Talk:Rajput/Archive 11

message: Please archieve this page as it takes alot of time to load.Thanks الثاقب (WiseSabre| talk) 09:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for archive 

message: Khakan,
Good idea. The article exceeds the recommended length of a Wikipedia article, so I moved Battles between Rajputs and Muslims to a separate article.
Tom Radulovich 02:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New article

message: Well.. i'm a Maratha and according to this article our greatest hero is supposed to b a Rajput. Anyways the tone of this article is too jingoist and un ecyclopedic. We need to clean this article. I'll do it if i have time but any help in this regard would be appretiated. AMbroodEY 08:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Shivaji a Rajput? 

message: I could actually use your knowledge here Shiv, I am really stuck on this point. The Gujjars of Punjab allege they are chaudhry status. They have NEVER had any daughters given to them in marriage from the Rajput community or any other clan for that matter i.e. Jatt. But I have read that recently they allege desecendancy from the Gurjara Pratihara dynasty. But as I understand, those Kings of old never referred to themselves as Gujjars (did they?) Also the off shoots (branches) of such clans would be known by name and not necessarily the main name would it? i.e. Guhilas, Ranawats being their branch etc. I have always read that they are a farming and grazing community where the name 'Gau Jar' (i.e 'cow grazer') comes from. Do you know of there Rajput affiliation? I am not sure and hence don't want to say no, but haven't seen anything convincing to say yes either. 
Raja
Raja,
To my knowledge "Gujjars" are not Rajput. I remember that in the pre-Kargil era, we used to say that out of eight, seven Nisha-e-Haider have been won by the Rajputs except for Major Muhammad Tufail Sahaheed as he was a Gujjar. Also my maternal uncle is very much into the Rajput history. Actually this is his only passion and I have never heard from him that Gujjars are Rajputs (By the way I don't think there is any Rajput Gotra that he doesn't know about alongwith their history).
And as per your remarks regarding Rajputs and Muslim rulers, excellent. I myself only have one problem with the hypothesis that Shiv keeps on proposing. Had destruction of temples been a fundamental trait and reason for the war between the Muslim rulers and Rajputs kings, then why did Rajput kings always allied themselves with those rulers? And one more thing, I do not know of any authority that Bahadur Shah Zafar had as a king and I am having problem comprehending how could he possibly order destruction of tempels while his rule was confined to the red fort?
Khurram
Mughal rulers had other commanders besides rajputs.  Some wars were fought with rajputs at the helm of the forcces and others were fought with muslim commanders.  
Whenever rajputs were leading or were present in the mughal force no body would dare touch a temple.
When muslim commanders went on campaigns alone i.e without rajputs they destroyed temples freely.
Reason some rajputs allied with mughals and others did not comes down to a character issue.  In some cases rajputs who aligned with mughals did not want to work for them but since there king (rajput king) had taken an oath of allegiancce to the mughal king the rajput army of that king remained loyal to the mughal despite not everyone agreeing with the rajput king.  Please read James Tod for many examples on this.
I can see your point that Islam as a religion does not direct other's religious places to be destroyed but not even a single muslim ruler adhered to this principle. Is it not moot to bring it up?
So it is clear now that rajputs fought to save there religion?  
-Shivraj
Shiv,
In order for something to be treated as truth, each and every known instance needs to conform to it. When we say that Rajputs fought for their religion, we need to show that no Rajput who was of that religion, fought for the other side. Do you think that it was possible for Mughals to get the alliance of Rajupts even when they were destroying the temples? If we agree that during the time of one emperor, the armies commanded by the Muslim generals destroyed the temples and the armies commanded by the Rajput generals did not, then I will question the faith of the Rajput generals at that time. Why did they even then keep their alliance with such ruler? I personally think that following my leader is good until my promise to the GOD doesn't get harmed. If my leader asks me to fight for an army, some portion of whose is destroying my holy places, hell to that leader and his alliance. I will never join forces with such an army. Will you?
My sole point is that had there been a uniform and universal trait of all the Muslim rulers that they destroyed the temples and the statues, I do not see any reason why "ANY" brave and honest Hindu Rajput should be friends with them, and to that point, be alive in such an era. The only option that ANY Rajput could have been left with at that time was to "Kill or get killed". To be truthful, if I am to be placed in such a situation, I will either die or will eliminate that force that had committed such a crime. So my friend, what I am trying to say is that, there off course were incidents of temple razing and statue destruction, but they were during the early times and mostly during the raids of Mahmud of Ghazni. It was not possible for the Muslim rulers of India to keep their empires without the assistance of Hindu Rajputs and this assistance couldn't be won by destroying their temples.
So one of two things need to be true.
1. Every Muslim ruler destroyed temples and statues to promote Islam and this was their sole purpose. Rajputs fought to save their religion and since at one time, whole of the India was under the Muslim Empire, none of the brave Hindu Rajputs left alive in India. Or if we say that the destruction of the temples was a universal trait of Muslim Rulers, then all the Hindu Rajputs who did not keep fighting Muslim rulers were cowards and hence do not qualify to be called Rajputs. And I would like to include all the Hindus of that time into this argument for these purposes.
 
2. The sole purpose of Muslim rulers of India was to retain their rule. There were, however, independent kings and clans who need to be harnessed in order to ensure the security and integrity of the kingdom. These situations were eventually solved either by diplomacy or by force. Since both the parties eventually found a mean to co-exist, we still have TRUE Hindus and TRUE Hindu Rajputs in India.
The truth of theses hypothesis, I leave to your honest opinion and intellect.
Khurram
Khurram,
   You are just arguing for the sake of arguing.  Justify your claim that Ghazni is the only one who destroyed temples. Are you refuting all the evidence (James Tod/Khankhanan etc) that exists from Qasim to the time mughals were out of power in India?  What counter evidence do you have?  
   You do not understand rajputs also.  Rajputs who joined mughals had a weakness in character.  Rajputs who converted to Islam had a similar character weakness that to save your own kingdom/position you align with Muslims. 
   Rajputs whose king had aligned with mughals had no choice but to remain loyal to the mughals.  You keep harping that if you were there you would have killed mughals in such a situation.  Note your acnestors were there and they deccided to convert to Islam.  
   And then you have no answers for why Iraq/Iran/Turkey etc are majority Islamic countries. You claim it was goodness in Islam.  Then you are told if it was virtues in Islam then we should see a similar rate of conversion in India today yet we do not.  You have no answer for this.
-Shivraj  
   
----
----
Pakistan Govt. routinely names its missiles after Muslim conquerors of India like Ghauri, Gaznavi and Babur. (In fact I wonder why haven’t they come up with a missile called ‘Taimoor’, probably they are saving that name for the first ICBM they make. ) Anyway, since Punjab was the first Indian province in the path of these invaders, it is reasonable to assume that Punjab bore the brunt of the fury of these boys. And since Punjabi Muslims were martial and warlike people (we all seem to agree on this, don’t we ), it is also reasonable to assume Punjabi Rajputs crossed swords with invaders.
In fact there is historical evidence for this. Ghauri was killed by Khokhars’ in a battle. Babur was given tough time by Yusufzais (not Rajputs, but another ‘martial’ race of Pakistan nevertheless). Mahmud Gaznavi’s battles with Hindu Shahi kings are too well known to be mentioned. Hindu Shahi kings were Punjabi Rajputs, most probably early Janjuas.
So my point is that, why doesn’t Pakistanis name their missiles after Jaipal (Hindu Shahi king who defended Punjab against Gaznavi), Dahir (who defended Sindh against Arabs) or the Khokhar chief who didn’t let Ghauri go unchallenged from Punjab. Isnt this the typical behavior of converted people; Desperately trying to identify with the invaders who defeated their ancestors.
Let’s face it Raja, Khurram etc. You guys are in minority. Even the Pakistan Govt prefers to identify more with Ghari and Gaznavi than Dahir and Jaipal. Islamic identity supersedes bloodlines in Pakistan, even if it means celebrating the defeat of their ancestors and honoring the enemy.
-Khakhan
--Khakhan 21:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gujjars- are they Rajput? 

message: This article is absolute nightmare... too much jingoism..
Firstly Shivaji was not a Rajput... the authors obviously havent studied Maratha origins. Yes most of the 96 Maratha clans do have some Rajput blood indeed.  But Marathas are mixtures of various peoples (see the link in one of my postings above).  By Shivajis time Marathas had evovled into a separate comunity with ts distinct language,culture and customs.  Shivaji saw himself as defender of Maratha cause. See any article on Shivaji... theres no mention of Rajputs.
Secondly. as for genetics Rajputs are of Scytho-Aryan rather than Aryan origin. That should be mentioned in the article. 
All the adjectives need to go... for eg. "lion of maharshtra" thats pretty unencyclopedic.
The attacks on Romilla Thapar are uncalled for... yea i do agree shes a dhimmi bitch but it doesnt deserve  mention in Rajput article.
I'm of view that Muslims who claim Rajputs descent should be acknoledged in this article or they should have a separate article.If they're willing to identify with their pre-Islamic roots then who are we to stop them?
Would people here actually try and bring this horribly confusing and unecyclopedic article to a semblance of order rather than waste their time on discussing how much this article sucks.
AMbroodEY 14:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many factual errors in this article 

message: today's news paper reported that out of total 35 districts of Pakistani punjab in 11 districts Rajputs won election for Nazim after which only 7 jatt ,6 baloch, 3 sayed, 3 aryan , 2 sheikhs, 1 pathan ,awan and Gojjar were reported to win for each district.
So, I think this could help you to estimate Rajput population in Pakistan الثاقب (WiseSabre| talk) 06:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rajput population in Pakistan 

message: Get an account and ove this debate to User pages..
AMbroodEY 15:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shiv,Raja,Khurram Co.. Get an account 

message: Its getting difficult for me guess who is writing what.The way text you ppl edit here is alot confusing.(I MEANT ALL... )
Take a break and take a chill read these articles first and then plz discuss any thing here, If you ppl use wiki markup it would be helpful for other ppl to read your discussion.
Wikipedia:How to edit a page , Wikipedia:Talk page
And please people who have not made account uptill now please make account, read this for more info about acc. Wikipedia:Why create an account?
الثاقب (WiseSabre| talk) 16:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Take a Break 

message: Before I answer let me say, oh I have guts. I am a descendant of the very clan when all went against them they had the biggest war Indian subcontinent has ever seen, never again has such devastation been witnessed i.e. the Mahabharata. My father Arjuna Pandava is given as the standard of a true noble warrior and bravery is given through our examples. Who are you to question our guts you pensioner? Creep back into your hole and read my replies before going....
Raja,
Write messages which are not very long as your point gets lost.
Nobody here from hindu rajput side has doubts on our religion or our history.
Is that so, well according to western psychology you usually rant on about issues which you are most insecure about. With you it's Islam and Rajputs. Are you insecure about your ancestry that you  have make assertions of it's importance by demeaning others to assert your own superiority on Moral grounds? Cant it do it on it's own. Is it that weak? 
Show me an example in India where in last 100 years 100 rajputs have converted to Islam and I will aceept your logic that saints and virtues in Islam is causing people to convert. I am sorry to say this but this the "Madarsa logic" that everything about Islam is excellent.  You can keep your head in the sand or live in the proverbial well but you cannot convince any one else.  (We dont have to, the huge numbers of converts are doing that today anyway, let alone the last 100yrs ago. We dont have a Madarsa logic, but you certainly have a prejudiced logic which obviously wont be quelled until you regain confidence in yourself and your own faith. Only then you will stop belittling another's...)
You will have to show me that hindu rajputs in India are converting to Islam because of virtues in Islam.  Conversions of blacks in the US/UK/Africa is not the answer to my question.  Confidence is needed by your religion and your religious leaders.  Ask yourself why is it that in Islamic countries there is no freedom of religion.  Simple answer is islamic religious leaders are afraid that islam followers will migrate to other religions.
Forget the last 100years my friend, when you Hindu Rajputs were at your PEAK thats when other Islam was embraced by my and other Muslim Rajputs ancestors. Recently you ask? How about the Cheema clan who converted from Sikhism to Islam? In the last 100 years? Well according to 'Rulers of India' by Sir Charles Aitchison there is recorded case where the Raja of the state Of Rajghar became Muslim. I will write this word for word for your information...
"The ruling chief was a Rajput, had long shown a tendency towards Muhammadanism, and thereby got into difficulties with the brethren of his caste. Matters came to a head when Sir JohnLawrence was Viceroy. It was reported that the Chief had undergone circumcision, and the feeling against him on this account, among his relatives and nobles was so strong, that he proposed to abdicate and retire into private life. Inquiry however showed there was no charge of misgovernment against him, and that except on the ground of his change of creed, his people were satisfied with his rule. He was therefore maintained in power, and his people were informed that, so long as the government of the Chief was just, they must be loyal and obedient without references of his creed. A year or two later, the Chief and his sons openly renounced the Hindu religion and embraced Muhammadanism, taking a Muhammadan name which the British Government recognised and receiving a Muhammadan title."
This not only showed the mountain of pressure that a Hindu Rajput had to undergo to change to a faith he feels comfort in, but also the fact that this openly occurred by the virtue of Islam, otherwise he would not have undergone surgical circumcision, which again showed his sincerity in converting, as opposed to a forceful one where his open admittance to acceptance would have been enough. One example requested, another given. I rest my case. 
You ask the freedom of religion in Islamic countries? Are you so weak minded and amnesic that you keep asking rhetorical questions? I've already confirmed to you that Islam doesn't tell us to force convert, such converts are not Muslims at all. As far as those countries, culturally they are like India, where we have Hinduised Muslims, who sadly still believe the caste system i.e. assert their superiority onto others, male dominance, backward village ideals of Hinduism. (Not the religion peer se, but it's simpleton followers who were told by their Brahmin priests that they WERE TOO LOW to even chant prayers of worship? Give me a break, tolerance indeed... The blacks aren't the only ones converting in USA, even white middle class Texans are too, so read fully before making any silly propogandist assumptions. Whats wrong with black conversions anyway? Are they not logic minded humans? Are you racist as well as anti Islamic? If our leaders were afraid of people migrating to other faiths, they have NO WAY TO STOP IT, as unlike Hinduism, Islam's teachings are open for all to see, even sickos like you. So how can they spread a false notion in such an open climate. Your insecurity of losing so many Hindus to Islam has led you to the claim that only force conversion is the reason. Me and My Muslim Rajput brethren scare the hell out of you dont they Shiv? We are a reality and a dominant reality my friend... :)
The kings you mentioned ruled very small areas and I would cosider them exception rather then the rule.  They played no role in forming mughal/Islamic policy in India. (You asked the question of names of Rulers of Islamic faith in India who didnt desecreate Hindu temples, where did the question of forming Islamic policy come from? Why are you changing the question now? And you say Sher Shah didnt influence Islamic or Mughal Policy? Wake up and read real history my friend, his administrative code based on Islamic Jurisprudence was set up later to be kept by the very same Mughals he deposed. His work was taught to Raja Todar Mal also. And other than forming a truly Islamic policy of fairness and equality he never desecrated temples. You have been proven this point but ignore it yet again.)
Sher Shah ruled over delhi for 5 years and there are a lot of good things attributed to him like building the grand trunk road etc which are all false.  Policy is key here. That is what guided the muslim commanders to convert ordinary hindus to Islam by creating conditions so terrible for them so that they had no other option.
Oh ok, all history recorded by YOUR OWN Hindu historians and key players of that age such as Raja Todar Mal for example are all false are they? Only what you extremists version of history is true is it? What conditions are you talking of? I've already refuted your Jizya theory as all Muslims paid tax anyway. Hindus were and still are the majority, so what conditions are you trying to make up now? 
If it appeases your insecurities about our numbers from Hindu origins, then get real and stop throwing your toys out of the pram Shiv, it's a bore now.
Your muslims acestors ruled India for 800 years? You have been reading thapar and like historians too much.  Talk facts.  (Prove me wrong that the above mentioned Rajas didn't rule those regions of Punjab, then try to challenge it. Until then stop reading your illogical extremist books)
Is Punjab entire India?  Have an open mind.  Without scholarship you cannot claim that Thapar is right.  I have read all her books.  Have you read the ones I mentioned?
Punjab was a major player in India too Shiv, even if you dont want to acknoeldge it. You dont need scholarship to understand logic Shiv, you sadly lack both in my opinion.
Rajputs/Marathas/Sikhs are the reason Hinduism is alive in India.  You can live in denial but truth is universal. (Truth is universal, but you have not the eyes or mind to comprehend it. I know why it is alive. Because the Muslims allowed it. Rant on as much as you want.)
It is hard for you to accept this because you have not read it in the books that you like.
No it's easy for me to believe what I stated because it's true from the people. If you think that Rajputs were the saviours of Hinduism, then you really are lost in false pride. You allege a false position which was never taken up by your romanticised heroes. The question I ask, that for almost 800years such acts were taking place (in your opinion ofcourse) such as forced conversions, temple desecrations etc and you Hindu Rajputs just sat there and watched the show? Give me a break. It's a shame on them if they did, and for so many centuries. Your silly assertion that when Hindu generals led Mughalia armies, then temples were safe, but when Muslims did then temples weren't, just shows your lack of mental capacity to accept that they sided with their leige lords, but never would have sided with him had any of his campaigns harmed their faith places. In fact the Mughals themselves would have routed such people out, as it would have hampered their alliances with such Clans. You need to come out of your anti shell and meet people.
Kashmir:  Kashmiri hindus have been living in Kashmir before Islam was even born.  They were extremely rich and owned lot of land and money.  In our own country muslims have made these people homeless and they have to live on streets of New Delhi as beggars. (We all reap what we sow, that goes for us as it does for you. Many Muslims owned much land and money in India before the partition massacres. What about those lost souls? We can argue this point forever Shiv. Considering this, what have your pensioners dont about it to restore them to their glory?)
Be specific and do not divert the discussion.  What is happening to kashmiri hindus is the real genocide.  A complete uproot of people from there land where they had been living for thousands of years.
It wasn't a diversion, it was another example, learn the difference. If you didn't know, many Kashmiri Pundits were Muslim too, i.e. Allama Iqbal, one of Pakistan's highest recognised and respected fathers, was a Kashmiri Pundit. You really dont understand history and society structures I think Shiv. Just because one changes faith, it doesn't change his social status, he would still be a poor farmer, or a Lord of a house etc. Again, Islam didnt justify these acts, the Hinduised Muslims did these acts and AGAIN will reap what they sowed, why are you hell bent on blaming Islam?
Contrast this with Britain or America.  If blacks in england started killing whites which forced these rich white people to move to london/washington DC and live on the streets as beggars/took over all there businesses and raped there daughters what would happen to the blacks? (It happened to the blacks and we now have ghettos and council estates. What do you know of this problem? very little. Shame on you pensioners for allowing the 'alleged' behaviour of the tyrants and standing doing nothing when the British colonialists arrived. When your own people were bound in Slavery what did you pensioners do? Nothing but take pensions for doing nothing. Talk is cheap, your actions have shown what you did when faced with the problems, nothing.)
Again you are trying to divert the discussion.  I will ask again and if you have the guts reply.  Since you mentioned you live in england:  if muslims started killing whites in England/took over there businesses and raped there daughters, which caused thousands of white english to live in london as beggars, what would the other english do to muslims in england?
Guts? Dont question my guts Shiv, it's easy to sit behind and not face someone and question guts, that shows your class, especially since you pensioners haven't got any historically. As far as your question goes, YES they English would indeed retaliate on THOSE RESPONSIBLE, but to state that if only Muslims did it is a poor and prejudiced point from you yet again. The british bombers here in UK have been shown as Muslims, yet the govt and it's people know AFTER LIVING WITH US SINCE THE 60'S AND FROM COLONIAL TIMES in INDIA that these were a handful of idiots and the majority aren't like that. Islam wasn't responsible hence the public is fine. Your point in THIS context in the real world has been yet again negated so please go satisfy your fanatical hatred elsewhere. Not in one place have me or Khurram spoke poorly of your faith even though it's representatives are far from perfect, yet you blame our Faith. People like you only know how to tear the fabric of unity in society, not to sew it back again. 
You just cannot comprehend how tolerant, almost to a fault, India/hindus are.  We can see our own kashmiri hindus traumatized at the hands of muslim extremists and to uphold secularism still tolerate it.  NO OTHER NATION ON EARTH WOULD TOLERATE THIS.  Feel lucky that this is happening in India.
Lucky? Your countries soldiers are raping our Muslim women and children, massacring it's men weekly , to the point when film makers tried to film this, it was banned by your TOLERANT Govt, then you talk of extremists? YOU ARE AN EXTREMIST shiv, wake up and stop spreading hatred. Your tolerance is seen daily in the cries of the Muslim women and children, the torn bellies and private areas of the girls your 'soldiers' rape openly after killing the men who protect them. Your tolerance was seen in Gujrat and the many areas where communal riots have made the lives of ALL people a misery, rape and torture was the norm AND THATS TODAY LET ALONE A READ BOOK. Your tolerance was seen when the Kashmiris cried for help from the tyranny of your oppressive illegal occupation, and you try to sidetrack the issue blaming the extremists? You dare speak of tolerance? Even historically many of the Muslim mosques were desecreated by your 'Khalsa' and the Holy Shrines and Mosques were smeared with pig remains. Your tolerance was seen when even up until colonial times mass lepers were BURIED ALIVE in Marwar for a disease they had no clue about, which scared your people into mass genocide when even in the times of Christ, these people were outcasted and left in areas to dwell together BUT NOT MURDERED the way you people did. Tolerance? What Tolerance?! Your one sided bias disgusts me no end.
I have many Hindu Rajput friends and they are all dumb founded by your anti sentiment. Even they clearly call you a fanatic extremist who is against peace. You better understand once and for all, we dont care what you think of us. Your opinion is biased and fanatical as is proven above by your own rants. We are Muslim Royals with  our origins in Hinduism, so go and do whatever you have to do. I am just sorry that the article was qritten by a fanatic extremist.
Be aware of your past, no one told you not to be, but sadly your not the Hinduism saviour that you purport to be a descendant of, nor are you doing Hinduism any favours. Now I challenge you Shiv, have the guts to accept that the real factor for the massacres on all sides, is the lack of humanity in the people, not their respective Religions? Got the guts?...............
From a real Royal blood. Raja.
-Shivraj
Shiv,
I only have one question. "What class are you in?"
Another important thing, Please do not bring the Prophet (P.B.U.H) into it. We have never said anything bad to your holy figures and we expect that you are at least sobre enough to honour that.
And before drawing a conclusion about "ancestory" of anyone, please first read the meanings of the word in the dictionary.
--Khurram 18:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply