors. A vital part of Indian History but fully absent on wikipedia. But, Marathas are no way Rajputs and none of the sources prove so, they are Maratha, a separate political Identity. -- Mahensingha (Talk) "Thanx n Regards" 11:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Categories: